Like the last speaker, Sir, I am also a newcomer to this House and I am not as familiar with the rules of procedure as I hope to be after I have been here for some time, and therefore I shall endeavour, in the few minutes of the time of the House which I intend to take up, to keep a little more to the point than the last Deputy has done. Perhaps the only relevant remark he made —or perhaps the only relevant portion of his speech—was when he quoted from the figures of the population of this country around about the year 1850 or so, and then compared the figures of that period with the figures of the population to-day. Perhaps he was relevant, and I think that he was in this respect at least: because he must have introduced into the minds of all here that word that stands out as a nightmare to all of us in this country, namely, the word "famine." In that respect I think he was relevant, because it is on the subject of famine in this country that this motion is being debated here to-day.
Another remark which I should like to make is, that this motion has been received by the Minister, who has already spoken, and by the members of his Party who supported him, in a way which, I think, does great discredit to men who come here to represent the people of this country. Leave this House and go down to any part of the country, and do not we all know and realise as sensible men that the only thing that matters and the only thing that is spoken about in this country at the present time is the cost of living? I say that we owe it as a duty to our constituents—to the people who sent us here—to treat such a motion with the respect it is entitled to get. After this debate had been very eloquently opened by the proposer and seconder of the motion a few weeks ago, I sat here and listened to the speech made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in reply. May I say, without offence to this House or to anybody in this House, that I have watched the Minister for Industry and Commerce operating there on the Government Benches from time to time, and may I pay tribute to him as being, undoubtedly, a hard-working man—a man who comes into this House full of figures and facts—but I say that the question of the standard of living in this country is not going to be decided on the end of a slide-rule or on figures made with logarithms. I was informed by one of the Deputies sitting in this House that anything to which the Minister for Industry and Commerce referred could be established by some book published in his Department. The other day I received a copy of the book to which the last Deputy referred, namely, the Statistical Abstract. That is a book issued by the Department of Industry and Commerce. I spent—I will not say an enjoyable evening—but an enlightening evening reading that book from cover to cover, and as a result of my reading of that book, I would invite Deputies to peruse it and see what is contained in it. It covers a period, roughly speaking, of the last four or five years, and no matter what you look at, whether it be fisheries or any other department of our trade, it will be seen that there has been a steady decline in the years between 1932 and 1936. I looked through that book in an effort to find some figure that would give me a glimmer of a hope to show that this country is not going down the banks, and I could not find anything to justify that hope. Every single figure was reduced during that period. Now, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, when he was going to refer to certain figures the other day, said that they were incontrovertible. He did not refer to a great number of other figures in that book, and he did not tell us that he was going to pass them by—as he was entitled to pass them. He got up and quoted the first sentence of the motion, to the effect that the Dáil deplores the lowering of the standard of living of the community, and then he stopped there, and asked us not to pass the motion; but he should have continued reading to the end of the sentence. What he said, first of all, was that we on this side of the House, or on any side of the House, who are going to support this motion, would have to show that the standard of living of the people in this country, in fact, had been lowered; and he went on to prove that, instead of being lowered, the standard of living, in fact, had been raised. In support of his argument he instanced, first of all, that there was more drink sold in this country to-day than was sold some years ago.
Does anyone think for one moment that, because the consumption of alcohol has increased in this country the standard of living has been increased? I think it is hardly necessary for me to dwell on that. However, the Minister referred to another matter, to which Deputy Gorey has referred, and that is the sale of motor cars. Does the Minister realise that, in the last few years, there has been put on the market here a new and cheap type of motor car, and does he also realise the great spread of the hire purchase system? That is what is responsible for the increase in the use of motor cars— motor cars not yet paid for, but which are being paid for in monthly instalments. I hope I am not offending anybody here in saying that, because I admit that I am the owner of a motor car myself for which I pay by monthly instalments. My point is that these two cases were given of the increase in the consumption of drink and the use of motor cars, and that the Minister went on to show by that that the standard of living had increased. It has been said that you can prove anything by figures. I see that the Deputy opposite nods his head, and I am sure he does that because he hopes that he will prove the same thing to me later on. However, I suggest to the Minister and to other members on the Fianna Fáil Benches and to Deputy Hugo Flinn that they should go down to their constituencies with all this mass of figures—all of which can be verified in documents produced—that they should go down as ordinary Deputies representing their constituencies, and go up the lanes of this country and to the places where the farmers and agricultural labourers live—far away from the main road—to the places where the bulk of the population of this country lives, and where they work and toil—and put it to them whether or not the standard of living has risen. I suggest that they go there with these figures and say to them: "The standard of living has risen; look how much drink is sold in Dublin and how many clerks and inspectors have motor cars." That is where the real pulse of this country is to be felt, and that is the place where the people do not base their decisions on figures, but on the real facts that count. Furthermore, I suggest that the whole Fianna Fáil Party should get themselves on to the deck of the Liverpool, the Glasgow, or the Rosslare boat and tell the unfortunate boys and girls, sons of decent people in this country, people who want to work, and who are leaving for England—the arch-enemy, as our friend opposite has told us—"Do not go away; not only will we give you a good job, but we will put you back in your homes with an increased standard of living."
That is the real test of what this motion means. We are not going to be blinded by figures produced in this House. This motion means that the standard of living has been lowered by the actions and activities of the Government in their policy during the past few years. The Minister for Industry and Commerce and many Deputies are so obsessed with the idea of proving that the standard of living had not been reduced that they entirely neglected to deal with the latter part of the motion as to the cause. They might, at least, for the purpose of debate have admitted that the standard of living had in some sense decreased. I must say that there was one, if I may say so, glorious exception in this debate to the attitude adopted towards this matter by the members of the Government, and that was the speech, which I listened to with real pleasure, of Deputy O'Reilly on the last day on which this debate took place. The Deputy very candidly admitted, not perhaps that the standard of living had in fact decreased, but that the cost of living had gone up. In so far as there was any real contribution to this debate and any real desire on the part of any member of the Government Party to produce something that would, at all events, send a message of hope to the people at the present time, I think that did very fairly come from the lips of Deputy O'Reilly.
Other Deputies who spoke were led away by figures. There was Deputy Moore, who addressed us on the subject of the plight of Canada. He quoted from a very well-known geographical writer and he got into difficulties over the question of the failure of the crop, I think it was in the State of Manitoba, in Canada. He was naturally in very great difficulties because that same gentleman who wrote that article is a very well-known authority, and he also wrote an article in a paper known as the National Geographical Magazine. I regret to say that I was unable to find that magazine, but I will put anyone who likes on the track of it afterwards. The tenour of the remarks of this gentleman, who was quoted at length by Deputy Moore, in this article in the Geographical Magazine was that the failure of the crops in the Middle West of North America was due to the fact that, year after year crops had been taken out of the soil without the necessary manure to go back into it in order to create a state of affairs when crops may be taken off the soil at different periods, letting it rest from time to time, and getting the benefit of the application of manure.
The policy of the Government at the present time is to take away from this country all the benefits which it should have, by disregarding the real prominence and importance of that industry in the economic life of the country. I do not blame the Government a bit for having introduced this policy. I do not blame them as a Government or as a Party for having introduced it, because the history of their association with this House is such that when, having been in opposition, they came to form a Government, they realised that they owed a duty to this country and to the people who live in this country to govern the country. They realised in their hearts, with all the importance of government thrown on their shoulders, and all the responsibility that that entails, that the only sensible and sane thing to do was to follow the policy that until then had been carried on by the Government which they displaced. The suggestion I make, and I think it is true, is that they said to themselves: "If we carry on this same policy what will the people of the country say—`There is no difference; we were wrong'." Then they sat down and said: "What are we going to do? We will have to invent something different, something, at all events, that has proved useful and good so far as this country is concerned," and they invented the new economic policy which we have all heard of and which is known as the new industrial policy. When members opposite say that this debate was got up for the sole purpose of having a tilt at Irish industry, they should look at the members on these benches here, the great majority of whom are in some way or another engaged in the greatest industry that this country ever had, that this country has to-day, and that this country will ever have, namely, the agricultural industry.
The last Deputy spoke with force and vehemence on the subject of land for the people, etc. What does land for the people mean except the cultivation of the land and the continuation of this great industry of agriculture? If Deputies go to any encyclopædia, whether English or foreign, and look up there some description of the Irish Free State—I do not care whether it was issued in 1870, 1890, 1915 or 1923— they will always see, "Industry—agriculture" under the heading of this country. They will see that also under the heading of other countries in an English encyclopædia, but if they go to a foreign encyclopaedia they will see exactly the same thing in reference to this country. It is no good trying to disguise the fact that this country can suffer perhaps for five years or six years under this industrial plan, but sooner or later—and I think the later has arrived now—the Government policy will have been proved to be wrong.
I do not want to suggest that any Deputy has supported any policy, or that the Government has put forward any policy for the purpose of deliberately injuring the livelihood of the people or the future economic wealth of the country. But I do suggest that, as amateurs, they were wrong, and I suggest to them now, in 1937, that they should acknowledge that they were wrong and, like honest men and patriotic citizens, come forward now, even at the last hour, and admit the error of their ways. The writing is on the wall in many different counties in this country. It is only necessary to read the daily Press to see that a revolt is taking place amongst the members of the farming community. That revolt is not brought about by the activities of any political Party or any group of politicians. It has occurred in such widely different counties as Wicklow, Limerick, Tipperary and Clare. It is not a revolt that was brought about by any political activity on anybody's part. It is a revolt that has occurred of itself, like a volcano bubbling up, as a result of the crushing burdens imposed on the people of this country and as a result of the lowering of the standard of living. I said that I was not going to take up much of the time of the House, and I do not intend to do so. May I impress upon Deputies that I come into this House with an open mind on all subjects, believing that everyone has come here to do the best he can to represent his constituents and to achieve what this country desires and what Deputies know this country needs. I know that it is difficult for a Party such as the Fianna Fáil Party to realise, as they must when they open their papers, that they no longer enjoy the confidence of the people of this country. I know it is difficult, but there is a greater and a wiser thing, if I may say so, that they might do, and that is to accept the motion and meet it in the spirit in which it has been offered.
