Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 12 Jan 1938

Vol. 69 No. 19

Private Deputies' Business. - Standard of Living—Abolition of Duties on Foodstuffs.

Debate resumed on the following motion:—
That the Dáil deplores the lowering of the standard of living of the community by Government action through the operation of taxes, levies, duties and like impositions on foodstuffs and other necessaries of life, and is of opinion that all such imposition should be forthwith abolished.—(Deputies P. McGilligan and D. Morrissey.)

The fact that, on the last occasion this motion was being discussed, I, by rising to my feet, inadvertently and innocently moved the adjournment of the debate, spares you the tedium of listening to the trite remarks and harmless platitudes with which I had intended to introduce myself to you. My real anxiety in getting to my feet was not so much to air immature views on what, after all, is a highly technical motion, requiring more than a mere nodding acquaintance with economics to discuss relevantly and intelligently, but rather to repudiate certain wild statements made by Deputy Giles against a certain section of the community whom he euphemistically described as "opulent." I refer to the Jews. As the Deputy is not in the House and as I take it for granted that the views he expressed on that occasion were his own private views and in no way represented the views of the Party to which he belongs, I shall leave the matter aside.

As to the motion itself, it is logical to assume, I believe, that a sharp rise in the cost of living must necessarily be followed by a corresponding fall in the standard of living. That will apply more particularly to those whose wages, salaries and incomes have remained in statu quo ante. I, in common with everybody else of limited means, deeply deplore this increase in the cost of living, but, at the same time, I am not prepared to agree that the only way to improve matters is to adopt the motto of the Victorian politician in regard to protection and establish what, if the terms of this motion were literally carried into effect, would be a state of free trade between this country and other countries. It is all very fine to talk about buying in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest market, but, with our major industry in ruins and our export trade in decay, any playing around the skirts of free trade can only bring disastrous consequences and would inevitably result in further accentuating our already too serious unemployment problem. Deputies must face up to the fact that the policy of national economic self-sufficiency has come to stay, whether they, as individuals, like it or not. I believe that tariff walls cannot be built on shifting sands. Rather should they be made unassailable so as to avoid the economic confusion and financial chaos that would inevitably result from their collapse.

History, in this country at any rate, has an unhappy knack of repeating itself. Let us cast our minds back a century and a half to a time when a native Parliament sat below in College Green—a Parliament elected on a hopelessly restricted franchise and unrepresentative of seven-eighths of the community, because emancipation was then a mere embryo in the womb of the future. In less than 20 years, by the action of the Government in introducing levies, duties and like impositions on foodstuffs and other necessaries of life, our export trade flourished, intensive agriculture was carried out on a grand scale, old industries were granted new leases of life and new industries were established. Then what happened? The action of the British Government, during the period of the Act of Union, in forthwith abolishing taxes, levies, duties and impositions on foodstuffs and other necessaries of life, immediately brought about the complete collapse of these industries. Thousands of workers previously employed in the protected industries were thrown out of employment. A terrible period of misery and depression set in which culminated in the famine of '47. I do not for one moment hold that an exactly parallel situation exists here to-day, because one must take cognisance of the repeal of the Corn Laws and of the fact that that period was the beginning of an era of great industrial expansion in Great Britain; but, at the same time, we must ask ourselves are we prepared to take the risk of all the calamities that would occur if the terms of this motion were carried into effect? I, for one, am not. I must say that, for my part, I would hail with joy any suggestion coming from Fine Gael, or from any other Party or individual in this House, that would in any way ameliorate the conditions of the unemployed and the underpaid and unorganised workers, but I see no constructive policy in the terms of this motion. I cannot agree, either, that the Unemployment Assistance Bill at present before the House improves to any appreciable extent the position of the unemployed, or relieves to any appreciable extent the tremendous bill which has to be paid weekly by the Dublin Board of Assistance to subsidise the inadequate allowances to the unemployed and to those in receipt of national health insurance benefit, old age pensions and so forth.

So far as I can remember—because this motion has become somewhat stale —the last speaker on the Government side was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands. So far as I am concerned, the only thing he succeeded in doing was in convincing me that there are three types of lies—lies, damned lies and statistics. With regard to the ráméis we had to listen to from the Minister for Industry and Commerce anent that Celtic myth, prosperity, which is so much discussed on post-prandial dress-suit occasions, the least said the better. Let the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and this applies equally to the Minister for Finance, instead of waxing eloquent about the consumption of spirits and motor cars, of beer and buses, examine the income-tax returns, the balance sheets and, last but by no means least, the consciences of our company promoters, our tariff exploiters, our bounty barons, our quota auctioneers and our licence hawkers, for therein, in my sincere and honest opinion, lies, to some extent at any rate, the solution of the ever-increasing cost-of-living problem. I may have wasted your time, Sir, and my breath on this motion; I can assure you that I will not waste my vote.

I should not have intervened in this debate which, as the previous Deputy has said, has been before the House for a very long time, were it not for the most generous invitation of the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Flinn. He invited all who were in opposition to the Government on this tariff question to come forward and help them. I wish to say at the beginning that I do not agree with Deputy Gorey when he disagrees with the Minister on the question of drink. I quite agree with the Minister that there must be an increase in the demand for liquor, and I attribute that to the policy of the Executive Council in bringing the people from the country, where the opportunity for drinking is less, to the cities and towns, where the opportunity and facilities for drink are better. I think that is really the cause of the increase in liquor consumption, rather than the prosperity of the country. I am all the more convinced of that by an article which I read a few weeks ago. It set out the number of prosecutions for drunkenness in 1920 as compared with 1936, and showed that there was an increase of 2,366 in England and Wales over that period. The article pointed out that the marked increase was to be found in the industrial counties of England. I do not know whether the Minister would agree with that or not, or whether he thinks that having all this extra liquor consumption adds to the prosperity of the country. Lord Balfour at one time said that the expansion of the liquor trade means increased drunkenness and decreased industrial efficiency, and I should like the Minister for Industry and Commerce to consider whether he is satisfied as to whether his policy is increasing industrial efficiency or not.

The Minister for Agriculture, and, I think, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands, spoke of the prosperity of the country and made great capital out of the number of bankruptcies in the country for the last five or six years. They quoted figures and, although Deputy Hannigan might not agree with them, I do agree with them. There are no bankrupts in the country, and so far as Cavan is concerned, there has not been a bankrupt in the country for the last five or six years; but I do not for one moment want to argue, and I am sure that the Minister for Agriculture does not want to argue, that that shows prosperity. It shows the opposite; it shows want of confidence, because if there was sufficient confidence in the country there would be plenty of bankrupts, as there always were. In order to be a bankrupt you have to get a certain amount of credit. That credit is not being given at present because Englishmen will not give it to the wholesaler here; the wholesale people here cannot give it to the individual trader in the country; and individual traders will not give it to farmers and others who are looking for it. Want of confidence in the country is the reason, and the only reason, for the absence of bankrupts.

Would it not be a sign of honesty?

No. Let us take local affairs. What bank will advance £1,000 at the present time or even £10 to a farmer? You might as well look for a needle in a bundle of straw as to ask a bank to advance £10 to a farmer or to anyone else, unless there was collateral security available. If they willnot advance money where are the bankruptcies coming from? The speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Flinn, interested me very much. Some Deputies complained of the length of the speech, but when I read it over in cold print I thought I could identify at least three different sides to it, wrapped up as it was in his usual flowery language. When he was speaking I presume he was speaking with the authority of the Government, and for that reason I was greatly interested in the speech. He expressed a wish, in the first instance, that the Opposition should come along and try to assist the Government and tell them what tariffs they should do away with. "In other words, come along and help us and probably it would be the beginning of other steps that would lead to peace and prosperity in the country." In view of certain statements that I heard expressed lately, I hope there was some responsibility for that statement. If I am allowed, I will put the question in another way: "What tariff do you advise us to keep on?" The probability is that that question would be much more easily answered. To my mind existing tariffs should be done away with, or, at least reduced to 10 per cent, except in the case of a few introduced lately, where 15 per cent. might be allowed. Why should the people of this country have to pay at least 50 per cent. for almost every article they purchase over the market value of a superior article, while at the same time every farmer is selling his produce, let it be what it will, 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. less than its market value? If farmers could do what is being done in other industries they would go on strike. Unfortunately their means will not allow them to do that, and they must try to carry on, despite the hardship of a diminished market.

A statement was made here several times by the late Minister for Agriculture, and in the presence of the present Minister for Finance, that farmers produced 80 per cent. of the income of this country. If that was so in the past, how much more are they producing at present? They are handing over £2,500,000 as annuities to the Government, and then they are paying at least £5,000,000 in taxation on their cattle. I do not see why agricultural labourers should have to pay 100 per cent. more rent. on small dwellings than they paid heretofore, because of the present increase in the cost of living. Then I come to Deputy Flinn's second statement. As far as I remember, he stated that the Government was going to reconsider the tariffs, to see what alterations could be made. That was very nice information and we were all delighted to hear it. I should like to know how the Executive Council or the Minister intend to proceed. If the Minister is going to appoint a commission in Dublin to make inquiries it would be more or less waste of time. The Minister does not accept many suggestions from me, but I make this humble suggestion: that he should appoint a small committee of this House, composed of members representing southern counties, and a good number of Labour Deputies, and allow them to go around Border counties like Cavan, Monaghan, Donegal and to Dundalk, where certain articles are produced, to see what they can be bought there for in comparison with the price that has to be paid for them here. There is no necessity to give the traders in these places any notice of the intention of the committee to call, because there will be ample evidence, invoices and quotations, to show what they paid Northern firms. That will give an indication of the present unreasonable cost of living here. I was in a shop in a Border town not very long ago where the merchant was trying to quote for sewer pipes. He got samples of these pipes and no reasonable engineer would pass them. They were practically porous, not properly glazed, and crooked. Such articles would not pass an engineer.

They must have been Irish made!

They were Irish made, undoubtedly. No English firm would produce them. They were not fit for use.

Who passed these pipes in that area? How did they appear there?

A sample was sent in for some job there——

This is not a time for cross-examination. Let the Deputy proceed with his speech.

It is important that we should get this right, no matter what Deputy McGilligan or Deputy Bennett said. Would Deputy Cole be good enough to say exactly what type of pipe he was talking about?

Will the Minister tell us what he has to say?

He will not. If Deputy Cole does not give way he must proceed.

Deputy Cole seems willing to give the House information but other Deputies do not want it.

We had a glowing account in the morning papers about the amount of nails produced at a Limerick factory. It was a very interesting article. Is there any reason why it should not go ahead with a tariff of practically 60 per cent.? Nails are costing the wholesale houses here 29/- per cwt. to-day while they can be bought across the Border for 16/-. They are almost double the price here, and yet we are told they are going hammer and tongs at this trade, when they are getting almost 100 per cent. more than nails can be bought for elsewhere. It is no wonder the cost of living is high here; no wonder rents are high, and no wonder labourers are not able to pay the rents.

You ought to give a feed of these nails to Deputy Heron.

I am quoting this for the Minister for Finance. It is the same in the case of boots.

The Guards are only getting 9d. for boots.

Heretofore Irish firms were able to compete with any British firms for boots. There was a firm in Cork which did a good trade in boots that were good enough for any country. The boots they produced were equal to those produced by any English firm. We were all delighted to get them as they gave every satisfaction. That firm competed without any tariffs. To-day we have practically a tariff of 50 per cent. on boots, and even with that 50 per cent., if the Minister for Industry and Commerce gave permits, the traders of this country would, I believe, import boots and be able to compete with the Irish manufacturers.

The third statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary was, to my mind, the most interesting. He asked what would happen if the tariffs were done away with. His anxiety was not as regards what would happen the owners of the factories, the employees or the poor widows and orphans who had a little money invested in them and were looking forward to small dividends from them. What he was concerned about was, how money would be raised if we had not these tariffs. Therefore, according to him, the tariffs were not for the purpose of improving industry or helping the unemployed. They are there for the purpose of producing income for the Government.

Speaking on this cost of living motion, Deputies on the Government Benches devoted a lot of time to the new industries that have been established. Quite a big number of the members of the House are closely connected with the agricultural industry. Some of them seem to lose sight of the fact that 70 per cent. of the population are engaged in that industry, and, therefore, provide a purchasing power of 70 per cent. for the new industries. Let us take a few items which are necessary for the promotion of the agricultural industry. I will deal first with manures, the cost of which is increasing year after year. Sometimes you have increases inside a week. Manures are essential for the production of the various crops—beet, wheat, oats, barley, potatoes, etc. If farmers are not in a financial position to purchase manures they cannot grow these crops. Potatoes cannot be grown without artificial manures. What is the position of the potato market? In 1937 they were making 70/- per ton, and some 75/- and 80/-. The price that the alcohol factories are offering for potatoes in 1938 is 40/- a ton, that is 30/- a ton less than the growers were able to secure last year. Manures are also necessary for the growing of oats and barley. Take the maize meal mixture without which you cannot produce pigs, butter, fowl and eggs. About 15 per cent. of the agricultural community are growers of oats and 85 per cent. are buyers. The former want a market for their oats, while 85 per cent. have to pay an excess price for a maize meal mixture which, as I have said, is necessary for the production of pigs, eggs, butter, fowl, etc.

May I point out, Sir, that it is impossible to hear the Deputy with the buzz of conversation in the Chamber?

Take eggs. According to the local papers, the value of the eggs that we exported in 1930 was £2,655,000. That figure has been gradually decreasing. In 1935 it was down to £995,000. The progressive decrease in the value of our egg exports between 1930 and 1935 is certainly a very regrettable sign. I have given the figure for 1930. In 1931 the figure was £2,227,000; 1932, £1,674,000; 1933, £1,078,000; 1934, £1,040,000; and in 1935, as I have already pointed out, it was down to less than the £1,000,000 figure. That reveals a very serious position for the farming community, because this is one of the industries that help to provide comfortable circumstances in the farmer's home. When eggs are produced and taken to the market and sold the proceeds enable the housewife to keep a comfortable home. That is an industry that must get some attention. Otherwise, it will leave things in a very unsatisfactory position so far as the farmer's household is concerned.

What is the condition of the pig industry to-day? We see from some recent returns that production is likely to be less next year than it is at present. The number of sows in the country to-day is 3,000 less than last year. That means that our pig population will be less by about 100,000. Some days ago the Pigs Marketing Board published an order, which came into force on the 1st inst., fixing the hypothetical price for non-factory purchased pigs. The price live-weight for first-class pigs is 61/-, second-class 59/-, and third class 56/-. What I cannot understand is that on the very same day all the farmer can get for his first-grade quality pigs is about 50/-, a slightly lower price being paid for Nos. 2 and 3. As a result of Government action, and of rules and regulations made, the value of his pigs to the producer is reduced by 11/- per cwt. In the case of pigs sold by live weight that means a difference to the farmer of 22/- for a 2-cwt. pig. If you take 22/- away from the cost of production it leaves a very small profit to the producer. He gets very little for the feeding or for his time. You must buy meal to feed and fatten pigs. Take the price of meal to-day as compared with 1929 or 1930. In 1930 meal was 8/6 per cwt., in 1931 it was 6/6, in 1936 it was 8/-, and to-day it is 10/-. It is very hard to produce pigs with meal at that price. Take flour. In 1931 flour was roughly 9/- per 7st. bag. What is the price of it to-day? About 17/- per 7st. bag. All these commodities increase the cost of living, and consequently the agricultural community are finding it very hard to exist. The rates and the social services are practically double what they were five years ago.

Then take emigration. I find from a paper I have here that in 1932 the emigration figure was 6,860, while the unemployed in November of the same year numbered 102,619. In 1933 the emigration figure was 7,731, and in November of that year there were 85,000 unemployed. In 1934 the emigration figure was 12,362, and in November of that year the unemployed numbered 123,890. In 1935 the figures were 17,620 and 129,403 respectively. In 1937 the emigration figure was 25,000 and the number of unemployed 95,000. The people have really to leave the country because they cannot find the means of existence. The greater part of the emigration is from the rural areas, and a large part of the unemployment is also in those areas. In my district and similar districts a big percentage of the people live on mountainy farms where they have to till and sow and try to do the best they can. In these places they are very badly hit. They have to try to grow crops on the same land year after year, as they have no new land to look forward to. They have to buy meal and flour in order to exist, and the high cost of these commodities is making it very hard for these people to exist, as their means are very small. The two or three days' work per week which they get on rotational schemes gives them very little remuneration. The second last Deputy who spoke really touched the point in this matter.

I should like to say a few words on this motion, which, after all, is a very simple one, as it asks the House to remove forthwith all levies, etc., on foodstuffs. It has been stated by the Minister for Industry and Commerce that this motion asks the Government to change its whole economic policy. In other words, he tried to convince the House that the motion was one advocating free trade versus the tariff policy as pursued by the present Government. The Minister was wrong in attempting to convince the House that this motion meant any such thing. On reading the report of the debate on the motion as introduced by Deputy Morrissey and seconded by Deputy Linehan, I find that the total time occupied by the two Deputies did not exceed 17 or 18 minutes, and their speeches did not extend beyond 11 columns. I think every Deputy will agree that if the motion meant that there was to be a discussion on tariffs versus free trade, Deputy Morrissey or Deputy Linehan did not treat the subject with justice and that it was not given the consideration it deserved. The Minister for Industry and Commerce occupied a full hour on the first night he spoke on the motion and, when he resumed the following week, he occupied another hour. So that he took two hours and almost 40 columns of the Official Report to reply to a simple motion whose introduction only occupied 11 or 12 minutes.

The Minister knows very well that this is not a motion asking the House to take a vote on the merits or demerits of free trade versus the tariff policy. I can convince him that that is not so on his own admission, because on several occasions recently when opening factories all over the country the Minister went out of his way to pay tribute to the greate assistance and co-operation he received from those who differed from the Government politically. He went so far as to state that were it not for the great financial assistance which he received from the political opponents of the Government he could not have proceeded with his industrial policy in the manner in which he has proceeded. In view of that statement, why should the Minister occupy two hours of the time in the House in trying to confuse the issue raised by this motion?

Again, if the Minister would read his speech he would find that his utterance will do very much more harm to the industries established in this country than anything that has been said by the Opposition for this reason, that the Minister's speech must convey to those who have invested money in industries that those industries are secure only as long as the present Government is in power. These are bad tactics on the part of any member of this House who occupies the responsible position which the Minister occupies—to try to convey to the people of the country that if the Fianna Fáil Government went out of office to-morrow and Fine Gael came into power their first duty would be to close up all the industries of the country. Many Deputies on the Government Benches supported the Minister in that argument. Can anyone imagine that the Fine Gael Party would do anything that would be inimical to the interests of our best supporters in this country, the men who have assisted the present Minister in establishing industries in this country? Is it not about time that we should come down to brass tacks? Even though a motion is introduced by a member of the Opposition it should get the consideration it deserves.

Other Government Deputies took up the same attitude. Some of them went so far as to say that it was political propaganda carried on by the members of the Opposition for the past four or five months. I am a member of that Party and I challenge the Minister, or any member of the Government, to state where I, on any occasion since the last general election, either by word or in writing, did anything in the way of political propaganda. I think the present Government are getting much more consideration from the members of the Opposition than they gave the previous Government when they themselves were in opposition. Another member tried to convey that it was a ramp started by the Irish Independent. It is no such thing. This motion deals with the common people of the country in regard to the essentials which they have to buy to keep body and soul together—I am referring to bread, butter, bacon, beef and milk—and can the price of these articles be reduced; or, in other words, has the policy pursued by the present Government in the last three or four years been the means of increasing the price of those commodities?

I intend to show, before I conclude my speech to-night, that the policy of the Government has increased the prices of these articles without in any way furthering their industrial policy or increasing the standard of living in this country. Take bread, for instance. Could the price of bread be reduced if the Government had only the sense to face the situation? In the first place, why is bread so dear? Is it because of the cost of the raw material? Is it because of the wages paid to the bakers and those who deliver the bread? Is it due to the fact that those who control the bakeries are making excessive profits? Is it due to the fact that those who are milling flour are making excessive profits? In regard to those who control the bakeries in this country, it has been established by the master bakers, and has been admitted even by the Minister himself on the figures submitted to him by the master bakers, that they could not sell bread at any lower price than they were charging at that particular period. The Minister had to admit that, and he allowed the master bakers to increase their prices, so, therefore, the fault cannot be laid at the door of the master bakers. Similarly it cannot be laid at the door of those who make the bread.

Who is responsible for the fact that a 4-lb. loaf costs 1/- here, while it costs only 9d. or 10d. in the City of London? Does that not make a big difference to a man with a family? I have myself seven in family, and I know that my bread bill every week amounts from 14/- to 16/-. There are thousands of people in this country who have only 14/- or 16/- to expend, not on one item, but on every other item that they require for their families. One can see, therefore, what the price of bread means to a working man at present. It is no excuse for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to tell the mothers of families in this country that all this is propaganda on the part of the Irish Independent or on the part of the Fine Gael Party. I have myself been stopped in side streets in Dundalk by women who have asked me: “In the name of God, what do you intend to do with the poor people in the towns when the price of bread is so high?” It would be no consolation to those people to say to them: “Do not mind that; that is all due to a certain leading article in the Independent”. If I told that to these women they would probably say: “The blessing of God on the man who wrote that article.” If they had not an Independent then, they would buy it even with their last penny because they would say to themselves, “Somebody at least is thinking about us.”

A shilling for a 4-lb. loaf! Think of what that means to a man with a family of five or six. I am one who knows what hardship means, and what humbug means, too, and I know what it is to have to pay 14/- or 15/- per week for bread alone. Everybody knows that the poorer people are, the more bread they consume, because they cannot afford to purchase beef or other foodstuffs to supplement their daily diet. Has Government policy been responsible for increasing the price of wheat to the miller? Previous to the last change, as far as I understand, the millers paid the farmers 15/- per barrel for wheat and the Government gave a subsidy of 7/6, bringing the price up to 22/6 per barrel. The farmer is now receiving 30/- and he is not getting a bit too much, because, after all, he is the producer of the primary article and he must be paid. But a change has been made by the Government. Instead of paying a subsidy, they now make the miller pay the whole price of 30/-. The miller has to add that increased cost to the price of the flour, and the master baker has to put it on the loaf which the very poor have to buy. Instead of the increased cost coming out of the national Exchequer as heretofore, the poor have to pay it. Of course, we have been asked by Deputy Flinn, "Why should the poor not be made to pay taxes?" They must be prepared to pay, as Deputy Flinn stated.

Deputy Flinn denied that to-night.

There is no use in Deputy Kelly getting up.

Mr. Kelly

I am not getting up.

Mind you, we do not sit here half asleep. Some of us have very good memories and there is no necessity to refer to the Parliamentary debates to remember what was said on previous occasions. I can tell Deputy Tom Kelly what he said at the Old Dublin Society the other night; I take that much interest in what he says.

You need not bother about what he says. Deputy Flinn denied to-night that he made that statement.

He might, but he made it.

The Deputy is not here and that is the reason I intervened.

He should be here.

He should not be here, listening to this.

There was a Minister who once said that people might have to starve as they had to before.

I ask what is it that has increased the price of bread in this country. If the price of bread were reduced would it have the effect of closing down any industry in this country? That is what this motion deals with simply and solely. Everybody knows what the meaning of the word "forthwith" is. The Minister for Finance and every member of the Government knows what the dictionary meaning of it is, but we need not take the exact dictionary meaning.

Certainly not, with any of the Deputy's statements.

Is it not a fact that Government policy has increased the price of bread to 1/- per 4-lb. loaf in this agricultural country, which should produce food much cheaper than any other country in the world, and that working class people have to pay 12/- to 14/- for bread alone every week? They cannot afford to buy it at that price. Is it any wonder that Deputy McGilligan, reading from the Trade Journal, was able to show that the consumption of bread in this country has been reduced by almost 6,000,000 loaves? Does not that show that the workingman cannot buy sufficient bread for himself and his family?

Then we come to the question of butter. Can the price of butter be reduced? Nobody can deny that the present Government, notwithstanding the fact that they are supposed to be engaged in war with our old enemy, England, have for the past three or four years provided Mr. Englishman with butter at 11d. and 1/- per lb., while they were charging poor Irish Paddy 1/4 per lb. It was good enough for him, I suppose. Alderman Tom Kelly, who was so given to fighting England in the past, is so fond of Great Britain to-day that he will send butter over to the Englishman and sell it at 10d. or 11d. per lb. and charge the poor people in the slums of Dublin 1/4 per lb.

Mr. Kelly

The Englishmen are poor, delicate people. They want all the butter.

Is that state of affairs not due to the present policy pursued by the Government in this fantastic war in which we are supposed to be engaged with Great Britain? We have to pay a sum almost equal to the price we receive for our butter to get that butter into a market that, in the words of the President and some of his Ministers some years ago, "is gone, and gone, thank God, for ever." In one particular year, if my memory serves me aright, we paid 80/- per cwt. to get our Irish butter into the English market, and we only got for it, I think, 75/- a cwt. Then we hear a lot of talk about self-sufficiency. Why, we would be greasing the railway lines with butter were it not for the British market. I never was a slave to England any more than the members of the Government, but I am one who was always prepared to face facts. The price of butter could have been reduced, and the poor of our cities here, especially in Dublin, could have received our good Irish butter at a less price than they were forced to pay, while at the same time the dairy farmers in Limerick and every other county could have received the same price for the raw material in the form of milk.

Now we come to the question of bacon. The same argument holds good there. Those are the points with which the motion seeks to deal. It does not bring in the question of tariffs versus free trade at all. We have been sending bacon to England at a price much below what we have been charging our people here in Ireland. More than that, under legislation passed by the Minister for Agriculture recently he has insured that even if the Irish Paddies were to go without a rasher of bacon Mr. Englishman has to get it, because many of our bacon factory people here have been brought to court and have been very heavily fined for attempting to sell bacon here in the Irish Free State when it was wanted for John Bull. Our Irish Minister for Agriculture passed legislation recently which had that effect. What is the use of the members there on the Government Benches talking about our being at war with England and twitting us about wanting to surrender to Britain? Many members of the Labour Party, I am sorry to say, took up the same attitude. “Are we going to surrender to England?” they said. You have been surrendering every day in the week for the past four years on those very questions of butter, beef, milk and other articles which are the most essential part of the family budget of the workers of this country. Yet we are being twitted about wanting to surrender to England. As a matter of fact you yourselves have made an annual surrender in the form of the very bad Coal-Cattle Pact.

This motion asks you to open your eyes. We are not asking you to surrender one iota of your principles, if you ever had any principles. During the last five or ten years you ran away from any principles that you ever had, and you are twitting us now about being British Imperialists. We know who the Imperialists are to-day—the men who are prepared to give cheaper bacon and butter to Englishmen than they are prepared to give to their own Irish at home. I am not one of those who would like to make it awkward for the Government in any shape or form whatsoever. I very seldom interfere with the Government outside this House, except to do all I possibly can to assist them in any scheme which I think is for the benefit of this country, but I have no patience at all with hypocrisy. It cannot be denied that the whole policy of the Government during the past three or four years in connection with the relations with Great Britain is largely responsible for the high cost of living in this country. I ask the Government to take their courage in their hands and settle this little dispute. It is not a war by any means; it is a dispute between the two countries. That will restore our normal trade relations. That will allow us to get our butter, our bacon, our cattle and every other part of our agricultural produce free into the British market. It will allow us to get a better price, and at the same time allow us to give cheaper food to our Irish people here.

It has been stated over and over again by many of the members on the Government Benches that the population of this country was such and such in the year so and so. Deputy Walsh referred to Royal Meath and all the rest of it. Surely after four or five years of your policy, the population of this country should have increased by leaps and bounds. Yet, we find that instead of increasing it has decreased. I have often wondered at what time will we see the President's promise fulfilled—that this country would be able to support from 15,000,000 to 17,000,000 people. If after five or six years of the President's own policy the population has rather decreased than increased, when is he going to arrive at his 17,000,000? That is what this motion deals with. I think the Government would be wise in accepting it and in refraining from taking up the attitude which has been adopted by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in trying to confuse the issue by making it appear that this was a motion advocating free trade as against a tariff policy.

Listening to the members of the Government speaking, one would imagine that we had no industries in this country before the advent of Fianna Fáil. We had very many old-established industries in this country which had withstood all opposition and all competition. They were flourishing and, thank God, are flourishing to-day. Tariffs were imposed on numerous articles coming into this country previous to the advent of Fianna Fáil, but it was a moderate tariff policy. It was a policy that was given due consideration before it was put into operation. There is no need for Fianna Fáil to take all the credit for imposing tariffs. The previous Government imposed tariffs on certain articles which they thought could be produced at an economic price in this country, but they did not impose tariffs simply for the sake of collecting revenue. I should like to impress upon members of the Government, if it were possible to do so, the fact that the Government has been engaged for the last four years in erecting factories in this country. That in itself should be responsible for less income being secured by the Minister for Finance from the tariffs imposed on imports. If our industrial policy is successful as members of the Government try to make it out to be, how can you explain the fact that at the moment the Minister for Finance is collecting a sum very little less than £11,000,000?

The Deputy is speaking through the top of his hat.

He is collecting £10,000,000 or £11,000,000 per annum. Am I wrong?

Absolutely wrong.

Does the Minister deny that the income he derives from the duties imposed on articles which we import here is in the region of £10,000,000 to £11,000,000?

The Deputy said £11,000,000,

What does the Minister say?

The figure of £10,200,000 was the highest it ever was.

Only £10,000,000?

I said that is the highest it ever was. We budgeted for £9,200,000.

I am not far out when I say £10,000,000 to £11,000,000. Possibly I will have to refer again to the Parliamentary Debates to get the exact quotation.

The Deputy is absolutely out.

It is rather illogical to say that our present Minister for Finance is collecting from £10,000,000 to £11,000,000 by means of the tariffs on our imports——

Not merely is it illogical, but, as I already told the Deputy, it is untrue. However, that does not make any difference to the Deputy. He will go on repeating his untruth.

£10,000,000——

Was the highest we ever collected.

But it was collected.

It was collected some years ago, but the Deputy said we were collecting that at present. The Deputy does not know whether we are living in the past, present or future.

Well, there is no use in talking politely to you people. One has got to hammer a thing home. I maintain that it was from £10,000,000 to £11,000,000. Even at £10,000,000, does it not seem extraordinary, in the face of all the bombastic eloquence of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the talk about all the industries he set up in this country, that the Minister for Finance should be able to collect, let us say, not £10,000,000, but £9,000,000, as against the £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 collected by the former Minister for Finance when we were importing commodities from other countries, such as bacon from China that we were told so much about, from Czecho-Slovakia, and also Russian bacon which one Deputy said contained 100 per cent. less nourishment than Irish bacon, and even bacon from Canada and America, which was also supposed to be inferior in nourishing quality? Well, it is extraordinary that America can produce a Gene Tunney and such a number of famous athletes, if the food they produce is so inferior. That is just the usual kind of talk here, however, but when all these commodities were being imported here free of duty, the former Minister for Finance, Mr. Blythe, could only get a maximum of £7,000,000.

In what year did he get a maximum of £7,000,000?

I can almost see the Minister for Finance saying to himself: "Thank God there are such great Republicans here in this country who are buying imported goods to such an extent that I can collect £10,000,000; the Minister for Industry and Commerce can bluff the country about native industries and so on, but I hope the people will take in enough foreign stuff to enable me to collect my £10,000,000." That is the way it is. On the one hand, the Minister for Finance gets £10,000,000, and on the other hand, you have the Minister for Industry and Commerce saying: "Look at all the industries I am starting in this country." Certainly, it is not very complimentary to the supporters of the Government all over the country, who are so fond of loudly professing their nationality, to say that we are importing so much that this large amount of money can be collected. It is not alone the supporters of the present Government who are responsible for buying articles on which the Minister for Finance can collect £10,000,000. There must be a number of tried and true Republicans buying foreign articles that have been imported into this country.

Therefore I say in all sincerity to the Government that it is about time to stop fooling the people of this country and to finish this sham economic war with Great Britain. You are not at war with Great Britain. You are negotiating every day in the week with members of the British Government. They may not be the Ministers themselves, because, unfortunately, for some reason or another, they have not the courage to go over there and do it themselves, but they do it through the medium of the Commissioner in London, Mr. Dulanty. If you were to make a trade agreement with Great Britain, it would be possible to reduce the cost of living in this country, and that is what this motion is on the Order Paper for. That is what Deputy Morrissey and every member of this Party mean. It is not because we want to have a tilt at the Government or to engage in political propaganda, nor is it because we are influenced by leading articles in the Irish Independent. We are influenced only by the cold, hard facts. In common with many Deputies on this side of the House, I am sure, I have been stopped by many of my own constituents with reference to the price of bread at the present time. It is so high that recently a reverend gentleman, preaching to his congregation one Sunday took occasion to say that he was availing of that opportunity to make a public protest against the high cost of bread to the poor at the present time, who, he said, after all, are God's own children. He was not influenced by a leading article in the Irish Independent or by political propaganda. He deemed it his duty to make that pronouncement to his congregation and to make that public protest against the high price being charged to the poor for bread at the present time.

This motion simply asks the Government to take steps to reduce the prices of these essential articles of food which are used so largely by the families of the poor people of this country. The Government can do that without surrendering one iota of their principles or changing their policy. We, on this side, want to have industries established in this country just as well as Fianna Fáil, but we do not want a policy which results in increasing the cost of living to such an extent that, no matter what increase of wages is given it is off-set by the cost of living going up day by day. That is what this motion is for. It is not a motion to determine the pros. or cons. of free trade or tariff reform, but to reduce the cost of living, and the Government can do that if they accept this motion. If they accept this motion, they will have all the co-operation that is necessary from the members of the Opposition.

I want to put a few points before the House to-night and, as the author of this motion, to try to get the House to understand what the motion means. As I gather that comment has been made already with regard to quotations from past speeches, I should like to clear the ground first and get rid of any misconceptions by reciting here the quotations which I propose to call to my aid in this debate. For instance, the President is on record as having said that, so far as he could see, the British market was gone for ever. Is that challenged? It was also said that the necessity for agreement with Great Britain was day by day and week by week growing less urgent. Is that denied? The Minister for Education, in 1935, making an appeal for the Minister for Finance in the latter's absence, said:

"We are taxing necessities, not because we like to do it, but because there is nothing else left to tax."

Is that denied? Deputy Hugo Flinn, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, said, in reference to the Budget:

"In this Budget the workingman is being made to pay, and why should he not pay, because it was a workingman's Budget?"

I want to give the gloss that the Parliamentary Secretary put on that by putting himself forward as a working man, and it is on that context that he denies to-night that he said baldly and boldly that the workingman would have to pay.

Deputy Dowdall is in the House at the moment, and there are two statements that he is recorded in the Cork papers as having made in January, 1935. Speaking at the annual meeting of the Cork Chamber of Commerce in January, 1935, Deputy Dowdall said:

"Trading should be left in the hands of the business community. With regard to the statement that people were taking advantage of the tariffs, it was only human nature to do so, and personally he would avail of them to make as much profit as he could."

Is that right?

Was it contradicted?

Yes, it was contradicted in this House.

It was contradicted in the sense that the wording was bad but that the meaning was correct. Is that right?

Perhaps I might be allowed to make a personal statement, Sir. On several occasions both Deputy Dillon and Deputy McGilligan have challenged me about what I said. It was at the meeting of the Chamber of Commerce in Cork, the Incorporated Chamber of Commerce in Cork. The president of the chamber said he hoped that traders would not take advantage of the tariffs to make excessive profits or to give an inferior article. When I came to speak I said that what the chairman had said was only a pious hope; that most people would take advantage to make as much out of tariffs as they could. I said I considered myself as honest as most other people and I would do so.

You are very honest.

The Deputy has pretty well said what I said, but I added something, and this is what the Deputy never refers to. I said, further, that competition will alter that, and, if not, then Government legislation would. That was not stated by either Deputy Dillon or Deputy McGilligan. That is pretty well the whole of what I did say. I am of opinion, if I may add it now, that the profits of traders who have tariffs should be examined, and they should be checked, but that does not alter the fact that I made the other statement definitely.

And the Deputy now agrees that he will be as honest as the rest of the community in making as much out of tariffs as he can, provided Government legislation or some sort of examination would not stop him.

I referred to competition.

And if there is no competition the Deputy would make as much as he could.

Or Government legislation.

Or Government legislation. Let me quote another of the Deputy's phrases. I am going to leave out the bad language, for which he apologised, and I will just give the gist of the phrase. This statement I am about to quote was made earlier, in the August of the previous year. The Deputy said:

The people who were with the enemy in this fight were the people who had money, who had businesses, who had something to lose. Well, he did not mind if they did lose it. It was out of the common people of this country that they made their money, and it was their duty to join in with them. And of the firms who had got tariffs, who were waxing fat on them, and were getting more money than they ever expected, he would say, without putting any tooth in it—

It was here the Deputy made use of the foul expression which he apologised for afterwards——

if they did not back up the Government to win this fight.

The Deputy was carried away by his language, and he used words that perhaps he would not otherwise have used. Deputy Dowdall stands here, as honest a trader under tariffs as this country has produced, and he will make as much out of tariffs as he can if competition and Government legislation do not prevent him. He has put himself on record as saying that firms are waxing fat on tariffs made out of the common people of the country. I will not quote what Deputy Dowdall called them if they did not support the Government. Anyway, they were putting that money into their pockets. It is against that sort of thing that this motion is framed. I was partly responsible for framing the motion, which refers to the lowering of the standard of living by Government action through the operation of taxes, levies, duties and like impositions on foodstuffs and other necessaries of life.

While people talk here about shovels and all that sort of thing, the main thing to remember is that the most important aspect is covered by those words "foodstuffs and other necessaries of life." The motion sets out that the Dáil deplores certain things and is of opinion that all such impositions should be forthwith abolished. "Such impositions" surely refers to impositions on foodstuffs and other necessaries of life?

I put down that motion after the general election, when I found that the people had, both in regard to this Party and the Labour Party, reacted very wholesomely to the viewpoint that was expressed and put before them at the election. It was with the same object in view that, on 21st July, Deputy Cosgrave put it as a proposal from this House that if any Government should be formed from any Party or Parties pledged to certain things, then this Party would support that group. What were the things he asked that the people should be pledged to? In the first place, he referred to the hardships inflicted on the people by the high cost of living and especially by the taxation on foodstuffs and the other necessaries of life—not a word about ordinary tariffs on industrial goods. Secondly, he touched on the Government's refusal to heal the running sore of the so-called economic war. Then he dealt with the dangers inherent in certain parts of the Constitution, and, fourthly, he mentioned the gerrymandering of the constituencies electing Deputies to the House. The motion followed along the lines of the speech which Deputy Cosgrave had in mind to make on the 21st July.

We believe that as far as the great number of the people in this country who voted for Parties other than the Party who form the Government are concerned, the thing that motived them in changing their votes was this, that foodstuffs were being taxed, that the costs of the people were being raised through their foodstuffs to a degree that they could not bear, and they felt that if this country was fated to a further period of delay in connection with the economic war, or to suffer complete destruction through its continuance, then the cost of carrying on the war should not be met out of taxation on the foodstuffs of the people of the country. I do not know that any country in time of war has allowed profiteering to go on, and I do not see why people should be allowed to operate in the way Deputy Dowdall said he would operate if he had the power, that that would be deemed as patriotism and that people would be allowed to pocket big amounts of money that were made through overcharging the common people. At the same time the taxation, instead of being levied on shoulders broad enough to bear it, is put on the necessities of the poor.

The explanation was made by the Minister for Education that it was not for the love of taxation that it was imposed, but because there was nothing else left to tax. If the Government find the substitutes are few, and if there is any further impact of the economic war, any further suffering to be borne by the people, then it should be borne and paid for by those best able to pay for it, and they are not the people whose foodstuffs are being taxed and who have been driven to the point that 6,000,000 loaves less are consumed in the country and that, after all the subsidies, 250,000 cwts. of bacon less appear on the breakfast tables of the people.

Last Christmas was the best Christmas on record.

It might be for you, but not for many other people.

That has been proved on all sides.

I suppose the St. Vincent de Paul Society might be expected to give a fair indication of the condition of the people. I have already quoted from their leaflet, where they said there were three things that struck them. One was that the people in the country had less money to spend on food.

The St. Vincent de Paul Society can be used over here, too.

The next thing was that there were certain families who, in the past, were able to keep themselves but who, under present economic conditions, found it impossible to live except on a level which amounted practically to starvation. That does not read like a good Christmas.

In regard to what period was that statement made?

Not about this Christmas, but about the Christmas before. I have the other leaflet. Would Deputies like it read? Is there an improvement disclosed through it? Is there a line of improvement disclosed in it? The third thing they said was that they used to get parcels of second-hand clothes from people who did not want them, but they were now faced with this difficulty, that there was not the same amount of clothes cast off because people were wearing them longer, and there was the second point, that they had more people to give the second-hand clothes to. I move to report Progress.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn