As to the sub-heads F and G, which deal with the subsidy for flour and wheaten meal and the subsidy for bread, the figures given here for last year, namely, £550,000 and £80,000 respectively, do not agree with my recollection of the figures. I should like to know if the Minister could help me in understanding these figures. This year he is asking for £1,475,000 for the flour and wheaten meal subsidy and £170,000 for the bread subsidy. My recollection is that the Minister last year asked for £2,000,000. Was that £2,000,000 in excess of the £550,000 and the £80,000? Have any of these figures any relation to that £2,000,000?
Committee on Finance. - Vote 69—Office of the Minister for Supplies (Resumed).
Debate resumed on motion:—
That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.
Yes, certainly.
Why is the £550,000 not £2,000,000?
That is the amount that has to be voted in this financial year.
The amount to be voted in this financial year is £1,475,000. Last year it was £550,000. What about the £2,000,000 the Minister got before Christmas?
Roughly the cost of the subsidy is £2,000,000 in the year, less the Appropriations-in-Aid which are referred to in the footnotes to the Estimate. But the amount which is voted in a financial year has not necessarily any relationship to that, because the date from which the subsidy began did not coincide with the beginning of the financial year.
I quite understand now. I take it then that the money which will actually have to be spent will be considerably more than £1,475,000, if the figure representing the subsidy for last year was £550,000, and £2,000,000 had to be voted. But I am dealing more or less with the principle of the Vote rather than with the details of the money. Does the Minister realise that when he subsidises all flour in this lavish way he is making the taxpayer pay a considerable subsidy for the bread of the rich? Why should the bread of the rich be subsidised? Is the Department not able to devise a scheme which would subsidise the bread for the poor and make the rich pay the cost price of their bread and thereby reduce the subsidy considerably? I made a suggestion to the Minister when he asked for this subsidy by which he could do with a much lower subsidy. Last year when he asked for the subsidy he wanted 270,000 tons of wheat. If he subsidised half of the wheat with the £2,000,000, he could pay £3 a barrel to the wheat grower and at the same time reduce the price of the 4-lb. loaf by ½d. That would give a standard flour of 95 per cent. extraction. Let the other half be a flour of 70 per cent. extraction and you could charge the full cost for that flour. The price could then be stabilised. That was not done.
The price of wheat has this year been increased from 40/- to 50/- a barrel. The Minister gave us a reason for requiring a subsidy to stabilise the price of the 4-lb. loaf, with the extraction then existing, at 1/-. The reason was the increase in the price of wheat from 35/- to 40/- a barrel. If he did not get the subsidy, the price of the 4-lb. loaf would have to go up by 2d. On that basis of calculation the Minister will have to ask the House for a further subsidy of £4,000,000 in the coming year, or else raise the 4-lb. loaf. In other words, he will have to find a subsidy in the coming year, according to his own method of calculation, of £6,000,000, or else increase the price of the 4-lb. loaf to 1/6. I think some other remedy should be adopted.
The price of wheat now is 50/- a barrel. I am not going to discuss that price. I am going to make a brief reference to wheat from the point of view of supplies. There is one way in which to get an article, and that is to pay for its production. We have not sufficient wheat or oatmeal. Why? Because the growers are not adequately paid.
I do not blame the Minister for Supplies for not having flour and oatmeal on tap, as it were. What I blame him for is because he did not whip up the Minister for Agriculture and make sure that the Minister took the necessary steps to have sufficient wheat and oats to meet the nation's requirements. The key to the solution is price, and the Censor has been cutting that key out of every discussion that has taken place in relation to the production of food. To develop the question of price would not be relevant on this Estimate, and, therefore, I do not propose to do it.
The shortage of food is due entirely to the Government. They did not, as they claimed, offer a guaranteed price for the production of food. They fixed a controlled price. In effect, they said that the farmer and the farm labourer would not be paid any higher rate. An Order was made fixing wages. The lowest wage in the country is paid to the agricultural labourer. The people who are in the front line defending this country, and who, for some months to come, will have to work from 7 or 8 o'clock in the morning till 10 at night, must do so for the worst wage paid in the country. Their industry gives the least profit. Protected by the Censor, Ministers and their supporters——
The Minister is not responsible for the censorship, nor for the agricultural wage.
He is very much protected from the point of view of discussions outside. This morning I required electric power to milk my cows and I could not get it, because there is a shortage of coal. Notwithstanding all the hydro-electric schemes that we have, the great national assets we are told about—national crimes some might regard them as—notwithstanding all the efforts to harness water power in this country, half our electrical energy is produced at the Pigeon House from British coal. At the present time it is almost impossible to get a few units of electricity with which to milk cows, because of the coal shortage.
There was a great deal of talk last year to the effect that British wanted pit props, and there were discussions about exchanging pit props for coal. Was there any foundation for that? If there were such talks, to what degree were they successful? How did the British receive the proposal and, if there was any hope of making a bargain along those lines, why did the Government not try to clinch it? Thousands and probably millions of tons of our timber growing into old age, long past maturity, would suit for pit crops. When we get a chance of turning those props into money, exchanging them for the commodity we so sorely need, why was there not a determined effort made? I understand the British will take those pit crops if we supply them. If the Government will not consider this offer, will they leave it open, will they leave citizens free to approach the British, to make a private deal with them of pit crops against coal?
Last year at about this time every owner of a threshing set got a circular requesting him to look after his threshing set, to tune it up and have it ready for the harvest. A few days later a second circular arrived, and this was more in the nature of a command. Owners of threshing sets got busy and got the threshing sets ready. They never received another word until they saw in the first week in August an advertisement in the daily Press that there would be no coal for threshing. No explanation was given. Supplies failed. This year we are up against the same thing. Last year there was a considerable amount of coal in reserve which, with timber logs, saw us through. We have no coal now. Further, last year, the owner of threshing sets, who had to go from place to place to see how the work was being carried out, had a car for that purpose. He has no car this year. He may have a car in his garage but he has no petrol to drive it from place to place. People have been asked— and it is a national duty—to make every effort to provide the necessary supplies, particularly of food and fuel, and to relieve unemployment, but the Minister is responsible for an Order that no petrol will be given for the supervision of work. I wonder how the Minister thinks work will be carried on. What are employment schemes for? They generally represent a loss to the Government. Any county surveyor will say that it would be better, from an economic point of view, to give the men the money and not have them disorganising his work. People have got into the habit of using cars for supervising their work. When the car is taken away, the work cannot be supervised. I have a specific case in mind which I will deal with later.
The question of transport arises in every matter of supply that is discussed here. How is the Minister administering the transport that is available? I asked him on Friday why it is that some effort has not been made to construct additional railway trucks, in view of the fact that we have not enough railway trucks.
Would not that be a matter for the Minister for Industry and Commerce?
Yes, but in the handling of supplies a case was made that the bottle-neck of transport was impeding the provision of supplies. I only want to refer to it in passing. Why was not increased transport provided? This would be the way to provide it. Why is not proper use made of transport? Who on earth would think of sending an empty lorry to Galway for a load of turf? If you got the petrol for nothing it would not be a business proposition. Why were not enough trucks hitched on to the trains to bring the turf? It will never be known what the wet turf, brought from the midlands and the west last year, cost this country. If we have no bargaining power, it is the misuse of petrol and turf that is responsible. Why does the Minister not give ordinary fair play and facilities to private enterprise in providing fuel? It has transpired in the debates in this House in the course of the last week that for every ton of turf that comes into the City of Dublin the consumer has to pay £3 4/-. That is far above the economic price and far above its value. But, in addition to that, the State has to pay a subsidy of £1 1/-. The turf controller told us——
The Deputy surely does not purpose to reply now to a statement made concluding a four-days' debate!
No. I am just illustrating this to show its application to the question of transport.
The Deputy should be careful lest the illustrations obscure the text.
I will be very careful. For every ton of turf that comes in here a subsidy of £1 1s. has to be paid by the State. For every ton of wood fuel that comes into the city by private enterprise no £1 1s. has to be paid by the State. Therefore, every time the Minister can get in a ton of wood through private enterprise he is saving the Exchequer £1 1s. That being so, why on earth will he not give the same facilities to private enterprise that he is giving to Fuel Importers? Transport has been wasted in the last six months by the way it has been administered by the Minister and the Department. I have shown that four lorries, working with the railway, could transport from point to point only 40 tons of wood a day. The same four lorries, transporting direct over the same journey, could transport 64 tons a day cutting out the railway altogether. Is it that artificial respiration has to be applied to the railways so that they will produce a revenue at the expense of the business of the country? Surely ordinary business intelligence would divide transport under three headings: For very short journeys, horse transport would be employed; for medium distances, motor lorries and for long distances, rail transport, fed at the railheads by lorry or horse. But that is not done.
I am informed that we are down in our receipts of petrol this year up to date only one gallon in eight. For every eight gallons we had on this date last year we have got seven this year. What is happening it? The Minister should remember that people engaged in private enterprise have not a Government behind them. If they lose, they must bear the loss. The Minister knows that private individuals who employ the railway extensively, and who have been let down by the railway, cannot afford to employ the railway again. I was compelled by the Minister to use the railway for traffic. I received a 'phone call on the 14th of May that the railway system on the east coast had broken down, and they could not tell me what had happened my goods. I had between 30 and 40 wagons of timber on the railway. The first thing I had to do was to break the Minister's Order and use petrol to drive to the station where I loaded the timber, and I found them scattered a mile along the railway. They could not tell me when they could remove the timber. I paid my money to bring them to Dublin, and I could not receive payment until I had them at their destination. How was I to carry on? The Minister did not care. I wrote to the Department asking what was to be done in the circumstances when the railway was not able to do its job.
That was on the 14th May and on the 22nd I got a reply stating that the Department had been informed that the railway was now in a position to handle the traffic. I telephoned to the railway company and was informed that they had lorries to bring the stuff to the railhead but no trucks to transport it. I then asked the Department what was to be done and I was given petrol pro tem. I increased the output to over 150 tons a day, ten times as much as the railway station could handle. On June 19th I was informed that no more petrol would be given for direct transport. As a result, I would have to run the stuff around two sides of a triangle, a distance of 30 miles, which could be covered in 15 miles by the direct route. I was then informed by the railway company that all they had to offer was covered in trucks. Fancy asking men to load timber perhaps five feet long, and weighing five or six cwts. into covered trucks and to put it in through the doors and spread it. If they were not able to fit six tons into the trucks I would be charged for six tons. I had orders for 20,000 tons and if I could get the timber to Dublin it would be equivalent to a saving of 20,000 guineas to the Exchequer, because it would be at least as good as 20,000 tons of turf on each ton of which the Government pays a subsidy of one guinea. They would lose nothing on the wood. I am putting not alone my own case but the case of other people who had the enterprise to get timber cut down for the Dublin market, to meet the problem in the city and in Dun Laoghaire, which were threatened by the failure of supplies last winter. It is now acknowledged by the Government that there was a shortage of fuel in the city and county, but the Minister is making it impossible by his administration of the transport position to get in supplies.
If there is a certain quantity of petrol available it should be used on the most essential services. Take the allocation of petrol for the hauling of fuel to Dublin and Dun Laoghaire. If that petrol is used to haul turf a distance of 150 miles, is it not obvious that it will take ten times as much petrol to bring 1,000 tons or 100,000 tons than if the haul was only 15 miles? By what process does the Department give petrol for the hauling of turf 50 or 100 miles from Dublin and refuse petrol for the hauling of fire-logs 15 miles from Dun Laoghaire? The Government is, I submit, paying a subsidy of a guinea for the hauling of each ton of turf. This matter will not rest here. If there is not an equitable and business-like distribution of petrol I will put it before my constituents in Dun Laoghaire, and explain what the Department is doing. The present arrangement will not stand the searchlight of public opinion.
I have here Volume 87, No. 3, of the Parliamentary Debates. In columns 1455 and 1456 the Deputy made the same statements. In fact, he is now repeating himself almost verbatim.
Is it the speech that I made on Friday last?
On June 19th on Vote 67 (Employment Schemes).
I am dealing with the transport side now, and the use of petrol.
The Deputy stated on that occasion in column 1456:
"What case can the Government put up for refusing petrol to transport wood fuel into the City of Dublin from 15 miles outside?"
Again in column 1455:
"Will it not take four times as much petrol to transport a ton of fuel 100 miles as it would to transport it 25 miles?"
In the same column:
"Speaking for the Borough of Dun Laoghaire, which is in my constituency, and where I have distributed this year 4,000 tons of wood fuel...."
Exactly what the Deputy has been saying again. Really he should not repeat himself.
I forget what that debate was about.
Supposedly on turf.
I do not want to go further on that, but I respectfully submit that the question of the transport of turf and the use of petrol is fairly relevant.
We cannot have the same debate on both Votes.
All our national activities are built upon supplies of food and fuel, and the difficulty is created by the bottle-neck of transport. In a debate on this question transport, it seems to me, occupies the leading part. However, I will try to avoid any danger of repetition. I got a copy of my speech, so that I would keep away as much as possible from topics that I dealt with on the last occasion. I am afraid that in everything we touch transport seems to be the mill-stone, and we have to seek relief.
I find that the 27 Deputies who have participated in this debate avoided repeating what they said on the peat fuel Vote.
Of the 27 Deputies who spoke, not one of them has put a ton of fuel into Dublin. I have done so. My wages to workers in the wood last Friday were £300. I want to know if I and others are to be swept out of business who had the enterprise to undertake this work in Wicklow. When I took on the work I was promised petrol by the Department. I have the correspondence here. When I was unwell the petrol was withdrawn. At that time two syndicates of Jews wanted to buy me out. I was supposed to be dying at the time. I want to tell the Minister and the Jews that I will not be robbed. The Minister can laugh. I was producing fuel when he was on the racecourse enjoying himself.
Personalities are not relevant.
I wish to withdraw that remark, but it annoyed me to find people from the Holy Land trying to buy me out when it was thought that I was going to the Great Beyond. I will live to fight another day and I will carry this question to the crossroads if I do not get fair play. I am prepared to go to my constituency and to the country just as I was prepared to fight for it. We will see that those who are working will get fair play. I can give the Minister a list of the orders I have for 20,000 tons of fuel. That will save the Exchequer subsidies of £1/- per ton on turf. I do not want a trade loan guarantee or any other loan guarantee from the Minister. If we get a chance, we will put the fuel into Dublin. But the Minister has withdrawn the petrol allowance. Will he deny that? All the petrol I got for a van for the month of April was three gallons. I would not get petrol to go down to pay my men. I told them that they might expect the "sack" any day because I would not get petrol to bring the wood 15 miles. We cannot execute all the orders which are waiting. The Minister will not allow us petrol and he is giving petrol to haul turf, which is costing the State £1 1/- a ton, over 100 miles. How many lorries are bringing turf from Kinnegad here? I have a letter from the railway company saying that they can give only covered wagons for this purpose. Will Deputy Hickey, as representing labour, say that men should be asked to load logs of four and five cwts. through a door and into a covered wagon? I will not ask them to do that and I told the Minister so. The railway is not able to handle the amount of stuff, but no consideration will be given to us. Immediately I got the letter, I replied, on the 20th of this month, but I have got no answer yet. Why? The Minister comes in here and asks for hundreds of thousands of pounds on this Estimate. For what? To stop production.
Is there any service for which an adequate allowance of petrol should be more readily made than supervising essential work? The essential works of to-day are fuel production and food production. The Minister will not give any petrol for supervising work. My activities in fuel and food production range over 30 miles, but he will not give me an allowance of petrol. The fellow I had supervising my work was supervising it for himself. The Guards got on to him and he had to be charged. He was let out under the First Offenders Act instead of being dumped into the sea. You can be wronged, and, in the present wave of dishonesty, anybody who leaves his work to others is a fool for himself. Will the Minister tell us what is more necessary than a car and petrol for the supervision of work? If it were not for the facilities afforded by the motor car, many men could not have developed their business to the extent they did. If the car be taken away from them now, these men will be bankrupt. As soon as I get into a secure position, I shall stop if I do not get sufficient petrol. How am I to get down to the Glens of Wicklow to pay men if I do not get petrol?
I asked specifically for an allowance of petrol to pay the men and I would not get it. Others are in the same position. If there is no petrol there, we cannot expect it but, to the extent that it is there, it should be available for food and fuel production as it is for other essential services. To refuse petrol for supervision of essential work shows a lack of appreciation and a lack of knowledge of the economic working of the country. On what grounds has the Minister made that hard and fast order? I read in the paper a couple of days ago that there would be no petrol for light vans after the 1st August. Why? Surely the production of food and fuel is most important for the public health of the country. The men looking after food and fuel production are as much entitled to petrol as—I do not say they are more entitled than—doctors. The day you have to stop that allowance you are finished, because you must have nothing left. Without supervision, work can only be carried on at a loss. It must stop when the capital comes to an end.
I am speaking for practically the business and farming community of County Dublin. They have not briefed me to do so nor did they know that I was going to speak. But their activities are my activities and the problems I have they have. The Minister in allocating his petrol should have regard to the efficiency of the results. He should ask himself whether the way it is proposed to apply it is the best way to secure maximum results. If he can show that his method was the best method for getting work done, I will agree that he was right. If I were in his position, I should have regard to the test as to what could be got out of transport in the shortest possible time. I have examined the question from all angles and I cannot see anything but waste. I have seen six motor lorries hauling timber about 300 yards from a dump to the railway. Why were not horses at that work? Then, the Minister goes to the other extreme and lets out petrol for transport over a distance of 150 miles. Why is not the train used in that case? The trouble is that we have failed to produce the freight that will pay the railway companies. Why is not freight put on in an economic way? I have had good reason to examine the question as to how railways are administered.
There were times when I put 60 and 70 tons a day on the railway and I know the lack of facilities. I know what you are expected to pay, and how and when you are expected to pay. No system in the world could continue in that way. Before the Minister is called upon to make another opening speech on an Estimate, before he throws out the doleful story that he did last week, telling us that our bargaining power is gone, before we are entirely bankrupt and before everything, even hope, is lost, the Minister should try to obtain the supplies needed for the nation and then he should administer them in the most economic and beneficial way possible.
At the beginning of his speech Deputy Belton made a rather sneering reference, in connection with the production of electricity, to what he described as our national asset, so-called, but what he would call our national crime. I wonder what he meant by that. The greatest national asset we have is the Shannon Scheme. There are thousands—perhaps tens of thousands—in employment to-day who would not be in that employment if the Shannon Scheme were not there. The Deputy knows better than I do that there are dozens of industries totally dependent on power from the Shannon Scheme, not to talk about the use of that current for heating, cooking, lighting and so on. I must confess I find it impossible to understand that Deputy's reason for referring to our electricity scheme in that way.
I did not mention it. I doubt if I would be in order.
The Deputy referred to what was called the national asset, but which he preferred to call the national crime. I took down the Deputy's words at the time. The only and greatest national asset we have to-day—and thank God for it—is the Shannon Scheme; and there are tens of thousands of our people who can thank the Shannon Scheme for their being in work and in receipt of wages to-day.
I find myself in agreement with a good deal of what Deputy Belton stated; but I am concerned with what is, perhaps, the greatest difficulty facing the Minister. I realise that he has a very limited amount of petrol, and I am concerned as to whether sufficient petrol will be available for the motor transport of this year's harvest. If he can tell us, he should do so now. That is a far bigger and more important problem than the one of fuel, to which Deputy Belton referred. In saying that, I am not seeking in any way to underestimate the importance of fuel transport. We have been told down the country that petrol will not be made available for the cartage of wheat and other cereals from the farmyard to the store, railway or canal— that the farmers will have to provide the horse traffic for that. I hope that is not the position, as that would mean that the harvest would not be delivered by the following March and, further, that there would be a considerable loss of wheat.
From practical experience, I can tell the Minister that last year—which was not by any means a bad harvest year, from the point of view of weather conditions—wheat was delivered into stores and had to be taken out of the bags within 24 hours and put on the kilns and dried. Farmers have not the facilities to-day for storing corn which they had years ago. They have not the same number of horses and carts for transporting grain and they are not in a position to have their horses shod so as to enable them to cart corn on the roads with safety. Unless the corn produced in the coming harvest is removed from the farmsteads to the stores in the shortage possible space of time, it is conceivable that 20 per cent. of the harvest will be lost—and I am not over-stating it when I say 20 per cent.
There is a further problem, of which the Minister will realise the importance, as readily as anyone in this House— it is the question of sacks. The rapidity with which one can transport corn from the farmer's haggard to the store, railway or canal—but particularly the store—will have a tremendous bearing on the number of sacks required. In recent years, farmers have got into the habit—which is fairly general, especially in big tillage areas —of getting sacks from the purchasers and threshing the corn into the sacks, thereby cutting out all the labour of removing it into barns, spreading it and re-sacking it afterwards. If corn under certain conditions is put into sacks and left there for four or five days—if confined to horse transport it may be two or three weeks—not only will the corn rot but the sacks will rot also. I suggest that that is the most important matter which should command the Minister's attention at the moment, and that he should make a clear statement upon it as soon as possible.
The Minister himself referred to the question of binder twine, which is a very important matter. I am afraid that, like the Minister, I am being very optimistic when I hope that the Minister's statement—that he believes there will be sufficient binder twine for the coming harvest—is correct. I doubt very much if that will be so.
There is none available for tying straw.
Mr. Morrissey
What I do know is— and I daresay other Deputies are aware of the same thing—that within the last year and a half, tons upon tons of binder twine have been used for tying down ricks of turf in the bogs and that should not have been allowed. I must confess that sometimes it is almost impossible to understand by what rule the Department works. Let me give a case in point. In my constituency there is a gentleman who buys, stores and dries a very considerable amount of wheat. As a matter of fact, last year, he stored and dried something in the neighbourhood of 14,000 barrels of wheat. Coal is required for that purpose. He secured 150 tons of coal. He got it as far as his home railway station, but he would not be granted a permit for it. The coal was sent on to Limerick and given to somebody else. That man is now facing next harvest and he is expected to take in, store and dry from 14,000 to 20,000 barrels of wheat. Although he succeeded in securing the steam coal required for that purpose, he was not allowed to take it into stock. There may be an explanation for that but it is very difficult, if not impossible, to say what the explanation can be. One of our greatest problems in the event of our getting a wet harvest will be the drying of wheat. Our drying facilities in this country are not at all adequate to meet our requirements. They were not adequate to meet the requirements of last year or the year before and far less are they adequate to meet the enormously increased acreage of wheat which I am glad to say we have this year.
There are, of course, a great number of matters that one might speak about in connection with supplies but I do not want to go into them now. I do say to the Minister, however, that his greatest concern at the moment—and he has many important matters as Minister with which to concern himself —is the securing of the coming harvest. I hope that when he is replying he will be able to give us some indication as to the question of utilising motor transport for the transport of corn in the coming harvest. The Minister in the course of his speech said that everything in the future depends on getting in early in the next harvest the full quantity required for the ensuing year. That is what is troubling everybody in this country who knows anything about the wheat position will be, not this year, but in the year 1943, because of the shortage of manures. The amount of manured ground that will be available for corn next year will be very small. The acreage of roots in this country must be down by almost half. You are not going to get wheat or a good yield where you have a second, a third and, in some cases, a fourth crop of corn sown on the same soil.
Those who are in a position to know something about this matter are concerned almost to the point of alarm about the wheat prospects for 1943. We have a very big acreage this year. Unquestionably the farmers responded in a magnificent way to the call to sow more wheat, very many of them under great difficulties. Mind you, people are not at all satisfied, so far as one can judge up to date, that the increased yield will be in proportion to the increase in acreage over last year. Nobody, of course, can say that for certain at present, but, as I say, as far as can be judged from present indications, unless in some way or another we can secure greatly increased imports of wheat, it is difficult to see how even by increasing very substantially the acreage under tillage, we shall be able to get as much wheat produced in 1943 as will be produced in 1942. The farmers cannot do it. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that at the present time people are being charged by certain individuals who are trafficking in artificials, £6 to £7 10/- per bag for sulphate of ammonia.
Nobody is able to offer it except those people who are trafficking in it at that price.
Mr. Morrissey
That is the point I am putting to the Minister. No matter how anxious or how desirable a farmer may be to respond to the call to grow more food, he could not do it if he is charged £7 or £7 10s. per bag for sulphate of ammonia. It is a fact that the amount of artificial manure which the ordinary small tillage farmer was able to procure through the ordinary trade channels this year was from two to five bags. I speak now of the small tillage farmer, the man who is producing the wheat, the potatoes and the other items that go to make up our food requirements. That is another problem for the Minister. I know it is a difficult problem. I know that at the moment it is probably impossible to secure any greater supplies of artificial manures but farmers should be told, not next spring, but before next October, what are the prospects, if any, of securing artificial manures for the year 1943 and what amount will be available. Unless farmers are told that, unless the price to be charged is announced early, they cannot plan the laying out of their farms intelligently so as to get the maximum benefit from them for the country. Government Departments ought to be able to make up their minds on these matters in October almost as easily as in December, January or February. The two points which I have made seem to me to be the most important and the most urgent with which we have to deal. I put these two questions to the Minister in the hope that he will be able to give the necessary information to the House and to the country —firstly, the question of transport for this year's harvest and secondly, the prospects of securing artificial manures for next year.
When discussing the Minister's Department in this House last March, I made a statement about a quantity of thread that was imported into Cork. Evidently on that occasion a wrong impression was created in the minds of certain members who could not understand why thread should be imported into Cork and not released for use. What was imported at that time was knitting yarn, not thread. I therefore take this opportunity of correcting the statement I made on that occasion so that there will be no misunderstanding as to what was said. Having done that I should like to say that I was somewhat surprised that the amount of knitting yarn, which on that occasion was in the Cork stores, could not have been released without injury to anybody in the country, or to anybody outside the country who would give us the supplies. The Minister on that occasion said that the supply from the local manufacturers was adequate. My experience—and I am prepared to believe the statement made by the people who imported this knitting yarn, to the value of £36 8s., and had it in the stores in Cork for over three months—is that they could not get that supply from any other person who had a licence to import this knitting yarn. After three months in the stores in Cork that knitting yarn had to be sent back to Manchester. The Minister claimed on that occasion that it was in the national interest to send back that yarn rather than that it should be used in the country.
It was replaced with industrial yarn.
I am not trying to get away from any Orders or regulations, but I have in mind the amount of stuff we are sending out of the country and the amount we are getting back in return. We are sending out from Cork port alone 140 tons of wool, but a quantity of knitting yarn which had been imported into Cork and had been in the stores for three months had to be sent back to the English firm in the national interest.
The Deputy understands that the British have fixed a definite quantity of yarn which we can import?
I realise that, but I feel that a little more consideration should be given to local effort to get things into the country. As I said, I am not trying to cut across any rules or regulations. There is one other thing which I should like to point out on the question of supplies and that is in connection with the goods our ships are bringing to the ports. I noticed that the few ships which came into Cork during the past couple of months —I was glad to see our own ships arriving there—had rather big consignments of tobacco. Having some knowledge of the cubic space which tobacco can take in a ship, and having ascertained the number of tons of tobacco in those cargoes, I think we could very easily have brought in 2,000 tons of grain instead. Is it not more advisable to bring in a couple of thousand tons of grain than to bring in those large quantities of tobacco?
Mr. Morrissey
There is more revenue out of the tobacco.
But there are more important things to be considered. I should like the Minister to look into that matter. I agree with Deputy Belton that, in order to get an article, you must pay for the production of it. I do not entirely blame the Minister, because he is caught up in the actions of other Ministers of Government— such as the Minister for Finance—who are responsible for paying for the production of food. But I think it is a terrible state of affairs in an agricultural country like this that we cannot get oatmeal at the moment. Last year, the Minister was urged that there should be some effort made to give a guaranteed price for oats, so that at least the people would have a sufficient supply of oatmeal. I think everybody will agree that if we had a sufficient supply of oatmeal the people would not be badly off; there would be no fear of their being hungry. I think the Minister has some correspondence from me in regard to the question of the price of oatmeal. People came to me complaining about the price they were charged, and in order to satisfy myself I sent out to a particular shop for 2 lbs. of oatmeal. One person told me that he had paid a shilling for it the previous Saturday. I sent out on Monday morning and got a receipt for 1/2 for 2 lbs. I sent to a second shop and got a packet of oatmeal at the rate of sixpence per lb. I sent to a third shop and got 2 lbs. at 4d. a lb., which is the controlled price. I sent all those items to the Minister, and after a period of five or six weeks I got a letter back to say that if I submitted the receipts to the particular shop I would get a refund of 2½d. charged extra for the meal. That is not the way to deal with people of that kind. They should be taken to court and severely punished.
On another occasion I wrote to the Minister's Department about the price charged for coal. In Cork up to last Christmas the price of coal was 4/9 a bag, and immediately after Christmas the price was increased by 10d. I wrote to the Minister's Department asking the reason for the increase, and was told that on that cargo of coal an increased freight had been paid. I cannot understand how a man could say he paid extra freight on that coal, seeing that another cargo came in afterwards and the price was not increased. All those things can be abused. I am not ignoring the Minister's difficulties in dealing with those matters, but I say that those people are not treated with sufficient severity. That is what I am complaining about.
Deputy Belton also spoke about electricity and its relationship to coal. I have often wondered what efforts are being made to get supplies of coal from our own mines. Is there a real effort being made at the moment to work our own mines to the full extent? I should like the Minister to tell us the number of men who are engaged in the Castlecomer mines now as compared with 1938. I am informed that there is a smaller number now than in 1939. All along from Cork to Dublin there are loads of coal refuse at the sides of the railway lines. If that were coal from our own mines, I can imagine what an outcry there would be. I think the coal from our own mines would be very bad if it were not as good as some of the stuff for which we are paying £4 or £4 10/- a ton. I would suggest to the Minister that he should try to get an increased number of men working in our own mines, producing coal for electricity.
On the point mentioned by Deputy Morrissey in regard to our supply of wheat for 1943, I should like to say that there is a lot of good land in the country which has never been tapped for wheat growing. I happened to be in Limerick during the past fortnight, and in West Waterford at a later period, and I was surprised to see the amount of good land which has not yet been used for the growing of wheat, barley or oats, while poor land in other parts of the country is being tilled by small farmers. I think there is too much talk about the land not being able to grow wheat. It is a question of getting the people to till more of the good land.
It is not so simple as all that.
Because the people of this country have been given the idea that the land will not grow wheat, we have not sufficient oatmeal at the moment.
Oh, no. The reason is that they were not paid the price for it.
The same applies to the production of our own coal. The wages of our coal miners have not yet reached a minimum of £3 per week, under the most wretched conditions. They are not even guaranteed 1/- per shift, while in England the miners are guaranteed £4 3s. per week with a guarantee of 2/6 per shift. Those are matters with which the Minister should be concerned. What is the use of talking about cost if we have not food to eat or coal to keep the people from shivering. These are matters on which the Minister should take a much stronger and a much bolder line than that he is taking at the moment.
Deputy Morrissey referred to the matter which was uppermost in my mind, that is, the question of the 1943 production. Deputy Hickey also referred to it and to the area of good land still untapped. I agree that there is a big area of land which might be wheat-growing land in the course of the next two or three years—land such as that in the Golden Vale, which has not been tilled for generations—but that land will not produce wheat this year, next year or possibly the year after. It may produce wheat the year after next, but it is doubtful if it will produce it next year. If we have to face the present situation for a number of years, it will be necessary for us to go back into these areas which have been untapped and which have not been tilled for generations, because we who have been in intensive production in the tillage areas for generations will have to give up.
This year, I see very good crops of wheat, very indifferent crops of wheat, and some crops a complete failure. I do not know what are the causes of those failures. I have seen wheat failing with farmers who have good land and who have a tradition of producing good wheat. In that case, I think the cause is bad seed. I am afraid that seed which had become heated was sent out and that whatever Department was responsible for sending out seed wheat last year was indifferent as to its germination quality. When I see wheat failing with a farmer who has a good growing tradition and who has a full knowledge of how to do it, the only conclusion I can come to is that it is due to bad seed, and I urge on the Minister to see that, in respect of the 1943 production, all the seed wheat sent out will be tested for germination, and that that seed which is 75 or 80 per cent., and, in this case I speak of, of less than 50 per cent., will be used for the purposes for which it is specially suited and not for production.
With regard to the production of 1943 of cereals and beet, there is one thing which, speaking for my own area and for all the tillage areas, as I know them, will hamper us in the matter of production. That is the lack of artificial manures. I do not know how the Minister proposes to meet the situation. There is no good in criticising him for his neglect or for his failure to do so-and-so in the past. What we are all here for is to try to solve the problem of meeting production in the years to come. I for one would go very far, and in fact I would crawl on my knees to anybody and everybody who had it in any country in the world, to get those artificial manures.
The Minister may point to lack of shipping, but we have a reasonably good prospect of a good harvest this year, and the Minister in his statement said that we have a sufficiency of wheat to carry us up to August 15th. Judging by the harvest as it appears at the moment, we shall have good deal of wheat in stook, in stack and possibly threshed by that date. If that be so, and if the harvest turns out to be reasonably good, as I expect it will, we shall have a sufficiency of wheat to meet our requirements for next winter and until the 1943 production comes in, so that you can use your shipping space to bring in rock phosphate, if it can be got anywhere, or to bring in what, in my young days, was the only artificial manure we had, that is, red or Peruvian guano. So far as I am aware, Peru is not in the war and that guano must be on the rocks along its coasts. Our boats could go there and bring it back. That was a most valuable manure because it was a complete manure, containing all three constituents: nitrogen, phosphate and potash. In my young days, it sold at about 10/- a cwt. which was very dear at that time, but, because it was very valuable, it was used.
We could do without a lot of other things because we can produce the four or five essentials here, if we get the manures—beet for sugar and cattle feeding, wheat, oats and barley and the other root crops such as potatoes —and we cannot produce these, if we do not get artificial manures. Farmyard manure in itself is not sufficient, and, as I have said, I would crawl on my knees to any part of the world, if I thought that, by doing so, artificial manures would be brought into the country in sufficient quantity to enable us to produce.
We can produce these four or five essential commodities, these commodities which the people want, if we get these manures, but, if we do not get them, we intensive tillage farmers will have to go out of production, and it will be necessary to open up the virgin soils of the midland counties and the Golden Vale. It will be a long time before they reach the level of production which we with a tillage tradition behind us, a tradition of good production, have reached.
Another matter in respect of the production of essentials in which sufficient interest is not being taken is the value of sea-sand and seaweed. I am sick of mentioning this matter and the House is sick of hearing it, but I want to risk mentioning it again, with a view to getting the Minister to make sea-sand and seaweed available throughout the country. The Minister has said that transport is the difficulty. It is more important to conserve petrol for the transport of sea-sand and seaweed than that it should be used in the taxis—I am not decrying horse-racing; it possibly gives a good deal of employment, but I do not think it is anything like as important as the production of food for the people in a crisis such as the present crisis—which I saw at Limerick Junction on my way to Dublin yesterday. These taxis were waiting for an hour or an hour and a half before racing started. They were there in large numbers and some had possibly travelled long distances. Taxis are also used by people going to the dog tracks, and I think that taxis for such uses should be cut out completely and the petrol supply conserved for the production of the necessaries of life for the people in the years to come. Although it is not a very popular thing to suggest that people should be stopped going to dog-racing tracks and to horse-racing, I say it, and, if I were Minister, I would do it so that petrol would be available for the production of essentials. So long as this abuse of petrol—because it is an abuse—goes on, why should we be killing ourselves in our efforts to produce while others have all the fun?
Another instance of what we who are in production are up against—I mentioned this matter last year and the situation has very much worsened since—is the scarcity of iron and of nails. Horse traffic is the order of the day and we cannot get iron or nails for shoes for horses. The iron is almost impossible to get and when it is possible to get it, the price is prohibitive for a farmer. A charge of 12/- or 14/- for the making and putting on of a set of shoes is a very high price. I do not know how the Minister proposes to face that problem, in view of the fact that there is no iron available, but I want to ask why are the Haulbowline foundries, which were functioning for some time, not working now. What quibble is there between some Department, the banks and the people who worked that foundry? Whatever it is, it should be brushed aside immediately. Whatever it is going to cost, get rid of it, and get the Haulbowline foundry working. Get it into production, and let us not be in the position of having horse-carts on the road without bands on their wheels. Get that foundry into production so that our horses and carts can deal with the haulage problems that are confronting us.
I should like to refer also to the situation that will be facing us in the coming harvest. I think we should have some pronouncement from the Minister as to where we stand in the matter of supplies of kerosene for tractors to reap the harvest. I am afraid that there has been some abuse in connection with kerosene supplies in some cases, and I am sure that it must have reached the ears of the Minister and his Department. I myself know of some abuses that occurred, which have not been remedied, and I think they should have reached the ears of the Department and should have been remedied by now. If there was any possibility of getting a sufficient supply of kerosene, there would not be much difficulty about harvesting operations, because almost any kind of turf would do for use in a threshing set. You do not need to have really good turf: any kind of turf, ordinary top of the bog stuff— spadach, if you like—would do, but it is absolutely essential to have a sufficient supply of paraffin if you want to get the threshing done. I hope that such abuses as exist, in connection with kerosene, will be remedied.
In that regard, can the Minister hold out any hope for poor fellows, like a lot of us Deputies and others who live in the country, who are not in touch with the Shannon scheme, and have no facilities for light in the winter months? Are we to have as black a winter as we had last year, or is it going to be blacker than the winter of last year? Will we get a larger supply-of paraffin, or will we get even the gallon per month that we got last year? I saw a reference in the Press to-day to that particular matter, and the point I want to stress is that it is a very serious matter for children who have home lessons to learn. There is a very big number of books to be learned nowadays, and to be learned in both languages, and the children find it very difficult to get through their home lessons, in present circumstances, so as to be able to face school the next day. I should like to know what our position is in that regard: whether we will get even as much as we got last year, or whether we will be worse off than we were last year. I hope that the position may be bettered.
I should also like to refer to the matter of the rationing of tea and sugar. I have knowledge of cases—and they have been with the Department for about a month or six weeks, and some of them for two months—where people down the country are unable to get their ration of tea or sugar from the merchants with whom they are registered. It seems to me that there is no reason why such a case as that should not be remedied the moment the Department is notified. I have a case here of a person with two young children—two babies—in the house, and they have not had any sugar for two months. They have been applying, in connection with the case, for almost six weeks, and yet these little babies have not got a grain of sugar. The dealer, in this case, says that he cannot get his supply from his wholesaler, and the wholesaler is waiting for an order from the Department. Now, if that is the case, and if the rationing system is not yet properly established and the wholesaler cannot distribute the ration of sugar to the shopkeeper, there must be something wrong somewhere. Either the Department or somebody else is at fault, and I think it is about time that this rationing system should be working more smoothly. I do not see any reason for a delay of that kind, or any reason why any person of that sort should not be able to get a ration of sugar or tea. The scheme has been working so long now that I cannot understand why it should not be going on more smoothly, and in a case of this sort I think that an order should be sent out immediately to the wholesaler to deliver such-and-such a ration to the shopkeeper so that each individual consumer of that shopkeeper would be supplied. As I have said, the scheme has been going on sufficiently long now to ensure its smooth working, and I hope that there will be no further delays in cases of that sort.
In that connection, I very much fear that the home supply of sugar will be down this year. The beet crop is not promising and the acreage is very much down. Whatever rationing scheme may be devised, I think it would be wise for the Minister to see to this matter in time, and not wait until our supplies of sugar are exhausted, and then spring it on us that the supply is down. Undoubtedly, the acreage is down this year and the crop is not as promising as it was last year or for some years before. I understand that there is a 50 per cent. reduction in the acreage under beet, and I do not know what the sugar content will be. In those circumstances, and in view of this fact that a further reduction in the sugar ration may be necessary in order to conserve our supplies of sugar, perhaps the Minister would take the advice of other people and try to get in supplies of artificial manures, sand, and seaweed. I hope the Minister will take to heart the advice that we have given him in that connection, because we are only anxious to help him and the country in every way, feeling keenly, as we do, what everyone of us is up against, and I hope that anything I have said will be taken by the Minister in that spirit.
My intervention in this debate will be very short, because I realise that it should come to an end some time. Much criticism has been levelled against the Department of Supplies—some of it fair enough, and more of it, I think, unfair enough, because my experience of the Department of Supplies is that if one has a complaint to make, that complaint is investigated. Of course, the machinery is such that it takes some time before these complaints can be fully investigated, and in that respect, naturally, Deputies themselves can play a very important part, because they know the way to go about these things and they should be able to get to the root of the complaints. I have much sympathy with Deputy O'Donovan in what he said about the shortage of tea and sugar, because I have had the same experience myself in North Krry. I do not ascribe it to any carelessness on the part of the Minister or the Department, but just to an unfortunate circumstance. It happened, I believe, that some of the retailers there had tea in stock in the early stages and got rid of it in, perhaps, larger quantities than they should have. That operated all round. In one particular parish I found that every trader was short of tea, and that nobody in the parish was getting the ration of half-an-ounce. I am sure that matter is on the way towards being rectified. That is due to the fact that the officials responsible in the Department of Supplies went all out to get to the root of the thing. I, myself, did my best to assist them.
I was surprised to hear Deputy Belton accuse the Government of being responsible for a shortage of food. As a matter of fact, if there is one thing more than another that can be said in favour of the Government it is that they have been responsible for the position by which there is more food available than would have been the case were it not for their efforts. The Government's self-sufficiency policy has been criticised, but it is now bearing fruit. We never expected that it would be possible to have 100 per cent. self-sufficiency. Our ambition was to reach a position whereby we would not be entirely dependent on supplies from outside, and that is the position to-day.
We are entirely dependent on them at the moment.
Not entirely.
Absolutely. I do not mind, so long as we have them.
We are not dependent on outside sources of supply for our bread.
We are, of course.
That is nonsense.
It is not. It is the Deputy's ignorance.
Why then have we all the talk about growing wheat in the country? What are the farmers doing this year, and what did they do last year?
I leave it to the Deputy to talk that over with the Minister.
Are we dependent on outside sources of supply for boots and shoes?
Very largely.
Are we dependent on outside sources for our supplies of clothing?
To a very large extent.
I should say to a very small extent. The Government's tariff policy has been criticised in this House time and time again, but were it not for the tariff policy that the Government carried out the position that I have described would not obtain in the country to-day.
Is this an election speech? We must be going to have the general election that we hear so much about.
Deputy Kissane should be allowed to proceed without interruption.
Deputy Belton referred to the coal position, and said that because of the shortage of coal he was not able to have his cows milked by electric power. Everybody knows that there is a coal shortage, and that if it were possible to get additional supplies they should be made available, first of all, for the railways. My chief purpose in speaking on the Estimate is to compliment the Department of Supplies on their efficient administration and above all to congratulate them on the use they make of the Irish language for the transaction of their business.
That will not help to bring very much turf to the city.
It is a matter of very great satisfaction to us to find that when we go to the Department we can transact our business there just as efficiently through the medium of the Irish language as through the use of the English language. When I have business to do I am going to do it through the Irish language if I find that there are people who can use the language with me. If one finds that he can do his business—public business or private business—with people who have a knowledge of the Irish language, then why not give a preference to our national language?
If the Deputy had any business to do with the Department it is bad language he would be using.
You can use bad language in Irish too. There is another matter that I desire to bring to the Minister's notice. I find that some married men have been brought up from the country to the Department of Supplies. They were faced with the alternative of breaking up their homes in the country and bringing up their wives and families to Dublin or of leaving them there or of going into "digs" themselves in Dublin. I would ask the Minister to look into that and see if there are not some single men in the country who, I am sure, would not mind getting a transfer to Dublin. I also desire to refer to the control price for standing timber. Since the order dealing with this matter was made, some time about last Christmas, the position appears to be that nobody wants to sell timber. People down the country have the idea that individuals are prohibited from purchasing timber for fuel purposes. From inquires I have made I find such is not the case: that there is nothing to prevent a person from making a private bargain to purchase non-commercial timber for fuel. I would like to know if that is the case. The position, at any rate, is that it is very hard at the present time to purchase timber for fuel purposes because the owners of the timber do not want to sell it at the controlled price which, I understand, is 7/6 a ton for growing timber.
Quite right, too.
There is no use in having the timber there if people cannot use it. It is small consolation to know that the price is controlled to that extent if one cannot get the timber. I would like to know if something could not be done to compel those people, in a reasonable way, to sell timber.
They cannot get permission to sell it.
That is the point that I would like to have cleared up. I have made inquiries and have been told by some that no permit will be issued, and that not only is it necessary for the owner of the trees to get a permit but that a permit is also required by the person who buys the timber. In other cases where I have inquired I have been told that is not the case. I do not think anybody is clear on it at the moment.
The owner of the trees gets a permit and that is the end of it. The buyer has nothing to do with it.
In some cases he has.
If a man steals trees the Forestry Branch will not prosecute him, but if an owner cuts trees they will prosecute him.
Deputy O'Donovan spoke about taxis going to race meetings and so on. Of course, there is nothing to prevent them from doing that. Neither is there anything to prevent a hackney car that is registered down the country going long distances on any business. But while that is so, if a professional man goes a few miles outside his area in his motor car he is held up by the Guards. I should like to know if it would not be possible to prevent hackney cars from making long and unnecessary journeys sometimes to sports and races while, at the same time, when a person wants a hackney car for important business he finds it difficult to get one. I should like again to pay tribute to the Department of Supplies for the efficient machine they have for dealing with the economic problems of this country. No doubt, as the war goes on, these economic problems will become more acute and the Department of Supplies will become an easier target for harsh criticism. I should like other Departments to emulate the example of the Department of Supplies in the matter of the Irish language, because every time I have gone there to transact business I have been able to do it in the Irish language.
Arising out of what Deputy Kissane said about timber, I should like to say a few words to the Minister. I do not think there is sufficient co-operation between the Minister's Department and the Forestry Department and any other Department concerned in the matter. Some time ago the Minister stated that there would not be any coal available for threshing operations. I am now on the question of timber as an alternative fuel. So far as my constituency is concerned, that is a very serious matter because we have no turf, or only a very limited quantity of turf, and we have to rely entirely on wood fuel. The difficulty is in getting that wood fuel ready for use. I am not blaming the Minister now for what has occurred, but I do think there should be greater co-operation between his Department and, in particular, the Forestry Department of the Land Commission. The position is that if an owner of standing timber suitable for fuel and no other purpose and which would not be any great loss wants to fell a number of trees he must, according to the law, apply for a permit to the Forestry Department. Under the code as it is administered at present, the result of that is a notice from the Forestry Department prohibiting the felling of these trees until permission is granted, with severe penalties for breaking that condition. That involves an inspection of the lands by an inspector of the Forestry Department and at the present time it is practically impossible to obtain an inspection of the lands, with the result that in certain parts of my constituency we will be entirely held up so far as fuel for threshing purposes is concerned, except where threshing is done by means of a tractor. I have raised this point about four times already on every possible Vote to which it has any relevance, but I do not seem to be getting any further on the matter. We are within eight weeks of the threshing operations and there are no preparations made for the supply of alternative fuel. I took the matter up over two months ago, but I could not get any satisfaction from anyone. Therefore, I ask the Minister for Supplies to intervene in the matter and try to do something about it.
There are one or two matters to which I should like to refer on this Vote. One is the disposal of surplus potatoes throughout the country. There is a fairly large quantity of surplus potatoes in County Louth for which there is no market, and if the Minister would provide sufficient kerosene to enable farmers to deliver these potatoes to the Cooley alcohol factory it would enable the farmers to get rid of the surplus potatoes and, at the same time, enable the Minister to get more petrol. It is a fairly long distance from the farmyards in which these potatoes are to the Cooley factory, and most of the farmers would not have sufficient horses to cart these potatoes to the factory. Most of them, however, are in possession of tractors, but they are short of kerosene. I understand that the Department are not in a position to issue any permits at the moment. Probably they are keeping the reserve of petrol and kerosene for the harvesting season. The situation which has arisen is more or less an emergency one and one which possibly could not be anticipated, namely, that there should be such a huge quantity of potatoes on hands which could not be sold. It would, therefore, be a good thing if the Minister would release a sufficient supply of kerosene to enable those farmers who are in a position to do so to deliver the potatoes at the Cooley factory.
I should also like to ask the Minister to announce at the earliest possible moment whether there will be sufficient supplies of petrol and kerosene for the coming harvest. That would reassure many farmers who are not at all certain as to what their position will be when the harvest season arrives. Of course, like many other Deputies, I recognise the fact that the Minister is not the sole judge as to what will be available or what will not be available. That will depend, to a very large extent, on circumstances over which he or this House or the country has no control. It depends, as we all know, whether ships will be available to get in the supplies which are needed. We must recognise that fact.
We may talk as we like about self-sufficiency, but the fact remains that a great many things of which we are in urgent need cannot be procured within the country and have to be obtained from outside and that it is very difficult at the moment to get them. I, for one, would not like to throw any blame on the Minister, knowing well that he is powerless in the matter, notwithstanding all that has been said by Deputy Kissane about the policy of self-sufficiency. The thing was all right up to a point. You can be well fed for nine months of the year and have nothing for the other three months. What good is that? We have not the endurance which would enable us to fast for three or four months. I am not saying this in any slavish spirit, but we must bear in mind that we are depending on supplies of wheat from the outside world. We were not in a position to grow sufficient wheat. I only wish we were, but the fact is that we were not. There is no use in arguing the question now of tariffs versus free trade. What we have to do now is to get out of the difficult situation in which we find ourselves placed and that, as I say, will require the co-operation of all concerned. I put it to the Minister that a decision should be arrived at quickly about a supply of petrol for those farmers in Louth in order to get the potatoes to the Cooley factory. Owing to lack of kerosene the farmers are not able to get them there. Most farmers will transport them to the factory by means of tractors if they get the kerosene. One of them came to me yesterday and asked me to raise this matter to see if the Minister's Department could do anything about it. Again, it depends on whether the supplies are there or not.
I would also ask the Minister to consider the position of people engaged in the saddlery, shoemaking and tailoring trades who carry on their business at home. Saddlers, especially in the harvest time, have to do a great deal of repair work for the farmers as regards the harness for the horses, and also in regard to the canvas used in connection with the binders. On almost all occasions that is a hurried job and the saddler sometimes has to do the work far into the night. He cannot carry out that work unless he has a good light and, in those circumstances, he should be supplied with extra kerosene, if it is available. I have been asked to bring that matter to the Minister's notice. I could also instance the cases of the country tailor and shoemaker, to whom the very same would apply.
There should be as little manoeuvring as possible on the part of the Army and the ancillary services concerned with the defence of the country. I do not say this in a carping or critical spirit. I do think it would be wise if the Department would conserve as much petrol as possible in order to facilitate harvesting operations. Army activities are all right in their own way and, of course, it is useful to have them. It is a good sign of the times to see our young people taking part in these activities in such large numbers. But it occurred to me that there must be a large quantity of petrol used and perhaps it would be wiser at the present stage, in view of the uncertainty that exists in getting supplies of petrol, to conserve all that we have and use it only for the most essential services. Of course, the production of food is most essential at the moment.
Another commodity of importance is iron, particularly in relation to the making of horse shoes and cart wheels. We are in the position that we have not got much iron and we must depend on outside supplies. As Deputy O'Donovan pointed out, possibly the Haulbowline Dockyard will recommence operations soon—the sooner the better. It is very difficult for the farmers to get supplies of iron to enable the blacksmiths to do repairs to agricultural machinery, and more especially to provide shoes for the horses. The horse is fast coming into his own. He is doing very valuable work at the moment. During the past nine or ten years the horse was more or less neglected. Unfortunately, we have not a sufficient number of them now. I hope and trust that in the near future the Haulbowline dockyards will be in operation and that they will be in a position to meet the country's requirements.
We have heard a good deal about supplies from abroad. I often wonder are we devoting sufficient attention to supplies which can be produced at home. I should like to refer especially to two commodities which we were always famous for producing in this country and the position of which, it seems to me, is going to be rather precarious in the future—I refer to bacon and butter. Anybody who reads the papers will be aware that bacon is not available. I know it is not available in the local towns and, if it is not available now, what is the situation going to be in the immediate future? I know the Government policy was to restrict bacon and butter production.
Nonsense.
The Deputy says that is nonsense. I consider myself an ordinary, intelligent individual and I consider I am perfectly well able to understand a plain statement. I listened to the Minister for Agriculture speaking at Clonmel and he stated definitely that they wanted to restrict production of bacon and butter because it did not pay to export those things. The Deputy shakes his head, but I may tell him others heard it as well as I did, and it appeared in the papers. The fact remains, however, that bacon is scarce and it is likely to be scarcer. What is going to be done about it? Bacon, unlike many commodities, cannot be produced all at once; it is not like turf, cutting it on the bog and leaving it there to be saved. It takes a considerable time before bacon is ready for human consumption. It will be some time before we get normal supplies.
We have seen where the Minister for Agriculture said the position would right itself in a short time. I do not believe that. I know the Government policy was to restrict production, so that we would not have an exportable surplus. The idea was that so long as we would have enough for ourselves, we would be happy. Once production is lowered, it is not so easy to get it back to normal. What the Minister and the Government did some time ago was to reduce the price to the producer, and it is not very easy now to get pigs, and everybody knows that. I am merely calling attention to the existing state of affairs. I do not blame the Minister for Supplies at all, because he is not responsible for agricultural production.
As regards the production of butter, everybody is aware that last April and May supplies of butter were very short and, so far as I can visualise the situation, they are going to be shorter next year. What have the Government done about it? They have done very little. People interested in the dairying industry have spoken time and again about the shortage of supplies and the decrease in the dairy cow population. Sometimes I fear it will be a case of locking the stable door when the horse is stolen—we will know nothing about this industry until it is killed. The present position is that there is no incentive offered to the dairy farmers to keep heifers. Look at the prices they can get for them on export. All available animals are being exported. I do not blame the farmers for exporting them. I did it myself when I was offered a good price for springing heifers, and I will do it again. There is no reason why I would not sell them. The fact is that it is not a paying proposition to produce butter now.
What is the net result of our agricultural economy? Quite a good deal has been said about the bargaining power we had with Britain. Is it not true that the only source of export we have at the present time is the cattle industry? We are not exporting anything else, as far as I know, except some eggs and perhaps some poultry. As far as bacon and butter production is concerned, in which we had an export trade some years ago, the export trade no longer exists. Therefore the dairy industry is the last remaining industry that we have and if that is allowed to continue as it is at present, where are we going to get our young stock? Whatever bargaining power we have at the present time will disappear if the dairy cow is not maintained and if we cannot produce young stock for export. It has been said that we must have exports in order to procure raw materials which we cannot produce ourselves. I think the outlook is very serious. I do not blame the Minister for Government policy in this country but I say definitely that the Government policy was to restrict production in both these commodities. These restrictions may result in the condition in the butter industry, which has already been reached in regard to bacon, which cannot be remedied very easily or quickly.
There is only one other matter to which I wish to refer in connection with the butter industry. I am aware that a lot of butter has been put into cold storage and I have been informed that electric current is being curtailed to a dangerous extent in the cold stores. That is creating a very serious situation. I am not an authority on the matter, but that is my information. I think whatever current could be made available should be made available so that no chance would be taken in connection with butter which we put into cold store. I am also aware that the matter is the subject of consideration between somebody representing the dairy industry and officials, but electric current should never be restricted in refrigerators in cold stores.
It seems to me that the position is going to be very serious in connection with threshing. There is no coal whatever available and I am afraid there is great danger of sparks coming from engines when wood is burned in them. I would appeal to the Minister to see that something might be invented which would avert that danger, because I am led to believe that that is the most dangerous aspect of threshing, especially on a warm day. I think somebody ought to be in a position to invent something—I know it has not been invented yet—which would have the desired effect.
I would like to point out to the Minister that a number of people are without tea for, say, two or three months. I know one case of a poor woman with seven or eight children. It seems her shopkeeper was only getting a certain quota on the basis of the amount she bought the year before and had taken too many ration cards. There are several other cases where the person fell out with the shopkeeper and the shopkeeper gave them back their card and it was two or three months before they were able to get their ration again. There was one case in Castlepollard where a certain person fell out with the shopkeeper and has written to the Minister for Supplies to get her card transferred, but up to now it has not been transferred. There are other cases where people are without tea for some reason or other. I would like the Minister to indicate to the people publicly the ways and means by which they could get their ration of tea immediately, because it is very hard on poor people to be without tea for a long time.
The Minister should consider allowing extra tea for the harvest. A number of farmers employ men who work from early morning until eight or nine o'clock. The men may not be fed by the farmer, but it is a rule that men working in the hay fields and reaping the harvest get tea at 4 o'clock. You cannot expect men to work until 8 o'clock without tea. I think some provision should be made for an extra allowance of tea to farmers for that purpose. There are enough inspectors going around the country from the Department of Supplies who could investigate applications for such extra allowances. The same thing applies to men working on the bogs. It is very important that the work should be done during good weather and men are asked to work late if the weather is good. They may have to travel two or three miles home to their lunch and they could not be expected to work until eight at night unless some provision is made for giving them tea. It has also happened that supplies of sugar have been held up in some cases for a long time.
I would also like to refer to the matter of providing tyres for workmen's bicycles in the country. It is heartbreaking that men who have to travel three or four miles to their work cannot get tyres for their bicycles. They are depending on the bicycles to earn their living but, as far as I know, no workman in my district could get a tyre unless he went to the black market. Such men cannot afford to pay 30/- or 25/- for a tyre. There should be some means of ensuring that people who are depending on their bicycles get the tyres.
I would also ask the Minister to consider the provision of kerosene for farmers. I hope the Minister is reserving a supply for the harvest and also for the use of farmers in the winter time. Last year farmers could not do their work all the year round on the allowance of kerosene given to them. The farmers should certainly get priority in this matter. Last winter farmers had to work in the dark, and when they were finished their work they could not read their local papers. Whatever kerosene there is in the country should be given to the farmers because the country is depending on the farmers at the present time and they must be catered for. I would ask the Minister to consider that matter.
Another matter to which I wish to refer is the price of bacon. There is no such thing as bacon in the local towns now. Government policy—no matter how they may deny it—has done away with the pig industry. It struck me very forcibly this morning that one great cause of the decline in the pig industry is the price of bacon. I saw a price list this morning in a shop. The price listed for back rasher bacon was 2/10 per lb. The farmer is allowed a bare 1/- a lb. for that. Bacon is 110/- a cwt. It is no wonder that the pig industry is gone. The farmer gets 1/- a lb. and the shopkeeper gets 2/10 for it. Is not that the real cause of the decline in the pig industry?
Mr. Byrne
Where is the middleman? The shopkeeper does not get it all.
There is a difference of 1/10 per lb. between what the farmer gets and the purchaser pays in shops. In my opinion the Department should conserve bacon supplies by getting curers to adopt different methods. Bacon cured in factories at the present time will not keep more than a week or ten days. In order to avoid a scarcity of supplies I suggest that people should use more of the old hard salted bacon; of which they will not need so much. That class of bacon would keep longer. If the bacon that is now sold in the shops is not used within a week or a fortnight the danger is that it will be unfit for use. The present system is wasteful. Home-cured bacon could be kept for a year or longer, as it remains perfectly sound. The use of home-cured bacon would also encourage the killing of pigs of a certain weight. The English people have been encouraged in recent months to continue feeding heavier pigs. Under the present arrangement if pigs of 12 and 16 stone weight are sold more money is paid for the 12 stone pig, so that there is no encouragement for farmers to feed heavier pigs. That is one reason why some of last year's potato crop is rotting and not being used. People were afraid to feed potatoes to pigs in case the animals became too heavy. I consider it wasteful to kill pigs at 12 stone. If they were kept until they were 20 stone they would give a greater return in the way of food. It seems to me that if the present system continues farmers will get out of pig-feeding as well as out of butter-making.
It has been stated that good prices are being got for young heifers. I have been attending the Dublin market for years and I never remember the price of cows to be so low as it was within the last two months. While up to £30 may be got for nice heifers, nothing like that price is being paid for good milking cows. What is happening is that these cows are being "milked-out" and then sold for meat. Sometimes from £14 to £15 can be got for milkers, but if they are kept for the butcher they will realise £20. That explains why more butter is not available. It was stated during the debate that we had at present no bargaining power in England. I was sorry to hear that statement, because we always had bargaining power for our agricultural produce. I think if Ministers went over to Britain and put it up to Ministers there farmers here should be able to get better prices for their produce. I know that men in the cattle trade consider that we could get better prices in that way. I consider that we have bargaining power and that in exchange we should be able to get goods that we require. I am afraid that there might then be an inclination to lower the price of farm produce but the Government should be very stiff in opposing any such proposal. We are now getting ¼d. per lb. less for meat than we got this time last year. When there is a war on we should not have to take ¼d. a lb. less for supplies of meat.
The Deputy is now going back to agricultural matters.
I consider that the Government should tackle the question of agricultural produce with the British Government. If they did I am sure they would be met fairly.
But the Deputy is not dealing with the Estimate for the Department of Supplies.
I am bringing it round in this way, that in exchange for our agricultural produce we should get artificial manures and the other things we require. In that way we have bargaining power for the supplies we need. Supplies of oatmeal are not available for the poor people. It will not be available while oats are only 26/- a barrel. If the Government wants to have supplies of oatmeal available it should arrange to pay a little more for oats. Otherwise farmers will use oats for feeding purposes and the people will not be able to get oatmeal. I am aware that farmers are supplying their workmen with oatmeal, because they are unable to obtain it in the shops. We heard a good deal about self-sufficiency but owing to that policy there is now a shortage here of both bacon and oatmeal.
The debate upon the Estimate for the Department of Supplies has lasted for the best part of four sittings of the Dáil, and during these days criticisms of the activities of the Department were expressed by Deputies. Some of these criticisms were fair and reasonable, particularly during this meeting, and since Deputy Belton sat down the note of the speeches has been uniformly constructive. Many of the criticisms voiced on previous days were unfair, based on ignorance of facts or disinclination to deal with facts. A few of the criticisms were, obviously, the outcome of malice. I have no objection to criticisms which is fair and reasonable. The business of the Department of Supplies involves the control of many commercial activities, carried on within this State, down to the last detail; it involves regulation of the distribution of many classes of goods and, in the conduct of that business, it is inevitable that every day a multitude of decisions must be taken. It is unlikely that all of these decisions will be beyond question. Constructive criticism of the kind we have received from some Deputies to-day and a few Deputies on the other days is helpful. It helps to improve the administration of the Department. It helps to secure uniformity in its practice in dealing with individuals and to expose the weak points in any plans which are being operated or which are proposed. I think, however, that I am right in objecting to criticism which is unfair, which is inspired by malice or by a desire to obstruct or wreck, which is based upon utter nonsense paraded here as if it were established truth, upon the grotesque exaggeration of trivialities or upon the distortion of truth. The Dáil has had much—I should say far too much—of that type of criticism during the course of this debate. My purpose in speaking now, at the conclusion of the debate, is to expose that false and dishonest criticism as much as to acknowledge that which was reasonable. In our circumstances, I think that one purpose is as important as the other.
Deputy Costello said that the public had lost confidence in the administration of the Department of Supplies. I do not know by what authority Deputy Costello claims to speak for the public. During the whole course of the very peevish speech he delivered here, it was obvious that his information was coming from tainted sources. It is quite true that some vested interests have been vocal in their criticism of the Department—traders who think that the distribution of supplies should be controlled in their interests and not in the interests of the consumers who deal with them, manufacturers who want to get, at the expense of their competitors, an undue share of the limited supplies of material available, agitators who get, or hope to get, a livelihood from the propagation of discontent, and the remnant of the old ascendancy who are always ready to sneer at the efforts of the Irish to govern themselves. These were the sources of Deputy Costello's information. Few Deputies will contradict me when I say that the great majority of our people—the plain, honest men in the street—have a far firmer grasp of the realities of our situation than many of the Deputies who spoke here. No doubt, the public are disappointed, perhaps even irritated, when some fresh development in the war situation curtails the supply of another commodity or involves the imposition of a new restriction upon a public service but they know—not all the efforts of Deputy Belton or Deputy Dillon will convince them otherwise—that you cannot bake bread or drive railway trains with wind only. No doubt, the public are, sometimes, critical of the imperfections of the administrative machine established by the Department, which, like all human contrivances, does not always work as efficiently as its designers expect, but the public know, and know well, that it is because of the general policy of the Government and the arrangements made by the Department of Supplies, however faulty they may have functioned upon occasion in matters of detail, that up to date the consequences of the war raging throughout the world have fallen less heavily upon this country than upon any other country in Europe. Not one Deputy who spoke from the benches opposite had the grace to express his appreciation of that fact. Not one of them gave evidence of his ability, or even of his willingness, to see our position as a whole. They could not see the wood for the trees. They could not see even the trees for the shrubs. They paraded here in dreary reiteration a succession of trivialities—a letter sent to a doctor concerning the use of his car, the design of a form to enable people to secure sugar for jam, Deputy O'Higgins' complaint that he could not get a picture of the Department's organisation without having to read the footnotes appended to the Estimate. It is true that, occasionally, during the course of the debate members of the Fine Gael Party, with more practical minds than some of the nagging, old women who lead them, a few of the Labour Deputies and the Fianna Fáil Deputies who spoke, brought forward a serious proposal for consideration or gave expression to serious and important criticism of the Department's activities or referred to some matter which required ventilation in public. It is with these matters I propose mainly to deal.
Deputy Norton suggested that the arrangement of having one Minister in charge of the Department of Supplies and the Department of Industry and Commerce was undesirable. He said that they were both full-time posts, and that the arrangement of combining them under one Minister may mean that many matters arising in both Departments cannot get full Ministerial consideration. I know that that point of view may be held by members of the public. It has, on occasion, been expressed in the Press. The experience of Deputies in this debate will, I think, show that that point of view is not necessarily sound.
Most Deputies had very considerable difficulty in distinguishing between the matters that related to the Department of Supplies and those that related to the Department of Industry and Commerce. It was obvious that, with the rapid growth of supply difficulties since the outbreak of the war, a very great part of the work of the Department of Industry and Commerce would be intimately related to the work of the Department of Supplies—so much so that until these Departments were combined under one Minister much of the effort of the officers of both Departments was directed towards ensuring uniformity of practice between them, and in preventing overlapping in their respective activities. It is true that the Department of Industry and Commerce has functions other than those affecting industry and transport which impinge upon the work of the Department of Supplies. As Deputies know, it is responsible for labour policy, the administration of social services, and the promotion of legislation relating to these matters. That work is important, but I assert that, on the whole, the arrangement to which Deputy Norton referred makes for greater efficiency and certainly for greater expedition in the discharge of the function of both Departments. The arrangement is not necessarily a permanent one.
A very large number of Deputies in the Fine Gael Party suggested—and Deputy O'Higgins definitely asserted— that in this country government—the business of carrying on the executive functions of the Legislature—has passed into the hands of civil servants and that Ministerial authority is being exercised by what Deputy O'Higgins described as anonymous bureaucrats. That is complete balderdash. Nobody with a knowledge of the organisation and functioning of Government Departments could make such an assertion. So far as I can recollect, none of Deputy O'Higgins' colleagues who have had experience of Ministerial office ever made such an assertion. The organisation of Government Departments in this country is such that Ministrial decisions interpreting Government policy are the mainsprings of all activities within the Departments. I will go further and say that, if ever in this country civil servants should take effective power out of the hands of the elected heads of their Departments, it will be during a period of political tranquillity, as it is only during such a period that established practice could supersede considered policy without the public being aware of the fact. It never could happen during a period of emergency—a period through which the rapidly changing circumstances are producing new problems requiring fresh interpretations of Government policy, to enable the administrative machine to work. Deputies who made that assertion obviously failed to make, in their own minds, a clear distinction between the functions which the Minister must discharge personally and those which he should leave to the officers serving under him.
It is the function of a Minister to declare policy, to give general directions, and to supervise the execution of his directions by the officers of his Department. Perhaps I might give a homely and familiar example. If in any month there is available for distribution amongst the petrol users of this country a known quantity of petrol, it is I, as Minister for Supplies, who decides to what purposes that limited quantity of petrol will be devoted, to what classes of users it may be given and under what conditions, and what the total allocations for each purpose will be. If, subsequent to the publication of the Minister's decision concerning petrol allocations, an individual wants to claim that he is entitled to petrol under that decision, or that his circumstances are exceptional in any way, and that he should be considered for an allocation of petrol, it is the appropriate officer of the Department —the officer appointed for that purpose, who has been given the Minister's directions to carry into effect—who decides upon that individual's application. It is obviously impracticable that the Minister could decide on those individual applications himself. Into the Department of Supplies there come letters, telephone messages and persons to a number of well over 1,000 per day. Each letter, telephone message or personal approach is, no doubt, of vital importance to the individual concerned. He would like, if possible, that personal attention be given to his claim or application by the Minister of the Department. It is not possible that he can get it. In respect of sugar for the manufacture of jam, there are no less than 80,000 applications already recorded in the Department. It is obvious that the consideration of each of those applications is going to occupy a great deal of the time of a number of officers of the Department. They could not possibly all be referred to the Minister for decision.
The wider the scope of the Department's activities becomes, the more frequent will be these personal approaches and the more important it will be for the Minister to confine himself to his own function in the scheme of things and ensure that he gives clear and full directions to his officers, so that they can carry out his considered policy and apply it in individual cases. It is not possible for each individual or for each trade organisation to have personal contact with the Minister. They can, and do, have personal contact with responsible officers, who act upon instructions given to them by the Minister. To describe that system as bureaucracy is to display a complete ignorance of the meaning of that term. The Department of Supplies is, as I have said, responsible for controlling very many commercial activities and for regulating the distribution of many categories of goods. The demand in the Dáil—not merely during this debate but during every debate—is for more and more control and not for less. Is not that so? If such control is to be established and made work, it involves the establishment of an administrative machine capable of doing so, and by that I mean the setting up of a body of civil servants who will be responsible for supervising the regulations determined upon under the general direction of the Minister. It is through that body of civil servants that the Minister's contacts with special trade interests must, for practical reasons, be maintained.
The suggestion has been made frequently during the course of this debate that it is the practice of the Department of Supplies not to consult with trade interests before making Orders affecting their interests. Deputies who made that assertion obviously did not know what they were talking about. At the expense of taking officers from more important work I have had an examination made of our records and I find the following statistical result, which is a fact to set against the mistaken contention of Deputies from the benches opposite. The number of Orders made by the Department of Supplies affecting special trade interests, exclusive of amending Orders, to date was 234. In the case of 211 of these Orders, there was full consultation with the affected interests before the Orders were made. In the balance of cases, representing less than 10 per cent. of the total, there was either nobody to consult, because no organised body exists whose opinion could be secured, or there was no reason for consultation—as in the case of the Order prohibiting the feeding of wheat to animals—or else there were good reasons of public policy why the Government intentions should be declared before the affected interests became aware of them.
I do not claim that the administrative machine of the Department of Supplies is perfect. I know it is far from perfect. It is, and always has been, inadequate to cope with the ever-growing volume of new duties devolving on it. The senior officers of the Department are heavily overburdened with work. Deputies are aware that other Government Departments have been depleted of staffs in order to relieve pressure in the Department of Supplies but, despite the efforts of the establishment officers, a position has been reached in which it is not possible to get from other Government Departments a sufficient number of skilled and experienced administrators to relieve the heavily taxed officers of the Department of Supplies. Even in respect of junior staff, considerations of economy have limited the personnel below what might be considered necessary for the efficient discharge of all these functions in the manner suggested by Deputies in the course of the debate.
There seems to be an opinion amongst Deputies that Ministers should spend all their days receiving deputations. There is not a member of the Government who could not spend every day of the week and 24 hours every day interviewing deputations from organisations or individuals who feel that they wish to discuss personally with the Minister concerned special problems affecting them. The Minister could receive deputations and meet individuals who want to meet him, to the exclusion of all other work, but if he were to do so, he would become what Deputy Costello described as a mere figurehead, and the effective work of his Department would have to be carried out by his officials. But the Minister who wants to do his real job, the job of considering matters of policy, of giving general directions to his Department and seeing that these general directions are carried out, must necessarily drastically limit the number of deputations or individuals he will meet. It has been the practice of the Department of Supplies to arrange that every organisation or every individual wishing to make personal representations who cannot be received by myself personally will be received by one or other of the senior officers of the Department. The arrangements ensure that the representations put forward by these deputations or individuals are recorded immediately and fully and transmitted to me. I see a full report of all discussions that take place between officers of my Department and deputations or individuals representing special interests. It is upon the basis of this type-written record of the discussions that such directions as may be required are given to the Department.
Deputy Hughes was kind enough to say here that I was afraid to meet people who are more competent than I am. I do not know what conclusion Deputy Hughes derives from the fact that I have never hesitated to see him. He told us a story about a representative of a petrol company who, when he goes to England, sees two British Ministers and who, when he comes back to Dublin, cannot see me. Deputy Hughes unfortunately is not here now, but I hope somebody who is here will tell him that I say that that story is not true. I am not suggesting that Deputy Hughes told a story which he knew to be false; what I am suggesting is that he should go back to the individual whose identity is very thinly disguised and tell him from me that the story is not true. If Deputy Hughes is reluctant about doing that, I shall take the next opportunity I get of telling that individual myself.
Deputy O'Higgins professes to see something sinister in the fact that, as a rule, new decisions upon matters of policy or new departures in administration are made at times when the Dáil is not sitting. To the extent that is true at all, the reason for it is surely obvious. There is nothing sinister about it; even the most innocent member of the Dáil will, I am sure, have thought out a possible explanation for himself. It is only when the Dáil is not meeting, when Ministers are not preoccupied with Dáil business, that they have an opportunity of outpacing the routine work of their Departments and giving attention to matters of policy. It is for that reason that it can be said that the most important part of a Minister's work is done during the times when the Dáil is not meeting and that the work of the Dáil is, in fact, largely devoted to discussing in detail work done by Ministers during the periodical recesses.
Special reference was made to the date of the introduction of clothes rationing. Now the simple explanation is that the administrative arrangements for the introduction of clothes rationing had to be made in relation to a particular date and, in fact, that date was decided by me before I personally was aware that the Dáil was not going to meet for one week during the month of June. Deputy Costello said that he knew the date upon which clothes rationing was going to be introduced three weeks before it was introduced. It was introduced on the 9th June and he said that he knew about it on the 20th May or about the 20th May. The records of the Department will show that I decided upon the 29th May the date upon which clothes rationing was to come into operation. Nobody could possibly have known the date before then. Nobody outside a very small number of senior officers in the Department knew the date until after the 1st June. After the 1st June arrangements had to be made for printing and other administrative work to be done by other Government Departments, and a larger number of people became aware of the date, but the information which I have given the Dáil will at least expose the inaccuracy of Deputy Costello's contention.
As I have referred to this matter of clothes rationing, perhaps I had better proceed to deal with it more fully. I do not know if I am intended to take seriously the suggestion that traders in clothing should have been notified in advance of the intention to introduce clothes rationing. I have stated already that, in the case of more than 90 per cent. of the Orders made by the Department of Supplies affecting special interests, there was prior consultation with the representatives of those affected interests, but that in a few cases I considered it was not in the public interest that such consultation should take place. I certainly was of that opinion in this matter of the introduction of clothes rationing. I feel sure that if I had acted in the manner which Deputies now suggest, and had notified traders in advance of the intention to introduce clothes rationing, the members of the Fine Gael Party would now be making the welkin ring in their denunciations of a course of action which they would describe as a direct invitation to the expansion of black market activities. It is obviously dictated by common sense, in such matters as the introduction of clothes rationing, or, for that matter, the rationing of any non-perishable classes of goods, that a provisional control of sale should be established first, and that consultations with the affected interests should take place afterwards. That is the policy which I intend to pursue in all cases where rationing of non-perishable goods is contemplated.
In another country, not a thousand miles from here, where notice of intention to ration clothing was given, I note from the newspapers that they are now setting up a special police organisation in an effort to trace the goods that disappeared from normal commercial channels between the date of that notice and the date of the introduction of rationing, and which are now reappearing in connection with black market activities. It is true that information concerning our intention to ration clothing leaked out here some days before the rationing scheme came into operation. I have had a most exhaustive inquiry held in my Department for the purpose of ascertaining how that leakage occurred. As a result of that inquiry, I am fairly satisfied that the leak did not occur in the Department of Supplies, but, if the circulation of an unofficial rumour for a few days before the operation of the rationing scheme resulted in the unprecedented run upon the shops which everybody knows took place, what situation would have arisen if there had been an official intimation over a longer period of the intention to ration clothing?
When I announced the coming into operation of the rationing scheme, I at the same time invited all the trade interests affected to consult my Department, and to make any representations which they considered necessary and desirable in relation to the details of the scheme. I do not know if Deputies who spoke in connection with this matter have any idea of the number of organisations which are concerned. Most of the speeches delivered here were phrased in a manner which suggested that the Deputies who delivered them considered this to be a matter which concerned retail traders only. It is surely at least of equal importance to the wholesale distributors and to the manufacturers, and consultations with all the affected interests—and between many of those interests there is a definite conflict—must be conducted over a period of time. There are at least 15 trade associations which have been consulted already or have intimated their wish to be consulted in connection with the various aspects of the scheme.
The announcement of the intention to ration clothing appeared in the newspapers on the morning of 9th June. On the same morning I received a letter from the Secretary to the Federation of Irish Industries referring to a meeting which had been held that morning at the Federation offices, a meeting which was attended by representatives of the Drapers' Chamber of Trade and various manufacturing groups affiliated to the Federation. That letter set out a number of representations which it was desired to make concerning the rationing scheme, and requested me to meet or to appoint an officer of my Department to meet a deputation from the conference. That was the reasonable and rational approach to consideration of the problems arising in connection with clothes rationing, and, if it had been persisted in, all the friction which subsequently arose could have been avoided. That approach would have resulted in immediate consultation, and the earlier introduction than subsequently proved to be the case of the modifications in the Order which circumstances appeared to necessitate. On receipt of that letter I instructed an assistant secretary to the Department to arrange to meet the deputation from the conference. He did so immediately by telephone. An arrangement was suggested and was accepted, and in a letter posted that afternoon the arrangement was confirmed in writing. At a later hour an official of the Drapers' Chamber of Trade telephoned to my private secretary requesting that I should meet a deputation from that body personally. He was informed that I had arranged for an assistant secretary to the Department to meet the deputation, and that I considered that arrangement should stand. With an alacrity which suggested that any excuse was good enough, the Drapers' Chamber of Trade immediately embarked upon a publicity campaign on the plea that I had refused to meet them. They commenced an agitation which was remarkable equally for its aggressiveness as for its lack of candour. In the event, nobody turned up to the conference which had been asked for on the morning of 9th June, which had been arranged, and the arrangement of which had been confirmed in writing.
I stated in my opening speech that clothes rationing had been announced upon a basis more severe than I considered it essential to maintain during its earlier stages. To get a calmer atmosphere created, in which matters of detail could be calmly considered, I announced forthwith certain modifications of the Order which I had contemplated as possible. That may have been a mistake, as some Deputies suggested, and certainly it produced no immediate result. The Drapers' Chamber of Trade still preferred to rely upon agitation, and they announced the holding of a protest meeting and a procession. Now, whether or not that procession was a demonstration against rationing may not be a matter of very great importance, but what I think is beyond question is that 90 per cent. of those who took part in the demonstration and 100 per cent. of those who saw it had no doubt that it was a demonstration against rationing.
According to the report of it which appeared in the Irish Independent, placards carried were inscribed: “Back to Reason. Revoke Rationing”; “Rationing means widespread unemployment”, and “Rationing means the unnecessary withholding of goods from the public”. I must confess that I do not think very highly of those who sent Dublin workers out into the streets carrying placards with those inscriptions and who now blithely repudiate the whole business. However, all that is past and clothes rationing is in operation, and everybody apparently agrees that it is necessary. The fiction of two years' stock, with which the drapers jollied their workers into participating in the demonstration, has been exploded. The modifications of the scheme which have since been announced, judging by speeches delivered here, have secured general approval, although I must confess that that is the only part of the whole business concerning which I have serious doubts. It is true that these modifications of the rationing scheme meet the immediate difficulties of traders and, on that account, they were necessary, but they mean also a more rapid dissipation of existing stocks. It is well, however, to have the general agreement upon record, because, this day 12 months, a different opinion may exist about it.
I mentioned in my introductory speech that the decision to ration clothing was only part of a wider scheme designed to make the best use of the supplies of material which are, or will become, available to us, and that other parts of the same scheme included the regulation of imports in respect of quality and price, and also the regulation of home production of textiles. Some Deputies, and particularly Deputy Cosgrave, seem to think that it is a criticism of the Department that we change our plans from time to time, as circumstances appear to require. It is quite true that, in respect of the Import of Fabrics Order, circumstances have necessitated a modification of the Order and the postponement of the date of its full operation.
The House is, I think, familiar with the circumstances. We were told officially by the British Government that a fixed quota of textile goods would be available to us, and we decided that it was in the interests of the mass of the people that we should endeavour to ensure that that fixed quota would be taken up in the form of cheap goods of a utility kind, rather than that traders should be allowed to utilise it to bring in luxury cloths which could be sold at a high price and a high profit. We were assured by the British controlling authorities that there was no reason why we should not be able to avail of our import quota in that way. It was suggested that our import control might be wedded to the British export control, but delays have taken place in effecting that arrangement, and in order to ensure that there would be no loss of supplies because of these delays, we have postponed the date on which the Order will be brought into full effect. The Order is in operation and licences are required for goods over a level of prices which has been announced, but the more stringent control we contemplated when making the Order is not yet operative.
I do not know if there is any Deputy who will dispute, firstly, the wisdom of making the Order, of endeavouring to ensure that the limited quantity of goods available to us will be taken up in the form of utility cloths suitable for use by the mass of the people, or, secondly, the wisdom of postponing the immediate application of that policy in its full effect, when it was obvious that there was some danger of a loss of supplies if we attempted to do so. It may be that we shall not be able to give full effect to that policy at all. It is obvious that in this matter we are completely in the hands of the British authorities. They, no doubt, will determine their policy in relation to their circumstances, and while they have indicated a willingness to meet us in the implementation of that policy of importing utility cloths only, circumstances may make it impracticable for them to do so.
Similarly, the restrictions which will be imposed upon Irish manufacturers will be designed to ensure that the limited supplies of yarns available to these manufacturers will be devoted to the manufacture of utility cloths. These traders and importers of drapery goods may be the white untainted angels Deputy Dillon assured me they were, but I believe that human nature will crop up occasionally, even amongst the importers of drapery goods, and that, if they are allowed to do so, they will inevitably tend towards the importation of the dearer classes of goods which can be sold at luxury prices to a limited class of buyers, and consequently yield to the traders concerned a higher rate of profit; and it is for that reason that I have no intention of being diverted from the policy I have just outlined by any of the misrepresentations of it or any of the criticisms of it which have been advanced on behalf of these special interests here and elsewhere.
Let me turn now to the question of petrol. Is there any hope that we will get some of the Deputies opposite to face realities in relation to our petrol supplies? We have a few million gallons of petrol to meet all the requirements of the essential services of the country. Deputies, I am sure, will not dispute the essentiality of transporting the harvest, of maintaining such services as fire brigades, ambulances and the like, of moving fuel and necessary goods throughout the country as required, and of transporting food. The total quantity of petrol which we have available is barely sufficient to meet the requirements of these essential services. I think they will be sufficient for that purpose—and that answers the point made by Deputy Morrissey—or at least, if we receive the quantity of petrol which we have been led to expect, the arrangements which we have made to date will ensure that there will be a bare sufficiency for the collection of the harvest and the movement of essential goods.
By paring into the total quantity of petrol available for these essential services, we have succeeded in securing a much smaller quantity which can be given to doctors, clergymen, veterinary surgeons and certain other classes of users. Amongst these other classes are taxi owners. I confess that, in deciding to make allocations of petrol to taxi owners, I was influenced as much by a desire to keep an emergency transport service available throughout the country which could be made use of in cases of sudden sickness, or by persons wishing to travel urgently for business reasons, as by a desire to continue the means of livelihood of a class of decent people, but I do know that in our circumstances the public are naturally critical when they see hundreds of taxis at sporting fixtures like race meetings, dog meetings and other social gatherings.
It is obvious that the time has come when we shall have to place restrictions upon the use of taxis for these purposes. There are substantial legal difficulties. If I enter a taxi in O'Connell Street and instruct the taxi-man to drive me to Baldoyle, the taxi-man cannot assert that I am going to Baldoyle for the purpose of attending a race-meeting, nor can you reasonably put upon a taxi driver the obligation of inquiring why his passenger wants to go to a particular destination—the law, in fact, does require a taxi owner at present to drive any customer entering his cab to any place to which that customer wants to go—but we can do it administratively, and only in that way. I agree with the Deputies who stated that the time has come to do it.
During the month of June we gave out 45,000 gallons of petrol more than we had to give. In other words, the drastic reductions in the allocations of petrol that were made during the month of June were not sufficient to bring consumption down within the limit of available quantities. We have got to reduce consumption in further months, not merely to the extent of that 45,000 gallons, but also to the extent necessary to recover the 45,000 gallons that were over-issued during the month of June.
It is against that background of fact that I want Deputies to consider the various representations that were made here with regard to petrol supplies for doctors and other professional people. Our sole aim is to ensure that petrol supplied to doctors and other classes of people is used only for the specific purposes for which it is issued to these people. It must be remembered that doctors do not get petrol for the purpose of their own personal convenience, or even as a means by which to earn their livelihoods. Many classes of people have been deprived of petrol, which was necessary for their livelihoods, by reason of our inability to supply them with it. Doctors get petrol for the sole reason that it may be a matter of urgent necessity for them to travel in their own cars to attend their patients. Similarly, petrol for cars is given to clergymen to enable them to discharge urgent duties that may arise within the limits of their parishes, as it is also given to veterinary surgeons and midwives for the same reason. None of these classes of persons is given petrol as a right, however, and that fact must be emphasised.
It may be that we shall have to withdraw these facilities from all these classes of persons if a further curtailment of our supplies should make it necessary, and in such an event we shall do so, but with great reluctance. There is, however, an obligation on all these people, in the meantime, to conserve their supplies as far as possible and not to abuse the privilege they have been given, and that privilege will be withdrawn immediately if there is any abuse of it. We have the obligation to ensure that there will be no abuse of any such privileges. I took the responsibility of cutting down the quantity of petrol available for essential services so that it might be given to these classes of persons, and therefore I think it is my duty, and the duty of the Department of Supplies, to see that that petrol is used for those purposes, and those purposes only.
If I interpret the speech made by Deputy O'Higgins correctly—and also the speech made by Deputy Dillon—it means that doctors should not be under any supervision whatever as to the use made by them of the petrol given to them. I do not know if that is seriously contended. I am quite certain that there are very few doctors who will make that contention, other than Deputy O'Higgins. Since the introduction of this permit system we have had occasion to address queries to permit holders as to the use made by them of their cars in 615 cases. In other words, in that number of cases the persons concerned were asked to explain certain circumstances concerning the use of their cars, which had been observed by the Department's officers or members of the Gárda Síochána. In 418 cases, out of 615, the explanations given to the Department were considered reasonable, and no further action was taken. In 53 cases the persons concerned were warned that they had misused the permission given to them, although not to the extent that it required cancellation of their permits. In 18 cases the supply of petrol was stopped and the permits withdrawn, and in 19 cases the supply was reduced. That number, of 615 cases, refers to all classes of persons, but in the case of doctors there were 51. In connection with the doctors, 30 explanations were considered reasonable and no action was taken, 11 cases were dealt with by the issue of a warning, and there was one case in which the allowance was stopped. Deputy O'Higgins said that anybody who reports a doctor misusing his car in some obvious manner, to the Department of Supplies, is a pimp and a snoop. Now, I am quite sure that many of the back benchers of his own Party will appreciate the irresponsibility of a statement of that kind. Does Deputy O'Higgins think that this is a game that we are playing and that it is not a matter of vital significance to the country? Does he not realise that the petrol used by a doctor driving his car, for purposes of pleasure, or any purpose, other than that for which the permit was issued to him, might be urgently required later in the year in facilitating the movement of food necessary to ward off starvation from our people? The purpose of the supervision of the use of cars is to see that nobody will abuse the privileges that have been granted to them, or continue to use their private cars for improper purposes. If we are to have, from some members of the Party opposite, not merely denunciation of people who have been doing their duty in matters of that kind, but denunciation of a kind obviously designed to prevent such people from doing their duty, I feel sure that there will be enough responsible people in the Party opposite to repudiate the words used by Deputy O'Higgins, and the sooner they do it the better.
Many Deputies profess to be disconcerted by a statement that was made by me in my introductory speech, concerning the making of a trade bargain with the United Kingdom. There are, of course, some people who are always disconcerted by being brought up against a fact that they are trying to dodge. It has been stated repeatedly here in this House, by Deputies of the Fine Gael Party and others, that we are in a position to force the United Kingdom to give us an additional supply of goods, that are in short supply here and procurable in Britain, by insisting upon a barter arrangement in respect of our agricultural exports. Time and again the Government have been criticised for not doing so on the ground that failure to do it constituted a neglect of their duty. My sole purpose in speaking earlier on this matter was to urge that Deputies should not attempt to fool themselves in matters of this kind. It is not even likely that we will fool the British. We are getting supplies from the United Kingdom at present. These supplies are undoubtedly very limited when related to our pre-war purchases and to our present needs, but, to the extent that there has been any restriction placed upon the export of goods to this country, it has been stated by the British authorities to be due to the exigencies of their own supply position.
I do not know if Deputies opposite are seeking to contend that the explanation given by the British authorities is untrue, and that we are in a position to call their bluff by attempting to make such a bargain as the Deputies propose. I have no doubt whatever that the British are glad to get whatever surplus of agricultural exports that we may have to export. But if we propose to use these agricultural exports for the purpose of obtaining larger imports to this country of goods which are in short supply in Great Britain, or which are required by the British for their war effort, we must at least have our minds clear as to what we are going to do if the proposed bargain appears less attractive to the British than it does to us. As Deputy Fagan and Deputy Curran stated a short time ago we have, in fact, nothing to export at present except live animals.
And human beings?
I do not know if Deputy Norton is suggesting that we should make a bargain on that basis.
What I am suggesting is that, seeing that you are willingly exporting them to Great Britain, you ought to tell the British that you are doing it.
The Deputy's assumption is incorrect and his conclusion is also wrong. However, we will have an opportunity of discussing that matter on another occasion in the very near future. In the case of live cattle, however, we have two alternatives. We know we have two alternatives and the British know we have two alternatives. We can export them to Great Britain or not export them. We have no surplus now of butter or bacon to export. Deputies have said that is due to Government policy. Of course, they are always anxious to attribute all our misfortunes to Government policy, but in this case they are so obviously wrong that I am sure they do not believe it themselves. It has, however, been largely contributed to by the fact that when, in the year 1940, we did negotiate with the British Government in an attempt to make a trade agreement regulating the commercial relations between the two countries for the duration of the war, the British Government were not then prepared to pay a price which would cover the cost of production here and make continued production attractive to our farmers. They were warned on that occasion by the delegates who went to London for the purpose of these negotiations that their failure to pay a price which would meet production costs here and make continued production attractive to producers would inevitably result in a decline in output which would sooner or later reach the point where there would be no surplus available for export at all. That position is now being reached, and I must say that in 1940 the British Government did not appear greatly concerned about the prospect.
Apart, however, from that price consideration, it was inevitable that there would be a fall in the production of bacon and butter and of other agricultural products, the output of which depended upon the availability of imported feeding stuffs. We imported in normal times 300,000 tons of maize, and it was on the basis of these 300,000 tons of maize that bacon and butter production was maintained. We cannot replace that maize by our own products at the price at which we could import the maize in normal times and, clearly, if pre-war prices are to prevail in relation to war-time costs of the substitute cereals that can be used instead of maize, the costs of production will be disrupted and continued production on a pre-war scale will become unlikely. That decline in the output of bacon and butter is in no sense indicative of a decline in the total productivity of Irish agriculture. It is probably more correct to say that in both value and volume the total production of Irish agriculture in this year will constitute a record for the past century.
That is very questionable.
Many Deputies referred to transport problems. I do not wish to refer to them at length because, anyhow, they will be raised again, and more relevantly, on the Vote for the Department of Industry and Commerce.
Mr. Byrne
Is the Minister getting away already from the question of barter? He has said very little about it or about tea.
I will deal with tea later. Deputy Davin did, however, make a reference to the light running of motor vehicles and to the need for some scheme of organisation which would eliminate, or at any rate reduce, the light running of commercial motor vehicles. I was very interested to hear Deputy Davin talk in that strain because he knows quite well that the Government have that matter under consideration. In fact, I told him myself when he came as a member of a deputation, composed of Deputies from all Parties, to discuss the question of petrol supplies for Deputies. During the course of the discussions, I dealt generally with the petrol supply position and mentioned the fact that the Government considered it necessary to introduce a system for the control of transport which would eliminate the light running of motor vehicles. And here, a week or ten days later, Deputy Davin comes into the House and demands that the Government should do this thing which I told him in private the Government were going to do. However, any system of transport reorganisation will involve interference with vested interests and, to some extent, with employment. I have no doubt that there will be a considerable agitation when the Government's proposals are brought into operation. I am glad to know, in advance, that the idea, at any rate, has the support of Deputy Davin.
Deputy Byrne has referred on more than one occasion to the matter of tea, and appears to have the idea in his head that they have so much tea in Great Britain that it is only a question of asking to have more tea made available for this country. That is a complete fallacy. Not merely are the British apprehensive about their future tea supplies, but they have recently been announcing curtailments in tea distribution. Their most recent announcement involved the withdrawal of the tea ration in respect of children under five years of age. Anybody who has followed the course of the war with an intelligent interest will, I am sure, have realised that the possibility of a complete cessation of tea supplies from India cannot be ruled out since the tea-growing provinces of India flank the Bay of Bengal. Calcutta is the great tea shipping port, and shipments from Calcutta, at the head of the Bay of Bengal, one side of which is in Japanese occupation, are becoming a very precarious matter. So far as we are concerned we are finding it an impossible matter. The stores of tea bought by our importing organisation and held in Calcutta will have to remain there because we have found it completely impossible to get shipping facilities from that port. The British Government are maintaining their allocations of 25 per cent. of our normal imports, and that 25 per cent. represents the half ounce per head which our people are now getting. I tried on many occasions in the past to get the British Tea Control to increase the tea allocation to this country but without success, and I think I can assure Deputy Byrne that there is very little prospect of it. Certainly there is no likelihood whatever that by any process of bargaining or attempt on our part to restrict exports of our surplus of agricultural goods to that country we can force the British Government to give us more tea.
A number of Deputies referred to the matter of bicycle tyres. I think all Deputies are familiar with our position in respect of rubber. When the Japanese armies overran Malaya and the western Pacific area generally supplies of raw rubber to this country ceased, and it is, I think, a fair assumption that we will get no more raw rubber while the war lasts. It is not an unreasonable assumption that we will not get any more raw rubber for many years after the war has concluded. We took the total stock of rubber available in the country on that date and decided upon the best means of utilising it in the national interest. We decided, and I am sure most Deputies will agree with the decision, that the bulk of that rubber should be retained and used for the manufacture of tyres for commercial vehicles engaged in essential transport services. By utilising practically the whole of our rubber stocks we can keep a supply of tyres available for transport engaged on essential services until the end of 1943 and not one week beyond it.
We did make available out of the total stock a comparatively small quantity for the manufacture of cycle tyres. That quantity will produce in this year about 30 per cent. of our normal consumption of bicycle tyres in a year. Our present consumption is considerably above the normal. The total quantity of cycle tyres to be produced will be produced in two lots, each representing half the total quantity, and distributed within periods of six months. We have endeavoured to arrange that these tyres will be distributed as equitably as possible. Each trader will get his appropriate share of the total supply in relation to his normal trade. The Cycle Agents Association have been approached and have agreed to instruct all their members to ensure that tyres will be sold only to persons who need them for important purposes and to no other person. It is not possible to devise any system of distributing these tyres in relation to the work upon which the person is engaged and his personal need for new tyres. I feel certain that an attempt to devise any system of control of distribution down to the individual would not merely break down, but would produce such an amount of discontent as to necessitate dropping it almost as soon as it had been started.
Will the agents be required to keep a register of the sales of these tyres?
The controls which are being imposed on the agents are being operated by the Dunlop Company, acting as our agent in this matter. I have no faith whatever in a register of sales or a written record of what was done with the tyres. What means could a Departmental inspector have of checking up on the accuracy of a register and what punishment could we inflict if the register was found to be inaccurate? Every cycle agent knows that there is only one distribution of tyres taking place and when that distribution is over there will be no more tyres as long as the war lasts.
What about the black market?
As far as the black market is concerned, the Department of Supplies made an offer to the public the full significance of which has not been fully appreciated. We realised when we fixed prices for tyres that it would be difficult to make that Order effective. It is true that Deputy Dillon and Deputy Brennan spoke here as if they wanted that Order repealed. Deputy Dillon wanted the Order confined to Irish-made tyres and not to apply to imported tyres. If we were to attempt to make any such distinction, every tyre on the market would be an imported tyre immediately. Deputy Brennan stated that by fixing the prices unduly low we had encouraged the black market. We have not fixed the prices unduly low. In fact the prices fixed are higher than the prices for the best quality tyres in normal times and are much higher than the prices at which tyres of a similar quality are sold in the United Kingdom.
We did say to the public that, whenever a member of the public was offered tyres at a price higher than that fixed by the Order and reported the fact to the Department with sufficient information to enable the offender to be prosecuted, we would see that he got a tyre or tyres at the fixed price. That was a fair offer and in about 40 cases that offer has been availed of. Individuals have given the necessary information, proceedings are being instituted against the offenders, and arrangements have been made to ensure that these individuals will get tyres at the fixed price. I must say, however, that the main effect of that intimation was a huge influx of letters, some accompanied by postal orders, asking us to supply forthwith tyres to people who were not giving any information about anything except their own need for tyres. The impression was created that we had a stock of tyres at Earlsfort Terrace which we were prepared to give out on application.
Other Deputies asked what arrangements were being made for the utilisation of the tyres of private cars and commercial vehicles laid up. So far as the tyres of private cars are concerned, they are of very little use in connection with commercial vehicles. They are of an entirely different construction and cannot be adapted for use in commercial vehicles. To a limited extent we can use waste rubber, but only to a limited extent. Up to about 30 or 40 per cent. of waste can be used in tyre production with new rubber. Consequently, it will be obvious that the total amount of waste rubber we can utilise is 30 or 40 per cent. of the total quantity of new rubber that is available to us. It may be that we can arrange to collect waste rubber for export upon some basis of replacement, but whether that will prove to be practical or not I cannot say.
Deputy Dillon spoke with remarkable audacity upon the subject of self-sufficiency. I honestly thought that even Deputy Dillon would have the sense to sing dumb on that matter now. I noticed that most of his erstwhile colleagues sung dumb on it. Deputy Morrissey has not fully learned the lesson and Deputy Hughes was also indiscreet enough to raise this issue of self-sufficiency in our circumstances now and in the conditions in which we now find ourselves. Surely if there is to be any cause of regret——
I did not raise it.
I heard the Deputy carrying on a sotto voce conversation with Deputy Kissane about something.
Will the Minister say what he has to say about it?
If there is any cause of regret out of the past history of the industrial development policy in this country, it is that we started ten years too late. If we had begun the industrial development policy in 1922 instead of 1932, how much better off would we be now? If we had done that, we might have established in this country——
Why did we not start it in 1922?
That is what I want to know. There was a Government in office then which was indifferent to the policy of self-sufficiency, a Government which, when it went out of office, consistently and persistently opposed and obstructed the industrial policy of its successors.
Where was Fianna Fáil then?
What was the policy of the Party opposite for the past ten years? Was it not one of consistent opposition to industrial development? Did not the Deputies in opposition trot, day after day, into the Division Lobby in order to defeat the efforts of the Government to create the industries upon which we are now relying for a supply of goods, goods which we could not otherwise have? It can be put on record that we wasted ten years during which industrial development could have been proceeding, during which we could have established industries for the production of nitrogenous fertilisers, during which we could have created steel mills capable of handling scrap steel, chemical industries for the production of chemicals and dye-stuffs, and industries for the manufacture of artificial silk. We could have developed our textile industries to the extent of having a sufficient quantity of carding plant for the utilisation of our wool. In a hundred ways we might have been better off if our industrial development had started earlier. Each one of these industries could have been established on the basis of the raw materials available within the country.
If we had been able to proceed more rapidly with our policy, or if the country had started earlier upon the carrying out of that policy, we might, in addition, have got turf-burning electricity generating stations to supplement our existing hydroelectric stations and we might have had a more extensive development in the mechanical production of turf. We certainly would have established the growing of wheat on a farmer basis than we succeeded in doing since 1932, despite the continued opposition of Deputies opposite to a wheat-growing policy. A more intensive industrial development programme might have put us in a stronger position. If this Government has anything to apologise for in respect of the policy it has pursued since 1932, it is not because that policy was wrong, but because we did not push it more vigorously. If the Party opposite have anything to be ashamed of, it is because they opposed that policy and failed to give effect to anything approaching it when the opportunity was theirs.
Where would you be now if the Shannon scheme had not been started in 1923—the scheme that is keeping most of your industries going?
If we could turn back the clock, if this was March, 1932, and if some divine visitor came here and said that in September, 1939, a war would start which was going to cause scarcity and hardship and economic dislocation in this country, upon what policy would this Dáil, in 1932, have decided? Would they have altered in any respect the policy which the Fianna Fáil Government put before it? Would they have done anything else except give the Government in office instructions to proceed with that policy as rapidly and as energetically as they could? If we did not proceed as rapidly as might have been possible, the Opposition are to blame; the obstruction they caused, the misrepresentations of that policy which were continuously on their lips, slowed it up; but, despite all opposition and hostility, we did succeed in establishing boot and shoe, cement and sugar factories, electrical lamp factories, industrial alcohol plants and other industries, all of which are producing goods that would not otherwise be available if those industries had not been created.
Is this the opening of the election campaign?
The Deputy can have an election any time he likes.
The Minister never did better at the cross-roads.
But is it not all true?
It is half true.
If this nation had listened to Deputy Dillon declaring his attitude on wheat growing, and had listened to other Deputies opposite on the question of turf production and utilisation and the development of our industrial sources generally, what sort of a mess would we be in now? Here is a little advice that I will give these Deputies, advice which, in their own interest, they will endeavour to live up to—sing dumb about the self-sufficiency policy and your attitude to it.
If the Minister had any sense of shame, he would sing dumb, too.
If there is to be an opening of an election campaign, I should like to strike a facetious note. Deputy John Marcus O'Sullivan said that it might have been better for the country if the Fine Gael Party had played politics more than they did during the past three years. Now, apparently, they have decided that they should adopt Deputy John Marcus O'Sullivan's advice and they are going to play politics more than they did. I do not know what they can do more than they have done to prevent this Government carrying out its constructive policy and securing this nation in every respect against the possibility of hardship arising in such circumstances as now exist. Every act of theirs in relation to economic policy or industrial development was inspired purely by Party considerations. We have now been notified by them that they are going to play politics, more frequently than they did in the past.
The Minister is not playing politics in this speech?
I am talking sound common sense, and the great majority of the people will recognise it as such. The fact that, it is sound common sense is amply demonstrated by the Deputy's obvious annoyance.
Annoyance? After listening for 13 years to the Minister, I am amazed at the brazen way in which he stands up in this House——
Who is making the speech? I thought I was.
The Minister must be allowed to continue his speech without interruption.
Deputies have asked me about supplies of Kerosene. The position is that, subject to the delivery of the supplies that have been promised us, we will have sufficient for the purpose of the harvest and we will give a domestic ration this winter similar to that which was available last winter. Some Deputies spoke about shipping. I do not want to go at any length into matters relating to our shipping services. Members of this House have failed to express proper appreciation of the work done by the directors, managers, officers and men of our shipping lines. They created that mercantile marine in circumstances of great difficulty, and they are carrying it out in circumstances of growing difficulty. Nevertheless, they have brought in a great deal of valuable commodities, and, if we get from this year's harvest a quantity of wheat which will make us self-sufficient, then next year these ships will be of immense benefit to us by carrying to our ports commodities from abroad which we urgently need, in addition to raw materials which will enable us to carry on our industrial activities, assuming that these raw materials can be secured.
It is entirely incorrect for Deputy Hannigan to assert that there has been any boycott of the port of Dublin by Irish Shipping, Limited. It is true that certain ships were unnecessarily held up in the port of Dublin, and it is also true that the management of Irish Shipping, Limited, would be fully justified, in existing circumstances and knowing the urgency there was to keep these ships moving, in taking any steps they thought advisable to secure, if necessary, the withdrawal of ships from the port of Dublin altogether.
By whom were they held up?
They were held up by trade disputes, disputes with the sailors, unnecessary disputes which could be, and were in fact, settled by negotiation, but in relation to which there was not need to tie up the ships. There was one case where a ship was tied up in a port on the other side. In that instance there was not merely discreditable conduct on the part of the crew, but conduct which was contrary to the law. It was never intended that these ships should sail exclusively into the port of Dublin. Obviously they must go to the places where the goods are urgently required and to ports which would involve the least amount of internal transport afterwards. While for some time past cargoes of wheat have been going to Limerick and Cork, there are future cargoes intended for Dublin. During the period that ships belonging to Irish Shipping, Limited, were bringing cargoes to Waterford, Cork and Limerick, where the wheat was required, other ships owned by Irish shipping companies have been trading exclusively with Dublin from Lisbon. I may say that 40,000 tons of merchandise have come to Dublin by that route.
With regard to the point made by Deputy Hickey, it is not frequently understood that the cargo which a ship can carry is primarily determined by its weight. When a ship is carrying a cargo of grain there is usually cargo space available, but the ship is fully loaded down to the Plimsoll line and cannot carry a ton of anything else, even though the space is there to put additional cargo. The Deputy referred to the importation of tobacco. Tobacco is, of course, a wasteful cargo so far as space is concerned, but the fact that a cargo was carried upon a ship does not necessarily mean that the ship was not fully laden.
I am not unconscious of that.
We are importing tobacco, first, because we think it will help to make conditions a bit easier for the people of the country and secondly, because we know it will make them easier for the Minister for Finance. Tobacco is an important source of revenue and the Minister for Finance has pressed that the output of manufactured tobacco should be maintained in order that the State revenue should be maintained. If the revenue from tobacco were to fall it would be a very serious matter for the Exchequer, but, apart altogether from revenue considerations, I think that a free vote in this Dáil would result in a substantial majority in favour of the continued importation of limited quantities of tobacco.
We hope in the near future to be able to give more cargo space to the importation of industrial materials. In the meantime the ships have all been booked to carry cargoes of wheat. The arrangements have been made for that purpose and cannot now be altered. If, however, the situation develops as we anticipate, after the harvest, we hope to be able to bring in a quantity of goods such as the chemical fertilisers which some Deputies referred to. It is true that there are a number of commodities that we imported in bulk in the past that we cannot import now because we could never get enough to make a difference. Timber and maize and phosphate rock and commodities of that kind were imported in such quantities that to make anything like a normal quantity available here would be beyond the total capacity of all the ships available to us, but we have at the moment under discussion with the Department of Agriculture the question of artificial manures in relation to the shipping programme and it may be possible to do something, if only a little, to relieve the scarcity of manures during the next season.
In conclusion, I would like to give to Deputy Davin some information which he asked for. Perhaps I should have begun on this, instead of finishing, but the Deputy asked for the information. The total staff in the Department of Supplies is 671 to-day; it may be different to-morrow. Officers on loan from other Departments are 289; officers on the establishment of the Department of Supplies, 382. The temporary officers included in the numbers I have given are 230 and of these 36 are loaned from the Electricity Supply Board and 167 are temporary women clerks. The number of inspectors in the Department is 47. I know there was a number of detailed points raised by various Deputies to which I have not referred. I could not give them the information they were seeking without prolonging my speech unduly and instituting a research into the records of the Department. If Deputies want to pursue these matters they can do so by Parliamentary question.
Mr. Byrne
Would the Minister say something about coal? What are our prospects for coal?
I am afraid I cannot answer that question. The Deputy must not expect me to be omniscient in these matters. I know the quantity of coal we have got. What quantity we are going to get I cannot say. I do not think we are likely to get any more than we are getting at the present time. At any rate, it would be foolish to base any plans upon the assumption that the importation of coal is going to improve.
Motion to refer back, by leave, withdrawn.
Main question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 47; Níl, 27.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Fuller, Stephen.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Keane, John J.
- Kelly, James P.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Francis.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Reilly, Mathew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ryan, James.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George C.
- Benson, Ernest E.
- Broderick, William J.
- Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
- Coburn, James.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John A.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Curran, Richard.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hughes, James.
- Keating, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- O'Donovan, Timothy J.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reynolds, Mary.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Smith and S. Brady; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Progress reported; the Committee to sit again.