Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Mar 1944

Vol. 92 No. 18

Committee on Finance. - Vote on Account, 1944-45 (Resumed).

There is one thing that has not been mentioned here, so far, and that is, that a lot of time, to my mind, since this Dáil was formed, has been wasted in discussing the salaries of Deputies, and I was surprised when I heard people say that the allowances were not enough.

That does not arise.

Does it not arise on this money question?

No. It is statutory. Only on an express motion could that matter be discussed.

Very well, Sir. Take the case of widows' pensions. There are many widows in this country whose husbands, before they passed away, had been out of work for a considerable time because they could not find work and, as a result, their insurances lapsed. These widows get a pension of 5/-, home assistance amounting to 1/-, and a voucher to the value of 1/6. These people, to my mind, have been forgotten altogether by the Government and by the Minister concerned.

In the rural areas old age pensioners, up to the present, have only got a pension of 10/- a week, which is now going to be increased by 2/6. I suggest to the Minister and the Government that the voucher system in this case should be done away with altogether. Let the person concerned get £1 a week or 30/-, as the case may be, and do not be wasting time on vouchers and making paupers out of honest people after giving 70 years of service to this country. They have to go with the voucher to this shop and to that shop, and sometimes they do not get what they want. I suggest to the Minister that it would be better in that case to give the cash directly to the people concerned, whether it amounts to 20/- or 30/-, according to the value of the £1, because the expenditure would not be so great since the cost of paper, the employment of clerks, and so on, involved in the voucher system, is eating up the funds that these old people should be getting after 70 years of service to the nation.

I heard two Deputies mentioning the black market. One said that you could get all the sugar you wanted for 1/- a lb., and another said that you could get all the tea you wanted for £1 per lb. I say that these Deputies are not doing their duty to the people who elected them if they know that that is happening and are not prepared to give the particulars to the Minister for Supplies. The working-class person cannot afford to pay £1 for a lb. of tea, and any Deputy who knows of such a case should report it to the Minister for Supplies and have it stopped immediately. Another thing has occurred since the local elections. Heretofore, the business of the country, generally, was carried on by the members of the local councils, who got no allowances except expenses at the rate of 6d. a mile. To-day county managers are being paid £20 a, week and it is not in the interests of the ratepayers that these jobs should have been engineered for friends of the Government in some cases. These men have been appointed at £20 a week to carry out the duties which should be left to the elected representatives of the people who are in touch with the people. There is no man in any county who understands the needs of a county better than the man who lives amongst the people there and who meets them every day. County managers have been appointed and grants have been given to urban areas, but we find that the local people must put up £300 in respect of any grant they get.

That is a matter which should be looked into because the majority of the ratepayers to-day, through inability to get necessary supplies, are unable to meet the demands made upon them. There are some people making money hand over fist, but many of the small business people cannot get supplies and they have to provide this amount of £300. The Government should not continue that system, because, if it is continued, the rates will be increased every year. Then the Government introduces a scheme under which men will not be allowed to work more than so many days, and if this arrangement by which the local people are to be asked to put up £300 every day in respect of grants in order to give a few days' employment to the unemployed is continued, I do not know where it will end. I am one of the ordinary rank and file. I have lined up at the labour exchange during short-time in the flour milling industry and I have been sick at different periods. National health insurance is another matter which I understand the Government controls, and we are told——

The Government does not control national health insurance. It is the administration of the fund the Deputy is discussing.

Do they not control the fund?

I do not think so. It is administered by a society established by statute.

Yes, but, if my recollection is correct, when the Minister was asked to increase national health insurance, he said he had no mandate from the workers or their associations to do so, and when asked to increase old age pensions, he said the public purse would not allow it. I understand the Government controls the national health insurance fund and to-day the amount given is 15/-. If a man with a fairly decent job falls sick, he gets 15/-, after the first nine days, to keep his family. This position will have to be remedied in the interest of the class I represent, the working class, which is the only class which suffers in this respect. It is a matter which needs attention in view of the fact that the cost-of-living bonus laid down by the Government amounts to 12/- per week. Hundreds of our people get 7/6 after six months and referee doctors are sent around to see if a man is out getting a little fresh air, and if he looks healthy about the face, he is certified fit for work. The Government has a lot to do with these things, according to the information I have, and I say to the Minister that it was the working class put this Government into power. The people who are benefiting to-day are the people who were opposed to them, while the workers are the sufferers.

We have heard a lot about subsidisation and I heard Deputy Cogan say that all Parties voted against his motion in respect of subsidies. I believe subsidies are necessary to enable the small farmer to carry on, and when the Farmers' Party voted against them they voted against their own interest, as the majority of them represent small farmers in the West of Ireland. That is why I voted for subsidies for farmers.

During my time in this House, I have had on a couple of occasions to bring to the attention of the Ceann Comhairle the fact that, out of 138 people elected to come here and listen to the views put forward, it was not possible to get 20 people to devote their time to the business of the House. It is not possible for Deputies to remain here all the time, but they should spend the best part of their time listening to the views of different Deputies and not merely come in when the division bell rings and ask: "What is wrong now?" They do not even know what is going on. When they go before the people, they tell them they are going to do everything, but they cannot afford the time to listen to the debates. New blood has come into the Dáil and these Deputies should be prepared to come in and listen to the views put forward. The view of every Deputy is to be respected, and this is one matter on which I will insist for the future. I am a member of a county council on which the different Parties are represented, and the various members go there and listen to the discussions, but here that is not the position.

There are three topics before the House; the attendance of Deputies is not one of them.

It is costing money and I thought we could talk on anything on an Estimate.

It must be relevant.

It is relevant because Deputies are being paid to come here and listen to the debates.

It is not relevant.

Very well. You will have to excuse me, Sir, as I am not conversant with the procedure of the House.

The subjects agreed on for discussion were the cost of living, food production, and turf.

Mr. Larkin

He is dealing with the cost of living of Deputies.

We have heard a lot about fuel, and I heard some people say that we will never go back to coal, while others ask how we are to carry on if we do not get coal. If we do not get coal for our industries which depend on power, turf will not give the speed we want in those industries.

Some Deputies dealt with the position of lowly-paid civil servants. One Deputy referred to the price of flour. It is evident that he was not acquainted with the facts of the case. In my constituency flour costs 4/- a stone. The price of flour in rural areas is higher than in cities, where the workers are more highly paid. I understand that the difference in price is supposed to be caused by the cost of freight. In connection with supplies of fuel, people who in the past sold timber in a small way are now compelled to sell it by weight. Hitherto they could sell timber blocks by the bag. As a result, a monopoly in the sale of timber has been given practically to certain people. Those who can afford to buy five tons of timber, and who can put down £10, can get it. At the present time timber is being sent in large quantities from Wexford to Dublin while people in rural districts find it hard to get one cwt. Why is that allowed? Farmers are not now allowed to cut down timber without a permit. People are told that they can get turf. The majority of them are not burning turf if they can use gas, electric power or anthracite coal. When the war ends the women of this country will never forget the time they had trying to light turf fires. A bellows costs 10/- or 11/- Turf may be suitable in farmhouses with big chimneys, but when poor people have to pay 3/2 per cwt. for it, they find it deficient for heating purposes. Turf is no substitute for coal and never will be. Ranges have been put into all the new houses. It was the foundries advocated the installation of ranges.

I do not agree with Deputies who say that there is a scarcity of labour. How could there be, when we have 71,000 people signing the unemployment register? There are plenty of men willing and able to work if they get a living wage. The farmers, of course, are looking after their own interests. They want higher prices for their produce, and they get all the help they require from the Government, but they expect their workers to live on £2 a week. I direct attention to the rents charged for the cottages which have been built recently by local bodies. The rents are 2/6 weekly, compared with 1/- for cottages built under previous schemes. I suggest to the Minister that instead of building sanatoria, county homes and mental hospitals, houses should be provided for the people and let at reasonable rents. If we had decent houses, with sanitary arrangements, and if the people had good nourishing food that would prevent the spread of tuberculosis. If one walks down O'Connell Street or Grafton Street one would imagine there was no poverty here. However, on the way to Leinster House one meets people who ask for a copper. I saw poor people in O'Connell Street last night asking for alms in a land in which one would imagine there was full and plenty. Some time ago this country sent £100,000 to help the people of another country. At a meeting of the Labour Party I was opposed to sending money to India at a time when our own people were in want.

That matter does not arise. It was decided quite recently.

It was decided and there was very little protest from any part of this House about it.

The Deputy was in the House then.

There was no debate about it.

If the Deputy did not avail himself of the opportunity he may not reopen it in this debate.

It is gone now.

Yes. It would be very good if we had it back. As one who moves amongst the plain people, I want to point out that in the past on Fridays I had to certify to relieving officers that people who want home assistance are in need. A new system has been introduced now, by which such applications must be submitted to the county manager before home assistance is granted. I want to call attention also to the position of workers who have returned from Britain but whose insurance cards are retained there. In some cases these men must pay £2 6s. before these cards are released. A man after coming out of a sanatorium should get back the stamps for the six months previous. Such a man's national health benefits are a very important matter. The Government should contact those on the far side and arrange that these stamps will be to such a man's credit. At present the money is lying dead and the home assistance officer has to help these people, although they have that credit on the other side. I hope the Minister, when replying, will deal with the points which I have raised and give his ideas on them.

This sum of almost £15,000,000 which the House is being asked to vote on account represents almost one-third of the total sum, £44,982,644, estimated to be required for the public services for the coming year. I am sure the House and the Minister know full well that we will be asked, at a later stage, to vote further supplementary sums. Some time ago, the Minister commented on that unsatisfactory method of providing moneys in this House and undertook to do something about it. That system of bringing in Supplementary Estimates has been growing up here for some years past. The House should know at this time of the year the total bill required to provide the public services for the next financial year.

When we add the amount required for central fund services and bring in the Appropriations-in-Aid, mainly out of taxation, we find the striking fact that the Bill represents, for the taxpayer, approximately a sum of £1,000,000 per week and roughly 6/- or 7/- per individual per week. That is a very substantial sum for a poor country. What strikes one is the magnitude of the bill, the ever-growing burden of taxation, which constitutes, in this particular instance, a new level in the Fianna Fáil record of squandermania. There is an increase in the present year of over £4,000,000.

Whatever danger may be attached to the recent international events, whatever fear may exist in the public mind about the possibility of economic pressure from outside, the one thing that has constituted, and is constituting a real danger and menace to the stability and future economic security of this country is the unhealthy and unsound economic condition, which is steadily growing under the control of an inept Government. I am not by any means an alarmist regarding the amount of money spent by a Government, provided that the taxpayer and the country generally get value for the money spent and provided that there is some relation between the productive capacity of the State and the tax the people are asked to provide for the purposes of government. We find, however, that the volume of production has altered in inverse ratio to our taxation: the curve of taxation has shown a steady upward trend all the time, while the curve of production has shown a steady downward trend. That constitutes an obviously grave danger to the economic structure of the State, which is the fundamental point about which this House should concern itself. We must consider what effect there is likely to be caused on our economic position in the future, by the bill that this country has to face at the present time, which is a new high level in the extravagance of the present Government.

When we turn to the other side, to see the results of that huge expenditure, we take up the Irish Trade Journal of December last, page 150, Table 2. We are told that:—

"The total volume of agricultural output declined by 7.7 per cent. in 1942-43, as compared with 1941-42. Live stock and live-stock products showed a decline of 7.8 per cent. and crops and turf a decline of 7.4 per cent."

The Statistical Abstract shows a decline of approximately 5.5 per cent. in the previous year; so that, in two years, there was a decline of 5.5 and 7.7 in the total agricultural output. That includes turf production, which is thrown in to try to improve the figure to some extent, since turf production has increased.

I would like to call the attention of the House to this particular aspect of the figures. Taking the year 1930 as 100, our production in live stock and live-stock products was only 78.7 per cent. or a reduction of 21 per cent. If we take industrial production we find there is a substantial decline also. Taking the year 1936 at 100, we find that for last year the figure stands at 80.7. In the case of industrial employment, the number of persons employed, taking the September, 1939, figure at 100, was standing at 84.1 in September, 1943. Taking the wages at 100 in September, 1939, the average for all industrial work in a variety of industries here was standing at 118.1 in September last.

Turning to the cost of living at mid-November, 1943, there is a note on page 172 of the journal:—

"As regards comparison with pre-war, the index figure for all items at mid-August, 1932, is 121 points or 70 per cent. above that for mid-August, 1939, and the increases in the indexes for the various groups are as follows: Food, 103 points, or 65 per cent.; clothing, 214 points, or 95 per cent.; fuel and light, 158 points, or 88 per cent.; and sundries, 133 points, or 69 per cent."

All the various essential items there in the cost of living have increased. Food shows the lowest increase of the lot. Side by side with that figure we find that our exports have shown a substantial decline. The various items that we exported in considerable quantities some years ago have now disappeared as exportable goods. Bacon, eggs and butter have disappeared as exports; to-day this country is relying, so far as agricultural exports are concerned at all events, almost exclusively on live stock, and we are exporting very little outside the agricultural group.

The Minister for Supplies, speaking recently at University College, mentioned the fact that at present we are exporting £2 worth of goods for every £1 worth we are importing. That is true. He went on to point out how desirable it was to be building up sterling assets at the present time and anticipated a post-war situation when we can make use of these sterling assets to buy essential requirements, capital goods, industrial machinery, transport vehicles, and machinery for agriculture and for the restocking of the larder of industry. I think nothing short of a blind optimist, an orthodox economist, would venture at present to prophesy that sterling assets that have been built up in the past and that are being built up at present will be available in an unlimited way for use by us in the post-war period. No matter how willing Great Britain may be to permit us the free use of these assets, I do not think that economically she will be in a position to liquidate her debts in goods.

Reference was made to international problems of this character at Hot Springs in America over a year ago. It was agreed that international trade would have to be more and more on a goods basis. I believe we will find ourselves in the position that Great Britain will not be able post-war to give us our requirements in capital goods and permit us to pay for these by sterling assets. I have taken occasion in the past to stress the importance from our point of view of preserving the present reasonable standards of prosperity in this country, the necessity for building up our export trade at least to the level of some years ago. I believe that we will find a situation arising when we will have to pay for whatever goods we require to import with goods. We may be allowed, to some limited extent, to use our sterling assets, but I think it would be very foolish, that we would be living in a fool's paradise, if we build on the hope and the possibility that we will be permitted the free use of whatever sterling assets we have at present.

In my opinion, one of the major economic considerations for this House and the country is how we can expand our production. Nothing has been done about that. Even what we have tried to achieve during the present emergency regarding the provision of essential food for our people appears to me as an ignominious failure. No organised or systematic effort has been made to harness our people to the work of production. That is the reason why, to a great extent, we have failed. It appears a strange anomaly that, during what ought to be a most profitable period for a food-producing country, a war period, in an almost exclusively food-producing country, we have a situation where our output is declining. Surely there is something fundamentally wrong when you find a decline in agricultural output at a time that ought to be most attractive for food-producing countries and when all other countries, even belligerent countries that have to build up a mighty army to engage in a war, had the capacity to expand substantially their agricultural output.

Great Britain did that. We are well aware that Great Britain neglected her agriculture for years, that she had no interest in agriculture. She was mainly concerned with manufacturing goods and exchanging them in every market in the world for the cheapest food available and a sound, prosperous agricultural economy could not be fitted into that picture. When thrown back almost on her own resources during this war, however, she has expanded her production by 70 per cent., while in two years our production has gone down first by 5 per cent. and last year by 7.7 per cent. In a situation like that, with our industrial production going down — you could understand the industrial production going down owing to the impossibility of securing raw materials— is there any possible explanation for the fact that our agricultural production has fallen, when it should be the other way and when everybody has a right to expect an expansion in agricultural production?

It is in these circumstances that we have a steady rise in the burden of taxation and that the Government are complacent about it and complacent about a situation that is progressively growing, where our exports are disappearing, and where that idea that has been aimed at for a good many years by the Taoiseach, a self-sufficient Éire, an isolated Éire, may come to pass. Let us hope that, if our exports disappear to that extent, we will not live to regret it. I think the writing is on the wall. There is a warning there for the Government that, if the situation develops, we will be economically in a horrible position post-war. At present we know very well that industrially we are marking time; in fact we are not even marking time, we are drifting downwards. There will be a huge capital expenditure required in the immediate post-war period when foreign exchange can only be provided in goods. The only way we have of providing foreign exchange is by agricultural production, by the surpluses which we do not require ourselves. It is of paramount importance that the problem should be attended to in a systematic and constructive way and not by the muddling methods that have been operated here for some years.

Bound up with this whole problem of the cost of living which we have given notice of our intention to discuss and which Deputy McGilligan has handled in great detail, is the situation illustrated here in regard to the profits made in certain branches of industry and the failure of the Government to control profits and prevent profiteering. Industries that were scarcely able to pay a dividend before the war are now earning up to 27 and 34 per cent. They are allowed to pay only a certain dividend it is true, but they are putting away huge sums to reserve. That situation, in my opinion, is definitely reacting on the cost of raw materials for the agricultural industry. Take one item alone. This Dáil provides a subsidy of £500,000 for artificial manures, but the output of that industry is about one-tenth of what it was pre-war. Yet, when we look up the profits or balance sheets of firms engaged in the industry, we see that the profits are higher than ever they were. If the output on any farm in this country were only one-tenth of its pre-war volume, would any Government stand over the proposal that that farmer should get higher profits than ever he made before the war? That is a situation that we complacently allow to continue and are actually nursing in this country at the present time. We are allowing certain industries to pack away huge profits without any regard to the effect that it is having on our economic position generally. That is happening in the case of many industries producing raw materials essential for agriculture and it is throwing an almost impossible burden on the agricultural community. It is certainly retarding the productive capacity of the agricultural industry. I do not want to go into the matter in too great detail, but it is obvious from the various balance sheets to which Deputy McGilligan referred that that situation is imposing great burdens on the classes to which he referred—people with fixed incomes, old people living on incomes from small investments and other people of that kind. These people are bearing silently great hardships at the present time while other sections of the community are permitted to get away with huge profits.

It is true too that the present level of our currency is a definite menace to the country. Our currency pre-war amounted, only to £16,000,000. The last account I saw from the Central Bank showed that it had reached £32,000,000 and I suppose it would be in the region of £34,000,000 at the present time. There is a spirit of extravagance abroad. One thing I feel should be done by the Government is to encourage saving by our people. If you can get a number of people to save money or to invest it, at least you will be taking them out of the market as potential buyers of goods that other people may require or are badly in need of. People who are in a more opulent way, who are not struck by the necessity for saving or of putting by for the rainy day are now competing in a limited market for these goods. Surely it is time for the Government to encourage a greater spirit of saving.

I think the time is opportune for the Government to look for money by way of loan so as to have the spending of that money controlled and to ensure that it will be expended advantageously for the country as a whole. The problem is now one that is very difficult. I do not want to minimise in any way the difficulties that have arisen because of the substantial sums of money coming into this country from workers who have been forced to go abroad to seek employment. I believe that something like £80,000 per week is coming in at the present time. We have to honour that money in goods. It cannot be stopped, of course, because people who have gone abroad have a perfect right to send it back to their families. You might as well say that you should try to prevent people who send out cattle from bringing back money for these cattle. The whole situation is brimful of difficulties. The only way it could have been prevented was by providing national schemes of work that would create assets and productive employment here. I regret that the Drainage Bill that is now before the House was not introduced three or four years ago and tackled in a big way. It would have eventually proved a national asset. It would have promoted the productivity of a substantial acreage of land that is almost worthless at the present time.

I can never account for the extraordinary discrepancy in prices of a number of essential commodities. Take, for instance, the prices of woollens as compared with the price for wool paid to the farmer. Surely the price of the finished article bears no relation at all to the cost of the raw material? There is obviously a form of profiteering carried on in that industry. The Government in our opinion have absolutely failed to control such industries. The Emergency Order which prevents an industry from paying more than a certain amount by way of dividend is not sufficient to control the profits that are being made by these industries.

So far as the cost of living generally is concerned, it is substantially lower in Great Britain. I admit, of course, that Great Britain is providing huge subsidies to keep the cost of living stable. She is providing well over £200,000,000 by way of subsidies and I fear further subsidies will have to be provided here. The whole position should be further examined and certain classes in this country, the middle classes particularly, should be further helped by way of subsidy because their position is a difficult one. Their income has remained more or less static, and the financial burdens thrown on them as a result of the emergency have lowered their standard of living and have denied them opportunities of educating their families. I agree with Deputy McGilligan and other Deputies that the increase in the incidence of disease, particularly of tuberculosis, is a direct result of that situation, of the high and uncontrolled cost of living.

I direct the Minister's attention to that situation. So far as the high burden of taxation is concerned, the Minister may suggest that I cannot have it both ways, that we cannot provide further subsidies and children's allowances without increasing the burden of taxation. That is true. But take one Department — the Department of Supplies. That Department is to cost over £4,000,000 during the coming financial year. It appears to me that we are not getting value for that amount. And that is not the full cost of the Department. The bulk of the personnel of the Department of Supplies has been seconded from other Departments and the salaries of those officers are charged against the Departments to which they are permanently attached, so that the Department of Supplies is costing substantially more than £4,250,000. It is on items of that sort that we should expect savings to be effected rather than on social services which are beneficial to certain sections of the community which at present require assistance. I should not be alarmed at expenditure if the country were getting value for it and if our taxation were related in any way to our production or productive capacity. But surely the Government, Parliament and the Minister ought to be alarmed at a situation in which taxation is steadily rising and our production is steadily falling.

Like Deputy Hughes, I am not satisfied that the taxpayers are getting sufficient return for the money that is being spent. I notice that there are substantial increases in a large number of the 73 heads of expenditure now before us since last year's figures were considered by the House. There is one item to which I should like specially to refer — the expenditure in connection with the Irish Tourist Board. A very large increase in that expenditure is proposed for the coming year. I think that the members of the House should be given some information as to how those moneys are to be spent.

In the Vote on Account, the Estimates of expenditure are not itemised. Such information as the Deputy desires should be sought when the Estimate comes before the House. Matters discussed now should be of a general nature. The Deputy was not present when it was agreed that certain topics — the cost of living and food production — should be discussed on this Vote. The items of the Estimates should be dealt with in the debate on the Estimates.

As I was not able to be here yesterday, I was not aware of that arrangement. Every member of the House must admit, as was pointed out so ably by Deputy O'Leary, that we have a great deal of poverty. A large number of our workers were forced to emigrate and those who have been left at home are required to labour under circumstances which should not exist in any Christian State. The majority of our workers are mere slaves and very little is being done by the Government to effect any appreciable improvement in their condition. We know very well that, for the past ten years, social services have improved considerably but they have not improved unknown to the taxpayer. During the early years of the Fianna Fáil Administration, we had the Minister for Finance, who was then Minister for Local Government and Public Health, going around the country cutting tapes, turning keys and opening big housing schemes. Speeches were made about the improvement in the social services and, particularly, in respect of housing. After 12 months, we saw the Guards and bailiffs throwing the furniture of the tenants of those houses out on the streets because they could not pay the rent. We, who live in rural parts of the country, know that many local authorities are charging for their houses 8/11, 7/6 and 6/10 per week. No agricultural labourer or ordinary labourer could afford to pay such a rent out of his wages. I suppose that, in a good many cases, it is the local authority which is to blame for not having houses erected which could be let at 2/6, 3/- or 3/6 per week.

We have 12,000,000 acres of arable land. We read in various magazines and books statements by great economists that one acre of land can produce sufficient food to keep one man alive for a year. I suppose we have now only about 2,500,000 of a population and, while we have 12,000,000 acres of arable land, we are unable to produce sufficient to keep away the spectre of starvation. Something must be radically wrong somewhere. Any Deputy here can stand up and tell the Minister the grievances under which the people of his constituency labour. After 20 years of native administration, we have unemployment, poverty, emigration, debt, low wages, and starvation. Deputy Hughes tells us that the Government should advise the people to save. What result is likely to come from an appeal to an agricultural labourer to save money out of his £2 a week? If he presented his balance sheet, it would be found that, to secure the necessaries of life, he would have to expend about £3 15s. or £4 a week. We should talk in a commonsense way. People are not sufficiently paid to save.

A great deal of talk took place here during the past 20 years and where has it led us? After all the talk in this House, 100,000 workers had to leave Dun Laoghaire or Rosslare for England, where they are in receipt of £7 or £12 per week. In England, before the present war broke out, there were marches of unemployed in all the big cities, including London, Liverpool and Manchester. The unemployed carried banners with the inscriptions: "We want food; we want work; we are starving."

Some years ago the unemployed in England carried a coffin as a protest into No. 10, Downing Street. Nothing could be done then to satisfy the hunger that existed among those unfortunate people or to put them into work, but when war broke out England could find enough money to spend £15,000,000 a day on the destruction of mankind, and on the destruction of the gifts that God gives to man. We have the very same position in this country to-day. We have the work, and we had the men. I am not inclined to agree with Deputy O'Leary that there is no shortage of labour here. I see a shortage of labour in my part of the country.

Is there no one signing at the Labour Exchange in your area?

According to communications that I received from the Board of Works they say they are sorry that they cannot see their way to give us a grant as there are not enough unemployed registered in the district electoral division. That is the foundation I have for making my statement. I take it that the Board of Works must have the correct information. We cannot have any progress here while we are working on borrowed money. I have already referred to the conditions that prevailed in various parts of England before the war broke out. When war did break out, every man was put into productive employment. Even the women were put to work. Those of them who could not work were paid for looking at those who were working. Agents were sent over here to recruit people to take employment in England. We know of the numbers that have gone over. They are earning from £7 to £10 a week and are able to send home £3 or £4 a week. As I have said, we have the work here that requires to be done but the strange thing is that we cannot get it done. We have schemes of great national importance, such as bog development, road making and afforestation, that need to be carried out, and every time that representations are made to the Minister for Finance in connection with these schemes we are told that he is giving them sympathetic consideration but regrets that there are no funds at his disposal to carry out such schemes.

Mr. Larkin

That is a very gentlemanly answer.

I say that the Minister and the Government are responsible for such a state of affairs. If they wanted to have money at their disposal they could have it. Every Party in this House, with the exception of the Party that moved the motion and a few other Deputies, voted against the motion recently brought forward by the Clann na Talmhan Party which proposed to give a bounty of £3 per acre on land. Many Deputies seemed to look on the motion as a piece of great nonsense. They laughed at the foolish idea of the Farmers' Party putting it forward. Money costs nothing to create, and I fail to see why a proposal of that kind was not brought forward by the Government and implemented without leaving it to the intelligence of the Farmers' Party to introduce it.

None of them is here now.

That is not my fault. The point that I want to stress is that, in the present state of affairs, I can see no hope of an improvement for workers or farmers. Deputy O'Leary last night said that the agricultural labourer is not getting enough and urged that he should be paid more. That is quite right, but Deputy O'Leary did not say anything about giving the farmer an increased price for what he produces so as to enable him to pay a higher wage. If we compel the farmer to pay a wage that he is not able to pay, then we will have to do something about increasing the price of what he produces.

Is he not getting that already?

The agricultural labourer has got an increase, but I say it is not enough. He wants more. Under the present system you cannot increase wages unless you increase the price of what the farmer produces. I am quite satisfied that political freedom, such as we have, is not worth one straw unless we have financial and economic freedom. I know it would not be in order for me to speak about the money that is to be given to the Tourist Development Association. I suppose we will have those people developing the Lakes of Killarney and other scenery about the country.

The Deputy has admitted that he is not in order. He should not sin against the light.

It would be much better to have people well fed than to have them hungry looking at the Lakes of Killarney. I say that kind of thing is nonsense and is definitely a waste of public money. I did not know about the arrangements that were made in connection with this Vote, but I suppose I will be able to speak later on the various Estimates when they come up for discussion.

That is established practice. Details of the Estimates are not discussed on the Vote on Account any year.

I am only a new Deputy.

Mr. Larkin

The Deputy has a much wider field on the Vote on Account than he will have on the Estimates.

Yes, if he keeps to general questions of policy or expenditure.

Deputy Hughes pointed out that the people are not getting a sufficient return for all the money that the Department of Supplies is costing them. I am inclined to agree with him that this Department seems to be costing the State a lot. The return that the people are getting for that cost is probably not worth talking about. As a matter of fact, we have a Department of Supplies with no supplies. I would not mind if the Department was run on an honest basis. I think that the whole lot of it is a racket. I hope the Chair will excuse the expression.

Mr. Larkin

That is the real black market.

We have certain commodities which are imported by the Irish Shipping Company. If I am rightly informed the Secretary of that Department is a member, or chairman of that board. The Secretary of that Department has within his hands the giving of permits for the export or manufacture of certain commodities.

Is not that administration of the Department?

I am sorry; I must admit it is. However, I have a number of questions on the Order Paper to-day, and we will have the Minister to deal with them. The good would be taken out of them if I had not the Minister here to deal with them. I will leave that matter over until this afternoon.

I am quite satisfied that no results can be achieved until such time as the Government take over control of the currency. The issue of currency should be in the hands of the Government. When it is, they will be in a position to issue the amount of money that they see there is need for. I do not wonder that the Minister for Finance is sighing and yawning when he hears anyone talking about currency. He was at it himself before he got into power and so was the Taoiseach. They said that as soon as they were elected one of the first things to be tackled would be the currency problem: that they would see that the banks would no longer be the masters. They have been in power now for more than ten years, and during that period they have taken no steps to see that we had our own currency in operation. I want to warn the Minister and the Government that, until they control the currency, they will have to go on taxing the people to a greater extent than the people can bear. As it is, they are only whipping a dead horse.

Take the scheme in the Children's Allowances Act. I agree that it is a good one, but it is the taxpayer who will have to bear the cost of it. I would much prefer if there was no such scheme in operation, but instead that the heads of families were paid a living wage and were able to live a Christian life in accordance with the principles laid down by Pope Leo for the workers. What is the good of all the talk that we have from a number of Labour Deputies about the poverty and destitution that exist? One ounce of action is worth a ton of talk. What are they doing to try to wreck the present system by political action? Talk will not do it. On the train last evening I met a number of Cork men who were coming to work on the bog at Newbridge. The conditions that those men will have to face there are not going to be very pleasant for them. I would not be surprised if I met them on the train to-morrow going back to Cork. Deputy Larkin is familiar with the conditions on the bogs.

He has been on the bogs in my constituency in the interests of the workers, and is as familiar with the conditions there as I am myself. I and every Deputy interested in labour must know that at the present time the labouring people are just mere slaves. Very little is being done to take them out of that slavery. It does not make any odds what Government is in power so long as we have the present system. It is the system that is wrong. You may change the men in power 20 times, but if you do not change the system as well you will get nowhere. Things will never be right until we have a Government that will be able to issue money at the desire of the people who elected them, and a Government that will be able to control it.

I think it is generally agreed that the cost of living is very high. I should like to preface my remarks by saying that I do not attribute to the Government the entire responsibility for the high cost of living here at the present time. No matter what Government was in power the cost of living, as a result of the general situation in the world, must inevitably have increased to some extent. My complaint is that, in relation to other countries as favourably placed as ours — perhaps not as well placed — the cost of living here is far too high. Some Deputies have already given figures relating to other countries that are not in as advantageous a position as this country is in which the cost of living is only a fraction of what it is here.

I attribute the present high cost of living here to three main factors which arise out of Government policy during this crisis and during the period in which the cost of living has risen. The first and most important is the Government's general approach to agriculture; the second is the entire failure to provide shipping for the country; and the third is the bad organisation of our internal trade with special reference to traffic. With the permission of the House, I intend to deal with those three main heads, to relate them to the cost of living and to the absence of essential foodstuffs at the present time.

Taking, first of all, the question of agriculture, the Fianna Fáil Party in the forefront of their programme have always been very emphatic on the question of growing wheat here. I have never been opposed to that. I have been growing wheat myself for some years. I think that we grow very excellent wheat. I do not think, however, we get the proper returns as a result of that growing. I do say, as regards the wheat that we grow here, that it compares favourably with the wheat grown in any other part of the world. The Government, however, in their emphasis on wheat have entirely overlooked other essential foodstuffs. I questioned the Minister for Agriculture some years ago in this House on the point as to whether he regarded the pig population of this country as competitors with human beings for the grain grown here. Although I questioned him several times about that, I did not get from him what I would consider to be a full answer on the point. It is a point, I think, that goes to the root of the Government's agricultural policy. They were obsessed with the necessity of growing grain for human consumption and entirely overlooked the other foods that are necessary to keep human beings alive. It was too late, perhaps, when they saw the fallacy of their policy and abolished, to a certain extent, the activities of the Pigs and Bacon Commission by allowing pigs to go out into a free market.

I say it was too late when they realised that. Bacon is as essential to the man who does a hard day's work on the farm as grain is. The same thing applies to poultry. In regard to the poultry trade, I presume every Deputy has received a circular within the last week from an anonymous source regarding poultry. There is a move on foot now to restore the poultry trade. The point is this: that agriculture must be run in this country, particularly at the present time, not for the purpose of providing one class of food but for the purpose of providing all the different classes of food that can be grown here which are necessary for human consumption. I was one of the few persons who voted in the debate here with the Farmers' Party on the motion which they sponsored to subsidise not wheaten tillage land but all tillage land. I did so because I believe in the principle of making subsidies do work at one end and not subsidising at the other end. When one sorts out the wealth of criticism that is delivered here in debate after debate on the cost of living and food supplies it always comes back to this, that the only practical remedy that people put forward is this: "We must subsidise foodstuffs."

My theory is, and always has been, that the real factory in this country is the land that is tilled. That is the factory here. Put your £1 note in below and let it work its way up, giving employment and, if necessary, do not have as big prices at the top. That is the proper way to subsidise foodstuffs. First of all, we will assume that the particular acre that is subsidised grows food such as grain or oatmeal which is directly consumed by the human being. That subsidy has the effect of reducing the price of that particular article. But, take it a step further: supposing another acre is subsidised for the purpose of producing food which in turn is supplied to the animal, which in turn is produced into human food, it comes back again to this, whether it is a pig, fowl, beef, or anything else, that that £1 has done its work: it has given employment, it has been an incentive to the farmer to put his last acre under tillage and it has produced essential foodstuffs for the population. There must be some wisdom behind that theory because it has been adopted to a certain extent in bigger, more powerful countries than our own. I believe the time will yet arrive when, having got away from theorising in these matters, any Government must come back to that basis, namely, to keep the wheels of that particular factory working to supply cheap food for the people. As agriculture is carried on in this country at the present time, and as it is carried on as an emergency measure, you must have high prices for agricultural products. Otherwise, the operation of a farm does not pay. I am not binding myself to £3 per acre, but if you adopt the principle of subsidising all tillage land, you are one step on the road to reducing the price of essential foodstuffs in this country, if only by reason of the fact that you increase the quantity produced.

Before I leave the question of the Government's approach to agriculture, I should like to say that, at any time that I advance the cause of the man who works his land, the man who is known as the farmer in this country, whether he is a small or a big farmer, I do not do it for the purpose of appealing on behalf of one particular section only, namely, the farming community; I do it because I believe it is in the general interest of the whole country.

My arguments in this debate and my arguments in favour of a subsidy on tillage are not directed to benefiting the farming community, but are directed to benefiting the community as a whole, by providing foodstuffs at cheaper rates. The next point I shall deal with is, I think, just as important, namely, the absence of shipping facilities in this country at the present time. In that regard we ought to be downright ashamed of ourselves. I have here a book called The Shipping World Year Book, which gives the tonnage of different ships owned by different countries in the crucial year of our time, 1939. I think if we could say that this country at the present time owned, say, three tankers, about 200 tramps and about 18 liners — because these are the categories into which shipping is divided — we could feel that we were a long way towards solving many of our problems. I do not believe we had a single tanker. We had some coasting vessels. We had no liners. We would seem to have practically nothing now. It might surprise the House to know the position in regard to shipping in other countries. Most countries are different in different ways, but I think a fair test for comparison with our country would be Denmark. What was the position in Denmark in 1939? If we had only one fraction of Denmark's tonnage, where would we be to-day? In 1939, Denmark had 47 liners with a total tonnage of 297,000; 33 tramp steamers with a tonnage of 141,000, and I come to the most important item of the lot: Denmark had 13 tankers with a tonnage of 105,000. If in 1939 we had only a small percentage of what Denmark owned we could practically snap our fingers in the face of everybody to-day. It is to the entire failure of the Government to foresee the shipping situation that we owe most of our economic ills at the present time and, in view of those figures, I do not think there can be any contradiction of that statement.

The answer might be, possibly would have been at the time, that the procurement of a tonnage of this kind would involve an enormous expenditure of money which this country could not afford. Denmark is not the only country. Let us take another country — Norway. I think the population of Norway is roughly the same as the population of this country. There may be a couple of hundred thousand one way or the other. Norway believed so much in the use of petrol with her rural occupations that she could afford to have 260 tankers in 1939, presumably in full use. It is right to say, of course, that Norway's shipping trade was not entirely domestic; she did a big international shipping trade. She had 218 tramps and 82 liners. The latter would be the ocean-going ships that go to America, etc. I want to know did the Government at any time foresee this situation? Did they ever make any arrangements abroad, in view of the impending crisis in 1939, so as to be in a position to claim some contractual right in connection with some ship in some part of the world? No preparations whatsoever were made and that is a second largely contributing factor to the situation to-day.

The third is the position in regard to internal organisation. There have been glaring examples of trains meeting each other on the lines, a cargo of timber for fuel going in one direction and a cargo of turf going in the other direction, passing each other on the lines. The whole country is unorganised at the moment. I am not in favour of an immense amount of Government organisation because I think Government organisation usually leads to interference with private enterprise but there is not adequate or proper organisation. None of the schemes which are brought out from time to time are correlated and we are going to have worse confusion after the war in the period of reconstruction by reason of the absence of a Department presided over by a Minister for Reconstruction. We had the example recently in the Drainage Bill. The Drainage Bill, as introduced in this House, is introduced in the air and is not correlated with any other scheme. That is what is wrong with all our emergency schemes here.

One Department issues one Emergency Order, another Department issues a second Emergency Order, but these Orders are not correlated, with the result that the utmost confusion prevails and there is a great loss of time and energy. I do not want to go into any great detail in connection with these matters. There must be many examples that will strike any thinking person immediately.

A reference has been made to the effect on the cost of living of the standstill Order. Do Deputies realise the real object of the standstill Order? I believe the real object of the Order was to produce revenue, the idea being that the employer would not be allowed to increase the wages of his employees and, as a result, he would show a greater profit which would be subject to taxation which, in turn, would be collected by the State. That is what the standstill Order was introduced for. Where the justice, the wisdom or the good statesmanship lies in this matter of increased profits and taxation, I do not know, but I think we should be frank about these things. We should recognise the real object of that Order. I do not think the Minister will deny that revenue-collecting was the primary consideration.

But the Minister forgot to collect the taxation.

I heard Deputy McGilligan mention some figures with regard to the writing down of premises, but I suggest that the Minister has got considerably increased taxation in cases where firms were not allowed to increase the wages of their employees. That would be one way of disposing of their increased profits.

I do not think a discussion on this subject would be complete without some passing reference to a very serious factor which does affect the economic life of the country. I have in mind what might be referred to as the international situation, for the want of a better expression. I do not think we should try to hide our heads with regard to that. I think we should face the situation frankly. If the statement of the British Prime Minister yesterday is to be taken literally, we may assume that there will be considerable economic pressure exerted on this country. We may have our own views on that statement — that it may only be a threat, not intended to be carried out.

At all events, if you take the British Prime Minister's statement literally, I think this country is facing the greatest of the crises it has ever faced. The word "isolation" occurs; we are to be isolated and there will be an absence of shipping and essential commodities. Isolation to us means economic disaster, unless we try to whittle down that economic disaster as much as we can. There is one way and that I shall refer to in a moment. Speaking as an individual, and not as a member of a Party, I would like to compliment the Head of the Government upon the dignified reply he made the other day when he was replying to a most unreasonable request. I should also like to say that I have read some of the poison-pen articles as they appeared in otherwise reputable papers in other countries — not all of them, thank goodness, but in some of them. I would like to say as an ordinary Irishman that the writers of those articles have done more harm to the allied nations' cause than they realise or can ever realise.

Would it not be better if the Deputy kept away from that subject and confined himself to the Vote on Account?

I have said what I wanted to say on that subject. Coming to the question of what we are up against, it amounts to this, that we are going to stand alone. I do not believe, and I have never believed, that economic warfare is as hard or severe as bomb and bullet warfare, but it is severe. I do not believe that the full measure of governmental wisdom resides in any one political Party. I believe the time has arrived when, in the interests of this country, and as a gesture to those who threaten us from outside in deliberate calculated language, all Parties should have a say in the government of this country. I say that, realising the gravity, the seriousness of the situation.

Our race does not live only in this country. It lives in other countries, and it can exert great influence there. We are approaching a day which means more to our compatriots abroad, and among these I include those fighting in the British forces, than it does to some of us at home. I refer to March 17th, the day which is the common link of all Irishmen, and I think the best gesture, the best note of encouragement we could sound to the Irish race at home and abroad, with these threats to our security and our economy, would be an announcement in the Press on the morning of St. Patrick's Day that the Irish people at home had come together and had agreed to govern this country as a whole, with every Party having a say in same.

This debate seems to have become more or less confined to one channel, the cost of living, and probably there is a number of reasons to explain this concentration on the part of the members of all Parties who have participated in the debate. Possibly the major reason is that now, after four years of manifest ineptitude on the part of the Government, after four years in which we have clearly proved what was charged against them at the beginning of the war, we realise that we have arrived at the crisis of the country's problem. The burden we have allowed to be placed on the backs of the common people has become not only intolerable, in the sense of being objectionable, but unbearable, from the aspect of the people not being any longer able to bear it. Apart from external crisis, we are still faced with the possibility, manifested in the words of our Ministers, that this growing burden of the cost of living will become more severe. No relief is afforded to our people, nor does there seem to be any realisation or appreciation on the part of the Government that they must call a halt to their stupidity and reconsider their refusal to listen to the suggestion made to them four years ago. The other reason is possibly one that Deputy Cosgrave charged the Labour Party with, namely, that speaking on the cost of living now may be a very good vote-catching subject. I would not like to dwell on that aspect.

I welcome the speech Deputy McGilligan made. It was a very fine factual statement, with which anybody who has studied the position and who has tried to keep close to the problem will not disagree. It struck me, knowing Deputy McGilligan's ability to make a forcible presentation of a case, that he seemed somewhat lacking towards the end of his contribution. The Deputy is well able to present a picture. He indicated the weakness and the failure of the Government and the cupidity in certain elements of the social structure in this country, but yet he seemed to hesitate to go further and to indicate what should be done to deal with the situation. I do not want to accuse Deputy McGilligan of speaking merely for the sake of attracting attention, either to himself or to his Party — he was dealing with a problem that is in everybody's mind — but I do suggest, not only to the Fine Gael Party, but also to the members of the Farmers' Party, that speeches of that kind, although valuable in presenting to us a picture of the situation that we face to-day and that may become worse to-morrow, are nevertheless platitudes unless the speakers put forward some suggestions as to the remedies that could be provided, and unless they are prepared not only to consider remedies, but to understand the implications and accept the consequences. That has not been manifested by the speakers representing those Parties so far.

While a debate of this kind may, in many ways, seem to be merely an opportunity for many of us to get up here on our feet and make a speech and, possibly, get a few lines in the newspapers, and while it may be said that it would really be only traversing many of the grounds that have already been covered by other speakers — of course, as we all know, a Deputy can get up and say: "I have not very much to say because the Deputy who has just spoken has already covered the ground"— nevertheless, I think that even the most inept contribution that has been made to this debate — and, God knows, there have been many — is a very valuable contribution; particularly from the point of view that, during the last year or two, continuous pressure has been brought on this Government with a view to getting them to understand the problem that exists and the terrible burden that has been placed on the people in this country who are dependent, for their sole income, on the various payments that are made by the State, whether through outdoor relief, widows' and orphans' pensions, old age pensions, unemployment assistance, and so on.

Week after week, questions have been asked in this House, and agitations have taken place outside the House, with a view to bringing pressure on the Government to give some relief to that section of our people, who are the hardest hit of any section of our community, but we were told that nothing could be done, that the Government could not give in because they had not the money; that they were doing much more than the Labour Party, with all its exaggerated claims on behalf of these people, could do, and that there was actually no real problem. Week after week, we had that reply from the Government, but then they changed their minds and gave some concessions to these people. Of course, we realise now that certain rows were going on between the Leaders of the Government Party and the rank and file of that Party, on account of these conditions, and the result was that, finally, some concessions had to be made by the Leaders of the Party, and they had to release the safety valve.

Accordingly, I say that a debate of this character is of value to the extent that, even if crocodile tears are being shed in the House over the conditions of agricultural labourers and industrial workers, they may at least have the effect of water dropping on a stone, and perhaps these drops of water, even if they are in the form of crocodile tears, may have some effect by continually falling on the stony hearts of the members of the Government. Unfortunately, however, those drops of water, in the circumstances in which our country is, can become changed very easily into drops of blood, and it must be remembered that it is the blood of our own people that is concerned. That is the real difficulty with which we are faced in connection with such a subject as we are dealing with in to-day's debate.

When we are speaking of the cost of living, I think it would be just as well to keep things in their proper proportion. Let us recall what has happened in the past few years, and let us also admit that some of the mistakes or failures made by the Government have been made as a result of certain powers that were given to them by this House, under the Emergency Powers Act, since the beginning of the war. Now, nobody will quarrel with the fact that a Government in a time of emergency must have power to act quickly and decisively, but I should like to point out that, of all the Parties in this House, only those who spoke from this bench fought the Government and warned them that, if they tried to control wages, they should also try to keep down prices.

As a result of that warning, the Government have had to mend their hand and to make available even the meagre bonuses that it is now possible to obtain through the Wages Tribunal that has been set up. We also warned the Government of the mistake they were making in controlling only one factor in the total sum of all the factors that were concerned: that they were keeping down wages while allowing the prices of commodities to run wild. In other words, as we pointed out, they started at the wrong end. Before they started to deal with the question of giving bonuses to workers, they had already allowed the cost of living to increase by 54 points. They have never succeeded in catching up on that in their efforts to remedy the situation, and every time a bonus is awarded, it will be found that the cost of living has, by that time, risen by another five or six points.

Apart from the fact that they have been forced to extend their sense of generosity to those who have already given them support by amending the first Order, it must be remembered that even if an advance of a shilling or two may be given in wages, that is counteracted by the fact that in the meantime the cost of living has risen by five or six points, and I think it must be admitted that this is the only Party which looked ahead and realised that we were coming to this situation. We gave sufficient warnings time after time. The only difficulty is that our people are too patient, and I may say, quite frankly, that they have been deceived and misled by the fact that embodied in the personality of the present Leader of the Government are certain qualities and characteristics that attract their support and, as a result, they fail to see the sinister influences that are behind him and that take cover under the shadow of his personality.

It is only now that the people are starting to wake up, but if there had been any awakening or any reaction in the minds of the people of our country in the first year, or the first two or three years, of the present war, many of the errors and mistakes of the Government could have been avoided. Unfortunately, so many mistakes have been made now that they cannot be overtaken, and, frankly, we have to face up to the fact that we cannot rectify those mistakes now or bring the Government back into a state of grace. We cannot bring the cost of living back now to the pre-war level, nor can we bring wages up to the level of the cost of living to-day. The whole thing has got out of hand as a result of the mistakes of the Government, and all we can do is to save what we can for the people of our country, and especially for the women and children, from the shipwreck that we have allowed to come upon us.

In the course of Deputy McGilligan's speech, which, more or less, has set the tone for this debate, he did refer to a number of factors that are only now being considered — not in an abstract way, but in relation to the definite problems of prices, wages, profiteering, subsidies, and general taxation by the Government. These factors are concerned with the high profits that are being earned by certain sections of the community and the reserves that are being salted away, and the Deputy did indicate in a general way the lines along which his thoughts were running. However, as I said before, there seems to be a reluctance, both on the part of the members of the Fine Gael Party and the Farmers' Party, to face up to the implications involved. I am far from being an expert with regard to agricultural matters. In fact, I suppose I might be described as being almost an ignorant man so far as agriculture is concerned, but I have listened continually, with interest, to the contributions that have been made from all benches here to debates in this House by Deputies who come from agricultural areas, and, frankly, I have been amazed, not only at their ability to disagree with one another even on the most simple technical questions in regard to the industry, but also at the facility with which they seem to think that the whole problem of agriculture is one that can be solved by way of subsidies: that once those subsidies are granted, they do not seem to be concerned as to where the money is to be obtained, and that it is simply a question for somebody else to solve.

Now, I have no objection to subsidies being given for agricultural products. I believe that the farmers are entitled to a fair price for their products, but there are other factors to be taken into consideration. If the prices of agricultural products are to be subsidised, we have to ask ourselves: where will we obtain the money? I think it is quite true to say that there will be quite a slowing down on the part of the farming community in their demands when they see the bill that has been presented by the Minister, which amounts to almost £50,000,000. If that bill is to be increased by another £10,000,000, in order to subsidise agricultural products further, where are we to get that money? I do not suppose it is possible to increase subsidies on agricultural products without increasing prices to the consumer. Now, those of us who have to pay for those products have paid up to the limit. We cannot pay more money for milk, for butter, for flour or for vegetables, and yet these are the basic products upon which agriculture is dependent, and, at the same time, the basic foods which the urban communities require in order to exist. Have they found any solution for this problem? I cannot see it and I have listened very attentively to the debate.

If subsidies are provided and we do find a way of providing the money on which we can all agree, what are you going to do with it when you get it? We hear day after day question after question, not only from the Labour Benches but even from the Farmers' Benches, as to the position of the farm labourer existing on £2 per week. I wonder would the Farmers' Party and the Farmer Deputies of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael give the agricultural labourers a guarantee that if they get an adequate subsidy in order to enable them to increase production and provide food, they would pass on a fair proportion of it to the agricultural labourers, without any coercion or compulsion but purely out of the goodness of their hearts? I wonder would they and I wonder would the farming community be prepared to give such a guarantee.

Secondly, suppose we provide subsidies and agree on the way in which the money is to be provided, is the subsidy to be provided to every farmer, irrespective of who or what he is? Is it to be provided irrespective of the size of his farm, his capacity to make that farm a paying proposition, his financial reserves, his ability to exploit and extract profit out of his farm labourers? Is there no differentiation as between farmers? Is every farmer in the same position? Have we not got farmers living on a standard below that of the urban worker and a little above that of the farm labourer, while next door is a fairly well-to-do farmer and also what we might call the ordinary capitalist farmer working his farm as a factory and making a damn good job of it, the same as any other industrialist in the city? Are they all to be subsidised on the same basis? Do we propose to require the ordinary working man, the person of low income to whom Deputy McGilligan referred, the small farmer or the agricultural labourer, to pay increased taxation in order to increase the profits already being earned by many of the farming community?

Surely there must be some more realistic approach to this question than the approach of merely asking that money should be poured out without any thought as to where it is to come from or to whom it is to go. Everybody seems to forget that we have social strata in this country, that we are not all in the same position, that if there are men and women hungry, there are other men and women who have not only a sufficiency but a superfluity and that the approach of the man who has too little and the man who has too much to the same problem is entirely different. They come at the problem from different angles. It has been suggested in this House before, as the basis on which we have to tackle this problem, that we have been living, and possibly will be living to a greater extent in a very short while, in a beleaguered fortress, that we are one family and that the first claim of any member of that family to consideration should be the claim of the weakest and of those less able to defend and protect themselves. That is not what we have been doing. We have been giving to those who are strongest, those who are able to enforce their demands and get their price and we have spurned and in many ways spat upon those who are weakest and who have first claim to our consideration, whether it be from the ethical, the social or the Christian viewpoint.

In presenting this question to the Farmers and to Fine Gael I do not do so with any desire to score points, but there is a problem to be faced, and they are definitely not facing it. Whether we on the Labour Benches are facing it or not is a question also to be considered, but at least we should try to understand the implications in asking that the rising cost of living be controlled, that the wages of the very lowly paid, of the unorganised, of the very low income groups be improved, that this piling up of profits and reserves in the banks and this ability to hide them under depreciation and under the cleaning up of the fronts of business houses in Dame Street be stopped. We must try to understand that we are dealing with something more than the mere presenting of a political programme, that we are dealing with something which is in actual fact a question of flesh and blood, the flesh and blood of our own people. We have to try to find amongst ourselves a common denominator, a basis on which we can all agree, and on that basis to tackle these problems which are eating into the vitals of our people.

One of the points which interested me in listening to this debate is that at the moment we are discussing only the amount of money to be spent and, as I said, we have all turned our minds to the question of the cost of living. In a little while, we shall have to face the problem of how we propose to provide the money which we are discussing to-day. There will be an interval between the two debates and I think it will be very valuable if all of us who are trying to apply our minds to this problem of the cost of living would apply our minds equally to certain of the questions which will be raised when the Budget comes up for debate, such as the problem of the ratio of direct to indirect taxation. I tried by means of a question to get the figures from the Minister, but he very wisely discovered that he could not answer the question. I should like to give him an answer by telling him that, at the start of this war, indirect taxation amounted to probably 70 per cent. of the total taxation levied by the Government and that to-day, after all the measures he has taken in the form of extra excess profits taxation and limitation of dividends, that ratio has not been altered to the extent of 5 per cent. and that we are still in the position in which the whole burden of this emergency is being borne by the bulk of the people, by, I should say, 90 per cent., who between them own less than 20 per cent. of the wealth of the country, and that the other secure, safe and very well-satisfied 10 per cent. who control probably 80 to 90 per cent. of the wealth of the country are still getting away with it, as they got away with it before the emergency came upon us.

I ask if, when we come to deal with the Budget — and it is relevant to what we are discussing now because we are discussing the question of how to provide moneys and how these moneys should be expended — those who are dealing with these problems of taxation, the cost of Government services, will consider what was mentioned during the course of the debate on the Children's Allowances Bill, that is, how the money should be raised and who should provide it, and see whether they can still find it possible to be consistent not only in to-day's debate, but, more important, when it comes to a question as to whose pocket is to be emptied to provide these social services. I think we will find that the tone of the discussion will have greatly altered as between this debate and the Budget debate.

I referred in passing to direct and indirect taxation. It seems to me that, when this emergency came upon us, one of the basic problems which faced the Minister was the taking of immediate steps to alter so far as possible the ratio between direct and indirect taxation in such a way as to ease the burden on the mass of the people by reducing the ratio of indirect taxation, which has always been the refuge of the reactionary and non-progressive government. One would imagine that the present Government, with its fine progressive outlook, which always remains an outlook and never becomes a practical proposition, would have been one of the first to devise ways and means of altering that wholly reprehensible and objectionable practice of placing the main burden of taxation in such indirect forms that the bulk of the people pay the money without ever realising what the amount of the bill is.

That was never done by them, even though the Minister for Industry and Commerce tried to indicate that in the Children's Allowances Bill they had that object in mind. Somehow he very quickly retreated when he found that the position was becoming a little too warm. From that particular angle we have got to try to appreciate the steps taken by the Government to deal with the cost of living and the ratio of wages to prices. When the war commenced the Government took certain steps that they considered to be appropriate. They took power to control prices and to control wages. The control of prices largely failed, except in so far as it was merely a record of the height to which certain people in various enterprises forced up the price of particular articles. The control of dividends is largely a joke, because it merely means that certain sums are not paid out, but are put into reserve, and that there will be all the larger amounts to be distributed when this particular emergency legislation is no longer in existence.

There were, of course, subsidies and, as far as many of these subsidies are concerned, they are an outrage, because we were already subsidising, and these people have already garnered their share of the loot in transactions of various kinds. I need only refer to the subsidy on bread paid to master bakers in the City of Dublin. We know from the published accounts of these companies that they are in a healthy position and able to pay 7 per cent. and 8 per cent. without any difficulty. That may be the position with other concerns about which we cannot get figures, because that is purely the privilege of the prices control section of the Department of Supplies. We have control of wages. That seems to have been the one field of endeavour in which the Government has been, to any extent, successful, but not completely successful, because certain sections of workers objected to what the Minister indicated in his original statement. Finally we have inflation.

The one thing the Government set out to avoid they have succeeded in bringing into our midst. I am not going to go into details, but we have a 70 per cent. increase in the cost of living while the average increase in wages is 18 per cent. That increase in wages does not apply to all wages, but only to wages in certain industries in which the figures have been calculated by the Department of Industry and Commerce. These happen to be industries in which the workers are strongly organised, where they were able to take advantage of and to utilise the machinery provided by Emergency Powers Order 260 in applications for bonus increases. Outside of these groups there are thousands of lowly-paid workers unorganised, who have not had a single increase in wage since the start of the war. Even where these workers had knowledge that machinery exists, they had no organisation to speak for them or to take advantage of the machinery. Above all they had no organisation to protect them against employers. As a result we get periodical cases of married men with five children in this fourth year of the war existing on £2 a week in the City of Dublin. These are not isolated cases.

Time after time we have managed to take advantage to the fullest extent of the Emergency Powers Order, and of the machinery available, in so far as organised workers are concerned, in cases where they were able to defend themselves within the conditions of the present system. The other workers in sweat-shops and in dens run by mushroom capitalists, fostered by the Government under its industrial policy, are outcasts, and the Government denies all knowledge of them. Trade organisations have no knowledge of them either because there is no contact. Yet, these men and women are entitled to live the same as organised employers and farmers. Under the form of machinery set up they are condemned to live on wages that have lost 50 per cent. of their purchasing power because of ineptitude and the failure of the Government to protect them. We have to consider first the question of prices and, secondly, the effect of low prices on income.

Very often when we go to a tribunal to consider wage negotiations we are reminded of the position of shareholders in industries who are dependent on small incomes. We know that in the bulk of the industries the controlling shares are owned by a small group that is trying to establish a monopoly over the transport system. The unfortunate men or women who have £10, £20 or £100 invested get no more consideration than the workers or, even less, because they have no organisation. Undoubtedly they feel the burden even in a more intensified form than organised workers. If they are to get anybody to speak for them it will not be in the Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael Parties. It will be on the workers' party that, very often, they despise that they have to depend for some protection in times like these. These are persons with low incomes. We speak for them just as we speak for workers in organised trades and for the common mass of humanity.

The question of prices is one that has gone to such a pitch that possibly the archangel Gabriel could not solve it satisfactorily. It is quite clear that the cost of living should be tackled from one or two directions. We have got to have a compromise and, to try, if we can find by an encircling movement — which seems to be a popular form of military strategy — ways and means of dealing with the continuous rise in the cost of living and, if possible, to bring it down below the present level.

I wish to pause here to remark on a very peculiar thing. The November cost-of-living figure was 294 points. Everybody expected that the figure for mid-February would prove to be well over 300, on account of the increase in the prices of bread, butter, sugar and milk, and on account of the seasonal increase of three or four points which always takes place during the winter months. Lo and behold, when the figure did emerge, it had gone up only two points. I would like to congratulate the Minister for Finance on his civil servants: they have done an excellent job this time in arranging the cost-of-living figure. To any man with ordinary commonsense, it is quite clear that 296 is not an accurate statistical reflection of the cost of living to-day, but is a political figure deliberately manufactured to suit the political purposes of the Government. It is a figure which, sooner or later, must be subject to inquiry and checking, not by those subject to the Ministers of the Government, but by men who are free to exercise their own judgement in that checking and re-checking and to report according to their own conscience. I am not prepared to accept 296 as the figure, as I know that, as early as October last, the members of the Government themselves were expecting a radical increase in the cost of living and were almost accepting the position that they could not control it. Yet they have succeeded in keeping it down to two points increase over a period when there was always an increase of two or three points and when we know ourselves that the increase in two of the commodities alone accounted for 2½ points, without taking into consideration any other factors that may have arisen in the case of essential foodstuffs and clothes.

On the question of prices, it seems to me that we have to agree to confine the problem within certain narrow limits — limits most important to the mass of the people, namely, the prices of essential foods. If we concentrated on the question of bread, potatoes, milk and butter, we might gain certain success in at least holding to the present prices or driving them down a little; and if that occurred, we would have attained a success of value and comfort to the mass of our people. Let us take the price of bread — the price fixed after inquiry and consultation with the Price Control section of the Department of Supplies. It is peculiar that the price of bread is controlled and determined by the price of flour, yet there never has been a public inquiry into the price of flour, in spite of repeated demands. I know definitely that, on private inquiries, the figures produced by the representatives of the milling associations have been challenged and rejected as not being correct. It is easy to understand that when we realise that, in the calculation of the price of flour, all other factors going to make up the costings of the industry are taken into account. The millers say that flour machinery has to be replaced every six years, so that in the case of a machine valued at £60,000 they have to put in £10,000 for depreciation every year. I do not think that would be accepted by any reasonable man anywhere, especially in a period of emergency. The Prices Commission, however, are compelled to accept that, as the Revenue Commissioners have accepted it as a basis for levying income-tax and corporation profits tax.

It is a vicious circle.

They could not question the Revenue Commissioners' attitude in the matter. That is the position in the flour-milling industry, where a certain capital sum is put down for the capital value of machinery and fixed assets, which fixes the earnings, and they are fixed around 6 per cent. You have a peculiar position, in which you may actually close down a firm and still get 6 per cent. on your capital. We have tried time after time, at certain public inquiries in the City of Dublin, to obtain a proper and impartial investigation into the price of flour. Maybe, if we had it, we would not have to subsidise the price of bread in Dublin.

The same problem arises in the case of vegetables. Reference has been made here to the position of the middle man. I often wonder why the agricultural community, like ourselves in the towns, are prepared to be so generous to the gentleman who steps in between us. I do not want to compare in detail the figures paid in the Dublin markets for produce and the prices paid in the shops; but I suggest that by the proper control of prices for vegetables in Dublin and other cities and towns, we would without any difficulty achieve a 25 per cent. reduction immediately, without taking a penny from the farmers and, possibly, giving them a little more than they are getting now. That would do away with some of the leeches who are living on the work of the farmers and on the needs of the urban communities.

All these factors are well known to those who are interested in them but they seem continually to escape the attention of those charged with the actual control of prices. In regard to milk and butter, I would remind the House of a very reasonable suggestion made inside and outside the House. There are two sections of the people who want to buy butter — those who have to buy it as an essential food, especially for children, and those who, in addition to their ordinary ration, are willing and prepared and do buy butter as a means of cooking and for the making of sauces and those variegated dishes in which they indulge. For that additional butter they are prepared to pay a considerably higher price. The suggestion was made that there should be a supply of butter, based on the ration, at a reduced price, to which everybody would be entitled, and that that ration should be smaller than the present ration and should be guaranteed.

The suggestion continued that there should be an additional or surplus amount of butter, which could be purchased at a largely increased price, and which would be available to those with the money to pay for it. That would ensure, as we do not do now, that practically every family would get a minimum supply of butter. There are many families in the country to-day who, although entitled to six ounces per head, never buy that amount, as they cannot afford it. Secondly, the higher price for the surplus butter would possibly result in an increased price to the farmers, or would cover the cost of selling the larger portion at a reduced price. The same could be achieved in regard to milk. All these suggestions are made time after time, and are put forward to the Government in various forms, but they are never considered. When they are taken up by the Government and made effective, however, the Government is always very careful to obtain the credit for them. They want all the credit for the good deeds and no blame for the bad ones.

One of the basic factors affecting the cost of living is the question of wages and low incomes. There is need for a radical revision of the whole approach to the question of wages. We have certain machinery in existence, set up by the Government, under which certain forms of application are prescribed. We have applications for standard rate orders and bonus orders, hearings by tribunals, etc. We have found out that an employer who wants to be difficult or recalcitrant can cause intolerable delay in the hearing of applications. With the rising figure in the index of the cost of living, we have a complete repetition of the applications time after time. In certain cases, we have had three or four applications for certain sections of workers, in order to get a maximum increase of 11/-. Surely, there could be an easier and more businesslike approach to this problem? If the Government, in their wisdom, say that rising wages are the cause of inflation — and that is childish enough for the Government to stand over — surely, they could agree to have it dealt with in the form of some general Order? Such an Order might provide that a certain increase in the cost of living would result in a certain percentage being allowed on the wages rates. That could be done in large sections of industry by a general Order permitting increases to be made, without the multiplicity of applications, the repetition and the involved machinery operating to-day.

I was somewhat surprised yesterday when the Minister for Industry and Commerce informed us that the cost of the advisory tribunals was something less than £7,000. If he added up all the time wasted by the tribunal officials trying to hunt up the material and the information they require as well as attending the tribunals, and also by officials not engaged on the work of the tribunals — because last December 12 months every factory inspector in the Department was running round like a messenger boy in the City of Dublin trying to contact employers in order to get applications dealt with before the Christmas holidays — he would find that the cost of the tribunals is considerably more than he set down.

Further, whether we like it or not, there must be some alteration in this machinery which will look after and cater for the peculiar position of the very lowly-paid worker and the unorganised worker. We have many cases of sectional workers who were unorganised before and even during the war, some of them, by the way, in Government-subsidised industries, with wages of £2 and £2 10s. per week for married men. Under the existing machinery, it is not possible to increase that standard or basic wage. A man who had £2 on 8th April, 1942, must continue to receive £2 as a standard wage and he is confined to an increase on that £2 at present of 11/- per week, which means that at the present cost-of-living figure he has to maintain himself and his family on a sum of 51/- per week. There is no solution of that particular problem. The only assistance and relief that can come to him is that, when the cost of living increases, the amount of the bonus presumably increases. But, as I pointed out, with the increase in the cost of living as it is to-day, workers only get 1/- for every ten points. They actually lose seven points out of that ten points, for which they get no return at all.

So that the more the cost of living increases, even though these lowly-paid workers do receive an additional bonus, the position of these workers relative to the cost of living as a whole is gradually becoming worse. Therefore, I suggest that, apart altogether from the pressure that may be exercised on the Government in this debate in relation to the cost of living as a whole, there is a problem there which should be given consideration so as to find out how and in what way the existing machinery could be amended to deal with the difficult position of lowly-paid and unorganised workers. In the same way, the unorganised workers who are given certain facilities by this Emergency Powers Order, No. 260, as they belong to no organisation are ignorant of these facilities and are unable to take advantage of them. Accordingly, they have not got the relief afforded them to the small measure of the bonus allowed.

These are two basic factors that we have to consider — prices and wages. I say that we should try to achieve some form of combined operation which will bring them into close relationship. I think that, on the basis of the public balance sheets of the main industrial companies, we can without any difficulty and without any danger of inflation decide that in certain groups of industries wages could be adjusted from time to time over the whole range of an industry without any special investigation. I challenge the Minister to produce figures, or to give any concrete case showing that, since the advisory tribunals started to operate and bonuses were given as a result of hearings before these tribunals, the increases in wages or bonuses granted by these tribunals have had any appreciable effect in bringing about an increase in prices. The very factor on which he based his whole case for the control of wages, namely, the danger of inflation, has not been apparent at all during this whole period when wages have been increased by 11/-.

I sat in on tribunal after tribunal and listened to employers from different industries and trades and I have not heard one of them take up the position that, if they granted even the maximum bonus of 11/-, they would have to increase prices because of that single factor alone. Anyone who has studied the ordinary costings of industries knows very well that the effect of an increase of 5/- or 10/- in wages on the ultimate cost of an article is very often so negligible that you cannot account for it. It is our experience on the tribunals and the trade boards, which also deal with wages, that in many cases, while the employers could not produce figures to show that an increase in wages would lead to an increase in price, they were always very cautious to say that it would not lead to any appreciable increase in price. We had to correct them and point out that we would not commit ourselves to that very mild statement unless they were prepared to bring in accounts to prove definitely and conclusively that even that small, negligible increase in price was a result definitely of the increase in wages given. The remarkable thing is that, when you ask an employer to produce his accounts and balance sheet in order to prevent an increase in wages, he always finds that it is cheaper to give the increase in wages rather than to provide the figures, if you are wrong.

On the question of prices, I think that prices have become a problem that would dismay not only the Fianna Fáil Government but any Government with ten times their ability and a 1,000 times their energy. If we sit still and let the thing come upon us like a tide on the beach, we will be overwhelmed, because day after day the problem will become more uncontrollable by the Minister who is supposed to be controlling it. If we are to tackle the problem of the cost of living, the first thing to be done is to realise that our present machinery for controlling prices is largely a joke. First of all, it does not enjoy public confidence.

Any machinery that is in operation under the semi-secrecy of a Government Department over which there is no direct control by public representatives, except through the unsatisfactory form of questions and statements and debates, and with which there is not associated any representative of the various interests of the community or of the various industries and trades, cannot inspire confidence. When, on top of that, you have the stupidities represented by the various Orders issued day after day, it is no wonder that the ordinary member of the public feels that, so far as they are concerned, the only duty of the prices section of the Department of Supplies in order to control prices is to record the highest point reached by a particular article and embody that in their control of it.

I suggest that the first step to be taken is to associate with the control of prices all the important interests in a particular trade or industry that may be the subject of investigation. If you are investigating the price of bread, then the operatives, both skilled and unskilled, should be called into consultation. The consumer should be represented because it is a definite fact that if employers or business men submit a statement of figures to an ordinary civil servant and if those figures are not checked by a man who has got practical experience of the actual manufacture of the article, and by the housewife or the man who has got to purchase the article in a shop, it is very easy to make mistakes on the part of the civil servants and easy for the industrialist or the business man to get away with a very swollen price.

Therefore, in any measure of control provision should be made, not for a form of bureaucratic procedure, but to give legal determination and expression to the people's will that they are going to stop this wholesale racketeering. In every village and town throughout the country there should be local representation of the community on the prices control section, in the form of citizens control committees, to whom an appeal could be made by any consumer who had been overcharged or who had been denied his civil right to be supplied with certain commodities. These local committees would have power to inform the local Gárda, who would then take immediate action. That would be an improvement on the present procedure, where you must first wait for a report of the Guards and afterwards have a long delay of perhaps months before the matter is brought before the courts. Under the system which I suggest the Guards would have a right to go into the shop where any overcharge was made, insist that the money should be refunded immediately and prosecute the offenders afterwards. That is the system which is followed in England, and we have to admit that the cost of living there has been kept within reasonable bounds. The average man and woman there also enjoys a higher standard of living than before the war started. We are not in the war, yet our standard of living has gone very much below that which obtained here before the holocaust came upon us. I think it is essential that whenever the price of any article has to be investigated, those who have a practical knowledge of the manufacture of the article and those who have got to buy the article in the shop, should be consulted.

I need not go into detail to show the stupidity of trying to fix the price of an article without taking the simple precaution of ascertaining the views of the workers engaged in the manufacture of that article. Take, for example, the last Order in regard to control of prices issued by the Minister, the Order controlling the price of clothing. A certain figure is arrived at as being the cost of manufacture. That, I presume, is worked out between the manufacturer and the Department of Supplies. Then a percentage of profit is allowed on that which the wholesaler may charge. A further percentage is allowed to the retailer. Here in the year 1944, in an emergency that has now lasted for four years, we have got the position that the Department of Supplies calmly and with the authority of the House allows a gross profit on an article, be tween the point of manufacture and the sale of the article over the counter to the ordinary consumer, of 70 per cent. That, in itself, would not be so bad except that the lower percentages — in certain cases the percentage is below 70 per cent. — are confined to the lower-paid articles. Unhappily, if you go to buy the lower-paid articles you find that they just do not exist; you have only one choice and that is to pay the big price.

When it comes to a question of purchasing an article it is not a question of 75 per cent. over the pre-war price. The increase in prices as shown in the Trade Journal is as high as 171 per cent., in some cases. Woollen and art silk garments are shown to have increased in price by 194 per cent., and other woollen garments by 102 per cent., 110 per cent., etc. These are all within the scope of the Order made by the Minister. It seems to me that that is one of the instances in which we must have some revision of the machinery to control prices. I am convinced that there can be no effective control, no control in which the public will have confidence, so long as that control is centred within a small group of officials of the Civil Service, consulting with those who are directly interested, not in the control of prices, but in getting the highest price they can get away with under Government control.

These are briefly the lines along which my thoughts have been running and I just want to conclude by mentioning the remedies as they appear to me. I notice that even on the Fine Gael Benches — and I have very little love for Fine Gael — there seems to be an approach to a more human understanding of some of these problems. Deputy McGilligan, for instance, mentioned the necessity of controlling the profits of private firms and he seemed very friendly towards that tendency. He has gone very much in advance of members of the Government because they seem determined to maintain private control of industry in this country for the next generation.

If we could get agreement amongst the Opposition Parties in this House on the means to be adopted to deal with this problem we need not ask for Government favours any longer. This problem of the cost of living is sufficiently grave, sufficiently terrifying and sufficiently urgent to justify whatever action may be necessary to compel them to come to their senses. Until we, on the other benches, agree on common measures, then we are at the mercy of the Government and they can continue to play ducks and drakes, not alone with any schemes we may put up but with the welfare of the people of the country.

Deputy McGilligan mentioned a fact which is quite well known, the very large increase in bank deposits. In this country the banks are very generous people. They pay 1 per cent., or a ½ per cent., on the money deposited with them and on the profits which they make on that money they distribute 12 per cent. amongst their shareholders. I suggest that, if we are in an emergency, if the main consideration is to carry the people through that emergency until we get into calm waters, all measures and means are justified if they are proved to be essential to the needs of the community. If there is a very large sum of money lying in the banks which is earning only 1 per cent. for depositors, money utilised by their banks in their own peculiar way, it would not be difficult, we think, to require the banks to provide the State with a loan either free of interest or at the rate of interest which the banks pay their depositors on deposits. I think it would not be impossible to obtain from the banks a loan of £10,000,000 or £20,000,000 in that way. If we pay them 1 per cent. on that money we shall have to pay only £100,000 or £200,000 per annum by way of interest. The actual repayment of the capital sum can be delayed until after the emergency. If we had a sum of £20,000,000 available it would mean that we could subsidise the prices of essential foodstuffs and subsidise essential agricultural production to the tune of £6,000,000 a year at a cost of £200,000 in the actual Budget.

In addition we have the problem that is shown by this high earning capacity exhibited in the balance sheets of the leading industrial concerns in the country. The Minister, unlike his counterparts in other countries, is collecting only 75 per cent. of the excess profits made out of the emergency by these firms. That tax could be increased to 100 per cent. In addition the reserves that are set aside under various peculiar headings in companies' balance sheets could be called upon as an emergency measure because the piling up of reserves by these industrial concerns, in order to meet the post-war years, will be of little value if, by the time the war is over, we have destroyed the very people these industries should serve. Finally, the small and privileged section of our people to whom I have already referred — the number is small, less than 3,000 — who have an income equal to that enjoyed by 80,000 or 90,000 industrial workers should be called upon to pay a little more. A man or woman with an income of £60 a week can afford to carry much more of the burden than he or she is carrying at present in comparison with the industrial worker, the agricultural labourer or the farmer, whose income does not exceed £5 or £6 a week. When we speak of prices, food production and wages, we must come back to the question of subsidies, but there I can see certain difficulties in the case of members of other Parties in this House. That is why I suggest that it is not sufficient to give a factual picture of the situation without indicating, in a general way, the remedies to be applied. When they speak of subsidies, they have to understand the social and economic repercussions. It is not enough to refer to the increased taxation on certain sections of the community, to swollen profits and the growth of bank deposits. When we come to these remedies, we must be determined to deal with any opposition or any attempt to evade them, no matter from what quarter it may come.

These are the three standpoints from which we must try to approach this matter. I am content to leave it at that to-day because I think that the testing time will come a little later when we are faced with the problem of how to obtain this money and how to provide subsidies to ease the burden on the family. I suggest to the Farmers' Party and other Parties, including our own Party, that it is no use, in the fourth year of the war, confining ourselves to criticism of the Government and to recognising what is quite apparent. Their position may, in the immediate future, become even more difficult. We have got to be able to put forward certain remedies of our own and to be prepared not only to take the responsibility on our own shoulders for those remedies but to take responsibility for forcing those remedies on the Government if they fail to do what is manifestly required in the present situation.

This debate has ranged over a fairly wide field. That is particularly so in connection with the question of the cost of living. The last speaker, Deputy Larkin, referred to the fact that Deputy McGilligan and members of other Parties were now solicitous for the rights of the workers. Any Party or any Deputy who desires to serve the people responsible for its, or his, election should represent all sections. This debate has continued for almost 24 hours and it has had one singular feature. That is, that almost every Deputy who rose to speak on the Farmers' and Labour Benches advocated the interests of the particular section to which he belonged. There is a real danger of sectionalism here—of one section of the community being pitted against another. Farmer Deputies rose to speak for the farmers, almost to the exclusion of every other section. Labour Deputies spoke for the interests of industrial labour, to the exclusion of practically every other interest. In this country, as in every other country, all sections are complementary. We could hardly do without one section for any length of time. It is quite possible that, by process of elimination, we could come down to one or two sections which are of more importance or more use than others but, by and large, no section of the community should be exterminated or exploited.

I admit that the Labour Party and the Farmers' Party were not the first to believe in sectionalism. I am inclined to think that Fianna Fáil, when in opposition, more or less blew the trumpet for a particular section or sections. Having become a Government, they are inclined to realise that other sections are also important. In fact, there is a danger that Fianna Fáil are now inclined to take only the view of the section which has principally benefited by their administration — the industrialists. We have to realise that all sections are absolutely vital, that farmers and labour, whether agricultural or industrial, are complementary and vital to each other. So far as the general good of this State is concerned, we should not try to exterminate any section or abuse any section — because that is what it amounts to. There is no action, merely abuse. We have heard recently of threatened action by one section. A short time ago there was threatened action by another section. All these sections serve a need, collectively and individually. They also receive benefits from the State and it should be their duty and function to endeavour to serve the best interests of the State. We should realise that if we attempt to exterminate, or extract an undue penalty from, any section, we shall be really damaging the whole fabric of the nation. With few exceptions, Deputies in this debate spoke on behalf of a particular section. The farmers are looking for increased prices and for subsidies or bounties. No mention whatever is made of the fact that, with small exceptions, our production here has remained virtually static. In fact, last year, as against 1941-2, our total production was down by 7 per cent. Live-stock production was down by 7.8 per cent. and crops and turf by 7.4 per cent.

If we are to meet the present situation in any kind of constructive way, if we are to attempt with any degree of determination to solve our own difficulties independently, we should increase our production or, at any rate, prevent it from decreasing. In face of that reduction in production, the farmers want £3 per acre if they grow anything. I should be in favour of giving £3 an acre if we could get value in return — if we could get production of wheat or other cereals comparable with the need or if we could get increased yields of milk. What is the position? We have a fairly substantial decline in production and we have no indication that this year the decline may not be even worse than it was last year even though we have an increased area compulsorily under tillage.

Turning to Labour, Deputy Larkin said he had not much love for Fine Gael. I welcome his frankness because I am sure he appreciates that we have no love for Labour. Deputy Larkin said that the Government had not faced up to the situation. The Labour Party had an opportunity of putting the Government out, but the Labour Party did not vote. I think that the true state of affairs is that the Labour Party is the left wing of Fianna Fáil. Deputy Larkin mentioned that the Government got away with it under the cloak of the Leader. Whatever the effect — in my opinion an evil effect — of the Fianna Fáil Leader's mantle, it is inclined to throw itself over the Labour Party as well. The Labour Party goes down the country and says: "We disagree with the Government and we disagree with this, that and the other," but, in actual fact, when it comes to taking action, they will always vote with the Government.

The present situation, in my opinion, is one of which the Government should take stock. Deputy McGilligan dealt fairly extensively yesterday with the cost of living, and other Deputies have reviewed the situation in that regard. Deputy Hughes to-day dealt with it in detail. There is not much advantage to be derived from criticising the Government for what they did not do up to the present time, but I agree with Deputy Larkin in this respect, that the time has come when the Government should endeavour to ascertain accurately what the relative costs of particular commodities are. Take flour, for instance. Nobody can estimate, even on a rough calculation, the cost of the production of flour in this country at the present time. I do not wish to exaggerate the profits of the millers or what they are getting out of it.

I do not want to dwell at any length on the international situation. At the moment I think reticence on international affairs is of paramount importance to this country, not only reticence in speech but in thought. I deprecate references to articles or speeches emanating from other countries on the situation here. It may be very difficult to keep an open mind on the position, but I think that, in the long run, at any rate, until the situation develops a bit further, we should keep an open mind and refrain from making observations. We have adopted a certain attitude and, beyond that, I think we should say no more but await the further development of events. But, I should like to say that, in the event of a situation, which is quite likely to arise, the Government should endeavour to take stock of what may be required to deal with the situation, and not wait until it is upon us and until we may be overwhelmed by the evil effects of it. If certain events should take place and if we are unable to carry on transport in the manner in which we are operating at the present time, we may be faced in this country with a shortage in the cities and towns, particularly in the larger cities. In fact, in that event, we are certain to be faced with shortages of foodstuffs of one kind or another. I am quite confident that we could meet the situation and would be able to bring supplies into the cities and towns, but the Government should take the necessary steps now to provide for a situation which may arise.

I should like to refer to the necessity of investigating the costs of various articles. The Government recently advised the building trade to take stock of their requirements and to co-operate in a scheme to meet the post-war position in regard to building. In my opinion that is a welcome and highly desirable step not alone in relation to the building trade, but in connection with other trades and other industries. I think the Federation of Irish Manufacturers, if necessary by Government direction or order, but more desirably by voluntary action, should take stock and ascertain their minimum requirements of raw materials in order to carry on during the remainder of the emergency and post-war. Certain industries have been operating here for the last 12 years. Some of them, since the emergency, have fallen by the wayside. In many respects it is probably useful that the emergency came upon us because we were bolstering up a number of "cod" industries.

What are they?

If I were to enumerate the number of "cod" industries we were bolstering up in this country for the last 12 years I should keep the Deputy here until to-night.

There were numerous industries that were bolstered up year after year. I think we should aim at keeping in operation only those industries which are able to exist independently or at any rate under the operation of a moderate tariff. Most of the industries that had to be kept going contributed to the cost-of-living increase. Even at the present time — and Deputy McGilligan referred to it yesterday — there are certain industries here that have made fabulous profits since the emergency. I know that on paper they are able to show that the money was used in extending or modernising their premises, or that a certain portion was put to depreciation, but in actual fact some industries here paid dividends not only last year and the previous year but over a number of years. That is not confined to transport industries. I welcome every industry that is able to prosper and to do better one year after another but how many of these industries have contributed to increasing the cost of living? How many of them, making profits under emergency conditions, have contributed to increasing the cost of necessary articles? If the position is examined, I think it will be seen that certain industries, under the cloak of the emergency conditions, under the cloak of putting certain sums to reserve and to depreciation and under the various cloaks for avoiding a plain statement of profits, have contributed to increasing the cost of necessary articles and the cost of living.

Last night, Deputy Corry referred to the situation in this country when farm labourers had less than they had to-day, but he conveniently omitted to refer to the prices that the farm labourer had at that time to pay for foodstuffs. He said that the farmers here were allowed to produce bacon provided they produced it as cheaply as the Egyptians produce it, that the poultry producers could produce eggs provided they could compete with the Chinese. Surely Deputy Corry does not want anyone to believe that, provided they produced at the same low price as the Egyptians or the Chinese, they were not satisfied.

The position now is, and has been for a number of years, that we have practically no eggs; we have lost our export trade in eggs and the cost of eggs in the cities and towns is prohibitive. We cannot get bacon except at a prohibitive price. What was the result when the bacon commission were carrying on their various activities to assist pig producers and to help in the distribution of bacon? The pig population has dropped to a figure lower than what it was in 1850, the first occasion on which a census of population was taken. We could not get American bacon at 4d. per lb. The farmers went out of production, although they were offered any price, and it was not merely because they had not the feeding stuffs. They were going out of production before feeding stuffs ever became short.

It is not nonsense; they were going out of production in 1940 and 1941, before the effects of this war were ever felt. These are facts; the figures are there. They were going out of production at that time under a Government that promised to assist pig production. What was the measure of assistance? They set up a committee that, by its activities, reduced the pig population.

That was an agreed measure, agreed by the whole Dáil.

Exactly, in order to try to save a situation which was declining or retrogressing under the Fianna Fáil administration. There was no Pigs and Bacon Commission in 1928 and 1929 at the time of the world slump.

What about the position in 1931?

I do not want to be an apologist for the Cumann na nGaedheal Government when I say this, that I think when the history of this country comes to be written in more impartial days, its contribution will be realised, and recognised as a very great contribution. I do not want to say anything more on that aspect. I would not even be satisfied with the 1928 or the 1929 position, though I will say that we have not been able to improve on it. What did the League of Nations say with regard to the 1928-1929 position? They said that, at a time when there was a world slump, with unparalleled results, with an unparalleled number of crises and collapses, of the few countries that weathered that situation the Twenty-Six Counties, or whatever we may like to call it, weathered it better than any other. I see the cynical grin on the face of the Leader of the new Farmers' Party.

Like yourself, I have that grin from birth.

I think we were not doing well enough at that time, but we have even gone back on that position. Sooner or later all the old politicians will go out of here—and it may be a good thing—but the Lord preserve us from the new enlightened leadership of the Farmers' Party.

And the likes of you.

At any rate, I am willing to learn, but the Farmers' Party have come in here with a bias against the old political Parties.

You have a lot to learn.

Whatever the old political Parties did, it is doubtful if the Farmers' Party will ever be able to do as much.

They will not execute people, anyhow.

I did not want to refer to executions, because that would be wholly irrelevant in this debate, but as long as a State exists, and as long as people break the law or contribute to a chaotic state of affairs, you will have to have executions. The Fianna Fáil Government, who deplore it, are equally vehement in that respect, and I suppose they were more vehement at the time that Deputy Donnellan was supporting them, but they had to do it. I regret executions, but the security and the integrity of the State and of the people must be preserved and, if it is necessary that a regrettable thing such as an execution should take place, then that must be; but the paramount consideration is all the people, not a section of the people, and not an individual.

Deputy Larkin referred to taxation. There is one peculiar feature about taxation and that is that the invisible taxation is probably greater than the visible. That may be a shrewd thing from a political point of view, and it may have its uses, but in my opinion its effect on industry and agriculture, on the general trade and prosperity of the country, is bad. For a number of years, but particularly since the outbreak of war, the trend has been, on the one hand, a rising of prices and wages and, on the other hand, an increase in the cost of necessary and unnecessary articles. There is practically nothing that has not increased in price. What the Government should endeavour to prevent is invisible taxation which is, in my opinion, contributed to in many respects by in-between, or what are commonly known as middlemen. Increases of all kinds are contributed to by lack of determination to prevent certain sections of in-between or middlemen making profit to the detriment of the people as a whole.

If we are to tackle the cost-of-living question, we must ensure that a satisfactory margin of profit is left to the producer—the farmer or the industrialist. Between the farmer and the industrialist, as producers, and the consumer, there are individuals who benefit and who make it almost impossible for the consumer to exist. The result is that many consumers have to have their wages raised, but the point may be reached when there will be no possibility of granting any further increases. Merely granting increases to meet the situation, thus piling up a debt which will have to be met at some time, is wholly unsound.

One is struck by the enormity of this Vote. It is practically £1,000,000 a week, and that is a huge sum. A couple of years ago we were £10,000,000 less. In the last couple of years we have increased by practically £10,000,000. That certainly gives food for thought. The cost of living, the cost of commodities, has increased so rapidly in the last couple of years that we require £10,000,000 more now than we did two years ago.

There has been reference—timely reference—to the growth of the Civil Service. I am inclined to think that the Civil Service has outgrown the requirements of this country. From my contact with civil servants, I could not speak too highly of them and of the courtesy and assistance they give to any Deputy or other person who approaches them—and that goes for every Department. If we continue adding to our administrative machine and if, on the other hand, we do not increase production, we will find ourselves with a bill greater than £50,000,000, with a Civil Service that has outgrown itself, with a declining production and with emigration proceeding at a faster rate.

I do not want to detain the House much further. I only wish to refer to one or two matters. We are all, in this community, dependent, one on another, and I think that the Government, even at this stage, ought to realise that a wholesale reorganisation and re-orientation of our approach is necessary in order to meet the situation which may arise. The Government should endeavour to relate their approach to conditions to the facts that exist, and to relate our present circumstances to the factual conditions that may obtain in the post-war period. They should examine the whole position of agriculture with a view to seeing what can be done to put it upon a sounder basis than that upon which it is at the present. It will take more than talk here to realise what can be done in the post-war period, and if we do not realise the salient defects that exist here, we will be in no position to deal with the difficulties that will confront us in the post-war period.

In practically every country in the world, a great deal of what one might call stocktaking is taking place with regard to facing the post-war world. I have no great faith in commissions, and so on, that may be set up to deal with such a situation. I think that we should endeavour to approach, with open minds, the needs with which we may be faced, so that we can contribute in some way to the needs of both agriculture and industry in the post-war period. Let us see what is desirable and what is necessary in order to meet the situation. Let us see in what way we can develop properly, so as to reduce the cost of living, and I suggest that the best way to reduce the cost of living would be to have better production and increased foodstuffs. On the other hand, we should relate our industries to agriculture in so far as it is possible to do so.

I have got the impression that the Government are living in a perpetual hope that something will save them from a chaotic avalanche. I have gathered that they are tired, and I think it would be well if they searched amongst the members of their own Party for fresher minds. I have not much faith in that Party, generally, but I think that they might be able to find amongst their own back benchers some fresher minds. I am sure that it would be better than having the redundancy of incompetence that we have had on the Government Front Bench for the last few years.

In closing, I should like to say that it is up to every Party and every Deputy in this House to realise that however the situation may develop it will require the most enlightened opinion and judgment that every Party in this House, and every Deputy, can bring to bear on the problems with which we shall be confronted, and I would again impress on the Government the desirability of giving us some further indication than we have had up to the present as to the business with which we are to be faced in the Dáil. Deputy O'Higgins referred to that matter yesterday, and I think it would be a very good thing if we were to get a little further indication of the business with which we are likely to be faced when meeting here. Unfortunately, the information with regard to this huge sum, for which we are now asked to vote, only came into our hands on Saturday morning. Now, it takes a good deal of time to look up all the facts in connection with such a matter, and ordinary Deputies have not the same facilities as Ministers to look up the returns. Accordingly, I would appreciate it if the Government would give us, at any rate, a week's notice because, usually, we do not know, from one day to another, what business will be transacted, and I think it would be well to give us more notice of the business that is to be taken.

I do not intend to delay the House very long in speaking on this Vote, but in reading back on the reports of meetings of this House, one thing strikes me very much. Years ago, one read of Deputies, who now form members of the present Government, despising the Government of that day, condemning them for the huge expenditure, and saying that the country could not afford it. Now, however, we have, roughly, a sum of almost £50,000,000 presented to us, and the trouble is that if we look back over the last few years it will be found that the national income has not increased at all—certainly, not in comparison with the huge expenditure. Of course, there are other things to be considered. There is not one of us in this House who could point a finger to any way in which that expenditure could or should be reduced. Take, for instance, social services. There is not one of us who believes that too much is being spent on those social services. As a matter of fact, some of us think that still more should be spent on them. Of course, the emergency also is responsible for a large amount of this demand, and the fact is that, at the moment, that cannot be helped. Naturally, we are all anxious to spend what we can to ameliorate the conditions of our people. Since I came into this House —and I know that this is true of other Parties also—we wanted to increase expenditure on such services. I admit that I did so myself, but after all we must realise that a day of reckoning comes, and I say that the time to protest against expenditure is when the bills are being presented to this House. There is no use in voicing protests to-day against that expenditure.

Of course, I am afraid that the trouble here for the past ten years has been that the various Parties in this House, although they were anxious to spend, did not give sufficient attention to where the money was to come from, or to the real asset that existed in this country, which is the land and the workers on the land, because it is they, and they alone, who produce any new money in this country. Now, however, there is no doubt that something must be done, and, in my opinion, the only way to solve that problem is to increase the wealth from the land and to help the people who are producing from the land. After all, you must realise that many other sections of the community could sit down for the next three months or so—let us say, the Judiciary, or other sections of the community—and still the work of the country would continue; but if the workers and producers, the sweaters of the nation, were to sit down for three months we would be faced with starvation. Yet the workers on the land and the producers — the "sweaters", as I have called them— are the worst paid of all sections in this community. I think that these are the people who should be paid the most, or that at least they should be paid something better than the wages they are being paid at the moment, because, with the wages they receive to-day and the conditions under which they work, it amounts to slave labour. I agree, of course, that this is not the time for debating the subject to which Deputy Liam Cosgrave referred a moment ago. He talked about "cod" industries, and so on. Well, of course, Governments, just the same as ordinary people, do the best thing that they can. Sometimes, their efforts do not turn out to be as good as they expected, but sometimes they do turn out to be fairly good. Some of our industries were successful and a great advantage to this country. With regard to those of them which were not successful, it can be said that it was a matter of trial and perhaps the people who started them were not to be blamed for the fact that they were not successful.

At present, this country, as we read in the newspapers, is passing through a period of anxiety, a period of anxiety for the Government and the people. We do not know what situation may arise, but there is one thing sure: we can overcome any situation which will arise. We have a long, varied and bitter experience to guide us in time of crisis. The one common basis for all that was national unity, and I believe that we have got that unity to-day as solid as ever we had it in our lifetime. If we use that unity properly, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that our country can overcome any crisis that may be brought upon it. I want to bring home to the Government this fact, that there are certain resources in this country which should be pooled at present to help in every way the people who produce from the land.

Our urgent need at the moment is food. We have to get it, and we can get it from the land. Even though taunts may be thrown across the House about what is called the new Farmers' Party—I regret that you, Sir, were not here when the last speaker was speaking; you would not look at me for referring to it if you had been —I can say, speaking for the farmers of this country, that there is now more than ever cast upon us the necessity to produce the food for this nation. I want to tell the House that we fully realise it, and it is my opinion that we will not fail in that effort. Let us send from this House a message of hope to the farmers and the workers on the land, to the people who produce the food; let us tell them that we will have no cheeseparing or hairsplitting about it; let us tell these people, the backbone of this nation, that on them and on them alone this nation depends. Speaking as I do on their behalf, I have no doubt that they will rise to the occasion.

I have no doubt that with the unity amongst our people at the moment, we shall well get over this crisis. There is yet time—it is not yet too late—to do all the work which is needed, but I again appeal to the Government, to the food producers, to the people who are the backbone of the nation to get away from this cheeseparing and this hair-splitting and to get down to it. I appeal to the Government to pay these producers as people in the front line. They were often in the front line before and they came out victoriously. I have no doubt that they will come out with victory again.

I echo Deputy Donnellan's hope that the splendid unity of our people will bring us safely through the crisis through which the country is passing at the moment. The Deputy has given his benediction to this huge bill for Supply Services which we shall soon be asked to meet, although I thought it was one of the primary objects of the Farmers' Party to bring down taxation. I am rather surprised by Deputy Donnellan's attitude, because I thought when he got up to speak that he would be more critical of the Estimates which have been circulated in the last few days.

Deputy Larkin, in the course of his speech, beseeched Deputies to approach the discussion of this Vote in a realistic fashion, and I agree that if we are to get anywhere in our discussions we should at least try to be realistic and constructive. He made one suggestion with regard to the cost of living which I thought very sensible and sound. He suggested that, before price Orders are issued, the Minister for Supplies should get in touch with the people primarily concerned in the production of the commodity for which prices are about to be fixed. That should be a sine qua non of any price-fixing Order, that the people engaged in the production of the commodity— not only the people in control but the people engaged in the process of manufacture—should be consulted before a price Order is issued, because the feeling prevails very generally in the country that when these matters are left to civil servants, invariably too big a margin is allowed to the manufacturer.

That is a common subject of complaint amongst all sections, and it is necessary, as a matter of fact, to put this whole matter of price-fixing on a more scientific basis. There is a terrible disparity between the prices of the different commodities as revealed by the figures published in the Irish Trade Journal, and it is difficult for the ordinary person to understand why there should be such a disparity. Even in the case of goods produced under approximately similar conditions, prices will be found to vary considerably, and I suggest to the Minister that some steps should be taken in order to regularise the whole situation and to put this question of price-fixing on some more orthodox and scientific basis.

In discussing the question of the cost of living, one could range over a big number of subjects, but I intend to confine myself to just two, one of which was mentioned by Deputy Davin, that is, the high price of fuel especially in the cities and towns and non-turf areas. It seems inexplicable to me why fuel should cost such a very high price in view of the low cost of production in the turf-producing areas. The costs are relatively very low, but I understand that the chief reason for the high cost which consumers have to pay is the transport, the loading and unloading charges. Why these should be so high I cannot understand. I suggest to the Minister that the question should be re-examined, and that, to assist him in that re-examination, he should bring in some competent business man with experience of organisation, who would probably be able to devise a scheme of turf production, under which it would be possible for the Government to sell it at a lower price than now prevails. Some weeks ago, when the matter was being discussed in the Dáil, I suggested that it should be possible for those in charge of the collection of fuel supplies in Dublin to organise private producers in different parts of the country, as in that way I imagine turf would be got much cheaper than it is got from county councils. In any event the present cost of turf is exorbitant as it is one of the big items in the cost of living.

The next question is the impact of taxation on the living standards of our people. Taxation affects every section of the community, and it is difficult to justify, certainly on any rigidly economic ground, an expenditure of £45,000,000 on Supply Services. In 1931 these services cost £21,000,000 but the figures have now jumped to £45,000,000. Even allowing for the emergency, and the expenditure that it entailed, it is difficult to understand why there should be such a huge increase in the cost of Supply Services I frankly admit that social services are costing a good deal of money. It is another question whether they warrant the amount of money being spent on them. Personally I consider there is a great deal of money wasted on social services. Notwithstanding all the money we spend in that way we do not seem to achieve any results. For instance, the money spent on preventive diseases seems, to a large extent, to be wasted. I do not know the reason for that. I feel that we have failed to get rid of the cause of disease, and that until we do so the money spent is to a large extent wasted. England is waging a war on an income-tax of 10/- in the £. Here people have to pay income-tax at the rate of 7/- in the £. Taking income-tax and surtax, it means that business men are working 50 per cent. of their time for the service of the State. A professional man who has not to pay surtax is contributing roughly 40 per cent. of his time in the service of the State. Not merely is national expenditure increasing at an abnormal rate, but local expenditure is keeping pace with it. The impact of these two demands on the cost of living is undoubtedly very serious.

I realise that in the emergency we are obliged to provide additional services regardless of cost, and that invariably we forget all about the ordinary laws of economy. We get careless and go on spending and spending without trying to retain any grip on it. That is what is happening here. We are spending regardless of our resources. We are not trying seriously to relate expenditure to income. From figures published in the Trade Journal, and in other official publications, it has been revealed that our income is going down. It must be going down when production is going down. Notwithstanding that fact our expenditure is mounting steadily. If that continues for the next few years and if we have to face a Budget of £60,000,000 or £65,000,000, what position will we find ourselves in at the end of the war? If the war terminated next year we would be faced with a system of government involving an expenditure of £50,000,000 yearly. Following the cessation of hostilities there may be a slump in prices. It might happen that there would be a boom for a few years, but following that there would be depression and falling prices. How the Minister is going to maintain the expensive machinery of government on the reduced earning capacity of our people is a problem for some finance wizard to solve.

Local bodies and other statutory bodies have been asked to submit schemes for post-war expenditure. Some of these schemes are very costly. I do not know what the total cost is, but I am certain that it will run into millions of pounds. I realise that we will be confronted with a very serious problem when the war is over as large numbers of our people will have to be provided for. We must try to provide for them to the best of our ability by finding employment for them. Has the Minister seriously considered the high cost of government, or where he is to find the money required to provide employment in the big post-war schemes that are envisaged? In his speech Deputy Larkin suggested that the banks should be obliged—I suppose he meant forced—to lend money to the Government at 1 per cent. interest. The Deputy mentioned £20,000,000 or £30,000,000. Even if the banks lent the money somebody would have to pay it back. If we are to raise money for post-war development, and also maintain the expensive machinery of government, it means that we will have to mortgage the future. I assume that we will have to pass on the expenditure to future generations. Perhaps that is the Minister's view of the situation. Some of the money may be found by loan, but I doubt if he will raise a loan to cover the cost of the post-war schemes he has in mind. When the war is over we will not be richer. The possibility is that we will be very much poorer. In the altered circumstances how will we meet the bill? That is a problem for some very able Finance Minister.

Deputy Larkin also referred to the question of agricultural production, and discountenanced the idea of a subsidy for agricultural production. Deputy Cogan made a case for a tillage subsidy some time ago, but it was not acceptable to the Dáil. Personally I did not agree with the case made by Deputy Cogan or by the members of the Farmers' Party who supported him. However, there may be a case for a subsidy for agriculture for the purpose of supplying our internal needs. I do not think there is any necessity for a subsidy for agricultural exports. I made a case in the Dáil that in the post-war period the best contribution the Government could make to farmers' difficulties would be to remove all restrictions on imports of the raw materials they require. If all restrictions on raw materials of the farmers' industry are removed, then there is no justification whatever for subsidising exports. The subsidisation of exports would merely mean putting extra taxation on consumers. I do not think that would be justified. There is no doubt whatever that if we want to bring the country back to a sound and stable position, we will have to set about increasing production in many different directions. As is disclosed by the official figures production has fallen. If we want to get back to a stable position, agricultural production will have to be increased.

The Government will have to take suitable steps to see that the production of various commodities now in short supply is brought to the high standard at which they were some years ago. There will be a widespread demand for all sorts of agricultural production when the war is over. We can exploit that demand to our advantage but, in order to do so, we must set about increasing agricultural production. Not merely must we increase the stocks of cattle: we must also increase the stocks of pigs, poultry, butter and other produce. If the Government is fully conscious of its responsibilities, it should set about the investigation of the problem of increasing agricultural production right away. Now is the time to make a beginning, so that we may be prepared to take advantage of whatever favourable situation may arise when the war is over.

There is one other matter to which I wish to call the attention of the House, although it is somewhat out side the scope of the four matters with which the Parties agreed to deal. It is in regard to the action of some of the inspectors of the Department of Supplies, who have been sent out to the country to exercise vigilance over the fortunate—or unfortunate—shopkeepers. About five weeks ago, a report was published in the daily papers—in the Irish Independent, I think—of a shopkeeper in Omeath who was anxious to find out the occupation or professional life of one inspector. The inspector hedged for a good while and finally said he was on the staff of the National Bank in some Northern town. It so happened that the shopkeeper knew there was no branch of the National Bank in that town and knew, as a consequence, that the inspector's statement was not accurate. Are inspectors of the Department of Supplies obliged to answer truthfully, when they are asked directly by a shopkeeper, if they are so and so, or are they specially instructed by the Minister or by the higher officials of the Department not to divulge their positions under any circumstances?

The Deputy must realise that to be a detail of administration.

I realise the difficulties under which the inspectors carry out their duties, but this is rather an unusual type of case. It appears to me that it places a Government official in a very false light, when he has to act in the same way as this unfortunate inspector, who was caught out by the shopkeeper in Omeath. These inspectors should be told to exercise more discretion when they are visiting shopkeepers. After all, they should have some regard to the Civil Service tradition, which still holds good in this country, I hope, as it does in most other countries in the world.

The manner in which this Vote on Account has been debated here by Deputies of all Parties who have already spoken, is a pleasant surprise to me and I am sure it must be a pleasant surprise to the Minister, who is asking the country to foot a very big bill. The pleasant feature is that there has not yet been a statement from any Party in the House, and particularly from those who claim to represent the farming community or the labour community, to the effect that the bill is an exorbitant one which the country is not able to meet. I think that is a declaration from every section of the House that the country is in an extremely sound financial position. It must be so, when those representing different sections here have not said that the country cannot meet this bill or is unable to bear it. In previous years, it has been alleged on Votes on Account that the country is overtaxed and that it is being driven on the rocks of bankruptcy. We are now asked to meet a much bigger bill than heretofore and no such allegation is made by any Deputy. Therefore, it must be recognised that our State is in a very strong financial position.

I have been particularly impressed by the attitude adopted by Deputies elected specifically to represent the farming community—the members of Clann na Talmhan or the Farmers' Party. Prior to this, they claimed that the country was very highly overtaxed; but now they have the wisdom to accept the facts and make no such claim here. Neither is there a demand from that Party for any reduction whatever in the amount of taxation that it is necessary to impose in the coming year to extract practically £50,000,000 out of the people's pockets to finance the State. On the contrary, we had even to-day demand from the Leader of that Party for more spending. That is a healthy sign, and shows they have improved their outlook in the last six months and have recognised that the present Minister for Finance is a capable and competent Minister in charge of the financial destinies of this State.

Previous speakers have mentioned the proposal some time ago for a tillage subsidy as part of Government policy. If the proposal made by certain members of the Farmers' Party— not all of them—were adopted, the present Minister for Finance would be asking for £57,500,000 this year, instead of £50,000,000—as a further £7,500,000 would be required to finance the proposed subsidy on tillage. At that time, I must say that—because of the speeches made by two members of the Party which made the proposal— I misunderstood the proposal; but I understand to-day, having listened to one of those who voted for it at that time, that the proposal was an attempt to reduce the cost of living. Deputy Esmonde, who voted for the proposal, said that was his reason for supporting such a proposal. Representing the farmers of Mayo, I would strongly oppose an attempt to reduce the cost of living by imposing a tillage subsidy, instead of tackling that question in other ways. If you attempt to reduce the cost of living by giving a tillage subsidy, no matter what the figure may be—oven £3 per acre—you must clamp down on the producers on the land rigid price control—very rigid price control.

I am not prepared to go to the farmers of Mayo and tell them that the price of their produce is to be rigidly controlled either now or in the future in order to reduce the cost of living and that they are to be compensated by a subsidy on tillage because, in the West of Ireland particularly, tillage has always been the policy of the farmers. They have to till in order to live. I would not like to see the Government induced, at this stage or in the immediate future, to change their policy as regards tillage and to give direct subsidies for tillage of all classes and kinds in all counties. It has, I think, been brought home to the people more than ever before since this emergency arose that the economic unit in this country is the small holding. The real sturdy economic unit will bear the brunt of any crisis and, if it will not bring the owner and his family unscathed through the crisis, at least it will bring them through the crisis better than any other section of the community if the land is properly husbanded and industrial work in the cities, the distribution of goods, the control of prices, and rationing are properly carried out.

It is now well recognised by all sections that mixed farming, during the period of the crisis particularly, is the safest proposal. Where the farmer on the small economic holding produces for his requirements to the full extent of his capacity, he at least will weather the storm. He may not make money, but he will weather the storm better than those people with wide acres of ranch land who are faced with labour difficulties, difficulties of getting machinery and fertilisers and other difficulties. I hope the Government will recognise the value of the small economic holding and pay more attention in the coming year to seeing that the post-war policy, if not the immediate policy, will be directed towards providing more economic small holdings. It may not be good economics at the moment, because of the fluctuation in land values and prices, to take over and divide land at the present market price. But the immediate post-war policy of any Government should be directed towards placing the maximum number of economic landholders on the land. In the west we have still many vacant semi-derelict farms, the owners of which have left the country and will never come back, and the fertility of which is being reduced by neglect. In the post-war period the policy of the Government should be to place the maximum number of economic holders on such lands.

I was amazed to find at this stage adverse criticism directed towards the Department of Supplies. It may be that the Department of Supplies has too many officials for the work done. But the House should recognise that, if there is any Department in the State with which the public has refused to co-operate, it is the much-abused Department of Supplies. Time and again I have heard certain Deputies attack and abuse the Minister for Supplies, both in this House and in the country, because he has not succeeded in preventing black marketing and disgraceful charges being imposed on people for commodities that are scarce in the market. What have the public, or even complaining Deputies, done to place before the Minister the necessary facts to enable that problem to be tackled? There are certain cases, I think, in the City of Dublin where the Department of Supplies may have been lax.

My knowledge of their operations is confined to two or three counties. I know that when certain public-spirited individuals reported glaring cases of overcharging and were asked to do so by people who were imposed upon, when the Minister and inspectors came to these people to try to have justice done them, they refused to budge or they told the other story and allowed the people who were robbing them to go scot free. But, where the Department of Supplies did get the necessary information and where some individuals came forward to support the information, the people were brought to book and penalties were imposed which shocked Deputies on all the benches in this House. I am glad to say that the Department's activities, which have not been supported by the public except so far as complaining is concerned, have succeeded in giving a fair measure of justice to the public with regard to the rationing of commodities. Rationing has righted itself. It was very difficult in the early stages when it was new, but for the last year or so, as the system has developed, rationing has worked fairly well where commodities are available.

In that regard, attempts have been made at times to cast general reflections on the business community. The number of business people who have been guilty of overcharging and trying to "diddle" the public is very limited. Speaking generally, the business community have met the public fairly and decently. The number of black sheep amongst them is limited. I think the public realise that, and it is time that general recognition should be given to that fact, because certain Deputies and certain sections are trying to cast general reflections on the business community. The task that business men have to perform nowadays, with the hundred and one things they have to do with regard to returns, rations. reports, requests and licences is immense, and it is a big tax on the capacity of men who are not practised in working out such matters.

The Government have been attacked for fixing wages. I think it will be admitted that, if something were not done in that regard, more virulent attacks would be made on the Government. It has not worked out fairly. There is no good in saying it has. It is impossible, I think, to work it out fairly but I should like to impress upon the Government that it may be possible that they have not gone sufficiently thoroughly into the question of wages. There are many people who have not got any bonuses. For instance, there are public officials who retired prior to the emergency. Their pensions were fixed prior to the emergency on the basis of the then cost of living. Again, lower-paid servants of the State who had arranged for a big future in education for their families have not been fairly dealt with in discussions as to whether certain increases should be given in bonuses.

We must realise, however, that all sections of the community are suffering. There may be an occasional professional man or an occasional business man who is living more comfortably than before the war, but they are the exceptions. People generally are suffering considerably. The small salaried man living in a town has to buy everything in the way of farm produce at black market prices on his pre-war salary. He is in a bad way. Again, many small business people in towns whose quotas are limited cannot get bonuses from anybody. How they live at present is a mystery to me. I know that the Government cannot do very much to relieve the sufferings of sections of that kind, but it should be generally recognised that these hardships do exist and Government policy in imposing taxation should be directed towards giving these people the full advantage of any remissions that may be found possible.

I should like to congratulate Deputy O Cléirigh on the viewpoint he has expressed in connection with the Standstill Order on wages. I wonder is the Minister aware that there are several sections of workers who have got no bonus at all? It will be admitted that the cost of living has increased as much for these people as for everybody else. Take the section to which I belong myself—insurance workers. They have received not one penny of an increase; their salaries are identical with those they received in 1939. If one of these men has to buy a pair of boots for his child he finds that a pair of boots which cost 7/- in 1939 now costs 20/- or 21/-. The suit of clothes that cost only £4 in 1939 now costs £10, and then it is a very inferior article. As regards the price of fresh meat, I say without hesitation that there is no justification for the prices charged for fresh meat in this country at present. Meat which was sold for less than 1/- per lb. pre-war now costs 2/- per lb.

I think there is something very much wrong with the manner in which the price of meat is regulated. Everybody will have to admit that the price of cattle is not double what it was in 1939, yet the price of fresh meat has practically doubled. If the increase in price were going directly to the farmer I would not make any bones about it. I should like to see the farmers getting good prices because otherwise they will not be in a position to pay their workers decent wages. I agree 100 per cent., therefore, that the farmers should get the highest possible price for the produce but when you have fat cattle sold in the Dublin market to-day, and all during the winter, at an average price of 60/- per cwt., while the workers of the city have to pay as high as 2/- per lb. for certain cuts of the meat, I say that there is someone in the community getting an unjust profit. Making all allowances for wastage I think that it is criminal that the average price of beef is nearly 2/- per lb. For some portions I believe the price is as high as 3/-, though the farmer who has to feed his cattle and put the stuff on the market is not paid sufficiently at all. As I say, I would be quite pleased to see the workers paying 2/- or 3/- per lb. if they were able to do it and if the profit went to the man who produces the meat and not to the middlemen.

The present is not a time, having regard to recent events, in which we can speak as freely as we otherwise would but I do say that the Irish people should get together and stand behind the Government on the national question. Similarly, I think that there is a duty imposed on all of us to stand together in the effort to protect the nation economically. If this nation is to survive at all, we must get together on the economic question and try to devise some means to enable our people successfully to surmount the economic crisis. Everybody should know that our people cannot exist on the miserable doles that are being paid out at the moment. Why should the people receiving these miserable doles not be put to work at a living wage on some form of productive employment, if it were only to go out digging with the spade? After all, our ancestors, had no implements but spades and they tilled many thousands of acres of land successfully. They tilled with spades in days gone by and maintained a much larger population than there is in the country to-day. I do not think any able-bodied man should have to exist on a dole at the present time because if we are to continue along these lines the country will undoubtedly go bankrupt. Who is going to pay these doles? Our only source of wealth is the land and the bog; the land is the only real wealth we have. We may not understand the mentality of people who come from agricultural districts, looking for work, to the city where there are people already unemployed but why do they leave these agricultural districts? Because the wages they are offered are insufficient to keep body and soul together. Those dependent on them are starving and you cannot blame these people for trying to get away to benefit themselves.

The whole economic system in this country is altogether wrong and the sooner we realise that the better. We have 12,000,000 acres of arable land and thousands of acres of bog and yet there is a scarcity of farm produce. Last year people were forced to queue up for potatoes, while the system under which turf is distributed is worse than queueing. Still we have thousands of able-bodied men drawing the dole. I am not saying that those who are genuinely unemployed should not receive the dole, miserable as it is, but I do say that there is no justification for unemployment in this country at the present time. Every individual in the community must take his or her share of the responsibility of tiding the nation over the present crisis. I am afraid that our people have become greatly demoralised in the last 12 years since the payment of doles became so widespread. While people complain that they have to queue up for potatoes, you will find that many of them are not too anxious to till a plot to grow potatoes. I repeat that I am afraid that we have become greatly demoralised in recent years and that we do not possess the same spirit our ancestors had. I do believe that, if we are to succeed, we shall have to get back to the old mentality. There should be no complaint as regards the cost of social services. If you have social services, you must pay for them. I think that the greatest measure ever introduced by any Government here was that dealing with family allowances. There is a duty on whatever Government is in power to help those least able to help themselves—the aged, the blind, the widow and the large family. I congratulate the Minister on the introduction of the scheme of family allowances. I am voicing only my own opinion when I say that I would be in favour of a means test.

The Deputy is discussing legislation.

May I say then that I am glad to be associated with a Vote which includes an Estimate for family allowances? As regards subsidies for the farmers, something will have to be done. I am not a believer in subsidies; I believe more in prices. But I should like the prices to be such that the people would be able to pay them. I am in favour of some sort of guaranteed price to the farmer over a period. Everybody here will admit that something must be done for the farmers if they are to be put in a position in which they will be able to pay their employees a living wage. Why should the farm labourer and the farmer, who are the backbone of the nation, because they work in the dirt, be treated as dirt? Without them, the nation will not survive. With all due respect to civil servants, why should any civil servant have £10 a week for a great part of his life, with payment during sickness and a guarantee of a pension towards the end of his days, while he eats food produced under slave conditions? The ordinary farm labourer who produces the food on which that man exists is paid only for the day he works. When sick, he has no allowance, because I do not think that the 15/- per week paid by the National Health Insurance Society could in these times be described as an allowance. He has no guarantee in any shape or form. Neither has the small farmer nor the industrious farmer, whether small or big, who tills his land. They may go out some morning to find a cow dead. They can only hope for good weather for their crops. Perhaps, when their corn is ripe, the thresher does not come along the day he is wanted and the corn gets heated and useless. Every day in the year the farmer is subject to losses. That is why he cannot, of his own, give the farm labourer that to which he is entitled. We have those other classes guaranteed big salaries. They have a month's holidays, big pay and they work only a few hours. Let there be no misunderstanding. I am in favour of good wages and reasonable conditions of service but I have always held that the division between the civil servant and the farm labourer is too great in a little country like this. We could do without the civil servants even if all of them went on holidays for a few months. But if the farmer or farm labourer took a holiday for the next few months, I wonder where we would be?

As regards the question of milk, there is something wrong. Not alone is it wrong now but it has been wrong for years. Although this country is an agricultural country and we have been sending out thousands of pounds of butter, there are children in it who never had a drink of milk. I am prepared to give credit where credit is due and I congratulate the Government on their free milk scheme. That is a step in the right direction. But what about the worker who is not in receipt of any of these allowances—the man who has a small wage and a large family? The price of milk puts it out of his reach, with the result that thousands of the children of these people never drank a pint of milk in their lives. Their mothers could not afford to buy it. Some people criticise the farmers for looking for 1/- a gallon for milk. With cósts as they are, I think that they are entitled to 1/- a gallon. To produce it even at that price, they must work very economically. But milk is not supplied at 1/- a gallon to the poor of this city. The price is very much higher and I doubt that the cost of carriage would account for the difference. The milk yield is also declining and that is no wonder, seeing that every day we are allowing the pick of our cows to leave the country. It is only the good type of cow that is bought for export. We are allowing them to go out at the North Wall while our children are without milk. Dairymen and others interested in milk production must rear three cows to give the supply of milk which two good cows would give. I think that the Government should tackle that question of the difference in the price which farmers are receiving for milk and the price which the poor and the workers of this city have to pay for it.

On the question of clothing, everybody will admit that there must be something terribly wrong, considering that the wool producers got no increase until last year. I do not know that many members are aware of the price charge for ordinary woollen thread. The same thing applies to clothing. I should like to know how the difference is accounted for. There is only a difference of about 3/- a week in the wages of those who work on the manufacture of clothing and those who work in factories, and yet, as I have said, the price of the average suit for a working man has increased from about £4 to £12.

The Deputy might move to report Progress so that Questions may be taken now.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again later to-day.
Top
Share