The motion is:—
That the Dáil do now adjourn to the 30th January, 1952.
Adjournment Debate.
The continued increase in the price of all kinds of essential commodities, coupled with the restriction of credit and the increasing unemployment caused thereby, is the cause of widespread misery and what in many areas at the present time.
I do not want, in anything I say, to exaggerate the position but I will rely on the figures that were given to us recently in regard to the registered number of unemployed and I rely much more so upon what I know to be the position in my own constituency so far as employment and unemployment are concerned. The latest return furnished to members of the House by the Minister for Social Welfare gives the figures for the week ending 1st December, and even since that date the position in my area has become much more serious from the point of view of the number of persons thrown out of employment both by firms that employed large numbers of persons and also by local authorities; many of the local authorities in the two Counties of Laoighis and Offaly have dismissed employees. The figures furnished to Deputies giving the number of registered unemployed for the week ending December 1st disclose the fact that in 1950 the number of registered unemployed was 56,790, whereas for the corresponding period of this year the number had increased to 61,070, showing that there has been an increase for the week ending 1st December this year compared with last of 4,280.
I want also to tell the Minister—but I daresay he is quite well acquainted with the position—that we have thousands of workers throughout the country who are working only on part-time employment. I have here before me a list issued recently by the Dublin Trades Council in which it discloses that about 2,400 employees of firms in the clothing manufacturing industry, the overwhelming majority of them, are on short time and some have been paid off for reasons I am not too well acquainted with but which must be known to the Deputies representing the areas concerned in the City of Dublin.
Apart from this particular return affecting one industry in the City of Dublin, I am reliably informed that 75 per cent. of the 4,000 workers employed in the boot and shoe industry are at present working on a halftime basis, and unfortunately in the case of one firm in the boot and shoe industry—I say unfortunately because the firm happens to be in my constituency in Edenderry—the owner, instead of putting the workers on short time as has been done by other firms throughout the country, in spite of protests and appeals by the workers, thought fit to pay off about one-sixth of its employees. In that connection I would like to inform the Minister that included in the large number of persons paid off by this particular gentleman—he is the dominant individual in the particular company concerned, which is a family company— are some of the most experienced men who have been employed by that firm since it was established.
I appeal to the Minister, and I take the liberty of saying that my appeal will not be ignored, to make representations to the head of the firm concerned that if he has a case to make to show that there is not a sufficiency of orders coming in, and if there is a question of the workers having to suffer, he should line up at least with every other firm and pay his workers on the same basis and recall the men who have been paid off, including those who have been in the service of the firm since it was founded. I hope that is not an unreasonable request.
I do not want to go away immediately from the case of the boot and shoe industry. It has been asserted in this House that the unemployment that has recently arisen in the clothing manufacturing industry, including firms in my constituency— this has been stated locally by some of the people associated with the Minister's political Party—was due to the action of the Minister's predecessor in letting into this country a large quantity of manufactured clothing during the year 1950. In the case of the boot and shoe industry that case cannot be made. There have been no imports of boots of any importance into this country since 1946 and 1947 and the present Minister was in office when these imports were allowed into the country. It surely will not be asserted by the Minister or by anybody else that the slump that appears to exist in the boot and shoe manufacturing industry in this country should be traced to the imports that were allowed into the country in 1946 or 1947.
The Minister cannot, at any rate, blame his predecessor in that particular case, but I hope he will look into the position so far as it affects the boot and shoe manufacturing industry and use his good offices, as I know he can whenever he decides to do so, to see that if sacrifices have to be made one firm will not be allowed to dismiss one-sixth of its employees while all the remaining firms in the industry regulate their working arrangements by putting their employees on short time.
About a week ago in my own constituency the Laoighis County Council, not because they had not sufficient work for their employees, were allowed to pay off 120 of their workers. Those 120 workers were paid off by the Laoighis County Council at a time when there are dozens of proposals in the Department of Local Government which can be carried out. Those workers can be retained if the necessary money can be allocated under the Local Authorities (Works) Act from whatever funds are available for that purpose.
I accompanied a deputation to the Minister for Local Government with my colleagues on this matter to-day and he told us that there were no further moneys available for the purpose of carrying out the many useful schemes that can be carried out by the Laoighis County Council if the money is provided for the purpose. If this was any Estimate other than the Estimate provided for the allocation of money to local authorities under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, I could understand the refusal of the Minister for Local Government. But as far as I know—if I am wrong the Minister can contradict me—there is still available in the Bank of Ireland at College Green large sums of money—Marshall Aid money or free money as it has been called in some parts of the country— available there, and all that is required as far as I know in a case of this kind is that the responsible Minister should bring forward, as he has often brought forward before in this House in a matter of this kind, a Supplementary Estimate to meet the requirements of the local authorities to carry out the schemes that have been already approved by the Department under the Local Authorities (Works) Act.
I have in my possession a telegram which I received, not at my own request, from the local Secretary of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union at Birr. It informed me of what I was already aware, that representations were made by the Birr Urban Council to the Department of Local Government for the usual Christmas relief grant. A scheme was sent in to the Department some time ago so that the Christmas relief work would be started, and this telegram was awaiting me when I went home last night:—
"No Christmas relief scheme started here yet. Held up by red tape. Try and cut some with the Department."
What amazed me most of all in connection with this matter was that the scheme submitted by the Birr Urban Council was turned down. It was one with a very high labour content—the clearance of sites. This scheme has a labour content which would absorb 85 per cent of the total sum of money allocated. However, it was turned down, and the scheme which is under consideration by the Department is one for the making of footpaths which would absorb 60 per cent of the money for the purchase of cement. Whenever there is money available for the establishment of schemes for the relief of unemployment in places where the carrying out of useful work is an urgent necessity, I understand that those which are generally welcomed by the Department are ones which contain the highest possible labour content.
Up to this evening I have failed to get any reliable information as to whether the Christmas relief scheme will even now be sanctioned for the purpose of relieving unemployment in Birr, and we must bear in mind it is now the middle of December. I wrote to the Minister asking him to use his good offices in this particular case and to see that a scheme with a high labour content would be sanctioned. These Christmas relief schemes are usually sanctioned before the middle of December. There is not much satisfaction in calling on some of the unemployed to commence work, say, next Monday under a local authority. They find they cannot get paid, possibly, before Christmas, because the officials in the offices are not prepared to pay them except fortnightly and sometimes only after the expiration of three weeks' work.
I will now come to the situation which exists in the town of Tullamore. All the employees of the firm known as Salts (Ireland) Limited have been put on short time for some time past. Three out of five of the directors of this firm are English. This firm has been operated locally by high officials of the firm, who interviewed representatives of the workers after they had a meeting recently with the Minister for Industry and Commerce. They told the representatives of the workers concerned that they were forced to put a large number of the workers on short time as the result of the line alleged to have been taken by Deputy Morrissey when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce. This statement was made to the representatives of the workers concerned by the managing director of the firm after he had an interview with the present Minister for Industry and Commerce. As far as I know there is no genuine foundation for that statement. Deputy O. Flanagan knows and Deputy Maher knows, if he will admit it, that that statement has been wrongly used locally by the political agent of the present Fianna Fáil Government for the purpose of plastering Deputy Morrissey with the responsibility for the short-time working of the 600 workers in Salts (Ireland) Limited. Another shocking step that has been taken in that connection is this: the supervisors in that firm are large in number, but those of them who are Irish nationals have been put on three days' work with the ordinary workers whereas the English and the Scotch supervisors are getting a full week's wages.
Such is the position. Let us be fair in regard to the responsibility for what has happened in the case of Salts (Ireland), Limited. Every Deputy who was in this House 12 months ago and who is acquainted with the conditions existing in the country then must admit that, in that period, the workers in the factories or those engaged on local authorities' schemes were neither slack nor on short time. It must also be admitted that the number of unemployed persons in this State was never as low as it was 12 months ago. When Deputy Morrissey was Minister for Industry and Commerce, he invited the directors of Salts (Ireland) Limited, and the directors of other firms to a meeting in the Department to explain why it was that they were unable to supply the needs of the wholesalers and the retailers in this country. Firms engaged in the clothing manufacturing business and in the boot manufacturing business were unable to complete the contracts which they had on hands 12 to 18 months ago. When they were discussing this matter of their alleged inability to meet the needs of the home market with the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, they explained the position to them. Firms like Messrs. Arnott's, Messrs. Todd's, Messrs. Clery's and other such large firms have a considerable number of retail customers throughout the country. Some of the retailers in question who reside in my area wrote to me asking if I could do anything for them. They complained that the Irish manufacturers were either unable or unwilling to complete the contracts inside a given period. Some of us know the reason, and some of us are prepared to state the reason. I know of one firm which has a large list of retail customers, some of them living in my own constituency, and the firm concerned could not supply the traders in my area 12 to 18 months ago. They approached myself and my colleagues. Irish manufacturers were telling the Minister for Industry and Commerce at the time that they were well able to supply the needs but the firms had to go to the officials of the Department and to the Minister and prove that the manufacturers were not actually supplying them.
We all know what happened when the price of wool went up in Australia. Some of the manufacturers here—I will say the number was small—put up their prices immediately they read in the paper of the rise in the price of the raw wool in Sydney. The raw material did not arrive here for three months after the rise in price of the raw wool in Australia and they took advantage of that period and pushed up their prices. We are all aware of what happened last year about blankets. A racket started and we had a number of "blanketeers." These were small in number but the Minister for Industry and Commerce could put his finger on the people concerned. The manufacturers put up the price of blankets and in some cases the wholesalers refused to pay the price. The result was that the blankets went under the counter and so did the towels and other essential articles which are in common use for domestic purposes. I am acquainted with one gentleman associated with the manufacturing business. When I mentioned this gentleman's name recently to responsible officers in the Federation of Irish Manufacturers they refused to take him into the federation. They were quite right in refusing to do so. He entered into a contract at that particular period with certain firms in this city and in other cities and towns, to supply blankets at a certain price and immediately he read in the paper that the price of wool had gone up in Sidney, up went his price and he would not complete the contract unless he got the increased price. Some of the wholesalers and retailers refused to pay him that price and he refused to complete the contract.
I am sorry that the people concerned at the time did not bring this gentleman into the courts and deal with him as he should have been dealt with. I hope that I have disposed of, and I hope that the Minister will agree that we have finished with, these allegations made for purely political purposes in regard to the slump in the clothing manufacturing business and the partial unemployment that has been caused. It has as much to do with the clothing manufacturing business as it has with the partial unemployment in the boot and shoe manufacturing business. As I say, 75 per cent. of the 4,000 persons in the boot and shoe manufacturing business are on part time. I am certain that this increasing unemployment, to the tune of 4,280 for the week ending 1st December, coupled with the increased price of essential commodities is causing widespread hardship in many parts of the country, particularly approaching the Christmas season.
I am raising these matters for the purpose of imploring the Minister to use whatever powers he has to deal with people who should be bringing down prices, now that the price of the raw materials has come down, as it has come down in recent weeks. Is it not a fact that the price of wool is much cheaper now than it was 12 months ago, when this racket went on in the blanket business? The gentlemen who are engaged in that section of our clothing manufacturing business and who took advantage of the increased prices of raw materials to put up their prices immediately they read about the increase in the price of raw materials, should now bring down their prices when the price of the raw materials has come down.
The racketeering section of the clothing manufacturers got the benefit of increased prices for three or four months before they were entitled to them, and surely the ordinary citizens, wholesalers, retailers and the community in general, are entitled now to the benefit of the reduced prices that should come about following the reduction in the price of the raw materials. If the Minister can make inquiries into this matter and use his good offices, as I am sure he can, for the purpose of helping to bring about that situation, there will be an improvement in the retail side of the drapery business. The same thing may apply, though I am not quite so sure that it would, to the boot and shoe industry.
We are supposed to have money left over from the Marshall Aid Fund. I do not know how much is lying in the Bank of Ireland, or in whatever bank it is held, of what is known as the Marshall Aid free money. If some of that money still remains, it should be devoted to suitable schemes, and there are thousands of them according to the Minister for Local Government who met a deputation consisting of some of my colleagues and myself to-day. If the money is in the bank, take it out, bring in a Supplementary Estimate and allocate the money to local authorities who have schemes ready to provide employment for men who have been recently thrown out of employment. That would relieve the situation which in my constituency appears to be getting worse day after day.
I referred to the fact that rising prices in the situation which we see confronting us are causing, even in the case of those who have full-time work, considerable uneasiness. Since the Government came into office the prices of many essential commodities have been increased. I am glad to see the Minister for Agriculture back from Rome and I hope he will give his blessing to everybody who can help to relieve the present situation. The Minister for Agriculture, I consider, has a heavy responsibility—I suppose if I talk about collective responsibility he has only a twelfth or a thirteenth part of the responsibility—to carry for increasing the price of certain essential commodities. Prior to the last general election we were attacked in posters plastered all over the country by Fianna Fáil spokesmen and candidates because we supported and were supposed to agree with the action of the inter-Party Government and the then Minister for Agriculture in putting up the price of butter by 2d. in the lb. Fianna Fáil are supposed to have squandered anything between £10,000 and £15,000 on an advertisement inserted in the newspapers on a particular day showing a photograph of the best-looking housewife they could get. Her photograph appeared in the newspapers with a funny kind of advertisement, which made a special appeal to housewives in particular and which captured the votes of many housewives, condemning the inter-Party Government for their action in increasing the price of butter by 2d. per lb. Then when my old friend and colleague—not a colleague of the same political party —Deputy Tom Walsh, was nominated by the Taoiseach as Minister for Agriculture he marched into this House 15 days after the Fianna Fáil-Cowan Government came into existence and put up the price of butter by another 2d. per lb.
I warn the Minister for Agriculture in particular that many good-looking women will be looking for his blood when he faces them in the next general election. He will not be able to go down to Castlecomer, or Kilkenny, and get the same kind of friendly reception from the women there because of what he said previous to the general election and of what he did after the election was over when he became Minister for Agriculture. If the Minister for Agriculture were as good as his word and lived up to the speeches that he made, he should have brought down the price of butter by the 2d. which Deputy Dillon put on instead of putting it up by another 2d. He will also have to accept responsibility for putting up the price of cheese to a figure which, I think, he will find it hard to justify.
Cheese is in common use in the poorest household, particularly in certain parts of the country. The Minister made no attempt to justify his action in putting up the price of cheese by 7d. a lb. after he came into office, realising that by doing so he was repudiating everything he said on this matter when seeking the votes of the people of Carlow and Kilkenny in the last election. It was certainly a very brazen thing to put up the price of butter by 2d. a lb. after he had misled many good-looking women, married women in particular, to vote for the Fianna Fáil candidates in the last election. I hope these women will remember that for the Minister and his colleagues at the next election. I hope they will not get away with it as easily as they appeared to get away with it in this House.
Everybody must agree that this Government or, indeed, any Government cannot effectively control the prices of articles manufactured here with raw material imported from outside. No sensible citizen expects them to do so. But, if they wish to do so, they can control the prices of commodities such as milk, butter and cheese, because the raw material for these comes from the land, which provides most of the wealth and the raw material we have in this country.
I have been asked before and I may be asked again what we would have done. I know Deputy Corry is ready to put the question to me: did we agree with the demands of the milk suppliers for an increase in the price of milk? I do not pretend to be an economist. I do not pretend to be able to tell the Minister for Agriculture, and neither did I pretend to tell the Minister for Agriculture in the last Government, what is a profitable price for milk. But whatever price is regarded as profitable by those who know more about that matter than I do, I am prepared to vote for the provision of a profitable price to those who supply commodities like milk, butter and cheese.
What did you do in the Lobby?
I have no hesitation in saying that I did not agree, and neither did my colleagues agree, that the money necessary to provide 1d. or 2d. per gallon increase in the price of milk should be found by passing the whole of that sum on to those who have to consume butter.
The Taoiseach and his colleagues know that we always advocated as a Labour group that any money to be found for purposes of that kind should be provided by the taxation of luxury articles. It was no secret at the time that this group did not agree with that policy. Let it be clear that so far as we are concerned, we believe in providing a profitable price for those who produce butter, milk, cheese and other essential commodities in common use by the citizens of the State.
I do not mind taking this opportunity to say that, so far as there is increasing unemployment in my constituency arising from shortage of suitable schemes to absorb the unemployed, that money can be made available for that purpose. When the county engineer in Laois gave orders for the dismissal of 120 workers two weeks ago, the county council called a special meeting. I salute every member of every Party in that council for taking upon themselves the responsibility for telling the Minister for Local Government that if the Government could not provide the necessary money out of the Marhall Aid free grant or other sources, they would provide the money out of the rates to maintain these men in employment because there were essential schemes to be carried out. That was their justification for retaining these men for the Christmas period or up to 1st February when there was plenty of work to be done but no money was provided from central funds, as hitherto, for that purpose. The Minister for Local Government does not appear to be willing to bring in a Supplementary Estimate. I put it to the Taoiseach and his colleagues: if there is money left out of the Marshall Aid free grant, what is the use of leaving it lying idle when there are men without work and the necessary money to provide themselves and their families with the requirements so very badly needed around the Christmas period?
I am sure the Minister for Industry and Commerce will look into the position so far as it affects workers employed in different manufacturing industries. I appeal to the Taoiseach and his colleagues, rather than have increased unemployment at this Christmas period, to take out the money which is lying idle and allocate it to the local authorities who have approved schemes waiting to be carried out so as to bring back into employment the men who have been dismissed and carry out schemes which will improve the wealth of the country in the long run. I am not raising this for any political purpose on the eve of the Adjournment, but many thousands of workers and their wives and dependents will wish the Taoiseach and his Ministers a much happier Christmas if some assurance can be given before we adjourn that something will be done in connection with this matter so far as the country as a whole is concerned.
I think that the members of the Labour Party who gave notice of their intention to raise on the Adjournment the matters of rising prices and unemployment were wise in associating those two problems together, because they are associated. I hope they appreciate that fully. I do not think that Deputy Davin showed that appreciation in the course of his remarks. At the present time, there is in the clothing trade and some other trades a curtailment of public demand which has resulted in the reduction of orders to Irish factories and has created unemployment or short-time working. Taking Deputy Davin at his word that he is raising this question without any political motives, it is desirable that we should give serious consideration to the cause of that development.
It has been stated here that it is due to the resistance of consumers to rising prices, that prices have reached the stage at which public demand is bound to be curtailed, and also that it is due to an expectation of a fall in prices. Whatever cause is operating to reduce orders to the clothing industry in this country, it is operating everywhere.
Deputies will have noticed during the last few weeks reports in the Press of serious unemployment in the Six-County area. In Derry, 2,000 out of the 5,000 persons employed in the shirt industry are reported to be wholly unemployed and 2,000 of the others on short time. The Six-County authorities, as a consequence, have withdrawn the employment permits previously granted to Donegal workers employed in the Derry shirt factories. Other industries in the North show, if not quite as serious a development, nevertheless a contraction in activity. Recently, the British Trade Commissioner, who came to my Department to urge reconsideration of the measures we have taken to curtail the importation of woollen cloths from Great Britain, said that they were facing in their woollen industry in Great Britain a situation which he described as critical. There are 40,000 workers in that industry at present unemployed. Similar adverse reports have reached us from Italy, which has a large textile industry, and from France; and, as I mentioned here in the course of an earlier debate, bank reports from America, where one would expect a contrary situation in view of the heavy rearmament expenditure, indicate a similar situation there.
Deputy Davin has discussed this question of unemployment in the clothing trade and expressed the view, at the same time, that clothing prices should come down. I want him to realise the significance of bringing these two issues together. He said that last year there was no situation such as now exists and that, in fact, traders were complaining that the manufacturers were unable to fulfil their orders. Last year every issue of a newspaper carried reports of boom prices for wool. Everybody was expecting that the cost of woollen garments would rise. Individual consumers were buying upon that anticipation and traders were stocking up on that anticipation, and there existed in the clothing trades precisely the position that one would expect when there was a general anticipation that prices would go up.
Now that general anticipation has changed. The papers recently have been carrying reports of a fall in the price of wool and there is, I think, a general expectation because of these reports that prices may come down. It is always so; when prices are expected to rise there are trade booms and employment is brisk. When prices are expected to fall, trade tends to contract and employment tends to diminish. Deputies will appreciate that any forecast which I might make as to the trend of prices in the clothing trades might, therefore, influence the situation.
We have announced our intention of trying to keep the price situation stable. To that end we have imposed higher quantitative restrictions upon imports and we have raised tariffs. We knew when we imposed these tariffs that we were taking a decision in favour of maintaining or increasing employment in the clothing industries and against allowing clothing prices to fall to the extent that they might. There is no doubt that if we removed our clothing tariffs altogether and our quantitative restrictions upon imports, in view of the conditions existing throughout the world, in Northern Ireland, Great Britain and the Continent of Europe, we could get at the present time, deliveries of clothing at prices which would be below their economic cost and perhaps even below their cost of manufacture. That would cause a temporary advantage in prices, but we would subsequently pay for that advantage with rising unemployment in our own clothing industries.
I do not think that we would gain in the long run if we were to take that course. The unemployment would be reflected in increased emigration and many of our industries would lose the skilled workers upon which they are dependent. We think it is far better for us to try to get our clothing needs met from our own factories at the economic cost of manufacture here rather than that we should seek a temporary advantage by permitting imports of cheaper products from abroad.
The situation which exists in the clothing trade exists in one or two other trades as well where there is also an expectation that raw material prices may come down. There are, of course, some industries which are not affected at all because the price of raw materials is still going up. I expressed the view earlier this year that by the end of the year we would have achieved a position of price stability and that view was based upon the evidence then available of the trend of international raw material prices and on the belief that by then the adjustment of retail prices to meet the higher cost of materials imported earlier in the year and the higher wage rates that became effective earlier in the year would have been completed. I still hold that view.
I said here before that only one major application for an adjustment of producers' prices was still awaiting determination by the Prices Advisory Body. That is an application by Irish brewers upon which I have not yet received the report of the advisory body. There are other applications for adjustments of retailers' margins which the body has under consideration, but at present there is no evidence that we are likely to receive the same flow of applications from manufacturers for permission to adjust prices because of higher costs, which occurred earlier in the present year.
I realise that in the present unsettled world conditions anybody attempting to make a forecast of future price trends is taking the risk of being proven completely wrong. I think, however, it would be unwise to hold out an expectation of any general price fall. I do not think it will occur. I think the expectation of it occurring would upset employment. I think it is far more likely that we will be able to secure the position of stability to which I referred earlier than handle the problem of the price level by effecting any all-round reduction in prices.
Deputy Davin referred to the position of the worsted spinning industry in his own constituency. It is undoubtedly true that the contraction of orders for worsted yarn which that factory is now experiencing is due to the very heavy stocks of woollen and worsted cloth now held in the country. I would not have criticised the decision taken by my predecessor to double the import quota for the first half of this year to enable wholesalers and manufacturers to stockpile woollen and worsted cloth if a former member of the Coalition had not tried to put the blame for the resultant situation in the woollen spinning industry upon my shoulders.
Mr. O'Higgins
You did it before Deputy General MacEoin spoke.
I recognise that in the circumstances prevailing earlier this year the Government then in office must have been concerned at the danger of international hostilities breaking out, hostilities which would leave us short of supplies. I said, and I still say, that if the effort to stockpile had been made in time it could have taken the intelligent form of an accumulation of raw materials and that it was the consequence of the delay in taking the requisite measures that forced them to a decision to permit the stockpiling of manufactured goods instead.
In the case of the worsted spinning industry, however, there was a stockpiling of raw materials. The firm to which the Deputy referred was approached on the instructions of the Government by the Industrial Development Authority and asked to acquire, and maintain, four months of stock over and above that normally carried by them. They did so.
They got facilities to do so.
In what way?
And they agreed that the imports would be brought in at a particular period too.
I think the Deputy misunderstands what I am saying. That firm did, in fact, import over and above the stock normally held by it four months' additional supplies of raw material. When I became Minister for Industry and Commerce I was approached by the representatives of that firm and told that in consequence of the heavy fall in the price of that raw material which had occurred in the meantime they were facing a very heavy loss. The difference between what they had paid for the raw material and its market price at the time they discussed the matter with me represented a loss equivalent almost to the entire capital of the company. But they had received from the Industrial Development Authority when they agreed to purchase that raw material for stockpiling an assurance that if they did so they would be protected against the danger of loss in the event of the situation developing as it did, in fact, develop.
I felt that that undertaking, given formally on behalf of the previous Government by the Industrial Development Authority, had to be honoured by me, and I have taken steps to honour it. But it means this, that for some time, until that abnormal stock of raw material has been reduced, the products of that firm must be sold at a higher price than would otherwise be necessary, at prices which are slightly higher than world prices at the present time.
The same problem arose for other firms which undertook to carry, or which were induced to carry, abnormal stocks. I refer to that because I want to bring to the attention of Deputy Davin, and of the Dáil generally, an issue of policy which arose there. Deputy Davin said that certain firms increased their prices as soon as the raw material prices increased.
Yes, and I will give the names.
I want to say that it is not merely normal commercial practice, but sound commercial practice, to charge raw materials currently used in the process of manufacture at the cost of replacing them, and if that course had been permitted here, with the price control arrangements in operation, prices would have risen earlier, but we would now be able with fewer adverse consequences to adjust them downward again. The British Labour Government, operating its price control, worked on that basis. The firm to which the Deputy has referred in his own constituency is associated with a corresponding factory in Great Britain, and they were permitted to increase their prices step by step with the rise of raw materials, appropriating the higher revenue thereby received to a stock depreciation reserve upon which they are now drawing to enable them to sell their products at the world price even though the actual material going into use was purchased at the top of the market.
Bulk buying by the Government.
Here, the policy was followed of requiring firms to use their stocks in current production at the price paid for them and to leave the problem of replacing these stocks by higher priced stocks to be resolved later on. That, for example, arose in the case of the cigarette manufacturers. The cost of tobacco increased in the sterling area on the day that the £ was devalued. Here the cigarette manufacturers had a two years' supply of tobacco, and they were instructed by the Department of Industry and Commerce to continue to charge that stock of tobacco in the current price of cigarettes at the price paid for it but not to increase prices until the higher priced post-devaluation tobacco was actually coming into use. The two years since devaluation ended in September this year, and the price of cigarettes had to be increased. That is going to mean this, that if at some time the price of tobacco falls again we will not be able to get the benefit of that fall in the price of cigarettes for two years afterwards. We got an immediate benefit last year, but we will have to pay for that benefit at some future time if prices fall. Of course, there may not be any general fall in prices, although I think it is now safe to assume, in view of the policy which is being followed by the British Government, that the danger of a further devaluation of the £ just does not exist.
I have explained the measures which we have taken to limit the effect of the trade recession on employment in the clothing industry by cutting quotas and increasing tariffs. I have said already here, in the course of a discussion following a parliamentary question, that there was not, in fact, in recent months, despite the trade recession in Britain and Northern Ireland, any evidence of abnormal imports of manufactured goods. But I did find, in discussions with organisations of wholesalers, traders and manufacturers, a real expectation that abnormal imports would come from British manufacturers holding surplus stocks and trying to dispose of them in any market into which they could get them. That apprehension was primarily the cause of the reluctance of traders and wholesalers to place their orders for spring deliveries at this time, the time when they are normally given. I felt that the effect of the announcements of reduced quotas and of higher tariffs would be to remove these apprehensions and encourage the giving of orders again. I am glad to say that there is some evidence that that has happened and that in some branches of the clothing trade unemployment is diminishing and that workers who were laid off are being called back but not to anything like the extent necessary. The movement, however, is in the right direction.
I agree entirely with Deputy Davin that a manufacturer who is faced with a curtailment of orders and the necessity of cutting down production, should endeavour to minimise the effect of that on his employees by adopting the system of short-time working rather than by making one section of the employees bear the whole burden by paying them off. I would have no hesitation in conveying that view to any manufacturer who, I thought, was acting otherwise.
I want to say also, in reply to certain observations made by Deputy Davin regarding the line taken by clothing manufacturers and traders in woollen goods this time last year, that when complaints were made then that manufacturers of blankets and other woollen goods were withholding supplies from traders in order to get the benefit of rising prices and were charging up in these prices the higher costs of raw materials, even before they had experienced them, the Department of Industry and Commerce, under the instructions of my predecessor, carried out at the beginning of this year an investigation of that situation. That investigation appeared completely to disprove the allegations made. There was, in fact, no evidence forthcoming to the departmental investigators that supplies were deliberately withheld from the market in anticipation of a rise, or that the prices of goods were being marked up because of a rise in the price of raw materials before it was justified.
Did they check up on a certain blanket manufacturer in Clare?
I have no information of that. The investigation was carried out under the authority of my predecessor and he got a report from the investigators, which satisfied him that there was no foundation for the allegations generally.
The Drapers' Chamber of Trade people might tell you something about it.
I must say, in fairness to the Drapers' Chamber of Trade, and to all other who might normally be interested in the importation of goods, and who would have some trade advantage if they were permitted to import goods, that at a conference in the Department held, under my instructions, to consider the situation, no difficulty was experienced in getting in most cases, if not in all cases, unanimous agreement on the desirability of curtailing imports until this situation had been resolved.
Do you remember me reading a letter in the House confirming what I am now saying? I did not give the name.
What I said about the investigation which my predecessor ordered to be undertaken was that there was no general foundation for the allegation. I am not attempting to suggest that it might not have been true in individual cases.
Deputy Davin has referred to increases in the prices of essential commodities which have occurred during the present year. He mentioned, I think, butter and cheese. It is true that the price rise is still continuing. The latest cost-of-living figure showed an increase of two points on the previous quarter. At the end of the quarter before that, an increase of two points was already shown. During the past six months, the cost-of-living index number has shown an increase of four points. In the first half of the year, there was an increase of six points. I feel, however, that it is still safe to say that the increase in prices which has been proceeding throughout the whole year is now tapering off and coming to an end and that we are in a position of price stability unless costs rise further, either because of inflation of the cost of imported raw materials or because of costs within our control.
In the case of butter, however, I think Deputy Davin misunderstood or misinterpreted the political significance of the rise in butter prices sanctioned by Deputy Dillon when he was Minister for Agriculture. I do not think that prejudiced the election of any Coalition candidate. However, I will tell Deputy Davin what, I feel, cost the Coalition a number of votes. It was Danish butter. I am quite certain that the Coalition candidates, particularly in this city, lost a large number of votes because of Danish butter. We decided we would not lose votes because of Danish butter, and the decision to increase the price of creamery milk was designed to secure an expansion of Irish butter production so that we might not have to import foreign butter in the future.
Is that reflected in the decision of the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association to call a strike on account of the price of milk?
We increased the price of milk delivered to creameries, and we did so understanding that we were taking a decision without any reliable data to support it. We felt that the general knowledge which was available to the Department of Agriculture was sufficient to justify the increase; simultaneously, as the Deputy may remember, the Minister for Agriculture announced that he was going to establish a tribunal to get reliable information as to the cost of milk production—information which we have not got at present.
Has it been established?
Deputies opposite think the price of milk should not have been increased. I admit Deputy Davin was in favour of increasing the price of milk, but he said he would have met the resultant higher cost of butter by the taxation of luxuries. I wonder would Deputy Davin tell us what luxuries he would like taxed?
Fur coats.
Does Deputy Davin say that fur coats should be taxed? You can tax luxuries within that narrow definition. You can tax fur coats, champagne and diamond necklaces. You can quadruple the tax on them and then you will get no revenue at all.
Does the House remember what the present Minister for Finance said on that subject two years ago?
No matter how you tax luxuries you could not get in enough money to pay one penny subsidy on butter. Either the increase would be so small it would yield no revenue or else the increase would be so high that the trade would stop. As I told the Deputies opposite on many occasions there are only three taxes in operation here, the alteration of which will yield a substantial amount of revenue. These are income-tax, tobacco tax and beer tax. All other taxes are of little importance in comparison.
Will the increase in the price of butter bring us to the position where we will eliminate butter imports?
We hope so. If 2d. per lb. of the butter price had been carried on taxation it would need £1,200,000. That money is not available. You have to get a substantial revenue if you are going to provide subsidies.
How does 2d. per lb. on butter call for £1,200,000?
£600,000 for 1d. per lb. subsidy.
Deputy Davin was rather unwise to refer to the price of cheese because this was one of the Price Orders which I found awaiting me on my desk when I resumed office in June last. An application by distributors for a higher price for cheese had been lodged with the Prices Advisory Body before the election.
It was not approved.
That would be a very foolish step to take.
Was it to put into the mousetraps?
You surely do not approve of everything that is recommended.
I do not think that anybody should, in all fairness, speak for any length of time in this debate. I just want to say, in all seriousness, to Deputy Davin, that, so far as moneys for works under the Local Authorities (Works) Act are concerned or where other funds allocated for local authorities are involved, every penny provided in the Budget will be paid out.
You are very slow about it. They are all gone to England.
It is true that the provision for works under the Local Authorities (Works) Act was cut down in this year's Budget, but every penny provided will be paid.
The easy money is all gone. What Deputy Davin calls "free money" is all gone. That era is over. We have to pay our way in future. Marshall Aid came to this country by way of loan. It has got to be repaid. The payment of interest on that loan becomes due next year and the repayment of the principal a couple of years later. The amount of money which we borrowed and which we used as "free money" during the past year will represent the equivalent of eight years' export of goods to the United States. For eight years all the goods we could ship to the United States would be going there free of charge in order to repay the loan. Repayment of that loan is the equivalent of eight years' total exports to the United States. So why describe it as free money? I will admit that it was treated as free money but it certainly was not free, and the taxpayers of this country are going to realise that it was not free money.
I hope a penny of it will never be repaid.
In any event, it is all gone. There is no money in the Bank of Ireland on which the Minister for Finance can draw in order to give additional grants to the county councils. I have explained to-day that the Minister for Finance has got the problem of raising between this and the 31st March an additional £10,000,000 in order to meet the deficit in the tax revenue and the cost of the Supplementary Estimates which the Dáil passed to-day or will be called upon to pass next February.
Glory be to my Aunt Ann.
I know that if Deputy Dillon is not always the centre of attraction he is upset. He is always trying to attract attention to himself. The "free money" has gone, and the Minister for Finance has now got the problem of raising money to meet outgoings for this year. It will be difficult enough for him to do it, to discharge his liabilities before the 31st March, and it is certainly impracticable to contemplate any substantial addition to that burden.
Before the Tánaiste sits down, would he advert to the position as it exists in Kildare which is due to the textile situation there, in regard to Irish Ropes, where there is a very substantial number of employees being put on short time and whose position is in no way improved by his recent Order? Has he anything to offer these people?
I do not know the circumstances there. I should imagine that as in the case of all textile products, there is some hope of a fall in price.
Ropes are not textiles. These people were not affected by any importations.
No, I agree. I would not like to offer an opinion without having some investigation made.
On a point of order. I would like to point out that the motion for the Adjournment was nominated by the Labour Party and almost half the time allowed for this discussion has gone.
No, only a third.
There is every indication that very little time will be left for the members of the Labour Party to deal with this in a manner which they would like and I submit, Sir, that a member of the Labour Party should now be called upon.
The Chair has no option but to call Deputies from all parts of the House.
On a point of order. I understood that the Party which gave notice of intention to raise a motion had a certain priority in that regard.
That is why Deputy Davin was given the option to open.
There was no agreement that any Party should monopolise the time of the House.
Might I suggest that as we are limited to three hours and as Deputy Davin has spoken at considerable length, and the Tánaiste necessarily at some length, other Deputies might cut down their contributions to a reasonable length?
Mr. O'Higgins
Before I make the few remarks I intend to make I would like from these benches to refer to a statement which was made by Deputy Cowan during the course of the Tánaiste's concluding remarks when he expressed the hope that not a penny of the money advanced to us by the American people would be repaid by the Government of this country. I think that is a disgraceful suggestion made by a Deputy who supports the present Government, and I trust that his views will not colour the policy of the Government in this connection, as his views have in other respects.
The Deputy's indignation sounds very sincere.
Mr. O'Higgins
We heard the Tánaiste here to-night in a far different light from the speech he would have made this time 12 months. We heard him here starting his speech full of sweet reasonableness, full of the milk of human kindness. Perhaps it was the Christmas season beginning to impinge upon the Tánaiste's mentality. But perhaps also he knew in relation to one of the matters being discussed in this adjournment that he had a very bad case on the question of prices and the cost of living. In my few remarks I want to refer to that case. If there is any subject upon which this Government stands condemned at the bar of public opinion it is on the question of the cost of living.
For the last three and a half years the present Tánaiste, as Deputy Lemass, speaking from these benches here, hurled broadside after broadside at the then Government because of rising prices. Twelve months ago he went to new heights of fury because of the level of prices then obtaining, and his side-kick, Deputy Cowan, even put down a motion of no confidence in the inter-Party Government. It is against that background that we must consider the situation to-day.
The Tánaiste speaks as a Minister of the Government and he comes into the House to say this: "I do not think it would be wise to hold out any hope of a general fall in prices." The only hope he holds out to the country now is that the present increase in prices is beginning to take hold and that possibly we may see stability in prices at a higher level some time in the future. I do not want to cover again some of the ground already discussed in this session during the supplies and services debate but I think it is proper to remind the Tánaiste in connection with sentences which he uttered here to-night, of speeches which he made in the last general election when he spoke at Townsend Street on 19th May, 1951. This is the report:
"Mr. Seán Lemass, speaking at Townsend Street, Dublin, last night, said that Fianna Fáil could not promise that all difficulties would disappear if a Fianna Fáil Government was elected or that all prices would come tumbling down, but it would be able to operate an intelligent and consistent policy to solve those problems. That was what a Coalition Government could never do."
That was a speech made by the Tánaiste. Did I hear a Fianna Fáil supporter say: "Hear, hear"? Many voters said: "Hear, hear" on 19th May of this year. Many of the Tánaiste's constituents applauded that speech. They heard the nominal deputy Leader, the real Leader of Fianna Fáil, telling them that if a Fianna Fáil Government was returned to power he was not going to promise that all prices would come tumbling down. But there was a clear suggestion to the Irish voters and particularly to the city voters: "If you put us back we will bring down most prices."
Repeat the statement.
Read the statement again.
Mr. O'Higgins
I will not be cross-examined by the shadow Minister for Agriculture or by Deputy Briscoe. I say that that particular statement of the Tánaiste on 19th May is a clear suggestion that if the Fianna Fáil Government was returned most of the prices then being charged for goods that the people had to buy would fall.
Would you repeat that statement? I did not catch it.
Mr. O'Higgins
Do not rise me.
What about the statement on South African coal?
Mr. O'Higgins
A few days later in the Irish Press on 23rd May this year Deputy Major de Valera is reported as disclosing Fianna Fáil's policy in relation to prices. Here is what he said Fianna Fáil was going to do:—
"Coupled with the drive to increase production and secure supplies Fianna Fáil would exercise a practical price control to prevent exploitation of scarcity conditions and protect the housewife as far as possible."
That is not the end of the story. I want Deputy Briscoe to listen to this. There was another speech made by a Fianna Fáil candidate. He was not successful, but he is reported in the Irish Press of 17th May as making this appeal to the women of the city of Dublin:—
"Housewives of Dublin would have an opportunity on 30th May to strike a blow against those who produced a Government black market in essential foodstuffs."
That is the background we are discussing to-night after six months of the present Cowan-Cogan-Fianna Fáil Government.
I think it is at least permissible for us in the Opposition to describe the seats which the present Government and their fellow-travellers secured at the last election, certainly in the city, as being seats won as a result of a huge confidence trick played on the voters of this city, as a result of a campaign designed and fashioned by the present Tánaiste to secure from the women of this city votes, irrespective of any moral considerations. The whole suggestion was that, if he were back at the helm, there was no doubt that practical steps would be taken to control prices.
You can trust Dev.
Mr. O'Higgins
I want to know from the Government what has happened to the Prices Advisory Council. I want to know why price increases have taken place in the last six months, some of them without any consultation with that body. I know, of course, that the Tánaiste, when in opposition, declared in his usual vehement manner that one of the first things that Fianna Fáil would do would be to abolish the Prices Advisory Council. Another thing they were going to do was to abolish the Irish News Agency, and a third thing was to abolish the Industrial Development Authority. These three bodies are still there.
I want to know why price increases have been ordered and sanctioned by the Minister for Industry and Commerce over the last six months which never went before the Prices Tribunal at all.
I think we are entitled to know that from the present Minister, since he did not abolish the Prices Tribunal—in fact, by legislation he has continued its existence. Since he has not abolished it we must assume that he realises the important function fulfilled by that tribunal. Nevertheless, in relation to such price increases as the increase in the price of cigarettes and tobacco, the matter appears never to have been discussed by the Prices Advisory Council. Does that mean that, so far as the present Government are concerned, only certain awkward matters will be sent before the Prices Tribunal while the Minister will reserve to himself the right to deal with other matters?
Reference has been made by Deputy Davin to specific increases in the price of certain commodities and I do not want to weary the House by detailing them. I should like, however, to make it clear, from our point of view, that we do not say to the present Government, as they said to us, that the entire responsibility for all increases in prices rests with the Government. We realise, as Deputy Davin very fairly stated, that in relation to a considerable number of commodities; no matter what Government may be in power, outside circumstances will result in an increase in prices here. That, however, certainly does not excuse the dishonest campaign indulged in by the present Government. It does not excuse the fact that, knowing the position, they endeavoured to fish for votes in troubled waters in the last election. It does not excuse the pantomime which they conducted throughout the State. It does not excuse the posters and advertisements which they published in relation to the harried housewife in every single paper. Lastly, it does not excuse the price increases that have taken place in the last six months as the result of deliberate Government policy. Butter has been referred to. That, of course, was a most discreditable episode. In relation to butter, there were more oozy tears shed by Fianna Fáil candidates in Dublin, Cork and other centres than in relation to any other matter. That has been dealt with by Deputy Davin.
The House will also remember that the present Minister, shortly after he became Minister, decontrolled bacon and meat. These are two commodities that we produce at home ourselves, commodities over which the Government can exercise complete control in relation to price distribution, etc. The present Minister decontrolled both these commodities. What has been the result? In relation to bacon, the farmer gets less for his pig.
Mr. Walsh
That is wrong.
It is right.
Mr. Walsh
It is wrong.
Interruptions.
Order!
Take your medicine.
Mr. Walsh
Withdraw that statement.
Pigs were 5/- per cwt. less at last Wednesday's market.
The price of bacon has gone up and the price of pigs has come down. Why do you not tell the truth?
Mr. O'Higgins
We used to hear the proverb—"When in Rome, do as the Romans do". Might I suggest to the Minister for Agriculture that while he is in this House he should behave himself?
Mr. Walsh
You are behaving yourself.
Keep quiet.
Mr. Walsh
It is foreign to you.
I would appeal to the Taoiseach to keep his colleague quiet.
Mr. O'Higgins
We know that the Minister for Industry and Commerce established the position that industry and commerce was to be the watch dog of agriculture when the Government came into office, and he probably told the present Minister for Agriculture that he was going to decontrol the price of bacon. I am sure the Minister said to him: "Good God, if you do that the farmer will be ruined, because the bacon curer can pay what he likes for the pigs and charge what he likes for the bacon." The Minister for Agriculture, however, was not strong enough for the old war dog and bacon was decontrolled. There was, previous to the decontrol of bacon, a pious hope expressed that decontrol would result in a lower price for rashers. The result has been—I repeat it again—that the Irish farmer gets 25/- a cwt. less for his pigs and that the Irish consumer pays 25/- more for his bacon.
Mr. Walsh
That is wrong.
Mr. O'Higgins
That is one result of deliberate Government policy.
Mr. Walsh
What would an O'Higgins know about the price of pigs, anyway?
Mr. O'Higgins
I should like to refer to another recent increase in price handed out to the consumer, I say, again, as a result of deliberate Government policy. I am glad the Minister for Agriculture is here. We have all been trying to find out for the last couple of weeks why Irish farmers are being charged £20 a ton for fertilisers imported into this country at £9 15s. a ton. There is the old story which the Minister for Agriculture should know about.
Mr. Walsh
You are on thin ice there; you are going too far.
Mr. O'Higgins
I am not.
Is the Taoiseach not going to keep the Minister in order?
He is doing his best.
The interruptions are coming from all sides of the House and the Chair is doing its best to allow Deputy O'Higgins to continue.
Mr. O'Higgins
If I do not cause another eruption from the Minister. We all know that every time a farmer gets more or is promised more in the way of price for any corn he grows, up goes the price of fertilisers. The Minister for Agriculture's predecessor was criticised by a large concern of fertiliser dealers because he endeavoured to break a particular line of control and Fianna Fáil Deputies supported that criticism. They are now in control. The supply of fertilisers has got back into the same hands and in a period of five months the price to the farmer has jumped from £9 15s. to £20 a ton. The Minister for Agriculture finds that amusing. He does not mind what the farmer has to pay for fertilisers.
Mr. Walsh
He is amused at Deputy O'Higgins's treading on thin ice.
Mr. O'Higgins
I want to make that protest in respect to the farmers I represent. Although the Minister for Agriculture may consider the price they have to pay for fertilisers amusing, they certainly do not regard it as such. One of the grounds on which the inter-Party Government was castigated by the Central Bank and the Minister for Finance in his White Paper was that we had imported into this country at £9 15s. a ton 100,000 extra tons of fertilisers. That is now being retailed at an exorbitant price to our farmers and I hope we will get some explanation of it.
I should also like to refer to what Deputy Davin mentioned, the position in my constituency in regard to the clothing and woollen trade. I am glad to see that Deputy Maher is now in the House. Deputy Maher, Deputy Davin and myself and other Deputies for the constituency met a deputation from the worsted mills in Portlaoise some months ago to discuss the situation which had arisen in the factory there and also in the mills in Tullamore.
I do not charge Deputy Maher with this, he may have been merely used. There is no doubt, however, that an attempt was then made by the Tánaiste to convince the workers who were being put on short time that the reason for that was that the Tánaiste's predecessor had imported too much yarn into this country. That attempt was deliberately made. I pointed out to that deputation that there was a general trade recession, not merely in this country but also in Great Britain and elsewhere; that there was also growing up a consumers' resistance to higher prices. But that would not do—the responsibility was that of the inter-Party Government.
On a point of order.
Mr. O'Higgins
I said that I acquitted Deputy Maher. I charge the Tánaiste with doing that deliberately when meeting the directors of Salts, Limited, and the allied industry in Portlaoise and sending them back with that message to the workers who had been put on short time.
Only the English directors.
Mr. O'Higgins
What are the facts? Last year we imported into this country some 6,000,000 square yards of yarn. That figure is apparently being used as a reason for the present situation. The fact is that in the year 1947 over 8,000,000 square yards of yarn were imported into this country and that was the highest import figure the country ever had. That was when the Tánaiste was the Minister. If that import in 1947 did not cause a similar trade recession or put men on short time in Portlaoise or Tullamore, why should the lesser figure in the last financial year cause such a recession or such unemployment? It is not the imports which have done it. It is partly due to the general trade recession, not merely in this country, but throughout Great Britain, but it is chiefly due to the ministerial line followed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance in the last four months.
It is chiefly due to the fact that, for a political purpose, individual members of the present Government set out from September, thinking they would never survive this last session of the Dáil, to vilify the financial and economic policy of the last Government; trying to convince the Irish people that Ireland was insolvent and bankrupt; trying to convince everyone who had a stake in the country or money to invest that Ireland was not credit-worthy. They endeavoured to do that.
The result has been to cause in business circles generally—Deputy Briscoe knows it well—a most acute fit of jitters. There has been little or no business done since then. Not merely in the woollen trade but in the drapery trade, the boot trade and a number of other trades there has been a complete standstill because the people were told by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance that the country is insolvent, that it is on the rocks. Behind it all, there was the gentleman in the big black coat hinting about further taxation. What would be the result of that? Any hint of taxation means less trade. If there is to be new taxation imposed in the next couple of months, the people who have money to spend are not going to spend it on what are, in fact, luxury articles. This situation has been aggravated considerably by the ministerial line of speeches in the last three months.
I say to the Tánaiste that, while he can say that any unemployment which exists is partly due to circumstances outside his control, he cannot afford to be complacent, because there are men idle in Tullamore and Portlaoise to-day who would not be idle if the inter-Party Government had been returned this year. There are men idle in Balbriggan and elsewhere throughout the country who would be working now if, unfortunately, Deputy Cowan had not decided to vote for the Taoiseach. I hope that the country realises that, now that they have had six months' experience of the present Coalition. I hope that they realise that, under the inter-Party Government, they did not prize sufficiently the benefits of the policy then being pursued.
I will not detain the House any longer. I was anxious to mention these matters in relation to both prices and unemployment, particularly in relation to unemployment in my own constituency, in order to answer the suggestion that was made by the Minister that that situation was the result of the faults of his predecessor. It would not have been necessary to discuss this matter in this way were it not for that suggestion, and we could have excused the situation as one that developed quite accidentally were it not for the background of the past few months.
On a point of order. In view of the importance of this debate would it be possible for the House to agree to extend it until midnight? If the Taoiseach will permit it. I would ask the House to agree to that extension in order that all Deputies will have an opportunity of expressing their views.
This is a very important motion and a number of Deputies wish to speak. In view of its importance I do not think the debate should be limited and the House should sit until the early hours of the morning, if it so wishes, in order to discuss these matters which have an important effect throughout the country.
It has already been agreed to allow three hours to this debate.
I would ask the Chair to ask the Taoiseach to intervene now and give his opinion as to an extension of the time.
I think three hours is long enough. Deputies have had an opportunity of discussing all these questions.
Does the Taoiseach then rule out the rights of Deputies to express their opinion?
The Taoiseach has stated that three hours is long enough in his opinion. So far the Minister for Industry and Commerce has taken up a very great deal of the time.
Mr. Walsh
25 minutes.
I submit that three hours will not be sufficient to allow Deputies a fair chance of expressing their views.
Mr. Byrne
Might I make the suggestion that speeches be limited to five minutes or, at most, ten minutes and that we shall not have these long drawn out half hour speeches while others who have something practical to say will not be permitted to get in at all?
The Chair cannot do that.
Would you accept a motion from a Deputy requesting the House to sit for an unlimited period?
I could not accept that. There is an order of the House to sit for three hours after the ordinary business has concluded. That is an order of the House.
I understand there is an order of the House for three hours and the Taoiseach says now that he thinks that is quite sufficient. In view of the fact that the Minister for Industry and Commerce intervened so early in the debate, and I presume some other Minister will wind up the debate, perhaps the Taoiseach himself —I am even more concerned now since the Minister for Finance has come into the House—will we have an undertaking that either the Taoiseach or the Minister for Finance will not get into the debate an hour before it is due to close and take up the full hour?
Are we not wasting time now?
With all due respect to your ruling, I wish to protest against a limitation of three hours on such an important matter.
The Chair has not limited the time. It is the House that has limited it to three hours.
Are you refusing to accept a motion to extend the time?
A motion of that kind must be moved by the Government before I can accept it.
It is often done by agreement of the House. Apparently we are not going to get that agreement.
The Taoiseach is afraid to agree.
Deputy Corry on the Adjournment motion.
I do not think I should be left to suffer.
I had one do of Deputy Corry to-day and it is enough.
They are on the run.
Nobody will listen to you.
Deputy Corry on the motion on the Adjournment.
I will deal, first of all, with the comments of Deputy Davin about the unemployed in his constituency, the men who are now idle because of the shortage of money under the Local Authorities (Works) Acts. The Deputy who was in charge of the Department of Local Government when the Estimate for that Department was brought in was a Labour Minister, Deputy Michael Keyes.
Here is the provision that Deputy Keyes made for the unemployed in Deputy Davin's constituency. In 1951-52 the grant to local authorities for the execution of works under the Act was £1,220,000; in 1950-51 it was £1,750,000. In 1950-52 there was a decrease of £530,000. That sum was taken out of the pockets of the unemployed in Laois for whom Deputy Davin has been appealing here to-night, and asking us to find some money for them in some mythical fund. There is a reduction of over half a million of money passed through this House by a Labour Minister, a reduction of half a million of money for the workers. That is the reason why you have 120 people idle in Laois to-day, begging for work and begging for bread that was taken from them by the Labour Minister in charge of Local Government.
Let us saddle every old horse we meet. We will saddle that horse as well. We had a tally-ho here in relation to the price of pigs. It would be no harm for Deputies to look at the Irish Independent of Thursday, December 13th, that is to-day. Prime pigs fetched 270/-; extra lean, 275/-; heavier classes, 260/- to 265/-. Those represent the highest prices ever paid for pigs. Yet, these Deputies allege that pigs have been reduced in price. Why we never got that price even when Deputy Dillon hunted them all across the Border last year. But the farmers want that price, and more, considering that these pigs have to be fattened on Mesopotamian barley brought in by Deputy Dillon. They could eat five tons of that stuff and the hair would still be standing up on their backs. That is why bacon is scarce.
It calls for some mental agility to nail two lies in five minutes. I have disposed of one of them. Deputy Davin has unfortunately removed himself but I am glad to see Deputy Dunne here. Perhaps he will explain to us how he allowed the Estimate under the Local Authorities (Works) Act to be reduced by over £500,000 this year.
That is not correct.
I will make the Deputy a present of the Estimates.
Were not all the local authorities informed that they could have as much as they wanted?
They were informed, as they were in County Cork, that that was all they would get and that the works would have to be cut accordingly.
Of course, Cork is always different.
I am sorry I have not got the actual letter. If County Dublin got away with anything I would like to know something about it.
Now they come along to a Fianna Fáil Minister for Finance and expect him to pull out of some bank £500,000 to provide for those people whom they drove into unemployment.
The Deputy was very vocal about the mills in Tullamore. I would like to say a few words not only about them, but about the mills in Midleton and Youghal in my constituency. I am deeply concerned about them. We had Deputy O'Higgins talking about the 8,000,000 yards of material that were imported in 1947. That was before Messrs. Dwyer & Company started to manufacture in Midleton and Youghal. We require 10,500,000 yards of cloth to meet the needs of our people. The last Government dumped 7,250,000 yards of cloth in this country last year. Our own local mills produced 6,500,000 yards. We had, therefore, 3,000,000 yards more than we required for our needs. Some weeks ago, I told in the House the experience I had when travelling by train from Cork to Dublin. I had a conversation with a gentleman who said he was coming up to try to get a licence to bring over from Britain material such as Salts & Co. are manufacturing here. He said that one could get that licence all right under the inter-Party Government, but that now you could not get a licence to import materials because the result would be to throw the workers in our mills idle. That is the problem I was faced with in Midleton, and I did face it.
Is the Deputy aware that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has granted a licence?
I am well aware that he has not, and that he had to take immediate steps to end all quotas of that description. We are not going to have a repetition now of what occurred last year when 7,500,000 yards of cloth were dumped in the country and the workers in the mills at Midleton had to walk the streets unemployed. In that situation we have this motion about unemployment brought in to-night by the Labour Party.
Deputy Davin also spoke about milk. He assured us that, as far as he was concerned, he had no objection to the farmer getting a fair price for his milk. The Deputies who sit in this House are not fools, and they well remember, about six months before the inter-Party Government disappeared in disgrace, Deputy Davin marching into the Lobby to vote against Deputy Cogan's motion which proposed that the farmer should get an economic price for his milk. That was Deputy Davin's attitude then. He now says he has no objection to the farmer getting a proper price for his milk, and that it should come out of taxation. Deputy Davin was sitting in the House when Deputy Dillon, by way of a death-bed repentance, agreed to increase the price of milk by 1d. a gallon, and did not object to the 2d. per lb. which went on butter as a result. Let us be honest at least. The late Minister for Agriculture prevented the farmers of this country who keep dairy cows from getting a fair price for what they produce. After all, there are only six or seven counties out of the 26 which are, to a large extent, composed of dairy farmers. They supply the Twenty-Six Counties with butter.
Are they satisfied now?
They are not, and I make no bones about saying that. The farmer is entitled to his costs of production as well as any other man. If a farmer's costings are increased, then he should be given a price for what he produces to enable him to meet his costs of production. If we want to have decent production in this country something will have to be done to bridge the gap which exists between the gentlemen outside the fence who earns £5 12s. a week and the man working inside it who gets £3 10s. That position was responsible for what occurred during the three and a half years of the inter-Party Government, when 65,000 young men left the land and went into the towns and cities or across to Britain. It is true they had nothing to offer but the labour of their hands. Naturally, they sold that labour in the highest market. They were not going to work for a farmer for £3 10s. when they could get from £5 to £6 10s. a week elsewhere.
As a result of the walloping and the wiping out of the dairy farmers of this country, the last Government had to go to Denmark and bring in Brian Boru's butter, butter which Deputy Murphy stated here the other day would walk in the door or creep off the table.
It must be like some of the farmers' butter.
This is supposed to be an agricultural country. Let us determine then on one thing, that our own people will have first claim on the products of the land, and that they are going to be fed. Let us see to it that they are fed decently and that sufficient butter is provided for them. That can be done by giving the farmer his costs of production, plus a fair profit on what he produces.
I want to deal with two other little matters since we are on the subject of unemployment. Can any Deputy on the Opposition Benches explain to me why the money guaranteed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in November, 1947, for the erection of the plant and machinery in Irish Steel, Limited, for the sheet mills was not forthcoming during the three and a half years the people over there disgraced this country by being a Government? Talk about begging for industries! There was an industry with nine-tenths of the machinery on the ground. The war was over and the Minister for Industry and Commerce had gone down and inspected the place and the plant and had said that he would give the cash for its erection. Why was it that that cash was not found and that nothing was done until Deputy Lemass came back to office?
It was a question of dodge, dodge, dodge, through 18 questions, as I said a fortnight ago. I asked 18 questions as to why that money was not forthcoming and why that plant was not erected. I was told that it was being considered, that it was a serious matter, a matter which could not be passed over lightly but which must be considered seriously. Then the scapegoat was found—the Industrial Development Authority. That body spent six months inquiring into it and they were still inquiring into it when they were kicked out. Now that plant is being erected and will give decent employment to Irish people in their own country and, please God, it will be followed by other industries. I do not want to see the workers of this country dependent on the cutting of an Estimate by a Labour Party Minister or a Labour Party Government— whether they will get the £3 10s. 0d. or £3 15s. 0d. a week on a miserable job clearing rivers or something of that description—while there is decent employment waiting for them there.
Then some Deputies have the nerve to get up and talk about the increased cost of living. Who is responsible for it? Where is the Government now that refused to give 4/6 per ton increase in the price of beet? Where is the Government which dumped into this country last February 74,000 tons of foreign sugar? The Minister for Industry and Commerce told me here three weeks ago when I asked him how far the import of foreign sugar was responsible for the increase of 1d per lb. in the price of sugar to the consumer, that that import and the high price paid to the Cubans for that sugar was responsible for two-thirds of 1d. per lb. to the Irish consumer—two-thirds of a penny more than the people need have paid if Irish beet were produced and Irish factories kept working. It is no wonder they have run out and it is no wonder that only the baby has been left on the benches opposite.
If you do not know why they have run, you will never learn.
Let Deputy Dunne look after that undeveloped area he has up here. If he had seen to it that those people whom he kept in office for three and a half years had worked on the lines of the Government which was in power before them—decent employment given and industries initiated which gave extra employment—he would be doing something as a leader of Labour.
You have a short memory.
He may get up here and wail and moan about the unemployed and the wages paid to farm workers, but he must know—like the yarn about the Bank of Ireland and all the millions in it—that you cannot get blood out of a turnip. If you hold the agricultural community at the 1947 prices for their produce and increase their costings, you have a different tune. Earlier this evening we had to meet some little bills.
Interest unpaid.
I do not wish to hold the House any longer. I have put the case honestly and squarely before the House. I have nailed two lies, and we will nail any more if Deputies opposite have any left in the bag.
Having listened to the mellifluous tones of the Deputy who has just sat down, one must be in doubt as to whether this is Christmas or Lent because we have certainly been doing our penance. As usual, Deputy Corry makes his exit.
You would not expect me to stay to listen to you.
The intervention by the Tánaiste in this debate to-night seemed to me to come at a rather peculiar moment. He seemed to be endeavouring to anticipate arguments which might be made by Labour representatives on this motion. He made a number of points, and one of his arguments was that, while unemployment has been developing over a period, the trend is now in the right direction and unemployment is on the down grade. That is what I gathered from his remarks, and in that connection I should like to quote the figures, the most recent figures available, to show just what the trend of unemployment is. Last year, on 1st December, the number of unemployed registered at labour exchanges was 56,790, and this year on 1st December the number was 61,070. In one week, as between 24th November and 1st December of this year, the number of unemployed rose from 59,800 odd to 61,070, so that it does not appear that the trend is in the right direction. Quite the contrary is the case.
Regardless of what excuses Deputy Corry or the Tánaiste may make, the people of the country realise one fact at present—and if you listen to them in the streets, in buses, or wherever they gather this will be borne out— that the cost of living is rising, that nothing appears to be done about it, and that unemployment is increasing.
You are responsible.
Regardless of what stupid interruptions Deputy Burke may make in the matter, they hold this Government, just as they held the inter-Party Government, responsible for the economic condition of the country, and rightly so. Whatever the economic condition of the people may be, the Government must assume a responsibility for it. What do political Parties seek power for but to assume that responsibility? I think it is time that the Government faced up to its responsibility in this matter. I am not so concerned with what happened in the recent or distant past. I think there is too much time spent in talking about what happened in the past. The people of this country and the people I represent want to know what will happen in the future. They want to know what the next six months hold for them. Christmas may be a season of goodwill but for a large number of working-class families in the City and County of Dublin it will be one of the worst Christmases they will experience for many years from the point of view of money being made available to enable them to purchase goods. The Government has a responsibility in that respect. When there is any slump in trade which brings unemployment it is the duty of the Government, in my view, to take any steps that may be necessary to provide employment for disemployed workers.
In Dublin County a number of workers were disemployed as a result of a depression in the hosiery trade and in the textile industry. This happened in Balbriggan and Lucan. The help we got from the Government, which is the central authority, in putting those workers into employment for the Christmas period was negligible. County Councils were forced—as county councils throughout Ireland are forced just at the moment —to raise money by means of levying on the rates of the county to relieve a desperate condition of affairs. It is no exaggeration to say that the position is desperate. Skilled hosiers in the town of Balbriggan, who learned their trade from their fathers, who, in turn, learned it from their fathers before them, have been disemployed. The hosiery trade has existed in that town for almost 200 years, although Deputy Burke sometimes claims that he found it, but he is hardly that old. These men, with a skill which is worth something to the country and which represents wealth for the country, are now down on the foreshore picking winkles.
They are back at work again this week. Deputy Dunne helped the inter-Party Government to stockpile in order to disemploy these people. Now he wants to try and bluff the House.
Deputy Burke must restrain himself.
I am surprised at Deputy Burke's anxiety to defend the Fianna Fáil Party because he was not too kindly dealt with by them in the last election.
That is wrong. There was never anything of that kind. If the Deputy wants dirt I will give it to him.
There is no dirt in it. It is common knowledge. Everybody knows it. Unemployment has assumed more serious proportions than it has ever assumed for a long number of years, not alone in my constituency but in rural areas throughout the country. For the past three years 1,400 men have been employed by the Meath County Council in operations under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. There are now 700 employed and 700 unemployed, as any Meath Deputy or member of the Meath County Council can verify.
The same tale is being told all over the country. Whatever chance there may be in big cities and towns such as Dublin, Cork, Galway and Waterford for a man to obtain some form of alternative employment when his ordinary employment ceases, it is better left to the imagination than described the chance he has of securing alternative employment if he works in a rural area miles away from any industry. In these areas, where he solely depends on working on drainage schemes or road works for the county council, his only alternative is to turn to agriculture. Agriculture does not seek labour at this time of the year, as everybody knows. There is real hardship in the rural areas as a result of unemployment. Many unemployed workers throughout rural areas—most of them probably voted for Fianna Fáil Deputies at the last election and may do so again, except in my constituency—have written to me to ask me to ask the Government what is going to be done for them.
Ask Deputy Keyes.
Deputy Hilliard is aware that what I am saying is the truth.
Ask Deputy Keyes.
Last year, £96,000 was provided by way of free grants to the Meath County Council by Deputy Keyes, to whom Deputy Hilliard has referred, for the employment of workers in County Meath. I doubt whether any grant ever received before by any county council for employment purposes of that nature can compare with that particular grant. I do not think that Deputy Hilliard or the Meath County Council have any complaint to make against Deputy Keyes. If they have, they are merely indulging in purely political bias. There is nothing new in that, of course. We have come to expect that from the benches opposite.
Look at the impartial advocate.
Deputy Martin Corry inevitably makes his exit when he has attacked somebody. He always runs away. I think there is some other form of life, which is not entirely human, that has the same kind of habit. I would like to say to members of the Fianna Fáil Party who are in the House that the farmers, as a body —the creamery farmers to some extent—have to thank Deputy Corry for having put the present Government in an embarrassing position, when they assumed office in June last, by forcing their hands to some extent to pay an extra penny a gallon for the price of milk. Deputy Corry is not satisfied with that. That increase in the price of milk meant an increase last year of 4d. per lb. in the price of butter. Those of us who represent Dublin areas, particularly suburban or small town areas around the city, know very well how great a hardship that is on the ordinary working people.
Very often it is suggested that the people who live in or about the city are living in luxury while those who live in the South of Ireland, particularly those who live in Cork, are enslaved and are holding up the rest of the country on their shoulders.
In the City and County of Dublin there is a population of over 600,000 people. Those people have to foot the bill for the increase in the price of butter. Deputy Corry states that the farmer is not getting enough for milk and obviously intends to exert all the pressure he can to get still more for milk. The only way that can be done is by an increase in the price of butter to the consumer. I wonder if all the Fianna Fáil Deputies are in agreement with that policy. I wonder if the present Minister for Agriculture proposes to bow to the will of Deputy Corry in this matter. It is of very great importance, because it will mean that the cost of living will go up further than it has gone since 13th June.
Let us refresh our memory as to the commodities that have been increased since 13th June. I am quoting from the Official Report of the Dáil Debates on Thursday, 6th December, 1951, column 537.
Why do you not quote from the circular?
I have no circular. I will give the Deputy circulars very shortly that he will not like to hear about. I am taking the figures from a reply by the Minister for Industry and Commerce when he was asked by Deputy Declan Costello to give a list of the items that had been increased in price since 13th June and which was circulated with the Official Report. The following increases took place: Unrationed sugar, 1d. per lb.; condensed full cream milk, 1½d. and 2d. per tin; condensed skimmed milk 1½d. per tin; confectionery (sweets and chocolates), ranging from 4d. to 1/- per lb.; table jellies ½d. per tablet (two manufacturers); coal, various increases in different areas, ranging from 5/- to £1 per ton; gas, various increases, ranging from 1.25d. per therm to 5.4d. per therm in different areas; electricity 0.3d. per unit, 0.2d. per unit for night storage heating; bus fares, within eight miles of General Post Office, Dublin, ?d. per mile, outside eight miles of the General Post Office, Dublin, ¼d. per mile; tobacco, hard plug. 1½d. per oz., roll and coil, 2d. per oz., cut plug, flake, etc., 1d. to 4d. per oz.
We all know about creamery butter. On the 3rd August, cocoa was increased. Fresh milk was increased on 1st August. Then on the 29th August cheese was increased. Peas and beans were increased on the 3rd July. I do not suppose ale is regarded as an item to be calculated in the cost of living.
Why not?
It is regarded by many people as of great importance. Dr. Ryan recommended it at some time, and even more prominent leaders than Dr. Ryan recommended it. I suppose we could accept it as an integral part of the diet. The price of ale was increased on 9th August. Soaps were increased on 22nd June; petroleum products on 27th July and on the 29th October. Imported timber was increased on 7th November. There is a long list of other items that were increased at column 540, to which I would refer Deputies. The reference is Volume 128, No. 4.
That is a sorry picture so far as the people are concerned, and even Deputies with the Demosthenic eloquence of Deputy Burke will have a job explaining at the chapel gates in a very short time just how this came about.
There is another matter to which I wish to refer. As most Deputies know, I have been associated to some degree with efforts which have been made over a period to improve the wages and working conditions of agricultural workers. When discussing unemployment and rising prices we must take into consideration and have reference to the inadequate wage rates provided for those who work on the land for employers. I submit that these men in rural areas, to whom I have already referred, suffer greater economic hardship than any other section and their number is not small. The number of male workers on the land is about 150,000. There are many others in respect of whom no statistics are available, such as sons of small farmers who may be working on the one holding, and female relatives of small farmers and of agricultural workers.
Some time ago I thought it opportune to ask the Dáil to express an opinion on the question of the very low, starvation level wages which are paid to agricultural workers. A motion was discussed. It will be recalled that the Government Party and some of its adherents voted against that motion and defeated it. The case was made in the House by the Minister for Agriculture and by others that there was only one way of dealing with the wages of agricultural workers and that was through the wages board.
It was made out to be a sacrosanct organisation whose function it was to regulate conditions and wages as between farmers and workers, and that the House would be interfering unduly if it gave a simple expression of opinion. All it was asked to do was to say that a farm labourer was entitled to £4 a week.
Were not we asked to say that a farm labourer in County Dublin was entitled to more than a farm labourer in Cavan, Kerry or somewhere else—something that I would not subscribe to?
That may be an avenue of escape for some but the simple fact is, and cannot be got away from, and Deputy Cowan knows it is correct and so does Deputy Burke—it is one of the things that he will have a job to explain away at a very early date in the constituency that he and I represent— that this House by a majority, with many absentees who apparently were not sufficiently interested in agricultural workers to cast a vote one way or the other, decided that it was better that the Agricultural Wages Board should look after the agricultural workers. It was, I suppose, pure coincidence that on the following Sunday, the Government organ, the Sunday Press, had an article carrying big black headlines about the forgotten men of Irish agriculture. The effort was then being made to retrieve what was thought might be lost political ground. “Forgotten men” were referred to.
The farm workers in Dublin are all saying that you are a hypocrite.
Could we have order here?
The Chair has no sympathy with people who look for interruptions or with interrupters. I would advise both sides.
I think you are being unkind to me, a Cheann Chomhairle. I am not seeking conversation with Deputy Burke at all.
Deputy Burke's name was intermingled with many statements.
I will accept that—with a great many statements.
He started in Offaly and is now in County Dublin.
If I might be allowed to continue——
What do you know about agriculture?
That is an old trick —when you have no case start abusing your opponents.
I am not abusing at all. I do not like to hear a man talking about something he knows nothing about.
That particular interjection is on a par with the statement made by the Minister for Agriculture that I did not know anything about agricultural workers. I will leave it to the agricultural workers and the farmers to decide, not the Deputy or anybody else.
Would Deputy Dunne not agree that a County Meath agricultural worker is entitled to as much as a County Dublin agricultural worker?
It is only bluff.
Deputy Dunne on the Adjournment motion.
Deputy Dunne's talk is sheer bluff.
I was referring to this report which appeared in what has been very aptly described as the kept newspaper of the Government Party regarding the "forgotten men." It was definitely suggested there that their only hope was the Agricultural Wages Board for increased wages to help them to fight rising prices and the increased cost of living and it was suggested that they should turn their eyes in that direction. What happened? This glorified Agricultural Wages Board met on the 6th of this month and refused to give one single halfpenny to the agricultural workers by way of increase. How are these men to face rising prices and an increased cost of living? I ask anybody to tell me that. The average wage of agricultural workers throughout the country is somewhere between £3 7s. 6d. and £3 10s.
Why does Deputy Dunne not do something as a trade union representative about that instead of asking the Dáil to do it? Why does he not do something in the same way as every trade union representative in the country?
I have given Deputy Burke a good deal of latitude and he should allow Deputy Dunne to make his statement without interruption.
I am sorry.
I do not want to answer Deputy Burke——
You cannot.
——or be unkind to him except to say that when he tried his hand as a trade union official——
I succeeded.
County Dublin must be well represented.
Deputy Dunne was very jealous.
I want to draw particular attention to one point so that Deputies in this House and agricultural workers throughout the country will be under no misapprehension regarding the attitude of the present Government vis-a-vis rising prices. It is obviously intended that the old policy of maintaining a huge mass of agricultural workers as a foundation for an economy of some kind or other is going to be pursued, and this policy means maintaining them at a very low level. The present Government's policy is to continue on those lines, on the basis we saw it operate in other years when we had large scale unemployment. I am now talking of prewar years. During the war, as everybody appreciates, there was artificial employment and wholesale emigration. Artificial employment was produced by forced conditions, but before the war, in 1937 and in 1938, which could be regarded as something approaching normality if not exactly normal years, we all remember the long queues outside the labour exchanges and agricultural workers getting 24/- or 30/- a week.
That was in 1928.
That was the basis of the Fianna Fáil administration. Indeed the people in the country, in Deputy Hilliard's constituency as well as in others with which I have contact, and the agricultural workers are anxious to know if that policy is to be pursued because from what we have seen in the last six months there is a bleak outlook from the point of view of unemployment and the cost of living. Whatever may be said, whatever excuses may be offered for this Government or whatever may be said in derogation of the previous administration, there is one fact in the mind of the people—and when this Government goes to the people it will find no method of getting over that fact or beating it down—and that fact is that during the previous Government's term of office there was the nearest thing to full employment. This Government will not last when it gets to the polls.
Major de Valera
Unemployment rose from 58,000 to 70,000 on your taking office. Unemployment was higher in 1948-1949 than in the previous year.
That was because of the turf scheme.
You have only 25 minutes to go. I do not know whether a member of the Government is to reply.
Deputy Briscoe is replying for the Government.
Deputy Davin should listen to the reply, as he might be interested. I owe thanks to a colleague of mine, Deputy Colm Gallagher, for having given me a reference I was seeking for some time, an extract from a book called Down the Years, by Sir Austen Chamberlain. I am not going to read the whole reference, but I would recommend to members of the House to seek that book and read the reference. In this reference one member of the English Parliament is saying to another in reference to an Irish member of Parliament: “Have you ever seen a man caught cheating at cards have his hand pinned to the table with a knife?” I would also draw the attention of the House to Volume 126 of the Dáil Debates, July 17th, 1951, column 1787. We have a reference from Deputy Dillon, who said in this House:—
"The Minister for Finance wants to know why there was no reference in the motion in this Order Paper to the action of the Taoiseach. I shall tell him. Because the motion was put down before I pinned the Taoiseach's hand to the desk. The motion was put down before the printed copy of the unrevised report was issued. You cannot pin the cheat's hand to the card table until he stretches forth his hand to play a dishonest card."
He is quite right.
I refer to that first of all, and will come back to it later. Earlier this week in a debate on a fuel Estimate, Deputy Dillon referred to me and uttered deliberate falsehoods in this House.
Now it has often been indicated to Deputies that a "deliberate falsehood" is a lie.
I withdraw the words "deliberate falsehood". He certainly made use of a falsehood, and I want on the eve of the Adjournment of this House for the Christmas holidays, to state now, notwithstanding what the Tánaiste has said in the matter, that these statements were false in every respect.
I do not see what this has to do with the subject under discussion.
It is only a personal explanation.
I want to put on record another thing. I was expecting to be called before you, Sir, and brought before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
I do not see what it has to do with this debate.
It has.
The Minister for Finance and I may not agree on what is relevant to a debate. I cannot see any relevancy at all in it.
In this debate statements were made which were untrue. Statements are made and all kinds of interjections are hurled across the House repeating false charges, as were made this evening by Deputy Flanagan, the bed-fellow of Deputy Dillon. It is very difficult to keep the prestige of this House at the standard it should be kept.
I do not want to keep on intervening but really I do not see what relevance this has at all to the debate. Deputies who have spoken and Ministers have referred to the cost of living, unemployment, agricultural production and such things. The prestige of this House is worth preserving and that is why I want to preserve it on this occasion as well as on other occasions.
We heard references here to a Fianna Fáil policy. We were told that the Fianna Fáil leaders and the Fianna Fáil Party sought the support of the electorate on deliberate false statements and promises. Extracts were read from speeches which were made during the general election campaign and interpretations were put on these speeches which no honourable person could possibly agree to.
We heard Deputy O'Higgins to-night read a statement which was made on the eve of the general election by the Tánaiste in which the Tánaiste said that he could not hold out any promise to bring immediate or quick relief with regard to a reduction of prices. Deputy O'Higgins gave us his interpretation of that speech and put on the records of the House something which was untrue. I wonder whether the time has not come, particularly when we have an Adjournment debate, to make reference to accusations and statements which are incorrect and without foundation. I should like to point out that Deputy Dillon used the reference to the cheat having his hand pinned to the table notwithstanding the fact that that reference was used against his own father in the House of Commons.
On a point of order. The Deputy is now trying, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, since you came into the Chair, to do something for which he was ruled out of order when the Ceann Comhairle was in the Chair.
That is not true.
The Chair was about to point out to Deputy Briscoe that his remarks were not relevant on an Adjournment debate.
I want to try to make them relevant to this extent. We in this House will get either good government or bad government if the Opposition are honest and sincere and correct.
Which Opposition?
I do not associate Deputy Morrissey with the Opposition to which I am referring.
But we have had government.
Certain members of this House are deliberately attempting to bring the members and the House and the country into disrepute. The attitude of these people is that unless they themselves can be the governors or the dictators nobody else shall. It is about time some of these people were told that their behaviour is transparent and that it is obvious that they have motives other than the welfare of the people we are attempting to serve in this House.
What did the people judge?
The people voted for me every time I stood for election, and anywhere I stood.
Let them judge again.
If Deputy Rooney can boast in time of a record of service in this House such as that which most members of this Party have, then I will have some respect for him.
We have our share on this side.
We shall see. What I am trying to say is that while the Government were attempting to bring about some industrial development in the undeveloped areas, this particular department of the Opposition to which I refer—and from which I again say I exclude Deputies of the character of Deputy Morrissey—said that no decent, honest businessman would go in under this scheme and that the only people who would accept an attempt to industrialise the undeveloped areas would be business racketeers.
That is not what Deputy Dillon said.
On a point of order. I do not want to deprive anybody in this House of his right to reply to what he believes to be an unjust charge but Deputy Briscoe already had two opportunities to-day. He is now trying to use the Adjournment debate for that purpose. Not only that, but he is now trying to misrepresent entirely what Deputy Dillon said in that respect. I was in the House while Deputy Dillon was speaking and I heard what he said.
What did he say?
Deputy Dillon was speaking on his own amendment with regard to grants instead of loans. Deputy Dillon said that no decent man with his own business would take a grant—and Deputy Dillon was asking, on his own amendment, that it should be a loan.
Did he not say anything about racketeers?
No—not in that connection. The Deputy is talking about honesty. Let him be honest now.
I am trying to be honest.
Deputy Briscoe should relate his remarks to this debate.
We heard Deputy Dunne speak about unemployment and, in that connection, let us bear in mind the efforts which this Government are making to keep down unemployment and to develop the undeveloped areas. Deputy Dunne accused this Government of being the direct cause of the rapid and large increase in unemployment. As against that statement by Deputy Dunne, ridicule is made of the Government attempt to bring in legislation which seeks to give good industrial employment in parts of the country where it has been impossible up to the present to provide it.
On a point of order. Is it correct for Deputy Briscoe to make a statement which is untrue? He mentioned that a member of the Labour Party—and he included the Labour Party in this—attacked the present Government for being the cause of unemployment and that, at the same time, the Government were being criticised in regard to their efforts to create employment.
That is not a point of order.
On a point of order. Is it correct and allowable that a Deputy of this House should make a false and unjustified charge in the presence of the Chair?
This is what we are up against. Deputy Desmond was not in the House when Deputy Dunne was speaking. For a long time during this debate Deputy Dunne was the sole occupant of the Labour benches.
On a point of order. Is it correct and justifiable for a member to make false charges in the House? I want a ruling on this matter. The records of the House will prove that I am correct.
Mr. Flynn
You were not in here at all when Deputy Dunne was speaking.
I will not give way to Deputy Desmond. Deputy Dunne was the only occupant of the Labour benches for part of the time. He was subsequently joined by Deputy Davin. Deputy Desmond was not in the House at all while Deputy Dunne was speaking.
The charge made by Deputy Briscoe is a political charge, not a personal charge.
I have stated a fact.
On a point of order. I appreciate your position, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. All I am asking is whether Deputy Briscoe is entitled to make a charge relating to events here to-day which he knows is false and unjustifiable, as will be proved by the records of the House.
That is not a point of order.
I have endeavoured to point out that I am trying to relate what I am saying to what was said by previous speakers this evening on this Adjournment debate. Deputy Dunne was speaking in this House within the past 15 minutes. One of the things which he quoted—as also Deputy Davin—was the increased number of unemployed which he alleged there were since the change of Government. Deputy Dunne accused this Government of being responsible for that increase in unemployment.
Quite rightly so.
I have related that to the proceedings we had earlier——
That is the point now.
——when opposition and criticism and doubts and fears were referred to—I did not say it about Deputy Dunne—in regard to this Government's attempt to bring some form of industry to the undeveloped areas in the West. Might I remind Deputy Desmond that he should read Deputy Norton's speech? Deputy Norton was one of those who forced me to interrupt him, when he said he heard and he believed that this Bill would not bring employment of any kind whatsoever. I suppose that what I am stating will be put down as false?
Did they vote against it?
He is entitled to his opinion.
There are many ways of defeating industrial development. Industrial development, which could have taken place very rapidly within the last three years, was slowed up considerably by the suggestions—again I dissociate Deputy Morrissey—of profiteering and racketeering, by statements that the people who come to open industries are "fly-by-nights". Every single bit of abuse that could be poured on the heads of people was poured on those who are now being welcomed, who are now entitled to a margin of profits, and who are now going to be supported additionally if they go to an area where there are certain disadvantages from the point of view of competition. It is a very welcome change, but the time has come when the decent members—if there are any over there, and I think there are some——
That is charitable of the Deputy.
——at least should try to control those who were with them in the Coalition Government, and for whom they have still some responsibility, when they try to take away the characters of people in the House and outside it.
There are some over there and I hope the Deputy will take responsibility for them.
Yes, I will take responsibility for all my side. If I hear any of my colleagues attempt without foundation to become character assassinators I will not stand with them.
Some of them are.
Deputy Morrissey knows that when I spoke within the precincts of this House, I spoke in no uncertain terms without privilege, and he at least had the decency not to interfere. I believe he at least knew I was justified in the attitude I adopted in my address to Deputy Dillon.
On the Adjournment debate we are supposed to deal more or less with criticism of the subjects which have not been dealt with, or emergency matters. However, we expect to believe each other. I want to believe a political opponent when he makes a criticism. The suggestion was made that during the elections we made some references to the 2d. a lb. on butter and criticised our predecessors. I represent in this Dáil a working-class district—Crumlin, Drimnagh, Inchicore—and at every meeting I addressed I put this to the public: "Would it not be far better for you to pay more for Irish butter produced in Irish creameries, giving employment to people at home, than be faced with this rotten, stinking Danish butter?"
That was not Deputy McGrath's case in Cork.
I am speaking for myself.
Deputy McGrath took an entirely different line.
There are only a few minutes more in this debate and I do not want to take up very much of those minutes in going back over the past, but when speaking here when the time was not so limited, I referred to the campaign by Deputy Briscoe, following in the wake of Deputy Lemass, as he then was, on the cost of living. If Deputy Briscoe wants to discover my views on that subject, he can look up the debate. I still say that it is clear and unmistakable that so far as the cost of living is concerned every member of the Fianna Fáil Party has got a most discreditable record in the way in which they started out under the leadership of Deputy Lemass a year ago to cod and fool the people. In the few minutes left, I do not intend to discuss anything about the past. The people will judge the past when they get an opportunity and the sooner they get that opportunity the better. What I do want to discuss is the future.
The Tánaiste, speaking to-night, indicated that in regard to certain aspects of industrial undertakings he believed the position was beginning to rectify itself. I do not agree with him —particularly in respect of one undertaking that was mentioned, in my constituency.
I noticed quite recently the speech made by Mr. Dwyer at the general meeting of either Seafield Fabrics or Sunbeam Wolsey in Cork, in which he made it clear that so far as that company is concerned, they were convinced as businessmen——
I want to say, in reply to that——
I am not giving way to the Minister.
I want to say that——
I am not giving way to the Minister.
Deputy Briscoe had to give way.
I am entitled to possession.
He had to give way to you.
I am entitled to speak——
I want to——
——and the Minister for Finance is not going to prevent me.
Deputy Briscoe had to give way to your side.
The Parliamentary Secretary should keep quiet.
Deputy Briscoe had to give way.
I am going to speak; I am going to yield to a point of order, or, if the Chair tells me, and not otherwise; and I am not going to be prevented by the tactics of the Minister for Finance from exposing his shallowness in regard to the point I am about to make.
The Deputy will not give the Minister the opportunity of answering.
This is an old trick.
We had a discussion some time ago here in regard to the difficulties that were being made throughout various parts of the country and when we told about those difficulties and said that, in our opinion, the trouble was caused by a restriction of credit, we were met by the Tánaiste who said there was no such restriction.
On a point of order, Deputy Briscoe was not permitted to develop a theme which was very relevant to this debate, the fact that false and misleading statements and reckless charges were made that an unemployment condition existed. The Chair ruled——
This is not a point of order.
——very narrowly on that matter. Both the Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle refused to allow this debate to go outside the very narrow terms——
He is taking up the two minutes.
He is deliberately trying to get in.
Am I going to be permitted to put this point of order?
The Minister must come to the point of order.
The point is this——
Be your age and sit down.
He is deliberately preventing me from continuing.
I am on my feet. Deputy Sweetman seems to be on his feet, too. As I am raising a point of order, I am in possession.
The Tánaiste and the Taoiseach can enjoy this.
The truth is that it is the restriction of credit, for which the Minister for Finance is responsible, that is at the root of all the unemployment. That is what Mr. Dwyer said in Cork. The Minister for Finance has been trying deliberately to put me off saying that.
May I draw attention to the fact that this is a very old trick on the part of the Minister for Finance, which he has tried here over and over again, year in and year out?
He is in possession.
I have as much right to be on my feet as the Minister for Finance has—or even the Taoiseach.
He was afraid that I would get in my point, because he knows it is true.
The time for debate has expired.