The question we are discussing mainly to-night is one which is agitating the minds and thoughts and study of the people of the world— the cost of living; and how to bring that cost within the level of what the people are prepared to pay is seemingly an insoluble problem. Philosophers, learned men and politicians put forward their views and their suggestions, but apparently with little result. Politicians say: "We are the solution," but usually the section of politicians who proclaim most loudly that they are the solution are those who are in opposition at the time.
I do not know if any solution has been put forward and I cannot say that I see one myself, but I know that one school of thought claim very strongly that the solution is greater production. I know, however, that very often in many parts of the world over-production has led to greater disasters than the opposite, and therefore I have come to the conclusion that, while greater production must naturally provide a greater range of goods for the people's needs, it, in itself, can also be very disastrous. What, then, about the other alternative, lower production and a greater scarcity of these commodities? This must inevitably result in higher prices and increased cost of living.
Where does the solution lie between these two schools of thought? I am afraid that somewhere in between there must be some hidden hand which somehow and in some way determines what is the cost of living and what is the value of goods. Could it be this mysterious thing to which we often hear reference made, but which we are told is a dangerous subject to discuss —almost as dangerous as a discussion of the tenets of our religion—finance?
Is it world finance, the hidden control that controls every effort of the human mind and drives people and nations into internal squabbles, discontent and economic disaster? I do not know, but there seemingly is, somewhere in the life of nations, an influence which is beyond the control of the mind of the average person and it is not worth while seeking a remedy in that direction. It is an important question, but we are told to hush, to be quiet, when we seek to speak of it. It is apparently some deep mysterious subject which can be discussed only by the higher minds and more sensitive brains the world knows. I have been told that the number of these is very small and meanwhile our problem remains unsolved.
If our policy, as seems to be the policy of Governments to-day, is to increase our production and sell a little cheaper than the other fellow can sell in the world markets, so that we sell more goods and acquire greater revenue from outside sources, how far does the Budget we are discussing contain the requirements for development along these lines? Is there embodied in the Budget such plans as will enable the Government to raise, by scientific or other methods, our rate of production per unit and reduce the cost of that production, and if so, what range of products does the Government aim at developing on these lines? Personally I think the greatest possibility is offered by a development of the land of the country and by maintaining more people on the land than we have maintained in the past.
I welcome this motion because it will have the effect of drawing from the Government some indication as to their general policy and thus provide a steady outlook for the community for the next 12 months. The present degree of uncertainty, with the promise of a reduced cost of living and so on, does enfeeble the efforts of the average business person in relation to making purchases, because of the fear that the goods he buys to-day may, if a price reduction takes place during the year, leave him in the position in which he will suffer a loss. A clear statement on that issue is vital.
This motion also is welcome because it will have the effect, not now but in the future, I hope, of compelling those people who go to the electorate and seek their votes to be more candid and honest in their statement of the facts and of the distance they are prepared to go to improve conditions. A policy of reckless promises is a devastating policy which can lead only to disillusionment and, in the long run and over a period of time, to the people placing no trust in the promises of public representatives. That could be a very destructive result and it should be carefully guarded against. At present, we have any amount of that—people can get on to platforms, make reckless promises and seek to persuade the voters by lies and other means to vote for them and lead the community into supporting any "ism" they wish. It is the duty of the Government to make a clear statement as to the lines on which they propose to proceed for the next two years or three years with a view to making conditions easier for the people.
How is this cost of living to be reduced? We know well that it is easy to reduce the cost of commodities by the use of subsidies, but surely no sensible Government will advocate a course of borrowing to reduce prices for the time being, with the dire results that usually follow for the borrower. I suggest that the policy of the Government should be a policy of spending money on education and on the training, even in the primary schools, of the youth of the country into a knowledge of national economics. Let them understand them and let them know the fallacy of the idea which has prevailed and which has been advocated and promoted here, that somehow Governments can work miracles and that money can be made in some mysterious way by the Government in office. I am afraid that notion has been promoted for political purposes. Let us educate our people to understand that no more can be taken out of the pool than is put into it, and, in the long run, we will get our people to understand and to co-operate in the provision of the reasonable requirements of the people.
At the moment, there is no plan other than increased production, except the plan of getting the people to accept a lower standard of living, to take less out of the pool so that the pool will require less to replenish it. Which of these courses is to be adopted? The people of the country are entitled to know from the Government what line of policy they propose to pursue.
If we are to have a reduction in the cost of living is it to be achieved by tightening our belts, living on less and spending less and thus reducing business; or are we going to achieve it by increased production and, if so, by what methods? Give us this information and we will be in a better position to face the realities.
There is, of course, another means but I am afraid that is not generally accepted. Christianity has taught a means by which we can achieve our objectives, by goodwill, fellowship and charity—these principles to provide a means of securing equitable distribution. The adoption of a spirit of goodwill and forbearance has been taught for 2,000 years but all that time we have had wars. Nations have refused to accept these principles and I see no indication at present that we are more likely to adopt them than humanity has been for the last 2,000 years.
It is up to this Government to tell us what their plans are and how they are going to solve the problems which face us. Does this Budget contain anything in the way of a new departure? Responsibility rests with those who sit in the front bench of the Government. It is not by remaining silent or by smart answers across the floor of this House that our problems can be solved. There is no way other than by earnest thought and honest action, by taking the people into their confidence and telling them what they intend to do.
I must speak as one who represents an area that has not alone missed the opportunity of development but has suffered destruction as well. I come from the West of Ireland, where the congests were many some years ago but are now few, not because of Government action to remedy their position, to encourage youth to marry and children to grow up around their own homes, but because the youth are being forced to leave the country due to the fact that there is nothing to entice them or justify them in marrying and rearing their families as their fathers did before them. Is that the policy that is to be pursued? Is the problem to be solved by the elimination of large numbers of the population in the West of Ireland? I want the Government to show me that they are handling this matter in a sincere way and that they intend to remedy the grievances that exist and stop this national suicide. I will vote for no Budget until it embodies a Christian attitude towards a community that has suffered severely under the economic policy adopted here.
The needs of the people in the West of Ireland were few. They lived in a meagre way and never acquired expensive habits. They depended a great deal on home industries and one of the primary industries was the hen roosts. The small profit they acquired from eggs and poultry provided them with the ready money to buy their weekly needs. We all know the value of eggs to-day. They have dropped to an uneconomic price and I want to know what steps the Government intend to take to have that industry reestablished.
As regards cattle, the price which small farmers in the West are able to obtain is more of a deterrent than an advantage. The number of cattle would not amount to more than three or four per year and the margin of profit would, therefore, be very small. The price of pigs is also uncertain again and cannot be depended upon to provide an adequate return.
There is no use talking about finance and about national needs while we are watching the decay of our people. Tariffs have been applied protecting industries in the big centres and this has meant an increased cost of living to those who are not benefiting in any way by employment. The people who are engaging in small home industries, such as poultry keeping and pig production, have had to sell at world prices in order to protect industrialists who have been favoured in every way by Government assistance as well as protection. The result has been the annihilation of the real Irish in this country, the wastage of their farms and homes, small church attendances and schools closing steadily.
What do the present Government intend to do about this situation? If they intend to change their policy we want to know in a general way what that change will be. If they are going to sit back and allow this destruction of which I have spoken to continue, they should not be in office.
