Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 14 Jul 1942

Vol. 88 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Vote 3—Department of the Taoiseach (Resumed).

Mr. Norton

I should like, in view of the importance which planning is now playing in the life of the nations which are affected by the world's military conflict and of the importance it is recognised to have in the post-war period, to raise with the Taoiseach the desirability of planning immediately in order that we may escape the worst ravages of the war and may, by projecting our vision into the future, be able to lay plans which may ensure that after the war we are not left far behind under the new orders and new systems which have already heralded their coming. The most vital problem is, of course, to plan for to-day, to try to succour our people from the hardships which are inevitably being inflicted on them by the unplanned system of the society in which we live. The Taoiseach, when in opposition, used to be a firm and ardent advocate of the necessity for the establishment of an economic council. A short acquaintance with the Government Council Chamber, and a short tenancy on the Government Front Bench, apparently sufficed to induce him to throw completely overboard his earlier and, I think, more sensible affection for the establishment of an economic council for the regulation of our national life.

The Taoiseach was convinced at one time that a nation in our circumstances needed an economic council and an economic G.H.Q. If he had remained in opposition he would have been an ardent advocate of the necessity for the establishment of an economic council, but, having attained the eminence which membership of the Government Front Bench gives, he has completely abandoned his earlier enthusiasm and, apparently, evolved a complacent point of view on the whole question, a complacency which was expressed by his belief that each Minister was an economic council in himself, and that his officials were, in fact, the G.H.Q. staff of the economic council. If that has been the position during the past ten years, it was surely the position during the previous ten years, because in the first decade of our separate national existence we had Ministers, and we had civil servants who acted as the implements of their policy. It cannot be denied that the Ministers from 1922 to 1932 had as many tedious and difficult problems to deal with as the Ministers from 1932 to 1942. For the Taoiseach then to pretend that Ministers represent his desideratum in the matter of the establishment of an economic council, and that their staff represent what he had in mind when he talked about a G.H.Q. staff, is simply to ignore the realities of life in this country.

Early on in the emergency situation we urged, by a motion in this House, that in order to plan adequately, to survey the nation's potentialities and to devise ways and means by which the worst evils of this crisis could be overcome, an economic council should be established, but the Taoiseach apparently was satisfied that there was no necessity for it in present circumstances. One has only to scratch the surface of our economic, industrial and agricultural organisation to realise the vital necessity for the establishment of an economic council in present circumstances, but so much valuable time has been lost, and so much havoc wrought to our economic, industrial and agricultural structure that one might well be forgiven for doubting the utility of establishing an economic council in present circumstances. While I agree that very much valuable time has been lost, I think, nevertheless, the circumstances of to-day dictate the necessity for some scheme of planning even in the time now left at our disposal.

Reference has been made in the course of this debate and in the debates on other Estimates to the very serious situation which is developing in respect of the supply of butter and bacon. It seems extraordinary that in a country such as this, with 14,000,000 acres of arable land, with an area under tillage less than that of any other country——

The Taoiseach

I think 11,000,000 acres is taken as the usual figure.

Mr. Norton

I think the official statistics referred to 14,000,000 acres.

The Taoiseach

Between 11,000,000 and 12,000,000 acres.

Mr. Norton

Let us take 11,000,000 or 12,000,000 acres. Here, for the purpose of satisfying the nation's requirements in the matter of tillage, we impose—and that only in the third year of the war—an obligation on our farming community to till 25 per cent. of the arable land. The Taoiseach will know, of course, that that is a lesser percentage of arable land than is tilled in any other country in Europe. The Taoiseach will realise, if he compares the tillage statistics of other countries, that 25 per cent. represents a very small contribution by us to the tillage of arable land as compared with the position in other European countries. But, notwithstanding the fact that we have 12,000,000 acres of arable land, we find to-day a very serious shortage developing in respect to the supply of butter and a very acute problem developing in respect to the supply of bacon; developing, so far as bacon is concerned, until I fear that by the end of this year we will have a black market in pigs as we have in many other commodities.

You have a very serious fuel problem in this country, a problem which is mirrored in the fact that very little coal is coming in, that we have an abundance of peat which is capable of being cut and used as a substitute for coal in many instances; but the whole problem of winning turf for our people is handled in such a manner that we have less people cutting turf this year than we had last year, even though we are getting in less coal this year than we got in last year. The inadequacy of the number of people working on the production of turf is bad enough, but the whole problem is seriously aggravated by a serious shortage of the necessary transport to convey turf from the turf areas into the non-turf areas. My fear is that in respect of turf we are likely to face a very serious position over this winter because of the shortage of supplies of that fuel for use by our people in the non-turf areas. Indeed, the manner in which the whole problem has been handled does not reflect any great credit on those responsible and, I think, fully justifies the pessimistic speech which we heard from the Turf Controller when speaking on an Estimate in this House recently.

In respect of unemployment, no one can deny that a very serious problem is arising in a very intensified form in our midst. There is a serious shortage of raw materials, which might have been obviated if we had only planned to meet the war situation in time, which might have been mitigated if we had only utilised State credits for the purpose of financing those who desired to import materials before the war or in the early days of the war. That is a problem which we might not have met yet if we only had the good sense to establish State import boards in 1938, 1939 and the early days of 1940 to buy the raw materials which our people needed, even if these were sold through a State trading house to the industrialists who needed them. If would have been far better to take the risk of establishing State trading boards to import raw materials for resale to industrialists than the risk which we have taken of seeing large numbers of our people thrown out of employment, not because nobody wants the goods which they are capable of producing, but because the raw materials to make the goods are not available at present in this country.

The twin brother of unemployment, of course, is emigration. We have the humiliating spectacle of seeing tens of thousands of our people drift to the Six Counties and to Britain in the past 18 months seeking the employment which they cannot get here. If we had been able, by planning, to deal with the raw material situation, if we had planned in such a way as to switch a certain number of people—not all, because it would not be possible to switch all—who have lost their industrial employment to schemes of public works, we might very well have avoided some of the worst evils of unemployment. But there was no provision of employment schemes which would absorb our disemployed industrial workers. Instead, we sat down helplessly, issued permits to our people to go to Britain and to the Six Counties, where labour was at famine prices, and we are now relying solely on the British industrial and agricultural market for employment to rescue our people from the physical sufferings which they would be compelled to endure if they had continued to live in a state of involuntary idleness in this country where miserably low pittances represent the State's effort to provide those people with sustenance through a period of unemployment.

I suggest to the Taoiseach that if you take these few items alone—the scarcity of bacon in an agricultural country, the now annual shortage of butter, the scarcity of turf, the difficulty of transporting turf, the falling-off in the number of persons cutting turf, the unemployment problem in its present intensified form, and the large-scale emigration from this country, they constitute problems which we might have made a better effort to grapple with. Even now there is need for planning. While I feel sure that the Taoiseach will claim for his Government that their powers of perspicacity in this matter transcend the visual powers of every other Party and every other factor in the State, I suggest to him that, while that piece of egotism is permissible now and again, he might very well soft pedal in his admiration of these faculties during the crisis through which we are passing.

I suggested to the Taoiseach on a previous occasion that men and women of goodwill, with a bent for planning, with zeal for serving the nation, with a desire to substitute service for profit, could be found in this country who would be willing and anxious to give of their best in order to evolve a national life here that would give us an organic economic structure capable of withstanding much more firmly the ravages of this war than the frail economic structure which is tempering the economic winds to our people. Even on this Estimate, I should like to ascertain from the Taoiseach whether he does not consider it worth while giving further consideration to the question of establishing an economic council which, in the time now at our disposal, might at all events evolve some type of planned economy which might save our people from many of the hardships that I feel sure will be inflicted upon them if we continue the present policy of drift, drift, drift.

As I said at the outset, the most urgent problem is that of planning to sustain our people, to keep body and soul in our people while the present economic blast lasts. But, of course, one has to think of the future. When this war ends we, a small neutral State, in a very perfunctorily developed industrial and agricultural position, will be face to face in competition with nations which have highly mechanised and industrialised themselves. They will have learned during the war the lesson of doing things on a gigantic scale and, when you think of the achievements of some of them in this war, of the mighty efforts they have made, the seemingly insuperable opposition and difficulties which they have overcome, you begin to realise that these people may be relied upon to bring titanic energy to the solution of their post-war problems.

It is not possible for a small nation such as ours to compete with that type of mammoth attack on such social and economic problems as present themselves in other countries. But we ought to be doing some thinking; we ought to be contemplating our conception of life in the post-war world. While we need not imitate the ideologies of other countries, at least we as a Legislature ought to make sure that in our plan of what is due to human dignity our people will not lag behind, whatever may be the lot of people in other countries. It does not seem to me that the Government have given any thought to post-war planning. So far, not a single member of the Government has revealed his thoughts.

The Taoiseach

Is that so?

Mr. Norton

No member of the Government has indicated what the Government's post-war solution will be. Maybe the Taoiseach realises that he will not be the head of the Government in the post-war period, and therefore it would be premature to be thinking out plans which may never be implemented. I suggest he ought to take a chance and some Department of the Government, aided and abetted by men and women of goodwill from outside if necessary, ought to be applying themselves to the preparation of schemes calculated to ensure that the energies of our people after the war will be utilised in the creation of additional wealth in their own land, and that our conditions of living here will be at least as good as the conditions of living in other countries.

It is not often we can get the Taoiseach into the House to tell us his views on these complex problems, but an opportunity presents itself now and I trust that the Taoiseach will take the nation into his confidence and tell us, firstly, whether he intends to plan at all for the remainder of this emergency and, secondly, whether his Government, either on their own or through some other agency, are contemplating any plans which will stand the nation in good stead when the emergency has passed.

General Mulcahy

We might have been spared a little probing into the situation here to-day if Mr. Collin Brooks, Editor of Truth, addressing the N.U.I. Club in London last night, realised a little more how ignorant were the people to whom he was talking. I see by the Irish Press that he said: “I need not emphasise the object lesson which Europe has had in the philosophy of the State which Mr. de Valera has applied to Éire.” It would be a great illumination to some of us if he could accept that the people to whom he was talking did not know all about that, and if he had set out to emphasise it a little bit. I have been watching the Taoiseach and some of his associates for a long time, and I have never been able to find out that they had any philosophy of State. I feel that the object lesson which Europe has given us is a thing which should be very easy to learn. We do not seem to have any signs of learning very much about it, particularly about picking up any philosophy of State.

I support the motion put forward by Deputy Hughes for much the same reasons as he submitted. He pointed out how some of the very fundamentals of our economic structure were being neglected and that the Government were actually throwing up their hands in face of the existing situation. I feel that even more important factors of our national and economic life than the dairying industry and the pig industry are being utterly neglected. I think we ought to have some kind of common approach to see where the strength of this State and the people lies and how we have to safeguard that strength and develop it. I think the safety and the strength of the State lie, first of all, in the people. Notwithstanding all the talk there is about unity, about concentration on very important matters such as our defence and our policy with regard to keeping out of the war, I do not think our people were ever as dissipated and lacking in strength as they are to-day. They even lack what some people might call the philosophy of State.

This country has gone through a very peculiar experience. We had a great national movement that was split in 1922, and that has reacted in such a way that there has been no normal development of political thought among the people who split, and there has been no chance at all of any normal development of political understanding among the generation that grew up under that, and we find ourselves in a position to-day in which, through various influences, not all of a military nature, our national well-being and our future are threatened. As Deputy Norton points out, very large numbers have had to go away. That might be no serious blow if there was a strong State and a unified and uni-minded people at home. First of all, we have to take into consideration how our people are being treated with regard to serious matters of policy, and then how we are looking after the foundations upon which our national intelligence and our national economic life rest.

There is nothing being done in any kind of systematic way to instruct the people as to the main lines upon which our economic thought ought to run. There are, in fact, no serious divergencies of thought—there could not be. Anybody looking at the facts of Irish life, no matter what class or rank or political outlook he may have, would have to be aware at once of where our economic strength lies, but there is no approach at all to unity of thought on the things that really matter, the things that are the very foundation of our strength. In the same way there is really nothing being done to make the electorate feel that they are the strong basis upon which our national institutions rest.

We are now approaching local government elections. It must have been the end of May when the Government decided to introduce a Bill postponing elections. It was introduced into the Dáil and printed on the 2nd June. It was the 30th June before, as an accompaniment to the Bill postponing local elections, we were told in a debate here that local elections were going to be held in a few months. Then, a week after, we had the whole story that local elections were going to be held in August. My only objection is that they have been postponed so long. But just think of the way in which the electorate is being treated. The last local elections were held in 1934—eight years ago—and, although the elections were contemplated as early as the end of May, the first time the people are given any notice about it is on 30th June, and a week later they are told that they are going to take place in about six weeks time. Anybody understanding the people and their conditions and the history of this country with regard to local government would certainly feel that they were deserving of more consideration than that, particularly when the Minister for Local Government impressed so much the fact that the circumstances of the time are such that you cannot very well give the people all the information they might require, and that you cannot get in touch with the electorate in the way in which you ought to get in touch with them. Certainly, there is there no philosophy of State that takes into consideration the people, and how the people as an organism can be got to think and to act.

At the same time, we are in the last year of the present Parliament's life. The normal life of Parliament is five years. The electorate have to carry out their function of electing a Parliament and have the responsibility of then going ahead with their work, leaving Parliament to do its work. They have the duty of appraising the Parliament in its first, second, third and fourth years, and, in the fifth year, have an opportunity of deciding whether the policy of the Government suits them, and of indicating in what direction changes should take place. I think that is sound and reasonable, and I can think of no other period more suitable. In the early days of the State, trade returns were published every year, reviewing the year's trading. By 1930, I think, the Government and the Statistics Branch and other Departments concerned came to the conclusion that a yearly review gave no very satisfactory picture of the position, and was not a very satisfactory basis for argument. From that time, trade returns were published as trade returns every year, but every fifth year there was a full review of the trading situation which gave a satisfactory and interesting survey of the trend over those five years.

In the same way, the electorate had an opportunity at the end of every five years of deciding their position, and how they were going to act. We are now in the last year of the normal life of this Government, and I think the country deserves to enter a period in which there will be a steadier way of administration, and a steadier method of presenting the problems that face this country, and in which the policies that should be adopted for the present and the future can be decided in a systematic and reasonable way, without exaggeration by fears, without futile hopes. We have very serious problems to face, and very serious things to think out. We ought to face them in a systematic way, and to say to ourselves that, whatever may be the position that will arise next year, we can face that position. We ought to let our electorate know that, sometime in the beginning of next summer, they will have the responsibility of reviewing the situation and electing a Parliament. In the meantime, let the Government act in a responsible way. Let them act in the way in which they would act if they were facing an election not only for the sake of getting a judgement in regard to what has happened in the past, but to put forward constructive proposals, and let their ability be reflected in the type of administration that they will be carrying out as a Government in the next 12 months. Every Party in the country should act in the same way, and every one of the various bodies that are interested in various sections of our economic and social life. But in approaching that situation, we have to confess that, at the present moment, the Government is not standing on firm ground.

I have been repeatedly asking the House to consider what other countries are doing, and what they are thinking about. We can have hopes, and we can have fears with regard to the future, and we see them expressed in various ways. The Taoiseach to-day indicated that, in his opinion, the Conference that took place in New York of the International Labour Organisation was very largely concerned with the war. I contest that.

The Taoiseach

The attitude towards the questions was one that was based on a war situation.

General Mulcahy

There were delegates who went there from countries engaged in the war, and at least one of them had to declare that he was irritated beyond measure by all the talk he heard about reconstruction, but, that when he was able to get over his irritation, he welcomed it. A very substantial part of the report of the Acting Director was related entirely to future policy. However, on the question of hopes and fears, I just wish to take two sections here. The hopes can be summarised in that part of the Acting Director's report where he suggests a social mandate, after a summary of the tendency in the world for some years past, and a summary of the hopes of the various countries at the present moment, including the statement I have indicated before from the Minister for Industry and Commerce at that time—Mr. Lemass. However, the hopes can be summarised in what was suggested as a social mandate by Mr. Phelan, the Acting Director. I am quoting from column 2522 of the Dáil Debates, where I mentioned this before. He says:—

"The formulation of such a social mandate would constitute a general declaration of international social policy and would give the International Labour Organisation a programme to implement, completing it with all the detail necessary. It is not difficult to outline in a certain logical order the main points and principles which such a mandate should cover. They are:

1. The elimination of unemployment;

2. The establishment of machinery for placing, vocational training and retraining;

3. The improvement of social insurance in all its fields and in particular its extension to all classes of workers;

4. The institution of a wage policy aimed at securing a just share of the fruits of progress for the worker;

5. A minimum living wage for those too weak to secure it for themselves;

6. Measures to promote better nutrition and to provide adequate housing and facilities for recreation and culture;

7. Greater equality of occupational opportunity;

8. Improved conditions of work;

9. An international public works policy for the development of the world's resources;

10. The organisation of migration for employment and settlement under adequate guarantees for all concerned;

11. The collaboration of employers and workers in the initiation and application of economic and social measures.

I take that as expressing the hopes. Now come the fears. In the discussion which took place, Mr. De Vries, South African workers' delegate, argued that "the post-war problem of wide scale unemployment is not being tackled with enough vigour, probably because there is so little unemployment to-day and an existing wishful belief that nothing will happen." Following that Mr. van den Tempel, the Netherlands Minister of Labour, associated himself vigorously with the same view. He said:—

"Before long the problems of social security and unemployment will become, more than ever, the centre of general interest in social policy. There is ample reason to fear that, immediately after the war ends, almost all Governments will be confronted with these problems in their crudest form. Temporarily, new difficulties will be added to old ones. The prospect of such overwhelming difficulties is not only a subject for theoretical and statistical treaties; what is needed now is to draft a series of practical plans."

Mr. van den Tempel elaborated his view in a resolution, which the conference referred to the governing body, containing a recital that

"by reason of the demobilisation of the armed forces, the closing down of war industries, the increased employment of women during the war, the disruption of normal economic life and the decreased buying power of many nations which have played an important part in international trade relations, there might during the period following the war be an unemployment crisis of the gravest character, to counteract which it is necessary to take timely measures for the maintenance of employment by promoting economic recovery and securing the resumption of international trade."

Here we stand between hopes and fears of that particular kind. We can neither build up our hopes nor face the fears with any kind of feeling of confidence in ourselves or in our people, unless we know the ground we stand on. Here we must stand on the education of our people, on a sound basis for our agriculture and a sane outlook on industry and who is going to run and control industry. Let us take education. Where do we stand if we are asked are we seeking an educational basis for our national being at the present time? During the discussion on the Estimate for the Minister for Education, I again raised the question of the overcrowding of Dublin schools. I was shocked to find that you could have an infant class in the City of Dublin, under one unfortunate teacher, with 111 children in it, and some further classes with 90, 80 and 70 in them. I was twice as shocked to get the answer: "Oh, that only happens from April until about July." What kind of foundation of an intelligent nation can we have if in a fairly substantial percentage of the schools in the City of Dublin—the number of classes in which there were over 50 children reached to something like 30 per cent. of the total for certain types of pupils—overcrowding of this type is permitted?

What kind of national discipline can we have when we consider that as many as 5,000 boys leave the primary schools in the City of Dublin at 14 years of age annually, and that a gap intervenes between that educational period, part of which has been spent under the circumstances I have described, and the time when they can obtain employment? Remember that the attempt to restore the Irish language through the schools has also been operating in that period. There is, as I say, a gap between the period when they leave school and any possible prospect that may exist of their getting employment. That gap may extend for a couple of years. How can we say we are building up any kind of discipline or any kind of intelligent nation capable of any constructive effort under conditions of that kind?

While we have that position we have our training colleges empty. We have the young people who could be very easily going through these training colleges rusting and idling in the country. Within the last month or so two domestic training colleges, having between them something like 45 vacancies, held examinations for girls. There were about 500 girls from various parts of the country anxious to get into these colleges to be trained in domestic economy. Only 45 out of the 500 could get in and here we are, with so much leeway to be made up in the proper domestic training of our people, and all that it means for both social happiness and national economy, turning away from our schools to-day 450 girls anxious to get that training and ready to pay for that training. It is only a sample of the kind of waste that is going on in other directions.

Surely we could come to a decision to try to strengthen the educational foundations upon which our State rests. Surely there is nothing to interfere with that. It may be said that there is the question of money to interfere with it, but, again, we get back to what I mentioned before, the attitude which other countries have taken up—that there are two scourges, war and unemployment; that, since 1930, unemployment was a very different thing from what it was before, and that if the countries which are now engaged in a self-annihilating war had given, ten years ago, half the attention or half the effort to facing the social problems that unemployment created, we would have happier countries and a happier world, instead of the self-destroying world we have to-day. When we were called upon to strengthen our military defences here, we had to find money and we found it. One of the things that we must ask ourselves to-day is this: are we to let our young people grow up in this country to face both the wastage and the dangers of education of that particular kind, or will we make a sacrifice to build up our national strength there? There is no place that we can build up our national strength except we build it up there.

When I look at the points set out in the suggested social mandate in the report of the acting director of the International Labour Office, I ask myself on which of those 11 points should we begin to work now. Only a few stick out; the elimination of unemployment; the establishment of machinery for placing, vocational training, and re-training; a minimum living wage for those too weak to secure it for themselves; the improvement of social insurance in all its fields and in particular its extension to all classes of workers; and the institution of a wage policy aimed at securing a just share of the fruits of progress for the worker. We begin at the elimination of unemployment. We know that, as we are to-day, and with the plans and machinery that are at work towards it, it is not possible to offer or to promise employment to every one of our people who has been looking for it. Lack of materials of one kind, lack of services of another kind, all operate to prevent its being possible to offer employment to everybody who is looking for it to-day.

We cannot promise that some of the people who are in employment to-day will not be disemployed next week or the week after. When that is the position with regard to employment, then we can hardly except to begin, in a systematic way, the improvement of social insurance in all its fields, because you want to have a strong employment basis upon which to build that up; nor can you very well begin at this stage the institution of a wage policy aimed at securing a just share of the fruits of progress for the worker, although you can move towards that.

You are driven back to this, that there is only one point where we should begin fully to operate, and that is the establishment of a minimum living wage for those too weak to secure it for themselves. If we were driven to it, we would say that we are doing that at the moment, but we are not doing it in a systematised way, nor are we doing it in a way which makes it easy for the person getting that money to take it; at any rate, it is not given in such a way as would stimulate the people's courage or their confidence in themselves. In September last year, the Minister for Finance produced an Order to cover personal injuries from bomb damage. Under the Order, a man who was permanently disabled, and had a family of no matter what size, could except only 30/- a week from the State as compensation.

When that was challenged here, the Minister for Finance resisted the challenge. He did come to different conclusions afterwards, and has recently issued another Order. Under the new Order, a man who was permanently disabled will get 57/6 a week, if he has a wife and five children. The new scale of compensation allows 30/- for the man, 7/6 for the wife and 4/- for each child, that is a total of 57/6. But, in Great Britain as from February, 1942, a disabled man would get 37/6, with 9/2 for the wife, 7/1 for the first child, and 5/5 for every subsequent child, making a total of 75/5. Even forcing up the idea that the Government had in September last year as to the scale upon which a man of that kind would be compensated by the State, and bringing the figure up to 57/6 under the new Order, we are still 17/11 below the English figure. I do not know why we should be 17/11 below the English figure. However, a certain amount of progress has been made. But when we come to deal with people who are unable to provide for themselves, particularly if they have a large family, we are forcing them under present circumstances to go to the poor law relief.

Under present conditions we ought to face this question: do we in this State stand for educating the children of this State and for looking after people who are unable to support themselves, and particularly for looking after families who are not able to maintain themselves? There is no Party in this House, and I do not think there is any vocal body of opinion outside, who would not say, emphatically, "Yes" to those things. They would say that the resources for doing those things have to come out of the country, and everybody would have to agree. But we are not doing those things systematically now, and we will not do them systematically unless we take some of those things as a challenge just as big and as aggressive and as urgent as the war challenge is to other countries, and unless we energise ourselves to tighten up our organisation in dealing with those matters, and so order our administration generally as to reduce the overhead costs of dealing with those things. If we do accept that challenge, then we will have to face the challenge of finding from the production of this country the resources for doing those things. The production that will enable us to do them can only come from our agriculturists on the one hand and our industrialists on the other. But there we find that Government policy or lack of policy is throwing production both in agriculture and in industry into such a position that the agriculturists and the industrialists do not know where they stand.

If we are to educate and support our people, those who are engaged in agriculture must know clearly along what lines they have to proceed as regards better education and systematising their overheads and their way of doing business. Nothing said from the Government Benches at present is doing anything but confusing and disintegrating the minds of our agriculturists. They are told, one day, that the dairying industry is gone and, on another day, that the pig industry is gone. Every second day, the policy which reacts on the live-stock industry is changed without anything, apparently, being done to try to prepare, by foreknowledge, the farmers involved. It seems to me that the agricultural industry should be developed on certain lines. I have sat down with farmers representing various branches of the agricultural industry. All branches of that industry are supposed to have divergent interests. I never found that, after serious and systematic discussion, one could not get almost complete unanimity on the general lines of policy that should be pursued. So far as the discussion of general agricultural policy throughout the country is concerned, there is no direction. We cannot afford to continue in that position. If we must educate and maintain our people, that should be a challenge to us here to face the productive side of things. We should face that side of things with the understanding that it is only the farmers can achieve what we want and we should see that there is suitable understanding and co-operation between parliamentarians and workers in the agricultural industry as to how that industry should be maintained and developed.

On the industrial side, the situation is almost worse. There is a growing tendency to interfere departmentally with the people who control and develop industry. I do not know whether the Order we were furnished with to-day dealing with Irish Steel is another sample of greater aggressiveness of intrusion on the part of the Government into industry or not. In various important branches of industry, instead of the controllers being consulted about what is to be done, action is taken departmentally which reacts on them. We have that manifested again in the commercial life of the country, as exemplified by the attitude the Department of Supplies took in regard to the drapers, when they had to handle some matters seriously concerning them. In all that interference, the person whose interest should most be safeguarded is the person who is most injured—the consumer. Unless we concentrate on the consumer and his wants, we shall not have either agriculture or industry run efficiently.

I support the motion of Deputy Hughes, because I think that neglect on the part of the Government goes farther than the dairying industry, the pig industry or anything that Deputy Hughes mentioned. I think that there is no appreciation of the fact that politically, socially and economically this whole State rests on the people. Unless there is an ordered attempt to unify the people's thoughts on these matters—a thing it would not be hard to do—our national strength will be dissipated. That is as regards the political side. On the educational side, I think that, unless we place before ourselves some challenge, as big and as important as the challenge of war is in other countries, on things that, as Christians and patriots we ought to challenge ourselves, we are simply going to drift and waste as a people during the present emergency. We shall meet the dangers that the Dutch Minister for Labour describes with a weak political, and economic body which will not be able to resist the diseases which will effect it. There ought to be a systematic attempt to get our people to think about these things. We are doing very little thinking on them here. Even if we were doing a considerable amount of thinking about them here, unless we got the people in the country to think about them, we would have no resolution or success in dealing with them.

Mr. Keating

I am sure that every Deputy is aware of the position of the dairy farmers. If the Government fail to assist them to continue dairying, it will be a very bad job for the country. Without the dairy farmer we cannot produce live stock. If he is not assisted, in some way or other, to carry on his industry, then it will go the way of the pig industry. It is going that way already. I heard a great deal of talk about the export of dairy heifers. The only way to stop the export of dairy heifers is to put the dairy farmer in a position to compete with the exporter. If that is not done, our cattle industry will be ruined. I am sure that the experience of the past two or three years has taught members of the Government that this country cannot get on without producing cattle. Some time ago that would have been called a west-British view and the person who advocated it would be called a "bull-pusher." He would be told that we should put men on the land instead of grazing cattle. It is necessary however to produce, at least, sufficient butter for our own people. The feeling in the country is that we will not this season be able to supply our own needs. When Fianna Fáil got into power, I remember a back bencher of that Party getting up and thanking God that the people would get no more Chinese or American bacon, that they would have plenty of good Irish bacon. What is the position to-day? They are not getting even the smell of home-produced bacon. Very soon, they will not be able to get Irish butter.

Now that we have no artificials, it is necessary for the farmers to be encouraged to stall-feed more cattle, to feed more pigs and to keep up the fertility of the soil. If you do not put something back into the soil the fertility will be lost and there will be no crops. Coming up to Dublin in the train to-day, I saw some fields of wheat where there is only grass growing. To my great surprise, I find that most of the wheat is scutch grass. Along the side of the railway from Wexford to Dublin, in places where wheat was sown for the last two or three years it is a total failure this year.

Some time ago I asked a question about the British prices for stall-fed cattle and for lambs, and I was surprised that an intelligent man like the Taoiseach should make a laugh about it, asking what I was talking about. I explained here that it was impossible for the farmer to produce lambs to go to the British market at the price offered. The British want our produce, and I suggested that the Minister for Agriculture and another Minister should go over to make a trade agreement with them. They should say that we are in a position to supply them with food, but that we want something in return.

The Taoiseach

And to make that bargain strong, say: "We will not give it to you unless——"?

Mr. Keating

Our markets are gone now. I remember the Minister for Finance saying we would whip John Bull and "Thank God, that market is gone for ever." I do not care whether the market is in Hong Kong or Jerusalem and I do not want the market specially in England, but we should go where there is a market. An agricultural country like this must have an export surplus of some kind in order to have imports. It is time that the Government awakened to the fact that this is not an island for Robinson Crusoe and Friday. There are many of the necessaries of life which we cannot produce, and we can obtain them only by having an export surplus. The Government have their backs set against the farmer and agricultural worker, and have been persecuting them in every way. The farmer must get a fair profit for his labour and the agricultural worker must be paid for the work he does. It is deplorable to see people leaving the country day after day, and going over to England to look for work.

We were told before Fianna Fáil came into power that this was to be a land of milk and honey, that there would be both bread and work for everybody, that the population would be doubled in one year. What really happened? The first thing we did was to start an economic war and to smash the farmer. The Taoiseach has told us of the work done for the farmers, that he has halved the annuities; but at the same time he placed the farmer in a position in which he was unable to pay. The Taoiseach told us that the money was not legally or morally due to England, but after robbing the farmers of this country, he gives £10,000,000 for the annuities. Surely, there is neither sense nor reason in that. We must have mixed farming in the country, and if we cannot get a market for surplus stock, it is down and out.

In regard to the pig industry last year, no man who knows the situation that pig feeders are in would take in pigs. In my constituency there is a decrease of at least 60 per cent. in pigs in the last two years. The majority of pigs in Country Wexford are bought by liveweight and the fixed price live-weight for pigs last November and December was 83/- per cwt. for pigs up to 16 stone; after that there was a cut of 10/- a cwt., up to 17 stone; and after 17 stone the price was cut by 23/- a cwt. These useless pigs were eating the food required for the next batch and the men who had pigs in November had to sell in January. I see that many consumers in the city, when they went to buy bacon, found it was all sold at one price and there was no such thing as second or third grade. I would ask the Taoiseach, as head of the State, to help the producers of this country. Without a market for our surplus produce abroad and a fair market at home, production is bound to cease. It would not be fair to ask a man with the right type of dairy heifer not to export, but if the dairy farmer is put in the position to compete with others, everything will be all right.

Mr. Fagan

I think that the real cause of the decline in pig feeding is the way the Government has handled the situation. Last February the price of bacon dropped suddenly from 8/- to 10/- a cwt., at a time when feeding stuffs were scarce and when the price should have been raised by 10/-. It seemed to be the deliberate policy of the Government to make farmers give up feeding pigs. There is a rumour that the Government is going to reduce the price of pigs still further, in order to stop farmers feeding wheat to them. If they go on with things like that, in an industry that is the poor man's industry, it will mean the end of the small farmers and the bacon industry will be killed altogether. The Government should do away with the Bacon Board and give this industry a free run, with a free price, and then the price will not be a fabulous one. I saw last Thursday that bacon was 2/10 a pound. No man on 23/- a week, with a family to feed, could pay 2/10 a pound for bacon. If the Government does away with the Bacon Board and lets the price of pigs seek its own level, people will get a good price for bonhams and there will be hundreds of them in the country in no time. Nothing increases as quickly as the number of pigs, and if the prices are good there will always be a supply.

The Government is treating the dairying industry in the same way. I heard it mentioned in the House to-day that we should stop the export of heifers. I would warn the Government seriously not to interrupt the export of cattle in any way. If they want to improve the dairying industry and have plenty of butter, they should give the dairy farmers enough for their milk. It is a shame and a disgrace to see the way it is treated. I am not engaged in dairying, but I cannot understand how farmers can exist when they are getting only 7d. a gallon for milk, when other farmers get so much more in the towns. They could not carry on an industry at that price. If the Government want to stop the export of heifers, they should give the dairy farmers a good price for milk and that will soon stop it. There must be something radically wrong with the cow position. I never saw third calving cows as cheap as they are now. A nice show heifer, after calving, may fetch a good price, up to £30, but one with its udder down to the ground loaded with milk would not get a good price. There must be something radically wrong there. Most of the cows after calving are very flush and are not sold for dairying because the price is one which the dairy man cannot afford to pay. They are milked out that morning and sold for meat, and if the dairying industry was in a proper condition, that would not be happening. It is not a matter of the export of cows. The whole secret of it is the failure to give the dairy man enough to make a living on in respect of the manufacture of butter.

With regard to prices, Deputy Keating said that there should be a better price for lambs and the Taoiseach asked what would happen if that better price was not secured. In the matter of negotiations, it is officials who are going over and——

The Taoiseach

It is not officials who are going over.

Mr. Fagan

I suggest that one of the Ministers should go over and explain the position to the British. Failure to do that is what has brought about the present position. The Government will not tackle the matter in a serious way.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy does not seem to apply himself to the problem. If the Deputy goes to a fair, he must remember that there are two sides to the matter.

Mr. Fagan

If the Taoiseach takes that attitude with the British Government——

The Taoiseach

I take that attitude because it is common sense.

Mr. Fagan

It seems to me that you are bowing down to the British in repect of the prices they are offering. We are 16/- or 17/- a cwt. under what the British farmer is getting.

The Taoiseach

According to the Deputy, when you go into a fair, you get the price you want, and it does not matter at all what the other person wants. The Deputy would not dream of working on that basis himself. He is talking about the Government doing things in a way in which he would never dream of doing them himself.

Mr. Fagan

I should imagine that if I were at a fair, I would ask £1 or 30/- a head more.

The Taoiseach

And you would merely have to ask it to get it. That makes going to a fair a very simple matter.

Mr. Fagan

I suggest that the Government should explain to the English Government the cost of producing beef and that production costs generally in this country are so much higher this year than last year.

The Taoiseach

And I am sure that you will get a very much higher price if you explain to the person to whom you are selling an animal how much it cost to produce it.

Mr. Fagan

That is a wrong line to take. I take it that the Taoiseach or one of his Ministers would not go over as an ordinary man would go into a fair. He would go over with figures in his possession to show how it cost the farmers so much more to produce meat and such things than last year. Farm labour is higher; freightage on cattle is higher—all these things are much higher than they were last year. We are getting a little less this year. They argue that we are getting more, but we are in reality getting a little less because we are suffering this year from the increase we got last year. It is not right that beef should be 57/- a cwt. to-day and that, in mid-October to mid-November, it should come down to 46/- or 47/-, which represents £5 or £6 a head for cattle. That is the time the poor man sells his cattle, and this is supposed to be a poor man's Government. The poor man must clear his stuff then and he is to get 10/- to 15/- a cwt. less in October.

The Taoiseach

It is not the Government who are buying the cattle.

Mr. Fagan

You are not putting it up to the people across the water.

The Taoiseach

Are we not?

Mr. Fagan

We do not see any Minister going over. If I send my workman to a fair to sell a beast, I do not think he will do as well as I would do, and any man who gets another person to do his business for him should not be in business. That is the business way of looking at it. If the Minister for Agriculture wants other men to do his business, he is not doing his business properly. I think we are being treated badly, but I would not advocate trading our cattle to such a great extent for other goods, because that is a dangerous thing to do. They are the only things we have to export, and experience shows that if you interfere too much in these matters, you will do harm. Some Deputies argued that the export of heifers should be stopped, but to do so would be unfair to the people who have these heifers. The way to deal with the dairy industry is to give the dairy man enough for his milk, and, in addition, in order to ensure that you will have dairy shorthorn heifers, give a bigger premium for the shorthorn bull. There is a high premium available at present, but I suggest that it be doubled. If a man who is getting £20 a year now gets £40 a year for keeping a shorthorn bull, he will keep that bull and you will have a certain number of extra cattle in the country. The poor man wants to keep to the white-headed bull because it matures six or eight months before the others, and I suggest that the best way to ensure that there will be shorthorn heifers in the country is to double the premium for the shorthorn bull.

Another matter to which I want to refer is the prohibition of the export of horses. I do not understand why that prohibition was enforced, but it imposes a terrible hardship. There are many small farmers who reared horses for two or three-year olds and thought they would get the good price which is now available. That price is not available to them, however, because the Government have stopped the export of horses, on the grounds, I am told, of their being required for agricultural work. I know enough about the country to know that there are too many horses working, although the poor farmer is now prevented from getting £70 or £80 for his good strong horse. He can go to a stud farm and buy an old mare for £10, or maybe £5, which will do his work. That man is losing £70 or £80, and what is going to happen when all the "clips" come out in October and November? All our small farmers have nothing but the strong, hard animal to sell and they are dependent on the money they get for these animals, and if that prohibition on export is kept in force until November, you are going to have a holy war with the farmers, because all these "clips" will be left on their hands. I urge the Government to reopen the export of horses because there will be enough horses in the country to do the work required. The farmers are not fools; they will look ahead and see that they have enough horses. The prohibition of export of horses is a mistaken policy, in my view.

There is another matter which I mentioned on the Local Government Vote but of which I do not think any notice was taken, that is, the condition of the roads. The farmers and ratepayers of the country are paying for the roads and they cannot use them, although nothing is being done in that respect. Deputies on all sides of the House spoke on this matter on the previous occasion, but nothing is being done in regard to these roads. A farmer who wants to draw his turf home is unable to do so on account of their condition. I know one instance of that, between Drumree and Collinstown——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That matter scarcely arises on this Vote.

Mr. Fagan

I thought anything arose on the Taoiseach's Vote.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Only general Government policy.

Mr. Fagan

I thought the Taoiseach was concerned as Head of the Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The general policy of the Government may be discussed, but not particular items.

Mr. Fagan

I am anxious to have something done so that such people may be able to get their turf home.

Mr. Dockrell

I listened to some of the last speakers urging the Taoiseach to interest himself in the price of agricultural produce at the other side of the Channel, but I want to ask the Taoiseach to stay at home for a short time, and to tell some of the business community what the post-war policy of the Government is, and what situation they are facing. It may be said that that point was raised on the Estimates for the Department of Supplies, and the Department of Industry and Commerce, but although he mentioned something about artificial manures, and about a sulphate of ammonia plant being established after the war the Minister carefully abstained from giving any guide to the business and manufacturing community as to what was facing them.

I have a certain amount of sympathy with the attitude of the Government as, probably, they will say that they do not know what the situation will be, but if the Government do not know, and if the people do not know, the result will be that nothing will be done. Possibly that is the worst thing that could happen, because many manufacturing firms and others could, if they were quite sure of what the conditions were going to be, make very considerable plans now. The Government for a number of years have gone in for a policy of protection. Up to a certain point that suited this country and, probably, if some of the grosser mistakes and abuses are left out, that policy has worked well. Certainly in the case of any industry that is producing anything, and that can continue to do so during the present emergency, that is all to the good, but since the war broke out, I suggest that the Government have ceased to operate the protective duties, but just too late to allow supplies to be got in. The position is that these duties have been suspended. Nobody knows whether they are in cold storage for good or not. I cannot imagine that they are. What is to be the position of anybody trying to make plans now to restart or to extend their activities after the war? I hope the Taoiseach will realise that if the Government does not know what the position will be, the rest of the community will do nothing.

Mr. Cogan

It is 25 years since the Taoiseach became associated with the public life of this country, and it strikes me that if he looked forward then and saw himself in the position he is in to-day as head of an Irish Government, and having enjoyed 10 years of office in a country which has been free for over 20 years, I am afraid he would be bitterly disappointed.

The Taoiseach

I am not so sure of that.

Mr. Cogan

I readily agree that many things have been accomplished during the past 20 years which have been of great value to the country.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This Vote only governs the operations of one year.

Mr. Cogan

The Taoiseach says that he is not so sure that the position to-day is unfavourable. Could he have pictured 25 years ago the conditions under which this country is labouring to-day under which, notwithstanding the fact that economic conditions have forced us to rely on our own resources, we have, nevertheless, failed to provide ourselves with essential needs? Although we require the labour of every man to produce the essentials of life for the community, we have not the necessary labour within the country. For one reason or another we have been allowing the best of our people to emigrate, and to seek employment elsewhere, despite the fact that they were urgently needed here. Surely, the most disappointing feature of the economic situation is the position of agriculture. The fact is that we require essential foodstuffs—bacon being one of the most essential—and though for many years we exported large quantities of bacon to the British market, we have not at present sufficient to supply our own needs.

Donnchadh O Briain

Why?

Mr. Cogan

It is quite evident there has been miscalculation, inefficiency and incompetence in the Departments concerned.

The Taoiseach

There is probably not another State in the world to-day that could afford time to discuss what we are discussing now. Not one other State could do it, and the Deputy is talking about the shortage of bacon.

Mr. Cogan

We are in the very fortunate position that we are immune from the devastation that would result from actual involvement in the war. We are one of the few States in that position. It is a fortunate position, and one upon which we may congratulate ourselves. Nevertheless there is one thing that is as important as escape from involvement in the world conflict, and that is preservation of the human population by the provision of essential needs. If we fail to provide our people with essential needs in food, clothing and fuel, then we will never be able to congratulate ourselves on our escape from involvement in this world conflict.

The Taoiseach

You would have both conditions if we were involved in the conflict.

Mr. Cogan

That is apparent to everybody, because our people would suffer very severely, not only actual physical dangers, but also the economic dangers which would accompany involvement in the war. We all agree upon that. Seeing that we are immune from the conflict, why should this country be compelled to suffer the economic consequences that nations involved in the war are suffering, when these consequences could be avoided? If they could not be avoided, nobody has raised any point about it. The fact is that the emigration of our people to Great Britain has created a shortage of labour here for the production of food and the fact is that we are short of many essential foodstuffs. That could have been avoided if we had planned with more foresight, and if we had put into effect more energetic methods. It is, therefore, upon the head of the Government that responsibility for such failure must rest.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.30 p.m. until 3 p.m., Wednesday, July 15th.