Committee on Finance. - Vote 3—Department of the Taoiseach (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (11th Dáil) – Friday, 19 Nov 1943

Committee on Finance. - Vote 3—Department of the Taoiseach (Resumed).

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. MacEntee)

When the House rose last night, I was dealing with the allegations—if one may use that word — which Deputy McGilligan had made in the House in relation to the insurances of the Roscommon County Council. I was referring, particularly, to the action which the county manager had taken to ensure that any agency fee which might be paid in connection with this transaction would be, eventually, received by the Roscommon County Council. Some Deputies seemed to take exception to that procedure. They seemed to think that it was improper for the county council to benefit by the fact that no person had rendered any service to the insurance company or to the county council which would entitle him to agent's commission. Agent's commission on insurance business is paid in recognition of the fact that, through his good offices and by his work, the insurances are placed with a particular company. In this case, there was no question of trying to persuade the Roscommon County Council to insure its property. Roscommon County Council, as a prudent public body, was anxious to place the insurances. It was anxious, I think, to place them, if possible, with the Irish Public Bodies Mutual Insurances. No person was coming in and fulfilling the usual function of agent in this matter, so as to justify the payment of a fee in connection with the transaction. No service having been rendered by any person as intermediary or agent in this transaction, the county manager ensured that the fee, which would otherwise go to some private individual, would be paid over to this public body. I confess that I cannot see anything improper in that. Those Deputies who were, apparently, prepared to stand behind Deputy McGilligan in the suggestion he made here, that some person was receiving a commission, or payment, or fee improperly, should not be the Deputies to challenge the action of the county manager in that regard.

I think that I have disposed of the mare's nest which Deputy McGilligan discovered. Perhaps I am too mild in referring to Deputy McGilligan's action in this matter as the discovery of a mare's nest, because Deputy McGilligan, when he rose in this House, knew all the facts in relation to this transaction. He knew from whom the communication to which he referred issued. He did not state from whom it did issue. I do not know from whom it issued but, from an interruption in the debate, I take it that it did not issue even from the county council offices. It certainly did not issue—I should like to repeat this— from the Department of Local Government and Public Health. Deputy McGilligan knew from whom it issued, but he wished to convey the suggestion to the public that it did issue from the county council offices or that it did issue from the Department of Local Government and Public Health. If it did issue from the county council offices, with the connivance of the Minister, or if it did issue from the Department of Local Government and Public Health, the Minister would be constitutionally responsible. It is quite clear that, in raising this matter in the way in which he did, Deputy McGilligan did not act in good faith, that Deputy McGilligan deliberately used his position in this House to blacken and defame his political opponents, that he used that position knowing there was no foundation for the suggestions which he was making or the imputations which he wished to convey. I say that that is not the action of a man who has any standard of public honour. I do not care how clever or facile he may be, I do not care how venomous his tongue may be, the man who is guilty of that action has no concern for his own honour or for the honour of his country. The electorate are beginning to find Deputy McGilligan out, to think he is not fit to sit and act as a public representative.

It is time that, in circumstances like these, there was a general recognition that all of us should stand together. Naturally, we shall have differences of opinion as to how public affairs should be managed and how public problems are being faced. We can criticise one another, even strongly, but I do think that there ought to be some standard of conduct for public men, that there ought to be some standard of public decency. I suggest that, in the light of the proceedings which have taken place in this House during the past three days—from the moment on Wednesday evening when Deputy McGilligan rose to address us — it is clear that there is one man in this Dáil who has no sense of public responsibility and no sense of public decency.

That is Deputy McGilligan. He mentioned three matters. In relation to every one of them, and in relation, certainly, to this one and to the other matter of the shipping insurances, Deputy McGilligan knew that there was not the slightest scintilla of fact to substantiate the suggestion which he was trying to put over, not on Deputies here but on the people of the Twenty-Six Counties. He knew that, and yet he wished to leave these people under the impression that this Government, primarily responsible for the safety of our people, was a Government which would condone graft or corruption in public affairs or private transactions. That is the suggestion which Deputy McGilligan endeavoured to convey. Is that trying to maintain public confidence? Is that going to help us to have that trust in one another which is necessary if we are to carry this country through to the end of the war as safely as has been done up to the present? I repeat that the person who was responsible for making these charges, in the way in which he did, has no sense of public responsibility, no sense of public honour and, I think, no sense of private decency. It would be well if the good feeling which, I think, has characterised the proceedings in this House ever since we found ourselves in the terrible position in which the country has been since 1939—it would be well if those who want that good feeling to continue to exist would disown Deputy McGilligan and refuse henceforward to be associated with him.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

And expressly disown the Minister for Local Government and Public Health.

Mr. MacEntee

For defending what——

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

For the disgraceful election speeches he produced.

An Ceann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with this Vote.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Nothing; but those in glass-houses should not throw stones.

Mr. MacEntee

Apparently, the position is that a Minister's conduct may be criticised, that a Minister's honour may be attacked, that the confidence of the public in the Minister's probity may be undermined but that he is not entitled to stigmatise that conduct in the terms which it merits. That is the attitude that Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, from whom I would have expected better, is, apparently, prepared to take up in this House.

This debate opened on a matter of very grave concern to all of us—the effect which the rise in the cost of living is having on those of our people who have to depend upon low incomes or low earnings or, mainly, upon social service payments for their subsistence. That is a matter which is of grave concern to all of us but, particularly, to those of us upon whom responsibility has been placed for trying to ensure that, in the circumstances in which this country finds itself, those who are poor and impoverished will have their sufferings relieved and that no unnecessary or avoidable hardship will be imposed upon any section of the community. This Government has made the condition of the poor and unemployed and those who, for one reason or another, are unable to earn their daily bread, its first concern since it took office. But it must be remembered that there are other elements in the community to be looked after, that there are other elements in the community who are not unemployed, that there are other elements in the community who have to earn their bread and butter, that there are other elements in the community who, like the rest of us, with one or two exceptions, find themselves much worse off, find that the struggle for life and existence has become more difficult than it was prior to the outbreak of the war. We are not responsible for the increase in the cost of living. The rise in the cost of living is merely a reflection of the fact that, due to interference with our normal productive economy, this country has become poorer so far as consumer goods are concerned—poorer in commodities though, perhaps, not poorer in cash or savings. The community as a whole has less to consume in food, fuel, clothing and light. There is, I think, no home in this country—I think I might even make that broad, general statement—in which everybody has as much as he formerly had, in which, in relation to some items, everybody has as much as he would like to have, as much he thinks necessary in order to maintain his household in comfort and give the members of his family the conditions to which they were accustomed. That is a general fact. The rise in the cost of living is merely a reflection of that and, in the situation in which we find ourselves, with our normal productive economy completely disorganised, particularly so far as our manufacturing and secondary industries are concerned, we have had, on top of that, to take upon ourselves increased burdens, not merely the increase in the burden of looking after our poor and aged and unemployed, but the increased burden of providing for the defence of this country which, I think, all of us will agree must be our primary concern.

The natural consequence of that has been, that apart altogether from the fact that the normal lives of our people and the normal productive economy of our people, have been upset in the way I have mentioned, those of us who are taxpayers, whether we pay directly in the form of income tax or whether we pay, as we all do, in the form of indirect taxation, find the State itself is adding to our difficulties and burdens by taking a greater portion of the surplus which formerly was left to us to provide for and meet the unforeseen vioissitudes of life. That is the situation in which all of us not depending on social service payments, find ourselves. In those circumstances it is quite clear that it would be impossible for the Government to maintain unscathed any section of the population in the conditions in which it formerly lived. I should, perhaps, qualify that by saying that it is quite clear it would be impossible for the Government to maintain here the earning elements of the population in the circumstances in which they formerly lived. If there is a shortage of copper, of iron, of machine tools or fuel and petrol, it is quite clear that all our manufacturing industries which formerly depended upon the free, unrestricted supply of these materials, could not possibly continue to operate in the former manner.

We, therefore, would have found it quite impossible to keep everybody in employment here. The amount of wealth which was being produced here in the shape of consumable goods undoubtedly has diminished, and we could not do anything to prevent that taking place, the consequence being that we could not possibly have maintained everybody here according to their former standard of living. In fact, everything we did in order to ameliorate the conditions of those who were most severely affected by this economic disorganisation only tended to aggravate matters so far as the remainder of the community was concerned. The Minister for Industry and Commerce yesterday pointed out that we had asked employers to endeavour to retain, working whole-time if possible, but, if not, then working part-time, as many of their employees as possible: that they should try to maintain, if they could, the normal roll of their employees. We knew that shortage of materials would make that quite impossible—that it would be quite impossible to do that generally. We knew it would be impossible for them to retain all these employees working full-time, and we stepped into the breach and amended the regulations governing unemployment benefit. We said to the employers: "If you provide for these men for three days in the week, the State will provide, to some extent, for the remainder of the week, for two days or more, as the case may be."

All that meant additional expenditure; it meant that the products of these concerns would go up in price, and it meant that the cost of living for the whole community would increase. But it was an attempt—I think it is the only way in which it could have been done—to ensure that, so far as possible, the community would share the general hardship, and this would lessen the hardship, which was being imposed upon certain sections of our people, particularly upon the section mainly dependent on imported supplies for its productive efforts. In the same way, when it became clear that our condition here would become more and more serious, the State stepped in again. It knew the burdens which must fall upon the local authorities by reason of the destitution, the hardship and want, which would eventually prevail in the urban areas, might become very large and it stepped in and took upon itself a large share of the service which hitherto has been regarded as being, in the first instance, a local concern—that is, the provision of assistance, by local communities, for those of their inhabitants who, for one reason or another, are unable to provide for themselves.

We have, by the provision of cheap fuel and monetary grants for supplemental help in the form of food allowances, endeavoured to come to the assistance of the local communities on whom the burden seemed to be falling most heavily. Again, the State could only do that at the expense of the community, and the mere fact that the State was doing it undoubtedly tended to accentuate the inconveniences and, in some instances, in the case of large families and people who had already accepted commitments of one sort or another of which they could not easily rid themselves, hardships which were being felt by the community as a whole. I am saying this to show that there has been no lack of concern and there certainly has been no feeling of callousness or coldness on the part of the Government towards the elements in the community which have been most grievously and seriously affected by this, again I should like to emphasise, dislocation to our normal productive economy.

These things are exemplified by the figures which I propose to give for the social services that are administered by the Department of Local Government and Public Health. We have heard it said here in the course of the debate that the Department in some way or another has tightened up the administration of certain services. It was suggested, for instance, that we had tightened up the administration of old age pensions, that the means test was being more rigidly enforced than it had been prior to the war, and that in every way we were endeavouring to whittle down and to curtail the expenditure under this head. The figures which I have got out show that that statement is quite without foundation. For the year ending on the 31st March, 1940, the total number of recipients of old age pensions was 139,666, and the cost was £3,474,816. The number of recipients of old age pensions for the year ending on the 31st March, 1943, that is for the last financial year, was 145,386, and the amount expended £3,807,479. That is a significant rise in the number of persons who have been in receipt of old age pensions, and it certainly does not suggest that there has been any tightening up in the amount of money which has been provided under that service. The total cost per recipient in the year ending on the 31st March, 1940—in the year 1939-40—was £24 16s. 6d., showing that the great bulk of the people had secured the maximum pension. In the year 1933-34 the figure was practically the same—£24 16s. 3d. I say that, so far as the Government is concerned, under the existing law and the statutes, it could not have done any more with the authority which the Legislature has given it to provide for those who are aged and poor. In addition to that, these old age pensioners receive food allowances value for 2/5 per week, which represents an increase of over 25 per cent., and, in those areas where fuel is difficult to procure they receive fuel at particularly cheap rates under the scheme which was instituted last year. I think, when it is remembered that all this is done at the cost of the community, the great majority of whom are finding it very difficult to make ends meet themselves, it cannot be suggested, as has been suggested here, that the Government has been callous or negligent in any way in dealing with that matter.

Again, take the cost of home assistance. I am quoting these figures for this reason, that they do indicate that, whilst so far as people who have continued to have recourse to home assistance are concerned, there may have been an intensification of hardship, certainly there has also been a decrease in the number of people who have had to avail of home assistance, and that decrease has been general all over the country. In the Dublin Union area in the year 1939-40 there were 31,211 in receipt of home assistance at a total cost of £205,279. The average amount received by each recipient of home assistance was £6 11s. 5d.

That is unavoidable in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Many of the people in receipt of home assistance are old and infirm, but are not yet eligible for old age pensions. Others may be unfortunate people deserted by those who should properly provide for them. Undoubtedly the situation of all these in the circumstances of this time must be worse than it was prior to the war.

But looking at the picture as a whole, these figures do suggest that in that section of the population which formerly had recourse to home assistance there has been a general improvement. I am sure Deputies know what that general improvement is due to. With the permission of the House I may refer to that matter later. I have been dealing up to now with conditions in the Dublin Union area, but what I have said about that area applies to the country generally. We find that in the area outside Dublin the number of recipients in 1939-40, numbered 58,300 amongst which £398,148 was distributed in home assistance. In the last financial year, 1942-43, the number of recipients of home assistance in the same districts had fallen to 56,011. The total amount distributed by way of home assistance, and directly paid by the assistance boards out of their finances, had risen to £440,840. an increase of over £40,000. The amount distributed over and above that out of the funds contributed by the Government amounted to £123,334, so that the total value in cash form of home assistance together with food allowances given to that smaller number of persons in 1942-43, had risen from £398,148 in 1939-40, to £564,174 in the last financial year.

Taking the Dublin Union and the rest of the country together, we find that whereas the number of recipients in 1940 was 89,511, amongst whom £633,437 had been distributed, making an average distribution of £6 14s. 10d. per recipient, in 1942-43 the number of recipients of home assistance had fallen to 79,524, or by 11.4 per cent., the total amount distributed amongst them had risen to £822,407, or by 29.8 per cent., so that each recipient got on the average £10 6s. 9d. or 53.3 more than was distributed in 1939-40. These are significant figures and practically represent the rise in the agricultural price index in that period.

With regard to school meals, which have been referred to, I find that whereas in Dublin in 1939-40 the total number of children receiving school lunches was 13,882 and the total cost £20,727 or £1 9s. 11d. per child, in 1942-43, the number had more than doubled, being 29,230, and the cost had proportionately increased to £54,400, while the average cost of the meal was £1 17s. 2d.

Mr. Larkin

The average cost of the meal?

Mr. MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

If the Deputy wants me to deal with that, I shall do so, but I should like to continue my train of thought. You have the position in which the great mass not merely of middle class people but of people who were in comfortable circumstances, who, for their mode of life were in comfortable circumstances, when the war started, but who, because they have, so to speak, become involved in their environments and because their environments have become part of themselves so that they cannot break out of them, have to try to carry on showing the best possible face to the world. They have perhaps a domestic servant. You increase rates and you increase income-tax, and their financial and economic condition is strained to breaking point. They cannot go to the bank—their insurance policy may already have been hypothecated for the purchase of their house or for some other reason. What is to happen? They have to economise somewhere. They will economise in clothes undoubtedly, and a great number of them are doing that. If they do, what does it mean? It means there will be less employment for those who provided them with clothes, and that people who are finding it hard to exist in employment on the rates of wages which they are receiving will be put out of employment and for a time will have to exist on unemployment benefit. Eventually, if they remain in this country, they will drop into the ranks of those chronically unemployed and will get unemployment assistance.

It is upon such wage-earners, in the first instance, that the burden of increased taxation and rates will fall, and they eventually will simply be depressed to the level of those with whom we have been primarily concerned, those who have to exist on social service payments. That is the first thing which will happen. Eventually, however, the point will come at which the taxpayer cannot economise on clothes, boots or any of the household amenities which he used to enjoy, and then the question will arise: can we keep the maid or not? That point will arise eventually and a decision will have to be taken, notwithstanding that it means that the maid will be put out of a good home—and most of the homes are good—and will have to be dispensed with. What will happen to her? There will be no opening for her in this country. The manifestation of the first impact of increased taxation upon the households of those who were paying income-tax and employed maids, at the beginning of this war, was seen in the considerable increase in the number of those registered as unemployed who had formerly been engaged as domestic servants.

I do not know what the present position of the unemployment register in that regard is. I do not know whether there are fewer persons on the live register who were formerly engaged in domestic service. I should be surprised if there were, but I do know that, during the period when I was Minister for Industry and Commerce, the one thing which was noteworthy during all that period was the increase in the number of those coming on the live register who had formerly been engaged in domestic service.

Mr. Larkin

They are getting better wages in England.

Mr. MacEntee

Precisely. That is the point I was about to make. We have all been disturbed by the number of our people who have been compelled to find a livelihood in Great Britain. What is to happen to a maid in this country who is told one day by her mistress: "I have to give you a month's notice. I cannot afford to keep you any longer"? What is to be her position? She will leave this country and go over to Great Britain and she may never return here. One of the greatest problems that the Government and the people have had to contend with has been the decline in population. Just as you cannot maintain a cattle population if you continue to export an undue number of cows, you cannot maintain your human population if you export not merely young men but young girls as well. Oppressive taxation means increased emigration. Does that not show you that it is vain and foolish to talk in a serious debate of this sort in the terms in which Deputy Norton spoke in it? Does it not show that there is no use saying that the Government should do this and should do that regardless of the consequences? The fact is that the Government is taking every factor into consideration and is doing the utmost it possibly can to relieve the situation. But there is no use creating worse evils in trying to remedy those which, in present circumstances, are unavoidable and inescapable. I have spoken at great length, but there are a number of other matters which were raised——

Mr. Larkin

Will the Minister apply himself to the question of the holding up of plant for the producing of food for the people of Dublin, the holding up of batteries?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister is in possession.

Mr. Larkin

He is concluding his speech and I am asking him before he concludes, as a matter of courtesy, will he turn his mind to answer that pertinent question.

Mr. MacEntee

I think I have already dealt with that matter very fully in this House on a number of other occasions. The point I am really dealing with now is the effect that the deterioration in the general economic position is having upon certain of our people who are living in very poor circumstances. There are a number of other matters which were touched upon in this debate, but I must say that nothing shocked me more than the suggestion that was made by the leader of the Labour Party, that the money earned by these unfortunate people, who are prepared to go to Great Britain and to face hardships and disabilities there in order that they, by their own effort and by their own toil, may provide for families which they have to leave here, should not be allowed to come back to this country; that families concerned should not be allowed to benefit by the toil and hardships of the fathers and brothers and sisters who go over there because they have some recognition of their filial duty and feel a responsibility to do what they can for their own flesh and blood.

I am merely giving a conclusion—it may be a fallacious one but I think it is a reasonable conclusion—that can be drawn from these facts. I have kept the House too long but I do say this again—that whatever else this Government may be accused of, it cannot be accused of being disregardful of the needs and necessities of the poorest elements in our population.

Mr. Halliden

I would like to draw the attention of the Taoiseach to a factor which may have a very serious effect on the cost of living and also a very serious effect on the food production campaign in this country— that is the shortage of agricultural labourers. During the past years the farmers have nobly done their work in spite of adverse circumstances—bad weather, shortage of machinery, shortage of fertilisers, but the one thing they cannot overcome is shortage of agricultural workers. There is a number of ways in which those workers may be induced to stay on the land. The first is to put the farmer in a position to pay them an economic wage. The second is to provide for them decent housing. There are many workers through the country who would be very glad to settle down if they had a home, and we know very well that if an agricultural worker has a home and family he becomes very interested in his work and regards his employer's welfare as part and parcel of his own livelihood. The position in respect of agricultural labour has been accentuated, in my opinion, by a statement made by the Taoiseach at Dundalk when he spoke of compulsory military service.

We heard yesterday from the Minister for Suplies a very long and very elaborate defence of the Government's policy, and of the Government's position. The Minister for Supplies, beyond all question, is the best debater and the most eloquent member of his Party. Yet, yesterday, he put forward all his dialectical skill and, as far as the form of his speech was concerned, or as far as the manner of his delivery was concerned, he probably never has shone to greater advantage before, but when it came to analysing or examining the subject of his speech, I think it will be admitted that it has already been shown by the speakers who followed him that his speech did not succeed in being, what he attempted to make it— a triumphant vindication of the Government and its policy, and that it amounted to nothing less than a real and true condemnation of the entire Ministry and the entire policy they have pursued.

The Minister's speech was shaken by Deputy Dillon; it was knocked down by Deputy O'Higgins; and its fragments were trampled to pieces by Deputy Larkin; and we find, as a result, that all that the Minister for Supplies could really say that he is now doing is what he should have done long since. The attitude which he took up was the triumphant attitude of a man who is supposed to get a train on Monday in order to keep an important business engagement, but who, having missed his train on Monday, catches it on Tuesday, and then comes triumphantly down to say: "Oh, well, here I am for my business engagement." What has the Minister shown by his speech except that he is doing now what he was urged, from these benches, from the Labour Benches and from the Independent Benches, to do long since? What has he proved except that the Executive Council is not leading this House: that it is the House that is leading the Executive Council, and that the Executive Council have to be pushed, shoved, and even kicked, on to the right path before they are made to tread it reluctantly? What has the Minister for Supplies to boast about there? What is there that he put forward yesterday as his latest achievements except the things that he had been pressed to do—pressed again and again—long since? Instead of apologising for his delay and his procrastination, and for his inability to see in time the right course to follow, he comes in here attempting—but, as the result has shown, very unsuccessfully attempting—to vindicate his carrying out of the duties of his office.

After the Minister for Supplies had been demolished in the speeches to which I have referred, we had the Minister for Local Government and Public Health being put in to fill the gap. Evidently, it was a case of the Taoiseach calling up his last reserve to save the situation, and what a reserve it was! Now, Sir, certain things can be done by some people that cannot be done by others. Certain things may be said, and properly said, by some people, that would sound very bad indeed on the lips of others; and if any man is not entitled to talk in this House about others having no standard of public honour, or others not being fit to be public representatives, that man is the Minister for Local Government and Public Health; for, in the course of his election address during the last election, and in his whole policy, and in every word that he spoke in the course of the recent general election, no man has ever more lowered the standard of public honour in this country, and no man has ever shown himself to be less fit to be a public representative—and those are the words he used himself— than the present Minister for Local Government and Public Health.

If ever disgraceful speeches were made, and if ever loud-speakers were used disgracefully, it was by the Fianna Fáil Party in the last general election, and outstanding amongst them all was the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. Yet, he is the man who comes into this House and attacks Deputy McGilligan —Deputy McGilligan, who stands as high as any man can stand in public life in this country, as a man of integrity and of public honour, and a man who is an ornament to Irish public life.

Now, what is the head and front of Deputy McGilligan's offences that would lead to this attack being made upon him? He discovered, and was given, documents that showed to him that in the County Roscommon a very curious procedure had been adopted, and he came into this House and asked the responsible Minister for an explanation of that very curious procedure. Not only was he entitled to come into this House and ask for an explanation, but it was his duty, as a public representative to do so. Was he not justified, in honour, to do so, and was he not also compelled by his duty as a public representative to come in here, ask for an explanation, and get it from the Minister for Local Government and Public Health? If ever an explanation justified the demand for it, the explanation that was given by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health showed it.

What is the explanation? As far as I understood it, it was that the county council and the County Manager of Roscommon wished to enter into insurance. They got an insurance broker and an insurance agent and they sent round word that it was only through this broker and through this agent that insurances were to be carried out. Then the manager appointed the secretary of the county council or got him appointed as agent for the insurance company. Now that in itself is rather a strange procedure but we go on. There was a commission I think of £125 — I did not quite catch the figure.

Let us take the real income of agriculture. It ought to be the prices regulated by demand and supply, the income which it would derive in a free market. But the prices which have been fixed by Ministers are all far below what they should be in a competitive market. For instance, the minute the fixed price was taken off oats, oats proceeded to jump by many shillings per cwt. If oats is £1 per cwt. now and was 12/-, I think, last year, it really means that last year there was, in effect, a tax of 8/- upon oats which the farming community was paying. I am not making a case that the farmers are being harshly treated at all, but I wish that the people would understand that the farmers are bearing a much heavier share of the burden than is generally recognised and that, far from being a subsidised industry, it is a heavily taxed industry.

I would like if An Taoiseach, as Head of the Government, would deal with another matter with which the Minister for Supplies has attempted to disturb the mind of the country—that, is the question of inflation of our currency. Many people talk about inflation, and there is a tremendous lot of loose thinking where it is concerned. In the first place, I would like a definition from the Ministers who talk about it as to what precisely they do mean by inflation. Of course, anybody can say that inflation means that there is more money in circulation in the country than the needs of the country require. But that is not of the slightest help. Before you can decide what inflation is, you must have some standard to go by. Prior to 1913, of course, you had the gold standard to decide as to whether there was or was not inflation in a country, according as it was or was not on the gold standard—or, as far as other countries were concerned, the silver standard. Therefore, after 1913, during the last Great War, it was very easy to determine whether there was inflation or not by determining whether or not the pound note could be turned into gold. If a pound note was worth only half a sovereign, you had 100 per cent, inflation. I can understand all that. I want to know from An Taoiseach, when his Ministers are talking about inflation, what standard they are judging by. When the Minister for Supplies says that there is grave danger of inflation precisely what standard does he take in judging that?

Another point connected with it is this: Is it possible that anything which we would or could do could inflate our currency? Is it in our power to inflate our currency? It seems to me that it is not, and that any policy that we adopt here, be it good or bad, could not affect our currency. At the present moment we are anchored to another currency—our pound note and the British pound note have exactly the same purchasing power. If, in comparison to the British pound, our pound could depreciate, then you would get £1 1s., £1 5s., £1 10s., as the case may be, for the British pound note; but there is no such difference at present. They stand identical. As long as our currency is linked to the British currency, and as long as we have got resources which enable us to keep our pound note in equality with the British pound note, there can be no inflation in this country differing from any inflation that goes on in Britain, because the amount of money in circulation in Great Britain is immensely large in comparison to the amount of money in circulation here. As long as we have resources which enable us to keep our pound on terms of equality with the British pound, I do not see how inflation of our currency can come in, nor how our pound note could have a different purchasing power in this country from the British pound note.

So far I have dealt entirely with matters which other speakers raised in this debate. Now, I am about to branch off into a completely different matter, which directly affects the general policy of the Government, and especially the conduct of An Taoiseach himself as head of the Government. On the first day on which the House assembled after the recess, Deputy Tadhg Murphy put a question to An Taoiseach. The Minister for Lands had made a speech which, as quoted in the Irish Independent of the 29th September of the present year, ran as follows:—

"It was the Government's intention to resume the policy of intensive land division at the earliest possible moment. While the fruits of Government policy should go, other things being equal, to Government supporters, no I.R.A. record or support of the Government justified the giving of a farm to a man incapable of working it."

Now, when the question was put by Deputy Murphy as to whether An Taoiseach stood over that statement of the Minister for Lands, An Taoiseach answered that he did. Here is the statement that An Taoiseach said he stood over—that, in the distribution of land,

"other things being equal, the fruits of Government policy should go to Government supporters".

Is not that the very point I am coming to? Here is a Minister who states that, other things being equal, Government supporters should get land. Does not the Taoiseach know that the Government have no right to interfere with the Land Commission in the distribution of land? When the Taoiseach stood over that statement, did he not know that, in order that it should be given effect, the Government, by their influence, would have to compel the officials of the Land Commission to violate their statutory duties? That was the very thing that was promised and the very thing which the Taoiseach stood over. The Government have no more right to influence the Land Commission in giving over land than any Deputy or any person in this community has. Here we have the promise by a Minister that the supporters of the Government, other things being equal, will receive preference—a promise stood over by the Taoiseach.

We were told by the Minister for Local Government that our Government could not be charged with corruption. When I find the voters of this State being told that, other things being equal, a preference will be given in the distribution of land to Government supporters, then I say that that is corruption. It is not corruption hiding, as corruption often does, in dark places and in the shadows, but it is corruption stalking in the broad daylight—corruption open, bold and unashamed.

Mr. Byrne (Junior)

I am glad that this debate has centred to a great extent on practical issues. Six years' membership of this House has given me the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the Taoiseach is no longer a practical man, whatever might be said about his past. He prefers, as a rule, to talk about such things as the theory that we shall never be a nation until everybody in Ireland is speaking a language which nobody outside Ireland knows. It is a good thing that the Taoiseach should have been here for the past few days to hear the common people, through their representatives, talk about bread, potatoes, shelter, heat, boots, coats, petticoats, babies' clothing, and the various other things which are the grave concern of women in Stoneybatter and Moore Street. Incidentally, the Taoiseach has given evidence recently that he is really concerned about one matter. His speeches about proportional representation and some other of his speeches show that he is really concerned about the loss of his majority in the Dáil.

It is my considered opinion that he would not have lost his majority—that he would, in fact, have come back with a bigger majority—were it not for two very grave blunders in the last Dáil—the wages standstill Order and the anti-Trade Union Act. Furthermore, I think he would have come back with far fewer members were it not that his Party agents succeeded in bamboozling not the men but the women of the country into believing that if Fianna Fáil were not returned bombs would shower down on Summerhill, Dominick Street, Patrick Street, in Cork, and so forth every night.

We have had a forceful and awful rise in the prices of the necessaries of life and this has been accompanied by only an infinitesimal rise in the family incomes of a small section of the population and no rise whatever in the incomes of a large section of the population. These factors have produced the grave emergency with which we are now faced—on the eve of the Christmas season. This emergency has not cropped up overnight. It has grown gradually over the past four years because prices have gone up and up and wages have been kept down. As a result, there is hunger, famine and starvation and children in Dublin are naked. The small increases granted as a result of the elaborate machinery of wage tribunals are not worth a twopenny damn to the men who got them. To a man with a family, an increase of 3/- or 4/- or even of 10/- or 12/- is worth little. It is not anything like adequate compensation for the rise in the cost of things which his wife has to buy—the ordinary, every-day goods, especially food. A few paltry shillings do not compensate for the rise in the price of foodstuffs which are required for a family. They might compensate for the rise in the price of, say, meat. No Deputy will dare deny that a family is entitled to a certain amount of meat. The few shillings increase might compensate for the rise in the price of vegetables but, if it does, it allows no margin for meat or anything else. A few shillings would not buy an extra pair of socks. And what of those who have not got the few shillings a week?

What of the weaker section of the community—and they are by far the larger section—who are unorganised or who, though organised, are numerically too weak to make their voice heard above the clamour? Large numbers of shop assistants, turf workers, forestry workers, members of the nursing profession and so on, have not got a penny of an increase since the cutbreak of war. I have here a list of 17 men employed by the famous Great Southern Railways Company of Ireland about which we have heard so much during the past few days. This company speaks in terms of millions of pounds and its passenger receipts alone run into thousands of pounds. Seventeen men working as lock-keepers on the Royal Canal have, between them, £28 11s. The average is £1 13s. 7d. per man. One man has got £1 1s. 9d. while another has £1 3s. 9d. This sum of £28 11s. would be sufficient for only five families. Yet, it has to serve for 17. The total amount they receive is less than the amount given to three Deputies for devoting a small portion of their time to Parliamentary duties. These men have been refused by the railway company even a penny increase to meet the increased cost of living, which would amount to about £2 for a man and family. I ask the Taoiseach— what are men like those to do? They cannot go on existing as they are. Their families are being slowly starved. If these men cannot bear to see their families starve, they may give up their jobs and look for work elsewhere. But they will find that they will not get other work. They will be refused unemployment assistance and they will not be allowed to travel to Britain, so that they must continue to live on their miserable wage.

I should like to recall to the Taoiseach a famous expression used by him to the effect that if the system did not operate to give a measure of comfort to everybody, we would have to go outside the system. I think that the time has arrived when the Taoiseach should give serious consideration to the question of going outside the system so that everybody will have a certain measure of comfort, and so that employers will be compelled to pay a wage that will permit of a decent standard of living. The Taoiseach should immediately repeal the wages standstill Order and the anti-Trade Union Act. Any change in the system would be for the better. The old system of allowing—almost encouraging—workers to go on strike if they felt they had a grievance, though sometimes abused, had 99 per cent. merit. The Taoiseach should address himself to the total repeal of the standstill Order and allow things to adjust themselves.

There is one aspect of the increase in the cost of living to which I should like especially to refer—the cost and the lack of clothing. The increase in cost, according to the official figure quoted in the first instance by Deputy McGilligan, is supposed to be 90 per cent. since August, 1939. But I think that the prices of the everyday drapery goods which the housewife has to buy have gone up not by 90 per cent. but by 200 per cent. Many thousands of women find it absolutely impossible to buy children's clothing, particularly, at the prices demanded to-day. That is a very grave situation, especially having regard to the severe weather experienced during the past week and the possibility that it may continue for a few months.

It is a grave national emergency. We have people going round almost naked. If there is no clothing available, we cannot assist the people. The main thing is that the price of what is available is beyond the reach of the people. I seriously suggest to the Taoiseach that, as in the case of fuel and food, he ought to inaugurate a clothing voucher scheme to ensure that everyone will have a minimum of clothing. A very serious point in this connection is that many persons who, at other times, depended on getting old clothes from better-off citizens, more fortunate citizens, are not now getting such clothes. The citizens who, in the past, had old clothes to give away, are now making their clothes last longer. They are getting suits and coats turned, patched up or repaired, and in very many cases the clothing of the older members of the family is being cut down for the junior members. People who never adopted that practice before are now doing these things. In some cases they yield to the temptation to sell old clothes. I believe a second-hand suit in any kind of a decent condition will fetch a £5 note to-day. I think the Taoiseach, if not An Uachtarán, who has the power under the Constitution, should give serious consideration to this very important and urgent matter. Apart from considering a clothing voucher scheme, they might at least appeal to the people who always gave away their old clothes to continue to do so and not to hold on to them, if it is not necessary to do so, or sell them.

Mr. O'Sullivan

There was one subject very lightly touched on, a subject which I regard as important and which I am anxious the Taoiseach should address himself to. Quite recently I asked what plans the Government had in mind with regard to the post-emergency period and, in reply, the Taoiseach said that a committee of his Ministers, of which he was one, and one or two others, were sitting with Departmental chiefs on this particular subject and he indicated that activities might lie on a committee of agriculture, on the one hand, and possible works under the Electricity Supply Board and the Tourist Board. I consider that is quite good, but in my opinion it does not go far enough. I think there will be general recognition that Ministers on an important committee of this character could not possibly be expected to devote the time that would be necessary. Within the last few days there have been indications that Ministers are so preoccupied with their Departmental duties that they find it difficult to attend in the House. One can understand what that position means. In the last analysis, the committee now set up will obviously resolve itself into a committee of civil servants, and that does not inspire confidence as to the outcome of its deliberations on a subject of such magnitude. We have had committees of this character before, and the results have been positively disastrous. We had a committee on the very vital question of unemployment, and the only solution provided was the well-known rotation scheme of relief, which was nothing more or less than a confession of failure.

Having regard to the position which is certain to arise in the post-emergency period—and we have some samples of that at the present time—I consider it is absolutely necessary that if Ministers are to be associated with a committee of reconstruction of this character they should be released from their duties so as to be able to concentrate their whole efforts on the work that lies ahead. The Taoiseach might be well advised to make a break from past procedure in a matter of this sort and draw on this House, indeed on all sides, in order to constitute a committee of this character. He would be well advised to go outside the House for people with specialised knowledge on the subjects which are likely to come under review.

That has been done elsewhere with very good results. New Zealand, Australia and the Scandinavian countries, faced with crises of this character, have very wisely drawn on the pool of wisdom which their own Legislatures provide. There should be no question of pique or personal pride so far as the Taoiseach and his Cabinet colleagues are concerned in adopting a procedure of this character. I earnestly suggest, because of the urgency of this matter and the tasks to be undertaken, that a committee of reconstruction should be set up at once along the lines I have indicated. Coupled with the work which will have to be faced in the post-emergency period, they could very suitably link the conditions that at present obtain in this country and they might be able to provide us with instalments of their recommendations, so that the Government could come to the House to implement whatever recommendations may be made, particularly with regard to employment.

I ask for urgent consideration of this matter, because of the economic position of the country during the past eight or nine years. We are a creditor nation, on the one hand, with a relatively low national debt; we have a soil the fertility of which is the envy of many European countries and, allied with that, we have a relatively low population. Is it possible for this country to provide a standard of living for its 3,000,000 people based on its resources, a standard that would be considered a reasonable one? I suggest the answer to that must be yes. If so, why is it we have all the poverty, the misery, that has been mentioned in the course of this debate? That there is misery, no one will deny, and the emergency must not be pleaded as an excuse for the fact that conditions in our economic life are abnormal. Prior to the emergency almost a permanent pool of unemployment existed, with thousands of our people lining up at the exchanges and thousands fleeing the country. Does anybody suggest that that is a standard which we would like to attribute to a progressive country?

If steps are not taken to rectify that position, how will this country fare in the emergency which will certainly come upon us at the close of the war, when thousands of our people will, of necessity, be forced back to this position again? In the pre-emergency period there was a low standard of life for thousands of our people, and, I repeat, a permanent pool of unemployment as indicated by the figures from the labour exchanges. Alongside that was the question of our social services, of which we have heard so much. There are different definitions of what social services are. In the nature of things, we must have certain social services, of which any country might be proud, but I think there are certain aspects of social services that might very well be avoided if the fundamental was attended to. What I mean is that if regular work were provided for the father of a family who at times has to avail of certain social services—such as the provision of school meals for his children—he would not have to do that. The fact, at any rate, remains that in the pre-emergency period the standard of life for a lot of our people was low, and the standard of our social services was, in some respects, totally inadequate.

Recently we have heard a good deal of attention directed to the question of our social services in so far as they relate to widows' and orphans' pensions, blind persons' pensions, and old age pensions. My view of these pensions is that since the principle underlying the granting of them is admitted, they should be such as to enable the recipients to have a standard of self-sufficiency. That is the opinion held in other progressive countries, of whose social history I know something. But here, apparently, while the principle is admitted, the pension that is being paid is inadequate. The other evening the Minister for Finance said that while he was prepared to admit that the amount was not sufficient, he had to make the plea: "Where is more money to come from?" Members of the House are familiar with the conditions under which most old age pensioners have to live. I can speak from personal knowledge of them in the borough and urban areas, and I can say that, so far as this city is concerned, if it were not for the aid and the efforts of charitable organisations, thousands of people in receipt of this particular social service-would be definitely on the wrong side.

They are just able to maintain themselves on that margin which is available to them from the help they receive from charitable organisations. I suggest that is a degrading standard of life, and does not reflect credit on this House. The most serious question of all, in my opinion, is one that faced the country in the pre-emergency period. It is with us to-day and will continue into the post-emergency period, and that is what is going to happen in the case of the thousands of our young people who are leaving school and who, in a short time, will be entering on the employable age. I am sure every member will agree with me when I say that, if there is one problem more than another that confronts the country, it is the terrible position that faces parents as to where they may find employment for those children. I, and I am sure every member of the House, get daily requests from people from all parts of the country whose children have received a good education and have no prospect of getting employment. Steps ought to be taken now to put that matter right because otherwise, as I have said, it will continue with us into the post-emergency period.

The improvement of the national wealth is, obviously, the first duty of any country. That cannot be brought about while you have a permanent pool of employable but unemployed people lining up daily at the labour exchanges. I appeal to the Taoiseach to see that, having regard to the urgency of this question, and the experience of other countries that have settled it, such as new Zealand, Australia and the Scandinavian countries, it will be faced up to and will not be allowed to drift further: that there will be a revolutionary approach towards an overhaul of our economic structure so as to ensure that all our people will be able to enjoy a decent standard of life.

Mr. Liam Cosgrave

I do not propose to detain the House very long. This debate has ranged over a wide field. It has not, on the whole, been of much benefit in giving any indication as to how we shall solve the difficulties which confront us at the moment, and which, as the last speaker rightly remarked, will confront us in an increasing degree, not only during the continuance of the emergency, but when it ceases. I am practically of the same opinion as Deputy O'Sullivan, because I also was about to suggest the setting up of a committee composed of members of the House, and, if necessary, a joint committee of Deputies and Senators to be presided over, if the Taoiseach thought well of it, by a Minister for the purpose of making an investigation into all aspects of the situation which is likely to confront the country at the end of the emergency. As Deputy O'Sullivan said, I believe that Ministers have plenty to do, if they do it, in dealing with their Departmental work. The busiest member of the Cabinet, I suppose, is the Minister for Supplies and Minister for Industry and Commerce. I think it will be agreed that, of all the Ministers, he is the only man qualified to preside over an investigation into post-war conditions. If a committee of the Cabinet such as exists at present merely continues to get reports from such bodies as the Electricity Supply Board and the Post-War Committee on Agriculture, it will not be able to devote sufficient time to the study of these reports, nor will the reports present in their conclusions the desired changes that should be made. As the last speaker said, revolutionary changes are likely to be necessary to deal with the situation which will arise here at the conclusion of hostilities. To the ordinary individual, certain results which are likely to arise in that period already show themselves. One is the return of a fairly large number, if not all, of our emigrants. We possibly will not be able to prevent them from coming. They have every right to come back.

We may be able to delay demobilisation from the Army after the emergency, but we cannot prevent, nor have we the right, our kith and kin returning from England. Those people will come back with new ideas, and while they may be glad to get away from the situation in which they find themselves at present, they will have grown accustomed to different standards of life from those which they may find here. They will expect, when they do return, that some effort will be made to accommodate them in the post-war period, especially in view of the fact that during the emergency their own country was not able to provide them with a decent standard of livelihood or even with employment. I, therefore, think that the Government would do well to set up a committee such as has been suggested. I agree with Deputy O'Sullivan that no narrow-minded or prejudiced viewpoint should be taken into consideration in establishing whatever sort of committee is decided upon. If necessary, experts might be called in from outside. As most of us understand it, the function of a Parliamentary institution is to serve the interests of the people and the Government ultimately, but Parliament has a responsibility to discharge to the people who elected it. In other countries, including Great Britain, they have set up committees composed, I am informed, of Ministers. As they have a large number of Ministers they can devote some time to present problems. Despite the lack of wisdom displayed here during the progress of the debate, there should be Deputies and Senators available to form a fairly competent committee, to inquire into our position and, if necessary, they might prepare a report for the Cabinet, which could then decide whether it was desirable to implement any of their proposals.

We were asked for facts regarding the cost of living here and means of controlling it. In Great Britain where the inflationary tendencies are greater, and where it should not be possible to devote the same attention to the prevention of inflation, they succeeded in maintaining the cost of living at a lower figure than has been the case here over the same period. The figure here in August, 1939, was 173 and in August last 284, while in Great Britain, over the same period, the figure was 156 and 199. The balance of wisdom was undoubtedly shown on the other side of the Channel. While it is undesirable to have to look across the water for examples of how to do business, there are certain things which they seem to be able to do better than we can and for that reason I believe in looking any place for sound advice on the working out of our economic salvation. In agricultural production the British have increased production with more satisfactory results than has been the case here. The British Minister of Agriculture may exaggerate in his favour but the returns show good results. Undoubtedly, Great Britain had fertilisers, the necessary machinery and scientific equipment that we had not. The result here, year after year, seems to indicate deterioration in the standard of agricultural production. There may have been an increase in the acreage under wheat and in certain cereal crops, but milk production and supplies of butter and bacon have continuously declined. The average milk yield of cows here is infinitely lower than in Great Britain, although in many cases animals that were reared on Irish farms when sold to English buyers give increased yields.

I do not want to revert to the debate on agriculture, but I suggest that we should make inquiries in the Departments to see what methods the British put into operation to produce such results. All the information we have is that which can be gained from reports. Deputies have not the information which may be available to Ministers or to Departments as to the methods employed by other nations to increase production. Every Deputy agrees that the amount of agricultural wages paid here is inadequate to maintain a moderate standard of living, but the real difficulty is that production from the land does not enable farmers to pay their labourers more. Farmers are at present more prosperous than they were in the past but, taking the average farm, and the total average of wealth produced, they would be unable to pay much more than the present extremely low wages.

I may be asked what remedies are proposed. One Deputy suggested food subsidies. We are already paying a fairly heavy bill in that respect. Present production from the land does not warrant any increase there. If it is necessary to increase food subsidies, the cost will have to be paid at some stage. With production at its present level there is not any indication that we could afford to go on piling up debt indefinitely.

As the Minister for Supplies indicated yesterday, there will be a shortage of raw materials at the cessation of hostilities, and pretty keen demand from all parts of the world, particularly from the small nations, for whatever materials are available. I should like to have some indication from the Taoiseach as to what steps the Government are taking to secure for this country some allocation of raw materials, which will be just as urgently required here as in countries that have been ravaged by war. While speculation must naturally enter into the post-war situation we should try to speculate as wisely as possible. One opinion may be as good as another, but it should be possible to foresee what is likely to happen after the war. Possibly we have spent too much time looking back and wrangling over past disputes. It is regrettable that such should be the case, and regrettable that such disputes ever took place, but if we are ever to make any advance we will have to look to the future. The changes that are likely to occur at the cessation of hostilities may be rapid. Even the most pessimistic Minister will agree that the war is now four years shorter than when it began. Even when the Minister warns us that distress exists, at any rate we are four years nearer the end of our difficulties than we were in 1939.

While nobody has any idea as to when the war will end, it may end rather rapidly, and the position then which we will have to face will be one in which an increasing number of people will be returning to this country —returning to a situation in which insufficient food is being produced from the available arable land. It is the wonder of many, and a puzzle to practically everyone how, out of 12,000,000 acres of arable land, even during the emergency, with the shortage of materials, the shortage of manures, machinery, and so on, we are able to produce only barely sufficient commodities for ourselves. I think that before we are entirely engulfed by the return of the migrants, and by the fast-changing situation in the world, we should take steps to inquire into the situation. The Government should realise that it is their duty and the duty of Parliament to inquire into this situation and report on it, and not the duty of the people. On all sides, people are asking what plans, what developments, are being made for the post-war situation. There is no doubt that no Minister, and no person in the country, has the slightest idea of what the situation is likely to be, and I believe no member of the Government has any idea of plans to deal with that situation. I believe the Prime Minister, when replying, would do well to devote a certain time, and, in the meantime, certain consideration, to what the Government believes are the best plans to deal with the situation which will arise.

Mr. Butler

Reference has been made during this review to the work of nearly every Minister. A good deal has been said with regard to post-war planning, which, I think, is a very important matter. I might offer one suggestion in that respect—that is, that the parish council can play a very useful part in post-war reconstruction, if certain changes with regard to these councils are made. These councils, if properly used, and properly encouraged, can bring secondary education within the reach of everyone in the country. They afford a grand opportunity of bringing secondary education to adults, to those who failed to get the advantage of secondary training at the normal age. If the changes I suggest are adopted, these parish councils could go very far towards consolidating the work done in the primary schools with the object of restoring the national language.

It is my opinion that these bodies should be retained and used in the post-war planning scheme, to which so much reference has been made. I think these councils can do a great deal towards the restoration of the language. Much of the work we do in the primary schools with regard to the Irish language is lost when the children leave these schools. In order that these councils will be able to do these things, I am afraid they will have to be denominational, that is, that each parish, under its own pastor for each denomination, should have a separate council. I made a plea for that in another place shortly before these councils were set up. So long as they are undemoninational, there are difficulties because the parish boundaries do not coincide. To enable these councils to be of permanent use, parish halls would be required, and, in that respect again, there are difficulties, because various demoninations might require the parish hall for different purposes. The biggest difficulty, however, is this, that if they are to assist in the work of education and the work of restoring the language, they would require to be under the guidance of the pastors of the separate denominations. If that were so, I think a great deal would be accomplished, especially in the field of true secondary education. A great many people seem to be of the opinion that the great need is technical education. It is a great need, but secondary education is the education which can transform a country. It is the education which gives power, and I believe it is the most important of all the various branches of education.

Chó fada agus a chítear domhsa tá sé socruithe caighdeán sgrúduithe oifigiúla na meán-sgol d'árdú, go mór-mhór san Ard-Teistiméireacht. Thug cuid mhór de na hiomathóiri i mbliana —agus a lán múinteoirí—le tuigsint dom go raibh árdú soiléir sa chaighdeán. Acht ní hiad tuairmí na múinteoirí ná na micléighinn sin a thug orm tagairt a dhéanamh don cheist annso iniu. Sé toradh an tsocruithe sin in oideachas na tíre agus i sláinte chuirp agus intinne lucht freastail na meán-sgoil is mó atá ag cur as domhsa.

Cinnte is gá agus is tábhachtach caighdeán árd a bheith ann, ach is baolach an rud caighdeán atá ró-árd. Dá leantaí den tsocrú san do millfí fíor-chuspóir an oideachais—fás comhcheangailte na gcomhachtaí cuirp, aigne is móráltas an duine. Sé an baol is mó atá san chaighdeán ró-árd—nó béidir go mba chirte an caighdeán ródheacair do ráa, mar ní hionánn aoirde agus deacracht caighdeán—gurb é a chríoch an rud ar a dtugtar "cram" i mBéarla. Má thuiteann sin amach beidh thiar ar oideachas is ar shláinte chuirp aos óg na tíre. Tá fhios ag cuid againn—an méid dínn atá isteach is amach leis an meán-sgoil i mBaile Atha Cliath—chó righte is théigheann sé lenár mbuachaillí is lenár gcailíní óga—go mór-mhór leo siúd a ghnáthuíonn na sgoileanna lae. Is beag é maoin saolta furmhór a dtuismitheoirí, agus is rí-bheag é ag cuid mhaith dhiobh. Níl ar a gcumas an cothú is gá agus is riachtanach don dianoibridhe a thabhairt dá gcúram.

Ina lán des na sgoileanna ar a mbíonn na daoine óga seo ag freastail toightear na mic léighinn is éirimiúla aigne agus cuirtear ag obair ar a seacht ndícheall iad d'fhonn go mbainfi amach sgrúduithe. Tugtar isteach roimh am ar maidin iad, coimeádtar déanach sa tráthnóna iad agus go minic tógtar isteach arís fós iad. Mar bharra air sin bíonn obair theinteáin le déanamh aca a choimeádann gnóthach go meán-oíche iad agus uaireanta tar a éis sin féin. Ní fíoroideachas é seo ach a mhalairt ar fad agus más gá géarú air, d'fhonn an caighdeán nua árd do shásamh, beidh an donas ar fad ar an sgéal. Creideann na sgoileanna agus na múinteoirí atá páirteach san obair seo gur ar mhaithe leis na sgoláirí atáid. Táid dúthrachtach agus dáiríbh gan amhras ar domhan, ach tá breail orra.

Ní bheidh mar thoradh ar scéim oibre mar sin ach tuirse intinne is laige intleachta, agus, má ieantar de, díobháil agus lot seasamhach. Eireóidh leis an sgrúdú ach loitfear an duine óg. Bheadh leithsgéal éigin do scéim oibre mar seo ar feadh tréimhse gairid roimh sgrúdúcháin. Níl aon leithsgéal dó thar tréimhse fhada aimsire. Ba cheart dian-chosg do chur air san mheanchúrsa go hiomlán. Ach féach go mbaintear úsáid as ina lán sgoileana chun an chéad áit in Eirinn do bhaint amach in adhbhar amháin nó i sgrúdú éigin fé ieith, no chun an chéad áit d'fháil in iomlán marc i sgrúdú.

D'fhonn an duais deiridh sin do ghnóthú cuirtear d'fhiachaibh ar mhic léighinn uimhir mhór adhbhar sa mbreis do dhéanamh. Tá aithne agam féin ar bhuachaill go raibh air aon adhbhar déag do thógaint san árd-Teistiméireacht. Níl aon deallramh leis seo, agus ba cheart teóra seasamhach áirithe do chur leis an méid adhbhar sa mbreis is féidir do mhíc léighinn ar bith a dhéanamh.

I am raising a question here now which is not so spectacular as some of the questions raised during the last few days, but I think it is quite as important as any question that has come up. The raising of the standard is entirely unnecessary in this country. The standard has always been high. That is accounted for by the fact that there are few industrial openings for our young people and, therefore, they have to concentrate on these examinations. I said that a high standard is a good thing but, if the standard is put too high, it defeats its own ends. It destroys the true ends of education. It takes the whole liberal content out of education. It leads to cramming or grinding, and that is simply death to true education. The results are dissipation and exhaustion of the intellect and, unfortunately, these results are lasting. I think that, if anything, our schools and colleges have overworked their pupils. The physical strain imposed very often lasts through life. A member of my own family when at school many years ago was roused at 4 o'clock in the morning with other students and they were given a cup of black coffee to enable them to start work at that unearthly hour. I know that that is not a usual thing, but things are very bad from that point of view.

I have been serving on committees of various sorts since I was 21 years of age. I have had contact with people who have been educated in the most widely diverse schools and I say that the people who are most constructive and most helpful and who have the greatest power of initiative are people who were never subjected to that cramming. Cramming will get an examination very possibly, but it will spoil the pupil. I think that is a very bad thing. There is a limit to what our young people can endure. It is like a piece of elastic. When you pull it, it will stretch but, if you pull it beyond a certain point, the whole elasticity goes out of it. That is the way it is with our pupils. Unfortunately it is the most promising and the most brilliant of them who are very often subject to this overwork. They are ruined and spoiled. They may get the examination, but they lose the power of versatility and the initiative that true education should give. I am very convinced of that. In my opinion, over-grinding and over-work in the schools, especially at the secondary age, is permanently damaging to the pupil.

We know how severe the pressure is in the Dublin schools, particularly in the day schools. All of us have experience of it. We know that those brilliant children picked out to get examination results are brought in long before the usual hour in the morning, and that they are kept until a later hour in the evening than the normal hour. Very often they are brought back again for a further grind, and then they are loaded with home work which keeps them going until 12 o'clock at night, or the small hours of the morning. I think that all that is simply terrible. The new and higher standard that has apparently been settled upon has resulted in intensifying that cramming and grinding, and I think the results will be permanently very damaging to our children, and consequently to our country. I admit that most of the teachers who indulge in that sort of work are doing it with the best intentions in the world. They think they are acting in the interests of the children, and very often that they are doing it out of charity. But it is mistaken zeal, and mistaken charity. There should be a definite limit put to the amount of work piled on to young people, particularly at the secondary age.

We know how intensely these schools are advertised. We know that if a school can advertise the gaining of a first place in a single subject, a first place in an examination, or the highest total number of marks that can be secured in any examination, it tends to attract pupils to that particular school. I have already admitted the earnestness of a great number of these teachers, but I am afraid that it is for the purpose of advertising that a great many of our schools exploit their pupils. I think it is a dangerous and a bad thing. There are a certain number of subjects necessary for an examination, and a certain number of extra subjects may be taken. The more of these extra subjects you take the more the marks will pile up. The result is that an unfortunate child who should be grappling with half a dozen subjects at the most, is loaded up with 11 or 12 subjects. I am afraid the whole reason is to pile up the highest number of marks at a particular examination for the glorification of a particular school.

Cramming may be excusable for a short time coming up to an examination. It may be excusable and admissible because it is necessary, but to have cramming applied for the whole period of a child's education is simply ruinous to that child, and, if persisted in all over the country, ruinous to the country itself. There is no getting away from that. Therefore, I should like a definite limit set to school hours and, above all, a definite limit set to the number of extra subjects that may be taken by any particular child in secondary school examinations.

An Ceann Comhairle

Do dhein an Buitléireach cur síos ar mhion-rudaí a bhaincann go dlúth le cúrsaí oideachais, rudaí nach raibh in ordú sa díospóireacht so. Ba lease liom, ámh, cur isteach air toisc gurab í seo an chéad uair dó labhairt sa Dáil. Níor mhisde dom, b'fhéidir, a mhíniú nach bhfuil ceaduithe do Theachta an rud ceudna a rádh sa dá theangain.

That being the Deputy's maiden speech in the House, I was relucant to interfere but, obviously, the particulars of educational matters, with which he dealt, are not relevant to this debate. I may also point out that it is not permissible for a Deputy to speak in either Irish or English and repeat what he has said in the other language.

Mr. O'Donnell

There are just a few little things on which I desire to speak.

An Ceann Comhairle

Not so trifling as to be out of order?

Mr. O'Donnell

No, Sir. Perhaps all my geese are swans and all my swans are geese. The question of pedigree cattle was alluded to yesterday. I think there is a great future in that. In some of the Northern towns, Cookstown and small towns in the County Tyrone, very big prices are being obtained for pedigree cattle at the present moment. There is also the question of greyhounds. I think that is quite a big industry and, when this war ends, I would say greyhounds will be in demand in every city in the world. I can visualise that it may equal or outrival the horse industry and the cattle industry. At the moment very high prices are being obtained for dogs. Dog breeding is not confined to town, city or country. A dog can be reared in a back yard in a town. There is plenty of money in dog breeding, and if an advertising campaign were started in regard to this matter, as a kind of post-war scheme, great benefits would ensue. I suppose Tipperary is the pioneer of this industry. Alderman Morris has produced a very useful stud book. Formerly the Irish dog was regarded as a mongrel. Now, he is accepted as the best dog in the world.

These are really the only things with which I have to deal and I am much obliged to you, Sir.

Mr. Flanagan

During the past few days in this House we have discussed the economic position of our country. We have not heard from the Ministers who have spoken—the Taoiseach has not spoken yet—any plan by which they intend to remedy the situation or improve conditions in this country.

In 1926, the Taoiseach himself said that he had a plan that would end all unemployment—all the poverty, emigration, and the other national ills of of which we are victims to-day. He had this plan, according to himself, in 1926, and in 1932 he was going to implement his plan and put it into practice. The Taoiseach has been 11 years in office since that time, and he has not put his plan into operation, and we had one of his Ministers telling us yesterday in this House, in effect, that there was nothing they could do to stop emigration. It is high time that the Taoiseach and the Government should go to the Irish people and not be deceiving them any longer. They should say to the people: "We are sorry; our hands are tied, and we can do nothing to stop the tide of emigration or to end unemployment, or the hardships, misery and destitution under which our people have to suffer at the moment, and which exist in the homes of the Irish people to-day." I am one Deputy who comes from the heart of the midlands, and I know very well that throughout the length and breadth of this country there is nothing but want, misery, hardship, and hunger in the homes of our people. How can we expect anything else but hunger to exist in the homes of old age pensioners who are supposed to be able to live on a pension of 10/- a week, when we know that 10/- a week is not sufficient to keep these people? With regard to people who are living on home assistance, or unemployment assistance, I can say, as a member of a local authority, that I know very well the circumstances of these people, and that they could not possibly exist on the amount of relief that is given to them. I know that that applies all over the country as well as to the particular area that I represent. These people cannot possibly live on such allowances, and the Government has done nothing to improve that situation.

As I have already said—and I do not like repeating myself—it is about time for the Government to tell the people that they can do nothing for them because they are not in a position to do it. Why should not the Taoiseach tell our people what the actual position is in that regard? I believe that the Taoiseach is an honest man, but I think that he has a bad gang of Ministers around him.

An Ceann Comhairle

Ministers should not be referred to as a gang.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

The Deputy should withdraw that remark.

Mr. Flanagan

I know very well that it is impossible for the majority of the Irish people to live on the land at the present time, but it always seemed very strange to me that there should be in this country about 12,000,000 acres of arable land and that, notwithstanding that, we were not able to feed our people. We are told by a great economist that one acre of land should be sufficient to produce enough food to keep alive one person for a year. That is what I learned. Now, our population has gone down to about 2,500,000 and, although we have 12,000,000 acres of arable land at our disposal, there is still a shortage of food. That is very puzzling to me, and I think it shows clearly that there is something wrong with the policy we are pursuing here. The fact that, after four years of war, we are still in such a position, shows, to my mind, that there must be something radically wrong with our economy, and I should like to know what the Government have done, or are doing, to remedy that situation.

The Minister for Agriculture was down in my constituency during the week. I heard his address to the farmers of my constituency, and he placed before those farmers the exact position. I quite agree that he placed before the farmers of that district exactly what the position is, but he did not tell them how that position could be remedied or improved, and I suggest that the reason he did not do so is because his Government cannot remedy or improve the position. I will go further and say that if, in the morning, Clann na Talmhan, Fine Gael, or the Labour Party, were in power in this country, they could not remedy the situation either. I will say that even supposing I had a Party behind me, and that we were elected to office to-morrow morning, I could not remedy or improve the position either—simply because it is the system that is wrong, and not the men who are elected to office. There is no use in changing the men, unless you can change the system. This is the eleventh Dáil, and not one of these Dála, since the inception of the State, has produced anything to improve the lot of our people or to remedy the hardships and poverty under which our people suffer. It is the system that is wrong, and not the men. I would suggest that the position is more or less on a par with that of an old pair of trousers: the more you patch the trousers and repair them, the worse they get until, eventually, you have to throw the pair of trousers away. Similarly, in regard to this system, the more you try to repair it or improve it, the worse it will get until, eventually, you will have to scrap it altogether. That is why I am pointing out that it is the system that is wrong.

You have the very same kind of thing happening in England. Deputy Norton spoke here yesterday about pre-war unemployment in England, and rightly so. In England, before the war, you had millions of unemployed people marching through the streets of Liverpool, Manchester and London, carrying banners and placards bearing the inscription: "We want work; we are starving," and the poor lay outside the railings of Hyde Park in a starved condition, while the banners and placards pointed out that these people were dying of hunger. They appealed to the Government of England for help, but the British Government, in effect, said that they could do nothing for them. Is it not strange that the hunger of these people could not be satisfied, or that people who were anxious and willing to work could not be put into employment, because no money was available to put them into employment, which was what the British Government said at that time? We saw where a coffin was carried into Downing Street as a protest when millions of pounds could be found for war expenditure.

I have pointed out the terrible conditions that existed in England before the war, where no money could be found to put people into employment or to relieve the hardships under which they were suffering, but the curious thing is that the moment war broke out millions of pounds could be found in England for the destruction of mankind, for the destruction of food, and for the destruction of Almighty God's gifts to man, although no money at all could be found in peace times to provide work for the unemployed. We have the same kind of thing in this country.

No, he is not there now, but I say that if the Irish Government would issue credit, in the way that was suggested in that document, we would have no poverty, hardship or debt in this country.

I bow to your ruling, Sir. There are a few other points to which I should like to deal before concluding, and I shall not delay the House very long. It is only a few years ago since I was going to school. I remember that in 1936, in the national school where I was taught, there were 439 pupils on the roll. Quite recently I walked into that school, and I found that the total number of the roll was 206. That reveals a very serious situation, inasmuch as it indicates that the population is rapidly decreasing. How can it be otherwise? There is very little encouragement given at the moment to remain on the land. It is the ambition of every young man in rural Ireland to get away from it as quickly as he can. Deputy Norton told us last night that a woman in his constituency had written to him thanking him for getting her husband away to England. I think that it is a very sad state of affairs, having regard to the fact that the family is the unit in a Christian community, to see a wife expressing thanks for the fact that her husband has been taken away from her to work in a foreign land.

The position has deteriorated to an extent which I think the Government do not realise. Members of the Government, I am sure, do not mix amongst the ordinary people, and they do not know the feelings of the people in the country, or even in the cities. Deputy Larkin and the Lord Mayor of Dublin have told us about the conditions that exist in the city. I wonder are the members of the Government aware of those conditions? I am convinced that they are not aware of them, because they are taking no steps to improve them. Generally speaking, there is quite a lot of useful work that could be done in this country, but we are told every time we put a scheme of any importance before the Government that it is a matter for private enterprise. There is an abundance of coal, the best coal in the country, to be found down in parts of my constituency and part of Deputy Hughes's constituency. Representations were made to the Government and to the Taoiseach with a view to seeing that State money would be provided for the development of these coal mines. Nothing, however, was done, and we were told that it was a matter for private enterprise.

What is private about what is going to be for the good of the nation and the benefit of the community in general? It is the duty of the Government to see that State funds are provided for the development of our mineral resources. The coal is there still, and experts can prove that it is as good coal as can be found anywhere at the present time. Yet, we have men leaving that area and taking the emigrant ship for England. They are forced to do that, and it is the rottenness and the corruption of Fianna Fáil that has forced them to it. They told us in 1926 and in 1932 that they had a plan and that they were going to bring the emigrants back. The wheels of industry were to be put in motion, and the country was to be turned into a land flowing with milk and honey. We were going to live in Paradise in this country. We have never seen the fulfilment of that promise, and I am afraid we never shall see it until the Government puts itself into a position to work for the people.

At the present time, as I have repeatedly said in this House and outside, the people are beginning to see things in their true light. They are beginning to see that the Government is powerless. When I was through my election campaign, the first thing I did was to educate the people to these facts. If the people are educated to these facts, they will be able to see for themselves a way for getting over the difficulty which they have found it impossible to surmount up to the present. Thére is no way of getting over that difficulty without control of our own monetary system. I may not be able to deal with the question of credit and monetary reform in the eloquent manner in which Deputy McGilligan dealt with it. I am only a labouring man, and I just see what is wrong as it appears to me, but I know very well that until the position is rectified it will be impossible to provide a solution for our present problems. Deputy McGilligan is one of the philosophers of this State, a B.L., and all the rest of it, but I never set any value, nor did the plain people of Ireland, on K.C.'s, B.L.'s, doctors, professors, or barristers. It is up to the plain people of Ireland to be educated to enable them to see what is wrong, and they are beginning to see what is wrong. The fact that I was elected to this House indicates that the Irish people are beginning to realise that they must have control of their own credit and break the connection with British sterling. That is the reason I was elected to this House. Deputy Cogan sat in this House a lone bird for five years, but when the last election came on, he brought back 12 or 14 members with him.

I am here in this Dáil a lone bird after this election—maybe, in time to come I will sit over in those benches, and then be in a position to do what the Taoiseach absolutely refuses to do. Although he thought in 1926 that everything was in apple-pie order, and that the moment he walked into this House everything would be rosy for the people, he soon discovered he could not do it. There is no use in talking about planning for after this war—there is only one correct plan, and that is to issue our own currency.

Very well. I am still hopeful that the Government may learn from speeches like those of Deputy Norton, Deputy McGilligan and Deputy Larkin, that they can rectify the whole position if they wish.

On the question of prices, the Clann na Talmhan Deputies tell us the farmers are not getting enough, and the Labour Party tell us the agricultural labourers are not getting enough. I quite admit that the agricultural labourers are not paid enough. The Minister himself told us in this House that he has no power to give them an increase in pay, that there is a board appointed for the purpose.

It is the duty of the Government to see they are paid a decent, living wage for performing the most important duty that any man in this State can perform at present—namely, the production of food. It is strange that there are people who cannot get the necessities of life, while we Deputies can have everything we want—boots, clothing and shelter—simply because we have £480 a year. Is it not strange that the very people we represent are those who are in misery and want?

The position is very bad and will have to be remedied sooner or later, as it has gone to such a pitch that the people cannot bear it any longer. Deputy Cafferky, Deputy Maguire, probably Deputy Esmonde, and other Deputies living outside the city must have noticed, when travelling by train to this House, that there were whole weeping families standing at each railway station. That exists all over the country to-day, and thousands of the finest manhood are leaving because, according to the Government, no work can be found for them. Yet, we have work and food for all, if we only go the right way about providing it. Time and again I have planned various schemes and sent them to the Government and to our county manager. The reply always was that they were very sorry, but could not implement them because of the shortage of money.

Apart from the shortage of money, there is another way of curing unemployment—that is, one man, one job. A Deputy last night asked the Taoiseach to relieve a certain Minister of his post, because he had two posts, and asked if the Government could not get another man in the Party with sufficient brains to shoulder the responsibilities of Minister. Being a member of a local authority, I have had enough experience to know that the county managers throughout the country are appointing people to jobs who have other jobs, and that unemployed applicants are not considered at all in this matter.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a question for the Taoiseach, and perhaps not for any other Minister.

Mr. Flanagan

It is a matter in which the Taoiseach should interest himself. It was his policy in 1926 and 1932—one man, one job—but to-day that is forgotten altogether. I am very sorry that Deputy Gorry is not in the House at present. In our constituency I know a certain case where a woman accountant to the Offaly County Council was appointed by the county manager to a small job as secretary to a drainage board at £130 a year.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is a small individual case and obviously not general policy.

Mr. Flanagan

I agree, but what takes place in my constituency is liable to take place all over Ireland. I look upon it as a matter of grave national importance. I am glad to see that Fine Gael is blessed with the brains of one man, Deputy McGilligan, who see that we can issue credit. When coming into this House, I thought that very few Deputies had studied the question of credit. Deputy Briscoe has informed me quite recently that, years ago, he studied monetary reform and the need for reform of the present banking system. There are Deputies who know about these things and, no matter to what Party they belong, they should pull together in the interest of the suffering mass of the Irish people. If they are sincere at heart, they should bring about this reform. It is the only way to end our ills.

Ministers in this House have gone away from the question and are trying to evade it in any shape or form; but it cannot be denied that hunger stalks this land to-day, from Donegal to Cork and from Dublin to Galway. Our manhood is dribbling away every day and nothing faces us but ruin, while the death of the Irish nation comes closer and closer every day. It is up to the young men of Ireland to save the Irish nation from complete extinction, as it seems that this Government will not do anything for them. We know very well that all the people want is to live and be let live. All any Irishman wants is to stop at home, to have food and work and to have poverty abolished.

Mr. Bennett

Having listened to most of the debate, and having heard Deputies from the other side of the House and from every section and class in the House expounding their views, I have come to the conclusion that it was a pity we had not, at the commencement of the emergency, some form of government which would compile the policies outlined by the various sections of Deputies who have spoken here. We might have faced up to the emergency with a greater prospect of success if we had had such a form of government operating for the past four or five years. So much has been said about the shortage of supplies, the rise in prices and unemployment that one finds it difficult to add anything new. In the general discussion on the rise of prices and shortage of supplies of food, reference was made to the part agriculture has played and it was suggested from some parts of the House that the farmer was, without putting it too bluntly, the villain of the piece; that the attitude of the farming community had raised food prices to such an extent that it was difficult for the ordinary citizen in the towns and cities and the ordinary, low-paid worker to exist. That, to put it mildly, was an unfair way to argue the matter. I should rather proceed on the lines on which the Minister for Supplies proceeded yesterday when arguing for a section and not for the community as a whole.

The Minister made his case yesterday for the manufacturers and retailers on the question of supplies and prices. He said that they did everything possible to maintain production and prevent a rise in prices. He mentioned that there was a meticulous examination into the affairs of the manufacturing and retailing sections as to the amount of capital involved, labour costs and overhead charges, and that a fair proportion of profit was determined and a fair price for the goods arrived at. We, of the agricultural community, ask no more and no less of the Minister than he has done, or pretends to have done, in regard to other sections of suppliers. For many years I urged that if it was necessary to take account of the position of manufacturers and retailers, it was more necessary to take similar action in regard to the largest and most essential suppliers—the farmers and their workers. Was an attempt ever made to investigate the real position of agriculture? A loose attempt was made, of necessity, in recent years to give a price approaching the cost of production, but no real attempt was ever made to approach the position as it ought to be approached. No attempt was made to ascertain the amount of capital the farmer had sunk in his land, how much capital was represented by stock, and what were his overhead charges in respect of rent, taxes and so forth. No effort was made to ascertain the sum paid in wages. I might interject here that the agricultural worker in this country was paid less than workers in a similar capacity in any of the countries that make up the British Commonwealth of Nations or the U.S.A. None of them paid its agricultural workers as low a wage as we did. If a computation such as I suggest had been made of the general agricultural economy, the position might not be as bad as it is now.

I listened carefully to the Minister for Supplies in his analysis of the position of manufacturers and retailers and it was an education to me. I hope that, now or in the future, an attempt will be made to carry out a similar investigation with regard to agriculture. If such an investigation were made, the demands by agriculturists would not be equivalent to the demands made by other sections when their affairs were being considered. I saw recently in the Press that, in an examination as between wholesaler and retailer, a profit of 33 per cent., or even 50 per cent., was not regarded as excessive. That was the profit as from wholesaler to retailer and not from manufacturer to retailer. We do not ask on behalf of the agricultural community any such percentage even on articles on which we have a yearly turnover, as against the daily or weekly turnover in industry. It may be that 33 per cent. is a necessary profit on the articles produced by these industrialists. I am not arguing that it is without justification. It is probable that no lower profit would suffice to meet their charges. But was an attempt made to give agriculturists 33 per cent. or 25 per cent. on produce sales or even 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. on their capital outlay, taking into account rent, rates and wages paid, small as they were? Did the agriculturist receive any interest on his capital at all during those years? No attempt has been made to consider that matter in its true light. I do not say that, in the last year or two, the Government has not been forced to make some return to the farmers. They have done it grudgingly.

The Minister for Supplies rather admitted that yesterday when he spoke about wheat prices. He said that he tried to provide necessary food for the people by giving the farmer a little extra for his wheat. That was given directly to the farmer. The Minister added that that price did not suffice and that every Party, every public body and every agitator in the country implored him to allow a further increase. The effect of the appeal made by the Parties, the public bodies and the agitators, of whom I was one, was to compel a second increase in the price of wheat. The Minister was afraid to face the consumers and tell them that wheat could not be produced at the original price. He explained that he had to increase the price of flour, and, incidentally, the price of bread. Instead of giving a direct addition to the price to the farmer for his wheat, the Minister adopted a camouflage policy. He subsidised the miller, so that he might, perhaps, give a cheaper loaf and a cheaper bag of flour to the community. Why the camouflage? Why was it necessary, in the second instance, to depart from the policy at first pursued of giving directly to the farmer whatever was allowed by way of extra price? The farmer does not seek to have any camouflage whatever as regards anything done for him, or that may be done for him. There was no necessity to depart from the practice of passing on directly to the farmers whatever benefit this House thought fit to give them by way of increased price. But the Minister adopted the policy of subsidising a body of industrialists—the millers—and relying on them to deal fairly with the people. Did the Minister make any investigation to see that the sum this House voted was fairly administered by the millers, or that the taxpayers got value for it? The millers were subsidised to the extent of £2,000,000 to give the rest of us a cheap loaf on the understanding that they paid, last year, 50/- a barrel for wheat, and that next year they will pay 55/-. That was the condition on which they got the £2,000,000—that they paid 50/- a barrel and supplied flour at the fixed price. In their tillage advertisements the Government said to farmers: "Grow more wheat, and the Government will give you 50/- a barrel for every barrel you grow —a guaranteed price." The millers were left to implement the guarantee. The millers are subsidised on the understanding that they pay the farmers 50/- a barrel for their wheat. Do they pay 50/- a barrel?

Donnchadh Ó Briain

More.

Mr. Bennett

If an investigation were made of the average price paid for wheat, would it be 50/-? I know of cases where 4/-, 4/6 and 5/- less than 50/- was paid for wheat. Every Deputy has knowledge of cases in which wheat was bought by the millers at less than 50/-. I raised this question in the House last year and, when the Minister for Agriculture and, later, the Taoiseach came to my county, I raised the question again. Belatedly, I got a concession last year. The representations I made were not made generally here, as Deputies will recall. The Minister, seeing that a case had been made, was prepared to meet the situation by reducing the stipulated bushel weight of wheat from 60 lbs. to 57 lbs., so that the millers would be compelled to pay the farmer the full price for any wheat that bushelled 57 lbs. Having gone so far, I appealed to the Minister to go the whole hog and to take the matter out of the millers' hands. If he did not do that, I asked him to provide that every bushel of wheat grown by a farmer and sold to a miller to be converted into human food would be paid for at the full price—50/-. Nobody expected the millers or the country to pay for wheat that could not be used for human food. In the situation in which we were, with whole-wheat bread, good and bad wheat mixed, and presented to the people in the form of a loaf, the necessity for proceeding on bushel lines ceased to exist and it was only fair that any wheat accepted for the purpose of producing bread should be paid for at the full price. The bushel arrangement, when manufacturing 100 per cent. flour, should have been ended. I told the Minister that, having gone so far as to reduce the bushel to 57 lbs., the millers would find a way out of the difficulty; that when he made the bushel 57 lbs., they would drop to 55 lbs. or, perhaps, to 53 lbs. I know of cases where they have dropped, to 53 lbs., but I do not want to go into that matter now.

Mr. Harris

Would the Deputy say that if wheat which bushels 57 lbs. gets the guaranteed price, wheat which bushels 60 lbs. or 62 lbs. would not be entitled to a higher price?

Mr. Bennett

In normal circumstances it would be admitted that wheat bushelling 60 lbs. or over would be worth more to the miller than wheat bushelling 57 lbs. I never argued here that there was no such thing as good wheat and bad wheat. I never argued that we could grow wheat as good as that of any other country.

Mr. Harris

If a man whose wheat bushels 56 lbs. or 57 lbs. is entitled to 50/-, will not the man whose wheat bushels 60 lbs. or more have a grievance if he does not get a higher price?

Mr. Bennett

There might be something in the Deputy's argument in the days when we did not mill 100 per cent. extraction of wheat. Good wheat, really heavy wheat, bushels 60 lbs. and over. When we were making the real white loaf there was a less percentage of offal for the miller in that type of wheat than there was in the inferior wheat, so they paid a greater price for the higher bushelling qualities of wheat. But when we proceeded with the policy of milling wheat of 100 per cent. extraction the argument ceased to exist. The wheat when milled was presented to the people as uniform quality flour.

Mr. Heskin

I do not agree with Deputy Bennett. His argument would go to show that the people in the towns and cities should be satisfied with any muck, and I do not agree with that. I agree that the farmers should get a good price for wheat, but the people should get a decent quality of wheat in return, to be put into bread.

Mr. Bennett

In peace times, in the days when we did not produce so much wheat, I was anxious to get the best loaf that could be provided for the people at the cheapest possible price, and even then I was not enamoured of the policy of wheat-growing in this country because, being a man who knew something about wheat, like the Deputy, I knew that we could not grow wheat of as good quality as they could grow it in other countries. I was aware we could not approach the quality of the Manitoba wheat and we could not produce it at the same price. In order to give the poor of Dublin and of other cities and towns—the people to whom the Deputy refers—the best possible loaf at the cheapest price, I felt we were proceeding on the wrong lines, and I think so still and I am at one there with Deputy Dillon. I think we did proceed on the wrong lines. Some Deputy may ask: "Where would we be now if Deputy Bennett's advice was taken—would we not be in the wilderness?"

I have always argued that the consumer must get the best possible commodity at the lowest possible price, but when we reached a period of emergency it was a different matter. We had to arrange for substitutes as best we could, and the growing of wheat in this country for the last three or four years was only by way of substitute for the wheat we used to import. Deputies may argue that it was not, but I say that it was. Therefore, when we get to normal times again it will be very difficult to continue with the scheme of economy we are at present pursuing of providing for our own flour requirements. I believe demands will come from the people for whom the Deputy speaks and they will require a better and a cheaper loaf than we can provide.

The Deputy raises the question whether the man who produces a high quality article should not get a better price than the man who produces an article of lower quality. I agree, but when the Government offer 50/- for millable wheat, the farmer has a right to get it, and for every bushel that the millers bought for milling purposes— wheat that was good enough to mill— they should not have paid anything less. The millers should have been compelled to pay the millable price, but in all cases they did not do so. I sold wheat bushelling 53—at least the miller said it was 53. I know as much about wheat as the next man, and I say it was 59 or 60. I represented that to the millers, but with them I had no case; they had my wheat. That applied to inferior as well as superior wheat. I had no redress. They said it was 53 and I hold it was 60. I have still a little of that wheat left for seed—it is good enough for seed—and I am prepared to let any Deputy sample it.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Can it not be tested independently?

Mr. Bennett

I will give some of it to the Deputy, and he can get it tested. I am talking about something that I know, and I am trying to rectify the position. The Government, having made this arrangement, I suggest that the £2,000,000 voted to give the people a cheap loaf ought to be properly expended and it should not be possible for the millers to be subsidised on the supposition that the growers were getting 50/- when, in fact, in some instances they were not. The Minister said he was forced by the agitation of Parties here, of public bodies outside, and of agitators like myself and the Deputy, to give-a fair price to the farmer, and he said it became necessary to camouflage it. If the Government faced the situation in the way they ought to have faced it, acting fairly as between the producer and the consumer, without any camouflage, and if, as with other producing sections in the country, they had a full investigation as to the costings in the agricultural world, taking into account capital, overhead charges, fair pay to the labourer, and some recompense to the small or the big farmer who acted as director of operations, the dissatisfaction which exists would not have arisen. The man who runs a business, and who is worried day after day carrying on that business, gets some recompense for his time, energy and trouble, but that does not apply to the farmer.

The conditions that apply in the case of wheat apply also in the case of butter. We are short of butter. We might not be short if the Government proceeded differently in the opening stages and made a thorough examination of the position, but they would not do so. As regards wheat, they began with 30/- and then proceeded to 40/-, 45/-, 50/- and 55/-. The amount went up by leaps and bounds, grudgingly moving on like a snail to Jerusalem, and I do not suppose they have yet reached the limit. The agitation started by Parties, public bodies and individuals like the Deputy and myself has not ceased, and it will not cease until the investigation I have demanded has taken place, and it has been proved to the public, to the consumers, that the farmer is not getting anything beyond his due—and he is probably getting less. He has certainly not got anything like the return for his capital expenditure that people engaged in other forms of enterprise have got. Eventually, some measure of retribution had to be made to the great providers in this country. The Government were forced to do that of necessity, but it was done grudgingly after they had been pursued by agitators and Parties. The result was that gradually production lessened. The Government could not get what they demanded because they would not pay for it. We had a shortage as regards essential commodities. If, in the first instance, the Government had agreed to give the 55/- a barrel for wheat that they are paying now, as well as the present prices for milk intended to be converted into butter, the situation would not be as it is to-day. If the 55/- a barrel for wheat had been given in the early days, the required quantity of wheat would have been produced, and, for obvious reasons, it would have been easier to do it then than it is now. In that situation the people could have been provided with a fairly good quality white loaf. I do not say that the best possible loaf could have been provided, but one of fairly good quality could have been made available if, at the start, fair treatment had been given to the growers of wheat.

That, incidentally, would have benefited the community in other ways. It has been said that there has been a shortage of other essential commodities, and that this has driven up prices to such an extent that they are beyond the capacity of many people to purchase. I do not believe that consumers would have grudged it if, at the start, the Government agreed to pay a fair price for wheat. If that had been done, the country would have been spared the necessity of bringing in wheat from foreign countries, not at the prices originally fixed for home-grown wheat—30/-, 35/- and 40/— but at £3 per barrel and sometimes £4. That wheat was brought in in ships which the country had to pay dearly for. Those ships could have been better employed in bringing in other essential commodities which the people needed, that would have made an inroad on the shortages which have since arisen, and which have had the effect of forcing up prices to such an extent that the poor, the middle classes and the lower classes are not able to buy many things they need. If, in that way, we had been able to increase our supplies of imported goods we could have avoided the black-marketing. All that could have been done if proper consideration had been given to these matters by the Government at the beginning of the emergency.

We had some speakers saying that subsidies were applied generally to the farmers. Whenever the word "subsidy" is used in this House, one could take his oath on it that the subsidy relates to something that is being given to the farmers. I want to tell Deputies that we are all being subsidised, rich and poor, middle class and worker, the pauper and the man on the dole. Perhaps it would be correct to say that the rich are being subsidised to a greater extent than any other class. But what is the reason for that? The policy pursued by the Government. There is no class in this country that is not being subsidised. In the case of the manufacturers who have got protection, we can see by their balance sheets that they have done well out of it. When, however, protection is applied to agriculture, it is called a subsidy. One would think, from the remarks made by some Deputies, that a subsidy is a terrible thing when compared to protection. But it is the same thing whatever name you put to it. The Government pursued a policy of partial protection. That cannot be done with success in any country because it is impossible to protect one section of the people against another and not have trouble. They tried to apply it to industry. We had industries getting a measure of protection ranging from 33? per cent. to 100 per cent., but when the Government did that they did not take into account the effect it was going to have in causing a rise in prices for almost every article that the farmer needed. It led to an increase in the overhead charges of the agricultural community, so that during the emergency the Government were forced, because of the rise in prices, to come to the help of the farmer. They found that his position was a parlous one. The conclusion to be drawn from all that is that you cannot have one section of the community protected against the rest. Therefore, protection has to be applied generally, and the Government were forced more or less to do that.

We had an increase in the cost of home assistance and of other things. All that had its root cause in the policy pursued by the Government. I do not say that we can get rid of this policy very quickly. Many people were induced, by the policy of the Government, to put large sums of money into certain classes of business, and you cannot wipe all that out by a stroke of the pen by this or any other Government. I do not think that this policy can be departed from speedily either now or in the near future. Therefore, recognising that you cannot, all that you can do is, having applied a policy of high protection to certain sections which in turn brought about a rise in the prices of the essential articles produced here, you cannot end there. You must bring the sections left out into such a position that they will be able to purchase what they need in their occupations, if they are not consumable articles, so that they will be able to continue in their particular line of business. That is the crux that we have had to deal with during the last eight or ten years. That is why we have had the flight from the land to the already overcrowded cities and towns, until the point was reached that large numbers of those seeking accommodation in the cities and towns were unable to find it, and had of necessity to cross the seas where there was a better hope for them of getting employment.

Some Deputy referred to a shortage of agricultural labour. In certain places there was that shortage. There was not such a shortage of labour in the County Limerick as in other counties. In my county, in many places, the corn crops were in such a condition that they could not be harvested with machinery. The old method of the scythe and binding by hand had to be resorted to. Taking that into account, as well as the unfavourable weather, we succeeded in saving the crops and in getting them threshed. I have observed, when travelling up in the train, that they did not do so well, in some of the great tillage counties.

County Limerick, as Deputies know, is a non-tillage county. In the last three or four years tillage has been forced on the people there, and even though the job was not an easy one, they succeeded in doing it. As late as this week, when travelling up in the train, I saw tons of hay which were cut last June still out in the fields in the County Kildare. I should imagine that only some cwts. of it would now be fit for animal consumption. That was probably due to a lack of labour. These unfortunate people in tillage counties, of whom it has been said that they were the great providers of labour, were short of labour because, as I argued many times in this House, tillage is no solution for the employment of agricultural labour. Limerick was one of the counties with least tillage until the emergency arose, but because of dairying and mixed farming, that county had sufficient labour to be able in some way to do what other tillage farmers found impossible. There was a shortage of labour in places. Why should there not be? Otherwise the Minister for Supplies would not make the statement he made yesterday. He said he was pestered with appeals from all Parties including his own and from every public body to redress that situation. Having been pestered all he could do was to give in little by little to what he should have done at the beginning, thus enabling farmers to produce at a profit, to give their workers decent wages, as well as providing some return for capital invested. That was not done. The most farmers could do was to pay their labourers a niggardly wage. It was 33/- and it is now 36/- weekly.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

That is the minimum wage. Any farmer could pay £2 or 50/- if he wished.

Mr. Bennett

Any farmer can pay £10 a week if he wishes. There is no compulsion on him to pay less. Many farmers pay more than the minimum wage. If Deputy Ó Briain recalls what happened during the last war he will find that agricultural labour was contented, because the farmers spent the extra competence they gained then. I am willing to admit that there was no limit by a foreign Government to the profits they could get, any more than amongst other sections. That foreign Government did not proceed on the lines adopted now. If industry, traders and farmers were making money then, it was passed on to the workers and to the community generally. There was fair prosperity all round. I have spoken longer than I intended, but the interruptions provoked me. My original theme was that the Government should have proceeded in regard to agriculture on lines that the Minister for Supplies outlined yesterday. He told us that he made a minute examination into the intricacies of the manufacturing world, into the position of retailers, having regard to capital invested and overhead charges, as well as fair provision for labour. He then decided to fix prices. The agricultural community probably asked for less than that. I asked on behalf of the agricultural community that some form of accountancy should be adopted in regard to their difficulties, including an investigation into the amount of capital invested, overhead charges, rates, rents, the amount sunk in stock, as well as provision for labour, so that the wage would not be the niggardly one of 30/-. Farmers should also be allowed something for their own work, and some little provision for interest on the capital they had expended. I do not want to have wages fixed at 33/- or 36/-. Let the community decide that so that it is understood that food can only be produced at a certain price but not less. If I know anything of our people there will not be any grumbling at that decision.

There was an outcry when the price of butter was raised to 2/6 per lb. I know that some people cannot get butter at that price. If I could send 1,000 cwts. of butter to any store in Dublin to-morrow to be sold at 2/6 or 3/- per lb., would not that store be besieged by customers? That would be the position in a free market. All farmers ask is to be treated in the same way as other sections of the community.

Deputy Norton stated that it was probable there would be a shortage of potatoes in the City of Dublin this winter. I believe the Deputy was speaking the truth, and that what happened this year will happen again in February or March next. What occurred in Dublin this year should never have occurred. If farmers were told last November or December, that it was probable there would be a shortage of plain food for citizens who could not provide for themselves, and if they were appealed to, to reserve a portion of their supplies for delivery to the Minister at certain places in February or March, they would have done so. I tell the Minister now that if an appeal is made to farmers that there is likely to be a shortage of potatoes in Dublin at a given date, and if they are asked to put aside a portion of the crop for delivery to the Minister at a fair price, I say there will not be any shortage. The more I heard during this debate the more I realised the necessity for having some form of Government during the emergency that would include all that is best on all sides of the House including the farmers. I have as much right to speak for the farmers as any Deputy on the Farmer' Benches. If there was in control here such a Government which could discuss our difficulties, their conclusions could then be carried out, and we would have been saved the necessity of this debate.

Mr. Maguire

This debate has covered a wide range of subjects, but, after listening for two days to the debate, I am left more befogged than before I came into the House as to where the solution of our problems is to be found. We have had the case of the farmers very ably and eloquently put by Deputy Bennett and many other Deputies. The whole theme of those who speak for the farmers is that they are subject to conditions which make it very difficult for them to do their duty as farmers and, above all, that the reward they get for their labour is not commensurate with the efforts they have to make, and that there is unfair competition as between the wages paid in their industry and the wages paid to workers in other industries. I do not propose to suggest that that is not so. It is so, but the solution of the farmers' grievances is: "Give us more money for our products; give us the means of paying higher wages to our families and to our labourers."

We listened, on the other hand, to the advocates of the industrial workers, the civil servants and other employees, pleading their case and telling us that the cost of living has risen since the emergency began. The demand is made again that the Government are failing in their duty because they have not met that serious depression in purchasing power which the fixed wage earner, be he civil servant or other employee, has to suffer in respect of his ability to buy the necessaries of life compared with some years previously. The solution again is: "Give us more money."

We move on to other problems raised in respect of the various social services we administer. It can with much force be argued that the pensioner with 10/- per week is just as heavily handicapped and hit just as hard by the change in prices in recent years as any of the workers or professional people, whether these workers be farm labourers, civil servants, or industrial employees. In this connection, too, there is nobody in the House or outside it who could justify a stand against the just and fair demands made on behalf of every one of these people. Their position has worsened since the emergency, unless they were in the happy position of those whose incomes are substantial enough to cope with increases as they arise, or in the happy position of people engaged in business where the profits can be increased to meet the increased cost of carrying on the business.

We have the same case for the widows and orphans, the same case for increased dole, and the same energy and force in these demands must be admitted. The demand will probably be made in the very near future that the proposed children's allowance of 2/6 for every child after the first two children is not sufficient. That is significant. The immediate answer of the present Minister for Finance, of his predecessor, and of Finance Ministers going back as far as we can remember government, whether controlled by the people of this country or by people outside, has been the same to every demand made. Finance will reply: "Where is the money to come from?" I think the solution must be found in a different direction from that of looking to the Minister for Finance to supply it.

Instead of concentrating on increased allowances for unemployment, could this House and the Government not concentrate entirely on abolishing that position? Increased dole allowances are no solution for the needs of the unemployed man and his children; increased family allowances are no solution; increased old age pensions are no solution; and increases to labourers, to workers, civil servants, and all the rest, are no solution if, at the same time, there are not increased proportionately the goods we require, whether unemployed, old age pensioners, widows and orphans, or potential family allowances beneficiaries.

So long as the mentality of this country is one of placing all our belief in the power of money and of looking to the Minister for Finance of this or future Governments in the belief that he can solve our problem by issuing new money in increased quantities, each section will continue to demand, and to enforce according to the strength of its position, an improvement in that position to the detriment of other sections who are not sufficiently strong to enforce their demands. It is the Government's duty to ensure that increased production is made available here in sufficient quantity to meet the needs of every individual in the country, and, somehow or other, I suppose, to make available the necessary funds to the different families to purchase the goods we now have in stock.

The problem of the Government and of the House to-day is not one of increased money, not money allowances which might easily leave millions of people starving, as they are starving in parts of the world to-day—money will not prevent that happening—but of the provision of those things which are necessary to maintain life. These are the things which are of importance. Why not consider here by what means we are to produce this increase in foodstuffs, clothing, housing accommodation and every other commodity which is essential? It can be done only by scientific approach. It can be done only by applying to our agricultural production the most scientific methods our scientists can devise.

The Taoiseach, who is here, is also Minister for External Affairs. We have in foreign countries representatives who deal with diplomatic matters and trade. In many of these countries, our representatives have very little to do so far as trade is concerned, but if they were selected for their ability to watch and to follow the advance of science in the respective countries, I am sure they could, with great advantage, pick up information as to the most modern appliances for the production of seeds, for soil treatment and for production in the industrial field. Many countries have specialised to a very high degree, as I know having read about them, in the matter of the application of science to industrial and agricultural production, and if that type of information were procured for us by our Embassies in these countries, it could be of great advantage to us.

I am satisfied that if progress is to be made in this country, if solutions for our problems are to be found, there will have to be increased production of every essential in this country. There will have to be increased output per unit, with the adoption of the latest machinery and more attention on the part of the operator. There will have to be a more scientific approach to work on the farm, in the way of soil examination, application of suitable manures and the production of seeds, having regard to the different conditions under which we have to operate. That is the line that the Minister for Finance and the various Ministers responsible for administration in this country should concentrate on rather than by giving, under pressure, an increased dole here, an increased grant there, and an increased degree of protection somewhere else. If that does not increase the commodities we are short of, then we are merely remaining in the wilderness and speaking idle words.

Then there is the question of family allowances. There will be a long discussion on that and I am merely referring to it in this general debate as an instance. There again, we are dealing with the effects and not the cause. We are dealing with the effects of what has been an obvious and outstanding thing for years in this country. We see the falling averages in the schools and we see the declining population. For years we have noticed the late marriages and the small families. Now we come along with family allowances. Was there not a greater need for family allowances when families were larger? This is an attempt to deal with the effects and not the cause. Why not try to deal with the cause? Why not try to deal with the economic conditions that have largely contributed to that state of affairs that now has become a national menace and has forced the Government to take notice of it? How is it to be dealt with?

I have often in this House urged the claims of people whom I consider to be the most necessitous and deserving, people who will give the greatest return to the nation for any money spent upon them. I am referring to the people in the congested areas. I charge the Government and past Governments with almost wanton neglect in connection with the problem of the congested areas. It is true that the Government have here and there introduced migration as a remedy for that problem. I want to say that there was no attempt at unfairness or political influence in connection with that. I was a member of the Government Party for years and I can say that there was no attempt at applying anything like political influence in dealing with the migratory scheme. There was an attempt made to deal with that serious problem of congestion in the west and in the south. I am speaking of it from my knowledge of it in the west.

The conditions in the west in my young days resulted in emigration to the United States of America. I live convenient to a railway station and, as a boy, when I went outside my house on many mornings I saw boys who were friends of mine, and who attended the same school, being seen off on the train on their way to America by their fathers, mothers and sisters. I thought that under the new conditions in this country there would be some redress for that. But I witness the same kind of scene each morning I go to the train on my journey to Dublin from my home in Mohill. What is the difference between sending them to America then and sending them to England now? As long as the conditions in the congested areas remain as they are that will continue. I may not be as impressionable now as when I was a youngster, but others will have the same feelings as I had then, because emigration will continue and our railway stations will continue to present a scene of heart-rending sorrow on the part of fathers and mothers when they see their boys and girls leaving this country. Where is the possibility of employment for them in this country?

Representatives of labour in this House speak only for labour where it is organised in big cities such as Dublin and in some of our big towns. They demand and are able to secure better living conditions for the workers, and all credit to them. But what about the unorganised workers down the country, the unorganised farmers living on a few acres of land who are cold to draw the dole for a few months in the winter and are cut off the dole for the rest of the year? These people are the most hard-working and industrious in the whole of Ireland. Their sinews have been made taut by hard work. Out of land which was covered with heather and where there was apparently nothing in the way of soil they have very often managed to produce sufficient food to rear large families. These are the people to whom land should be given. They are people who understand the working of land and have the energy to do it. While I repeat that, to my knowledge as a former member of the Government Party, politics were not introduced in connection with the division of land, I say that there should be a standard applied where land is divided at the expense of the State and new farms are created. There should be some test of the ability of the men to whom holdings are given. If that test were applied, the disgraceful national blot in connection with the congested areas would very soon disappear, because we would have men placed on the land who understood how to work it and had the courage and ability to do it.

There was a matter mentioned yesterday which related to insurance in connection with the Roscommon County Council. I refer to it only because I am an insurance broker and the name "Maguire" was mentioned in the debates here. I was asked this morning in this House if I were the person referred to, and I can say that I am not. I carry on business under the name of Maguire's Insurance Service, Dawson Street, Dublin. I have no connection whatever with an insurance broker of the same name in Claremorris. I know him and I must say, from a pretty intimate knowledge of him, that he is a man of high repute and character and honesty in the conduct of his business. Another firm of brokers was mentioned, namely Messrs. MacDonagh and Boland. I refer to that matter now in order to clear it up. I refer to it because, from the course of the discussion here, it might be understood by the general public that there was some sort of racketeering or ramp in connection with this matter of insurance brokerage.

Reference was made by the Minister for Local Government to the fact that £100 odd was put to the credit of the Roscommon County Council as a result of the good management of the secretary of the county council, who acted as agent, while the firms of MacDonagh and Boland, Dublin, and Maguire, Claremorris, were acting as brokers. From the statements made it might appear that there is a considerable amount of loose money in this business of insurance brokerage and that those engaged in it have access to very easy money. That is not so. The fact that £110 is placed to the credit of the Roscommon County Council is, to my mind, wrong. It should not have been. The sum of £110 may represent something to the ratepayers of Roscommon but if the secretary of the Roscommon County Council can act as insurance agent on behalf of the ratepayers, there is no reason why he should not act also as agent for the purchase of coal, meal, flour, groceries and every other commodity going into that institution. If he does that, of course, he will save more money for the ratepayers. But, in the case of Roscommon there is something which requires further explanation; that is, the suggestion that a letter was sent to the county councillors indicating to them that their insurance business should go through the two brokers whose names were mentioned. Assuming that the secretary of the Roscommon County Council has been saving money in insurance for the ratepayers, let him save money also along the other lines I have indicated and let a letter be issued to all concerned that two suppliers, two bacon curers, two milk producers, two of every other group of people, only, shall be allowed to supply. If these conditions prevail in any council in the country, I defy the powers of the Taoiseach—whose standard of honour is well known—and also his Ministers'—to prevent public opinion rising to assert that it will overwhelm any organisation that attempts to carry on public affairs under those conditions.

The writer of that letter to the Roscommon County Council indicated that those two brokers should be the brokers to whom the business was passed. That man's name should be known. If there is a scandal in it, it is he who is responsible and his name should be made known. Apart from that, the brokers mentioned, I must say, personally, are reputable people who, in my honest opinion, would not engage in any underhand schemes.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I anticipated that this debate would have finished yesterday, and I had not intended to speak. I heard such a number of very interesting points raised by Deputies on both sides of the House that I felt I should examine them myself. In the short time at my disposal, I propose to deal with some of the points raised. I understand that on this Vote the main purpose is to take stock of the national position, and that, by agreement with the Chair, the debate has been restricted, particularly, to a discussion of the cost-of-living index figure and its reactions upon the position of our people. I will try to confine my remarks in those directions. I take it that, in carrying out a national stocktaking, we have to try to ascertain how, with all the resources available to us at a particular moment, we fared in the past, or how, with our present resources, we are faring now, and how we hope to fare in the future. We have to consider how we may provide, with what the nation can procure for itself, a decent subsistence level for our people in food, fuel, clothing and housing.

Deputy Cosgrave (Senior), in opening the debate, took a very fair line in examining the cost-of-living index figure, and the implications of inflation and its effects upon those of our people who are unemployed at times, those who are continuously unemployed and those who depend almost exclusively upon the social services of this State. He quoted the cost-of-living index figures as published in the Trade Journal. By implication, he sought to prove that the Government had not controlled inflation or kept the cost-of-living index figure at a level comparable with the cost-of-living index figure in Britain. We know very well that the British Government, on the outbreak of this war, took pattern by their experience in the last war. They moved very quickly to control inflation. They adopted methods well understood by all of us. They took power to control wage increases, increases in profits, to increase taxation, to ration commodities, to impose price control, and so forth. Our own Government did likewise. It would appear, by implication at least, from the remarks of Deputy Cosgrave and other Deputies, that the British Government were more successful than ours.

I have always found difficulty in arriving at a standard. I have waded through figures many times and I found tremendous difficulty in relating the value, for example, of our social services to the value of social services in continental countries, in Great Britain and in the United States of America, because they are so varied. Some of them are direct. Some of them are indirect. Similarly, with respect to a burden of taxation, it is always very difficult to get a common basis whereby one country's position can be compared with that of another. But, in view of the loose manner in which reference has been made to the cost-of-living index figure, it may be worth our while examining its real meaning. I do not intend to repeat what is stated in every number of the Irish Trade Journal as to what exactly the cost-of-living index figure represents. Every Deputy can read that for himself. I take it the same explanation of the index figure applies in Britain. I do not know whether or not the index figure there covers the same type and quantity of commodities. I do not believe it does. The figures given by Deputy Cosgrave and other Deputies are correct with respect to the actual increase—28 per cent.—in the cost-of-living index figure in Britain, as published. The Statist of November 13th, 1943, says that the figure with respect to the cost-of-living index and wholesale price increases and increases in wages, do not tell the whole story; while the cost-of-living index is regarded as obsolete. Now, if you turn to other figures which were given, and which may be a better index of the actual position in Great Britain, as it is covered by very strict governmental control, and if you take into consideration the tremendous amount of money that is hidden away in internal subsidies, at least we have a statement published by this very reputable journal as regards the movement of wholesale prices over the four years, 1939 to 1943, and it will be found there that the wholesale prices movement during that period shows an increase of 71 per cent.

But, lest it should be thought that that is not sufficient, I will give you the figures, as given by the Board of Trade Journal, for the years 1939 to 1943, that is from mid-August, 1939, to 13th November, 1943. It will be found there that the percentage wholesale price increases, compared with August, 1939, were: cereals, 102 per cent.; meat, fish and eggs, 44 per cent.; other foods and tobacco, 79 per cent.; and the average increase, with regard to all these foodstuffs and tobacco, would amount to a total of 74 per cent. With regard to industrial goods, the figures are: coal, 58 per cent.; cotton, 67 per cent.; wool, 80 per cent., and other textiles, 77 per cent.; building materials, 44 per cent.; industrial materials, excluding fuel, 85 per cent.

Now, if I am making a mistake I should be very pleased if any Deputy would show me how those figures could be related in any way—as has been glibly mentioned—to the increase in the cost of living in Great Britain, judged by the cost-of-living index figure. Of course, the position in Britain is that there is tremendous control and that the spending power of the people is tremendously restricted. There is very strict rationing there. There is a purchases tax, compulsory saving, and very heavy taxation, generally, and if we get down to the more comparable standards of what a person is able to get, in the way of fuel, food, light, clothing, housing, and so on, judged by my experience from many talks with men who have come home from Britain on holidays, I think there is no getting away from the fact that our common standard in this country is better.

I am aware that, in Dublin City at the moment, amongst the poorer of the working-class people and the unemployed, and those in receipt of home assistance and other forms of assistance, there are children suffering very grave hardships for want of clothing, food, heat and light. Light may sound queer to some Deputies. Last night I was in Foley Street; two women were talking to me and one of them said: "Mr. Byrne, they are charging sixpence for a penny candle and we have to light the candle every night in order to keep the rats away from the beds."

The Taoiseach can certainly say he has done his best in the matter of housing. I am a member of the Dublin Corporation which, for many years, has been doing its best to provide houses for the people. We have not been able, since the outbreak of the war, to get the material necessary to continue building, or even to repair, houses. The people in the tenement quarters in Gloucester Street, Seán MacDermott Street, Willet's Place off the Glorney Buildings area, North Gloucester Place, and Upper and Lower Gardiner Street, are in the plight I have described. The housing conditions there are bad and the lighting conditions are bad. As regards heat, it is true that the Government have provided the people with turf, but turf is not sufficient fully to meet their requirements. For two days in the week they were without turf, without fire of any sort. They have no money to buy turf. The authorities charged with the responsibility of distributing relief apparently have got it into their heads that they are there to see how little they can give the people, not how much. I feel sure the Government would rather see the people treated reasonably in this connection than have them suffering.

Many of the people are cold and miserable, and in some cases hungry. They have barely enough to keep body and soul together. They shiver in the evenings and, lately, there have been appeals for blankets. Little bits of things they call blankets are worn out. I have seen blankets cut up to make clothing for the children, and these unfortunate people are then left without blankets at night time. I have seen children dressed in sacks. I have seen dresses made out of sacks in Seán MacDermott Street, two minutes away from the brightly-lighted streets of Dublin, from the biggest cinemas in the country, from everything that goes to make the country look prosperous.

I will pay the Taoiseach the tribute that he has done much to relieve the situation, but what has been done is not sufficient. Clothing, food, shelter, heat and light are required. It is a shame to see children walking round in their bare feet these cold nights, and almost hungry, and the local authority is trying to see how little instead of how much can be given the parents of those children. Thank God, the Minister will bring in a Children's Allowances Bill. It will be very welcome to many of our people.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should reserve his welcome for next week.

Mr. Byrne

The question of the possibility of shortages was referred to by a number of Deputies. I would ask the Taoiseach to make sure that there will not be a shortage of milk, potatoes or bread in this city during the coming months. In the event of a shortage, we know that the first to suffer will be those with small means. I am aware that the Taoiseach is keenly interested, and I would like to see all these grievances remedied.

I want now to deal with the question of children's clothing. In the debate yesterday a Minister asked some Deputy why he would not offer some suggestions as well as criticisms. I want to repeat a suggestion that I made some time ago, namely, that the Government would put up in some fund the sum of £100,000 so that 100,000 suits of clothes and outfits could be prepared for boys and girls and sold to necessitous people at about £1 each, the purchasers to be enabled to make repayment by weekly instalments of 1/-. There is no use in telling me that that could not be done. I think it could. If necessary luxury cloths might be sacrificed for the benefit of those who are going around in washed out rags, cold, shivering and, in some cases hungry. I put forward that suggestion for boots and clothes for people who are in urgent need of them.

I appreciate what is being done. I think that the provision of widows' pensions, the introduction of the new Bill for children's allowances and the issue of vouchers all represent a step in the right direction. The only fault I have to find is that there is not enough being done. I appeal on behalf of those who are in need and who can be seen any day or night within 100 yards of O'Connell Street. The sights to be seen would almost bring tears to one's eyes, especially in the tenements to which I am brought. Yesterday, two women who were about to be evicted came to me and asked if I could do anything for them. I got the evictions postponed, but could do nothing further. One of the women told me that her daughter, who was to be evicted to-day, gave birth to her eleventh child yesterday. To make up the rent, her mother had to dispose of her boots. I know that these things should not be mentioned in an Assembly such as this, but they are the things that count, and that arouse the sympathetic Ministers we have to do the right thing for such people.

Other Deputies have had the same experience. I know that I am not the only one who hears the grievances of unemployed people or that tries to assist them. My only fault is that the allowances that are made to the poor are too small. I suggest that the Government would be well advised to appoint a committee to see what could be done to give assistance to the poor and to prepare for the homecoming of 150,000 persons who are at present sending £6,250,000 home, but who will not have any work when the emergency ends.

Sir John Esmonde

I wish to refer to the general policy of the Government. Having listened from the commencement of this debate, whether the speeches came from the Opposition Party or from Ministers, they left me under the definite impression that the state of our country—I will not use the word dangerous—gives great cause for disquiet. From my experience of statements made here, both by way of criticism and in answer to criticism, I think they do not reveal an exaggerated state of affairs so far as they exist. I believe that the present economic position of our country is due to three main causes. I will put the blame where I consider it to be due. The obvious cause is the war and the welter of ruin and destruction that is taking place in Europe and in other parts of the world. The greater part of our economic ills are undoubtedly due to what has come to be known as the emergency. The second factor is that I believe the Government have not tackled problems that exist, independent of the emergency, or that arose out of it. That brings me to the third point, the system of Government which obtains here, as a result of Government policy. We heard a great deal from various speakers in the debate about the good things that flow from democracy. I have sat in this House for a little over six years and I have watched this Assembly functioning. I have followed debates like this very carefully, and I have come to the definite conclusion that our system of Government is the very opposite to the real principles upon which democracy should be based. I do not think there is any club or group that does not elect a committee that is truly representative of the pulse of the people.

I have come to the conclusion that the worst thing we ever did was to adopt, as part of our Parliamentary institutions, something that belonged by right, by tradition and by experience to England. So far as the salvation of this country is concerned, I consider that to have been entirely wrong. A system of Parliamentary Government grew up in England for historical reasons as a result of the civil war there at the end of the 17th century, and the coming into being of two big Parties, known as the Whigs and Tories. Parliamentary tradition and constitutional usages exist in England and, as a result, Parliament functions with a Government and an Opposition. Having borrowed that system, which, I suggest, is an entire misfit in our present institutions, we did not go the whole way in copying it. We should not try to have it both ways. The system of Parliamentary Government in this country has failed. The system was borrowed from England and was suitable in England, but was unsuitable here. If we borrowed it, why do we only use it half-heartedly and apply it in a certain way? Since the commencement of this century, the Parliamentary system in England has practically been abolished, and every crisis was met by bringing to their problems a majority opinion, by way of an appeal to the best brains. I have great respect and great regard for the Taoiseach as a man of honour, integrity and high ideals, and I ask him, in the interests of this nation, to be great enough to abandon the stand he has taken on national policy, and to alter the decision that this country should be ruled by one Party and by one Party alone.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is quite a new issue.

Sir John Esmonde

I admit that it is high Government policy.

An Ceann Comhairle

A completely new issue, raised at the eleventh hour of the debate.

The Taoiseach

There would be a nice debate on that.

Sir John Esmonde

I agree. I will pass to the next point. I am interested like other Deputies in Government plans with regard to post-war reconstruction. Deputy O'Sullivan referred to an answer he received on that matter to a question he had on the Order Paper. I understand that there exists a committee, composed of members of the Government and some others, who are making a certain approach to post-war problems. We see that in England, a country engaged in a life and death struggle, Lord Woolton, the Minister of Food, has been taken away from that Ministry and has been given not only a new Ministry, the Ministry of Reconstruction, but a seat in the Cabinet, and that at the height of the war. I think we should take a lesson from that, and should appoint somebody to deal with the devising of plans in relation to the problems of reconstruction. We always wait until it is too late. We set up our Departments at a time when these Departments can least usefully function, because they have to build their houses when the time for digging and laying the foundations has passed. If there is any Department which requires to have its foundations well and truly laid, it is a Department of post-war reconstruction or of post-emergency reconstruction. Such a Department, I submit, should be in existence and functioning now, so that the House and the country could give it all the assistance it might require with regard to future plans.

I do not think anybody has put forward any correct solution of the ills from which this country is suffering, and I suppose many people indulge in wishful thinking that, when the emergency has passed, everything will get back to normal. Constant reference has been made to those of our fellow-citizens who have had to seek their living abroad. I do not blame any man for going abroad to earn a decent living, if he cannot get it at home, but there is coming in to this country, to the families of those who were in employment here and who are now abroad, larger sums of money than the total wages which these workers earned before they left. That is having a very great effect upon our economic life.

I wish to make a suggestion to the Government in that connection, which perhaps overlaps my remarks on post-war reconstruction, but which I think is relevant to the question of future planning and is certainly relevant to the questions of dealing with our present economic ills. There is coming into this country a sum of £6,250,000 per annum by way of remittances from workers in England. That sum finds its way into various shops and various places. It is spent on food and lodging, but eventually it must finish up somewhere, and the result is that there is available plenty of what is known as money. Nobody in the House seems to agree as to what money or credit is, but on paper there is piling up every year a sum of £6,250,000 which did not exist at the commencement of this emergency. In addition, there is plenty of other loose money available. We had an instance the other day of the Limerick loan, which was subscribed practically before the lists were opened.

There is plenty of loose money which can find a home to-morrow, and I suggest that the time is now ripe for the floating by the Government of an enormous loan, of as large a loan as could possibly be thought of in the circumstances, for laying the foundations of our work of reconstruction. I do not think that any country which had the vision or foresight to provide enormous sums of public money, in the interests of the public good, ever had reason to regret doing so, provided the money was properly used and the works properly carried out. The South Americas, the North Americas, and those of the European countries which sought to exploit their internal conditions properly, never had reason to regret doing so, so far as the provision of work and the increasing of wealth were concerned. This country is unexploited at the moment. We all have different opinions as to how it should be exploited, but it is unexploited at the moment. If other countries can spend the enormous sums which they are spending on war, we should at least capture this floating money of ours and offer to the Irish public two inducements—the inducement of cupidity, the appeal to their pockets, of a safe investment, at a low rate of interest, if you like, and the opportunity of contributing in some way towards the lifeblood of the country, towards improving the economic life of the country and the status of its citizens.

Mr. Cafferky

I rise to take part in this debate, not for the purpose of attacking the Government, but for the purpose of putting before the House a few points which I feel are worthy of consideration. The reason I do not intend to attack the Government is that I feel that the Government have very efficiently for the past ten years attacked themselves. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney spoke of a statement made by the Taoiseach at a particular meeting, at which he was supposed to have said that the fruits of Government policy were to be given to Government supporters. I would suggest that Government supporters are fully entitled to the fruits of Government policy, so far as I know them, and no Deputy on the opposite benches should be at all worried as to where they go. The fruits of Government policy can be stated in three words—unemployment, poverty and emigration—and I doubt if any Deputy wishes to take those fruits and give them to his supporters.

We have heard in the past, we hear at present, and perhaps we shall hear in the future, of Government plans and programmes, of what they have done, are doing and are about to do. During the administration of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government, many young men, including myself, due to the propaganda with which they were fed, believed that the Government of that day were not efficient, that they lacked the foresight to put into operation an economic policy which would give certain guarantees and a certain degree of social security. The present Government, or the Party who are responsible for Government policy to-day, through their promises and the accusations which they levelled against the Government of that period, received a mandate from the people. They received that mandate because they promised that they would solve the unemployment problem, that they would solve the emigration problem, and that they would bring about social security for every man and woman in this State. I know it can be said that the reason we have not social security and the reason we have emigration and unemployment is because of the war and the effects which the war has created in this country. Is it not a fact that from 1932 to 1939 thousands of physically fit young men and women had to leave this country to seek a livelihood elsewhere; that the policy of the Fianna Fáil Party is not capable of keeping them at home and giving them the necessary employment? The only conclusion I can come to is that they had no policy, no plan and no foundation on which to work. They have no policy or plan to-day.

We are told that nobody is emigrating to-day except skilled or semiskilled people such as mechanics, electricians, engineers, and that type of people. Deputies representing my constituency know perfectly well and cannot deny that the best agricultural labourers are leaving the county which I have the honour to represent in their thousands every year. They have no means of earning a livelihood here and the Government are not taking steps to give them the means of earning a livelihood. I have heard the Minister state that men who had any knowledge of agricultural work were not allowed to emigrate. But such men are leaving this country every day. Deputy Moran, Deputy Cleary, Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, Deputy Blowick, as well as myself, can tell you that 75 per cent. of the letters which we receive are from men well-versed in agricultural work asking us to get them away.

Mr. Moran

The Deputy may speak for himself.

Mr. Cafferky

You cannot deny that. You did not speak for yourself on the last occasion.

Mr. Moran

I will speak for myself now.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Speaking for myself, I agree with Deputy Cafferky.

Mr. Cafferky

Let us look at where we are drifting. We have a shortage of wheat, a shortage of barley and a shortage of various commodities the production of which could be increased with the aid of agricultural labourers. The Government tell us that it is not for want of money. The land is there, the farmers are willing, but the Government are not prepared to assist the farmers. They were not prepared until after a long agitation, the rural population sent them back as a minority—although we were told that they would not accept the responsibility of government unless they were sent back with a majority, nevertheless they were prepared to shoulder it—to give to the farmers the price they demanded for wheat and beet in order to enable them to employ labour and increase the production of these very necessary commodities.

After ten years of a Government which talked about their policy, programme and plans, to-day we have got no bacon and very little butter. All that is due to their planning for the past ten years. As an agricultural worker who had to emigrate to earn my livelihood, I do not deny that I was a supporter of the present Government. That was not because the Taoiseach was at the head of the Government, but because I felt that they were genuine and because they stated that they would provide employment, that they would bring about social security and do away with unemployment. They even went so far as to say that they would bring back the emigrants who had left this country over a number of years and provide employment for them. It is only natural that a young fellow, as I was then, would say: "That is the Government to support; that is what we want." When we elected them, did they fulfil their promises? They did not. I spent a number of years in England, and every church I went into on a Sunday morning was filled with boys and girls from the rural parts of this country who were forced to go over there by the policy of the Government. Work was to be provided here not only for the Irishmen in the slums of Liverpool, Glasgow and London, but those who were in New York, Boston and Philadelphia.

To-day, the Government tells us that it is because there is no work for the people here that they are allowing them to emigrate. I am in full agreement with allowing these people to emigrate at present so long as the Government fail to give them employment and have no plans for giving them employment. I am very much opposed to the system in operation with regard to emigration at present, the unnecessary red-tape and the stumbling blocks put in the way of young men emigrating who have no outlook in life and no way of earning a livelihood. They have to go to the labour exchanges dozens and dozens of times. They have to write to the External Affairs' Department and to the Department of Industry and Commerce or some other Department. Those who are not able to write a letter have to go to somebody else to do it for them. They have to go through all this before they can get away. If there is a bog drain to be made in a year's time, or if some farmers who are only employing two labourers will want another in six months' time, those people who want to get away will be kept here until they are given that work, despite the fact that they have nothing to support themselves on in the meantime. There is no consideration for them.

The Minister for Supplies made a very long statement in this House. I do not want to be disrespectful to him, but he was better known at one time in my part of the country as the Minister for no Supplies. The situation is a little better now. He paid me the honour of coming to my town in order to try to prevent me being elected. How is it that it has taken four years of war to bring the rationing system into operation? Take the situation with regard to tea supplies. How many people in my area had to wait for months before they could get even a half-ounce of tea? That was due to the muddling of the Minister for Supplies. The same applied to the rationing of kerosene. It took four years before they could formulate a plan or devise a method by which they could operate the kerosene ration. Does not that prove beyond doubt that they were not capable of handling the task? Sugar was the only thing that they managed to ration properly in the beginning. Take boots and shoes. I have heard Labour Deputies talking about the shoe position in regard to children in Dublin. Are the Labour Deputies aware that there are children in the country going without shoes? I have a nephew for whom I was looking for a pair of shoes. I had to travel five towns and could not get a pair of shoes, size five, for him. That was not three weeks ago. I wanted to buy the shoes for him as he was going to Castlebar to be X-rayed. He had to go to Castlebar in clogs and it was even difficult to get the clogs. I had to go into the black market shop and pay black market price for them. Then we are told there was no necessity up to the present to take steps for the rationing or distribution of shoes or boots.

The cost-of-living index figure has gone up, I think, 64½ per cent. Have the Government come to the aid of the widowed or the orphaned? Have they come to the aid of the old age pensioners? A Labour Deputy, I think, said in this House some time ago that something like 20,000 old age pensioners were receiving less than 10/- a week. The cost of living has gone up by 64½ per cent. I want the Taoiseach to reply here to the question: Does he stand over the policy that a man or woman who was receiving 10/- a week three or four years ago as his or her sole income, is capable of living on that amount to-day, realising as he does that commodities have gone up by 64½ per cent.?

Does he stand over that policy or does he not? If not, where is the remedy, and what does he intend to do in order to alleviate the sufferings and distress imposed upon these people by the policy which the Government claimed to be the only policy suitable for this country? I listened to a Deputy from my own constituency tell-us that the small farmers in the West of Ireland were well off. There was a big splash on the Connaught Telegraph for the people to see. He said he could not understand a Deputy from a neighbouring county coming in here and making a poor mouth.

An Ceann Comhairle

Was that in this debate?

Mr. Cafferky

No, Sir.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy might take some other opportunity of answering it, then.

Mr. Cafferky

I hold that if the farmers in the West of Ireland are well off to-day, it is not due to the Fianna Fáil policy or programme. It is due to the fact that thousands of their sons and daughters have gone over to England and sent back the money they have earned to maintain the people depending on them at home. That is the reason they are well off. It is not due to the money they are earning in the bogs or under the Mayo County Council. It is not due to the money they receive as labourers on the roads. The Minister for Local Government, Mr. MacEntee, stated that since 1939, Post Office savings and investments in Savings Certificates had increased by almost £4,000,000, and that this increase was made up of emigrants' remittances. I hold that these remittances came almost entirely to the poorer people—small farmers and town workers—and it is definitely not true that these are the people who own the savings in the Post Office. The savings in the Post Office are owned to a great extent by the rich and the near rich, not by the small farmers who, due to their poverty, are leaving this country. I say it publicly, and I defy contradiction in this House, that they were sunk in debt to the extend of from £100 to £150 with their local shopkeepers. If Deputy Dillon, who knows my area perfectly well, were here, he would back up every word I have said in that respect—that on his books there are men and women who are, or at least who were, sunk in debt to that extent at the outbreak of the war.

That money that is being sent home by the emigrants from England is being used in paying off debts and in the maintenance of the people who are depending on it, the people whom the Government here have failed to maintain as a result of their so-called policy. I believe, at most, only two-third per cent. of Post Office Savings and one-third per cent. of the money invested in Savings Certificates is owned by the working class or the small farmers. The Minister knows that perfectly well. He knows perfectly well the conditions of these people. I know them. I have gone through them, as an ordinary, plain, simple worker, brought up with a family of seven. I know what my father and mother went through and the conditions under which they laboured and the conditions under which thousands of men and women in the country are labouring to-day under the present Government, and have endured under the past Government. We are told there is no way out.

One other point. Deputy McGilligan came into this House and, in a very able way, tried to elicit information from the Government—as he had every right to do—with regard to some leakages in connection with Great Southern Railways stocks that caused certain speculation. As a result of this leakage, stockbrokers in Belfast employed agents here in Dublin to buy stocks that only a short while ago had slumped following a gloomy speech by the manager that would indicate a poor prospect. What was the reply given by the responsible Minister to Deputy McGilligan? He dealt with a completely different point of view altogether. He dealt with something about insurance and the secretary of the Roscommon County Council, and tried to make out that Deputy McGilligan came in here for the purpose of disparaging or for the purpose of trying to undermine the Government of this country. Deputy McGilligan did not come in here to display himself to the House. He is quite capable of speaking. He has the ability. The country knows that. The world knows it. He came in here as a responsible man, to put his case to the Government, to demand that an inquiry should be made to discover who was responsible for the leakage.

I am not suggesting that the Government are responsible. I am not suggesting that the Government would take any part in gambling of that kind. But, outside this House, in the City of Dublin and elsewhere, there is the suspicion that there has been a leakage and, if the Government want to clear themselves, if the Government want to show that they are above-board and that nobody need have any doubt in his mind, it is up to them to set up an inquiry on the lines suggested by Deputy Dillon. If they do not do so, they are admitting that they are afraid to do so. It is all right for the Taoiseach to laugh, but that is a fact. If they do not set up an inquiry they are leaving it open to the interpretation that they are afraid to do so. If they have nothing to be afraid of, let them set up the inquiry and have the results presented to the House and to the country. The Government may not be aware of the accusations made outside this House. If they were, I am sure they would immediately comply with the requests made by Deputy Dillon and other Deputies in this House and clear their own conscience. I feel that the Government is above board. I feel it is the last thing any man in this House would do, to gamble in that way or in any way to assist other people to gamble in that way. But, it is up to the Government to clear up the sítuation.

Now, there is a lot of talk about the post-war period, and I believe that one very important scheme that could be put into operation is forestry. Now, in my part of the country we have thousands of acres of land that could be used for afforestation purposes. In fact, I am told that, so far as the whole of Éire is concerned, there are about 5,000,000 acres of land fit for afforestation. I am informed that in my county there are upwards of 100,000 acres fit for afforestation, but that only something like 200 acres of that area have been planted by the Government. I may be wrong about those figures, and I am open to correction on the matter, but I do believe that if the Government had taken steps at the outbreak of the war, something could have been done with regard to the re-afforestation of these lands. I suppose that the Taoiseach will tell me as, I am informed, he did on one occasion, that it is not possible now to procure the necessary wire for the protection of plantations, but after all, in connection with State forestry on a large scale, there must be a certain amount of drainage, fencing, and other things, that are required to be done, and I believe that thousands of men, in my own county —and many thousands in other counties—could be employed in the draining and fencing of these lands, and preparing them for the time when, after the war, we will be able to get the necessary amount of wire.

I suggest that thousands of men could be employed on such work. After all, it is an industry of tremendous importance, and will be of even more importance after this war, because the demand for timber is great, for building materials and so on, and the demand for timber which will be required for pulp purposes, for newsprint and so on, will be much greater than in previous years. Would it not be better, therefore, if we could provide our own requirements of pulp in this country, and even have some for export? That, of course, depends on whether the Government feel that afforestation would be a good programme to follow in this country.

I believe that a country without forestry, or without its own timber supply, is in almost as bad a condition as a country that has been denuded of its people. In my opinion, to deplete a country of its forestry is almost as bad as to deplete it of its people. From the point of view of the health as well as the wealth of the people, in every way, I think that this question of forestry should be looked upon as of great value, and I think the Government should take steps to have every preparation ready so that, when the war is over, they can go into this scheme whole-heartedly. I believe that no matter what money is spent upon a scheme of afforestation, or invested in it, it would give a great return both as regards the health and the wealth of our people. Naturally, I suppose that it would take about 30 or 40 years before the return for such an investment would become manifest; but, surely, if people have money to invest, and if they are patriotic or interested in the advancement of this country, they would be prepared to wait 30 or 40 years for a return on their investment; or, if they themselves could not get that return, then they could be sure that their sons or daughters, or other relatives, would get it.

I think it should be a patriotic duty to see that every part of the waste land in this country, that is not fit for agriculture or pasture, should be devoted to the growing of trees. I am told that, with regard to a peat bog, no matter how deep it may have been dug, it will grow timber if it is properly looked after and is not allowed to become too wet. I am told that such peat bogs, if properly manured and looked after, will grow excellent timber. Along the west coast of Ireland, it is said, the lands near the sea will not grow timber because of the severe winds coming from the Atlantic, but I am informed that if a shelter belt were erected some miles from the Atlantic, we would be able to grow trees there that would be the equal of any trees grown in any part of Europe or outside it. I think that this is a means by which we could employ thousands of men and by which we could increase our national income, if not immediately, at least eventually, and I believe that it is a scheme in which the Government should take a special interest with a view to its development.

Many Deputies have spoken and have touched upon almost every point connected with this debate, but one or two Deputies pointed out the necessity of setting up a committee to deal with post-war conditions. I think that the first time I spoke in this House I referred to that matter. Of course, I cannot put my views before the House as eloquently as other Deputies can, because of the fact that I had not the opportunity of going to school for as long a period as other Deputies in this House, but I do remember pointing out the necessity for setting up a committee of members of this House to deal with the matter of post-war planning, and, not alone, post-war planning, because I believe that the day is over when any Party in this House will be able to achieve a majority, and I think that the sooner we recognise that fact the better. I think it is very important to have in mind that if, to-morrow morning, peace or an armistice were announced, and there were a general meeting of nations to deal with the situation that would then evolve, we have not one man in this country who could go there and say that he was going in the name of the Irish people. I am speaking from the point of view that we have not got a man in this country at the present moment who could go to such a conference and say that he was going there as representing the Irish people as a whole. He could say, of course, that he was sent there by the Irish Government, but he could not say that he was sent there as representing the Irish people, in the sense that it was by the vote of the Irish people that he was sent there to represent them.

In that connection, a suggestion was made to me—and I have often been thinking it over, although it is not my own viewpoint—that there will have to be some amendment in our Constitution whereby, during a general election, one, two or three men from the various Parties could go forward and contest the election, as individuals, with a view to being elected head of the Government, and that then, whoever is the lucky, or the unlucky, man to be elected, could claim to be the head of the Irish Government, and that all Parties in the House would support him. I notice that the Taoiseach is laughing at my suggestion, but that was the point that was suggested to me by a Fianna Fáil Deputy. I do not see the Deputy here at the moment. I do not say that it is right, but it was suggested to me by a Fianna Fáil Deputy.

A Deputy

Was he elected?

Mr. Cafferky

He was elected, but he is not here at the moment.

Mr. Larkin

Perhaps he is up in Grangegorman.

Mr. Cafferky

Mr. Cafferky

I would impress on the Taoiseach and on the Government that forestry, drainage and land division should be the foremost points in their programme for the post-war period. As I have mentioned land division, there is one matter that occurs to me. I cannot understand why the Government allow the Land Commission to rent land in their hands at the moment at a price beyond the purchasing power of the ordinary farmer, at £6 or £7 an acre. If the Government are sincere about food production, if they are really in earnest about assisting farmers, small and big, to increase food production this year and for the remaining period of the emergency, they should take the necessary steps to see that land in the hands of the Land Commission is rented to farmers at an economic price and that they should not seek to make any profit out of that land. It should be rented at a sum that would cover the annuity together with whatever herding or caretaking expenses are involved. If the Government permit the Land Commission to rent land at a price whereby they can make profit out of that land, then I say the Government are not interested in food production and they are out for the exploitation of the small farmers by giving an opportunity to the Land Commission to make money at their expense.

Mr. Coburn

I would like to put one or two points to the Taoiseach in connection with the stoppage of the export of beer to the Six Counties, which affects certain industries in my constituency. I would like that, if it were at all possible, in the very near future the breweries there would be allowed to export the quota they were accustomed to export during the last year or two. I do not know what reasons prompted the Government to take the step of stopping these exports: they may have had good and sufficient reason. The Taoiseach himself hinted at it some time back. It seems to me that there are sufficient quantities of barley in the country at the moment. Farmers to whom I have been speaking give me the impression that they are experiencing some little difficulty lately in the disposal of their barley, and I find it very hard to reconcile that with the policy of the Government. Though the Taoiseach may have good reasons, this upheaval of a trade that has been serving a very useful purpose is not good for the future of the country. I have not been approached by the management of the breweries concerned. All I know is that their future, as their past, depends to a large extent on the trade carried on with the people in the North of Ireland. I would ask the Taoiseach, if he can do so whilst safeguarding the food supplies, to give this matter his very special attention.

In these days of stress and confusion, we are inclined to embark on some things which will not give us an adequate return for the money expended. In view of the economic position in which thousands of our people find themselves now, it would be nothing short of suicidal to spend any money unless we get an adequate return. I refer to the possibility of large sums being spent on town planning. The Taoiseach must be aware that, since the introduction of the Country Management Act, the representatives of urban councils and county councils have not had the same opportunity of examining or checking expenditure as they had before the introduction of that Act. I thought at one time that I was against progress, when I drew the attention of our manager to certain expenditure incurred in connection with plans for the development of certain areas. I thought that I may have been getting a bit odd or old-fashioned, but I found a report about a week ago in the public Press of a meeting of the Waterford Chamber of Commerce—which, the Taoiseach will agree, is composed of men who know what they are talking about—where they had occasion to refer to town planning. One of them said that the plans were all right as ground plans, with lovely lines and circles and points for the future development of Waterford, the provision of a park here and a bridge there, but that, after all, it was not a San Francisco they wanted in Waterford. Another member of the Chamber of Commerce said that a great deal of it was all moonshine. I am not against anything that will make for progress, but I strongly hold the opinion that no money should be spent on that type of planning. On account of the position in which this country finds itself, due to the emergency, it is purely childish and wishful thinking to draw out plans now, in the hope of putting them into operation within the next three or five years. The material is not there, in the first instance. Therefore, a very careful watch should be kept in regard to the activities of those who think that town planning is good at the moment. I do not blame those people for, possibly, enriching themselves.

The Taoiseach himself is always very fond of proclaiming to the world how high our people stand as far as nationality or the dignity of the nation is concerned. In regard to hospitalisation, however, the Minister for Local Government and Public Health said recently that the erection of our hospitals in future will depend almost exclusively on the amount of money we get from the sweepstakes, if those sweepstakes, after the emergency, go on as they did before war broke out. As a humble member of this House, as a man who never pretended to be one of the great Irishmen prepared to go out and die for the country, I consider that a very undignified position for our people to take up, that we are dependent on the outside world to keep our people from dying in the hospitals. I would ask the Taoiseach to dissociate us altogether from that point of view. Let us have the sweepstakes, but let us not depend absolutely on the revenue from them for the building of new hospitals or the maintenance of those already built through the proceeds of previous sweepstakes. It is extraordinary to relate that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, when he has a bad case to make, generally starts on a high pitched voice. Yesterday, he started to twit Deputy Norton, the Leader of the Labour Party, with "speaking in generalities" and not facing facts. When I looked at the Minister, I could not help recalling days in the years gone by. The words used were the words of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, but they reminded me very much of the same words spoken by Deputy McGilligan, when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce, to Deputy Lemass who then occupied more or less the same position that Deputy Norton occupied yesterday—"speaking in generalities."

The Minister for Industry and Commerce has improved in his apprenticeship here for the last 16 or 17 years. The only difference between the Minister and the ordinary apprentice is that it takes only about five years for an apprentice to serve his time to any particular trade, while it took the Minister almost double that time. He realises now, as does every member of the Fianna Fáil Party from the Taoiseach down, that this is a small country and that we cannot settle our problems by the waving of a magic wand nor by shouting "up the republic"—the republic which we hear so little about at the present time. Time and again have I, only a humble back bencher, told the Government deliberately, as I am going to tell them now, and the members of any Party or any future Government, that you cannot solve the unemployment question and that it is not the duty even of a Government to solve it, for the simple reason that it cannot be solved. Notwithstanding that this Government has spent millions and millions more than the late Government spent, the unemployment position is as bad to-day as it was when the present Government came into power. Now that the emergency is on, tens of thousands of our young men and women have crossed to England and are in receipt of good wages there. But for that, our internal economic position would have been very serious. I am glad the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in his speech yesterday, at last recognised the fact—and that the Taoiseach himself has recognised it, although it was a tardy recognition—that the solution of this problem was not the easy thing he thought it was when in Opposition.

I was listening to the Taoiseach stating from the Opposition benches that the solution of the problem was one of the simplest to be found, that he saw no reason why this country should not support a population of 9,000,000. To-day, the Taoiseach has shed his coat in regard to that particular problem. He must have heard the story about the snake in India which could not live unless it shed its coat about seven times in one year. The Taoiseach has shed his coat already in regard to the solution of the unemployment question and the setting up of a republic and all the other things he thought easy of solution. He recognises now that it was not the easy thing he thought when in Opposition, that it will require the co-operation of all Parties to settle it, and that it will not be done by a Government.

I want to ask the Taoiseach—I am sorry he is not here now—when he is going to call a halt to Government interference in the everyday life of the citizens. Is that to be the considered policy of this Government? Are they going to set the headline that nothing can be done unless it has the support and blessing of the Government? If that does not stop, I hold that the future of this country is not a great one. I hold that, if that policy is going to obtain, it will only succeed when the Government takes control of all the resources of the country, including the industries and agriculture. If this or any other Government imagines that it can interfere with 50 per cent. of the ordinary everyday life of the people, taking one hand behind its back and expecting to carry on with the other hand, they will make the last position worse than the first.

I know the members of the Labour Party may say that the Government must give a lead. I agree, but I think experience should teach the members of this House that, where there is too much interference or Government control in daily life, there is the start of tyranny. Tyranny breeds dictatorship, and no one knows where it will end when it starts. The time has arrived to recognise that we must display a little more of that quality we boasted about, namely, Sinn Féin, ourselves, self-initiative. That quality seems to have been utterly lacking during the last year or two, and has placed everybody almost in the position that they cannot even breathe the air without leave of the Taoiseach or some other member of the Government. No matter how much money is voted here, it will not cure the evils discussed during the last few days. That has been proved beyond yea or nay. I welcome the forthcoming introduction of a scheme of family allowances, but I am awaiting results there, too. At present, we have the dole and other forms of assistance. It is time to make up our minds to work out our own salvation, and to lead our lives in our own way.

There is a feeling creeping into this House that Deputy Dillon stands alone in many of the views he has expressed. Especially in regard to his views as affecting the post-war policy of this country, every honest man must agree that there is a lot in what he says, that there is not much use in talking about post-war planning insofar as it affects our internal position, unless we have some idea of what our position will be in regard to other nations. We might as well make up our minds, once and for all, that we cannot live here in glorious isolation. Our position in the past three or four years must have convinced even the most rabid supporter of the policy of high tariffs that no country can live within itself. With our geographical position and our past record, there is only one country we can deal with and deal with to advantage, the country across the water. It will be absolutely essential for whatever Government is in power at the end of the emergency to pay particular attention to that aspect of our policy and see to it that we start in time. Before we spend any money in setting up an economic council or a committee to deal with post-war planning, we should first of all find the basis upon which we are to work. That need not be linked up with the policy of neutrality. The two things are distinct. Owing to our geographical position, it is my humble opinion that we must consider our relationship with the country on the far side before we can say to ourselves that we are on the right road as regards the building up of this country after the war. These are the only points that I have to put before the Taoiseach. I hope that, in the near future, he will be in a position to announce to the House that the ban on the exports of beer to the North has been lifted.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Tar éis bheith ag éisteacht anseo le cúpla lá leis an díospóireacht, cheapas gur ceart dom éirghe agus cúpla focal a rá i dteangain mo thíre féin. Níl im ghuth-sa ach guth ag labhairt sa bhfásach i measc na mBéarlóirí a bhí le cloisint. Sa díospóireacht fhada so, is mó abhar cainnte a thairg na Teachtaí a labhair chúcha. Caitheadh cuid mhaith ama ag cur síos ar an árd-chostas maireachtála sa tír seo. Cuireadh an Costas maireachtála anso i gcomparáid leis an gcostas céanna i Sasana, mar a bhfuil an figiúir costais mhaireachtála a bhfad níos ísle ná mar atá sé anso. Ceart go leor, tá deifir anamhór idir na figiúirí seo anso agus i Sasana, ach níor mhínig aon cainnteoir dúinn canathaobh go bhfuil an figiúir chó híseal i Sasana. Níor hinnseadh dúinn ar aon chor go bhfuil Rialtas Sasana ag caitheamh na milliún punt-dhá chéad milliún in aghaidh na bliana, creidim—chun costais an bhídh a chimeád íseal agus gan leigint dó dul in áirde sa spéir. Ní féidir linn annso, is dóigh liom, milliúin mar sin a sholáthar i dtir bhig mar í seo, ach sílim go bhfuil iarracht mhaith—chó maith agus is féidir sa chás—á dhéanamh chun teacht i geabhair ar an gcuid sin den phobal is déine go bhfuil an costas maireachtála ag luighe ortha.

Deineadh ana-chuid cur síos ar chursaí feirmeoireachta. Chualamar tagairt do na ganntanaisí go léir de thorthaí na talmhan. Dubhradh linn ná raibh go leor cruithneachtan againn i gcóir plúir; ná fuil go leor coirce againn i gcóir leitean—biadh atá anariachtanach agus gur mór an feall é gan é bheith againn go flúirseach; ná raibh go leor eornan againn le haghaidh biotáille, ná go leor prátaí, ná go leor bágúin, ná go leor prátaí, ná go leor ime, ná fiú amháin go leor bainne. Cuireadh milleán na gannachúise go léir ar an Rialtas, ní nach iongnadh. Is fíor nach bhfuil na torthaí talmhaíochta san go léir a luadhas chó flúirseach is ba cheart iad a bheith, chó flúirseach is a bheadh duine ag súil go mbeidís. Ach an fíor gur ar an Riaghaltas atá a mhilleán san? An fíor a rá nár dhein an Rialtas faic chun an scéil a leigheas? Ná fuil fhios ag an saol Fódhlach, a Chinn Comhairle, gur dhein an Rialtas gach ar bhéidir le Rialtas a dhéanamh, ón gcéad lá a tháinig sé isteach annso, chun go mbéadh breis mhór cuireadóireachta againn anso. Deineadh gach dícheall chun feirmeoirí na tíre a mhealladh chun cuireadóireachta, go mór-mhór chun cruithneachtan do chur i slí is ná beimís feasta ag brath ar an bfear thall le haghaidh "ár n-aran laethiúil". Conus a glacadh leis an gcaingean so sa Dáil seo? Conus a cabhruíodh leis? Maidir leis an gcáineadh i gcoinnibh na cuireadóireachta, i gcoinnibh na cruithneachtan, maidir leis an gcáineadh go léir a chualamar ina thaobh ó thosach, ba chóir an iallait a chur ar an gcapall chóir marar éirigh chó maith le hiarrachtaí an Rialtais ar son na cuireadóireachta agus a nheasfadh duine; marar ghlac feirmeoirí móra áirithe leis go fonnamhar. Má cuireadh ina choinnibh go dian agus go borbach, agus má cáineadh é imeasc na bhfeirmeoir mór san, bíodh a mhilleán san ar aon dream amháin, ar Fhine Gaedheal, agus go mór-mhór ar an leas-threoruidhe a bhí ortha, an Teachta Diolún, atá anois ina chadhain aonraic anso agus sa tír anois i níos mó ná aon tslí amháin. Isé mo thruagh dóighte agus mo léangéar é gur eirigh easaontas riamh mar d'éirigh i dtaobh ceist na cuireadóireachta agus an feabhas a cuirfeadh sé ar chursaí feirmeoireachtas agus ar chúrsaí na tíre. Deineadh ana-chuic cainnte, freisin, ar an easba oibre atá sa tír, agus ar an imirce. Cinnte, níl oiread oibre le fáil agus ba mhaith linn. Is cinnte, freisin, ná fuil an sórt oibre a thaithneodh le lucht a tóraidheachta le fáil acu go minic. San am céanna chualamar an Teachta Ó hAillideáin ó Chorcaigh thuaidh, á rá go bhfuil oibrithe ar an dtalamh gann; ná fuil go leor díobh le fáil ag na feirmeoirí. Deirtear an rud céanna liom féin, a Chinn Comhairle, agus silim go bhfuil an ceart ag na Teachtaí a dhein tagairt don scéal. Tá baint ag an easba sin oibrithe le ceist a bhaineann go dlúth leis an nDáilceanntair a chuir mise annso, sé sin, ceist an ime, abhar atá gann go maith i láthair na huaire. Isé an t-eagla mór atá orm-sa, a Chinn Comhairle, go mbeidh im níos gainne amach annseo. Tá dhá chúis leis sin, dar liom. Tá éileamh mór ar an stoc seasc fé láthair agus airgead mór le fáil ortha. Is tairbhighe, i dtuairim na bhfeirmeoirí, an stoc seasc anois ná na bainne. Ní mar sin a bhí roinnt bhlian ó shoin, agus bhí breis ime againn agus bhí orainn é chur thar sáile go Sasana agus glacadh le pé airgead a híocfaí as. Níl uaim a rá go bhfuil im go mór níos gainne anois ná mar a bhí sa bhliain 1931. Ní hamhlaidh atá. Tá oiread ime uachtarlainne againn i mbliana is a bhí againn i 1931. Ach tá i bhfad Éireann níos mó duine ag ithe ime iniu ná mar a bhí an uair úd, agus is mór an ní an méid sin féin. Sin cúis amháin ná fuil níos mó ime againn, an stoc eile do bheith i ndian-chomórtas leis. Ach tá cúis eile chó maith le luadh againn. Tá fhios ag fiadh agus ag fiolar, a Chinn Comhairle, go gcaithfear na ba a chrúdh gach lá sa tseachtain, maidean agus trathnóna, ó Dhomhnach go Satharn. Ach, le himtheacht aimsire, tá sé ag teacht níos deacra do na feirmeoirí lucht crúidhte na mbó fháil agus tá an scéal céanna dá aithris ag na feirmeoirí i gcoithcinne. San am chéanna tá na céadta agus na mílte ag rith go Sasana ag lorg oibre. Tá fhios againn go léir go raibh ar fhearaibh agus ar mhnáibh áirithe imtheacht leo go Sasana ag tuilleamh slí bheatha a chailleadar anso de dheascaibh an chogaidh. Tá fhios againn ná raibh malairt oibre le fáil ag céardaithe áirithe ar nós dathadóiri, siúinéirí, plástaeirí, agus lucht ceard eile den tsórt. Ach tá daoine eile ag imtheacht leo leis, nach gá dóibh imtheacht ar aon chor dá mbeidís sásta glacadh leis an obair atá le fáil anso acu. Féadaim a rá go dtáinig oiread daoine chugham-sa a bhí i gcrua-chás i dtaobh pasanna taistil go Sasana is a tháinig ag triall ar aon Teachta sa Dáil. Tig liom a rá anso, ón eolas atá agam ar an scéal so, go bhfuil fir óga agus mná óga ag imeacht leo ag obair go Sasanna nach gá dóibh dul ag lorg oibre ann agus go mbeadh obair le fáil annso acu dá mbeidís sásta glacadh léi. Tá tuairim láidir agam féin, agus ba mhaith liom í chur ós comhair an Taoisigh, go mba chóir ceist seo an imirce d'athscrúdú, agus na coinníollacha atá ag gabháil leis, féachaint an féidir daoine óga den tsórt a luadhas a chimeád annso. Ní hé a leas bheith ag imeacht agus ní hé leas na tíre é. San am céanna ba mhaith liom a rá i dtaobh scéil seo an easba oibre ar na feirmeacha, go bhfuil dhá thaobh ar an scéal san, taobh na bhfeirmeoirí agus taobh na n-oibridhthe. Caithfear dhá thaobh an scéil sin a thabhairt le chéile, sar a mbeidh aon leigheas ceart air.

Caitheadh tamall mór aimsire, chó maith, ag cur síos ar an sórt saoil a thiocfaidh tar éis an chogaidh agus ar thábhacht margadh Shásana dhúinn san am atá le teacht. Tá fachta amach agam, a Chinn Comhairle, go bhfuil teachtaí annso go bhfuil buadh na tairigireachta acu. Isé mo mheas láidir féin go bhfuil sé fuar againn bheith ag cainnt annso ar aon mhargadh iasachta go dtí go mbeidh ár ndóthain agus breis againn de gach aon tsórt bidh don mhargadh mhór thábhachtach atá againn annso in Éirinn. Maidir le margadh iasachta, ba mhaith liom ceist amháin a chur ar na daoine go bhfuil súil acu, agus a ndóchas acu, ann. Ba chóir go mbéadh fachta amach againn go léir um an dtaca so ná fuil aon chaingean géilleagrach is fearr a oireann don tír seo ná seasamh ar ár mbonnaibh féin; sean-chaingean Sinn Féin. Sin leas na tíre seo san am atá ag teacht, agus thar aon rud eile tá súil agam go gcloídhfear go dlúth tar éis an chogaidh leis an obair chuireadóireachta agus eile atá ar siúl fé láthair agus ná feiefear an lá go brách airís in Éireinn go mbeadh Rialtas i gceannas a raghaidh thar n-ais go dtí an sean-ghléas gan mhaith a bhí againn roimh 1932.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

I think it has very clearly emerged from the course of this very long debate that we are all suffering from the evils of the high cost of living in this country. No Deputy can deny that, and no Deputy has attempted to deny it. None of us likes that situation. We want to try to consider here how these evils can be lessened by Government effort. I have no universal panacea to offer for that, nor have I heard anybody else offer one for the simple reason that there is not any universal panacea that could change that situation. We listened to a most forceful and vehemently delivered speech by the Minister for Supplies yesterday. I was most interested in it. He adopted, I am sorry to say, an old debating trick. He accused his opponents of making statements that they had never, in fact, made, and of taking up an attitude that they had never taken up. The whole burden of at least the first part of his speech was this: "I am carrying out a certain policy; I have listened to what the Deputies have said, but they give me no other policy." Of course, we cannot give him any other policy. We are not communists who want to introduce an entirely different scheme into the State. All of us, practically, are working through the same methods and forces which the Government has to deal with, and which would confront any other Government. Therefore, when the Minister for Supplies chided us for not advancing any new policy he was doing something that he knew nobody in this House was prepared to do.

Where does that get us? It gets us to this point: that we of necessity can only in this situation suggest that here and there the policy of the Government should be tightened up or loosened. We know that this is a country at peace in a world at war. We are cut down in the matter of outside materials. I am sorry to say we are short of some materials that at one time we thought we had an abundance of in the country. As regards the outside materials, we cannot alter that situation very much. I think, and other Deputies have thought, that the Government's attitude in the matter of getting sufficient supplies of outside materials was not as effectively carried out as it might have been. I and other Deputies consider that to be so. That is one of the matters that I think the Minister for Supplies should deal with.

What have we done here to make available the things that we could produce, and ought to be producing, in superabundance? I think that we in Ireland have cause to be bitterly ashamed of the way in which our Government has faced up to that problem. We read the other day of how various countries in Europe, England and Germany, for instance, and countries outside of Europe, have increased enormously their agricultural products. We have not been able to do that. If we had, we would have solved some, at any rate, of the difficulties that confront the poor members of our community: if, for instance, we had been able to produce more milk, as we should have been, more butter, and other agricultural products. It is a universal law that the more you produce of certain commodities the cheaper you can sell them. If, as I say, we had been able to do that, then we would be in a position to sell our agricultural products to the poor in our cities at a cheaper rate than is possible to-day. Why have we not been able to do that? I am not going to pretend for a moment that you can, by putting a penny in a slot machine, suddenly produce a whole range of agricultural products, which can only be done over a series of years, slowly, carefully and scientifically, and that is where our people have failed. Our sins are now finding us out, the sins of blather and that excess of politics with which our unfortunate people have been smothered for years. When did a responsible Minister stand up and say to the people: "Look here, we want to increase your scientific knowledge, and we want you to do various agricultural operations in a better way"? I am not a farmer, and do not pretend to be one, but I am ashamed of the lack of attention that we give to the acquisition of scientific knowledge, when, in fact, we should be leading the world in scientific agricultural knowledge. We are not doing that, but there is no reason why we should not do it.

Some time ago a man, who was the representative of a foreign Government in this country, said to me: "We have carried out a survey of the agricultural productivity of your country. In the opinion of our experts you have, with the exception of certain small parts of New Zealand, the most fertile country in the world, especially for the raising of stock." I am not going to say whether our policy should be the raising of stock or tillage, but he went on to say to me: "It is a mystery to our people why you skip so many processes in that productivity. Why do you not produce far more cheese, and so on? You just export the animal in the main and do not get all the things that you should from that animal. Your country should be one of the largest cheese-producing countries in the world." What is the position to-day? You can hardly get cheese in this city, and, if you do, you get it through the good graces of your grocer.

Why should we be in that position now? We are in it because our Government has never awakened to the fact that our people must be taught. We have lauded the Government for their political acumen and everything else but we have never said to them: "You are decent Irishmen and all that but, as an agricultural country, we are a bit backward." They did not say: "We will give you the best scientific knowledge." One of the greatest tragedies is that that work has not been done in the schools. As the Minister for Education is in the House I earnestly say to him——

Mr. Derrig

This is not my Vote.

Mr. Dockrell

I would be sorry to be irrelevant, and through the Chair I wish to say that through that lack in our educational system we have a people not as well equipped as they ought to be, and as they have a right to be, to face the situation which confronts us. I listened with interest to the speech of the Minister for Supplies, in which he told us that we had no rubber. I suppose he meant no rubber shoes or wellingtons for children, which are made by the Dunlop Rubber Company. They were excellent for children in this damp climate as they kept their feet dry. Surely if the Minister had his finger on the pulse of his Department he would have realised that when Malay was invaded the supply of rubber for children's shoes or wellingtons would be cut off and that we would have to replace it in some other way. It is roughly two years since the fall of Malay and we have been told that the position is being looked into. I suggest to the Minister that the time lag in that case has been quite inexcusable. Reference has been made to the high cost of children's clothing. I am very glad that attention has been called to that, because as a parent and as a Deputy for a city constituency, I am mindful of what is happening. However, I do not know what we can do, beyond pointing out to the Government that the price of children's clothing is far too high, even in comparison with the increased cost of adult clothing.

As to remittances from emigrants and people who went to Great Britain, I think the Minister for Local Government tried to make out that these remittances do not operate in an inflationary way. They are bound to do so when more money is coming into this country at a time when no more goods are being produced, in fact when there is a contraction in production. That money keeps pouring in and, while I do not suggest that it should not be taken from those who send it, I think the Government, by voluntary methods, should have issued a warning about the dangers that would follow. If remittances were allowed to be sent here freely they should have urged the people as a public duty to save as much as they could. Not only would it be a public duty for the people to do that, but it would be advisable for them in their own interests to put by as much as they could with which to buy goods after the war, when they would be more plentiful, cheaper, and when they would get better value. No effort was made to do that. The Minister for Local Government gave particulars of Post Office wages and pensions and pointed out that they increased by £4,500,000 over the 1939 figures, and that the increase in Post Office savings in 1942 exceeded those of 1939 by £3,900,000. I am sure the figures given by the Minister are correct, but I wish to remind him that we have been sharing some of the benefits of higher prices since the outbreak of war. If not one penny came from Post Office savings surely the Minister does not purport to make out that the whole of the £3,900,000 comes from remittances of emigrants, and that not a half-penny extra was received by people here.

I remember the Taoiseach speaking here in July and referring to a sub-committee of the Government which was considering post-war plans. Even last July, that sub-committee had been deliberating for rather a long time and we are now in the middle of November. I do not know whether the results of the deliberations of that body have reached the sublime heights of the Government, but if they have, we have heard nothing about them. I and various other Deputies would be very glad to hear something about the post-war plans of the Government. I should like to emphasise that the Government must watch the situation as closely as it can, must look into every individual item and see how its price relates to that of other commodities and how it relates to the wages and so on of the classes of people who must use that commodity.

With regard to medicines, we all know that there are various kinds of protective medicines and foods, such as cod liver oil, glucose sugar, and so on. Is the Minister aware that adults were using glucose sugar, which might mean life or death for an infant, on their porridge? That, in my view, is wrong. I know a parent who had to hunt town at one time in an effort to get half a bottle of glucose sugar for his baby daughter for whom it had been ordered, and to whose health it would have made a great difference. That man eventually got some, but he was met in all the chemists' shops with the reply: "Yes, we had that stuff about a month ago, but it is all gone now." There are certain foods of that type which it would not be practicable to ration, but I suggest that they should be given to people only on production of a doctor's certificate and should, wherever possible, be reserved for children. I put that position to the Minister for Supplies, and ask him to do what he can in regard to it, because the situation is that greedy adults are buying up commodities which ought to go to sick children.

Mr. Moran

I rise chiefly for the purpose of defending a section of the community, the Beet Growers' Association, which has been grossly insulted and attacked during this debate. I listened to Deputy Cafferky suggesting that there was some form of graft carried on by the representatives of the Beet Growers' Association in relation to their examination of deliveries of farmers' beet to the factories. I do not know that Deputy Cafferky knows much about beet. I do not know that he had any connection with the beet growers of Mayo, but I do know that the beet growers' representatives are an honest body, and that this House should not be made a place for attacking these men when they cannot defend themselves. He alleged that they were open to bribery and graft, and I am very glad that a colleague of Deputy Cafferky, on his own benches, refused to be associated with him in his attack.

As I see the debate as a whole, it has called for an intensification of Government policy. I listened to various criticisms, but to very few constructive ideas as to how the House might improve on the policy which the present Government is pursuing. What the people want, and, so far as I can gather from the debate, what the House wants, is not a slowing up but an intensification of Fianna Fáil policy, an intensification of the various schemes formulated by the Government, and an extension of these schemes, so far as is possible, having regard to the resources of the State. I should like to see the policy of the Government hurried up, and, in particular, that portion of their policy which relates to the rural electrification scheme. I should like to see preparations for that scheme.

In view of the various attacks made on Government policy and its effects over a number of years, it is just as well that we should examine some of the statistics, particularly since the emergency period began. We all know that, due to the war, a number of industries have had to close down owing to lack of raw materials and various other reasons outside the control of any Government or any Party in this country. We all know that a number of industries are suffering under great hardships since the emergency began, with a resultant reduction in output, and great difficulties in carrying on, but, if we take the result of Government policy on the people as a whole, as shown by the figures and particularly those showing the amount of revenue collected from what might be termed luxuries, it will be seen that, considering that we have gone through four years of war, we are in a much better position than the doleful picture painted by various Deputies would suggest.

The gross return of excise duty on entertainments for the year 1939 was £341,187 9s. 3½d., as compared with the latest available return, that is, for 1942-43, when the amount was £473,659 10s. 7d. That is on entertainment duty alone, which shows that more people are spending money on entertainment, which is solely a luxury business and that must mean that more people have more money to spend. Then if we take excise duties on beer and spirits, in 1938-39 the total was £1,792,368 16s. 11d., as compared with £2,173,842 5s. 4d. for 1942-43, which also shows a substantial increase. Then if we take tobacco, the amount paid in duty in 1939-40 was £99,282 18s. 2d., as compared with £164,538 7s. 9d. in 1942-43, also a substantial increase. If we take life insurance, which would not be regarded as a luxury business but which would show that the money was there to be put to a very good purpose, namely, put aside for a rainy day, the amount paid in stamp duties on life insurance in 1938-39 was £4,882 14s. 5d. and, in 1942-43, £9,034 19s. 0d., showing a tremendous increase. If we take the returns for income-tax, surtax and super tax, we find that in 1938-39 the payments into the Exchequer amounted to £5,803,000 and in 1942-43 £10,080,000.

Then we come to figures which reflect the course of business from the outbreak of the war until the present time. The telegraph receipts in 1938-39 amounted to £130,000, and in 1942-43 to £225,000. The telephone receipts in 1938-39 amounted to £540,000, and in 1942-43 to £850,000. All these figures show that there has been an upward trend and that there would appear to be more money more widely distributed amongst the people, so that the very gloomy picture which has been painted from all sides of the House is not reflected in these figures. On the contrary, these figures would tend to show that, notwithstanding all the vicissitudes our people went through and business went through, on the whole the vast majority of the people must have more money to spend. The figures for life insurance would go to show that people must be saving more money.

Deputy Cafferky said that the deposits in the Post Office or in the banks were not farmers' deposits. In reply to that, I would say that I believe that the small farmers' deposits are as high, if not much higher, than ever they were since the last European war. I do not believe, and nobody in this House can convince me, that the farmers are in a very bad position to-day. I believe that the farmers are getting a fair crack of the whip, and I say they are entitled to it. But nobody will be convinced by Deputies saying that the farmers are down and out since the emergency, because the fact is that the farmers are having a greater chance in this emergency than ever they had since the last war, and they are undoubtedly making very good use of it.

We are told here that Fianna Fáil have no policy and no plan. We were told specifically by Deputy Cafferky that for years back all these people, including the Deputy himself, were driven by economic conditions from this country, and that the Government had failed absolutely since they came into office in 1932 to do anything to relieve unemployment, poverty and emigration. He stated that the Government attacked themselves and were attacking themselves so far as the fruits of Government policy were concerned. He stated that the fruits of Government policy were unemployment, poverty and emigration. I wonder does the Deputy say that it was unemployment, poverty and emigration which placed 80,000 workers from 1932 onwards in Irish industry, as was done under our policy? I wonder does the Deputy hold that the Government were attacking themselves in providing a considerable amount of the money of this State for the poorer sections of our community, for widows' and orphans' pensions, for unemployment assistance, for housing, and for various other social services that were inaugurated since the advent of this Government into office? If the Deputy says that by doing these things we were attacking ourselves, we are quite prepared to attack ourselves at any time that the Deputy wants us to.

The Deputy says that there was a shortage of wheat and barley and bacon. Why is there a shortage of these commodities? What was the position before the policy of the present Government with regard to wheat, barley, and bacon came into force? Bacon has become scarce since the war, and the Deputy knows well why it has become scarce. He knows that the scarcity of bacon has been due to lack of food production in this country; that we were not able to feed the pigs and our human population since this emergency; and that immediately we produce sufficient foodstuffs we will be able to produce the amount of bacon we require. If the Deputy will only take the trouble to look up the figures for wheat production before Fianna Fáil came into power and the figures for wheat production during the last couple of years, he will see what Government policy has done for wheat.

All that I wish to say about the question of agricultural wages is that agricultural wages in this country, until the coming into force of the Government's policy compelling farmers to pay at least a minimum wage, were very low. The prevailing rate of wages for agricultural workers in the West was 10/- per week until the present compulsory minimum wage was fixed. I would safely say that until that wage is raised compulsorily by an Act of this State, it will not be raised very much.

Mr. Larkin

Wages in County Dublin were higher when the Government came into power.

Mr. Moran

So the Deputy says.

Mr. Larkin

What I say is true.

Mr. Moran

I do not agree with the Deputy. After four years of war, I say that Government policy has justified itself. I say that it was the only policy that could have been framed for this country, the only policy that could have brought our people through four years of war, and that there was no alternative to the policy formulated by the Government. I say that if that policy had not been formulated and put into practical effect prior to 1939 we would not now, although we may not be in a very good position, be in as good a position as we are. All that I ask of the Government is to do what the country wants them to do. The country is demanding an intensification of the Fianna Fáil policy, that it should be gone into with more vigour, and the various schemes enforced in a better way. If we do that, I have no doubt that, under the Government policy, this country will be able to weather the remaining years of the war as well as it has come through the last four years.

Mr. Tunney

I would not have spoken were it not for a statement made by Deputy Moran. After hearing Deputy Moran's speech, I am wondering if there is any difference within the ranks of the Fianna Fáil Party. We have had the statement from Deputy Moran that the country wants an intensification of the Government policy, or the Fianna Fáil policy, and we have had the statement by a responsible Minister, the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, this morning. His statement is an absolute admission that the Fianna Fáil policy has failed in this country. This is what the Minister said:—

"Are we to refuse to allow those people to go? If those people are kept at home, the only thing we have to offer them is some sort of home assistance or public assistance."

Is that the Fianna Fáil policy that Deputy Moran wants intensified as a result of which, after four years, we have nothing better to offer to the Irish people than the emigrant ship? I say Deputy Moran is not speaking on behalf of the Irish people when he says we want an intensification of that policy. On the other hand, has the Minister for Local Government and Public Health made a false statement when he admits that the Government policy has failed, when he admits that we have nothing better to offer those people than the emigrant ship or some form of home assistance or public assistance?

I should like to point to one direction where I hold the Government has completely failed and I should like the Taoiseach, when he is replying, to give some attention to my statement. I am one of those who realise the Government's difficulty. I know we are going through a time when, no matter what Government were in power, we would have difficulties. There are essential raw materials which we lack. I realise the Government's difficulty in that direction. But in County Dublin there is a scarcity of turf. It is not a case such as Deputy Byrne referred to, where free turf is not available; it is a case of residents of County Dublin not being able to procure turf although they are willing to give the price that is fixed for it, even though it is an exorbitant price. Surely no member of the Government would say that we have not bogs in this country. Surely nobody will say we have not men capable of cutting and saving turf in this country. The area of the county is not so vast that turf could not be transported from one part to another. This is a case where you have the essential raw material and where you have men capable of producing it. Yet if one takes up last night's paper, one will see where residents in Balbriggan had not sufficient fuel to cook their meals. In Skerries last week according to a deputation in this House yesterday evening, they were eating bread from a bakery because they had no way of cooking a meal.

The Taoiseach to conclude.

The Taoiseach

As has happened in previous years, this debate has ranged over a wide field, and so many small and large questions have been intermingled that it becomes almost impossible to give anything like a satisfactory reply. On the last occasion, I remember that I asked the officers of my Department to have an analysis made of the debate with a view to picking out the particular points that were mentioned, so that I could go through them and see if there were any particular things that called for my attention or that it was desirable that I should call to the attention of the particular Departments concerned. The difficulty about this debate, of course, is obvious. On this Vote, Government policy, as a whole, is under consideration, and the position is that, as everybody knows, and as the Chair has pointed out several times, Ministers are individually responsible to this House for the administration of their respective Departments. At the same time, there is collective responsibility, and the position is this: that if a Minister carried out a policy, or if, in the administration of his Department, he were carrying out a policy, which was not agreed to by his colleagues in the Government, then he would have to resign. Accordingly, in the administration of his Department, each particular Minister, although individually responsible here to the Dáil, is also a part of the Government administering, in a sense, general Government policy. That, of course, means that, on such occasions, Deputies who speak here can practically defend any incursion whatever into particular Departments. They can always say: "Here is a particular example," and, of course, a particular example could illustrate better than anything else what the trend of general policy is. Any Deputy can ask whether the particular thing that has been done was done as a result of Government policy, or whether it was a mere accident.

Consequently, I think that members of this House, in order to get a more satisfactory debate, should voluntarily agree to confine themselves to a narrowing down of the debate to special topics. Otherwise, the result of these debates would be altogether inconclusive. Of course, every opportunity must be given to Deputies to voice their complaints, but when it comes down to asking each Minister, on a Vote of this kind, to deal with a special issue, the position of the Minister is hopeless. In this case, a number of special issues were raised, as well as matters on large questions of public policy. With regard to the particular issues that were raised, I am not going into details, and I shall have to ask the Deputies who raised a number of what one might call small points to take these matters up with the Ministers concerned, either by the method of asking Parliamentary questions, addressed to the Ministers concerned, or by raising these matters on another occasion.

I think that everybody in this House will admit that it would be quite impossible for me to go, in detail, into the host of matters that was raised in this debate. However, there were one or two matters of general importance with which I think it is necessary that I should deal. I believe in democracy. I believe in our institutions here as enabling the people of this country to govern themselves and to change their form of government if they wish to do so, and to adopt any policy of government that they wish to adopt. I believe that there is a greater amount of freedom in our mode of government in this country than there is in any other government that we know of. Consequently, I, as an individual, and as one who has had the privilege and the honour of representing the institutions of this country on a number of occasions, am very anxious for the honour of our institutions. I think that every one of us ought to be jealous of the honour of our institutions, and that every one of us, as public representatives here, ought, in our conduct, to show that we are alive to our responsibilities, and that nothing will be done which will do harm to these institutions, or in any way demean them.

Now, because I happened to speak of democracy at a students' debating society recently, Deputy McGilligan referred to that fact, and prefaced his remarks by saying, in effect, that my view was that the people of this country had a preference for democratic rule as long as it was explained to them.

Following that up, he said, as far as I remember, quoting me, that it was necessary to explain to people such as ours, who had a preference for democratic rule, why certain things that were happening at the moment should take place. Now, unfortunately, we are not always in the position to explain fully to the people the reasons behind certain policies—general policies, certainly—but very often the people do not know what is behind the considerations that have decided the Government to make up its mind as to what to do. It is not always possible to let the people know the reasons behind policies that may be adopted. Somebody has asked, why not? The reason is that there are only 24 hours in the day, and that a certain number of these hours must be given to sleep, and so on, and that we have not got time to spend the whole of the 24 hours in each day here in the Dáil. The Dáil, of course, could meet here on every day of the 365 days in the year, and yet, probably, we would not achieve any fuller discussion of the matter concerned than we have had in the last two or three days. As a matter of fact, probably, we would not have covered all of the particular things that have been mentioned and which, really, are matters for handling either by the Ministers concerned or by the officials of their Departments, or the Government itself. Therefore, I think it will be admitted that it is practically impossible to deal with all these individual matters on one particular Vote. Somebody asked—I think it was Deputy Davin—why do not you come to the Dáil? Perhaps it is all right for Deputy Davin to come here every day. It may be his principal duty to come here every day to the Dáil, and, if the Dáil were meeting every day of the 365 days of the year, possibly, he might find time to attend the Dáil on each of these days; but if the Dáil were to meet on every day of the year, and if Ministers were expected to come to every meeting of the Dáil, and try to answer the various points made in the debates with regard to the Departments with which they were concerned, it would be quite impossible for them to do so, because it would mean that they would not do any other work so far as the work of their Departments was concerned.

Accordingly, the time devoted by a Minister to this House, I am sure it will be understood, is only a small fraction of the time that he has to devote to public business generally. In former times, when Ministers had only to deal with questions of public order, and so on, it was all right; but in modern times, when the lives of every individual in the community are affected by the administrative work of the Departments under certain Ministers, the work becomes too great to enable them to spend time here in the Dáil explaining the reasons for their actions.

Deputy McGilligan said, and quite rightly, that if there was anything that would disquiet the public mind in any way, it was desirable that as much light as possible should be thrown on it, so that any public uneasiness might be relieved. In that connection, he mentioned two or three things. I think I can recall them from memory, but if there is any question as to my quoting him correctly we have the galley proofs of his speech. I think one of the points he raised was why marine insurance should be done through Irish Shipping, Limited, and he asked who were the members of that company. I think there are very few amongst those who have been giving any attention to public affairs who were unaware of the personnel of the company and of the fact that the capital had been provided by the State, that it was in fact a State company to all intents and purposes and that, in undertaking shipping insurance, the company was saving for the State premiums that would otherwise be paid away. It was the State, in fact, that was insuring the ships. As we know, so far as insurance in any particular direction is concerned, the wider its activities are, the safer it is. If you are trying to insure within a narrow or restricted circle, there is always a certain amount of danger involved. The wider it is the better and the more satisfactory it will be. Consequently, it was suggested that others might avail of the fact that this company was doing the insurance of its own ships and that it might carry out the same function for them. Deputy McGilligan is not here now and I do not know whether he is satisfied with the statement made on that particular matter by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It could have been raised at any time in the form of a Parliamentary Question, and I think it would have been much more satisfactory if it were raised in that way.

The next question raised had regard to some letter with reference to insurance under the Roscommon County Council. The Minister for Local Government spoke on that matter to-day and he pointed out that he, as Minister, had no responsibility whatever and knew nothing whatever of the circular until the matter was raised by Deputy McGilligan. Another difficulty that arises in this connection is that I can hardly get complete information about any of these matters in the period that elapses from the time that a statement is made until I am called upon to reply. I can, when the debates come out, get an analysis made of the various points raised and I shall try to satisfy, the Deputy on a number of these points, but I could not do that on an occasion like this without getting sufficient time to do it. Those who were present in the House heard the statement made by the Minister for Local Government in respect to that matter, that he has no responsibility for this insurance—none whatever. It would appear from the explanation we have heard, that this was a case where the county manager arranged that the secretary of the county council would be the person to whom any insurance agency fees would be paid and that they would, in fact, go back to the county council. That was simply so far as the county council, its officials and the county manager were concerned, a natural desire to save money for the county council, to see that moneys that might be paid to people for doing nothing—because it was not a case, as pointed out by the Minister for Local Government, where the person in question was going to perform some service—should be saved for the county council. The county council was in favour of that arrangement and the insurance company knew to whom the moneys were being paid. There was no question of any special effort being made to achieve that. It seemed to me, notwithstanding what Deputy Maguire said, quite a natural thing in a case of that sort that the county council should be saved insurance fees of that description.

There may be some wider principles involved and I am quite prepared to look at this matter in a broad way, but it seems to me that when an insurance company pays agency fees for business, it gets that business through the agency. Here, where there was direct dealing, so to speak, that did not apply and if the company were going to pay fees in a case like this, I think it was right—that is my first approach to it— that these fees should be saved for the county council. Deputy Maguire has raised other issues, but these are altogether apart from the allegations named by Deputy McGilligan.

Deputy McGilligan, although from the way in which the question was asked and introduced one might think that he believed it himself, did not commit himself I think in any way to a statement which would indicate that he himself believed these allegations. However, he is not here and, therefore, I cannot know whether or not he is satisfied with the explanation. If there are Deputies who are anxious about these matters, I am quite prepared if they put down Parliamentary questions, to probe into all these things to the end. If a question is put down I shall see that a full reply is given.

I may say, in regard to procedure generally, that I am always glad, and I think Ministers should be glad, to get Parliamentary questions. It does take a considerable amount of time, I admit, to get these answers, but the system has the value that it enables a Minister to go right down to the source within his own administrative sphere. It has the great merit in my opinion that it enables a Minister to pursue a particular topic with somebody who knows local conditions and surrounding circumstances. Again, however, you can have too much of a good thing and I do not want to encourage Deputies unduly in that direction, but from the Ministerial point of view—and I feel that this also represents the view of my colleagues—it is a decided advantage, if questions are raised whether about ox-tails or anything else, that we can go right down to the source of the complaints and examine them. That is a thing which I think helps considerably.

We hear a lot of talk about bureaucracy but people who are talking about it seem always to forget that no matter what system you have in modern times you must have a large army of officials. No system that can be devised can get rid of them. Our system is intended to enable public representatives within the limits set down in the Constitution and the law, to order and direct. Under that system there is inevitably a large body of officials to administer affairs. It enables the Minister to go into affairs connected with his administration. If he gets something that appears to be wrong, he is enabled to examine into every aspect and look through files. It takes a good deal of time if you do it well. I want to end that matter referred to by Deputy McGilligan by saying that if he has, or any other Deputies have, any questions to ask relating to these subjects, I am sure he or they will get a full, and, I believe, a satisfactory answer.

A point was raised by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney with reference to a question that was asked here about land division policy. As I said when that matter was raised, the Government, as such, have nothing to do with the determination of whether or not a particular individual gets land. Look at the statutes, and the practice is in accordance with the statutes.

The next point raised was with regard to the Great Southern Railways shares, the reconstruction, and the alleged change of the market values of the stocks which, it was suggested, would seem to indicate that there had been a leakage, or something of that sort. The Minister for Industry and Commerce pointed out to-day that Deputy McGilligan did not quite state the facts. My recollection of what the Deputy said was that there was a very pessimistic report by the chairman and, following it, stocks went down, and then they suddenly went up again, as if there had been some sort of policy to cause a depression so that they could be bought at a low price and those in the know, so to speak, would be in a position to buy when the stocks were low and, therefore, they would get considerable advantage from the change from low prices to high prices. The suggestion was that people began rushing to buy any shares available and the prices went up.

On the face of it, it seemed to me that the explanation given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce was a much more natural explanation of what happened than the suggestion made by Deputy McGilligan. I wish that Deputy McGilligan, or the Leader of the Opposition Party or, in fact, the Leader of each of the Parties was here, so that I might ask if there is any responsible Party in the House anxious for an inquiry into this matter. If any responsible Leader of any Party in the House wants an inquiry, he shall have it.

Mr. Larkin

There was no intimation that the Taoiseach was going to reply at this hour.

The Taoiseach

I am not blaming anybody for being absent. I merely regret the fact that the Party leaders are absent. My position in regard to this matter is that, if you are going to have an inquiry, and if what are regarded as confidential transactions are going to be examined—if we are to have confidences between banks and their clients examined—surely we ought to be satisfied there is a good case for it. Deputy McGilligan has been apt to ask for inquiries. Are we to have inquiries about every hare that can be raised, or are we to behave properly and, if there is a serious matter that, in the public interest, should be inquired into, have it inquired into accordingly?

That is why I am anxious that the demand for an inquiry should come from one of the leaders of the Parties here. Quite clearly, if every Deputy who believes something is happening, or has heard some story or some complexion that might be put on a series of transactions for which there may be dozens of explanations, brings those matters forward, it might not be wise to have an inquiry. If we were to accede to the request of every Deputy who might tell us that the public are desperately concerned about something or other, and we should hold an inquiry, then there would be nothing but inquiries.

If any of the leaders of Parties asks for this inquiry, he must have it, and I promise that if I get such a request from any leader of a Party, that request will be granted. As a matter of fact, the Minister is anxious for an inquiry, and I may say that the chairman of the railways company is anxious for it. As this matter has been raised in a particular way, the Minister is anxious to have it cleared up. I am anxious to point out that we may have people raising all sorts of hares and sending us chasing after them, and they might concern matters for which there could be dozens of explanations. To my own thinking, the explanation of this matter is that those who were likely to deal in these shares were watching them and watching the position of the railway, and the shares were depressed because there was no likelihood of a dividend being paid. Then there was a question of reconstruction, and when it seemed likely that the position was improving, they went in to buy the shares. There was a small number available for sale in Dublin, and the prices went up. That is how it appears to me, but if any responsible leader of any Party asks for an inquiry, he shall get it.

I do not know if I should go into any of the other special matters that were raised. Deputy Larkin raised one point, not merely to-day but on a previous occasion, and I must say that I was amazed on a previous occasion at his statement about the children. I will not go into the question of the children or the ox-tails to-day, but I will do so at another time.

The big question we have to deal with on this occasion is the fact that prices have increased and that as a matter of Government policy we have tried to keep down prices and wages from the point of view of preventing prices from soaring and wages from soaring. We are confronted with a situation in which, apparently, prices have gone up more rapidly than any addition that has been made to wages. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, who is also Minister for Supplies, explained, in what I considered a very enlightening speech, the whole position. I will not go into it in the same detail as he did. I will simply summarise the points he made. He pointed out with regard to prices that there were certain elements which were beyond our control. If we could control them, and did not do it, then we were rightly open to censure by the House, because it is a part of our policy to try to keep these prices down. The Minister pointed out that the cost of raw materials coming from abroad had gone up by 115 per cent. That element is completely and absolutely beyond our control. Therefore, that particular factor will be revealed in the prices of the goods in which these raw materials are used, and up the price has to go.

The Minister next dealt with the cost of the food of our people. We here had to pay considerably enhanced prices in order to get the food that we required grown. Again, the Minister very rightly asked the House could we keep that down. As far as the Government is concerned, the complaint has been made from practically all sides of the House that we did not send it up higher. The price for wheat before the war was 30/- a barrel. I remember that when we fixed it at 50/- we were told—not from all sides of the House because there were quite a number of Deputies who understood the situation—that we were not so foolish as to believe that 50/- was a reasonable price for the farmers. The shout was to give 60/-. We even had Deputies on our own benches who did that. I see one Deputy over here, a farmer, and he was shouting out for larger prices, if not for wheat, then for beet. In order to get supplies we were compelled to do that. When we brought in compulsory tillage we were told that we should not use compulsion, that we should give inducements. The only inducement that we could give was the inducement of price, and the complaint made against us was that we did not give enough. Agricultural prices have, I think, gone up 76 per cent. The cost of imported raw materials went up 115 per cent, and the price of the food which we asked the farmers to grow has gone up from 100 to 176.

Is it any wonder then that the cost of living should have gone up? The figure given, I think, for the increase in the cost of living is 64 per cent, but it was pointed out by several Deputies that it is almost a notional figure now. We do not know the realities to which it corresponds, because it was based on commodities which, at the time, were in full supply and are now in short supply. We may take it, therefore, that the cost of living figure has gone up either less proportionately than the price of the raw materials which came in or by a less percentage than the prices we have had to pay for our agricultural produce. If we accept that figure of 64 per cent. as being right, all those whose incomes have been increased by less than 64 per cent. are enduring certain hardships during the present time. If we take their income as an indication of their position, we have to admit that. There is no denying it. I am assuming that if it is not 64 per cent. it is some percentage near it, so that those whose incomes are less than the real cost of living are suffering hardship.

Mr. Larkin

What about those with under £3?

The Taoiseach

If the Deputy will wait I want to deal with this point. Anybody whose income has been increased by less than 64 per cent., if we accept that figure, is suffering some hardship. There may be some who are able to avoid that hardship by calling upon past reserves, but those who have not these reserves have not got that particular kind of relief. Our policy has been, as far as we could with our resources and as far as we were able to manage it, to try and make that inevitable burden, which the war has put upon us, fall equally if we could, certainly to try to arrange it so that those with the strongest shoulders should have to bear the greatest part of the burden.

We first began with those at the level which could not afford to be further depressed. We said there was a certain level. There may be a difference of opinion between us as to the level we should try to draw. There were certain people, anyhow, at such a low level that if you depressed it any more the hardship was going to be excessive. We tried to rule these out and allowed them to negotiate with their employers, or otherwise, so that they might raise themselves up to that particular level. At a later stage we felt that the level was somewhat low, and we raised it. A certain system was arrived at by which adjustments could be made by going before a tribunal.

I need not go into the details about that. It is said that was not sufficient. I am not going to say that the increases that have been allowed compensate for the increase in prices. It does not. The only thing that we can say is that it would be impossible to relieve the whole community. However we like it, the burden has to be borne by somebody. The community as a whole, however it manages it, has to bear the burden that has been imposed. There is the question of trying to even it out. As I have said, we tried to lighten the burden on the shoulders of those not able to bear it.

The discussion, I take it, as far as the Labour members are concerned, was that the burden was going too heavily on two classes (1), the lower paid wage-earners, and (2) that section of the community, the infirm, the aged and some who have no means except what they get through unemployment assistance, old age pensions or the assistance provided by the public authorities. I do not know whether there is any suggestion—I have not heard it and it would not be true if it was made—that the members of the Government have any class leanings. If we have any class leanings they are the leanings that are indicated in the Constitution. These directive principles were put into the Constitution to be a guide for policy, to indicate the objectives which we would strive to aim at. They were put in to be a constant reminder. The Labour Party did not seem at the time to bother very much about them. I am very glad that now they begin to see that the fact that they are there as directives, as things to be appealed to—to the conscience of Parliament and to the conscience of the people—that they have a value. They could be put into the Constitution in no way except as directive principles. Have we tried to act in accordance with these principles? I say that we have, and that wherever it may appear otherwise it is due to the fact that we see certain reactions which would follow from attempting to go as quickly as the Labour members and others want us to go.

The Minister for Local Government to-day pointed out what the reactions would be if the appeals of certain people that we should have a higher income-tax were acceded to. He tried to point out that the sections in the community most likely to suffer from a too rapid progress in that direction would be the people who wanted employment.

When income is diminished people have to cut down their expenditure and, very often, one of the ways in which they have to do that is by dispensing with those who were giving service, as they can no longer afford to keep them. When considering these things we have to look at the reactions, and we very often find that if people try to go too rapidly in a certain direction, that produces results quite contrary to what they aimed to secure. There is that difference of opinion amongst us as to whether the standard we have set is too low. All I can say is that there is no consideration that has been referred to in this House in the last few days but has at some time or other been considered as far as the Government and Ministers are concerned.

We have been very anxious to see that the poorer sections of the community, particularly, should not be adversely affected by some of the steps that had to be taken. I think Deputies will all admit that rising prices have affected the poorer sections of the community very much more than the better off section. In all cases where prices have increased, and there is so-called inflation, when money is plentiful and goods in short supply, the poorer sections are undoubtedly hit harder first. That is one of the reasons why we have to be careful of the expenditure of public money in certain ways, in ways which would send up prices. Deputy Larkin stated that there was an increase of a certain amount in the currency, and a certain increase in the amount of money available and suggested that if that were done in other ways we would complain. We are complaining about it. The difference is this, that this is a thing we cannot help. It is due to the war and to outside conditions. Are we to adopt the course Deputy McGilligan suggested? When I heard Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney speaking this evening I was thinking that he could take some lessons from Deputy Flanagan. We saw the results, and saw that there was a dangerous limit in the pouring out of too much money to the community. That produces a new set of results unless you get production to move step by step with it. If you get a proper balance then you are all right. Wherever there has been an opportunity of using money for productive purposes there has never been lack of money. Whenever there is a chance to use money in such a way that you are going to get consumable goods in return, that is profitable expenditure. I do not want to be carried into that particular field now, because it is one for a long debate.

There are public amenities, housing and questions of that sort. These are useful and necessary for the community. They are things upon which you could go on spending money productively. It is the right and the proper use of money to produce such things. That is being done with due regard to a number of other factors. The whole question would be a very big one to attempt to get into at this stage. I want to say that there has been a considerable increase in social services. That matter is having the constant attention of the Government. I can only tell Deputies that we approach it as one of the most serious matters we have to deal with. In a crisis of this kind, our principal anxiety from the start was to see to the needs of our people. The primary need was food, because if there was not enough food it did not matter what was done otherwise. We could not distribute more than we had got. We had first to get enough food and to see that it was distributed. We had also to see that there was purchasing power, so that goods were actually distributed. That brings us to the question of the coming winter. We blame each other and blame the Government. If this crisis is satisfactorily gone through by this Government, I feel that it does not matter what is said afterwards. If this community gets through the crisis of this war without suffering very severe disaster, no matter what can be said of the Government, it will be there for everybody to see that the Government and the community managed to pull through. I am not concerned, therefore, with the complaints that have been made. It is very easy to say: "If you only did so-and-so, such a thing would not have happened." As has been stated in this House many times, it is very easy to be wise after the event. We were told that we had been urged to do this, that and the other thing. The reasons for not doing so are not given. They could be given, and if Deputies take up the records of the House, they will find that many people who claimed that they did so-and-so did not do so at all but, in fact, went in a contrary direction. We need not worry about that now.

What we have to look to is the future and the position that faces us. The past can look after itself as far as we are concerned. As the Minister for Supplies pointed out some time ago, we are probably facing a most critical year. Looking at the future, we are certainly going to face, I was going to say, the most critical year of the war. I do not know. The year we are going to face is certainly going to be more critical for this community than the years that have passed, and every one of us ought to approach it in that spirit. We are all here as representatives of the people. Taking it as a whole, the Dáil is the body which must, by its policy, try to safeguard the interests of the community. We are all in it. The Opposition have their constructive part to play just as much as we have. I should not say "just as much" because we have a special responsibility, but they also have a responsibility. The fact of having an Executive Government here is only due to the fact that there is no other way in which business could be properly managed. The fact is that every Deputy, whether he is a member of a Party or Independent, has a duty to the nation, to use the knowledge he has to help, to direct and co-ordinate. In view of everything, we have had in the past a time of wonderful co-operation in certain matters.

On the question of defence, I believe if there had been a different attitude and if the Dáil was not united as a body on defence, we might have had a different state of affairs to-day. We have almost as serious a time facing us. I will leave the defence question for the moment. We have to provide, first of all, food for our people. The Minister for Supplies took stock and indicated what our requirements were. The Minister for Agriculture did the same thing in a slightly different form. We want the farming community—and they are the key to this situation—to produce for us 700,000 acres of wheat. If they do not do that, we shall not have our requirements and we shall be put in the position in which we have been put, a position in which we shall have to mix barley with wheat. That would not be bad, if the mixing of the barley did not mean that we should have to kill some of our export trade and put people out of employment, but we can have barely as well as wheat. It can be done. It is not easy, I know, but we are in a war situation, and the same effort as would be made by us to save our community in war ought to be made to see that we get the food.

I appeal to the farmers, as I did last year, the year before, and the year before that, to go out and make a special effort to give us these 700,000 acres of wheat. It can be done. As to oats for human requirements and for animal stock, let us not be giving to the animals the food required for human needs. We can grow the food for the animals, too. Let us go out and do it. We want, on the basis of the average yield, 1,000,000 acres under oats; otherwise we shall be short either for man or for beast. If we are to have barley to put to the uses to which it was put in the past, we shall require 300,000 acres under barley.

Next in importance to wheat as a valuable crop from the point of view of human food and food for animals is the potato crop. In the coming year, we must have 500,000 acres under potatoes. If we want sugar to provide sugar supplies, we must have 80,000 acres under beet, as last year. If we want to have the root crops required for cattle, so that we shall be able to maintain our milk supplies, and so on, we must have 260,000 acres of mangolds and turnips; and of other crops, like vegetables, and so on, 70,000 acres. These all not up to 2,910,000 acres, and we may say that, in rough figures, we want to aim at 3,000,000 acres under tillage. Our total arable land is put at 11,000,000 odd, or nearly 12,000,000 acres, and one would imagine that if we had 25 per cent. of that acreage tilled, we would have enough, but that would not be nearly enough, of course, because there are certain exemptions, such as small plots, and so on. The Ministers working on it have worked out that we require three-eighths of the arable land on every farm tilled. There are exemptions in relation to rotation, and one-quarter is allowed for grass purposes.

It is a big programme. It will not be achieved without effort; it will not be achieved without a realisation of the fact that we are passing through a severe crisis and that if we fail to do it, then we shall inevitably have a shortage. Do not blame us for it. We cannot go in and manage every farm in the country. We cannot go in behind every farmer and say: "Go out and do it". We can get general principles and send inspectors out and so on, punishing offenders whom we find out, but the goodwill of the farmer and his realisation of what is at stake is very much more important than any question of inspectors. I ask all the farmer Deputies to forget for the moment the question of agitation for higher prices and so on. The prices they are being given are reasonable. They are getting a considerable increase on the prices they got before. We are passing through a war situation, and they are the only section in the community at present—they are here, and I say this to them, and I do not care what they say about it afterwards—whose products can show a higher rate of increase than the cost of living.

Because there was a fight for the annuities, I went out and asked the other sections of the community to stand behind the farmers for the years when they were in that fight. I said they were in the front-line trenches and we had to stand behind them. They did so magnificently and saved for this country by their stand a capital sum of close on £100,000,000. The farmers have had the benefit in their reduced annuities and in other respects, and surely we can go to the farmers and ask for their assistance now, when other sections of the community, when those in the cities, those who have been spoken about here, who are unemployed, unable to help themselves, whose wages are low and whose wages cannot be sent up to a level which would give them an opportunity of compensating for some of the increased prices, are in the front-line trenches.

Let the farmers come along and help that section. We are all one community. I appeal to the farmers, as I have appealed at meetings I had through the country, to do this. It is a patriotic duty for the nation, and I hold that they are getting a fair return for their labour. I cannot do any more.

If there is a shortage in the acreage tilled, then there will be a shortage of bread, a shortage of potatoes and a shortage of other things. If the farmers want to keep their stock—and goodness knows, I want to see them keeping their stock; I want to see that stock there as a foundation, as I realise it is the principal industry— they will have to till more. I am not unreasonable, and I do not think anybody appealing to them is unreasonable in asking them to increase their tillage from 1,500,000 acres to 3,000,000 acres, to double their tillage. We are asking them to do that.

At one period not very long ago, our tillage amounted to 1,500,000 acres, which was absurdly low. Countries on the Continent had been tilling up to 60 per cent., which is about the average for the Continent. We do not want the farmers to till 60 per cent; we want them to till three-eighths, and not even three-eighths, because it is three-eighths, less one-quarter, or three-quarters of three-eighths. Can I ask the farmer Deputies and every farmer, no matter on what side he sits, to go out to their own people and ask them to make a big national effort, so that we shall get the whole of this acreage and not a portion of it? That is our first and greatest problem—the problem of getting the food, because if we have not got it, no device of money or any other device will enable us to distribute. You cannot distribute what you have not got.

Deputy O'Higgins said that agricultural production was doubled from 1823 to 1932. I think he must have been dreaming or reading fairy-tales recently. I cannot see how that could have been and the figures for that period do not seem to indicate anything of the kind. Any of us who remember prices at that time know very well that a terrible depression began in the middle twenties and continued until about 1934. I take it that it is the value of his production which matters most to the farmer. Any figures I have seen seem to indicate a reduction from 140 to 110. I have not been able to realise on what basis the Deputy can make such a statement. Based on the 1911-1913 figures of 100, the figure was 140 in 1926-27 and went down to 110 in 1932. I do not know what it was earlier than that. But how he can talk about its having been doubled in that period, I do not know.

With regard to the agricultural industry, the position as I understand it has been this: The particular crops grown have changed, but the volume of production has remained more or less static. It is difficult to relate volumes of cereals, for instance, to volumes in connection with cattle, and so on. But, taking it as a whole, the statisticians would say that the volume of agricultural production has remained static. Crops have changed, of course. We have got on to wheat and other things which we had not before. But the value has gone up very much in recent years. I have shown what it has gone up since the war began. I have not the figures at hand, but I can assure the House from a previous study that all the statistics show that the value has gone up considerably.

As to the post-war period, it is very hard at this stage to do anything like definite planning. There are too many unknowns in the future for anything like definite planning. You can do certain things at the moment. For instance, we had an agricultural commission set up to examine into and make recommendations about improvements in agriculture. They had to stop their sittings because they were getting information which would be completely out of date and useless in four or five years afterwards, or whenever the war would end. There was no real purpose in their pursuing their inquiries. Instead of that, we have now a committee of experts. The other commission, on which there were representatives of farmers and others, stopped their sessions because the information which they were collecting would be completely out of date. Then we appointed a committee of experts. Of course, it has been suggested at times that they knew nothing about farming. I need not go into the personnel of the committee, but it is nonsense to talk about them in that way. They are experts in the particular subjects with which they were dealing, and they have a good knowledge of farming. They are either farmers' sons having expert knowledge of other things, or expert economists. They have been studying that matter with a view to seeing what suggestions they could put forward as to the best lines for our agriculture to follow when the war ends.

A lot of the work, even of the experts, consists of trying to peer into the future. With their knowledge of world affairs and movements and of the economics of other States as well as our own, they are able to make the best guess as to what is likely to be the policies of other States and their effect upon our State. They are doing their best to try to look ahead. They are getting all the available information they can about the present position of agriculture, and the position as it was before the war, and they have that as a background with a view to making recommendations the moment that some of the unknown factors come to be really known. According as each factor becomes known, they will be able to move a step further. But you cannot sit down at present and do anything like definite planning in the sense of producing a plan and saying: "We are definitely going to do so-and-so when the war is over."

One thing that is clear to everybody is that the more each farmer increases his production of the commodities he can produce the better it will be. I think it is likely to be true in the future, as in the past, that mixed farming will be the best type of farming for our people. When considering our agricultural community one wonders what is the best we can look for in the future. I ask myself this question: Suppose that we are pursuing the policy that is indicated in the Constitution of putting as many families on this land of ours as the land can economically carry, how many families can we have on this arable land of ours, the land that is available in farms for the maintenance of people? Suppose we put the average at about 30 statute acres per farm. We have roughly 12,000,000 acres of arable land.

Mr. Larkin

Does anybody know how much land there is? Some talk about 12,000,000 acres and some about 17,000,000 acres.

The Taoiseach

The 17,000,000 mentioned, I think, is the total area. The arable portion of that is about 12,000,000. If you want to make a rough calculation, 12,000,000 acres is not too bad a figure to take. That would mean 400,000 families. At present the average family is, roughly, about five individuals in each family— the parents and three children. That looks very small. Suppose we go well over that and we put it at four children on the average, then we have six individuals in each family, or 2,400,000 on the farms of the country. We would have that population, then, if it were all divided. I am talking of those absolutely on the land. I am talking of these farmers and their families, and if you divide all the land in such a way that you will have on an average 30 acres per family, it is surprisingly small. Then we must remember that when the family grows up, suppose there are four children, you will only have two children on an average remaining on the land. There will be a boy, I suppose, who will get the farm, and one girl who will probably marry into a neighbouring farm, so that only two children on an average will be part of the farming community. If we are to provide for even the ordinary increase in the farming population we must get some place for the other two to go to. That proves conclusively that, if we want to keep up our population at all, we must provide for them employment here in other ways. Obviously, the best type of employment for them, apart from certain very essential services, would be to put them to producing other things. As the farmers in their homes are producing food, we should put the other people into employment to produce the other things we require.

Therefore, I speak to the farmer members in this House, and taken together they are as numerous, probably, on the other side and our side— in fact very much more numerous— than the whole Farmers' Party. Taking them all in all, there is a very big number of farmer representatives here in this Dáil, and I say to them, do not listen to the people who tell you that we ought not to try to build up our industries here by every possible means. Do not listen to them, because it is only in that way that a portion of your children are going to get employment in this country. If you do not build up the industries and, therefore, the services that would be related to these industries—transport and all the other things—then, from the purely narrow point of view, you are not doing a wise thing for yourselves. So, when you are building up industries, do not imagine that the building up of industries here is something contrary to the interests of the farmer. It is not.

There is another thing—again I appeal to the farmers—do not listen to the people who tell you again and again that the building up of an industrial population here is not in your interests. It is. The home market is a far better market for you than any foreign market. You will have it at all times. If controls are necessary so that the market may give you a reasonable return for your labour, it can be controlled. But, you cannot control the outside market. The outside market is completely beyond your control. The home market can be controlled to a certain extent so that you get a fair return for your labour. You are getting prices, and have been getting prices, for wheat and for beet and for other crops which, according to the figures there, do show that you get a fair return. It is hard work. I know it is hard work. I know you cannot walk out and take off your working clothes and stop in the evening at a certain time. I know it is a whole-day work and a whole-week work, too. But you have a lot of other advantages that other people have not got. It is hard work but, if it is, you can be assured in your own country a reasonable return for your labour.

To say that statisticians of another country have given 66 per cent. as the amount of their tillage is a thing I can get from books of reference, and a thing that everybody can get and test. But, when we are talking about circumstances in another country, I say we want to know all the circumstances practically before we understand whether they are applicable here or not. What I was really coming down to was this: We could stabilise prices, and there would be a way for doing it, but, as I say, in order to do it, we would want to have a co-operation which is almost too much for human nature. There are any amount of things that could be done in this world with very little trouble if human beings were so constituted that they were less selfish and were prepared to co-operate with each other, but, unfortunately, the world has not come to that yet, and if you were to try to do them you would have a thing you find in a number of other cases as well as in the case of the farmers. The moment we gave farmers prices beyond the world prices for wheat, for instance, they were very well satisfied, but the moment the world prices went beyond the prices we were giving, then we were told a lot about it. It is all right for stabilisation if the line you stabilise is the highest that could be got with complete freedom. There would be a point above it and below it —it ought to be a sort of mean line. No matter what agreement in advance we make that these were to be the prices, and that these were fair prices to be settled in relation to other prices, wages, and so on, in the community, whilst they will agree with you in 1939, or in 1940, the moment things go the other way the agreement breaks down.

If you could get stabilisation of prices all the way, it would be the most convenient thing for everybody, but I am afraid it is a bit of a droam. I am afraid it cannot be worked out in that way. Theoretically, it probably would be the wisest and best thing for the community if we could get the community to do it, but I am wondering could we get the community to do it. At any rate we will be always willing to give propositions of that sort the fullest and completest examination but, as I say, I doubt if we will get anywhere.

What we can do and what we are doing at present is something different. We are trying to tell you in advance certain prices so that when you break up your land for tillage you are guaranteed for a year or two ahead, and to tell you that if you do come up to this 3,000,000 acres, we will not leave you in the lurch when the war ends and other things come in; that we will try to secure you to the best of our ability; that if you have served the nation during this time, the fact that you have tilled that land will not be to your economic detriment, in so far as we can do it in the national interests afterwards. That is all we can reasonably do for the farmers. That is all we can do and I ask, therefore, our farmers to come along and help us in this particular matter.

Now, with regard to our industries, we are anxious to build them up, but it is true—unfortunately, only too true —that we are lacking in a number of essential raw materials. Therefore, as regards industry, is it not obvious that we should go out most in the direction in which we have raw materials available? Industries in which the raw materials are the products of our own farms are the class of industries that we should go out to develop. Why? Because we have the primary products there on the farms, and if our farmers develop their lands properly, it should be possible to provide quite a number of the raw materials of industry. Speaking of that, any Deputy on the opposite benches need not worry about our being fully alive to the importance of science, machinery, and so on, so far as the full development of our land is concerned. There is only one thing, with regard to machinery, to be concerned with, and that is in connection with the big farm—the thousand acre farm. That is all right if you are only thinking of the amount that could be produced with the least possible amount of labour, and if you are prepared to leave out the human element.

You could produce plenty in that way, but we, definitely, have directed our efforts towards a different purpose, and I think that the majority of people would agree with us. We have tried to establish as many families on the land as we could. The only way that you could get the fullest productivity on the land by the use of machines, except on the bigger types of farms, would be by co-operation. You could get some of the advantages of co-operation in that way on the smaller farms. I know that it is not easy. Of course, people say: "Why cannot the farmers have tractors, ploughs, and so on, in common?" Now, in our part of the country, and I am sure in other parts of the country we used to have what was called "cabhairlin" but the trouble there is that, whilst that is a good thing, it may often happen that during the rush period, such as when getting in the hay, threshing, and so on, one farmer might want to have the use of the machine at a time when his neighbour was using it. I remember that one of the first pieces of machinery that came into my part of the country was the mowing machine, and it was used co-operatively.

That was long before the days when each farmer had a mowing machine for himself. One of the difficulties with regard to this question of co-operation in the use of machines is that in the spring, let us say, you want to sow at the same time that your neighbour wants to do it. That is what makes that kind of co-operation difficult. On the other hand, I think that it could be done. I believe that if you could get a number of neighbours sitting down together and talking the matter over, they themselves could arrange some system—by casting lots, if you like—as to who would have first use of the machine concerned. I think that it could be done, but in my opinion that could best be achieved by the development of the small machine rather than by the development of the large machines such as are used on the vast farms of America or Canada. Let us, by all means, make use of all the scientific methods that are available to us, but I think that it would suit us best to follow along the lines I have suggested.

Deputy Hughes mentioned on several occasions the advisability of applying scientific methods to agriculture, and I quite agree, but we have in the Albert College, Glasnevin, University College, and elsewhere, stations where excellent experimental work is being done. As a matter of fact, as I mentioned here before, the value of our experimental work, which does not seem to be generally known to our own people, is well known outside this country. Some excellent work is being done by our colleges, whether in connection with the eradication of diseases in plants or the development of agriculture generally. Excellent work is being done here by our own scientists, and one of the great advantages of science to-day is that it is almost universal. In other words, a discovery made by a scientist in any country is not kept as a secret for the benefit if his own country. The results of his discoveries are available to all countries. Accordingly, we have, not alone the advantage of the discoveries of the scientists of other countries, but we also have the benefit of the work of our own scientists, who are working on the particular problems that immediately concern us.

The question of soil analysis was mentioned here. It was brought to my notice, and I brought it to the attention of the Minister. These things are under examination by the committee that has been set up. Some people are very impatient in connection with this matter of soil surveys, and evidently think that these problems can be solved in a day, but practical farmers know how the character of their land changes from field to field, and, therefore, these surveys of soil conditions will have to be of a very detailed character if they are to be of any advantage, and, in order to take full advantage of them, you have to come down to particulars. With regard to post-war development, the Government is quite conscious of the desirability of bringing in the aid of scientists to help us in the development of our land. Perhaps I have spent too much time on this matter of agriculture, but, if so, it is because I believe it is important.

I was asked about post-war planning. I do not know whether I should go into it. I indicated the lines that we are adopting, and I think that they are the best, for the moment at any rate. There is a great deal of material to be collected. You all know that the greater part of the time of these commissions is spent in collecting information. For instance, a great deal of information has to be collected with regard to building materials. That is being pursued with a view to seeing when it will be possible for a certain number of things to be done here. Priorities, of course, probably, will be indicated, but here again I would appeal to those people, just as I appealed to the farmers, to try to realise that we have to have regard to the interests of the community as a whole. In the same way, I now appeal to Labour to give their co-operation for the benefit of the whole community, particularly in connection with a world in which there has been and will be the pull and push of the various peoples, all struggling for their own particular interests.

Now can we get a wider view? Just as I have asked the farmers to try to co-operate in the general interests of the community can I also ask Labour? Labour has, during the period of the emergency on the whole, co-operated, facing the burdens that unfortunately the crisis has placed upon them, reasonably, and bearing the hardships as well as it is possible for human beings to bear them. I should like to ask Labour to co-operate with us in planning for the future. I should like to ask the trade union movement—I am not talking about the political section though the political representatives can help just as the political representatives of the farmers in their section can—can we get them to take the full community view of the situation and to try to get, as far as it is possible looking ahead, as much stability as is possible so that we shall be able to make the greatest amount of progress? When this war is over, we do not know how many skilled workers who have left the country will come back. Take, for instance, the building trade. We do not know how many skilled workers will come back to this country. The big programme that I can see, looking ahead in the building industry, will require far more operatives than we have. We want to have people trained if we can. We want to have apprentices. These people have got to be trained. What is it reasonable for Labour to look for in connection with work of that kind? As I understand it, what they would look for is a reasonable continuance of work ahead. We all admit, I take it, that the more we produce, each one of us, the more there is available for the community and the bigger will be our share if it is reasonably distributed, so that everything that makes for individual effort in production of various kinds is ultimately to the advantage of the community.

In regard to Labour then, what should we expect from the trade unions? If there were a number of apprentices entering, for instance, the carpenters' union, would they want to satisfy themselves that the numbers in that particular trade were likely to have work ahead in the programme outlined for a reasonable number of years? I think that could be done, that the programme is sufficiently vast to indicate that there is a considerable amount of work ahead, and that there need be no fear of lack of work or employment from the fact that there would be a certain number of operatives in the industry. Looking at one section now—building—it seems to me that there is such a programme, such an amount of work available in the building industry alone, that it promises for ten or 20 years ahead, employment for thousands of people. If such a programme is available can we not ask the Irish trade union leaders and the political leaders to help in seeing that we shall be accommodated by having agreements with regard to the training of the people who will be required to carry out that work?

Mr. Larkin

Might I be allowed to answer that question now? The labour movement, organised or unorganised, has never failed the country. You know that and we challenge contradiction of it. The head of the political section of the labour movement is not here now but I take it upon myself to say that if this Government calls on the labour movement it will not be found wanting. I suggest to the Taoiseach that he should call on the unskilled workers to have a talk with him as he did before and they will be ready to meet him if he meets them fairly. I suggest that instead of packing these wages boards he should allow the workers to get recognition through their own organisations. Let his Minister recognise rates of wages made within this country. I suggest as a first step that he should get his Minister to withdraw the anti-Trade Union Act, then we will talk to him as men.

The Taoiseach

The point about it is that if each section of workers makes up its mind that only what it wants is to be done, that is not accommodation.

Mr. Larkin

We are not farmers.

The Taoiseach

These public amenities will have to be discussed at another time. There is a lot of public work of various kinds to be done, but all that will depend on our resources. We have resources of certain kinds, certain raw materials here, but there are other raw materials which we must get from abroad. These will have to be paid for, and they can only be paid for by having an excess of the articles we can best export. We have certain assets. We do not know what will be their value at the end of the war. Let us hope they will be as valuable as they are at the moment. These resources will be available to get us raw materials, but it will depend ultimately on their value. If we are to continue over a long period, much will depend on the amount we are able to export.

I should like to give the House some facts. Our resources are limited, and I will give you some striking figures to show you how our resources are limited. We met here the other day and passed a Vote for £100,000. In view of the need, that amount seemed to be a mere drop in the ocean. I was trying to get some picture in my mind which would enable you to appreciate the extent to which it corresponds to our resources. We have less than 3,000,000 of people and in the United States of America, back in 1919 when I was there, they had a population of over 120,000,000, forty times the extent of our population. Supposing that each person in the United States contributed in proportion, that would be £4,000,000 or $20,000,000, taking it roughly. When we are talking here, we must not lose sight of the fact that our resources of various kinds are limited. In the case of America, $20,000,000 would look a large sum. It took a lot of effort on our part in the United States to get a very much smaller sum. We must not forget, when we see what can be done by nations like the United States or Great Britain or Russia, nations which have immense resources and areas of population, that our area is small and our population is small and there are limits to our resources.

Mr. Larkin

I think the world appreciates what we did.

The Taoiseach

It is not altogether that; it is a question of relative values, and I am afraid at times, when we are talking about schemes, we do not properly take into account the size of our country. We have been accustomed to read about the big nations. We can read in the newspapers what they are able to do and we make a comparison with the little nations. When we read about the things done in Russia and Britain and elsewhere, we are inclined to forget that what we can do in proportion to our size is so very much smaller than their efforts.

We have had references to New Zealand. I will give the House a few figures with regard to New Zealand which will be useful when we try to do the same things as we are told they do in New Zealand. First of all, the population of New Zealand—I am taking figures for the year 1941—is 1,636,230. Our population is 2,989,420, almost twice as great. The acreage in occupation in New Zealand is nearly 43,000,000 acres and the corresponding figure here—what we call our arable land—is 11,848,000 acres. You see there that the area is nearly four times as great, although their population is only half of ours. The result is that they have relatively seven times as much space per person as we have. You can see at once that each individual has seven times as much land for the purposes of production. The population density in the case of New Zealand is only 16 per square mile, whereas in our case it is 112.

You can see, therefore, the possibilities in the case of New Zealand. The number of agricultural holdings there of an acre and over is 86,373 and land divided in that way in large farms can be mechanised. In our case the number of agricultural holdings is 326,000. The average acreage per holding in New Zealand is 496 and in our case it is 36. The mean size of the holding is 100 to 200 acres in New Zealand while in our case it runs from 15 to 30 acres.