Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Jul 1942

Vol. 87 No. 18

Emergency Powers (Continuance and Amendment) Bill, 1942—Second Stage.

As the long Title of this Bill indicates, it is for the purpose of extending the period of the Emergency Powers Act and also of amending it and extending its scope. With regard to the extension of the time, Deputies will remember that it was on the 3rd September, 1939, I think, that the Emergency Powers Act was passed, and it was provided in the Act that it should expire at the end of one year unless the Oireachtas decided to continue it. It was also provided that it could come to an end before that time, by means of a Government Order. We have had to extend the Act twice already and the purpose of this Bill is to extend the Act to the 2nd September of the coming year, with again the proviso that it can be brought to an end at any time if there is a Government Order to that effect. Besides continuing the powers, there is provision for the making of amendments. The amendments cover four or five points. The first is one which removes doubts as to the meaning of sub-section (2), of Section 2, of the Principal Act.

If Deputies look at the Principal Act they will notice that the first part of the section is of a general character, giving general powers, and that it then indicates a number of particular things for which the power to make Orders was given. It is said at the beginning of the second sub-section that these special powers were not to be regarded as in any way prejudicing the generality of the powers given in the previous sub-section. As certain doubts have arisen it has been thought well to put the matter beyond all doubt. As, it might be thought that the enumeration of certain specific things that could be done might be regarded in some way as excluding other things not merely from the specific powers given in the sub-section, but also from the general powers, it has been thought well to put that beyond all doubt: to make it clear that the intention of the Legislature was that the general powers were, as stated, to be unaffected by anything whatever in the second sub-section. The point is really one of legal interpretation. Supposing in the sub-section you were classifying certain things and were to say "otherwise than", that phrase, although it might have been only as an indication that a certain thing was intended, might be interpreted as saying that a particular class of things was completely outside the powers which are given to the Government. If the discussions that took place on the introduction of the Principal Act and on the later stages of it are looked up, it will be clear, I think, that it was understood that the power given by sub-section (1) was intended to be general, since it was impossible to foresee the particular things that might have to be dealt with. It would have been quite impossible to give a complete list of the various things that might have to be dealt with. The lists that were given indicated generally the type of action which it might be necessary to take in regard to the things that could be foreseen and, in that way, were capable of being set down.

The next point covered is the retrospective amendment of Government Orders and subsidiary instruments. By the way "subsidiary instrument" is defined in the Bill and now includes. in addition to regulations, rules and bye-laws,

"scheme or direction in writing made or given (whether before or after the passing of this Act) in exercise of the powers conferred by a Government Order."

This is to make it possible to give retrospective effect, by Government Order or subsidiary instrument, to amendments of previous Orders, but does not, of course, extend to the point of making something an offence which was not an offence at the time the thing was done. From every point of view legislation of that type would be altogether undesirable and improper. In fact, I think it is expressly forbidden by the Constitution.

Could the Taoiseach give us an example of what he has in mind?

Suppose that in any particular Order power was given to do certain things, and that some particular definition was given of the official who would carry it out. If there was any technical fault in it, that might be utilised to render the whole purpose ineffective, and hold up in the courts, because of some technical error, action which it was intended should be taken in the public interest. The object of this is to deal with that sort of situation, so that a good deal of possible litigation might be avoided. In regard to all these Orders that are being made, it is almost impossible completely to anticipate all the possible types of technical points that might be raised. It is to cover these that this is intended. Take the question of clothes rationing, in connection with which the Minister for Supplies made an Order. When he made an amendment to his original Order it might be necessary for him to make it effective retrospectively so as to affect a previous condition. For instance, there was a change in the value of the coupons. The Order might have to be amended in such a way that it would relate back not merely to the date of the new Order, but to the anterior point of time.

When we come to deal with that matter in detail we may be able to get some more specific examples. The intention is to make the amending Order retrospective so that it will affect acts which took place previous to the time at which the amending Order was made. Again, I want it to be clearly understood that it cannot have the effect of making a thing an offence or an infringement of the law which was not such at the date of its commission.

The next point deals with penalties. Deputies will find that in the Principal Act certain maximum penalties are provided. In the case of summary convictions there is a maximum of £100 with a period of imprisonment of six months or both. That maximum penalty of £100 is being increased to £500, and the six months' imprisonment to 12 months. I am leaving out for the moment the question of continuing fines. That refers to the case of summary conviction. In the case of conviction on indictment, the maximum formerly was £500 and that is now raised to £5,000. The period of imprisonment which might be imposed was ten years penal servitude or two years imprisonment. The period is not increased in that case.

In addition to increasing the maximum penalties power is taken in 6A which is to be put in the original Act to state minimum penalties, provided that the minimum penalty shall not be greater than £100. Maximum penalties were provided for already and this is to provide minimum penalties either of a specified amount or an amount which would be calculated in regard to some particular unit to which the offence might be related. For example, the Minister for Agriculture spoke of penalties of so many pounds per acre in the case of failure to cultivate the required portion of arable land. The minimum dealing with that matter might be stated as so much per acre and not merely a total sum.

There is also a provision in Section 9 with regard to non-compliance with Orders which make it compulsory to do something before a specified date. If the date passes and the person who is prosecuted is convicted of not having done the thing before the specified date, then if, after the date has passed, the thing is still not done, it is nevertheless made an offence for him not to do the thing though the date mentioned has passed. In certain cases it might not be possible to do that. If he had to cultivate a certain amount of land, and if ordinarily the time for cultivation had clearly passed, it might not be possible for him to do it. There is an exception made in regard to the cultivation of land. It may occur to Deputies that there is something else in addition to land which it might be necessary to deal with, and that that clause should be made more general; that Section 9 (4) might be made more general than it is. Here it is relating to land, but it is obvious that if there was something of the same type which could not, in the nature of things, be done after the date mentioned, you might have to make an exception in a case of that sort.

The next and the final point is the extension of the power of delegation. There was some difficulty in regard to a particular case dealing with a scheme—I think it was an A.R.P. compensation scheme. It was found, when Section 6 of the Principal Act was read closely, that the Minister could not delegate his powers to look after that particular scheme. This is to make it possible for the Minister to delegate, under the conditions which are specified in the Principal Act, to another Minister or to a Parliamentary Secretary practically any power or duty imposed or conferred upon himself.

Is that not in Section 6 (1) of the Principal Act already?

I am advised, at any rate, that in the case of the scheme to which I referred it was considered that the power was not sufficiently wide to cover the scheme; that the actual wording of the Act appeared to limit it. This is to amend it to such an extent that the limitation which it is held exists in the original wording would be removed.

I think I have indicated the scope of the measure. There is obvious need for continuance. The emergency which made it necessary to take these powers has not passed. With regard to the section removing doubts, I have pointed out that it is important that there should be no doubt. It is quite impossible to list or to anticipate all the types of matters that will have to be dealt with, and the only way to deal with it, except where there were specified and definite exceptions made, was to give plenary power. With regard to the retrospective clause, as I pointed out that is intended really to see that some technical fault in the drawing up of an Order might not be made an excuse for nullifying the whole intention. As I say, we may have to go into that in more detail.

With regard to the need for specifying minimum penalties, it is, of course, a thing which one regrets having to do. The natural thing would be, so far as possible, to leave it to the judge or the justice who may be trying a particular case and who will see all the particular aspects of it which might mitigate the offence, to say what the penalty should be. I think everybody will agree that some of the penalties imposed with regard to vital matters, such as the cultivation of land and the production of food for the community, cases dealing with articles in short supply and cases where maximum prices were fixed, seem to indicate— and it has been the experience of the Departments concerned who went into these cases fairly fully—that there was not full appreciation either on the part of the justice or on the part of the community as a whole of the seriousness of the offences which were being committed. It will naturally be argued in this matter that it is a serious thing to provide for minimum penalties which will apply to all classes of persons who might be convicted of an offence. But in times like these we have to defend the community as a whole.

If there is something extraordinary in a case which merits a mitigation of the minimum penalty, there is a way of doing that, and that is by an appeal to the Minister. The Minister in such a case, of course, will have to satisfy himself before there is any mitigation whether the case is of such a particular kind as to warrant a mitigation of the penalty. I think it would be difficult to satisfy a Minister that the case would warrant a mitigation, in view of the need for getting the work done that is prescribed, either in the way of the production of food, or in seeing that there is no offence in regard to commodities which are in short supply. It is the only way in which the matter can be dealt with. It will, of course, be argued that the Minister is not in the same position as a justice or a judge. The justice hears all sides; he gets all the details; he has the parties in front of him and can judge for himself on the evidence presented to him. In this matter we have to judge between the interests of the community and the interests of the individual. There is being left behind with the Minister a residue of power to examine any cases that seem to merit special attention.

What about the hearing of an appeal in any particular case?

There is no appeal. Of course, there is the usual appeal to higher courts and the power given to the Minister to mitigate fines.

Is not that an appeal?

It is a question of what the Deputy means by an appeal. The usual appeal is there, of course.

Are we to take it that the Government feel that the present penalties inflicted in court are insufficient?

We are quite definitely of that opinion.

In fact, that is what it means?

In regard to cases brought mainly by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Supplies, there were penalties imposed which were altogether inadequate and trifling and seemed to indicate a complete lack of appreciation of the seriousness of the matter in question. The only way is for the Oireachtas to indicate quite clearly to the community, and to those responsible for interpreting the law, that we regard this as a matter of considerable importance. It is really a matter of serious consequence to the community and we take this particular way of indicating its seriousness by setting out minimum fines.

Am I right in saying that the minimum fine in connection with this matter is £100?

It may be £500.

I thought this fixed the minimum fine?

No. The Orders may fix the fines, but there are limits set out in the Bill, limits beyond which the fines cannot go.

You will have to make a stronger justification for that section.

Will the Taoiseach mention an individual case in which a small fine has been imposed and where it is thought a bigger fine should have been imposed?

There were cases, for instance, where the quota for tillage was over 80 acres and only 50 acres were tilled and there was a trifling fine of 5/- or 10/- imposed.

Obviously, there were mitigating circumstances?

That is our difficulty. The Departments have carefully considered those circumstances, and we have considered them in order to see whether they were sufficient to warrant the imposition of a fine of that amount, and we could not agree that they were. I made a public statement on the matter at one time. I called attention to the fact that the penalties which were inflicted did not seem to show a realisation of the dangers to the community in any non-compliance with these Orders with regard to tillage and other matters. I will be able to get a number of cases indicating in a general way the fact that there was not an adequate appreciation of the seriousness of the situation.

In future the consideration of the mitigating circumstances will rest with the Minister and not with the judge?

The point is that he cannot impose less than the minimum fine.

Which may be fairly severe?

The intention is to make them severe. It will be a question of whether an individual is or is not guilty of an offence, but once he is guilty, then he cannot be fined less than the minimum fine. If imprisonment is involved, the period will not be less than what will be specified. If there are mitigating circumstances, they will be considered only by the Minister.

Is there not a new principle involved in 6A? That sets out that the Government may, whenever and so often as they think fit, by Order do certain things. That is entirely a new principle.

It is legislation by Order in a sense.

Minimum penalties are very rare and are generally disliked by Parliament and by the courts.

That is so, and we take that into account. We did this only as a last resort in order to make sure that the seriousness of the offences that might be committed will be realised by the public and that the intentions of Parliament will not be completely set aside by the action of some justice who does not seem to realise what the situation is. There have been cases where offenders were let out under the Probation of Offenders Act, or something of that sort. There were cases where, so far as one could judge from the information which the Department had, there seemed to be no real justification for the non-compliance with the Order and still, under the First Offenders Act, the offences were condoned, or appeared to be condoned by the justice.

That may still be done if the justice likes to apply the Probation of Offenders Act.

That can be met, too, by Order, if necessary.

Then it is contemplated the Order might forbid the justice to apply that Act?

If it was found necessary.

That is not here.

It is not necessary to have it here. There are other things that flow from the powers we have already. If that particular power of letting a person off under the Probation of Offenders Act is abused, we shall have to prevent it. The position is much too serious to allow any justice who may not appreciate this thing in the same way as the legislature does, to act in the way I have indicated.

It would not be intended to do that sort of thing retrospectively—to say to a justice in respect of an individual to whom he has applied the Probation of Offenders Act, that he should not have done it?

I do not think that will be done, that there will be retrospective action in that way with regard to some judgment of the court. I expect that on the Committee Stage we will have a good deal of argument on these things. I want to assure the House that our bringing this forward is not done without a good deal of careful consideration. We feel there is no other way to make it certain that, in view of the seriousness of the situation in regard to food production, and in regard to keeping prices to the limits set down as the maximum prices for commodities, these particular Orders will not be set aside.

Could we get any information about the sum total of the acreage that was short, that is, in respect of which prosecutions were made?

I could not give that figure. If the Deputy wants it I will try to get some amount. There was quite a number of cases and the trouble is that these set a headline. If you have a number of cases like that a man will say, "Why should I go to all this bother if the only consequence of my failure to till is that I am fined 10/-?" Take, for instance, the case I mentioned. Suppose a man was bound to till, say, 80 acres and he only tills 50, and the only loss he suffers for having failed to till the extra 30 acres is that he is fined 10/-, why should anybody who is supposed to till that amount of land, unless he does it purely from a patriotic point of view, till more than the 50 or the same proportion?

Will the Taoiseach say how many of these cases there are?

There has been quite a number.

Of small fines?

Small fines and fairly substantial delinquencies, if I might put it that way.

Will the Taoiseach say what the penalty is likely to be per acre?

The Minister for Agriculture mentioned a figure as large as £20 an acre, perhaps. Of course, legislating by Order, as we are doing, there is a number of things we have to do under present circumstances which are not things one would like to do normally, but there seems to be no other way in which we can deal with a situation like this. If you take the number of Orders that have been passed, if you had to have Bills dealing with these Orders, it would be quite impossible to do it in the time at our disposal. With regard to failure to produce the food that can be produced, and which is needed by the community, if we do not put on record, so to speak, our sense of the seriousness of that, by indicating that it is not trifling and that failure to carry out a duty in that respect is not being met by a small fine, there seems to be no way out. It is quite true that this type of legislation is not usual, that in bringing it in, we only do so because we cannot see how we are going to get the community to realise what the situation is like if we do not do it.

With regard to continuance, that is an obvious thing which there is no need to justify. If a thing has to be done by a certain date and it can still be done and is not being done after that date, there is a continuing offence and there should be a penalty for that continuing offence. With regard to the powers of delegation, I do not think there is any objection taken to that. I would say that the two main controversial parts of the Bill would be that with regard to the possible effect and the nature of retrospective amendments and the question of minimum fines. Those are the two points in the Bill, I think, on which there may be difference of opinion, and if it is proposed to leave it to the Committee Stage I will try, if I can get in the Second Reading speeches an indication of the sort of thing the Deputies would like, to have as full a list in such detail as possible for the Committee Stage.

I move:—

To delete all words after the word "That", and substitute the following words:—

"this House refuses to give a Second Reading to the Emergency Powers (Continuance and Amendment) Bill, 1942, on the grounds that the Government has made use of the Principal Act for the purpose of keeping wages low while permitting prices to rise and therefore reducing real incomes."

When the Act of 1939 was going through this House, there was a desire expressed from all sides of the House that the Government should be given all powers which it then reasonably required for the purpose of protecting the State, for the purpose of protecting the institutions of the State and for the purpose of safeguarding our Irish conception of life against the possibility of aggression from without or even the possibility of aggression from within. At that time we got assurances from the Government, from the Taoiseach and from his Ministers, that the purpose of the Bill was really to protect the State and that the Bill would not be used for purposes which were in conflict with that conception and would not be used for purposes which were at variance with the general understanding of the Bill as it was then given to the House. Probably the clearest assurance in that connection was the one given by the Taoiseach when he said: "Our only reason for seeking these powers, that is the wide powers conferred on the Government by the Emergency Powers Act of 1939, is to have the rights and the power to protect our people and their interests."

That was the Taoiseach's view of the reasons why he wanted the Emergency Powers Act of 1939 passed and the reasons why he wanted to utilise the powers which would be conferred upon the Government under the Act. But we have seen all too clearly during the intervening years that the Act has not been used solely for the purpose of protecting the State and the interests of the people. We have seen in many respects the Act used for the deliberate and calculated purpose of depressing the standard of living of the people of this country, of the very people on whom the Government would be compelled to rely in the event of an invasion of this country or in the event of any challenge to the Parliamentary institutions established in this country.

Through the medium of Emergency Powers Order 83, and the amending Order 166, the Government has come out most openly, most audaciously, to proclaim that its policy during this crisis is to keep wages as low as possible and in these Orders the Government has thrown all its power and all its resources and all its legislative machine behind every sweating and exploiting employer in this country because, by the provisions of Order 83, every sweating employer in this country is protected and even the power of trade union organisation is challenged by the Government if it endeavours to compel that employer to conform to the Christian principles enshrined in the Constitution. Emergency Powers Orders Nos. 83 and 166 have been used, in short, for the purpose of making war on the wage standards of the workers, for the purpose of driving them back to a condition of life from which they escaped only after strenuous endeavours and many severe sacrifices.

Now we see the Government utilising an Act, given to them for the purpose of protecting the State, in such a manner as to depress the standard of living of the workers, and to give them no compensation for a rise in prices which the Government has shown itself pitifully helpless to control. While these views have been expressed by many workers, and by many working-class organisations throughout the country, they are shared by many others, even by members of the Government Party.

I happen to have with me the Midland Tribune of the 20th June. There is a report of a meeting of the Offaly Board of Health, in which reference was made to the fact that there was a strike on a sewerage scheme at Clara. The workers were being compelled to work for a wage of 9d. per hour—in 1942, mind you, 9d. per hour. They had gone on strike, and had demanded 1/- per hour, and it was reported that the contractor was powerless to settle the strike by an increase of their wages, because he was not permitted under the Emergency Powers Order to do so. One member of the board, Mr. Boyle, an ex-Fianna Fáil Senator, addressed himself to the problem confronting the board, and is reported as having said that he had made inquiries into the matter, and understood that the only remedy the workers had was to appeal to the Wages Tribunal set up under the Order. He said that if this strike continued it would mean a considerable loss to the board in the rents of the new houses and deterioration, adding that “the Ten Commandments of Moses did not seem to be in it with this Order laid down by a Departmental chief”. That was ex-Senator Boyle's view.

Another prominent supporter of the Government Party, Mr. O'Connell, spoke at the same meeting and said that the Government was "sticking slavishly to an economic theory founded by a few brass-hats in the Civil Service." Mr. Boyle spoke again and said that conscience did not seem to influence legislation of this kind if the Department concerned considered that a man could live on 30/- per week and feed and clothe himself and his wife and family. "First of all," he said, "they did not even bother whether a man had a living wage before they made the standstill order." The fact that two strong supporters of the Government Party felt compelled to give utterance to these views because of the economic position in which they know the workers are being compelled to live is the clearest possible evidence that the Emergency Powers Orders, Nos. 83 and 166, are Orders which have impoverished the workers, depressed their standard of living and have brought about an economic position which has even been able to break through the natural silence which one might expect from members of the Government Party on occasions such as that.

While the Government has been wickedly efficient in keeping wages low and while it has operated with ruthless efficiency the terms of Emergency Powers (No. 83) Order, it has been conspicuously inefficient in the matter of controlling prices. We see wages kept low and employers prevented from granting any increase in wages under an Order which was made at a time when we were promised that every effort would be made to keep prices low so that the relative purchasing power of the workers would remain the same. What are the facts? According to the cost-of-living index figures published by the Department of Industry and Commerce, the index figure which, in August, 1939, was 73, had jumped by May, 1942, to 140, and in a situation in which the index figure has jumped from 73 to 140, workers are expected to be able to exist on wage standards which gave them the barest existence when the price level was indicated by an index figure of 73.

If workers are compelled to tolerate a low standard of living when the price level is indicated by an index figure of 73, on a basis of 0, how much more depressed is their standard of living when that index figure has jumped to 140? It must be obvious to members of the Government, if they were willing to admit it, and to any persons advising them in this matter, that the only effect of Emergency Powers (No. 83) Order has been deliberately to depress the standard of living of the workers, and every point rise in the cost of living index figure over 73 to the May, 1942, level of 140 represents a steady downward movement of that standard of living. I do not even accept these figures as being an adequate measure of the increase in the cost of living which has in fact taken place. These figures are weighted averages, and, to that extent, they conceal very substantial increases in certain directions. I believe that if there was an up-to-date ascertainment of the increase in the cost of living as between 1939 and 1942, it would be found that the increase is much greater than that represented by the official statistics.

It is not only in its general attitude towards wages that the Government has abused the powers conferred upon it by the Emergency Powers Act, 1939. In all its relations with wage problems, whether within the Order or without the Order, the Government has shown that it regards Emergency Powers (No. 83) Order as its authority to depress the standard of living of the people. We have seen that Order used to compel turf workers to work for a wage of 32/- or 33/- per week, and we have seen turf workers revolt against that wage to such an extent that fewer people this year are producing turf than last year, notwithstanding the fact that, because of the fall-off in the importation of coal, we shall need much more turf this year. We have seen the Government utilise its powers under the Act for the purpose of keeping the wages of road workers inordinately low, and we have seen the Government then trying to dovetail its attitude towards turf and road workers with its attitude towards agricultural workers and to keep their wages low, too, notwithstanding the essential character of the work they are doing in present circumstances.

When the House passed the Bill in 1939, I do not believe it then thought that the powers of the Act would be utilised to impoverish the workers, that it would be utilised to make their lot harder, and I do not believe this House or the country believed that an Act introduced in the terms then used to support it by the Taoiseach would be utilised for the purpose of diminishing the quantity of food, the quantity of clothing and the amenities of life which the workers then enjoyed, and which for the past few years they have struggled to preserve in face of rising prices. Knowing the widespread indignation which existed in respect of Emergency Powers (No. 83) Order, the Government sought apparently to release the rein a little, and evolved Emergency Powers (No. 166) Order, but anybody who has read that Order must marvel at the type of mind responsible for drafting such an unworkable piece of machinery.

If ever there was a complicated piece of machinery quite incapable of working, Emergency Powers (No. 166) Order is it, and one has only to read it carefully to realise that the purpose of all the complication in the Order was to ensure that the machinery which it pretended to set up could never be utilised in such a way as to grant any easement of the ruthless terms imposed on workers under Emergency Powers (No. 83) Order. Although Order 166 is alleged to be for the purpose of granting some easement of the burdens imposed by Order 83, it is manifest to all that the purpose of Order 166 is the same as that of its parent, Emergency Powers Order 83, and that is to keep the wages of the workers of this country as low as possible, whilst at the same time refusing to control the cost of commodities in this country in a way that would retain for the workers their pre-emergency purchasing power. All our efforts in this House to extract from any member of the Government a justification for the issue of these Orders have completely failed, but I hope that the Taoiseach, to-day, will at least attempt to give the House and the country an explanation of why these Orders are in existence, keeping wages low, in view of the fact that he must know that his Government has failed miserably to control the price of commodities in this country and, particularly, to control effectively the cost of the staple commodities which are used, in the main, in working-class homes.

Can the Taoiseach justify these Orders on the ground that price levels have remained static? Obviously, he cannot do so, because price levels have risen rapidly. He cannot justify the continuance of these Orders on the ground that there are high wage levels to-day, because wage levels, always low, have been rendered particularly low by reason of the fact that they have lost their pre-war buying power. These Orders cannot be justified on the ground of scarcity of labour or on the ground that, therefore, wages would rise if there were no control of labour, because it is obvious to everybody that there is an abundance of labour, as shown by the statistics of the Department of Industry and Commerce. There is such an abundance of labour that we are exporting tens of thousands of our people to Great Britain and the Six Counties because we cannot find work for them here. I, therefore, can only imagine one ground on which these Orders can be justified, and that is that the Government, apparently, believe that the sure way to prosperity in this country is by debasing the standard of living of the workers, by restricting their purchasing power, and by compelling them to accept a standard of life which does violence to the Constitution which was supposed to be their economic Magna Charta in this country. These Orders can only be based on the muddled economics that go hand in hand with the pathetic, unreasonable belief that low wages are a passport to prosperity. Low wages have never proved themselves to be a passport to prosperity, either here or elsewhere throughout the world. Low wages mean less purchasing power and a lower standard of living. Less purchasing power means less demand for goods, and less demand for goods, in turn, means less employment and more emigration, and that is the only effect on our economic structure here of maintaining a policy of keeping wages low whilst permitting prices to rise so high that many articles that were once purchaseable by workers are no longer purchasable by them on their present scale of wages.

So far as the provisions of this Bill and the parent Act are concerned, the Labour Party, in 1939, and even in 1942, were willing to give the Government every power that could be reasonably required by them to protect and defend the interests of the nation. We were willing to co-operate then with the Government—and we are still willing —in the use of our national strength in order to protect the interests of the nation. If we have one complaint to make in that regard, it is that our economic and social organisation has been impaired and weakened by Governmental neglect, to such an extent that neither our economic organisation nor our social organisation to-day is in the state of efficiency in which it ought to be in the circumstances in which we live. While we are willing to give the Government all the powers that may be required for the defence of the nation against internal or external aggression—all the powers which the Government need to defend the interests of our people against attack from outside—we are not willing to give the Government powers which will be utilised for the purpose, not of making war on an enemy or an aggressor, but on the standard of living of the only people in this country who can ever be relied upon to defend the country, and that is the mass of the people who are affected by Emergency Powers Order No. 83. We have no confidence that this Government will discontinue utilising these powers against the workers and their wage standards, and we have put down this amendment in the hope that the House, by its contributions in this debate, will make it clear that it was a gross breach of faith on the part of the Government ever to use the powers of the Act of 1939 for the purpose of attacking the standard of living of the workers of this country.

I formally second the motion.

There are one or two matters about which I should like the Taoiseach to give an explanation before the Second Reading is taken on this Bill. According to Section 7 of the Bill, as it is phrased, we are told that a Government Order or a subsidiary instrument may be amended with retrospective effect by a Government Order or a subsidiary instrument, and so on. The limitation which is imposed there is that the power "shall not extend to the making of any amendment which would cause acts to be infringements of the law which were not so at the date of their commission". There are two things which are not specified there, of which we have had sad experience in this country. In ordinary constitutional times it is forbidden to make matters a cause of offence which were not so at the date of their commission, but while that particular Order, under both Constitutions, has been observed in the spirit, there has been something lacking in the observance of it otherwise. For instance, there have been cases of fines, applicable to a particular offence, being increased and the increase given retrospective effect, and we know, of course, that in regard to some of these amendments, Orders, or laws, the method of introducing evidence, in respect of an offence, into court, has been changed from time to time, so that a person who, at one time, as the law then stood, could feel fairly certain that he was not in much danger of being convicted of an offence, is now in the position that he may be convicted because of a change with regard to the laws of evidence that have occurred in the meantime. That operated here with regard to the Offences Against the State Act on more than one occasion. I want to know from the Taoiseach whether or not it is intended to exclude these two possibilities of which I have spoken, and whether the limitation which is at the end of this section will apply also in the matter of increasing the penalty retrospectively: that is to say, that if a person is brought up for an offence and, before he is tried, the penalty for that offence is such-and-such, his case might be amended in the meantime so as to make the offence, or the penalty for it, larger than what it was at the time he was alleged to have committed the offence. I should also like to know whether there is any question of changing the laws of evidence. They have been changed, as we know, very fundamentally in one particular regard, but I do not know whether it is intended to maintain the rules that hold with regard to evidence or whether, on occasion, they may be relaxed, or whether that relaxation may take place in respect of such cases as I have referred to.

That person might find himself accused of having committed some offence on a particular date, but before his case came to trial certain things might, by Order, be declared to be deemed to be an offence which were not at the time when he was alleged to have committed his offence. I mention these few things because we have had experience of them operating apart altogether from emergency legislation.

With regard to Section 8, the principle that is affected by it is, of course, clear. It is intended no longer to leave the court to be the judge of any extenuating circumstances that might occur in an individual case. In any event it gives the Government this power, that by Order in respect of certain specified offences the Government may say to the courts: " Once you convict we demand of you that you impose the minimum penalty." The minimum penalty cannot go beyond a certain point, either £100 or £500, according to which of the sub-sections is being operated. The maximum penalty may go very high indeed. If I leave the House with the information I have at my disposal now and I am asked to-morrow if I accepted this principle of minimum penalties which is viewed always with alarm both in Parliament and in the courts, and on what evidence the Dáil granted these minimum penalties, all that I can say is: "On the information I have at the moment, the Taoiseach told us that he knew of several cases but gave us details of none: that he knew of several cases in which so far as the Departments are concerned, penalties had to be inflicted by the courts, which were entirely too small." I can imagine a case being made for minimum penalties and of a case even being made for a Government saying to the Parliamentary Assembly: "We do not want to hear anything of extenuating circumstances in certain cases because the law, as we are making it, is so clear that those who offend against it do so with their eyes open, that what they have done was so grave and serious from the point of view of the country as a whole, that there should be no question of extenuating circumstances, or of a small fine being imposed." But, I have not heard that case made.

The only thing relevant in this paragraph to which the Taoiseach has referred had some relation, I think, to the question of compulsory tillage. When he mentioned that I asked him were there any extenuating circumstances. I think I got the answer from him that possibly there were what the justices considered extenuating circumstances, but that the Departments did not discover any extenuating circumstances when they examined particular cases. I do not know what examination the Departments gave the cases, or how they were transferred to the Departments. If the Departments went on the newspaper reports it should be mentioned that these reports are always abbreviated, and that the full effect of what was said in court might not have been brought out in the report. From my experience in the courts I know that the district justices and the Circuit Court judges, before whom the appeals go, take quite a stern attitude on such matters as non-compliance with a compulsory tillage order, for over-charging for foodstuffs in respect of which price control operates, and in cases of short-weight. I heard myself a Circuit Court judge announce openly in court—his statement was promulgated through the Press—that he thought very seriously of making a recommendation to have power given for the infliction of capital punishment in respect, say, of cases where people gave short weight or charged prices higher than the controlled price for essential commodities. I do not think the Taoiseach can find any case in which it can be said that any member of the courts has been found to be setting his face against these Orders, or to be running contrary to the view generally expressed through an Order, or of attempting to weaken the effect of an Order. I assert that the courts of the country have been strong in supporting these Orders. If that be so, then the only thing that requires investigation is the extenuating circumstance. We have had no examination of that here. The House has been asked to assent to this principle of minimum penalties on two or three sentences which, I think, do not contain an allusion to more than one concrete case: two or three sentences which simply state that the Department of Supplies and the Department of Agriculture could not see what extenuating circumstances had arisen in certain cases, so as to incline a justice to leniency.

One of the effects which has ordinarily resulted from this type of minimum penalty is to drive justices not to convict at all or, if they do convict and are clear about extenuating circumstances, to regard the offence as a technical one and apply the Probation of Offenders Act. When I pointed that out I was told by the Taoiseach that it might be necessary to prevent that type of thing happening. That again indicates a further encroachment on the judicial impartiality of the courts. We have been told by the Taoiseach that once people have been convicted, if there are any extenuating circumstances at all, they can bring them to the notice of the Department. Of course, the obvious answer to that is, why should that not be the situation in normal times. We know that, if a thing like that is left to Ministerial discretion, immediately all the political wheels will get going, and that the mitigating circumstances put up to the Department will not derive from anything attending on the circumstances that brought about the offence, but will simply relate to the man's political affiliation. It should be the anxiety of everyone to avoid that as much as possible.

Even though my suggestion may mean the investigation of Departmental files and some expenditure of time in this House, I still think we ought to have some statement from the Government covering at least half a dozen selected cases. I do not think these selected cases will do much good, if recited in this House, unless there has been some real examination of the allegation with regard to the extenuating circumstances when those extenuating circumstances were produced in court. If I found that the justices in the courts as a whole decided not to apply these Orders or to weaken their effect as much as possible then, of course, the case for the minimum penalty is made, and requires less backing by concrete cases of non-observance. But, when you do learn that the justices are keen upon the application of these Orders, but find themselves occasionally in legal difficulties with regard to their application, then I think the House should get a chance of examining some of the cases in which it is said too great leniency has been shown. I know that in certain areas in the country the justices, when dealing with offenders against compulsory tillage Orders, often find some difficulty in making up their minds in regard to the application of an Order when they discover that it insists that, within a particular period, some percentage of the tillage must be secured. When prosecutions are brought before the end of that period as, of course, they must be if they are to be effective, the justices in some of these cases have found themselves legally embarrassed as to whether they could apply the Order and rule that there was non-compliance until the last day of the period had expired in which compliance could be achieved. It may be that in some cases of that kind the justices, not feeling too sure of the legal ground on which they were being asked to impose penalties, imposed something in the nature of a small penalty. From my slight experience of these matters in the courts I found that any time leniency was shown towards offenders the whole point turned on a proper case being made in which there were really mitigating circumstances.

I hope that before the debate ends some concrete cases will be put before us and that we will not be asked to accept this principle of minimum penalties in the blindfold fashion that we are being asked to do so at the moment. It is clear from the Taoiseach's speech that these minimum penalties are regarded as being an exceptional matter. They sometimes have the contrary effect to what is intended. Instead of leading to a suppression of the offence aimed at, they sometimes lead to such conditions occurring as that the Order imposing the penalty is almost nullified, because judges, if they are forced to impose penalties which are far beyond the situation revealed to them in a concrete case, often avail themselves of a way out by refusing to convict.

There is one small matter in connection with Section 8. Paragraph 6A states:—

"The Government may, whenever and as often as they think fit, by Order under Section 2 of this Act, do one of the following things."

What follows, I take it, represents the alternative, that one or other of these Orders may be applied, but not both in relation to a specified offence. It is to be noted that the Government can do this whenever and so often as they think fit and the operative words in both paragraphs (a) and (b) are "in respect of a specified offence under this section." Could it be that the Government would on occasion apply in relation to a type of offence, where an individual has been brought before the court, order (a) and in respect of a different individual, or in connection with the same offence, give a chance of the minimum penalty being raised as far as £500? Does this matter of a specified offence entirely remove individuals out of consideration? Is it to be only the offence, not the individual charged with a specified offence, or have the Government in their minds, say, a higher minimum penalty in respect of a certain class of persons than in respect of a different class of persons?

In any event, it is open to that manipulation. I understand it to mean merely that the Government would have as their viewpoint an offence such as failure to comply with the Compulsory Tillage Order and they would say, in respect of that, that on and after a certain date all persons charged would be met with this minimum penalty of, say, £100, and that if that did not seem to be sufficient and a change had to be made, the more severe type of Order would be applied and the Government would say, as from a certain date, in respect of individuals failing to comply even with the same Order, the second type of Order would be applicable, either a minimum penalty of £500 or an amount calculated by reference to the acreage by which the person failed to comply with the Order.

This is very loosely phrased and enables Orders to be made in respect of individuals. It allows an Order to be made, on a certain person coming before a court, so that there will be no minimum penalty, and for another class of persons in another part of the country who were coming before the courts it could be imposed again prior to their being brought into court. It seems to me when any of these Orders is published it should have some minimum duration, or if it is not going to have a minimum duration of a certain number of months, over which period all persons will be treated alike, that in case of a change there should be an entire repeal of the Order imposing one of these minimum penalties, and that such penalty would not thereafter be imposed for some period of months.

Would the Deputy be good enough to summarise that again as I have missed the point.

I take it that under the loose phraseology of 6A, when it is put in the original Act, the Government may, whenever and so often as they think fit, by Order do one of the following things in paragraphs (a) and (b). That will allow this to happen. The Government may declare in respect of a particular offence that there would be an Order of the (a) type, where the minimum penalty cannot be fixed higher than £100 on the first batch of people appearing in court. On another group of offenders coming before the court a month later, the prosecution not having started, the Government might decide that £100 fine was not sufficient as a minimum and might swing over to an Order of the (b) type. Having got certain people, whom they might desire to make an example of subjected to a minimum penalty of £500, they might then repeal that Order and reintroduce an Order of the (a) type in which the minimum penalty could not be raised higher than £100. I do not think that that should occur. I do not think these minimum penalties should be associated with individuals.

Certainly it is not intended that they should.

They should apply to all individuals who, at a certain time, are guilty of some of the offences named. I think the Order as it stands allows for manipulation of that type. I am not sure that it would not be better to pay more attention to the phrasing which introduces the whole thing:—

" Whenever and so often as they think fit, by Order ... do one of the following things."

Would it not be wise to say, for instance, that in respect of some offences the (a) Order could not be enforced at the same time or within six months of the date of a (b) Order? I understand the necessity for some elasticity in this, because the Government, when the first batch of cases had come before the court and they had made an example, might want to withdraw the Order. But, as this stands, it would be possible in respect of certain offences in a particular week to impose a minimum penalty of £100, and the next week an Order might be issued imposing a penalty of £500. That is a matter which can be dealt with in the Committee Stage.

I do not understand what the purpose of Section 9 is. The side note says:—

"Penalty for continued non-compliance with certain Orders."

Surely non-compliance is an offence. If a person was prosecuted for not having complied with a Compulsory Tillage Order and had failed thereafter in the time at his disposal to comply with it, is not that a continuing offence?

That is the offence excepted here.

That is excepted here. But, for instance, if people sell some commodity at a price higher than the stipulated price, that is an offence. If a person sells under a particular weight, that sale is an offence. Then there is the method of evading some of these Orders by which you will not be sold tea unless you buy sugar, or some cycle agent will not sell you a bicycle tyre unless you pay him 3/6 to have it fitted. I should imagine that each one of these actions is a continuing offence. I do not understand what gap is intended to be covered by this.

Suppose something had to be done before the 30th June and a person was brought into court and fined for not having done the thing by that time and it was still a thing which was supposed to be done, and the question arose that he could not do it before that date but that it ought to be done after the date.

It means that under this such a person continues to make default in performing the said act whether the time has lapsed for performing it or not?

That is so.

That is not clearly put. I imagine that the offence is failure to perform something before, say, the 30th June and the 30th June comes and goes. I do not see, even under this section as it stands, how not having it done later than 30th June, or failing to perform it in the month of July, is to be accounted a continuing offence. It may be the drafting carries that, but I had not thought so from the phrasing as I read it. That is what is aimed at?

The only thing I know that is stipulated to be done inside a certain time is compulsory tillage, and that is definitely accepted from the impact of this section. I wonder are there any other categories of matters that have to be done inside specified periods?

The registration of foreign securities, for example.

Not on the finance orders that I have seen; I think they are continuing. The foreign securities and the currency orders of an emergency powers type that I have seen are definitely continuing, except those limited by date in the original Act. That is one of the points the courts have found trouble with, an attempt to get a penalty associated with failure to do something outside the term over which the Emergency Powers Act runs.

I do not understand the difference between sub-section (1) of Section 6 and what is here introduced as Section 10. The clause reads:—

" A Minister, having obtained the consent of the Government, may by Order delegate to another Minister or to a Parliamentary Secretary any power or duty of such Minister under this or any other Act or under an emergency Order or an Order made under an emergency Order."

That is the original. What we are putting in now is "A Minister, having obtained the consent of the Government"—that is in the other section—"may by Order delegate"—that is the same thing—"to another Minister or to a Parliamentary Secretary." The only difference is "any power or duty conferred or imposed on him." In the original Act it says "any power or duty of any such Minister under this or any other Act or under an emergency Order or an Order made under an emergency Order." I do not know how powers can arise, except under an Act or an Order, and they are covered in the original Act. There must be some point which has to be met by the transformed phrase here and the substitution of this general clause. I hope to get an explanation of that matter also.

I note in Section 6 of the new legislation it is declared that the generality of the powers set out in sub-section (1) of Section 2 are not to be regarded as limited by anything set out in sub-section (2) of that section. But there are specific limitations put upon emergency powers legislation in later sub-sections (5) and (6), and they are not disturbed. The over-riding limitation carried by sub-sections (5) and (6) of the Emergency Powers Act has not been changed. I am insisting on this point because there is nothing said about (5) and (6) in this and, therefore, it ought to be quite clear. But it must be known to the Government that, in a case which came before the courts, some of the judges held it was impossible to put any limitation on emergency powers Orders and it was ultra vires the Dáil to impose any such limitations as are in sub-sections (5) and (6) on the generalities of the powers that might be claimed under the Constitution.

I take it the Government are not accepting that view and they are accepting these limits written in in the old legislation and that are not disturbed by this legislation. I take it the Government have not accepted that viewpoint, because they are moving to make it clear that right from the start of the emergency powers legislation the generalities of the powers contained in sub-section (1) of Section 2 are not to be regarded as limited. The question of limitation and the removal of doubt in regard to limitation applies only to what is contained in sub-section (2) of Section 2. I am speaking for the purpose of having it on record that the Government are not accepting that viewpoint, whatever strength or validity there was in the view of at least one, if not two, judges in the case that came before the courts.

As regards the matters that Deputy Norton referred to, the Deputy moved a refusal to give a Second Reading to this legislation on the grounds he set out. I do not feel that, strong as might be the case made by Deputy Norton on this matter, there is good ground for refusing the Government the emergency powers they ask. I think it is necessary to follow along the lines on which Deputy Norton has been travelling and emphasise some of the things he said, so that some warning might be given to the Government that, acting as they are under the powers given to them, they are not acting in a way that is getting public confidence for these emergency powers. The Taoiseach, when this matter of emergency legislation was opened in September, 1939, said that every Deputy must know that the Government's power to do the work would depend on the amount of public confidence given them and the extent to which they would be supported by the voluntary contributions of the people. I do not think the Taoiseach can delude himself into the belief that the generality of matters that can be summed up in Emergency Order 166 would be supported voluntarily by any great section of the people. The particular attitude of the Government in that matter will be repudiated, not merely by the working-class people, but by middle-class people and by quite a number of people who possibly would not be described as in either of those classes, people who have fixed incomes and who have found, on account of Government mishandling of a number of situations, that it is impossible to avail of some of the provisions for which the Government was granted these powers.

The Emergency Powers Act of 1939 was an Act to make provision for securing public safety and the preservation of the State in time of war and, in particular, to make provision for the maintenance of public order and the provision and control of supplies and the services essential to the life of the community. If the Government asked to be judged on their use of these powers in order to provide and control supplies and services essential to the life of the community, they would not get a verdict at this point. Deputy Norton has referred to the details of Emergency Order 166. Whatever might be said of Emergency Orders 83 and 166, if they were introduced in the late stages of 1939 or the early stages of 1940 the Government might have excused themselves on the ground that they had no experience of the difficult situation which arose out of the war, and one could not have expected them to make provision against such a difficult situation. But when they introduced Emergency Order 83 and substituted it later by Order 166, they had the experience of the countries engaged in the war. I think one of the matters that could have been gathered as common to all these countries was this, that when supplies began to run short, apart from their going short, when there was even a hint that there might be a shortage later on, then there was always a movement, of course, towards advancing prices. Every Government in the world has taken some steps to restrict increase in wages, dividends, and profits to be derived from business. They generally deal with profits because they know if they do not deal with profits people who depend for their purchasing power upon wages would clamour to get wages raised corresponding, say, to the increase in the cost of living. Governments all over the world have closed down upon that matter of increase of wages or profits or dividends because they know that that starts a huge spiral which will end in destroying even the people who may for a little time get some relief by some small advance in wages.

But no Government has stopped short at that point. Every Government has known that while you must do that in the interests of the community as a whole, two other things must be done if the people whose wages are closed down have any expectation of life at all, and that is (1) that prices must be controlled and really controlled, and (2) that, in addition to the the ordinary currency that people have with regard to the purchasing of goods, there must be a second currency in the nature of a ration book with coupons, and that the coupon can only be exchanged for a certain kind of goods, and that the coupon generally warrants to the holder of it that he will get the goods at a certain price. That pincer movement on the cost of living in this country did not take place. The Government started off with the people most immediately under their control, the Civil Service, and decided that they would not allow their bonus to be paid as before, that is, rising and falling according to the cost of living; and then they tackled those who depend upon wages, as I say, for their livelihood, and they let these other things soar, because it is only ludicrous to talk of control of prices in this country. The only effect of the halting attempts made at control of prices has been to create black markets in goods in which these black markets did not previously exist, and there has been no attempt, except in the one thing we know of, to get this second type of currency going side by side with the ordinary token money that we have. In that one case it was done in such a way that nobody, I think, is satisfied—certainly not with the preliminaries of it. In that matter alone there is grave cause for dissatisfaction and the Government certainly do not deserve the confidence that the Taoiseach said, in the early stages of 1939, they depended upon more than the power to promulgate these Orders in certain times and under certain circumstances.

Take other matters. For four days, ended yesterday, this House was engaged in the occupation of flogging the dead horse of the Department of Supplies and almost the dying cry of that Department was the Minister's statement that, under his auspices, the country would be reduced to the point where he could not merely say, but almost boast, in the Dáil that our bargaining powers with the country with which we did most trade, were nil. If that is the result of the use by Government of these emergency Orders, one might ask why do we suffer ourselves to be governed by Order at all? The Parliamentary Secretary, who is put in control of one matter that ordinarily came under the Department of Supplies, wound up almost as cheerfully when dealing with turf. There has been a great deal of talk in this House for days back about self-sufficiency. If there is one thing that the country has more than an abundance of it is turf. Yet the Parliamentary Secretary cannot get enough into this city to supply our needs. He did not get enough last year and has told us that this year it is going to be worse. He makes the excuse that too many people have been allowed to emigrate out of this country. Deputy Norton fixes that in the point that if if you close down wages too much here and have people tempted by the draw of greater wages in a country to which they can get ready access, naturally people will go off to that country. The Parliamentary Secretary, in any event, complained that that was what had him in difficulties. But we had an Emergency Powers Order dealing with that very matter. We were definitely told there was going to be exact supervision of the people who went abroad. The supervision that I understand is carried out has not helped very much to slacken the tide of those who are setting forth as emigrants to the other side.

I have been told by a constituent of mine of scenes that he has witnessed either at the exchanges or the boatside here or at the landing-stage at Holyhead which reminded him of nothing more than a cutting-out of cattle as it used to be done in the cattle market years ago. People find overseers going through the ranks of our people as they are landed at Holyhead and cutting them out in different classes according to their physical build. Men who appear to be strong and able to do difficult work have been packed off to do underground work in aerodromes and air-factories and things like that in England, and other people who have not the same physical capacity, or do not appear in the eyes of the overseers to have it, are given munitions work or something like that. Our people are drafted out into squads. There is somebody who overlooks just to see what their physical capacity is. That was supposed to be under supervision. A case recently occurred in the courts in which a man who had been sent off to England and promised work there and came back because he did not like the work, because the work was not offered to him on the conditions of his contract, took an action to enforce the payment of the money due to him. The justice raised the point about the supervision and asked how this man had got out, and the agent for certain English employing firms who operates here, with the knowledge, and I think the connivance of the Government, said, of course, he could not promise this man a skilled worker's job, although the man was a skilled worker, but—he stated this in court— that the Government knew the way that Order was being evaded and could be evaded was to drive people out as unskilled labour and then give them whatever skilled work they could get on the other side. That young man won his case but that declaration was made in court by that agent of an English employing firm. Of course, the country knows nothing about it because the Censor saw it was not printed.

If there are great powers given to the Government and if one of the things we were promised there would be supervision about was the matter of our people going to the other side, and if the necessity for having that supervision arose because it was thought we were being denuded too much of our manpower even to enable us to get the supplies of things we want to produce here and can produce here, why has not the supervision been exercised? Why does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance complain that the lack of supervision means that the turf situation in this country is going to be worse than it was last year? After all that is done, the Government come along and say "Renew our emergency powers in the way of legislation." We would grant them much more easily if we could see these powers being effectively used to stop that serious abuse.

One of the other comments of the Parliamentary Secretary, dealing with this matter the other day, was that people were being lured away by what he called the worthless pounds. We can discuss that on another measure that is before us. But, according to the Parliamentary Secretary, these worthless pounds are being transformed into demands made upon our scanty supplies here. According to him, £300,000 a month—that is the amount that he has been able to trace through the Post Office or something— comes in here, over £3,500,000 a year. That is being earned by those people who are lured across by these worthless pounds. Then it is transmitted into some sort of currency, sent back here and it can demand our limited goods and services in this country. I suppose if £3,500,000 is traced, at least double that probably comes over. If anybody wanted to raise a loan in this country or to get such credit expansion as allowed, say, £6,000,000 extra to be spent in the country, there would be a howl from every banker in the community that there would be an inflationary effect from that. The Parliamentary Secretary says openly that that is happening. The Government have control over all these things—the taking of the men and the sending in of the money and whether they are going to allow it to be spent freely or whether some system of deferred payment, such as there is in England, will be introduced, but, despite all the emergency powers the Government might pass, that is taking place. One might just stop at that point and consider the matter of limited supplies of goods. The phrase the Minister for Supplies is so often using is that everything is in short supply. Even butter, bacon and things we produce here are in short supply, and people who leave this country against Government supervision are sending in, according to the Parliamentary Secretary, sums amounting to £3,500,000 per year for these people to spend upon these limited commodities, and they are spending that against the people in this country who are trying to get wages under Emergency Powers (No. 166) Order.

Who exactly are the people who are spending it?

Whom ever the Parliamentary Secretary has traced.

But who are the people who are spending it?

They are certainly not the people who are tied down to certain wage rates under Emergency Powers (No. 166) Order.

They are the wives and children of the men who had to go to England to earn a living. Is that not the answer?

I am taking the contrast of certain people who have been put in funds by persons who, in spite of Government supervision, have gone to the other side. They are spending against certain others here. Is it not quite clear that they are raising prices and the Government are doing very little, if anything, to prevent that increase in prices? The one thing they are doing, and doing effectively, under this Order No. 166 is to prevent employers here from paying anything more than the rates laid down in that Order, and that is the special complaint the Labour Party has at this moment. I add on to that complaint with regard to the working classes whose wages are controlled in that way the complaint, which is grievous and sincere, of people who have small fixed incomes which just allowed them to live before the onset of the war. They are being forgotten, although they are also in this mess. There is some reaction on their situation from this big amount of spending power sent across from the other side by people who go out at a time when we need workers, and who go out against some sort of Government supervision which is intended to prevent them going, or to prevent them going in such numbers as they are going, and when it can be stated openly in court that open evasion of the Order is practised and that the method of evading is known to the Government and connived at by them.

There are quite a number of matters which could be dealt with on this Bill which raises the whole field of Government activity last year, because it can be said that Emergency Powers Orders have supplanted ordinary legislation as the means of ruling the fortunes of the people of the country. Every activity of government could be brought forward, and I allude to one or two because they are matters which are definitely brought home to most people in the course of their ordinary day's experience. If the Government say to me that they want these powers, let them have them, but if they ask me to judge them on their use of these powers to date, I say that they have not become entitled to any renewal of these powers. If we give them to them—and we shall vote for giving them to the Government, because we do not want to hamper them at all in any effort they may make to get these things we speak of under control—we do so because we want them to get these things under control, and I ask them, in particular, when they come to deal with the matter of ordinary costs in this community, to get the pincer operating upon prices, to get prices really controlled from the producer right down to the consumer. At every stage of the chain, let there be control, and let a rationing system be properly instituted in a comprehensive way, so that people will be permitted to know what they can get; but let there be added to that this more or less State assurance by Government: "Whatever you will get coupons for, we will see that you get supplies equal to the value of the coupons." Until that is done, nobody can say that the Government has handled this situation aright.

I want to associate myself most emphatically with Deputy McGilligan in his concluding observation. Any attempt at price control and wages control without a coupon rationing scheme applying to the necessaries of life is pure chimera. As Deputy McGilligan has so trenchantly pointed out, what is vital is to ensure that the person whose income is pinned down by Order No. 166 will, not only in a sort of general way have issued to shopkeepers the things he requires to buy, but will have issued to himself a book of coupons entitling him to go into the merchant with whom he is registered and claim, not as a favour but as of right, the minimum share which has been allocated to him by the Government, at the price ordained by the Government, in the circumstances that, if the distributor fails to produce it, he can refer straight to the central authority, in the knowledge that the central authority will be in a position to go to the supplier and say: "Where are the goods we gave to you for the express purpose of handing them to this individual consumer who now alleges that you failed to deliver the goods when he applied for them with his ration book in his hand?"

At the present moment, we are supposed to have tea rationed. I do not exaggerate, and I speak from personal knowledge, when I say that 30 per cent. of the people get no tea and have not been getting tea for the last four or five months. Nominally, they are registered with shopkeepers throughout the country and, nominally, they are entitled to ½ oz. of tea for every person on the card from the dealer with whom they are registered, but the dealer has not got the tea, and when he applies to the central authority stating that such tea as he is getting from week to week is not sufficient to supply the persons registered with him, the central authority is constrained to reply that there is nothing they can do about it. In the special circumstances relating to tea, that may be true, and the Government may be deserving of sympathy, but in relation to flour, the Government have recently increased the quantity of that commodity to be issued. They have asked retail distributors throughout the country to operate a voluntary distribution scheme, but, because the Government have not given the individual citizen his ration book entitling him to get flour as his right from the shopkeeper with whom he is registered, numbers of people to-day are getting enough flour but a considerable minority of the people in rural Ireland are getting no flour at all, except what they can pick up from the unscrupulous black market racketeers, who will give them a stone or half stone of flour at anything from 6/- to 8/- per stone.

This is not fantasy; these are the facts. It is ludicrous to say that you have the right to hold down a man's wages under Order No. 166, if you allow a situation to obtain whereunder that man cannot get bread to put into the mouths of his children, unless he pays 100 per cent. above the fixed maximum price for flour which is regarded as the yardstick by which the restraints on his wages under Order No. 166 are to be regulated. Who will deny that at present a very large number of our people in rural Ireland are quite unable to get sugar, unless they go to the black marketeer and pay some fantastic price for it? Let us be clear on this. Two things must be done if the desirable end of preventing an inflationary spiral is to be attained. One is that supplies of essential commodities must be guaranteed to every citizen of the State, in so far as the total supply will permit, and, secondly, we must clearly determine in our minds the true nature of black market operations and, having done so, go out after the black market marketeers, wipe them out, yank them into jail and keep them in jail until this emergency is over.

Now what is a black marketeer? I want to submit to the House that we should approach this question with care and precision, because, if we do not, a cruel injustice may be done. There are plenty of people in the country at present selling commodities at what appear to be fantastic prices, but those persons are, in fact, smuggling commodities across the Border with the connivance and the encouragement of our own Government. That is the plain fact. Such smuggled commodities are purchased at prices far in excess of similar commodities produced here. If that smuggling is to continue, and, from the supplies position, the Government apparently desires it to continue, these people must be allowed to make a profit on the prices they pay in Northern Ireland for the articles that are smuggled in. Now, let me be clear on this point. I have always thought that it was ignoble and discreditable for us in this country to prefer the safety of neutrality to the perils of war, and to go into Northern Ireland or Great Britain, where people are suffering and struggling, and rob them as the smugglers are doing.

It is not a one-way traffic.

Whatever may be said with regard to that aspect, I think it ill becomes us to take any part in such transactions, but I suppose that some smugglers are taking stuff out in exchange for the stuff that they are bringing in, but that does not cover all the smuggling groups. However, as I say, I do not want to discuss the merits or demerits of that particular angle, but do not let us brand the person who brings in stuff here and sells it at what might seem an excessive price, as a black marketeer, because he is not. That man is not demanding as usurious profit from his fellow citizens. He is only looking for the profit that is made necessary by the circumstances of his trade, but what about the wholesaler, the retailer or the shopkeeper who gets a supply of goods on the undertaking that he will give that supply to his regular customers in their due proportion but who, when he gets those supplies, conceals them in a back room, tells his regular customers that he has no supply of rationed goods, and proceeds to sell those commodities at black market prices to other persons who, in their stress or difficulty, are willing to pay any price because they cannot get their supplies any place else? To my mind, that is the blackest and most shameless crime that a citizen of this State could commit at the present time.

I know of people who are going into shops in County Monaghan, and in the county from which I come myself, and I am perfectly certain that there are supplies of rationed commodities in those shops, but the people who ought to get these commodities at a fixed price will not be given them by the shopkeepers, and I know of people who, by putting down 7/- for a stone of flour, or 15/- and even 30/- for a pound of tea, can get these commodities from the merchants who refuse their regular customers because the regular customer would expect to get tea at the fixed price of 4/- per lb., and flour at 3/2 per st. At the present moment, certain shopkeepers are asking 7/- per st. for oatmeal, but if you go into that matter, you will find that although the controlled price is 4/2, the shopkeeper, in asking 7/-, is not demanding an excessive price, because oatmeal is not available. That shopkeeper has to buy the oats and have it converted into oatmeal, and by the time all that is done, it would cost him about 6/6 per st. He then sells the oatmeal at 7/-, and that looks like a black market price, but actually it is not so. That man is only taking a modest profit, and if he did not produce the oatmeal it would not be available for the people at all. Therefore, in advocating and urging the most stringent and most drastic measures against the profiteers and black marketeers, I beg of the House to distinguish between the two categories of people I have mentioned, with a view to seeing that no injustice is done. Now, the only way to avoid such injustice is that mentioned by Deputy McGilligan, and that is to take a certain limited range of essential commodities, provide the wage-earner with his ration book, and give him an opportunity to demand, as of right, a certain amount of that controlled commodity at the controlled price.

Now, I should like to elaborate on that matter. You cannot ration everything. It simply cannot be done, and the mistake that the Labour Party have consistently made is their perpetual advocacy of the rationing and control of everything. To do that is to ask for the impossible, and it would mean the collapse of the whole system.

We are not asking for that.

What you have got to do is to go out after the essential commodities and ration and control them rigidly. You can leave the other commodities—the semi-luxury commodities —to find their own level, and you will be astonished to find how rapidly the black market will begin to disappear if you do so. It is the control that, very often, creates the black market in regard to many of the semi-luxury articles, but with regard to the essential commodities there is going to be a most damnable black market unless and until there is control of distribution and prices. Now, when we are told by the Department of Supplies that this matter of rigid control of distribution is not practical politics because of the shortage of paper, and so on, my answer is that there seems to be no shortage of paper for certain other purposes, such as the Irish Press or the Capuchin Annual.

Whenever there is any question of a propaganda article on behalf of Fianna Fáil, paper supplies can be found, but when it comes to a matter of the equitable distribution of such a commodity as flour, we are told that the shortage of paper is a great difficulty. Apparently, the Minister thinks that that is a good excuse, but it would appear to many people that the Minister is too darned lazy to try. Another excuse—and they are legion—in connection with the distribution of flour on a ration basis is that it would be impossible to operate it equitably. Now, whatever about being able to operate the scheme in an equitable way, I hold that it is better to give every man in the country as much flour as can be spared, than to give some people too much and others nothing.

Is not the Deputy now dealing with the Vote for the Department of Supplies rather than with this Bill?

No, Sir. I am dealing with the point that was raised by Deputy McGilligan, which is absolutely fundamental, and that is in connection with Order 166. However, this is the last word that I have to say in connection with the matter. I listened to all the talk by the Minister about the difficulty of distributing flour equitably, but the present situation is that many of the poorer people are getting no flour at all, while other people are able to get all the flour they want, and I say that it is better to give a man half a loaf than no bread at all. I want to see every citizen of this State getting his half loaf, but I object to certain people, who have no respect either for God or man, being able to get a loaf and a half, while the poor people, who have respect both for God and man, cannot get even half a loaf, and have to look on at their children going to school in the mornings with a couple of potatoes in their pockets, while they themselves have to go to work on the bogs with a couple of Arran Banners in their pockets to keep them for the day—I should say that in mentioning Arran Banners I was referring to a potato.

I have said before, and I say it again with special reference to this Bill and the Act which is being renewed, that decent standards count for something still in our community. The Government's repeated contacts with the tariff racketeers may have persuaded them that the ordinary traders in this country are all rogues and rascals, but they are not. There are still many people in this country who want to obey the law because it is the law, who want to be good citizens, and who want, for the benefit of themselves and of their neighbours, to demonstrate the fact that they consider it right to obey laws legitimately made by the legitimate Government of this country. The emergency Orders that were made under this Act have created a situation in which many men may break the law because they cannot find out what the law is. The regular practice is to publish, say on the 1st May, in the newspapers, a résumé to the effect that an Order has been made in connection with a certain matter, and saying that for details the citizen is referred to an official Order which will be obtainable from the Stationery Office. When the citizen goes to the Stationery Office he is informed that the Order is not yet printed and that it may be six weeks before it is printed. Now, they have the résumé, and the Minister has the draft, but the public cannot get a detailed copy until it is available for public sale. I think that something ought to be done to prevent such a situation as that continuing.

As soon as the Order is made and given the effect of law it should be available in the Stationery Office either in a duplicated form or in printed form. If it is not possible to have it in printed form, then duplicator copies ought to be made and sold.

I know of a case in which a man was threatened with a prosecution by a certain date for a breach of an Order which the Stationery Office had not got on that date.

The Taoiseach finds it hard to believe that, but many of these Orders bear his own signature, and it is a source of amazement to me that the truth of this dilemma has not been brought home effectively to him before this. Every citizen who is affected by these Orders continually complains of it. The real evil that I see in it is that it creates a general atmosphere amongst the public that there is no use in trying to obey an Order, and that it is only a fool who worries any longer about it. I want to suggest that, quite apart from the provision of the law itself, there is something good, meritorious and desirable in a citizen wishing to obey the law because it is the law, whether it is a good law or a bad law. I am going to suggest to the House that if you break down that particular instinct in our people, which has taken a long time to build up, that the law is something which ought to be obeyed for itself because it is made by the sovereign Parliament of the Irish people, you will do the whole community a very serious injury which it may take generations to repair.

The second force operating to create the evil situation of which I speak is that some of the Orders made by the Government are in such flagrant conflict with common sense that it becomes virtually impossible to obey them. I could give many instances, but I take one which will be readily understood by all. It is the Order made by the Government in relation to the price of oats which they fixed at 10/8 per cwt. last year. The Government notified the outmeal millers that if they paid more than 10/8 for oats they would take their licence to mill away from them, with the result that in a very short time live animals, such as pigs and bullocks, could get all the oats they wanted, but no human being in the country could get enough to make a pot of stirabout. That is the literal truth. If you were to go to any market in the country you would see men there offering oats for sale at 21/- and 22/- per cwt., and getting it. Everybody knew that the oats was being bought for feeding to live stock, while there was not a mill in the country that had a stone of oatmeal in it. In that situation certain responsible citizens put up a notice in their windows which said: "There is no oatmeal and we cannot provide it." Another person goes out and pays 22/- and 23/- per cwt. for oats. He brings it to the mill, gets it milled and puts up a notice in his shop window saying: " Plenty of oatmeal here."

I make no apology for repeating that dilemma because it is fundamental and applies to any number of commodities in the country at the present time. The first individual is a shopkeeper, a plain simple man whose father, and grandfather and great-grandfather had been serving the community for 100 or 120 years. He always felt that in taking the profits of his trade he had not to make an apology to anybody, that he was giving his neighbours good value for their money, and was acting as a person who would get his customers supplies of any commodities they required. So that if he collected profits off them he felt that he was working for his money, that he was no parasite, but was giving good service for whatever profit he got. Now comes a time in which the community is entitled to say to him that if there is any oatmeal going he should get them a share of it. He goes to all the legal sources of supply and cannot get any and tells his customers so. A newcomer who has no association at all with the community, and who is quite prepared to break the law if he can get away with it, goes out and breaks the law by paying a price in excess of the fixed price for oats. He gets the oats milled illegally and sells this illegally milled oats at 7/- per stone.

The community go into the old-established firm and say: "What good are you? Here are the whole of us and we have no oatmeal; you told us that if we dealt with you and left you our money you would supply us in times of stress. Here is a new fellow in business—a man who was never in business before—and he is able to sell oatmeal to everybody who wants it. Why cannot you do the same?" The shopkeeper tells his customers he cannot give them oatmeal at 4/2 per st. "If I give it to you," he says, "I will have to charge 7/- or 8/-." Their reply is that it is better to have oatmeal at 7/- per st. than to have no oatmeal at all. They say that if 7/- per st. is a just price they will pay it, and insist that they will have to get something to bring back to the children.

That shopkeeper is in this dilemma that he knows that he ought to get the oatmeal and sell it at 7/-. It is value for that, but then he is in the position that he is constrained by an emergency Order, made under this Act, not to do so. He knows where the oats are, and that they are being fed to pigs and bullocks and live stock. He knows that his own neighbours are hungry, that they want the oatmeal, that they have no bread, and want the oats converted into oatmeal. Because the Government have made an Order that nobody obeys, that oatmeal must be sold at 4/2 per st., he cannot supply his neighbours. In the situation I have described, he could not sell it at less than 7/- per st. He would be breaking the law if he sold it at that.

What is the good of making an Order which it is virtually impossible to obey? This shopkeeper has been brought up in the tradition that he ought to obey a law made by a legitimate Irish Government. That man has to stick his heels in the ground and say to his neighbours that they may get their oatmeal wherever they like, but that he is not going into the black market to provide it for them. Ultimately the pressure becomes so great that he yields and says: " I am not doing anything wrong by providing my neighbours with oatmeal; I am not doing an injustice to them, but I am simply doing the job that I am supposed to do, namely, to supply them with requirements." Mark what happened. Not only has that man for the first time in his life consciously and deliberately broken the law, but he has held himself up before his neighbours as a man who will break the law. He has also held himself up before his workmen who look to him as an example by which they can regulate their conducts in civic affairs as a man who has broken the law. They argue to themselves that if the boss can break the law there is no reason why they should not break it. They say that he has broken it with regard to the fixed price of oatmeal. They ask themselves what harm it will do if they break the law by remaining on licensed premises after 10 o'clock at night. "I am hurting nobody by the one, the boss is hurting nobody by the other. Therefore, let us all set up as individual judges as to whether the law is good or bad and, unless we like the law, we will not obey it."

People sitting in the cloistered atmosphere of this Legislature are inclined to say that that is looking too far ahead. I am telling them that it is not. I am moving amongst these people and if you get responsible citizens throughout rural Ireland to hold themselves up coram populo as law-breakers when it suits them to break the law, the young people will learn that lesson rapidly and in that learning there is no difference between the young people of this country and of the other countries, and the interpretation they will put upon it is: “If the boss can break the law he wants to break, there is no reason why we should not break the law we want to break.” Out of that public mentality anarchy will grow. There should be a divinity which hedges the law and which will prevent everybody from breaking it because it is the law. If you make the law preposterous, the sanctity will vanish and, with its disappearance, the enforcement of the law becomes ten times more difficult and instead of the enforcement of the law being effected 100 per cent. by reason of public opinion it will require 85 per cent. force and 15 per cent. public opinion when, in the past, it required only 85 per cent. public opinion and 15 per cent. force in order to secure the sanctity of the law.

Now people say: "What are we to do about it?" The proper thing to do is, instead of treating every loyal citizen of the State as if he were a rogue, to turn to informed persons with some knowledge of the special circumstances to which the Orders apply and ask them can they help in the drafting so that they will be easily operated and that they will be drafted in a form which makes it possible for any man of goodwill to conform to the law. If that is done, then whatever the law may be, citizens should obey it no matter what they think about it. It is only when the law is made virtually impossible that the danger arises of which I speak and I can assure the Taoiseach that in several cases virtual impossibilities of the kind I have described have arisen and are causing infinite danger and evil in the community.

There is another aspect which I am astonished Deputy McGilligan did not touch upon. The practice has grown up for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to make Orders and the next performance is that the Minister delegates his authority to officials of his Department to qualify those Orders by verbal instructions. That in itself I think is a damnable practice.

It is bad enough to have to obey a written Order to the terms of which you can refer. But, if these written Orders are to be amplified by verbal Orders in each individual case and the sanction of law given to verbal orders, it is utterly intolerable. But that is not the whole thing, because the next step taken by the Minister for Industry and Commerce is to sidetrack the courts. The latest development is that an officer of the Minister can come into your mill and say: "I see wheat here and that creates in my mind the suspicion that wheat has been illegally milled in this mill. Therefore I am going to close the mill." This is the most severe sanction that any man can impose upon an individual short of taking his life. If you go into a comfortable miller and close down his mill, it is worse than if you sent him to prison when his wife could carry on the business in his absence. Surely if an offence is alleged against a citizen and that citizen is ready and willing to acknowledge any court and the authority of the court and to bind himself in advance loyally to accept its verdict in full and to consent to people giving evidence either for or against him, it is monstrous to withdraw from him the protection of the courts.

Here again I say in the cloistered atmosphere of this House it is hard to envisage the circumstances of a man in this situation. No public official or no Minister can tackle me without my feeling that even if he does strip me of the protection of the courts I have the Dáil to come to and protest, and I can be assured of a certain sympathetic hearing, and that the Ceann Comhairle will insist on my being heard. At least, that is open to me. But take an ordinary citizen living in a rural town, and an officer comes to him and announces that he is going to wipe out his means of livelihood. That man's first instinct is to go to his lawyer and ask him to invoke the court and ask the judge to step in between him and the Executive and hold up the whole procedure; to bring the Executive to the court and make them satisfy the judge that justice is being done. The knowledge that he has that recourse gives him confidence and security and the feeling that no matter what some individual may do ultra vires, the court will find a way of bringing that individual intra vires, and see that justice is done. But here the Minister so arranges his Orders that the man has no right to go to the court. The Minister has power apparently under these Orders to say: “I am not constrained to prove that the man did anything wrong. All I am constrained to do is to assert that he raised the suspicion in my mind. If he has got a licence for that mill he has got it as of grace. We are simply going to take it back.” There is no court to which he can go, or no individual he can invoke, and there is no tribunal before whom he can go and say that the inspector was unfair, and that he was treated unjustly. He has to bow down and take it.

I say that if that is allowed to continue a very vital principle is gone. I repeat in the presence of the Taoiseach what I said before in regard to this matter. There is no analogy between that procedure and the procedure invoked against persons who deny the authority of the State. We all know there are individuals locked up in Arbour Hill and Mountjoy who did not get the ordinary process of trial; but the reason was that they denied the authority of the court to try them. They threatened to murder the witness, they intimidated the jurors, and they announced that they were prepared to murder the judges if it were necessary in order to prevent the court passing judgment on them. No analogy can be made between persons who take up that position and law-abiding citizens who acknowledge the courts and whose only desire is to get to the courts and say before the proceedings begin: "Whatever the decision is we loyally accept it in the knowledge that our case will be fairly heard and that substantial justice will be done." I recognised at the time we were passing the legislation designed to lock up those who deny the authority of the court that there was a danger. The danger was that the remedies legitimately applied against such persons would be treated as precedents for proceeding against law-abiding citizens and that is what has happened. The Executive, under this Bill and the Act it is designed to continue, are claiming the right to penalise citizens in one way or another without giving citizens any opportunity of inviting the court to intervene between the Executive and themselves. If this House allows that to go on it will grow to a point which will give rise to disorder because a sufficient number of persons will labour under a desperate sense of grievance born of real injustice and take the law into their own hands. The only basis on which we can enforce the law, in the last analysis— and if you are going to enforce the law in the last analysis you have got to be prepared to take life, if necessary, in the defence of it—is in the certain knowledge that the law is just. There is no justice in taking from a man his livelihood unless he is judged to be guilty of a crime for which that penalty is prescribed, and judged guilty, not by the man who is prosecuting, but by an impartial judge whose position and tenure of office enable him, when he thinks right, to set the Executive at defiance and publicly to proclaim that the Executive are wrong.

Now, not for the first time I suppose, I will get my head in a halter, but I cannot conclude on a Bill designed to renew the wide powers here given, without saying this, that such powers as are contained in this legislation are being used by no Party Government in the world at the present time and their use by a Party Government in this country is fraught with great danger. Yesterday the Taoiseach, with the implied approbation of the Opposition, made a statement on the impending general election, a statement, I must say, with the substance of which, as reported in the newspapers, I was in entire agreement— that a general election at the present time was manifestly undesirable. He said that unless one of the main Parties expressed a contrary desire, he was resolved not to go to the country, at least until the statutory period in relation to the life of the present Parliament had expired. In that I think he was perfectly right, but I think that thereupon there developed a further question which is brought more urgently forward by the legislation we are now considering.

The minds of many of us will go back to the Pact Election of 1922 and the view then expressed that it was a mistake and that it would have been much better to let the people decide. I think that is right; I think the Pact Election was a mistake, because the Parties going into it were divided on a great matter of principle—it was about the minor matters that they were in agreement. At the present time there is only one great matter of principle involved, and that is neutrality or belligerency. The Labour Party, the Fine Gael Party and the Fianna Fáil Party are agreed on that great fundamental issue, and it is the only issue of any consequence in the political life of this or any other country at the present time. Being in that position, and knowing, as we all know, the deplorable mess that has been made of many of these emergency Orders which it is now proposed to renew, is it not absurd to have men like Deputy McGilligan, Deputy Mulcahy and the Leader of the Opposition, whose ability is not only manifest but has been tried by experience and is now admitted by everybody, friend or foe, sitting on the Front Opposition Bench?

I think that is an impossible position, because we are now confronted with a situation which threatens momentarily to become graver. We are now passing through one of the stages when the danger of invasion is recurring. If any attempt is made by the Allied Nations to launch an attack on Europe, the Axis forces will retaliate, and are at present making plans to retaliate on the United Nations by an invasion of this country. That may become for us an emergency of an infinitely greater gravity than has ever arisen, an emergency that may involve the use of the powers under this Bill on a scale never anticipated. It seems to me fantastic, faced with that immediate prospect, that the three Parties, the Labour Party, the Fine Gael Party and the Fianna Fáil Party, now being agreed on the one great fundamental issue, do not come together and form a Government which would command the support of all our people.

Some people might consider that that is unthinkable, but bear this in mind, that we did come together on the point that we would resist aggression whencever it might come, and that coming together crystallised in the institution of the Defence Conference. Out of that grew the Local Defence Force and the Local Security Force. Will anyone deny that that was one of the most remarkable developments any of us have witnessed since we entered public life in Ireland? There arose overnight a body of men who have given disinterested service without reward of any kind and who, I think, now are identical with the finest specimens of the manhood of this country. The best and most public-spirited fellows in the civil life of the country are in these forces; they come from all Parties.

Surely, as Deputy McGilligan pointed out, a much wider sphere of collaboration is called for if serious suffering and possibly disastrous errors are not to be experienced. How can that collaboration be secured, or that direction from the Government be provided, unless the supporters of Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Norton are added to the supporters of the Taoiseach, and unless the Government are strengthened by the inclusion of the more prominent members of the other Parties?

So long as there was a grave matter of principle dividing them I do not think that such inclusion would be thinkable or possible, but once that grave matter of principle is removed, monumental as the difficulties may be, I suggest that the next general election should be held on the basis of the fusion of these three Parties for the duration of the crisis and for no longer. At the conclusion of that period, I have no doubt that economic sanity will withdraw from the ranks of that united Government, the ablest members of the Fine Gael Party, who will resume the task of teaching the people some degree of economic sanity and who will very shortly thereafter, in my judgment, constitute the Government of this country, until the recollection of Fianna Fail has been happily buried in oblivion; but for the duration I believe that issue were better not raised and that our people and the world should be shown that the elected leaders of this people are capable in this emergency of meeting and achieving together that which must be done for the safety of our people and of presenting a front which will be equal to whatever threats may come against us—and those threats may come sooner than most of us imagine.

There is one aspect of this Bill to which I take very strong exception. If Deputies are concerned to ensure that there is a proper dispensation of justice, they will not agree to the proposals in that part of Section 8 which provides for minimum penalties. The Taoiseach told the House that this section will be applicable mostly to supply problems and to failures in the production of food under the Compulsory Tillage Order, and suggested that the penalties that have been imposed are of a nominal character and have failed to provide punishment sufficient to ensure that the Order would be properly and effectively carried out. While I think every member of the House will agree that there is a responsibility to make the necessary provision to ensure that we get the maximum production of food from the land at the present time, I think this proposal in the legislation is ultra vires the Constitution, and there can be no assurance of a proper dispensation of justice if it is agreed to. The Taoiseach, a few months ago, went to Clare and stated there that they could not be blamed if there was a food shortage, that they had warned the people. I want to ask the Taoiseach does he feel that his duty ends in merely warning the people that there is a danger of a food shortage? Does he feel there is no responsibility on the Government, and particularly on the Minister who is charged with the problem of food production, to provide some sort of organisation that will ensure that our people are properly harnessed to the effort? I have criticised the responsible Minister before with regard to this matter and I suggest that there is a degree of responsibility on the Minister for Agriculture to ensure that our people are properly harnessed within the means at our disposal.

When one examines the tremendous organisation that has been effected with regard to food production in our neighbouring countries and the attention that has been given there to every detail of food production, the provision of equipment and all that sort of thing that is so essential if there is to be maximum production, and compares that with our failure here, one can appreciate where the responsibility for that failure lies. I think it is grossly unfair to suggest that a provision of this sort should become law, which merely relieves the Minister and the Government of the onus of responsibility to make some effort to ensure proper organisation of our means and capacity. I think the most objectionable aspect of this provision is that the only court of appeal for an individual who fails to perform the necessary quota of tillage, is the Minister who has made the Order and who has failed in some respect to give that individual assistance that may be necessary. We can understand that the Minister in certain cases might not be free from blame. For instance, take the case of a farmer in the grass districts of County Meath who had no equipment prior to the emergency, who was not interested in tillage, who had no ways and means of performing the tillage quota, who was anxious to comply with the Order but was prevented from doing so by inability to hire the necessary equipment. Responsibility in that case, to my mind, rests to a very great extent on the Minister who made no effort to organise the equipment that is available so that it could be utilised by a man in that position. This section provides that the person who was the prosecutor in this case in the last resort is going to be the judge of whether this man has made a proper effort to fulfil the Order or not. I think it will be an abuse of power if the Minister is put in that position. I think it would be prostituting the law and contrary to the Constitution. If a man is to be judged as to whether he has failed or not in his duty to perform a certain act under the law, to produce a certain quota of food, he is entitled to an appeal to an impartial judge. Certainly, an impartial judge in that case would not be the Minister.

There are other aspects that are grossly objectionable to my mind. One can understand, if that provision becomes law, certain individuals making every effort to get political strings pulled with a view to mitigating a penalty, while others who would not be in a position to make political representations might suffer the maximum penalty. I say that this is a most objectionable proposal and, in no circumstances, should the House agree to it. As an individual, I fully appreciate the necessity for ensuring the maximum production of food at the present time but, in doing that, there is a responsibility on this House to see that there is a proper dispensation of justice and that where, in the opinion of the Minister, a man has failed to do the necessary quota of tillage he should get a fair and impartial hearing before a judge who is qualified to fix a penalty that will meet the equities of the case. On that point, I think there is a danger in fixing a minimum penalty. There may be extenuating circumstances in a particular case where the minimum penalty would be very harsh. I do not think there is any justification for it because the Taoiseach has not cited any particular case where penalties were, as he suggested, purely nominal. On reading a number of cases that came before the courts I was impressed by the fact that some justices erred if anything on the side of severity and warned people who came before them on that type of charge, that they would be very severe in the penalties inflicted, because it was a matter that affected the whole life of the community. If this provision is to be left in this Bill I, for one, will have no option but to vote against it.

I am constrained to support this measure in view of the emergency but there is a natural and general dissatisfaction regarding the administration of the law since the powers were given. Take just one case. Quite recently, the members of the Dáil, I think, have been presented with 17 of those Orders. They deal with a whole variety of subjects— paraffin, motor spirit, wool, waste paper, personal injuries, motor lorries, fuel, thread, textiles, creamery butter, woollens again, sugar, pigs and bacon, the use of fire-arms in holding prisoners by the military, hose tubing and pipes, marble chippings and laminated springs. In the compilation of those Orders it would appear as if every effort was made to mystify people and where extracts are taken from previous Acts a lot of time is wasted in looking up the extracts and making the necessary annotations and alterations in it and then they are only for a short period. In addition to that, those Orders are issued some time after the date upon which they have been given the force of law or rather the date upon which they are signed. I am not aware at present of the exact date upon which they become law. Some Orders that we have received now go back to the 13th June and they have been in operation for some time presumably. One is dated the 6th June. I suppose there is a regulation regarding the method of their issue but they do not appear to be issued to members of the Dáil in any sort of regular order. Order No. 173, to which Deputy Dillon made reference, is one which would not have passed this House. The House, unless I am very much mistaken as to its temper, is not at any time going to give authority to a Minister to delegate his power to an officer of his Department and to give him practically a law-making authority with regard to a matter affecting the public.

Last year, a very fair criticism of this Act was made by Deputy O'Sullivan, but a real objection which lies to this Bill is to be found in the amendment put down by Deputy Norton, which, if it were not for the emergency, we would be bound to support. That Order ought to have been introduced here. If a case were made for it, particularly at the present time, there is no doubt whatever that the Order would get fair consideration. A similar Order was made either in Northern Ireland or in Great Britain, based on a far better method of dealing with the problem. Order No. 83 was not very long in operation until an amending Order came along, and further amendments have been made since. There does not appear to be any guiding principle in connection with the operation of that Order. Let me give just one example. The wage taken as a rule is one of 50/- a week, and persons with that wage are entitled to consideration in respect of cost-of-living bonus or an improvement in that wage. Recently there have been added to the list of persons exempted from the operation of the Order persons earning from £3 to £6 per week. I enter no objection to the £3 a week, but I find it difficult to justify to any person outside who speaks to me about the Order the refusal of one class of citizen with £3 a week and allowing others with up to £6 a week to have their remuneration considered. That was done by a single clause in one of the amendments to this Order quite recently.

Let me give one illustration as to how objectionable this present system is. I recently had a communication from a neighbour of mine. He is in receipt of home assistance and he gets some unemployment assistance, as well as milk and other supplies in kind, under the Finance Act of last year. These amount to a sum of approximately two guineas per week. He has nine children and he was recently served with notice to go to work at a place eight miles distant for a wage of 36/-. He is a hard-working man, but he said that he could not, in justice to his family, take on that work. That is typical of cases which, I presume, were it not for this Order could come under review.

We are practically deluged with these Orders, and, at a time when there are complaints of a shortage of paper, they are furnished to us bilingually. I raised this question on the Vote for the Department of the Turf Controller. There is no objection to having the translators providing a second page, keeping it in the office and compiling it into a volume to be published at the end of the emergency, but it is not necessary at present, when we are endeavouring to save paper, that the ordinary citizen should have furnished to him an Order of eight pages when four pages would suffice. If there is need for conserving supplies, we would do no injustice to any person on our staff by keeping the records and having them published subsequently.

These Orders would have very much more respect from the public if greater care were taken to decide matters involved in them, prior to their issue. Let us take one case which has occasioned very grave dissatisfaction all over the country—the coupon system for clothing. It was introduced on 8th June and this is 1st July. It was altered within three days of its issue, altered the following week and it has been altered since. We ask for respect for our laws and their administration, and for the giving of authority to Ministers, and surely we may expect that an Order issued by a Minister will have a longer life than three days without alteration within a week, within a fortnight and within three weeks. The disturbance occasioned by these alterations is really serious for people who cannot afford time to study them. Take the case of a person who parted with coupons for portion of a suit, a dress, handkerchiefs or articles of that kind. The retrospective clause here entitles that person to go back to the shop and ask for the return of coupons. That causes trouble and inconvenience for the trader and involves a double journey by the purchaser and all because of a hasty or panicky decision regarding the terms of the Order.

In the issuing of these Orders, two Ministers deal with one matter, namely, fuel. One regulates what is a turf area and the other what is a coal area, and quite a number of Orders have been issued and amended in respect of those two items. One Minister sticks to the original description of various places, Donegal being his first county and Sligo his second, and he makes up the different counties in some manner suited, I suppose, to the convenience of his Department, or, perhaps, in a haphazard fashion, while the other arranges them in alphabetical order, with the result that the person studying these Orders has to tick off the counties at the expense of his time in order to find out what alterations have been made. Very often, when we are amending Acts of Parliament here, we get simply a reference and we deal with it in that fashion. In this case, they might have added a county, an area of a county, a county borough or some other simple description showing the alteration made. That is as far as the system has gone up to this.

There are other matters which can be dealt with under other Votes, as, for example, censorship, and so on, but when we come to the alterations that are proposed here, they are to some extent alarming. There are three main alterations. One is the retrospective clause. All Legislatures, as they mature, object to retrospective legislation. The official mind disregards all these human objections. The official mind is merely a machine which wants things in a certain order. If it finds a difficulty, a huge machine is brought in to flatten out something for which, possibly, a pound weight would have effected the same result. Retrospective legislation has always been condemned.

Now, according to the discretion we have got, the reason for this form of retrospective legislation is to enable certain things to be easily effected, but my interpretation of this clause, as it stands, would be that it gives very much more power. From my experience, both in and out of office, it appears that once the power is there, the official mind only knows how to use it, or, to put the matter better, once the power is there, it is bound to be availed of for every purpose other than that for which it was instituted.

Now, take the second case, and the second case is really disturbing. As this stands, on any particular case—on any case, and I am taking now the most extreme criticism which is likely to be passed in connection with this matter—a man may be prosecuted for not tilling. An Order comes out on the day that he gets his prosecution, altering the penalty. Now, what is that man's mind on the subject? Is it not that the Order was specially designed to hit him? Of course, I know quite well that that is not the intention, but can anybody persuade that man, who is going to be affected by the Order, that that was not the intention? I do not believe that a choir of angels would convince him of it. Now, why should that be done? It is said that the tillage Order has not been complied with. Well, there is a legal right that citizens, assuredly, ought to be able to exercise, and if it is our business to pass laws, we should be able to pass them in such a way as to deal with all cases, and if a man finds that the State cannot secure a prosecution against him, he is entitled to that right. You will get no respect for law if you ever depart from that principle.

The tillage Order, generally, has been accepted very well all over the country, but how has its administration been regarded, or what is the manner in which the Department has seen to it that the tillage Order would be put into operation? One case came before me; I do not know whether it is descriptive of many cases or not, but it was mentioned to me by a farmer who came up here. He had only just purchased land which had been used by a neighbour in the previous year; it had been let in conacre. He asked if the sale was popular and was told that it was. In any event, the land was put up for auction and he bought it, but he was not ready to till it at the moment, and in any case he wanted to give the same advantages to the people who had been using the land prior to his purchase of it. There was no bidding for the land, but within, I think, 48 hours, an official from the Department of Agriculture came along, took possession of the land, and handed it out, at, I think, £1 an acre. Obviously, that was an unjust thing to the man who had bought the land. Now, if there are other cases of that sort, if there are other people going to be mulcted in very heavy fines in cases of that sort, it will only lead to disrespect for the law. In passing this law here, we should not disregard circumstances which ought to be taken into account, and which would be taken into account, possibly, in any court. We concern ourselves here with fixing a minimum penalty, but the minimum penalty in this case is really a maximum penalty, and I do not think that the penalty here is a just one.

I think that this is a penal law. Everybody knows what the canon law interpretation of a penal law is: that a person is entitled to evade it and to take every opportunity of evading it, but that a generous law should be interpreted strictly. Assume, for a moment, that these fines are imposed. What happens? It may be that the persons who are fined will be ruined. Now, the purpose for which the tillage Order was passed was to secure the provision of food—to get food. These penal restrictions will not get us the food. They may, perhaps, compel certain people, who would otherwise be lax, to till, but if the axe falls in particular cases on persons who, for one reason or another, were unable to do the work, and if the operation of our law is unjust to them, or does an injustice to them, the effect is not going to be good. Assuming, for a moment, that a man had a family of five or six children and dies, let us say, in February. The man has been ill, let us assume, for a month or two previously, and has left the place in some debt, as a result of which his wife finds difficulty in undertaking the work. This law, if it is passed, is going to deal with her case in just the same way as with that of a well-to-do man, with plenty of capital, stock and plant, and all the means necessary for doing the work. Would it not be far better, in a case of that sort, to leave some discretion to the justice, rather than what we have here: telling him that under no circumstances can he exercise his own judgment and discretion in dealing with a case of that sort?

The case that has been made in connection with this matter is a very good case: that the community requires food. So it does, but it is not depending absolutely on the particular farmers in question. In the case of a person who waters milk and is prosecuted for it, and who, by reason of his iniquity, occasions the deterioration in health of whole families and large numbers of children, we do not follow him up with penalties of the same sort as we have here, and it is much the same kind of thing in the long run. The official mind is always in favour of these severe penalties, and in certain circumstances it may be that you must have a severe penalty, but I have never yet met a jurist—a person who is accustomed to the administration of the law and who has had any experience in administering the law—who would agree that in the case of penal laws of such a kind a judge should be merely a machine. To that extent, I think, there is a case for a real modification of this measure. If there were widespread evasion and if people were disinclined to respond to their national responsibilities, there would be a stronger case for considering severe penalties, but, as has been said, in imposing severe penalties one must always temper justice with mercy. By doing so it will probably produce a better effect in the long run.

I also object to the proposal to give the Government power to declare the punishment which may be awarded in particular cases. It would be far better that that should be done by the Oireachtas. We should not let it get into the people's heads, in connection with the administration of the law or the ordinary functions of Government, that there is a body sitting in Dublin bent upon pursuing somebody in some part of the country. If penalties are to be inflicted, then let us have behind them the full power and authority of the Oireachtas. We should not leave it open to anybody to say that we gave authority to any section of the Oireachtas to change the law, at a moment's notice, so far as penalties are concerned. If we do that, we will damage the reputation of this House. In my view, power of that kind will not strengthen the Government. It will not call forth what we all desire, namely, a general acceptance of the law.

The official mind is very much opposed to those who went into court and defended the prosecutions brought against them in connection with the tillage Order principally. That is one of the disadvantages that both Governments and officials must put up with. It happens in nearly every country at some time that reverses of that kind will take place. It is almost impossible to frame legislation that will turn out to be foolproof. Goodness knows sufficient power has already been taken to ensure that, in these cases, whatever regulations are laid down should be in accordance with the law and be complied with. I think it is a very grave mistake—an error of judgment— to go beyond what is called the ordinary law which has no such penalties as are being provided in this Bill. I think that some of the things in it might be described as persecutions rather than prosecutions.

The Act which is to be continued by this Bill has had a life of two and a half years. During that time close on 200 Orders have been made under it. The mention of that fact is in itself evidence that the Government seem to have turned altogether to legislation by Order. If these Orders had come before the House in the ordinary way, in the form of Bills, they could have been discussed and amended. I suggest that legislation by Order is a very bad practice even in times of emergency, a practice that I personally do not agree with. The powers which the Government have assumed under this Act are much wider than what were visualised by the House when it was giving them to the Government two and a half years ago. Orders have been made under this Act dealing with various phases of the nation's life. It was assumed, rightly or wrongly, by some of us when the original Act was going through, that the Orders made under it would deal mainly with the affairs of the nation, such as maintaining peace, putting down disorder, regulating the internal administration of the law, and preserving the peace and neutrality of the country. But what do we find? That under that Act Orders have been made which, in the ordinary course, should have been brought before the House in the form of legislative proposals which could be discussed and amended if necessary. The result has been that the Orders made have been so ill thought out that they had to be amended soon afterwards by the Government.

Will the Taoiseach say if those Orders were considered and discussed by the Government and their implications looked into by the Government or the responsible Minister before they were made? They affect the lives of the people. Take Order 83. It was brought in for the specific purpose of pinning wages down to a certain level. I suggest that the effect of it on the man with low wages got no consideration whatever, or of the effect it was likely to have where there was a rise in prices which in the case of various commodities was bound to happen, apart altogether from profiteering. Wages were fixed at the level that they stood at at the time the Order was made.

I am sure the Taoiseach will agree that, in many cases, the wages in operation in rural areas at that time were really not sufficient to keep a family in that frugal comfort of which we hear so much. Irrespective of any increase in the cost of living, or of the fact that adequate steps were not taken to control prices and profits in industry, prices were pegged down at that level. It can hardly be argued that the Order got sufficient consideration before being promulgated as an Act because all those Orders have the force of an Act of Parliament. The Labour Party put down a motion to annul that Order. There is no opportunity of amending these Orders. The House is faced with the alternative of either accepting or rejecting them. That Order has had very widespread consequences throughout the country. There have been cases—I am sure the Taoiseach has got plenty of examples of them—where wages had been paid, some by bad employers and others by employers who were not within the jurisdiction of trade unions and who could not be forced through trade union activity to pay higher wages, and these wages although they were admittedly low were pinned down to that figure. That was in some way amended by Order 166, but again that Order has the unfortunate characteristic of Order 83, in that it will create terrible confusion and anomalies and will not relieve the position brought about by Order 83.

It was never visualised by this Party that the powers under that Act would be used in such drastic fashion against one section of the community.

When that Act was going through the House, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, as reported in column 117 of the Official Report of 2nd September, 1939, speaking on the question of profiteering, said:—

" It is proposed to take power in this Bill to deal adequately with the problems associated with the control of prices and to check profiteering. One of the Deputies said by way of a joke that the power of arrest without warrant and of internment given by the Bill might be used effectively in the case of profiteers, particularly profiteers in foodstuffs. I think that is a good suggestion and one that should be considered seriously. I notice that certain other Governments in Europe have resorted to such methods to check profiteering. It is, of course, inevitable that some commodities will go up in price, but I would not like the public to get the impression that every other upward movement in prices is due to profiteering."

He then goes on to give the reasons, such as the cost of transport, etc., and proceeded:—

" But any attempt at profiteering, that is, the taking of undue profits at any stage between the producer and the consumer of the goods, is something which has to be checked and, if discovered, very severely punished, and powers are being taken in this Bill for the imposition of such punishment."

I do not think that the Taoiseach can point to any instance where profiteers were severely punished. In fact, the penalties imposed on profiteers have been a joke. In many cases there was no penalty imposed; they were let off under the First Offenders Act. The result is that prices have soared unduly, and prices have been charged which were definitely profiteering prices. As to the use which was made of that Act, on the one hand, we had Order 83, with its counterpart Order 166, brought in definitely to penalise one section of the population, while another section was allowed to exploit the people, despite the fact that the Government, when passing the Bill, stated that they would be drastically dealt with. That is one of the complaints that we have against this Act —that the workers, especially those with low wages, were definitely penalised, while prices and profits were not controlled.

There is no use in telling us that you must control wages in order to prevent inflation. If you do not control prices and profits, then it is a criminal hardship to do what the Government have done by Orders 83 and 166. For instance, the wages of road workers under the Cork County Council were 35/- per week, and the council proposed to increase them by 2/7 a week, after due and deliberate consideration. But because this Standstill Order was in operation, it could not be done, although the average wage of these men over the 12 months was not more than 24/- a week. There you have a definite hardship imposed on one section of the community through the operation of the Order.

As I have said, very little effort was made to control the prices of commodities, especially the prices of essential commodities and the profits that could be earned. From the balance sheets of various companies we have seen where they made more profits this year than last year and so on. If there was justice all round, that should not obtain. The cry at the time was that there must be equality of sacrifice. But all the sacrifice was to be made by the lowly-paid workers, the casual workers, and the people living on very small fixed incomes. The other people seemed to be immune from any effect of the Orders made under the Act.

As I said, there has been a plethora of Orders. I am sure no Deputy or no member of the Government could tell right off how many Orders have been issued under the Act, or could even in a general way segregate the different types of Orders issued. There was a fuel control Order issued under which no turf could be brought into Cork City without a permit and permits are not available.

On a previous occasion I cited the case of a partially unemployed man who with his two brothers took a turf bank. They saved the turf, but when they wanted to bring it home they would not get a permit. I put it to the officials of the Department of Supplies that no injury would be done to the community by allowing that man to bring in the turf. I also cited the case of a man who had a turf bank near Macroom, but would not be allowed to bring the turf home. That is another feature of the Orders to which the Government should give consideration. On the face of them, some of these Orders seem to be senseless, and to have been made without consideration for the welfare of the people. This Act was passed in order to safeguard the rights of the people and the neutrality of the country. So far as neutrality is concerned, I stand four square for any Act or Order which will preserve it. I certainly would deal very harshly with anybody who would infringe that neutrality. But when I see Orders brought in which will cause irritation, disquiet and disturbance of mind to a section of the people, I say that there is something wrong with these Orders made under the Act.

That is the reason we submitted our amendment. We want the Government to give very serious consideration to the points we have raised. The Taoiseach has been approached by various deputations of trade unionists and others with regard to hardships suffered under those emergency Orders. If these are samples of what is meant by preserving neutrality and ensuring the safety of the State, then in our opinion this Act does not fulfil its purpose. That is the main reason why we submitted the amendment.

I think it necessary again to remind the House of the circumstances under which the first Emergency Powers Act saw the light. On the outbreak of the war this House was summoned by telegram to assemble at the earliest possible moment to take steps to arm the Government with powers to ensure the neutrality of this country. Nobody could object to proposals of that kind, but there were members of the House inclined to be suspicions of the Government and there were Deputies who on that occasion expressed their doubts as to the wisdom of giving the Government the wide powers they asked. They expressed their fears that these powers would be abused. The Taoiseach, with that air of righteous indignation that he can so well assume, smote all his critics in scornful repudiation of the suggestion that the Government could contemplate any abuse of those powers.

I suggest that the powers conferred in that Act were obtained under false representations and that they have been scandalously abused. How it can be any support or assistance to the maintenance of neutrality to condemn people to low wages, in effect to deport them from this country—and that is what has been happening—is something I cannot understand. To-day a case was brought to my notice. Within three or four miles of Dunmanway, in West Cork, 40 or 50 men are employed at timber felling. Deputies will know that that is heavy, laborious work. They have been engaged on that work for the past 12 months at 35/- a week. Nobody will deny that during that period the cost of living has increased substantially for every type of worker. They met their employer during the last month and an agreement was promptly reached following a suggestion that the employer would reconsider their wages and consent to an increase of 5/-, bringing the weekly amount to £2, less the national health insurance contribution.

The employer now finds himself confronted with the penalties under this Act if he dares give effect to that decision, which was unanimously arrived at between himself and his employees. That is a scandalous abuse of the powers given by this House. It is a reflection on the law of the country that a situation of that type could arise. To think that our Government would deem it an offence for an employer to give what he felt honourably bound to give to his employees in view of the changes in living costs, seems to me a gross and scandalous abuse of the powers which the Government possess.

The Emergency Powers Act, through the operations of Orders 83 and 166, indirectly affects the production of turf and has been responsible for the grave discontent that has existed amongst men engaged on turf production. They have produced turf on a wage of 5/- a day in many cases and they know that turf has been sold at £3 4s. a ton, and they ask what becomes of the difference between that figure and 30/-. Their demands for an increase in wages have been flatly refused because of the Government's policy. Deputy Hurley referred to the road workers, and the same position arises in relation to them.

I should like to hear from the leader of this Parliament what his view is on this matter, and what is his justification for the existing conditions. He told us some years ago that his conception of Irish nationality was that preached by James Connolly. I want to hear his justification for refusing, as a result of the operation of this Act, permission to increase wages from 30/- to £2 for men engaged in rural areas on laborious work. We are told that the manager of the new central bank will get a salary of £3,000 a year; that a certain gentleman was offered part-time employment by the State recently at £2,000 a year, and we know that members of the House are in receipt of substantial pensions, and that a return recently obtained went to show that one out of every four members of the House is a State pensioner, in addition to drawing his allowance as a Deputy. Does the Taoiseach think that state of affairs can be continued without causing grave discontent? If he does, he is sitting on a volcano, and the sooner he realises that the better it will be for the country.

It is possible even now, before the continuation of this Act is authorised, for the Government to indicate a change of heart. The Taoiseach has not entirely forgotten the protestations of democracy that he was so apt to treat us to in former years. He ought, if he has any sense of justice left, be compelled to consider matters of this kind before he asks the House to continue the legislation that has been abused and misused in the manner I have described.

On one occasion I was listening to the Taoiseach when he was asked not to use these emergency powers for any purpose such as dealing with wages and he resented the idea. I want to assure him very seriously that emergency Orders 83 and 166 have had a very damning effect on the loyalty and co-operation of the people. Deputy McGilligan referred to a class of workers in the community who have fixed incomes. We have no differentiation in our minds with regard to classes of workers. I am aware, as other Deputies are, that we have amongst us people who are in occupations and who have fixed incomes. They have obligations to fulfil in the way of rent and other things, such as the furnishing of their houses, some of them on the hire-purchase system, and their wages have been pegged down while the cost of living has risen.

I have been in touch with the workers and I find a very strong contempt amongst them for this House because of the Orders that have been issued by the Government, particularly in connection with the poorer sections. I happened to be at a meeting last Sunday and there was nothing but the greatest contempt of this House expressed at that meeting. They ask why is this Order allowed and that Order allowed? They ask why are workers' wages pegged down while other people are allowed to make all the profits they like? I cannot make any defence to that, for this reason, that while we have Order 83 introduced to peg wages down to 40/- in urban areas and 50/- in borough areas, we have at the same time no check whatever on the increased cost of living, no check on people who had things to sell. I could not convince the Taoiseach in any better way than by the figures given by the British Medical Association in 1933 and 1934 as being the minimum quantity and cost of food alone to keep a man and his wife and three children whose ages were from six to eight, ten to 12, and 12 to 14. The items which they said were sufficient to keep him in food alone, in 1934, were: 3 lbs. of beef, 2 lbs. of mutton, 1 lb. of bacon, 1 lb. of minced meat, 2 lbs. of corned beef, 39½ lbs. of bread and flour, 14 pints of milk, ½ lb. of butter—½ lb. of butter for five persons in a week; there is not much luxury about that—¾ lb. of lard and dripping. ½ lb. of margarine, 6½ lbs. of sugar, 1 lb. of jam, ½ lb. of tea, 10½ lbs. of potatoes, ½ lb. of oatmeal, 1 lb. of rice, ¾ lb. of treacle, 3 lbs. of cheese, 1 lb. of barley, 1½ lbs. of peas and beans, 1½ lbs. of fish. Fruit and vegetables were put down at 3/6. That cost a grand total of 22/6½, being the minimum quantity and cost for a man, his wife, and three children, to maintain any kind of health in 1934. I went to the trouble of comparing this cost with the cost to-day, on the controlled prices as fixed by the Minister. I have not exaggerated. I have taken the same amounts and the cost is 46/7¾ to-day.

Men who were about to get an increase of wages in 1941 were told that they could not get any more increases. I know workers in the City of Cork who are doing most important work. The increase in their wages from 1937 to 1939 was 2/6. A demand was made for an increase in wages in 1940. The Taoiseach probably has some appreciation of how effectively employers can prolong negotiations. The negotiations in that case were not completed when Order 83 was introduced and since that date these men have not received 1d. increase in their wages. Since the war started, many of these men were cut off owing to lack of supplies and most of them have gone to England. The reduced staff are doing more work and bringing in more revenue to the company but they have not yet got 1d. increase in their wages.

I submit that if anything is going to shake loyalty and unity in this country, it is legislation of that kind and it is doing it. I have such a case in mind as Deputy Murphy mentioned where negotiations took place between employers and a group of workers last March. The negotiations finished some time in April. The workers got an increase of 3/6 for one class, 2/- for another class and 2/6 for another class in the same industry. On the 8th April Order 166 was introduced. The increased wages were to be paid as from the first pay-day in April. This is the 1st July and those men cannot be paid their increase because of Order 166. I had to try to convince these people to accept that offer under the circumstances. There were no less than 86 workers present at the meeting. That was over four weeks ago and they cannot be paid any increase notwithstanding the fact that the agreement was to pay the increased wages as from the first pay day in April, 1942. I could give the Minister several other instances. I would suggest to him that if he is going to be in any way sincere about legislation made in this House and in any way sincere about implementing the Constitution, he should scrap Order 166.

I say, without fear of contradiction, that, long before Order 83 came in, there was no desire on the part of the workers or their trade unions to look for increases in wages. They realised the difficulties of the time. I have not yet heard any statement from the Taoiseach that employers complained of any demand on the part of workers or trade unions for undue increases in wages. I know employers who are prepared to pay increased wages, but who cannot do it because of Order 83 and the further Order 166. When I first saw Order 166 with the Taoiseach's name appended to it, I could hardly believe that such a document should have passed through his hands.

Section 3 of the Bill sets up machinery which is purposely put there to thwart the trade unions in their efforts to carry on normal negotiations with employers. The employers and the unions, if they do not agree, must submit the issue to the tribunal. The tribunal must report back to the Minister and the Minister has the last word as to whether or not there should be an increase, but no greater increase than 2/- bonus can be given, under Order 166. I suggest now to the Taoiseach that even if his backbenchers do not advise him on the matter, he should heed the feeling in the country about these Orders. Nothing unites people more than common suffering. Conditions governing the unemployed and their dependents' allowances, old age pensioners, widows and orphans, and the operation of the means test, have resulted in the loyalty and co-operation that existed two years ago being seriously shaken. Nobody will deny the Taoiseach or the Government any power that is necessary to keep law and order and to preserve our neutrality—and we, on this side of the House, are prepared to stand for that as squarely as anybody else—but I, personally, feel that we have reached the stage that we can no longer accept the position in which people have to make unequal sacrifices. I would ask the Taoiseach to reconsider Order 166 and have it repealed or amended.

I listened with a good deal of attention to the Taoiseach when he was moving the Second Reading of this Bill, and to his references to penalties in relation to compulsory tillage. I may say that I am in absolute agreement with a great deal of what he said. But there is a danger, I am afraid, that the Government may go from one extreme to another. Undoubtedly, in many cases that were brought into court, where it was shown that the refusal to cultivate the required acreage was due to lack of desire to do it, the penalties inflicted were, in the circumstances of the present time, absurd. But there is a danger that we may go to the other extreme. In certain parts of this country you cannot make a fixed rule and say to a farmer, "You have 50 acres of arable land. Therefore, you must till one-fourth or one-third of that." You may compel a man to do it. You may say that he must do it and that, if he does not, the penalty will be very severe, but he may be unable to do it, not through any lack of desire on his part, but for many other reasons, and, as time goes on, the reasons become more numerous. So far as what are known as the great tillage areas are concerned, because we have not got artificial manures, the land will not be able to produce food. That is the first point, and if the Taoiseach will talk to some of his own members from, say, Wexford, Carlow, Kildare, North Tipperary and Kilkenny——

And Louth, which leads them all.

Which thinks it leads them all.

Not thinks, but does.

We will not go into that.

It is just as well that you would not.

If Louth can produce more food than any other county, I shall take off my hat to it.

It actually does produce more in proportion.

Let us hope that you will be able to go on doing that.

And we did it when we did not know artificial manures, in 1830.

And you believe that you can continue to do that without artificial manures?

Good agriculturists say so.

Let the Deputy tell that to the good agriculturists and let him hear what they say to him. However, I am not trying to score any points; I am trying to point out the difficulties. In those areas to which I have referred, the people had not to wait for a compulsory tillage Order to till and produce.

Except the grazier.

Mr. Morrissey

There are no graziers in the areas I am talking about. You cannot have intensive and extensive tillage and graziers in the same place. I suppose the nearest approach to that in any part of Ireland is to be found in my own county. The North Riding is completely different from the South Riding, so I have experience of both grazing and tillage. I have seen reports in relation to people who were expected to till land which gave the opinion of the farmer himself who was born and reared on the farm and the opinion of his neighbours who were good farmers that it would not give back to him the amount of seed it would take to sow it.

There is no use in compelling people to put seed into land which is not going to give back a fair return. If it can be shown that a farmer who has good land, capable of producing food, deliberately refuses to carry out his obligations to the State and to the community, I do not care how high you fix the penalty for that man, but. on the other hand, the one thing I should be afraid of is that, in our natural anxiety, brought about by the circumstances in which we are living to-day, we may go to the other extreme and expect our farmers to do impossibilities.

With regard to the Bill itself, as has been said by previous speakers, these powers were sought originally, nearly three years ago, because, we were told, they were necessary for the protection and preservation of the State. It is not an exaggeration to say that so far as their application in certain directions is concerned, it would appear as if they were being used for the very opposite purpose. To the extent that the powers conferred on the Government by the original Act have been abused, they have been used not towards strengthening the State, but towards weakening it. Order 83 and what followed from it, Order 166, are responsible for the L.D.F. and the L.S.F. being one-third weaker to day than they should be. The Taoiseach himself made an appeal within the last 12 months for thousands more men for our voluntary services. Those appeals are being repeated day in and day out, not only by members of the Government, but by ourselves. I, like other T.D.s, have been on L.D.F. recruiting platforms three or four times in the last six weeks, but when I get off the platform, I am approached by two or three workers and asked: "What do you expect us to fight for?"

I am told, and I know that in my own county, workers are expected to work in the bogs this year for a smaller cash wage than that for which they worked last year. I am not speaking about the lower purchasing power of the wages, but, in actual cash, they are not allowed by the Government to get as much as they got last year, and what they got last year was 35/- per week. For that men are expected to do what? To cycle—I do not say it is true in every case, but it is true in cases within my personal knowledge— ten miles from their homes to the bog; to be on the bog at 8 o'clock in the morning; to put in a hard day's work; and to cycle ten miles home. They are expected to do that six days a week. Some of these men are married and some have families of five or six children, and they have 5/10 per day, less stamps, to pay rent, to feed a wife and two, three, four, five or six children, and out of the small pool of food which can be purchased with that very small wage, to take a sustaining dinner for themselves to the bog every day.

Does the Taoiseach or any member on the opposite benches—and they know at least as much as we on this side know about this matter, if they do not know more—seriously suggest it can be done? Does anybody seriously suggest that a man who has to cycle 20 miles a day and to put in a hard day's work on the bog at 5/10 per day, can, unless he takes away from his wife and children, take anything more than a cup of water or weak tea and perhaps a slice or two of bread for his meal? Does anybody suggest that a man, limited by that miserable wage in the amount of food he can consume, is physically capable of producing the amount of turf he would be able to produce if he were in the physical condition in which he ought to be? I want to suggest to the Taoiseach that, apart altogether from the absolute injustice of the thing—and this, I am sure, will commend itself to him and the Parliamentary Secretary—it is economically unsound. If you feed them better, they will probably produce more turf for you.

We heard a lot of clap-trap from the Parliamentary Secretary last week about the men going across to England and working for worthless paper and so on. Is it not a fact that if those men could get work in this country at a wage which would enable them to keep themselves and their families, they would stay and work here, and to-day would be engaged in producing food and fuel for this country, and, instead of being in England, would be in the ranks of the L.D.F., the L.S.F. and the other voluntary forces? Will anybody suggest that the tens of thousands of men who have left this country in the last three years and have gone across to a country where they are risking their lives, and where many of them have unfortunately lost their lives, did so for a whim, because they did not want to work at home or because they preferred to work for an English rather than an Irish employer? No man would dare to suggest that.

Nothing on God's earth has driven those men to Britain but sheer economic necessity. I do not know the first thing about finance. I know nothing about the Central Bank Bill. I know nothing about currency, good, bad or indifferent and, unlike a good many Deputies, I do not even pretend that I know anything about it, but if the effect of these men going across is that they can feed themselves, and, for the first time in their lives so far as many of them are concerned, can send back sufficient money to enable their wives and families to get enough to eat and enough to wear, I see nothing disgraceful in it.

Now those are the factors that the Taoiseach and the Government have to face up to. The Minister for Supplies yesterday talked about facing realities and stating nothing but facts. We are stating the facts here—the real, stark facts—and I want to put this forward for consideration: the thing that amazes me is the wonderful and magnificent response that has been got in this country from the workers of this country. Having regard to the weaknesses of human nature, is it not a wonderful thing that a man will cycle, perhaps, 20 miles to his work on a bog, with very often not enough to eat, and whose family have not enough to eat, and that then, after a hard day's work in such circumstances, he will turn out for a march of four or five miles with the L.D.F. or the L.S.F. or in connection with exercises of the auxiliary fire brigade or other organisations of that nature?

That is the position, however, and does the Taoiseach believe that by using the powers that were given under the Principal Act, with which this Bill is concerned, in the way that they have been used in relation to the lowest paid people in this State, the Government are going the best way or even the right way about the preservation of the safety and peace of this country? Mind you, internal disorder could be a lot worse in many cases, perhaps, than disorder coming from outside the country. Now, I do not want in any way to be an alarmist, good, bad or indifferent, but I should like to hear the Taoiseach or anybody else attempting to defend a Government action which compels men in County Tipperary to produce turf to-day for 2/- a week less than they were getting last year, and, so far as many of them are concerned, for 2/- a week less than they had been earning during the last 20 years, particularly in view of the fact that the cost of living figure has gone up in the last three years from 73 to 140.

This is a matter which affects a far greater number of people than perhaps the Taoiseach has adverted to up to this. This is a matter which concerns the people far more deeply than many of the other matters to which the Government are giving far more time and attention, and I hope that this discussion may have the effect of bringing home to the mind of the head of the Government that it is a matter that cannot be ignored, and that, apart altogether from the question of bare justice to the men concerned, the safety of the State demands that the matter should be seen to immediately.

When the Principal Act was passed in this House there was almost unanimous agreement that the powers then sought should be given to the Government. Since then, however, there has been a growing feeling, not only among members of this House, but even to a greater extent among the public outside, that the present Administration should not be trusted with the powers with which they have been endowed. That feeling has been caused because of the many conflicting and unjust Orders which have been issued under this legislation. Now, the Orders compelling farmers to put under cultivation a certain minimum percentage of their arable land can hardly be questioned. Everyone will agree that in a time of emergency it is the duty of those who hold land to put a certain amount of it under tillage, in order to maintain the human population, but with that obligation there is at the same time an even stronger obligation on the Government to see that the people who are compelled to till their land are paid for the labour and the risk that they are forced to undertake. Under this emergency legislation, power is given to the Government to compel a farmer to till his land, but there is no statutory obligation on the Government to see that the farmer and his workers are given an adequate return for their labour, and as long as there is no statutory obligation on the Government, we are compelled to rely upon their sense of right and justice, and since they have not shown, during the past three years, that their sense of right and justice is as strong as we would expect it to be, I feel that this legislation should not be continued.

Many Deputies here, representing farming constituencies, meet farmers down the country from time to time and are frequently criticised for having given such extensive powers to the Government. We are told that those powers were used by the Government for the suppression of a farmers' strike, which was purely a demonstration, and that they were not used to suppress strikes or demonstrations here in Dublin by other people, such as the drapers and so on. We are told that these powers were used very drastically against members of the farming community and against people engaged in milk production in the Dublin area. As a matter of fact, people in the South of Ireland were got to send milk to Dublin in order to break the strike here. Now, when farmers consider how drastically and extensively these powers were used against them, they cannot help feeling that this is not a Government which should be trusted with such extensive powers.

An appeal has been made here for the establishment of a national Government, because it is felt that such far-reaching powers should not be vested in a Party Government, a Government which represents only one Party in this House and which must be influenced to a great extent by the interests of that Party. I agree—and I think I also made the suggestion when the Act was under consideration last year—that it is absolutely essential that a Government entrusted with such far-reaching and extreme emergency powers should be a Government representative of all Parties.

I think that sooner or later that point of view will be impressed upon the Government and that they will be compelled to adopt it. When the Principal Act was introduced we were told that it would be mainly directed towards keeping this country out of the war. So far this country has happily been spared, to a certain extent, from participation in the war. While the Government claim that they have succeeded in keeping the country neutral in this war there is, nevertheless, the fact that our young men and young women who have most to expect from life are leaving the country and going to one which is involved in war. Those young people have not been kept out of the war. They have been driven right into the centre of it, and that is a responsibility for which the Government must answer.

When discussing the turf estimate recently we were told that we had not sufficient men here to produce the fuel which the nation will require next winter. One may ask, why? Because through the operation of these emergency powers wages have been kept down to such a level that men have preferred to cross over to a nation which is involved in war, and take all the risks that are involved in the aerial bombardment of industrial centres in England. They decided to do that rather than remain in a neutral country that refuses to pay men a decent wage. I think that, in view of the fact that manual workers, farmers and the masses of the people generally have been oppressed under this emergency powers legislation, it would be unwise for this House to continue it in operation.

This debate has widened out to such an extent that I thought I was listening to a debate on the Estimate for the Department of the Taoiseach, the Department of Supplies or the Department of Industry and Commerce.

That is one of the penalties you have to pay for being head of the State.

But surely every time I appear in the House in regard to any particular measure I ought not to be asked to go over things that might be more appropriately raised in another way. Take, for instance, Orders 83 and 166. When Order 83 was discussed on a previous occasion it seemed to me to be quite relevant to do so, because the case made was that it should have been brought before the House in the form of legislation. Nobody, I think, can say that it has not been discussed sufficiently often, and that anything that could be contributed on it from the point of view of discussion or examination by members of the House, has not already been done.

The point is that it should never have been made under this Act.

The case could be made for it that it was not the sort of thing that should be made by Government order. The matter was very fully discussed. On the motion for the annulment of the Order there was a very full discussion. The Order was passed by a majority of the House. The minority objected to it. In regard to all sorts of measures you will always have a certain minority that will object. In any case the Order came before the House and was very fully discussed. The case that could then be made for bringing it up in connection with this type of Bill could not be made now. That is quite apart from the merits or demerits of the Order. It is a matter, of course, in which there will be differences of opinion, but anyhow the case that could be made for bringing it up on this type of Bill originally could not be made now. If the matter were to be raised again I think that could be more appropriately done either by another motion or in connection with the Department of Supplies or the Department of Industry and Commerce. It does seem to me that another discussion on that Order is not exactly germane to this particular Bill, because once it has been discussed it might very well be regarded as an ordinary piece of legislation.

Except to express our apprehension that the Government might do something similar in the future.

I think Deputy Hickey told the truth about it, namely, that Deputies were anxious just to bring it up again as a matter for discussion, and they did that because it is a matter that is of public interest.

And a matter of trust in the Government in relation to these powers.

That has nothing to do with it. It is not a question of trust. If the Government had agreed on the policy of bringing in legislation instead of making the Order there would have been the same objections so that really the matter has nothing to do with the powers the Government have under this Bill. The case made on the previous occasion was that the matter ought not to have been dealt with by way of Emergency Powers Order but by way of general legislation.

Order 166 has never been discussed.

It was open to Deputies to put down a motion to annul it. However, to come to the Bill. One would naturally expect that the points that would have been dealt with in the discussion were the additional powers that are being conferred and the continuation of the Act. The same reasons that obtained at the beginning for giving the Government power to make Emergency Orders still exist. Is there anybody in the House going to deny that proposition?

Therefore, from the point of view of the continuance of the measure, I take it that we have unanimity on the measure. In regard to the reasons that were originally given, it has been suggested now that the original measure was brought in for the preservation of our neutrality. That is quite a new sort of turn to give to the reason, I think. We asked it for a much wider purpose surely than that—for the well-being of the community in this time of crisis—and not merely for the purpose Deputy Murphy mentioned: that we came to the House and asked to be given those powers to preserve our neutrality.

Not neutrality alone.

Your colleague was not quite as frank as that. There is a great danger that if we start talking across the floor of the House we will offend all the Rules of Order.

The Taoiseach is never so happy as when he is doing that.

It is true to say that a good atmosphere is created when one talks across the House like that, but I am afraid it is not good for the orderly transaction of business. Therefore, I tried to refrain from it. At any rate, we have it that there is general agreement that the Government do need the power to make Emergency Orders and that these Orders are needed in the wide sense to preserve the well-being of the community in present circumstances.

We have asked for additional powers or larger powers than we had under the existing Act. We are taking advantage of the fact that we have to bring in this measure to ask for increased powers. But before we come to the increased powers, there is a question, as I pointed out, of settling a matter about which there was some doubt: that the part of the section which referred to individual matters as to which Orders might be made should not in any way detract from the general powers in the earlier part of the section. We want to make sure of that. I think that is also a matter on which there will be general agreement. When discussing it on the first occasion I remember it was made quite clear that these powers which are given in the first part of the section were intended to be general and that the others were not to detract from them. Some doubts have arisen in certain cases where it might be argued otherwise in the courts, and it is to make certain that there will be no doubt in the matter that we are including Section 6.

I have admitted that the retrospective power and the power of providing for minimum penalties are powers that ordinarily we would be very loath to take and that even in the present circumstances we are very loath to take. But I want to assure Deputies that this Bill was not brought in without a good deal of consideration and a good deal of anxiety on our part, because we do recognise that there may be some particular instances in which, so to speak, justice would be better served if full discretion were given to the judge as to what the penalty should be. But we have quite a large list of cases in which the penalties inflicted seem to indicate that the justices had no appreciation of the seriousness of the offences committed by the people who were brought up before them. The penalties inflicted were altogether incommensurate with the crime against the community and not merely against the individual. The point is that other individuals will do the same thing. Unless it is made quite clear from the penalties inflicted that it is regarded as a serious offence we cannot hope to have the control of prices made effective.

I have got here a very long list of cases from one Department. When introducing the Bill I did not think that I should deal with it at this particular stage because, no matter what list of cases I give, I do not think it would be ultimately convincing, unless you have before you the particular defence that might be put up by the individual concerned. In order to be really satisfied you would want to try each individual case in so far as that is possible. The result is that you could not convince anybody who was not convinced in general by merely giving a list of cases. But as I have been asked for the list I will give some of these cases. I will take them as they have been given to me without making any selections. They will at least indicate the danger which made us regard it as necessary to amend the Act in the way we are amending it and to indicate minimum penalties.

Lest I should forget it, there is another matter to which I wish to refer, and that is that you have a very large number of justices. They have not all the same views with regard to the seriousness of the offence committed. Therefore you have no uniformity in the penalties that are being inflicted. In some cases you will see a very severe penalty. The Department have got examples where appeals were made against very severe penalties. In one case the justice imposed such a very severe penalty that even the Department felt it was unnecessarily severe, and when the Department thought it was unnecessarily severe that was going a long way. Side by side with that you have a case in which a person is let off under the Probation of Offenders Act. There is, therefore, a want of uniformity arising from the fact that different justices try these cases. If you try to get a solution to that and say: "Can you not have some central court trying these cases?" you will find that that would be impracticable. There would be a lot of difficulties in connection with that. Therefore you are more or less forced back, no matter how reluctantly, on this sort of procedure, distasteful as it undoubtedly is, and you have to say: "We have to think of the community as a whole."

Individuals here and there may suffer more severely than if they were tried in a central court with full power to the person trying the case to take all the mitigating circumstances into account. But we have to say: "The good of the community as a whole demands that we should fix these minimum penalties." If there is to be any mitigation of the penalty—all that can be done on appeal is to find out whether the person was guilty or not, because even on appeal they cannot reduce a minimum fine—the only way in which it can be reduced is by an appeal to the Minister for Justice. Before the Minister for Justice would mitigate any penalty he would have to satisfy himself that there were certain circumstances in the case of a type that lessened the offence, and that in justice he would have to take these into account and reduce the minimum penalty. It is the only way that we can see. I certainly would be very glad if we could get from any Deputy any suggestion as to how we can achieve the same end by a better method.

I said that I would give some of these cases. I do not know that it is desirable to give the actual names. The cases are listed in columns, giving the name of the person, the address, the commodity, the maximum price fixed by Order, the price charged, the name of the justice, the date of the hearing, and the result. I do not propose to give all these particulars unless I am driven to it by the wish of the House. I prefer to leave the names out both of the justice who tried the case and of the offender. I will take the case of tea. The maximum price was 3/4 per lb. The person was charged with selling it at the rate of 8/- per lb. on two occasions, namely, on the 11/11/'41 and the 18/11/'41. There was also a charge of refusing to mark the quantity on the receipt issued. In one case he was let off under the Probation of Offenders Act. In a second case he was fined 10/-, and in another, 10/6 and 4/- court costs. That was for selling tea at 8/- per lb. If everybody did that, and if the Order was contravened in that way, it is obvious that the attempt to deal with prices would go by the board. Then there was another case in which tea was sold at 5/4 per lb. on the 7/11/'41: at 5/- per lb. on the 14/11/'41; at 5/4 per lb. on the 14/11/'41; and at 4/- per lb. on the 14/11/'41. The result of that case was a fine of 2/6 on each summons, with 4/- court costs and 10/- witnesses' expenses. Naturally, the Department, observing fines of that character and seeing the matter being treated in that way, felt that the Order was going to be disobeyed, because the penalty was not sufficiently severe and the profits that could be made if persons were to continue in that way, would be sufficiently great very quickly to wipe out any fine.

The next case deals with tea and, as you know, the statutory price was 3/4. It was being sold at 5/- a pound and the Probation Act was applied. These cases come from different counties, so that there is no indication that they concern one particular individual. The Probation Act was applied in the tea case, as I have said, and there was a payment of 10/- expenses and 4/- court costs. We have another case from a different county where a person was charging 4/- a pound for tea instead of 3/4. That person was fined 5/- for overcharging and 10/- for failing to give a receipt. In another county tea was sold at 1/3 per quarter pound. The Probation Act was applied. Now, we get on to some other commodities. The maximum price for biscuits was 11d. per pound and in one case 9d. was charged for a half pound. The summons was marked "proved," the Probation Act was applied, and, in a second summons, there was a fine of 10/-, with £3 10/- costs. Then we have a case relating to cigarettes. The maximum price is 8½d. for ten and in this case 1/- was charged and there was a fine of £1. It happens that all these cases are taken from different counties.

They seem to bring in all the district justices.

I asked for a list and I am reading that list as I got it without making any selection. All I am anxious about is not to tire the House. I shall go on as long as any Deputy wishes me to do so. In another case relating to cigarettes there was a fine of £1 and a second summons was dismissed. There was a charge in another county of selling cigarettes at 2/- for 20 and there was a 10/- fine imposed. I now come to a case relating to flour. The price charged for the flour was 14/- for four stones and in the same case there was also a charge of 5/- for a ½ lb. of tea. The fine imposed in regard to the sale of tea was £1 2s. 0d. and, in the case of the flour, the Probation Act was applied. I have another case relating to cigarettes, where they were sold at 1d. each and a receipt was not given. There was a fine of 2/- and 2/- court costs. I have here a whole list of such cases if the House would care to hear it read out.

There is no need to read it. Has the Taoiseach any list from the Department of Agriculture?

I have asked for it, but I have not got it yet. I know in the case of the Department of Agriculture that, before they prosecute, they try to satisfy themselves whether there are circumstances to suggest that there might be mitigation of the penalty. I think they satisfy themselves before they prosecute that it is a case that ought to be brought to court and that the person was really guilty of evading the law.

Deliberate evasion?

Yes, deliberate evasion. I think that is the general attitude of the Department of Agriculture. I will admit that even the reading out of these cases cannot prove anything, because we might have a particular set of circumstances which might make a justice, hearing a case, say: "This is not a deliberate evasion and it is not a case where heavy penalties ought to be inflicted." But if that becomes widespread, as this list shows, it simply means that the Order might as well not have been made.

They were too lenient altogether.

If the Minister is to do his work and try to keep down prices—this is largely a question of prices—he must have the requisite power. In the case of the cultivation of land, the Minister must be empowered to see that each farmer does his duty towards the community. If Ministers are to bear that responsibility, we must give them the power to see that those who deliberately evade Orders are going to suffer and that the penalty will be sufficiently high to make the person thinking of evasion see that it would be better to do his duty rather than try to evade it.

I have instanced cases where people were brought to court. In the last war, we know there were similar cases where people were brought to court for not obeying certain Orders and they simply smiled and said that it paid them very well to do it. They pointed out that by evading the law they were making so much money and they realised that they would not be fined very heavily. Consequently there was a direct monetary inducement to disobey the law. We want to make sure that on this occasion there will be no monetary inducement to disobey the law. That is our case for the minimum fine.

I regret we have to do this. I do not know whether Deputies will believe me, but the fact is that all this type of legislation goes against the grain so far as I am concerned. I believe in full discussion here. There are various aspects of every subject that will, no matter how conscientious the Minister and his officials may be, be presented in the House. There are various aspects of legislation, the manner in which it will affect sections of the community, which may not be seen in advance and the value of discussion here is that we can be shown how a measure will affect those sections. These aspects may not occur to those engaged in previous discussions, but they are brought out when the legislation is under discussion in the Dáil. That is one good argument against legislating by Order, but we have no way out at the present time. I think that Deputies who will consider this calmly will see that this particular way of dealing with the matter, drastic though it is, is better than to let things slide and let people simply ignore these Orders.

With regard to the retrospective aspect of these amendments, the point is really to see that things were valid. It is not so much to impose penalties or anything of that sort; it is to see that things were valid, that the obvious general intention of any provision should not be nullified and brought to nought by some little technical mistake or oversight. It is really to validate something that was imperfect in a particular Order that the retrospective power is asked for. I do not think there is any suggestion of retrospective action in making fines greater, or that sort of thing.

Will it have the effect of re-opening cases already decided?

I do not think so.

I think the Taoiseach will have to be a little more definite on that point on the Committee Stage. If a case has already been brought before the court and a decision given on it, whatever the decision may have been, surely it is not now proposed to have that case re-opened?

I do not think so. I will find out definitely but I would almost be prepared to say no, it is so unlikely, but I do not want to commit myself until I have ascertained.

I hope the Taoiseach will be in a position to do so on the Committee Stage.

I will, yes. If I am to be asked any questions I would be glad to get them in advance. It did not occur to me that such a thing would be thought of and I want to make certain. I certainly did not think of it and I want to make sure that nobody else had anything like it in mind.

When the first Bill was going through it did not occur to us that the Government would think of some of the things they afterwards thought of.

Again, we did not make this crisis and we did not make the developments of it. You do not anticipate when you take one step in order to rectify some particular thing that is wrong that you would have to take half a dozen other steps to see that that particular step was going to be effective. All these things only develop as you go along.

It all depends on the direction in which you take the step.

The only aim we have is the welfare of the community. Why should we have any other? What other purpose should we have?

That is what I often ask myself.

We may take different views as to how the interests of the community may be best served. That is true. But why should we—as I think it was Deputy Norton said— deliberately try to injure the community? What good will it be to us in any mortal way? Why should we approach the thing from that point of view? It is quite obvious that that is exaggeration. Unfortunately, Deputy Norton spoils a lot of the points he has to make, most of which are good points, by completely and absolutely exaggerating as he did this evening. I see no purpose to be served by it. Nobody is going to believe that we would deliberately set out to injure the community as a whole or any particular class of the community.

That is what you have done.

It may be the view of one particular section, looking on it, that that is so. We may argue that, but let nobody think he would get away in any community whatever with the suggestion that the Government here have any purpose in trying to injure any particular section of the community. No matter what view you may take of the Government or even the individual members of it, what purpose could be served by doing that? It may happen that there would be difference of opinion with regard to the result of actions they have taken, but surely nobody is going to suggest, at least to state deliberately and to believe, that we could have any purpose in doing something deliberately to injure a section of the community. It passes my comprehension why people will make statements of that kind when they know they do not believe them themselves and that nobody else would believe them either.

I heard a couple of those statements coming from the Taoiseach's side of the House occasionally.

I doubt if the Deputy ever heard me say——

I do not suggest that the Taoiseach made them, but I have heard such statements from his side of the House.

If statements of that kind are made, they are stupid statements, whenever they come from. If I were guilty of it on any particular occasion, and if you point out any such statement I will say it is stupid. I cannot see how anybody can accuse people who are in office, where everything is to be gained by serving the community, of deliberately going out to injure any section of the community. It may happen that in trying to serve the interests of the community as a whole, a particular section may have to suffer in its particular interest, but it is not because they want it to suffer; it is because their idea of the interests of the community as a whole demands that they should do it. The House may be perfectly certain that all Governments, consisting of human beings, knowing that whenever they do something which injures any particular section of the community they are making enemies of that particular section for themselves, from the purely political point of view, will not do it if they can avoid it. I think that is common sense. You can always go on the assumption that Governments are much more likely to err through not being prepared to face making enemies of a section whose interests may have to suffer in the general interests than to err in the opposite direction—very much more.

With regard to this retrospective power—if I am asked any questions or if there are any particular examples that would illustrate better what is the intention, I will get the details for you, if demanded, on the Committee Stage. I did not, as a matter of fact, ask for a lot of details for this stage because I regard it as a Committee Stage Bill, after the general discussion, rather than a Bill for Second Reading because there are different things in each particular section.

Deputy McGilligan raised a matter which I will have to look into and that is whether it would be possible—it is certainly not the intention—strictly under the terms of Section 6A, on page 4, to stand at one time on one leg and another time on another leg, according to the way it pleased you to operate. I do not know if that is possible as the section is at present worded but there is no such intention. I can say that. I will look into it and see whether the wording should in any way be modified so as to exclude the possibility of what he suggests. There is no question of trying to pursue a particular individual and, for that purpose, arranging things under one or two of these provisions so that you could get after that individual or group of individuals and then come back to the other one again. That is obviously not intended but I will try to see whether we can exclude any such possibility.

With regard to delegation, I think Deputy McGilligan raised the point that he did not see that any additional powers were provided in this that we had not already. I think we advanced something like this: in the Principal Act it says:—

"Under this or any other Act or under an Emergency Order or an Order made under an Emergency Order."

It does not speak of an Order made under any other Act. You want to have it so that the power of delegation would apply to Orders that would be made under other Acts and that is provided for by the wider terms of Section 10.

That is as far as the Bill itself is concerned. With regard to the wider question as to whether the Government is using its powers in the best possible way, of course there will be always difference of opinion about that. Naturally, members of the Opposition Parties will never think that the Government are doing the thing in the best possible way. If that were so, there would be no purpose in Party groups. As a matter of fact I do not think any individual would believe that another individual was doing a job in the best possible way. Being a different individual, he will think that things should be done in a different way and it is very often because he has not got the knowledge which the person who has to take the decision has that he does not see all the things that prompted that decision.

One Deputy said that he could not see why somebody would not be allowed to bring turf into Cork; in other words, he could not see why there should be regulation in that particular way. We find in the course of discussions of this sort the most extraordinary contradiction on the part of the individuals who speak. At one time, they are advocating regulation and, at the next moment, objecting to regulation, and, on the whole, I think the Labour Party want more and more regulation. I do not see how they could possibly expect to move in some of the directions in which they want to move without more regulation, and if you have regulations intended to secure that, in the case of turf, you will not have exorbitant prices, that prices will be kept down and controlled, you can scarcely allow the ordinary law of supply and demand to operate. It might work out just as well as control, but we would have to take a big risk, because we might not have anything like a sufficient quantity of turf for our requirements. We could not, as a Government, simply sit down, and let the whole law of supply and demand work itself out. I am not saying that possibly it would not have worked out just as well and that we would not have got our turf just as cheaply, but we would have been taking a very big risk. On the whole, I do not think it would have worked as well, but in any case we could not take the risk, because there are areas which would have been in a very serious position in respect of fuel, and it is our business to do our utmost to see that that fuel is supplied.

That led immediately, as I pointed out on a previous occasion, to an effort to separate the country into two parts —that area which could reasonably supply its own needs in fuel and that area which could not—and to saying to the area which could supply its needs: "You have turf. Cut and use it. Make use of fuel which is available to you because you will get no fuel from outside. Any fuel available will have to go to places less favourably situated with regard to fuel than you."

For that reason, as much of the country as possible which could be self-supporting in fuel was indicated as a turf area and the greatest possible narrowing down was brought about so that the areas which had to be sup plied from outside could get in supplies of coal or any other outside fuel which we could get. Our big problem is Dublin. The difficulty with regard to Dublin is that it is situated further from the supplies of fuel than any other place and practically one-sixth of our population is concentrated here. In the places nearer to Dublin where there are bogs, the man-power is not available, and, taking man-power and bogs together, they are situated at the farthest possible distance from this city, which gives rise to the difficulty of transport. If we had not got that transport difficulty, the position would be all right.

Speaking of turf brings me to this question which the Labour Party are always raising—the question of increased wages. My own view is that those people who work hard physically are not getting to-day, and never did get, at any time, in my lifetime anyhow, anything like a fair reward for the service they render the community. That is my own belief. I believe that in the case of those of us, whether as clerks or other workers, who move a pencil, though it may require other qualities, it does not put on the individual doing it the same strain, nor is it as distasteful as the work which a person engaged in physical labour has to do. I want to say that clearly.

If I could easily reorganise society so as to give these people higher remuneration for their work, even at the cost of bringing down the remuneration of others who have less difficult work to do, I would do it, but it is easier to think or to wish than to bring any of these changes about. One thing, however, cannot be done: you cannot increase the wages of those who are producing materials and sell them cheaply in the end. The labourer is a consumer as well as a producer and he, in the end, has to get a product which is largely a product of labour and to pay for it.

Might I ask the Taoiseach to look at the returns submitted by certain county councils? He will there observe that, on a piece rate system, men are receiving £5 a week and turf is produced at 9/6 per ton and that, where 30/- is paid, the cost of the turf is 24/6 per ton.

The Labour Party, I think, will agree with me when I say that if it were proposed to have piece rates in respect of all sorts of labour, they would object.

I think you would. I do not want to pretend at all that I have studied the matter, but, from experience, I happen to know conditions in rural Ireland and to know the labouring conditions, too. I have not studied very closely—I have not had the opportunity to do so—the trade union movement in England, or even the trade union movement as a whole in Ireland. I know its general purposes and aims, but I should be greatly surprised if I am wrong in believing that if it were generally decided that work should be paid by piece rates, the trade unions would be against it. At first sight, from the point of view of the community, from the point of view of output, it would appear to be one of the fairest ways of paying for work, namely, on the return given. That looks at first sight to be fair, but the objection naturally from the labour point of view is that it means that the weaker goes to the wall. Those people to whom the Almighty gave particular powers, particular physical capabilities and so on, will do very much better than the others, who will be left behind.

Again, I am speaking as one who has not had the opportunity, although I wish I had, of studying the matter closely, but my first impression is that the result of having to make sure that the weakest is able to get a fair wage has been a diminution in the whole of output. I think that from the community point of view, it would be very much better if you could, on the one hand, allow the people who are capable of the greater output to get payment on the basis of output and, on the other, specially to look after the weaker section. There, again, however, more difficulties arise, if you follow that out, because the problem arises of how to distinguish the person who is incapable of doing it from the person who is capable. These are problems on which the very best minds of the world —both on the side of labour and on the side of industry—have been engaged for a very long time, and they have not been able to find a satisfactory solution of them yet. However, I did not intend to digress into that. All I wanted to say was that there is no doubt whatever that the workers are consumers as well as producers, and that if you pay them highly for what they produce, then they will have to pay dearly also for what they consume.

Now, a splendid example of that was given the other day in connection with the production of turf. In view of the discussion that took place here, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance to give me some figures, and they are very illuminating in this connection. I have heard a good deal of criticism from the Labour Benches as to the price at which turf was being sold here in Dublin. Now, there was no question there, let us say, of coal merchants or others making profits on the sale of that turf; it was a question, practically, of a public service, and profits were practically cut out. The only items that entered into the matter were those that entered the final cost of the turf. The figures I have got here are not quite complete up to a certain point, and I want to get some extra figures to complete the list. This is a question of consignments of turf from Westmeath to Dublin, and the various costs involved in bringing that turf from Westmeath to the dump in Dublin, and then the ultimate costs from that point to where it is sold in Dublin at 64/- a ton.

Now, here are the figures, as they have been given to me: cost of production on the bog, 22/6 per ton; cost of bringing the turf to the roadside, 3/-; cost of loading it into lorries, 1/6; cost of transporting to railhead, 4/-; cost of loading it into wagons, 1/-; railway charges, 8/-; cost of unloading it from the wagons into the lorries, 1/6; cost of transporting it to the dump, 4/-; and then unloading it, clamping it, and so on, 5/6. That makes a total of 51/-. Now, I think that everybody will admit that there is not a section of the people who were involved in all these operations who would not be able to make a case for an increase in wages. I am perfectly certain that everyone of them would say that, since the cost of living has gone up, their wages should also go up, but is it not clear that that figure of 51/- will have to be increased by every single penny that is added on, whether in wages or in any other way?

Now, the consumers in Dublin, I take it, are the people in whom we have the most interest. I take it that the Labour Party would have the most interest in the consumers in the cities, as being the poorest section of the community, and they will have to pay any addition in the cost of the turf.

But you are keeping down the purchasing power of the workers by your Standstill Order in connection with wages.

But will the cost not have to be made up somewhere? Deputy Hickey cannot put two and two together and make six of it.

I know that.

And if you add all these items, as they go into the costings, unless somebody comes along and fills up the gap, the consumer will have to pay. Who is to fill up the gap? If it is the community, then you will have to subsidise production, and again it comes back to the fact that the individual in the community has to foot the bill in one way or another. There is no way out of it. The only possible way out of it would be the use of machinery, and there are certain objections there also. We all know the difficulties that have been experienced in that connection, and we know that, very often, the more you improve the machinery the less individuals are employed. Now, I am not saying that if you had some means by which the benefits of the machine would be distributed properly, it would not be a wise thing.

I think that we have gone ahead with the idea of improving machinery, making work light, and so on, so that in the long run it ought to be an advantage to the community, but the only way to reduce these costs is by improving the method of production so that the individuals involved will produce more and, in that way reduce the cost of production per unit, but if you add to the cost, these additional costs inevitably will have to be paid by the individual consumer and, again, the workers are consumers as well as producers. What I want is to try to see that the individual consumers and producers will secure the maximum benefit, and in that connection you have got to relate the two things together and see by what particular method they are going to benefit most, and that is the real wages, so to speak, in connection with what they produce.

Is not their complaint to-day that you are sending up the price of commodities while keeping down their wages?

To ignore the facts of the situation will not meet the difficulty, and one of the facts that has to be understood by everybody, in dealing with this question, is that the worker is a consumer as well as a producer and that if you add to the cost of production you are going to add to the cost of the article.

But the workers' wages are being kept down while the cost of commodities has gone up.

Now, I shall come to that position afterwards, but let me deal with the matter we are on at the moment. It cannot be denied by anybody in the House that the workers are consumers no less than producers and that, as surely as you add to the cost of production, you are going to add to the cost that will have to be borne by the workers as consumers. To my mind, that is a proposition which there is no denying. One cannot afford to ignore one aspect of such a question as this, and if we ignore one aspect of it, then we are not facing the facts but only facing half facts, or what are really falsehoods.

There should be no restrictions on wages, if there is no control of prices.

Now, I wish that we had a system here as a result of which we would be able to get from everybody the utmost that they are able to do, whether in producing goods or in other ways.

Would the Taoiseach consider this point? He has given us a set of figures as to the cost of the production of turf in Westmeath—5/- for this operation, 4/- for the other operation, and so on. Surely, that must strike him as being a very large figure for production costs, and it must seem to him that there is something wrong with the organisation which costs that much to get the turf from the turf bank in Westmeath to Dublin, and that some steps should be taken to reorganise the method?

Yes, that is another aspect.

Every shilling and every penny that could be cut out of that would be an advantage but, mind you, somebody is going to be short of work. In other words, it is going to create a certain amount of unemployment, in general, but if there were any system by which you could get it into the lorries at less cost, then that is an advantage.

Yes, that is agreed.

Very well, but you will have to take it to the roadside from the bog.

Why not take it directly from the bog to the railway station?

Now, you cannot bring a lorry into the bog. We all know that the farmer, generally, has to put out the turf on the roadside.

Only in a bad season.

Well, the Deputy, probably, knows more about it than I do, but I have seen farmers using donkeys to bring the turf out to the roadside because a heavy cart could not go into the bog. The farmers' sons, and everybody else, helped in that. You have to take the turf out to a firm place where a cart can travel. If that cost could be cut out, it would be an advantage, but it cannot be cut out. The Parliamentary Secretary has put that cost at 3/- a ton, which is practically 5 per cent. of the total cost. Then there is the cost of loading it in lorries, which is 1/6 a ton. I would not like to enter into the question of whether that is a relatively higher cost than the 3/- for taking the turf out to the roadside, because I do not know enough about that matter.

The cost of transport to the railhead is 7/-. That is the average In some cases it would be more and in others less. I am dealing now with the Galway figures. The charge for loading into the wagons from the lorries is put down at 1/-.

For doing the same thing in connection with beet, all that is allowed is 4d.

If we were to try to reduce the prices paid to the Dublin worker by 8d., we would have Deputy Norton saying that these prices were altogether unfair to the workers.

It is draft to be taking turf from Galway to Dublin.

It may be daft, but will the Deputy say that the people who are prepared to work at the turf should, so to speak, be conscripted in the various places where it is to be had and taken to Kildare?

There is plenty of turf in Kildare if the Government would only pay decent wages for the winning of it.

That is like a lot of the talk we hear that you can keep people in Ireland by paying those wages. If you pay them obviously they will have to come out of the price to be paid in the end by the consumer.

It would be better to pay good wages in Kildare for the cutting of turf than to be spending money on transport charges from Galway.

When you bring workers to Kildare you have got to provide accommodation for them—to build a new town. It is not very easy to get people to leave their native place. They are prepared to work at home for a much smaller wage than the wage paid to them when transported to Kildare. That is the basis upon which this thing has been worked out. I have no doubt whatever that if, by raising wages in Kildare, turf could be produced more cheaply there, that could be done, but it does not seem to be practicable to do that. I find from the figures that I have here that the total cost of the turf taken from Galway to Dublin is 52/6 per ton. The following details are given: price of production per ton on the bog, 15/6; transport to the roadside, 3/-; loading into lorries, 1/6; cost of transport to railhead, 7/-; loading into the wagons, 1/-; transport on railway, 13/6; unloading into lorries, 1/6; cost of transport to the dump, 4/-; and 5/6 to discharge it and clamp it in the Phoenix Park. Out of that total of 52/6, 76 per cent. is represented by wages. If you increase these costs by paying higher wages you are bound to increase the price which the working consumer will ultimately have to pay. I make that point because it seems to me that very often the representatives of Labour will not face that particular aspect of the situation. They want to have prices at the lowest possible figure and the costs that make up these prices at the highest. It cannot be done.

We did not suggest that it could be done.

I am glad that once more the Deputy and myself are in agreement. Therefore, in attacking this problem, let us not try to do the impossible, but rather what is possible. Deputy MacEoin asked if it would be possible, by better organisation, to eliminate some of those charges. If it were possible, by doing that, to lower costs at the end, you might be able to pay increased wages to individuals. The only danger I see there is that by improving your organisation you may not be able to give as much employment as before. I, for one, would be willing to face that, and say that, ultimately, that is a social problem which has to be faced everywhere: that we ought not attempt to put back the hands of the clock, but should use scientific methods—machinery and so on—and in that way try, in the shortest possible time, to make the benefit redound to the general good of the community. I know there is another view that would be taken. It has been suggested that we are holding down wages, and that, at the top, we are not holding down the price of various commodities. I have shown the House that if wages go up in regard to the things that are produced at home, it may very well happen, since you must include in your ultimate figure the costs that make up those prices, that at the end the purchasing power of the worker's wages will not be as great as it was before. That will apply to clothing, food, and other things, so that what really matters to the worker is how much of these things he can get for the wages he is given.

Is he not getting subtantially less to-day than he was getting two years ago?

I am trying to get an understanding of this problem, and not to have a half-sided understanding of it. I have shown, in the case of taking turf from Galway to Dublin, that 75 per cent. of the cost is represented by wages. Is it admitted, or is it not, that you can increase wages, but that if you increase prices at the end you may send up the ultimate cost to such an extent that the purchasing power of what a worker receives may possibly not be as great as it was before? That, I think, is true. I will admit that if wages are only a small proportion of the ultimate cost, it would redound to the benefit of the wage earner to have his wages go up, even if prices went up something. The test, anyhow, is will he for the wages that he is given get more goods than he got before? It is possible to increase wages, but because these increases have been added to the cost of the various things that he requires the worker may find that he is able to purchase less than before he got the increase. In the case of things that are produced at home, an increase in wages does tend to increase prices at the end and, therefore, to diminish the amount that a person can purchase.

In the case of things that come from outside you may not be able to control prices at all. That is one of the difficulties of the Minister for Supplies. He is not in a position to control the price of things that come in from outside. In the case of raw materials that come in, if they are essential, you have to pay practically any price for them. They cannot be controlled. Last week-end, when on a ship on a trial run of the engines I asked what price it could be sold for. I was told that it could be sold for many times its ordinary peacetime price. The reason for that is that almost any rates will be paid if that ship can bring in essential goods. We know, for example, that people are ready to pay 10/- a lb. for tea. When things get scarce people will pay almost any price for them. The position is that if you want a thing you will pay almost any price that will fetch it for you. We want to get certain raw materials and we can only get them to carry on our industries at whatever price will enable us to get them. These costs go into the ultimate price of the goods which have to be sold. The worker, therefore, who has got a certain wage finds that not merely will any increase he has got add to the price of the goods, but over and above that there are those outside things which are added on and you cannot keep them down.

During this time, of course, prices are bound to go up if only for that reason. You cannot keep them down no matter what you do. Somebody has to bear the extra cost and the only difference between any members in this House ought to be what section of the community is to bear that cost. If labourers' wages are increased, it will not stop at that. You will have other classes seeking to increase their remuneration also. Each section will be trying to increase its remuneration on the basis that the cost of living has gone up, and every one of these increases will be reflected in the ultimate price at which goods are to be obtained. The result is that your last state may be much worse than your first.

The natural desire of everybody is to try to increase his remuneration in order to follow up the increase in the price of goods and the natural tendency is to try to hold everybody down except those at the bottom of the scale. It is true there may be a difference between us as to where to draw the line. There was an example given of one case where somebody who had £6 per week was let go, so to speak, and somebody on a lower scale was held down. I do not know anything about that case. But a case might be made that the lower scale will have to go up somewhat, because there is a minimum amount necessary to enable people to live.

No matter what happens in this crisis, we ought to try to secure, at any rate, that we shall produce sufficient food for ourselves. There is a difficulty about fuel owing to the question of transport. With the best will in the world, you may not be able to bridge that gap. But there is food available and we ought to try to distribute it. It should be grown wherever it is possible to grow it. It is possible to produce turf in this country, but we have difficulty in transporting it and that difficulty may beat us. But there is land to grow food and there are bogs on which turf can be got. These are things which we ought to set ourselves to secure to the utmost. If these are there, we ought to see to it that nobody even in this crisis will go hungry and, if at all possible, that nobody will go without fuel. We ought to try to do that.

We were talking yesterday about self-sufficiency and so on. If we had our bogs generating electricity we would be in a better position with regard to heating and supplying cooking facilities, for instance, here in the city. If, by means of gas plants, we had our bogs producing gas which could be transmitted here some of our problems would be much lighter than they will be. But that has not been done. I suppose Rome was not built in a day. That is certainly a thing which we ought to see will be done so that we will not be caught in such a position again. As we have the material for producing fuel we ought to see to it that it does not happen again.

With regard to the Standstill Order, the people in my opinion who would suffer most by allowing all remuneration to chase after the cost of goods would be the working section of the community. They would be worse off, if we permitted that, than they were before. It has been suggested that we ought to have a more effective control of prices. I am pointing out that there are certain prices which you cannot control. The one thing that I would look out for is to try to see whether the remuneration of those at the lower end of the scale is sufficient to enable them to get their share of the commodities which are produced and which are necessary for their existence. People talk as if there were not a war, as if we were in normal times. We cannot pass through this particular crisis without every section of the community feeling the pinch in one way or another.

So they are.

There is no means that can be adopted to prevent that happening. All we have to do is to see that we survive at the end, and to make sure that during the crisis no particular section has to bear an undue part of the burden.

That is the whole trouble.

We are at one in trying to attempt that. If we get any help from other sections of the House in trying to get a better solution of these things than we have been attempting to get, nobody will be happier than I will be, because they are exceedingly difficult and very complex. Modern society is very complex, and if you touch it in one place, you may cause an upset which may be transmitted all down the line. The fact is that the various Ministers and Departments have only one aim, and that is to try to bring this community out of this crisis as well as it can possibly be done. But no Minister or no Department can perform miracles. I am satisfied that things would be worse for the workers if we were not to have control in regard to remuneration. That control does not apply alone to the workers but right through. It has been stated that nothing has been done about profits. The Minister for Finance takes very good care that anything in that line will contribute its share to the general pool. That is how he will deal with that. However, there will be a more appropriate occasion for dealing with the matter either in connection with the Vote for the Department of Industry and Commerce or the Vote for my own Department, when we come to it. Although it was brought up here it seems to me that this was not the proper occasion, because whether it was done by ordinary legislation or by an Emergency Powers Order, if there was a difference of policy, it would be expressed one way as well as the other.

Was not Order No. 83 made under the Emergency Powers Act?

The Deputy was not here when I pointed out the position in which that was introduced and the case that could be made for it and the case that is made now. This has been so much discussed here that there can be no suggestion that it was done by way of an Emergency Powers Order in the sense that it was done behind the back of the House or in any way like that. The fact is that the House has considered it time after time. If there is a difference of policy, that difference will be expressed in ordinary legislation just as it is expressed in the Emergency Powers Order. The view is held by certain Deputies that that Order ought not to be there, and that that attempt to control wages ought not to exist. In the view of some people there may be modifications desirable, but I am pointing out that, in the main, it is intended to, and it does, operate for the benefit of the worker, because if it were not there, and if things were allowed to go without control, the position of the worker might be very much worse.

Why are the workers protesting against this gift, so?

Because they do not realise the other thing that could happen. People protest against existing evils. In other countries there have been changes because the people did not like the existing system; they objected to it and they were anxious for another.

Perhaps they had good reason.

I am not saying that they had or they had not; I am merely pointing out that these things happen in life. We are conscious of the evils that affect us, but we do not trouble to realise the evils into which we might run and, when you try to forestall things and keep people from running into those evils, they imagine you are trying to impose other evils upon them. When you try to save them from greater evils, they believe you are imposing certain other evils upon them. It is really a choice between one evil and another, and what is one to do? You ought not to finish with one particular system and then take up a new system with all its attendant evils. The wise thing to do is to try to eliminate a particular evil if you can.

There is no fear of being able to do that in this country, at present anyway.

I do not know? We are just as likely to make mistakes as other people. We are apt to make mistakes in this country.

We have made them, and they have been very costly.

That is a nice question to consider. I am afraid we would not be fair judges, in any case. I do not think we would be good judges. We shall have to leave it to other people to judge. At least we had the satisfaction of believing we were doing the right thing. In regard to this particular matter, it is a question of getting solutions for extremely difficult, complex problems. I think you will all agree with that. Will anybody say there are simple solution for these things?

If we have the will to do a thing, it can be done. I know of no country in the world better fitted to do it.

There is no Deputy in the Labour Party prepared to take greater risks than I would be prepared to take, if I saw anything at the end of it that I considered would be worth working for or anything like a hope that we could bring about better conditions. You have to make sure that you do not pile on greater evils to existing ones, that you do not change the evils you have into worse ones. The difficulty is to get people to agree. If you can see only one part of a problem of this sort, as the members of the Labour Party are constantly doing —looking at only one aspect—then you will never get a solution.

We are not looking at it from that narrow angle at all.

I hope not, but it seemed to me, when I listened to some arguments from the Labour Party, that they are wilfully closing their eyes to such a possibility as I have pointed out. I gave a list of the costs in relation to turf. Members of the Labour Party will talk to poor persons in Dublin who are not able to get turf and they will tell them it is ridiculous to be paying 64/- a ton.

It is a scandal.

The same Deputies will tell the people in the bogs that it is a scandal they should be getting such wages and their pay should be doubled. In Kildare the Deputy will say that the wages should be doubled and he will have the audacity to say to the Dublin people that they are paying too much for the turf.

So they are; it is simply a scandal.

Uneconomic transport.

Will Deputies over there indicate how we are to get turf produced in Kildare and sold to Dublin people at a lower price and, at the same time, pay all along the line in the manner that has been indicated? There is not a single item in the list that was read out here in respect of which we would not have the Labour Party telling the workers that they are not getting sufficient payment for their labour. They will tell the people working on the bogs that 15/6 a ton is a ridiculous price, especially when the people in Dublin have to pay 64/- a ton for the turf. Is not that the argument of the Labour Party? Their attitude is that they go to the Kildare people, or wherever the turf is produced, and they will tell the workers that 15/6 is a slave wage and they should be paid double that sum. They will go to the people taking the turf to the roadside and tell them something similar.

They will say the same thing to the people loading turf on the lorries, transporting it to the railhead or loading it into railway wagons for transport to Dublin. They will tell the railway people they are not getting enough and they will also tell the lorry drivers and the people transporting the turf to the dumps that they are not getting enough and their wages should be at least double what they are receiving. At every single step they will support the people looking for a higher wage and then they will go to the Dublin people, who have to pay for the labour involved in taking the turf from the bog to the city, and they will tell them that it is a disgrace that they have to pay such a high price for their turf. That is the sort of argument we hear from Labour Deputies. It is not good for labour, it is not good for the community, and it is not honest.

The poor people are being exploited.

Who is getting the profit out of all this?

Will the Taoiseach indicate the cost involved in the light running of lorries all over the country?

Who is getting the profit?

There is a wastage of transport.

Practically every item is paid in wages, and yet Labour Deputies tell the workers that they are getting slave wages and that their payments should be doubled. Then they tell the people at the other end that they should get the turf at half the price. I could understand the Labour Deputies if they would only talk sense, but when they say that the wages all along the line could be doubled and then at the consuming end the turf could be sold for half the existing price, I tell them that they are not honest. I say that no Labour Leader is honest who goes to the bogs and tells the men there that they are not getting enough, who tells those who clamp the turf, the people who take turf to the roadside, or who load it into lorries that they are not getting enough; and then finally tells the people who buy the turf that they are paying double what it is worth. I say that is not honest and nothing can make it so.

Is the Dublin coal merchant entitled to more than what the producer gets? Will the Taoiseach answer that?

I have not gone into that point. I am not trying to defend the coal merchant, but he will also have to meet the cost of labour.

Is he entitled to more than the producer?

I am not saying he is entitled to anything; I am merely pointing out that when it comes to a simple sum in addition, you cannot double each item and expect to get half the result at the end. In the case of turf, that is what the Labour Deputies are trying to do. With regard to this Bill, I commend it to the House. I think it is necessary. I regret that we have to proceed in this particular way with minimum penalties, but we have a crisis to face and we have to deal with it in the most effective way we can. I see no better way of doing it than this. If, on the Committee Stage, any Deputy can suggest a better way, I shall be only too happy to consider whatever amendments are put forward.

Will the Taoiseach give consideration to the suggestions that have been submitted?

I will be only too happy to consider any suggestions that will have beneficial results from the point of view of the community.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted, stand."
The Dáil divided:—Tá: 63; Níl: 14.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Esmonde, John L.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Fogarty, Patrick J.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Daniel.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Keane, John J.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Loughman, Francis.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McCann, John.
  • McDevitt, Henry A.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Mullen, Thomas.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, John M.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Rice, Brigid M.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Laurence J.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.

Níl

  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Davin, William.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Everett, James.
  • Hannigan, Joseph.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hurley, Jeremiah.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • Norton, William.
  • Pattison, James P.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and S. Brady; Níl: Deputies Keyes and Hickey.
Question declared carried.
Question—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time"—put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 7th July.
Top
Share