Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 6 Jul 1945

Vol. 97 No. 19

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

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

Last night I was dealing with the rather extraordinary speech of Deputy McGilligan, a speech in which by implication, if not directly, he advocated a prohibition on cattle exports to Great Britain and the stifling of the tourist industry, and proclaimed that, in his view, the sterling assets of which, fortunately or unfortunately, we have accumulated a vast reserve during the past six years, are worth approximately one-half of what their book value stands at to-day. That, as I say, was an extraordinary speech by Deputy McGilligan. Not merely was it ill-informed, and not merely was it fantastic, but it was also capable of doing the people of this country and the community as a whole grave and serious injury, because, for good or ill, for generations a large part of the savings of our people have been invested in British securities in one form or another, or in securities and assets which were convertible into sterling. It might be said that our sterling assets, whether we like it or not, are a fundamental element in our whole financial and economic structure. No greater injury can be done to any people than to try to destroy their confidence in the economic and financial organisation in which they live. The essential purpose which Deputy McGilligan sought to serve by his speech last night was to disturb and destroy the confidence of this people in their own future and in the future of their own State.

This morning, newspapers which have been inimical and antagonistic to the political and economic developments of the past 12 years, have come out with Deputy McGilligan's statement blazoned across their pages. The Irish farmer whose money is in an Irish bank —an Irish bank which has a great part of its surplus funds invested in British sterling—when he reads the Irish Times will see there, in block capitals, “Mr. McGilligan says that sterling assets are going to be written down by 50 per cent.”, and the Irish farmer, if he happens to believe that statement, will naturally say to himself: “What is going to happen to the Irish pounds which I have in this Irish bank, if Deputy McGilligan's statement is true? What is going to happen to my savings? Are the banks going to write them down by 50 per cent?” If the assets which the bank holds are going to be written down by 50 per cent, then, unless the banking concern is going to close its doors, its liabilities must be written down by the same amount. If the Irish farmer or the Irish shopkeeper or the Irish worker who has savings and deposits in these banks, once believes that Deputy McGilligan has been speaking the truth, what is going to be his natural reaction? Are they not going to say, “We are going to be in the bank first; we are going to get our money out of that bank, and we are going to convert it into something here in Ireland, or even, perhaps, going to put it away in the stocking, before the bank is compelled to write down its sterling assets by 50 per cent., and write down my savings with them”?

If that were to happen, what would be the consequence? Either that the dangerous practice of hoarding, which was responsible for so many of France's financial disabilities before the war, would be encouraged and developed in this country, or else, there would be created the inflationary conditions which it has been the policy of this Government to prevent, and which this Government to an extent unparalleled in the world and with a success which is unparalleled elsewhere, has prevented in this country. If people are told that their money to-morrow is going to be worth only 50 per cent. of what it is worth to-day, the natural tendency of those people will be to buy anything, at any price, that people are prepared to sell to them.

The consequence of Deputy McGilligan's statement, if the people believed it, would be one of two things —either that the habit of currency hoarding would be encouraged and would develop in this country, or else that we would have the inflationary spiral set in motion here to an extent which could not be controlled. Therefore I say that Deputy McGilligan's speech was not only fantastic, was not only ill-informed, but was also malicious and mischievous.

General MacEoin

And slovenly?

Mr. MacEntee

And, if the Deputy likes, slovenly.

General MacEoin

It is as good an adjective as any.

Mr. MacEntee

It had one purpose in view and that was to destroy the confidence of the people of this country in their own future, in their own currency, in their own banking system. That, and nothing else.

Upon what foundation did Deputy McGilligan base this statement of his, this dangerous statement which, if it were to be accepted by the people at its face value, would inevitably, I think, precipitate the very sort of crisis which everybody but Deputy McGilligan is anxious to avoid? So far as I can see, and so far as any intelligent man can see, there is no justification whatever for that statement—none whatever in the circumstances of today. Whatever dangers may have been inherent in the fact that, for good or ill, over generations, our economy has been closely linked with that of our neighbour, whatever dangers there may have been inherent in that position when Great Britain's own independence was insecure and was in danger, that danger has definitely passed since Great Britain emerged as one of the victors in the war. Naturally, of course, she has suffered greatly. She has lost a great part of her easily realisable assets—her liquid assets— but she has emerged as still the strongest commercial power in Western Europe and still fit, by reason of her colonial possessions and the real assets which these represent, to hold her place in the commercial developments of the future.

Mr. Dillon

Will somebody strike up "Rule Britannia" now and we will all bow.

General MacEoin

He is going well.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister was subjected to considerable interruption last night. Such interruptions must cease.

Mr. MacEntee

Naturally, emerging as she has done, with certain of her resources depleted, with a position, perhaps, vis-a-vis some of the other great Powers, not as assured as it was, we may be certain that Britain is going to strain every nerve, and is going to utilise all the capacities of her people to recover the position in the world which she had prior to the outbreak of the war, in 1939. One of the great sources of British power and influence in world affairs was London's unique position as a banking and financial centre. It was a place of international exchange, where everything and anything could be bought or sold in terms of sterling. The place in which sterling was freely exchangeable for all classes and quantities of commodities brought from the far ends of the earth. It was upon this and upon her maritime position that Britain's political and commercial predominance were based prior to 1939.

This is where I may put one of those rhetorical questions which appear to be so provocative to the Opposition. May I ask you, Sir, if Britain is going to try to recover that position? Mr. Churchill says she is; Deputy McGilligan says she is not; and, therefore, Mr. Churchill must be wrong. Last night, Deputy McGilligan declared that it was quite clear—and we see the words reported in the newspapers this morning—that the value of sterling would have to be written down by 50 per cent. So says the great Deputy McGilligan, speaking apparently with inside information as to the intentions of the British Government. But Mr. Churchill, in one of his broadcasts during the general election campaign, promised the British people that, if they gave him a majority, one of the first aims of his Government would be to enhance considerably the purchasing power of the £ sterling. Poor Mr. Churchill! It was very wrong of him, indeed, to make that statement without consulting the great Deputy McGilligan, the Deputy who, I think, once read Mr. Geoffrey Crowther's work entitled "An Outline of Money", without understanding it, and who has been posing since as Fine Gael's leading authority on banking, commercial, social and industrial matters.

At any rate, Mr. Churchill says it is to be the aim of his Government to enhance the value of the £ sterling, but Deputy McGilligan has told the Irish people that, so far from Mr. Churchill being able to fulfil that undertaking, in his view the £ sterling is going to be depreciated by no less than 50 per cent. Now, Sir, I do not know and it is not for me to say whether Mr. Churchill, if returned at this election, will be able to fulfil his undertaking or not. It is not for me to say whether he will be able to make the value of sterling and the value of sterling assets and sterling securities appreciate or not. I hope he may, because of the extent to which we have accumulated such assets during the past six years, because the more the £ sterling appreciates the more valuable our sterling assets will become and the more we shall be able to buy with them. Whether Mr. Churchill succeeds in his undertaking to the British people or not, however, there is one thing certain and one thing of which we may be assured, and that is that he cannot permit sterling or sterling assets to be depreciated by 50 per cent. in value.

One of the noteworthy features of British financial policy during the war has been the device by which the individual interests of virtually every adult citizen have been attached to British national credit. By compulsory savings and by voluntary savings, practically every British citizen has money—as the saying used to be—"in the funds", has a stake in the country and a share in the National Debt. What that signifies from the point of view of the future of sterling will be borne in on us if we contrast the main bone of contention between the parties at the end of this war with the big issue which divided the parties at the end of the 1914-1918 war. In 1918 the main plank and the platform of the Labour Party was the demand for a capital levy.

At the end of this war, no politician to-day in Great Britain would have the hardihood even to mention the words "Capital Levy". On the contrary, what Mr. Churchill has been telling his people, perhaps more vociferously and emphatically than his opponents, during this election, has been that the value of their savings, the value of the British £ in which their savings are expressed and accounted for, depends on the return of himself and his Government; and what his opponents are trying to do is to prevent the impression being created in the minds of the electors that, if Labour is returned, sterling or sterling assets are going to depreciate or be written down in any degree at all, though Deputy McGilligan has told the country that they are going to be, by no less than 50 per cent.

The suggestion that a levy might be imposed upon capital in Great Britain, either directly by appropriating the savings of the people, or indirectly by writing down the value of their securities, has not been heard during the whole of this election campaign; and the reason, of course, is as I have said, that virtually every voter in Great Britain to-day, every worker, every man in the British forces the world over, in whatever army he may be serving, has an individual interest in maintaining the value of his savings, the capital which, of his own volition or under compulsion, he has accumulated during the war. Apparently, the Fine Gael financial expert, Deputy McGilligan, makes nothing of all this. Notwithstanding the declarations of the British Prime Minister and the programme which he has submitted to the people, the foremost plank of which is that, if he is returned, he will do his utmost to make the British £ appreciate, and certainly will prevent it from depreciating; notwithstanding all this, Deputy McGilligan got up and made that mischievous and malicious speech in the House last night, with the object of disturbing the minds of the people in this country who have savings, with the intention to undermine the confidence of those who have money in the bank, money in Government securities, and cash readily realisable in one form or another.

Now, Sir, I think that most of us, in relation to British financial policy, will accept Mr. Churchill as speaking with greater authority than Deputy McGilligan. Perhaps, of course, the Deputy might not, but then others of us who are less vain and have more sense, will. I think we may take it that Mr. Churchill will do his utmost to secure that the purchasing value of sterling will appreciate. We may take that, I think, with some assurance, because Mr. Churchill has no other option but to try to make the value of the British pound appreciate if he is to improve the living conditions of his own people, for, as the British pound depreciates in value, as its purchasing power becomes less, the standard of living of his people becomes worse, and I do not think anybody will suggest, not even Deputy McGilligan, that it will be the aim and intention of the new British Government to worsen the living conditions of their own people.

Therefore, I say if Mr. Churchill is to fulfil his pledges to the people, he can do no other than his utmost to make the value of the £ sterling appreciate, because, as it appreciates in value, as its purchasing power increases, the standard of living of the British community as a whole must rise. How can the appreciation in the British pound, which we may be certain Mr. Churchill is seeking, be secured?

There is only one way and that is by making it more and more freely exchangeable for commodities. The more readily it can be exchanged for goods, the more valuable it will be and its value in exchange cannot be confined to one section of holders. That freedom in exchange must be universal. If the value of the pound is to be intrinsic and substantial, if it is to have any reality, then its freedom in exchange must be universal and holders of sterling must be able to buy freely whatsoever commodities those who have made themselves responsible for sterling have to sell.

Mr. Dillon

That is not so at the moment.

Mr. MacEntee

Because the goods are not there, nor are they anywhere else for sale; but the moment the goods come into existence, at that moment the value in exchange of sterling, which is the value with which we are concerned, will begin to appreciate.

At the moment, however, the dilemma we are in is this, when we bring our cattle to the market we are in exactly the same position as any farmer. We have only two options, either to sell them there for what we can get for them or take them home. Now, by reason of the war and the policy of our predecessors, the inheritors of the bad traditions of the last 100 years—by reason of their policy and the policy of the men who preceded them in control of the resources and organisation of this country, we have only one market, and, so far as our cattle are concerned, we have just exactly the same option as any farmer has who brings his cattle to a neighbouring town; we must either sell them in the market available to us for what we can get for them, or we must take them home again.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister is perfectly right in saying that there are not alternative markets, and there never were.

Mr. MacEntee

If Mr. Churchill is to fulfil his pledge to his own people, he must increase the freedom in exchange of British currency; he must be prepared to accept British currency in exchange for anything which he is anxious to sell. In the world as we see it at the moment, who will have goods to sell? Those who have been victorious in the war—they and no others, because they control these commodities, and the moment they begin to sell them to any people, they must sell them to us equally with those people. Mr. Churchill cannot begin to make the pound appreciate in value until the day upon which the British Government will decide that any person who has got sterling can get goods and services in exchange for that sterling. Therefore, whatever Mr. Churchill succeeds in doing for his own people by bringing about a genuine appreciation in the value of the pound, he must also succeed, strange as it may appear, in doing for us.

I have dwelt at length on this because I think Deputy McGilligan's speech was one of the most dangerous, one of the least informed, that this House has listened to for a long time. If people were to take it at its face value and act on his words, the credit of this State would be shaken from top to bottom; our whole social and economic system would be disrupted and we would be faced with exactly the same sort of conditions as have prevailed in Europe over the past 12 months and as prevailed in Italy and Germany, too, for some considerable time, apparently, before they were finally defeated. But there is no room and no justification for Deputy McGilligan's statements. The economy of this country is as sound to-day as it ever was; the future for this country is bright. It is not—let me make this quite clear—by our will or desire, or as a result of our policy, that we have accumulated these sterling assets. We do not think that the securities of any outside State—no matter how soundly its economy may be based, no matter how assured its position in the world may be—are as good an investment for our people as a native security. We do not believe that money locked away on deposit or in interest-bearing securities is half so useful to our people as money reproductively invested in active business here.

The whole purpose of our policy prior to this war was to induce our people to realise their external securities, and to invest them in Irish industry. With that in view we gave them substantial inducement to do so against the opposition of Deputy McGilligan and his Party. We changed the whole fiscal system of this country in order to induce our people to realise their investments abroad and to invest them in Irish industry at home and for that we imposed tariffs which were condemned by the Opposition, for that purpose we imposed quotas which were condemned by the Opposition, with that object in view we gave those who invested in Irish industries special concessions in respect of income-tax, which concessions also were condemned and opposed by the Opposition. In short the normal policy of this Government since 1932 has been to do everything it possibly could, consistent with the freedom of the citizen, to induce our people to realise those assets abroad and to invest them at home.

When we were doing that what sort of assistance did we get from Deputy McGilligan, what sort of assistance did we get from any one of his colleagues on the benches opposite? I remember when I was Minister for Finance, year after year on the Budget debates one of the main topics that used to be discussed was not the accumulation of sterling assets but the fact that they were being reduced. And foremost amongst those who criticised the Government because of that were Deputy Dillon and Deputy McGilligan. We were told then that the credit of this country would be destroyed, that we were undermining the foundations of our economy because people, forsooth, were realising investments in sterling securities and putting them into Irish industries. When we established the sugar beet company, when we established the Industrial Credit Corporation, when we were trying to develop our peat resources, when we were encouraging our farmers to get tillage, we were told that that policy was disastrous and that its disastrous consequences were being manifested in the fact that sterling balances were being reduced. That was the line of argument prior to the war. But to-day, with the inconsistency which is characteristic of the political whirligigs opposite, we are told that the country's condition has become perilous because, instead of sterling assets being reduced, they are—though not by our volition and not with our goodwill— being accumulated. If we could do anything in the state of the world to-day to ensure that these assets would be converted into capital goods it would be done. It is not possible to do it to-day but it certainly will be possible to do it to-morrow.

Mr. Dillon

Good.

Mr. MacEntee

Does the Deputy doubt the truth of that? Deputy Dillon apparently doubts its truth and yet the Deputy is the man who wanted us to link our fortunes and our whole future and our whole existence to the British cause during the war. To-day when we have weathered the storm he doubts whether Great Britain is going to honour her bond to her creditors. He has now apparently adopted the attitude of Deputy McGilligan. We used to hear a great deal about the soundness of British credit. Who stated that Britain is going to default on creditors, who stated that she is going in fact to be a fraudulent bankrupt? Deputy McGilligan last night. Whatever else may be true of Britain as she stands to-day, she has no justification whatever for writing down any one of her financial obligations. I want to say in conclusion that, as far as the future of this country is concerned, and so far as its credit is concerned, it is as bright to-day and as sound to-day as it was in 1939. It is as strong and as well-based to-day, and our people may have the same confidence in their future that that they had in August, 1939, when they decided, whatever else might befall them, that at least they were going to stand on their own feet, an independent people.

Mr. Dillon

When Barnum and Bailey established their famous circus they had one tent, and when you went into it they invariably had some creature in it of a somewhat grotesque appearance. When the admiring crowds assembled the showman was prepared to reply to the query: "What is it?" by saying: "When you pay your money you take your choice." For a long time last night, and for a long time this morning the Minister for Local Government was extolling the incomparable value, soundness and safety of sterling assets and securities. Then, as he felt that the few gloomy colleagues who sit behind him were growing more and more uneasy at the picture drawn by the Minister of the whole future of the Irish nation depending on British sterling, it reminded him that the whole policy of Fianna Fáil has always been to strip this country of the precious asset that he had spent the previous one and a quarter hours discussing. That does not surprise me when I see sitting behind him our new Minister for Finance who, I understand, is a disciple of the Douglas Credit Plan. I expect that, in the course of the next 12 months, we shall have some confused thinking on high finance between the Douglas Plan, the new Minister for Finance, the Minister for Local Government and the Taoiseach. I suppose some proposition will emerge which can be contested because it is extremely difficult to follow a man who spent three quarters of his time as Minister for Finance on one thesis, and the other quarter of his time assuring the populace that he does not believe in it himself. I listened to the Minister for Local Government this morning and last night growing hystorical about the reflections that have been cast upon the solidity of British assets, and I could not help wondering how many Deputies realise that this is the same man who, on taking over the Department of Finance in 1932, sold our British securities for gold.

We have travelled a long way from the days in which he did that, until to-day when he declares that in the whole world there is nothing to compare for true intrinsic value with British securities backed by Winston Churchill. He has gone so far as to say this: that any challenge to the intrinsic worth of these can only be made with the purpose of destroying the confidence of the Irish people in their own future, and that if British assets should be depreciated the credit of this State would be shaken and our whole economic system would be disrupted.

Now, all this frantic eloquence arises from this plain statement of fact by Deputy McGilligan last night: that what we want in this country is not credit but goods, and that unless the credits we are accumulating are exchangeable for goods they are of no use to us or to anybody else. Surely, that is a perfectly plain statement of fact. The Minister for Local Government and Public Health says here to-day that these credits are not exchangeable for goods. As I understood it, the plain burden of Deputy McGilligan's speech was this: has not the time come when our Government should proceed to investigate the resources of the sterling bloc with a view to initiating trading transactions with Great Britain on the basis of goods for goods, on the ground that we already hold so substantial a bloc in Great Britain that it would be reasonable to suggest that our future trade with that country would be based on some ratio of goods for goods rather than exclusively on a ratio of our goods for their credits, so long as they are not in a position to encash those credits for the kind of goods that we require.

Now, is it not well for our Government, without getting hysterical, without getting frightened, calmly to consider Deputy McGilligan's statement? Is it not true—let us bring it down to particular facts—is it not true that we want building materials, notably timber? Now, timber is to be had at this moment in Sweden. Sweden is in the sterling bloc. Is it not desirable now, if that can be arranged, to exchange some of our sterling credits for the timber we require, if the building of houses is to be carried on? Would it not be reasonable to suggest to our Government that they should take up with Great Britain, at an early stage, that if they have not material goods to give us, they should place at our disposal transport for reward which would carry goods from other parts of the sterling area and send us these goods for consumption in this country? Is a suggestion to that effect by Deputy McGilligan a suggestion designed to shake the confidence of our people in their future and to tear down the whole economic system?

Is it not true that the influx of tourists at the present time has a very inflationary influence and, in fact, is of very questionable benefit for our people? Now, let us distinguish clearly, lest an attempt be made to misrepresent the terms we use, between ordinary tourists and many of those who are visiting our country at the present time. A great many old friends are coming to visit us at the present time, who have arrived fortuitously from the other side of the Atlantic, and for which reason they are particularly welcome. The reference to the tourist trade has no reference at all to the American people, whether in uniforms or without them, visiting our shores at the present time, but it is common knowledge that if you bring into this country at the present time large numbers of people from Great Britain, who have very considerable sums of money with them, but who have been severely restricted in their purchases there by reason of the rationing that obtains in that country, when they arrive here their tendency is, naturally, to convert the money that they cannot use in Great Britain into the kind of things that they want, at any price, in this country, and it is common knowledge to us all that they are doing it. Why is it that the Revenue Commissioners have had to double and treble their guards at the Border? It is because visitors are coming across the Border and buying up everything that they can put their hands on, in Dundalk, in Monaghan, in Castleblayney, and so on, and trying to smuggle these things across the Border. Everybody who knows anything about it is aware that if you go into a shop in Dublin at the present time you will find it full of people with a Northern accent who have arrived from Dundalk and are trying to buy at any price the goods that they cannot get in Northern Ireland, and they have succeeded to a large extent in effecting that purpose.

Is not Deputy McGilligan right in saying that if they reduce the quantity of goods here and increase the volume of money, the result is inflationary, tends to raise the cost of goods to our own people, and thus is of very questionable benefit to this country? Is not all that true? What is the use of running away from it, or of denying the validity of his contention at the present time? Surely, no Deputy here is so dull or so stupid as to identify the situation pre-1939 and now. Pre-1939 sterling assets could be exchanged in any market in the world for anything we wanted to buy. If we wanted to exchange all the assets we had in London for purchases in New York or the Argentine there was no restriction on us, but to-day we cannot spend one single penny, outside the sterling area, with our sterling assets, without the permission of the British Government. We cannot buy a boot lace in the United States of America, unless we have dollar exchange at our own disposal, without asking the permission of the British Government to convert some part of our sterling assets into American currency and use it for the purchase of the boot laces.

We will be told that that is a situation that we cannot help, but we have been trying to teach the Fianna Fáil Party that for the last 15 years: that we have only one market and that if we do not propose to deal in that market we have nothing to gain at all. For 15 years we have been trying to teach them that, and it is only now that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health seems to have awoken to it himself, but that awakening does not seem to have encouraged him to take the steps necessary to get as much advantage as we can out of the economic situation in which we find ourselves. I do not believe that British securities will be worth nothing in time to come, but I do believe that it would be very good policy to convert them into tangible assets, of which we stand in urgent need, at the earliest possible opportunity, and I do believe that it is the Government's duty to tell us what steps they are taking now to effect that purpose, and I also believe that the longer the conversion of those assets into the tangible goods we require is postponed, the greater likelihood there is of our getting less goods for that money.

Everybody, including the Taoiseach and the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, knows that these assets have materially depreciated in value since we acquired them. Everybody knows that, inasmuch as the cost of goods has gone up the world over and is highly likely to go up further, in terms of money, the value of our sterling assets has depreciated by the measure of that increase. That is a thing we cannot control. The sooner we get goods—the sort of goods we need and must have— in exchange for our sterling assets, the less of that depreciation we shall have to bear as a burden. So far as I can find out, that is what Deputy McGilligan contended last night. Is there any sane man in the House who will say that he was wrong? I could not help laughing at the faces of Deputy McCarthy and Deputy Harris to-day as they had expounded to them how the fate of the Irish nation depends upon sterling assets. How are they going to explain that down the country? What are they going to say? I should give a great deal to hear Deputy Harris paraphrasing that speech for his constituents in Kildare and explaining to them that, though it sounds as if the Minister for Local Government was saying that our interests are indissolubly interlocked with those of Great Britain, he did not mean that at all. All the resources of the Irish language will, I have no doubt, be tested to the full by Deputy McCarthy when he comes to expound that speech to his constituents. I have no doubt that the mellowness of his blás will conceal many of the defects of the material which it now becomes his duty, as a loyal member of Fianna Fáil, to relay to his constituents.

I gave notice to the Taoiseach that there was a matter which I wished specifically to raise—the constitutional position of this country. The constitutional position of this country at present appears to me very similar to that of a cat which has got its tail caught in a door; it is neither in nor out and it is in a state of intellectual perplexity. Would it not be reasonable at this stage for the Taoiseach to tell us—he is the only living creature in five continents and seven seas who knows the answer—is this country a republic or is it a member of the Commonwealth or what is it? The Taoiseach told us last night that one of the reasons why he wishes to retain the power to lock us all up at his own sweet will was that people were enrolling themselves and, what was worse, enrolling impressionable youngsters, in the I.R.A., presumably by persuading those youngsters that they had a duty to discharge in order to secure a republic for this country. That kind of mischievous tripe can be talked in this country partly because Fianna Fáil have been concerned for many years to proclaim that anybody who is not a republican is a traitor to his country. It is not independence that matters; it is not the sovereignty of the State that matters; it is not the freedom of our people to run their country in whatever way they like that matters. The Fianna Fáil doctrine was that, if you were not a republican, you were a traitor. They were the republican party.

The Taoiseach tells us that we have reached the constitutional realisation of all our hopes in respect of the Twenty-Six Counties. I ask him to tell us: Are we a republic? I ask that very deliberately, because this is an ancient nation, with a traditional dignity. I do not think that it is consonant with such dignity as we have left that our constitutional position should be settled for us by the act of people outside this country. That is a thing we should determine for ourselves. I do not want to see this country kicked out of the Commonwealth. If we are to go out of the Commonwealth, then we ought to go with dignity and deliberation, fully realising what we are doing and of our free will. The right to do that was laboriously won for our people by those who went before the Fianna Fáil Government and some of whom died in the process of getting that right to stay in the Commonwealth or to walk out of it free as the air, in the full enjoyment of national dignity in either course. Has not the time come when we should calmly resolve to do one thing or the other? Do Deputies think it consonant with public decency any longer that we should masquerade before our own people as a republic, while sending our diplomatic envoys to the far ends of the earth bearing credentials signed by His Gracious Majesty King George VI, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India and King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? I do not think that it is. That is the kind of fraudulent sham which will corrupt the very souls of our people. Would any Deputy on the Fianna Fáil Benches tell me if he knows where we stand? Does he understand a constitutional institution which is declared to be the realisation of the Republican Party's ultimate hope for the Twenty-Six Counties the diplomats who are habitually recarry credentials signed by His Majesty King George VI and the diplomats who are habitually received here with credentials addressed to His Majesty King George VI?

Everybody knows what my views are. I believe that the most important thing—I say this quite deliberately—in the internal constitutional life of our country is that the unity of the country should be restored. Nothing takes precedence of that and there can be no peace and no healthy life in this country so long as the Border remains. In a recent broadcast exchange across the ether, the Taoiseach envisaged a situation in which the realisation of national unity might be indefinitely postponed. For the first time, he used the words "so be it". To such a proposition, I could never subscribe "amen". There can be no hope for internal peace, or progress of an enduring kind, so long as Partition lasts. Does this House believe that Partition can be got rid of by sitting here and declaring that we are prepared to take no step to meet the views, not of an external power, but of one-fifth of our entire population?

It has become fashionable in this country to pretend that 99 per cent. of our people want a united Ireland and that 1 per cent. are holding out against it, but the fact is that if you assume that everybody here, man, woman and child, wants to abolish the Border and if you assume that every Catholic in Northern Ireland wants to abolish the Border, we are still forced to admit that one-fifth of the entire Irish people desire the situation that obtains now to continue. Now let there be a truce to the grotesque suggestion that the people of Northern Ireland are not Irishmen and women, that they are not just as Irish as any Deputy sitting in this House. I say deliberately that I want for the Irish nation the lunatic fringe of the Orange mob just as I recognise that the Irish nation owns the lunatic fringe of the I.R.A. Both of them are our responsibility. There is no use in pretending that they belong to anybody else or that it is the duty of anybody else to answer for them. They both belong to Ireland; they both constitute part of Ireland and Ireland can never be complete until it comprises them both and they both make their contribution to Ireland as Irishmen, such a contribution as can be made by every gradation between these two extremes.

If these propositions be true—and I do not believe that anyone here will challenge them—are we going to sit idle for our time, or are we going to concern ourselves to win back for the Irish nation that fifth of our people who now desire to dissociate themselves from us? If we believe that the kind of policy that has been pursued in recent years can have any other effect than to enforce Partition for the rest of our days, for an indeterminate time, I think we are making a great mistake. I am challenging the Taoiseach now to face that issue and to tell us where he stands. Does he intend to sever this country's connections with the Commonwealth and proclaim a Republic in respect to this part of the country? If he does, does he envisage the incorporation of the Six Counties of Northern Ireland in that Republic and when and how? Does he believe that for that arrangement he can ever get the willing assent of that fifth of the Irish people, and if he cannot get that assent for that proposal, how does he propose to terminate the constitutional unit which is at present in existence in the Six Counties maintained by one-fifth of our population? Does he take up the despairing position that nothing can be done and that we have got to sit here resolved to have Ireland partitioned for evermore with an eternal cycle of murder and coercion Acts in this part of the country because nobody has any clear knowledge of the constitutional position we occupy? Remember that is what it means.

If this ambiguity is to continue, where nobody in Ireland knows what the constitutional position of our country is, you are always going to have groups claiming that they are going to clarify that position, if necessary by force of arms, claiming that the thing stipulated by the majority, to wit a republic — remember the Taoiseach claims that he is Leader of the Republican Party and to have got into office as the Leader of the Republican Party — has not been achieved. You are always going to get young men in this country to say that there are only two alternatives for the people and that those who do not subscribe to the republic are traitors. You will get them saying: "If the Leader of the Republican Party when he gets into office declines to declare a republic, then we will declare it and if necessary by force of arms." Then the head of any legitimate government here is bound to say that he will not permit any unauthorised person to bear arms against his neighbours and so he must take power to intern, to try by summary military courts, to execute. So the vicious circle continues to revolve in the shedding of blood.

I know what I would do. I believe that this country first requires unity and I believe it can be achieved. I believe this country must, if it is to have peace, have independence and sovereignty, for our people will never be peaceful unfree. I believe that this country has a mission in the world if it is great enough to fulfil it, and that the opportunity presents itself now. I want this country to be a sovereign independent and united Ireland in the Commonwealth of Nations, working to make that Commonwealth a dynamic thing which will comprise in time every nation of goodwill prepared to accept the fundamental doctrines of government for which we stand—democracy and the right of every man to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's—working within that Commonwealth to achieve that development, not expecting to realise it to-morrow morning, but having that end always before us, just as those valiant men who went into the British Empire in 1922, went into it with the purpose set before them to abolish it and to establish in its stead the constitutional concept of which we still remain members and in which the Taoiseach found when he came into office all the powers in search of which he, at one time, thought himself justified in fighting a civil war.

Remember that when they went into it, it was an Empire, and by the time they handed over office to their successor, Taoiseach de Valera, it had become a Commonwealth, in which he, the Republican, found he had constitutional power to do anything he wanted in this country, without limitation of any kind, and that, in time of war, he had not only the theoretical right to stand neutral, but, because he was exercising that right within the framework of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Nations, no nation in the world dared to touch us and no power within that Commonwealth spoke or acted as if it ever contemplated breaking the constitutional bargain which had been made. If we could do that, as we did, in the British Empire in the ten years between 1921 and 1931, is it presumptuous to hope that over a long period it may further develop into such an association of nations as would provide room for all sovereign and independent States who believed in the fundamental things we believed in and were prepared to combine with us for their preservation in the world?

Then comes the highest destiny of all, which only one nation in the world is equipped to serve. There is only one nation in the world whose people are ubiquitous. There is only one tiny, weak and poor country which is, in fact, the centre of the greatest spiritual empire this world has ever seen, an empire which permeates every country, which makes claims on none but contributes to all; and we, as the leader of that empire, might use it—I say deliberately—for the preservation of the world. If permanent understanding and co-operation between the Commonwealth of Nations and the United States of America can be maintained in the world, then the things we believe in— freedom, decency and dignity for man —will be available for all. Throughout the territory of the United States of America and within the four corners of the Commonwealth and British Empire, our people are everywhere to be found. As the children of an United Ireland, in effective co-operation with the Commonwealth, they could be a bond wherever they were between the British and the American people and they could be an interpreter as well, and these two great peoples who have so much in common need an interpreter of one to the other.

No people in the world are so uniquely equipped as ours to discharge that function. There, a great destiny awaits us, if we are equal to it. On the other hand, we have the ambiguous constitutional position in which we stand, known only to one human mind in the whole world—the constitutional secret locked in the bosom of Eamon de Valera, the constitutional riddle like the riddle of the Sphinx, and when he dies, which please God is very many years away, perhaps they will erect a statue analogous to the Sphinx and write under it: "De Valera's riddle— whoever solves it will marry the beautiful princess".

That is degrading. It is degrading for a great country, but if then we turn to the other and last course, and move into the position of an isolated republic of Twenty-Six Counties, so far as I can see, irreconcilably severed from one-fifth of our people for as far ahead in time as reasonable men can look, instead of having a mighty destiny in the world and having proved equal to it, we will shrivel into the position of an Albania, an ignorant, insignificant nuisance in the Western Atlantic. Any nation which has no contribution to make to the world in which it lives has lost its right to nationhood. When I think of what Ireland could do and when I think of eschewing it in favour of the nebulous position we at present occupy and the dream of a republic which excludes one-fifth of our entire population, I often wonder if we have all gone mad.

Maybe it is too late now—I do not think it is, but very soon it will be too late—but if the Taoiseach were frank with the people and if he had the moral courage to face the situation which I believe he must understand, if instead of going down the country and telling our people they must learn Irish because the English want us to give up learning Irish, he would forget that kind of thing and realise the things that matter, then the constitutional position of this country might be something the Irish people would be proud of. As it is, we are as a cat with its tail caught in the door. Whoever would have thought we would be brought so low? I still hope that we may have a resurrection, but I regret that I am bound to confess that it is in the power of the Taoiseach to prevent it, in our time in any case. I wonder what he will do—prevent it or help the rest of us to bring it about.

Mr. Cogan

There has been in this debate—and I think Deputies will have noticed it—a profound contrast between the speech delivered by Deputy McGilligan and that delivered by the Minister for Local Government. Deputy McGilligan approached our social, economic and commercial problems as a keen student; seeking to find a solution of the difficulties under which we labour. Deputy MacEntee, the Minister, replied as a politician, seeking to score small debating points which had no depth and no merit. The main point made by Deputy McGilligan was that the volume of our external assets has been increasing rapidly during the past few years, and that we are at the present time finding it difficult to turn those external assets to any national advantage. He pleaded for more energetic and more vigorous measures to turn some of those external assets to our national advantage. Deputy MacEntee——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister for Local Government.

Mr. Cogan

The Minister for Local Government went back into the past and revived the old Party shibboleths. He prowled like a ghoul into the graveyard of the economic war, and unearthed the bones of the slaughtered calves and shook them in Deputy McGilligan's face. He asked Deputy McGilligan did he want the Government to slaughter more calves. But he was very silent upon one matter which has contributed more than anything else to the increase in our external assets, and that is the ever-increasing export of the human population of this country. The remittances which are sent back by our emigrants are contributing more than anything else to build up and expand our external assets. The Minister was very silent on that point. In the whole course of his speech, he had nothing to suggest as to what could be done or what the Government contemplated doing with a view to stemming the tide of emigration from this country. If we get down to realities, we must realise that there is no more serious problem facing this country than the export of our young people, because a nation which exports the more virile section of its population, the people rising to manhood and womanhood, is a nation condemned to early decay. It is a pity that the Minister for Local Government tried to bring this serious debate down to the level of a cross-roads election campaign.

We of the Farmers' Party came into this House with a perfectly open mind in regard to the problems which face this country. We are anxious to do what is best for the nation. We get a lot of advice, which we have to sift, and one form of advice which we get is to follow the example of Fianna Fáil. Fianna Fáil has been a remarkably successful political Party, and people tell us that we can never be a successful political Party unless we follow the lines adopted by the Fianna Fáil Party. The main feature of the Fianna Fáil Party's policy in appealing to the electorate has been, for many years, to appeal to a low and mean streak in human nature. That there is a low and mean streak in human nature nobody can deny, but that it is very prominent in our population we do not accept. We believe that the people of this country will respond to an appeal to their better nature. We, as a Party do not propose to follow the line adopted by Fianna Fáil. We do not propose to follow the example set by the Fianna Fáil Party when, on aspiring and rising to power, they flung mud at President Cosgrave's top-hat, when they attacked and campaigned throughout the length and breadth of the country against the ceremonial meetings, parties, banquets and so on which were a feature of the State under the Cosgrave régime. We do not propose to appeal to the grudging instinct of a small section of the community. Perhaps I do not know whether that section is small or large, but I hope it is a small section. We, as a Party, will seek to appeal to the better instincts of our people, and I think that Deputy McGilligan yesterday, though he did not put before this House anything really constructive, did, at least, try to expose and bring to our notice certain factors and certain trends in our economic and social life that are undesirable.

On one occasion the Taoiseach said that he was not a revolutionary; that he did not believe in revolutionary measures; that he believed in finding out what was wrong with our political and economic structure, and remedying those things that were wrong. On that point, I completely agree with him, and I ask him to consider what is wrong at the present time in our national life. Is it not clear that the first thing that is wrong is that so many people have to leave this country? We cannot build up a nation while those people continue to leave. Is it not also wrong that so many people are living in conditions of squalor and poverty and destitution, and that so many people are unemployed? Is it not also wrong that we have in this country, with its huge undeveloped resources and with the huge external assets which have been referred to, so many people living in degrading, humiliating slums? Social reformers have declared that want, disease, ignorance and squalor are things which nations and Governments must fight against. If we are to fight against those evils, we must first of all seek to build up a spirit of enterprise, a spirit of production, in this country.

Take, for example, the housing problem. There we have a tremendous work—to undertake, develop and promote housing on a nation-wide scale. Then, again, if we are to raise the standard of living we must increase production. There we come up against a point which was debated by Deputy McGilligan and the Minister for Local Government. We will be told that the main line upon which we can increase production is in agriculture, and that if we do increase it we will be simply enlarging our exports. There is one fact which must be recognised, and it is that a very large section of our people suffer from malnutrition. We can continue to expand agricultural production without any very enormous increase in exports if we provide for our people sufficient purchasing power to buy the food we produce. There is an enormous need for protective foods for our people who do hard manual work. Many of them are undernourished and under-fed, as are many women rearing families. A very large percentage of our children are under-fed. You have there scope for increased consumption of agricultural produce and a field for an expanded market for it. That question, I think, was suggested in a notice given by the Labour Party in regard to social security and social insurance.

It would be a good thing to adopt a far-reaching measure of social security, but, first of all, it is essential to have full employment for our entire working population. That is the real basis of social security. Every able-bodied person who is willing to work should be provided with work. Some members of political Parties frequently voice the slogan that all citizens of this country are entitled to work or maintenance. I believe that motto should be replaced by this, that all citizens of this country are entitled to the opportunity to work and that the alternative of maintenance should be unnecessary. It is sheer mental laziness on the part of the Government to suggest that it is not in their power to provide work for every unemployed person. It only requires a little organisation and a little foresight.

Deputy Dillon, on one occasion, said that he was in favour of ensuring that every single person and every single man would be provided with work. I would go further and say that every person who is unemployed, whether single or married, should be provided with work. It does not matter what the nature of the work may be, it is the duty of the State to provide that work. It may be that in some districts the work is of little value. It is, of course, undesirable to take married men from their homes to some other part of the country. Nobody wishes for that, so that in order to find work for married men in their own locality it may be necessary to undertake work that is of comparatively little value, but even so, it is better that men should be engaged in work of small material value to the country than that they should be completely idle and be maintained on charity by the State.

The Minister for Local Government made an extraordinary statement when he suggested that this Government has been more successful than the governments of other nations in resisting inflation. Everybody knows that the cost of living here is considerably higher than in Great Britain, and that the value of money here is considerably lower than in Great Britain. We have had very considerable inflation here, even if we make a comparison with nations that have been engaged in the war, and this Government has been unable to do anything about it. That inflation has been brought about by forces and circumstances which the Government were unable and unwilling to control. No attempt, however, has been made to provide money for things that are urgently needed, for works of development and so forth. There are two ways by which the evils of want, disease, ignorance and squalor can be removed. One is the Communist or Nazi way of depriving the people completely of their liberty. The other is the more democratic, the more civilised and the more Christian way, and that is to offer every possible inducement to citizens to do the things that are nationally desirable.

Is it not a strange thing that there are many working-class people in the country who can get a better living by doing nothing than they can by doing regular, constant work? Should it not be the policy of the Government, if they want to encourage people to take up regular, constant work, to offer the highest possible inducement, and the highest possible remuneration, to those engaged on useful work? All that, of course, comes back to the fact that the whole standard of remuneration for useful work here is governed by the standard of remuneration in our chief industry—agriculture. Until we have a condition of affairs in which those engaged in food production, which is the most important and most desirable of occupations, receive the highest possible reward, a higher reward than those engaged in other occupations and a much higher reward than those engaged in no occupation, there will be no real inducement to engage in that work.

Of course, we will be told that nothing can be done for agriculture. that agricultural prices are governed by jungle laws over which civilised society has no control. I do not think we ought to accept that view. I do not think we can afford to accept it. Even if we have to export a considerable quantity of our produce, we must ensure that that fact will not pull down the value of our produce in the home market.

It is desirable and essential that all forms of production should be stimulated and encouraged. Deputy McGilligan referred to the position which arose in the commercial relations of Germany with other countries. He pointed out that, in the pre-war period, Germany found it good policy to export consumer goods to the Baltic States and even to Italy. He mentioned sewing machines, razor blades and various other things—commodities which the countries of export did not require but which Germany, by reason of the commercial and economic position which she had established, was able to off-load upon them. Deputy McGilligan did not refer to the fact that Great Britain is to-day following exactly the same policy. Great Britain is to-day dumping in this country fully manufactured consumer goods, which this country does not want, and the importation of which will destroy completely some of the most valuable industries which we have established in this country. In my constituency, an industry which provided electric bulbs for the entire State all through the emergency has been closed down by reason of the fact that other nations have been allowed to dump in this country, at a cost infinitely below the cost of production, electric bulbs and goods of that kind, and the Government are not prepared to do anything about it.

If we want to make use of our external assets, should it not be our policy to import capital goods, which will assist us in expanding agriculture and industry? Why should we allow this country to be flooded with goods which are dumped and sold here at a price far below the price prevailing in the country of origin? That is, apparently, a complete reversal of the the Government's past industrial policy, a reversal which, I believe, nobody can attempt to justify. Skilled workers who were engaged in a highly-technical industry have been thrown on the employment exchanges and will probably be forced to emigrate while a valuable industry is brought to a standstill.

The Taoiseach

Is that not a matter that would be raised on another Estimate?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is wandering a lot beyond the motions that have been specifically put down for discussion on this Vote.

Mr. Cogan

I am simply elaborating a point which was made by Deputy McGilligan in opening this debate and I think it is a very important point. The commercial relations between this country and other nations are subject of discussion in this debate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think so, Deputy.

Mr. Cogan

I may be wrong. I have not the matter before me at the moment but I think the commercial relations between other nations and this country are a subject for discussion in this debate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

You can deal with major aspects of general Government policy. Matters that have been dealt with on a specific Estimate or which are capable of being dealt with in that way by an individual Minister do not come up for discussion here.

Mr. Cogan

I know, Sir. I quite agree with that point but I maintain that this is a major question of policy —whether we are to import consumer goods, which we are already producing here, or whether we are to seek—as Deputy McGilligan hinted, although he did not state it definitely—to permit the importation of goods which are desirable and useful to the economy that we want to build up. Such goods would be fertilisers to build up the fertility of the soil, certain types of useful agricultural equipment and machinery, certain types of industrial machinery and equipment, and a variety of raw materials for agriculture and industry which would help to expand and increase production.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

These matters have been already dealt with on the Votes for Supplies and Agriculture.

Mr. Cogan

I know, Sir, but they have been dealt with in this debate also. Do we want to secure a development of production or are we going to allow this country to be dragged in every possible direction? That question has been raised in this debate. Do we want to direct our economic policy on sound lines or do we want it to be influenced, changed, twisted and diverted by external factors over which we have no control?

The Minister for Local Government, in my opinion, made a hopeless speech. It was bad enough last night when he tried to score small political Party points which should, by now, be out of date. It was worse to-day, when he tried to tell us that our entire destiny depended upon the financial policy of Great Britain. It was worse still when he tried to convince this House that our destiny depended upon the election of Mr. Churchill to power in the general election in England. Somebody in this country described the present Government of Eire as a Tory Government. That assertion was very strongly confirmed by the Minister for Local Government to-day. I suggest it would be a terrible tragedy for the Fianna Fáil Government if Mr. Churchill happens to be unsuccessful in the election taking place on the other side.

I think it was very hard on the Taoiseach to have to sit and listen while a halo of glory was being placed on the head of Mr. Churchill, the man whom, we were led to believe, the Taoiseach had completely annihilated a short time ago. That seems to be a sample of the surprising and weird inconsistency of Fianna Fáil policy.

Give our people an opportunity to work, an incentive to work, a reward for work, and work will be done here. Our people have as much brains and ability as the people of any other nation. We are capable of building up agriculture here, making it the most efficient and most productive agricultural industry in any State in the world. Many of our farmers have proved their ability and their efficiency. The same is true of many of our industrialists, who have proved they are capable of overcoming the difficulties inseparable from the conditions in which we find ourselves as a small nation. They have proved their energy, their activity and their efficiency. We should endeavour to give those people an incentive to work and a fair reward.

It is possible in our economy to ensure that, whether our workers are engaged in industrial or agricultural production, they will be reasonably rewarded. We have also the resources to ensure that those who are unable to work, and those who are infirm or old, are not put on a starvation standard of living. If our people are actively and productively engaged, the resource of our country are sufficient to ensure that no infirm or aged person, and no person who is unable to fend for himself or herself, will be compelled to suffer destitution and poverty, such as prevails at the present time amongst an unhappy section of our people.

Above all, it is essential that we inculcate into the minds of our young people a desire and a willingness to engage in active regular work. The success of the United States of America as an industrial country, as an agricultural country, even as a military power, is due in the main to the spirit of enterprise, to the spirit of work and toil, which has been bred in the people from the earliest days. We must seek to inspire our people with the same spirit of energy, enterprise and toil. If we do we shall be able to raise the standard of living. That is the only way it can be done. The first essential is to ensure that the man who does useful work in this State, whether in agriculture or industry, is more highly rewarded than the man who does not.

Mr. Everett

As regards the notice that was given to raise matters concerning social security in this State, I do not intend to go into that matter now, having heard the assurance from the Taoiseach that a departmental committee will inquire into it. My desire was to find out what was the intention of the Government in connection with the plan originated by Dr. Dignan. Having heard that assurance from the Taoiseach, I am quite prepared to await the results of the deliberations of that committee. We all hope that a scheme of social insurance will be initiated that will improve the position of our people. The last Minister for Finance used the argument that the country could not afford very much. I have always maintained that with the credit of the country high, with no war commitments, and being an agricultural country, we should be in a position to have all available men in employment and, with their contributions, we would be well able to give security to those in need of it, because we could count on an increased contribution from those in gainful employment.

There are large numbers of people in rural areas and country towns existing on such small amounts as 10/- and 12/- a week, supplemented possibly by some allowances. I hope the committee will consider extending their schemes to persons who are unable to find employment and to those who, suffering from infirmities, have to depend on 7/6 a week from national health insurance, with whatever little allowances they can get. I would like to express my gratitude to the Government for deciding to consider a scheme of social security for the people.

In the matter of unemployment, we have no excuses now. We are in the post-war period and, while housing schemes may be held up to some extent through want of materials—until, for example, timber will be imported—I suggest we can put our men on very useful work which does not depend on foreign materials. We have roads to construct and paths to make in towns and rural areas. Our county roads need much attention. The Government, some time ago, previous to the election, said they wanted a majority so that their plans would not be interfered with. I speak for a county with which I am familiar. We have submitted plans for schemes likely to cost £200,000 and the only opposition we received was not from any party on the county council, but from the Government Department.

As regards giving employment in towns and villages, I hope the Government will abolish the rotation scheme. The intention in connection with that scheme at one time was to try to divide the work amongst the unemployed. We found out from experience that it was an inhuman scheme. The most deserving and capable men were deprived of getting even three days a week. I suggest it would be much better to allow the county engineers to select their own men, having in mind a preference for capable men, men with the largest families and receiving the greatest amount of assistance and men who have been the longest unemployed. I suggest it would be much better for the men themselves to give them constant work rather than employ them for four days every three or four weeks and then have them depending on the rates for home assistance, pending the time they would receive unemployment assistance.

If the Government will abolish the rotation scheme I am certain they will have the co-operation of public bodies and county engineers. The rotation scheme has not achieved what the Government and many others intended. It did not give employment to the most deserving people. As regards the man receiving the largest amount of unemployment assistance, whether he was capable of doing the particular type of work or not, the county engineer was bound to give him the first preference. If the Government abolish the scheme they will have the co-operation of all men who have had experience of public affairs and probably, with the co-operation and suggestions of members of public boards and others who have had six or ten years' experience of rotation schemes, some other system of greater advantage to the most deserving men might be evolved, which would result in a greater output and be of greater benefit to the community generally.

As regards the dispute in connection with the bulb factory, I wish to say that negotiations are proceeding and I have no desire to intervene pending the results of those negotiations.

I would like some assurance from the Government in one important respect. Although the war is over, there may be a shortage of food here. Much of our arable land has been tilled, but it has not been sufficiently manured. If we are to help people who are in distress in other countries, I would like the Government to give some assurance to our food producers that a guaranteed price will be continued. With such an assurance the producers will be able to produce all the food that will be required and they will not be worried about sustaining any loss through bad harvests or weather or loss of stock. If the producer is given an assurance of a guaranteed price, a profitable price, a very important section of the community, the agricultural workers, will have a reasonable chance of living. The men in the rural areas will benefit as a result of prices being guaranteed. You will achieve two very important things. Farmers will be able to give a decent wage to the workers who help in producing the food and you will encourage farmers to produce not alone all the food we require, but sufficient to be exported to outside countries that need food so much.

I appeal again to the Government to abolish the rotation scheme, and I ask them to urge the Department to facilitate public bodies that have submitted schemes that will not require the use of foreign materials—schemes relating to sewerage, roads and pathways. I suggest that money should be given freely to public bodies to enable them to meet the volume of unemployment which exists in many rural and urban areas. We should not wait until November or December, because during that period it is not often possible to give even three days a week to the workers owing to the inclement weather. It is rather a degrading thing to see men in the rural areas during the winter months sitting by the roadside breaking stones. If you have unemployed men and if there is no work available on the land during the summer or the autumn I suggest that would be the most suitable time to prepare the road metal for use in the winter period.

I put forward those suggestions for the consideration of the Government. I hope the departmental committee will bring forward practical suggestions at the earliest moment because the people in the country, in all organisations, were very dissatisfied when the Government failed to announce any scheme of social security. I trust the Taoiseach will request the committee to end its deliberations as early as possible and so enable a scheme to be presented to the House, a scheme that will be beneficial to all classes of the community.

Mr. Hughes

We were amused last night with the political somersaults of that profound economist, the Minister for Local Government, a man who has taken some 13 years to learn a few principles that are elementary as far as our economy is concerned. I wonder were his actions as amusing to the Taoiseach when he listened to the Minister professing what I thought was abject worship of that country and its financial resources which he described as a dominant power in Western Europe and with vast colonial resources. The Minister and the Fianna Fáil Party have travelled a long way since the salad days when they were thanking God that the British market was gone, and gone for ever, when the calves were slaughtered; when we heard the slogan, "burn everything British except coal"; when they were going to develop self-sufficiency and had no use for trade with Great Britain.

I must say that, so far as the Minister's attempt grossly to misrepresent what was said by Deputy McGilligan, one would expect at least something better from a responsible Minister than to indulge in tactics of that sort. It appears that the difference between the Minister and Deputy McGilligan, and between the Fianna Fáil and ourselves, is that, so far as the British market is concerned, the Minister and the Government are quite content to export our people to work in Great Britain and are prepared to continue to export goods and to pile up assets there that he says are going to be of tremendous value to us in the future. We have been constant in our belief in the British market and in trading there. We want to use the British market for exchange purposes. But we believe that no attempt has been made to secure goods for the valuable goods that we gave to Britain in recent years.

In view of the misrepresentations by the Minister of what Deputy McGilligan said it might be as well to examine the history of the British market. Our people accepted and worked the Treaty and, having done so, they were prepared substantially to operate and to intensify the economy that existed here at the time; they were prepared to remain in the Commonwealth, to develop the Commonwealth idea, and to look for preferential treatment in that market. The Minister must have a short memory if he does not remember that immediately before there was a change of Government, Deputy McGilligan and the late Mr. Patrick Hogan went to England, saw Mr. Runciman, President of the Board of Trade, and made a tentative agreement by which we were to get a 10 per cent. preferential treatment for all goods going to the British market over other countries that are our keenest competitors there. That agreement was made permanent at Ottawa. The Minister's colleagues went to Ottawa, but instead of bringing home a preferential interest in the British market they returned with a penal tariff. They were not worried about that; they believed in the self-sufficiency idea and started to operate it as well as starting to destroy the basis of our live-stock economy, the slaughter of calves. However, the live-stock industry was so firmly rooted here that, in spite of Fianna Fáil, it survived and is in a strong position to-day. What amuses me was that we heard a lot of lip sympathy about the British market being an advantage. The Minister even went so far as to say that if we cannot sell our goods in Britain we will be ruined.

I wonder what efforts were made during the war to use the British market to more advantage. We sold beef there substantially below the price paid to British farmers for beef. We sold eggs that they were badly in need of below the price paid British and Six-County farmers. We sold milking stock in Great Britain in 1942 and 1943, of which they were desperately in need—possibly it was one of the important munitions of war—at lower prices than were paid to British farmers. We sold them milk, eggs, and beef because they had to feed their people if they were to fight. As far as I know no real effort was made to obtain from Britain goods we needed in exchange. About that time, we also sold to Britain about a half million gallons of whiskey, of which she was badly in need of as a stimulant for sailors who had to face the perils of the seas and the German blockade. We allowed them to chalk up credits, but no effort was made to make use of that situation to get goods in exchange when they were desperately anxious to secure our products. It has been suggested that that was not possible. We have never been told the reason. In fact, we know that no effort was made by Ministers or by the Government to go across to England and have personal contact with British Ministers during that period. I am quite satisfied that if any real effort had been made we could have got important raw materials that were needed for production here. When it is remembered that sulphate of ammonia is manufactured there as a synthetic product I believe a supply could have been secured. I cannot understand why it was not. We could get it over the Border for £70 a ton when the price in the Six Counties was £9 10/- a ton. I bought it and so did other farmers because it was badly needed by those who appreciate the value of nitrogenous manure.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Deputy dealing with post-war policy?

Mr. Hughes

We sold our produce at particular prices and I suggest that we ought to get a move on now. If the Chair allows me I think I am entitled to develop that point. At that time we had a valuable exchange in the food we sent to feed Britain when they were desperately in need of food. The Minister for Food in Britain at that time, Lord Woolton, stated afterwards that they were within a fortnight of starvation, having food reserves for only 14 days. In our circumstances and with our capacity to produce, as well as our proximity which involved little or no risks as far as exports of food were concerned, we made no attempt to co-operate. I think our decision to remain neutral can never be questioned by outsiders. One thing that can be questioned was our failure to try to maintain the quota of goods we provided for Britain in the past. There was responsibility on us to try to maintain the quota of food that we gave Britain in the past, including bacon, eggs, butter and other foodstuffs. The Minister or his colleagues had not the guts to go across to put any proposals to the British Government, or, at least, to take advantage of the situation, at a time when our only customers, as the Minister informs us they are, were so desperately in need of food, and we had the capacity to produce it. We wanted some raw materials and some machinery, and the possibility of making a deal on that basis was there if it was explored. The Minister boasted about what we have achieved and how we fed our people during the emergency. In his Budget statement the Minister for Finance told us that production fell by 11 per cent. during the emergency period. That should have been a most favourable period for us in regard to food production. In the desperate straits in which Britain found itself in that regard, when her manpower was engaged in the war, and when she was dependent to a large extent on a woman's land army, for food production, we find that her production expanded by 70 per cent. while ours fell by 11 per cent.

We are entitled to ask the question: Is it Government policy to depress our purchasing power, to export our manpower, to export our goods for the purpose of accumulating sterling assets, and to refuse to press for the supply of any goods in exchange? That is exactly the picture that was portrayed by Deputy McGilligan here yesterday evening: that we have made no effort at all to secure goods that could be, and that ought to be, secured, and that the Government, whose responsibility it is to have the earliest possible information on that matter, is not in a position to give us any information. The assets that are accumulated there have been accumulated over a great many years. With regard to our position before the war, what Deputy McGilligan was worried about—and taking into account the references that have been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and prominent economists in Great Britain, I think he was fully entitled to put the position as strongly as he did—was how far we can utilise these assets. He made it perfectly clear that he was satisfied that Great Britain would never deny responsibility for these assets and would honour them sooner or later, but that it might not be possible to honour them immediately goods were available.

We know that for about five years before the war our adverse trade balance averaged something like £19,000,000 a year—the lowest point struck before the war was £17,000,000 —and that actually our exports were only securing 55 per cent. of our import requirements and that 45 per cent. of our import requirements were paid for out of our sterling assets. The position has changed since that period, but in the post-war period, even now, the volume of our exports is substantially lower than before the war, and the value of our import requirements will be substantially higher when you remember that we have imported very little of our capital requirements so far as industrial and agricultural machinery is concerned, and that a very substantial sum will be required to re-stock the larder of industry and agriculture in this country. So that, even if imports were to flow freely and we could use our sterling assets to pay for them, we would still have a substantial adverse balance of at least £25,000,000 a year, and probably more. Now, what does that mean to the British? It means that they have to put on operatives to produce goods to the value of at least £25,000,000 a year and to expect other sections of the British community to produce those operatives in order to pay the debt they owe to this country.

Deputy McGilligan is suggesting that most countries, post-war, will be in such a position that they will not immediately be able to honour their debts in goods, and I think it is not merely a question of what has been stated by economists. If you go back to the various conferences that have been held — the Hot Springs Conference to start with—it will be found that it was accepted there that the post-war position will be much more largely on a basis of goods for goods, and therefore we could not hope to cash in, fully and freely, with our sterling assets. Deputy McGilligan's statement was to the effect that the liability will be honoured eventually by Great Britain, but that they will have to regulate the flow of goods to this country, and it was his opinion that it was contended by economists in Great Britain that that flow of goods would have to be controlled so as to ensure that we could not use to an unlimited extent the assets we have there, but that we could eventually use them over a long period. He went on to explain what our position was in the sterling bloc, and to ask whether there had been any discussion as to the possibility of using our assets within the sterling bloc. Now, that is a very important matter, particularly so far as the building construction problem in this country is concerned. We have to secure, for instance, timber for building purposes, and the country that has mainly supplied timber for building purposes is Sweden.

Great Britain has entered into an agreement to purchase something like 2,500,000 standards of timber annually, and that is to be paid for, as far as I remember, 50 per cent. in sterling and about 50 per cent. in coal. How are we to get our timber? Are our interests to be covered by Great Britain in order to deal with Sweden on that basis or are we to go independently and secure timber from Sweden; and, if so, will we be permitted to use sterling for the payment of that timber? These are all matters that hang around the big, fundamental problem of exchange that was raised by Deputy McGilligan yesterday. No matter how optimistic the Minister for Local Government and Public Health may be this morning, or how pleased he was to accumulate and even increase substantially our sterling holdings during this emergency, the fact remains that that fundamental difficulty is there. No matter how willing or how interested Great Britain is in trading with us and selling her goods to us, it is by no means a simple matter for her, and she has her own exchange difficulties to face up to also, such as that the accumulated assets she had in other countries, South America notably, have all been liquidated under the lease-lend arrangement with the United States of America, and the securing of her own requirements will be an immense problem without extending facilities to countries outside herself at all. That was what Deputy McGilligan was pointing out. As a matter of fact, economists have made it very clear that if Great Britain is to maintain her pre-war standards she will have to expand her exports by at least 50 per cent. That is a very tall order and we will not get over that exchange difficulty that exists by the Minister coming in here and attempting to paint a very grand picture or by being optimistic to the extent of being foolish about it.

Deputy McGilligan made reference to the new ideas, so far as monetary control and monetary arrangements are concerned, that have been in operation in other countries and that have been referred to by statesmen in other countries. He talked about the higher purchasing power and the higher standard of living that they were trying to secure, not merely in Great Britain but in America, for their people. He quoted a man, Mr. Vincent, in America, who said that America was in the happy predicament that her standard of living had gone up 50 per cent., and that it was vital to her that that standard of living should be maintained. That idea is based upon the important principle that there must be purchasing power for the consumable goods in order to stimulate production. If that potential capacity to buy falls, it reacts immediately on production.

Deputy McGilligan suggested that no attempt is being made here to examine the possibilities of operating our economic system on that basis. He gave us a very vivid picture, showing how we were continuing to export our people at the rate, roughly, of 100 a day. The Minister for Local Government kept far from that canker in our economy. Deputy McGilligan spoke of our heavy dead-weight debt and he asked what plans the Government had for post-war development. He said that the only real plan at the moment was that for rural electrification—one of the things which the Minister for Local Government described as "white elephants" at one time. Deputy McGilligan appealed to the Government to invest more capital here in enterprises that would prove to be real assets. He wanted to know what assets we could hope to get from the laying down of concrete runways at Rineanna, the development of airports, the expansion of our road system and the opening up of big, modern highways. He rightly suggested that money could be put into the development of agriculture. More money could be put into farmyards and out-offices, drainage and reclamation work, which would provide our people with employment.

The Taoiseach

Would the Deputy tell us how, by that means, we would realise our external assets?

Mr. Hughes

In doing that, we would be realising the assets which we are exporting—human assets. We could put them into employment. I am talking about the export of human beings now and I had passed from currency. We could, in this way, realise a very important asset which we are exporting to Great Britain. While we talk about pegging down wages and the cost of living, we permit our nationals to go across to Britain and work at a much higher rate.

The Taoiseach

Does the Deputy suggest that we should keep them here?

Mr. Hughes

I do not suggest that we should keep them here against their will. I suggest that we should induce them to remain at home by making some effort to employ them. That is what Deputy McGilligan suggested last night. Few of them are anxious to go across to Britain. I am acquainted with a substantial number of men who were forced to go abroad but who would be far happier if they could have remained at home. Deputy McGilligan referred to our national drainage scheme. During the war, Great Britain reclaimed 1,000,000 acres, although she could ill afford to spare the men from her war effort to do so. She has put that land into effective production. There are thousands of acres which we could reclaim and have not attempted to reclaim. Not only is there wet land which could be reclaimed but there is hill land which could be brought into production. Our capacity for development and expansion here is substantial.

Post-war planning for production is not enough. An important aspect of that problem is being neglected — the disposal of our produce. There is very little use in producing if we do not dispose of our production to the best advantage. Notwithstanding the admiration that the Minister for Local Government has for the British Government, their economic organisation and Mr. Winston Churchill, we are living in isolation. We have made no effort, as every other country has done or is doing, to contact other peoples. What type of food will be required in the post-war period? How far will our efforts fit into the world requirements? What examination has been given to those questions? What conferences or discussions have taken place with representatives of other countries? So far as food production, generally, is concerned, I think that the world will very rapidly get all its calory and cereal requirements but it will be very slow in getting all its requirements of protective foods — the foods containing proteins and vitamins for the production of which we are so favourably situated. Other countries engaged in agricultural production are very much alive to their interests and are trying to secure them by trade agreements. While that is happening, we are without concern for our interests in the post-war period and we are not ascertaining what type of goods we should produce for export purposes.

The British Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Hudson, is making plans for switching from cereal production to live-stock production. We are allowing that development to take place without any effort to ensure that the interlocking economy of the two countries, which has obtained for many years, will not be broken. The time is now ripe to satisfy ourselves that our production will fit into whatever plans are made in Britain for the development of agriculture there, that our supplies will be taken cognisance of and that Britain will not develop plans without taking into account, at least, the fact that we have the capacity here to supply them with certain basic stock — young animals, store cattle and so forth. It is about those aspects of the problem we are concerned and we want the Government to be up and doing in connection with them.

We still have, I believe, breathing space. The world will take a few years, but not very long possibly, to develop and get back to the productive position it was in immediately before the war. Now is the time to be up and doing, to be on our toes about the job. We should make some effort to ensure that we shall have representation at the conferences which are about to take place, to see that our trade interests will be looked after and that, if there is a defence problem, our defence policy will fit in with a policy that will be to the best advantage of this country. To take one example, agriculturists from many countries are meeting in London in October. Will any effort be made to send to that conference in October someone to represent our primary industry? I think it is going to prove a very important conference because, no matter what we may say, the question of guaranteed prices and stability of prices is a very important matter for the primary producer. It not merely affects this country but every producing country in the world. The only real solution, which can bring about stability of agricultural prices, is some form of international agreement to ensure that there will be no undercutting and under which quotas will be fixed for the benefit of the various producing countries. In that way we could secure a remunerative price for the producer and some stability in prices so that we can look with more hope to the future.

I merely want to say in conclusion that I am afraid that if the Minister for Local Government and Public Health represents the views of the Government they are taking far too much for granted, and they are much too happy about the future. They are prepared to wait for whatever gifts the gods are going to bestow on us. The situation demands that they should be keenly alive to the fluid position of trade and commerce at present. Every country in the world is anxious to secure the maximum amount of trade that it can secure and sell its goods to the best advantage. Surely we cannot accept the view that everything is going to be lovely in the garden, that our trade interests and our exchange problem will be adjusted, that we can dispose of our produce to the best advantage and secure goods essential for the community if the people responsible for the administration of the country are to remain at home and do nothing about it. I ask the Taoiseach one final question. Will he tell the House why it is that no effort is being made by any member of the Government to go across and look after our interests in Britain, to go further, if necessary, into other countries and explore the possibilities of getting these goods, and of getting facilities from Britain for the payment of goods we so urgently require?

Mr. Corry

I was anxious to hear in what way Deputy Hughes would endeavour to cover up the complete somersault of his colleague last night on this matter. Deputy Hughes to-day said that we had made no attempt to get anything in exchange for our sterling assets abroad. He had complained that Ministers had made no attempt to do this, that and the other. Let us see how far we could get with any representations on these matters. We did get from Britain all that Britain had to give us in goods, and that was very little. She just had to tell us that she had not got them, just as she would have told us, if the policy advocated by Deputy Hughes and Deputy McGilligan were carried out up to 1939, that she had no more flour to send us. It is rather amusing to take the two policies of the Tower of Babel and put them side by side. Deputy Hughes asks why Ministers themselves do not go across and get us a share of that great market. Side by side with that we have the statement of his colleague, Deputy McGilligan, that we should not send our goods to England on "tick".

Mr. Hughes

So we are.

Mr. Corry

Compare these two policies. We are told that we should go over and get a share of this great market. I ask Deputy Hughes, what has he to send to it? The difference between our policy and his is that we created for our agricultural community here a market worth £20,000,000 and that we have a further market here at home worth £10,000,000 which our agriculturists cannot fill. We are always warning Deputies here that the export market is a market you cannot control and that any surplus sent to that market will have to be sold out of protection, at whatever price the people on that market are prepared to give. We have succeeded in building up here a market for beet, for wheat, for butter, for bacon and for barley, all of which are in short supply to-day in this country and, in respect to all of which, there is plenty of room for expansion in production. So far as live stock is concerned or anything which we have to export to the British market, we shall have to take whatever we can get for it. My personal opinion is that the continental market, if we can get it, will be a far better market for cattle and for horses for some years to come than the British market. I am glad that Deputy McGilligan has exploded this myth about the great English market.

Mr. Hughes

What about the Minister for Local Government?

Mr. Corry

Deputy Hughes told us that we have land to reclaim but he forgot that his pal Deputy McGilligan, attacked the arterial drainage scheme, said that it was a "cod" and that it should not be proceeded with. When is the Party opposite going to learn to speak with one voice or do they ever hold a meeting now? It is no wonder that in my own county out of a membership of 46 in the council Fine Gael got only three.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is this part of the post-war policy?

Mr. Corry

Yes, very definitely. We know the kind of policy we had before the war. We know what the position of the country would have been to-day if we had not brought our policy before the country, and if the people had not supported it. As far as our post-war policy is concerned, it lies in the first instance in expanding production sufficiently to meet the demands of the home market—to grow more wheat and to produce more butter and more bacon.

Mr. Hughes

And to depress purchasing power.

Mr. Corry

So far as purchasing power is concerned, you have only to compare the purchasing power on the home market, where you have a present price of 240/- per cwt. for butter, as compared with 130/- for the same quality butter in the English market. Compare the two and let Deputy Hughes or Deputy Cogan, on behalf of the agricultural community, tell us that they are prepared to-produce butter here and to send their milk to the creamery at 3½d. a gallon in order to supply Britain with butter at 130/- a cwt. and then pay their agricultural labourers £2 a week. Let them tell us that openly and let them also tell us if the conference in London next month will increase the price of butter from 130/- to 240/- a cwt. There is no good in these Deputies talking balderdash and expecting people to agree with it.

The agricultural community are now fairly well off, but what I want to get from the Taoiseach in relation to post-war policy is a definite guarantee that the agricultural community will be placed on at least the same level as other industrialists. We are entitled to that. Every other industry can go before a prices commission and get a price fixed to cover the cost of production of the articles they produce, plus a profit. Agriculture is the only industry which has not got that privilege.

It is now nearly three years since the price of beet was fixed at 80/-. Since then, the price of artificial manures has gone up and the price of labour has been raised by law by 5/- per week and costs have gone up accordingly, but the price of beet is still 80/-. Why not set up a prices commission before which we could argue these matters and get a fair price fixed? That is all that the agricultural community require. All they require is that this market which we have now captured— the market here at home which we have secured and on which we at least know what prices we can get for our produce — shall be protected and preserved for us and that in that market we will get the cost of production, plus a profit, the same as every other industrialist gets. That is a fair statement of the position with regard to agriculture post-war.

Deputy Hughes spoke about our having made no attempt to do this, that or the other. Did the Deputy never hear of the bargain made in connection with flax? Does he know where the binder twine which is tying the sheaves to-day comes from? Does he know where his linen thread and the material for his ropes come from? Does he know what pays for the reapers, binders and threshers which are coming in? What pays for them are the sterling assets which Deputy McGilligan said were good for nothing. Then we are told that we made no attempt to do anything in the way of bargaining about sterling assets. Does Deputy Hughes study anything at all? If he did, he would not come in here and make ignorant statements of that description. He could go down to the Library and spend ten minutes in looking up what came in here in the line of tractors, binders and artificial manures.

He spoke about phosphates and potash from other countries. All potash which previously came in came from Alsace-Lorraine and the only place in which it can be got since the war is the Dead Sea. Does Deputy Hughes propose to take a ship out there for us? Let the Deputy use commonsense in these matters and let him put up commonsense cases and not ridiculous cases. I admit that he had a tough, an impossible, job. It was a job he could not do because it was absolutely impossible for him to cover up Deputy McGilligan's complete about-face.

Mr. Hughes

What about the Deputy covering up for the Minister for Local Government?

Mr. Corry

I need not cover up anybody. I am always able to speak for myself and for my Party, when necessary, both here and outside. I wonder what row has Deputy McGilligan had with the people across the water in the last month or so. There must have been some terrible upset of the apple-cart, judging by the manner in which he spoke last night. He told us that sterling was no further use, but I remember that, when we appealed to his Government for housing, we were told they had no money. Money is a very handy thing to have and I wonder how Deputy Hughes got on without sterling. These are the things I should like him to remember when he seeks to cover up the most ridiculous statement made by anybody on any front bench, or any back bench, either.

The Taoiseach

I have the usual complaint to make about this debate, that it has ranged over such a variety of topics that it would be quite impossible for me to deal with them in reply. There was a hope that, on account of the failure of these debates in that respect in the past, the Opposition Parties might have confined themselves to one or two main issues, but they did not do so. The speeches have ranged over a number of matters which would very much more appropriately be raised on the Estimates for the different Departments, or might even, some of them, have been dealt with by way of Parliamentary question where information was required. The matters indicated by the Chair as being those whose discussion the Chair would permit were: Post-war policy in regard to trade and commerce, supplies and finance; State interference—I do not think that has been touched on at all——

Mr. Hughes

We dealt with it yesterday.

The Taoiseach

I do not remember hearing it dealt with on this Vote.

An Ceann Comhairle

Might I state that the definition of it which I got was "bureaucratic government"?

Mr. Hughes

When the subject matters were submitted, we did not anticipate that the Emergency Powers Bill would be taken before the debate on this Vote.

The Taoiseach

I thought it referred to State interference in the shape of control of industry. The other matters were: Rehabilitation of returned emigrants—I do not know to what extent that was referred to, but I suppose that indirectly it was dealt with in relation to post-war planning and so on—and social services with particular reference to a unified scheme. I do not think that was made the subject of any particular speech. Then we had from Deputy Dillon the question of our status here as a State. I still think, having heard his speech, that it would have been much better if that speech were delivered on the question of external relations, on the Vote for External Affairs.

With regard to planning in general, there are some people who think that you can produce plans to get over difficulties of all sorts; that all you have to do is to sit down and make out some sort of a plan, and that that is all right. Well, I am sure a lot of people would like to get to the moon— there is a lot of things that we are curious and anxious about—but I do not think you could get people who could prepare plans for doing it. There are difficulties in the present situation, and no amount of planning will get rid of those difficulties. There is an emergency situation in the world, and there is likely to be an emergency situation for some time longer. Planning in any proper sense must take account of that emergency situation, and the difficulty that there is in obtaining supplies. The States are controlled by the Governments in such a way that there is no longer the free flow of goods or capital of any kind that there was before the emergency which this war started. When one listens to speeches made here one would think that there is no such thing as an emergency at all; that this terrible war in Europe had not taken place; and that there is no such thing as a major war still taking place. It is true that the immediate battlefield is a considerable distance from us, but its reactions are here, and our nearest neighbour on the globe is one of the belligerent Powers.

It is only when we take these facts into account that planning can be of any value. When people talk of planning, they must talk with full advertence to these facts. It is not sufficient to say "We want this," or "We want that," without indicating that there is some method in their minds by which these wants can be met. Planning relates, in the first instance, I would take it, to our powers of production. It is suggested that the Government has not been planning. That, of course, has been proved untrue by the statements which have been made by the Ministers in charge of the various Departments. Each Department is a planning department for itself and for its own activities. The Department of Industry and Commerce has as its responsibility looking to the future and trying to plan for industrial development. The Minister has indicated very clearly that he has plans for that. He has urged all those who are prepared to engage in industry to look into the future, in so far as it is possible to do so, and to prepare for development, and he has indicated that he is prepared, and that his Department is prepared, to help them to any extent that it is possible for them to help.

Will some of the Deputies who have talked about our lack of planning tell us exactly what they want us to do in that regard? What do they think can be done effectively that is not being done in that regard? The power of developing our industries will depend upon the possibility of importing the necessary raw materials. We cannot go and force countries to give us those materials. Those materials will come to us when the various countries will find it to their advantage to exchange them for whatever assets we may be able to give them in return. We cannot force those things. So long as this war is on, and so long as the present position in Europe obtains, to a very large extent there will be restriction on the import of those raw materials. Therefore, the development of our industries is bound, for a considerable period, to be hampered by that fact. That is something which is beyond the power and control of the Government — absolutely beyond its control. It is a world situation, the reactions and impacts of which affect us. But we cannot change that world situation, and it is within that world situation that we have to work. There is no use in pretending that things can be done as if that world situation did not exist. Most of the arguments and most of the suggestions made in the speeches to which I have been listening were suggestions that we could, somehow or other, by our own action, get rid of the impacts of this world situation. We cannot. The moment raw materials can be got, we will be there to try to get them. In so far as looking ahead or trying to take action ahead is concerned, our Departments are taking action. As to the Department of Industry and Commerce and Supplies, I do not think anybody is going to suggest that the Minister or the officers of his Department are either incompetent or lazy or wanting in enterprise in any way. The position then with regard to our industries is that all the planning that could effectively be done at the present time is being done.

Let us take another Department, the Department of Agriculture. The same is true of that Department. That Department is also limited in what it can do by the supplies that it can get. We have been talking about getting artificial manures and so on. Is anybody going to suggest for a moment that the Minister for Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture have not been as anxious about and as well aware of the importance of that as any Deputy who has spoken from the Opposition Benches? To the extent to which we might be able to supply any of those things ourselves, we have been trying to develop the possibility of doing it, but again some of those developments are not as easy in times of war as they would be at other times. The Minister for Agriculture has had made an exhaustive examination of the whole agricultural situation. Reports about that situation and reports about what the future prospects are likely to be have come in to the Minister. Some of them are receiving his most active consideration.

Deputy McGilligan asked what we are doing by sending out a large portion of our agricultural produce for what he would suggest are very doubtful sterling assets. He did not tell us what we could do about it. Suppose, for a moment, we were to accept his prophecies about the future of sterling assets, would he tell us what we are to do about it? Our policy in the past has been to try to make ourselves, to whatever extent it is possible for us, as independent of that market as we can, because by being independent of it we can use it at its best in so far as it is of value to us. If you are not independent of it, and to the extent to which you are not independent of it—to the extent to which you have no other place to send your produce—then to that extent you have not full bargaining powers. If a person wants from you something that you can keep, and if you keep and deny it from that person, then you have bargaining power. You can insist on getting for it whatever exchange value it has; but if, in fact, you have no alternative market, then you are, to a large extent, at the mercy of that market, and you will get from that market only the lowest prices that will keep you in production, assuming that they want you at all, and you will have to compete in that market against all competitors.

That was the position of the British market in the past, and that was why we made it part of our policy to try to get whatever degree of independence we could get. One of the things that we pointed out was this—it was pointed out by the last speaker, Deputy Corry—that we should at least give to our farmers the home market to the extent to which it was an alternative, but the home market is not sufficient to absorb all of our agricultural production. In any case, we would have to export in order to be able to purchase raw materials because, although we have resources of certain kinds in this country, no one is going to suggest that we have all the types of raw materials that we want. To the extent, however, to which we have these raw materials we are trying to develop them. But the one purpose in our policy was to try to get as much independence as possible of the British market, and to look for alternative markets if they were there.

I have here a rather interesting table which, I think, is a copy of a reply to a question asked by Deputy McGilligan a few days ago. If Deputies will look at it they will find figures relating to the amount of our produce that went in exports and re-exports to countries other than the United Kingdom. In 1924 the figure was 2 per cent. That, of course, is a rather early period to take and would not convey very much, but the table shows that there was a constant increase. The figure went up from 2 per cent. to 2.9 per cent., to 3.4 per cent. to 4.3 per cent. Then it dropped and went up again to 7.8 per cent. and 8.8 per cent. It dropped again. When we came into office in 1932 it was 3.8 per cent. That, however, would not be a fair figure to take, because it had been previously 8.8 per cent. In 1932 the figure was 3.8 per cent. and went up to 6.1 per cent., to 6.7 per cent., to 8.3 per cent., to 8.5 per cent., until it reached 9.1 per cent. in 1937. In 1938 it was 7.1 per cent. Then the war came. But these figures show an indication of our effort to get a larger proportion of our exports and re-exports to countries other than the United Kingdom. That, of course, was a very wise policy, for the simple reason that if you have only one purchaser that purchaser can practically dictate the price at which you have to dispose of your produce to him. That is the fact. It is a fact which I am sorry for, because I would have preferred to have seen alternatives, so that if there was a market in Britain available for us we could choose to use it and see that it was made available to us at the best price. But the fact is there, and neither I nor the Government have any control over it. The fact is that, for our agricultural produce, the main, the principal and, in fact, the only market at the moment anyhow is the British market.

In dealing, therefore, with Deputy McGilligan's point we have either to cease exporting to that market, as we are doing at present and have been during the recent times, or export to it on credit. The Minister for Local Government and Public Health has given his view of what he thinks of that credit. I am not in a position to say what the British may do in the future with regard to it, but my own view—and I give it simply for what it is worth—is similar to the view given by the Minister for Local Government, and it is that when Britain fails to acknowledge her credit, directly or indirectly, then she will have lost one of the means which in the past made her great in the world.

As far as we are concerned, before we can change that, Deputies will have to tell us what we are going to do with our agricultural produce if we do not send it there. I would prefer by far, and so would every member of the Government, to get goods. I am sure every sensible person in the country would prefer that, too. I would prefer to get goods rather than credit. We have tried to get goods rather than credit. But, as has been pointed out several times during this emergency, Britain has not been able to supply these goods. Her whole existence was at stake and she had to use all her resources, all the goods she could get of various kinds, to maintain her life. Therefore, the quantity of goods that she could dispose of was nothing compared to the quantity that she could dispose of in normal peace times. But it is quite wrong to make the suggestion that we have got nothing. As a matter of fact, if Deputies look at this table again they will see that from countries other than Britain, as well as from Britain itself, we have got a considerable amount. They will find that we have got tens of millions of pounds worth of goods from countries other than those in the sterling area. Their sterling, as far as we are concerned, has been negotiable, and to that extent we have been able to avail of sterling in order to get in some of our supplies. There is no indication at the present moment, anyhow, that we will not be able to use our sterling assets to buy in the capital goods that we require, and the goods that we require will be mainly capital goods. It is not a currency question, a monetary question or a financial question that is preventing us at the present time from getting in the goods that we require. What is preventing us is that the goods are not available. They are not for sale or purchase. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 11th July.