Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Apr 1943

Vol. 89 No. 15

Committee on Finance. - Estimates for Public Services. Vote 69—Supplies (Resumed).

Mr. Byrne

In the debate on the Vote for the Department of Supplies, I had made reference to many matters which were causing alarm to the people. I had dealt with the dangers of shortages and I was referring to the Minister's tribute to the shipping companies. I join in that tribute to the shipping companies for what they have done but we cannot forget that they could not have done what was done were it not for the gallantry of our sailors and firemen who took risks to bring us our supplies—those thousands of tons of wheat and other goods to which the Minister referred. I often wonder if we sufficiently appreciate what has been done by our sailors and those who took risks every day to bring us food supplies so that we might live. On more than one occasion, they made the supreme sacrifice. I ask the Government if we reward their dependents sufficiently when their breadwinners are lost in our service. I join with the Minister in paying tribute to the shipping companies but a far greater tribute—a tribute words could not convey—should be paid to the men I have just mentioned.

In another part of his speech, the Minister said that the clothing position was serious, and he outlined certain quotas for various types of clothing, silks, etc. Will the Minister now take steps to see that a full quota of material will be available for clothing the children of the working classes? A week ago I asked him to control prices and issue, with the aid of those engaged in the business, if possible, a schoolboy's suit. I had in mind boys of 10 and 12 years old. Many boys and girls of this age are not properly clothed because of the cost of materials. Within the past fortnight, I have seen barefooted children with little, linen, washed-out costumes, when they should have had heavy woollen or other good clothing. Some of the children were undernourished, too.

I know where the sympathy of the Minister lies, and I ask him to safeguard the interests of these children and to secure that quotas will not be given to any greater extent to those who make purchases in a more expensive market. Expensive clothing is very tempting to those who have the money to buy it and they will make their purchases. But if there is a ration of half an ounce of tea for everybody, the Minister should see that there will be a ration of cloth which will secure to these children clothing at a price which their parents can pay. I say the same of food supplies and footwear. I feel confident that the Minister will not overlook the points I have mentioned and that there will be a fair distribution of the materials at his disposal.

One member of the House has referred to the turf position. I was not quite sure whether we were to deal with that to-day or not. There are very serious complaints on the part of people who sell turf in small lots. They complain to me that they have to go long distances to get supplies— that they have to bring them to the other end of the city. I refer to the dump at Phoenix Park. There was another very useful supply at Alexandra Basin—almost in the sea. I should have thought that that dump would have been used for the people within two or three miles of it. What is happening is that bellmen who serve people in the North Wall area have to go to the Phoenix Park to get their supplies. On a recent date, before all supplies were removed by Fuel Importers, Limited, or those who are in the monopoly, I suggested that portion of the supply at North Wall should be left for the small men. I had hoped that Fuel Importers, with their big lorries, in some cases petrol-drawn and in others horse-drawn, and the big merchants would have been sent to the Phoenix Park to draw the supplies to their yards, and that the unfortunate boy or girl with a donkey and cart, selling in small lots, would have been able to draw from the Alexandra Basin dump. I thought that the benefits and the hardships would have been divided amongst Fuel Importers, the big merchants and the small merchants but that has not happened.

I do appeal to the Minister to see that those men get a fair deal. They are doing good work. One often wonders what would happen if they did not harness the donkey and cart and go out in the morning to bring one stone or two stone lots of turf to 30 or 40 people. I think we should be very grateful to them, and appreciate what they are doing, instead of making things difficult for them and doubting the genuineness of their complaints.

Again I suggest to the Minister that he ought to extend his control of prices to things to which it does not yet apply. I heard of a case where a builder in this city who was carrying out repairs to tenement and corporation houses travelled a long distance to purchase carpenters' two-inch wire nails. Just on the eve of the emergency those nails cost £16 a ton. Somebody had the cleverness to go around and collect them, believing that there would be a scarcity, and he backed a winner. That person was trying to decide what price he should charge for the nails now that they were scarce, and he thought the easiest way out of it was to take the £16 and put a nought after it. He got £160 a ton for those nails, which were required to repair tenement houses in the City of Dublin. The grocer who makes a mistake and charges a ½d. too much for jam is heavily fined, but the fellow who charges £160 a ton for nails—I want to emphasise the point that they were not new nails made at new and increased costs—gets away with it. I believe there are other cases, similar to that, in which the Minister ought to do something. People should not be allowed to charge ten times the original price.

I would again make my very special appeal that the Minister will do something in connection with getting the people a little extra tea. They would appreciate it very much. I believe he could get it; I would not impress it on him if I did not. I believe that, if he went to England and asked them to increase our supply of tea, they would do so. I would also repeat my appeal to him to see that the children of the working classes are properly clad. I should not say "working classes"; they are unemployed. If a man is working, he feeds and clothes his children to the best of his ability, but I appeal to the Minister on behalf of the type of person who has little or no income and is not able to meet the soaring costs of foodstuffs.

Before I sit down, I want to make another appeal to the Minister—it was not to him I made it before—on behalf of the wives of our serving soldiers, who are not in a position adequately to clothe their children. The allowances which our serving soldiers are getting are totally inadequate. I have had letters from the wives of soldiers, who say:—

"Dear Alderman Byrne,

Could you get my husband out of the Army so that he can go away and earn good wages to help me to feed the children? I cannot do it on the allowance I am now getting."

I would ask the Minister to make an appeal to the Minister for Defence, or, if necessary, to the Cabinet, to see that increased allowances are given to provide the necessaries of life for the wives and children of our serving soldiers.

The Department of Supplies is the one Department to-day that has to defend itself against attacks from all sides and from all sections. The Minister of that Department has to carry on his shoulders a great burden of responsibility, and in addition he has to deal with the dissatisfaction aroused by the so-called misdeeds of his Department. Except from the last speaker, we have heard nothing but complaints about the Department. We have heard no expression of gratitude for the many gigantic tasks they have accomplished for the well-being of the community in general. I admit that, while I see 99 per cent. of good from the activities of the Department, I am prepared to ventilate the 1 per cent. with which I disagree, but we should not forget that this little island of ours is in the middle of a world of turmoil, and that the greatest difficulties confront those responsible for trying to keep things on an even keel. If we think that mistakes are being made, or that unnecessary hardships are being imposed, we should put forward the case as we see it, and be prepared to listen to the other side of the story. If we cannot achieve what we believe is right, at least let us understand that what is being done by the Department is being done with the object of achieving the general well-being of the community. Every day, indeed almost in every hour of every day, one hears various reasons put forward for certain activities of the Department of Supplies. People do not seem to realise that the desire of the Department is to achieve the well-being of the community. As far as the public is concerned, we should be grateful for the position we are in to-day. If we compare the conditions here with those obtaining in any other country in the world, we will be driven to the conclusion that this country is the best place in the world at the present moment. Therefore, as I said, the people ought to be grateful for that situation.

I want to say to the Minister, and to his Department through him, that I find a general willingness on the part of the public to co-operate with the Department on all occasions. From certain reactions, one imagines that there is a suspicion in the minds of the officials of the Department that some sections of the public are not willing to co-operate. It is true that there are numbers of individuals who will not co-operate, so long as they can help it, but we are not concerned with those people. The cross-section of the public is similar to the cross-section, say, of the Civil Service as a whole, or to the cross-section of the officials of the Department of Supplies. When we reduce it down to the ordinary things of life, we are a nation of human beings and some human beings happen to be officials and very few officials happen to be Ministers. I suppose, the fewer there are of certain types of officials, the more abuse they have to carry and the more responsibility they have to bear. When it is all over, I suppose we will be able to decide and be wise after the event, as to whether we did right or wrong and whether we escaped well or were hurt very badly.

We notice that—very occasionally, fortunately—there is a bad civil servant, who has to appear in court for some misdemeanour; but that does not warrant the public believing that the public service, as a whole, is anything like that individual. On the other hand, the Department of Supplies, in dealing with traders—and, particularly, with retail grocers— should realise that these people have a very heavy burden to carry and, if there are some offenders amongst them, that gives no cause to assume that every retail shopkeeper wishes to enrich himself at the expense of the community.

Before going further, I would like to mention a matter which has been brought very strongly to my notice. The Department of Supplies, apparently, differentiates in commodities when they come to decide the quotas to be allocated. In some cases, they act on the family basis and give quotas per head of a family. The Department should reconsider the method by which they allocate quotas for turf. At present, each householder is allowed a certain amount of turf per month, which cannot be purchased except in that month. Whether he has a large family or a small family, the same amount of turf is delivered to each householder. I happen to know that, in the City of Dublin, there are houses which are divided into sections, regarded as self-contained flats—in some cases consisting only of a room or two rooms. You will find ten people living in such a building, each entitled to the same quantity of turf that a neighbour would have as head of a family of five or six children and domestic servants. In cases of that kind, the Department of Supplies should loosen up a bit and have regard to what is required per head of a family.

In regard to the retail grocers, I am one of those members of this House who happen to be on a self-formed committee to examine what appear to be certain grievances deserving of examination. I happen to be chairman of that committee. We decided that, in our approach to that matter, we would need, first of all, an assurance from the representatives of the trade that they were not asking us to stand over anything which was hostile to the principles laid down by this Government with regard to the general well-being of the community. We have been assured that they are not concerned on behalf of bad traders or from the point of veiw of black marketeers or those who are deliberately charging high prices for goods that are scarce. We satisfied ourselves that these were decent, reputable citizens, also members of the public who, while they sell one thing, have to buy another, and who are equally concerned that the cost of living should not be pushed up unduly. We are satisfied that they had a genuine case, and we hope that the Minister will, in due course— after he has got through the work in which the piloting of this Estimate involves him—be constrained to receive a deputation, representing the traders, Senators and Deputies concerned. An across-table discussion on this matter would enable him to see how far the point of view of the traders may be understood, and how far the traders might withdraw from a certain attitude, on seeing the difficulties the Minister may have in trying to meet the situation.

We decided that we would try to be in general agreement amongst ourselves to remove from our discussions any question of politics and to try to decide only whether these people had a case or not. One of the simple things these men wonder about is why the Department of Supplies fixes Friday as the ending of the week, when they themselves say that Saturday should end the week and Monday begin it, for the purpose of records. They say it should be easier for the Department to agree to Monday as the beginning of the week than for all these thousands of traders to do so and alter their tradition, in order to meet the Department's request that it begin on Saturday. The Department should understand, also, that even Deputies and very well-informed people find it hard to understand all the Orders and regulations which are made from day to day—and which have to be made— and that the general public and the assistants in shops will need a very much improved standard of intelligence if they are to understand and know, from day-to-day, all the requirements of the Orders which are published so suddenly.

The Department should also consider the question of profit making and the reasonable margin of profit for traders, apart from its relation to the cost of living. If traders are forced to deal in commodities at prices which do not give them a reasonable margin of profit—enough to keep them solvent —it will have a bad effect. We must not forget that many of our citizens are working in a neighbouring country and that, when they come home for holidays, they have plenty of money to spend on goods which would be much dearer outside. On coming home, they are able to pay a price which the people at home, because of the wages control, could not afford. The Minister is very anxious to see that the goods available for the people of this country should be purchasable by them but, if he is too rigid and unreasonable, he himself is helping to create a trade in smuggling.

I cannot understand why cigarettes should be so scarce in Dublin. I had to go back to a pipe, as it was impossible to get cigarettes, and, if it is hard for me, other people must be much worse off. I am inclined to believe, now that the price of cigarettes in a neighbouring country and in the Northern Counties has gone up, that there will develop a trade in taking traders supplies and getting the extra 6d. per packet for them across the Border. If traders are expected to play fair with the public, the Government should see that there is fair play for them as well.

In regard to price fixing, I understand that the Department examines books and accounts. They must be aware that very many small retail shops never keep books, as do big companies which study their percentage profits. It is, therefore, very difficult to get a proper costing as to what will pay in one area as distinct from another, in relation to a certain class of trade.

It should be borne in mind that the trader to-day has a much smaller range of goods from which to make his general profits. We know that there is a scarcity of practically all commodities and that there are certain commodities which are unprocurable. I remember distinctly that many shops before the war would sell one particular line at a loss in order to attract customers for another line of goods which they had in considerable quantity and on which they could make a fairly good profit. One firm made butter their leading line, another firm eggs, and so on. To-day most commodities are controlled and the remaining goods in free trade are very few and far between and very scarce indeed. I hope the Minister will indicate that he is ready to believe that traders are prepared to co-operate with his Department and that he recognises that every trade and every section of the community which is organised can be helpful both to themselves and to his Department. I hope he will receive a deputation and in that way recognise the spokesmen of these institutions. I hope he will have a repetition of what happened only recently when his Department sent for certain representatives whom they had seen previously to discuss the question of potatoes. They all came away happy and satisfied. The Department felt that they had got a fair statement from the representatives of the trade, and the traders were satisfied that they got fair treatment from the Department. Why cannot that spirit be applied and extended in connection with most of the matters which might be termed disputes or grievances?

I do not propose to deal in detail with what was discussed in committee by us because I am hoping that the Minister will give us an opportunity of dealing with it in a reasonable way. Two names, however, have been mentioned in connection with cases which were brought to our notice. We do not know all the facts; we know only what we have been told and I am sure that the Minister also does not know all the facts. I am sure if he did, in one particular case in any event, he would be very reluctant to permit a procedure of the nature adopted in that particular case. The name of Stanley of Ballybrack was mentioned. I happen to know the firm of Stanley, as I lived in that neighbourhood for five years. I know the firm to be a very decent firm. One could not call them profiteers in any sense of the word. I know their offence appears on paper to be a simple one. As a matter of fact if that offence had been detected some months after the case had been taken to court the situation might have been quite different because since that particular time the Department has discovered that it must allow for wastage in handling tea. In the case of this particular firm the Department did not allow for the four lbs. wastage per 100 lbs. which they now allow in the handling of tea. I do not want to refer to the points that traders regard as essential and as a condition of their deputation being received. I think the Minister will understand now that it is only a request that they be heard and that they want to put before the Minister or whatever appropriate official he decides to hear them—I would prefer that he should hear them himself—how they propose to meet the situation.

There is a suggestion whether it be true or not—and there is no means of disproving it—that not all traders are treated alike. We read of traders who are brought before courts and convicted and then we hear that a certain number of licences have been revoked, while others have been notified that their licences will be revoked. We are led to believe that in some cases such drastic punishment is not applied. I want to tell the Minister that in this connection the public have a grievance which has to be considered.

Take an area like Ballybrack. I do not know how many grocers there are there. There may be three or four, but, at any rate, there are very few. They supply a very large number of people. If every time a trader is convicted of an offence, irrespective of whether the offence is a bad one, a trivial one, or one that is due to a genuine mistake, and that conviction is followed by a revocation of the licence, you will ultimately reach a stage in which a village or town will be deprived of all its suppliers of tea or sugar because the traders will all have lost their licences. Then the public will have to go to the nearest adjoining town or village to get their supplies.

I want to point out to the Minister on the other hand that the withdrawal of a licence is a very serious thing for a trader. I agree that the public must be protected against exploitation, and if it is a bad case, the trader deserves to be put out of business permanently, because that is what revocation of a licence means. In one case cited here a trader had 600 persons registered for tea and sugar. By a stroke of the pen, following conviction for a certain offence, he lost 600 customers, not only for tea and sugar, but for other commodities as well, because when people had to go elsewhere for their tea and sugar they bought other requirements there also. Such a man might as well close up his shop if he has no other business.

This is a point I want to put to the Minister: To whom is he going to transfer all these licences? Already people who are very national in their outlook object to having to go to what they call cross-Channel houses to buy their tea and sugar. I am informed that some of these revoked licences have been transferred to houses which are regarded as being cross-Channel houses.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,

I should like the Minister to turn over that aspect of the matter in his mind, and not to forget that when he is punishing a trader he is also in some cases punishing that trader's customers. He has mentioned the fact that some 32 licences had been revoked up to recently. I am informed that the holders of 70 odd licences are also under notice of revocation.

I would ask the Minister to agree to receive this deputation which consists of representatives of all sections in this House and of the other House. I hope he will receive them before revoking these licences and that he will allow them to bring before him certain aspects of these cases which we do not wish to bring out in the House to-day. It has been pointed out also in the discussion—and we have given very detailed consideration to the question and I hope when the Minister comes to reply that he will not misstate the position—that we are not concerned with traders who are wilful offenders. We are all in agreement, as are the traders who have been in touch with us, that the Minister should retain all the powers he has.

The Deputy is speaking for himself now?

I am speaking for myself and the Deputy can speak for himself.

Who are "we"?

If the Deputy wants to know who "we" are, I will tell him.

As quoted by the Deputy.

The Deputy is not an innocent little babe. The Deputy knows that I took the trouble of getting in touch with every member of the committee, including Deputy Belton, and said that we were all at liberty to speak on things here as we saw them and that we were not speaking in any way as a committee.

That is right, and the Deputy should not use the pronoun "we".

I do not happen to be a Party in myself, but I happen to speak on behalf of two of my colleagues on these benches who have given me in writing their full agreement with the point of view which I discussed with them. If the Deputy wants the names of those Deputies——

No; I will take the Deputy's word, but he cannot speak for the committee as a whole.

It would be very unfair to the traders concerned if those of us on that committee brought a personal dispute into this House, when we are all, in our individual capacity and jointly, in agreement with the steps already taken. The traders have made it clear in their handbook and through the Press, and they have insisted all the time lest there should be any mistake about it and a resultant reaction against them, that they are in complete agreement with the Minister holding on tightly to the powers he has. They insist also on making it known that they are not in any way concerned about those offenders who are deliberate offenders. In view of that, and in view of the terms of the letter which was received, I appeal to the Minister not to consider the matter adequately and finally dealt with in the House, because the members of the committee agreed that individual cases would not be discussed here. Deputy Mulcahy referred to two cases. He was not a member of that committee and naturally is free to do as he likes. Otherwise, the cases would not have been referred to. I am concerned, as the Minister, the Government and, I am sure, the whole House are all concerned, that the public shall be protected in this emergency. The public themselves are concerned that they shall be protected——

Is the Deputy trying to have an each-way bet?

So the Deputy has suddenly regained his hearing. He could not hear before, but he can hear now. All I want to say is that I do not seek to make any political capital out of this. I am not looking for an each-way bet, nor do I think anybody is; but there are many people inside and outside the House who are very anxious to make political capital out of the situation. They are not anxious to come into the House and say what they say outside about the Minister and the officials of the Department. I referred previously to this abuse which goes on, but of which there is never any evidence produced. It is just a whispering campaign and people are not prepared to stand up and face facts as they concern and confront us.

So long as we are in this House, it is up to us to do our job for the public. I do not want to see the people exploited, but I regard traders as members of the public. They also have to be protected, and protected even against the Minister, if we think the Minister is taking an unfair advantage or does not see the position as we see it. That is why I am anxious that he should receive the deputation in the spirit in which it wants to meet him. There are a very great number of persons involved whose livelihood is threatened. A number of people have come to me with their stories. I have not approached the Department about them yet, because I have not been able to examine them, but I am delighted that there is an organisation in existence from which one can get first-hand knowledge about the situation.

I hope I have not overstepped the bounds of what is expected of a member of the committee. I do not think I have in any way damaged any cases which came before us—I have not mentioned them—but I should like the Minister to understand that some of the methods employed by his agents are methods which, while they may be successful—and he may have to get his men to stoop to certain methods of getting information—do not look very well. That is why I say it would be well to recognise the organisation of the trade concerned as other trades have organisations which are recognised, with a view to giving its representatives at least the consideration of being enabled to discuss from time to time what is required of them or matters which they think will not work out satisfactorily or which may bring trouble.

I have mentioned that this body is very happy with regard to the interviews they had. Individuals amongst them have told me that they have from time to time seen representatives of the Department and they have no grievance against them, but that it is just the situation that is being misrepresented. The Minister is determined to make it known that he does not propose to let go of the tight reins he holds, and he finds that the only way he can get people to march in step in relation to these matters is by continuing on the lines on which he started. I find no fault with that, but what I do find fault with is that in some cases the casualties are becoming permanent casualties, and I say to the Minister that he ought at least to be prepared to reconsider certain situations, and, after all the benefits which he wants to accrue to the public have been secured, he ought to be prepared to consider whether some readjustments ought not to be made.

I have mentioned that so far as I know not all are treated alike. There may be very good reasons for that. We read of traders who have been fined and we understand that in some of these cases these people do not expect to have their licences revoked. It may not be possible—it may not be good policy—to give the details of everybody's private business in the House, and the Minister on very many occasions has refused to give certain information on the ground that it was not fair to discuss the private business of concerns here. Consequently, I appeal to him to intimate, if he possibly can, that he is prepared to meet the situation on the lines I suggest.

While I agree that this Department is one which is open to much criticism, I hold that it cannot be held responsible for all the ills of the country at present. We are in a war situation, and in such a situation there is bound to be a shortage of different commodities, but what we hold the Department responsible for is lack of organisation at the beginning of its existence. If the Department had then been organised on the basis on which it is organised to-day, we should be able to cope with the black market operations which are going on in our midst.

The vigilance of the officers of the Minister's Department is being exercised all over the country in trying to find out the prices charged by the different small shopkeepers. I think it would be better if he were not so severe on the small shopkeepers down through the country, and if he would concentrate the vigilance of his Department on the large wholesalers in the City of Dublin. I am quite sure that the small country shopkeepers are not to blame for this kind of thing at all. Certain people are able to get all they want from the large wholesalers in Dublin, who are directly responsible for the black market, and it is these people, and not the Border alone, who have brought about the present state of affairs. While the small country shopkeepers cannot get their requirements, the big people can come up here to the City of Dublin and get huge supplies of all kinds of stuff. These wholesalers are responsible for the blackmarketing, and they will not even supply the small country shopkeepers.

I believe that there are wholesalers in Dublin who got in large quantities of commodities at the commencement of the war and who have been getting them in since the war started. They are selling such items as shirts, which then cost 3/6, at 22/6. Not alone that, but these people, I am informed on good authority, are able to pay bonuses to their workers up to the amount of £20 in cash. I know that for a fact, and I think it would be far better if two or three of these firms in the City of Dublin were to be blown sky high instead of harassing the small country shopkeepers. If that were done, it would be a lesson that would make many others take notice. Sending the officials of the Department down to the country districts, harassing the small shopkeepers, is only doing harm. It is certainly not the way to deal with this matter of the black market. Some of these small shopkeepers in the country districts are barely able to keep their books, and it is very unfair to drag them into court, impose fines on them, or perhaps revoke their licences, because they sell a few boxes of matches for a ½d. extra. The small country shopkeeper is having a harder time than anybody else in the country at the present moment. He is trying to keep his little shop going as best he can, to keep his little farm, if he has one, going, and also trying to comply with all the various regulations that have been issued. I think it would be better to let the small country shopkeeper alone, and let him go his way as best he can. He is not the real offender, but it seems to be always the small fellow who is caught and penalised while the big fellow gets away with it.

The Minister and his Department should start cleaning up at the top first. Get after the big fellows who have the nest eggs. These were the people who bought huge quantities of stuff at the commencement of the war and have taken advantage of the needs of the people by selling these goods at enormous profits. Let the Minister tackle this problem at its source, and I think that if the Minister had consulted the business people of this country more as regards the getting in of supplies from outside, we would be better off to-day, because these people were in the habit of travelling across the water and knew where to go to get goods. I think if they had been consulted originally there would have been a lot more harmony with regard to this matter.

One thing that I should like to refer to in this connection is the organisation of the parish councils. My belief is that if you had a parish council properly organised in every district, and if it were given the proper credentials from the Department, it would be of immense value, not alone to the Department of Supplies, but to every Department of State, and it would mean the saving of a lot of money that is now being paid to officials of the Department travelling around the country. If you had a properly organised parish council in every district, provided with the proper credentials, there would be very little profiteering or racketeering, because these people would tackle the job in an open and above-board way, and they would not be afraid to tackle it. There is hardly a parish, for instance, in my constituency, where there are not profiteers or black marketeers, but it is almost impossible for the officials of the Department to find them out. I know for a fact that there is one man who has four or five centres of distribution, but there is hardly ever anything in his own house. In the various centres that he has, however, you can get three or four dry batteries, or as many cigarettes or as much tobacco as you want, so long as you have the money to pay for them, and he is never caught. Until such centres of distribution are broken up, you will have this kind of thing going on, and it is the poor people who are suffering the most. The man with a good position or a large salary can buy all he wants in the black market. Many selfish people are buying up quantities of goods and storing them up, not for months hence, but for years hence. Such people are mean and despicable, and when you see the plight in which the poor people are left as a result of the actions of the others, I think one will have to admit that there is very little Christian charity left in the country.

Now, I do not want to hound the Department for everything that has occurred, because I know that the organisation of supplies is a huge job, but the fact is that at the present moment the position has got out of hand. While paying a tribute to the Department for many of the things that have been done, I think we should also pay a tribute to the people across the water for the way they treated us because, had it not been for the way they treated us since the commencement of the war, we would be in a very bad position to-day.

Another thing to which I should like to refer is that people down the country, when they write to the Department, do not receive an answer for quite a long time. Their complaint is that the replies to their letters are too long in coming. Of course, if a Deputy writes to the Department, the answer comes speedily, but I think that the Department should have more concern for the ordinary people. I have known of cases of certain people who wrote to the Department, and it took the best part of a month before a reply came, and in some cases no reply came at all until a Deputy called to the Department about the matter. I think there should be more concern for the ordinary people.

I have not much more to say. The people know, of course, that the Department of Supplies cannot do every thing, but they feel that this matter of the black market will have to be tackled in the proper way. They know that so long as you have money you can get anything you want in this country, whether tea, sugar, or anything else, but if you are poor you cannot, and I think it is a disgrace that that should be the case in a Christian country. I believe that it has all resulted from the advice that was given by some Minister at the commencement of the war—I do not say it was the present Minister—that people should buy as much as they could and store the goods in their houses or their back yards. That advice was given with the best intentions, but it has had a very bad effect, and many people spent money buying up everything they could, and then held these goods until prices went up, and made the unfortunate poorer people pay enormous prices for these goods. The Minister should go into what is happening here in the City of Dublin. He should try to get to the root of this problem, and see where the stuff actually is. As I have pointed out, people who were selling shirts at 3/6 before the war are now selling them for 22/6, and I believe they had large stocks of these shirts which they bought at the commencement of the emergency. Even though these people can pay good bonuses to all their workers, they are still making big profits. That is where the Minister will have to tackle the problem, because otherwise the black market and the racketeering will get beyond control.

Anybody who has listened to the Minister's speech, or who has had anything to do with the Department of Supplies, must realise the huge task with which the Minister is charged. It struck me as very curious that the Minister is left in control of two Departments when the Department of Supplies alone calls for so much attention that it is really too exacting for one man to handle. That Department tries to regulate and to ration all the resources of the country so as to utilise them to the best national advantage. I think the Minister has made a terrible mistake in usurping the functions of other Departments. In no way has he extended himself so unnecessarily as in the handling of licences for shopkeepers. We were elected here nearly five years ago by universal suffrage and we established a Government. We had the whole machinery of State, all the Departments, functioning. We were told we had one of the finest Constitutions in the world and yet, since we were elected, we have done nothing but deprive the people of whatever benefits were in that Constitution. We have destroyed class liberty and we have destroyed individual liberty.

By what authority is the Minister for Supplies permitted, after the courts have tried a case, found the person charged guilty, and inflicted punishment to fit the crime, to impose additional punishment on the offender? Has the Minister no sense of justice or fair play? Not only do the courts inflict punishment on that offender, but the Minister takes away from him his means of livelihood. That is what happens to an unfortunate shopkeeper.

I do not agree that the Minister should have that power. I think the House should take it from him. I agree that the Minister, having information that no other man in the country can have as to our resources, as to the amount of each essential commodity that is in the country, should have the power to ration such commodities. I believe in giving the Minister power to make Orders rationing various commodities. I go further and I say that he might specify the punishment that should be inflicted on those who transgress the Orders, but once the Minister has done that, his functions in that connection should cease. He can send out his inspectors to detect offences; he can use the Guards to detect them, but, once an offence is detected, there is only one place in which the case should be tried, and that is in the courts.

Four cases were mentioned here to-day. I am not going to attempt what I think other Deputies attempted— that is, to re-try cases that were dealt with by the courts. If the accused did not appeal against the court verdict, then we must accept the verdict of the court. I am not going to mention any of the cases that were referred to here to-day. I am not defending those who were convicted. I suggest to the Minister that those four cases were tried in the court. A man was convicted and, in the first case, he was fined £30 and, in another case, for not giving, as alleged, a receipt, he was fined £20. The case was presented in full in the court and I should like to know from the Minister if there was any intimation to the district justice that there was other punishment to come afterwards. I suggest that the district justice had in mind the enormity of the crime committed and the accused was found guilty and fines were imposed. Were not the ends of justice satisfied on that occasion? Why should the Minister impose additional penalties? If a man commits the worst crime of all, murder, and is tried and convicted and executed, are the members of his family deprived of his property? Are his dependents followed after the sentence of the court is carried out?

On what grounds has the Minister taken away the right of protection from our citizens? I will be surprised if any Deputy backs the Minister in so depriving our people of the ordinary rights of citizenship. If the Minister stated in his Order: "Certain offences, if proved, may carry the revocation of licences to carry on trade," and left it to the Justice to decide whether an offence is sufficiently, serious to warrant such further punishment, then, so far as I am concerned, I would have nothing to say. But a certain offence was committed and the public knew what the punishment would be. They knew the case would be tried in the court and that a certain sentence would be imposed. I take it there would be the ordinary right of appeal to a higher court, so that an individual would have an opportunity of proving his innocence. If he failed to do so he would have to pay the penalty.

I should like to hear the Minister justifying his attitude in these cases. I should like to hear the Deputy, who said that most Deputies do not want to curtail the powers of the Minister, justifying the exercise of that particular power by the Minister. I do not agree with it and the Minister cannot plead expedition. Four cases were mentioned here to-day. Some of them concerned the revocation of tea and sugar licences. That took place seven months after the convictions had been obtained in these cases. I have before me a summons issued in the City of Limerick in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed on the 24/12/1941. The case is to be tried on the 30th of this month. It is sub judice, and hence I am not going to make any reference to it. The point that I want to make is this, that when an offence is committed it should be tried in the courts and nowhere else. No Minister and no individual should have the power to try cases, not only in camera, but by jungle law methods. The alleged offender is not told that the case for the revocation of his licence is being tried on a particular day. He is not asked if he has any representations to make. What happens is that a comparatively junior clerk in the Department reads up the correspondence and recommends to a higher officer. Perhaps he does not read through the case, but that man's means of livelihood is taken away by such methods.

There will be no sense of fair play or honesty if that kind of thing is to be tolerated. The shopkeepers will strike against it. The Minister knows all the extra work that has been imposed on shopkeepers by ration cards, food vouchers and all the rest. In the case of an ordinary-sized grocery business to-day, because of all that, the proprietor has to employ a couple of extra clerks. In nearly every case that I have heard of, where a shopkeeper has been caught, he has been caught by the employment of the lowest possible methods. An inspector goes in and, by making the plea that he has somebody sick belonging to him, the shopkeeper, in the goodness of his nature, strains the regulations by giving a little extra tea or something else to him. A quarter of an hour after making that pitiful appeal, the inspector returns with a couple of others who have been lying in wait outside for the purpose of catching that unfortunate shopkeeper. I say that will have to cease and that shopkeepers will not put up with it. I will be very interested to hear the Minister defending his methods of administering the law.

The Minister gave us some interesting figures about our wheat crop. I think he said that the cost of the wheat we imported was 50/2d. at the mill here.

I think the price given was 50/7d.

I said that was the c.i.f. cost.

The Minister said that the estimated yield of the wheat crop for 1942 was 500,000 tons, and that the estimated amount given to the millers will be about 270,000 tons. The latter figure represents very little over 50 per cent. of the total crop. I suppose that, roughly speaking, 60,000 will seed the coming year's crop. That leaves 180,000 or 190,000 tons missing. The Minister did not probe the matter any further, but I think the House would like to know where that quantity disappeared to.

Some proportion of it was milled by the farmers for their own use. They were entitled to mill one barrel per head for each member of the family.

I think the Minister should be able to present a better wheat balance sheet than that. If he were to forget about what the farmers milled for their own use, he should know what the total flour requirements of the country would be in a free market. Are there 100,000 tons missing?

I am not offering any explanation. I do not know what the explanation is. It may be that the statistical returns of wheat acreage are inaccurate.

Did the Minister allow for inferior wheat which must go for feeding purposes?

No wheat must go for feeding purposes.

I do not think that the Government generally are fair to feeders. All the obligations put on them to produce a standard commodity at a time when there was absolute freedom and opportunity to buy in any market the best feeding stuffs so as to get the best results, are still in force. These standards of quality and production are still being prescribed and maintained by the Government. Take the case of a man producing milk for the Dublin market. He must produce milk with a minimum of 3 per cent. fats. That was fixed at a time when concentrated foods were so plentiful that people were actually being canvassed to buy them. Now, under a very efficient system of inspection, a man is still expected to produce milk of that standard despite the fact that these concentrated foods are not available.

Will the Deputy say if it is the Minister for Supplies who is responsible for that standard?

It is connected with supplies and, perhaps, with the missing wheat.

The Deputy did not give the information requested, namely, whether that quality milk is prescribed by the Minister for Supplies.

No. That quality of milk can only be maintained by food produced by the milk producers who are obliged by the Minister to use that food for other purposes now. If that food is used for the purposes that the Minister requires, and I think rightly requires, then there should be some consideration for the man who is left without proper food to produce milk of the required standard.

I presume some other Minister fixed that standard. The Deputy will have an opportunity of raising the matter on the Estimate for that Minister's Department.

Not, I submit, in relation to what I may call the missing wheat. If the Minister wants to conserve it, and he is right in conserving it, it must be conserved, but it will cause a loss in feeding elsewhere, and he should consult with the other Departments concerned in the other branch of the business as to which should suffer. Is the quality of the food to milch cows to suffer or is the quantity of food that the human population should get to be maintained? Which is it? You cannot have it both ways. The Minister said that we want 100,000 more acres of wheat this year. I hope he will get them. The great trouble with the Minister, and everyone in business knows it is a very serious trouble, is transport. It is the big problem for the nation. Why is there not economy in connection with transport? How can the Minister justify his Department's supplying the Great Southern Railway Company with petrol or giving them coupons to get petrol to carry 10,000, 15,000 or 20,000 tons of timber from railway trucks in Dun Laoghaire down to the dump called the Gut, about 300 yards away? Why was petrol given for that work? Why was petrol given to carry turf from Alexandra Basin to private yards in Dublin? Why were coupons given to lorry owners to do that? Why was petrol given to send a lorry empty to Ballinasloe to bring four tons of turf to Dublin? Why were lorry owners prosecuted at the instance of the Department for bringing fuel into Dublin when they were going into Dublin anyway? Lorries were coming to Dublin twice a day empty using up petrol and kerosene. They could have brought five tons. of wood fuel into Dublin. When they did that, the owner was prosecuted and fined £90.

That was four or five months ago. Since then they have been coming into Dublin empty on six days of the week, wasting petrol and kerosene which could be used to bring fuel into Dublin. Why did the Minister tolerate that? Why did the Minister give petrol in the case I mentioned to bring turf from Ballinasloe? The quantity of petrol used in one case to bring 3 tons 15 cwts. of turf to Dublin would have fetched 40 tons of wood fuel to Dublin. But petrol for the bringing in of that wood fuel was refused. Does the Minister deny that? The Minister tells us our great trouble is in the shortage of transport. He stated that 17,000,000 gallons of paraffin was our normal supply. Perhaps he would inform me if he means kerosene, including T.V.O.?

Very good. In 1942, 17,000,000 gallons of kerosene and T.V.O. were our normal consumption. Does that embrace kerosene, paraffin and T.V.O.?

That is right.

In 1942 we got 10,000,000 gallons. I think I am right in saying that in 1942, if we could get all we wanted, our requirements would be more than 17,000,000 gallons because of the amount of paraffin that was being used. Therefore that is really more than 7,000,000 gallons short of our normal requirements. It means 7,000,000 gallons short, plus our increased requirements. This year the Minister anticipates that we will not get more than 8,000,000 gallons, in a year when our requirements will be above normal. That is a very serious situation. Of that, 4,000,000 gallons will be required for agricultural purposes. During this year he anticipates there will be no petrol. Surely he does not mean that there will be no petrol for priming agricultural tractors? Kerosene flowing in a river past our doors will be no good to us if we have not petrol to start the tractors, and on that depends the food production for the coming year. Fuel oil, already reduced 50 per cent., will be still further reduced. Is it not up to the Minister to see that the most is made of the transport facilities we have?

Certainly, if I had any responsibility in the matter I would prosecute the man who travelled with his lorry empty rather than the man who had his lorry full. A man going from North to South should, by hook or by crook, take a load from the North in addition to the load that he will take from the South. It should be an offence punishable by the Minister for a man deliberately to travel with his lorry empty if a load can be procured for him. By having lorries travelling empty we get only 50 per cent. of the value of those precious commodities, petrol and kerosene. Half of it is being used to bring empty lorries in one direction and the other half is used to bring the load The Minister to-day foreshadowed the steps that would be taken in order to economise in transport. He obviously foreshadowed the State control of milk distribution. I do not think he should be in a hurry in that matter. If the situation demands it, in the last resort, it must be done. I do not think it is very wise for a Minister to prosecute a man who is economising in transport by carrying a load both ways rather than the man who is wearing rubber and wasting petrol by going with his lorry empty.

I do not know whether I interpreted correctly what the Minister said. My note of what he said with regard to the transport of turf to non-turf areas is that our maximum capacity would be 450,000 tons. I do not think that is adequate for the requirements of Dublin alone. Can the Minister not increase our transport capacity? Can he not insist upon vehicles going out full—whether it is a train or a lorry— if there is freight available? I think the Minister foreshadowed that gas-producer plants will have to be more generally used in future.

I have heard—I do not know how true it is—that it is possible that gas producer plants will be fitted to our trains. The Minister said that many gas producer plants are being manufactured to meet the transport situation. I hope it will be found easier to use them than some people have found. I know cases where gas producers will not be allowed to go on the road; permits will not be given, even though they are wanted for essential services, and even though the neighbours of the people concerned have gas producer plants for these essential services. I know cases where people who are producing charcoal are refused permits to use these gas producer plants. The Minister knows that. That is a further reason why I would not give the Minister, or any individual, power of life and death over any citizen, or any class of citizen in the country.

We are all glad to hear that the rubber position is not so dangerous as it appeared in the past. I asked the Minister a question by way of interruption—I want him to take it as an interruption to elicit information. The Minister told us that as a result of the activities of his Department in getting new stocks and salvaging old stocks, the position has been improved. We were all glad to hear it, and we appreciate the efforts of the Minister and the Department. There is a very important rubber product that is not available in this country and is not made in this country— namely, tyres for tractors. I wonder if the Minister could do anything about them. I suppose they cannot be vulcanised or re-rubbered. It is very important in connection with food production that the Minister should get the big tractor tyres imported. The small tyres can be easily obtained. The Minister told us that there are 850 tons of copper sulphate available, and that our normal requirements are 3,000 tons. Are my notes correct?

Roughly correct.

That is a very serious position. Of course, the House is aware that the principal use of copper sulphate is for spraying potatoes to prevent blight. We have 850 tons as against a normal requirement of 3,000 tons and that at a time when we are growing more potatoes or, at least, when the necessity for growing a larger acreage is more urgent. The yield, of course, will be greatly impaired if we have not sufficient spraying material. I draw attention to the seriousness of that position not in any way to censure the Department or the Minister because I am quite satisfied that they have done their best, but if they can do a little more, it would be an improvement. Copper sulphate is required also now that we are thrown back on our own resources. It is very largely used for spraying fruit trees before and after blossoming. The figures given indicate a very serious situation. The Minister said that we were short of paper. I do not know what amount of straw has been delivered to the mills and I do not know what sort of newsprint it would make. The Minister said that our import of newsprint represents only 16 per cent. of our normal requirements. That is reflected in the size of our daily papers. In that connection, I wish to put a question to the Minister —I have not been asked by anybody to do so. I am doing it entirely on my own responsibility. I notice in newspapers published in this city that a complaint is regularly published in the form of a sort of framed advertisement that that firm is not getting its equitable ration of newsprint. I do not know whether that is true or not.

It is a matter for the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

The industrial end of it may be, but has the supply end no concern with the Minister? If so, why did he mention the 16 per cent. of imported newsprint?

The Minister for Supplies is responsible for the total supply. The Minister for Industry and Commerce distributes that supply amongst the various firms.

I think that the Minister for Supplies, who is two persons in one, is concerned with the total supply that comes in. Surely, then, he is concerned with the rationing of that supply.

As Minister for Industry and Commerce.

This is the only thing I know of which is rationed by another Minister than the Minister for Supplies.

A number of other things are rationed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

The statement of this newspaper firm should be either acknowledged or refuted.

The Deputy may raise the matter on the appropriate Vote—Industry and Commerce.

I am sorry if I was out of order. I am concerned merely as a member of the public. This statement appears so often that it ought to be answered.

The Deputy has been told that it arises on another Vote.

Our supply of petrol was down from the normal figure of 41,000,000 gallons to 13,000,000 gallons last year, and this year it will be less. That creates a serious situation. I suggest to the Minister that he should issue an Order making it an offence for any mechanically-propelled vehicle to be found empty on the public highway. If we are serious about using transport to the best advantage, then every vehicle on a public road should be laden.

The Minister said that 32 traders' licences were withdrawn last year, that quite a number more were being considered for revocation and that 1,114 cases are pending. It is time that the courts were set to work and that the Minister should cease filching from the people their rights and freedom as citizens. When the Minister makes an Order providing for the conservation of supplies and declaring it an offence to act contrary to the Order, then that Order should be handed over to the Gárda or inspectors and, if they track down an offender, the case should be tried in the courts and the punishment imposed by the courts.

If either side is dissatisfied, there is a right of appeal to a higher court until they tire going up. Then, there will be a standard case which will govern future similar cases and the person concerned will have his rights as citizen preserved. The consumer will have his rights preserved, too, and he will have the right to report an offence with a view to having proceedings taken. When punishment is imposed by the courts, the Minister should not have the right —six or twelve months afterwards— to revoke the licence of the offender, which means, in effect, taking away his livelihood. I suggest to the Minister that he should start anew on these lines. Let the punishment of offences rest with the courts. Let the licences which have been revoked be reinstated and let all such cases under consideration be dropped. That generous gesture would be appreciated. The fright which people whose licences have been revoked have received and the fright which those whose cases are under consideration have received will be a sufficient deterrent to any repetition of the offence. I am sure it is not the Minister's intention—it should not be—to punish anybody except as a deterrent to continuance of an offence that would be injurious to the public at large. The ends of justice would be well served by the Minister adopting that suggestion and leaving the courts to do the job they were set up to do—try offences alleged to be committed by citizens of the State.

It should never be the Minister's job to do that, and it certainly should not be in the hands of a civil servant behind closed doors. The revocation of a trader's licence, and the wiping out of the work of a lifetime, should not depend on the mood of a civil servant—whether he had a bottle of stout too much or too little for his lunch. The Minister cannot give personal attention to all those things; he must delegate his power to officials. Nominally, he is personally responsible, but in actual fact it is impossible for him to make a decision in all cases. Therefore, I think he should not take that responsibility; it should be the responsibility of the courts to mete out punishment when the offence has been proved. I would strongly appeal to the Minister to consider that matter. If he does not, I shall certainly put down a Motion asking the Dáil to request the Government to do so.

Twelve months ago, when price lists appeared in the advertising columns of the daily papers, the majority of the public laughed at them; they thought they were a humbug.

What about the weekly papers?

I am not considering the price of red-herrings this evening. Twelve months ago, the people laughed at those prices. They are not laughing at them to-day, and the Minister and his Department are to be congratulated on the war they have waged against the black market. If there were more co-operation from Deputies and from the general public in this war, it would end very quickly. The Minister has prevented a social revolution; the poor would have torn down the shops if prices had not been controlled. Those black market shops would be in every provincial town, if the Minister had not intervened. In so far as the public has co-operated with him, the nation is to be congratulated.

There are a few matters to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention. One is the question of fuel oil, lubricating oil and paraffin. In the small towns—there may not be many of them, but this matter is important in view of the rationing of light by the Electricity Supply Board—the new Intoxicating Liquor Act extends the time for the sale of liquor by, I think, four and a half hours per week. I happen to live in a small town which was supplied with light by a plant worked on fuel oil. During January and February our light was cut off at 12 o'clock summer time, and we had no light during the day. I should like to see the Minister consulting the Department of Justice with a view to postponing during the emergency the extension of the hours of trading of licensed shops, in order to effect a saving in fuel oil, and also in lubricating oil which is used in conjunction with fuel oil in the working of those engines.

On the question of candles, I have discovered through communications with the Department that the issue of candles to the general public is based on the 1938 purchases. I find that the oil companies are not fair in their treatment of the public. There is some slackness there, and I would ask the Minister to see that his Department exercises proper supervision over the distribution of those candles, particularly during the coming winter, when paraffin will not be available and the people will be more dependent on the supply of candles. I could particularise quite a lot in regard to my own locality, but a general statement of the position is that there is not a fair distribution of candles in the midlands. I have seen and heard of deliveries of candles in this month of April from the oil companies to the different shops, and I am credibly informed that these candles are being black marketed at 1/6 each. It is very hard to get proof of those things, but I have been in communication with the Department in regard to it for a considerable time, and if they would examine the matter thoroughly they would be doing a national service. In a particular town, I know one shop which had been closed for a number of years; business was not re-started there until 1941, and it is a mystery to everybody how that shop can have candles galore. I took the matter up with the oil companies, and the answer I got from an important official there was: "He is one of the lucky ones." There is something radically wrong there. Those are the only matters to which I wish to direct the Minister's attention.

There are a very few matters which have not been touched on in the course of this debate, and I should like to say a few words in regard to them. I refer particularly to farm requirements. As everybody here who is a farmer knows, when you go to buy many things which are essential on a farm every day you find that they are very hard to get, and then only at enhanced prices. I do not know why the price of those things is not controlled. To take an example, everybody knows that we used to be able to buy a hatchet, a felling axe, for 7/- or 8/- or 9/- at the outside, but now we would have to pay 35/-. Is there any justification for failure to control those prices? The same applies to buckets. Any that are available ——

Galvanised buckets.

That is what I am talking about. I do not know if they are manufactured in this country, but the purchaser should not be allowed to be robbed in regard to whatever supplies are available. I would seriously suggest to the Minister that some drive should be made in connection with scrap iron and metal. I do not know whether or not it would be a paying proposition on the part of the Haulbowline industry, which, I understand, is starting now, and which, according to a report I saw some time ago, will be in the position to meet to some extent the requirements of the people. Even iron for wheels or things of that kind is almost impossible to obtain, and the little that is available is at an enhanced price. The same applies to nuts and bolts. When you go to buy them you dare not grumble about the price; you are told: "Well, you are lucky to get them." As a matter of fact, a shopkeeper remarked to me not so long ago that if he could get £200 worth of goods he could sell them for £1,000. I do not see the Minister for Supplies doing anything at all in the way of controlling the price of those articles, although they are largely used by the farming community. The other day, I tried to buy a bill-hook, but it was not to be had. If I had succeeded in getting one I would have had to pay from 15/- to £1 for it. Whatever supplies are available should be sold at a controlled price, instead of at the price which can be got for them, owing to the scarcity of supplies.

Reference has been made here to-night to candles and paraffin. The rural traders have got a very raw deal regarding that. The meagre supply of paraffin for light which the rural community have has been withdrawn— half a gallon a month—and candles are not available. It is hard to picture what the countryside is like on dark nights. It is not so bad now, but the winter will come again and the Minister does not hold out much hope that there will be any increased supply of paraffin. Most towns and some villages have electric light, but there is no such thing in the country, where not half of 1 per cent. of the rural houses are lighted by electricity. The farmers have to attend to stock on dark winter nights and it is difficult for them to do so when they are dependent upon half a gallon of kerosene per month. The Minister should examine the whole kerosene position and allot a better quota to the rural areas. I know that the supply is short, but the rural community should have the first claim on it.

I feel it is my duty to pay a humble tribute to the Minister for Supplies and his Department for the very efficient way in which they have grappled with a momentous national situation. They are to be congratulated, when everything is taken into consideration, notwithstanding all that we have heard from Deputies who have an axe to grind. I am not going to advocate the blowing sky-high of supplies, which are scarce enough, and I hope the Minister will not hearken to that advice, which he has received here this evening. There is one matter I would like to bring to the Minister's notice. For the past few months, saddlers have had great difficulty in getting supplies of ticken for the stuffing of collars, straddles and hoosens. The situation is very serious for these people. Farmers are bringing these things in to be stuffed and saddlers will not be supplied with ticken unless they, in turn, give coupons to the wholesale dry goods merchants. Something definite should be done to deal with that. The coupon pages A, B, and C are to be used for ordinary clothing and no provision is made for the farmer or for the saddler. If any instructions have been issued regarding this matter, I would ask the Minister to repeat them, as there seems to be a misunderstanding.

In the poorer homes in rural districts, particularly amongst the working classes, when a baby is born, there should be some provision compelling the trader with whom those people deal to provide at least one candle per week for the attention of the baby at night. That is an important matter which deserves consideration, as it has been brought to my notice, by poor families of the working classes, that they cannot get any form of light, whether by oil or candle.

I would like to get some information from the Minister about the recent withdrawal of road licences in West Galway. All the permits for private lorry owners were withdrawn, as from the 1st of the month. There is a considerable amount of agitation amongst them as a result and the reasons for the action have not been made quite clear. I believe that the public will be prepared to accept the Minister's action philosophically enough, if they are given the reasons for it. So far as the scheme is operating, it does not seem as if there will be any worth-while saving of petrol, if the same services are to be given and if the motive power is to be petrol. The owners have been told that they can change to gas producers, and it has been suggested to me that that advice should have been given to the railway company some time ago, as they were more wasteful users of petrol than the private owners. Whether that is true or not, I do not know. The Department officials do not accept that statement at all, and maintain that the Great Southern Railway give a better mileage per gallon than the private owners. I have heard that statement made by an official and heard it equally vehemently contested by private owners.

I am sure the Minister is aware that a good deal of unemployment will be created by the Order. Even so, if the necessity is there, it will be faced and accepted; but there is genuine fear that the turning over of the transport facilities in a non-railway area like West Galway is not the best way to meet the transport requirements of the district. In remote parts of Connemara, and even in respect of north Mayo, I was requested to say that private lorry owners should be left scattered here and there, as the people would feel more secure then; and in time of sudden need, as happened when the flour supplies became scarce some time ago, the bulk of the required supplies, as soon as they became available in Galway or Westport, might be made available immediately in the remote districts. The Minister and his Department will probably hear a good deal of this matter in the future as private owners are organising. Personally, I should like to be supplied with the fullest information possible. I have a very open mind on the matter but I favour the private owner as I think he gives the best service to the community. If, however, the Minister can make a case for the new scheme, I believe the people will accept it philosophically in view of the emergency. I think the Minister should answer these specific points; firstly, why the railway company have not been asked to use gas-producer plants; secondly, if the service is to be maintained on its present scale and the railway company are not using gas producer plants, how does the Minister propose to bring about a saving in petrol? and thirdly, why the Minister selects non-railway areas for the initiation of these schemes? These are three points in which I am personally interested and on which I have not been able to get sufficient information so far.

The question of fuel supplies for the private consumer in Galway City is very much bound up with this question of the continuance in existence of the private owner, as it was the private owner who conveyed fuel supplies for private consumers to Galway City. Public transport was used mainly for the conveyance of national turf. That is, however, a minor matter, as I think the Army lorries could be utilised for that purpose. The public at all events have only heard one side of the story up to the present, and I should like the Minister to state his case in support of the new scheme in some detail. I heard it also suggested that this may be the thin end of the wedge for cutting out the private owner altogether after the emergency is over. The suggestion is that the Department is availing of the emergency to abolish the private owner, and that when the emergency is over there will be no such person as a private owner. That possibility is of more concern to some people than any other aspect of the matter I have mentioned.

It is interesting to hear some speakers on the Government benches express the opinion that there is a great lack of co-operation, particularly from what they call the opposite side of the House. It is also interesting to hear Deputy Laurence Walsh, a member of the Government Party, almost weep over the plight of the saddlers, harness-makers and farmers in his constituency. I suggest that if Deputy Walsh were doing his work, as a Deputy should, he would know that there is in operation in the Minister's Department, a scheme whereby the people whose plight he so much deplores are facilitated and helped in every possible way.

I rise principally to refer to the lack of encouragement given by the Minister's Department to secure the necessary co-operation from the community. I can assert, as one member of the House, that I have done everything possible since the inception of the emergency to assist the Government in its difficulties, to induce people to co-operate with the Government and to keep within the law, but I must say that the Minister is not setting a very good example himself. He is well aware by now that all sections of the community in the constituency that I have the honour to represent, including very many supporters of his own Party —in fact organised sections of his own Party—have protested against the partisan attitude displayed by the Minister in issuing information to the public in regard to all these matters of which it is essential they should be kept informed if they are to co-operate with the Government and keep within the law. I suggest to the Minister that at this stage he should review the position and that, if for no more compelling reason than the interests of common decency, he should see that a newspaper with the circulation which the Kilkenny People enjoys will receive an adequate share of the announcements that are really issued for the information of the taxpayer. I sincerely hope that the Minister will resume the same attitude which he was inclined to adopt recently when he apparently instructed the Secretary of his Department to arrange a discussion with the managing director of the concern on this question.

I suggest to the Minister that in the interests of co-operation he should set this headline. I come from a part of the country which, with all due respect to other districts, might justifiably be described as the most law-abiding part of the country. At the present time we are doing more than pulling our full weight and the Minister should, as far as his Department is concerned, give us some encouragement. The position in regard to issuing information to the community in Kilkenny should be put on an equitable basis and there should be no room in the present emergency for such narrow political partisan conduct as has been displayed up to the present.

There is one matter which I desire to bring specially to the Minister's notice. I know it is a very difficult and complex matter and that it will require a considerable staff to deal with it on any equitable basis. I refer to the matter of the distribution of cycle tyres which principally affects bog workers in my county. Unless this matter is attended to, I believe that there will be a considerable diminution in turf production this year. I make that statement on the authority of the county surveyor and the assistant surveyor of my district. Bogs which are suitable for the employment of large gangs of men are situated in certain places which entail a journey of ten or 12 miles on the part of some of these men.

This year, owing to the difficulty of obtaining cycle tyres, the number of workers employed is much smaller and fewer gangs are available. I know that when individual applications were made to the Minister's Department this year, replies were sent to the applicants suggesting that they should get in contact with the local traders and stating it would be impossible for the Department to intervene. Of course, as far as the local traders are concerned, I am not alleging that there is any black marketing in that line of business although I have heard a lot about it but bog workers live in remote districts in the country. They are not very conveniently placed in relation to towns where cycle dealers carry on business. They are very much handicapped inasmuch as people living near towns where the cycle dealers have their establishments can keep in much closer contact with these cycle dealers. I quite admit that it is a very difficult problem to solve and even if an attempt were made to do so, there would probably still be a great deal of dissatisfaction. Some people might say that others got cycle tyres while they themselves were more in need. I think if some system were adopted on the same lines as that under which petrol coupons were issued to the county surveyors last year, or that under which tyres are issued to members of the L.D.F. or if surveyors were asked to distribute tyres on an equitable basis amongst these workers, it would go some way towards relieving the situation. The surveyors might be asked to distribute such supplies as were available to workers who most constantly worked on the bogs last year.

In conclusion, I wish to congratulate the Minister and his Department for the excellent way in which I know, from my contacts with the Department, they have handled the situation with regard to commodities in short supply. I know business men all over the country who visited the Department and who had a very different opinion after leaving it from that which they had before going there. They went away quite satisfied that everything possible was being done. I also want to say—and I believe I am justified in saying—that while I hold no brief for the people in the black market business, I am afraid there is a little too much publicity being given to it and that all our business men are being tarred with the same brush. That is not at all right. I believe that 98 per cent. of our business men are quite honest and deserving of the gratitude of the people. They are not attempting to profiteer, although their position at present and for the past few years is and has been very difficult. Most commodities are in short supply, but still they have to pay the same rates of wages, the same taxes, the same licence fees and so on. Some people talk so lightly about this matter that one would imagine that all the business men were profiteers. I hold quite a different view. I am quite prepared to support any action, no matter how drastic, to deal with the few who are offending but all our business men should not be placed in the same category as the few who offend.

I do not want to minimise in any way the difficulties created by the many complex problems with which the Minister and his Department have to deal. In present circumstances, with the problem of the shortage of essential supplies and the equitable distribution of these supplies among all classes, it is not by any means an easy matter to handle the situation with any degree of success and to avoid criticism. It may appear that the Minister is not getting the co-operation which one might expect to be forthcoming from the people. I do not think it is the fault of the people that it is so. I am afraid that the Minister himself to a great extent is responsible for the lack of co-operation which exists. The problem of controlling prices and of distributing available supplies is made more difficult by the attitude of the people, because some people are prepared to buy at any price. They are not prepared to make any sacrifice, and when they need goods which are in short supply, they are prepared to secure those goods at any price, and possibly that attitude gives rise to the situation in which we find ourselves at present.

I think the attitude of the Minister to the whole matter is all wrong. He has not sought, in a proper spirit, the co-operation of the people. His attitude is the attitude of the dictator and his policy is the use of force, pressure and compulsion rather than seeking the co-operation of the people. I do not think he will succeed, particularly in dealing with the Irish people, who may be led, but will not be driven. The attitude of the Minister to the people as a whole and to this Parliament is wrong. He is the one Minister of the Government who has adopted an absolutely wooden attitude towards this House. No matter what sort of help or co-operation was offered; no matter what kind of constructive suggestions were made or what sort of useful information was contributed by Deputies during the debate on the Minister's Vote in the past, the Minister was never prepared to accept them. He was never prepared to make use of any useful and constructive criticism which came from any benches other than his own. It is to be regretted that that should be the attitude of the Minister in the very responsible position—possibly the most responsible position—in the Government at present.

That attitude of the Minister is applicable to his whole activity in relation to the problem of supplies and their distribution. He has made Orders and he has made decisions— very important and drastic decisions— affecting the lives of many people, without any attempt at consultation with those who are in the best position to advise him. He evidently thought he was omniscient and that he and his cloistered officials in the Department were quite capable of dealing with the many complex problems which have arisen. The result has been the bringing about of very serious discontent and disapproval, and a lack of co-operation on the part of the people as a whole.

He has not sought their co-operation in the right spirit, and he has failed completely to get that co-operation which, in my opinion, is absolutely essential if the tasks with which he is charged are to be brought to a successful conclusion. To a great degree, the Minister's attitude is responsible for the very grave situation which exists in the country at present. The advice and the co-operation of honest, decent and trustworthy businessmen who were willing and anxious to co-operate on many matters were ignored. They resent that attitude deeply, and I do not think anyone can blame them.

Deputies have referred to the attitude of the Minister on a matter which has aroused a good deal of public interest recently, that is, the revocation of certain licences. We all appreciate the necessity for rigid control and for keeping records so as to ensure that those people who are entitled under the rationing system to certain goods will get their quota and to prevent illicit traffic and black market activity. The Minister has taken up a certain line with regard to these matters. He told us that 32 traders had been deprived of their licences and that 1,114 prosecutions were pending. I do not at all question the Minister's bringing prosecutions in order to prevent irregularities and to ensure the carrying out of Orders which have been made.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share