When the debate was interrupted, I was speaking on the position of dairy herds in the country. Of course the Government tells us that in order to get rid of these scrub herds and to build up first-class herds——
Committee on Finance. - Vote 3—Department of The Taoiseach (Resumed).
The House was informed on more than one occasion that it would be necessary to submit to the Chair, for the guidance of the Chair and the House, the topics to be discussed on certain major Votes. This was so agreed at meetings of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I have got notice of three subjects to be raised on this Vote. I read them at the outset of the discussion. Agriculture is not one of them. The topics are:—The cost of living and the stabilisation of wages; the failure of the Government to plan and make provision for the future, that is for post-war reconstruction; and, from the Labour Party, "wages and the cost of living."
I spoke to the Parliamentary Secretary and told him that I intended to raise the question of the price of milk.
The proper method would have been for any Party who wished to raise a particular matter to have given notice, in writing, to the Chair.
If you, Sir, rule me out——
If the Deputy proceeds to discuss agriculture, other Deputies may want to introduce other matters. The Deputy, apparently, misunderstood the position.
I thought that as long as I spoke to the Parliamentary Secretary——
The Parliamentary Secretary did not inform the Chair. He has nothing to do with the matter so far as the Chair is concerned.
I bow to your ruling, but would you not consider that the price of milk comes under the cost of living?
The question of the destruction of scrub cattle could scarcely come under "the cost of living".
I was speaking of dairy herds in relation to the price of milk.
The price of milk is related to the cost of living, but the type of dairy herds in the country is not.
I say the class of herds in the country leads up to the question of milk production and the price of milk.
The Deputy should not initiate a debate on agriculture. He surely understands the difference.
Do you agree that the price of milk is connected with the cost of living?
It is for the Chair to say when a matter is not in order, and not to instruct Deputies as to what is in order.
I shall conclude my remarks on that one point. As regards the price of milk, we are asking for an increase of ¼d. per pint. The middleman gets from the consumer four times what the producer gets, and we would appeal to the Taoiseach to see that something is done to help us in this matter and that a fair price is given to the producer. It is sometimes said that the consumer cannot bear any further increase, but surely something could be done to see that the middleman would bear the increase? If something were done in that way, I believe we would be taking a big step towards remedying the present situation in regard to the scarcity of milk and butter.
I intervene in this debate merely for the purpose of dealing with some statements made by Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Donnellan, both of whom appealed for increased agricultural production after the war. Are we to take it from the Fine Gael Party and the Farmers' Party that there should be increased agricultural production merely for export after the war, and that that should not be put forward now when we are trying to feed our own people at home? I consider that whatever increase in agricultural production our farmers are capable of, should be carried out at the present moment in order to see that the people of this country are fed. My interest, in so far as post-war planning for agriculture is concerned, would be to ensure that the market which is now the property of the Irish farmer would be preserved for him after the war and would from the basis of whatever agricultural economy we are to have in future. I think that is far more important to the agricultural community than any decision that might be arrived at as regards markets abroad or anything else. I had one small instances last week of what markets abroad meant in the export of early potatoes, when, because a boat left on Wednesday instead of Tuesday night, the price dropped from £19 15s. to £15 per ton. That was a drop of £4 15s. per ton in one night on the market abroad, and that in the middle of a war. It meant just the difference between profit and loss to the farmers who were foolish enough to grow for the export market. One would think the Fine Gael Party would have learned enough lessons from 1924 to 1932 about that market to realise the falseness of the agricultural economy of depending on that market for the future of agriculture. If we had butter to export to that market to-day, I wonder where Deputy Donnellan's 10½d. or 1/- per gallon for milk would be, and who would pay the difference between the price of that butter for export on that market and the 1/- per gallon which the farmers are demanding to-day for milk. On the basis of the controlled price of butter in Britain to-day, the price of new milk at the creamery would not be 4d. per gallon. It is time Fine Gael learned the value of the export market about which there is all the shouting, and where it leads.
We had Deputy Donnellan complaining about the 1½d. extra for milk, and he endeavoured to couple that with the necessity for rationing of butter. He knows, and any man in agriculture knows, that our dairy industry here, so far as milk and butter production is concerned, was sacrificed to the export store-cattle trade for Britain for a number of years, and that the sole reason for the rationing of butter in this country to-day is that the cow to-day is milking only one-third of what she milked 20 years ago, owing to the policy of looking after the export, instead of the home, market.
It would not be necessary to take much notice of what Deputy Corry has said if it were not for the fact that it appears to be the view of the Government Party, if not of the Government itself. Deputy Corry knows quite well that nobody on this side or any other side has ever advocated that we should be solely dependent on the export market. Deputy Corry equally should know that neither agriculture nor industry can survive unless we have an export market. Does Deputy Corry or any other farmer in the House think we can carry on agriculture in the way in which it was carried on for the last six years, that the present system can be continued indefinitely? I do not think that any intelligent farmer believes that. Every person in the House with any knowledge at all of rural conditions wants to see the home market developed as far as possible for our own farmers, but realises also that, side by side with that, we must have the highest possible surplus for export. If I were to take the line in relation to Deputy Corry and the Government which he takes in relation to Deputies on this side, I would say that he was preaching a policy of no exports, that we need not concern ourselves at all with exports, that we need not even think of the outside market and that the home market is the only market about which we need concern ourselves. Deputy Corry taunts Deputy Donnellan with regard to the situation if we were in a position to export butter or any other farm produce at the moment. I wonder what our position will be post-war if we are to be completely dependent upon the home market and not to take any steps to see what market we can get for our exports. The fact, of course, is that outside one or two industries, we have nothing to export from this country and are likely to have nothing for export, so far as we can see, but agricultural produce. Deputy Corry talks about the yield of milk now being one-third of what it was 20 years ago. I doubt if there is any other dairy farmer in the House who will subscribe to that.
It is perhaps appropriate that the Taoiseach's Estimate should be considered now, immediately before the Recess. Certain suggestions were put forward by Deputy Mulcahy which I considered to be thoughtful and reasonable, and which I think An Taoiseach would not be ill-advised to consider carefully during the couple of months which will elapse before the House reassembles. I know that the fact that the House is not in session does not mean that An Taoiseach will be on holidays, any more than will any other Deputy, during the next couple of months. He has much administrative work to do but at least he will be released for a while from the worry of attending the deliberations of this House.
He is fortunate inasmuch as, in assuming office here, he succeeded a head of a Government who set a high standard of administrative ability, of honesty, sincerity and hard work and a high standard of rectitude and dignity in the performance of his duties. This is the first Dáil since the State was established of which Mr. Cosgrave is not a member and it is only right and proper that a tribute should be paid to the high standard he set for any head of the Government succeeding him. I think it is not faint praise to say that the Taoiseach has endeavoured to live up to the standard set by Mr. Cosgrave.
The debate on this Estimate should be the most serious debate in the House. The matters which were submitted for consideration were, I think, fairly wide inasmuch as they affect the livelihoods and lives of every section of our people, and particularly of the poorer sections. The cost of living is a question around which controversy will always rage. There are people who say that the cost of living must be brought down so that the workers will be able to obtain a decent standard of living for themselves and their families. There are others who suggest that the income of the workers should be brought up in order to achieve the same end. I think, as between those two viewpoints, there is the fair and reasonable view that it is the function of the Government to see that there is a price level and also a level of income which will enable every man in this country who is endeavouring to work to obtain for himself and his family a decent standard of living. That implies that the minimum wage which the lowest paid worker in this country receives should be sufficient to enable him, with the help of whatever social services exist in the way of family allowances and so on, to support his family in decency and comfort. It also implies that those employed in the main industry of the country, agriculture, whether they are employed as weekly workers or are working on their own holdings, should have an income sufficient to provide them with a decent living.
If we are to ensure that a decent standard of living shall not be beyond the means of our people, it is necessary first of all to ensure in the post-war period that all our people will be employed to the utmost of their capacity, and productively employed, because, unless production is brought up to the maximum, there can be no decent standard of living for our people. This is a comparatively a poor country, as far as mineral and other resources are concerned, and it is only the energy and enterprise of our people that can ensure them a decent standard of living. Therefore, in planning for the post-war period, it must be the duty of the Government to see that every conceivable industry and branch of industry is developed to its fullest extent. Not only agriculture, which is our basic industry, but our fishery industries, our fuel production industries, our industries for the development of power resources such as electricity, and all other secondary industries, should be developed to the fullest extent. In demanding a reduction in the cost of living, we must always have before our minds the necessity for ensuring that our people will be fully employed, and that our industries, both agricultural and others, are in the fullest state of production.
After production, it is necessary to ensure that the people are given the power to purchase the goods produced. To increase our production of milk, of butter, and other essential foodstuffs, it is necessary to ensure that there is no section of our people who are not in a position to purchase those goods, and that again comes under the heading of our social services. It is necessary to ensure social security for our people; to ensure that no section of our people shall be driven below the level which is necessary in order to maintain themselves and their families in a decent state of health and comfort. Between the purchaser and the consumer there is one entire system of distribution, and I believe that that system is altogether too expensive. That does not always imply that there is very extensive profiteering amongst our middlemen, although Deputy Dillon complained yesterday that he was allowed too high a margin of profit in the distribution of essential footwear.
The Deputy remembers the occasion on which Deputy Dillon said it—on the Vote for Supplies.
I was just drawing the attention——
On that point, might I ask the Chair, in view of the arrangement that the Dáil should adjourn this evening, was there not an understanding that anything with regard to any Department could be raised on this Vote in order to curtail discussion on other Estimates?
That is the first the Chair has heard of it.
Might I ask An Taoiseach was not that put to the Government?
Not that I know of.
Was it not put to the Government Whip?
As the Chair has pointed out, I understand that some time ago there was an arrangement come to that special matters were to be discussed on this Vote.
There were two matters handed in by Fine Gael— one late yesterday evening by Deputy Mulcahy.
In order to clear the air, it might be well to know from the Government Whip whether he was not asked last evening, when we complied with a request to have the business finished to-day, to arrange that, if the remaining Estimates were allowed to go through, anything which might have been raised on those Estimates could be raised without objection on An Taoiseach's Vote.
I will try to get the Parliamentary Secretary to give that information.
I have not heard of any such arrangement.
Neither have I, but it is possible that a misunderstanding may have arisen in this way: it may have been said: "When the Taoiseach's Vote is taken first, there will not be the same need for wide discussion on the Appropriation Bill." Then the natural thing for Fine Gael to do was to make an arrangement as to what matters they wanted to discuss on my Estimate. I understand that there were certain topics indicated to the Chair, and that is all I know about it.
That was some time ago—a week ago.
One of them was handed in only last night.
I do not consider that the high cost of distribution is due entirely to profiteering amongst those engaged in the distribution of goods, although there may be a considerable amount of profiteering. It is due, in the main, to the fact that there are too many people trying to make a living in this country between the producer and the consumer. There are far too many people engaged in the ordinary retail business, in the wholesale business and in between in the various trades and branches of trades, all endeavouring to secure something out of what the producer produces and out of what the consumer pays for his goods. I think that condition of affairs will continue until the people, as a whole, make up their minds that there shall be no business in this country more profitable than production.
Great Britain, at one time, was described as a hell for the producer and a paradise for the distributor. That description might have been applied to conditions here in pre-war days at any rate. It is not a condition that should be allowed to obtain in the post-war period. It is essential that the path between the producer and the consumer must be shortened to the minimum. To a great extent, that may be achieved either by co-operation between consumers or by co-operation between producers. The main producers of our essential goods are those engaged on agricultural production. Each farm is a small unit, but, without co-operation, it is impossible for the agricultural producer to sell his goods at the least possible cost of distribution. While people blame farmers for not co-operating amongst themselves to ensure the cheapest system of distribution, it is rather strange that the people who do so have not advocated that consumers might also co-operate amongst themselves so as to be able to purchase their goods at the cheapest possible rate. Co-operation is not a simple matter. It is one that requires a lot of organisation and education. It is not as simple as some people seem to think. Nevertheless, it is the ideal towards which our people should aspire, having regard to the fact that other small nations, such as Denmark, with similar systems of economy, have made great progress in production by co-operation.
Deputy Mulcahy referred to the fact that finance tended to curb production in the period between the last war and the present war, and that the cost of money, and the restrictions imposed by those who control money, tend to keep workers out of work and the owners of productive property out of production. The Deputy was quite right in suggesting that the system, by which the war effort in belligerent countries is being financed, should be allowed to operate in the post-war period in the development of countries such as this. There is no section of the community more in urgent need of cheap credit facilities than the farming community. Twenty years of acute agricultural depression have left farmers without any capital in their hands, and without any capital either in stored up fertility in the soil or in suitable farm buildings and equipment. Credit facilities for farmers must be provided as a first step towards ensuring an expansion in agricultural production, and at rates which agriculture can pay. We know that during the last war farmers borrowed money from the banks. It was made freely available to them at that time at a cost which agriculture could not bear and at interest rates which crushed agriculture out of existence.
It will be necessary, in the post-war period, that credit should be made available to agriculture at a low rate of interest. Since credit can be made available to Governments engaged in war production at an almost nominal rate of interest, there is no reason why it should not be made available to agriculture at the same rate. I have been urging this for many years. As a result of the economic war, and the depression which struck the agricultural industry at that time, there are many farmers who have been brought to complete ruin, men upon whose holdings rates, land annuities and other charges have accrued. If the requests which I made for better credit facilities had been reasonably met by the Government, we would have none of the tragic incidents occurring, such as occurred in the County Dublin in the case of the Sheridan farm. I think the first step towards the development of agriculture must be a realisation that the industry has suffered. As a result of the economic conditions through which it has gone, the entire nation is now suffering, because agriculture is not in a position to produce as efficiently or as extensively as it otherwise might do.
Deputies have referred to the fact that now and for the past 20 years this country has been exporting the best of its young manhood and womanhood, and, in addition, exporting young men and women who have been educated at enormous expense in our universities. It is not easy to calculate what exactly it costs to educate a boy for a profession such as the medical profession. It is a terrible tragedy that men so educated out of the hard earnings of honest citizens should have to be exported to the ends of the earth to earn a living. It is time to ensure that our entire system of education shall be directed not, as was suggested to-day, to enable our educated young men to find employment in various parts of the world, but rather to enable them to make a living within their own country. There is, in engineering and in science, vast scope for development here and it is in such professions that our educated young men should be able to find a decent living in this country. Our best brains should be educated for such professions, which will add to our national wealth and enable us to develop it fully. It is also essential that the best brawn of our people be thoroughly trained, by technical education, to work our industries and agriculture to the best advantage.
I make one last appeal to An Taoiseach now to see that the proper system of education is provided, and that there is behind it a deeply ingrained idea to inspire our young people to look forward to building up this country in every sphere. We must ensure that our young men and women leaving our schools and universities, full of zeal and enthusiasm for our national development, are given hope and confidence in our country's future. They must be given reason to believe that this country will remain independent and free, and not only that, but that it will grow stronger from year to year, physically, mentally and spiritually.
On the occasion of an important general Estimate of this kind, and particularly when it comes on the eve of a long adjournment of the Dáil, it is necessary to bring under the attention of the Government and the public some of the grievances and hardships under which people are suffering, and some of the inefficiencies of the Government. There is a laboured, artificial attempt to take advantage of the mental vacuum—created through a rigid, ruthless, political censorship—and to rush into that mental vacuum merely the amount of information that is allowed to trickle out through a controlled and biassed publicity department, so as to give the people an entirely false presentation of the situation of the country nationally and internationally and of the factors that make for the country's immunity from war.
It is just as well to face facts, whether they are agreeable or disagreeable. We have magnified our immunity from war, and our neutral position into a major Government achievement, and not only that, but an achievement due to one great man. That is done as if there were no other contributory factors, and as if one man, standing over a declaration of neutrality, were sufficient to keep the country neutral. If that were sufficient all the invaded countries in Europe would still be neutral. We have a policy of neutrality subscribed to by every Party in this House, endorsed by the people outside, and behind that declaration of policy we have a firm declaration to defend that neutrality. That is one of the contributory factors which kept us immune from war, but another factor was that one set of belligerents, which could have put in here, had no desire to do so, and the other set of belligerents were prevented from doing so, if they desired it, by the naval might and supremacy of the other.
We are bringing up a generation blissfully unconscious of facts, in imbecile innocence, thinking that in a world war a declaration, plus a comparatively insignificant army, is sufficient to keep a country free from war. That is not a healthy state of mind, as it is not true. It is wrong training for the youth of this country. There are many difficulties and mighty forces in this war, and it is the balancing of those forces and the weighing up of the pros and cons that gives us a correct idea of our immunity from war. I believe this war is not going to be the last one, and that that kind of mental upbringing is all wrong.
That kind of propaganda is seeping through this country with a political objective and not with the object of keeping the country immune from war. I believe that the implied ingratitude of these declarations is in itself provocatively dangerous, if we have friendly neighbours who happen to be involved in the war and from week to week we are implying that it is only our inherent might that is keeping them from invading our shores and violating our neutrality. That is not in the interests of good neighbourliness nor is it in the interests of trade during the war or after the war. We are reaching a point in this war where we must consider and evaluate not only our present position but our post-war position, in a crippled world scrambling for trade. We have to size up the claims we have built up to a share in post-war trade. We have to consider what factors may be contributing against our share. We must consider how our behaviour, our public declarations, our propaganda, our speeches and our open expressions regarding favours received, may be enhancing or jeopardising our prospects of a fair and reasonable share of post-war trade.
The war we have to face and to fight is not a military war or a military threat. We left military threats behind us some years ago; and no matter how we may cash in politically on events from year to year, our major war is to keep our people in reasonable supply, to keep our workers in employment, to keep our industries going and to keep our people fed. It is the duty of a Parliament, living in a country not at war, to size up the success or failure of the Government and see how its efforts are directed towards fighting that war, what provision was made in the past, what efforts are being made at present, and how the Government's plans are developing towards our prosperity in the future. In coldly examining that situation, we should not be mentally or physically stampeded by any of the propaganda, that there is great danger around the corner; great military danger, or a hair's-breadth escape by the skin of our teeth. Let us face up to the situation as it is, to see what we can do to better it, and if we cannot better it, to see how far we can ensure that it will not get worse.
This war was signalled for two years before it came, and practically every country in the world, particularly every island country, devoted those two valuable years to the stocking of their larders, to the laying in of supplies, to the laying in of hoard upon hoard of commodities they required from overseas. During those two years we did not buy one pound weight or one pound worth more than we bought in any normal year. The Neros were fiddling, and two valuable years were lost. Even when war broke out, for a period of 12 months the seas were still comparatively wide open and supplies were reaching countries from the farthest ends of the earth.
During that vital year the fiddling went on, the speechmaking went on, and not an extra ton of any overseas articles came into this country. Then the seas, comparatively speaking, were closed, and the supermen began to make speeches as to how the miraculous efforts of the Government had managed to enable the people to subsist or to exist from one year to another. Even the bare system of rationing which had been demanded from all sides of this House at the beginning of the emergency was scoffed at as entirely unnecessary. Not only were we not getting increased supplies from outside, but we were watching, while the wealthy inside bought in enormous quantities of whatever supplies there were inside the country, and when the greedy appetite of the immensely wealthy was satisfied then we had a bare, ruthless and rigid system of rationing of what was left, so that the humble person was rationed on the goods value of the coupon weekly, plus nothing; while the wealthy person was rationed on the goods value of the coupon plus the vast stores that had been hoarded. Month after month, year after year we had Government inspectors and Government agents inquiring into every pound of grain produced by farmers, into every pound of sugar sold by a shopkeeper, into every hour of work and every penny of income that went into the house of an old age pensioner or of a person claiming unemployment assistance, but we had no survey of the vast stores accumulated in many homes up and down the country. Week after week and month after month and year after year we had the same rigid level of rationing.
We had the Government announcing at the beginning of the war that we had to go through with it, that it was going to be a period of sacrifice, whether we were in it or not, that the sacrifice would have to be equally borne, that no great profit would be made out of this war, that whatever the sufferings or whatever the hardships, let them be equally spread over all, and that steps would be taken immediately, so that unlike the last war profits would not mount and the cost of living would not soar. The first step in implementing that policy was to see that wages did not rise. We had a regulation introduced to a doubting Dáil that in order to prevent the cost of living rising, to give no pretext for increased profits, for inflated bank balances, or to wealthy people engaged in business the first step necessary was to peg down wages. Wages were pegged down, and the cost of living went up, prices went up, profits went up and the published reports of one company after another showed that on a greatly shrunken turnover of trade, profits doubled, or quadrupled. The Government's attention was drawn to that absurd, brutal, heartless and cailous situation, in debate after debate, and year after year. Within the last week we had the Minister for Supplies coming here speaking on behalf of the Government. What was his line on the war? What did he tell the Dáil and the people? He told them that he had reached a point in the fifth year of the war when prices might have to be controlled. Will An Taoiseach look back on the case made for the Standstill Order? Will An Taoiseach look back on the speeches made from the Government front bench, that the Standstill Order was imperative in order to control prices?
Now, five years after the hardship of that Order, we have a Government Minister standing up and saying that it might be necessary if the Dáil consented to control prices, but that in controlling prices we must face the fact that it may produce unemployment. Unemployment we have had. Unemployment we have; tragic, haemorrhagic emigration we have had; and in spite of that hæmorrhage we have vast queues of unemployed at home, and that long line of emigrants, not only because they are unemployed but because of the fantastically high cost of living at home. But, in order to control the cost of living, the first step necessary was to peg down wages. In the same month we had a regulation pegging down wages. What was the Government's decision with regard to Government contracts, with regard to local government contracts, or with regard to the contracts entered into by the State or by boards operating under the State? These contracts were legal contracts. There was a legal bond binding the contractor to carry out his contract at the price laid down. Only by Government action and Government intervention could there be any departure from the figure laid down. We had Government circulars. What did these circulars say? That these contractors must be guaranteed the same profit as they expected to enjoy before prices went up as a result of the war. I take no exception to that Order. It was perfectly fair. These men entered into contracts believing they would make so much out of them. There was no war at the time they entered into the contracts and the cost of commodities was at a certain figure. The cost of commodities rose and profit shrank. The Government released these contractors from their legal obligation so as to guarantee them the same profit as before. I think that the Government did the right thing but, to the same Government, I put the question: what is the profit of the workman? It is the difference between his wage and what it costs him to run his house. The raw materials of the workman are the food that keeps him strong and healthy as a workman. When the raw materials of that man's industry increased in price, was there any Government anxiety with regard to the sanctity of contracts? Was there any Government anxiety to see that that man would be granted the same margin of profit as he got before the war? Quite the opposite. There was a Government Order to ensure that that man's profits would shrink or completely disappear, that he would pay the war cost of commodities but that he would get no more for the finished article or the completed job. That is the Government view and the Government policy with regard to the humble, with regard to those who are powerless, and the other is the Government view and the Government policy with regard to those who are powerful, influential, and, perhaps, too heavily blessed with the material goods of this world.
We are asked now, on the eve of a long adjournment of the Dáil, to give a vote of approval to that kind of heartless, unbalanced policy. All through those years, we had, as I said at the beginning, an absolutely equal system of rationing, a system proper at the beginning, in the first phase, but a system that should have been looked into and worked out in detail before the end of five years of war. We had a fuel rationing that had no relation to the number of occupants of a house, that had no relation to the number of rooms in a house, where the fuel ration was the same for one person living in two rooms as for 15 persons living in 12 rooms. I ask An Taoiseach if, outside Bedlam, there was ever such a fantastic scheme for the rationing of the population. It was not rationing by rooms nor by persons. An individual living in one room got the same as a family of 15 or 16, with a number of invalids, living in eight or nine rooms. The whole handling of the rationing system, whether you take fuel, petrol, tea or anything else, represents just the policy of the lazy man— the man who has a police force standing behind him, the man who is not working for the people, but who is giving orders to the people, the Department that is merely taking a rough and ready line and then saying: "We want no investigation; we want no exceptions; we do not want the labour of looking into the justice of this scheme; it is equal for all." Could such a scheme be reasonably supported if it were "equal for all"? If we put forward a nation-wide scheme that is equal for all, in its very make up is it not an unequal scheme and an unjust scheme? Do we all start equal on the day the scheme is applied? Some people have plenty; some people have nothing. We apply an equal scheme and say: "This is equal for all." The failure to follow up any rationing scheme to see if, in its incidence, it is fair and if it is, in fact, bringing about an equal distribution of the supplies available for all, is one of the cardinal crimes, amongst many, committed by this Government.
The application of Government regulations to the ordinary individual has been as heartless as if this country were actually engaged in war. With regard to provision in anticipation, that is better forgotten. It was a case of the Government playing politics at home and abroad and grossly neglecting the serious work for which they were being paid. That is a page in our history which is better passed over. One thing I say to the Government: "Do not attempt, through propaganda, to take any pride or to attract any praise for the handling of the situation since the war began or as it exists at the moment." In spite of censorship, a little news regarding the outside world trickles into the home papers.
We read, month after month, of different countries, other than Commonwealth countries, making then trade arrangements for post-war years, making trade arrangements with Great Britain, with America and with other countries on the basis of ten years' trade—so much imports, so much exports. We cannot but be disturbed when we see those trade agreements being made in Great Britain for supplies of eggs, for supplies of bacon and for supplies of beef. Is it out of order for a Deputy in an Irish Parliament to ask: Where do we figure in that picture? Ministers from countries outside the Commonwealth are in England fighting their country's case and getting their share of the post-war trade. Not only Ministers but the Premiers of other Commonwealth countries are there, and they are going home, one by one, with the "swag".
Long-term arrangements for English trade in beef or in bacon with other countries were a thing which, in my view, was unheard of. Where do we figure, and where are we represented? Are we going to be there merely to get what is left? If there is anything doing in that direction to safeguard our trade post-war or to try to hold on to what we had pre-war, or even some of it, is there any objection to telling the Parliament and the people why that important business is much better done through civil servants than through Ministers? Have we such a poor bunch at the moment that they cannot improve our prospects or cannot make a better bargain than is made by subordinates? What is the reason we are unrepresented? Why are we not getting a share? Can An Taoiseach give us information as to what share will be left for us after the appetities of all these other countries are satisfied?
I think there is something more to be considered in the work of government than just successful home politics, than merely successful political propaganda at home. It is not doing the nation's work to attach the makeup of supermen to any group of plain, two-legged men who have broken down on their job so far. Is it not much better to try to pull the chestnuts out of the fire, even at the eleventh hour? I want to say bluntly to An Taoiseach that there is scarcely a Department of State that in its administration is not being corruptly handled in the political sense.
A question was submitted here last week by Deputy Hughes addressed to the Minister for Supplies in which he put the case of two Deputies or more making representations to the Department with regard to some trader who required some facilities, and he quoted the type of reply that goes to the different Deputies. To the Fine Gael, or rather the Opposition, Deputy the reply will go: "This case has been looked into and the Minister has agreed to grant..." The reply that goes to the Government or the Fianna Fáil Deputy is: "As a result of your representations, the Minister has agreed to grant..." The Minister, in his reply, did not deny that. He said that was "because we are more intimate with the Fianna Fáil Deputies than with other Deputies and we reply more formally to other Deputies". Who are the "we"? Civil servants, the Government Departments, the officers and the agents of Parliament? I do not believe there is a decent Deputy in this House who would stand for that kind of thing.
We heard a reply given last week, an official reply from the Minister in the Front Bench, where four Deputies from a constituency had approached a Government Department on a matter of constituency interest. The reply was to the effect that in spite of the representations of Deputy So-and-so, of the Fianna Fáil Party, the Minister was unable, etc. There was no reference to the fact that the representations were made by four Deputies belonging to four different Parties. I want to know whether the Taoiseach approves that kind of contemptible activity, either by Ministers or within Ministers' Departments.
I have before me a letter which appears, over the name of a very prominent person, in a Cavan paper, and in the course of that letter the writer refers to an advertisement published the previous week—that would be the week of the 19th June. The advertisement was in the following terms: "Ballyhaise Fianna Fáil annual letting of Bow Meadow bog will take place on Monday night at... Banks not claimed and paid for will be let. —Secretary." Ballyhaise Fianna Fáil annual letting. This particular Bow Meadow bog is portion of a State holding, State property. I will give the letter to the Taoiseach. I am aware that when I raise the matter here I may be told the Taoiseach has no previous information. I merely want an assurance that if the substance of this letter is correct, and State property is being auctioned over the name of a Fianna Fáil club, whether in Cavan or any other constituency, that the most drastic action will be taken. It is a thing that no decent person could feel comfortable standing over.
Here is another symptom of the same disease: I spoke to a Deputy here to-day. He had just arrived from his constituency. He told me a Fianna Fáil Deputy arrived in the constituency last week, and, calling on ten people, he informed them that they were getting reapers and binders. When this Deputy who spoke to me arrived in town, he got in touch with the Government Department concerned and he asked who would get binders in the constituency. He was told: "No, information can be given; no decision has been taken." Now, either the first Deputy was falsely using his position as a member of the Government Party by giving false, unauthorised information, or alternatively he was giving authoritative information which he got in advance of any other Deputy from the same constituency. I want that kind of thing looked into and denounced from within, not from outside, because the work of Parliament is the work and the interest of all Deputies, and in practice and in theory all Deputies, must be equal.
I remember, when I was a member of a Government Party sitting over there, I was acting as chairman of a committee, and, in what I thought was the public interest, I put in an application that the outline of proposed legislation might be given to us in advance so that we could put the case to the public and get the public view. The reply we got was that no information could be given to any Cumann na nGaedheal Deputy unless it was simultaneously given to every other Deputy in the House. The minute I got that reply I saw the soundness and the justice of it. I wonder if that rule of decency and clean conduct still operates. Every one of us can tell An Taoiseach that in our own constituencies our opposite numbers have advance information. How they get it is a matter for investigation.
The Taoiseach is now starting a new period with an unchallenged majority, with his full Parliamentary life to go. Let us at least plead that that should be a clean one, free from even the charge or the suspicion of political corruption. If the Taoiseach wants a Parliamentary Committee in public or in private to supplement or justify the uneasiness and the suspicion and the belief that are in the minds of many of us, then such a committee would be more than amply fed with supporting evidence.
That kind of nonsense, that kind of trickery and political injustice is not enhancing either the reputation of the Government or the good name of this State. Neither is it tending to increase the amount of respect which people outside have or should have for Parliament itself. Even the people that are benefiting by a little bit of advance information, even the people whose support is being procured by the implication that because it was a Government Deputy who intervened for them they got what they wanted, when they are giving support to that Deputy, do they not say: "When you see a Government that can be pulled by political Party supporters rather than by other Deputies of equal standing, there is something corrupt about it"? Does not the Taoiseach know that that must be the view of anybody who believes that he has got a favour because one Deputy interests himself or gives a recommendation or speaks on his behalf? I would ask the Deputies who are creating that impression in the country, are they doing any service to the Government or to Parliament or to the nation? If I really believed that I was living in a State under a Parliament whose Government and Government Departments could be pulled by political influence in their judgement as between the claims of one citizen and another, I would say, from my heart, it would be better if such a country never secured its freedom. A country that debases its freedom, debases and degrades its Parliament would be better if it were never free and never had a Parliament.
It is very easy to reiterate high-sounding platitudes, to speak in general terms, to quote from books, to cast our minds and imagination over the kingdoms of the earth, but it is not quite so easy to indicate specific proposals as applied to our own country, which should have our first interest. Deputy Mulcahy read for our edification what it is proposed to do in the matter of education and in other directions in another country but he put forward no suggestions or no ideas in regard to the development of Ireland. That should be our first concern. I shall try to fill some of the vacuums to which reference has been made.
Undoubtedly, agriculture is the basis of our national life, and a good balance between agriculture and industry holds out the best hope for the prosperity of our country. In order to get that result, many things are required. In the first place, it is necessary to have the co-operation of the people. It is necessary that Government direction and Departmental administration should coincide with the general interests of the people. The public services are the link between the people and the Government. They are the most essential element in the performance of the functions of the State. I think it would be well to examine that sphere of national activity. In former years, before the development of transport and of specialised education, those who went into the Civil Service came from their home areas where specialist teachers prepared them for that career. They were in contact with the economy of their farms and homes.
In the present day candidates for the Civil Service leave their homes at an early age, and go into big towns and villages where large schools cater for them. Consequently, they are cut adrift to a great extent from contacts which former candidates for the service had. I would suggest then that, just as candidates for the teaching profession must go for two years to training colleges, and have the advantage of practising schools, just as the Gárda go to the Depot, just as tradesmen have to spend a certain number of years in apprenticeship to their trades, those who are recruited into the service to administer the Department of Agriculture, should come from the model farms throughout the country, that these farms should be extended, and that either before or after their examination those who have subsequently to administer the affairs of this Department, would have practical contact with the work they are to do. That is only one aspect of it. The same would apply, perhaps in a lesser degree, to industry, because industry is more a matter of statistics than agriculture. These are some ideas in regard to educational development which occurred to me when Deputy Mulcahy was reading about what it was intended to do abroad.
We have a wide field for activity at home. What is the purpose of national freedom if it is not for the preservation of our native tradition, the development of our economy and the promotion of our ideals of life? Where is the necessity to seek other fields before we have developed our own country? We have big undeveloped markets which schemes of employment will naturally extend by increasing the purchasing power of the community. The development of the efficient grading and marketing of our produce will secure markets for our surplus commodities in future such as we have had in the past. We are told all about the emigrants who have left this country, as if it were the first time in the history of the country that such a thing had happened. But, if Deputy O'Higgins had cast his mind back a few years, he would recollect that, in the very early years of his régime, in one year alone 29,000 people left our shores in despair for America, because of the activities of his Government.
There were more activities than the activities of the Government at that time. We should leave that and look to the future.
We are told that no provision was made in anticipation of the present war; that we did not search the world for the commodities we require and get them in, while other nations for two years were preparing for that war and using their services towards that end. At any rate, we have this satisfaction; that we took stock at home to see what could be done here and that the energies of our people were devoted to providing, so far as they could, for the feeding, clothing and housing of our own people. I think Deputy O'Higgins is one of those who think that nothing good can come out of Nazareth. He points out to us all the things we could have got by contact with other nations. But would he read the history of his country or take cognisance of the sacrifices of our people even in his own days? Our people suffered through the long night of the Penal times, starved through the famine, bled in '98, and passed through the period or landlordism. To-day our people are unbought and unterrified. In very recent times the people have given their verdict and that verdict is for the Fianna Fáil Government under the leadership of Eamon de Valera.
Mr. Corish
The speaker who has just sat down was complaining about all the platitudes indulged by Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy O'Higgins, but since I came into this House I have never heard such a lot of platitudes as he has uttered. His whole speech was made up of platitudes. He has told us that we are a long-suffering people. He referred Deputy O'Higgins to the recent history of this country. What we complain about is that the people are still suffering, and suffering very much, under the Fianna Fáil Government. He told us that the public services are a link between the people and the Government. Unfortunately, during the recent election and at other elections the public services and the social services have been bandied around as political propaganda and been used as vote-catching cries. After listening to the propaganda indulged in by Fianna Fáil during the last and other elections, you would think that there was nobody else in this House except Fianna Fáil Deputies. The Deputy also told us that the policy of Fianna Fáil was accepted by the people at the last election. I join issue with him on that. In practically all cases, the issue put before the people was that the only person who was able to keep the bombs from falling on the people of this country was Deputy de Valera, and a great many people were misled by propaganda of that kind. There was a whispering campaign to the effect that, if the Fianna Fáil Government were put out of office, the bombs would be down on top of us. Not alone that, but, after an extra 2/6 had been given to old age pensioners, canvassers during the election went around from door to door saying that, if the Fianna Fáil Party did not get back to power, the 2/6 would be withdrawn. It was propaganda of that kind that was responsible for the return of the Government. I am satisfied that hundreds of people voted for Fianna Fáil in the last election, not because they agreed with their policy, but because of the propaganda used, especially the propaganda in connection with the dropping of bombs.
Acting-Chairman (Mr. Lynch)
I think the Deputy should not go further into that. We have really wandered very far from the subjects to be debated on this Vote.
Mr. Corish
I agree. At the same time, the last speaker, who objected to platitudes, indulged in a great number of platitudes and ended up by saying that the people had endorsed the policy of Fianna Fáil. I suggest that they have done nothing of the kind.
Do not the facts prove it?
Mr. Corish
The facts do not prove anything of the kind. As a matter of fact, Fianna Fáil did not secure the votes of a majority of the people, although they have a majority in the House. What I am really concerned about is the question of unemployment and wages, which we gave notice we would raise. The unemployment position at present is no better than it was last year or the previous year. Certainly there are not the same number of people registered at the labour exchanges, but that is due to the fact that people had to emigrate in order to earn a living. What was responsible to a great extent for people emigrating was the policy of the Government when they brought in their infamous Order, No. 83, which pegged down wages. I am surprised at the last speaker, who is a member of a profession that has protested against the pegging down of salaries and wages, refrained from dealing with that aspect of the question. He was more concerned with lauding the Government than with saying something which would be in the interests of the people whom he represents.
In the first year of the war, the Minister for Finance, when he brought in a Supplementary Budget, informed the Dáil and the country that it was the intention of the Government to bring in an Order which would prevent wages, from being increased. In the same breath, he announced that it was their intention to bring in some regulation which would prevent the cost of living being increased. The Order to peg down the wages of the unfortunate working people was brought in, but I suggest that no serious attempt was made at any time to secure that the cost of living would be kept down. That wages Order was made in an indiscriminate fashion. Neither the Department of Finance nor the Department of Industry and Commerce made any effort to find out what wages they were pegging down. In a great many cases, men who were in receipt of £1 or 30/- per week had their wages pegged down in the same way as men who had £4, £5, and £6 per week. I suggest that a Government which acted in such an indiscriminate fashion have not the interest of the working people at heart.
After a time, the Government brought in an Order to permit of trade unions seeking bonuses on behalf of their members. At that stage, however, the cost of living had increased by 77 points. That increase of 77 points was disregarded and the tribunals set up were only permitted to deal with the increased cost of living above that 77 point mark. Although people had suffered hardship for a considerable time owing to that increased cost of living, the Order brought into operation was not to have retrospective effect. I suggest that a Government which took action of that kind have not the interests of the people really at heart.
Deputy O'Higgins referred to the treatment meted out to different Deputies. I want to emphasise that. A couple of years ago I was asked by a parish priest in my constituency to seek an interview with the Minister for Education and ask that a new school should be built in his parish. The Minister for Education granted the interview to me. When going to the interview, I met a Fianna Fáil Deputy in the passage and asked him to come with me, and he did. I put forward the case on behalf of the parish priest, but the Fianna Fáil Deputy never opened his mouth. The Minister told me that he would see what could be done in the matter. A fortnight afterwards, I got a letter, ten days old, marked "For your information", addressed to this Deputy, who really had had nothing to do with the matter. That letter was sent in order that he should get any kudos arising out of the matter. Up to the election of 1943 it was possible for a Deputy to go down to the Department of Supplies, make representations on behalf of one of his constituents, and discuss the matter with the particular official who had to do with the matter with which he was concerned, but immediately after the 1943 election that was all stopped. You can go down now to the Department of Supplies and discuss the matter with the civil servant who has to do with it, and he merely listens to you, and you do not know what the position is. You will get an answer, perhaps, two months afterwards—after a letter has been sent to the people on whose behalf you made representations —but good care will be taken to secure that nobody but a Fianna Fáil Deputy will get any letter in time to enable him to tell his constituent how he fared in so far as the representations made by the Deputy on his behalf were concerned. I suggest that the reason that attitude was taken up by the Government in 1943 was that they discovered, when they went to the country, that Deputies representing other Parties were more active in their constituencies than were the Fianna Fáil Deputies in the same constituencies. I would ask An Taoiseach to see that there is no discrimination made against Deputies, no matter to what Party they belong, when representations are made by them on behalf of their constituents, and that Fianna Fáil Deputies should not be particularly favoured in this matter.
I am afraid, Sir, that I shall have to say much the same as Deputy McCarthy said with regard to the speech that was made by the Leader of the Opposition. There were many generalities in it, but it was very hard to come down and find anything definite or specific in regard to what it was advisable to do in the public interest. There is a document in which the general principles of our social policy have been laid down, and that is the Constitution. The purpose of putting these principles into Article 45 of the Constitution was to indicate in a general way the approach of this Government—which we believed would be the approach of our people— towards a number of these problems. The attitude in respect of a number of fundamental points has been clearly set out there. If there is any question as to what is the basis of our social outlook on a number of matters, anybody will be able to deduce, them from some of the principles that are set out in that Article.
Now, I do not think that the getting out of White Papers is going to help us very much. At the end of the last war, I saw—and I am sure that I have a collection of them still—a number of pamphlets that were brought out by the British Government dealing with reconstruction and so on, but I do not think that, in practice, very much was done quite on the line of these pamphlets. The investigation which has taken place is of a certain amount of value, but it is only the facts of the position as they will obtain at the end of the war that will really determine what line of action will be followed. Our general line, with regard to certain fundamental principles, as I have said, has been indicated in the directive Articles concerned with social policy in the Constitution; and from time to time here, as occasions presents itself, the Ministers of the various Departments indicate in what way that is going to be implemented in their own regard.
It is not true to say, of course, that the Government is not thinking, and, to a certain extent, planning in detail for the post-war period, but, accepting the general lines which we have accepted already, there is no use in writing out papers which will indicate some more or less Utopian approach to the world we have got to face. It is a very easy matter for anybody to sit down and let his imagination run freely, and build up the type of world in which he would like to live and in which he would like to see his fellowmen live, but what we have to try to do is to take the actual hard facts of the situation as they are, and see how we are going to make the best of them.
Take, for example, the question of prices that has been raised here. When the war came, everybody, of course, realised that a very serious problem would have to be dealt with. It was quite clear that the cost of commodities, if left uncontrolled, was going to rise, and that there would be an immediate movement on the part of those who had fixed earnings of any kind to try to compensate for that increase in the price of commodities by means of an increase in their incomes. If an increase in wages, salaries or fixed incomes were to have been granted, it was quite obvious that that increase would be reflected in increased prices of commodities and that, accordingly, you would have such increases in fixed remuneration or in wages or salaries, with the consequent increased prices,. chasing one another around, so to speak. We tried to get some policy to deal with that situation. The first thing that we said should be done was to prevent any increase in wages, because it was obvious that if wages were increased it was inevitable that prices would also be increased or else industrial production would practically cease.
The next question was to see to what extent prices could be controlled. There were certain factors which were uncontrollable, factors which were outside the possibility of being influenced by us effectively. We had goods coming in from outside, and we had to make up our minds as to whether, if we were to get in the raw materials we required, we would be prepared to pay for them at the only price at which they could be purchased. If we did not pay that price, the raw materials would be absent and our industries would gradually collapse. We wished to keep these industries going partly because they supply our needs and partly also because, by their continuance, employment is provided. We had to permit prices to go up in accordance with that particular factor, the factor I repeat, of the increased cost of raw materials.
Then again there was the question of food prices. There was a constant complaint by members of the Farmers' Party in the House that the price we were paying farmers for their produce was not sufficient. We were threatended, time after time, that unless we gave a higher price we would not get the necessary food for our people. Of course, it is open to Deputies on Opposition Benches to argue from both sides at once. Sometimes one and the same Deputy will argue for both sides of the question, and if it is too awkward for him to do that, one member of the Party will argue from one side of the question to be followed by another Deputy of the same Party arguing from the opposite side in an effort to try to hit Government policy from both points of view. The very people who say that we are not giving the farmers a sufficient price for their produce are those who attack us on the ground that we did not control prices sufficiently, and allowed the cost of living to go up. We felt, taking it all in all, that the best thing to do—and we tried not to give more than seemed to be absolutely necessary—was to give to our farmers a price which would ensure the production of the particular type of goods we required. That was an element in the cost of living and the cost of living has gone up accordingly. The Deputies who accuse us of allowing the cost of living to go up are precisely those Deputies who on other occasions will come along and say that we are not giving the farmer a sufficient remuneration for his work, and that agricultural production on that account is not what it might be. These are two main elements in the increase in prices.
There is a third element. Industry was not in many cases, owing to the shortage of materials or for other reasons, able to maintain the output that it had before the war. The result of that normally would mean that there would be unemployment in industry. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, in his policy of the control of prices, took that factor into account, and strove, by allowing prices go up by a certain amount, to give industrialists such a remuneration on the diminished output as would enable them as far as possible to continue in employment the same number of employees as they had before. It is quite clear that if there is a diminished output in any industry, and if it is to carry on as before, overhead charges remaining pretty well the same, you have to allow for some increase in the price of the finished product, so, although there was, and is, a definite examination from the point of view of control of prices, nevertheless you could not keep prices static.
Unfortunately, as the war proceeded, the cost of raw materials kept going up. The prices that we had to give the farmers kept going up because of the need there was for food, and the tendency, in the case of industry, was towards a diminished output. The more output was diminished, if we were to maintain employment at anything like the pre-war standard, the more, of necessity, even when you pegged down wages and did not allow wages to come into account, did the cost of living go up. Although we have not absolutely pegged down wages, our idea in attempting to peg down wages was to try to prevent that particular factor, which would have been the most efficient factor in sending up prices, from affecting prices. It was the one factor which we could control and to the extent to which we were able to control it, we have kept prices down.
To argue, however, that we have kept wages at the pre-war level is not quite true, because there has been a let-up in wages, and to the extent to which that let-up has been there, there has been an additional tendency to an increase in the cost of living. Our view generally was, and is, that it is the wage-earner who would suffer most if we were to allow things to go on without any control whatsoever.
Deputy O'Higgins seems to suggest that there has been no control of prices at all. That is not true. He spoke as if the Minister for Industry and Commerce had quite recently, for the first time, suggested the operation of a control of prices. That is not true, as there has been a control of prices all the time. Last year, when this debate took place I got a list—I have not it by me at the moment—of a very large number of industries of various kinds showing the profits of these firms and I was quite satisfied that in the case of the vast majority of these firms there was nothing like the gross profiteering that had been suggested. There were certain firms, a small number, of whom it could be said that their profits had considerably increased. Looking over the list, which contained a very large number of names, I was satisfied that only a relatively small section could be said to have increased their profits. You could, of course, take out perhaps two or three from the list and say: "These have got increased profits," but if they have, you may be perfectly certain that the Minister for Finance will get after them.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce very recently indicated that the inflationary danger was of such a character that we might have to consider for the first time whether we should not put an absolute barrier to increases in prices and face the consequences, but the consequences, as he pointed out, are going to be very severe. I doubt very much whether, if we have ultimately to make that choice, a majority of members of the Dáil with all the facts before them, would vote for that. It is more than doubtful whether, considering the dangers that lie ahead, it would be the wisest policy to follow. The matter has been carefully and fully examined but it is not right to suggest that now only, for the first time, has there been any thought about the control of prices. The control of prices has been there all the time. The effort has been to try to limit increases in prices to the extent that would enable employment to be given, raw materials to be purchased and the industry to go on. When, however, you are controlling in advance, you are not all the time certain of how things will develop, and, therefore, there has to be not merely a looking ahead to anticipate what is likely to happen and to take action on that basis, but there is also an opportunity of looking back. There is an opportunity of looking back in regard to these industries in which there have been extra profits and of examining and adjusting the price levels accordingly.
This matter was intended as one of the main subject for discussion and it is one of the most serious questions we have to consider. We must, however, remember that there is no way out of this community suffering through the war situation. Those who are producers of goods are able to compensate themselves, if they get extra prices, for the war situation, but those who have fixed remuneration cannot compensate themselves for the increased costs, and at first sight, anyhow, the people who are most likely to suffer are those on fixed remuneration, whether fixed wages or fixed allowances of any kind. These are the people who can see directly the cost of the burden of the war to them. There is a burden of war on every community in the world at present, whether they be neutral States or States engaged in war, and the best any community can hope for is to try to distribute the burden in such a way that it will not crush their community or weigh unduly on any particular section.
Every section of the community will say that they are bearing a greater share of the burden than is right. I have been to a number of farmers' meetings and have heard constant complaints about the farmers' burdens having increased and so on. I know that, on the whole, that cannot be true, because the figures are there to indicate that, while the cost of living has gone up 70 or 71 per cent., agricultural prices have gone up by something like 97 per cent. That is a clear indication that, taking it all in all, the farmers have been able not only to compensate themselves for the increased cost of living but to improve their position relatively. It is perhaps no harm that should be so, because we all have to admit that the farmers had to pass through a long period of very grave depression and were in very poor circumstances. Their capital had been pretty well exhausted, and it is also true that at present, to the extent to which they are not able to put back into the land the necessary manures and so on to restore the fertility of the soil, there is a wastage, so to speak, of their capital. However, it is not a wastage which cannot be made up once the war is over. Speaking about the war, I think it a very foolish idea to get into one's head that the war situation will have finished in a couple of months. Let us hope it will, but, whatever may be our hopes or wishes, we ought not to act on that basis, but on the basis that this situation may last for a considerable time yet, and that, even after it, we shall have a situation in which many of the features of the war will still continue.
With regard to our co-operating with other nations in regard to planning, making trade arrangements and so on, it has to be remembered that there are very few neutral nations left in the world and that most of the arrangements which are being made are being made almost as a part of the whole war effort, as part of cooperation and co-ordination of the war effort. The opportunity for doing some of the things other countries have done is not afforded to us at the moment. We are naturally ready to take advantage of any situation which may present itself, so that the matter of the surplus goods which we must export, and which it is desirable we should export, in order to provide the purchasing power for the goods we must import, should be kept constantly in mind. We have it constantly in mind and naturally are anxious to avail of it.
I have nothing to say to those who talk about the desirability of increased production all round. I think it was Deputy Mulcahy who read something to the effect that the major effort would have to be made by industry itself. I do not know if that was the way it was expressed, but that was the effect of it. In the same way, while the Government can do much in the way of direction and certain types of help, it can only bring the horse to the water, so to speak. Action must be taken by agriculture itself to increase production, or any Government efforts in that connection will fail. Similarly in the case of industry. We want to get maximum production, but questions of hours, conditions of labour and such matters will arise and will have to be taken into account, and we get back to the question of what is our ideal in life.
I think everybody will admit that, as human beings, we want to have some opportunities of reasonable leisure, to be used in the best way in which we can use it. It does happen, in fact, that reasonable leisure does not run counter to increased production, because numerous tests have been made which prove that there is a limit to the powers of the human being, and that he can produce more under proper conditions, other things being the same, with reasonably short hours of work and reasonable recreatión than he can if he works for longer periods. We have, then, in looking for maximum production, to try to secure it without cutting across the other ideals which ought to be aimed at also. Our aim, fundamentally, must be to try to enable every human being in the country to live the fullest life for which he was destined, or which he is capable of living. That is the broadest way in which we can state the aim, but, again, it is only an aim, and it does not get you very far until you come down to the practical steps which have to be taken to realise it. The Minister for Agriculture, in regard to agriculture, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in regard to his Department have indicated the steps which are being taken to try to get the facts of our present situation, so that the moment a clearer view can be got of the post-war position, the proper policy with regard to that situation can be worked out. So far as it is possible to plan ahead, it is being done.
The health question has been referred to, and I know that there is no Deputy who is keener on that matter than the Minister for Local Government and his Parliamentary Secretary. I do not know whether the houses which are at present being held in reserve will be quite suitable, but if we do need places for the segregation or treatment of diseases, which should be segregated and dealt with in that way, these buildings, if they are suitable, can be used temporarily. Most of us have experience of the fact that you do not always get the best results from the adaptation of old buildings. I am talking now without having, myself, examined that particular question, but I would say that, whilst they might be used temporarily, in the main they are not found suitable for permanent use as sanatoria and so on.
Deputy O'Higgins spoke of our attitude to the fact that, providentially, we have passed through nearly five years of war without becoming involved. I do not think there is any member of the House who has said more frequently than I have, that gratitude for that should go, in the first instance, to Almighty God, because no Government or no Power, considering our situation, would have been sufficient to itself in any way to save this country. We have been in a most dangerous situation throughout this whole war. Next to that, there was the fact of the unity and determination of our own people, and I think nobody will deny that I have, time after time, said that that was something which had been contributed to by the Opposition Parties and by all members just as much as by the Government or the Government Party. I have said that during the election, and I have said it since the beginning. I believe it to be true, and, as he suggested, it is quite right that we gain nothing by not facing the facts.
The Taoiseach ought to say it to the Minister for Local Government again.
It is also true to say that the Powers which are nearest, and had the easiest opportunity of attacking us, did not attack us. The fact that they recognised our right, and that they did not use their strength against a small country, is to their credit and will remain to their credit. To the extent to which they deserve credit for that, I certainly will not be amongst those who would deny it in the slightest. I do not need to be reminded from any side of the House that that is the position. That is the truth. With Deputy O'Higgins, to that extent, I agree fully.
Now, the Dáil will not be in session for a couple of months, and during that time each of us in his own particular way will have national work to do. Our particular work from the Government point of view will be, in the first instance, to do the best we can to lighten the burdens that are here at the present moment and pressing heavily upon our people. We are fully aware of the pressure in the cases where there is a real pressure, and we are quite willing to admit that people with small, fixed remuneration are the section who are at the moment most burdened. The State is coming, as generously as it can, to the help of the very poor, and in many respects the persons who are earning small incomes are worse off and are more heavily hit even than the very poor. The State is unable to come to their relief in the same way as in the case of the very poor—those who are almost destitute except for State aid.
It is also true that a number of our people have had to leave this country and seek employment elsewhere. Some of them left this country without any fundamental need to do so. I remember Deputy Cogan on one occasion—I think he was one of the first to mention it—telling us that he had come up on the train with a young man, an agricultural worker, if I am not wrong in my recollection, who had a fair wage at the time, but who was leaving this country for some reason that the Deputy could not understand. He tried to dissuade him from going, but still he was going. A number of people have left this country unnecessarily, but it is also true that there is a large number who had to leave because the industries in which they were employed had ceased to operate. We are very sorry that that situation has arisen, and we are anxious to see them all back as quickly as it will be possible for them to come. Our aim must be, as quickly as we can when conditions make it possible, to see that the industries in which they were occupied will be restored. Some of the larger programmes for the absorption of labour have been indicated, and I do not think I should deal with them at the present moment.
Deputy O'Higgins referred to what he called "political corruption". I hate that word "corruption". I think it is the most dangerous word that could be used where democratic institution are concerned. If it has to be used, let it be used, but "corruption", at least to me, connotes a certain thing, and, if it gets in, it practically amounts to a canker which destroys all faith in public institutions. It makes the people of the country almost despair. I think the word "corruption" ought to be kept for the thing to which it properly applies. If there is something taking place such as has been suggested, I think it could get quite a different name, but I do not know whether it is or not. I have heard some examples given here of different types of letters that went out to different Deputies. In so far as I can see, it was quite possible that those letters could have gone out truthfully. If it is a fact that those were all of a type, and that there was a policy, then I would say that it was a completely wrong and bad policy from every point of view, and I am as fully against it as any Deputy on the opposite side. Unfortunately, when there are three or four Deputies of different Parties for the one constituency, there is rivalry amongst them in trying, each one, to show that he is more influential or is able to do something better with Government Departments than the others. Even when I was in Opposition I disliked this idea of Deputies going to Government officials who had decisions to make, and trying to influence their decisions, but it is extremely difficult to get a remedy. It is quite obvious that it would be almost impossible for the Minister, who is the proper person to approach in the first instance, to deal with all the individual cases which Deputies do bring up from time to time. The only reason, in my opinion, why Deputies ought to bring cases along for consideration is when some general rule appears to be affecting or bearing too harshly upon a particular individual, or where there are circumstances in an individual case which the Deputy considers should be taken into account as a modification of some general rule. I think, as was suggested by Deputies on the opposite side, that to have Deputies going and trying to get favours of one kind or another is quite wrong. The Deputy who lends himself to that is doing a wrong thing, and no Government official ought to give heed to him, no matter what side of the House he comes from. I do not think it is right.
The policy of nearly every Department invites it. Many things are refused so that Deputies will come along and get it done. That is the policy.
That is not so.
I promise the Deputy that, if he can give me any evidence that that is so, it will be ended.
Speaking generally, and apart from Party, there is no Deputy in the House who could not say that things were refused in correspondence on ordinary matters of administration, but that when Deputies intervened they were given.
That puts a different complexion upon it. What it means is this: that a case which was made in writing was not effective until an individual Deputy explained the matter further, or, so to speak, added something verbally to the written word which changed the situation. We all know it is a fact that if you send a letter to a person—it does not matter on what subject—the cold letter may not get that person completely to realise the whole facts of the situation in the same way that he will realise them if there is a verbal approach when questions can be asked and answered. If I get a letter about something, there may be a number of reasons which prevent me from agreeing to the particular proposition set forth, but if I have an opportunity of asking questions and find that the answers to them present a new aspect of the matter, then I may be able to give way.
I believe it is a great pity, from one point of view, that this thing happens at all. The fact is that it does happen, and that Deputies from different sides of the House come along to Departments and to Ministers. I wish it could be all done through the Ministers. It is through them that it should be done if they could get some mechanism making it possible for them to do it. If it were done directly through a Minister, he would be able to apply his mind to whatever the matter was, and in that way a lot of these ugly features would disappear.
It is bad from the point of view of the relationships between civil servants and Parliament, and bad from every point of view. Perhaps I should not say from every point of view, because when an individual Deputy advocates a case before the person who is going to make a decision on it he is able to present to that person some particular features of the case which might otherwise be overlooked. But I dislike it intensely myself and wish that we could have some system by which it could be avoided. It is there and has been there for a very long time. The result of it is that where you have three or four or, sometimes, a larger number of Deputies representing a constituency, there is a certain amount of rivalry between them. I remember that during the elections I saw some letters which Deputy Norton had sent out and which would indicate, by his efforts, such and such a thing was done. I mention the Deputy now because his case comes to my mind, but there would be a number of others as well.
All the old age pensions that he had got for people.
I did not libel people during the election.
During election times, when Deputies are seeking reelection, they want to put before their constituents the effective work they have done, as representatives of a particular constituency. Because of that rivalry, you have a situation brought about in which Deputies try, very often, to arrogate to themselves the credit for the doing of things which, if there had not been any particular representations of that kind, would have been done. I do not know how the thing has worked out in this case, but, since the matter has been raised, I will have an examination made into it. I do say that it would be quite wrong if there was an effort made by Government Departments to make it appear that all the work done had been done simply by Deputies on the Government side and that nothing was done by other Deputies. I agree with Deputy O'Higgins that if Government Deputies could get things, and if other Deputies could not get them, it would then appear that, possibly, there was going to be unequal, unfair or biased administration. I think that would be wrong, and from that point of view it would defeat itself, if the object were to try to get public kudos. If it should appear that people giving administrative decisions were going to be influenced by representations, particularly from the Government side, then it would seem to indicate that there was biased administration. But the letters, or anything of that kind, would not convince me that, in fact, such a policy was being pursued.
The letters which have been quoted could, with perfect truth, have gone to different sides, according as to whether some people had made representations and so on. Deputy Corish cites an example which he thought proved something. To me it did not prove anything at all. He said that he brought a Fianna Fáil Deputy with him to interview a Minister. He did not tell us whether the Minister was aware that he had only pulled the Fianna Fáil Deputy along with him. I take it that if two Deputies approach a Minister as a deputation on some particular problem, no matter who is the initiator of it, and if a reply is going out, it will apply to each of those who made the representations to the Minister. It was not the Minister's task to know whether the proposition came originally from Deputy Corish, or whether it was true, in fact, that Deputy Corish took the Fianna Fáil Deputy by the arm outside in the corridor and brought him into the Minister's room. That would not prove anything to me. The fact that a letter was written to the Fianna Fáil Deputy would not prove anything. The Deputy did not tell us whether he got a letter as well. He said that a letter came to him. I suppose the address on the envelope was for him—otherwise it would not have gone to him— and that the enclosure was for the other Deputy. Could it not have happened that the other Deputy got Deputy Corish's enclosure? If I were the judge in that case, I would say that whoever sent out the letters simply sent out the same sort of letter to the two Deputies and put them into different envelopes. If Deputy Corish had followed it up he probably would have found that the other Deputy had got his enclosure. That is possible, it seems to me. However, these are relatively small things to have to handle. It is not so easy to deal with the whole problem as to how Deputies are to make the representations which they feel they should make in regard to particular cases concerning their constituents. It is not easy to see how that can be done in such a way that it will not have the appearance that there are favours, that there is not biased administration on one side or the other. If it were possible, I would like to see all communications of that sort going directly through the Minister. I suppose that is not possible. It would not be possible for a Minister to see all the Deputies who would wish to see him.
And the reply is couched in the same language?
If a Minister is replying, I take it that he will reply directly to the person who approached him.
In the same language?
How could a reply about a hundred different things be in the same language?
On one subject?
Even on one subject. There would be a question of truth. I do not know that Deputy Hughes would like, if there were negotiations, that the same reply should be sent to every Deputy. If he wishes to have uniform procedure that is possible, but that is not what Deputy Hughes wants.
The Deputy does not want to be a bit unreasonable.
He only wants to be regarded as a member of the Fianna Fáil Party.
You could have a standard reply. That might be the best way out, but I do not see how you could have a standard reply to correspondence where you might have two or three letters or interviews. I take it that what the Deputies on the opposite benches object to is that it should go out this way to a Fianna Fáil Deputy: "In accordance with representations made by you, such-and-such a thing will be done." While they object to that, Deputy Hughes, to take an example, comes along and makes representations and wants the reply to go out: "In accordance with your representations" or, "because of your representations such-and-such a thing was done." It is not easy to get uniform procedure or to do a thing in such a way as will prevent people from feeling that they have a grievance. I know this to have happened, that very often two or three Deputies will come along to deal with the same matter at the one time. In this House we often see a Deputy from a particular constituency standing up and then a Deputy from another side will get up. It is the same when dealing with Questions. When some local question is raised, questions come, not from one but from two or three Deputies. Sometimes if a Deputy hears that a question is being raised by another Deputy in the same constituency he comes along and makes certain that he becomes a party to it.
They would not do that.
That is one of the things that results from the rivalry there is between three or four Deputies in one constituency. There can be another argument against that particular type of representation. It would be very much better if we had one Deputy from each constituency, and then we would not have that particular rivalry.
That is a big question to introduce now.
There are other matters to be dealt with. I only dealt with that matter because it was put to me specifically. I do not think there are any other points that I need deal with now. I dealt with most of them. I say that each Department is dealing with the matters appointed to it, and that they are looking ahead as best they can to the post-war situation by trying to develop plans which will meet the situation, in so far as it can be envisaged now. It is going to be indefinite as we cannot say that we are going to have so-and-so until the situation is much clearer.
The Taoiseach indicated the task of the Government during the Recess. In case he may not be in the House when it adjourns, may I ask whether the arrangement we had on previous occasions continues, whereby during the Recess any responsible Party might, if they desired to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, request to have the House convened? I do not think that the assurance which we got from the Taoiseach on a previous occasion was ever used capriciously. I am sure that no one in present circumstances would desire so to use it, but it would be useful to have the assurance. Although asking for it, I can assure the House that as far as I am concerned no such assurance from the Taoiseach will be used in a frivolous or capricious way.
I take it that if some grave matter of public importance arose, one which obviously required public representatives to discuss it, it would be immediately attended to. I would not like to say that absolutely, but if a Party asked for something, without any relation whatever to the subject, I would like to have some feeling that we had something to say as to whether it was really one worth bringing Parliament together for.
Nobody wants to discuss an inconsequential matter, but if a Party has the feeling that there is good ground for discussing something, seeing that there will be a recess of two and a half months, I take it that the Taoiseach, having given an assurance, would accept such a request.
I would like to agree with that. I agree with it in spirit.
I will take it in the spirit.
If there is a situation which I think is a serious one, we might feel that we could handle it without anybody. But that is not the question. If it is sufficiently serious for a Party to make a request of that sort I am sure it will be attended to.
Vote put and agreed to.