Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 24 Mar 1942

Vol. 26 No. 10

Central Fund Bill, 1942— ( Certified Money Bill ) —Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. M. Hayes

I do not intend to deal with the figures or the financial aspect of this Bill at all, as we shall have another opportunity later on the Appropriation Bill. I would say in passing, however, that the increase since last year is attributed to the enormous increase on the Army. We have to remember that the policy of the Government consistently has been to increase the central expenditure and, by legislation and otherwise, to increase the expenditure of local authorities; and, in the third place, by the employment of tariffs and subsidies, to increase the cost of living. One would not begrudge the amounts, if they could be paid and if one could be sure they were producing the result, but no one can contemplate our situation either before the war or during the war and say an adequate return had been obtained by increasing production, by increasing employment or —as Senator Goulding put it, taking another aspect entirely—by an improvement in the national spirit.

I wonder whéther a state of war in the world necessarily means that we must have an enormous and costly army? I think the Taoiseach said on one occasion that he wanted 250,000 men under arms. I take it he did not mean men in the standing Army, but in the standing Army plus the Local Defence Force. That position is far from being realised, and I doubt whether we would be able to equip such a number of men. In any event, an army is the most obvious thing and it is also the most expensive thing. One wonders whether it is the best method, for the ultimate security and well-being of our people, that we should put all, or nearly all, of our increased expenditure into the Army. On that point, the question was raised here of the utilisation of our man power. One might talk of the utilisation of our man power, of our natural resources, of our money and of our intelligence and brain power. One wonders whether such a mobilisation actually has taken place.

For example, I was asked a question which I was unable to answer. Is it the policy of the Government that members of the Dáil or Seanad should take part in any of the various services? I understand there is a prohibition of members of the Oireachtas being members of the Local Defence Force—because, I take it, that force is part of the national defence force and there is a constitutional bar. Have members of the Dáil or Seanad any particular responsibilities? Will they have any particular rôle to play in the event of war reaching our shores? I am quite unable to answer that question. For example, should a member of this House who is a member of the Local Security Force regard it as a certainty that, in the event of a major crisis, his services will be available for that force and will not be employed in any other manner? I think the question applies to both Houses, and I wonder whether any consideration has been given to it.

If one could go a step further, one could ask what responsibility the members of the Defence Conference have. The answer seems to be that they have no responsibility whatever and, as far as I can discover, no function whatever in a crisis, no control over policy and no knowledge of the whole picture which would enable one to give a decision with regard to definite matters. The whole picture includes not only military matters but Governmental policy here and our Government's relations with foreign Governments. I think it is correct to say that the members of the Defence Conference have not got—either on the diplomatic or the military side—any documented picture of what things are like. No member of the community would object to this country being placed on a war footing if he were sure that at the top there was sound direction and clarity as to where the effort was bringing us and what exactly was being aimed at. But there has been no evidence of any such clear direction or of any such long-term policy. A great deal has been left to voluntary effort with regard to foodstuffs. Quite a long time ago, in April, 1941, we asked for the preparation of a national register. Various arguments were put up against it and may I say, and say quite dispassionately now, that it seems to me that some of the Ministers coming to this House on these various measures such as rationing have been more concerned to make a good case for not being able to make up their minds than to make a case for something they are proposing to do? I think the time for voluntary effort with regard to foodstuffs or anything else of that kind is over. It may be very patriotic for certain citizens to bind themselves to take bread only at particular meals, but the trouble is that good citizens respond to these appeals and the selfish citizens reap the benefits and the poor and lower-paid people eventually suffer. The good citizens I think do not belong to any particular class. They do not belong to the well-off or to the poorer classes, but I think they rather represent a cross section of all classes.

I feel that personal abstinence and the rationing of one's self is desirable, but one has an uncomfortable sense that the benefits that one is working for are not really reaching the poor, but are rather reaching the selfish in every class in the community. The best way in which equality of sacrifice will be achieved is by rationing. I know that in regard to the rationing of bread there are serious difficulties, I know everyone who appears in a bread queue is not necessarily in need, and I know that the people have behaved in an unreasonable way in some cases. But it seems unfair that the burden of a bread shortage should fall on the shopkeepers and their harassed assistants. I have seen assistants worn out and in a pitiable condition owing to the fact that they have had to suffer a barrage of questions and a certain amount of abuse. I think that there should be rationing, and I agree with Senator Douglas when he says that people who can afford alternative food should be satisfied to take less bread. For myself I would be satisfied with a smaller ration of bread than should be given to other people whose staple of life it is. But certainly the queues do show that there is inequitable distribution and on that point may I say to Senator Foran that I think he is not correct in thinking that the people who buy bread off the van are comparatively well off. That applies to my family. We take bread off the van, but we used to take about half of our consumption of bread by way of flour. That is the ordinary war flour and, by the way, baked at home that flour seems to me quite a palatable and a desirable type of food. Now we find that we can only get 80 per cent. of the bread we used to get. That means 40 per cent. of our previous consumption. I understand that that is the case in a great many other places.

There is one other point I would like to make, and that is with regard to education. Senator Goulding, who is often very thoughtful and always, I think, very suggestive, thought that the national spirit was declining and that some effort should be made in the schools to inculcate patriotism. I very much doubt whether it is possible to teach patriotism in the schools. For a number of years, just over 20 years now, we have been in control of education ourselves, and nearly all the patriots of the past, including some who are now represented as great extremists, such as Patrick Pearse, Terence MacSwiney and Thomas MacDonagh, had the notion at one time that it would be worth while to accept almost any kind of Home Rule Bill if we were given control of our own schools. We have got control of our own schools. We have been pursuing a policy the results of which are not satisfactory. More particularly, the results with regard to teaching the Irish language are not satisfactory. I am not deploring the expense of whatever has been done for Irish, but I am rather thinking of the immense amount of labour, energy, and earnestness which teachers and pupils have put into the effort, and there is no doubt whatever the results are unsatisfactory. We have, I think, employed mass production methods with regard to the Irish language and they have been a failure. We have discovered that the driving of a certain amount of Irish, particularly Irish conversation, into the youngsters in the schools does not necessarily make them more Irish, more conscious of nationality or give them a deeper or more abiding love of Ireland. I want to suggest, as I suggested before, that the time has arrived when we should conduct an inquiry, not by impartial people but by people who believe in the revival of the Irish language and who are competent to deal with it, to see whether we have been going too fast in some directions and too slow in others. Undoubtedly the results have not been commensurate with the labours involved. I wonder whether the people of our generation, of my generation, anyway, are not liable to be mistaken in their view that the children now are not like what the children were in our time. They could not be. The situation is radically different and we cannot expect them to feel the same sentiment that we felt when there was a British garrison in Dublin.

Their problems are different and their reaction is different and their patriotism, in so far as it does exist, is healthier than ours. It is the sick man who is always talking about his health, and it is the citizen of an oppressed country who is always talking about his patriotic feelings and his motherland. I was brought up against that problem ten or 11 years ago quite suddenly when a youngster of mine seeing a British soldier in the street, asked: "Cé'n saghas saighdiúr é sin?"—What kind of a soldier is that? It seems a perfectly simple question, but it is not so simple. The answer was: "That is an English soldier," and then the question: "Is he an Irishman," and the answer was: "Yes." What are you going to say? You can, of course, give the long history of what the base, brutal and bloody Saxon has done, but I did not do that and I think hardly anyone who had done constructive work for this country would do it. At all events, it showed me that there was some very serious difference between the children of to-day and the children of our generation. One day my youngster came home from school and asked was there anybody else in the Rising of 1916 except Mr. de Valera. Of course he was aware that there was, but he had just got a lesson on the Rising. It might easily have formed part of Senator Goulding's projected course on patriotism. Probably the man who gave it thought it was patriotic. But that lesson was that Patrick Pearse had been executed after the Rising and that Mr. de Valera had survived. Now that, of course, is not teaching patriotism, but the net result in the case of that particular boy was to give him a distrust of the teacher and a distrust of a great deal of the kind of history that he was being taught. Some people might regard that teaching as quite a normal thing. We had Senator O'Donovan dealing with the question of a National Government in a typical Fianna Fáil way. His attitude was: "Just have a look at us; we are a perfect Government. Fianna Fáil is in and Seán O'Donovan is in the Seanad. What could be more national? Is that not a perfect situation?"

It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Senator O'Donovan should be Minister for Education and think of the kind of patriotic text-book he would prescribe. He might prescribe a recently published journal called the Capuchin Annual which on the frontispiece has Saint Francis and is produced under the name of a great and revered religious Order. A great deal of it is simply propaganda for the Fianna Fáil Party. By the process of selecting and omitting persons and photos, times and topics, it gives a perfect propagandist but very distorted picture. We have to forget all this bias before we can inculcate patriotism, but how can we blame the young for not being patriotic when we have a reverend editor giving such a version of history? It contains an account of the period 1916 to 1921 with one photo of Arthur Griffith, under which is an entirely erroneous description of what he was. There is a photograph of Collins in uniform as Commander-in-Chief of the Saorstát Army—which he was not— and no allusion at all to his being an important person, putting it in its mildest form, in the pre-Truce struggle; a photograph of the minority who voted against the Treaty and no photograph of the majority who voted for it; a photograph of Lord FitzAlan arriving at Dublin Castle to hand over the Castle and no photograph of the people to whom the Castle was handed over. I remember it well. Lord FitzAlan was the first lord I ever met.

There is also, of course, a perfectly fantastic piece of pseudo-history from the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs who was humbugged once, and, after 25 years, returns to prove, apparently, that he may be humbugged again. That kind of thing is what some people think of as patriotism. If it was issued by a Party organisation it would be artistic propaganda, but issued as it is under a religious title, it is in my humble opinion not calculated to further the cause of patriotism; it is simply partisan propaganda creating an inevitable reaction. I am afraid if patriotism were taught in the schools it might consist to a certain degree of that.

Patriotism is not a synthetic product. It is something which must have tradition behind it, which must have a people's life behind it, which must have a natural growth. It may very well be that our young people are more patriotic than we think they are, and I do not think we can make them more patriotic by giving them photographs, even by giving them exhibitions of 1916, even by giving them photographs of de Valera or even by giving them photographs of de Valera and Cosgrave together. Anything that is not going to show that we are able to make a better job of this country than, so far, we have made is not going to awaken any spirit of real patriotism and desire for constructive effort in our young people.

Our young people, I think, have an excellent case against us, the case that we have not made much of the job that we undertook to do. It is very difficult for the men of a certain age of any generation to know what the young people of that generation are thinking. Perhaps our children are more patriotic, and one hopes they will be more constructive, than we have proved to be because, on the whole, I think it is true that we have not solved our problems. I suggest that for all this expenditure we are not getting a proper return because our problems are being faced in a Party and in a fumbling manner, because there is too much of the kind of naive partisanship which Senator O'Donovan, for example, displayed here, and too little attempt made to find out what our resources are in men and materials and to use those resources. I suggest that we would need to face our problems, to forget our records, to forget our pasts, whatever they were, and to concentrate on the ordinary virtues rather than on the sublime virtues of patriotism. I think also that we may very well find that the solution of our problems is on an economic rather than on a military line. If these problems were considered in the proper light and in the proper atmosphere we might save the country from what is going to be a very difficult time.

In this difficult time I think nobody would begrudge doing what he was asked to do. If anybody, a civil servant, university professor or anybody else who has a constant salary, thinks his neighbours are going to be beggared round about him, and his salary and his position are going to remain, he is very foolish indeed. What we lack is direction and properly coordinated effort, and if we got that we could go on to a war footing and nobody in the country would begrudge what he was asked to do if he thought there was a fair deal for everybody, that everything was being used to the best advantage and that there was a chance of pulling through what is undoubtedly going to be the greatest difficulty we ever experienced.

Mr. Counihan

I wish to make a few suggestions to the Minister which, if accepted, will save money and increase revenue. My first proposal is that income-tax on the occupation of land should be abolished.

Mr. Honan

And on business.

Mr. Counihan

It will ensure the saving of money. One of the Minister's predecessors stated in this House some time ago that the amount collected in income-tax from the farmers would not pay the cost of the stationery used in the demand notes. If that statement is correct I cannot see any common sense in persisting in the practice of putting the farmers to all this trouble and, in some cases, considerable expense in settling those demands.

The Minister will probably tell us that the farmers should pay income-tax the same as everybody else. I agree. He may say that if the farmers keep proper accounts they need only pay income-tax on their income. The Minister should understand that the sort of accounts which the farmers keep will not satisfy the inspector of taxes. The inspector of taxes must know what the farmer has for his breakfast, dinner and tea; how many eggs are consumed in the house; how many pounds of butter are used; how many stones of potatoes, and so on. What generally happens is that the farmer when he gets a demand, passes it on to an income-tax recovery agent, who takes the matter up with the inspector of taxes, and the whole tax is wiped out. But the farmer is not cleared of his tax because he has to pay a considerable percentage to the income-tax expert, has wasted a considerable amount of time and has been caused a considerable amount of trouble in trying to square up his accounts. If it is true that the amount of income-tax collected from farmers would not pay the cost of the stationery, I cannot see that there is any commonsense in continuing the practice.

I am not making any complaint against the inspectors of taxes. I have a good deal to do with them and have always found them very courteous and civil. I am sure that if all the Departments of State carried out their work as efficiently as they do we would not have much to complain of in regard to the competency of State Departments. What I am complaining about is the system. I think the system should be scrapped. It would be a great advantage to the farmers if they were relieved of income-tax on the occupation of land. I think the Minister should seriously consider the suggestion.

My other request to the Minister is to call a conference of the representatives of the banks, the farmers, the Land Commission and the Finance Department to consider a scheme which I sent to him which, I believe, would obtain working capital for the farmers at a very low rate of interest. I am not asking the Minister to say right off that he will accept the scheme. What I am asking him to do is to call this conference to consider the scheme. When the conference had considered the matter at a few meetings, they could either recommend or reject the scheme. The expense to the Government would be very little. Rev. Father Lucey, M.A., D.Ph., in a recent lecture, said that a blight had fallen on the land and on the people of the land and the farmers had obtained a raw deal from the Government. Anyone with knowledge of the country knows that these statements are perfectly true. I believe that the cause is mainly economic. Matters could be helped, to a great extent, by a liberal system of credit which farmers cannot obtain now from any source. When depression in agriculture set in after the last war, the banks' standing committee decided to restrict the credit of the farmers. That policy was rigorously carried out by all the banks. It was that policy that created the frozen loans, reduced production and left much of our land derelict. Nevertheless, we could still have carried on as well as any other country, as we had at that time a market for all the goods we could produce and a 10 per cent. preference against our principal competitors in the British market. At the time of greatest depression, it was stated at a League of Nations conference that the Irish Free State was then the most prosperous country in the world. The economic war changed all that.

During some of the years of that war our export of cattle alone was reduced by about £7,000,000 per year. At that time, an export licence for a fat bullock was worth as much as the bullock. Those are some of the causes which left the farmers so badly off for credit and working capital. The Land Act of 1933 was another cause for the banks not accepting land as a security. If the farmers had fixity of tenure, they would be in a much better position to negotiate loans with the banks.

The banks say at present that land is not security for a loan, that the Land Commission can come in and take the land at any time. The prices the Land Commission have been paying for the land up to recently were not very substantial. One case was discussed in the Dáil on a few occasions in which the Land Commission took 200 acres from a widow in County Meath and all she received was £5. Everybody must admit that that was pure confiscation. The banks reckon that the farmers will not pay the loans they receive. What the banks want is some security for their loans and they do not reckon land at present as any security. If we had security of tenure, I am sure it would appreciably assist the farmers in negotiating loans. The scheme which I have sent to the Minister has been well considered. Senator Johnston and I went to a lot of trouble to try to perfect it. We consulted the banks, the Land Commission and the leading politicians. They all admit that it would create the security which it is proposed to create and that it would make the farmer responsible for the paying back of that debt to the Land Commission.

In the old days of the British Government, when annuities were twice the amount they are now, the amount due to the Land Commission was less than £1,000,000. About £4,000,000 was wiped out under the 1933 Act. Nobody in the old days disputed that the farmers would pay the annuities to the Land Commission. One cause of the trouble is the loss sustained during the economic war, which left many farmers with grey heads and sore hearts. The only thing that can be done now is to try to get the farmer into production and to get him back his security—to put him in a position to carry on. Anybody who took up the papers during the past two or three years—the daily papers on Saturday morning or the provincial papers—could see where thousands of acres of land were being offered for sale. If he inquired who bought these lands, he would find that not 3 per cent. of the lands were purchased by genuine farmers. The bulk of the land was purchased by speculators who think that land is the best security they can have. Notwithstanding that, the Government, the banks and the Land Commission do not think that land is an adequate security. I do not blame the banks. The banks have the opinion that the farmer has no right to his land, that it belongs to the Government and that the Government can go to the Land Commission at any time and have it taken over.

Looking at the statistics the other day, I noticed that there were only 4,300 farmers in the State in possession of 200 acres and over, and that there were less than 1,000 sons or relations in this category to "carry on". Would it not be better to do something to get those people who have the farming tradition and instinct on the land instead of wasting so much of the resources of the State in trying to create new farmers?

I strongly recommend the Minister to set up the conference I have suggested. If the proposal is rejected by the conference, no harm will be done and it will cost the Minister nothing. But I think that the proposal is worth consideration. It has been approved of by everybody that Senator Johnston and I consulted. Even the Department of Finance did not turn it down. They say that, possibly, it will do what it proposes to do but that there are some snags in it. Let us get at the snags and have them examined at the conference. If that be done, I shall be quite satisfied even if the scheme be rejected.

Peadar MacFhionnlaoich

Do réir gach tuairisge a gheibhmíd, agus do réir na cainnte do rinneadh annseo an lá fá dheireadh, tá dhá rud riachtanach agus práidhneach sa tír seo fá láthair agus is ceart don Riaghaltas claoidh leo siúd i gcaitheadh an airgid agus an t-airgead do choigilt ar gach rud eile: An chéad rud saoirse na tíre do chosaint i modh is go mbeidhmíd saor le haire thabhairt dár ngnó féin agus an fhéidhm is fearr a bhaint as an talamh agus an t-uisge agus gach cúltaca atá againn in Eirinn. Tá ciall cheannuighthe againn mar théid na ruda seo i ndísg nuair thig siad faoi chumhacht an fhir thall; agus budh cheart dúinn gach uile chúram agus costas do ghlacadh orainn féin gan eachtrannach ar bith do leigint isteach sa tír seo arís. Níl mé ag dearmad go bhfuil roinnt den tír i seilbh an Ghaill go fóill, ach sin ceist eile ar a bhfaghfar leigheas ina am féin. Tuigim go mb'éidir go dteipfeadh orainn an tír do chosaint agus ar ndícheall do dhéanamh má bhriseann an Cogadh Mór isteach orainn ach ní thig linn a dhéanamh ach ár ndícheall. Déanamaís sin.

Maidir le costas agus arm cosanta, níl eolas go leor agamsa le moladh a thabhairt ar cén fhaid is féidir linn dul agus tá mé sásta glacadh le breith an Riaghaltais. Tá eolas aca san, nó budh cheart go mbeadh, agus glacaim lena moladh. Agus sílim gurab é sin tuairim furmhóir muintear na tíre.

An darna rud atá práidhneach, adhbhar beatha do sholáthar dúinn féin, sé sin, do mhuinntir na tíre ar fad; agus caithfimíd dul go dtí préamhacha an scéil. Tig linn bheith cinnte nach féidir dúinn mórán de na rudaíbh atá riachtanach le sinn do chothú d'fhagháil annall thar fairrge an fhaid is tá an cogadh millteanach seo ar siubhal, agus ní fios d'aoinne cé'n fhaid é sin. Mar sin caithfear go leor adhbhar bidh agus teineadh, díon tighe agus éadaigh do bhaint as an talamh no as an uisge in ár dtír féin le nár lámhaibh féin. Sin rud nár thuit amach ariamh le n-ár linne agus ní adhbhar iongantais nach bhfuilimíd ullamh fá n-a choinne. Ach caithfear a dhéanamh anois agus caithfear a dhéanamh gan mhoill; agus má gheibhmíd an t-eolas agus má fhanann an t-eolas sin againn tar éis an Chogaidh Mhóir b'fhéidir gur beag an t-adhbhar gearáin bhéas againn fán chogadh. B'éidir gur gar a dhéanfadh sé dhúinn sa deireadh.

Níl aon amhras ar domhan ná gur féidir gach ní atá riachtanach dúinn do bhaint as an talamh agus an t-uisge, ach iad do shaothrú i gceart, le heolas agus le díograis. Tá tuairim is 21,000,000 acra in ithir na hEireann. Tá tuairim is 3,000,000 díobh sin faoi shíol-chur agus barr—an seachtmhadh cuid. Tá 9,000,000 acra atá intreabhtha agus inchurtha ina luighe bán faoi fhéir—beagnach leath na tíre. Agus tá timceall 8,000,000 acra nach bhfuil intreabhtha nó ionchurtha ach gur féidir toradh mar mhóin agus crainn do bhaint as cuid di. Ina aghaidh sin atá cuid mhór daoine díomhaoine againn nach féidir leo obair d'fhághail nó tuarasdal do shaothrú, agus tá cuid mhór aca ag imtheacht as an tír dá thairbe sin.

Anois nach soiléir, fiú don dall, go bhfuil rud éigin bun-os-cionn annsin. An dá ní sin, an talamh bán agus lucht oibre díomhaoin, níl le déanamh ach iad do chur i mbun a chéile agus bainfear go leor adhbhar bidh agus dighe as ithir na tíre.

Anois ná glacadh aon duine go measaim gur rud simplí soidheánta é seo nó gur fás aon oidhche a bhéas ann. Is iomdha constaic agus ceap thuisle atá sa tslighe ach tá sé in am dúinn tabhairt faoi agus go dearbhtha caithfimíd tabhairt faor má tá an cineadh Gaedheal le mairstin tríd an chogadh seo.

Aineolas, sainnt, nó fallsacht chuid de na feirmeoiribh na constaicí is mó b'éidir atá in ár slighe dár mbacadh ar thoradh do bhaint as an talamh. Níl eolas a gcéirde ag cuid aca; tá cuid aca ró-fhallsa le hobair lae a dhéanamh, agus tá cuid aca ag déanamh slighe bheatha gan saothar ar na buláin ar thalamh bán, agus is cuma leo fán chaillteanas don tír eadar sin agus toradh a féadfaidhe fhághail as an talamh sin. Níl na feirmeóirí uilig mar sin agus níl siad uilig beo bocht. Is maith a ghní an Riaghaltas agus tabhairt ar na feirmeoirí an ceathramhadh cuid ar a laghad, do shaothrú. Ní fiú feirmeoir a thabhairt ar aoinneach nach ndéanann sin. Ins an dúthaigh in ár tógadh mise ní hé an ceathramhadh cuid a shaothruigheadh maoid ach iomlán an talaimh a bhí intreabhtha. Agus ní thiubhrainn deontas ná bríb d'fheirmeoiribh ar son an méid sin don talamh a shaothrú. Gheobhaidh siad a luach saothair as an toradh. Thugamar seilbh na talmhan dóibh nuair do thógamar ó na Tighearnaí Gallda í agus is fiú luach mór anois í mar do gheobhadh duine amach dá dteastóchadh uaidh feirm do cheannach. Ach tá coinghíoll leis an seilbh úd go mbainfear toradh réasúnta as an talamh.

Maidir leis an lucht oibre. Deirtear go bhfuil áiteanna sa tír go bhfuil siad gann agus nach féidir iad d'fhosdú. Ní cóir go mbeadh sé ró-dheacair dóibh obair agus tuarasdal d'fhághail fá láthair. Tá an síol-chur ar cois agus tá obair na mónadh ag tosnú. Ina dhiaidh sin beidh obair an Fhoghmair agus í práidhneach. Beidh seal saoirse agus díomhainis ina dhiaidh sin. Measaim féin go mba cheart don Riaghaltas an bhearna sin do líonadh le hobair phoiblidhe agus go mba cheart dul ar aghaidh le scéim mhór fhoraoiseachta, ag tiormú agus ag briseadh isteach caoráin agus talaimh bháidhte, ní ag nibleáil ar an obair mar atáthar go nuige anois, ach tré scéimeanna móra náisiúnta ar a gcaithfidhe mórán milliún d'airgead a d'aisíocfadh fá dhó é agus a chuirfeadh aghaidh úr ar an tír.

Ins an díospóireacht do bhí againn ag an suidhe deireannach tagradh do mhórán rud nach raibh baint ró-mhór aca le caitheadh an airgid. Creidim go mbeidh mé in órdú freagar a thabhairt ar chuid de na pointíbh do tógadh.

Cathaoirleach

Beidh an Seanadóir in ordú.

Peadar Mac Fhionnlaoich

Tugadh guth ar ár náisiúntacht. Dar leis an Seanadóir Mac Diarmada go bhfuil barraidheacht náisiúntachta ag baint linn. Ní dóigh liom féin gur maith an breitheamh é, ós rud é nach dtuigeann sé cad is náisiúntacht ann, nó gur cuma leis. Níor thuigeas ariamh óna chainnt gur chreid sé i náisiúntacht na hEireann. Is dóighthe gur féidir bheith ró-chumhang fá náisiúntacht ach tá sé de cheart ag náisiún nó cineadh a thír agus a shaoirse do chosaint; diomaoite de sin, is ceart dóibh bheith cáirdeamhail agus cumannach len a gcomhursanaibh. Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil mórán daoine sa tír seo nach n-aontóchadh leis an méid seo.

Labhair cuid mhaith de na cainnteoiribh i bhfábhar athrú Riaghaltais, sé sin, coimh-Riaghaltas do chumadh in a mbeadh teachtaí ó gach páirtí poiliteadhach, na daoine is fearr agus is cliste sa tír do thoghadh do na postanna árda, ach níor dubhradh ag aon duine cé dhéanfadh na daoine seo do phiocadh amach. Ag éisteacht leis an díospóireacht dúinn b'fhuirista thabhairt fá ndeara nach ró-mhaith a tháinig muid le céile ar aon scéal. Abair go raibh duine ó gach dream dínn ina bhall den Riaghaltas, an amhlaidh go dtiocfadh sinn le chéile ar aon scéal nó ar pholasaí an Riaghaltais? Nach é go mbeadhmaois ag troid is ag ciapáil fé seo siúd; agus an amhlaidh go neartochadh sin an Riaghaltas nó an náisiún ins an am róchontabhairteach seo? Nach fearr a bhfad an fhreagaireacht d'fhágáil ar an dream atá i seilbh an Riaghaltais go mbeidh an chontabhairt agus an baoghal thart agus annsin breith do thabhairt ortha Sílim go dtuigeann an dream is láidre atá i bhfreasabhracht sin ó tá siad sásta comhoibriú leis an Riaghaltas insna ruda is dlúithe bhaineas linn gan géilleadh ina dtuairimibh féin i mórán rud eile. Molaim an dearcadh sin má tá an ceart agam.

Tagradh do'n oideachas fosta agus don Ghaedhilg. Mheas an Seanadóir Ó Guilidhe nach bhfuil ag eirighe leis an Ghaedhealachas imeasg na bpáistí de thairbhe nach múintear dóibh i gceart cén bhrí náisiúnta atá leis an teanga. Tá cuid den cheart aige ach ní hé iomlán an scéil é. Níl mórán maitheasa stair na tíre agus cúrsaí náisiúnta nó cursaí poilitidheacha a mhúineadh do naoidhneáin. Do réir mo dhóigh-se ba cheart go mbeadh greim mhaith ag na páistí ar labhairt na Gaedhilge sul a dtuigfidís an stair. Má tá locht ar theagasg na scoileanna is é locht é nach luigheann siad go leor ar an chainnt i scoileanna na naoidneán. Ach sé an laige is mó tá sa scéal nach mbíonn an Ghaedhilg sa bhaile aca nuair a fhágann siad an scoil agus go n-eirigheann siad leamh sa teanga. Tuigimíd-ne, lucht na Gaedhilge, an cás agus táimíd ag glacadh cuid mhaith saothair orainn féin le teacht ar leigheas agus sílim go bhfuil ag eirghe linn do réir a chéile.

Bhí port eile ar siubhal ag an Seanadóir Ó Tighearnaigh, an Leas-Chathaoirleach. Dar leis nach bhfuil aon cheangal eadar náisiúntacht, phoilitideach agus an teanga. Bhí athrú tuairime ag na daoine is mó a mhúin náisiúntacht dúinn ins an am atá thart, abair Tomás Dáibhis agus Pádraig Mac Piarais agus Art Ó Gríobhtha. Thuig siad san agus theagaisg siad gur taca mór don tsaoirse an teanga náisiúnta agus nach fiú mórán saoirse phoilitidheach má tá teanga agus cultúr an eachdráin in uachtar ins an tír. Táimse ar aon intinn leo siúd agus ní aontuighim leis an Seanadóir Ó Tighearnaigh.

Maidir leis na scoileanna bhí cúrsa achrannach, aimhréidh, aineolach, aca le leanstan fiche bliadhain ó shoin nuair do hiarradh ortha an Ghaedhilg do theagasg do gach leanbh, agus gan an Ghaedhilg aca féin, furmhór aca. Rinneadar a ndícheall, agus ní ró-olc d'eirigh leo. Níl mórán adhbhar gearáin againn leis na scoileannaibh fé láthair ach amháin b'éidir leis na hollscoileannaibh.

Mr. Honan

The most important thing now is the production and distribution of food. Judging by the appearance of the country, as one passes along from the South and West of Ireland to Dublin, we have every reason to congratulate the farmers this year on their production. While that is easily visible in many areas, other areas are not so good. It is noticeable that it is in the small farms in particular that the best work is being done. I hope that the efforts of the authorities in compelling those who are not inclined to do their duty will result in adequate supplies for the coming year. I wish to suggest to those in authority that the production and harvesting of food is not in itself sufficient. Adequate provision must be made that the food, when produced and harvested, will be delivered to the mills or their accredited agents. It is well known, and can hardly be denied, that wheat has been fed extensively to animals during this spring. Farmers to whom I have spoken have not denied that, but said they had nothing else. They should have made some provision for the animals as well as for the people and have other cereals, such as oats, rye and barley, for them and so be able to leave the wheat for the people.

I wonder if there is any use in making an appeal, even at this late date, to the farmers to disgorge the surplus wheat they still hold in fear of a shortage, after making reasonable allowance for the needs of their own families, and to hand over to the millers any extra supplies they have at the present time. I am told by the farmers themselves that this would be very considerable. Even an appeal at this late hour may not be out of place for them. They do not seem to realise, and in my opinion Senator Counihan here does not seem to realise, that although occupiers of farms are owners of farms, in an emergency of this kind they can be regarded only as representing the nation and the people as occupiers of this land. The people must be fed, and the people are quite prepared to pay decently for their food, and the farmers are getting very substantial subsidies from the consumers who, in many instances, cannot well afford it; the least the farmers may do—and I am sure the majority of them will—is to see that the food will be produced. I do not know how Senator Counihan can find reasonable room for grousing. I thought at one period that if the farmers got back their markets it would solve all their problems. They have halved land annuities, partial derating, and now the community are taxed very heavily indeed in order to subsidise the farmers in a very large way, and to coax them, as it were, to produce the necessary food. They are in a very advantageous position. The land, after all, is the basic security in this country. You could see towns almost disappear, grand business houses of a few years ago which are now closed up, men who are in employment, through no fault of their own whatsoever, losing employment and becoming beggared; but the land never disappears. It has been the same land for millions of years, it will be there till the end of time; and I think those in possession of such a valuable security as property ought always to be ready and willing to do their duty towards the people of the State. As I said before, I think there is every inclination on their part to do it this time.

I hope the bigger ones will fall in with the efforts being made by the smaller farmers. One suggestion more, in connection with the possibility of food or wheat being fed to animals; I think the small mills which you have at nearly every cross-roads now—small grinding mills—are a mixed blessing. It would be very nice from the point of view of the small farmer to have his wheat ground conveniently, but I think they have given an opportunity to the farmers when they bring in their wheat to use it for their own purposes, if they so desire. I hope the Minister for Agriculture will take some steps to see that a check on those small mills will be kept in future in such a way that wheat, at least, can only be used for human consumption. The extraordinary thing about the situation at the present time is that those who are urbanites and village people and labouring people, and have no possibility of producing for themselves, are complaining that the farmers who produced some wheat still come to the shops and demand flour in the same way as these people demand it. The farmers still are coming to the shops and competing for it with men who had no chance of producing it at all. I think that another appeal in that direction to those who have wheat to conserve it for their own use should be made, and that they should not compete with their less fortunate brethren who had no such opportunity. I would not like to talk about banks; I know very little about them; but what surprises me is that the farmers never think of starting their own bank. Because practically all the money that is in the joint stock banks belongs, I am told, to the farmers. In the last 12 months the amount on deposit in the banks has increased by some £30,000,000 or £35,000,000. That is all farmers' money. Certainly every shopkeeper I know in town or country is losing money at the present time and they are only half stocked; so that the increase in the deposits in the banks must, of necessity, belong to the farmers. All I can do by way of a suggestion to Senator Counihan is that the farmers get together, start their own bank, and regulate their affairs at their own sweet will. Those few suggestions are not offered in any acrimonious way but with the very best intentions that we should co-operate with one another in those very difficult times and try to see that all of us will bear a hand in bringing us through the crisis.

Mr. Campbell

I have no desire to add further to the heavy burden of criticism or suggestions already pressing heavily on the shoulders of the Minister as a result of the many representations made to him by several Senators who have already spoken in this debate. The present Minister for Finance, however, seems to me to be always so imperturbable and saintly-looking on occasions on which he appears here that I think his general attitude gives the impression that he will have regard with the readiness which he always displays to suggestions and will do the best in his power to give effect to them. I think his presence has always the effect of stimulating rather than restricting discussion, hence I would like briefly for a few moments, having regard to the wide scope allowed in this debate, to refer to a few matters which I hope will be considered germane to the Bill before the House. The first matter I would like to refer to is, perhaps, a personal matter—it is the serious situation developing in the newspaper industry in this country. A perilous situation exists not only in the metropolis but throughout the country as a whole. The position at the moment would seem to be that in from three to six months from now, unless the Government comes to the rescue in the meantime and arranges for the allocation of shipping space to bring in newsprint, the country may be without a single newspaper. Notwithstanding reductions in the quantity of paper used, and many restrictions in regard to size already effected, the position will develop in a few months' time that we will not have any newspapers at all, and even if further restrictions in size are made it will only have the effect of staving off the evil day when they will close down altogether. I know that a conference is being held by the newspaper managers and the Department to-day some time, but unfortunately, as in every other aspect of life in this country, the workers are rarely brought in on these discussions, so I do not know what is happening at the conference.

I do know that already the proprietors have called representatives of the various staffs together, and have intimated to them that by the end of June or the first week in July the papers will be closed down altogether and that there will be no further stocks of newsprint available for production. I suppose it is putting it mildly to say that newspaper workers are greatly perturbed at the prospect of the newspapers having to close down for lack of newsprint. Thousands of skilled and relatively well-paid workers enjoy fairly good conditions and are worried by the insecurity of the position.

A feeling of alarm has manifested itself not only in the city but throughout the whole country. As chairman of the printing trade group representing journalists, printers, technicians and administrative staffs of the Dublin newspapers, I know how deeply concerned they all are about this matter. Their work is of such a highly skilled and technical nature, that they would be unfitted for alternative employment even if such employment were available, and we all know it is not. The resultant plight of themselves and their families may be more easily imagined than described, if the worst should come to pass. In addition many others who derive a livelihood from the newspaper industry — newsagents, van drivers, not excluding even the newsboys—would be affected very severely. Indeed the latter would be reduced to a position bordering almost on extreme poverty. The economic consequences arising from the cessation of newspapers in this country is bad in itself but I think, from the national point of view, if the newspapers were to close down it would have a very serious effect on the maintenance of the morale of the people. Some people profess to believe that the country would get on very well without newspapers at all but, I suppose, there is no member of this House who, when he chooses to address some words of wisdom to this Assembly, does not wish to see his name mentioned in the newspapers on the following morning. Some people say that the wireless would be a good substitute for the newspapers, but I venture to express the opinion that 80 per cent. of the people who listen in to the wireless for news at night turn to the newspapers on the following morning for a corroboration of that news. The wireless, in my opinion, could never replace the printed word.

In bringing this matter before the House I know that it is not one in which the Minister himself is directly concerned, but this is a general debate and I am encouraged by the fact that I was associated with the Minister 32 or 33 years ago in the newspaper world. I am sure he can recall our association on the first Sinn Féin daily. Later on, I was associated with him in the production of An Claidheamh Soluis when Padraig Pearse was editor of that paper. Having regard to these facts, I know that I can appeal to the Minister to give sympathetic consideration to this matter. I know he will do whatever he can, having regard to these early associations to which I have referred. Many of the people who would be thrown out of employment as the result of the closing down of the newspapers are constituents of his own and I am sure he has as much regard for his constituents as any Deputy of any other Party. I merely raise the matter in order to give some publicity to it and because I think it would be a disaster from many points of view, economic and national, if the newspapers were to close down. I would appeal to him to use whatever influence he has in order to obtain sufficient shipping space for bringing in newsprint to keep our newspapers going.

In the speech which he has just made, Senator Honan has told us that wheat is being fed to animals. That is one of the reasons why there is no newsprint in this country and why there is not a sufficiency of other raw materials to maintain our industrial life. Naturally all those with whom I am associated in the newspaper industry would agree that the first consideration of any Government is to feed the people, but I think it is nothing short of a tragedy that while an extensive part of our soil remains undeveloped and uncultivated, we have to allocate shipping space to bring in food for our people while necessary raw materials for our industries cannot be brought in. I think that even Senator Counihan will admit that the farmers have some responsibility for that. Senator Honan truly says that the people must be fed. I would appeal to the farmers in this House to realise their responsibilities to the people. They hold their land in trust for the people and they should till that land and make available a sufficiency of food for our people so as to leave shipping space for the other commodities necessary to maintain our industrial life.

Senator Baxter in his very sincere and forthright speech last week covered the whole field of our agricultural economy. He referred to the shortage of labour and deplored the fact that that shortage of labour was likely to have a prejudicial influence when the harvest came to be reaped. I think the Senator urged that no cost should be too great to ensure that our people would have all the food they require. In my opinion there was bound to be a shortage of agricultural labour having regard to the very low wages paid in agriculture. In England the minimum wage payable to an agricultural worker for a 54-hour week is 60/-. The present rate in Northern Ireland varies from 42/- in Armagh to 46/- in other areas. At the moment the Government in Northern Ireland has under consideration a proposal to apply the British rate of 60/- to its agricultural workers. It is no wonder therefore that there is such a shortage of agricultural labour in this State. By a recent order, the Government of Northern Ireland has made provision that all agricultural workers must remain in agriculture and, to enable them to do so, unemployment benefit at the full rate will be payable during a slack period when work will not be available on the land, that is, the farm worker will get a full week's pay whether he is working or not. The fact that in the Twenty-Six Counties there is a shortage of agricultural labour is easily understandable when one recollects that a worker in this country might be able to slip over the Border to seek work in Northern Ireland at a higher rate of wages than we have in this country. I understand that upwards of 60,000 people have left this State during the past 12 months in search of work, and if the drain goes on, there will be a shortage of labour not alone for our agricultural harvest, but also a shortage of labour for turf production.

The Estimates for the next year provide for an expenditure of £9,000,000 to maintain an army to resist any foreign aggressor that may be tempted to invade our shores. I have no complaint against that expenditure and I do not think any member of the House will say that it is an expenditure that should not be incurred. But I think it is equally important that we should maintain an army to make sure that the enemy within our own shores may be resisted and that every precaution will be taken, no matter what the cost may be, as Senator Baxter has said, to see that none of our people shall go hungry during the winter months of the coming year. In that connection, if this State can expend £9,000,000 on an army, I cannot see why it cannot do something in regard to maintaining an army of agricultural workers to make sure that we shall not be attacked by the enemy within our gates. That might be easily done on the lines already adopted in Northern Ireland, by providing that our agricultural labourers shall be eligible for these benefits during the slack period when there is no work on the land and that when it becomes necessary to employ them, they will be in a condition to resume full employment. I thought that the suggestion might commend itself to the Minister because it is just as important that the people should be fed as that they should be protected. On the question of rationing, I do not wish to say very much, because much of what might have been said has been rendered unnecessary by the announcement in to-day's papers that in the month of May a system of rationing will be introduced and every effort made to see that there is equitable distribution of the food and the commodities available. I think that Senator Hayes referred to the burden thrown on shopkeepers dealing in bread in the allocating of the 80 per cent. of bread that was allotted to them. I think that the Government made a profound mistake when Senator Hayes moved a motion for a national register that they did not take steps then.

Much of the misery that has been caused during the past three or four weeks easily could have been avoided. Senator Douglas referred to the matter of people lined up in queues. It was denied, I think, in the Dáil that any such queues were observed, and yet I have seen queues to-day. Senator Douglas said that it was piteous to see anyone standing for hours in a queue. I saw a queue a few days before Senator Douglas spoke in the street in which his premises is. It was a day of torrential rain, in a narrow street, Wexford Street, and there was a burly policeman on duty outside Farrington's, the bakers, and the people were being pushed and queued up. Many of them were women with young children, ill-shod and ill-clad and the buses passing were splashing them with mud. These unfortunate people were out there at 11, and I observed two people in particular who were still there at 1 o'clock. I think Senator Hayes suggested that the people may have got panicky, but Senator Hayes is a city man and he knows the concern the poor have for their families and the straits they will go to see that their dependents are not short of food. Another matter I should like to refer to is the subject of black market operations. To my mind, the Government has not been persistent enough or energetic enough in putting a stop to, and dealing with, the operations on the black market. Admittedly, some prosecutions have been instituted and some people have been sent to prison for charging prices in excess of the prices fixed for certain commodities. I know that difficulties exist in regard to the matter, but whenever these parasites are caught there ought to be no hesitation in dealing with them.

There is no use in sending them, for example, to prison for three or six months. They ought to be given penal servitude for the same number of years. It is no deterrent to send them to prison; it is more of a home, it is more of a rest cure, but if they were sent to penal servitude for the same number of years as they were given months in Mountjoy or other prisons of that kind they might think twice before persisting in this nefarious campaign. I know that in the town of Carlow inside the last fortnight tea was offered at 32/6 per lb. Whether people bought it at that price I cannot say. The price in Dublin, of course, is £1 per lb. The general price in Dundalk I understand is £1 for one lb. of tea. If there are people who can go up to 32/6 per lb. for tea and 10/- for a petrol coupon I suggest to the Minister that he should send his scouts out after these people, and if they have all that money it ought to be collected by way of taxes in some form. These exploiters of the people should receive no consideration. Neither would I allow people to buy on the black market. Already I have suggested to the Minister that he should collect something off the people who can afford to pay 32/6 per lb. for tea, and certainly I would give these people a taste of imprisonment and there would be soon an end put to that traffic. Another matter I would like to refer to, and so long as we sit on these benches I will always refer to this particular grievance, is Emergency Powers Order (No. 83). That Order is the most nefarious piece of legislation ever imposed on the country by the present or any other Administration. Nothing which has been done since the emergency arose has aroused such widespread resentment as this iniquitous measure of legislation by Order. So deep has that resentment become that suggestions and demands for a general strike against it have been made by trade unions which are so bitterly feeling its effects. According as the cost of living rises that clamour is becoming louder. The people are becoming more and more embittered against this Government. I think this Standstill Order No. 83 may ultimately prove the order to quit to the Government.

I think an assurance was given definitely that the Emergency Powers Act when it passed through the Dáil and the Seanad would not be used as Order No. 83 has been used to depress wages or reduce the standard of living. The Order would not have been so bad if it had had the effect of stabilising prices as well as pegging wages, but we all know that the cost of living since the war began has risen over 30 per cent. Prices are constantly rising, and there is no day that passes on which the cost of living to the ordinary man in the street does not go up. The fact that the Minister for Supplies fixes a price is no deterrent to some shopkeepers to fleece their customers, if they believe that they can get away with it, and I am sorry to say due to a large extent to the people, they do get away with it. The customers, particularly the poorer ones, are just being robbed. Emergency Powers Order No. 83 has not prevented the banks from increasing their charges to their customers for keeping their accounts, nor has it been instrumental in pegging the price the consumer must pay for his electricity. We heard it stated that there was a case made by the Electricity Supply Board for the increased cost, but I do not think a case was made sufficient to satisfy the consumers of electricity that the increase was necessary or, at least, that so high an increase was necessary. I do not think there is very much more I have to refer to. Senator MacDermot, I think, referred to the campaign that was instituted by the Irish Times to restrict the consumption of bread for those who were in a position to buy other foods. I think it was suggested that the Minister should be asked for an expression of opinion on the matter.

I, too, would like to ask the Minister for a statement on the matter. I know now that in six weeks' time everybody will be entitled to an equal distribution of the bread available, when the rationing system comes into operation, but in the meantime if the crusade had the whole-hearted sanction and backing of the Government it would be widely supported by public-spirited citizens who would be quite willing to follow the lead. That would benefit the poor who depend so much on bread for their sustenance. An appeal from the Minister would give considerable impetus to that movement and would be invaluable at the present time when the saving of every loaf for those who cannot afford other foods is so imperative.

Senator Tierney, I think, last week made reference to the fact that the people had no use for politicians. I think he said a feeling of that kind was developing in the country and that there was apathy on the part of the people towards Parliament as a whole. I think there is good ground for his statement. I think anybody who frequents public places in Dublin or who mixes with the people feels that there is growing disregard for politicians generally. In buses and in public places the main topic of conversation and criticism is directed towards the Government. When I say the Government I mean every individual party making up the Houses of the Oireachtas. Travelling in buses, I hear most amazing views expressed of Parliamentary institutions as a whole. Personal criticisms do not matter. I suppose everyone in public life has to stand a certain amount of that, but when these criticisms tend to belittle our Parliamentary institutions, that is another matter. In that connection, I saw a sketch last week in one of our theatres. It was very funny and very innocent in its way, depicting a day in the life of a T.D. It was very funny, of course, but the subtle motif underlying the whole thing was to deride Parliamentary institutions as a whole. They depicted every member of Parliament as a glorified gombeen-man, an idler, one fond of the bed and, by the gestures of the person who was playing the part of the T.D., it was suggested that he was very susceptible to graft. That sketch was received with tumultuous applause.

Notwithstanding that Parliament may have produced a few buffoons, in the main I think the representatives of this House and the other House could compare with the representatives in any other Parliament in the world as far as their personal integrity is concerned. I do find that there is developing a contempt for Parliamentary institutions and I think Senator Tierney was right in drawing the attention of the House to that development. I do not know what the cause of it is, but I think the first steps towards dictatorship make the people discontented with Parliament and cause them to give expression to the desire that Parliament should be abolished and that other individuals should take over power. I mention that because the Government in its exercise of the censorship, from what I can see, cut out things that appear to me to be innocent, concerned with our internal life here when it would be much more important that every effort should be made, both inside Parliament and outside, to engender a respect for our Parliamentary institutions. Otherwise I think there will happen in this country what has happened in Germany, Italy, and other totalitarian States.

Senator Foran referred to the very considerable hardships endured by the poor people of this city, especially during the winter months. God has been very good to us in giving us the weather we had during that period and I think the people's sufferings might have been very much more severe were it not for that fact. I do not wish to detract from the achievements of the present Government. Senator O'Donovan referred last week to the fact that one never sees a child without boots now, and Senator Mrs. Concannon shortly afterwards asked that the Government should provide boots for children to enable them to go to school. I do not wish to make any point about that. What Senator O'Donovan says is correct. There has been very considerable improvement in the standard of living of our people. One does not see barefooted children now to the extent one saw them 20 years ago. I do not say that this Administration should get all the credit for that. The Administration that preceded it deserves some credit in that respect too, and the efforts of the organised workers have forced an improvement in their conditions.

However, if Senator O'Donovan has any free time, we can bring him to localities where young children are in rags most of the time. I will not say they have no boots, but they have makeshifts of boots. I saw all sorts of contrivances during the past winter on children living in the area I know best, the Sundrive Road area. Considerable improvement has been effected and I do not want to decry or belittle the efforts made by every Administration, but it is wrong to suggest that the working-classes are in a position of opulence at the present time. The last Great War produced a new rich in the world. I am afraid this war is going to produce a new poor. The poor are becoming poorer and the middle-class are becoming poor. I notice people who in 1938 looked fairly comfortable, and lived in tolerably good middle-class houses, who are becoming shabbier every day. I know many of them are looking for cheaper houses, and it is not easy to get such houses. This war is having a serious effect on that class, and they are the type of people of whom I spoke earlier on in this debate when I referred to newspaper workers. The middle-class people are being depressed now to an upper section of the poorer class. None of us wants that to happen. We all want to lift up, if possible. I suppose that is inevitable but, at least, the Government should make every effort to curtail expenditure wherever possible. I do not want expenditure curtailed on essential services, such as the Army, or the provision of food for our people, but there is a lot of money squandered in this State as in every other State, and it would pay the Government to try to effect some economies. With the general purpose of this Bill I am in approval, that is, the expenditure of money on essential services for the maintenance of our life during this period of emergency.

Mr. MacCabe

The matter that I wish to stress this evening was fully dealt with, I think, by Senator Hogan on the last occasion. It is the matter of the drainage of boglands, and the making of passages and roadways to the bogs. Last year the people in the country were told to encourage the production of fuel, that everything would be arranged so far as the drainage of virgin bogs was concerned, and that roads to the bogs were about to be made. The people got together and tried to encourage the people who live convenient to the bogs to go on with the work. They did wholeheartedly carry out that work under great difficulties. The bogs were not drained. A certain amount of allowance was made for that for the reason that it was new work, but the people thought that this spring an improvement would be effected in drainage. They hoped that the roads would be made passable so that turf could be removed from the bogs. There were several men prepared to do the work if they were employed. The bogs were not drained and the passes were not made. We have now reached the end of March and nothing has been done in several areas in the matter of draining bogs.

So far as the unemployed are concerned no work on the roads has been done. I know one particular case where there are over 250,000 tons of turf, and they were promised by the county surveyor of the county that this road, which was bad, would be made safe for them by the time the turf would be won; and I saw myself where the county surveyor made three applications here to the Board of Works, and still nothing has been done. The county surveyor did his work, and he could prove that he did it by the copies of the letters; but nothing has been done since. I cannot understand this business where you are asked to see the county surveyor in the first instance in connection with this work, and the county surveyor sends you here to the Board of Works, and the Board of Works sends you back to the county surveyor, and you are a fool between the two parties until the year is out and nothing has been done. I am sure the Government does not expect that the people should go in and do this work themselves. Take, for instance, 30 or 40 acres of good bog and perhaps a mile and a half of drainage and a mile and a half of road to be made. You do not expect individuals who own portion of the bog to be able to afford or to spend their time carrying out this work. On the other hand you have a number of unemployed quite convenient to the bog, but because they live in a certain electoral division they cannot get employment in that area on any scheme because there is not a sufficient number in the area where the bog is located. They simply go along drawing the dole every week, while they would be proud and delighted to get work, but they are not getting the work which is very much wanted. Senator Counihan referred to the question of the banks, and loans to farmers, and some other Senators did not agree with his remarks. It is over 12 months ago since that matter came up here before and was discussed by a number of members; and I agree with Senator Counihan that the farmers are entitled to get credit at a cheap rate.

In the last war, and immediately after the last war, a number of farmers, unfortunately, went about buying land at a very exorbitant price; it was only a matter of getting the land no matter what the price, and they were sure of getting the money from the bank. A few years after, the land depreciated and depression set in in everything the farmers had to sell, with the result that not only was he unable to pay the principal, but he was not able to pay the interest on the borrowed money, and he still is in that position. After all, the farm is a gilt-edged security so far as this nation is concerned, and I think it would not be too much to ask the banks to try to accommodate the farmers in the present crisis in order that they should be able to hold on to their occupation and restock their farms. A Senator made the remark here that it was the farmers had the money in the banks. I do not agree with that. There may be a number of well-to-do large farmers who have money in the bank, but the middle-class farmers have no money in the bank and cannot get money out of the bank. What I want to stress is that during the last three or four months there was a very high price for farm horses and high prices for cows and all classes of cattle. The farmer was not in a position to carry on; he had no credit. The result was that he sold off his good horse and his best cows and now he cannot replace them because he has no credit, and that is a bad position for the farming community. The most important matter, to my mind, is the black market. I quite agree with every word that the last speaker who referred to it said. There are poor unfortunate people, not only in the cities and towns but down the country, who are not able even to get the legal share of the tea they are entitled to, and have to go without it for days, but the man who can afford to pay for the tea can get tea at from £1 to 25/- per pound. It often strikes me that there should be more civic spirit in the people; if the people will not report these matters, there should be some form of detection and it should be made known to the public that this thing will not be allowed to be carried on in this country. Everyone is condemning it, and it is making thieves and robbers of a great number of people. The people who are dealing in this smuggling business are prepared to pay any price so long as they get what they want.

I would suggest that it would be very good work for our detectives and that everybody might act as a detective in order to bring these people to a sense of their wrong-doing. It should be made clear to them that we are not going to stand for conduct of that kind and that every citizen is entitled to a fair share of such commodities as are available, especially during the emergency.

Mr. E. Lynch

With my colleague Senator Campbell, I feel that the Minister seems to enjoy a day in this Chamber discussing a Bill of this character. In fact, he has often assured us that he does enjoy this general debate, but looking at his attitude from our standpoint, we often wonder whether the Minister is not thinking that we are merely bombinating in vacuo, from the amount of value which we ultimately get from the suggestions we put forward here from time to time. The debate on this Bill during the last few days has left an impression on my mind that a serious state of affairs is eventuating in this country from the economic standpoint. Many matters have been raised here with varying degrees of intensity, from patriotism to bog roads, but nevertheless the kernel of the debate, its serious aspect, has ranged round the economic life of the country and round the question whether that economic life is going to be seriously jeopardised by the events of the future. The remarks which have been made by Senators Hayes, Tierney, Foran and Campbell have stressed that aspect most seriously. I subscribe in toto to the views they have expressed when speaking in regard to economic affairs.

The impression which has been left in my mind as the result of the debate is that we can find no relief from increasing taxation for our developing economic ills. We find that the taxpayers are becoming more and more incapable of providing the taxes to finance a remedy to meet these developing economic ills. Nobody can suggest that rationing in itself is going to be the remedy for these economic ills. Neither will industry, as it is conducted to-day, produce the initiative and enterprise capable of meeting this newly developing situation. We are therefore forced to view the economic life of the country and its industries from some new standpoint. The other speakers, whom I have named, adumbrated something in that regard when they said that some new remedy was essential.

While they did not develop that viewpoint, it seemed to me that they were nevertheless indicating that the State itself was the only authority which could step into the breach and bring about a surcease of these economic ills, and that a new economic programme was essential if we would overcome those difficulties. That new economic programme is necessitated by the conditions now pressing on this country owing to the war situation.

It has been pointed out here on more than one occasion in the past, that the country was being driven more and more into the position of a beleaguered garrison. That seems to me to be a correct comparison to make. That being so, some new economic method of dealing with the ills, which have been mentioned, is necessary if the country is to live and sustain its citizens on some reasonable standard. The figures for unemployment might be generally taken as an indication of the prosperity, or otherwise, of industry, because if the numbers of the unemployed increase and the numbers of employed decrease, it shows that industry is not in a very satisfactory condition. Looking at the figures presented to us in the Estimate it would seem as if the figures for unemployment, taken in conjunction with the conditions mentioned by other speakers, did not present an accurate description of the situation. It must be said that those unemployment figures would be considerably greater were it not for the fact that Great Britain's industries have provided an escape for some of our workers. Our own Army and the Labour Corps have also provided escapes, and also some other workers have gone into uninsurable employment. Therefore, the figures are not an exact reflex of the position and of the general condition of poverty which is developing.

Senator Campbell referred to new sections of the community being depressed to the ranks of the workers and of ordinary workers being further depressed to a complete state of poverty. That is one of the most serious aspects of our conditions to-day. These new sections which are being driven down have not the advantage of State funds. When they are ruined by conditions over which they have no control, they are in a considerably worse position than those of a lesser economic status.

Mention has been made of the small shopkeeper stratum and one can imagine the position of that numerically large section of the community deprived as it is of the vending of goods weekly, out of which they sustain themselves. These people are responsible for rates and other charges and are now unable to meet them. The loss of petrol will affect a large number of small garage owners whose small capital was sunk in those garages and who are now plunged into economic distress. Where in the Estimates is any means provided to sustain such people?

The question of tyres is a serious one. The number of tyres available is daily becoming less and less. Let me ask the Minister what is being done in regard to the control of such tyres. We may have but a limited supply of petrol, but if there are no tyres for the vehicles the question of not having petrol does not arise. Are the tyres being controlled? We know that they are being converted to other purposes day after day. Can the Minister give us any information as to what is being done to see that tyres are not unduly destroyed? Where they are being converted to other purposes, is anything being done to see that lorry owners are being charged proper prices for those converted goods they are receiving? These are vital questions, which go to the heart of industry. They are key commodities and if one of them should break down the entire industry must break down, with its consequent unemployment for the ordinary wage earner and other sections of the industry—clerical, administrative and otherwise—right up to the very owners.

A lot has been said on the question of wheat. From information which we are given from day to day in the Press, it would seem that there is a fairly large gap between the amount of wheat produced last year and the amount which will be required, and apparently that gap cannot be filled by the importation of wheat nor by the production of wheat from native sources. Where this question is left to the private initiative of the farmer and no other effort is made to get wheat, it seems to me a policy that is fatuous and ineffective and one which will not obtain this essential product to carry us over from year to year. One does not desire to advocate compulsion of any kind. We have had various kinds of compulsion applied to this nation in the past, and it is a reprehensible thing. Where we are reaching dire straits, however, in regard to food, the State is the only authority which can secure the requirements of the people in wheat; and it is not by appeals to farmers or by exciting their cupidity but by the direct method of going in on unused land and bringing unemployed labour and capital together that we will get over the difficulty. Farmers may or may not respond to appeals. I have heard of cases where they have complied with the Tillage Order by breaking up land but they put down grass seeds. The whole question of wheat—like that of industry generally —will require direct State interference to see that the quantum necessary is secured. As far as I can see, no other method can be used and the methods tried up to the present have failed.

I notice the very small amount of £16,700 allocated to Fisheries. That is a striking commentary on an island people who have neglected to secure the marine harvest for our essential needs. Fish come plentifully to our shores annually and are found in fair abundance all the year round. Here again this nibbling policy of the State, in endeavouring to get the small fishing men throughout the country to bring in fish, is so lamentably weak and incapable that fish—where it can be procured at all—is an exorbitant price at present. That requires the State, as the only authority capable of providing the capital necessary to fishing off our coasts, to secure this food, which can be cured and seasoned and kept in reserve for the future.

Another food of a most stable character was referred to by Senator Baxter last week. It was rather alarming to hear him state that he and his farming colleagues were unable to keep potatoes in the pits as they were rotting, and that they would have to dispose of them. In the absence of sufficient wheat, with the large gap of 100,000 tons to be breached, potatoes are the staple diet. If the farming community must dispose of them because they are rotting in the pits at this time of the year, it seems to me that the wheat gap will be accompanied by a potato gap, and in the absence of these two items of diet our position will be extremely serious.

Again, in what way may the farmer be sustained to hold such a crop? It seems to me that the Government will have to guarantee the price to him. We have discussed the question of guaranteed prices in this Chamber before—I think on this Bill—but nothing has been done in regard to it, although it has proved to work excelently in practice in other countries. If the farmers were guaranteed a price for growing potatoes, the potatoes might be taken off them when they were grown and stored satisfactorily in large quantities by the State, which is the only authority that can do so.

Those are some of the major economic difficulties of the country, and, in my opinion, it is only by the direct intervention of the State that a remedy can be provided. The more you increase taxation the more you make it difficult for employers to carry on without increasing unemployment. It has been suggested that a remedy may be found by establishing a National Government. I cannot subscribe to that view, as I see no remedy whatsoever in a National Government. If I understand the term at all, it means a Government composed of individuals drawn from the several political Parties. In my opinion, that would make confusion worse confounded. At all events, there is some homogeneity in a Party Government but where that Government is infused by some other elements, it is calculated to bring in Bedlam instead of the united views expressed by Party Government to-day. National Governments have been tried before in many countries and at many times, and they have failed. Cromwell himself was a National Government, as everybody knows.

Professor Johnston

I am not so sure. That is not good history.

Mr. Lynch

We all know that Oliver Cromwell, after the revolution was over, during the 11 years of a Commonwealth, tried several Parliaments and they all failed, and he had to revert to Oliver Cromwell eventually. Then came the development of the Parliamentary system in England. Look at France; Louis XIV was a National Government. He said: "After me the deluge," and the deluge occurred. France has had 14 or 15 Constitutions since the revolution; she also had a directory the three Consuls, the first Consul and the Emperor. From all these changes it will be seen that a National Government, though it may be an excellent slogan, in the face of economic difficulty, provides no solution whatever for those difficulties. It is no more than altering the label on the jar and leaving the contents the same. If the criticisms made in this House or elsewhere are substantiated by events, and if the present Party Government faces those difficulties seriously, it will find the country quite capable of responding and agreeing to any effort necessary to overcome those difficulties. If the Government goes forward, takes —as I am sure it does, though it is not always evident—a serious view of the difficulties as they are and as they are bound to grow as a result of the war, if it takes its courage in its hands, revises the economic order or basis of our industrial life and the financial system which has grown up out of that life and makes both of them conform to what is necessary to-day, then there is no reason why we should not surmount those difficulties.

A motion was moved in the Dáil in December, 1940, in relation to unemployment and the Government took that motion to itself and made it its own. They decided to set up a commission to inquire into unemployment, but from December 12 months ago we have had no information whatsoever as to what that commission was doing—if it was set up at all. There will be an opportunity to debate that again, as a similar motion is at present on the Order Paper of the Dáil. Instead of making a mere inquiry into unemployment per se, the Government should make an inquiry into the economic conditions of the country, as disclosed in debates here and in the other Chamber. If it does that, it will not require a National Government. The present Government should get the aid of men who are seriously concerned about present conditions in this country and who are prepared to put their time and ability at the disposal of the Government, to find ways and means out of the present impasse.

Mr. Kehoe

I rise here with mingled feelings and will not keep the Assembly long as my first impulse is one of pity for the multitude in general. The debate ranged from China to Peru, as is the custom on this particular motion, and consisted of a melange of tirades and jeremiads which, if they had the crowning merit of brevity, might have been tolerated. Mine will be short. Senator Tierney, when opening the debate on the last occasion, adverted with his usual acumen to the issues at stake and commented tersely on the need for a National Government. Several Senators followed in that strain. The question of a National Government has been very ably dealt with by the last Senator who spoke and I could not improve on his efforts, but there is a particular snag about a National Government.

A statement was recently made—in the Engineers' Hall or elsewhere—by the Leader of the present Opposition in the Dáil, in which he remarked rather caustically that the principal objection to the founding of a National Government was the existence of the Head of the present Government. I suggest that that outweighs the argument for a National Government. The leader of those responsible for introducing the subject here is so dead against it that it can scarcely be followed any further. When commenting on the last occasion on the necessity for a National Government and its excellence from certain points of view, Senator Tierney referred to the growth of expenditure and the tendency prevalent amongst countrymen to come into the city. He said it was about time for the city to go to the country, and that the present state of things could not be tolerated much longer, as it would have an unhappy ending. That may or may not be true. How is it to be stopped? I would suggest that, were it not for the influx of country people into the city, the city would be in a very bad way. There is, undoubtedly, migration from the country to the city which, perhaps, the country can ill spare, but I think it is a sort of blood transfusion of which the city is very badly in need. I cannot see how the growth of Dublin can be stopped. Coming up in the train, one finds Dublin beginning at Bray, with a vast network of suburbs from that on. However vast this congerie of suburbs may grow, I do not see how it can be stopped. It may be through the survival of the fittest, but I do not think it can be stopped, however one may wish it from the academic point of view.

Senator Sir John Keane then adumbrated those peculiar views of his own about the Hierarchy and dancing. The Hierarchy are well able to take care of themselves—surprisingly so—and the Senator might have left that hedgehog alone. If they did not condemn dancing and the multiplication of betting shops, as the Senator would have liked them to have done, they have done so on very many occasions. The Hierarchy only deals with abuses, and not the use in moderation of such things as dancing. Everyone knows from the papers how these commercial dance halls are rotting the spiritual and material life of the nation, and must be at one with their lordships.

Perhaps the Senator's new-found enthuiasm is that of a neophyte, or perhaps he was, like Butler's Hudibras, apt to "compound for sins he's most inclined to, by damning those he's got no mind to". So far as betting shops are concerned, whilst they are evil to a certain extent, one can sympathise with the honest sons of toil whose only thrills are waiting to see what will win the 2.30.

Senator MacDermot called for strong and far-seeing leadership and he deprecated the outbursts of intolerance and bigotry which he said we were meeting with every day. He alluded to the way we were failing to meet the crisis of the present situation, but after all there are crises arising all over the world in other nations which are more blessed with worldly pomp and the panoply of arms and they find it exceedingly difficult to meet the situation. We must forgive ourselves if we cannot meet the situation to the extent we might otherwise do so, considering that our betters have failed to stand up to their responsibility. Senator O'Donovan animadverted on some of the things that Senator MacDermot had said. For once I would not hold with Senator O'Donovan because, after all, Senator MacDermot is an addition to this House in certain ways. The Senator speaks in Chesterfieldian periods, but he forgets that he does not live in the Chesterfieldian period. The Senator is that most lamentable object, a political anachronism, and as such I suggest we should not be too hard on him. Senator McGee said that the Government had not treated the Irish farmer well. I suggest the Government has treated the Irish farmer well, not perhaps as well as he should be treated. None of us is treated as well as we should be, but when one is speaking of a Government, talking of their shortcomings and failures and the way they will not face up to the emergency, one has to consider that this is the Government which passed the Conditions of Employment Act and rescued the railways from the condition in which they were.

It is the Government that turned the ranches to wheat growing, and preached the policy of self-sufficiency once scorned and sneered at by everybody, but now admitted to be the sheet anchor of the country's security. One would think that the Government had never done anything to print its name indelibly on the politics of this country. Criticism is legitimate, but let it take account of what has been done. On behalf of all politicians, if I may speak for the politicians of all Parties, I would like to say that raving and ranting criticism of politicians is in terribly bad taste. People speak sneeringly of politicians, forget that politics is the science of government, and those who lead in this criticism of politicians are the very first to run after politicians to induce them to work for them. Senator Counihan spoke of the banks' interest and of the merits of inflation. I would ask the Senator not to speak about the banks and inflation in the presence of Senator Sir John Keane. I recollect that Senator Sir John Keane bristled at the mere term "inflation". There was a famous cartoonist named Bateman in one of the English papers and he revelled in caricature and in giving the most drastic angle to his caricatures. One of his most famous cartoons was the cartoon of the guardsman who dropped his rifle, and in it you could see colonels, adjutants and other officers all looking aghast at the efforts of the private guardsman who had dropped his rifle. Anything more like the guardsman and the sensation caused by his dropping his rifle I never saw than Sir John Keane when the term "inflation" was mentioned. I would counsel Senators to eschew the terms inflation and the banks in speaking in Sir John Keane's presence. Otherwise I suggest someone might collapse from hypertension of the arteries, and we would not like anything like that to happen in a respectable House like this. Senator Counihan's remarks were much to the point, but they were too much of a jeremiad for my taste. He was speaking perhaps for the farmers of County Meath or County Dublin, but I can tell him that there is no jeremiad among the farmers in the county I come from.

I know farmers who have extricated themselves from the clutches of the bank by the proceeds of the sale of wheat this year and the year before. Down there in County Wexford we grew exactly twice as much wheat last year as we needed for ourselves although already engaged in specialised tillage. I have no tears to spare for the ranchers of Dublin or Meath or elsewhere. There are men up there who would not grow wheat if they got 60/- a barrel for it. They would not grow wheat to oblige the present Government or any other Government. They would rather starve under the imperialist régime than prosper under a native régime. That mentality is at the core of their attitude and compulsion should be used against these people. Day after day we read of farms of 300 and 400 acres on which there is very little tillage. Certainly there was a case last year of a farm of 400 acres on which there was only ten acres tillage. That sort of thing cannot go on. I would like to refer to some more items which the Minister might bring to the notice of his colleagues. Senator Hogan spoke last week about the censorship and he adduced a very ludicrous example of how the censorship worked. He instanced the example of speaking over the radio apparently for schoolchildren about Kickham's ballads. There was a very careful camouflage by which the word "English" was changed into "foreign". That opens a very wide vista. If one were inclined to be jocular one might suggest that Boulavogue should be bowdlerised a good deal. O'Donnell Abu, I suggest, could hardly be passed. I would put it to the Minister that he should see that those in charge of broadcasting, while they may be as drastic as necessary, should not act foolishly and should at least keep their hands off Kickham. I think that the censorship could be devoted to stemming the onrush from the cesspool beyond the Channel. There are books coming into the country that are not fit for anyone to read. They are making their way into the public libraries which have their branches in every town in the country. The men who operate the censorship are doing their best but the censorship department in Dublin is greatly handicapped by lack of funds. I believe they have some ridiculously low figure of £25 to work on.

Firebrand poetry and firebrand oratory, after all, let us admit, put this House where it is, laid the foundations of the society we live in and are responsible for the entry of most of the legislators of this House into public life. Let us not forget that. I think the censorship, at any rate, should devote itself more to stemming the rush of that noisome type of immorality and filth which comes across the Channel, not saying that we could not provide some of it ourselves, but let them not be fatuous and let them keep their hands off Kickham and his ilk who did their work in their own time to lay the foundations of our present institution. I think that statement is unchallengeable.

In this connection I was sorry to hear an attack made by Senator Hayes on a publication issued this year. I have not examined the publication in detail but an Order responsible for a publication which stands out for design, lithograph, and patriotism of the purest kind, sponsored by men who have given yeoman service to Ireland, should not be attacked in the terms in which Senator Hayes attacked it. I was surprised because, generally speaking, Senator Hayes, whilst he always has a knuckle-duster in the glove, uses it with tact. His tact deserted him sadly on the present occasion. I would like to dissociate myself in every way and to dissociate those on this side of the House from that attack. I think it is the height of bad taste.

With regard to Forestry, I notice the appropriation is down by £3,000. The Civic Guard appropriation is up. I suppose the two things are not correlated. I would ask the Minister to appeal to his colleagues to do something to stop the wholesale spoliation of the countryside and to be careful that those who get permits to fell timber do not spoil the countryside. The poor must be warmed and fed, but there are tons of timber that could be taken out without detriment to the countryside and it is not being done. I know of rows of ditches where 30 to 40 trees were growing. When I go through the country now I am reminded of broken teeth in a dead man's face. It is a scandal that permits should be given for wholesale spoliation. Someone should be sent from the Department to see what timber can be taken away without detriment to the scenic amenities of the country. People do not like to come up against their neighbours. The spoiling of trees and the grinding down of wheat are due to want of civic sense. People do not like to do Paul Pry and are, therefore, handicapped, but the servants of the State, the Civic Guards, presumably have time to look to that and should be asked to do it.

In connection with the Vote for the Gárda Síochána one thing strikes me. Reference has been made in this House to the slackening of discipline. Senator Campbell has spoken on that. There is slackening of discipline and slackening of respect for Parliamentary institutions. That is part, of course, of the big onrush of radical and liberal ideas all through the world. It commenced in the last war and, unfortunately, is being increased in the present war. There is a slackening of parental discipline and hordes of children go through the streets of our towns at night. It should be checked.

I will give the Minister a very simple remedy for conveyance to the Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána. I think the old patrol system which was adopted by the Royal Irish Constabulary should be adopted and enforced. I do not suggest that the Gárda Síochána have too much time on their hands. Far from it, but I do not think they have a bad time. I think the old system of patrols day and night, hourly, daily, and weekly, even if they never discovered any discrepancy or neglect, well repaid the trouble. That work would result in greater effort by the citizens. The youth of the day are running out of hand. I make due allowance for boyish and sportive impulse. That slackening of discipline is reflected in the conduct of the adults and in turn begets the increasing disregard for Parliamentary institutions to which Senator Campbell referred. Lay the axe to the root. Get the old patrols going again and see that the youth are brought under some semblance of discipline. That will improve the civic sense of the people.

It is customary, of course, in this Bill to range from China to Peru. I am sure everyone who has contributed to the debate meant well, but at the same time it is a little disheartening when, after all these years of a Government which has done its own part to ameliorate the woes and distresses of the common people, no cognisance is taken of that. I think that should be recognised, whilst at the same time reserving all criticism necessary to keep them up to scratch. One speaks of a National Government and one speaks airily of this, that and the other, but the truth of the matter is that, while people are apathetic about politics simply and solely because there does not happen to be a general election next week, and they may be tired temporarily of politics, if any occasion arose on which it was necessary for the people to assert themselves, I, who pride myself on a certain political prescience, would not have the least doubt of what the result would be. Not the least doubt. I think that the Government of the day, whilst far from being perfect, act fairly in every way. Senator Hayes mentioned one of his own children who asked was there no one in the country but de Valera. I do not know whether that remark was in the best of taste either. I am not an arbiter of taste but I have my own feelings on the matter and I think it would have been better not to have made any comment on a personality who, whatever his merits or demerits may be, has at least acted as a rallying point and a focus for the nation. That is my own humble opinion. Without going into history, I may say that it was my privilege to be a personal friend of the late Arthur Griffith, a very great man—beannacht De le n-a anam. I asked him on one occasion his opinion of the present Taoiseach. It may be interesting or it may not. I give it as I got it. He praised him wholeheartedly to me and said: "This is a young man, a coming man, a man of most extraordinary political prescience and he will lead Ireland well." Those were Griffith's remarks to me, and I do not think he can be disowned by anyone in this House. With your permission, Sir, I will read a short paragraph. This is relevant to what Senator Hayes said about Mr. de Valera and the present Government:—

"Once again Mr. de Valera has delivered a superb statement on what is, from one viewpoint, an aspect of our foreign relations. His comment on the landing of American troops in the Six Counties was just exactly what was needed, and it exploited to the full an unparalleled opportunity for having our attitude and outlook studied in the quarters in which it is of greatest importance that it should be understood. We gladly hand it to Mr. de Valera for his policy on external affairs. So well has he served the country in the international field during the last 31 months that we are prepared to forgive him for all the gross blunders he made 20 or 21 years ago... There is a consistency and completeness about Mr. de Valera's addresses on external relations which seem to us to indicate that he plays an exceptionally big part in deciding at every point what it is best for us to do so that we may keep our feet on the narrow and difficult path of neutrality to the end of the war. Anyhow it is certain that he must get full personal credit for saying on all occasions everything that ought to be said and saying no more. Only when we realise that in international relations, particularly in a situation like ours, speech is action, can the value of Mr. de Valera's work since the start of the war be seen in perspective."

That paragraph is taken from a journal controlled by one of the greatest Finance Ministers in the last Government, by whom the notes were probably written.

Mr. Cummins

Some weeks ago, we had a debate relative to the two lines of defence which the nation was taking relative to its policy of neutrality. In this Central Fund Bill, a very large sum is devoted to one side of defence— the physical side. I do not complain of that. I do not think that the cost is exorbitant, though I should like to express the hope that the money will be judiciously administered. There is, however, a feeling amongst a great many people that the amount of the moneys appropriated for that purpose and those appropriated for food production are out of all proportion. I admit that substantial help is being given to farmers in the way of guaranteed prices for many of their crops. I would be in favour of extending those guarantees, but there is a section of the rural community who seem to be past all hope, the section which is actually engaged in production of the goods—the rural workers and the small farmers. As I stated before in this House, approximately 50 per cent. of the farmers employ no labour but do the work themselves. Those farmers, representing 50 per cent. of the whole, are as much in need of help as the employed workers—the men of no property. Why do I say they are without hope? We were told by the Minister for Agriculture that the question of wages— which is the life string of rural workers —was being discussed by the Wages Board. We had hoped that some good would result from that, but what do we find? That the Wages Board has increased the wages of the workers by 3/-. In the greater part of the country, the present wage is from 30/- to 31/-. The Wages Board has given an increase of, approximately, 10 per cent. The increase in the cost of living is very much higher than 10 per cent. and the least the Wages Board could have done would be to keep wages in line, to some extent, with the cost of living. In Great Britain that has been done. The cost of living there has gone up by 29 per cent., and wages have gone up by 25 per cent. or 26 per cent. Wages there are only keeping pace with the general cost of living. The wages of rural workers there have gone up from 52/- to 60/-.

I believe that, with the cost of living as it is, a wage of 60/- or its equivalent in some way, would not be too much for the rural workers here if they are to be kept on the land. The position of the 50 per cent. of farmers who employ no labour and who, in many cases, have large families is very grave and should be inquired into. The other day there was given to me a rather remarkable document relating to the County Kildare where, incidentally, the Government have turned down the proposal of the board of health regarding the wages they were prepared to give to a certain section of their workers. The increase proposed was very moderate, having regard to the increase in the cost of living. This document was prepared at the request of the board of health by the county medical officer of health, the home assistance officer and the tuberculosis officer. They gave a rather remarkable table, setting forth the cost of providing the mere articles of food necessary for the sustenance of life—not for health. These figures were agreed to by those three authorities after consulting every source of information which it was necessary to consult. In giving home assistance, which is the casual relief distributed at the mercy, or with the good will, of the home assistance officer, these people laid down that a single person requires for mere sustenance a minimum of 9/-, a man and wife, 13/-; a man, wife and child, 15/-; a man, wife and four children, 19/-. That takes no cognisance of rent or rates or provision for clothing or school expenses. It represents merely the sum necessary to sustain life pending employment by the parent.

If we take those figures in conjunction with the wages increase granted by the Wages Board, we find that, roughly, a £1 a week would be the minimum required for food, leaving 13/- for clothing, fuel, light, heat, and other household essentials. Nobody who valued the health of our people would say that such provision would induce people to remain on the land. The average family of these people would be four and they have 13/- a week to divide over the essentials I have mentioned. The working farmer who pays no wages is not one bit better off than the labourer drawing from 30/- to 33/- a week. The attention of the Government must be turned in that direction if we are to have a prosperous rural population. The first evidence of decay and deterioration in any country will be furnished by the diminution of the rural population. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Sitting suspended at 6 p.m and resumed at 6.45 p.m.

Mr. Cummins

I related the position of rural workers to this Central Fund Bill, just as the farmers were related to it in the same sense, as the first line of defence. The farmers and the farm workers are an important section of the community; and I should say that if money is to be spent from any central fund by way of subsidy or subsidised wages, then a bigger proportion of it should go to the economic support of the first line of the country's defence. Another point in that regard is that an Act passed through this House in 1936 called the Labourers Act, far from offering any inducement to people to make their homes on the land, has dismally failed. It is now nearly five years in operation and the Minister himself has full knowledge of the Act I refer to; and while I have not the exact figures, I think that no more than 10 to 12 per cent. of the cottiers of the country, which should be now up to 60,000, have even applied for purchase on the terms then offered. A Bill was introduced in this House and unfortunately it was defeated. I think the Minister must have seen by this time that the Act was not fruitful in inducing those people to make their homes on the land and to root themselves more firmly with their families in the soil.

I shall not say much more about it, as a further effort is being made with the Ministry by the representatives of those practically unorganised sections of the community. They would amount to about 250,000 people, if you take them and their wives and families and they have no property of their own. I think every effort should be made to induce them to root themselves into the soil and to make their homes on it and to feel that they have some stake in the land, even if it is only a house and an acre of ground. Representations are being made to the Ministry of Local Government, and I do hope that the Minister, who is responsible for the Act, will reconsider his attitude towards the question in view of the hopelessness of its operation. In County Louth, I see by the Press reports, if they are correct, that they will not purchase under the Act. An organisation spoke for those people and stated that they thought they would not be making a good bargain; but there was no pressure whatever used. It was merely a presentation of the facts, and the statement that the Act was not workable. I think it could be amended. A new Act has not been found possible; it would be cumbersome. It was attempted before. But within the Act I believe there is a framework permitting regulations to be issued that would induce those people to remain on the soil. I think those are two very important points. Now, in regard to the whole rural economy, a suggestion was made by Senator Counihan, I think, some time ago, in reference to giving credits to farmers, and in that respect I would point out that there are farmers down the country with unsuitable machinery struggling to grow wheat. I can quite understand that at the present time it would be difficult to get machinery, but there could be, I understand, an improvement in the present equipment if credit could be got. In the past, credit could be got from people they used to call "gombeen men" if you like, and they were able to struggle along.

I will not say that their condition then was as good as their condition now, but the fact remains that there were large and small holders, large holders depending on labour and hired machinery, and small holders who had inferior equipment that could be replaced by suitable credit. A suggestion was made that rather struck me, that a conference should be called between the Finance Department, the Land Commission, the farmers' representatives and, I should say, the representatives of the rural workers, and the banks. I would put the banks at the top of the list because I think they are responsible—that the present system of banking to-day is responsible—for a lot of the misery and starvation that exist down through our country for want of a proper system of exchange. Within the country we have all the material necessary, but instead of keeping those men and women and nourishing them and encouraging them by means of an exchange within ourselves, every day we see cargoes of the finest materials in the world being sent away. These are wanted at home and we cannot give them to the people; we are sending them to other people, and it would be better, for the sake of the few pounds they lodge in the banks, to keep them at home. They say that the money in the banks belongs to the farmers, but I do not know how far that is true. At any rate, it has been secured by supplying the finest feeding stuffs in the world; and I say that if some system of exchange here within ourselves cannot be established, some system of barter should be made, whereby we would get from other countries, instead of paper money, the goods that we want so badly for our industrial and agricultural development.

There is a lesson to be learned from Northern Ireland where they are paying workers anything to remain on the land. I say again the Agricultural Wages Board have not acted for the benefit of the country as a whole, for the benefit either of farmers or labourers. One hears the cry everywhere amongst the farmers that labourers cannot be got in this country owing to the high wages offered in other countries and in the cities. There should be a near approach, in the wages offered to our agricultural labourers, to the wages offered to industrial workers, wages which are barely sufficient to maintain a fairly decent standard of living. I say that the farmers should be in the van in insisting on a decent wage for our workers. The wage is only a token or a form of barter for the time being, because the country worker is an industrious man who likes to see his family brought up in decency, who likes to educate them as best he can, and the greater part of his money is spent in that way. He merely keeps for his own enjoyment the price of an ounce of tobacco or of a pint of beer at the end of the week. Our agricultural labourers belong to a race that is well worth encouraging. Many of them are the sons of evicted tenants, men who once held land in their own right. They are descended from our native chiefs, the very best in the land. It would be a tragedy for the Irish nation if those men should be compelled to leave the land, but I think even a greater tragedy is the incursion of elements into the land who were never before associated with it. Such people are now purchasing large farms here and there just because they have paper tokens which enable them to do so, but these people will never develop these lands or never encourage the growth of a rural population. I would say the very first line of defence even for a neutral country is the land. Industrial workers, civil servants and others in the towns should not view the present situation on the land with complacency because once the land remains untilled and uncultivated, the whole fabric of the nation is destroyed.

I would ask the Minister to give these two matters, the question of wages and the question of the position of cottier tenants, his serious attention. I would say that the terms offered in the Bill to cottier tenants occupying houses which were built since 1932 are reasonable and that the tenants should be recommended to purchase them. Notwithstanding derelictions of duty here and there by various public boards and officials, on the whole these new houses are good houses, favourably situated in a good environment and properly built for the most part. The terms offered for these houses are acceptable, though in some cases the rents were altogether too high. That, again, was due to the high interest charges on the loans. In County Dublin one hears of some extraordinary anomalies in regard to rents charged. You have houses side by side where the rent charged to one tenant is 6/-, to another perhaps 8/-, while a man living in a better house may be paying only 1/- or 1/6. The Minister promised previously that that matter would be attended to, but nothing has been done so far in regard to it. I would ask him once more to take a note of it to see if anything can be done. We recommend these tenants to purchase, but again, as I say, the interest on the loans is a very serious factor in the matter. That brings me back again to the iniquity of the banking system of this country, which is the cause of a lot of poverty. A man must keep a roof over his head, and he is obliged to pay in interest on these loans the money which should be expended on the nourishment of his family.

Before leaving that question, I think some effort should be made on the lines recently indicated by Senator Counihan. Money that cannot be invested abroad might very well be invested in this country. One-tenth of the money that is now lying idle in the banks of the country, a fact that was lamented very much in a recent article in the Irish Times, would, if utilised to provide credits, provide immense relief for the rural community. I should like the workers also represented on the body which Senator Counihan suggests should be set up to consider the question of providing cheap loans. A rate of 2½ per cent. or 3½ per cent. was mentioned, but I would say that even 1 per cent., with the cost of administration, would be worth considering.

On the question of petrol supplies, I do not wish to animadvert on the work of the Ministry. I recognise that they have a very difficult situation to deal with, and there is no use in saying: "We told you so in 1938." We did, of course, tell them, but our warning went unheeded. In the early days, when the transport question was becoming acute, I had experience of a motor car driven for 100 miles at an average of 40 to 60 miles per hour on gas produced from anthracite obtained from Castlecomer, County Kilkenny. I could not exactly say what the cost of the anthracite was, but I was informed that the cost of the whole distance of 100 miles was only 8½d. It may seem incredible, but that can be vouched for. I can give the authority, the place, and the circumstances. It was not confined to one drive. There were many drives which lasted for some time, but for some reason or other the facts were not generally made known. The explanation which suggests itself to me is that they were not made known because some parties wished to prevent the exploitation of gas, in the interest of the petrol companies, perhaps, or some other bodies interested in locomotion.

I wonder if the Research Committee which has been set up has explored the possibility of using a substitute for petrol? In the case which I have mentioned, the gas was produced from anthracite and the structure was a very simple one, much simpler than some of the other structures I have seen. I notice that this gas is being exploited in England. The trouble appears to be to get some vessel suitable to contain the anthracite. It is stated that the life of the container would not be more than 500 miles. The container which I saw was made of clay which came from Belgium or Denmark, which I suppose would be no longer available now. At any rate, it is a matter worth inquiring into. It was a revelation to me that it was possible to drive a 22 h.p. car 100 miles on anthracite which cost only 8½d., and the car started on its own gas. I presume the Government are inquiring also into the question of synthetic rubber. When the Drumm Battery was invented, its possibilities were explored by certain people, but I wonder what has become of the Drumm Battery, whether, for instance, it got a fair chance? There is whispering about that vested interests will see to it that neither the Drumm Battery nor anthracite coal, used as a national fuel for higher production, will get a fair chance. I think that that is a matter well worth inquiring into.

Strong words have been spoken in regard to the black market. I think that they were not strong enough. Hardly any words could be strong enough to condemn the racket that is being carried on and supported by people who should know better, people in prominent positions and prominent sections of the community. They are not working the black market, but are encouraging and buying in it. It is not confined to the city. My information is that practically in every town in Ireland the black marketeers are well known, but information cannot be got against them. I should say that some method should be contrived to compel these people to disgorge the commodities that they have. No penalty is too heavy for those who would starve the nation for their own pecuniary benefit. If research is to be made for new fuels research should be made into the operation of these traitors to the national defence. These are the points I wanted to make to the suggestion for a National Government.

As I think it would be very difficult to set up a National Government, but I should say that some kind of economic council should be set up. I believe we have not all the brains of the community in the Dáil or Seanad. There is too much red tape in the Government Departments, and we should get more co-operation between them. It is said that in many cases one branch of the State service will not put itself out to facilitate another branch of the service. I am not finding fault with individual civil servants or staffs, but I think it is desirable that there should be more co-ordination. It is possible that you would send a letter to a Government Department, and that you would expect it to be delivered next morning, and that you would then get an answer, but in some cases it happens that it is not filed for three days. You call after three days and you find that it has to be properly filed, indexed and all the rest of it. That is all you hear about it. I think there is a great lack of co-ordination and co-operation among the various Departments.

Another point I want to make is that we cannot wait until after the war. Now is the time to plan if we are to live. There will be a greater tightening of belts after the war than now if we have no planning. We have compelled one section of the community to tighten their belts very much, that is to say the widows and old age pensioners. Except in rare cases the means test should be done away with in regard to widows' pensions, blind pensions and others of that kind. If a woman has the industry to keep a pig, a hen or a goose a value is put on it. But if she is lazy and rests in her armchair and does nothing she has a better chance of getting the old age pension than if she was industrious. The pension is small enough and everyone who has had to put in a period of her life working as the widow has done is entitled to it. In the case of the old age pension the extra 1/- or two given to them will come back to the State; it will not be lost. Public schemes of employment should be undertaken at those periods when work is lacking and when there is no unemployment assistance. There are plenty of such schemes but there is no use in saying we cannot find an immediate return for our money. We will not find an immediate return for our money. These schemes include afforestation, which was mentioned by Cu Uladh and other speakers and there is the clearing of sites for building. There is one section of the community that the Government has not provided for in the matter of building, that is the young man and the lassie whom he wishes to marry. He is never thought of at all; he is left in the lurch. This prevents many a young man and woman entering matrimony. There are no houses for them and the young man has to take lodgings. He has to graduate there for two or three years and do his best to rear a family in insanitary conditions before he is able to get a house. One of the qualifications for getting a good house is that you are living in an insanitary one. I know there are a number of bachelors who might take someone into the house but there are abuses on both sides. I say that in future schemes houses should be provided for young men and women, cheap small houses. But do not compel them to go into slums and take their children with them. There is many a young man whose soul is eager to take unto himself a partner in life but he cannot do it because he has no house.

Mr. Quirke

Before this debate closes I think it is only right that somebody should sympathise with those who started the ramp for what they like to call a National Government. The organisation was apparently good because we had it coming from various parts of the House. Once the big guns had fired off, the infantry failed to come up and the thing was pretty much of a "flop", if I may say so. Senator Hayes was quite surprised that anybody should make a speech such as Senator O'Donovan made, in other words that anybody should object to a National Government. I felt exactly as Senator O'Donovan and some of the other people. Perhaps, for the purpose of discussion, it would be as well not to harp too much on the fact that we have a National Government which I firmly believe to be the case. Without putting that forward as an argument, I think it would be reasonable to make the various people who sponsor what they call a National Government ask themselves the question: do they honestly and sincerely think it would work. We have had arguments put here that, because so-and-so was done in another country, there is no reason why it should not be done here. Anybody who knows the history of this country knows that what happens in other countries has very little bearing on what the results would be here after a similar experiment.

Anybody who knows the history of the country, who knows what the position really is, knows that the suggestion to form a so-called National Government would be doomed to failure before it started. Perhaps it is not good business to publish it at the present time—there is not much danger that it will be published—but we know that we have a situation here where certain prominent men in the country refuse to do what Senator Hayes suggests we should do and which I believe we should do, that is, forget the past. We have some prominent men who stubbornly refuse to forget the past. So stubbornly do they refuse that on a very important national issue, in a national crisis, they would refuse to stand on the same platform with some of the men who are carrying the flag in this country. Is it the suggestion that we should force these men into the Government? When they would get there it would be only natural to assume that if any question came up as to whether the Army was to move east or west, if the Government should say the Army was to move east they would say, "No, the Army must move west." That is the sort of situation that is suggested. I believe that a lot of the bitterness has died out in the country and that any bitterness that remains is at the top. We may as well be quite frank about it. Any bitterness that there is in the Opposition Party is at the top and amongst the heads of the Opposition. The worst feature of it is that they seem to think there is some virtue in keeping alive that bitterness, some virtue in harking back to the situation that existed here during the civil war. They seem to think it is a great thing to try as far as they possibly can to preserve their own political lives by keeping the people of this country divided. That cannot be done. The people of this country are united and continue to unite in still greater strength and the only way by which we can survive the present world situation is by uniting. If there is to be unity in the country, surely we must have unity at the top. The only way by which that can be obtained is to have a group of people in the Government who will agree. If the Fianna Fáil Government cannot run this country, then the thing to do is to get rid of them and appoint somebody else, but do not try to mix oil and water. The only chance there is is to have people in the Government who will agree. I am completely against the idea that is being boosted here, apparently as the result of an organised plan, that is, to form a National Government.

Though Senator Hayes spoke in a milder fashion than usual, he could not resist the temptation to have a little sneer. He suggested, in connection with this idea of a National Government, that it was quite on the cards that Senator O'Donovan might be appointed Minister for Education.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I do not think he related that to the idea of a National Government.

Mr. Quirke

I think, if the Senator was listening carefully, he would know the suggestion was based on the idea of Senator O'Donovan's National Government, which was the present Fianna Fáil Government. He suggested that it was quite on the cards that Senator O'Donovan might be appointed Minister for Education.

Mr. Fitzgerald

In the Fianna Fáil Government.

Mr. Quirke

Yes. And the idea was that it would be a terrible shock to the people if such a thing should happen.

Professor Johnston

It certainly would.

Mr. Fitzgerald

The people are almost shock-proof at the moment.

Mr. Quirke

They are not. The people have suffered many shocks and are still capable of being shocked and can still stand up to it. I do think that if some of the people who have at the back of their heads that they might crash into this National Government did manage to scrape in, the people would then be shocked. I do not think there would be any great shock sustained by the people if Senator O'Donovan were appointed Minister for Education or Minister for anything else. It is quite on the cards that he might be appointed Minister any day. It is quite within the bounds of possibility and probability that he might find himself a professor, and once he became a professor he would be fit for anything. He has at least the decided advantage of never having been tried and found wanting, as some people have.

Professor Johnston

Do not insult the Senator——

Mr. Quirke

Including Senator Johnston.

Professor Johnston

——by calling him "professor".

Mr. Quirke

Senator Johnston got to be a professor and he has got to the end of the road, I am afraid. The question of transport is very important, and I am glad Senator Cummins raised that matter. I am pretty sure his figures are wrong, that you can travel 100 miles for 8½d. Competition is so keen that I believe every possible outlet has been examined. Perhaps there is another means of transport not yet explored. If so, the thing for Senator Cummins to do is to go straight to the Research Council to-morrow and give them whatever information he has. It is very important. I believe everything possible should be done to develop gas producers for the purpose of transport. I believe that when everything is tried out and when we take into consideration the probability of a shortage of petrol and tyres we will be convinced that the only thing to do is what I have been preaching for a number of years, that is, to go back to the horse. It is more likely to be accepted now than heretofore. The position with regard to horses is very much misunderstood. Anybody looking at the figures would say that we have now practically the same number of horses we have had in the country for the last 20 years, that is, something like 450,000. The figure has varied maybe 5,000 or 10,000 over the years, but it has been pretty steady around 450,000. But the fact that we have that number of horses does not by any means mean that we have that number of horses fit to take their place in the transport of the country. Most of them are untrained and some of them are unsuitable for work on the land. I believe that something should be done even now to have as many as possible of those horses broken in. I know that the experience of farmers is that it is very difficult to break blood horses to work. There is a suggestion I would like to put to the Minister which may or may not be feasible. I think anything is worth trying. My suggestion is that the people who have been trained in that particular work in the Army should be utilised for breaking in numbers of these horses. I do not mean that they should train 100 or 200 horses. I mean that a definite school for the training of horses should be established and that the farmers could send horses from all over the country at a fee sufficient to cover expenses.

It is quite possible that in that way, for every ten horses sent in, five, six, or seven would come out trained, broken, capable of work and of taking part in the transport system of the country if everything else fails. The principal and the most serious difficulty facing us at present, as far as the transport question is concerned, is that the greatest number of horses are in the counties where they are least wanted. In the counties where the tractor has been at work there are practically no horses capable of working on the land. It will be very difficult to distribute the horses. In fact, I do not think it can be done. The only solution of the problem is to get fresh horses broken. If that is deferred until the harvest, and if fuel for the tractors is not available for the harvest, we will have a deplorable position.

Professor Johnston

Horseshoes are scarce, too.

Mr. Quirke

They are scarce but as far as the land is concerned you can get along without horseshoes. Horseshoes will become important if we have to use horses on the present roads.

Professor Johnston

We want shoes for them.

Mr. Quirke

You can work horses for the harvest even without shoes, particularly horses that have never been shod. They will work indefinitely without shoes.

Mr. Counihan

What about harness?

Mr. Quirke

I believe there is a good deal of harness in the country. We are short of broken, trained horses more than harness. Harness could be manufactured out of native leather. I believe there is plenty in the country. To-day I was in a yard in town and saw half-a-dozen or dozen sets of harness for sale. The principal thing is to get the horses working and, particularly, to get the people horse-minded.

I believe that, in the months to come, farmers should be encouraged by speeches, broadcasts and propaganda of every description to get back as quickly as they can to "working in" their own horses. It was very foolish to allow transport in this country to get completely out of our hands and into the hands of people over whom we had no control. The position was that we became self-sufficient in practically everything but transport, and we allowed transport to get into the hands of people in other countries. It would be just as wise for us to allow our wheat to be sea-borne as to allow our transport to pass out of our hands so as to force us, eventually, to have our wheat sea-borne. There is no use in harking back to the past now, but we should do what we can to get back to the horse.

Minister for Finance (Mr. O Ceallaigh)

This has been a fairly long debate. Long as it has been, I have enjoyed it, and I can say with truth that I found it profitable. It would take me a long time—longer, perhaps, than I should be able to stand here and longer than I would get the House to listen to me—to comment upon, without even attempting to reply to, the numerous suggestions and criticisms offered on many aspects of the Government's work. I should like to assure the House—I said something similar to this before and I think that I can speak for members of the Government individually and collectively in saying it—that we do not object to criticism. There was a suggestion by one or two speakers that criticism was resented by Ministers. One speaker paid me the compliment of saying that he did not think that I objected to criticism. I do not think that any Minister objects to criticism. I believe that criticism is good for us or for any Government. That is my honest conviction. You may never get fully satisfactory government, but you will not get anything approaching satisfaction unless there is free and frank criticism—without malice. In my experience of this House, there are not many who speak with malice, but there are one or two. I am glad to notice that, when they are speaking, they are not the people who carry most influence or weight here. The House probably knows better than I do the persons to whom I refer.

The first speaker in the debate was Senator Fitzgerald, who touched upon a variety of topics. He started out by criticising the increase in the Army Vote. Both in the Dáil and, I think, here, it was generally accepted that there had to be a very big increase in the amount of money voted for the Army in present circumstances. There has been, admittedly, a very big increase. The last pre-war figure— 1938-39—for the Army was £1,771,000. That was, I think, the actual money spent, and the estimated figure for next year is £8,942,000, an increase of £7,171,000. That is an enormous increase. But many speakers mentioned that they did not grudge it or regret it, and that they were not criticising it. That was the general attitude in this House, as it was the attitude in the Dáil. Some speakers properly asked whether we were getting value for the money. I hope we are. In that connection, I should like to refer to remarks made by Senator Fitzgerald at considerable length about the Defence Conference. I think he said that the Defence Conference does not receive the information it is entitled to.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I did not use the words "entitled to".

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is the note I have of the Senator's remarks.

Mr. Fitzgerald

What I said was that, if the Defence Conference has any function, certain information it ought to have in relation to its having any real function it obviously has not had; as I could show from Dáil debates in which members of the conference indicated their ignorance on points on which, if they are ignorant, there is no point in the conference existing.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It is not true that the Defence Conference does not get all the information it is entitled to and for which it asks. The conference gets it all in the greatest detail—in greater detail than the Dáil or the Seanad ever got the Estimates of the Army.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I was not referring to that.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is what the Senator clearly said. I want to make a flat contradiction of that. What Senator Fitzgerald said was not true. The Defence Conference, I understand, spent hours last week, the week before, and this week, going through details of the Army Estimates. That is my information.

How the Senator could spend so much time as he did elaborating his grievance, that he, presumably, and his colleagues, through their agents and representatives, were not getting the information they required—how he could do that without making proper inquiries passes my understanding, though I suppose it should not. The Senator said: "I find my tongue tied." It is not the Defence Conference which has tied the Senator's tongue. He can get any information he wants from the Defence Conference—probably in confidence. There is an understanding that debates on the Army Estimates should be kept to a minimum——

Mr. Fitzgerald

I accepted that.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

To meet all Parties, the Estimates are submitted in the same detail to the Defence Conference as they would be to the Minister and the Department of Finance at the beginning of the year. The Senator developed his grievance at great length and wasted his own time and, I respectfully suggest, the time of the House, in doing so, while there was no foundation for the grievance. He had also some not very complimentary things to say about members of the Gárda Síochána. I think he mixed up two bodies. He referred to the Taca Síochána. They are young men taken in a couple of years ago as members of a sort of auxiliary. I have no idea how they were selected. I presume that individual Senators and Deputies did as I did. Having been asked a few times, I wrote to the Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána recommending candidates. Some other members of the Oireachtas must have been more successful than I was. I have been Minister now for about ten years and I can solemnly assure the House that I have never succeeded in getting one man appointed to the Gárda Síochána. To my knowledge never once. I wrote a good many letters in my time recommending suitable people——

Mr. Baxter

They must have been bad candidates.

Mr. Hayes

I wonder what the moral is?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Do not ask a Minister to recommend; get a Deputy or a Senator—particularly from the Opposition. That is my personal experience—I have to admit it. I never got one in whatever has happened. I know that is not true of some of my colleagues, but it is my experience. I know it is not the experience of the members of the Dáil or Seanad, particularly of the Opposition. However, I did object to the tone of the remarks made by Senator Fitzgerald when he talked about these young men recently taken into the police force as "members of criminal organisations." It comes badly from him who was a member so long of a criminal organisation as it was then regarded. He was an organiser and a successful one for a criminal organisation which included a great many people who were responsible and respectable, and it comes badly from him. There are others in this House who might use phraseology of that kind, and though it would be equally objectionable to me, there might be some better grounds for it, but certainly not from Senator Fitzgerald. These young men probably got consideration because they had served their country, and served it well, and were men of good character. I do not know whether in these days, in this hour of our history, in these times of danger and difficulty, as Senator Quirke said a few minutes ago, people who, at any rate, some time in their existence, had positions of responsibility, should be harping back without any good purpose to be served. If the Senator could produce one man who was put into that force who had a criminal record I would say to him, certainly, he is entitled to stand up here and criticise the Government and the officials responsible for having such a man in the force. But it was not that that was in the back of the Senator's mind; he wanted a nasty malicious dig. I hope he likes the dig he gets back in return.

Senator Fitzgerald criticised the broadcast of the Taoiseach. Well, everybody is entitled to their own view of the language or the sentiments of the Taoiseach, as they are entitled to criticise any other Minister, or any other man in public life. But I submit respectfully to the House, that, whether Taoiseach or ordinary man in public life, leading an Opposition or leading nobody, since the days of Parnell there has been no one individual who has brought greater honour, greater glory, greater credit and greater renown to this country than Eamon de Valera. Criticise him if you like, and I have often done it myself, and will again disagree with him and criticise him. Everybody is entitled to do that, and I certainly do not want to take that right away from anybody; but he is a big man and a great figure, and in any corner of this earth, no matter how remote, be it blacks, whites, or yellow, mention that name and the people of the country know where he comes from, what he represents, and the honour he has brought to the country that he does so much credit to in leading to-day in dangerous and difficult times. One could make comparisons, but, not being malicious-minded, I refrain from doing so. Another remark of Senator Fitzgerald's—I am paying him the compliment of having noted a lot of his remarks and answering them—was when he talked of the "yes-men" the Government put on commissions and boards of directors. I have had, in my position as Minister for Finance for the last couple of years, to suggest men, and agree to names of men who were suggested to me, for appointment. I have had to take part in, and to initiate in some cases, nominations to boards of directors, but so far not to commissions; and any individual that I suggested or nominated on any board, I saw to it, was well worth his place for the business that he had to do, whoever he was; and I defy anybody to mention anybody who has been appointed a director since I became Minister for Finance—not to go back further—and I could practically say the same for every appointment made by this Government over a period of ten years. They had to be vetted and had to prove their competence for the position for which they were being suggested or being nominated. I would ask the Senators of all Parties to go back over the previous ten years, and I question whether they could say the same.

I would go further, and say that not alone were people not always competent, not only were people appointed on boards and commissions merely because they were loyal supporters of the Party that made the last Government, but others were prevented from earning their livelihood, and were driven out of positions that they held, merely because they held views and political convictions in opposition to the last Government. Many instances of such could be brought up here if it were profitable, but it would not be profitable. I am not a bit ashamed to publish the list of my nominations, to stand over them and to invite criticism. I will do it for any of those that I have hand, act or part in nominating, and I can say the same generally for the nominees of my colleagues or the Government as a whole. A number of speakers dealt in a variety of ways with the question of agriculture. Senator Baxter began it, and a good many men in this House interested in agriculture from one point of view or another, developed their own ideas on that subject. Senator Baxter was interested in the subject of credit for agriculture, and so was Senator Counihan. So, I think, would everybody who takes any interest in the subject of agriculture be interested in the question of credit being provided where it is necessary. There is the Agricultural Credit Organisation, and I am told that the number of applicants in the last year or two has been relatively small, though the interest charged now is lower than it was a year or 18 months ago. I wonder could it be true that the only people seeking credit from the Agricultural Credit body, or the greater number of those who seek credit in vain, are people who are not credit worthy. Would that be the position?

Mr. Counihan

It all depends on what you call credit worthy?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Well, any man in this House who had any money would not give a loan to a man—unless he wants to give it away—from whom he would never expect to see a return of it. Why should business organisations be expected to do otherwise? That is my difficulty. Why should an organisation like the Agricultural Credit Corporation or the banks or the Minister for Finance—unless he wants to be philanthropic—give money to people who cannot give any sort of guarantee that they will ever repay and perhaps will not even pay the interest —even a reduced interest—on the money?

Professor Johnston

Is the Minister suggesting that the Agricultural Credit Corporation turns down a large percentage on the grounds that they are not credit worthy?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I have heard that, but I do not know that it is a fact.

Professor Johnston

I think the Minister should find out what is the position?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I have heard that— that a relatively great number of applicants have been turned down because they were not credit worthy.

Professor Johnston

I would like to know more precisely what the position is?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It would be better to get on to the Minister for Agriculture; it is more his concern.

Mr. Baxter

Is not the Minister for Finance responsible for financing the Agricultural Credit Corporation and for the nomination of its directors?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

No, I do not think so—I do not think that is a fact.

Mr. Baxter

It is a fact.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It has not come to my personal knowledge.

Mr. Baxter

Well, it is a fact.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I know that the Senator knows more about it than I do.

Mr. Baxter

Yes, it is a fact.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

But I know that Senator Counihan is very keenly interested in this subject, and has raised the matter here, to my knowledge, a good many times. I would like to say to him that I would like to help agriculture. I am not an agriculturist; I know little or nothing about the subject except what a city man may learn through association with people more deeply interested in the subject. But I would like to say of agriculture, which plays the most important rôle in our national economy, that no effort should be lost to put it on a reasonably sound footing in so far as the position of credit is concerned.

Professor Johnston

Will the Minister agree to the conference that was suggested?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Will the Senator shut up for a while? I do not want to be disrespectful, but I will answer any question when I am finished. If you will note it down I will answer anything I can. One of the great grievances I heard after the last war was that the banks gave too much credit; I heard that in season and out of season after the last war—that the banks were too flaithiulach with money, and it ruined the farmers.

Mr. Baxter

It was the calling back of the money that ruined them.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

They would not have to call it back if they did not give it out; they had to look for their money.

Cathaoirleach

I would ask that the Minister be permitted to continue without further interruption.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That was the grievance; and I was asked—because I happened to have among my friends in Dublin one or two bank managers— a good many times by people from all parts of the country coming up to Dublin to interview bank directors or managers, to go with them and see these men, and I listened to their stories and I heard the bankers' answers, and I am glad to say that a great proportion of these people whom I accompanied to the banks were given reasonable accommodation.

Mr. Foran

Will you be doing anything next week?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I would be very happy to meet the Senator any time or anywhere, but if I know anything about the Senator I know who would be looking for the accommodation, and it would not be Senator Foran. But I will be glad to go with him. I know a number of people, personal acquaintances who got accommodation after the last war. The debt was very considerably reduced during the period that elapsed between the last war and the beginning of this one, and I have in mind cases of farmers—I heard Senator Kehoe refer to them—who have cleared off the debts that they incurred in the last war by the results of the last two years' harvests. I know a case of one man who, when his father died a rather improvident man, was left with 300 acres of excellent land, but no money, and not alone no money, but mortgaged up to the neck to the bank. I met him in the last fortnight; I had not seen him for some years. His father was one of those whom I went to the bank with, but there was nothing doing in that particular case—the man was not a good subject for a loan although he had 300 acres of good land. I met his son a fortnight ago, who had inherited the land and machinery, but no credit and no money, and he told me that he cleared off the bank debt as a result of the last two years' harvests.

Mr. Baxter

Does not that show how long-term the farmer's credit must be —it takes two generations to pay it back?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Well, I do not object to that. The land, in my opinion, is worthy of support and credit, even in normal times, with land subject to atmospheric and climatic conditions in which you have good seasons and bad seasons, but taking one with another over a fairly long period, as Senator Baxter said, credit to farmers cannot be short-term credit. Land is a good investment at all times, taking one year with another, but there must be, I take it, some kind of hard core of people who have not been able to solve their credit difficulties among the farming community.

I know Senator Counihan speaks for a good number of the farming community and I certainly am prepared to consider the proposition which he has been pressing for some time, to give consideration to that hard core.

Mr. Counihan

I thank the Minister.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I am quite prepared to give consideration to that hard core but do not take too much out of that.

Mr. Baxter

Do not take it back now.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I shall not take it back. I certainly promise the Senator to give serious consideration to the proposition he has put up. Senator Baxter mentioned the subject of wheat and the fertility of the soil. I should not like to get into an argument with Senator Baxter on that subject as I know very little about the fertility of the soil or about what wheat takes out of it. Probably no man in this House—perhaps I should include Senator Campbell and Senator Hayes in this reservation, although Senator Hayes is probably closer to the land than I am—knows less about it but, anyhow, I read in the newspapers recently—I was looking for the quotation for the last few days but I could not get it—that in a broadcast one of the experts of the Agricultural Farm in Glasnevin denied that wheat takes any more out of the soil than any other type of corn. I heard that said over the radio one night and by chance I saw it in the paper a few days later, but I could not get the quotation when I was looking for it recently.

Mr. Fitzgerald

It was said but I do not know if the other experts agree with him.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The man who made the statement is supposed to be an expert and we are paying him as such.

Mr. Baxter

He did not say that when wheat was grown on the same land in succession it took no more out of the soil.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I read a book about three Christmases ago on farming.

Mr. Fitzgerald

That is a long time ago.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I read one or two since, but in that particular book there was a reference to a model farm in England on which wheat has been grown, year in year out, for the past 70 years.

Mr. Baxter

That is one plot.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

They gave the acreage.

Mr. Baxter

That is a classic example. We all know of that.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

They gave an account of the production year by year. It is a model farm and for 70 years they have been growing wheat on that same land. They said that they had as good a crop in the previous harvest as any of the 70 years' history of the farm.

Professor Johnston

Does it follow that we could do the same here?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It does not. You can draw your own conclusions and criticise it much better than I can. I was told that last year the wheat crop in England was decidedly disappointing. It was disappointing here but was even more disappointing in England where they had more fertilisers than they could use. In fact in many cases they used too much of them. So much for the fertility of the soil. I do not want to develop that matter because I am not an expert.

Mr. Baxter

You will have to buy a farm to prove it.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I am doing my best to prove it. Senator Baxter also referred to the question of potatoes. We have one man in the Government who in agricultural matters has always been a pioneer. He has been so for the last year on the question of potatoes. I have seen loaves of bread that he had baked and brought into the Dáil restaurant. These loaves contained from 10 to 25 per cent. potato flour, mixed with ordinary flour and the bread was excellent. It had the advantage over ordinary flour that it kept better. The ordinary wheaten loaf gets stale very quickly. I am told that the admixture of potato flour and ordinary flour lasts two or three days without getting sour.

Senator Baxter also referred to the question of tea supplies and he suggested that I had refused to give a guarantee to anybody who wanted to bring tea into this country. That is not true. I signed a guarantee for £2,000,000 a year ago.

Mr. Baxter

I was referring to two years before.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The Senator did not give any date.

Mr. Baxter

That is what I was speaking of.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

He wants to mend his hand now but he must take his answer. The Senator said a guarantee was refused.

Mr. Baxter

That is not meeting the point.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It is meeting the point. The Senator said a guarantee was refused and I say it was not.

Mr. Baxter

It must be the Minister who is mending his hand because he said he signed a guarantee only a year ago.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I did not refuse a guarantee.

Cathaoirleach

I would ask Senators to refrain from interrupting. The Minister must be allowed to speak without interruption.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I did not refuse a guarantee at that date or at any other date.

Mr. Baxter

Did your predecessor?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

No, he did not, as far as my information goes, and I have been there almost since the beginning of the war. There was no necessity for a guarantee before that. The Senator can tell his friend or whoever gave him the information, that he was not speaking the truth. The guarantee was there and some of the tea has actually come in. It has not all come in, but I hope it will. The Senator talked of the necessity for a reorganisation of our whole State system. That is a tall order and I do not think that this would be the time to tackle it, at all events during the emergency. I wonder when it will be tackled.

Mr. Baxter

I was referring particularly to our man power in relation to our production.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I might as well deal with the question of man power now. The Senator suggested that farmers were crying out for men for agriculture. I asked for the figures relating to agricultural workers registered as unemployed. On the 7th March, 1942, there were 34,375 agricultural workers registered as unemployed at the local offices of the Department of Industry and Commerce. Of that number 20,000 expressed their willingness to work in any part of the country they would be asked to go to. Twenty thousand expressed in writing in the local offices their willingness to go anywhere in the country. Where is the shortage there? During the week ended 7th March, 1942, farmers throughout the country notified the local offices of the Department of Industry and Commerce of eight vacancies for agricultural workers and eight such vacancies were filled by the local offices during the week. I think that blows the talk sky high.

Professor Johnston

Can the Minister say how many were employed?

Cathaoirleach

I cannot permit any interruptions of that kind. The Minister refrained from interruption.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That blows the talk sky high.

Mr. Baxter

Of course it does not.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I think it does.

Mr. Fitzgerald

The Minister is inviting interruptions.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There are 20,000 workers waiting to go wherever they are asked.

Mr. Baxter

I wonder would the Minister ask how many Fianna Fáil Senators go to the labour exchange for farm labourers.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is the information I got.

Mr. Baxter

We do not go to the labour exchange.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

But you ought to.

Mr. Baxter

They would not be much good to us.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is another trouble.

Mr. Baxter

That is a fact.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That brings me to the question of emigration referred to by Senator Baxter, Senator Foran and others. We are not anxious to see men emigrate; I need not tell the House that, and it is not the policy of the Government to engage actively in recruitment of workers for employers outside the country; but there are workers who want to go. Surely workers who find out employment for themselves in England and want to go should be let go. Would anybody in the House here suggest that, under present conditions, we should say "No; you may not go?" We do that in a number of cases, with young men under 22 years of age; and I am told that all sorts of tricks are indulged in by such young men to try to get out, but we do everything possible to keep them here.

We give facilities where men go to the trouble of finding employment for themselves. It has always been the custom to give them facilities if they are unemployed and not under 22 years of age. It is not pleasant to see so many young men leaving the country but, unfortunately, it is nothing new in our history. We have been used to that for the past century. We all know what the conditions are here, and what they are on the other side. I know of a few cases—not many, but I know of a few, others may know of similar cases—where men and women have left employment in this country and gone to England because the attractions are so great. They get anything from £5 to £10 a week, whereas some of them would be earning £2 10s. or £3 10s. here.

Mr. Counihan

Not as agricultural workers.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There are agricultural workers, to my knowledge, earning £7 and £8 a week.

Mr. Counihan

At agriculture?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Yes.

Mr. Fitzgerald

There are men earning more than that, but not as agricultural workers. They get jobs.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

We cannot go into the market and compete with those people on the other side.

Mr. Baxter

Why cannot we?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Why cannot we pay £7 or £8 a week here to our agricultural people?

Mr. Baxter

Yes, why cannot we?

Cathaoirleach

These interrogations are not in order.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I would like to see Senator Baxter go to Cavan and tell the farmers they must pay £5 a week. When the next general election comes round, I hope to go down to Cavan and hear Senator Baxter urging the farmers of the county—if he is seeking their suffrages—that they must pay £5 or £8 a week.

Mr. Baxter

I did not say they could, but I could tell the Minister a way they would get it.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Perhaps the House would forgive me for repeating something I said in the Dáil on the subject. I said I am anxious to see agriculture in this country do well, but do well in accordance with our general economics and our national position. I heard a number of complaints in the Dáil about the mean and miserable way agriculture was treated, and I asked for figures of our expenditure annually on agriculture out of the variety of Votes, and these are the figures I got.

The Department of Agriculture is the organisation that directs and advises agriculture, and it does not deal with any other class but agriculturists, and, therefore, the Vote for that Department must be put on the debit side of agriculture. The 1942-43 figures show that the Estimate is £666,768. Next comes the Vote for Agricultural Products and Subsidies, £500,000; grant for the relief of rates on land, £1,870,000. No urban dweller gets any grant to help him pay his rent. Then there comes reduction in land purchase annuities, £2,200,000. The approximate amount which farmers will receive from the flour and bread subsidy is £503,000. The Estimate for the current financial year for the farm improvement scheme is £250,000; seed and lime distribution schemes, £70,000; improvement of estates, planned by the Land Commission, £250,000. That makes a total of £6,309,768. In addition, the price of dairy products is kept above the world level by charging consumers in the home market a higher price for butter. The amount so made available for the dairying industry is estimated at £770,000 for the current financial year. The total of those various forms of assistance is estimated at £7,079,768.

There are two main cash crops that the farmers had before the war and now—wheat and beet. Let us see the value to the farmers of those. In the last year before the war—1938-39—a sum of £1,728,000 was paid to wheat growers for wheat sold to flour mills and a sum of £918,000 was paid to beet growers by Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, making a total of £2,646,000. For wheat and beet harvested in 1941 farmers have, up to the present, received approximately £5,402,000, made up of £3,402,000 paid by millers to farmers for wheat and £2,000,000 paid by the sugar company for beet. As regards the coming harvest, it is estimated that more than 300,000 tons of millable wheat will be delivered by farmers to the flour mills. We expected to get 290,000 last year and did not get it. We expect to get 300,000 tons of millable wheat this year, delivered by farmers to the flour mills. As the price fixed is £20 a ton, the amount which farmers will receive will be in excess of £6,000,000. The 1942 beet crop will also be worth at least £2,000,000 to farmers as any decline in acreage or in yield will be more than offset by the increase in price from 60/- to 70/- a ton.

These figures show that farmers will receive more than £8,000,000 for 1942 wheat and beet as against £2,646,000 for the 1938 crops—the last year prior to the war. Therefore, it cannot be contended that we are treating farmers unfairly or ungenerously. So far as I am concerned there is no other section of the community which has had its income increased to the same extent. I do not suggest that the farmers in getting these large sums of money, a big part of which is paid out of the National Exchequer, are getting more than their due. I would like to see them get more. I do not hesitate to say that. The Government has to try to treat agriculture as generously as possible, bearing in mind its responsibilities to other classes including, of course, the consumer.

One other matter that Senator Foran, Senator Campbell and other Senators referred to was Emergency Powers Order No. 83. I must say that I was surprised at the strength of the language used by two such reasonable Senators as I regard them and two such sensible common-sense men as Senator Foran and Senator Campbell — on this topic of Emergency Order No. 83. I can assure these Senators and their colleagues and the House that it was with the best interest of the working class primarily in mind that Emergency Order No. 83 was introduced and put into operation. Some member of the House gave me the credit of authorship of that Emergency Order. I was not the author. The Minister for Industry and Commerce at the time was the author. I was the first to mention it in the Dáil in a Budget speech, but I supported, helped and backed it, for the reason that it was meant to be salvation for the working class in particular. It was meant to prevent inflation, which would mean ruination for the workers and for the poorer members of the community. That was its intention, and despite the fact that nobody that Senator Foran and his colleagues speak for was pleased with it, it has worked to a considerable extent in the direction it was intended to work. It was intended to help and protect and preserve from worse evil the people the Senator and his colleagues represent. Orders of this kind are not unknown in other countries. I do not know how many, but there are a good many countries where similar Orders have been made. The United States is one such country and Canada is another. There are several other such countries in Europe. Of course they are not all on all-fours with our Order. Some are less drastic. I do not know that there is any more drastic. Some are more or less the same as our Order, but the principle is there in all these cases. In some of them there has been machinery set up similar to that which has been put into operation here during the last couple of weeks. There is an arbitration board in operation to consider claims for increases. I cut from the Manchester Guardian of March 14th a broadcast by Mr. Curtin, the Australian Premier, who is head of a Labour Government.

In the course of that broadcast, referring to this subject, he says:

"Business interests in Australia were submitting with a good grace to iron control and drastic elimination of profits."

Well, we have something similar here; profits are limited. Profits are heavily taxed. He goes on to say:

"The great labour unions were accepting the suspension of liberties and privileges which had been sacred for generations, and were submitting to an equally iron control of the activities of their members."

Surely, the activities of their members include looking after the wages and conditions of work. This is from the head of a Labour Government. They have introduced something similar, and they have an iron discipline.

Mr. Foran

Might I ask the Minister a question? In Australia and some of the other countries the Minister has mentioned, was not the regulation of prices coincident with the order?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Yes, and so it is here, and it has worked as well here as it has worked anywhere else. There is no country where the situation exists where it has not worked badly. I am told it has worked badly in England. I hear a lot of complaints here, but I am told that there are equally vicious complaints in every other country where the same situation exists. You have it in Germany, where there is probably the most iron discipline in the world, where the penalty for black marketing is death, and many people have been executed. You have it in England, where laws are not so rigid and the administration is not so tight as it would be in a dictatorial country. There the Home Secretary had to bring in a law making 14 years' penal servitude the penalty for breaches of the price law. You have this situation everywhere. I have not been abroad, and I have only the newspapers and friends who have been in England and Scotland and other countries to go by. Maybe it is worse here, but not if you can believe what some of the people who have been abroad tell me.

Mr. Baxter

Yes; there were 40,000 prosecutions in England, which is pretty bad, I suppose.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There is one other thing that Senator Foran mentioned that I would like to refer to. The Senator talked of hunger stalking around the country to-day. I am not aware of that. I hope it is not true. I have not come across it, and certainly this Government will not stand for it. This Government will provide any money that is necessary to prevent anybody truthfully saying in this country that they are hungry or starving. There were queues lining up in the city. I saw them and visited them and talked with the people in the queues, but I submit that it was proved that there was no necessity for those queues and that the same amount of bread is being supplied now. The same amount of bread was sold the week after the greatest of these queues appeared in the streets. There are some there yet and there probably will be all the time but there is no more bread being sold now and the queues are relatively non-existent — relatively. There was a panic for a time. People thought they were not going to get enough.

Senator Foran said that the Government had taken steps to see that the working-class would not have the money to buy food. That is not true. That is a gross exaggeration and it is not a statement that should be made, with all respect to my good friend, Senator Foran. Senator Foran and others, on the last day we were here and to-day, referred to the barter system. It has been in operation to some extent. It is in operation now to some extent between ourselves and Britain and it is not our fault that it is not operated to a greater extent. I think it is a very useful and proper thing to develop and I would like to see it developed.

Mr. Baxter

We think it could be developed to a greater extent if you went about it more vigorously.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Another thing Senator Foran referred to was communal feeding. Frankly, I do not like the idea of communal feeding if it can be avoided. I do not like it at all.

Mr. Foran

You would sooner see people hungry and cold.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There are two or three food centres in the city. Some of them have been in operation for years. There is one which I know pretty well, in my own constituency, run by the St. John Ambulance — an excellent organisation. It is an excellent supply centre for food. I saw a report last week from them. They are equipped to supply up to 1,000 persons a day. How many come to them in these days? —200 or 300. That is the proportion of meals they are serving. They welcome the people who come there. Those who can afford to pay a small amount are asked to pay; those who cannot, get it for nothing. People are not coming. There are other similar bodies in the city who have the same report. I have seen reports from them in the last week. Why, then, all this clamour about communal kitchens for which there is not a demand from the people primarily concerned?

Mr. Foran

Will the Minister say that the Dublin Corporation is not a body qualified to realise the wants of the people? They are unanimous in asking for the kitchens.

Mr. O'Donovan

They were not unanimous.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I do not know that they were unanimous. I do not know the figures, but the Senator knows, as others know, that when a vigorous body with a political aim and object to serve, not helpful to those responsible for governing the country in the present day, which is merely out to do damage, to sabotage, to make trouble and to cause discontent, a very small body on the left of the Labour Party, not very loyal supporters of the Labour Party either, get together and go around clamouring, shouting and making all the noise they can, canvassing members of public bodies, members of various kinds of council, there are people in responsible positions, some of whom have not the moral courage to stand up to them, who will pass the resolutions put into their hands. The Senator, I think, knows what I say is true. That is the kind of clamour that is going on. If there were people hungry, if there were a demand of that kind, a real emergency, we would not see the people go hungry, wherever the food and the money came from. It is not these same people who make the clamour and the noise and who sabotage now who would be there to help the people when the real emergency would come.

There is a number of other things I would like to talk of. I would not like to sit down without referring to inflation. Senator Johnston suggested a dose of inflationary finance. He admitted that there was a danger and referred to the giving of drugs to a person in ill-health. The danger in the administration of drugs of that kind is that it frequently happens that the patient gets fond of the drugs and what was started as a remedy to help a person over a dangerous period of illness becomes a necessity in life and, in the end, does a great deal more harm than good to the patient. The present crisis is one of supplies, not of finance. There has not been any shortage of finance for any real necessity or for any essential purpose, since this was started. No good scheme that could stand criticism and stand on its feet as a means of providing good employment or of developing the country or producing supplies has been denied financial assistance.

Mr. Baxter

Will the Minister say how much of the shortage of supplies to-day is due to the shortage of finance before the war?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

How far back does the Senator want me to go? Does he want me to go back before 1932?

Mr. Baxter

A couple of years before the war.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The Senator merely wants a kind of political rap.

Mr. Baxter

Not a bit of it.

Mr. Quirke

He will blame the Minister for the war, if the Minister is not careful.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I do not think he will go so far. I do not think he regards me quite as important as all that. We have inflation to a certain extent in this country, despite all we had done to avoid it. We have had two loans. We have borrowed money everywhere we could, from the banks, and from our own resources. We have given money to schemes of all kinds to promote work in the country. Wages have increased. Salaries have increased. There have been increases of all kinds in the circulation of money, despite all we could do. Of course, production has increased. As I told the House earlier, we have spent millions of money to promote agriculture, to promote production. All that, to a certain extent, means a certain percentage of inflation. You cannot avoid it. That there has been inflation to some extent is borne out by the increased amount of money in circulation. Compare December, 1938, with last December. I will give the figures for the four years, 1938 to 1941, month of December each year: In December, 1938, there was £18,225,000 in circulation — that is, the total money, coins and notes of all kinds; December, 1939, £19,294,000; December, 1940, £22,826,000; 1941, £26,038,000. That money is going around the country, in circulation. That is probably even a greater measure of inflation than Senator Johnston asked for and may be more than he would like to see. It is more than I would care to see because inflation is a highly dangerous and destructive thing. I was in Germany shortly after the last war when inflation was at its height and I saw the calamitous circumstances of the poor people there. I saw what it meant even to those who were in employment, getting piles of notes. I saw a cashier who had hundreds of men to pay and saw the piles he was paying out in notes.

What value was it to them? You know the collapse that, eventually, came. We want to take every possible measure that wisdom suggests to avoid anything remotely approaching the kind of thing that happened not only in Germany but elsewhere. If it does happen, the poorer classes of the community are the people who will suffer most. The rich will manage to live somehow.

I have not referred to Senator McGee's remarks. I should like to say a lot of things to him about his "imperial preference." I wonder if he includes in his "imperial preference" bombs as well as high wages. I should like to have a serious talk with him sometime, but I shall not detain you now, as the House has another matter in which I am interested to discuss to-night.

I shall just refer to one other matter — the question of a National Government to which many speakers referred the last day. I have not any hope that a National Government, such as the gentlemen who spoke here the other day had in mind, would, in present circumstances, be of any great help to this country. That is my belief. I agree very largely with what Senator Quirke said here to-day and with what Senator O'Donovan said here the last day. As Senator Quirke said, you want a team that will work in harmony. You want a team the members of which have ideals in common and have the same objective. If a Government of all the Parties were likely to come into existence, I have some idea of the ideals and objectives of some members of the Opposition who might be included in that Government. Their ideals and objectives, under present circumstances, would, certainly, not be mine, judging by the views I have heard some of them express — some views expressed in public and others in private. You could not run a country, great or small, in an emergency and in dangerous and difficult times such as we are living through, without unity of ideals and a united objective. I do not see how you can get that under present circumstances.

I think that the statement of Deputy Cosgrave in the other House on the 29th January rules out any possibility — if there were no other reason — of consideration being given to the question of an all-Party Government under present conditions. In a discussion on Emergency Powers Order, No. 139, in the Dáil, Deputy Cosgrave said:—

"In my view, an Order such as this should not be in the hands of any but a National Government, and a National Government in this country is an impossibility if for no other reason than the existence of the Head of the Government at the present moment."

These are Deputy Cosgrave's words, as quoted in the Dáil reports. I am not sure what Deputy Cosgrave exactly means when he says:—

"For no other reason than the existence of the Head of the Government at the present moment."

Whether he means that Mr. de Valera would have to commit political harikari or disappear off the earth altogether——

Mr. Douglas

I am sure he did not mean that.

Mr. M. Hayes

I do not think that he meant that.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I do not think so, either, but it is vague.

Mr. M. Hayes

I wonder if the word "existence" is the word he used.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I was not listening to the speech.

Mr. M. Hayes

I was told that that was not the word he used, but I cannot argue it.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It is vague. It is very hard to be sure of what exactly he did mean. People will put a variety of interpretations on the statement, in the usual way, and some will not put the best interpretation or take the meaning that was, probably, honestly intended. I do not see that there is any hope of bettering this country as long as the kind of mentality that is represented by that statement of Deputy Cosgrave exists here. There is, certainly, no chance that I can see of an all-Party Government and, if you did get it, how can you imagine, with that mentality, the Government working in harmony and unity in the best interests of this country? I cannot see that happening; perhaps others can. I should be prepared at all times to do anything in reason that would appear to me to help this country over the very difficult times that are ahead. Nobody has the faintest notion of how long this war will last. Our great difficulty is that of supplies. With the help of the farming community, we are getting over many of the food difficulties and will get over them. If we do not, it will certainly not be for want of the Government having a proper idea of what money can do.

Money cannot do everything. All the money in the world cannot get us extra petrol. All the money in England — the richest country in the world — cannot get them the coal they need. I see reports in the papers of people from the "swell" districts in London going out to coal depots with perambulators to collect their 6 cwts. of coal. The greatest coal-raising country in the world cannot provide sufficient coal for those people. If we were to spend the £300,000,000 which they are supposed to have in England in trying to obtain supplies, with the assistance of a super-Minister who would appear from God knows where—I think we have a super-Minister for Supplies, a great man, and a great figure — or who would be conjured somehow out of an all-Party Government, we would not get an extra ton of coal or an extra tanker of petrol. The supplies are not there.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining stages now.