When this motion in the names of Deputies McGilligan and Morrissey was moved on the last day that the Dáil met, I expressed the opinion that the proposer or seconder of it should have attempted to demonstrate, by reference to known facts, first, that the standard of living of the community had been lowered; secondly, that if so, it was due to Government action; and, thirdly, that the proposal embodied in the motion would operate to raise the standard of living. Neither the proposer nor the seconder of the motion attempted to demonstrate anything of the kind, and accordingly I thought it necessary to give the Dáil all the available statistical information relating to economic activites and social matters for the purpose of demonstrating that since 1934 there had been, not a lowering of the standard of living of the community, but, if anything, a raising of the standard of living. From the facts which I gave—facts which are available to all Deputies—I argued that it was a reasonable deduction that, during that period, at least the average standard of living—that is to say, the standard of living of the average person—had improved.
Private Deputies' Business. - Standard of Living.—Abolition of Duties on Food Stuffs (Motion).
Why take 1934?
I knew that question was coming and I was prepared for it, but before dealing with Deputy Morrissey's question——
Mr. Morrissey
Do not forget it.
——I want to emphasise that the only conclusion which can be drawn from the facts which I gave is one relating to the standard of living of the average person. Now, it is a well-known trick in debate to try to disprove or discredit a conclusion of that kind by relating it to facts within the experience of individuals or of particular classes, and I notice that a number of newspaper writers who thought fit to comment upon my remarks attempted that trick. It is perfectly true, of course, that during that period the standard of living of some classes improved more than that of others, and for some there was no improvement at all. People with fixed incomes are, of course, adversely and immediately affected by any rise in the price of commodities. The unemployed, people with no incomes, are equally adversely affected, but the experience of individual classes or of particular sections of the community does not offset or destroy the general conclusion to be drawn from the available information, and that is that the average standard of living has risen.
Deputy Morrissey asks why I confine my investigations to the years from 1934. I notice that Deputy McGilligan has tabled a number of Parliamentary questions for written answer, asking in relation to the years prior to 1931 the same information as I gave to the Dáil in relation to the years from 1934. That information was supplied to Deputy McGilligan, and will be available to all Deputies in the report of the Dáil Debates which will be published on Friday. I invite every Deputy in this House who is really concerned to study the problem raised by this motion on a basis of facts to pay particular attention to that information, and not to be satisfied with that only—because Deputy McGilligan asked his questions with a view to using the information in this debate, and consequently did not ask for information he did not want—but to go to the Statistical Abstract which is published by my Department, and get the much fuller and much more comprehensive information relating to those matters which is available in that publication.
Any comparison between the year 1931 and the year 1936 would be of doubtful value unless it were accompanied by an adequate explanation of any change in conditions produced by legislation or otherwise which occured in the meantime. In any event, the significant thing for those who wish to study this problem is not the actual position in a particular year, but the trend of events over a number of years; and if Deputies study the statistical information concerning the years in respect of which Deputy McGilligan is curious—the three years prior to 1931—and all the information relating to all those years available in the Statistical Abstract, they will see at once as the outstanding and startling fact that those years were years of consistent decline. During those years the consumption of commodities decreased, commercial activity fell off, the numbers of employed were lessened and unemployment increased. Deputy Morrissey looks surprised.
Mr. Morrissey
Nothing the Minister would say could surprise me.
I can say to Deputy Morrissey what I said on the last occasion that I am going to give him no fact without telling him the source of it, and he can check its accuracy for himself.
Mr. Morrissey
The Minister should consult a few housekeepers. They would tell him more than all his statistics.
We will consult the housekeepers in due course. Those facts which I am giving to Deputies are all available in the Statistical Abstract. In the year 1931 the consumption of beer was less than in the year 1936, but, more important than that, the consumption in 1931 was less than in 1930, and in 1930 it was less than in 1929. The figures are as follows:— 1929, 728, 342 standard barrels; in 1930, 689,194; and in 1931, 555,574. The consumption of spirits in 1931 was higher than in 1936. I give that fact to Deputies for what use they want to make of it. It is about the only straw they can get to support their motion. In my opinion, the significant fact is that the consumption of sprits in 1931 was less than in 1930, and in 1930 less than in 1929. The consumption of tobacco in 1931 was less than in 1936. The figure are: 1931, monthly average consumption, 710,300 lbs., and in 1936, 754,000 lbs. The number of new motor cars registered in 1931 was about half the number registered in 1936.
Nonsense.
The figures for 1931 were 371 and for 1936 the figures were 676. Again, the significant fact is not that there has been that increase since this Government came into office, but that in 1931 the figures were less than in 1930, in which year the number of registered cars was 445.
What was the number in the year before?
The figures for the year before are not available. Post Office Savings Bank deposits, less withdrawals, were considerably higher in 1936 than in 1931. Here is another fact that Deputies may take some consolation from. Savings Certificates sales, less repayments, were higher. It is true that in the intervening period there has been a transfer of preference from Savings Certificates to the Post Office Savings Bank, due to the obvious fact that the rate of interest upon the sales of Savings Certificates has been reduced.
Look at all the pensioners you have in the country.
I submit that the essential fact is not what the amount deposited or saved in a particular year was as against another year, but what the total savings of the people who avail of these services were in these periods. This time, I am quoting from the quarterly statistical bulletin of the Currency Commission. The total amount standing to the credit of depositors in 1931 was £3,703,000—that was in the Post Office Saving Bank— and in 1936 it was £7,470,000. The amount of Savings Certificates outstanding in 1931 was £6,352,000 and in 1937 it was £7,868,000—on June 30th.
Will the Minister give the sum total of the three—Savings Certificates, Post Office savings and Trustees Savings Bank?
The Deputy can carry out the sum in arithmetic himself.
It so happens that it is always after the event we have to correct the Minister's figures.
Is the Deputy alleging that my figures are inaccurate?
At one time we were presented with a set of figures by the Minister for Finance which, were it not for the interest on the money we left behind, would be £400,000 short annually, comparing the two periods, previous and subsequent to 1932.
It will be recollected that, on one occasion, the Deputy balanced our adverse trade by quoting the import figures for the export figures, and the export figures for the import figures.
Any mistake I made at any time—and that is the only one the Minister has called attention to— I corrected it, and that is what has never been done over there. I had one mistake in 15 years and I could point to 15 in one year, or one month, by the Party opposite.
I submit, despite all these disorderly interruptions, that the figures do not support the contention that there has been any reduction in the standard of living in the country.
Give us the sum total that I asked you for.
Will somebody add those figures; perhaps the Deputy cannot add. So much for the first set of figures I gave. Now, with regard to commercial activity, I mentioned on the last day that the best source of information as to the volume of our commercial activity is the value of the cheques, notes and bills cleared through the ordinary commercial banks.
This is all very funny.
The weekly average clearance of cheques, notes and bills through the Dublin banks in 1931 was £4,880,000 and in 1936 the figure was £5,570,000. Another figure I gave as an indication of commercial activity was the traffic receipts on railways— railway traffic receipts. Again, I want Deputies to remember that if they go to the sources of information which I have indicated they will find in relation to the years prior to 1931 that there was a steady decline in commercial activities of all kinds as against the steady increase in commercial activity recorded for the past three years. Railway traffic receipts declined steadily and seriously from 1929 to 1931.
Mr. Morrissey
On a point of order. May I draw attention to the fact that the Minister is merely wasting the time of the House? He is now repeating almost word for word the speech he delivered on the last occasion on this motion.
I think that interruption comes most inappropriately from Deputy Morrissey, who has just asked me the question why, on the last occasion, I did not refer to the period before 1931.
Mr. Morrissey
I did not ask any such thing.
I can well understand that Deputy Morrissey dislikes getting these facts, and that is the reason for his interruption.
Mr. Morrissey
I am putting a point of order. I say that the Minister is repeating, for the purpose of wasting the time of the House, the speech he made here on the last occasion.
A good thing cannot be heard too often.
If Deputy Morrissey is so concerned about wasting the time of the House, he should not have put down the motion.
I do not think that the Minister is indulging in repetition—that is, repetition as understood and envisaged by the Standing Orders.
Mr. Morrissey
I do not know whether you, Sir, were present on the last occasion when the Minister spoke, but certainly those of us who were present realise that there is no question that it is word for word the same speech.
Railway traffic receipts declined from 1929 to 1931. If any comparison is to be made between traffic receipts during that period and the last three years, consideration must be given to the effect of the transport legislation enacted in 1933 and to the subsequent closing down of a number of railway lines in this country, and also in particular to the transfer of traffic from the railways to the roads. The monthly average number of passengers carried upon road transport services in 1931 was 4,898,000 and in 1936 it was 7,830,000.
On a point of order. You have just heard the Minister making an observation. I will now quote, in submitting the point of order, from Column 226 of Volume 69, No. 2:
"These figures are available by reason of the fact that traffic was diverted from the roads to the railways... The average number of passengers carried by road transport in 1934 was 7,780,000. I will leave out 1935, because the figures that year were influenced by the Dublin Tramways strike, which lasted three or four months. In 1936 the average number of passengers carried by road transport was 7,830,000."
The Minister has dropped 50,000 passengers to-night—that is the only difference.
I did not give any figures for 1934 to-night.
You said 7,730,000, and, last Tuesday night, you said it was 7,780,000.
I am giving you the figures for 1931 and 1936.
Go ahead; we will check you over and you will be wrong again.
In any case, all this will help in the process of building up Deputy Dillon's education. Deputies opposite do not want these facts. They have been masquerading in the country in a dishonest campaign against this Government and that is the reason for all these indignant protests. Let me now deal with another aspect of the situation, the issue of unemployment insurance stamps—and these figures relate to men only. In 1929 the monthly average number of sheets of stamps issued was 2,475. By 1930 that had fallen to 2,276, and by 1931 it had fallen to 2,178. Then this Government came into office and the decline stopped, and in 1936 the number had increased to 2,898. Similar figures can be given in respect of women and youths. The average number of unemployment insurance claims current on the last Monday of each month in 1931 was 17,952. In this case there had been a steady increase on the previous two years. The figure for 1936 was 16,040. I am not giving the same information that I gave the last day. The weekly expenditure for unemployment insurance benefit for 1931 was £10,780. In 1936, the figure was £9,690. The number of persons upon home assistance in 1931 was the same as in the previous year.
Mr. Morrissey
Will the Minister explain the reduction in 1936 in relation to unemployment insurance benefit?
Less unemployment insurance benefit was paid.
Mr. Morrissey
Why?
Because less people claimed it. So much for Deputy Morrissey's question and the obvious line of defence which Deputy McGilligan was preparing. Whether we compare the circumstances now with those existing in the immediately preceding years, or compare the circumstances, say, for those three years, with the three years before the change of Government, we can find no evidence whatever to support the contention that the standard of living of the people of this country has been decreasing. I then went on to examine——
Oh, he admits it.
——the second line of defence which those speaking on the motion before us put up. They said that the Minister cannot deny that the cost of living has risen. I do, because the cost of living has not risen in this country any more than in a number of other countries.
The Minister ignores the index figure of the cost of living.
Again, we had from a number of newspaper writers the adoption of the same trick to which I have referred—the attempt to make a relationship between that and a general conclusion from the prices of a number of commodities. It is quite true that the prices of some commodities have risen more than others, but that fact does not destroy or weaken in any way the main conclusion to be drawn from the facts that the rise in the cost of living here since 1934 was proportionately no greater than in any other country. It is quite true that the fall in the cost of living which took place here before 1934 was more severe than in other countries because, not merely did we get the effect of world conditions but we also had the reaction of the special measures adopted against ourselves by the British Government in relation to the economic war. Even if Opposition Deputies could have shown that the cost of living had risen here it would not indicate any greater measure of recovery than that to which other nations had been able to point.
I will now turn to the third question with which I did not deal the last time, namely that the change of Government policy—a change which this motion advocates—would, in fact, raise the standard of living. That is obviously the question on which Deputies must be satisfied before they vote for this motion. Before Deputies vote for this and before we make a change of policy, let us be satisfied that we are going to improve the circumstances which now exist. If it be shown that the circumstances will not be improved, then the case for the motion falls.
Deputies opposite have confused the standard of living with the cost of living. We could have in this country a lower cost-of-living index and at the same time a much lower average standard of living. A reduction in the price of commodities, particularly for a community like ours, one half of whom get their livelihood from the land, might mean a very serious diminution of the standard of living of those people employed in agriculture and the average standard of living for the whole country. On the other hand, a rise in the price of foodstuffs, even greater than we have known, might well operate to raise the average standard of living by raising the standard of living of those engaged in agriculture.
The motion refers to the standard of living and deplores the lowering of the standard of living even though the speeches related only to the cost of living. And we are asked to reverse the policy of the Government and to abolish all "taxes, levies, duties and the like impositions on foodstuffs and other necessaries of life", on the ground that that would raise the standard of living. In the motion we are asked to do that. The speeches of Deputies ask us to do that because, as they allege, these levies and duties are affecting the cost of living. The standard of living of our community would be increased if the national income were increased. That was the contention. I believe that the national income might increase for the benefit of certain classes in the community without affecting other classes.
The question we have to ask ourselves is whether the adoption of this motion, abolishing forthwith all these taxes, levies, duties and like impositions would increase production here and raise the price of exports, because there is no other way by which the national income could be raised. The national income will be raised when we get higher prices for our exports.
Mr. Morrissey
That is the reason for the slaughtering of the calves.
Will the adoption of this motion do one or other of these things?
Is the Minister going to take up the whole time?
This campaign of misrepresentation has been going on for a very long time, and——
Mr. Byrne
What about the Dublin unemployed? I have been asked by the unemployed of Dublin to put their case before the Dáil.
Deputies
Chair!
I am not going to give way to Deputy Byrne. Deputy Byrne comes in here in his dress suit to talk about the unemployed.
Mr. Byrne
I have been asked by the Dublin unemployed to raise this question to-night. They want to know what is to be done for them.
I ask Deputy Byrne to sit down.
Mr. Byrne
Can I get a word in at all? The unemployed have asked me to raise this question here to-night.
If Deputy Byrne is prepared to create a scene, the Chair is not going to help him.
Mr. Byrne
The Minister is speaking here for the purpose of killing time, so as not to let us get a word in.
Now that Deputy Byrne has made that spectacular demonstration he can go off to his dance.
Mr. Byrne
Will I be allowed to say that the unemployed of Dublin have asked me——
They are not wearing dress suits. Sit down.
Deputy Fogarty will please sit down.
Mr. Byrne
The Government is humbugging the unemployed men who are being ignored here. I have been asked by them to raise their case, and I am not allowed to put in a word for them. I only wanted five minutes and I will not get it. However, I have found out all I wanted to know.
Deputy Byrne has been sufficiently long in this House to know that every Deputy is given an opportunity of moving his motion. The Minister has not given way.
I want to give Deputy Byrne some information.
Mr. Byrne
What information has the Minister for the Dublin unemployed? I have been completely shut out.
The Deputy should be locked out.
The position is this: certain statements have been made with respect to Government policy and the Minister is answering these statements. I will not listen to Deputy Byrne while the Minister is on his feet.
Mr. Byrne
But the Minister has made that same speech several times already. He is now only trying to kill time. I have got up to ask for information about the Dublin unemployed.
This Government is charged with the responsibility of looking after the affairs of this country and they will not be prevented from doing their duty. Between the years 1931 and 1936 the volume of industrial production in this country increased by 66 per cent. No other country in the world, except Russia——
Oh!
A Deputy
The Minister is in good company.
—— is able to show a corresponding increase in industrial production. Between the years 1929 and 1936 only four other countries in the whole world showed an increase in industrial production. These were Russia, Japan, Sweden and Great Britain, but no country except Russia was able to show such a substantial increase as ours. World production declined by 14.8 per cent., according to the figures in the issue of the Statist of the 25th September. Our expansion, therefore was not favoured in any way by world circumstances. The actual increase in the value of industrial production of the 25 industries that are included in our limited census of production for the period between 1929 and 1936 was £23,000,000. The increase in employment was 32,000, and in wages £2,500,000. The wages paid to them increased by £2¼ millions.
Mr. Morrissey
We exported 100,000 to Great Britain.
If, instead of these 25 industries, we turn to all industries assisted by Government measures— tariffs, levies and duties—the increase in employment in these industries in March of this year as compared with the period before the tariffs were imposed was 49,400. A reversal to the 1931 position—the adoption of the policy contained in this motion, for which Deputy Byrne and others on the opposite side are going to vote—would mean not merely an immediate financial crisis but an immediate employment crisis, because 49,400 persons would immediately lose the remunerative occupations they now have. That is what Deputies opposite are asking. It is in respect of that that Deputy Byrne is protesting we are not going quick enough. How is that reversal going to raise the standard of living? How will it affect the cost of living of those who will lose their employment? I know that many Deputies are going to run away from this motion when it comes to a question of voting for it. But that is what is down in the motion. The main Opposition Party move a motion the effect of which would be to destroy these industries and put 50,000 people out of work. Let that be recorded of them.
Let me turn to agriculture. As a result of those taxes, levies, duties and the like to which the motion refers and which we are asked to abolish, the imports of bacon were reduced from £1,289,000 in 1931 to nothing. On the last occasion, I mentioned a figure of £400,000. That was wrong. The imports were 400,000 cwts. but the value of the imports was £1,289,000. We reduced the imports of butter from £176,000 to nothing.
What year?
1931. The imports were valued for £176,455 in that year.
What was the value of the exports?
I shall deal with that question in a minute. I am going to make my own speech and not the speech Deputy Cosgrave wants me to make. In the category of foodstuffs of animal origin, a valuable additional market was made available to the Irish farmer since 1931, amounting to over £2,000,000. In the cereals group, the increased production of wheat represents a new market for the Irish farmer value for about £2,000,000. The value of the new market created by the sugar beet development amounts to over £1,000,000. The total import of foodstuffs since 1931 has been reduced by £7,000,000. If we adopted the policy contained in this motion and if we knocked off all these duties, levies and taxes forthwith—that is what the motion asks—there would be an immediate reduction of agricultural output by £7,000,000. Is that going to raise the standard of living of the farmers?
What about exports?
Is there anything in this motion about exports? Did Deputies ask us to do anything about exports?
Take off the tariffs.
That is not in the motion. Why did not Deputies opposite put that into their motion? They asked that all these tariffs, duties and levies should be abolished forthwith. They did not say that we should wait until after the economic war is settled or wait until after the British Government has been persuaded to give up its tax on Irish exports. They want this done forthwith and "forthwith" means "now." How is that going to influence our exports by one iota?
Colonel Ryan rose.
"The moon hath raised her lamp above."
The Deputy will have an opportunity of speaking later.
The adoption of the policy contained in the motion would involve a decrease in industrial production, a decrease in agricultural production, less employment, more unemployment, reduction of the national income, and a consequent lowering of the average standard of living of our people. Is that too high a price to pay for a lowering of the cost of commodities? I think it is, and the policy of this Government is based on acceptance of that assumption. The Party opposite stand for low prices at any cost—and that is not an Irish bull. They want cheap goods in the shop windows even if the people have no money with which to buy them. That is their objective. That is what they are aiming at in this motion. They did not ask themselves whether the adoption of the motion would help them in that objective. The necessaries of life to which the motion refers are food, clothing, fuel and shelter.
Mr. Morrissey
I thought they were motor cars, beer and spirits.
So far as food is concerned, I can say in respect of beef, mutton, milk, pork and potatoes that the national average retail prices now prevailing are lower than they were in 1931, and, consequently, these prices would not be affected in the least by the adoption of this motion. I wonder if Deputies opposite are really sincere in complaining about the prices being charged for these commodities. If we were to get a vote of the Deputies of the Fine Gael Party in which they would express their real opinion as to whether Governmental action should be directed towards increasing or decreasing the prices of these commodities, I venture to say we would get a majority in favour of increasing them. Do Deputies opposite think that the price of eggs is too high? The current market price in the Saorstát is 1/1½ per dozen. Do they think that the farmers should get less for their eggs? That is what they complain of in the motion—that the price is too high. Does Deputy Finlay or Deputy Fagan think that the price of cattle is too high?
It is not high enough.
And Deputy Dillon says that the price of eggs is not high enough. Does Deputy Gorey complain that the price of pigs is too high? Does Deputy Bennett complain that the price of milk is too high? They do not mean a word of this motion. They put that down for the purpose of getting a knock at the Government, but they have no serious intention of carrying out that policy if they ever get into the position to do anything of the sort. These commodities can be left out of account, because it is clear that the price of them would not be affected by the policy contained in this motion.
That is at column 24 of the last report.
Let me turn to bacon It is quite true that the price of bacon rose in the course of the past year. According to the current edition of the British Board of Trade Journal, which I had not got on the last occasion on which this debate took place——
That is in column 237.
The price of bacon between September, 1936, and September, 1937, increased by 7 per cent. An increase took place here also—an increase largely, if not entirely, due to the increased price given for pigs to the farmers. The average price paid for pigs in the Saorstát markets on the 19th September, 1936, was 57/6 per cwt. On the 19th September, 1937, the price was 67/9 per cwt.—an increase of 10/3. Do any of the Deputies opposite say that that price is too high? Is that the price of which they are complaining, or do they allege that the bacon curers are profiteering? Let them ask Deputy Gorey or Deputy Dillon about that. They are both directors of bacon factories. What about butter? Deputies have been following the controversy between the Minister for Agriculture and the Creamery Managers' Association. The Creamery Managers' Association want to increase the price of butter. Are Deputies opposite supporting them in that?
That is column 242.
That is a question I invite any Deputy from a creamery area on the benches opposite to answer in the course of this debate.
Mr. Morrissey
It would be easier on you if you got a record made of your speech.
If, however, the policy proposed in this motion were adopted, if we got free trade in butter, which is Deputy Fagan's ideal—no tariffs on imports and no tax on exports—the retail price of butter would go up by 2d. a pound. Does he not know that?
Naturally it will be affected by the world price.
In other words, you want a higher price than that now prevailing——
We want the world market price.
——but you propose this motion and urge it on the House on the ground that the cost of living is too high and that you want to bring it down. You fought the last election on the ground that the cost of living was too high and ought to come down.
Mr. Morrissey
And what happened?
Now you want to put the cost of living up. Let us turn to the case of sugar. The retail price of sugar in 1936 was the same as it was in 1931, but Deputies opposite who are interested in these matters will have noticed that all the sugar exporting countries recently met at a conference in London and arrived at an agreement to increase the export price of sugar to what they regard as an economic level.
What was that price?
That agreement has not functioned very satisfactorily up to the present, but inevitably it will be tightened up and made effective in due course. If this motion were adopted, what would we have? We would have all these sugar factories closed down, and Deputy Morrissey could then go down to Thurles and explain to the workers in Thurles that the shutting down of that factory was going to raise their standard of living.
Mr. Morrissey
Is the Minister trying to intimidate me?
And other Deputies could go and explain to the beet growers how the abolition of beet growing and free imports of foreign sugar were going to raise their standard of living. I should like to see them at it. If we adopt the policy in this motion, we close our beet factories, we stop beet growing, we increase unemployment and, at the end of it, get a rising price for sugar.
With regard to tea, I will admit at once that it is not very easy to make a comparison between the retail price of tea in any one period against another because there is such a variety of blends and quality, but I invite Deputies to inspect the table of figures given in reply to a Parliamentary question by Deputy Norton to-day. From it they will find that the average import price of tea in July, 1931, was 1/6.9 and in July, 1937, 1/4.7. In any event, the price of tea would not be affected by this motion. We have had a lot of talk about the price of flour. Deputies opposite have, in fact, based their case almost entirely on the price of flour. It is quite true that flour prices would be reduced if the policy of free imports was resumed, but I think we can deal with the flour situation without resorting to that device. I am not satisfied with the price of flour. I do not allege, as Deputies opposite have, that there is widespread profiteering, but I do think it possible to reorganise the industry in order to effect a lower price which will still be profitable to the producers. Deputy Dillon says that the solution is competition. Competition is one solution, but it is not the only, and I do not think it is the best solution.
Deputy Pattison, at a meeting of his own private parliament in Kilkenny, the week before last, spoke about some plot he has discovered, some nefarious plot of the Government to increase the number of port mills to the detriment of the mills in Kilkenny, and of how the Labour Party had stepped into the breach and defeated the plot Either Deputy Pattison's imagination is very good or my memory is very bad, because I have no recollection of it. I assume from his remarks that their solution of the flour milling position is not increased competition, and they are right in that, because undue competition means only insecurity in their employment for the workers and consequently a diminution in their annual earnings. I say that the flour milling situation can be dealt with otherwise than by the policy proposed in this motion, and we propose to do it. We got a solution from Deputy Davin, too, a solution which has various attractive features, although I believe Deputy Davin was making sure he would have a good get-away from the responsibility of having made the proposal if by any chance it were adopted. We can deal with the situation, however, but if the case for this motion is based on flour, and flour only, I say that it falls, because we can deal with the position in respect of flour without at the same time destroying the millions of pounds of capital which have been invested in the flour milling industry or abandoning the wheat scheme which is so profitable and so useful to the farmers of this country. Do you stand for the termination of the wheat scheme? Why were you so anxious at the last general election to explain to the electors that if you got into office you were, of course, going to carry it on? Because you had not the courage to tell the electorate what you really stood for.
We have not the courage to tell lies.
Let us take coal. I have dealt with food and I am now turning to fuel. According to the Board of Trade Journal, a copy of which I received yesterday—it is the most recent edition of that organ —the wholesale price of British coal sold in Great Britain increased between September, 1936, and September, 1937, by 20 per cent. There was no such increase here. Coal is, of course, not subject to duty, and consequently its price would not be influenced by this motion.
Mr. Morrissey
What was the increase here during that period?
All our coal imports come from Great Britain now, as they did prior to 1931, but they come with this difference, that prior to 1931 British coal was exported to Ireland at an average price considerably in excess of the average price of British coal exported to other countries. Time and again when we were in opposition, we protested to the Government then in office against that state of affairs being allowed to continue but they took no action. Now, however, as a result of the negotiations we entered into at the beginning of this year, for the first time the average price of British coal exported here in this year is lower than the average price of British coal exported generally to other countries. I do not claim that the British have given us anything in that matter other than what we are entitled to.
I suppose a gentleman's agreement?
It is a written agreement.
Who signed it? Will you tell us that?
I am not claiming that they gave us any concession. We were entitled to that, but we were equally entitled to it before 1931 when the Government then in office did nothing about it. I remember that Deputy Morrissey had a different view on the subject from that which he has now.
Mr. Morrissey
Did you agree to an increase in the price of coal? Is it in that agreement the Minister is now quoting from that the price of coal exported to this country shall be increased from 1st November next?
The Deputy, as a coal merchant, knows that the price always goes up in winter.
Mr. Morrissey
Is it provided in that document that the price of coal shall be increased on the 1st November?
I do not propose to answer the Deputy.
Mr. Morrissey
I know you do not. On a point of order, Sir, if the Minister brings a document before the House and quotes from it——
I have not quoted from it.
Mr. Morrissey
The Minister has a document in his hand which he showed to the House as the agreement signed between himself, or his Department, and the coal-owners. I am asking the Minister whether he or his representatives signed that agreement to have the price of coal increased on the 1st November.
This document from which I am quoting contains the notes I prepared for this speech, and I am prepared to let the Deputy have it afterwards, if he wishes to read them.
Mr. Morrissey
The Minister refuses to answer the question.
Because you ask foolish questions.
With regard to clothing, Saorstát Eireann factories for the manufacture of clothing and boots are numerous and very well equipped. I think some Deputies—Deputy Pattison was one—are inclined to complain that they are too numerous, and that competition has become excessive, with the result that employment is becoming periodic. They are, however, as I have said, all new factories equipped with the most modern machinery, and although in some cases their labour costs are considerably higher than in Great Britain, they have off-setting advantages. As compared with Great Britain, therefore, there has been no increase in the price of clothing and boots and shoes over and above what might reasonably be expected from the rising prices of raw materials. I am, however, prepared to concede this to Deputies, that if we remove all these taxes, duties and other restrictions, we shall be able to get clothing, boots and like articles from Japan and similar countries at much lower prices than those at which we could produce them here or those at which they can be produced in Great Britain. I know that that is their policy. They want to see Japanese clothing, Danish butter, Argentine beef and American bacon for sale in our markets here, even though it means all the evil consequences to which I have referred.
Mr. Morrissey
You have only another 40 minutes. You are doing well.
The rise in the cost of housing——
Are you not going to tell us about Pepper Lee?
——is due to two main factors. The first is the rise in the cost of imported materials, and the second, the rise in wages.
Mr. Morrissey
The tax on cement of 5/- a ton.
As regards the licensing fee payable on the importation of cement, by the beginning of next year Irish cement will be available——
Mr. Morrissey
You told us that three years ago.
——and that licensing fee will then disappear. Deputy Morrissey was wrong and inaccurate in other respects.
Mr. Morrissey
It is on the records.
I think any fair minded person will agree that I have given a fair estimate in respect of all the articles which might be held to be necessaries of life. What he stated as the proposed policy in respect of some of them would be to effect a reduction in prices, in respect of many would have no effect upon prices and, in respect of a few, would actually raise prices. It would involve the immediate destruction of national assets that have been built up with great difficulty, would be the cause of widespread unemployment, and would cause immediate destitution in many homes. Is it worth that cost? That is the question Deputies opposite must answer. They must put to themselves this question: Are they prepared to face up to the consequences of their own policy? When seeking the votes of the electors they advocated a very different course of action from that which this motion suggests. They were very careful to explain then, that if they got a majority the industrial programme would not be interfered with; the wheat scheme would not be interrupted; the price of milk to the creameries would be increased, and the price of other articles produced by farmers would be raised. But the first motion they brought before the Dáil was one to destroy and to reverse our industrial policy, to reduce prices of all articles in the production of which farmers are interested; and from this until the next election they are going to explain that away, but will not be able to do so.
We have problems to deal with here, problems of price as well as other things, and I think we can deal with these problems without abandoning the national plan, of which the people have approved. If any indication of public approval were necessary, it is the fact that the Party opposite at the recent election endeavoured to frame their policy as closely as they dared to the policy of the Government. If excessive prices are being charged for some articles, we can deal with that. We can secure efficiency and economy in production, and we can eliminate waste and undue profit-making without destroying what is now the whole basis of our prosperity. This idea of a reversion to the policy of free trade has been advocated on many occasions here, but no Deputy has ever attempted to paint a picture of what a reversal to free trade would mean to this country. If there are any people on earth who know what free trade means, we are that people. We have seen it in operation for over a century, and during that time we have seen our country depopulated, our natural resources undeveloped, and our industries neglected. Yet that is the policy the Party opposite wish to get back to. The policy of the Government is the removal of all the social and economic evils that were widespread when we came into office. No one, much less myself, is going to claim that all that can be done, or even all that might be done, has been done. A great deal remains yet to be achieved, but a great deal has been done, and, more than anything else, we have equipped the nation with the resources wherewith to do so.
A Deputy
Half a nation.
The motion before the House proposes a policy of despair. There is nothing in the circumstances of this country to justify a policy of despair. There is every ground for optimism. When Deputies vote on this motion I trust they will kill and bury for ever this free trade idea, because it is only when we get in this House general acceptance of the fact that the policy in operation is going to continue, that we may get some common action in order to deal with many of the pressing problems before us. If we are going to solve these problems, it is by thinking as one Party. I appeal to some members of the Party opposite, who are really sincere, to get away from the idea of Party manoeuvring, appealing to public ignorance and to public prejudices, in order to score points against the Government, and to come forward with concrete suggestions that can be debated and acted upon by the majority of the people's representatives. If we can get that done, the first step is to kill this idea of a free trade policy for ever.
That was a pretty brazen-faced performance. Mind you, it is interesting to know that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is being found out by his own people, because Deputies will have noticed that at the recent Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis, or should I describe it as "the recent Fianna Fáil riot," that took place in this city he was not put up; he was not trotted out. The riot went on without him. It went on without him because his own colleagues know how unacceptable the kind of fraudulent misrepresentation to which we have listened to-night is to delegates who come from the country, and who know of their own experience of the sufferings of the people, for which that gentleman's policy is largely responsible. The Minister for Industry and Commerce used figures that deceive. Anyone who has ever had experience of figures and statistics knows how easily they can be twisted and turned for the purpose of fooling people who are not in the habit of handling them. I must say that it always irritates me a little when I am told that the country is prosperous because the number of motor cars is increasing. The small farmers in the congested districts who move pigs to market in motor cars are few and far between, and if the tariff-mongers in Dublin are increasing their motor cars, and getting two limousines where a horse-trap did in the past, that does not carry much comfort to the unfortunate people whom they are plundering down the country.
If you take the total registration of motor cars as a kind of guide to the increasing prosperity of the transport trade, and of the type of persons who ordinarily use motor cars, and compare the figures, you will find that even in that restricted sphere the Minister's figures have been deliberately twisted to deceive this House, and to bolster up his own case, because in August, 1927, taking cars of all classes, there were 45,757 registrations and in August, 1931, four years later, 57,452. That was an increase in the last four years of Cumann na nGaedheal of about 12,000 cars. In August, 1935, the total registration showed 57,598 or a total increase during the four years of the Fianna Fáil administration of 146 cars. If that is evidence, the wealth of the people increased 120 times as much during the last four years of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government as it did during the four years of Fianna Fáil administration, because there was an increase of 12,000 cars in use by the people during the last four years Cumann na nGaedheal was in office and an increase of merely 146 cars during the first four years when Fianna Fáil was in office. I do not attach any importance to the figures.
Neither does anyone else.
They are taken from the records.
Does the Deputy know why the Road Transport Act was introduced and the effect of it?
The Road Transport Act was meant to save the railway companies. The Minister to-night said: "Look at the railway receipts, and compare them. Are they not evidence of increasing prosperity?" I ask the Minister: "Did he read a speech of Mr. Morton, General Manager of the Great Southern Railways, at the last meeting of that company? It suits the Minister to talk about the increase in railway receipts, but when Deputy Davin asks for the restoration of cuts in railway wages Mr. Morton gets up at the last meeting of the company and says: "It is not for me to criticise what the people did in 1932. They chose the way of sacrifice, and the reduction in the receipts of the railway company is our part of that sacrifice," and having deliberately chosen it, we must face it for what it is. His lamenation is that the railway receipts are going down, and that the railway company is going down with them. Now, who is right? Is the general manager of the railway company, or is the Minister for Industry and Commerce?
The Minister waxes eloquent on the subject of bacon. He says: what would happen if we had a free market in bacon? I will tell you. The consumer in this country would not be paying 4d. per lb. on every lb. of bacon he eats in order to provide cheap Irish bacon for the British consumer. So that if you take off all your levies and taxes you will increase the price of pork here to-morrow by at least 15/- per cwt., and on the same day you will bring down the price of bacon by 2d. or 3d. per lb. Nobody knows that better than the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Minister chose to refer to the fact that the late Deputy Hogan, when he was Minister for Agriculture, was the Minister responsible for putting the first tariff on bacon. I remember that the late Minister made that the occasion of one of the most extraordinary speeches ever made in this House. Speaking from the benches opposite he said: "I am introducing this tariff in order to satisfy the cods in this country. It is a cod of a tariff; it will do no good. On the contrary, it will injure the industry, but there are types of fools in this world, and the only way in which you can teach them sense is by giving them a little experience of their own folly. I cannot teach fools by argument the criminal folly it is to put this tariff on bacon, but I will teach them by experience." And he did.
Taking a leaf from that great man's book, I say that we should maintain the wheat scheme in operation in this country, referred to by the Minister, until every farmer in Ireland is praying God for its conclusion. I can tell you that there are lots of farmers at the present time looking out through their windows at their green fields of wheat in November, and blessing the Minister that told them to grow more wheat. There are lots of farmers in this country who are trying to sell their wheat to the millers now and who find that their yield is four and a half barrels to the statute acre, and they are blessing the Minister who told them to grow more wheat. There are lots of farmers in this country looking out on their land on which nothing grew at all this year except thistles and scutch, and blessing the Minister who told them to grow more wheat, but the Minister took damn good care not to grow any wheat himself. There are fools in this country who believe that the salvation of the agricultural community depends on the growing of wheat, such as some of the sages sitting on the back benches opposite. The only way to drive a nail into their heads is to drive it in with the hammer of experience. There is no use trying to penetrate their intelligence with argument. There is no conceivable method of making individuals, such as you find represented in the ranks of the Fianna Fáil Party, learn anything but in the bitter school of experience. I recognise that it is a hard thing that the whole population of the country should have to learn the bitter lesson in the same bitter way, but at the same time it is a good thing. It is worth it if you can teach them the lesson once and for all.
The Minister waxes eloquent on the subject of employment. There is a vast mass of figures connected with that. Before I deal with them perhaps I should say that everybody knows why the Minister repeated his speech here to-night. Everyone knows that the Irish Press got instructions about 4 o'clock this afternoon that the Minister was going to talk and that they were to send down two good shorthand men to report him fully because the report of the speech would be useful for to-morrow's issue.
In to-morrow's issue of the Irish Press you will see, “Slashing and remarkable statement by our brilliant young Minister for Industry and Commerce,” and of how he enthralled the House by his amazing exposé of Government policy. Of course, it was all in last week's paper and it will be all in to-morrow's paper, with a leading article the morning following, and even some poor dupes down the country will be impressed.
I do not care to mention the name of a person who is not here to speak for herself, but a member of the Kildare Board of Health was so intoxicated by a statement of the Minister's that she said at a recent meeting of the board: "In a short time here in the county of Kildare we will not want home assistance at all." She said that employment was increasing, that everyone was waxing fat and that no one would want unemployment assistance. What are the facts about the County Kildare? I think the Minister has managed to establish several factories there. He started one, the glorious sausage factory in Naas, and while it lasted it smelt beautifully. Even though it disappeared, others have been established in that county. I imagine that the Minister would take the County Kildare as a county in which the industrial and agricultural policy of Fianna Fáil was pretty well tried out and in full operation. Let us examine the effect of Fianna Fáil policy on Kildare.
Or ask the people of Kildare.
If at a later stage in this debate Deputy Norton were to intervene and say in Dáil Eireann half of what he has said down in the County Kildare, I venture to suggest that the Minister would not sleep for a week.
My trouble at the moment is to keep awake.
Or perhaps Deputy Corish would give us some samples of his Wexford eloquence. I read with admiration in the Press some of his speeches down in his own constituency.
They were tame enough.
But what are the facts about Kildare? I want to give the exact figures published by the Minister's own Department with regard to employment in the County Kildare, comparing the year 1931 with the year 1936. In the year 1931 males, members of families working in County Kildare in agricultural employment, numbered 339, and in 1936 the number was 300, a reduction of 39 persons. Of permanently employed there was a reduction of six, temporary a reduction of nine— that is, of males under 18 years and over 14. As regards males between 18 and over, in the case of members of families, there was a reduction of 289, that is from 5,204 to 4,915. Permanent males of 18 and over, not member of farmers' families, there was a reduction of 46, from 3,810 to 3,764. Of temporarily employed there was a considerable increase from 1,726 to 2,358. If you allow for the temporary employment, the increase over the whole county was 243 persons in agricultural employment, comparing the year 1931 with 1936; but observe that in every grade of permanent employment of men there is a decrease in the County Kildare. The only increase was in the case of the temporarily employed, of men working broken time.
They have all got their own land now.
They would want to get it because the rate of wages paid in the County Kildare in 1931 was 26/-, while in 1936 it was 20/-. It has gone up to 24/- now, I suppose, since the Agricultural Wages Act was passed, but, in fact, the permanent workers in agriculture are 2/- a week worse off to-day than they were in 1931. The Minister was explaining to us that in 1931 we were experiencing a fearful slump in which the cost of living was deeply depressed by the universal slump all over the world and that it was lower than it now is. The cost of living in 1931 was lower than it now is, but the wages of agricultural labourers in Kildare were higher than they now are. The cost of living there is now substantially higher than it was in 1931, and the wages of the agricultural labourers are substantially lower, but the Minister says that there is no decrease in the standard of living, and that the people are better off than they were before.
A Deputy
He is thinking of Dublin.
Perhaps he is. In any case, however, that disposes of the situation as it obtains in Kildare. I want to make this submission to the House, however, and I think it is the really important aspect of this situation. We all know that the cost of living has gone up. We all know that the people are suffering intensely. There is not a single Deputy of the Fianna Fáil Party who lives in rural Ireland who does not know that as well as I do. Certainly the Deputies in Donegal know it peculiarly well, because the people in West Donegal have suffered acutely from the rise in the price of flour, of Indian meal and of bacon. It is idle to waste time discussing the question as to whether, in fact, that rise in the cost of living has taken place or not. We all know that it has. Apart from that, however, I want to make a submission to the House from quite another angle, and a much graver angle. I want to submit to this House that the rise in the cost of living is not in itself a primary evil at all. I think it is a symptom of a developing situation, and my submission is that the steep rise in the cost of living and the simultaneous evacuation of the country by tens of thousands of emigrants are two classical signs of incipient national bankruptey, and I want to take this occasion to outline that matter most fully. I want to outline that matter most fully, for this reason: that when that disaster is upon us, each one of us will have to ask ourselves the question whether we are entitled to refer to it at length at all, because when the disaster of national disintegration comes upon us a word may destroy the whole situation and may precipitate the exodus of capital from this country which would finally launch us into complete and irretrievable national bankruptcy. That situation has not yet been reached, and it is our duty, before it has been reached and while the question can be ventilated without doing harm to the national credit, to ventilate it now. I quite see that, to a certain extent, one is fated to be a Cassandra in this matter, because certain Deputies in this House, of course, will say: "We cannot believe that. We cannot see it. We do not understand it, and what we do not understand we will not believe." Some people, however, may understand it, and therefore may help to bring pressure on the Ministry to take the essential steps to prevent that disaster coming upon us. I say that this country is travelling the same road as Newfoundland has travelled.
The Deputy said exactly the same thing in 1934.
I did. I said exactly the same thing in 1934, and Deputy Kelly is now learning that what I told him in 1934 was true—that what I told him in 1934 he believes in 1937. It is not the first thing that I taught Deputy Kelly and I will teach him a lot more in due time. We are going the same road as Newfoundland went. In 1934 if I told Deputy Kelly that there was going to be an immense emigration of young Irish people from this country to Great Britain, would he have believed it? Of course not. He would have said "Nonsense." He would have said that the population of this country was going up and that industry was absorbing the increasing population. He would have told us all about the increasing prosperity in this country. I told Deputy Kelly in 1934 that this country was going the same road as Newfoundland; that your population is falling, in fact, although you do not know it, and in addition to that you are going to have a great tide of emigration from this country. That is what I told Deputy Kelly in 1934, and he laughed both loud and long and talked about the Jeremiahs going around this country and sabotaging the country, and he asked what would be done to people who talked like that in Russia or certain other European countries.
A Deputy
It might be tried yet.
Yes, you might try it yet, but you might not get away with it. In Newfoundland, the Government of that State permitted a body of men, very similar to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to destroy and undermine the fishing industry of Newfoundland. The fishing industry was to Newfoundland what the agricultural industry is to this country, and it was destroyed in the sacred name of national self-sufficiency. The Government of Newfoundland said that they must have industries that they never had before and, in order to do that, they had to raise tariffs. They had to raise the cost of living and they were so busy about the raising of tariffs and the raising of the cost of living that they let the fishing industry down, just as we were so busy increasing the cost of living by tariffs and levies and so on and in the nationalisation of raw materials that the agricultural industry is being destroyed just as the fishing industry was destroyed in Newfoundland. What happened in Newfoundland? In Newfoundland they went on with that policy, denouncing as a traitor anyone who opposed it, and at the end of four or five years, or perhaps six, they went bust. They could not pay their way. The people were starving and in Newfoundland they could not emigrate because they had no place to which to emigrate. The result was that they stayed at home and starved.
Our people are in a different position in that respect. Our people can go to Great Britain and get good jobs there, and it is that fact that has saved us to the extent that we have been saved. It is appalling that we should have to be saved by emigration, but there is no doubt that if that emigration had not taken place we would be confronted with an acute crisis in this country now. Not having that safety value of emigration, Newfoundland was brought up against the situation severely and they asked the British Government to send out three Treasury officials to help them to solve their difficulties. They dissolved their Parliament, dissolved their Government, and handed the whole government of Newfoundland over to three British Treasury officials who are now running the country. These Treasury officials, no doubt, will get them back on their feet and, when that is done, no doubt Newfoundland will start off again. It must be remembered, however, that Newfoundland was a British Colony, and that it was in no way inconsistent for that country to turn to their mother country, Great Britain, and ask for a hand, and they got that hand. We cannot do that. We have been fighting for 700 years in this country to prove that we ourselves are a mother country as old as Great Britain, and that we are a damn sight better able to run this country than Britain was or is or ever will be. If we run on the rocks, therefore, we cannot send over to Britain to ask them to send us their Treasury officials to dig us out of our difficulties; but what we are doing, and what we should be profoundly ashamed of doing, is that we are sending our people to Great Britain in tens of thoussands and asking the British people to keep them for us because we are not able to keep them ourselves.
We are not doing anything of the sort.
Is it not true that tens of thousands of boys and girls have gone out from this country to Great Britain in the last few years and that they are looking for work in England and getting it?
A Deputy
Sometimes.
Nobody knows better than the Deputy that thousands are going from County Roscommon to England and that they are getting jobs there.
A Deputy
And they are coming back.
If they cannot get jobs there, they would be on the dole here, but, whether they come back or not, going they certainly are, and it is something that we ought greatly to deplore as a great reflection on the Government that has created a situation that makes it necessary for these people to go. I submit to the House that that is all part of a general picture which forecasts perfectly clearly that this country is slithering down the slope. The ordinary conditions of international trade are: that Labour and Capital are immobile—they do not ordinarily move out of their native country—but that goods are essentially mobile, and international trade proceeds on that assumption. But in this country the axioms of international trade are exactly reversed. Here labour is extremely mobile. It will go to England.
A Deputy
It will go anywhere.
That is quite true. Capital in this country is also extremely mobile. Any Irish capitalist will ordinarily invest his money in British securities just as readily as he will invest in Irish securities. People in continental countries, such as YugoSlavia, Czecho-Slovakia and Roumania do not ordinarily invest their money in external securities; they invest them in home securities of which they have personal knowledge. These people do not ordinarily emigrate quite casually, because if they did, they would not be able to talk the language of the country to which they went as emigrants. Our people emigrate freely to Great Britain; our capital is liable to move over to Great Britain without any difficulty whatever. But our goods, the products of industry in this country, can never be sold outside under existing conditions, because, just as they are doing in France, we here are forcing up the cost of production because we desire to have industry for internal consumption. But, very properly, if we put on a high tariff to protect an industrialist, we say to the industrialist: "You must give a fair share of your profits to the men who work for you." That is a very good plan, but it clearly means that the industrial goods we produce will not readily move across our own borders.
Similarly, our agricultural products cannot move across, because we have involved ourselves in an economic war on the assumption that there were alternative markets. A few years have shown that there were no alternative markets. Then we found, too late, that we closed down the only market available for our agricultural products. So that here we are in the most vulnerable position in which we could possibly find ourselves. Capital and labour, the two things indispensable to future production and national wealth, are as mobile as quicksilver. Goods which ought to be building up national wealth and creating reserves for the future are stagnant on our hands. Nothing could be worse. Our population is falling. I do not think the Minister will contest that. For years we were told that the population was rising and that the increase of population was being absorbed by the new industrial policy of the Minister. Now we discover that in the decade between 1926 and 1936, instead of an increase, there was a depreciable decrease in the population, and the Registrar-General, in his report published on 27th September, 1937, shows that the population fell by a further 21,000 in the year ended June, 1937, and it shows every sign of continuing to fall. Then the cost of living, we all agree, is rising.
Now let us examine our trade, which is most extraordinary. Our adverse trade balance for the year up to August, 1937, was £20,000,000, which represents 88.7 per cent. of our total domestic exports. Our domestic exports in that year were about £24,000,000 and on that export trade of £24,000,000 we had an adverse trade balance of £20,000,000. Deputies will remember when the Minister for Industry and Commerce used to tell the House that an adverse trade balance of £14,000,000 on a total trade of £100,000,000 spelt national bankruptcy. Now we have an adverse trade balance of £20,000,000 on a total trade of about £60,000,000. In the four years 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, the total adverse trade balance was £75,000,000. We bought and paid for £75,000,000 worth more goods than we sold in four years. Our total domestic exports in that period were £80,000,000. So that we imported £155,000,000 worth of goods in these four years, and we exported, to pay for them, £80,000,000 worth.
I do not know whether the Deputies absorb the appalling significance of these figures. Deputies will say, "Well, they are being paid for somehow or other." How are they being paid for? They are being paid for by the dissipation of our capital assets. There is a little blue book published every quarter by the Currency Commission. If you look at the Joint Stock Banks' general statement there, you will find set out—you have not got the October one yet, because it is held up——
It is not.
I will tell the whole story. You are going to get a nasty shock when you get the October one. There is a little blue book, such as the Minister holds, which sets out, under the Joint Stock Banks' joint report, two figures, and when you allow those figures to operate upon one another, you ascertain the net sterling assets held by the Joint Stock Banks of this country. The net sterling assets held by the Joint Stock Banks of this country correspond as closely as possible to the gold stock of the Bank of England or the Bank of France. When we have an adverse trade balance and have to pay out to England, or foreign countries, for more goods than we have exported, we begin to sell these stocks and to use the proceeds of the sale to pay the money we owe.
Then they should be nearly all gone by this——
Not at all.
——considering that we have had an adverse trade balance since the State was set up.
I am going to make my case, and when I have finished, let the Minister get the Minister for Finance to answer it. It will want an answer.
I do not think that there has been a year in which we had not an adverse trade balance.
That claptrap is good enough for the Minister's gulls who sit behind him.
You have no right to call members here gulls. We are no more gulls than you are.
We are very mannerly over here.
My friend Deputy O'Rourke may not know that he is a gull, but that does not make him any less a gull.
I know people who are.
In so far as the Deputy is deceived by the Minister, whom he so mistakenly follows, he is a gull.
You never deceived me.
The Minister, of course, desires to confuse his own supporters by suppressing all reference to invisible exports.
It is the Deputy who suppressed them.
I am coming to them. I am not going to be taken off my line. We will deal with them later.
I move the adjournment of the debate.