Deputy Dillon yesterday, when speaking on the motion to refer back this Estimate, strongly condemned the policy of self-sufficiency, declaring that all our economic ills are due entirely to an overdose of that policy. Since that statement was made from the Independent Benches, I think it is right that it should be repudiated from the Independent Benches. I believe, that the national independence of this country depends upon the extent to which we are able to maintain our economic independence, and unless we are in a position to produce the largest quantity of essential goods which our people require, as well as such goods as may be necessary to exchange for the essentials that we require from abroad, we have no business in continuing as an independent nation. If we are to abandon completely the policy of self-sufficiency, or economic independence, as Deputy Dillon has suggested, then I think it would be far better for us to abandon our political independence and give up the humbug and expense of maintaining a separate Government in this country. I think it is unfortunate that we on the Independent Benches have to listen to views of that kind expressed from this part of the House, but, unlike other groups, we have no means of expelling Deputies with whom we disagree.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 69—Office of the Minister for Supplies (Resumed).
I think that perhaps the most serious penalty we could inflict upon Deputy Dillon would be to send him over to join the slaves at the back of the Front Government Bench. Yesterday, the Minister for Supplies stated that our shortage of tea is due to the fact that he made an imprudent and unwise agreement with the British Government in the early stages of the war by which he agreed to refrain from competing with them in the world market for tea. That, in itself, was, I think, a confession of short-sightedness on the part of the Minister, having regard to all the circumstances which existed at the time.
Another statement made by the Minister, in regard to which the farming community at least feel very strongly, was there was a leakage of from 50,000 to 60,000 tons of wheat and that that was due to the feeding of that 50,000 or 60,000 tons to pigs. I should like to assert that that statement is absolutely untrue. No evidence has been submitted by the Minister in support of it. To say that wheat was found in the stomachs of a number of pigs is absolutely ridiculous, because no expert could prove that any foodstuff found in animals which had not been fed for probably 12 or 14 hours before being slaughtered was wheat. It is unfortunate that members of the Government should persist in attempting to unload the responsibility for their blunders and mistakes upon the unfortunate farming community. No farmer will deny that it is possible that here and there through the country farmers may feed a certain quantity of wheat to live stock. Neither would the Minister deny that here in the city constituents of his own do occasionally feed human food to live stock.
How many of them feed bread to dogs?
We have the position that bread is fed to dogs in the city, and, if we were to have all the dogs in the city slaughtered to-morrow, I am sure that in the stomachs of these animals there would be a larger percentage of breadstuffs found than in the stomachs of pigs slaughtered in the factories. There is this difference, however, that whereas the unfortunate pig which is condemned and despised gives a return in a very appetising and digestive form to humanity for the human food it consumes, we get no return for the foodstuffs fed to dogs. We may get a return occasionally at Harold's Cross or Shelbourne Park, but very often it is a bad return. We have never heard or read statements condemning citizens of Dublin for feeding bread to dogs. We do not see the heading in the Irish Press“Human food being fed to dogs”, in spite of the feeding of bread to dogs. But we do see the heading “Farmers feeding wheat to live stock”. I think it is most unfair to the farming community.
We all admit that as long as we have hand-fed animals in this country a certain amount of human food will always be given to them, but it will be a very small amount. Men have been praised from time immemorial for sharing their last crust with faithful dogs or other animals, and I do not see that you can prevent the sharing of human food with dogs to a very limited degree; but that will not effect the food supply position. There is no truth whatever in the statement that the enormous shortage which the Minister had to admit in his calculations as to the wheat supply was due to the feeding of wheat to live stock by farmers. I think the Minister should have the decency to apologise to the farming community for having made such an absurd statement.
One would imagine from many of Deputy Cogan's remarks last night that he was anxious that the Minister should become the wet nurse of the whole community. So far as most of us in trade or business are concerned, the sooner he removes some of his existing tentacles the better we should be pleased. The point I wish particularly to raise this morning is one of vital importance to all users of commercial vehicles. I take it the Minister is anxious to secure from those users the maximum amount of co-operation in the economic use of such supplies of petrol as are available, but, I suggest to the Minister, if he wishes for that co-operation, that he on his part should be generous with some thing which so far has not beer rationed, and that is information. There appeared in the three morning papers one day this week a statement on the question of the supplies of petrol for vans and commercial vehicles as from the 1st August. There was no indication in that statement whether it was official, officially inspired, intelligent anticipation, or what. It is important, if commercial users are to co-operate fully with the Minister, that they should have as clear an indication as it is possible for him to give as to what the position will be in future for users of petrol.
In that statement there was a long list given of various industries to which it was stated supplies will be discontinued from 1st August. That may be correct or it may not; but, as I say, there was nothing to indicate whether it was official or not and the people engaged in these industries were left very much in the air as to what arrangements they can or should make for their transport after that date. I hope the Minister will give a clear indication as to what was intended, and what he regards as being essential; and also say whether this list is correct or not, whether any such list has been prepared in his Department, if it refers purely and simply to goods vehicles driven by petrol, or whether it is intended also to restrict the use of producer gas equipment on the vehicles. At the moment I believe there is no restriction on the issue of permits for the fitting of producers, from which one would imagine that there is to be no restriction on their use after the 1st August. If people are to try to organise their transport arrangements in future they should be given the maximum amount of information which it is possible for the Minister to give. I quite realise that he cannot guarantee anything; but, at the same time, he can give certain information as to his intentions, and the sooner he gives that information the better it will be and the more opportunity the people affected will have to reorganise their transport to get over the difficulties.
There are several ways undoubtedly in which petrol could be economised in delivery services. The Minister probably knows very much better than I do that considerable alterations have been made in delivery services in Britain by which, instead of one retailer delivering only his own goods, he delivers other people's goods also. That is one possible way. The difference, of course, between our position and the position in Great Britain is that, as well as wishing to save petrol and tyres in Great Britain, they are also anxious to save labour. We are not; we want to see as much labour employed as we can, because we have not got the man-power shortage from which they suffer. But it is possible to concertina deliveries and save a certain amount of petrol and rubber by that means.
On the question of producers, if the Minister has any information which he can give to the House with reference to supplies of charcoal, we shall be glad to have it, because this is an important matter, too. The supply position is not good. It may be that people will go to the expense of changing over to producers and find when they have done so that they are no better off, because they will get neither petrol nor charcoal. If the Minister has any information on that matter, it should be given to the House.
Sugar was the subject of reference by the Minister. I think most people must be gratified that the Minister has decided that the present system is not a good one and that the system that has been suggested to him for at least two years is to be adopted—that is, rationing by means of the ration book. I feel particularly interested in this matter, because my household has never yet received its full ration. For most of the time when the ration was 1 lb. we received only a ½ lb., and it was not until the end of last year that the ½ lb. was stepped up to ¾ lb. I think that is entirely due to the bad system of distribution.
On the question of sugar, there is one point I should like to mention, and that is, the system which the Minister has adopted regarding the allocation of sugar for jam making. I am in the fortunate position that I grow a certain amount of fruit and the real difficulties in the matter of sugar for jam making do not concern me. I do not know whether Deputies are aware of the system adopted but, in the case of persons who desire to make jam out of bought fruit, those persons have to get a form from the Department—that is the necessary preliminary to everything these days, unfortunately. They then have to insert particulars of the amount of fruit actually in their possession and they have to get a certificate from the person who supplied them with the fruit indicating that it actually has been supplied, and the receipt for the sale has to be attached to the form. Then the form has to be certified by a local clergyman or a member of the Gárda Síochána. When all that has been done, the form has to be returned to the Department of Supplies and at some time, presumably, the ration of sugar will be allocated.
I wonder has the Minister any idea of how much of the fruit which was purchased before all this started is going to be fit for jam-making by the time the sugar is received? That might be a reasonable system if one were dealing with hard fruits, but the Minister must surely be aware that gooseberries, black currants, raspberries and other soft fruits will have gone bad by the time the sugar is received. The position will be that the best part of the fruit will be wasted, the sugar will be there and very little jam can be made. It seems to me to be an extraordinarily bad system because it means a tremendous waste of fruit and anything approaching the quantities of home-made jam that could be made will not be made. In the case of persons who grow their own fruit, that fruit can wait on the trees until they have the sugar; they merely have to have a certificate indicating that the fruit is there. But fruit purchasers are in a bad way and they cannot possibly hope to make any adequate quantities of jam out of the fruit they purchase under this scheme of allocating the sugar. Of course, one is allowed only 42 lbs. of sugar to cover soft and hard fruits, and that will make only a very small amount of jam.
On the Vote for the Department of Local Government and Public Health I had the temerity to suggest that a word the Minister used on that occasion was not a dictionary word. I should like to suggest to the Minister for Supplies that he used a phrase which has become very common since the outbreak of the war, a phrase consisting of three words for which one very simple word could be substituted. The Minister, referring to certain things, said they were "in short supply". I suggest to the Minister that it would be better English and would save quite a lot of time if they were referred to as being "scarce".
Looking over the Minister's Estimate, I notice under subhead A there is an increase of £25,736 in respect of salaries, wages and allowances. It represents a very substantial increase and it would appear to me that the cost of the administration of this Department is in inverse ratio to the cost of the goods in supply. I suppose it means that more rigid control and greater regimentation are necessary. This figure of £65,591 does not represent what the Minister's Department costs the country. I do not think it is the proper system of accounting for the administration of the Minister's Department. The British Committee of Public Accounts rightly insists that all expenditure in a Department should be properly accounted for. I think this House should insist on the same procedure being followed here, because it is a wise procedure.
It appears there are 246 officers in the Minister's Department seconded from other Departments. One could understand when the Department was being set up that certain officers seconded to it would be charged to their own Departments, but this Department has been in existence for three years and no change has been made. I think the House should ask the Minister to have the staff under his charge properly charged to his own Department. We cannot get a proper picture of what the Department costs unless that procedure is adopted and it is only in that way we can measure the value of the services of this Department. It seems an extraordinary state of affairs. Some of the officers on loan, it would seem, have their salaries paid by the Department from which they are loaned. There is a note to this effect:—
"Where a loaned officer has been promoted on an acting basis or is paid an allowance in the Department of Supplies, the basic portion of the increase of salary attributable to the promotion, or of the allowance, is provided in this Vote."
To my mind it seems an extraordinary complication that part of the salary is paid by one Department and part by the Department of Supplies. I think in future the Minister should account for the cost of all his staff.
I listened with interest to the Minister when he was introducing this Vote. He painted a very gloomy picture with regard to future supplies of essential commodities. I think the most significant words used by the Minister were: "We have now nothing to bargain with; our bargaining power is nil." Pondering over those words, one begins to realise their implication with regard to the future economic position of this country.
I listened to Deputy Cogan a few moments ago supporting a policy of self-sufficiency. It seems an extraordinary state of affairs, at this period of the emergency, for a Deputy of this House to suggest that there is a lot to be said for self-sufficiency. I suggest this emergency has proved beyond yea or nay that there is no possible hope for self-sufficiency in this country. The Minister told us that our power to barter is nil, that we have no bacon and that we have no butter. He might have gone further and said that our poultry and egg industry is in very low water. Is not that a very sad commentary on the administration of the present Government? I think it is a monument to the ineptitude, inefficiency and incompetence of the Government. It is a monument to the destruction of two great branches of agriculture, the dairying industry and the pig industry. I would suggest to the Minister, as he is a great champion of industry, that he might teach his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, one fundamental economic principle, that we cannot have raw material for industry in this country if we are not in a position to produce something to export in exchange for that raw material. We are facing the position to-day in regard to two commodities that were in a very flourishing condition ten years ago, in respect of which there was a great export trade, that we are not able to supply our own requirements and the possibility of exchanging surplus production of those commodities no longer exists. That is a very serious aspect of our economic problems that must be confronted now if we are to survive in the post-war period.
If we are not in a position to maintain the normal exports on which we depended for supplies of essential commodities and essential raw materials for industry, one can easily foresee that the standard of living in this country will be lowered, if something cannot be done about that immediately. However, I am not inclined to agree that there is nothing left to barter. I think the Minister might remember that it is not so many months ago that we did barter something in exchange for an essential commodity. I think we bartered stout for something else. Even if the Minister reads his morning paper he will see that the British have now lifted the ban on young cattle. The reason why they have lifted the ban on young cattle is that they are in desperate need of young breeding stock. The biggest food problem they have in England at the present time is the supply of milk, and the question of milk production is getting precedence over every other food problem. Quite recently, a well-known agriculturist in England, dealing with the milk problem, suggested that they cannot have milk without cows and that the only source of basic stock for dairy herds was young heifers and in-calf heifers from Eire. The result is that the ban on small stock is lifted for the purpose of getting young breeding stock to augment their dairy herds. I suggest to the Minister that therein lies an opportunity to barter. By all means, we ought to supply all the young heifers we can spare for that purpose. The British may get bacon from Canada and wheat from the Argentine but if they want basic stock for dairy purposes this is the only country in the world where they can get it and they are very anxious to have them at the present time. I do not think we should be called upon simply to export those heifers and take in exchange a credit that may or may not have value in the future. That lies in the lap of the gods. It is only fair and reasonable that we should say: "We will supply young stock; we will permit our young stock to go out, on condition that we get something in exchange." The most essential thing for agriculture at the present time is sulphate of ammonia. I pointed out before in this House that it is the one artificial manure that the British have not rationed at the present time, which indicates to me at all events that they have ample supplies of sulphate of ammonia. It is a synthetic product, manufactured by Imperial Chemicals. The nitrogen is taken from the air and I think there should be no difficulty in producing our requirements if there was any willingness on their part to do so.
Other manures, such as potash and phosphates, are in short supply there, but what we need more than anything else is a supply of nitrogenous manure, and I suggest that an effort should be made to exchange some of our agricultural exports for a supply of sulphate of ammonia or some essential commodity. From the agricultural point of view, sulphate of ammonia, is the most urgent of our requirements. As I have said, it is not so many weeks since we had a barter agreement in respect of another commodity, and I think this is an opportunity now, when the British require the one article that they can get here and cannot get anywhere else—young heifers.
The Minister stated that the time to ration is while goods are still available. I am glad that the Minister is beginning to learn because up to now the Minister began to ration when the goods had almost disappeared. I agree with the Minister that the only time that rationing is of any use to the country is when the goods are still there and to spread them out over the longest period possible. That is the purpose of rationing. Recently we had the debacle of the clothes rationing. I think the Minister acted in a very puerile manner in that matter. The Minister's comment on what happened in recent days in that respect was that agitation was now changing to consultation. I think the Minister was responsible for the attitude that led to agitation, and that he was absolutely wrong to refuse to consult a body of men like those in the drapery trade. It was typical of the attitude of the Minister all along. At all events he has not a record for receiving deputations to discuss matters. At least, there is responsibility on the Minister, if he is going to interfere with any particular commodity, to consult the people vitally concerned.
I know a particular instance in regard to petrol, of a man who was responsible for going across to make a deal with the British petrol pool, and who met two responsible Ministers there, the Minister for Mines and the Minister for Shipping. He complained to me personally that, when it came to the question of approaching the Department of Supplies here with regard to distribution, he had never met the Minister, up to that time. He drew a very unfavourable comparison in that respect, pointing out that he could go to a belligerent country and meet two busy Ministers, that he was received courteously by these two Ministers, and that they could afford to give him an hour or two to discuss the supply of petrol for Eire. The most amazing experience he had was that when it came to a question of distribution here he was told to deal with Departmental officials, and never got an opportunity to discuss it with the Minister. That was typical of the attitude of the Minister with regard to the reception of the drapery trade. I do not know whether it is adopted as a means of retreat because he is not prepared to face men who know their job. What happened was that he refused in the first instance a request to receive a deputation and then he complained of agitation. Naturally when people's business is hit or about to be hit a mortal blow by a Minister's Order they will kick up a row and agitate. What appeared to me to be an extraordinary situation was that the Minister caved in when agitation started and when there was a public demonstration in the city. I think that is bound to have a very bad reaction on the public who, in effect, will say that there was only one way of getting anything, and that was by agitation. Personally I feel that it will have a very bad reaction on Labour. It was a very bad example. I am inclined to think, as far as anything the Minister did, that he gave way because he was told to give way by his leader. I suspect that very strongly. I think there would be no "give way" but for the fact that the Minister was instructed to "give way" by his leader. I think it is a very bad record, a very unfortunate one, but as I said it is typical of the Minister's attitude since the country was faced with this crisis. Let us hope that the Minister has learned a lesson.
It appeared to me to be an amazing situation that the Minister would refuse to receive people who ought to be looked upon as experts. I ask myself: "What the devil does the Minister or civil servants know about clothing?" Surely they do not know anything about it except what they could learn from people in the trade. Then when it came to a question of rationing clothes the Minister was going to order it without consultation with anyone. He mended his hand in three or four days by no less than 50 per cent., indicating that he knew nothing about the question. Every commodity should be rationed, especially commodities that are rationed in England and the Six Counties. Otherwise there is danger of an illicit traffic in these goods. We have experience of that. We have experience of smuggling. A good deal of wearing apparel got into the Six Counties because we had not rationing here. In any case I believe it would have a good effect on our people to have rationing of commodities that are still in supply. I believe that shoes and hats should be rationed. The reaction on the public is that they anticipate that something is going to be rationed and they begin buying immediately, many people probably buying more than their requirements. There has been a good deal of hoarding of clothing. I know men who bought three, four and five suits of clothes. That is altogether wrong. If we had a proper system of rationing that would not occur, and what happens on the Border would not occur. I feel that every commodity now in supply should be rationed, even if rationing meant that people could secure their full requirements. It is necessary to have a safeguard against the possibility of hoarding. It would be a wise precaution.
I am glad to learn that the Minister intends to change the system of tea distribution. It has been unsatisfactory. I appreciate the Minister's difficulty in controlling tea supplies, seeing that the majority of the wholesale houses are outside this State. The experience of Deputies is that they are getting complaints every week. It is very difficult to straighten out the position and, if the Minister can find a more satisfactory method, by the introduction of a proper rationing system, everyone will welcome it.
The same applies to sugar. My personal experience with regard to sugar beet is that I anticipate a very poor crop this year. The acreage is down considerably in comparison with last year, due to the fact that the price is unattractive. The price here for a number of years was, approximately, the same price as that being paid by British factories, but it is down £1 per ton this year. On a comparable basis our price is £1 per ton less than British farmers are getting for sugar beet. The Minister may say that the British pay higher wages. That is so, but we have this handicap, that there was no artificial manure available here, while British farmers had a sufficient supply for their crop. For that reason there is a very substantial fall in acreage, and, I think, there will be a very substantial fall in yield. The Minister may anticipate a situation like that when rationing. I agree with him that the time to ration is when goods are in supply. I fear the Minister will have to reduce the sugar ration somewhat. The Minister recently announced the removal of restrictions on flour. I wonder if the restrictions on flour have been removed. Will the Minister tell us what the position is? Are the millers free to mill all the flour they choose or are they on a quota? I have no information but I believe that the millers are on a quota, that the supply of flour is not unrestricted and that a miller is restricted to the milling of a certain number of sacks per week.
Deputies have referred to the surplus of potatoes, a large quantity of which is rotting. The Minister may say that that is the farmers' fault and may ask why they did not feed them to animals. Quite a number of people who were not pig feeders grew potatoes last year on the advice of the Government. They did not intend to use them for animal feeding. They grew them for sale because they were asked to grow them by the Government. Potatoes were so plentiful that they were unsaleable to a large extent. There was a very substantial increase in production. The tonnage of potatoes produced last year was 3,689,548, an increase of 571,268 over that of the previous year. It is unfortunate that thousands of tons of potatoes are rotting. Most country Deputies know that. Over 12 months ago, it was suggested that plant should be procured to produce potato flour. The British are doing that with success. We know that an admixture of even 25 per cent. of potatoes with flour makes a palatable and excellent bread. The Germans were using a 25 per cent. admixture of potatoes with their flour even before the war and they had excellent bread. It is very unfortunate that some effort was not made to secure plant to convert potatoes into flour. The Minister may be able to say whether any efforts were made to provide the machinery necessary for the purpose. If we could get such machinery, it would be very useful and helpful in the present situation.
Deputy Benson spoke about petrol for vans. It is unfortunate that the Minister encouraged people to convert their cars into vans a couple of months ago. We were told that anybody who converted his car into a van would get a supply of petrol.
I said the exact reverse of that.
The Minister said no such thing.
I warned people that they might not get a supply of petrol.
You did that later.
I warned them through the Press and by means of the radio.
Before that, you said that vans would get their full supply of petrol.
Having spent a whole month trying to discourage people from converting their cars into vans, it is somewhat annoying to be told now that I promised them a supply of petrol.
The Minister changed his mind when he discovered that he would have to put the vans off the road.
Will the Deputy give the quotation from my speech on which he is basing his allegation?
I shall show it to the Minister. Reference was made to iron for agricultural purposes, particularly for horseshoes. I asked the Minister a question some time ago about that. The Army came into the city and, in what I might describe as a raid on the yards, took up any iron that was there. The Minister denied responsibility in the matter but he is in charge of supplies and he should have control of any of the commodities that are available, even for defence purposes. It is not wise policy to permit the Army to grab everything in the way of iron and leave a more essential service—food production—without sufficient iron for horseshoeing. That is the situation which has developed. Iron was being sold at a fairly reasonable price up to the time that the raid by the Army authorities took place. Then, it jumped to over £80 a ton. They took anything that was there. That ought not to happen. If any article is in short supply, the Army ought to be prepared to suffer some inconvenience as well as other sections of the community and other essential services.
Difficulty is being experienced in obtaining parts for harvesting machines. I do not blame the Minister for that but every effort should be made by his Department to secure essential parts for mowers and harvesting machines. I understand that a firm here, representing a big American company—the International Harvesting Company— were refused an export permit for obsolete parts which were in stock for years and which their head office in London were anxious to get. The manager of the firm is an Irishman, anxious to do his best for the country as regards supplies generally. He would not let out anything which would be of use as spare parts for our machinery and it was unreasonable, in the circumstances, to refuse an export permit for obsolete parts. The possible reaction to that is for the London people to say: "Let them go to hell and do without parts for their machines." That is the sort of problem we are up against and that is the attitude of the Civil Service mind in the Minister's Department. There should be an attitude of give and take. This action is typical of the attitude of the Minister in refusing to allow pit-props to go across to Britain at a time when we were looking for coal. That was a wrong attitude. The Minister said: "We will not give you pit-props but we want coal." The attitude in this case is on all fours with that. That is not the businessman's attitude. If we are to get anywhere, there must be give and take in these matters.
Binder twine was mentioned. A company here had actually secured 1,000 tons of binder twine but no shipping space was provided. There was, probably, difficulty in that regard. Our wheat problem had to be met at the time and, I suppose, all the space was urgently needed. Unfortunately, the position which developed in the East Indies deprived us of supplies of sisal. The attitude of America was: "Any binder twine we have, we are going to keep." So we lost our supply of binder twine. More foresight ought to be displayed by the Minister's Department. We cannot have the necessary vision and foresight if the Department will not consult practical men with experience of supply problems. You cannot expect civil servants, cloistered in their offices, to have the vision, foresight and acumen which the businessman derives from experience. Opportunities are permitted to slip as a result of the Minister refusing to see the experts of the different industries and trades concerned.
Deputy Mulcahy mentioned a case yesterday where a letter was sent to a doctor living at No. 13, asking him why his car was parked outside No. 12. Deputies from the country have a permit to travel to Dublin to meetings of the Dáil, yet I was coming to the city here one day and later got a letter to say that my car was observed passing through College Green on 12th May. I passed through College Green at 2.30 p.m. and the Dáil met at 3 p.m. I would not mind it so much but for the fact that the letter was addressed to James Hughes, T.D. If it had been addressed to James Hughes, an ordinary citizen, I would attach no blame to the civil servant who signed it and sent it out; but surely the civil servant who put his name to that was not exercising any great intelligence when he addressed it to a Deputy, knowing that the Deputy had to go through College Green to get to Leinster House, and that he was travelling half an hour before the Dáil would sit.
This is the sort of work for which we are paying civil servants in the Minister's Department. They waste their time sending out circulars of that sort, instead of concentrating on some useful work, on the production of some article which might give the Minister an opportunity to barter it for something else. Let us get down to brass tacks on this job and let us not waste our time on doing something that is utterly stupid.
Does that mean self-sufficiency?
What?
Getting down to do something.
Self-sufficiency be damned—there is no use in talking about it. We must produce if we are to maintain the standard we have had for many years. There are many commodities which we cannot produce, as we have not the raw materials necessary for industry. Unless the Deputy wants to lower the whole standard of living, he will agree that we must export in order to obtain the essential raw materials and other commodities. If the Deputy wants to lower it, he can have his self-sufficiency.
I have just a few words to say regarding this Estimate. I want to place on record my protest against the abuse of this House in the past three days, when more than half of the time has been taken up in regard to the most impertinent performance ever given in this country, by about 2 per cent. of our people—the drapers. No doubt they mustered their employees, who took their orders, but it may be a very sorry day for those same employers some day when the employees do not go to the Mansion House, but stand outside their doors, following the precedent that has been set.
When 2 per cent. of the population can occupy the time of this House for three days, what would happen if the 90 per cent.—the farmers and agricultural labourers—struck their ploughs and said they would not work unless they got set prices? Where would the country be then? Yet that is the headline set—the headline against which I wish to protest.
It may be said that those drapers had the support of Labour in this city. I have been watching movements in the city for the past ten years and have seen strikes caused and ended. My amazement was that those who commanded the strikes had the support of the people at all, as in the last general election not even one Labour candidate was returned in the City of Dublin. The shop assistants and tailors who, it is said, will be left idle, are more intelligent than the workers who struck, as they know in their hearts that the very material they need has been leaving the country and that, if this went on for a few years, they would suffer and be poor, as their means of livelihood would be gone. We are not able to produce enough material here to meet the needs.
When Deputy, now Senator, MacDermot, was in the House, he put down a motion to limit speeches to half an hour. I regret very much that it was not passed. I would have supported him then and would support him now, as the man who cannot express himself inside half an hour is just a "gasbag" who wants to hear himself talking. It was illuminating to hear Deputy Hughes—I am sorry he has gone out of the House—talking about the export of butter. For ten years we had to sit on these benches and listen to the case put to us, that we were subsidising cheap butter for England and charging high prices to the people at home. Anyone of common sense knows that the export price controls the home market. We had to subsidise it because otherwise the whole foundation of our agricultural economy would be gone, and after that live stock, beef, fowl, eggs and pigs, which form the whole foundation of the country, would follow. When I hear Deputies talking about the Government being to blame for the proportion of pigs being so small, I feel they do not realise that the foodstuffs are not here for cows or pigs— we had to feed it to the human population.
We had coercion of farmers to go into tillage. I support that, as it is necessary from the national standpoint. Then I look at one-half of the time in the past three days taken up in support of a strike of only about 2 per cent. of our population. That is all there is in it, when you take the employees out of it. That will be proved in the next general election. I hope, as some of the people have more intelligence than some of those in this House give them credit for. Deputy Hughes spoke of the heifer trade, saying that we can export our young cattle. Of course, he played a two-edged game—whilst he applauded in one way, he warned the Government to watch at the same time. I would warn the Government to watch also, as if we cannot make conditions under which our people can live, there will be revolution. It is the Government's duty to give to the needy in distress and to see that everybody is provided for as far as possible. In doing that, we should have the co-operation of the Opposition.
Deputy O'Sullivan yesterday talked about consulting the drapers beforehand. I asked if he was thinking of a national Government. First he denied it and then he came forward with it. Why should the Government have to consult these people before they ration goods? I happened to hear the Minister broadcasting and heard him say, in announcing the rationing, that a committee would be set up and that if there were grievances they could be adjusted. But that was not enough for those swelled-headed people—they are the Government. Let me tell them that the people elected to this House are the Government and that, whilst we occupy this position and whilst we know we have the support of the majority of the people, we on these benches will govern.
I hope the limitation on speeches, imposed by Deputy Victory, will not apply to the Minister, when he comes to reply. I hope the accusation of being "a gas-bag" if he speaks for more than half an hour will not prevent his giving a full reply.
The Minister is excused.
The Deputy has exempted the Minister? The Minister is all right so, he may take more than half an hour. In the course of this discussion, many references have been made to the difficulties facing the Minister and his Department in dealing with the problems of supplies in this emergency period; and with those references I heartily agree.
I believe it has been stated by many other Deputies that the only means of making a success of the job would be to get all the co-operation that can be obtained from the community as a whole. I think that should be the aim and the outlook of the Minister and the Department—to work in co-operation with the people because it is everybody's job to endeavour to make a success of the maintenance of supplies during the period of emergency. It is to the question of the extent to which that co-operation and harmony are being sought that we have got to apply ourselves at this time of inquiry into the Minister's Department.
I want, in addition to what I have said about the difficulties of the situation, to pay my tribute to the painstaking zeal of the officials in the Supplies Department. I do not generally cast bouquets at officials of any Department but I think that my experience, and it is no doubt that of other Deputies who have had occasion to visit this Department to inquire into the working of this vast scheme, is that the officials are working diligently and trying to do their best under very difficult circumstances. I think, however, they are sometimes placed in very difficult positions because Orders are issued seemingly without consultation in advance with the interests affected by these Orders. That makes the position very difficult for the officials in the Department and for the people in the country generally. Traders and people of that kind find it extremely difficult to carry on under present circumstances and no regulations of a harassing nature should be imposed upon them if they can be avoided. I believe that a lot of friction could be avoided if there were more consultations with the interests affected by the various Orders. Friction of that kind, instead of helping the machinery of the Department to work smoothly, can only have the opposite effect.
I agree with Deputy Dillon's statement yesterday as to the inadvisability of holding the people guilty on suspicion. Even making all allowance for emergency conditions, people should not be held guilty of an offence until they are proved guilty. Deputy Dillon seems to think it was unprecedented. Of course, it is not unprecedented. In the administration of unemployment assistance the Government have frequently held unemployed men guilty of certain offences on suspicion in order to deprive them of the few shillings a week unemployment assistance they were receiving but I never heard Deputy Dillon kicking up a row about that. I do not think anybody should be held guilty of an offence until definite proof of guilt can be provided. The machinery at the Minister's disposal is I think quite ample to bring home the offence to guilty people. He should get after the people who offend against his regulations or Orders, prosecute them and have them drastically dealt with. That would be much more effective than adopting a procedure which is bound to win a certain amount of sympathy from the public for people who are victimised by such action. I refer to action such as the closing down of premises without instituting proceedings against the people concerned. I think that is not a fair method of dealing with any citizen.
I want to suggest also before issuing Orders there should be some consultation with the interests affected. An effort should be made to get the advice of people engaged in the particular trade affected to ascertain what is the best way of administering proposed restrictions. Take the position of cement. Stockists in the country are now compelled by the Minister's Order to exact from the consumer £5 for every ton of cement he is going to buy in respect of the sacks. The consumer will not get a grain of cement until he planks down £5 per ton against the sacks. If the consumer does not return the sacks within one month, it is then the duty of the stockist to report the consumer to the Minister for prosecution. Surely a better method could be devised of dealing with the cement situation.
It is not a very nice thing for a stockist to be compelled to report a consumer. The stockist merely deals in cement as a side-line to his main business, not for the sake of the profits accruing from the trade, because I am told that he is allowed only 2/10 for handling the cement, while the manufacturer's costs are 77/-. I believe the price has since gone up to 85/-. He was allowed the same rate for handling when the cement was only 47/-. He is now put in the odious position of having to report a consumer if he does not return the sacks within one month. I think that a much more desirable method of achieving the Minister's aims could be devised than that. There must be a separate cash transaction in respect of the sacks on every ton of cement. That is indicative of some of the things that are happening and which possibly could not happen if there was prior consultation with the trade as a result of which, no doubt, reasonable precautions could be devised for the preservation of these sacks.
I am not going into the question of rationing in the drapery trade which has been discussed ad nauseam for the last few days except to say that in that case also there should have been an opportunity for consultation. That has been the source of all the trouble. There is one suggestion that I should like to make in regard to the coupons. I am afraid that serious abuse of the coupon system will arise, no matter how vigilant the officials of the Department may be, and I suggest that steps should be taken now to deal with abuses rather than at a more remote time. One suggestion I would make is that coupons should be made available for an indefinite period. When clothes rationing was first introduced in Britain the Government started with a period coupon, but they have abandoned that system and have now made the clothes coupons available indefinitely. It is obvious that there is something to be said for that. Take, for instance, the case of poor people with large families who are not in a position to buy very much clothes. In fact many of them have to depend on charitable institutions and societies to provide them with clothes. However, they are all provided with fully-fledged ration books. I have in mind the case of a woman with eleven children. She has 12 ration books. They are not likely to be utilised for the purchase of clothes because there is no money to purchase them.
I am afraid that there will be a regular market set up by some of the "bright boys" in an effort to get hold of these ration books and they will be utilised for purposes other than to secure clothing. If the coupons are made available for an indefinite period that would be one means of diminishing that danger. It will not eliminate it entirely but it will reduce it to a considerable extent because if people are told that their coupons will not be any use after the end of next June they will say to themselves: "We had better get rid of them the best way we can." In that way the nucleus of a very extensive black market will be created. I have discussed this matter with a gentleman from the other side and he said that the experience over there was that the opportunities for black marketing had been considerably curtailed since the life of the clothes coupon had been extended.
There is just one other point to which I should like to refer in connection with tea and sugar supplies. The Minister has been pretty generous in giving additional tea to train crews, but I should like to ask him to review the position because a serious situation has arisen recently. Owing to the breakdown of train services, because of the lack of proper coal, men are enduring a very severe ordeal. Train crews who leave their homes with the intention of returning that night or the following night are in many instances held up for four or five days and they are in the difficult position that they are unable to replenish the supplies in their carrier baskets. I have seen cases where it took 23 hours to cover the journey from Cork to Limerick Junction. The men concerned failed to get tea or bread at Mallow, Limerick Junction, or any of the intervening stations because they were not regular customers of traders in these areas. The bread position may have eased since but there is still a very difficult position as regards tea and sugar. These men were without food for a very considerable time. They had bacon with them but neither tea nor bread.
I suggest that the Minister should look into the position to see if some additional allowance could not be made available for train crews, or if it would not be possible to make stocks available for them at the depôts along the railway line. They could be held under the control of some responsible officer of the company. That would be a considerable source of relief for the men concerned and would also obviate danger to the travelling public. For those men there is no question of working a normal day; they have to work day and night in many instances. If, in addition, there is insufficient food for them, it constitutes a danger to the public. Consequently, I would ask the Minister to see whether he can do any more than he has already done in the case of those railwaymen who are working away from home.
That the Department of Supplies has been charged, in the circumstances which have confronted this country in the last three years, with an exceedingly difficult task, cannot be denied. That the difficulty of the task which the Minister and his officials had to discharge was fully realised by all sections of the community is also apparent. It is true, too, that every section of the public were perfectly prepared and even anxious to give all the co-operation possible to the Minister in performing his difficult task. That the Minister in performing that task, and his Department in fulfilling the duties imposed upon them, have lamentably failed, is now a matter beyond all controversy. The Department of Supplies is the one outstanding Department that has completely lost the confidence of 90 per cent. of the people of this country. Its actions, and its inactions, I assert, have done more to bring the law and the administration of the law into contempt than any other Department of State.
The Minister, in his opening statement on this Estimate, referred to the actions of the drapers and their employees, in endeavouring to assert their rights to carry on their trade and earn their livelihood, as an agitation. He said in the course of his remarks: "Many Deputies in this House and many people outside it have criticised the wisdom of appearing to make concessions to agitation." That struck a chord in my memory—concessions to agitation". Where did that phrase originate? It originated in the British propaganda in the Black and Tan times against "agitation", as they then called it here, against demonstrations and meetings and processions. They would not give in to agitation. The very words used in the British Press at that time are now used by the Minister in reference to the exercise, by considerable and important sections of the community of this State, of their supposed constitutional rights. The right of public meeting is supposed to be enshrined in our Constitution. The right to assemble and to give expression to his opinions is supposed to be a fundamental right of every citizen. The right to form in procession, the right to meet in public and to declare peaceably one's views, to profess openly what it is desired that the Government should do and what is public opinion—those are constitutional rights. The exercise of those rights by a number of persons is merely the joint exercise of individual constitutional rights. To suggest that this demonstration, comprising employers and employees, was merely an agitation is not merely to slander the fame of good citizens of this country but to bring into disrepute the administration of the law, and to set aside that willing co-operation which I assert was available for the Government, and particularly for the Department of Supplies, in overcoming the difficulties created by the present situation. The public has completely lost condidence in that Department.
The Department's attitude in connection with the clothes rationing Order has still further emphasised its incompetence, and its complete disregard of public opinion and the rights of important sections of the public. We heard Deputy Keyes refer to the fact that this rationing Order had been spoken of ad nauseam. I think we cannot too strongly emphasise its effect on the administration of the law, and on the attitude of the public towards co-operation with the Government. The Minister, at the close of his broadcast when he was announcing to the public the details of this rationing scheme, appealed to the public for co-operation in putting into effect that ill-conceived and ill-starred Order, which has now been drastically reformed. What hope had he of getting co-operation from the public? What possible hope had he of getting that goodwill which is an essential condition precedent to co-operation when he refused either to trust the public or to trust the sections of the trade which were most vitally affected, from the point of view of employers and employees, by the Order that he was putting forth? It has been emphasised that the fundamental failure of the Minister in connection with that Order was due to his deliberate policy in refusing to consult the members of the trade before he brought into operation that rationing scheme which he has had very drastically to amend if not almost completely to abandon. It is a very curious matter that, in almost every case where an Order of the Government affects a particular section of the community, there is no co-operation or consultation with the particular people who are entitled to speak before their interests are vitally affected.
I conceive—possibly without any solid grounds for my opinion—that the machinery of this rationing Order was based on some information obtained from the British, and that the way this Order was conceived and drafted and designed was by getting from the British the details of their scheme, then increasing the number of coupons necessary for each individual article, and bringing in a scheme far more drastic than it is in England, so that English people are writing over here at the present moment sympathising with us on the rigidity and the serious effects of that scheme. The Minister, of course, did not know—if his officials knew, they ignored it—that the clothes rationing scheme in England, and perhaps very many of the rationing schemes there, has its basis and origin in the desire of the Government to achieve a purpose far different from the purpose which any rationing scheme must be designed to achieve in this country. The rationing scheme for clothing in England is not primarily designed to secure the distribution of a particular quantity of clothing. That is not the primary design. If it were, we would not have been able to get the vast quantities of stocks that we have imported into this country in the last three years. The primary purpose of the Order in England was to prevent unnecessary expenditure of money, to endeavour to keep down inflation, and to put people out of employment in the drapery business so that they would go into essential war industry and do essential war work. It was merely a very incidental matter that the distribution of clothes was dealt with in the way it was in England. We have here a far more drastic Order than was made in England, even though the Order there was designed to achieve a fundamental war purpose for that country.
The fact that the Order here was ill-conceived was clearly shown in the public confession of failure when the rationing Order was altered within a day or two of its promulgation.
The action of the drapers was referred to as agitation, something that the Minister would not, but for some absurd reason that he tried to put forward in the course of his speech, have given in to. The exercise of the constitutional right of each employer and employee to walk in procession through the streets, and to express in public, in a peaceful and orderly way, the fact that his rights were being affected and his livelihood jeopardised by the action of the Government, and to appeal to the Government, in an orderly, peaceful and lawful fashion, to alter the law, is decribed as agitation. For centuries, that has been the right of the British subject, and that constitutional right of the British subject has been crystallised in our Constitution. A person was entitled lawfully to advocate a change in the law. It is one of the means of preventing serious agitation and revolution—the constitutional right of the citizen peacefully to assemble and peacefully to express his views and to ask that certain laws should be changed by peaceful methods and in a constitutional way. When that is referred to as agitation by the Minister, when that is the attitude and approach of the Minister and his Department, is there any possible hope of public co-operation being obtained?
The effect of the Order and of the attitude of the Department in all this matter was very picturesquely—if I may use the phrase—instanced by the attitude of the Government in connection with the purchase of shoes, in the days following the promulgation of this Order. Everybody knows that people queued up outside the shoe shops and the shoe departments of our stores to buy shoes in as large quantities as they could possibly afford. Every section of the community, the poor as well as the comparatively well-off, bought shoes, and when they were told that the Department had issued a notice stating that it was not the intention to ration shoes, what was their attitude? Did they accept, as they would have accepted if they had any confidence in this Department and if they had not completely lost confidence in the administration of the job which this Department has to do, the official publication? No; their attitude was: "This is a trick to prevent us from getting our supplies before a rationing Order in respect of shoes is put into force."
That is the state to which the Minister's actions and inactions have brought the public attitude towards law and the administration of the law, and for that Department, and its head in opening this debate, in public to stigmatise the workers and employers as agitators—using the expression used by the British in the Black-and-Tan days—is something which, to say the least of it, is not conducive to procuring from any other section of the community, not to speak of the workers and employers in the drapery and allied trades, any co-operation. I think it cannot be controverted that in practically every trade and industry the Department of Supplies has lost the goodwill of the public, and, without goodwill, there cannot be co-operation, and, without co-operation in the emergency confronting us and in the difficult situation which we shall have to face in forthcoming months, if not in forthcoming years, there can be no possible hope that the rigours of these months and years will be in any way softened for the people. It is time the Ministry recognised that co-operation and goodwill are essential and that in order to secure co-operation and goodwill, as they can be secured, some little trust must be put in the people and in the representatives of the different sections of the community.
Again, in the course of his observations on the action taken by the drapery trade, the Minister said that their agitation was directed towards a withdrawal of the rationing scheme in toto. That is quite untrue, and the facts before the Minister must bring it home to his mind that it is untrue. The rationing Order came into force on 9th June, and, on that afternoon, a meeting of the Drapers' Chamber of Trade was called. A largely attended meeting was held and it was decided that the principle of rationing would not be opposed, and had never been opposed. What was opposed was a system of indiscriminate rationing, and that was made prefectly clear in letters and communications to the Press and in the telegram sent on behalf of the drapers to the head of the Government.
Notwithstanding the fact that it was made clear in public utterances of that kind that the industry was not against rationing, the Minister here in public endeavours to disseminate another falsehood, in order apparently to try to do what his Department appears to be becoming expert at doing, that is, to set one section of the community against the other, to set employees against employers, to set the consuming public against the selling public represented by the draper and other trades and industries, to set the patients against their doctors. This appears to be one of the well-known methods of the Department to achieve their dictatorial purposes.
I have mentioned the matter of the doctors, and that is still another instance of the manner in which important sections of the community are treated, because of which it is impossible for any real goodwill to be achieved or any co-operation to be fulfilled between the public and the Department. Doctors have been the sport of this Department since the petrol rationing scheme came into operation. I do not intend to deal any further with the case of the six doctors which was ventilated here some weeks ago and in reference to which the Minister has expressed his regret for the inconvenience and trouble caused to each of them. I regard it as a closed incident so far as this House is concerned, but, since that time, the medical profession has been subjected to a system of spying and snooping on the part of the Department which should not be tolerated by the public. There is now in existence in the Department a written form, with blank spaces, to be sent out to various professional men asking them why they allowed their cars to be, say, outside a medical supply shop in Grafton Street for a minute at such and such a time.
It should be recognised that the professional men of this country are a class who can be trusted. They have enjoyed the confidence of the poorest sections particularly for many years. They are getting a supply of petrol which, admittedly, even by the officials of the Department, is quite inadequate to enable them to deal with all the urgent needs of their patients, and it has been stated by Deputy Cosgrave and other members on this side, but it cannot be oversaid, or too often said, that the petrol supplied to doctors is not supplied to them for their convenience, but for, and on behalf of, their sick patients and their patients who are in danger of death or serious illness, unless immediate treatment is given. It being admitted that the supply of petrol given to them is entirely inadequate for their purpose, why is it necessary to have snooping and spying to see whether they waste a drop here and there in the course of their professional duties? Surely, they can be trusted to act as good citizens? Surely, if they cannot be trusted to act as good citizens, they can at least be trusted to act in their own professional interests and to spread out their petrol allowances as far as possible on the essential needs of their own essential profession. They cannot be trusted, any more than the heads of the drapery trade could be trusted, by the Government. The heads of the drapery trade were not trusted or consulted, and the reason they were not consulted was, forsooth, that the Minister was afraid that if he consulted the representatives of the drapery trade, the secret of the proposed rationing Order would leak out. The secret of the proposed rationing Order was common property in this country for weeks before the Order came out. If it was not widespread, at least it was known to a very considerable number of people. Whether these people were "in the know" or not, I do not know, but that the Order was coming was a fact that was so well known that it could hardly have been better known if it had been broadcast.
But none of the drapers heard about it. Is not that what the Deputy has just said?
I do not know. I am not in consultation with the drapers. All I know is that I myself was told about it three weeks before it came out.
But no draper heard it?
I do not know anything about that. The drapers can speak for themselves. I know that people in this city were buying large stocks weeks before the Order came out, and that it was known and told to me. Now, I am sure that the Minister will acquit me of any admiration for the present Government or for any Minister in the present Government; I am sure he will acquit me of thinking in any way that they were not capable of doing the most outrageous things that anybody could conceive, but when it was told to me that that Order was coming in, I did not believe it—I confess my sins—I did not think it was possible for this Government, or even for the Minister for Supplies, to make a rationing Order of the type that, it was generally believed, was going to be made.
I will bet the Deputy £5 that he did not know about the Order three weeks before, or that he cannot produce anybody who did.
Leave out the betting.
That statement is untrue.
It is absolutely true.
Not one person knew it three weeks before.
If it was not three weeks, it was a fortnight before.
No, nor a fortnight either.
It was certainly a fortnight before, and I believe it was three weeks, that I was told about it and— I confess my sins publicly—I gave the Minister credit for something for which I should not have given him credit. I could not believe that even the Minister would be guilty of such an outrageous thing. But they would not consult the drapers. They would not take even half a dozen of the workers or the representatives of the firms into their confidence. The British did, and there was no leakage of their rationing Order.
Oh, nonsense.
The British did it.
And there was a leakage three months before the Order came out in Britain.
If so, would any greater damage have been done through these people being consulted than was done when they were not consulted? Is it to be said that there was not somebody, whoever it was, who was responsible for the leakage of this alleged secret? Somebody was responsible for it, and, at any rate, it got out, and is this the charge that has to be met: that it was more likely to get out if the men whose livelihoods were being threatened were consulted? Of course, the officials of the Department prefer to get paper schemes and work them out entirely irrespective of the facts, and what happened here was that the Minister and his officials worked out a rationing scheme without having the slightest information as to what stocks were in the country, or without having any regard to the relationship that ought to exist between a rationing scheme and the supply of stocks in the country. They based it on what they thought were future supplies, and they had no regard to present stocks. They will not trust the representatives of the drapers or of other trades; they will not trust the doctors or other sections of the community. How is there going to be goodwill or co-operation when you have that state of affairs, or how is there going to be respect for the law in such circumstances and when the whole thing is based on jealousy? I have no information that the Department of Supplies are getting letters sent in stating that a doctor's car was seen outside a particular house at a particular hour, but it is my guess that they are, and that they are probably anonymous letters. I should like to know if my guess is true—I think it is a certainty, and not a guess, and that the Department are acting on them. I should like to know this: when tea was, and is, being sold at £1 per lb., did the Minister get anonymous letters about that? Does he get any information about particular streets where poor people are being charged 5/- an ounce for tea? Is his post-bag swelled with information of that kind? If it were, would he take any notice of it?
I heard a Deputy, in the course of this debate—I have forgotten which Deputy it was—referring to the fact that the Guards are prevented from interfering in connection with matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Supplies on the plea, apparently, that it is the duty of the inspectors of the Department to carry out the administration of the law relating to supplies. I do not know whether that particular principle is supposed to apply to the Guards in connection with doctors' cars. I know it is not, because the Guards are stopping motor cars of doctors who are exercising their right to use their cars in accordance with the conditions under which their permits were given to them. Public money and the time of the Guards are being taken up in snooping and spying, and in assisting in snooping and spying, on professional men and other responsible sections of the community. That ought to stop, and there will be no co-operation or goodwill until that sort of thing stops.
There is notorious black-marketing going on in connection with every class of goods. Are the Department getting no facilities from the public in connection with finding out what people are responsible for that? If so, do the Department give as much credence, as much support, and as much energy at the public expense, to running down these black marketeers as they do to following up the information that a doctor's car was seen outside Fannin's in Grafton Street, for half a minute? That has actually happened, and the doctor has to find out, perhaps a week or a fortnight afterwards, and be able to answer the question: "What were you doing, at five minutes past eleven, last Tuesday week, in Grafton Street?" The doctor, who gets only a few gallons of petrol—about a quarter of his requirements for his essential patients—will have to keep a log-book of every movement he makes.
Some Deputy spoke of the amount of time that had been taken up on this rationing Order. Hardly enough time could be taken up on it, because there has never been in this country a matter of so great and fundamental importance, not alone to the drapers and their employees, but to every section of the community, on which such an attitude has been adopted as that adopted by the Minister in regard to people exercising their constitutional rights. His attitude was that these people are agitators—"We will not give in to agitation"—just as the British said they would not give in to agitation in the Black-and-Tan days.
In the course of his remarks, the Minister made another statement, the precise effect of which, even yet, after the lapse of three days, I am unable to appreciate. Deputy Hughes has referred to it already. It was a statement to the effect that at the present moment we have reached such a condition in this country that we have no bargaining power with the British. That statement of the Minister was, apparently, regarded as of such importance that, in that very evening's B.B.C. news, it was given a prominent position by the announcer, and Deputies and the public can draw their own conclusions from that significant fact. I think the public are entitled to know, irrespective of what the British Government or the British public think of that announcement and the advantage they are likely to take of it, what has brought us to that pass. In 1932, when this Government came into power, they had a tremendous bargaining position with the British. At the present moment, according to the Minister's own statement, we have no bargaining position and no bargaining power. If my deduction from the Minister's statement is logical and correct, we are dependent upon the charity of the British Government and the British people for a large section of our supplies. Is that the position that we have to face, or can we do anything to remedy it?
We have no butter, because the Minister for Agriculture says there is no future in the dairying industry. We have no pigs because the Minister for Agriculture will not encourage the pig industry. But, whatever the reason, whether it is that our bluff was exposed by the economic war or whether the result of Government policy has been to reduce us to the condition which the Minister publicly stated it to be, that is, the position that was broadcast to the world through B.B.C. wireless on the evening of the Minister's announcement. Whether it is due to Government policy, or whatever the reason, that is the fact. What are we going to do about it? Are we going to continue in that way, or is the Minister going to make any other effort to prevent us from living on the charity of the British Government? Is there no other source of supply? I hesitate to think that we have got ourselves into that position or, if we have, that we cannot get out of it.
I am sure Deputy Belton will be able to show the Deputy where we are wrong. We are sending more to the British Government than they are sending to us, and we are accumulating sterling assets in that country. Does the Deputy know that?
Of course, I know it.
Why are you talking then about living on the charity of the British?
I am drawing a logical deduction from the Minister's statement. I hope the Minister's statement is incorrect. Not merely do I hope it is incorrect, but I believe and assert that it is incorrect.
We know well what the Deputy would do. We know what his Party did when it was in power.
We know what we did when we were in power, that after ten years in office we had built up this State and left it in a position in which it was the pride of democratic institutions. The taxation in this State in our time was £20,000,000 as against £44,000,000 to-day. It was able to hold its head high in the councils of States. Now the Minister says that we have no bargaining power with the British. We had a good bargaining power with the British, and made good bargains with them.
"A damn good bargain."
When you agreed to pay over the £5,000,000 a year to them.
The Minister and his policy have been exposed for their folly and futility. We are now in the position in which the Minister, who was an advocate of self-sufficiency and of industry in this country, gets up, and, in a public utterance, broadcasts to the world that we have no bargaining power: that we have nothing with which to trade. We have to live on our own trade like the spider.
There are a few matters of detail, apart from this question of fundamental principle, that I wish in conclusion to direct the Minister's attention to, and, if possible, to have some information from him on them. They are matters which largely affect the people in my constituency, particularly householders who have a very difficult task in getting daily supplies of household goods for their families. Deputy Benson has already referred to this idiotic application form that has been issued in connection with sugar for jam making purposes. I understand that fruit merchants have made certain suggestions to the Government which the Government would be well advised to adopt. Why it should be necessary to call on a priest to get the details on the form verified I do not know, unless it be that it is another indication of the lack of confidence which the Government have in the ordinary decent householder-citizen in this State. But whether it is justifiable that the details should be verified or not, in the manner indicated in the form, may I ask what lunatic devised the system by which that householder must guarantee when filling in the application form for this meagre ration of sugar for jam making for household purposes, in the case in which the householder has no fruit of her own, that she has actually bought the fruit. I do not know what lunatic devised that form. It certainly was someone who does not know the ordinary processes of nature in connection with fruit because by the time the form, with all these details filled in, has reached the 41st official in the Department, the fruit which is an essential ingredient for jam-making has probably been thrown out.
Would the Deputy like to know that the longest period that elapses between the sending in of the form and the issuing of the permit is 12 hours?
I would be amazed to know it.
Well, it is true.
There is another matter of detail that I wish to direct the Minister's attention to. It is the question of oatmeal, also a matter of considerable importance, particularly to the poorer sections of the people in my constituency. They have the greatest possible difficulty in securing oatmeal for porridge. That means a further serious drain on their already attenuated resources. It means that if they cannot get oatmeal at a cheap price, which they cannot, that some other more expensive substitute has to be obtained. The position is that children who have been in the habit of getting oatmeal and milk for their breakfast are being deprived of the nourishment that is undoubtedly contained in that particular food. Apart from that, some dearer substitute has to be obtained by the unfortunate mother of the family. I want to know from the Minister if he has taken, or will take, measures to secure that in the forthcoming winter there will be adequate supplies of oatmeal available at a reasonable price. We know that the Minister's colleague has fixed maximum and minimum prices for oatmeal. The fixing of that price is not, I suppose, the Minister's concern except as a member of a Government having Parliamentary responsibility, but it is the duty of the Minister for Supplies to see that there are adequate supplies of oatmeal available. Can he tell the House and the public, particularly that section of the public in my constituency to which I have referred, that he has taken steps to see that by reason of the fixation of maximum and minimum prices for oats, from which the oatmeal is made, adequate supplies of oatmeal will be available at reasonable prices for the community who require it in the forthcoming month?
And at a reasonable price to the producer?
And at a reasonable price to the producer.
It is too late to be putting in these stipulations now because the oat crop is already shooting out.
It may be shooting out, but it has not yet been taken up.
It is too late now to be talking about putting in any more grain.
Whether it is too late or whether it is not, I suppose that on this matter I must yield to Deputy Belton's specialised knowledge.
I am no authority on it.
If you are not, why are you talking about it?
That applies to more than Deputy Belton.
And, I suppose, to the Minister who talks through his hat more than anybody else in the House. There is another matter that I want to call attention to. The rumour is being spread around that it is the intention of the Department to take away the tea ration for young children. I think that would be a very considerable hardship on the poorer sections in this State if it were persisted in. Of course, we know that children under three years of age do not normally take tea, although very frequently, especially among the poorer sections of the people, they do take tea. It is a supplement to an already meagre ration in the case of the workers in this country, and, at all costs, should not be interfered with. There is another matter which, again, affects the workers in my constituency, particularly in Ringsend. The Minister is interested in racing, and I want to appeal to him to look after the ordinary cart horse engaged in doing a day's work for carters for hire in this city. The position in the last week has been that those people who hire their horses and carts to the paving or street section of the Dublin Corporation—that has been a custom for a long time in the City of Dublin and it is one on which many people depend for a livelihood—have not been able to get any fodder for their horses.
The biggest supplier of fodder for horses in this city was unable, on Saturday last, to supply any oats or fodder for those horses. So that they would not drop dead from starvation, the horses had to be put into Ringsend Park to pick up there a mearge subsistence from the meagre covering of grass growing there. That is a matter that affects those people very seriously. Those horses have to do a hard day's work on hard roads. Their owners are as fond of them as a race owner is of his horse that comes in first in a big race. It applies to hawkers as well as people who hire horses out to the Dublin Corporation and other people. They are not able to get oats; their livelihood depends on them, and it is a source of anxiety to them to see their unfortunate animals, who are helping them to earn their living, bordering on starvation.
The Minister has in the last few days varied in very considerable detail the rationing Order for clothes. Before these changes were made a number of people were forced through necessity to purchase certain articles of clothing, people who, incidentally, were not "in the know" for the two or three weeks I referred to, and they had to give the current number of coupons referred to in the book for these articles of clothing. In many instances, the coupons they had to give far exceeded the number they would have to give. under the amended scheme. I suggest to the Minister that, in these circumstances, there should be a refund of the coupons.
The next matter I wish to refer to is the retrospective operation of the Order. A number of people who were "in the know" took very good care that they would scoop the pool and got in supplies before zero hour on the 9th June. But people who did not know about it and who had given bona fide orders months beforehand, for reasons perhaps connected with their own private concerns or perhaps complacence, not wishing to press their particular merchant, did not press him to supply their goods. They are landed in the position now that the whole of their coupons for 12 months are gone for articles of clothing that were genuinely and bona fide ordered before they knew of any rationing system. I think that the Minister should take into account the fact—what he must know to be the notorious fact—that numbers of people knew of this Order, but that numbers of others did not, and that it may be assumed those who knew of it got their goods delivered to them before the 9th June. They are getting away with it. But the bona fide people who ordered in the ordinary way are to be penalised. I suggest to the Minister that that is a thing that should not be allowed to obtain.
I also wish to refer to a couple of items which, perhaps, the Minister may regard as insignificant. The first is the question of uniforms. A number of employees in various firms get uniforms as part of their remuneration and as a necessity for carrying on their business. I should like to know how it is proposed to deal with these people. If they give their coupons for uniforms they will not be able to buy a sock or a shirt for 12 months. The employers are not entitled to get the uniforms for them. In these circumstances, I suggest that some sympathetic consideration should be given to that problem which affects a number of people. The question of uniforms also affects members of my own profession. A number of young barristers who are called in very trying times to a very difficult profession with difficult circumstances before them are faced with the necessity of buying wigs and gowns as part of the livery of our profession, if you like to put it that way. Their coupons are all swept away buying wigs and gowns.
I do not know whether they come within the definition given of ceremonial robes. We do not regard them as ceremonial robes. They are as necessary for us in earning our living as a knowledge of law is. I suggest to the Minister that he ought to clarify the position and that whether it is a question of uniforms or liveries or robes they should be excluded from the rationing Order. There is no great demand for them. There is no question of one section of the community getting a benefit at the expense of another. I suggest to the Minister that he should give the matter sympathetic consideration.
As to the last point I want to mention, Deputy Mulcahy has already asked the Minister a Parliamentary question with reference to it. It was brought to my attention by one of my constituents, a man in a small way of business who has been manufacturing certain articles of ladies' clothing from artificial silk for many years. He was faced with a demand for a sum of £10 for a licence to carry on the trade he had been carrying on for many years. The Minister, in reply to Deputy Mulcahy's question, stated that the reason that particular fine was extracted was in order to raise money for administrative expenses. I suggest that it is rather a mean way of penalising people who have been carrying on the business of manufacturing for a considerable period that they should now be suddenly asked to pay the very considerable sum of £10 for a licence to enable them to earn their living.
My intervention in this debate is due entirely to the fact that Deputy Dillion made certain statements yesterday. He expressed doubts as to the ability of the Wexford factories to supply agricultural machinery. I want to assure him that, provided the raw materials are forthcoming, the Wexford factories are quite capable of providing the machinery which is necessary to save this year's harvest. In that connection, I should like to take this opportunity of asking the Minister what steps he has taken to secure that supplies of steel and pig iron will be procured for the Wexford factories. The Minister, I am sure, is aware of the importance of providing these factories with the necessary raw materials.
I know that at the present time the task of securing these materials is a colossal one, but I should like an assurance from the Minister that every effort is being made to secure them. I understand that the proprietors of the factories are in touch with certain people who are prepared to supply the materials, but the difficulty at the moment is to secure the necessary shipping space. I ask the Minister to give serious attention to that matter. Apart altogether from the necessity for agricultural machinery to be made available, Wexford town is almost entirely dependent upon these two factories. They may be looked upon as the staple industry of the town. A great many men have had already to leave Wexford in consequence of the slackness of work, due entirely to the fact that the necessary raw materials cannot be procured. I know that the Minister is interested in the matter, but I should like an assurance from him that he will continue to be interested and try to secure the necessary raw materials.
A good deal has been said with regard to the rationing of clothes. I want to say at the outset that I should be entirely in favour of rationing when the Minister has proved that, unless there is rationing; the poorer section of the community, especially, will suffer. But the Order issued by the Minister is a very drastic one and was very indiscriminate. Surely there was not a scarcity of all classes of drapery goods. The fact that the Minister has amended the Order two or three times since it was issued, proves conclusively that the Order was a sort of shot in the dark. I want to emphasise the point made by Deputy Costello as to persons who had ordered suits of clothes a week or a fortnight prior to the coming into operation of the Order. I suggest that it is a definite hardship on a person like that if he has to give coupons when it can be proved conclusively that the clothes were ordered prior to the issuing of the rationing Order.
I should also like to get some information from the Minister on the matter raised by Deputy Costello with regard to people who have to provide uniforms in connection with their employment, people whose allowance for uniform is part of their wages. I was speaking to some tramway workers in Dublin and they are under the impression that they will have to give coupons for their uniforms. I suggest some arrangement should be made whereby the present rationing scheme will not interfere with the household purchases necessary from the draper. Some special provision should be made for uniforms.
A good deal has been said about tea and tea rationing. I know the Minister has a stiff task trying to secure that everybody gets his quota, but what I want to complain about is that in a great many cases people have their cards placed with traders whom they have been dealing with for years and occasionally they find themselves unable to get their supplies from the trader. The trader says he is unable to get tea from the wholesaler. That happens very often. I have had to draw the attention of the Department to that matter very often and I must say I received every courtesy from the officials and the matter was dealt with, but only after a considerable time. The Minister should get in touch with the wholesalers in order to secure that the necessary quantity of tea is supplied to traders week after week. There is undoubtedly a great deal of hardship. In several cases people have sought permission to change their registration cards from one trader to another. That has been permitted in some instances, but in others it has not, and a great deal of hardship has ensued. I want to pay a tribute to the courtesy of the officials of the Department of Supplies in all branches. We all know the difficult task they have. I have received the utmost courtesy from them. Again I should like to stress the point about raw materials for people engaged in the manufacture of agricultural implements. I hope the Minister will give that matter his immediate attention.
I never felt so humiliated in this House as I did when I heard the Minister saying that the bargaining power of this country was nil. As an old soldier who fought for Irish freedom, I deplore that statement. We have a bargaining power; we always had and we always will have. Our bargaining power just now is represented by the tens of thousands of our young men and women who are flocking over to man the gaps in Britain. They are deserving of some consideration. Our enemies for years have been waiting for some Minister here to make that type of false statement. Now it has been made and I deplore it.
While I give every credit to the officials of the Department for their courtesy and the way they have of receiveing people, and for all they have done to make things easy, still I must say the people have absolutely no confidence in them because of the manner in which they have bungled and changed Orders day after day. I think it is clearly understood that the Government and the people are fast drifting apart. If the Government were honest they would treat the people with sincerity, but instead they distrust them. They will not trust the people in any way. When we try to find out why the Government and the people are so far apart, the only conclusion we can come to is that the Government are stale, old and weak and are giving their dying kick. The people will not look up to them for a lead. The only hope is to allow the people to elect another Government. This country needs a change of Government. If this Government cannot do anything more than keep bungling, they should make way for people who are prepared to do something definite to stave off a critical situation.
What else could we expect in a time of crisis when, over the past ten years, we had so much bungling and weakness on the part of this Government? They have demoralised all the people. They have given bribes and sops to some at the expenses of the more thrifty. To-day they have no more bribes or sops to give. The people they did give the bribes to during the past ten years are now seeking to get rid of the Government, because there is nothing more to be got from them. There is no sprit of Christian charity in the country; it has been killed through the bribes, sops and lies. The people have no confidence in the Government or in their next door neighbours. That is a poor state of affairs after the years we fought for Irish liberty.
It is sad to think that today we have in power a Government that have handed over everything worth while in the country to packs of gangsters, racketeers and black-marketeers. The Government have done very little to bring these people to book. There is hardly anything in the way of supplies that cannot be got in the black market. In the ordinary markets you can get very little. Are not the Government responsible for that condition of things? There was plenty of time two or three years ago to get in many of the commodities that we are short of now, but the Government sat tight and refused to do anything. We are really in a deplorable position and we are now more weak and humiliated because the Minister has stated that we have no bargaining powers. There is no hope unless the Government make some effort to deal with the racketeers.
What is the position in the country at the present time? On Saturday when the workers get their wages they have to go into the black market and pay 5/-, 10/- or 15/- for a pinch of tea. Their whole wages go in that way. At the same time we find the rich people with their larders full. They do not feel the pinch. The Government are simply winking at racketeering. The Government have had their day and the people are anxious that they should make room for someone who will be honest and sincere. The people do not believe that the Government are sincere and they will not tolerate them making mistakes day in and day out.
In the Department of Supplies we have a Minister who does not fit his job. In the first place he is a nagger and he has not trusted the people. Whenever he gives an Order it is given in a blustering manner, a manner which the people resent. The people want a decent lead and they do not like to be driven. It is not right to order them about. An Order is issued from the Minister's Department, the people try to comply with it and then they find it changed.
With regard to the supply of sugar for jam-making, the Department's Order has irritated a good many people. Particularly irritating is the form which has to be filled up. It seems that the Government do not trust the people. It is definitely implied in that Order that the people are not to be trusted, that the Government consider them deceitful. You have to go to a priest or a Civic Guard in order to have the certificate signed.
Why not be honest with the people as they were honest with the Government? Why not give them a few stones of sugar for jam-making without all this red-tape? The same applies to tea. Any man who wants tea can get it in most of the big shops and in plenty of the small shops if he pays the price of £1 per lb. for it. Why does the Government allow that? Is it not a fact that even the Civic Guards can walk into a shop and pay for their tea? Is it not a fact that every official knows that that racket is going on and does not know what to do about it? A few years ago some unfortunate men who called themselves Republicans were executed for stating that they wanted an Irish republic. Is it not time that these racketeers were put against a wall and executed for robbing the poor of our country? I think it is time that was done.
There is no use in calling ourselves a Christian people if we allow that sort of thing to happen. What will be the position in the future, as things get worse and worse? It would be far better for the Government to step out of the way and hand over the country to the racketeers if they do not make some earnest effort to give the decent people of this country a chance to live honestly, as they have always done.
We have heard in this House that those people who demonstrated in Dublin were sabteurs, that they were breaking the national spirit and should be dealt with. I say, "More power to the traders of this city who went out openely, as honest Irishmen, and demonstrated their grievances and who, by their lawful demonstration, succeeded in bringing the Minister to book." Would that our Irish farmers had the solidarity of these Dublin people and had done their duty to themselves in years gone by. They would have brought the Government to book, as the traders of Dublin brought the Minister to book, but, of course, the old spirit of disunity, that always defeated our people in the hour of victory, always seems to creep into the ranks of the Irish farmers. Now that the traders of Dublin have clearly proved their strength, I hope the Irish farmers will band themselves together and do for themselves what the traders of Dublin have done. Never before was the Minister brought to book in such a way as he was by that magnificent demonstration. If he should stage many more of these bungling Orders, I hope the traders will stage further lawful demonstrations.
In my opinion, we need some link between the Government and the people. There is no link between them at present. A few years ago we were asked to formulate parish councils. I believe they are one of the greatest assets in a time of crisis we could have in this country but, for some reason or other, the Government have deliberately shouldered these parish councils out of existence. They are allowing them to die a natural death in places and in many places do not want them to exist at all. If you want the Government and the people to work in harmony, you must revise these parish councils. The parish councils are representative of the people. In some ceases the clergyman is at the head of the council. Through the parish councils the whole community can be organised and can work harmoniously.
Why is it that the Government are deliberately allowing parish councils to die out? That is a question I would like answered. They will have a great deal to answer for if they allow them to die out because, as time goes on, we find people drifting away from the Government. What will be the ultimate result? It means that it will be very difficult in future to have lawful normal Government here. You will have all kinds of up-risings of people here and there, trying to create dictatorship. We know what dictatorship means. It may seem all right for a while but when you want to shake it off you are not able to do so. Many countries in Europe are groaning as a result of dictatorships and cannot do anything about it.
Is it possible that an Irish Government, elected by the people, will hand this country over to gangsterdom? I hope the Government will mend their ways. The people do not believe that the Government are sincere and they have a strong suspicion that the Government are partial to a foreign power. That is the general belief of most of the people I am in touch with to-day-that the Government are too friendly to a foreign power. The Minister for Supplies stated a few weeks ago that our bread supplies were secure again and that he would be able to increase the supply to the public. I would like to know from the Minister where he got that consignment of wheat which eased the situation. Is it true that it came from the British Government by way of barter— that he bartered some Irish products for wheat? I would like him to state in this House where it came from and not be conniving behind backs. Let him be straight with the public.
I do think that this country should have been on a definite war basis from the very first day hostilities broke out in Europe. It was put on a war basis as regards the Army, but why was it not put on a war basis in regard to food, tea, sugar, petrol and everything? Why was not a ration scheme put into operation the day war broke out? In that way everybody would have enough. I expect the Minister knows that in most of the large households throughout this country there is anything from 50 to 200 lbs. of tea, while the bog workers, and those who have to depend on their week's wages in many cases have to send their husbands and sons to the bog with dry bread and, in most cases, with no tea at all. Who is it that it is the duty of an Irish Government to look after but the needy and the weak and those who are unable to look after themselves? This Government seems always able to do something for the big fellow while saying they are the poor man's friends. I would ask the Minister for Supplies to realise that the people of this country of all Parties are disgusted with him because there was hardly an Order made by him which was not changed the day after it was made. I would ask him in future, before making these Orders, to consult the people concerned. After all, the people are the rulers, at least they should be, and the Government is only the voice of the people. The Government should realise that the people are not going to take things lying down. They have given their trust to the Government long enough but they are humiliated when they find in an hour of crisis that everythin is topsy-turvy and when a Government Minister says we have no bargaining power. As one who suffered as much as the next person, I feel ashamed that an Irish Minister should get up and say that we have no bargaining power, that we are at the mercy of our enemies. I say we are not at the mercy of anybody. We are at the mercy of a Government which will not do its duty. The Minister should withdraw these words so as to restore confidence to the people. It was always the cry of our enemies that they would have to come back to rule us because we were not able to rule ourselves. We have had ten years of rule by the second Irish Government and they have brought this country to a state of desperation, to the verge of bankruptcy. After doing that, they say, "we have no bargaining power; we are absolutely destitute." I was ashamed that a Minister of the Front Bench should say such a thing. I hope that, for saying such a thing, he will be humiliated and driven out of public life.
I wish to join with those Deputies who, though they afterwards became critical, in their opening remarks expressed appreciation of the extraordinary task that was given to the Minister in regard to the question of national supply. I also wish to join with those who paid a tribute to the courtesy and industry of the officials of the Minister's Department. I have to criticise the Department, but I want the Minister to understand that my criticism will have full regard to the mighty task he has on hands. I hope my criticism will be helpful and that it will be taken in that spirit. There has been a long debate on this Estimate and I have been wondering what was the conception and the function of the Department of Supplies. When the Central Bank Bill was before the House the proposal was to set up an institution which would be a bank for bankers. My conception of the duty of the Department of Supplies was that it would be a Department to act for the other Departments. Examination of its work shows that it has not worked out in that way. The Minister stated that we have no bargaining power. I hope he will take my comment on that in the proper spirit. Any Minister of a Department that would make a statement like that should resign. If the Minister's conception of the functions of his Department is different from mine then he should not resign. I suggest that it was unfair to set up a Department of Supplies and to put a man in charge of it unless he had the reputation of being able to handle it administratively. He should not, however, be put into an impossible position. At the start I think that such a Minister should have an examination made of the requirements of this country over a period and when that survey was available see where he could get supplies. The survey should be for a year ahead. If he could not get supplies within our shores then he should consider the question of getting them elsewhere and getting in reserves.
I regret very much that I was not in the House for the Minister's opening statement, but I listened in to what was sent over the air by the British Broadcasting Corporation and heard it stated that we had no bargaining power now, that we had not bacon and butter to meet our own requirements, and that if we sought an economic price for our cattle the British would not take them. Coupled with that statement we had the recent one from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance that the £170,000,000 the Irish people had invested in Great Britain could not buy anything. I suggest that if that is the true position confronting this country it is pretty well time to put up the shutters. What can we do if that is the true position? What is all the legislation for and what do all the motions on the Order Paper mean? Is it all so much smoke? If that is the position then we have failed and are bankrupt. The Minister said that we were building up credits; credits for what? What is the activity about the central bank for? What have we to bank? If the position is as stated I think we are in a deplorable way. We must take Ministers' statements as true. I am not a supporter of a national Government. I believe the statements that have been made by the Government. The country put in the present Government with a good majority and they have a mandate to govern. I believe they are right in telling the country, after ten years in office, that we have no bargaining power and that our foreign investments are gone. These investments represent profits made by the people generally during the last war and money invested by the landlord class when their estates were purchased by the tenants with money advanced by the Land Commission. That money was also put into foreign investments. These two items represent this nation's foreign investments. There will be no profits made during this war. The British can tell us that we have nothing to sell except cattle, and that if we do not sell at their price we can keep them. Is not that the positions? Is not that the sum and substances of the Minister's statement? I intended to say a good deal on this Estimate but, after the Minister's statement, I feel that I would be only beating the air and that I might as well go home.
I hope that the Minister may yet be able to explain away the implications of his statement. This Department is essentially one in which a business man must be in charge. The Minister has had a little experience of having bricks thrown at him. I am sure he was far-sighted enough, when he took on the Department of Supplies, to have made plans to deal with the food and the fuel situation. I do not know who would be fuel controller —I presume that office would have to do with industry but the Food Department would be the Ministry of Agriculture. The Minister should sectionise his own Department to deal with the food question. He should have a survey made and ascertain the food requirements for man and beast. He could, then, go to the Department of Agriculture and say: "I want that supplied by you." If he fell short of the food requirements of the people and he was asked to explain the shortage, he could say: "I am not the Minister for Agriculture; I am Minister for Supplies and I have done all I could do to get supplies. Here is a copy of the requisition which I sent to the Department of Agriculture for the necessary food." Has the Minister done that? A member of his own Party-Deputy Corry-made a good contribution to this debate. He told the House, as I have often told it before-I am glad Deputy Corry is coming round to a planning scheme what animal foods we imported before the war. He had an estimate of the foods that should be produced here to meet the deficiency caused by war conditions. He told us that feeding stuffs to the amount of about 500,000 tons were imported. He told us that, by the whole-wheat manufacture of flour, we lost about 100,000 tons of bran and pollard. I think that 200,000 tons would be nearer the mark. These two items, in addition to the feeding stuffs we grew here during peace times, constitute a specification which the Minister for Supplies should lay before the Department of Agriculture, telling them to produce that amount of food for live stock. Then, we had about 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. of our wheat requirements for human food. The balance was what was required to be produced here, and there was no safety line unless we set about producing all that human food.
I would exonerate the Minister for Supplies if he met the situation on these lines. If the Minister for Agriculture did not deliver the goods, it is he who would be responsible. But if the Minister for Supplies did not make that demand upon him, the Minister for Supplies would be responsible. If this nation were a business concern, is not that what the general manager would do? He would not condemn out of hand the man in charge of his supplies section. He would ask what steps he took to secure supplies. If he took the steps indicated by me, I, if I were general manager, would exonerate him. If he did not take these steps, he would not have done his job. The Minister for Supplies was aware that there was no planning on those lines. There were general appeals to grow more food. An appeal was stamped on every letter one got. But there was no planning, with the result that the bread supply was short. The Minister for Supplies was blamed and, if he did not make his demand on the Department of Agriculture, he was properly blamed. We are told that we have no bargaining power, that butter is short and that we have hardly enough bacon to meet our own requirements.
I am not one of those who will stand up and make any apology for the farmer growing the crops he wants to feed himself and his stock and feeding himself and his stock on them. If a man puts 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. of his land into wheat and places that wheat in the common pool for food for the nation, he has done his job and performed his duty to the nation. If he grows 5 per cent. to feed his cows and pigs, so that he may produce butter and bacon, he is entitled to do so and it is wrong to prosecute him. I make no apology for that statement. How are you going to get butter and bacon otherwise? I have heard apologies from both sides of the House in connection with this matter. Some of the Deputies went so far as to say that no farmer did it. Plenty of them did it but they did the other thing, too; they contributed their quota to the common pool.
If the Minister for Supplies demands the growing of sufficient wheat to give bread to the nation, there must also be sufficient crops grown to give food to the livestock of the nation. If he did that, there would be no need to prosecute anybody. If the job were handled properly, there would be enough wheat to give not only brown bread but white bread to the nation and, in addition, we would have those 200,000 tons of animal feeding stuffs that are going, in the shape of bran and pollard, into our flour. We could be feeding pigs with that bran and pollard, and these pigs would give us bacon. We could feed cows which would give us butter, and we would have butter and bacon as bargaining power with England.
At what price?
The day you are not able to produce against your competitor, you may give up, because there is something wrong. You are not as good a man as he is. I cannot labour that point because I should be out of order in doing so. The overhead charges on land are too high. They must be brought down if we are ever to produce goods which will give us the bargaining power which has been lost. To pursue that further, would be to step over the traces. I have the greatest respect for Deputy Allen's opinion, generally, on agricultural matters but what I have said in reply to him is worth thinking over. Is it not true that those two important commodities-bacon and butter—are disappearing? What steps has the Minister for Supplies taken to secure maintenance of these supplies?
That subject was debated very fully on the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Agriculture.
I am putting the matter from the point of view of supplies.
It is not permissible to have the same debate on two Estimates. If the Minister for Agriculture was held responsible in connection with this matter, then the Minister for Supplies cannot be held responsible.
The Minister made use of it in saying that we had lost our bargaining power.
The Minister has so stated in one sentence, but the Deputy may not continue to discuss agriculture as a consequence. It is established procedure that a Minister is responsible for his own Department only. The Minister for Agriculture is responsible for the production of pigs, for instance, and that production was debated on the Vote for Agriculture. Two Minister cannot be held responsible for the same thing.
I suggest that the Minister for Supplies was charged with the responsibility of getting supplies. The routine work of getting those supplies was a matter for the Minister for Agriculture. Has the Minister for Supplies made a demand and put a specification to the Minister of Agriculture, asking for those supplies? If he has not done that, he has failed; and it is no consolation to the nation to be told now that we have lost our bargaining power because we are not producing as much bacon as previously. Why have we not been? The Minister was charged with the duty of seeing that we would. I am afraid that he has failed and, in the absence of his showing that he made the demand and that the Department of Agriculture did not come up to scratch, he must take the responsibility.
I would also like to ask the Minister for Supplies if he really formed a true concept of the magnitude of this task. If he did especially under was conditions, I do not think he would retain either total or nominal responsibility for two Departments. Not only is this Department of Supplies in itself big enough for any man, no matter what his capacity, but it is too big; and the Minister should have obtained the assistance of a council of the best men he could pick from the various branches of our economic life. That would be of great help to him in surveying the requirements ahead. I do not know if he has done that: I have never heard of it; but, if he did, we could not be as short of everything as we are at present. Every commodity is short at present.
Has the Minister sufficiently considered our transport position? Probably we are approaching the time when there will be no petrol, and perhaps no kerosene either, and we will have to fall back on horse transport. I do not know how the railways will function then, though they are functioning very badly now and cannot be relied on. The feeding of the railways will fall back on the horses. How will we shoe the horses if we have no iron? The roads we have constructed are very good for motor traffic. Horses were adapted to them by a special method of shoeing with rubber pads, the stock of which is now nearly exhausted. Then the bare iron must go on these glass smooth roads. How will we carry loads on them? We are further threatened with the loss even of this iron. That has not been said by one or two Deputies only; it is a general shortage all over the country. Has the Minister thought of getting some enterprising smiths or ironworkers to start a factory for the manufacture of horseshoes? I am sure he knows very well that horseshoes were not made in the forge normally before this war. They were bought ready-made and adapted to the different horses by the smiths.
That was only in the city; it was not in the country.
In the country it is a bit of a holiday to go to the forge and have a smoke and a drink and spend half the day there while the smith is making a pair of shoes, and the time does not matter twopence.
It matters a lot.
It is very different in the city, where people are working to time.
The city is not the whole of Ireland.
They expect horses in at a certain time. Very often I got my horses shod in the city while the carts were being loaded around the corner. It is not a practical proposition for any man to send a couple of horses down to the forge in the morning and wait his turn while the smith hammers shoes out of new or old iron. If he did the horse-shoeing under those conditions for nothing, it would be very dear at the price, if the war goes on, we will inevitably be driven to horse transport, using rail transport as long as it lasts. Already we have run short of the rubber pads essential for horses travelling on main roads or tar-macadamised roads. They might do fairly well with iron on concrete roads, but if the iron runs out we cannot put them on the roads at all. Very few horses would be able to continue barefooted in tilling the land.
How long would our neutrality last under those circumstances? These are the questions we must ask ourselves we who are working the country. I heard an appeal made for Deputy Allen's industry. Am I right in saying to you, a Chinn Comhairle, and to Deputy Allen, that only one tractor mowing machine was made in Wexford this year?
That would be a matter for the Department of Industry and Commerce rather than for Supplies.
It was very important to me yesterday, when I broke the driving gear of my machine in the middle of a meadow. I could not get one to buy, and it was only by a mere accident that I got a part and was able to carry on. I could not buy a mowing machine anywhere. I hear that rakes and swath turners are very scarce.
As I see it, the Department of Supplies appears to think that its function is not so much to arrange ahead and to see that we have supplies, as to ration and handle supplies that happen to come in. That laissez faire method of doing business can only have one end: disaster. I think there should be planning in the Department of Supplies to make sure that the requirements of this country will be met, and that implements to meet them will be provide. The task of providing them is the responsibility of the Minister. The Minister knows, I am sure, that in addition to the collapse of the passenger traffic on the railways quite recently, goods traffic was stranded in the middle of nowhere. I do not know what remedy has been found for that yet. I think the Minister himself said in the course of the debate that there is shortage of rolling stock on the railways, and that has not been made good. Why is there not sufficient rolling stock on the railways to transport the produce of the harvest to places where it will be required when the season arrives? There is plenty of timber in the country to make trucks. Why were such trucks not made? The Minister knows that there is a shortage of trucks now, and that trucks are offered for the transport of certain commodities which are not suitable for such transport. Instead of facilitating the people, the Minister is facilitating the railways by allowing them to use trucks which are a danger to workmen, and he will not even ask the railway company why they have not suitable trucks.
The problem in this country now is one of providing food, fuel and raiment. I have seen no pronouncement from the Department that would lead us to believe that supplies of these essential commodities will be maintained— simply because of a lack of intelligent planning by the Department, or perhaps it is that the Department has a different conception of its functions from that which a proper Department of Supplies should have. Some time ago I heard the Minister explaining to the House that our normal consumption of petrol was about 44,000,000 gallons.
Last year, there were allotted to us by the companies 20,000,000 gallons. This year we are getting only 12,000,000 gallons. Is the Minister devoting these 12,000,000 gallons to the best purpose? Is he using it in the most economic way? Last year petrol was issued to draw turf 150 and 160 miles on a lorry. That could not be an economic proposition. This year petrol is being given to draw turf about the same distance. I understand that at this moment petrol is being used for the long distance transport of turf. Why are the railways not utilised for such work and the petrol kept for the transport of fuel which could be obtained within a short distance? The employment of a lorry to draw a load of about four tons of turf over 100 miles could never be an economic proposition during war or peace. I saw lorries carrying threequarter loads of turf to Dublin and returning empty. Why not use petrol for railhead work where long distances are involved and let the trains transport the fuel for the remainder of the journey?
The Minister in other cases wants to use the railways for short distance traffic. He is aware of a case I brought to his notice—and I believe there are other cases—where, by using the railway, twice the journey had to be covered and the motor lorries that were used to feed the railway were not worked to full capacity. I know a case where lorries have been allowed by the Minister to draw timber to railheads when the railway was able to transport timber only to a certain point, whereas if the lorries alone were used they could transport 60 or 70 per cent. more timber. In this time of shortage of transport, it is most important to use the petrol we have to the best advantage. Why is it used for purposes that curtail its efficiency? Why not get the maximum efficiency out of it? On the other hand, I saw Fuel Importers Limited motor lorries putting timber into a yard in Dun Laoghaire 300 yards or less from the railway. Why were not horses used to do that? Is it because it was Fuel Importers Limited that was concerned? I feel it is.
If we are going to use motor lorries to feed the railways, surely it is simply common sense, it is elementary business, to see that those lorries are so employed only when they will do more work than if they were trading direct. For instance, if a lorry feeding a railhead would transport more in a given time by road, then it should be put working by road. But that is not what is being done at the present time, or permitted to be done at the present time. According to the Turf Controller and the Taoiseach himself, the fuel problem in Dublin City and the Borough of Dun Laoghaire is one which causes uneasiness at the present time. Why then do we not make the most of the available means of transport? Surely it would be better to use our limited supplies of petrol for ten. 15, 20 and even 30 miles journeys than to waste it on 100 miles journeys? The shorter the run the more suitable the occasion for using petrol, leaving the long distances to be covered by the trains, if the trains prove effective.
Last year the Minister came to this House and asked for £2,000,000 subsidy for flour milling. I wonder is he going to repeat that this year? According to the data which he gave us last year, not only will he have to repeat it this year, but he will have to double or to trouble it. He told us that the reason for the £2,000,000 subsidy was the shortage of supplies, and the fact that he wanted to keep the 4 lb. loaf at 1/-. The cost of flour in 1940 was £5,700,000 or thereabout. Because of the increase in the price of wheat from 35/- to 40/-, there would be a rise of 2d. in the price of the 4 lb. loaf if it were not offset by a subsidy to the flour millers. I do not mean that that was something given to the flour millers as a present. It was to cover their extra costs of purchase. I am pretty well satisfied that the Minister's explanation of how that subsidy worked was substantially correct. That £2,000,000 was to make up the difference in the cost of wheat.
Is the £2,000,000 in this Vote?
Well, I think it is.
Would the Deputy indicate what item it comes under?
The Minister asked for the subsidy——
On this Vote?
He did it last year.
It is obvious that if the Minister has to answer for everything he did last year, the debate will be pretty long. Either it is in this Vote or it is not. If the Deputy alleges that another subsidy will be necessary, presumably the House will be asked for it and given an opportunity to debate it. The Deputy is either debating last year's subsidy, which does not come under this Vote, or making a prophecy that another subsidy will be required, and discussing it now.
Well, I presume that not only will a subsidy be asked for but that last year's figure will have to be doubled.
Will not the Deputy have an opportunity of debating it then? Surely it will come before the House?
On an occasion of this kind, when the whole Department of Supplies is being considered, I thought it would be in order to mention the subsidy introduced last year and passed by this House, as well as the subsidy which must be put up this year and must be passed by this House. Of course, Sir, if you say it is not in order I bow to your ruling. A statement was made here yesterday, by Deputy O'Higgins, I think, that prices were fixed at random, and that that eventually resulted in the soaring of prices. One particular line was mentioned by Deputy O'Higgins, and that was fire logs. I interjected at the time, and from inquiries which I have since made I find that Deputy O'Higgins was misinformed. At the time when the price was fixed by the Government, the prevailing prices charged by merchants, who sold by corporation weight-in other worlds, who gave a ton when a ton was bought and who supplied an article that gave satisfaction—were £3 5s. and £3 10s. per ton. Of my own knowledge, I knew yesterday that the price obtaining this year is £3 5s. a ton. Deputy O'Higgins, therefore, was misinformed.
I wonder what the Minister can do for the producers? Can those of us who are producing, and who represent a constituency that produces a good deal, hope for any help in the future from the Ministry of Supplies and the Government generally? I think I have contributed a little to the relief of unemployment which otherwise would be a tax on the Government. I did not do it for that reason. I did it for other reasons, but it worked out that way, and I wonder what help we will get from the Government in respect of food production? I and my neighbours in County Dublin, according to the area of their farms, put down a lot of winter wheat, but we could not get one cartridge all winter to shoot crows and sparrows. Why? We were confronted with that position when the wheat was germinated at its most delicate stage. Severe weather was holding it just where it was. There was very little food for crows, sparrows and pigeons at that time except the wheat, and they did not go hungry. Why is not some effort made to provide shotgun cart ridges? So bad was the position that several times I went to where I nor mally got my cartridges, and I found a notice on the counter: "No shotgun cartridge". They were asked by so many people for them, and having none, they thought it well to put that notice up.
How are we to produce food, and food to a fixed price, if we do not get the elementary facilities from the Government to protect the food crop? Is our Government so hopelessly negligent or impotent that it cannot manufacture a few shotgun cartridges to scare crows and vermin from our crops? It may be a smiling matter for the Minister, but it is not a smiling matter for the people who have sunk their money in this activity. The wheat crop now will be filling, and anybody going along the wheat field will see literally millions of sparrows on the ears, and there is nothing to scare them off. I should be glad if the Minister could tell me where I can get 50 or 100 cartridges.
I have close on 200 acres of wheat and oats. Am I to grow those crops for the sparrows and pigeons? Food production is contracting because of lack of such protection as I speak of. I and many others grew an enormous lot of vegetables every year, but we will grow no more after last year, because we grew them for hungry pigeons. I have been told, and there is probably something in it, that the bombing in England is driving many of them over here. All I know is that I and my neighbours are feeding them here because we cannot scare them off. Some protection should be given.
According to the Minister, we shall have to resort to every expedient in order to carry on in respect of food and fuel. We are in a comparatively good position this year compared with what the position will be in the years to come, and this war will not be over in a day or a week. Our transport system has broken down and I had one instance of that on 14th May, when I was rung by the Traffic Superintendent of the Great Southern Railways and told that timber which I had put on the railway at Newcastle, County Wicklow some days before could not be brought to Dublin because the goods train from the Enniscorthy had broken down at Ferns. He said they had cancelled the train for the next day and would send down an engine to clear the line as soon as they could get coal for it, but could not say when that would be.
That was the condition of the railway system on 14th May. There is every likelihood of the position becoming worse and of our having to use everything capable of being burned in order to provide fuel for Dublin City and the Borough of Dun Laoghaire. We shall have to burn the hedges and all nonessential woodwork, if we have not got the transport to bring turf to Dublin. Could the Minister guarantee a gross of axes in the City of Dublin for that work? Could he guarantee a gross of cross cuts and could he guarantee one file to sharpen a crosscut?
The Minister had hopelessly failed if he has not made a proper survey and ascertained the essentials and then made sure that the country has within it the requisites to work out those essentials. I can tell the Minister that if he gave £1—and it is a 6d. article in normal times—he will not get one crosscut file in any hardware shop in the city, and there was never such a demand for them. That auxiliary fuel for Dublin, fire-logs, depends on the tools but, above all, on the files to sharpen the tools, and they cannot be got.
What has the Minister done about it? What foresight has he shown. If the Minister said to those of us who are engaged in productive work and cannot get the facilities for doing that work: "We have not got them," as in the case of petrol, nobody could blame him. He has done his best in relation to petrol and the storage of petrol is a big problem for this country. If our supplies, which have been more or less of a hand to mouth kind, are curtailed, the Minister must make a survey and must curtail supplies. He must decide what are the essential services and conserve supplies for those services. I can understand that, but surely he knows, as we all know, that for a considerable time the real problem in regard to carrying on here has been transport, that the best use would have to be made of our transport and that any material near the big centres of consumption, in the event of the failure of the transport system, would have to be used. He should have had the foresight to see that there was a store of the necessaries to enable that local production to be carried on. I know that what I say is true.
I move to report progress.