Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Jun 1941

Vol. 83 No. 17

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

Minister for Supplies (Mr. Lemass)

I think I can fairly summarise most of the speeches made during the past two days in the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Supplies as expressing the view of Deputies that all our supply difficulties are due to that Department. That was the easy course for Deputies who are concerned more with Party interests than national interests to take. It appeared to excuse them from any obligation to think and even to excuse them from their duty to speak here on public problems in a constructive way. I suggest, however, to those Deputies who took that easy course that, in doing so, they failed in their duty as public representatives. I do not think that any Deputy in the House believes that it would have been possible for us to avoid shortages in overseas supplies and the economic and social consequences of such shortages, situated as we are, an island nation in the middle of the vast battlefield of the European war—not even if the Archangel Michael, instead of Deputy Lemass, occupied the post.

There is no other country in Europe which has avoided these difficulties. Some of them, neutral as well as belligerent, have had to contend with these difficulties in a much more acute form than we have experienced them. I can say that there is no country in the world, even those geographically far removed from the battle area, which has not been experiencing supply difficulties because of the war. It is because the Government knew that these supply difficulties were inevitable and that administrative measures of considerable scope and magnitude would be necessary to cope with them that a separate Department of Supplies was set up. That Department was given the function of organising the getting of supplies, if possible and where possible, the conserving of stocks and the regulation of distribution. It was charged also with the responsibility of endeavouring to cope with price and other problems which would inevitably result from scarcity.

I have been told that because of my administration as Minister for Supplies I have lost whatever popularity I had in the country. I am not very much concerned about that. I knew better than most Deputies who spoke here yesterday what exactly was involved when I was asked by the Taoiseach to take the post as Minister for Supplies. I knew that in this Department there were going to be very few victories and many difficulties, that it would be my job to direct a losing battle, one in which the odds were entirely against us, where the most we could hope to do was to make our retreat as brief and as least costly as possible. I knew that it would be my job to make plans in all the uncertainty of a war situation, knowing that almost inevitably the circumstances which we foresaw would not arise in the form which we foresaw them, that there would be developments that we could not foresee at all, and circumstances against which we could not provide. I knew, further, that I would have to face here, after the event, the criticism of those who by then knew precisely what did happen, and who could pretend that they knew all the time what was going to happen and that they could have made precise plans that would meet the exact circumstances that did arise.

It is now a commonplace for Deputies opposite to pretend that they knew all the time that the war was going to start and the course it was going to follow. I do not believe that. I do not think they believe it themselves. I feel certain there is nobody in the world who knew what these Deputies now pretend to have known, not even Herr Hitler.

It is true that we foresaw the possibility of war and planned against it. We did not know when, or how or between whom, that war would develop, but we knew it might affect us and we tried in all that atmosphere of uncertainty to make the best plans we could to deal with the situation that might develop from it. At the time we were making these plans, everybody in Europe who could claim to speak as an expert appeared to think that the war when it came would develop with exceptional rapidity. Everybody thought it was going to take the form of a blitzkrieg, a lightning stroke in which the central European Powers would employ all their strength in an endeavour to crush their enemies as quickly as possible and procure a speedy decision. Deputies opposite pretend that they knew that it was not going to take that form but, before the war actually started, that was the general impression. It did not, however, happen in that way. The war developed slowly and leisurely. Not for some eight or nine months after it began, did it take the very serious form which is affecting us so considerably. We did not anticipate, and I am sure there are very few Deputies who anticipated, the rapid collapse of France. Herr Hitler has said in public that he did not expect it. He did not know, apparently, as much as Deputy Dillon or some of the leading lights of the Fine Gael Party. We did not know for a certainty that Norway would be involved, that Greece would be involved, that these neutral States, who desired to remain neutral and on whose mercantile fleets we were depending for our supplies, were going to be engulfed in the vortex.

I am sure it puzzles people to read in the Press speeches of Deputies opposite claiming that they knew all these things were going to happen, asserting that the Government should have known as Deputy Cosgrave said yesterday, apparently believing that we have a secret service at our disposal which beats the combined British and German secret service to a frazzle. It is, I submit, a facetious way of approaching the problems with which this Dáil has to deal to make that pretence now of knowing all the time what was going to develop and trying to get people to think that if only they, with their knowledge and their wisdom, had been in charge of affairs here, the plans necessary to obviate hardship for our people would, of course, have been made.

Deputy Norton said here yesterday that he and his Party had been urging us to buy ships. Deputy Hickey said the same thing and the whole Labour Party, in this House and at their annual congress outside the House, have been trying to create in the public mind the idea that they were pressing all the time on the Government to buy ships knowing that ships were eventually going to be our greatest need. I have had the records of the House examined from the date on which the war started to the end of 1940 and not once during that whole period did a single member of the Labour Party mention the word "ship" in this House much less urge on the Government any course of action in relation to ships.

Mr. Hickey

What about our deputation to the Taoiseach?

Mr. Lemass

That is a charge which can be proved or disproved.

Mr. Hickey

Did a deputation not go to the Taoiseach on the matter?

Mr. Lemass

I am saying here that the members of the Labour Party, who are now pretending that they were urging this course of action all the time, never once mentioned it during the first 18 months of the war or until I came here to announce the measures taken by the Government to deal with the situation.

Mr. Hickey

The Taoiseach said he would refer the matter to the responsible Minister.

Mr. Lemass

The Government decided, and, I think, for good reasons, not to purchase ships until there was no other course open to us. We considered carefully the advantages and the disadvantages of acquiring a mercantile marine. So long as it was possible for us to charter the vessels of other neutral nations to serve our needs, we decided that was the better course than to send ships bearing our flag into these dangerous waters, carrying with them all the risks to neutrality which were so great that even the great nation of America decided to enact a law prohibiting its ships from entering these waters rather than take the risks involved. Deputies now know that the pool of neutral shipping eventually dried up. When it began to dry up, we understood clearly that a situation was arising which would compel us to take the risks which we originally decided to avoid, if possible, to acquire ships, and to send these ships into the battle area bearing our flag. We have done that. We shall be discussing on another motion to-day the precise plans that were made in that regard, but I want Deputies to understand that if we hesitated at the beginning of the war to acquire a mercantile marine, and to take the course of action which circumstances finally forced us to take, there were good reasons for it.

Deputy Mulcahy spoke here yesterday about the creation of a wheat reserve before the war. I admit that I am amazed by Deputy Mulcahy's audacity. I thought that if there was one Deputy who should not refer at all to this matter of building up a wheat reserve, it was Deputy Mulcahy. Deputy Dillon would have had some right to talk about it, because he alone of his Party in the months before the war appeared to give approval to the course which the Government was following. Deputy Mulcahy, who now criticises the Government for not having built up a larger reserve than was built up, who claims that we were at fault in not taking more strenuous action to fill the granaries of the country, moved to refer back the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce, in the spring of 1939, in these words:

"I have moved to refer this Estimate back because I want to protest against that element in the policy to which the Minister last referred in the laying in of imported stocks for an alleged national emergency here."

I know that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, on the authority of Emerson, but surely the Deputy who had taken that definite line before the war is pushing audacity to its limits when he comes now, after the war has broken out, to criticise the Government for not having followed more vigorously and more thoroughly the policy which he condemned when they initiated it. I do not know what Deputies opposite think should have been done before the war. I announced here on 29th March, 1939, the policy on which the Government had decided, and not one Deputy rose to criticise it. I told the House then that we were endeavouring to create a reserve of wheat sufficient in size, when taken in conjunction with the stocks normally held by millers and the native wheat crop, to carry us over one cereal year, one sowing and one harvest. That is what we set out to do and that is what we did. In fact, we found ourselves, at the beginning of the war, in a somewhat stronger position, and it is now, in 1941, nearly two years after the commencement of the conflict, that we are calling upon the reserve of wheat which we built up then. It is that wheat which is feeding our country now and it is that wheat against the accumulation of which Deputy Mulcahy protested in 1939, and asked this House to support his protest by rejecting the Estimate for the Department. Deputy Dillon who, I will admit, because he wishes to show his independence of the rest of the Party, occasionally takes a different line, took a different line on that occasion——

Mr. D. Morrissey

He would not be allowed to do that in the Minister's Party.

Mr. Lemass

——and urged that we should build up a larger stock of wheat, but even Deputy Dillon did not stick to that viewpoint, because yesterday he told us that we should not have built up a stock of wheat. According to Deputy Dillon's speech yesterday, his view was that not merely should we not have attempted to build up a stock of wheat, but we should not have attempted to grow wheat. We should have brought in, and stored in the country, flour sufficient to carry us on.

Mr. Dillon

Blatherskite!

Mr. Lemass

If that is not what the Deputy said, I shall leave the matter.

Mr. Dillon

Read what the Deputy said. If you cannot understand what he said, spell it out.

Mr. Lemass

I agree with Deputy Dillon when he said it was "blatherskite".

Mr. D. Morrissey

Is there not a lot of "blatherskite" in trying to score Party points in face of a situation like this?

Mr. Lemass

I propose that we all mutually drop it, but——

Mr. D. Morrissey

I should like to hear the Minister dealing with what is going to happen in the next six months.

Mr. Lemass

There is a motion before the House in the name of Deputy Mulcahy calling for the rejection of the Estimate. Why was it put down? These were the grounds given, and am I supposed to sit here for two days listening to statements of that kind being made and nonsense of that kind being poured out by every Deputy opposite, and not even reply to them? Is that what Deputy Morrissey expects?

Mr. D. Morrissey

Certainly not.

Mr. Lemass

I propose to deal with practical problems in a moment, but I want to clear myself and my officers of the charges made—charges which were poured out with great liberality. Deputy Morrissey remembers them. We were dishonest; we were incompetent; we were inept, and we were lazy, according to Deputy Dillon.

Mr. Dillon

Quite right.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Morrissey says that I am to accept all that, and not prove the contrary.

Mr. D. Morrissey

No.

Mr. Lemass

I propose to prove the contrary here.

Mr. Dillon

That is fair enough. Do your best. You have a big job.

Mr. Lemass

I know that Deputies are annoyed because they are getting the worst of it. They are bad sportsmen. They cannot take it.

Mr. Dillon

Fire away.

Mr. Lemass

So long as they are handing out abuse, criticism and misrepresentation, they are all happy, but as soon as somebody comes to expose their tactics, they lose their tempers and try to create disorder and to cause interruptions, so that the person exposing their tactics cannot be heard. However, let us leave the question of wheat reserves, which is so distasteful to Deputies opposite, and turn to some of the other criticisms made of the administration of the Department of Supplies and of the emergency supplies branch, of the Department of Industry and Commerce, for which I was responsible in the years before the war. Deputy Benson apparently thinks it is a criticism of my Department that we operated through private enterprise. He expressed that as a criticism of the Department. I came here, before the war and after the war, and told the House that it was our policy to act through the private industrial and importing companies who ordinarily conducted the trade of this country, for we regarded it as our function to help them, financially, by means of increased credits from the banks, diplomatically, by means of representation to other Governments, if impediments to their trade were imposed and by our advice, if our advice was required. When they had difficulties in combining among themselves, we helped them to overcome these difficulties.

Our aim, in the years before the war, was to encourage and assist private enterprise to increase the stocks available in the country. After the war started, I told the House here that it would be my policy to continue to function through private enterprise so long as possible. Nobody criticised that then. Is it being criticised now? It is quite true that private enterprise let us down in many respects, and in connection with some commodities we-had to establish central importing organisations because they appeared to be more suitable in overcoming the difficulties of the situation than a number of individual firms acting on their own. It is true that some of the industrial and importing groups, whom we contacted before the war started, proved more enthusiastic and more efficient in bringing in additional supplies than others, and that some of them did not respond at all.

Mr. Dillon

What ones did not respond?

Mr. Lemass

I prefer not to mention them.

Mr. Dillon

It is a fair enough question.

Mr. Lemass

But nobody in this House or in the country should have had any doubt in their minds as to the line on which we were proceeding, because it was explained on more occasions than one. I do not believe that State buying and State storing, as suggested by Deputy Davin, would have improved our position. Even still, there are many commodities which we can obtain through the activities of private firms taking advantage of previous trade contacts in other countries, where State purchasing organisations would be of no avail. That was true before the war, it has been true up to the present, and it is still true in relation to a number of commodities.

Another matter to which I want to refer, before I leave questions of the past and come to deal with questions of the present and the future, is the continuous misrepresentation by some Deputies opposite of the motives of the Government in giving advice last year to wholesalers and traders, to managers of institutions and private people, to lay in additional stocks. It is now a commonplace tactic of certain members of the Fine Gael Party to represent that advice as having been given for the benefit of wealthy people so that they could forestall the rationing that we knew was coming. We gave that advice when we had reason to believe that an invasion of this country was likely to take place in the very near future. We knew that if an invasion did take place there would be wide areas in the country which might be isolated from sources of supply and where local stocks would be inadequate to maintain the necessaries of life for the population for any period of time, and there was no quicker or more effective method of securing the distribution of our stocks throughout the country than by getting wholesalers, traders, local authorities, and the managers of institutions to purchase and hold exceptional quantities of various essential goods. We did that, not merely to prevent starvation arising in districts which might be isolated in the event of invasion, but also because we felt that there were undue risks in holding huge stocks of essential supplies, that could not be replaced, in a few centres that might be subjected to aerial attack. These were the reasons that that advice was given.

Deputies, surely, understand that the conditions created by a war cannot be static: that they are changing continuously. The danger of invasion, which appeared so acute in July last, did not materialise, but will any Deputy say that it has passed? Will any Deputy say that, if we could do it, it would not still be advisable to secure that widespread distribution of essential stocks which we tried to achieve in a hurry last July? Of course, it would, but we have not got the stocks now because there occurred a fundamental change in the course of the war between then and now, a change which left us bereft of shipping, and made it impossible for us to replace those stocks by imports from abroad, a change further emphasised by the decision of the British Government to withdraw the open general licence applying to exports to this country, which removed from imports to this country from Great Britain the restrictions that applied to similar goods exported from Great Britain to other countries. We have had some discussion here in the course of the past couple of days.

Mr. Dillon

Sir, on a point of order. I want to ask you, Sir, whether it is in order for a Minister to purport to read from the Official Reports, and to read what is not in them? Because, that is what the Minister for Supplies has done in respect of an extract that he purported to quote from a speech of Deputy Mulcahy.

Mr. Lemass

Does the Deputy suggest that these words are not in the Official Reports? I can send for them.

Mr. Dillon

I said that the words attributed to Deputy Mulcahy are not in the Official Reports, and I shall prove it. I have them here. The Deputy's suggestion was that the charge was put on to the price of flour and not on to storage.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy seems to want to have a debate. What about the point of order?

Mr. Dillon

That is the point of order, Sir.

An Ceann Comhairle

I take it that the point of order is that if a Minister or a Deputy purports to quote from the Official Report, the quotation must be accurate.

Mr. Dillon

I say that the quotation given by the Minister is neither correct nor honest.

Mr. Lemass

Does the Deputy say that it is not so?

Mr. Dillon

I have the quotation here and what the Minister says is not true.

Mr. Lemass

The words are in the Official Debates, column 22, volume 75.

Mr. Dillon

I have the words here.

Mr. Lemass

I shall read the words again, and let any Deputy hear for himself what was said.

Mr. Dillon

He said——

Mr. Lemass

I have as much right to speak as Deputy Dillon has.

Mr. Dillon

Yes, but not to misrepresent anybody.

Mr. Lemass

Let any Deputy in the House decide what the words mean. These are the words:—

"I have moved to refer this Estimate back because I want to protest against that element——"

Mr. Dillon

That element in the policy.

Mr. Lemass

"——in the policy to which the Minister last referred in the laying in of imported stocks for an alleged national emergency here."

Mr. Dillon

Exactly—that element— the element of putting 1/- a sack on the people to save the millers' rotten profits.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy has said that the words I have quoted are not in the Official Report. I am going to prove that they are. Let me proceed now. Of course, Deputy Dillon will chance anything, but he will not get away with that. In the course of the past few days we had a number of references to our trade relations with the United Kingdom. Deputy Mulcahy said that I had made statements, and that other members of the Government had made statements, which suggested that the British were deliberately withholding supplies from us, and that the only reason I had for making these statements was to cover up my own incompetence. Now, it is true that the British are withholding supplies from us, that they have made orders prohibiting the export of a number of classes of goods to this country, and that they withdrew the open licence which applied to all goods exported here, but I have never suggested that the action which they took to prevent or reduce supplies coming to us was taken for any reason except the exigencies of their own position. I am not here to answer for the motives of the British Government, but I do know that, so far as we are concerned, the stoppage of supplies to this country has precisely the same effect, no matter what the motives may be.

When that stoppage occurred in the case of tea, in the case of petrol, in the case of coal, in the case of a number of other commodities, Deputy Mulcahy said it was due to the incompetence of my Department. I am prepared to agree with Deputy Mulcahy or with any other Deputy that it is not desirable that we should have wrangles here as to whether one or other belligerent is responsible for our circumstances. I have, as the Americans say, taken the rap for far more than Deputy Mulcahy will ever guess. I have frequently here refrained from speaking of difficulties that had arisen, even when Deputy Mulcahy and other Deputies of the Fine Gael Party attributed these difficulties to my own incompetence, although I knew that they had been given all the facts in private.

Mr. D. Morrissey

By whom?

Mr. Lemass

By me.

Mr. D. Morrissey

And that, knowing the facts given by the Minister in private, they brought the matter out in public?

Mr. Lemass

They still said these difficulties were due to my incompetence.

Mr. D. Morrissey

We have got that on record, anyhow.

Mr. Lemass

I am prepared to enter into an understanding with Deputy Mulcahy, or the whole Fine Gael Party, that I will refrain from making any statement which might attribute our difficulties to one or other of the belligerents, if they on their side will refrain from taking party advantage of their knowledge that I am not free to speak on some of these matters. If there is going to be that form of co-operation, it has got to be a two-sided co-operation. I, for one, have become thoroughly impatient of this trick of Fine Gael in urging reticence in utterance here, pleading the inadvisability of discussing various matters about which difficulties have arisen, and then proceeding in an attempt to put all the blame upon the Government, even when the whole truth is known to them.

Mr. D. Morrissey

That statement is not true.

Mr. Lemass

To return to Deputy Dillon's point I have here the Official Debates, volume 75, March to May, 1939. Deputy Dillon says the words I quoted are not in the debate. They are here—column 22:—

"I have moved to refer this Estimate back, because I want to protest against that element in the policy to which the Minister last referred in the laying in of imported stocks for an alleged national emergency here."

Mr. D. Morrissey

What was the element that Deputy Mulcahy referred to? Is the Minister going to stop there?

Mr. Lemass

I am prepared to go on, but the rest of it has no relationship to that sentence. It does not relate to it at all.

Mr. O'Rourke

The quotation is correct, anyhow.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Dillon said the words were not in the Official Report.

Mr. Smith

He only wants to bring out another point.

Mr. Lemass

The debate continues:—

"It was not solely because of that, of doing anything to add to the already swollen prices that people are paying for the necessaries of life that I want to make this protest. I will, of necessity, have to go back to it on another occasion."

Mr. D. Morrissey

A shilling a sack —that is what the Deputy was referring to all through his speech.

Mr. Lemass

Let us talk about the 1/- a sack or anything else. I was criticised here yesterday by the Party opposite because we did not lay in enough wheat. Is that so? Is it true I got no co-operation from the Party opposite in trying to build up the reserve we had? Is it true? Deputies opposite know whether it is or not. There are a few honest men among them who will admit that it was their policy to oppose that action taken by the Government in that year.

Mr. D. Morrissey

It is not true.

Donnchadh O Briain

Did not Deputy Dillon say here that there would be no war?

Mr. Lemass

One other aspect of our trade relations in the United Kingdom was referred to at length by Deputy O'Higgins, Deputy Cosgrave and many Deputies opposite as well as by Deputy Norton of the Labour Party. They urged that I or some deputation of Ministers should go over to Great Britain. It was suggested that we did not do so because of some difficulty arising out of our political past. That was Deputy O'Higgins' suggestion. I do not know on what grounds Deputy O'Higgins thinks that there is any hesitation on my part or on the part of the Government as a whole in establishing personal contact with British Ministers. I personally have had negotiation with British Ministers on many occasions, in Great Britain and this country and elsewhere, since I came into office. I went to Great Britain last year and entered into negotiations with a number of British Ministers in an effort to effect between the two countries a trade agreement that would cover the war situation. I failed. I think there are many Deputies in the House who know the reasons for that failure. I will refer to them again if need be, but there is in that suggestion made by Deputy O'Higgins, and supported by Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Norton, the implication that the British Government have got supplies of these goods of which we are short, surplus to their own requirements, which they are withholding from us for some reason of policy. I do not know why or how they came to that conclusion.

Mr. D. Morrissey

The Minister said that in effect himself on one famous occasion.

Mr. Lemass

I said nothing of the kind.

Mr. D. Morrissey

The Minister was not prepared to accept the reason they gave.

Mr. Lemass

It is quite true that I was not prepared to accept the reason they gave for cutting our tea ration to 25 per cent. but I know quite well that there is no surplus of tea in Great Britain where tea is also rationed.

Mr. D. Morrissey

What did the Minister mean?

Mr. Lemass

I meant that, having regard to the arrangement we made with the British Government, I thought we were entitled to different treatment and there were other circumstances which made it appear that the rapid reduction in the allocations of tea to us, without notice, could not be explained in the way in which it was explained.

Mr. D. Morrissey

That is an interpretation nobody else put on it.

Mr. Lemass

I want to make it clear that there is no hesitation about or no objection to going over to Great Britain for personal discussions with the British Ministers if we think that anything good is going to come of it, that any beneficial results will follow. It is quite clear that it must be for the decision of the Government whether the circumstances that will lead to beneficial results exist. My Department is in daily contact with the appropriate Departments in Great Britain controlling the supplies in which we are interested. We know, or believe that we know, what their position is in regard to these supplies. Deputy Norton said here yesterday that the British have plenty of coal, tea, petrol and cocoa and we could get them if we only went over to England and asked for them. Deputy Norton surely reads the public Press. I am not asking him to rely upon any more reliable source of information, but when he makes a statement of that kind, a statement in flat contradiction of the statements made by their Ministers and reported in the Press, there is surely an obligation on him to explain why he will not accept their statements. The British Minister for Mines, Mr. Grenfell, said in the House of Commons recently that for the past two months their production of coal was 500,000 tons per week below their requirements. Does Deputy Norton believe that or is it his opinion that Mr. Grenfell was misleading the members of the British Parliament when he made that statement?

Mr. Keyes

What about their existing stocks?

Mr. Lemass

I do not know what stocks Deputy Keyes is talking about.

Mr. Keyes

Existing British coal stocks.

Mr. Lemass

When the British Government is announcing its intention not merely of applying a coal rationing scheme to its domestic consumers—that has been in force in many districts in England for a long time—but rationing industries, and when the British Press is talking about having to close down non-essential industries in order to save their coal for the industries associated with their war effort, is it not idle for Deputies to come here and convey the suggestion that there is plenty of coal in England, and that we could get it if we want it? That is what Deputy Norton is trying to do. Why does he tell us that there is plenty of those commodities in England?

Mr. Keyes

Can the Minister say there is not plenty of tea in England?

Mr. Lemass

I know they are rationing tea.

Mr. Keyes

The Minister said he knew they had no supplies to spare in Britain. Will the Minister make that a definite statement?

Mr. Lemass

I know that the British Government have stated to us that their supply position in respect of those commodities and a number of other commodities is so restricted that they cannot meet our requirements. What their exact position is I do not know. We now have the British Government proceeding upon the same course that we had to follow in in creasing the extraction of flour from wheat. They believe they will be able to keep their extraction at a lower point than we had to go to, but nevertheless it is foolish for Deputy Norton to suggest that in Britain there is such an abundancy of those goods that we can get all we want of them if only we will go over. Deputy Norton said that we have supplies which the British want, and that we should go to the British Government and say: "We will give you those supplies, if you will give us what we want." As I have told the House, I was in Great Britain last year, and I met in conference all the British Ministers who are concerned with trade matters. We tried to make an agreement upon some such basis as Deputy Norton had in mind, and we failed, because we found that in fact the British Government did not want our supplies, or that they were only prepared to take them at a price which we regarded as utterly uneconomic having regard to the costs of production here. Deputies know that. What can we go to the British Government with as a bargaining factor to secure supplies of which they themselves are short? What have we got that they so urgently require that they are prepared to go short of other goods in order to meet our needs? Is it cattle? Our cattle trade has stopped because of foot-and-mouth disease, but, even apart from that stoppage due to disease, there was an announcement by the British Government that they would be unable to take anything more than a proportion of the store cattle which they imported in previous years. They were prepared to take our surplus bacon and ham, but at a price which we regarded as unattractive.

In any event, a situation will probably be reached by the end of this year in which we will have no surplus of bacon to export. They were prepared, if we wished it, to take our surplus butter, but at a price so uneconomic that butter could not be exported to them except we were prepared to subsidise it, because its production at the price they were prepared to pay would be entirely impossible in the circumstances of this country. Those are facts, and Deputies, when they come to discuss those problems, must deal with facts. There is no utility in trying to build a policy for this emergency upon fancies. Deputy Norton said that for every £3,000,000 worth of goods we sent to England we are only getting £2,000,000 worth back. Now, misreading our trade and shipping statistics was, up to the present, the prerogative of Deputy Cosgrave. If it is going to be the characteristic of all Opposition Party leaders, discussions in this House will cease to have any value. Deputy Norton might study the trade and shipping statistics again; if he had gone to that trouble before making his speech in this House he would have found that that statement is incorrect.

I want to turn now to more intimate problems, tea, petrol, coal, and the commodities about which Deputies expressed a number of opinions in the course of the past few days. There was an attempt by Deputies Mulcahy and O'Higgins and some other Deputies to convey the suggestion that the rationing of tea in this country was unnecessary. They pointed to the fact that we imported last year a somewhat larger quantity of tea than our average annual imports. That is true. The excess quantity was small, but there was an excess. We decided to reduce the distribution of tea amongst the consumers here when we were notified that our future allocations were going to be reduced. We were notified in January that our allocations were to be reduced to 75 per cent., subsequently to 60 per cent., and at a later date to 50 per cent. When the tea rationing scheme came into force on 4th April, we were planning on the basis of getting 50 per cent. and only 50 per cent. of our normal imports. But shortly afterwards we were notified that we were going down to 25 per cent., and 25 per cent. of our normal imports permits only of a half ounce per head for everybody in our population. It is quite true that there was a small reserve in hand, represented by that surplus importation of last year. It is still in hand. Is it the considered opinion of Deputies opposite that we should have let all that run out without attempting to impose restrictions upon its purchase so that we would be in the position of having only that tea which came in from week to week, passing into consumption immediately it came in? I do not think that would have been a wise policy.

The circumstances that we were endeavouring to plan against before the war and in the early stages of the war still exist. We know from statements of British Ministers that they do not rule out of the realms of possibility an invasion of Britain. If an invasion of Britain should be attempted, much less successfully attempted, there might be a period, even a protracted period, in which even the 25 per cent. of our normal supplies which we are now receiving would not come in, and we believe that that surplus importation of last year—that little reserve stock, small in relation to our normal consumption, but comparatively larger in relation to our present ration—should be held so that that ration could be kept up even if our imports should cease entirely for a period. We are endeavouring, as I told the Dáil, to purchase substantial quantities of tea in the countries in which tea is produced, but, because the tea harvest is only coming in now and because it will take time to collect a cargo of the various blends of tea which must be brought in to produce a palatable beverage for our people, and to arrange for the shipping of that tea to this country, if we can arrange it at all, it will be some time before there can be any appreciable improvement in our position. It is not true that substantial quantities of tea came into this country last year and passed out into the secret hoards of private individuals.

Mr. D. Morrissey

It is very true.

Mr. Lemass

During the 12 months which preceded the introduction of rationing, sales of tea in this country were slightly less than normal. It is probably correct that even in normal circumstances there is a fairly substantial quantity of tea held by traders throughout the country, and even by individuals throughout the country, but I feel certain that the quantity of tea which could be brought into a central pool, even if we used all the Army and all the police force to ransack every private dwelling, every institution, every convent, and every retail trader's shop in the country, would not be sufficient to make any appreciable difference in our tea ration. It takes 1,000 chests of tea per week to give half an ounce of tea per head of the population here. Deputies should appreciate the quantities that are involved. I do not believe, even if we sent out the Army and the police force upon such a mission, that we would get the whole of the tea that is available, and I am certain that we would not get enough to permit of any increase in the ration. I am also certain that tea is being sold irregularly and illegally by some traders. That is as certain as that we are just ordinary human beings in this country.

I am sure also that, for that tea sold illegally, fantastic prices—5/-, 6/-, 7/- and 8/- a lb.—are being asked and are being paid. I do not know by what machinery we can check that. The people who are selling that tea are breaking the law and the people buying it are breaking the law. It is because each party to the transaction has entered into a conspiracy against the law that these fantastic prices can be asked and obtained. It is because each of them has an interest in keeping the transaction quiet that there is no prospect of evidence being forthcoming which could be produced in a court to secure a conviction of one or other of the parties if put on trial. I do not believe that these transactions are as widespread as is suggested, and I think it is not in the public interest that the idea should be conveyed here that these exceptional prices for tea are common, as traders working upon a normal basis of profit within the law may be led to believe from these statements that everybody else is getting these high prices and that they should try to do the same.

Deputy Byrne appealed to me to increase the tea ration. There is nothing I would like to do better than increase the tea ration, but it is useless for any Deputy merely to appeal that something should be done. I would like to do that as well as Deputy Byrne or any other Deputy. It is no pleasure to me to have to curtail the deliveries of tea to the people of this country— and especially to the poorer people. However, there was behind that appeal some suggestion that we were withholding tea from the people deliberately. Nothing could be further from the truth. The little reserve stock that we have is being held for the reason I have mentioned—because we think it is wiser, in the interests of the people, to hold it. If there is any improvement in our position, the benefit of that improvement will go at once to the people in the form of an increased ration, even if that increased ration is only for one week in four.

Mr. Byrne (Junior)

Does the Minister deny that anybody who can afford to pay 4/- and 5/- for a lb. of tea can get it?

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy is perfectly right in what he says.

Mr. Lemass

Those Deputies who run in and out of the House without listening to what is said and then proceed to make interruptions without relation to anything said are a common nuisance, and I think a guard should be put on the door to keep them out or keep them in.

Mr. Dillon

I can imagine the Deputy's indignation, but the facts were stated by Deputy Byrne.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Norton suggested that we should give a differential ration. He said it was wrong to give the same allowance to people in Townsend Street as to people in Merrion Street. That is very attractive, as the people in Townsend Street will think that Deputy Norton is trying to get more tea for them and, of course, the Deputy will not commit himself to an opinion as to who should be deprived in order to get them more tea. That would be the dirty job of the Minister for Supplies, if the plan were adopted. However, we can examine the question in detail. I presume that Deputy Norton would propose to increase the ration to the Townsend Street people—as I would like to do—to one ounce per week. The quantity we have to distribute is fixed; the number of people in the country is known; and if we are to give one ounce instead of half an ounce to one half of the people the other half will get none. Which half is it to be?

There are 2,900,000 people, and we can put them in various categories. There are 670,000 engaged in agriculture: is it Deputy Norton's idea to leave the farmer or farm labourer without tea? If not, that 670,000 must get a share. There are 173,000 employed in other productive occupations— workers in various industries—and it will be agreed that they must get their share. Apart from those employed in industry, 461,000 are employed on transport, in commerce and in domestic service or similar occupations—non-productive occupations—and as they are all workers I am sure Deputy Norton will agree they also must get their share of whatever tea is available. These three groups come to 1,300,000 out of the 2,900,000. Let us examine the balance. There are 807,000 children under 14. Are we to deprive them? Are they to get none? Is it at their expense that the ration is to be increased for the rest of the population? If not, add them to the 1,300,000 and that leaves 859,995 not gainfully occupied. That is the census description, but the housewife who keeps the home, does the washing and cooks the meals is included in that figure. There are 551,000 women engaged in home duties. Their claim to a share in any tea available is at least as strong as that of any other section of the population.

The balance is made up of old age pensioners, invalids, people in mental homes and hospitals, and other descriptions of that kind. It is quite clear that, if there is any section of the population so situated that their claims upon our tea supplies can safely be regarded as less strong, the number in that section is so minute that it would make no appreciable change in the situation which would result from depriving them of their tea supplies. Of course, Deputy Norton can say that we should proceed on another basis of calculation and have regard, not to the occupation of the individual or his mode of livelihood, but to the amount of his means. It is a very simple matter to compare the millionaire with the unemployed worker—anyone can see the distinction—but where are we to draw the line? At what point in the social scale are we to put the pointer and say that those above the line get no tea, and those below get a ration? Where would Deputy Norton himself come in? If that situation is to be seriously discussed—and I am prepared to discuss it seriously if Deputies agree —those who advocate it must work out their ideas in greater detail and tell us precisely how we are to distinguish between one person and another.

Mr. Broderick

Could the Minister not make a distinction regarding people living alone—the single persons —of which there may not be a great number?

Mr. Lemass

The number living alone is a different matter. We got some surplus tea, and we gave extra rations to the St. Vincent de Paul Society, to night hostels, to charitable organisations running cheap meals, to bog workers, and other organised groups of workers who have to carry out their daily labours a considerable distance from their homes, and to certain railway workers whose duties upon the railways take them a long way from their homes. I think that type of differential distribution is the only one that is practicable and fair, having regard to the very limited quantity of tea that is there, and to the problems inevitably associated with any scheme of differential distribution.

Mr. Dillon

Would it be practicable to give it to old age pensioners?

Mr. Lemass

It might be, but it would be a very difficult matter from the administrative point of view. I do not want Deputy Murphy to be left under the impression that I had told the House that the quantity of tea which we now have surplus, which we are distributing in the manner I have mentioned, and which came from America, was brought in by the Department of Supplies. It was brought in by a private firm and taken under our control for utilisation in that way. But we are setting up a central purchasing company for the purchase and importation of tea on the lines of the company now operating in connection with grain, and other similar companies, and those associated with the company have already purchased in the United States a quantity of tea for the transhipment of which we have made arrangements. That quantity will not, however, be sufficiently large to affect the ration, but it will be an addition to our reserves and will possibly permit of an expansion of the differential distribution to which I have referred. It is upon that company that we will have to rely to finance and arrange for the larger shipment from India which we hope to make later.

Mr. Dillon

That will not preclude private shippers getting in any they can?

Mr. Lemass

There is no restriction on anybody bringing tea into the country. On the contrary, the tea importers have been encouraged in every way to take advantage of their previously existing trade connections to get in whatever quantities of tea they can.

Mr. Keyes

Is that a recent decision?

Mr. Lemass

That has been the position since the arrangement with the British Government terminated. Under that arrangement the British Government had undertaken to give us the whole of our tea supplies, 100 per cent. of our normal imports, and we agreed to buy only from their tea control organisation. While that arrangement operated, we prohibited our importers from buying elsewhere than through the British tea control organisation. It was only when the arrangement with the British Government ended that private firms here were encouraged to seek tea elsewhere and arrangements were made by the Department to procure tea elsewhere.

Mr. Dillon

I take it that it will be China or Indian tea that will come from America. You will not let them buy Japanese tea?

Mr. Lemass

I prefer not to talk on that subject now. The people who are making the purchases of tea are the most competent persons we can get in the country. They are fully alive to the type of tea that is usually consumed here.

I want to refer to petrol, and, perhaps, before going on to deal with the present position, I might make reference again to Deputy Dockrell's criticism, relating to an earlier period, of our failure, as he described it, to build additional storage tanks. I have pointed out that if we covered the whole country with storage tanks, not one additional gallon of petrol would have been available in consequence, and that the existing storage tanks have never been full since the war started. There is, on the part of the oil companies supplying us, or those who are directing the policy of these companies, apparently a view that there should be no stocks of petrol here. Possibly the decision not to facilitate the accumulation of petrol stocks here was due to the belief that, in the existing conditions of scarcity, stocks should not be allowed to accumulate anywhere. Perhaps it is due to another reason, but the position since the beginning of the war was that our supplies were regulated in relation to the stocks available, and when we restricted the ration allowed to consumers in order to acquire stocks, our action was offset by a reduction in the next consignment. That is still the position, and it is impossible for us to take any action which will result in the accumulation of any reserves of petrol here. There is nothing we can do about it.

We are entirely dependent for our supplies upon the oil companies operating here. If they, for any reason, fail to supply, there is no alternative source open to us. That fact must be understood. When Deputy Morrissey asked me yesterday if I could give any assurance that there will be petrol available in this country to move the wheat, the beet and the peat which will require transportation during the year, I knew that the only answer I could give him was that no such assurance could be given. The only assurance that would be worth having would be a stock of petrol here. We have been told by the oil companies that petrol will come in. They have submitted figures indicating the total quantity of petrol that we may hope to have delivered during the year, and they set out the amount they hope to bring in each month. Our position is that we have to utilise that monthly quota of petrol to the best advantage, having regard to the needs of the month. If, therefore, there will be an exceptional demand for petrol for moving the grain harvest or the beet and peat, then in these months, while that exceptional demand exists, there will have to be a curtailment of the utilisation of petrol by everybody else. Deputy Corry said that if there is not enough petrol——

Mr. D. Morrissey

Am I to understand that the position is that stocks of petrol are kept at a certain level and are not allowed to go above that level?

Mr. Lemass

There are no stocks at all.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Then we are merely living, so to speak, from hand to mouth?

Mr. Lemass

From month to month.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Depending on every tanker coming in?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. D. Morrissey

And if we do not get tankers in here during the next couple of months we will have no petrol whatever for the transportation of fuel and corn or anything else?

Mr. Lemass

That is the position.

Mr. D. Morrissey

That is an astounding state of affairs.

Mr. Dillon

That is the position, subject of course, to the Army having ample reserves?

Mr. Lemass

Yes, but the reserves for defence purposes are not available to us. Deputy Corry said that petrol was being given for private motors during the present month and he suggested that if there was not likely to be any petrol available for the harvest, supplies should not be given to private motorists now. If I have made the position clear to Deputies they will understand that the non-issue of licences for private cars, or the non-utilisation of petrol now made available to private car owners, would not have resulted in any improvement in our position. That has been so for months past, and it is still the position. I am sure the oil companies will do everything they can to give effect to their promises. I feel reasonably confident that we will be able to control the position but, of course, there may be developments in the war and in circumstances outside the control of the oil companies, which will make it impossible for them to fulfil their promises, in which case there will be no petrol available.

Mr. Hickey

As the Minister has referred to Deputy Corry's remarks about oil for harvesting, I was in a certain place last Sunday where I counted 61 motor cars. If the position becomes so serious that we may get no petrol next month, could not steps be taken to deal with that?

Mr. Lemass

The private car owner, or the individual to whom a licence is issued can keep that petrol for his own essential needs, but if he chooses to utilise it then that is his affair. The private car owner is often subject to criticism——

Mr. Hughes

I addressed a question to the Minister prior to the beet sowing season, asking if he was making provision for the transport of beet to the factory, as farmers wanted an assurance to that effect. The Minister in his reply stated that he was making such provision. I want to know how he reconciles that reply with what he said now.

Mr. Lemass

Quite simply. We had accumulated it by a process of reducing the monthly allocation to users of petrol. It was not a very large supply, but was sufficient to keep us going over any emergency period. But by the simple process of leaving us for one month without any supply that reserve was absorbed. No petrol came to this country during the month of May.

Mr. Hughes

If our supply is cut off what then?

Mr. Lemass

I want Deputies to understand that they cannot get out of that position. There is nothing we can do about it.

Mr. Hughes

Why did the Minister assure farmers that provision was being made?

Mr. Lemass

I assured farmers of that when I had petrol in stock and I am now trying to tell Deputies that that petrol is no longer in stock.

Mr. Dillon

May I suggest that there is a way out? Would it not be perfectly legitimate to sell to the sugar company or to individual farmers the petrol requisite for the transfer of beet or wheat in September, and if farmers choose to use that petrol for some other purpose between this and September then the devil mend them?

Mr. Lemass

I do not think so. It is impossible to deal with all the ramifications of this problem in the course of a speech here, but it has been made clear to us that the policy of storing petrol will not be facilitated. Much the same consideration applies in the case of paraffin. I appreciate as much as any Deputy the hardship which the absence of paraffin for domestic purposes causes in wide areas. I do not know whether Deputies agree with me or not in the course I am taking. We utilised already for agricultural purposes a larger quantity of paraffin than we considered would be necessary. We have been informed by the oil companies of the quantity of paraffin we would get in each month of the year and we have already exceeded that quantity. We were consequently notified that we would have to make good the excessive amount used, and if we did not make an attempt to do so, by curtailing distribution now, then we would be left short in the months of July, August, September and October and the gathering of the harvest would be made an intensely difficult matter. We decided we would try to make it good by curtailing supplies for other purposes at this time of the year mainly for domestic purposes, so that we could be sure of having for harvesting purposes the quantity required on the basis of our estimate. I think, having regard to the situation in which we find ourselves, it is a better policy to make sure of gathering the harvest rather than giving the minimum of domestic lighting in areas that are now without it. In each of these matters the problem for us was to choose between two evils. It is sometimes not as easy as it sounds to choose the lesser when we try to do so, but there is no possibility of escaping one or the other. Our situation in that regard has not become easier.

Mr. Dillon

You ought to give oil for one light.

Mr. Lemass

I want to assure the House that at the earliest moment at which it is possible for us with any degree of safety—and I am inclined to take as much risks as most people—I will endeavour to ensure some distribution of paraffin for domestic purposes in areas where it is most urgently required. Deputy Crowley referred to supplies of fuel oil for fishing. During the months up to June the quantity of fuel oil given to owners of fishing boats was in fact slightly more than the quantity they used for the corresponding months last year. The allocation had to be reduced for June. I dealt at some length yesterday with the fuel oil position. Of all petroleum products, we are being most severely curtailed in the matter of fuel oil, and must take drastic measures to curtail the use of it. I am not without hope that there may be some improvement in that position. If so I will endeavour to ensure that the fishermen in whom Deputy Crowley is interested and also other fishermen will get the maximum amount of fuel oil possible.

Mr. D. Morrissey

A good deal of fuel oil is being unnecessarily used if the position is as serious as the Minister states.

Mr. Lemass

A rationing scheme is in operation and no one can get fuel oil who is not registered.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I mean that we have duplicate services using fuel oil.

Mr. Lemass

That is so, to some extent, but there are other problems which do not appear on the surface. Whether our coal position or the fuel oil position is the more difficult is hard to decide. At the present time with my advisers I am considering most urgently ways and means of reducing the consumption of electricity, because the quantity of coal used for generating electricity is very considerable, and is eating substantially into the supplies available. So far as I know, no system has been yet devised in any country for the rationing of electricity: nevertheless, we will have to curtail its use in whatever way we can, either in public transport, public lighting shop lighting or for industrial purposes.

Mr. Davin

Transport is duplicated and triplicated in some areas.

Mr. Lemass

It is quite true that buses, trams and trains are running to Dalkey, but I have to be convinced that there is wastage. If you take off the buses you will have to increase the number of trams, and if you take off the trams you would have to increase the number of buses. The fact that different services are operating does not mean that there is wastage, but, as I indicated, a curtailment of the transport service in Dublin is inevitable. We are considering how that curtailment can be effected with the least possible inconvenience.

Mr. Hughes

Are not buses running down the country, and also trains, that are half empty?

Mr. Lemass

We may have to face the possibility of a substantial reduction in the number of passenger trains. I can see a time when a passenger train running every second or third day may be the maximum service available. I want Deputies to understand that the coal position is as serious as that. We may have to face a winter in which no coal at all will be available. I hope that will not be the position. I know that the British Mines Department which, up to the present, has been most helpful in trying to meet our difficulty, despite the difficulties they have themselves, have told us that they will endeavour to ensure that whatever supplies can be released to us will be made available, but facing the difficulties which are arising now, at a period of the year when difficulties should be least, and knowing that the winter is going to be a period of still greater difficulty, that possibility cannot be ignored.

Mr. Davin

Does the Minister not know that the Tramways Company are smashing up good trams in Dublin, even though the country is faced with a possible fuel shortage?

Mr. Lemass

We have discussed with the Dublin Transport Company the possibility of replacing trams on a number of services.

Mr. Davin

It is about time.

Mr. Lemass

I want the Deputy to understand that a number of the tram lines, and a number of the overhead lines, in Dublin are unfit for heavy traffic, and that there is no possibility whatever of getting new tram rails or new overhead copper wires. Whatever possibility there is of getting fuel oil, there is none whatever of getting either new tram rails or new overhead copper wire. Reference was made to an announcement in the Press concerning coal for threshing engines. I think that matter was explained by the Minister for Agriculture yesterday. Deputy Corry waxed fairly eloquent in denouncing my Department for issuing the notice, and said that it must have been done by some official there who had never been outside the office and knew nothing about farming. If the Deputy had taken the trouble to read the whole of the notice he would have found that it was issued by the Department of Agriculture, a Department which, presumably, knows something about farming. It is the Minister for Agriculture who has responsibility for all matters connected with the harvesting of the season's crops. I understand from him that the object of the notice was to arrive at some estimate of the coal requirements in each area so that the farmers will be in a position to buy the coal which will be required by the owners of the threshing mills. Deputy Esmonde spoke concerning the use of timber for fuel.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Has the Minister anything to say with regard to the point I raised yesterday regarding the amount of rolling stock on the railways that will be available for the carriage of wheat, beet, corn and fuel?

Mr. Lemass

An estimate of that position is being prepared. As I told the Deputy, we are endeavouring to make plans to secure the effective utilisation of the existing rolling stock for the transportation of the harvest, if necessary by organising a method of collection so as to spread it over a longer period. "Staggering" is the word that has become popular in the Press to describe what I am trying to convey. Assuming that the fuel is there, I think we will be able to find the equipment to transport the harvest.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I would like to be able to share the Minister's opinion on that.

Mr. Lemass

I am not at all trying to under-estimate the problem that we are facing. I want to assure the Deputy that the matter is being discussed by my Department with the departments which are more directly concerned. The exact line of demarcation between the functions of the Department of Supplies and the functions of other departments, is not I think, understood by some Deputies. The Department of Supplies, so far as internal production is concerned, comes into the picture only after the process of production has been completed. For example, the Department of Agriculture is responsible for the production of agricultural goods and the harvesting of agricultural products. At that stage we come in to regulate distribution of the goods produced. The Department of Industry and Commerce is responsible for the production of industrial goods. We come into the picture in the matter of regulating their distribution. The Department of the Board of Works is responsible for the production of turf and because in the case of turf the problem of production could not be dissociated from the problem of distribution and price control, the whole of that job has now been given to Deputy Hugo Flinn. With each of these separate Departments we are concerned.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Last year we were in a much happier position than we are in this year, but even so, in certain parts of the country, it was very difficult to obtain transport for the harvest. I suggest to the Minister that, at the moment, we have a great number of lorries that are not serviceable lying up all over the country. If a register was taken of them they might be put into a serviceable condition at small cost for this year. I have been told that quite a considerable quantity of railway rolling stock, which for a number of years has been lying on railway sidings and in the backyards of railways, could, if some little repairs were carried out, be made serviceable for this year. These are lines that the Minister ought to pursue.

Mr. Lemass

The railway companies are, I am sure, alive to the task that will devolve upon them, and will take the necessary precautions. I know that the Department of Defence, for reasons of their own, are taking measures to keep serviceable lorries which are lying up untaxed, and which might deteriorate if not "run in" once in a while. These are all matters which will secure the attention of a number of other departments. Obviously, I cannot speak with personal knowledge of all of them.

Mr. D. Morrissey

That is what worries me—to know who is responsible.

Mr. Lemass

I want to refer now to the use of timber for fuel which was mentioned by Deputy Esmonde, and to say that a great deal of attention has been given to the matter. At the present time scrub wood is being cut in a number of State-owned forests through the good offices of the Minister for Lands. It is hoped to accumulate about 100,000 tons of firewood by next winter. I am strongly of the opinion that such timber should be stored against next winter's needs, and not used now. I realise that, in certain districts where there is a coal shortage and no turf within a reasonable distance, current requirements may have to be met by the use of timber. As a general principle the maximum amount of timber should be cut for storage. There seems to be a false impression about that there is an unlimited amount of timber suitable for firewood. While there is a substantial amount, having regard to the large normal consumption of coal, there is nothing like a sufficiency of timber to replace all the coal that is required. My Department has got in touch with the owners of private woods. A fair number of those owners have offered to us standing timber free, and I want to take this opportunity of expressing to them my appreciation of their public-spirited action in the matter. Where those owners so desire, arrangements can be made for the felling of the timber and its removal through the services of Fuel Importers, Éire, Ltd.

Reference was made to the prohibition of the export of pit props. There was the suggestion that their export was inadvisable, having regard to our coal difficulties. It was even suggested, I think, that our coal difficulties were in some way associated with the prohibition of these pit props. So far, no representations have been made to me by anybody in authority in Great Britain, associated with coal mining, concerning the prohibition or the export of pit props. If any such representations are made, I will, naturally, consider them very carefully. I have no desire whatever to embarrass the coal mining trade in Great Britain. As I said before, the quantity of pit props available in this country is limited. It is, in fact, very small in relation to the quantity normally used in Great Britain, but still it represents a quantity of material that will burn. Frankly, I feel reluctant to let any kind of fuel that will burn out of the country, having regard to the very serious fuel situation which we are facing. Anything that will burn will be of value to us in view of the situation that we may be faced with before next winter is over. Therefore, we have felt it desirable to prohibit the export of these pit props. Permits are being given to people who were engaged in this business pre-war to export pit props from the country. I am prepared to reconsider the whole policy if there is any desire to that effect expressed by the appropriate mining authorities in Great Britain.

Mr. Dillon

If they are badly in need of pit props, we will not see them short.

Mr. Lemass

Certainly. Before I go on to deal with some questions concerning prices, I want to refer to the question of white flour which agitated Deputy Dillon and some other Deputies yesterday. Deputy Dillon suggested that we should abolish all tariffs and, then, he put in this qualification—"except the tariff on flour." Frankly, I cannot see the logic of that.

Mr. Dillon

I think that the Minister is honestly misunderstanding what I said. What I said was that you ought to allow honest merchants to buy flour wherever they can get it and that you ought to forbid the smuggler to steal English subsidised flour—flour which they have subsidised for consumption by their own people.

Mr. Lemass

If we can get flour legitimately anywhere, we shall be glad to get it but, frankly, we cannot get it. As to the removal of all tariffs, we have a number of tariffs on articles the exportation of which is prohibited by Great Britain as the exportation of flour is prohibited by them. With regard to the flour situation, I do not want to be put into the position of having to prosecute people found importing flour. I felt that that would be a ridiculous position in which to find myself. The flour situation at the time the Minister for Industry and Commerce removed the restrictions on the importation of flour was much more serious than it is now. Because of the measures we took to conserve the supply of flour and because of the response of the public to the appeals made to them not to waste flour, we have got out of the very dangerous position in which we appeared to be at the beginning of the year—that of not having enough wheat to last until the harvest. We know now that we have enough wheat to last until the harvest and I think the Department of Supplies deserve a little congratulation on their handling of that situation. Because of that, it is no longer of any importance to us whether we get in white flour or not. Whether I make an order admitting white flour or prohibiting its importation will not make the slightest difference. It will come in anyhow. Those who are bringing it in are breaking the law in the place from which it comes and they will not mind breaking the law here. They may charge an extra 1/- a stone for their trouble.

Mr. Norton

An extra 1/-? They are getting 7/6 a stone for it.

Mr. Lemass

If I were to make an order fixing a lower price for that flour, either of two things would happen— the flour would stop coming in, in which case nobody would be better off, or the order would not be obeyed, and the Deputy knows that one cannot make an order of that kind effective. I could make an order prohibiting the sun from shining or directing the moon to shine green, white and yellow, and it would be just as effective as to try to fix a maximum price for a commodity imported in that particular way. The order would simply not be effective.

Mr. Norton

This is the looter's paradise.

Mr. Lemass

I want Deputies to point out to me, if they can, the fallacy of this argument: We guarantee to everybody a sufficiency of flour at a controlled price. If we can get further quantities of white flour which must, in our circumstances, be regarded as a luxury product, only at prices higher than the price fixed for our own flour, it does nobody any harm. People may be annoyed by the knowledge that the flour is available, here and there, at that price; they may even be annoyed at the thought that somebody is making a profit out of it, but the mere keeping of it out is not going to improve our position one way or the other, and I do not see why we should make an order which is going to be completely ineffective, in any event. The flour position next year may be more difficult than it is at present, and we may have to face the problem of mixing barley and oats with the loaf. I saw a specimen loaf, produced here, containing an admixture of 15 per cent. barley. I am glad to inform the House that it looks much better than the loaf we are getting at the moment. I do not know whether our position will improve sufficiently to maintain the all-wheaten loaf on a lower extraction than that which at present obtains. I told the House that we arranged to have wheat from America brought in in our own ships, and that we had brought some thousands of tons of wheat to Lisbon in American ships for transfer here. The House will be glad to know that the first cargo arrived here yesterday.

Mr. Dillon

Is it good Manitoba?

Mr. Lemass

That cargo of wheat will enable me to illustrate to the House exactly the size of the problem with which we have to deal. There were about 2,500 tons in that cargo. We require, to maintain the minimum consumption of bread and flour, more than 1,000 tons per day. That figure will help Deputies to appreciate the size of the problem we have to contend with in maintaining a sufficiency of flour and bread for our people. The consumption is substantially in excess of 1,000 tons per day and these ships can only bring 2,000 or 3,000 tons each. The bulk of our wheat will, therefore, have to be our own production. We do not know what our production will be, but we are hopeful that the quantity available for milling into flour will not be less than 300,000 tons. If it is less, there will be no possibility of avoiding the admixture of other cereals with wheat for the production of flour, no matter how successful our importation plans may prove to be.

One other misunderstanding which I want to correct concerns sugar. It is true that I mentioned the illegal exportation of sugar but I did not intend to leave the House under the impression that that illegal exportation of sugar was the only reason, or the main reason, why we have placed restrictions on the delivery of sugar from the Sugar Company to the traders. These restrictions were imposed mainly because of the excess withdrawals which took place prior to the Budget. A substantial quantity of sugar went out from the Sugar Company to wholesale and retail traders in the weeks prior to the introduction of the Budget. That sugar is available in the country. It is desirable, from everybody's point of view, that it should be got back under control and the only way to do that is by limiting deliveries of sugar to those traders in the next couple of months sufficiently to ensure that they will get over the whole period only their normal quantity of sugar. Because they got an excess quantity in the early part of the period, they will have to accept a reduced quantity in the later part of the period. That is the main reason why the restrictions were imposed. Further restrictions may be necessary. We may think it desirable to adopt a rationing scheme for sugar even if the ration be the full, normal quantity that is usually bought by individuals. Circumstances might arise—and perhaps arise suddenly— which would jeopardise our position. We are depending on the operation of four factories to make sugar out of the beet grown in the country. Even assuming that we can get the requisite quantity of beet in the country, there is always the possibility that, for some reason or other, one or more of these factories may go out of production. We could not now replace the machinery in them if that machinery were damaged.

Mr. Dillon

Self-sufficiency.

Mr. Lemass

We could not cope with the various problems of production that might arise in our present circumstances, and for that reason it is necessary to keep sugar under control. We feel that we are safe for 12 months ahead, and possibly longer, but we do not know how long the war will last. I notice that somebody foretold recently that it would be a 30 years' war. If it is, we shall have other problems concerning sugar to tackle, if not more serious problems.

Mr. Dillon

Would the Minister dwell on his order restricting the profit on tea to 6d. per lb.?

Mr. Lemass

I propose to deal with all the questions regarding prices at the same time. Reference was made to the display of price lists in shops. It is the law, not under the Emer gency Powers Act, but under ordinary peace time legislation, that these price lists be displayed. I know, as a result of what has been said here and because of representations made elsewhere, that, in many districts, the law is not being observed. I am going to get it observed, and I have given instructions to my officers to institute proceedings against any trader who is not carrying out the requirements of the law in this connection. The price lists are to include bread, milk, cheese, eggs, butter, oatmeal, jams, sugar, meat, including sausages and puddings, potatoes, and other vegetables, apples, and other fresh fruits. The law requires the current prices at which these things are being sold in a shop to be displayed in a prominent position, visible from the street.

Mr. Corish

Does meat include fresh meat and bacon?

Mr. Lemass

Bacon is not included, but sausages are. There are a number of cuts in a side of bacon and the difficulty of enforcing an order relating to the prices of the various cuts is obvious. I know that in the last war traders were compelled to publish a diagram of a pig with the prices marked on each part of the pig, but I do not think that that proved a very effective form of control. I am considering the possibility of extending, by order, the list of goods in respect of which prices must be displayed. I have now got a substantial number of outdoor officers attached to my Department and they are being given explicit instructions to see that such lists are displayed.

Mr. Davin

Have you any lady inspectors looking after tea?

Mr. Lemass

Yes, and they are quite successful. The next matter to which I wish to refer is a question raised by Deputy Dillon about oatmeal. He said that he got only 8/- per barrel for his oats.

Mr. Dillon

Per cwt.

Mr. Lemass

I should be greatly surprised if an enterprising businessman like the Deputy were satisfied with that price. The facts are that the oatmeal millers cannot get oats at a lesser price than £20 per ton. They had to get oats from Grain Importers, Limited. The market price for oats is £20 per ton, that is 30/- a barrel. At that price oatmeal would cost £43 per ton, as it takes two tons of oats to make one of oatmeal. We made an arrangement with Grain Importers, Limited, who had bought oats some months ago, as a result of which they are now supplying oats to oatmeal millers at £15 per ton. It is due to that arrangement that oatmeal can be sold at about £32 per ton at present.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Minister believe that it is being sold at £32 per ton ex mill at present?

Mr. Lemass

We have fixed the price.

Mr. Dillon

I paid 32/- per 10 stone bag ex mill, the day before yesterday.

Mr. Lemass

Then I wish the Deputy would report that to my Department. We made an arrangement that oats would be supplied to millers at a price below the market price in order to keep the price of oatmeal down to the fixed figure. I want to refer to the matter mentioned by Deputy Hickey in regard to the purchase of a file. Deputy Hickey bought a file in Dublin for keeping correspondence, at 7½d. He then went down to Cork, and for the same file he was asked to pay 1/3. In normal times Deputy Hickey would have told the shop proprietor to go to hell, himself and his file, and would have gone out of the shop and bought a file elsewhere. However, he did not do so on this occasion. He paid his money, snapped up the file, and said to himself: "Think of all the fine speeches I can make in the Dáil about this."

Mr. Davin

Have you not challenged us to give you specific cases here?

Mr. Hickey

If that is the Minister's conception of public duty, it is not mine.

Mr. Lemass

I say that there is a duty, not only on members of the Oireachtas, but on ordinary citizens, to protect themselves against over-charging of that kind. We investigated the complaint made by the Deputy in this case, and we got the explanation from the shopkeeper that his assistant had mixed up one file with another, and he was glad to make a refund of the overcharge. However, that was a waste of time for my Department, and I do not want the time of my Department to be wasted with matters of that kind. I want the House to understand that we are going to concentrate on essential things, and that we cannot be expected to protect citizens in trivial matters of that kind.

Mr. Hickey

I was protecting the public—not myself.

Mr. Lemass

I want it to be understood that we cannot be expected to deal with all sorts of trivial complaints of that kind, where the parties concerned might reasonably have been expected to protect themselves. As I am telling the House, there are a whole lot of these non-essential articles concerning the price of which we have not got time to agitate ourselves, so the public will have to adopt their own methods of protecting themselves, by buying their goods elsewhere, or in some other manner. We admit the obligation to investigate every complaint, and to take suitable action to deal with over-charging for essential or near-essential articles.

Mr. Hickey

Was my complaint about coal a genuine one?

Mr. Lemass

The suggestion has been thrown out here that all prices have gone up and that the control exercised by the Department of Supplies over prices has been ineffective. I tried to explain here yesterday that the only control which my Department can exercise is over avoidable costs. We cannot prevent prices going up when costs are unavoidably rising, but we do prevent rising prices where there are avoidable costs, and the impression that prices have gone up all round is unfounded. So far as milk, butter, cocoa, condensed milk, stout, beer, whiskey, porter and other alcoholic drinks are concerned, prices are the same as last year.

I want to refer particularly to the question of milk because the sincerity of Deputies in this House and their representations concerning prices are going to be put to the test fairly soon in this matter of the price of milk. We have fixed a maximum price for fresh milk sold throughout the country. That price order has been openly defied in certain towns—Dundalk, and to some extent in Mullingar. That defiance may spread. Milk suppliers in these areas are not merely refusing to supply milk at that price, but they are taking steps to ensure that anybody who demands milk at the legal price will not get any milk. That movement will have to be resisted. It is going to involve, perhaps, drastic action in order to ensure that that type of resistance to maximum price orders does not spread. This is the first case we have had of organised resistance to maximum price orders, and if we are going to rely on these orders to keep the price position under control, we cannot tolerate opposition to price orders. I hope I can rely on the co-operation and active assistance of all Deputies in enforcing measures designed to give effect to the maximum price order for the supply of milk. We have told the parties concerned that if they can show that the price is unfair to them, that it is out of relation to the cost of production, the price will be changed, but that meanwhile they have to obey the order. I think Deputies will agree that we should require proof in a case of that kind before permitting the price to consumers to be increased.

Mr. Dillon

If the Minister would not allow the bacon curers to ride rough-shod over his orders, he perhaps would have less opposition from other producers.

Mr. Lemass

I have no evidence of that. I am only concerned with the price at which bacon is sold by retailers. If in any case I can get evidence that the law has been broken, I shall prosecute the guilty parties.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Minister not know from the newspapers that the bacon curers have come out and said: "We will pay you so many shillings above the statutory fixed price?"

A Deputy

That is for pigs.

Mr. Lemass

I do not fix the price for pigs.

Mr. Dillon

If you are going to allow one group to break the law——

Mr. Lemass

I do not know that that is the law.

Mr. Dillon

It is.

Mr. Lemass

I am not sure about that. It is outside my province. I am concerned to control the price of bacon sold by retailers and no matter what price they have paid for the pigs, that price will be fixed in relation to the price approved by the Department of Agriculture.

Donnchadh O Briain

It is a fixed price, but not a maximum price.

Mr. Dillon

It is a fixed price.

Mr. Lemass

In the case of hosiery, woollen and worsted piece goods, and waterproof garments, prices are generally the same as, and in some cases, lower than, they were last year as a result mainly of the activities of my Department.

Mr. Dillon

Woollen goods?

Mr. Lemass

Yes. In the case of boots and shoes, prices are generally lower than they were this time last year.

Mr. Norton

The Minister is dreaming.

Mr. Dillon

That is ludicrous.

Mr. Lemass

I am stating facts, but I know the Deputies do not like to hear me stating facts.

Mr. Norton

The Minister's statement about boots and shoes is as daft as a halfpenny watch.

Mr. Dillon

I assure the Minister that I have bought the same boots by number, and they have been invoiced to me at last year's price, plus 15 per cent.

Mr. Lemass

I know nothing of the sort, and if the Deputy can produce evidence of that, I shall be glad to have it.

Mr. Corry

That is a fair offer.

Mr. Dillon

It is, and we shall see about it.

Mr. Lemass

An arrangement has been made with the boot manufacturers under which their prices were reduced as compared with the prices prevailing last year.

Mr. Dillon

That is fantastic.

Mr. Lemass

In the case of candles, the price per case of 72 lbs has been reduced from 43/6 to 32/1.

Mr. Dillon

And there are not any candles.

Mr. Lemass

For whatever candles there are.

Mr. Dillon

There are none.

Mr. Lemass

There are. In the course of the past 12 months, 32,000,000 candles were used in church shrines alone.

Mr. Dillon

I did not get a case of candles for the past six weeks.

Mr. Lemass

Domestic thread produced by the Irish Sewing Cotton Company—Deputy Dillon will be interested in this—is the same price as pre-war.

Mr. Dillon

I do not know whether it is or not, but they have taken it off the spools and put it on cardboard cops.

Mr. Lemass

Binder twine is the same as it was, and paint and varnishes have not been increased.

Mr. Dillon

Surely the Minister does not believe that?

Mr. Lemass

Leather is generally lower by 2½d. a lb.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Minister believe that paints and varnishes are the same price?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

I will bet the Minister 6d. on that.

Mr. Lemass

I will bet the Deputy 6d. on that any time. The retail prices of cycle tyres have been reduced 10 per cent. from 1st October last. I merely mention these by way of illustration. I know that the general price level is moving upward, but it has moved upward to a considerably lesser extent than we might have expected. I shall produce here for Deputies some time the prices that prevailed in the last war, and they will help Deputies to get a picture of the extent to which we have been successful in keeping the price position under control.

Mr. Dillon

And the wages that obtained in the last war.

Mr. Lemass

Certainly, and if we had to pay these wages now, we could not maintain the price position.

Mr. Dillon

And the prices for pigs, sheep, cattle and all the primary products of this country. I got £60 for a cow at that time.

Mr. Lemass

We have not promised, and do not promise, that there will be no increase in prices. That is not possible. There must be increases. All the goods which come in which have to be transported are costing us many times more than they cost before the war. The costs of production here, where materials imported from abroad are involved, have necessarily increased. These prices must go up. I cannot compel people to remain in business at a loss. They will have to recover unavoidable increases in cost. Even though we exercise rigorous control, allowing only the approved increases in cost to be reflected in prices, nevertheless a substantial rise in the price level must result. It may be that the price level will rise, despite the control, to the point at which it will cause serious concern in consequence of its social reactions, but that problem cannot be met by price control, and Deputies who try to suggest that it can be met by price control alone are, as I said yesterday, confusing and not helping thought on the matter.

Deputy Davin was somewhat perturbed by the fact that we have not had any prosecutions for overcharging, and he considers it the acid test of the efficiency of any system of price control that the number of people who break the law, and are prosecuted for breaking the law, should be going up. I do not regard that as the acid test, but I want to explain to the House that price control takes three forms. You can have maximum price orders which have the force of law. The charging of prices in excess of those fixed by these orders is an offence, and, given evidence sufficient to support prosecution, the people concerned will be prosecuted. You have also price control by means of price arrangements entered into with manufacturing companies and importing and distributing companies. These price arrangements relate generally to commodities which cannot be conveniently dealt with by maximum price orders. In their case, the total profits which they are allowed to make in the year are fixed, but, within that overriding limitation, they can manipulate their own prices to a limited extent. You have then a wide range of commodities concerning which no supervision over the prices to be charged can be exercised in advance, where you can come in only after the sale has taken place and for the purpose of rectifying any wrong that may have been done.

Somebody did suggest yesterday that the prices charged in retail shops in Dublin should be supervised. I cannot contemplate sending an inspector of my Department into some of the department stores for the purpose of inspecting the prices at which articles are to be sold and determining whether these are reasonable or not. That is not practicable. In the case of commodities of that kind, which are sold in a wide variety of design, quality and price, it is possible to exercise supervision only after a complaint has been lodged that an excessive price has been charged. As I said, in relation to some of these commodities, we may eventually be able to reach a position in which maximum price orders can be made by the process of reducing the number of varieties and qualities, and in certain cases fixing a standard quality.

The suggestion was made that we should have a standard price and quality for tea. I am not in favour of it. By a standard price for tea is meant an average price, and the effect of a fixed average price for tea is to increase the price of the cheapest tea, the tea bought, and still bought despite difficulties of supply, in many shops by the poorer sections of the community. The only advantage is secured by those who pay the highest price for tea, who, when the average price comes into operation, will get their tea cheaper. I, therefore, do not favour the fixing of a standard price for tea, because I think it will inflict hardship upon a large number of people and still only benefit those who least require the assistance of the State to protect them. We have fixed instead the maximum margin of profit which can be made by the retailer. That was the average margin of profit taken by retailers pre-war. That figure was determined after consultation with organisations of traders and examination of their accounts. I know that a number of traders say that the margin is too small—Deputy Dillon thinks it is too small—but it seems from the information available to us to have been the average pre-war margin, and we are trying to maintain pre-war margins of profits, even in the case of commodities such as tea, in respect of which the turnover possible to a trader is now substantially reduced.

It can be argued that that is unfair and that a trader who can now sell only one-fifth of the quantity he sold pre-war should be allowed a larger margin of profit to make up for the lost trade. We are trying to restrict that tendency in a number of cases— we will not be able to do it in every case—and, in the case of tea, we think it is not unreasonable to impose that restriction. I know it is going to be appallingly difficult to prove an offence against that order, because it will always be difficult to relate the tea purchased on an individual sale to the various varieties of tea which may have been purchased by a trader on various dates previously, but, by having that order in existence, it becomes possible to exercise some check on the prices charged. Up to the present, a trader could charge any price for tea, and, if he got away with it, could feel certain that he was immune from prosecution because he was breaking no law. He cannot have that immunity now by reason of this order. The charging of a price involving a profit margin in excess of 6d. a lb. is an offence and if, on investigation, it is found to have taken place, will lead to prosecution and possibly to a cancellation of the tea trader's licence.

Mr. Davin

How is the consumer to find out the wholesale price?

Mr. Lemass

The consumer does not have to do it.

Mr. Dillon

There is one question I should like to put to the Minister. If we are to take the average rate of profit on parcels of tea, it must be remembered that the minimum size of parcels of tea before the war would be ¼ lb., or mainly ½ lb packets. How is the margin of profit to be regulated now where, in fact, the tea is now parcelled out in ½ ounce or even one ounce packets?

Mr. Lemass

That is a point that was made by the Tea Traders' Organisation before the Department. I am quite prepared to admit the force of that point, but we have got to take other considerations into account, and I do not think it is unfair to ask the traders to carry some portion of the burden, having regard to the fact that, under the present regulations their customers are now tied to them, and that in consequence of that their trading position has not disimproved, but, on the contrary, probably has improved. There are, perhaps, other considerations also, which I do not want to mention, which make it, in my opinion, fair enough to apply these pre-war margins in present circumstances. I admit that the balance is so fine that I might as well have come down on one side as on the other, but taking the various considerations into account, I think that the pre-war margin, even though the trade was reduced to one-fifth of its pre-war dimensions, is not unfair. If we succeed in bringing tea from India later in the year—as I have told the House we are trying to do—the price, under present circumstances, will be substantially higher than anything we have known up to the present. The cost of transporting that tea will be very heavy indeed.

Mr. Davin

Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to tell me this. If a purchaser—a consumer—of tea goes into a shop to purchase some tea and does not know the wholesale price, on what can he base a complaint as to the question of price?

Mr. Lemass

If a consumer makes a complaint to the Department, and if, on investigation, that complaint is found to be justified, then we are in a position to take legal proceedings against the trader—a position in which we were not hitherto. So far as the customer is concerned, he will make his complaint to the Department in the ordinary way, investigation will follow, and if the complaint is found to be justified, then legal proceedings can be taken. In the past, the most we could do would be to secure a refund of the overcharge, but in the future we can institute proceedings.

Mr. Davin

Would the Minister consider the advisability of compelling the retailer to display the price of tea in the shop?

Mr. Lemass

It takes an expert to decide. I do not know that there are, even in this country, half-a-dozen people who are competent to go into a tea shop, take up a sample of tea, grade it, and decide what would be a fair price for it. There are people who make a living doing that—tea-tasters who are employed by the importing and blending firms.

Mr. Dillon

What is the point in making an order which nobody can enforce?

Mr. Lemass

We can enforce it by an investigation of the trader's accounts. There is another matter to which I should like to refer. The complaint was made here, upon no foundation whatever, that I have in some way withheld information from the Dáil with regard to supplies. I feel certain that there is no member of this House who has spoken more frequently or at greater length, both inside and outside this House, on this question of supplies, than I. On every possible occasion I have tried to give information to the public with regard to that matter. Through statements to the public at various meetings, statements over the radio, statements to the Press, and statements here in the House, I have always informed the public of the position, and whether the situation seemed to be for the better or for the worse, I informed the public of the position on every occasion. The complaint of Deputies, evidently, is based on my inability to give a forecast as to the future. I cannot give that. I do not know what is going to happen during the next six months. I have no more information about that than I had in 1939. Of course, Deputies will pretend afterwards that they know now what will happen in the future, but they are keeping very "mum" about it now—for what reason I do not know. At any rate, I cannot say what may happen in the future. The situation, according to which we are now planning, may change fundamentally, and what we now think adequate may prove to be inadequate to prevent hardships occurring here. I can only tell the House what the present position is and what we are trying to do for the future, but if I were to make any forecast as to future developments, it would be worth nothing because they will probably be entirely different from what we think. There were other matters to which I should like to have referred, Sir, but I think I have spoken too long already and perhaps I should conclude on that note.

Question put: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."

The Committee divided: Tá, 42; Níl, 57.

Tá

• Bennett, George C.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Broderick, William J.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
• Coburn, James.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Corish, Richard.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Costello, John A.
• Davin, William.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry M.
• Dovle, Peadar S.
• Esmonde, John L.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Hickey, James.
• Hughes, James.
• Hurley, Jeremiah.
• Keating, John
• Keyes, Michael.
• Lynch, Finian.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan Patrick.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Nally, Martin.
• Norton, William.
• O'Donovan, Timothy J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Sullivan, John M.
• Pattison, James P.
• Redmond, Bridget M.
• Reidy, James.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Rogers, Patrick J.

Níl

• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Brady, Brian.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Brennan, Martin.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Crowley, Fred Hugh.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fuller, Stephen.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hogan, Daniel.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Keane, John J.
• Kelly, James P.
• Kelly, Thomas.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Loughman, Francis.
• Lynch, James B.
• McCann, John.
• McDevitt, Henry A.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Meaney, Cornelius.
• Morrissey, Michael.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Mullen, Thomas.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Loghlen, Peter J.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• Rice, Brigid M.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Laurence J.
• Walsh, Richard.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Bennett; Níl: Deputies Smith and Kennedy.

Question declared negatived.

Vote put and declared carried.