Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1946 (Continuance) Bill, 1953—Second Stage (Resumed).

Mr. Palmer

As a result of the attitude adopted by the Minister during the course of this debate, Deputies have experienced a certain amount of difficulty in making their speeches and in keeping within the Rules of Order so far as the subjects to which they can refer are concerned.

In my view the Title of this Bill— the Supplies and Services Bill—is a misnomer because this Bill gives vast powers to various Ministers of the Government. Its terms are entirely dictatorial. I believe that the proper Title for this Bill would be the Public Safety Act. Its terms and the powers it gives are such that it is entirely similar to that old Act of the British Parliament which was known as D.O.R.A.—the Defence of the Realm Act.

One would expect, having regard to the fact that eight years have now passed since the end of the Second World War, that there should no longer be any necessity for the introduction of a Bill of this nature—a Bill which gives power to the Government, if they so desire, to extend this Dáil, for instance, for a period of 50 years or any number of years and, in fact, to prevent certain Deputies from entering Dáil Éireann at all. There is no limit to the powers contained in this Bill.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

The Deputy must regard himself as a service essential to the community.

Mr. Palmer

It was a very astute move on the part of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to give this Bill its present Title—Supplies and Services Bill—instead of its proper Title, the Public Safety Act.

Mr. Lemass

We cannot prevent the Deputy from attending the Dáil. He would have to be a service essential to the community before he would come under this Bill.

Mr. Palmer

Under this Bill, the Minister can prevent the import of any commodity, even a very essential commodity. He can also prevent the export of commodities from this country. In fact, there is nothing that cannot be done by the Government under this Bill, which is absolutely autocratic in its terms. I understand, however, that in his opening speech the Minister stated that it would definitely be ended in the year 1955.

If we refer to this Bill as the Supplies and Services Bill, and if the Minister exercises his full powers under it, something has certainly been done by which the supplies available —supplies of all kinds: foodstuffs, clothing and everything else—have reached such a high price to-day that people in our cities and towns, in particular—working men and working women—find it absolutely impossible to live in accordance with the decent standard of living that they would expect a Government to maintain in this country. The position is so bad that many children are deprived of foods which are essential to build them up in a proper state of health and yet the Minister does not seem to have exercised any of his powers to keep down the cost of living.

The inter-Party Government set up a Prices Advisory Body to investigate any claims to increase the prices of commodities. Since the present Minister took office, we have not ever been told that he had recourse to that body in connection with the prices of essential foodstuffs or other commodities. The position in this State to-day is that, between high prices and high taxation, there is a good deal of unemployment—and where there isunemployment there will be emigration.

While the Minister possesses powers to alleviate the distress which exists in many sections of our community, he is not doing his duty in striving to keep prices at a reasonable level and to reduce the unemployment figure which affects a vast number of our people.

Mr. Dillon

Last week, the Minister interrupted Deputy Blowick to say that he longed for constructive proposals. I need hardly say that I do not believe him. Nevertheless, I think it desirable that, when he makes that bluff, it should be called. The first thing to which I wish to direct the attention of the House in connection with this Bill is that, as a result of the constructive work done by the inter-Party Government, without very much help from the Minister or his colleagues, who did all in their power to harass and confuse while they were in opposition, the exports of this country, as a result of the prudent policy pursued by our Government, bid fair in this year to exceed £105,000,000 sterling, after eliminating the Minister's valuable contribution to our external trade of sweetened fat and minced meat which amounted last year to something like £4,000,000. They have vanished like snow in summer sunshine, but the agricultural policy of the inter-Party Government now coming to fruition not only takes up that entire deficit of £4,000,000 but promises to provide a total export value of £105,000,000 sterling, or perhaps a little more, the greatest figure ever recorded in the economic history of this country.

I think the House ought to dwell on that, because, if this event were not now transpiring, consequent on the work we did despite the unrelenting opposition of the present Government, this country would be bust wide open. When Fianna Fáil left office in 1947, the total value of our exports was of the order of £70,000,000 sterling. It now bids fair to reach £105,000,000 sterling, and if you study the exports, you will find that they are not sweetened fats, not minced meat, noneof the other exotic products sponsored by the Department of Industry and Commerce, but cattle, meat, sheep, pigs, bacon and pork, the despised products of the land of Ireland and of those farmers who Fianna Fáil had been concerned to say for the past five years are lazy, incompetent, old-fashioned and unworthy of continued occupancy of the land. When will Fianna Fáil wake up to this fact, that the performance of the farmers on the land of Ireland since 1948 outshines the performance of any agricultural community in Europe?

Mr. Lemass

I do not want to raise the question of relevancy again, but this seems to me to be a terribly long way from the Bill.

It will be a great compliment to get any tea at all from them—loose tea. There will come a day when you will be told that the health officers wish all tea to be packeted before it is sent to a shop in the backwoods—shops which have no right to expect to have the same accommodation as shops in Ballsbridge or Rathmines. Of course, you will be told that the price for packing tea has gone up. It will be made up in a red packet, a blue packet and a green packet, all at different prices, and if you do not like it you can lump it. You will be told that your customers can drink light beer if they will not drink tea from a packet, and if they will not drink light beer you can put up your shutters. That is all there is to it.

You will discover this further amazing fact: that wholesaler A has packed his tea in red packages, white packages and blue packages at three different prices, and wholesaler B has packets in green, white and orange at three different prices and they are all at the same three prices. You can have any colour you like but there will be three prices and you will pay these prices or you can lump it or make your customers drink light beer, and if you cannot make them drink light beer you can put up your shutters. Then they tell the public that they deprecate this interference with the free practice of their trade and that they exhort the Minister to withdraw control. Did you ever see two fellows fighting at a fair? "Let me at him; hold me back!" The 15 wholesalers protest against this restraint and speak of delicate representations to the Minister when he proposes to consider the whole question but if he shows the slightest inclination to relinquish his control on tea they get a terrible shock. There was a panic a month ago when there was some talk of the Minister dropping control. The Minister said: "Now, boys, you put up a scheme." They protest that they will not put up any scheme, that they do not want any control. When the Minister says: "If you do not there will be no control scheme at all," there is immediately a desperate rush to place their servicesunreservedly at the disposal of the people of the Irish Republic, and they lodged a scheme before you could crack a match. I say that it requires nothing but an Order under this Act to suspend the control of tea and if that is done, within one week the price of tea will be brought down by 6d. per lb. I will give 6 to 4, even 2 to 1, on such an eventuality. If the Minister gives the slightest indication to-day that he is likely to do it there will be a deputation of wholesalers over in Kildare Street that will frighten them.

I will judge whether we ought to give these powers by the answer of the Minister. He said: "Give me a concrete suggestion." I will give him that, and I will decide to vote for or against the Bill when he tells me whether he will adopt the suggestion which I am making by using these powers. If he does, I think he ought to have the powers; if not, I think he ought not to have them.

It would be an extraordinary thing if the Minister could deride the Opposition by saying that they are not making any constructive proposals and, if the Opposition do make constructive proposals, they are to be told that this is not the time and the place to make them. I look to the six weary weeks of precedent when the rights of Opposition Deputies were vindicated to speak trenchantly on unemployment and the cost of living. When I think of the three points increase in the cost of living which kept this House going for six weary weeks and look at the 22 points that the modest Tánaiste clapped on within a week, it is very interesting.

Do you remember, Sir, every Deputy of the Fianna Fáil Party, some of them who sat dumb for ten or 15 years, getting up and shrieking to high heaven the time the cost of living went up by three points? Do you notice that not a single one of them has let a yap out of him or her ever since the cost of living went up by 22 points? I confidently expected my distinguished and charming colleague from Monaghan, Deputy Mrs. Rice, to be holding meetings at the crossroads in Monaghan and asking the Minister to make an Order to raise the price of turkeys at least to the level at which they were when I occupied the position of Minister. But every time the price of turkeys falls the heavier the silencethat shrouds my colleague. I am full of hope that she will call a protest meeting at any crossroads and I will be there to second any proposal which she has to make.

Mrs. Rice

On a point of order. Has the price of turkeys anything to do with the Supplies and Services Bill?

Mr. Dillon

Yes. There was a time when we had the right to enforce a price for turkeys and the right to make an Order under this Act that if a jobber defrauded a woman who had turkeys to sell we would take the licence off him and put him out of business. There has been no talk of that since the price of turkeys began to knock along the bottom. We had not even mention of the price of eggs. I would not wish to cause my distinguished colleague any undue distress on behalf of the women of Monaghan, but I remember when she would rise from these benches saying that she rarely interposed, moved by her solicitude for the women of Monaghan because her sleep was disturbed by the cackling of the fowl.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should get back to the Bill.

Mr. Dillon

Is it unreasonable for me to make suggestions which will increase employment and reduce the cost of living by a device which the Minister can apply in respect of any commodity? I simply take one by way of illustration. We had reached the stage that one commodity is coming in at a cost of 1/3. I suggest to the Minister that he should use the revenue derived from the 20 per cent. tariff on that to subsidise the domestic product. Does not that suggest a new procedure which would relieve the consumer, stimulate domestic production, bring down the cost of living, and in fact do all the things we want to do? If the domestic stocking costs 1/- to produce and the British stocking costs 1/- to produce, I suggest that we should subsidise the domestic stocking by a levy on the incoming stocking of 3d. and pay the domestic producer 2d. per pair on each pair he produces. His competitive positionthen would be that he would have a 10d. article competing with a 15d. article. Can we not then go to him and say: "We started you off with an initial overhead cost of your product of 10d.; the incoming competing article we have levied to the point where its initial cost is 15d. Now go and compete and let the consumer derive the benefit of your more energetic competition with the incoming commodity"? I think that is a good idea.

I think that if a lady resident in Ballsbridge wants to buy stockings for her children with frills and furbelows and has to pay 3d. extra on them so that the woman in more straitened circumstances and perhaps with a larger family can get a comfortable and serviceable stocking and find herself in the advantageous position, if she wishes to forgo the frills and furbelows, and having access to the more serviceable garment, that is made available by the contribution to the cost of the more serviceable garment made by the levy on the imported article. Does not that reduce the cost of living and provide employment for our people in producing the kind of goods we want? Does it not give an assurance that we will by this device not only protect the existing market for the woman who has to pay a retail price based on a 15d. cost but that other people can buy stockings at a retail price based on a first cost of 10d.? In that way this proposal would not only reduce the cost of living but be a substantial material stimulation to the domestic market as a result of reducing the cost.

The Central Bank gets into a state of apoplexy if you increase consumption by raising the total quantity of spendable money available in relation to the quantity of goods, but they rejoice if you raise the standard of living by maintaining the volume of money stable and reduce the cost of goods. Come now. We can bring peace to the restless pillow of the Central Bank. That will appeal to the Minister for Finance. I often wonder if it is his four-wheel cab I see waiting outside the Central Bank. It is an interesting symbol because there is only one public building, I think, inEurope outside which waits a four-wheel cab drawn by an ancient horse and that is the Central Bank. The Minister for Finance is always solicitous of that institution. Here in my proposal is a method to bring peace and calm to the fevered pillow of the Central Bank, to bring down the cost of living and stimulate the domestic market. Would the Minister do it? I will give him 6 to 4 he will not—not at least until he hopes the House will have forgotten that it was I who proposed it and I will give 6 to 1 that by that time he will no longer have power to do it or not to do it.

I will make another constructive proposal. I make no criticism of past performances. We had 20 years of intensive concentration in this country on what we have been pleased to call industrial development with an obbligato from the same inspired sources which alternate between thanking God that the British market for live stock was gone for ever and fierce phillipics against the lazy farmers who would not produce for export to the British market.

The latest variation that we have to deal with is that we are bringing gentlemen from Denmark, Holland and all over the world to tell us how lousy we are, how incompetent we are and how we fall down on the job in the matter of research, modern methods, and everything else. We are all quite oblivious to the fact that for 18 years in this country anyone who dared to have a four-legged beast on his land was regarded as a quasi-traitor. Oh, yes. Deputy Ó Briain smiles at that.

I saw men in this country selling four-year-old cattle for £4 15s. apiece. My colleague, Deputy Mrs. Rice, saw people selling their turkeys in Monaghan for 4d. per lb. We all joined together to send over butter for the British, who eat it at 8d. per lb. and we paid them 6d. per lb. to eat it. We got back nothing but the empty boxes and they eat the butter. It was after that enjoyable 18 years that we found ourselves, in 1948, in the trough of despond and ruin agriculturally. Deputy Ó Briain doubts thatbut I notice that the rest of the faces on the Fianna Fáil benches are not quite as hilarious. They do not forget that in 1948, after 18 years of that, there were less cattle, less pigs and less sheep in Ireland than at any time in the 20th century. Some Deputies will not forget that cattle were dying of starvation on the land they grazed for lack of phosphates.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is travelling.

Mr. Dillon

I am, Sir, but I hope I am travelling rapidly towards concrete and constructive proposals asked for by the Minister.

An Ceann Comhairle

They should be relevant.

Mr. Dillon

I am going to make concrete and constructive proposals in a moment, none of which will be adopted by the Government. If this country is to survive at all, I think we will all agree that we have got to be able to pay for what we import. The purpose of passing this Bill is to provide the Minister for Industry and Commerce with the powers to ensure that that will come to pass and, if it should not, to limit imports, restrict imports. This Bill is habitually used for that purpose. I want to suggest that it should never be used for that end. It should be used to ensure that there shall be exports of volume and value sufficient to permit the enterprising elements of our community to import whatever they require, employ their neighbours to produce and to enjoy the fruit of their own labour. It has been made abundantly clear by the Minister for Industry and Commerce that as regards what he describes as industrial activity he can make no contribution to that end. No industry is in a position to export.

Certainly.

Mr. Sweetman

How do you operate your wheat subsidy so?

Mr. Lemass

On a Vote from the Dáil.

Mr. Sweetman

Under the authority of this Bill you are entitled to bring in the Estimate in question.

Mr. Dillon

If the Minister brought in an Estimate, I would not be allowed to discuss the desirability of legislation in connection with the parish plan.

An Ceann Comhairle

The parish plan could be discussed on the Estimate for Agriculture.

Mr. Dillon

Let us not discuss it then; let us leave it at that. I have already mentioned the institute, fertilisers, seeds and the parish plan. The fourth thing that I mentioned was the expansion of artificial insemination. I do not know whether that can be done under this Bill or not. Anurgent and vital necessity is my fifth proposal, namely, the restoration of the land rehabilitation project to its previous vigour and activity. I do not know whether the progeny-testing of pigs and fowl, at present in operation on a limited scale, is relevant to this Bill or not, but I think it should be developed and pursued.

I am sorry that Deputy Hickey is not here because I am now coming to something that is relevant to this Bill, and that is credit for farm buildings and machinery. I want to say, with full deliberation, that this is something to which I have applied my mind not for a month or a year but for a much longer period. If we are going to get effective progress in the equipment of the agricultural industry in this country, the time has come to make the money for that purpose, under approved schemes, available to farmers who use it free of interest. If that is not done, no effective progress is going to be made. I have myself seen in operation from both sides of the table schemes for the erection of farm buildings and the purchase of machinery. I have seen men lay out £500 or £600, and then finding themselves subject to a charge thereafter of £30 per annum in respect of their outlay, only to discover that they would be paying that annual charge in perpetuity, and still just as deeply in debt at the end as they were at the beginning, whereas if the money were applied to a reduction of the capital sum originally borrowed by them, the position would be that in 12 or 13 years they would be free of their debt, and over that period would have been able to produce that much more as a result of the equipment with which they had provided themselves. I am not sure that I would not be prepared to sponsor that proposal, whatever our past history was.

I am quite certain, looking back on the days of Lord Lucan of County Mayo, who, in the vicinity of Castlebar, was known as the great exterminator, that it is right for us, the grandchildren of those whom he sought to exterminate, to tax our resources to ensure that those who hung on and frustrated Bingham's purpose and succeeded inretaining the land for our own people, should have redressed in our time the appalling handicap he sought to hang upon them. It amused me to read some of our own neo-reformers in this our day telling us we ought to give up the idea of farmers owning and running their own holdings, and that we ought to lump the holdings together and ensure that the men who heretofore were little better than peasants would get a regular weekly wage to raise their standard of living. These gentlemen do not know that Bingham, the great exterminator, who filled the workhouse of Castlebar until the floors and passages were covered with men, women and children, was the first prophet to enunciate that doctrine in Ireland. He thought there were too many of the dirty Irish in County Mayo, and the only way to deal with them was to clean them off the land and group their paltry little holdings into decent farms and bring in industrious Scottish men to run these farms and employ the Irish. Bingham first proposed that in Ireland, and I make the suggestion that they ought to get a portrait of Lord Lucan and get a buttonhole made of it.

Mr. Allen

What Bill is this?

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Allen would not know whom I was talking about. I am talking about Bingham. If the Deputy knew as much about the history of the West of Ireland as I do he would not be asking his neighbour who was Bingham.

Mr. Allen

I did not. I asked what Bill this was.

Mr. Dillon

Cross your heart and hope to die, do you know who Bingham was or do you know B from a bull's foot? There is not one in the whole Fianna Fáil Party who knows about this.

All these things could materially contribute to the increase of supplies. I might warn him that if he tries to have the aerial survey made he will be obstructed by obscurantist elements in certain divisions of the Department of Defence. If he puts his foot on their face as effectively as he puts it upon the face of his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, I have no doubt they will be quickly expunged from the scene, but I am not so sure that he is willing to put his foot on the face of his fellow-townsman, the Minister for Defence, as he seems so happy to do, whenever opportunity arises, with his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture.

I feel that is a good series of constructive suggestions. There is not one of them that would not produce immediate and striking results. However, it is a comment on the kind of Government we have that we may be virtually certain that none of them will be adopted. I look forward with amazement to the contribution which the Government proposes to make to the solution of our economic difficulties. We are to borrow large sums of money for the purpose of rebuilding Dublin Castle and the Naas Road.

Let us observe the situation. Three years ago our problem was that there was a shortage of labour. We had actually to bring skilled operatives back from Great Britain, induce them to come in order effectively to mobilise the building industry here. Within three short years we are shipping the timber for building out of the country and we are using the Supplies and Services Act to start relief works in the City of Dublin and throughout the country. Is it not astonishing that Fianna Fáil now considers it one of its great achievements to say to the public: "Have no anxiety. We are going to continue relief works for the next five years"? One of the relief works, he said, is that we will spend an unascertained number of millionsrebuilding Dublin Castle. I saw the model of the plan they had to rebuild Dublin Castle. It lay in the ante-room to the Government meeting-room in Government Buildings for two years. I think the model cost £1,500 to make. It would occupy a large diningroom table. Our advice was that originally the rebuilding was estimated to cost £4,000,000 but it was more likely to cost £9,000,000—if undertaken in 1950.

Conceive the feelings of the people of this city when I am stopped by a friend of mine living in this city who has a good job as a motor mechanic at a fair salary and who tells me that he was up all last week chasing rats off the baby's cradle in one tenement room in the City of Dublin. He says it is not a question of his not being able to afford a house. He wants to rent a house and he is prepared to show what he is earning weekly and that he has saved a sufficiency to guarantee that his rent will be paid for any reasonably forseeable period. There is not a house to be got, he says. "Oh, that could not be," I said. He told me he has a wife and two children—one child is three and the other rising one in the cradle. I rang up the Dublin Corporation and said: "Here is a man with a wife and two children, living in one tenement room; he is not getting a right night's sleep trying to protect the baby from the rats." No one could have been more courteous than the city authorities, but their answer to me was: "Mr. Dillon, there is no question of considering him for a house; we have not yet dealt with the people who are living five and six in one room." Is not that right?

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

That is true.

Mr. Dillon

They said: "We are only coming to them; a man living four in a room cannot be given a promise that we will consider his case for 18 months to two years." Now, that is the context in which we are going to spend £9,000,000 on building the castle. Are we all gone daft altogether? Can you imagine the feelings of an unfortunate man who has the wages to pay the rent and who wants nothing but the opportunity of getting a house and paying rent for it so that he mayhave accommodation for his wife and children and be able to get a good night's sleep, when he is told that his case will not be considered for 18 months or two years? But we are going to start work on the Castle forthwith—we have £9,000,000 to spend on it. Can you imagine that fellow, when he turns in despair to see if he could not build a house for himself, and goes to the local authority and says: "Tell me how I would go about getting a loan under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act; I know a neighbour who got one and who is paying 22/- a week." The local authority says: "Yes, that man borrowed a couple of years ago but the same loan from the same local authority over the same term of years will cost you 34/- now." Can you imagine the exasperation of the average working man to whom the tale is told? When he goes to recite that to someone who wants to create trouble in our community, his exasperation is inflamed by being told: "Stay in your tenement rooms; they are going to rebuild the castle; they have finished Áras Mhic Dhiarmada, and when the castle is finished they will see about you and the baby and the rats."

What a metamorphosis has come over the country? Three years ago, I am proud to think, two things took precedence over everything else in the economic life of Ireland—the rehabilitation of the land and the housing of the people. Three short years, and these two projects are supplanted by Dublin Castle and the Naas Road. Three short years ago there was nearly full employment in this country, and now the Government glories in the fact that they forecast abundant relief works for the next five years. They are tearing up the tram rails, they are cleaning the Dodder, Glory Halleluiah! Ireland is on the march—down the Dodder and up the tram rails!

What has happened to them? Is it something to be ashamed of that we want to build houses for our own people? Is it something to be ashamed of that we were able to give the smallest, poorest farmer in Ireland facilities equal to those of the richestlanded proprietor in Europe? Did the results not show that our policy not only paid dividends in social amenities for our own people but in hard cash for the benefit of the economic life of the country? Why have we substituted for that, relief works, Dublin Castle and the Naas Road?

Mr. Allen

Ask Deputy Sweetman.

Mr. Dillon

I am asking Fianna Fáil, together with all their recent recruits. Dublin Castle and the Naas Road— while there is many a citizen living in one room with a wife and two children and no place else to go. Does Deputy Allen think that is right? He will not say yes and he will not say no. You remember the person who would blow neither hot nor cold and what he was deemed fit for?

Mr. Cunningham

Since you say it, we do.

Mr. Dillon

Look at him blushing so prettily. I say the Minister is incompetent in the use of these powers. The Minister for External Affairs is manifestly incompetent to use these powers. The Minister for Agriculture will not be let use these powers. The Minister for Health is too lazy to use these powers. These are all good reasons why these Ministers should not be given these powers. They are an incompetent, quarrelsome lot. They have wrought havoc on this country on three separate occasions and on every occasion they have passed the buck to someone else to clean up the mess they have made and, one way or another, they have managed always to find some dross to hawk them back into office. They have now got back into office with the help of the three bluebells that they have now swallowed and are in process of digesting.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is travelling wide of the Bill.

Mr. Dillon

Can I not discuss the competence of these fellows to have these powers? Can I not describe their incompetence? Is it not relevant, or is it relevant, that everybody knows they are so incompetent that there is no need to argue the question any longer? You cannot laugh that off. There is nobody left to laugh at but yourselves. It is the record of the Fianna Fáil Party that is under examination in this House. It is a shocking one. In many ways it is a laughable record, but it is a record that Fianna Fáil should not laugh at; they should cry. If these men are got rid of at a reasonably early date, the powers contained in this Act can justifiablybe sought from Parliament in the times in which we live. I am not so sure that the Minister is right in his pious affirmation that at the end of 15 months the Government are finally and absolutely resolved to wind these powers up. Something has happened to the Minister. I suppose it is what happens to every other mediocre man —he was a socialist when he was young and he grows more Tory with the passage of the years.

——and ask them to pass judgment on the patch-work quilt with the four bluebells embroidered upon it and the slippery joker left weeping alone. Nobody will inquire why the Senator who has joined your organisation is not on the hustings.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is discussing matters that are not in the Bill.

Deputies should go down and read it. In the 1945 Official Report they can read it all.

I know that Deputy Dillon is very much upset and saddened in regard to those loans for farm buildings. He was saddened when he gave up another plan that he had, a plan under which the farmer was to accept a bob a gallon for his milk and which had a very severe effect on supplies even up to the present when we had 157,000 milch cows disappearing in 12 months due to the activities of Deputy James Dillon and his offer to the farmers of this country of a reduction of 3d. per gallon in the price of their milk. I am well aware of Deputy Dillon's anxiety as shown here to-day and his worry, because the agricultural community were going in wholeheartedly for the Fianna Fáil tillage policy. I know his anxiety and worry of mind when he told us that beet was gone up the spout after the wheat, and I can imagine the upset it must be to him having to read in the papers that there was an increase of some 12,000 or 13,000 acres of beet this year, and that there is going to be an increase this year as a result of Fianna Fáil policy of some 200,000 tons of beet to the factories with resultant employment. I can imagine the misery that that must be to the individual who sent over to Cuba and out to Czechoslovakia for the sugar. I can also imagine the worry it must be to him whose boast and delight was that the beet was gone up the spout after the wheat and the peat. I can well imagine the worry it must have been to Deputy Dillon that there were produced in this country this year something like 80,000 or 90,000 extra acres of wheat. I can well imagine the worry it must be to him, and the upset it must be to his applecart, after the three and a half years he spent endeavouring to wipe out of existence that tillage policy. I can well imagine the worry that must be to him. This is not, I admit, the time for going into those particular matters.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

You are quite right.

Mr. Corry

But Deputy Dillon succeeded in getting pretty far into them and I think other Deputies are entitled to follow.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy might relate his remarks to the Bill before the House.

Mr. Davin

That is very complimentary to the Chair.

Mr. Corry

So were the remarks of Deputy Dillon on that matter. I would like to assure the Minister for Industry and Commerce that that policy of increased production on the land is going to continue and that there will be further increased acreage of both wheat and beet next year. The agricultural community have always held to one dictum, that it was the duty of the farmers of this country to provide food for our own people.

Deputy Dillon stated that there was a loss of £3,000,000 because the people of this country grew wheat this year. That was his statement here, that we could not grow it as cheap as on the foreign market. That was just in keeping with the Deputy who made the very self-same statement in this House a few years ago as regards beet, and told us that he did not know how long the people of this country were going to continue on a policy of producing their own sugar which was costing the people £3,000,000 each year. Evidently the £3,000,000 has gone up where the beet was going. He stuck to that, and as a result of the manner in which he dealt with the beet industry he found himself two years afterwards having to go out to the foreigner and to pay the foreigner for 74,000 tons of sugar, £12 per ton more than for Irish sugar produced in the Irish factories here. That is rather a change. Deputy Dillon's policy has been tried by the agricultural community and was found wanting, and he got the high-road and the wattle on account of it. Now he comes in here endeavouring to bring forward the very self-same policy again, bewailing the production of wheat, bewailing the production and manufacture of our own sugar. Then he came along on the beet. Why? Because he wanted to kill now the market that the Irish farmer has found in this country for feeding barley, because he wants againto have a market in this country for foreign maize.

You would not need any land at all for the policy as preached by Deputy Dillon. All you want is one big yard into which you will shove the pigs and get the foreign material, foreign grain, in and feed them in the yard. You would not want any land, and it could be devoted fully to being the fruitful mother of flocks and herds and the production of beef for Britain. That was the policy that Deputy Dillon, with the help of Fine Gael and the Labour Party, set himself to carry out in this country for three and a half years. We have seen the result of it. Now we are on the march back. We are back again, not through any compulsion but through the free action of the people and the agricultural community of this country in the production of food for our own people. Against the best market for beef that existed in this country for many years the wheat and the beet are proving more attractive propositions to the farmers. So much for that.

I wish to protest against the manner in which Deputy Dillon has succeeded in insulting certain Deputies of this House. He comes up here and talks about the bursted flush and all the rest of this kind of vilification of certain Deputies.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Dillon was informed by the Chair that those matters were not relevant and should not be discussed on the Bill.

Mr. Corry

All I wish to say about them is this—that those Deputies were the cause of a general election in this country because they opposed Fine Gael policy here. They were not elected to this House on the inter-Party ticket but as Deputies standing against the inter-Party interests.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Corry should come back to the Bill.

Mr. Corry

I do not wish to go further into it than to say that the people of this country—and the agricultural community, in particular —were very grateful and very thankfulfor getting rid of Deputy James Dillon as Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. Norton

I do not want to cover the wider aspects of our whole economy on this Bill. In so far as I raise economic matters, it will only be in relation to the Bill which is now before the House.

In his opening speech, the Minister told us that the Government propose, by 1955, to introduce some permanent price control machinery. I must say I was surprised that the Minister deferred the introduction of permanent price control machinery until then because, in this House in 1950, the Minister made a peevish and intemperate speech about the uselessness of the Supplies and Services Bill of that year, saying that it was quite unnecessary and unwanted and that, in fact, it should be scrapped and permanent price legislation introduced in its place. Although that statement was made in this House in 1950 by the present Minister when he was sitting on the Opposition Benches, we are now told by him that it will be 1955—five years after that speech was made by the Minister from the Opposition Benches—before we see the permanent price legislation.

In view of the length of time which has elapsed since the Minister stated that the Supplies and Services Bill is unnecessary and unwanted and that it should be scrapped and permanent price legislation introduced in its stead, I do not know whether we shall see that legislation by the year 1955 or what the character of the legislation is likely to be. I have an unhappy feeling about price legislation and all the talk we have heard about price legislation over the past two years. We can see clearly that the Government are slipping away, day by day and month by month, from their responsibility for the regulation of prices in this country.

Week after week and month after month, Price Control Orders have been repealed. Week after week and month after month, something else is taken out of the control of the Prices Sectionof the Department of Industry and Commerce. Now, a whole collection of commodities have been allowed to ride free of any control or any effective supervision by the Department of Industry and Commerce—and we are going to have a further period of 18 months of it. How much of the remnants of price control will be here at the end of 18 months it is not possible, at this stage, to forecast. If the Government continue to shed responsibility for price control in the next 18 months as they have, in an accelerated way, shed that responsibility over the past two years, I venture to say that, 18 months hence, there will hardly be a Price Control Order in operation at all.

I am one of those people who believed, and still believe, that price control is imperative. It is imperative not merely in the general public interest but particularly in the case of those sections of our community who are compelled to live on subsistence standards. Price levels for them are not the basis of a mere academic discussion. Price levels for them determine the standard of living in their homes. If the Government adopt the attitude that price control is unnecessary and can easily be relinquished then for those people there will be a still bleaker outlook in the future than that which exists to-day.

If price control is necessary, price supervision is even more imperative. One may say that there is a sufficiency of goods on the market to ensure availability of supplies, but we must not forget that it is possible for groups and rings so to orientate themselves as to fix prices on the market at levels which give them an unreasonable return on their money. These days, people are struggling to make ends meet, to get the best possible value for meagre wages and to see that they get access to the sweet things of life. It is highly desirable that no group and no ring should feel that it is outside the range of supervision and control so far as price levels are concerned. Nobody will attempt to deny that the public confidence in price control, as exercised by the present Government during the past two years,has been rudely shaken. The public have a feeling that the Government have thrown away from their own control the range of supervision which, during the past two years, at least assured the public that their interests would be protected in some measure against the rapacity of those who wanted to exact the highest possible price for anything they produced or sold.

I do not think it will be easy for the Minister or the Government to ride away from what should be their obvious responsibility—that is, to give the public an efficient system of price regulation, price control and, above all, price supervision so as to ensure that there will be no exploitation of the public and especially of the weakest and most defenceless section of the community. Price control and price supervision are necessary for other reasons also. Of course, the public do not take a deep and scholarly interest in the factors which affect price levels nor in the factors which go to make the ultimate wholesale and retail prices. All they know is that every time prices rise and wages remain static, their standard of living is correspondingly reduced. In the public interest, as well as from the point of view of promoting a wider knowledge of the factors which enter into price control and price regulation, I think there ought to be a permanent prices tribunal which, from time to time, would be asked to examine price levels in particular industries and, by means of a public hearing, to hold a full examination of all the factors which are involved in the fixation of prices.

In that way, the public would be enabled to appreciate the factors which are at work and which ultimately determine the prices which they pay for the commodities which they purchase. I hope that when the Minister is replying to this debate he will give us some more information in respect of the future character of the price control machinery than we have got from him so far. At most, we have an idea that, by 1955, some type of machinery will be produced. We have heard rather vague references to a Bill which the Minister introduced in thisHouse many years ago and which he subsequently abandoned. I think the Title of the Bill was the Price Regulation and Efficiency Bill. Beyond a vague reference to that Bill, and an intimation that we will see some kind of price regulation machinery in 18 months' time, we have no idea whatever of the direction in which the Government's mind is travelling, but we do know that, every day, the Government are shedding more and more of the responsibility which, previously, they had in regard to price control. I do not think it would be irrational to bet or prophesy to-day that when this Bill goes through both Houses of the Oireachtas, more Price Control Orders will be repealed.

It has lately become fashionable at dinners, functions and other occasions, for Ministers to talk in terms of approval and pride of what they describe as "price stability." What is the basis for all this ranting about price stability?

What are the facts about price stability to-day? Can anybody deny that prices are higher to-day than they have ever been in the past 30 years? Do the Government's figures issued by the Central Statistics Office not prove that the prices of commodities to-day are higher than they were in 1923, 30 years ago? Does everybody not know to-day that prices are higher in Ireland than at any time of peace in living memory? Never before in times of peace have we hit the price level we have hit to-day. In face of these unchallengeable facts, we get people preening themselves that we have reached price stability. We are now expected to take pride in the fact that we are paying 4/2 for butter that we could buy a couple of years ago for 2/10, but because we get the privilege of paying 4/2 for it, and have had that privilege regularly, constantly and with stability for the past 16 months, we are obliged to believe that there is a virtue in the stability which makes us pay 4/2 for 2/10 butter. That is called price stability.

We have another privilege to-day, of course, masquerading under the euphemism of price stability, that thepeople are now paying 5/- a lb. for 2/8 tea. They have been paying that 5/- a lb. for it for the past 16 months, and now they are told to cheer up, to forget their wounds and their sorrows because we have reached price stability, which takes the form of having to pay 5/- a lb. for 2/8 tea, or, as Deputy Byrne says, 9d. for the loaf they could get 18 months ago for 6d. Then we have people saying that is price stability. Would it not be a damned good job if we had no price stability, if that is what is masquerading as price stability—gearing prices up to this high level and telling the people that they ought to be glad they have that stability?

Let us look at the stability we have. I asked a question recently to ascertain the number of commodities that had varied in price since 14th June, 1951. A natural kindness and regard for the feelings of Deputies prevents me going completely through this document, but it is a document of six pages showing increases in prices since June, 1951, which is pretty good going in a short period. What is the range of commodities which have increased in price? I will not go through them all; I will be satisfied to touch on those that affect the ordinary man and woman. This document shows increases in sweets, milk, peas, yeast, fuel, petrol, paraffin oil, methylated spirits, coal, coke, electricity, gas, cigarettes, tobacco, agricultural machinery, bicycles, and various kinds of building materials. There is a source of consolation in the fact, as the House will be glad to hear, that one firm has reduced the price of pot scourers by 3/6 a gross on the wholesale price. Other commodities which have gone up in price are sewing threads, slates, tablet soap, springs of all kinds, steel of all kinds and tiles.

Coming to the food and drink group, we find that these are up in price: ale, beer, stout, whiskey, bread, flour and wheaten meal, creamery butter, cheese, cocoa, condensed milk, cream milk, unsweetened condensed milk, sugar and oatmeal. In face of these increases, what is the purpose of telling us that we have reached stability?Has this Government in the past two years not been responsible for lifting the price level in that short period by a percentage which has not applied to any other period of two years since this State was formed 31 years ago? In face of these facts, it seems to me to be nothing short of a cynical mockery of the people's sufferings that we should be talking about price stability at the same time and in the same year as the Government issues that long litany of price increases inflicted on the community by the policy of the Department and the policy of the Government.

Does everybody not know perfectly well that it is harder to live to-day for the ordinary man and woman than it has ever been in the past 30 years? At a recent meeting of the Sick and Indigent Roomkeepers' Society in Dublin, references were made by people, who are not members of political Parties but religious, indicating that there was widespread unemployment and poverty in this city. Anybody with any connection with these charitable organisations knows that their funds now are not capable of alleviating one tithe of the distress they are called upon to relieve in consequence of the worsening economic situation.

Let us look at the plight of those of our people who are compelled to exist on social welfare benefits. Thanks to this Government's policy of increasing prices by more than 20 per cent. in the past two years, grievous hardships have been inflicted on many helpless men and women and young children up and down this country. Take the case of the old age pensioner and relate the position of that man or woman to the problem of endeavouring to exist on the meagre pittances which they receive to-day under our social welfare legislation. According to an answer by the Taoiseach in the House, on the 1939 value the £ is now 8/7. The old age pensioner to-day receives as a maximum 21/6, and interpreting that sum in terms of 1939 purchasing power, that person is living to-day on less than he or she had in 1939. In other words, although the old age pensioner of 1939 had an old age pension of 10/-,which nobody was prepared to say was adequate for that person's requirements, to-day, because of the increase in the cost of living, that person is trying to exist on a purchasing power which is less than that of 1939.

Take then the case, in relation to prices, of widows and orphans. The new maximum widows' and orphans' pension, the pension paid to a widow with two children, is 38/- a week. Thanks to the rise in the price level, that person is now getting in terms of 1939 purchasing power no more than 18/- per week. Nobody will say that was a reasonable competence on which to expect a person to exist in 1939, and yet to-day we are giving that person only 18/- per week in terms of 1939 purchasing power to sustain herself and her two children.

When you move from that into the other categories of human beings dependent on our social services, you find the very same catastrophic effects on their economy. Their standard of living has been debased. Their efforts to exist are efforts which inflict upon them intense pain and suffering. I should like in that connection to refer to a letter which I received from a constituent this evening asking could she get any home assistance. Her husband is 73 years of age and she is 68. The two of them are living on 21/6 a week. I endeavoured to get home assistance for this poor unfortunate soul and the home assistance officer, when he visited her, asked her had she any live stock and how she fed the live stock. She had not as much as a hare on her bit of ground. She says in the letter that last week she had to pay 14/11 for a shirt for her husband and 3/10 for two ounces of tobacco. "You can imagine," she says, "how much I would have for feeding live stock, seeing that I have got to spend these two amounts out of 21/6 a week." It is idle to pretend that we have a healthy economy while you have cases like that. They can be duplicated up and down the country in every city and town, and furnish a clear indication that there is much yet to be done before we can view with any optimistic complacency the economic position of this country to-day. I think it is no wonder thatin consequence of the rise in price levels we have had an aggravation of the whole unemployment position.

Documents issued to Deputies in the past few days contain some startling news. We see that in the week from the 24th to the 31st October the number of unemployed in that week alone had risen by 8,000—8,000 up in consequence of the termination of the Employment Period Order.

Mr. Lemass

It is 3,000 lower than it was this week last year.

Mr. Norton

We shall come to that in a second. They are all your figures. We are now in the position in which we have approximately 60,000 unemployed and, mind you, the whole effect of the repeal of the Employment Period Order has not yet been manifested in these figures. Next week the figures unfortunately will be up again. The fact that we have 60,000 unemployed is a clear indication of how much solid work remains to be done, if we are going to rid ourselves of this cancerous disease of unemployment which is having such an appalling effect on the whole national economy. I think every Deputy, particularly Deputies who represent rural areas, will have no hesitation in acknowledging the fact that there is growing unemployment in the rural areas. In my own constituency there are places in which there are very large numbers of unemployed, places where three years ago the problem was how to take unemployment schemes in rotation because it was not possible to line up sufficient unemployed there to work at the time. Deputy Dr. Humphreys, I am glad to see, is in the House. He knows Castledermot well. I venture to say that if he stops there on his way home this week and asks anybody in the town why the number of unemployed there is so large, he will be told it is going up. If he looks at the number registered at the Carlow Unemployment Exchange, he will find a different picture there from that which existed three years ago.

Let us look at the figures to see if, even by comparision, there is any cause for jubiliation. On the 5th Novemberthe figures were 59,390. On the 1st November, 1951, they were 53,580— practically 6,000 fewer than this year. On the 4th November, 1950, the figures were 50,600 so to-day we have about 9,000 more people unemployed according to the Government's own figures, than we had in 1950.

Mr. O'Donnell

And many more emigrants.

Mr. Norton

That is the point I want to come to—all this, in face of the fact that emigration continues to rise at an alarming rate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

How does this arise on the Supplies and Services Bill?

Mr. Norton

In this way, that because of the general policy of increasing prices we have a situation in which people cannot buy the barest necessaries of life, much less the embroideries of life, although the purchase of these embroideries formerly gave a substantial employment to a considerable number of people. So long as we have our economy geared to a high price level, while doing nothing to take up the sag of unemployment, the whole economic fabric of the nation must suffer.

The discussion on supplies and services has always necessarily involved a review of the economic position from a prices and unemployment point of view, and, of course, as you probably know, Sir, on the Supplies and Services Bill last year, the whole matter was freely discussed. I do not want to develop it to any great extent now. I refer to it only from the point of view of showing the very serious economic position and the necessity for endeavouring so to bend our economy that, by an intelligent price policy, married to an intelligent economic policy, we can provide regular employment for our people under a price economy which does not impose on our people the staggering burdens inflicted upon them to-day.

The situation in respect of unemployment is high-lighted by the very serious position which has arisen in the past 12 months in respect to agriculturalemployment alone. I do not say that this is directly due to Government policy. This is a tendency which has been manifested for some years, but the tendency is now manifesting itself in more alarming proportions. The Government figures show that, comparing June, 1953, with June, 1952, there has been a decline of almost 22,000 in the number of males employed on the land. If we had a healthy industrial position that would, nevertheless, be a cause of grave concern, but with an industrial position which affords no ground for satisfaction from any standpoint, it is alarming to find that in one year alone 20,000 males should have shed work on the land. That is an economic portent which I think is not of healthy significance for the nation.

If by mentioning these facts one can induce Ministers to recognise the seriousness of the situation and the need for action, there is some value in these discussions. But I have before me a copy of the Irish Pressfor 5th November, in which the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, speaking at the annual dinner of the Dundalk Chamber of Commerce, is reported as saying: “Unemployment recorded on the 17th October showed that there has been a dramatic recovery in the general position.” I want to underline these words: “a dramatic recovery in the general position”. On 17th October, according to the Government's figures, there were 50,900 registered as unemployed, and to-day there are 60,000 registered as unemployed. The figure of unemployment jumped up by over 9,000 in the meantime. What can you think of a statement by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, presumably one of the people directing Government policy, when he says there has been “a dramatic recovery in the general position”, when between the 17th October and the date upon which this paper was published the figures had jumped up by 9,000 or 10,000?

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy knows that is a complete misrepresentation.

Mr. Norton

In what way?

Mr. Lemass

One set of figures does not bear comparison with the other, because the Employment Period Orders have now ceased to operate. There has not been that increase in unemployment, and the Deputy knows that.

Mr. Norton

The Minister is trying to box the compass. The Minister knows well that these 9,000 additional people who trekked into the labour exchanges between the 24th October and the 31st October were people who were unemployed. There was no use trekking to the labour exchange even though they were unemployed because of the fact that they would get no unemployment assistance benefit. The fact that they were not registered at the labour exchanges did not prove that they were not unemployed. It proved that they were unemployed and that it was not worth while trekking to the labour exchanges to record the fact that they were unemployed because there was no money or sustenance for them. The Minister knows perfectly well, even though he may try to use the interruption as a debating point, that what happened when the Employment Period Orders ceased to operate was that many thousands who had been put off the unemployment register in the rural areas came back on to the register the moment the Employment Period Orders ceased. They are there now in all their pristine economic unity to be examined and to attest the fact that they are available for work and they are unable to get it. Yet the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs finds some solace in the fact that, apparently, he thought there was a dramatic recovery in the figure on the 17th October. But the dramatic recovery has turned out to be one in which our unemployed people are now registered at the labour exchanges in much greater numbers than they were when the Minister spoke on that occasion.

The Minister made some further references in his speech. He talked about the increase in the volume of agricultural production and said that farmers' incomes were rising, that the rate of industrial output and the volume of exports were going up, thatthe price of agricultural produce was stabilising itself after an uninterrupted rise by 17 per cent. He went on to make some reference to "external assets cranks" and the Irish Pressgives this heading to the speech, “Real Economic Progress Now Evident.”“Real Economic Progress Now Evident,” and we have got, according to the Government's figures, many thousands more people unemployed than we had a fortnight ago. In addition to that, we have got about 9,000 more people unemployed than we had three years ago. How, in the face of these figures, it can be said that there has been real economic progress is beyond my comprehension.

Let us look at the situation in the rural areas again for a moment. My experience of the rural areas in many parts of the country is that there is considerable and growing unemployment. To some extent we have been able to hold that down in many places by the diversion or diffusion of housing activities in the rural areas. On these housing schemes, large numbers of persons secured employment. Now, two things have happened in respect of housing. The higher rates of interest charged have lessened the demand for house building. There is no new builder going into the building industry to-day. There are many, many builders going out of the industry and, unfortunately, some are going out through the bankruptcy court, as they have been badly stung by the fact that, having built houses, they find it difficult to sell them at an economic price, and they have heavy commitments to those responsible for financing their activities.

Anyone who takes a look at the sites around Dublin which were developed for housing can see that building has practically ceased, that there is less house building going on than at any time in the last five years. On many sites you could see 50 houses going up at the one time; now, if they are going up at all, they are going up in ones or twos. Many people who had built houses have "for sale" bills on them now because there is no sale for them.

In rural areas another situation developed. It is natural that you cannot build further houses if you have satisfied the need for them. In many rural areas a considerable number of houses have been built and, because of the fact that they have been built and that the local housing need is satisfied in some areas, there is no need for building further houses in those places. You may need houses elsewhere. But, if local authorities who have tackled the problem seriously in order to satisfy the housing needs of the people are finding themselves approaching the stage in which they have broken the back of the housing problem, the same need for the erection of houses does not exist to-day as it did in other years, with the result that there is a considerable sag in the building of houses in those areas and the opportunities for employment which went hand-in-hand with house building have ceased to exist in those areas.

What is the ordinary working man in those areas going to do? Deputy Corry drew some satisfaction from an increase in agricultural production. There is virtually no increase in the volume of agricultural production. We may juggle with figures anyway we like because of rising prices on the external or home market; we may say that our agricultural production to-day is X-million pounds greater than it was a few years ago, but we are all the time dealing with a static volume of produce. This year we increased the wheat acreage, but we decreased the oats and barley acreage, and the net result was that, taking the three crops together, the area under the cultivation of the three crops was less than it was last year.

I am not saying these things in any spirit of political partisanship, but the challenge to this House and this nation is the utterly inadequate use we are making of the enormous potentialities which reside in the land of Ireland. Whether this Government or any other Government is in office, we will never have a healthy economy until such time as we get out of the land the produce which it is capable of providing under an intelligentagricultural policy. If we can agree on what lines that policy should take and only disagree as to the speed with which we can put it into operation, I think we can make marvellous progress from the standpoint of gearing-up our agricultural possibilities to a greater rate than I see there at the moment. The fact of the matter is that our agricultural production has been stagnant for 50 years. It has been a challenge to every Government which has ruled the destinies of this country over that period.

Unless we get down to examine the basic causes of that and find the remedy, we will have the same stagnant agriculture, large pockets of unemployment in the rural areas with a rural area not capable of sustaining the industries which are inevitably associated with the towns and cities.

On this Bill, because it deals with food, services and supplies, I would call the Minister's attention to what looked to be a promising new industry —the development of the dead meat trade. I do not want to talk about it in detail and with all the knowledge I have on it, but I am bound to say that there is cause for grave disquiet in that particular field. About 40 of these meat packing plants were erected in the past couple of years. A considerable sum of money was invested in them and there were high hopes that we would develop a dressed meat trade which would provide a stable market for our cattle and employment in the small towns in the rural areas for many who were previously unemployed and that by building up that particular trade and dressing the meat at home we would get valuable offal which would, in turn, provide the raw material for many other industries.

The first difficulty these folk met with was the closing down of the American market. That in itself was not a serious or an insuperable difficulty but the position now is that apparently they cannot fulfil their contracts on the British market with the result that I do not believe there is one of these 40 meat-packing plants in full operation to-day. I know there are dozens closed down almost entirely andthere are some of them on which considerable money was spent, simply lying there as silent as a cemetery. I understand the reason is that they cannot get cattle at a price which would enable them to dress the meat for sale on the British market at the price decided by the British Ministry of Food. The Government might take steps to relieve the causes of that difficulty. I understand that one of the difficulties is that they cannot compete with those whose cattle are attracted to the British market via the Six Counties.

I am afraid we are now heading for a situation in which practically all the money which has gone into these plants will be lost unless some serious effort is made to devise an arrangement by which they will get cattle for dressing. If they can do that, then I think they can provide substantial employment in these plants. Close on 4,000 people would normally get employment in these plants but there only 400 employed in them at the moment due to the difficulty of buying cattle at a price that will enable them to sell the cattle in the British market. I do not blame the Minister or the Government. That is one of the things which has arisen out of the pattern of our live-stock industry and the methods of our live-stock trade but it is a great pity and it will be a national tragedy if these dressed meat plants are going to be allowed to die. Several efforts were made from time to time to develop a dressed meat industry. There are powerful interests here and elsewhere who do not want to see us do it. It is a valuable industry from our point of view. A considerable sum of money has been sunk in these plants and if these people should lose their money now the unemployment that will inevitably follow will burn as effectively as possible the fingers of anybody who wants to pioneer on that road.

I do not know what the Government's policy is in respect of this. I think it is highly desirable, because of the employment and raw materials which it provides, that we should encourage it in every possible way. Wedo not know what the Government's policy is, but the Minister could do few more useful things than indicate that the Government are determined to save that trade by making use of the devices which are open to them in order to effect the necessary assistance to the industry which is now passing through a particularly bad time. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will in his reply to this debate take some steps to indicate that the Government is alive to the dangers which beset this industry and alive to the loss of actual and potential employment which would follow if these industries are compelled to close down. It should not be outside the bounds of possibility to devise an arrangement by which these plants can be kept in operation and some arrangement made by the cattle trade as a whole with governmental advice whereby it would be possible always to siphon off a sufficiency of cattle to enable these plants to continue to provide the employment which undoubtedly they can provide in a much greater measure than the exporting of cattle on the hoof, and at the same time establish here a really indigenous industry associated with our cattle trade.

Deputy Dillon made some reference to the Central Bank Report, but I do not think it would be appropriate on this Bill or at this stage to make any references to what is contained in this customary blue book of despair which has been issued by the Central Bank. It seems to follow the usual pattern. The only thing changed on it is the date. It is substantially the same as it was five years ago and it will probably be the same in the next five years. I do hope, however, that it will not commend itself to the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Dillon commended me to read and study it.

Mr. Norton

Somebody offered Disraeli a book on one occasion on which he was not terribly keen. He took it from the donor and said he would lose no time about reading it. I hope the Minister for Finance will adopt the same tactics in connectionwith this blue book of despair. It is only intended to make people miserable. It is only intended to irritate the Irish people and advocate the philosophy of loving rags, of being proud to live a poor, impoverished life in Ireland for the privilege of living in this motherland.

I do not propose to waste time on this. I hope the Minister will repudiate it as he did last year even though, subsequently, some of his colleagues really devoted time to an intensive study of it and wasted much public time in relating the dire and sad sentiments which were contained in the report. Notwithstanding what the Central Bank says or the occasional rantings which we get in this House from the Minister for Finance about impending gloom and disaster, I am convinced that there are only three ways in which we can build up an economic fabric to gain a decent standard of life for our people. We have in this country soil and climate which is the envy of every other country in Europe. We are economic and political lunatics if we do not ensure that the soil is utilised in a way that will give us a greater measure of agricultural and dairy production than we have to-day. It is no visitation of God that we have not a greater measure of industrial production in this country. All the difficulties and impediments are manmade and can be remedied overnight if the Government and the Minister take steps to recognise the enormous waste, actual and potential, which is inevitable when following our present-day agricultural policy.

In the field of industry, while we have immense difficulties, in the form of keen competition, in finding a foreign market, we nevertheless have at home a safe market by which we can shelter our people from the worst of the economic blasts that blow from other countries. We can ensure in the home market prices that will give a reasonable return to industrialists, and we are entitled to expect them, in return, to undertake to the nation that, within their capacity, they will supply the nation with all the commodities which it needs and will play their fullpart in endeavouring to find an export market for any commodities which they can produce for that market. Over and above these two considerations, we have got all the benefits which will flow, and which can flow, from the adoption of a capital programme of development, a programme which will give us national assets of a permanent and enduring nature, and which will add to the nation's wealth and will pay dividends, money if needs be, but in any case will contribute to human happiness and to a rising and ever-expanding national economy.

I believe that it is only by a full-blooded development of our industrial and agricultural possibilities, by utilising the nation's assets here and elsewhere, together with the savings of our people in a programme of capital development, that we can ever attain the targets which will mean a decent living, and rising standards of living, for our people. One thing is certain, and that is, that if we do not adopt a policy of industrial and agricultural expansion, geared to a higher level than at present, and do not pursue a policy of capital development which will provide employment and enduring assets for the nation, then this House will continue to discuss the difficulties of living and of life in Ireland.

It will continue to discuss the ever pressing problem of unemployment, the low standard of living for many of our people, and unemployment and under-employment will be permanent problems so far as we are concerned. If, however, we recognise that reliance on the methods which we have pursued in the past, will only give us the same bleak results in the future as they have given us up to now, then we can probably get broad national agreement on a policy designed to expand our industrial and agricultural potentialities. By doing that we can probably reach a production level which will not only finance our social services but will, at the same time, meet the capital charges in the development stages of valuable national works.

I think that while we have had some indications from the Minister in recent speeches that his line of policy was bolder and more courageous than someof the utterances we have heard from some of his colleagues, I feel that if the Minister would take steps to indicate in some detail what the Government's precise plans are in the field of industrial and agricultural development, it might be possible for him to get not merely in this House but outside of it a volume of goodwill and of enthusiasm for a policy calculated to remedy the economic defects in our agricultural and industrial fabric, which at the same time would provide some remedy for our continued unemployment and for what is worse still, the haemorrhage which emigration means to the life blood of a nation.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

This debate gives Deputies an opportunity of voicing their own opinions as well as those of the electorate on conditions as they have found them affecting the country over the past 12 months. In my opinion, if the people were asked to state in what particular way this Government has been most remiss and on what particular aspect of policy they had failed most miserably, the answer would be in relation to the twin problems of unemployment and the cost of living. Some people seem to think that these problems are principally identified with the urban areas.

There is no doubt but that they are, but it should also be remembered that there is not a part of the country which to-day is not gravely concerned by the numbers of unemployed in it. The fact is that those who are in employment see that they are able to buy only very little with the wages they are earning. The same is true of those on small holdings in regard to what they get for their produce. There has been an ever increasing rise in the cost of living over the past two and a half years. That certainly was not envisaged by the people when they went to the polls in 1951. At that time, the cost of living was a very prominent feature in the programme of the then Opposition Party, and in the criticisms which they levelled at the outgoing Government. They charged it with not having kept the cost of living stable during its three and a half years in office. These criticisms by the then Opposition wereaccepted by many people as indicating that a change of Government would secure for the entire nation a reduction in the cost of living, or at least an immediate cessation of any rise in prices. Far from there being any reduction in prices, we have seen in the past two years an extraordinary increase in the cost of living. That increase has not been due to any circumstances operating outside the shores of this country. It has been attributable, purely and simply, to Government policy. The result of that policy has been that the State has had to find compensatory benefits for many sections of our people.

In the course of the past two years, local authority and other employers have had to seek some measure of compensation so that their employees would be in a position to meet their ordinary commitments and to maintain themselves and their families in a reasonable degree of comfort and security.

The Taoiseach, when speaking recently at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis, said that we had now reached the point when we had compensated all these people. That, of course, did not give a true picture of the situation. Would the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste or any member of the Government or any back bencher supporting them tell us how an ex-employee of a local authority on 15/- a week is in a position to meet the fresh charges imposed on him or her by a further reduction in the purchasing power of the £? How can that person afford to pay present prices for bread, tea and sugar and other necessaries of life out of 15/- a week? There are many sections of our people who have got absolutely no increase whatever in their allowances to meet the recent increases in the cost of living. Can any member of the Government, or any Deputy supporting it, deny that the old age pensioner, whether he is receiving 21/6 a week, 16/6 or 11/- a week, is not seriously affected by the fact that he or she has now to pay ever so much more for every single item of food? Many of those people have to bear not alone the direct consequences of the increasein the price of the particular items they require because of the abolition of subsidies but also the burden imposed on them because so many people who have to meet these increased charges are in a position to pass these increases back again on the person at the end of the queue; and the person at the end of the queue is the person least able to bear these impositions.

It must be remembered that people who are self-employed have been unable to secure an increase in their income to meet the higher cost of living. We have provided some compensation for certain sections in the community but the general upheaval created has left its mark on every Department of State and on every section of the community. There has been an extraordinary increase in the cost of running our public institutions and local authorities have been obliged to increase the rates in order to meet their heavy commitments.

The Minister is seeking the retention of certain powers for a further period. Government policy has made it impossible for a great many of our people to avail of either the supplies or the services because the Government has taken from them their way of living. They have embarked upon a financial policy which has made it impossible for many people to keep their families in reasonable comfort. Many firms cannot afford to keep their workers in full employment which they previously enjoyed; they are working only parttime and unfortunately some of them are obliged to have recourse to the employment exchanges in order to secure some means of supporting themselves and their families.

We await the reply of the Minister with interest. We await any comments his colleagues in the Government may have to make in the course of this debate so that they can explain how this small country which, thanks to Divine Providence, was spared from the horrors of war, should within a few years of the cessation of hostilities be called upon to meet an increase in the cost of living far in excess of that of any other nation in Europe with one exception. Most of these nations were imperilled and have had to face serious commitments since that time in trying to rebuild their country. We were led to understand in Ireland that we were as immune from the results of that conflict as it was possible for us to be but we can now point to the increases in the cost of living. We point to the fact that although the previousGovernment had many other great responsibilities to face up to, one of its greatest achievements was to keep down the cost of living which was continually increasing up to the time they took office. Then in their latter months of office due to circumstances over which they had no control—the diversion of shipping and other incidental happenings which arose out of the Korean conflict—there was a rise of a few points in the cost-of-living index. Now with import prices falling and the world returning to some measure of calm, we certainly wonder why so many people would be denied what is surely their birthright, employment in their own country. It is the duty of the Government to give them employment and to try to keep down the cost of living so that people may have a reasonable standard of living.

Everybody one meets, no matter what his walk of life may be, has a complaint about the present state of affairs, and it is unfortunate that the people who suffer most are those least able to bear it, the people in the smaller income groups who have to rely on the staple foods, bread, tea and sugar. It is those who have the very least by way of income, whether it be a pension or wages secured from employment, who are affected most rather than those with bigger salaries and income.

Those articles which were subsidised —and which, if still subsidised at all, are subsidised only in a very small way—formed their principal items of diet. For that reason, they felt the outcome of the abolition of the subsidies far more than others. We find now that those engaged in self-employment, those in production, particularly the small farming class, have to bear many other costs passed on to them by middle-men who are able to recompense themselves for any difficulties they had to overcome. Now the consumer has also to face the fact that those producing the vital necessaries of life are meeting increased production costs as day succeeds day.

I referred earlier to the effect on our public institutions. Anyone, no matter what his Party, who is a member ofany hospital board or board of assistance will agree that over the past two years we have had to meet extraordinary increases even in a few items relating to the maintenance of those people it is our duty to look after. That increase has been met by an increase in rates or by some other means. Therefore, we can assume that every housewife has to face the same responsibility. Very often they are very vocal on this matter and when given the opportunity they can record their displeasure very emphatically. That displeasure has no doubt increased because of the fact that they were led to believe by the Party opposite before they attained office that if given an opportunity they could do something useful in this respect. Naturally, the extreme criticism which the Party opposite offered to the previous Government, for failure to deal with a simple three points increase due to forces outside the control of any Government, brought to their Party a measure of support.

They presented a programme to the Dáil showing emphatically that if they secured election they would control the cost of living, which is one of the items they promised to deal with. In particular, they were to deal with rising costs, but now after two and a half years of the present Government, scarcely a month passes without some increase in the cost of the necessaries of life. That is in addition to the extraordinary increases people have to meet in regard to simple luxuries they may enjoy.

I wish also to express my grave concern at the numbers of young people who are leaving this country, seeking employment in England, Canada, Australia and elsewhere. We know there always was emigration, but it was never on the scale it is on at present. I do not think it was ever known for whole families to move completely out of this country, as occurred in the last two years. I cannot say it happens in my own constituency.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think it is relevant, either.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

However, we know that applications come in frompeople who wish to remove furniture to new homes in Britain. In my own constituency there are young men and young women emigrating as they cannot find work at home. Much of that is to be attributed to the failure of the Government in giving them some encouragement that they would secure employment and that what they would receive in wages would be left to them to buy the simple necessaries of life and the simple luxuries that should be available to them at reasonable prices. Now, they cannot see any future as long as this Government persists in the policy it has pursued since it secured election two and a half years ago. It is vital that the Minister for Industry and Commerce would appreciate that these conditions exist. It is up to him and to the Government of which he is Tánaiste to take immediate steps to ease this burning problem of the cost of living and to put into productive employment the large numbers that those in employment have to maintain on the dole at the present time.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister, to conclude.

Mr. Lemass

It is obvious that over the week-end the leaders of the Fine Gael Party held a conference and decided that the reports which appeared in the newspapers of the speeches which were delivered from their benches on this Bill last week were doing them political harm. I think they were right in that. I am quite certain the people do not like to hear their public men caterwauling about the adverse factors in the national position without making some effort to deal with them constructively, without taking some responsibility for the putting forward of positive suggestions for dealing with them.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

The pawnbroker's sign?

Mr. Lemass

They sent Deputy Dillon in to-day to make constructive suggestions. Whether his effort has repaired the Fine Gael dykes or not is a matter of opinion. No doubt some people may think the suggestions he put forward may have something in them; and if their propagandadepartment keeps on repeating often enough that they are constructive suggestions, an odd person here and there may believe that something of that character was put forward.

Many of the speeches which were delivered in this debate did not seem to me to have any direct relation to the Bill. I intend to confine myself to matters that do arise properly from the Bill before the House. I agreed earlier, when questions of relevancy were discussed, that the cost of living was one of those matters, because at the present time the powers that the Government exercises to control prices are conferred by the Supplies and Services Act, and if that Act should be allowed to lapse or be defeated by a vote of the Dáil then powers to control prices would disappear with it.

All the efforts of the Opposition speakers were directed towards establishing that increases in the cost of living are solely the responsibility of the Government. They endeavoured to suggest that some course of action was open to the Government which, if followed, would have prevented the cost of living rising. In order to secure whatever political advantage might be obtained by establishing that point, they sacrificed any lingering remnant of reputation they may have had for understanding the problems of this country; they sacrificed all honesty and any attempt at fairness in debate. Every Fine Gael speaker ran away from the real issue of prices.

One or two of them, such as the last speaker, who, in the course of his remarks began to get within reach of the realities of the situation, decided to duck at once and to get back to the old theme: the Government could have done something and, because it did not do it, the cost of living has gone up.

Deputy Declan Costello, who opened the debate for the Fine Gael Party and delivered the most dishonest speech of all those made during this debate, started off on that line. He took certain selected facts and based his argument upon those, suppressing all the other facts and every statistic available to him which appeared likely to invalidate the conclusion to whichhe was trying to lead the House. He said that it is an extraordinary situation that for two years import prices have been falling but the cost of living has nevertheless been going up. On the basis of that assertion he built his entire case that responsibility for the rise in the cost of living rests on the Government and that it was within the power of the Government to prevent that rise taking place by some administrative action.

It is quite true that since June, 1951, there has been a slight downward tendency in import prices. The import price index number showed, as between June, 1951, and June, 1953, a decrease of 9 per cent. As to when a decline in import prices might be expected to show itself in retail prices is a matter upon which we might argue, but that is not the argument I want to make.

The point I want to establish is that import prices are less important than internal prices in determining the cost of living. It was surely dishonest for a Deputy, who was seeking to establish the case that the rise in the cost of living could have been prevented by some action of the Government, to have quoted these import price statistics and to have ignored every other statistic bearing upon that question; to ignore, for example, the fact that during the same period agricultural prices increased by 15½ per cent. Most Deputies will, I am sure, recognise that the price paid to farmers for milk and vegetables and wheat has a far more direct bearing upon the cost of living than the price we pay for timber, fertilisers, newsprint or oils.

There was no straightforward reference to the rise in agricultural prices during that period or to the effect of that rise upon the cost of living and every Deputy who came by accident in the course of his remarks within range of the question of agricultural prices said straightway that he was not in favour of reducing any agricultural prices and then got quickly on to some other aspect of the problem. Surely it was relevant to remark that during the same two-year period since this Government returned to office in June, 1951, wage rates in manufacturing industry increased by22 per cent. The index of wage rates in manufacturing industry which was 170.8 in 1951 rose to 191.6 in 1952 and to 209 in 1953.

Again, let me remind Deputies of the figures. Since 1951 the cost-of-living index number has gone up by 12.6 per cent. Farm prices have gone up by 15.5 per cent. and wage rates by 22 per cent. Therefore, it is a fair conclusion that to-day as compared with 1951 both farmers and workers are better off in real terms than they were in 1951.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should allow the Minister to proceed without interruption.

Mr. Lemass

Taking 1950 as a typical Coalition year, the last complete year in which they were in office, retail grocers in that year made profits whichrepresented 3.07 per cent. of their turnover. In 1952 their profits fell to 2.9 per cent. of their turnover. Milk distributors in 1950 made profits of 4.3 per cent. of their turnover. It fell to 3.6 per cent. in 1952. The whole food group of retail traders made profits equivalent to 3.2 per cent. of their turnover in 1950, and that fell to 2.9 per cent. of their turnover in 1952.

But will the people as a whole be consulted as to who will get the monopoly?

Mr. Lemass

There will be legislation to deal with this matter. On my Estimate I told the Dáil that I had hoped that a new arrangement, which would restore freedom to private traders, would be in operation this year but I found that it was not possible to put it in operation this year, and at the request of the trade it was decided to postpone its operation until the opening of the next buying season. The form of the legislation which will be required is at present being discussed with all the interests concerned. I will bring that legislation here and Deputies will have a full opportunity of expressing their views on its merits. It will be devised to give the maximum freedom to individual traders to operate in a normal way, while at the same time giving effect to the Government policy of ensuring that supplies are bought direct from the country in which they are produced without the intervention of foreign middlemen.

Let me turn now from the question of the cost of living to that of unemployment and consider some of the statements made regarding unemployment during the course of this debate. I often wonder if the Deputies opposite believe, themselves, some of the statements they make, much less hope to get other people to believe them. Deputy Blowick, a former member of the Coalition Government, said here that no time during that Government's period of office did the number of registered unemployed rise beyond 30,000. I read it in the Official Report of the debate. I was not quite sure, when I was listening to Deputy Blowick, if I heard the figure correctly but that is the figure which appears in the Official Report.

In the first year in which the Coalition Government were in office, the average weekly number of registered unemployed was 61,157. Deputy Blowick said that at no time during the term of office of the Coalition Government did the number of registered unemployed rise beyond 30,000. The average weekly number of registered unemployed in the first year of that Government's term of office was 61,157. The highest figure reached during that year was 80,667.

Mr. O'Leary

That was when we took over.

Mr. Lemass

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy O'Leary must restrain himself and cease interrupting.

Mr. O'Leary

What about the parades of unemployed which we witnessed during the past year? What about putting the leaders in jail? I could not listen to the Minister. I will leave the Chamber.

Mr. Brennan

Deputy O'Leary cannot take it.

Mr. O'Leary

There are thousands of unemployed. I could not listen to the Minister.

Deputy O'Leary withdrew.

Mr. Lemass

I have always argued here that our unemployment problem is serious, and I have never attempted to minimise its dimensions. When I was Minister for Industry and Commerce in the past, I took measures at various times to ensure that we had accurate statistics on unemployment so that we would know exactly the size of the task facing us. The practice of publishing weekly unemployment statistics was begun by me as Minister for Industry and Commerce. It is being continued by me now. I have objected to the magnitude of the problem being exaggerated; I would equally object to its being minimised.

If we are to deal properly with the problems of this country, we must know them exactly as they are. I admit that unemployment is the biggest problem of all. This Government are prepared to take, as a test of the soundness of their policy, its effect on employment. If we put more people in employment, create more jobs, then the Government's policy is successful. If there is not that result, then its policy is afailure. We will accept that test and will stand by the results.

Mr. Rooney

Does that include the thousands of men who are on relief work?

Mr. Lemass

I resent most strongly the suggestion that workers employed on road improvements are on relief work. Twenty-three thousand workers are employed on road operations at the present time, and they are doing a job which I think is essential to the development of the country. Their work will not merely save lives: it will save costs and it will increase the over-all efficiency of the national organisation. My view is that we are not doing nearly enough to improve the highways of the country. I have urged that, in addition to the new income to the Road Fund, secured by the adjustment of the motor vehicle duties last year, there should be put into it a proportion of the National Development Fund which is to be set up by legislation before the House. I think that is good work, work which is worth doing. I am sure that those who are engaged on it, and all who appreciate its importance will resent Deputy Dillon's contemptuous reference to the workers employed upon the Naas Road scheme or any other road improvement project of that kind.

Deputy Dillon said that we are substituting relief work on the Naas Road scheme and the Dublin Castle project for house building and land improvement. There is being spent on land improvement at the present time, and there are employed on land improvement at the present time, five times the amount of money and five times the number of persons as were employed when Deputy Dillon was Minister for Agriculture and administering the scheme. That does not suggest that anything has been substituted for it. May I say, in regard to the Dublin Castle project or any other project for the construction of public buildings, that not one penny, not one brick and not one worker will go into these public building projects which is or who is required for the building of houses either by local authorities or private contractors.

It is nonsense to talk as if we were still in the war period with limited supplies of timber, limited supplies of cement or limited supplies of other building materials. There is no scarcity of these materials now and, unfortunately, there is no scarcity of labour either. The more workers we can employ, using available supplies of building materials, on construction operations of all kinds, the better for the community. We can proceed with the rehousing programme, which Fianna Fáil initiated, simultaneously with the construction of necessary public buildings. No public building programme will diminish by one house per year the result of the building drive.

Deputy Blowick says that the Government are controlled by the Central Bank. Deputy Dillon read an extract from the most recent report of the Central Bank and commended it to the Government. It is very difficult to know the common line of policy between Deputy Dillon and Deputy Blowick. Deputy Norton tells me not to read that report. He made special reference to the extract which Deputy Dillon quoted in order to express his disagreement with it. If ever and whenever Deputy Norton and Deputy Dillon get into the same Government again, I hope that it will be Deputy Norton's view that will prevail and that, when that time comes, it will be Deputy Norton who will be able to talk about Deputy Dillon as being "as quiet as a mouse."

The Government has no responsibility of any kind, and never had responsibility, for the views expressed in its annual report by the Central Bank Board. The Act setting up that board makes it quite clear that it has the obligation of expressing its comments on the management of the public finances, but the Government is not bound to have regard to its views in the application of its own policy, if it does not agree with them. It certainly is a useful thing to have an authoritative body in a position to express an independent view upon these important public questions and to point out the possible dangers associated with any course of action the Governmentmay follow. No country is the worse for having an independent view of that kind expressed, but the fact that the Central Bank expresses that view in no way commits the Government to following it or to agreeing with it.

Mr. Hickey

What banking functions has the Central Bank?

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Norton says I repudiated the Central Bank Report last year. I did nothing of the sort. I indicated that I did not agree with it and there are certain observations in this year's report that I do not agree with; but Deputies who have been alleging that the Government is controlled by the Central Bank and does what the Central Bank directs, will, I am sure, have had their confidence in the correctness of their views shaken by the most recent report. The Central Bank is caoining as loudly as ever.

Mr. Hickey

I hope the Minister read Mr. Colbert's statement.

Mr. Lemass

We had here the expression of a most extraordinary opinion from the spokesman of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy Declan Costello. He was put up to lead this debate and I presume he was speaking with the authority of his Party. It was quite obviously a carefully prepared speech he delivered and the views in it must be assumed to conform with Party policy. He told us that the important thing was to repatriate our external assets in any way possible and that they should be brought back even in the form of consumer goods. He said he favoured repatriation of external assets by deliberate planned deficits in trade. I think that is the policy of a madhouse. Apparently, the Fine Gael Party regard the possession of external reserves as something to be ashamed of, as some handicap to be got rid of as quickly as possible. Most other countries in the world would regard them as an essential bulwark of their economic independence.

There is obviously no sense in keeping abroad financial resources which could be more profitably employed athome, and, in case that observation of mine is misunderstood, may I make it clear that, in using the expression "profitably employed at home", I do not confine their use to purposes which are profitable in the financial sense. I disagree with the view implied in the Central Bank Report that external assets should be repatriated for utilisation here only if they can earn more money here than they are at present earning abroad. We could be satisfied with a much smaller financial return if the general economic or social consequences were sufficient to justify the change, but the aim of the Government is to induce people to bring back for use in this country any external funds they may control for the purpose of their productive investment here. We do not propose, as I think Deputy Costello suggested his Party might do, to confiscate or conscript these resources of private persons, at least not until it is clear that it is a life and death matter for the country. During the whole period I have been Minister for Industry and Commerce, I can say that no worth-while development of any kind, whether planned by a Government Department or some private group of people, ever failed to materialise because of inability to get the capital to finance it.

Mr. Hickey

That worn-out argument will not stand the light of day. We had to pay a big price for the money you are talking about.

Mr. Lemass

It is not an argument; it is a statement of fact.

Mr. Hickey

And it just leaves us where we are.

Mr. Lemass

The level of investment, whether on public or private account, is far higher now than it ever was under the Coalition Government. There was not a single project for capital investment started by the Coalition Government. Every form of investment they undertook was under the authority of an Act framed and passed through the Dáil at the instance of the previous Fianna Fáil Government.

To come back to Deputy Costello's point, I want to make it quite clearthat we do not propose to encourage the use of these external reserves to finance the importation of consumer goods, goods we are quite capable of making for ourselves. It is a good thing that Deputy Costello realises, and that others of his Party are beginning to realise, when they talk of repatriation of external assets that the only form in which they can come in is in the form of goods. As I said before, they have to visualise the process of repatriation in the form of ships coming into port and dockers going aboard and taking off goods for landing here.

We repatriated these external assets to the extent of a considerable sum of money when 4,000,000 square yards of worsted cloth were imported in 1951, but the effect of that repatriation of external assets was to put thousands of workers here out of their jobs for a year. We ended that type of repatriation. It is a good thing, however, that this keener realisation of the significance of what they are talking about is beginning to come to the Deputies of the Fine Gael Party, and that they now can talk about repatriation of external assets in a form that people can understand.

The importation of consumer goods, the bringing in of imported products we could make for ourselves, the putting out of their employment of Irish workers now engaged in the production of these products, is a policy we do not believe in and will vigorously oppose in office or out of it. Let Deputies remember that it is not a disadvantage to have external assets. It is a very considerable advantage.

Other countries are making substantial sacrifices at present in order to get into the position we are in, of having external reserves to call upon in times of difficulty. If the terms of trade should turn to our disadvantage, or if the policies of other Governments should make it impossible for us to expand our exports in sufficient degree, it will be a good thing to have these reserves of foreign currency with which to finance imports of essential materials required to keep the level of industrial activity going in this country. If we can, by utilising them,secure release from the necessity for imports by expanding production here, it will be something worth doing and something the doing of which we will encourage; but to dissipate these external assets, merely to get rid of them, on the importation of goods we do not need to import because we can produce them for ourselves, would be, as I have said, a policy fit for a madhouse.

Many matters were raised in the course of the debate which I am not in a position to deal with, including references to administrative details concerning the Department of Agriculture or Local Government. Deputies who want to talk about these matters will have other opportunities, and, so far as local government is concerned, they will have the opportunity in the very near future because the Estimate is ordered for debate.

This Bill is one which gives the Government certain powers they need to retain for the present to carry on certain important activities, including control of prices, regulation of imports, operation of currency control and other functions of that kind. It is intended to be the last Bill of its kind. By the time the Bill will be due for renewal, every Department will have brought to the Dáil proposals for legislation to give it such powers as it permanently requires. We think it undesirable that these very wide powers which some Deputies criticised should be available to the Government in normal times. We are proposing, therefore, to shed them, to get rid of them, but we cannot get rid of them until, in some cases permanent legislation gives the continuing powers we require. That is why we are asking the Dáil to pass the Bill for a further period of 15 months, on our assurance that they will not be asked to renew it at the end of that period.

Question put and declared carried.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 11th November.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Tuesday, 10 Nov 1953

Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1946 (Continuance) Bill, 1953—Second Stage (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 10 Nov 1953