This is a Bill for the continuation of the Emergency Powers Acts. The original Act, as most Senators will remember, was passed on 3rd September, 1939. It automatically lapses after a year, so it has to be renewed every year as from 3rd September. Last year, we had not merely a renewal but also considerable amendment. This year, it is not proposed to make any amendments in the powers conferred by the original Act and the amendments made in that Act up to the present. This Bill, of course, continues not merely the principal Act, but the amending Acts as well. In other words, it is to continue the present position. I do not think it is necessary for me to enter into any explanation of the Bill, which is a very simple measure. It would be a very long story if we were to go into the powers conferred by the original Act.
Emergency Powers (Continuance) Bill, 1943—Second and Subsequent Stages.
I want to protest against what I consider an abuse of the powers conferred under this Act in relation to the wages of the working class. When this Bill was originally introduced, an assurance, or something tantamount to an assurance, was given that it would not be applied to any of the workers. In the main, the working-class are as law-abiding as any other section, and perhaps more so. Yet the reward they get for that is the application of Emergency Powers Orders Nos. 83 and 166, which are described as Standstill Orders, so far as wages are concerned. It was said at that time, and it is no harm to repeat, that it was very injurious to the standard of living of working-class people to stabilise wages while prices could rise, and we know the general effect of the application of that Order.
Prices continued to rise, while wages remained stationary, and ultimately the Government felt that they had made a mistake, that perhaps they had gone too far, and they gave us the wages tribunals, which have been fairly successful and fairly helpful to the wage-earners; but as prices continue to rise, with a consequent reduction in the standard of living of the workers, it may be necessary, and I think it is desirable, that there should be a more generous operation of the wages tribunal system in order to minimise the serious effect which these Orders have on the standard of living of the workers.
I am speaking now generally about the organised workers, about those who have organisations to defend them. I think the Agricultural Wages Board is to some extent, although perhaps not immediately, concerned in this Order. Here is a very large section, the increase in whose wages or remuneration is not at all commensurate with the substantial increase in the cost of living. I put it to the Taoiseach that some steps should be taken immediately to balance things. Prices cannot be allowed to continue to rise and wages cannot be kept down any further. They are both at breaking point. I think the Taoiseach will admit that during the period of an emergency, there is no more helpful section than the working class. The number of strikes, of stoppages of work, has been very small, although there was any amount of justification for turmoil and trouble. Yet, the common sense of these people made them realise the general position and rather timidly acquiesce in the worsening of their conditions. I put it to the Taoiseach that that can go too far and that as soon as possible, some steps should be taken at least to restore to the workers the standard of living which they had pre-emergency, without talking of improving it.
I want to point out that they have suffered very severly and I think the Taoiseach ought to see that these people will get some reward for their patience and that, at least, the standard of living obtaining in the preemergency period is restored to them.
I should like to get an assurance from the Taoiseach that in future, before any prosecution or any drastic measures are taken against farmers for breaches of these Emergency Powers Orders, the supposed culprit will have an opportunity of putting his case before some responsible officials of the Department concerned. We all know that at present quite a number of inspectors are going around, that a good many of them are young men with very little experience of the work they are supposed to do, and that, when they find what they believe to be a transgression of one of these Orders, they exaggerate the case to an enormous extent and that a prosecution or some other drastic action is taken against the supposed offender. I suggest that before such drastic action is taken the supposed offender should get an opportunity of putting his case before some responsible officer of the Department concerned. I know of one particular case of a fairly large farmer, a loyal citizen who, so far as I know, never broke any of the laws. An inspector who visited his place went into his corn lofts and found nothing to complain of. But beside the hopper of his grinding mill he found what he thought to be some grains of wheat. He took a sample in his glove and had it analysed and said that there was 20 per cent. of wheat in that particular sample. There was a very considerable amount of barley and oats on the lofts. I know that that particular farmer sold 1,000 barrels of wheat last year. He had 400 or 500 barrels of oats and about the same amount of barley to feed to his live stock.
But, on the report of that particular inspector, the Department of Industry and Commerce issued an Order and sealed that mill without giving the farmer an opportunity of explaining the position. The farmer admitted that, after having threshed out the 1,000 barrels of wheat as closely as he could in the mill, he put the refuse through a winnowing machine afterwards and that after that he had five or six barrels of refuse of wheat left which he did use for feeding stock. As I said, the mill was only closed for a week and, if it were only closed for a week and no prosecution was taken, the responsible officials of the Department must have believed the statement of the farmer. If the farmer had got an opportunity in the first instance of explaining the matter to a responsible official of the Department, I suggest that there would have been no sealing of his mill. I know that that man was put to a considerable amount of inconvenience, because at the time he was stall-feeding 200 cattle and had about 100 pigs, as well as milch cows and poultry. The Department must have considered that he committed no offence when they opened his mill after a week. I say that, before prosecutions or other measures are taken, the farmer concerned should get an opportunity of explaining the position to a responsible official. I am not finding fault with the Government inspectors, but there is an enormous number of them and they cannot be all men of common sense. Therefore, I suggest that, when there is a supposed offence, the farmers concerned should get an opportunity of going to a responsible official and explaining the position, and, if there is an offence which demands drastic action, that there should be a prosecution and nothing else. I hope the Taoiseach will consider that matter. It would be to the advantage of the country if farmers were not put to such terrible inconvenience when the matter could be rectified by an explanation being given to a responsible official.
I have a very clear recollection of the evening, not quite four years ago, when the Act was passed which is to be extended by this Bill. I have no idea how many Orders —I think it runs into thousands—were made since then. I presume it would be in order to refer to any of them, but I do not propose to do so, because it seems to me that, on a renewal of an Act of this kind, we should confine our attention to the principle involved and what lessons may possibly be learned for the future through the working of the scheme set out in the Emergency Powers Act. We can remember the circumstances. Many of us, including, I think, members of the Government, had considerable misgivings. We did not know what we might have to face. Incidentally, I do not think that anybody in this country is half thankful enough for the circumstances in which we find ourselves to-day and, so far as we are concerned, for the fact that we can meet here peaceably and discuss various legislative matters. When we passed that Act some of us thought it was possible that Parliament would be unable to meet. We even visualised that the Government might have to move from their ordinary headquarters. We know that that has happened in many other countries.
Now, looking at this Act, my mind turns to the question: what is going to happen when it ends? There is a provision that it will end in one year, or that the Government may terminate it in less than one year. Before the war, one of the much discussed and very real problems of democracy was how to provide a certain amount of devolution of the powers and functions of parliament. No one would have thought of devolving the powers of parliament to the extent that it has been done in this Emergency Powers Act, and yet I do not suppose there is anybody here who would be prepared to take the responsibility of voting against its renewal. It seems to me that, having had four years experience, it is desirable—and I think the time has come—that we should be thinking about what is to take its place. Frankly, I do not see this suddenly ending. I cannot conceive any particular date at which this or any other Government that might be in power would simply say, "To-morrow is the date on which this can end" because a great many of the Emergency Powers Orders have the effect of legislation and before they could immediately cease to have legislative effect they would in many cases—not all, of course —require gradual change and amendment in order to come back to the normal.
I have been wondering if it would not be possible, with an eye to our whole future system of government, to have a small committee set up to report to the Government, probably not until the war, or at any rate the war in Europe, is over, on specific proposals for dealing with the Emergency Powers Orders that are in existence, particularly with a view to the possibility of continuing certain powers for making Orders, which would then not be emergency Orders, by Executive Ministers, and providing an effective and satisfactory method of Parliamentary control.
I am suggesting that we will find it extremely difficult to return to the stage where all these matters which are now dealt with by Order and only occasionally discussed, will be fully discussed in Parliament. Some three or four years ago, shortly after the outbreak of war, I made some study, in so far as it could be done from books, of the system that was introduced in Sweden. I do not think for a moment that in every, or possibly in any, respect it would be necessarily suitable to us, but I was enormously impressed by the manner in which a small country —a country that, like ourselves, has been able to remain neutral—faced up to the problem of democratic parliamentary government and set out to devise an effective method which would suit that country, without following any other country. There is there a system of parliamentary committees. I do not want to take up the time of the House in trying to explain it, nor do I claim to be fully competent to do so; but it has occurred to me that it might be possible, by means of committees probably of both Houses, to provide for a continuance of emergency powers for the necessary period after the war and that such changes as would take place would be subject to revision or consultation with committees that would be set up. In Sweden it has been found that these parliamentary committees can very often deal with various matters. They can get the attendance of the civil servants concerned, and in time they become to a considerable extent expert. I am suggesting that by that means we might change from the position which is probably necessary during the war period, or emergency period as we call it, when the Minister cannot wait in order to consult Parliament We might gradually change from that by the setting up of some system of committees. I cannot deal with it in any detail, and this would not be the time to do so. I throw it out as a suggestion, because I think it might be a practical way of getting over the interregnum period. I cannot see a particular date at which you could say all these Emergency Powers Orders which now have the effect of law would suddenly cease to have that effect. Consequently, I think there should be something for the period in between.
I think it is a tribute to this House that the criticism we have had has been largely constructive. I think it is a pity that Senator Foran could not suggest some remedy for the present position regarding wages other than increasing wages and at the same time allowing prices of necessary foodstuffs and other articles to increase. To my mind, an explanation of the position was supplied to some extent by Senator Counihan. I mean, there is considerable co-operation in the matter of increasing wages but very little co-operation in the matter of keeping down prices. It may appear to Senator Counihan that there is no connection between the sealing of the mill to which he referred and the keeping down of prices but the fact that these matters are dealt with under an Emergency Powers Order is an explanation in itself. In time of emergency you cannot allow a situation where, as suggested by Senator Counihan, the person concerned will be given a chance of putting up his case. If that were the position, you would have everybody coming along to put up his case and you would have to control the traffic around Government buildings. To my mind, the only way is to deal with them in a more or less drastic fashion. I have as much sympathy with the owner of the mill as has Senator Counihan. I do not know who he is. I am not saying that Senator Counihan has not the greatest possible sympathy. He has. But the fact is that there are hundreds of people in the country who have been found to make one little slip. In every case the story is exactly the same: the inspector went in and found a handful of this stuff and reported it as a case of wheat being ground for purposes other than the lawful purpose.
In this particular case, the man had a right to grind wheat and when he was grinding wheat for his own household possibly a few grains dropped out of the hopper. The inspector came and filled his glove with portion of that wheat. I say the action taken was very drastic.
The Senator has already made that point clear.
I agree thoroughly with Senator Counihan. I was not referring to the particular case he mentioned at all. There are hundreds of people all over the country that have practically the same story. I do not say they are all as honest and as decent as Senator Counihan's friend. I hope they are. The story is the same in practically every case. The inspector is always wrong. I am quite prepared to grant that there are cases where the inspector will make mistakes, but generally speaking, the inspectors go out without any malice whatever towards anybody and try to do their best.
I did not suggest malice.
I know the Senator did not. In 99 cases out of 100 the report of the inspector is right. If we could only get the same co-operation in keeping down prices we would get very much further, but the trouble is there is not the co-operation there ought to be in connection with this question. If anybody is charged with an offence under the Emergency Powers Orders with regard to the regulation of prices we get dozens of letters—I am sure every Senator is in the same position as I am—asking us to apply immediately to the Minister to have the case settled. The fact is that each one of these cases helps to build up a position in which the price of the necessaries of life is pushed up. Before we disband, I would appeal to Senators not to encourage people who come along with such pleas, but to give their co-operation to the Government in their efforts to keep prices down. If prices could be kept down—and I think they could with proper co-operation—there would be very little grievance in regard to wages.
In regard to Senator Foran's suggestion to increase wages, does not Senator Foran realise that if wages were increased it would entail increasing old age pensions and fixed salaries, and that if they were increased the price of commodities would increase?
They are increasing.
Maybe they are, but if they were allowed to continue to increase, the only people in a position to buy would be those with practically unlimited money or people with very big salaries. The people with small fixed salaries or allowances, people such as old age pensioners, are the people who would have to bear the brunt.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the inadequacy of the provisions to meet the increased cost of living to which Senator Quirke has referred. It is well known that, when the standstill Order was made, the cost of living was rising, but, even with the provisions in subsequent Orders, such as Orders Nos. 83, 166 and 260, the ceiling allowed to meet the cost of living was only 8/-, which represents a 10 per cent. increase in wages as against a 60 per cent. rise in the cost of living.
I have been all over the country within the past nine months serving as a workers' representative on wages' tribunals and I find there is no hesitation on the part of employers to give increases of wages. Apparently, they are quite willing to give these increases. For example, in one town in the South of Ireland about six weeks ago the workers applied for a bonus of 8/-. When the workers put up their case it was suggested that the workers' representatives and the employers' representatives should discuss the whole position in the absence of the members of the tribunal. That suggestion was adopted, with the result that the employers agreed to give an increase of 22/6 a week. We did not give the workers a bonus, but we increased the amount allowed under the standard wage Order to 22/6, while other cases were disposed of at amounts ranging down to 12/- in the lowest case. That indicates the readiness on the part of some employers to meet the increases in the cost of living.
I find most employers very fair when we are dealing with these applications at meetings of the tribunal. I am afraid the same cannot be said of some of the people who compose these tribunals. I do not want to attack any particular tribunal. I have served on many of them. I will say, however, that there is great dissatisfaction at the way some applications are dealt with.
The Taoiseach said on one occasion that nobody in this country is hungry. From contact with the people in various parts of the country, I can say that a considerable number of people are living on the border-line of poverty. Every day I see children going bare-footed and in rags. The reason is that the parents have no money with which to purchase clothes and boots for the unfortunate children. Certain commodities in this city are rationed. For instance, butter is rationed, yet poor people cannot buy it. I know that people who have money can get all the butter they require. I am aware that yesterday in the City of Dublin two poor women were offering ration books to people streaming out of Amiens Street station, heading for Nelson's Pillar. These poor people have the ration books, but they have not the money with which to procure the necessaries of life. This is a matter to which some attention should be devoted.
I do not want to over-paint the picture, and I do not think anyone will accuse me of being a wild man, wanting to exaggerate the situation. But there is poverty in this city. I am brought daily in contact with it. Deputy Foran referred to a certain case. There was never any indication on the part of trade unions, the organised or unorganised workers, that they would make impossible demands. On the contrary, there was evidence of proper organisation and a desire to help during the emergency. I am an official of a union with 1,200 members. I may say that we have paid out £55,000 of our members' money to something like 150 or 200 unemployed since the war started. The union is taking care of its members, and those members have paid increased rates in order that the unemployed would be able to meet the increased cost of living. They paid it into the common pool established to keep these men. That is one indication where less than 1,000 members have paid more than £55,000 in order to help in the emergency.
I would like to see help of a corresponding type given by the State. I would like to see something done for the poorer sections of our people, to put them in a position to meet the increased cost of living. As it is, we are allowed only the 8/- permitted by the Order. In view of the ever-increasing cost of living, more attention should be paid to this matter and the ceiling should be raised in respect of the amount that can be secured under these Orders. I will not overpaint the picture. We have not had any strikes or stoppages. If there was never a standstill Order, I believe the common sense of trade union officials would have been sufficient, and no drastic steps would have been taken to dislocate industry or commerce.
Senator Douglas referred to a matter that has been engaging my attention, and that is the position of this country in the post-war period. I think the Taoiseach, speaking in the Dáil last week, said there was a Cabinet committee meeting weekly to consider the problems likely to arise in the post-war period. I think it might be well if the Taoiseach were to give the Oireachtas some indication of the problems that are dealt with by that committee and the solutions they have prepared. There can be no question about it, grave problems will arise here after the war. For one thing, we will be confronted with at least 150,000 people who will come back from Britain. They will not be left in Britain a day longer than they are needed. These people will have become imbued with certain ideas that are fairly generally expressed in Britain at the moment. We all know that certain people are in power there and the prevailing ideas in that country are not ones I would like to see promulgated here. Many of our people who are now working in Britian will be imbued with certain ideas and the problems that will arise in the post-war period will be accentuated when those people reach here and start circulating their ideas and opinions. Some effort ought to be made to cope with the wage problem here. An increase of 10 per cent. in wages is not sufficient to meet a 60 per cent. increase in the cost of living. Any effort to increase wages has been stopped, but I am sorry that there has not been some move to control prices. A plea was put forward on behalf of people who transgress the law. I have no sympathy at all with people who transgress the law.
I have been to Mountjoy in the capacity of a visiting justice. I may say there are very few spare beds there, largely because of people who have transgressed the law in connection with prices charged for various commodities. I have not the slightest sympathy with the people who have been put into jail, because they did not properly realise their duty to the nation and to the common good and, if it were necessary, we should have more jails to deal with such people.
Senator Foran and Senator Campbell have spoken about the standstill Order. I do not know whether it would be quite in order to discuss that matter now. It seems to me that, strictly, the matter under discussion is whether or not there was abuse of the emergency powers. This particular Bill does not cover the standstill Order as such—its merits or demerits. As regards the charge made in the Dáil that these powers have been abused, I should like to say that both the Dáil and the Seanad had greater opportunity for discussing this Order than they had for discussing any other Order. If Senators look over the records of the House, they will find that more time was devoted to discussion of this Order than was devoted to discussion of any other Order. It is natural that that should be so because this is one of the most difficult questions with which we have to deal. I do not think that any case has been made as regards abuse of these powers. Members of the Dáil and Seanad are empowered to bring up for discussion any Order made.
As regards the merits—if I may touch upon that matter for a moment—the suggestion has been made that the same effort is not being made to keep down prices as is being made to keep down wages. I do not think that that charge is justified. Certain prices cannot be kept down. So far as we could do so, we have endeavoured to keep down prices. But if you want goods badly and these are available only from outside, you have to pay the price which will purchase them, and that price is beyond your control. As regards food, we, naturally, try to get it grown at the lowest price we can, in the interest of the community as a whole. But, again, we have to pay a certain price if we want to get the goods produced, so that it is not possible to keep prices down. It is suggested that we should allow wages to go up accordingly. If we do that, we shall have prices increasing still more.
I was interested to hear Senator Campbell say that he had no difficulty in inducing certain employers to accede to demands made by their workers for increased wages. Of course, employers will readily consent to increases in wages if they are able to recoup themselves by increased prices for their commodities. I do not know what commodities were being produced by the employers to whom Senator Campbell referred. One of the things which the Government have to try to defend the community against is collusion, so to speak, between proprietors and workers by which increases of wages are recouped by increases of prices. The whole matter is one of extreme difficulty. What we are trying to do is to prevent increases of wages, which would be followed by increases of prices, which, again, would be followed by increases of wages, because as the price of goods would go up, the value of the wages in terms of goods would go down. You would have a continual chasing of prices and wages. You must stop that somewhere. When any of these questions arose, we tried to stop it but many things we should like to do are not possible. We tried to put the balance of burden on the shoulders of those best able to bear it but it is not always easy to do that. If you put a heavy burden on the shoulders of those on whom you would like to put it, it may mean that, as a consequence, burdens will still be put on weaker shoulders.
In this case, as in the case of other economic problems, it is extremely difficult to get a satisfactory solution. We are always open to suggestions for a better solution than that which we are applying and these suggestions will be given the greatest possible consideration and attention. I have been trying to make myself acquainted with what has been done in this connection in other neutral countries. Various efforts have been made to achieve the same object but it seems to me that, if we applied the devices which have been applied in these other countries, they would not bring more satisfactory results than we are obtaining by our own methods. The setting up of the tribunals has brought a considerable easing of the situation here and it is more or less on these lines that, I think, we shall have to continue. No member of the Government has been able to put forward a better solution than that which we are applying. I do not say that it has been completely satisfactory.
As regards the suggestion that another chance should be given to people who offend against these Orders, the offences against the common good which can be committed by people who are impelled by selfish motives to act in a selfish way are so numerous that it is almost impossible to have machinery of such a type as would prevent them from so acting. The only way to prevent them is to see that those who are caught will pay a heavy penalty. You cannot have an inspector at every farmyard or in every shop to see that people will obey the law. The only way you can secure due obedience to the law is to see that those who disobey will suffer severely, if caught. I do not think that the policy of "giving another chance" would be compatible with the method which we have adopted. There ought, of course, to be justice and I take it that an opportunity is given in court to people who are charged with offences to make their case. In the case to which Senator Counihan referred, the parties concerned did get such an opportunity but a prima facie having being established against them, their business was closed down while the case was being investigated. In view of the circumstances, I do not think that that was a very great hardship, though in a particular case it might mean hardship. I do not think that there is any other way of dealing with the matter. When an offence is scheduled, then those engaged in the type of business covered by the item in the schedule will have to be particularly careful not merely to avoid doing wrong but to avoid doing anything that might, so to speak, be construed as wrong.
May I say that I did not ask for a second chance for any wrongdoer?
The question is: who is the wrongdoer? You may not catch him redhanded; you may have to rely on circumstantial evidence and circumstantial evidence always presents difficulties.
Many of these inspectors are inexperienced and, in that particular case, the persons concerned should have a right of appeal to a responsible official of the Department concerned.
The Senator made that point clear in his speech.
I do not think that experience would matter very much when the question was if a person using this mill was using it to grind wheat for animals. I take it that that was the foundation of the offence.
Yes.
If the marks were there, I do not see how experience would enable the official to judge. I take it that inspectors as experienced as possible are sent out and that they are capable of dealing with these matters. Every possible step that could be taken to provide in advance that justice would be done has been taken, but the position is that those who are caught doing anything of that sort will have to be dealt with severely. It is a matter of evidence whether these things are being done or not. I do not think that there is much hope of the suggestions made being adopted by the Minister, to whom I shall convey them. With regard to the question raised by Senator Douglas, and the position we have to meet after this, there will probably have to be some powers similar to those we have, continued for a considerable time, but there will be a question of revision, and seeing which of them it is essential to carry on. I do not know that anything would be gained by the setting up of a committee or of a body to examine it at this stage, because I am afraid we are not near enough to the actual circumstances that will arise, to judge in advance which set of powers are likely to be needed. There is no doubt that some of these powers will be necessary, and it will be an important matter for the Government of the day, and for the Parliament to consider which of these powers should be continued. I agree that it is unfortunate from the point of view of proper democratic control that so much power has to be delegated to the Executive as appears to be the practice now in democratic countries. Governments have to deal with such a variety of matters, and have to deal with them so swiftly, that it is becoming almost inevitable that a great deal of devolution of the powers of Parliament to the Executive should take place. There is this difficulty which, I am sure, Senators will recognise, that if you have committees, in order that they should come to a proper decision regarding any particular matter, they should have as complete information as the Government when it comes to a decision on them. That means that the time of staffs will be occupied with committees as well as with the Government. You have duplication.
One of the obvious objections to having committees of the kind that Senator Douglas suggests is that they will have to inform themselves in regard to every matter as fully as Ministers, Departments, or the Government as a whole are informed, when they come to a decision. That is undoubtedly going to put a very heavy burden on the permanent staffs, perhaps put upon them a burden that they will not be able to carry, because the best advice is generally given by those who have a good deal of executive work to do. These are the people who are best able to give advice and even at the present their time is very fully occupied in giving counsel and advice to Ministers and to the Government, making it almost impossible for them to have the necessary time for the executive work they have to do. It is an extremely difficult matter. However, the suggestion made by Senator Douglas can be examined to see how far it would fit in with our circumstances here.
I want to assure the Seanad, as I assured the Dáil, that I regret when a measure has to be passed in the form of an Order. I believe these are all matters for discussion in Parliament, because there is a variety of ways of approaching them from different angles by those who have a certain amount of direct personal information which may not be available to members of the Government. Discussion on that basis is always helpful, but it is a question whether we will have time. I am afraid, with the conditions which we are likely to have even after the war, the time factor will be a very serious one. I can only tell Senators that we will look into the matter to see if anything can be done.
Senator Campbell said that he would like if the House could have some indication of the work being done by the committee that was set up in the Cabinet. In general terms, we had in mind many projects, even before the emergency came upon us. These projects were brought to a standstill for one reason or another, in some cases because the staffs engaged in particular Departments had to be transferred to other Departments, and in other cases because certain raw materials which were necessary, and which we had to get from outside, were not available. A number of projects which the Government had in mind, and which would give a considerable amount of employment were held up. What we have been trying to do is to see that the plans for these projects are brought to such a point that they will be ready immediately the raw materials are available, so that whenever the situation is rectified we will be able to do the work with all possible speed.
As regards land division, it is a fundamental part of our social policy to put as many families as possible in economic security on the land. We want to get to the point of getting back the staffs loaned to other Departments, as quickly as possible, so as to proceed with all possible speed with land division, the improvement of holdings, which gives a considerable amount of employment, and also the building of houses on farms which would give employment locally. There is also the question of a resumption of the building industry and of housing. We must see if we can get the co-operation of local authorities. There is also the question of afforestation. We have been pressing very hard to increase the amount of land planted every year, but various difficulties prevent expansion. Many people talk of increasing afforestation suddenly. It cannot be done suddenly, because all sorts of things have to be provided for. We have been trying to push to 10,000 acres yearly, and the moment we get 10,000 acres people may say we should try to go to 12,000 acres. It is much better to have an attainable object than to say that we want 20,000 acres. We are taking stock and if we could get 10,000 acres we could see what we would require. There are difficulties about acquiring land and there is the question of trying to find a solution for that.
I have given an indication of some of the these projects. One of them is rural electrification—what we are to do about it, what are the plans and how far ahead can we get. There is also the question of drainage. We have accepted in general terms the report of the Drainage Commission. The drafting of the Drainage Bill proved so difficult that we tried to take a short-cut and, as often happens, it would have been better if we had taken the longer way.
We have tried to short-circuit the ordinary processes of getting Bills prepared and so on, but we are up against a difficulty. We find it is extremely hard to draft this particular Bill and what we are doing is, in fact, going in advance of the Act in some cases and running certain risks, before the project has been fully approved, by actually spending certain moneys in trying to get, for instance, the planning of a particular area completed, because we cannot take all the areas at once. The carrying out of drainage work will require to be spread over a certain number of years and we will, therefore, have to take it area by area. We have to get a lot of preliminary survey work done and while we are waiting for the Bill to be prepared, we are already tackling that preliminary work. We have made up our minds as to what areas we shall start with, and we have told the Public Works engineers to get ahead as quickly as possible. That gives you a rough idea of certain of the work that is being done. We have already made up our minds in regard to certain projects, and these projects are being planned so that the moment conditions make it possible, we would be able, without further planning, to say: "Go ahead."
There will be a question also of trying to train staffs. If the work we wanted to have done by the Department of Lands was of such a character as would require additional staff, we would say: "Get your staff now to do their training. Do not put us in the position that, when the emergency comes to an end, you will still have to train your staff." What I have said indicates the work done by the committee of the Cabinet, and I would like to say we came to that particular method of working because —as I think you will find, if you look up the Debates of the Dáil —when we were in opposition we urged very strongly that there should be a planning committee. That is a very attractive thing to people in Opposition. You say: "Look at the Ministers. They are engaged from morning until night dealing with everything from a needle to an anchor. How can they give attention to particular jobs?" That was my idea, frankly, when I was in Opposition. I thought the Government should have something like an economic headquarters staff that would be constantly considering these projects, that would put up projects to the Government and would continually supervise them and see how they were being carried through.
But the moment we came in, and I tried to apply that, I saw all kinds of difficulties which never occurred to me when we were in Opposition. One of the difficulties is that if you want these things carried out, they have to be carried out departmentally. The idea of dividing the State into Departments is to have efficient working. The best people to carry out projects are those who do the planning themselves, because they have considered all the snags that they are likely to come across in the execution of the work, and they have, consequently, if they have been engaged in the planning, the best qualifications to carry out the work. In fact, it is suggested that anybody who has these ideas is best qualified to carry them out, because Departments must, of necessity, proceed slowly and with reluctance when they come up against difficulties, and find that it is not feasible to do the works in a particular way. There have been various attempts made by the British to do it, and they have all come to naught. For the reasons I have indicated, we have Departments doing certain things. If you want planning done, you will have to get it done by those Departments, and the committee of the Cabinet is to supervise. It is a small committee, a form of headquarters planning staff.
Whenever we need assistance from any one of the Departments, we can get that assistance immediately instead of leaving the Department to do all the work itself. The committee can take up a project of the Department of Lands, and ask: "Very well; how far have you gone? How far have you done so-and-so?" and it is passed on to the department to obtain the details. If it is the Department of Industry and Commerce, we proceed along the same lines. We ask them: "What about this project of so-and-so? What plans have been made? What is the present position? Would you be in a position if the emergency stopped to go right ahead?" When we have got to that stage, the next thing would be to see that the projects were so distributed over the country as to take up the unemployment we might anticipate in these various areas. I did not propose to speak about that at all, but as Senator Campbell asked for it, I have given a general indication and I want to assure him that this work is being done.
I do not know if it is being done as efficiently as possible, but it is being done. My own view is that, with our organisation, it is the best way to get the work done. I am afraid that we have gone very far away from the terms of the Bill before us, but, as there is a disposition on the part of the Seanad to give us all stages of the Bill, it is perhaps no harm.
As this deals with a section of the existing Act, I think I would be in order in referring to some remarks made by An Taoiseach. I am trying to make it clear that, at present, legislation may be introduced by means of a Bill which has to go through five stages in the Dáil, and four stages in this House. Alternatively, it may be introduced by Emergency Powers Order, which may or may not be discussed by way of motion in this House. My suggestion for a committee was for something which might give a little more public consideration than an Emergency Powers Order, but would not involve the same amount of time as a Bill. The suggestion is that as soon as it is found possible, and, I think An Taoiseach agrees, it is desirable to reduce the number of Orders and increase the number of Bills. My suggestion is that if the House were divided into committees which would not be very large, it might be possible, once you are prepared to stop governing by Emergency Order except to a limited extent, that this particular type of Order might come before a committee representing either each House, or one representing both Houses, and it would simply pass through a committee and have the same effect as the present Emergency Orders. But, it could, possibly, be amended in committee by consent of the Minister. At a later stage, possibly in three to six months, the various committees would report, and their actions would be sanctioned by the whole Parliament, after they had been subjected to discussion.
My suggestion is that when you are reducing or amending drastic legislation, and gradually getting it back to normal—if there is ever going to be such a thing as normal again—that is a way by which you could get the benefit of public discussion, and it would enable you to ascertain public feeling which, as the Taoiseach said, Ministers are not always fully conversant with, without obliging the Minister concerned to have to go through all the stages of a Bill in every case. I am just throwing that out as one of the lines on which this might be done and as one which, I think, has merit. I believe that it might very well be considered as a system to be followed as between the two extremes: first, the extreme of a Bill having to go through all stages, and, secondly, that of an Emergency Order which need not go through Parliament at all.
In my reference to Sweden, I did not have it in mind to say that the system followed in Sweden would be suitable here. I merely wished to point out that Sweden was a country which had found a way of partial devolution while, at the same time, retaining parliamentary control. There is a danger that once this war is over, if we are not careful, we may find that pure expediency, and the shortage of time to which the Taoiseach referred, may mean that Parliament may never again establish the position it used to have, and I think it would be a pity that that should be the case, but if every measure and every detail is going to be discussed by means of a Bill through all its stages in the House, and if there is no other way except by means of Executive Orders, then I fear that what will happen is that Parliament will become less effective and be less useful, and if Parliament is less effective, as it has been during the war, and if it does not function freely, then I fear that the people will lose faith—if they have any faith in it now—in democracy. If, on the other hand, Parliament is fully representative, and if there is adequate discussion of every measure, then I think that democracy may establish itself again. I see great difficulty in reviving the idea of democracy without a revival of effective Parliamentary government, and if there is to be no alternative between the issuing of Executive Orders on the one hand, and a Bill going through all stages, on the other hand, you may find that Parliamentary control may not be reestablished. I feel that it would be a good thing that these things should be thought over along the lines I suggest.
Has the Senator in mind that these matters should be discussed in public or in private?
My idea was that they should be discussed in public, generally, with the Minister in charge, but that is not an essential to my scheme. I think that it would be the natural view, but I have not thought it out clearly. The main idea was to try to find something between the two methods.
I was rather disappointed with the Taoiseach's statement and with his attitude generally. It was rather an attitude of despair in connection with the standstill Order and the control of prices. He gave us no assurance that these things could or would be improved. Now, as I said earlier, the working people have suffered more during the Emergency than any other section of the community. We are entirely in favour of rationing, but there is not a bit of use in rationing essential foods if the people have not the wherewithal to buy these goods. Business people, certain professional people, and other sections of the community can get all the necessaries they require because they have money. I do not know that there is any other section of the community which is impoverished to the same extent as the working class, and as evidence of that you can see the bank balances. The banking accounts show that there is plenty of customers' money available, and it may be that things may not work out all right at the end of the war and that this money may not be as valuable as these people think it is now. However, that is a big subject, into which I shall not go now.
In the case of a great number of our people, their sons and daughters are working across in England and are sending money here. Without that money, these people here would be in a very bad position. They would not be able to get the necessaries of life. We read in the papers, every other day, of the enormous extension in juvenile crime. I submit that that is largely due to lack of finance, and, because of that, to lack of proper parental control. These are very important off-shoots due to lack of the necessaries of life. People are adopting other means of acquiring them— means which no one wants to encourage and which we all deplore, but it is very important that serious notice should be taken of that state of affairs.
I do not think the Taoiseach gave us any hope that these things would be improved in the near future, and I again appeal to him to insist on penalising the profiteers and people who are exploiting the black market. A good deal has been done, but a good deal more can be done. The power is there under the Emergency Orders, and it should be rigidly applied. Senator Counihan talks about these people being given a second chance. Just imagine somebody killing someone else down the country and getting a second chance! There should be no second chance for these people, and nobody should have any sympathy for them, because they are taking advantage of the situation and exploiting it to the detriment of the great mass of the community.
As regards Senator Quirke's attitude towards increased wages, he said that if we were to increase wages we would have to increase old age pensions. Did you ever hear anything more staggering from a public man? Is not the time long overdue for an increase in old age pensions? Are these people not entitled to an increase, in view of the substantial increase in the cost of living? Not only are the old age pensioners entitled to an increase, but blind pensioners also. These are matters that might and should require attention at the moment, but for a man to justify the pegging down of wages because an increase would mean an increase in old age pensions shows, I think, a rather poor mentality.
As regards planning for the future, it does not, of course, come under the Bill at all, but the Taoiseach has been kind enough to give us an idea of what the Government are doing in this direction. I think that the departmental officials are not the proper people to deal with such matters. I believe that a good deal of useful work, information and help could be got from other sections of the community. I submit that the stereotyped, red-tape departmental committee is not the best that can be got to plan for the post-war situation. However, that is their job, and not mine, but I suggest that other sections of our people should be taken more into the confidence of the Government with regard to post-war planning, because I feel that that would make for better planning for the future. I do not think I have anything more to say, but it is just possible, in connection with Senator Douglas's theories about parliamentary institutions, that after the emergency they may not exist at all, and there may be no need for them. Nobody can foretell what the outcome will be, when the conflict is going to end, and so on. At the same time, we ought to do a little internal planning for our people here. I think the Taoiseach said that we are not near enough to the end—I do not know if I am misinterpreting him— to do any planning.
I am sorry to say that I think we are not sufficiently near the end to see exactly what post-war conditions will be.
But that should not prevent our going ahead with our plans. We should not wait until we know that one or the other side is down and out. We must have our plans ready before that. I think it is not a bit too soon to begin now. We may have to change our plans; we may even have to throw some of them overboard, but I think we ought to tackle the problem right away. I do not agree with the Taoiseach that the time is not ripe for doing that.
When the Taoiseach was replying he indicated what are the present plans and the post-war plans, but he did not mention anything with regard to food production. Perhaps it was that he overlooked the matter. The Government has done very good work with regard to increasing our food production, but I submit that a great deal remains to be done. During the week-end we had 16,000 people from another country——
No, no!
Very well then; we had 16,000 people from another part of our own country as visitors in Dublin. That must be a great drain on the food supplies of the city and of the country generally, and I suggest that that is a pointer to what is going to happen in the future, both during the war and in the post-war period. If we have enough food in this country, people will be attracted here in the post-war period. They will come here for the food, as well as for the scenery and so on. I suggest to the Taoiseach that that is one of the matters to which the Government should direct their full attention. I have already agreed that the Government has done wonders in connection with food production, and I suggest that the more that can be done the better.
Senator Foran suggested that agricultural wages are not as good as they should be. We all agree with that, but, if you push agricultural wages any higher without pushing up the price of farm produce, the result will be unemployment. In connection with food production, it may seem selfish on the part of the farmers to ask for higher prices for their crops, but they do it from the point of view that it is better to have food produced in large quantities even though the price is a little bit higher.
The Taoiseach, in his very interesting forecast of the work that he proposes for the Government, left out, inadvertently I am sure, one fundamental matter, the question of education. Even adequate food production ultimately rests on good education, good agricultural education. For successful farming, a great deal of intelligence and a great deal of scientific training are required. The help of the women is also essential. To my mind, no farmer can get on unless he has the proper wife, and the proper wife must be trained for her very important job. That is only one branch of education. In everything of which the Taoiseach spoke, education is necessary. He spoke of the young men who will require to be trained for afforestation and other things. I hope that students in universities will be induced to abandon training for other professions which are overcrowded and are likely to be more overcrowded, and to take up training in practical spheres for which university training is necessary. I know that the Taoiseach must have this question before him; I merely want to remind him of it.
I was afraid that I had given the debate a wrong turn as a result of the remarks of Senator Campbell, and that we were going to have a discussion on post-war planning or on planning generally. I did not attempt to give anything like a complete list of the things that are being done; I just gave a slight indication of what is being done. Of course the question of food production is being considered. As Senators are aware, a committee has been set up to deal with our whole agricultural industry, which we all realise is the basic industry.
With regard to trying to get people to produce more food, we spent many a day last spring and last winter trying to get the farmers to produce enough for ourselves, enough for man and beast. We have not yet succeeded to the extent that we would desire, not to speak at all of the position in which, later on, there would be a very big demand for any surplus we would have. There is, of course, a demand for certain classes of surplus at the present moment. If we had large quantities of butter to spare, I am sure we could sell it. If we had large quantities of barley or other things to spare, I am quite sure we could sell them at a reasonable, even if not at a very attractive, price. The fact is that we are not producing from our land at the present time the food that is required for our own population here, and for the animal stock that we have. Obviously, the first thing is to try to get that done.
With regard to the post-war situation, there is a committee which is studying that whole question. I do not think anything that I said would justify Senator Foran in saying that I thought we were so far away from the end that we could not plan now. The very fact that we are planning now should prove that. If I did say anything which could be interpreted in that way, that is certainly not what I had in mind. What I had in mind is that you cannot now bring plans to a final stage. Your plans must remain provisional, because they depend upon factors which will not be fully known until the end of the war. I agree absolutely that that is not a reason why we should not go on with our provisional planning, try to foresee the circumstances, as far as it is possible for human beings to do it, and plan on the basis of those being the conditions in the post-war period.
We may have to modify our plans, or even to discard some plans completely. There would be reasons for that, but there would be no excuse for not having some plan, a provisional plan, based on conditions as we anticipate them at the present moment. I can only say that that is being done. The mechanism for the doing of it is in my opinion a matter for the Government, through a committee, or the Government as a whole on the one hand, and the Departments on the other. The Departments are there to plan. It is a part of their work. For instance, public health plans have to be made by the Department of Local Government and Public Health.
If it is a question of education, agricultural education and so on, obviously that comes in as part of the work of the committee which has been appointed. There is education of various kinds. There is technical education, for instance. If there is to be a great increase in any line where we would not have enough technically trained people, we may have to provide the technical training in advance. Senator Mrs. Concannon referred, for instance, to increases in the case of afforestation. If we wanted new staffs, and those were to be trained in the universities, an attempt should be made to do that as early as possible. That should be done, not merely in times of emergency but, as far as possible, it should be part of our common practice.
There are, however, difficulties involved that do not meet the eye at once. For instance, if we tell the universities that we may want after the emergency, ten, 20 or 50 inspectors of forestry, technically and properly trained, a number of people may set out to equip themselves for these posts. This may not be a good example because it is scarcely likely to happen, but let us suppose that a number of people set out to train themselves for such work. If by any chance something happened that would prove our forecast wrong, and it transpired that we did not want so many inspectors, the people who had offered themselves for training would have a grievance and they would say: "Very well, we trained ourselves on your advice and because of the statements which you made. It is up to you now to see that we get work." There are all sorts of things of that kind about which one has to be cautious. Then, again, one can err by too much caution also. We have to take reasonable risks. I think, however, that if I were to continue on this line I would not be in order, so I had better bring my remarks to a close.