Distress in Europe—Motion.

Mr. Douglas

I move the following motion, which stands in the name of Senator Fearon and myself:—

That this House views with concern the reports of malnutrition and starvation in many countries as a result of food shortage due to the war, and requests the Government to investigate the possibility of this State making some contribution in kind towards the alleviation of distress in Europe, if necessary by the rationing of commodities, of which quantities may be available in excess of our essential national requirements.

This motion was handed in about three weeks ago, and since the Minister for Finance has indicated the Government's acceptance of the principle, and has stated that the Government has appointed a committee to investigate what can be done, if this House should pass this resolution, it will, in effect, be support for the Government's action as far as it goes. The only thing that I wish to say, in relation to the Minister's announcement in his Budget speech, is that I hope the committee will act speedily, as the sooner help in kind can be sent the more value it will be.

It is, I think, however, rather appropriate that this motion should be taken to-day, when the nations that were victorious in this war are celebrating their victory, and when so many of the smaller nations are thanking God for their liberation.

This country has been a non-belligerent in this terrible war. There may be room for honest differences of opinion as to whether that was or was not wise, but I do not think there is any possible room for a difference of opinion on the undoubted fact that the overwhelming majority of the people desired to keep out of the war, unless we were attacked. I heard an ex-Senator say at a meeting some time ago that neutrality was not something to boast about, but rather something to be profoundly thankful for. That is largely my own point of view.

As a non-belligerent State, we, of course, cannot have any part in victory celebrations, but we can and should express our joy and thankfulness at the end of the war in Europe, and our thankfulness to Almighty God for the extent to which our country has been preserved from the worst results of war. We can, I think, also on this day join in the feelings of relief, joy and thanksgiving felt by so many of our people who have relatives and friends who are in the armed forces of the nations at war, or who, as civilians, have been abroad and have been bombed or otherwise suffered the horrors of war. Apart from the Irishmen who left home as volunteers of their own free will to take part in the war in one way or another, our very close connections with the United States and with Great Britain mean that a very large number of our own people have known years of anxiety, and have lost their loved ones. Whatever our political opinions, I believe every Irish man and woman feels deep sympathy for the bereaved for whom the ending of the war in Europe means bitter memories and much personal sorrow. As a nation we have had to suffer a number of hardships and privations, and these have been felt mostly by the poorest sections of the community, but compared with the horrors which other people had to suffer, ours have been as nothing.

I cannot think of any better way of expressing our sympathy with those who have suffered and our profound thankfulness that our own country has been preserved than by trying to do something to relieve the acute distress now existing in many parts of the world.

I am particularly glad that since this motion appeared on the Order Paper the Government has accepted the principle, but I think that a discussion in this House, if it is reported in the Press, will help to gain support for the Government in this matter, which, I think, would be highly desirable. After all, if food is to be sent to Europe, it will be at the expense of our own people. Any sacrifices made will have to be made by them. It is, therefore, highly desirable that the people generally should be convinced of the rightness of our sending food, if it is possible to do so, even if it does mean some additional rationing or more strict rationing here.

It is, I think, also most important that it should be realised that at the present time it is only contributions in kind that can be effective immediately. I do not want to belittle in any way money contributions which, I am perfectly certain, will be needed if the Red Cross and other relief organisations are to do the work which they have planned. But just now, the plain fact is that in some places people are actually starving, and in many places there is widespread malnutrition, and in these places money by itself is practically useless.

Now that the war is over, I do not think that the various countries in Europe—few of them, at any rate— will have any serious difficulty in raising loans for rehabilitation purposes. I saw it recently announced that the Dutch Government had obtained a loan of 100,000,000 dollars from the Chase National Bank at 1½ per cent. for three years—I think it was backed by gold—and that the Norwegian Government had obtained a loan of 16,000,000 dollars from a group of New York banks at 2 per cent. for two years, and 2½ per cent. thereafter. I do not know how other countries stand, but I am convinced that the most urgent problem will be supplies, not money.

I do not propose to take up much of the time of the House by giving figures or quoting reports to show the extent of the need. It is, I expect, pretty well known to members of this House. As an illustration, however, I propose to read the following extract from a report on the position in Holland, which I have taken from Keesings Archives:—

"Reports from occupied Holland during December said that in the big towns communal kitchens were issuing about a pint of watery gruel to long queues of hungry people; that bread and meat rations, when available at all, had been cut drastically (in the case of meat to 75 grammes—under 3 ozs. a fortnight); that butter, sugar and fats had virtually disappeared; that private household stocks were almost exhausted; that men, women and children were going into the countryside in bitter weather searching-for potatoes, beans and other vegetables, frequently dying on the road from exhaustion and hunger; that in the rural areas themselves supplies of these vegetables were seriously affected in view of the German policy of inundation and deportation of farm workers; that with the exception of Rotterdam (where there was still a limited supply of electricity) both electricity and gas had disappeared from western Holland; and that the health of the people (of whom some 6,000,000 were still in occupied territory) was in consequence deteriorating rapidly, with a growing incidence of deaths and illness, particularly from diseases of malnutrition."

"In South Holland"—

I again quote from Keesings Archives—

"daily rations dropped from 780 calories at the end of October to 460 at the end of December and to 320 during March, i.e., just over one-tenth of the amount considered by experts of the League of Nations as necessary for normal human beings. Concurrently black-market prices in occupied Holland rose to astronomical heights; reports reaching the Dutch Government during March stated that people were paying the equivalent of £10 for a loaf of bread, £1 for a pint of milk, and 2/-. for a potato".

Since that report the position has become worse, and on April 26th a Dutch Archbishop sent a message to the Archbishop of Canterbury that only five days' food (at the minimum rations) remained for 3,500,000 people in Western Holland. Since then food has been sent to Holland by Allied Governments and by some neutral states. I read recently that Sweden had placed 4,000,000 Krone worth of food at the disposal of the Dutch Government, and that they had actually sent 13,500 tons of food by air. The Swiss Government also sent 5,000 tons of food, I think also by air.

The position in Holland is appalling, but it is not by any means the only country in which there is serious malnutrition. A few days ago I was speaking to a co-religionist of my own who had recently been in France in connection with relief work there. He stayed with a civilian family and told me that the three daily meals consisted of a piece of bread and boiled vegetables. He thought France was not as badly off as some other countries.

That we ought to do something, if we can, every right-minded person will agree. But is there anything effective that we can do? Only the Government can answer that question. It is easy to pass a resolution, it is easy to talk, but we must face the difficulties. We cannot send food of which our supplies are short and which is essential to the poorer classes of our own people and which is the only kind they can afford. To do so would be wrong and foolish, and it would only create conditions here that we wish to prevent elsewhere. But the fact remains that many of us could do with less food than we are getting without any danger of malnutrition. I do not propose to deal further with this because Senator Fearon, who will be seconding the motion, is much better qualified to speak on this aspect of the question than I am.

I have been told that tinned or frozen meat and dried milk would be the best articles of food we could send. I do not know whether or not it is practicable to send these foods. I have been told that we could send tinned meat in substantial quantities, if we could get the tins. I do not know exactly what we could send, as I have not got first-hand information, but I am sure that it is our duty to examine every aspect and to do what we can. It may only be a drop in the bucket, but every little helps.

I and, probably, most of you have read a great many of the reports of the position in various countries, but I can tell you that nothing I have read moved me as much as talking to people who had seen the actual conditions.

I am convinced that it is our duty, first of all, as Christians, to make every effort to do something. The late President Roosevelt said that he desired for his country the policy of the good neighbour. When Our Lord was asked Who is my neighbour, He replied with the parable of the Good Samaritan. The neighbour in that parable was one with whom the Jews had no dealings and he had fallen amongst thieves. I do not wish to press the analogy too far, but the worst suffering seems to be amongst the smaller nations whose people have fallen amongst thieves.

I feel that we in Ireland have a peculiar and special duty towards the people of the smaller nations. Norway, Denmark, Holland and Belgium—to mention only some of them—were just as desirous of remaining non-belligerent as we were, and it was not the fault of their people that they were involved in the war. Like us, they wished to remain neutral, and like the majority of our people they preferred democracy and had no sympathy with totalitarianism. I hope and pray that the end of the war means the end of totalitarianism in Europe, but I am by no means certain of it. I think all the small nations should co-operate and make common cause in the future as far as possible. Our first step in this direction should be a genuine effort to send food as proposed in this resolution.

I do not suggest for a moment that our duty or our desire to help should be confined to any one nation or group of nations. If we had plenty of food to spare, I would send it anywhere that it was urgently required, but I feel that even our best effort will be relatively small as compared with the total need. One thing that the war has taught, or should have taught, every nation is that isolationism is impracticable as a national policy for any State, small or large. We could not have got through the last five years as well as we have done if we had not been able to continue international trade to the limited extent in which it has been possible.

We are vitally interested in the maintenance of peace in the future. We may have no say in the political plans for world co-operation which are being made, but, like every other nation, we will have to pay our share of the price if these plans are a failure. I believe that the future peace of Europe depends just as much on the efforts which will be made to save peoples everywhere from malnutrition and to enable them to live decent lives as it does on any plans which may be made at San Francisco. You cannot build up an ordered society if large sections of the people are undernourished. Starvation or malnutrition is therefore our concern whether it be in the slums of Dublin, in Holland or in Germany, or anywhere else.

The resolution does not refer to clothing which is an urgent problem in many places. By next winter, I think, the shortage of clothing may be almost as serious as the shortage of food in some parts of Europe. I am afraid that our own position is such that we cannot do very much in this direction. Even second-hand clothing would be appreciated in many places, and if individuals here are prepared, especially while we continue rationed, to give their surplus clothes to be sent to Europe, I think the Government should make it easy for them to do so by giving them the necessary export permits.

In conclusion, I wish to emphasise that this resolution means that we are asking our people to give up some of their own comforts to help other countries. The sacrifices will be nothing like those we would have had to make if we had been in the war, but they will be sacrifices. It does not require much imagination to realise what this country might have suffered if it had been invaded and occupied. I do not believe that war will ever be abolished until all nations realise their mutual dependence on each other and until people are willing to make sacrifices in time of peace with the same willingness that they make them in time of war.

Professor Fearon

I second the motion. For some time past, the sentiments embodied in this motion have, I think, been felt by a great many people in our country and have been expressed in various ways, and the type of question that one hears being asked is: Are we doing anything, are we contemplating doing anything, or what are we actually going to do? Since this motion was tabled, we have been told that the subject is now under consideration by an inter-Departmental committee. I shall not endeavour, and do not feel called upon to try, to put any elaborate programme before the House for the simple reason that an inter-Departmental committee must inevitably have access to far more knowledge than any individual member of this or of the other House. What I should like to do is to make this the occasion of stating or emphasising a few principles that I think should underlie any action we take. As I see the situation, it resolves itself into four questions—what needs to be done, what should we do, what can we do and how we should do it?

What needs to be done? Here we are at the first of our difficulties. From time to time we have been receiving from abroad various reports of lamentable states of existence. Unfortunately, truth is the first casualty in war, and starvation can be exploited for the purposes of propaganda just as it can be exploited for the purposes of policy. During the last year, the Dietetic Council of the Medical Association, of which I am a member, canvassed the representatives of the various Governments for information as to standards of nutrition in various countries. Of course, some of these statements were not of much use and other statements were not very trustworthy, but the general impression one did get, even allowing for propaganda where it was present, was that there was a terribly bad distribution of food, and the misfortune associated with it throughout Europe. Since then most of us have been meeting people coming back from the Continent. We have heard first-hand reports from them and we know without question that conditions are appalling in certain parts. We have seen countries, in many respects resembling our own, which have been overrun and out of which food was either removed, destroyed or consumed. What is more serious, the live stock was removed in some instances and, what is still more serious, the very soil was poisoned by the inrush of sea water. It will take a long time to restore anything like normal conditions in these countries. If we are going to face this problem, it is well that we should know the precise extent of the difficulties before us. For that reason I should be grateful to know if there is any chance of an independent committee going from this country to the Continent and making a report so that we can have first-hand information from our own countrymen. That will also enable us to get our minds somewhat clearer as to how far the information we are getting is really representative. If it is anything like it has been represented, the conditions are terrible. That is on the question of what needs to be done. If my information is accurate, it will need to be done immediately and to be continued for a considerable time.

Now we come to the second question—what should we do? My answer to that is that I think you can send calories and proteins. At the risk of impersonating the public educator, I shall try to tell the House what calories and proteins are as I understand them. I do not think it is generally realised that it was the work of a distinguished citizen of Dublin, the late Henry Thompson, that put national nutrition on a calorie standard. If you take a copy of that valuable work, the Statistical Abstract, which should be by everybody's bedside, you will find food exports expressed in tonnage. About 35 years ago, Thompson estimated them, not in terms of tonnage but in terms of their food value or calories, their human fuel value. That is a far more useful way of expressing them, just as gas is measured in therms instead of in volume.

Thompson's work, the importance of which was widely recognised everywhere except in his own country, forms a basis of rationing. You have a figure below which you cannot maintain life. The ordinary adult consumes about 3,000 of these calories in a day. The ordinary person sitting in a chair, a Senator for instance, is consuming about 200 calories an hour. If he goes to sleep, as Senators have sometimes been known to do, he is consuming about 50 calories an hour. He has got to consume a certain daily amount to live. In that respect, we are like the gas-producer type of cars we see going round our streets. We get our food in different forms, as fuel. We have got to get that fuel to keep the engine going. If the engine stops, we stop permanently because we have not got self starters. The first problem of nutrition is, therefore, to be able to get at least a minimum number of calories. In the various comprehensive nutrition schemes put before the world, the minimum number has been fixed as round about 2,000 per day but there are people who have got to get very much more, people who are engaged in laborious work.

Now, as to the question of proteins, the nitrogenous constituents of our diet, represented by milk, eggs and meat foods. There is no known substitute for proteins. They are absolutely necessary for life, particularly so for the expectant mother, and for the growing child. It has been shown that a proper protein intake is part of our protection against disease. The fearful outbreak of influenza, which created such havoc at the end of the last war, was partly due to protein starvation as well as lack of vitamins. Now, we cannot send vitamins. We have got only enough for ourselves and what we have to do is to see if we even have proteins in sufficient quantity. Again, on the question of what can we do, we have the Statistical Abstract. I am sure there is a great deal of information available in Government Departments and for that reason I am not going to elaborate a scheme, as all the information can be obtained in a very much more accessible form. There is a report from the League of Nations on the problem of nutrition, which was published in 1936. Every country in the world is mentioned in this report except, for some extraordinary reason, our own. How we could have been left out is a mystery to me, but I suppose what was nobody's business was not the League of Nations' business. It is, however, possible to calculate what would be the likely surplus which we could spare for relief purposes. Here it is important to emphasise that, whatever we do, will have to be done for a period of time. It is not just a question of fitting out a picnic basket and sending it out with our best wishes to the peoples of Europe. We shall have to arrange to send supplies for a definite, period of time, and if we are to do anything effectively, we shall have to say that we are supplying so much proteins and so many calories at a certain rate.

We then come to the most crucial of all the points, what should we do? Here various problems arise. Senator Douglas has, mentioned the possibility of sending tinned food, but where can we get the cans? Many foods are extremely bulky, and if we send them, we send a great deal of water as well. Surveying the subject, it appears to me that the most likely food would be something of the type of dried milk, which is a valuable source of protein, provides calories, and many other useful things. It does not require to be packed in canisters. It can be processed in various ways, is of good keeping quality and, in the process of dehydration, is thoroughly sterilised. Have we got enough material?

The question of collecting and supplying I am not going to discuss in detail with the House, because there are others here who can speak more authoritatively. I submit that we should collect at least on paper details of what we could obtain in this country. If we have so much proteins and so much calories, and if we make these available, will they be collected? It appears to me that the question of distribution is going to be extremely important on account of the shortage of ships.

Finally, how should we do this? That is more a matter of distribution, possibly, working with one of the great organisations, like the Red Cross or the C.I.A.C. I feel that we are in a very strong position as an united people, an united nation. At present the Government has access to sources of food material, some of the best in the world, and in connection with this proposal I am convinced that the Government has access to a very great source of goodwill. For that reason I hope that this will be more than a purely Government scheme. I feel that a Government scheme in this country is exposed to two dangers, the danger of irrelevant Party criticism and the danger of political delay. I feel that if it were possible for a committee to be formed from both Houses, representative of all Parties, it would be much more generally welcome than a purely Government committee.

This year, and almost this month, we are entering on the 100th anniversary of the period when we encountered unprepared the darkest period in our recorded history, the famine years, a period that at one time threatened irreparable damage to our nation. If any nation knows what starvation is, and what its consequences are, it is this nation. I think we have learned our history lesson. I respectfully suggest that we should learn a geography lesson also; learn that we are not an island outpost in the Atlantic, but part of the great family of nations. Justice, our geographical position and commonsense should make us appreciate that our partnership is linked up with other nations, that we are linked up with their welfare. Hence, I support this motion, and stress that what we believe should be done will have to be done quickly and continuously, not as a charitable gesture, but as a sustained, well-thought-out, considered action, a rededication of this country in united form to the service of mercy and justice.

Mr. Counihan

I wish to support the motion, and I am glad of the opportunity to be able to tell the House that the farmers were not waiting for a lead from the Government or from the Seanad before trying to do something on their own lines similar to what the motion suggests. I approached the Department of Agriculture more than 18 months ago on behalf of the farmers with a scheme to produce potatoes to relieve distress in Europe. The proposal was that every Irish farmer should be requested to grow an extra rood per acre of his tillage quota, to be sent as a free gift to relieve distress in Europe. Though not turning down the proposal, the Department accepted it very coldly and we got no encouragement to proceed with it. When the Department and the Government would not do anything, Deputy Dillon and I then approached the chairman of the Red Cross Society. He was very enthusiastic and formed a committee, mostly of farmers, of which four members of this House were members, Senators Quirke, Duffy, McGee and I were members. That proposal was received very favourably by the bishops and clergy of all denominations. Secretaries of Red Cross branches, all over the country took up the proposal but, in October, when the time came to lift the potatoes, we could not get a permit from the Department of Agriculture to export potatoes; we could not get a ship to take them to France or to convey them to any part of Europe; we could not get a sack to pack the potatoes in and we could not get a navicert. It was very saddening. I thoroughly agree with Senator Douglas that unless the Government take up the proposal nothing of this kind could be done successfully. The question is: what can we send to relieve distress in Europe? Senator Douglas pointed out that money is not much use to starving people. I suggest to the Government that, as we have factories working here for the last four or five years preparing cooked meat and producing the tinned meat that is sent to the armed forces, it could be sent to those countries which need it most. Instead of sending money to buy food, either to the Red Cross Society or to other Governments, the money should be spent in this country to buy food which could be manufactured here and then sent wherever needed.

There is another thing that the country can do. We have a very large quantity of live stock for breeding purposes, a number of heifers suitable for dairying, and I think it would be a very useful gift to some of the countries in Europe which are denuded of live stock if they were purchased here and sent out to them. We have a surplus of cattle in this country. During the last 12 months many animals of that sort have been slaughtered for beef. We have several other articles of food which could be very usefully sent out but, as Senator Douglas pointed out, unless we have the co-operation of the Government, as we know from our experience in the potato scheme, nothing can be done. I hope the Government will take up the matter. Many of us feel ashamed because of the small contribution we have made to relieve the distress which we are told exists all over Europe.

Mr. Duffy

I should like to associate myself with the proposal in the motion. In particular, I feel that what has been said regarding the form which relief should take is of considerable importance. The view sometimes prevails that, in giving assistance, yon discharge your duty if you write a cheque. It is quite obvious that in all these cases money is of no importance whatever. As a matter of fact, we will soon begin to notice that even at home it is not of much importance, at least, not nearly so important as food, clothing, fuel, houses and things of that kind. But there are difficulties in regard to food, as I think the other speakers realise. One of the difficulties is transport. I have been reading a number of reports on conditions in different parts of Europe. They all seem to concentrate on the fact that lack of transport is a tremendous handicap in distributing food from centres where it exists to centres where it is needed. I do not know how we can deal with that matter, I do not see that we can contribute very much. We have shipping. Perhaps we can make more use of that service to take cargoes to ports which may be easily accessible and from which the food can be taken to suitable centres for easy internal distribution.

I agree with the suggestion which, I think, was made by Senator Fearon or Senator Douglas, that some steps should be taken by the country to ascertain accurately what the conditions are in Europe, because I have been reading a good deal of literature regarding the conditions in certain countries which seem to emphasise that they and they alone are in a bad state. I can understand, for instance, that Holland is in a worse condition than France, but I cannot understand that Holland is in a worse condition in the matter of food than, say, Belgium. I imagine it is not. Yet, very little attention has been paid to Belgium, while a lot of information is available in regard to Holland. Perhaps the Dutch are better propagandists than some of the other countries. I do not know, but this statement was published in an English newspaper of the 22nd April—the authority is a Dutch official:—

"There is not a single child living under one year of age. There are scarcely any live births. The population of the industrial area is so weakened by lack of food that even those who have a slight cold are written off as hopelessly incurable."

That is a description and, I have no doubt, an accurate description, of conditions in Holland, but I am just wondering whether conditions in other countries are not equally bad. Another English paper, The Observer, in April, drawing attention to the countries in eastern and south-eastern Europe, said:—

"Famine threatens the countries of eastern and south-eastern Europe which were the larders of the Continent before the war."

Another point they make is that farming operations have been suspended for the greater part of this spring, so that the need for food is not merely for now, but, there is going to be a need next year if the crops upon which the people depend for the early part of next year have not been sown.

I do not want to delay the House in regard to the matter, but there are two points I should like to mention. I wish to refer to a statement appearing in an English trade paper regarding a proposal by an organisation, in England for sending commodities to France, Belgium and Holland. Whether it applies only to that organisation or is intended to have general application, I do not know, but it contains a very extraordinary reservation. It says:—

"The articles which are required are: Part-used clean clothing or shoes; old clean linen and towelling suitable for babies' use; babies' shawls or blankets made from knitted squares of wool; sewing cases containing needles and thread; knitting needles. Nothing else may be sent."

I assume that that concerns this particular organisation but it does not make that point clear. In fact, it would convey the impression that nothing else should be sent to the Continent. However, I take it that the Government committee dealing with these matters were informed as to what is needed and what is not needed.

The other point to which I wish to refer is a matter in which we can be of immediate assistance. It has been brought to my notice that a statement was published in a paper—Peace News—of the 13th April, 1945, by a well-known English woman writer regarding the condition of children brought to England from Holland as evacuees. They were in a camp at a place called Cottingham, which I think is near Hull. The purpose of bringing them to the camp is to build them up for a period, but after an interval it becomes necessary to remove them from the camp to make room for fresh evacuees who have been taken from famine-stricken and disease-stricken districts. The children had to move out. Efforts are being made in England to place these children in English homes rather than send them back to Holland but, as it happens, for some time, the children at Cottingham are Catholics and objection has been taken to the boarding-out of Catholic children in Protestant homes in the vicinity. That situation will alter, I understand, in the near future, when children will be brought to Cottingham from Northern Holland, the majority of whom would be Protestant. It has been suggested to me that one of the things we might do right away is to offer to accept these children as “boardees” in Ireland, in Catholic homes, when they are obliged to leave the camp at Cottingham, rather than that they should have to go back to Holland, to the conditions which we are discussing, in the motion. I do not know whether there are any legal difficulties that cannot be overcome with regard to these children but, if there are no difficulties, or if there are merely such difficulties as can readily be overcome, I urge that we might at least make a start by arranging that our people here who are willing to do so would be encouraged to adopt Catholic children, as they are being discharged from the camp at Cottingham.

Mr. Baxter

If I may add to what has already been said in favour of the motion, I should like to stress the point that, to a certain extent, consideration of this matter is more difficult in this country because we know far less about conditions in Europe than any other country. Perhaps two years ago I put down a motion in this House, which the Taoiseach felt called upon to come to discuss. On that occasion, I said some of the things which have been said to-night. I visualised the possibilities of a picture of Europe just as it is to-day, a very dreadful and very awful picture, but unfortunately the censorship of this country has not permitted the facts to be made known to our people. In that respect the Taoiseach and the Oireachtas have a very difficult problem to deal with in regard to this matter. I have no doubt that if the people of the country, the common people, who do not believe in man or beast having less to eat than is necessary for sustenance, knew what the conditions of life are like for the people on the Continent, they would do everything in their power to enable us to make the greatest contribution that it is possible for us to make towards relief in Europe. Quite frankly, I think the Taoiseach and the Government cannot absolve themselves from responsibility in this matter. They should have been freer in their dealing with the censorship in regard to it. I understand that not very long ago a letter to the Press, dealing with the facts of the food position on the Continent, was censored——

Mr. Hearne

On a point of order, might I ask what censorship has to do with the motion before us? I have no desire to see this motion discussed other than in calm tones, but I fail to see the relevance of references to the censorship.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is pointing out that the particular letter he is referring to, dealt with the food situation in Europe.

Mr. Baxter

Exactly—the very matter under discussion now. I am trying to point out that there are certain difficulties in dealing with this problem because of the ignorance of our people in relation to the magnitude of it and the inevitable consequences which must flow from it if all of us do not make an effort to find a solution. When I listened to the calm, cool way in which Senator Douglas made his case, and to the facts as presented by Senator Fearon, I felt that they have information, but how much of that information has got across to our people, and how much is going to get across to them? When they read this, how many of them will ask: "Is this just propaganda, or are the facts really like that at all?" How many of them will ask: "Can we afford to do this, or are we justified in taking this step?" On the other hand, I have no doubt in the world that there would be immeasurable goodwill and co-operation from the people if they knew the facts of the situation. The Government has a certain responsibility for not having permitted more enlightenment to the people. It was obvious that this flood-tide would break, and that this problem would be there.

Quite clearly, we are limited with regard to the contribution we can make towards the relief of distress on the Continent. It has to be remembered that what surplus food we had we have been exporting. It has been going to Britain. We know, too, that Britain herself, a food importing country, has not anything like an adequate supply of the proteins, calories and vitamins that are essential for anything like the equivalent of what she enjoyed pre-war. But the problem is there, and there are many reasons why we must shoulder our responsibility. There are the demands of Christian charity. Perhaps our first consideration should be to make our contribution an act of thanks giving because we ourselves have been saved from all the dreadful things which the people on the Continent have suffered; in so far as we can make sacrifices now, we should be prepared to make them. In attempting to examine what we can do, it seems to me that the Government is confronted with certain difficulties. Senator Fearon spoke of the possibility of exporting dried milk. I presume it is within his knowledge that we are, or have been, dehydrating milk in this country over a number of years in some of our largest creameries, and have been sending quantities of dried milk out of the country. There are possibilities of doing that to a greater extent. But there are certain limitations on what can be done in this regard, inasmuch as the production of milk is falling and has been falling in this country over a period of years. That is a fact which was within the knowledge of the Government. It is a matter to which we have addressed ourselves in this House time and time again. The consequences of that continual fall in our milk production should have been borne in upon the Government. We know that the dehydrating of milk and the sending out of the country of dried milk will have certain consequences internally— a fall in butter production, and so on. That is something we will have to face. We will have to make our choice. I attempted to discuss in this House two years ago—the discussion was hot very favourably received if I may say so— this whole problem of our dairy stock. I can turn up the records and show what was said, and the attitude with which I was confronted on that occasion. I feel that the reorganisation of our dairying even to-day would enable us——

An Cathaoirleach

I am afraid this is not of much help. This is not a discussion on dairying.

Mr. Baxter

I do not want to be out of order, but I think we are entitled to discuss what we can do.

An Cathaoirleach

There is no use in going back over the past and complaining of what might have been done. What we want to find out is what can be done in the immediate future.

Mr. Quirke

You cannot make this a regular political issue without bringing in farming conditions. It is quite obvious that it is being made a political issue. Any stick is good enough for Senator Baxter to beat the Government with.

Mr. Sweetman

It is not being made a political issue.

Mr. Baxter

I have no desire to make it a political issue, and I am sorry that Senator Quirke introduced that note.

Mr. Hearne

Senator Baxter introduced it at the very beginning. The censorship was brought in by Senator Baxter.

Mr. Baxter

Yes——

An Cathaoirleach

I would ask the Senator to confine himself to the terms of the motion and the immediate need and not to go back to the past.

Mr. Baxter

In discussing the motion, I am discussing the difficulties with which we are confronted in implementing it. I was discussing the possibility of removing these difficulties, because its implementation——

Mr. Hearne

I think the Senator should not anticipate the decision of the Seanad on the motion. The motion may not be accepted by the Seanad.

Mr. Baxter

If I have to continue by way of question and answer, it will take me longer. I am prepared to conduct the debate on that line if you, Sir, permit it. The examination of what we can do requires realism on our part. I do not believe in the House being asked to pass a motion that does not mean something, and which, if passed, cannot be translated into reality. I was trying to point out that the suggestion made by Senator Fearon as to the export of dry milk, if approached in a particular way, might have considerable possibilities. I think Senator Counihan, with his knowledge of the conditions of the live-stock industry to-day, can tell the House the problem the farmer is confronted with in our fairs. There are obviously numbers of cattle in this country that farmers would be very glad to get off their hands in all the fairs in the country. There ought to be a way found by which people who want cattle which we do not want, which can be utilised for food in one way or another, would have the cattle or the food made available for them. I have been in fairs recently, and I am sure Senator Counihan has been also. I was at a fair on Tuesday, and I could not see any business being done there. No matter what sort of stock you had there, it was not marketable. I have been at all the fairs since the beginning of this year, and I have not seen more unsatisfactory fairs since the days of the economic war. Farmers all over the country will tell you that we have stock which we do not want, which, in fact, at present we cannot carry on the area of grass we have got. Although they may not all be in as good a condition from the point of view of providing good food as we would like to have them, nevertheless they would be acceptable to millions of people on the Continent to-day. That in itself is an aspect of the situation which I think requires examination, and a great many of us would be very considerably relieved to know that we have stock that could be made available to people on the Continent, either alive or dead, which we do not want, and which apparently they do not want in England at present.

I have no doubt that, if this whole question is approached from the point of view, in the first place, of a definite resolve on our part that we must, that we can, and that we will, we can make a fair and reasonable contribution to relieve the plight of people on the Continent. I think that there should not be any discrimination as between Italy, Poland, Belgium and Holland. All these countries are really in a dreadful condition, and it is a matter for people connected with an international organisation to determine in what way the distribution of the surplus food which we can make available can be made to serve the most useful end. We should declare now that it is the opinion of this House that this motion is one that should be accepted unanimously and should be implemented by the Government at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Madden

I think six Senators have already spoken, and I say most respectfully to them that they have said nothing pertinent to the motion. There is no use in having a motion put down on the Order Paper and then have the greater number of the speakers telling us about our humanitarian responsibilities. These are accepted. Nobody can deny our national sympathy. Our Christian civilisation has established that for centuries. Not one of the Senators has made a real contribution to the debate. Some of the speeches have been directed to attacking the Government because of the things they have not done and some speakers have told us that whatever is to be done must be done now, although they did not tell us how we are to meet the immediate demand. We all agree that something ought to be done; but what can we do? What is there to send? I have been puzzling that out. I live in an agricultural area and I am a farmer myself. I come from one of the greatest dairying counties in the country and I ask, what have we to send?

Let us look at things as they are, not as visionaries and sympathisers. It was not right to attack the Government. They gave a contribution 12 months or two years ago to Italy of something like £100,000 which was at least an indication of the sympathy that inspired the Government and which was characteristic of the whole nation. What can they send now to feed those who are starving and who are dying by the wayside while we are talking? Have we potatoes? No. Have we butter? No. Have we meat? No. We have unfinished stores which, at this time of the year, after the winter, are not fit for anything until they get the summer grass. I was at a fair on Monday at which you could not sell a beast. Other people coming from Nenagh told me the same thing applied there. That has been generally the case except for fat cattle which, as Senator Counihan knows well, are in the minority. What can we do? What can we send? We have no butter. The only thing we can fall back upon is dried milk.

Senator Baxter has correctly indicated the position with regard to milk. I come from the premier dairying county and, since 1938, there has been a gradual diminution of dairy stock in that county. We had a statistical return made out and I can give figures carefully compiled on instructions from the agricultural committee. In Limerick, in 1939, as compared with 1938, there were 15,785,000 fewer gallons of milk taken to the creameries, and there were 13,000 fewer dairying cows in 1939 than in 1938. From then until now there has been a gradual and dangerously convincing reduction in the dairying industry and in dairying cattle. There is no butter and there is less milk. The number of fat cattle we have at present is neligible, as Senator Counihan or anyone else who is in the fat cattle trade knows. Let us be realistic.

This motion suggests that a certain thing should be done expeditiously. Have any of the Senators who have spoken indicated to the Taoiseach how it can be done expeditiously? How are we to do it by way of food? What food have we? Let us be honest. I think the only thing that can be done is to send a cheque. Surely there is some Red Cross Committee or some international committee or corporation set up by the Allies that will be able to handle the one contribution that we can make and make now—a contribution of money? We cannot give a contribution in kind.

I shall be glad if anybody here will indicate to me anything that we can send that will be an immediate relief to the starving people in Europe. The Government have already contributed £100,000, for which they have been thanked by the people to whom they sent it and also by the Pope. That is the only type of contribution we can make now. I suggest that those who fathered, seconded and supported the motion would be better advised to indicate in what manner we can best help the starving people of Europe rather than stand up here to attack the Government for what they have not done for the agricultural industry.

Mr. Patrick O'Reilly

I think Senator Madden has been very realistic in his remarks on this motion. While I agree that every Senator and the Government and the people generally would be very sympathetic with the object of this motion and would be prepared to make every effort to give practical effect to it, it is very difficult, as Senator Madden suggests, to indicate in any definite way what we can do.

I think it is unfortunate that the political note should have entered into this discussion. I do not think the Senator really intended to introduce politics—I say that in fairness to Senator Baxter. It was his way of putting it and he really did not intend to introduce the political note.

Mr. Hearne

Save me from my friends!

Mr. Patrick O'Reilly

I really do not think that Senator Baxter intended to introduce a political note. I am giving that opinion for what it is worth. Senator Baxter referred to a certain lack of knowledge and to the censorship. Perhaps there is some little germ of truth in that, but, how far would it affect the position? I suggest that any lack of knowledge that may exist is due more to our position on the map in relation to the countries in Europe which we are discussing than to any censorship. Suppose we were faced with the position that one-half of the people of Poland were in a state of destitution through lack of food, clothing or shelter; that one-third of the population of Germany and one-fourth of the population of Belgium and Holland were in a similar position, what could we do about it? With the exception of the cheque mentioned by Senator Madden, if we were to do anything useful we would have to send articles vital in a period of famine, such as food, clothing and medical supplies.

What can we do in that respect? It is to that we should apply ourselves. I am not an authority on these things; I am not in possession of statistics. Suppose we were in a position to transport and distribute goods in European countries that, in the opinion of the Government, need help, we would have to take out of the market in this country, from our own people, commodities that probably we need here. If we proposed to export sugar, one thing that we manufacture ourselves, everybody will agree that the sugar ration is pretty severe, but it is the best that can be done, and were it not for the fact that it is manufactured in this country it would be so much the worse for ourselves during the war. If we put a limit to what we can do in the way of producing sugar, and if we make up our minds that we can afford further to ration our people during the post-war period, then we might have some sugar to send to Europe.

If we feel we can export butter, then we could help with that commodity, too. But can we afford to export butter? Senator Madden, who has at his disposal the statistics of a great dairying county like Limerick, has indicated a falling-off in butter and milk production. That is the position in what he describes as the premier dairying county in Ireland. If we were to export butter we would have to ration our people more severely. With regard to meat, there does seem to be a surplus that might be exported, but there, again, we are up against the difficulty of distribution.

I do not agree with Senator Baxter when he says that cattle could not be sold in the fairs during the past day or two. Senator Madden singled out the same period. I happened to be at a fair in Mohill and I could observe a slight improvement. Even to-day there was a slight improvement. Senator Madden is quite correct in saying that there is no point in exporting cattle of the type he indicated—unfinished stores.

After all, if you send skin and bone, when these animals get to a country, alive or dead, they would be a very doubtful commodity. We cannot deny that there has not been much purchasing of cattle during the past few days, but the reason is that there were not adequate transport arrangements in the country for which they were intended. That was the position during the past few days, and I think in all fairness that should be indicated. Once that position is remedied, I think normal conditions will again prevail with regard to the export of cattle and there will be a corresponding reaction at our fairs.

Mr. Madden

All the fat cattle were bought. There was transport for them, but the others were left.

Mr. Patrick O'Reilly

I assure the House that I am quite in sympathy with the motion. I believe every other Senator is in sympathy with it, and I am sure the members of the Government are in the same position. But let us face the facts. What can we do? I am not in a position to make any suggestion other than that if we are to deal with this matter properly, we must adopt a realistic attitude.

Mr. Seán O'Donovan

I may be able to offer some practical suggestions. I must first of all express my disappointment at the negative attitude adopted by some Senators who have spoken to this motion. I suggest there is at least one body that can help, and that is the profession to which I belong. During the war years there has been developed, under the auspices of the Government, an extensive export trade in canned products. This is the very period in which that trade is falling off. The cattle that became uneconomic during the winter period have been disposed of to the canning industry. There are hundreds of thousands of uneconomic cattle in the country. Some of them are uneconomic through disease, but that will not interfere with their usefulness in the canning industry. Those animals could be utilised immediately, but there is one "if"—if we could get the cans. I think the thing is feasible if the Government can provide the cans. In that way we can utilise all our uneconomic cattle. Thin cattle are better for the canning industry than fat cattle.

Deputy Counihan suggested exporting heifers. Let us export the uneconomic cattle in the cans and replace them with the heifers, which would become economic. The veterinary profession would be of immense help in going through the country picking out uneconomic cattle. There is not much difficulty in doing that, and even many practical farmers could do it. These cattle are being held over until they are worse than uneconomic, they are wasters.

I do not want to impress anyone with the idea that we are putting diseased stuff into cans. We are not. It is healthy meat of cattle that have become uneconomic. There is plenty of that there still, and all that is necessary to provide it for export at present is to get the cans, if we can. It is possible that the tin could be got from America or some country, and the meat exported to whatever portion of starving Europe we can most easily and most quickly transport it. We are not rationed in meat. We are rationed in butter and sugar, so there is no use in discussing those things. There is that one product of which we have a surplus and, with an effort, it could be utilised.

There is one point to which I would like to refer in Senator Douglas's remarks. It was emphasised also by the seconder of the motion. I do not suppose that anything against the Government was intended, but it was said that, "since the motion appeared on the Order Paper, the principle had been accepted by the Government". I may say, on behalf of the Government, that the principle was accepted years and years ago. We, as Irish people, have contributed as far as we could at the time in India, Italy and elsewhere. I would just mention that point, as certain publicity may be given to the remark that, because this motion was put down, the Government has awakened to the fact that there are starving people in Europe.

The Taoiseach

If this motion was put on the Order Paper to afford an opportunity to Senators to express our people's anxiety about the position in Europe, our concern for the people who are suffering there and our desire to assist in so far as we can, then naturally I welcome the motion; but if it is the intention of the mover to press it to a division I think I must take a different attitude, as there are in it implications which are untrue.

The Senator who proposed it made it quite clear that he was aware that the Tánaiste, the Minister for Finance, in speaking to the Dáil about a week ago, pointed out very clearly that this matter was under active consideration already by the Government. In order that Senators, if they have not seen this statement already, may refresh their memories on it, I will read it:—

"RELIEF OF DISTRESS ABROAD.

Members of the Dáil will remember that during the last year we were happily able to give modest financial help to parts of the world where, owing to conditions created by the war, such assistance was urgently required. This assistance was gratefully received and acknowledged.

An Interdepartmental Committee has been for some weeks —that is, before a week ago— examining the question of the possibility of our aiding in the relief of the people on the Continent now in distress owing to the war. The Committee was asked to make a report to the Government on the help that could be made available by the people of this country, and how such foodstuffs and other materials as we might be able to provide could be conveyed to the countries most needing relief and how best they might be distributed.

The problems involved are not easy of solution and there are many difficulties to be overcome before any of the food that might be made available here can be transported overseas. When they have been overcome—and we hope that with good will they shall be—a full statement on the subject will be duly made to the Dáil. I am certain that all Parties in the House and the whole community will earnestly desire that this country should give such assistance as may be practicable, not merely in money but in the form of food and other essential commodities, supplied even at the sacrifice of reducing our own consumption."

That is the position as it was a week ago. I asked the Senator to postpone this motion, as I was perfectly certain that our discussion here would really be of no value. I felt certain that there was no need of any propaganda to make it clear to our people what their duty in this regard was. No propaganda whatever would be necessary. All that was necessary was to show our people how they could help and our people could be depended upon to help.

As far back as 1943 we tried to send help in food to Greece and Belgium. We could not do it. There was a war on, there was a blockade, large portions of the Continent were occupied, the representatives of the people could not function. There was an army on the mainland and there were blockading forces at sea. They were at war. Under those warring conditions, it should be quite clear that it was only with the greatest good will on the part of all the belligerent forces that we could be of any assistance whatever.

Transport was then a difficulty. Listening to Senator Counihan, one would think that it was the Irish Government which gave navicerts. In order to transport goods of any kind, we had to get those navicerts, so that our ships might pass. That was one of the problems: the problem of transport and the problem of getting the necessary facilities from the belligerents so long as the war was on. The position, thanks be to God, has now changed. It is hoped that in the small countries, at any rate, Governments representing the communities in these countries will be re-established and will be able to function. It is also hoped that once the war has ceased, inter-communication, which will enable organisations like the Red Cross to function in a way that it has not been possible for them to function up to the present, will help to make their task in that respect much easier. Anybody must see that if you are not to have useless things being attempted, if you are not to have overlapping and the sending of food where it is not required, you must have some organisation to see that it will be rationed out properly so that it can be sent exactly where it is most urgently needed; that you will have to keep in contact with this organisation or else that you will have to have direct contact with the Governments of the countries concerned. I hope that that position will come about.

Again, listening to Senator Counihan, one would think that it was our Government that kept the potatoes, that the farmers grew, down on the quays until they became practically useless. Our farmers responded, and if there was any hesitation on the part of any Government Department in sponsoring that effort, it was simply because they knew what the position was and a lot of other people did not know. The result of action of that kind, taken when it had no practical results, meant that when the opportunity came in which you could act in a practical way the people would say: "Oh, it is the same as before. We will give the potatoes and they will be allowed to rot down on the quays." In this matter, the Government must be depended upon to give the lead.

We cannot do without the co-operation of the community as a whole, if it could be organised, and we are very glad, naturally, to have that co-operation. Personally, I should prefer that there should not be Governmental action in this matter and that the individual citizen should be given the satisfaction of himself, directly and immediately, making the sacrifice which will be necessary in some cases in order that food should go out, but the organisation of that would be almost an impossibility. You could not organise it quickly enough. Accordingly, we who have examined the problem, and the representatives of the different Departments who have examined it, are convinced that it must be by direct Government action that we will operate what we propose to do or try to do, if it is to be successful at all.

Now, I think that the Dáil is the place to make the full statement that was promised to the Dáil. It will mean action that has to be taken by our people, action which may result in some places in putting hardships upon them. As I have said, if you could organise effectively so that each one would make the contribution that he himself or she herself was prepared to make, everything would be splendid, but we are quite satisfied that to meet the demands of a situation like the present, that method would not work. It is a different thing, however, when we have to take action which will force individual people to make sacrifices. Most of us, when we are making sacrifices, like to feel that it is done voluntarily, and at least the people should feel that it is through their representatives, directly elected, they will make these sacrifices if the sacrifices are going to be made. Besides, it may involve a considerable sum of money, and I think that the Seanad will agree that, in the first instance at any rate, proposals dealing with these matters ought to come directly before the Dáil. It was promised to the Dáil and it was for that reason, in addition to others that I requested the mover of the motion to postpone it until I, as representing the Government, would be in a position to give details to the Seanad, and the Seanad, accordingly, would be in a position to criticise these details.

There is no question of the desire of the Government to help. There is no question of the willingness of our people to help. The only question is, are we talking around it, as a number of Senators have been talking around this matter, expressing our sentiments, but not indicating exactly how the work can be done? I believe that Senator Madden expressed the general feeling—he certainly expressed my general feeling with regard to the debate—and hit the nail on the head when he said that it is not a question of the will but a question of the way. And the way is not easy, because it depends in part not on our will but on matters outside our control at the present time. As I have said, I do hope the situation will improve, now that Governments of these communities are going to be in control, and that there will be greater opportunities for an international organisation such as the Red Cross to operate, so that where the need is greatest the help will be most readily given.

With regard to financial help, some remarks were made here which seem to indicate that it is of no use. That was not the opinion of the people to whom it was offered. It was pointed out to them in advance that in view of our situation, and so on, we could not ourselves make food available. The most important types of food, and the type of food of which they were in greatest need were available elsewhere and where shipping was also available under the control of some of the great Powers. That being so, they were very glad to have the means of purchasing that food elsewhere. Credits were very important for them and they were very glad indeed to get them. In any case, it was the only way in which we could be of practical assistance, and they agreed that it was of practical assistance. We did not offer it until we had asked them, and we were assured that these gifts of money would be most welcome and most helpful.

As I say, I would ask the proposer and seconder of the motion not to press this. The seconder of the motion made it quite clear that he understood some of the difficulties, such as the want of knowledge. That want of knowledge is not due to the censorship. That want of knowledge is due to the fact that even such international organisations probably, as the Red Cross, which had the means of getting around and getting information, did not have the accurate information which would enable them to know exactly where the need was greatest, and, of course, in matters of food the need changes very, very rapidly. Two or three weeks without food in a particular area changes the situation very, very rapidly. In the case of food, the only hope I can see in most of the cases of preventing absolute disaster is the fact that there are quick methods of transport now in the aeroplane. Were it not for the aeroplane, probably, the situation in parts of Holland would be desperate. While, so far as food is concerned the aeroplane may not be able to take over large quantities to a particular area, it can bring limited quantities of food there quickly. With regard to the type of food to be sent, also, there is the suggestion of tinned food. The difficulty there is the tin. We do not make it. We have got it in the past under certain conditions. These conditions meant that the food was available for another country, and that was a thing that also had to be borne in mind. We must bear it in mind that if the food we normally send to Great Britain were sent elsewhere, it would be at the expense of Great Britain. They would be deprived of the food we send elsewhere, and I think that if we are going to make sacrifices of this sort, we ought to make them really at our own expense, and the only way of doing that is by cutting down our own rations in certain respects. With regard to that, the difficulty is to distribute the burden properly.

For instance, I, and, I am sure, members of the Seanad, could do for a considerable period on less than we are consuming at present, but there are other sections of the community who could not. If each one of us could make our own immediate voluntary contribution, it would be all right, but the trouble is that in these matters you cannot go around and get from each individual his own contribution.

Systems based on coupons and so on have been suggested. I have had them examined, and I have been told that they would not work, so that the position is not by any means easy. In the past, it has been complicated by the difficulties of getting permission and so on and in the future it will be complicated by the difficulties of transport and of getting the precise type of food required from our people. In view of the fact that since 1943—and on the occasions on which I spoke, when looking for financial aid, I indicated the same thing in one form or another—this matter has been actively before the Government and in view of the fact that this resolution, as it is here, would seem to suggest that it was necessary to bring the matter to the attention of the Government, the fact that it contains a false implication, I suggest to the mover and seconder that if they are satisfied, having brought the matter in this formal way before our people and having got the publicity they desire for their views, they should leave it at that, because there is no difference between the view which the Government takes of this matter and the views expressed here, the only point of difference being that the Government has to formulate a practical scheme, and that is difficult.

Mr. Counihan

On a point of explanation, may I inform the Taoiseach that I did not accuse the Government of not giving navicerts? I thought that everybody would be aware that the Government had not the giving of these documents.

Mr. Douglas

This is a matter of personal explanation. Before anyone else speaks, I want to draw attention to a statement made twice by the Taoiseach which is not correct. He said that he asked me to postpone this motion. Now, he did not. If he sent a message, it did not reach me. I am not questioning that he sent a message, but I want to make it very clear, because we are now dealing with public matters, that I was not so asked. If it had been suggested to me that the Head of the Government, for particular reasons, wished it to be postponed, I certainly would have consulted Senator Fearon and I feel certain that we would have agreed to postpone it. What I was told was that the Taoiseach was busy this week and would find it difficult to be here. The answer I made to the Clerk of the Seanad was that I felt that, having regard to the statement made by the Minister for Finance, it was not necessary for the Taoiseach to attend, that I thought it better that the motion should be formally moved and that we should indicate our support. The motion was put down over three weeks ago, but I think, as a matter of personal explanation, the House is entitled to know, first, that I was not personally asked, and, secondly, received no communication asking me to postpone this motion.

The Taoiseach

I have only to say then that there was a misunderstanding.

Mr. Douglas

I did not mean what I have said as a personal attack, but I want to make it clear that it was not true, because we are dealing with this matter in public.

The Taoiseach

What I said was what I understood to be a fact, that the Senator had been asked to postpone the motion. My purpose in wishing it to be postponed was what I have indicated to the Seanad and all I can say, in view of the Senator's statement, is that there has been a misunderstanding.

Mr. Hayes

The Taoiseach will understand that postponement, in the state of our business, would have meant postponement for another month.

The Taoiseach

That was brought to my notice and it was precisely because of that that I came along. Otherwise, I would have said that it was rather unfair of the Seanad not to agree, in view of the statement made by the Minister for Finance. I understood, however, as I have said, that Senator Douglas was not prepared to postpone the motion at all. I came to the House because the position which would arise if it were postponed was one of the matters put to me.

Mr. Foran

The Taoiseach has covered a good deal of the ground which I intended to travel. We have to remember, in the first place, that we are a Christian country, very small in numbers, and very small in area, trying to help in relation to a problem affecting hundreds of millions of people. Naturally, with our small population, our total contribution will be comparatively small, but, however small our contribution, it is our duty to contribute to the relief of these people to our utmost capacity. Senator Baxter rather accused the Government of denying information to our people through the censorship, but there never was a censorship in this world which could prevent people thinking. There is one thing our people can do—they can think, no matter what censorship exists, and it is not necessary to think very deeply to realise the devastation which has been caused in the world for five and a half years, and to realise how that devastation can affect the people of the world. Our people have a fair idea of what conditions are on the Continent, even if what Senator Baxter alleges were true, and it is not.

I was about to suggest to the Taoiseach that, this being a Christian country and the Christian Churches here being as anxious as anybody to help the starving people of Europe, it might be possible to get their co-operation in calling on the people, as a gesture, to have meatless days, milkless days or tealess days in order that we could make the maximum contribution to the starving people of Europe. Certainly we should make some sacrifice, having been spared the horrors of war during the past five and a half years. It will not amount to much in the aggregate, but if we are prepared, as we ought to be, and as I am sure we are, to make this sacrifice and allow a bulk contribution to go to these people, future generations of Irishmen can be proud of the people who were neutral in the world war and who came to the aid of the sufferers.

That is a practical suggestion which will get co-operation and support. As I say, our contribution will not be very great in the aggregate, but it will be a genuine and earnest gesture made as a sacrifice, one which will reflect credit on our people, while, at the same time, helping the starving people of Europe. If this is handled properly, our people will respond with the same spirit as that with which they responded in the past to calls to assist people more unfortunate than they.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

Although my name is not associated with those of the Senators who have put this motion before the House, it is a subject which has occupied my attention for some little time, and in discussing it with my friends on each side of the gangway, I became convinced that it was a subject which did not need any recommendation or anything in the nature of oratory on my part to back it up. I also have reason to know that it is a subject which has been engaging the close attention of the Government and of the staffs of the various Departments for some time. Accordingly, I did not intend to assist in pushing a door which was opened and which every Senator present was already laying his weight against. I was waiting for the various suggestions which I thought would probably be put forward as to attaining a practical result. I cannot agree with Senator Madden that this has been a barren discussion. Our attention has been directed to this matter from the scientific point of view by Senator Fearon. Certain valuable suggestions have also been made by Senator Foran.

My object in speaking is to urge, in a slightly different way, the principle to which Senator Foran has given utterance. I think it is important that any help we send should be help which is not purely Governmental: that it should be marked with some spontaneous sacrifice by the ordinary person, and that it should be clear that the totality of whatever is made available, in whatever form it is made available, for European relief, has been contributed very largely by individual sacrifices. Senator Foran has suggested a meatless day. I want, rather diffidently, to put forward another suggestion which probably has already been examined, and that is that the Government should sponsor a scheme whereby it should be made possible for each one of us to give up a proportion of the food coupons which are allotted to us under the present system, and further, that we should introduce a rationing for such a commodity as meat in order that we might be able, again by giving up portions of the coupons allotted to us, to contribute to a central fund to be administered by the Government for the purposes of European relief.

There are, of course, great difficulties in that. First of all there is the difficulty of the non-active coupons. When coupons are issued in respect of any rationed commodity a certain percentage are not used. In estimating the amount to go around, I believe that the Government take into consideration the number of those non-active coupons. The coupons to be surrendered would have to be active coupons. I mean that these would have to be coupons of people who have been using them for the past six months to the extent, say, of 90 per cent. These are the coupons that, I suggest, should be made available for the purpose I have in mind. I believe that if everybody was urged, as an act of voluntary sacrifice and of individual thanksgiving to make available 25 per cent. of their butter coupons, of their sugar coupons and of their potential meat coupons, and that if all men of goodwill—the Churches, the Government, the Leaders of the Opposition—were to put their backs into advocating that scheme you would get an individual response which would enable a large stock of coupons to be built up. Those coupons would have to be made available to the Government, and it would be the Government's business to allot, out of the central supply of particular rationed goods, the proportion which represented the coupons voluntarily surrendered.

I am not quite convinced that something along that particular line could not be done. I believe you would get a lot of coupons and that you could off-set against them a good deal of food. I believe that the personal and voluntary note in the scheme would have effects both on those who made the sacrifice and on those for whom the sacrifice was made, effects which would be quite out of proportion to the mere quantity of food which the scheme might produce. I do not think it would take very much time to organise it. There, again, I realise that I am speaking with very little knowledge from the technical point of view, although I feel that in all these things it is rather easy to raise difficulties. Still, if you make up your mind to do a thing it is extraordinary how difficulties do get out of the way. Although we must not let our heads be entirely governed by our hearts, I think that in this matter the heart might lead the head, provided it does not lead it too much by the nose. As I say, I am not quite satisfied that something could not be done along those lines. I appeal to the Taoiseach to consider whether he could not draw on that big reservoir of sacrifice and goodwill which I believe is his to tap at this time, and which, I think, he has the art of tapping. Let us, I suggest, accumulate a stock in that way.

The difficulty of transport has been mentioned. I know it is very great but I do not believe for a moment that if we were in a position to say that, thanks to the sacrifices of our people, we had so many thousand tons of butter, so many tens of thousands of tons of meat, whether it be canned or ready to be put into refrigerating ships to send out, and that if we could say to the victorious nations: "Here is our contribution in the way of food to those who are now starving and it is for you to provide the ships," I believe they would be provided.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is now almost 9 o'clock but the House can, by agreement, sit to a later hour to continue the debate if it desires to do so.

Mr. Hayes

To finish the motion, but not to divide?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That does not arise at the moment. Is it the desire of the House to sit later and finish the motion to-night?

Senators

Yes.

Agreed.

Mr. Douglas

I will not take up the time of the House for more than two or three minutes, as I do not propose to reply fully to the points that were raised in the debate. The Taoiseach has been good enough to withdraw completely the suggestion that I was acting other than in good faith in putting forward this motion, and to say that his statement was due to a misunderstanding which, I have no doubt, is correct. I thought it was important to raise that question at once because it makes a very great difference as to the aspect of the whole matter. I admit that I rather resented the suggestion that I, or any other Senator, would use a matter of this kind for the purpose of gaining some particular Party point. To do so would be despicable, in my humble opinion. It is not my usual practice, and I resented the implied suggestion. I was also surprised and disappointed with the way in which certain members of the House seemed to be on edge to try to make, or see, a political point in everything that was referred to. I rarely go to the trouble of preparing detailed notes for any speeches that I make in the House, but on this occasion I did so, because I wanted to be particularly careful, first of all, that I would definitely say nothing that implied criticism; and, secondly, that I would not knowingly do anything which could raise a Party issue.

Senator O'Donovan referred to my statement that, since the motion was put on the Order Paper, the Government had, by means of a speech from the Minister for Finance, accepted its principle. It never entered my head that this could be misunderstood. It was necessary to make the position clear, because, obviously, to have put down this motion in its present form after that statement had been made, would have been absurd. It was handed in at least a fortnight before the statement was made. I made no claim that it had any influence in connection with that statement. I put the motion down because it expressed the views of a large number of people outside. It is my honest opinion that, in a democracy, it is the duty of public representatives to give voice here to what they hear urged by large numbers of people outside. A Second Chamber is very often the most suitable place in which to express such views.

The Taoiseach suggests that there are implications in this motion which might appear to be critical of the Government. I cannot see any such implications and I am perfectly certain that no such implications were intended. I realise that a motion drafted three weeks ago before it was known that the Government was investigating the matter would now be unsuitable and, for that reason, I think that the proper course is to ask leave to withdraw the motion. But I do not think that, even if this motion had been moved, as it was intended to move it, some little time ago, any such implications as are suggested could have been read into it.

There are one or two small points to which I should like to refer. One is the statement by the Taoiseach, with which I completely agree, that this work could really only be done by a Government organisation. I have given some personal thought to this matter. I think that what the Taoiseach says is absolutely correct so far as food is concerned. I do not think that it is necessarily correct so far as clothes are concerned. A point was made by Senator Duffy with reference to an organisation—I think he said in Britain —which wanted secondhand clothes, linen, blankets, etc. If you sent perishable food in small quantities to the Continent, it would be simply lost in 99 cases out of 100. It is equally futile for an individual to send a coat or vest or suit by itself direct to the Continent.

But I think that groups could send second-hand clothes. They would have to be sent by people who could afford to spare the clothes, who knew that they had only 72 coupons and that they would not get any more. The reason I mentioned the distress in Holland was that that particular report impressed me. If I had been moving this motion before the statement by the Minister for Finance had been made, I should have given the House similar reports with regard to Greece, Italy and one or two other countries which I cannot recollect at the moment. Do not think that Holland stands alone. At a particular stage, it may have been worse off than other countries but I hope that that state of affairs has been remedied.

I am rather disappointed with the suggestion in one or two of the speeches that there was something political in this motion. I am absolutely convinced that, in respect of our relations with other countries, particularly in the period after the war, nobody has any right to make political points. That course of action would do the individual no good and might do us a great deal of harm. In conclusion, I should like to make one suggestion to the Taoiseach with, I admit, a somewhat different motive.

It might be well if our own papers, at any rate, published the total amount of food we have produced, adding to that what we have had to import and setting off against it what we export. It would be well if it were understood at home and abroad that, if we cannot do very much on this occasion, we have long been a contributor to the feeding of Europe. I do not want my statements with regard to the difficulties of the moment to be taken as indicating that this country is not contributing something towards the feeding of Europe, but I think it is desirable that our people should be made aware of the need. The Government should be assured of support if they can do anything in the matter. If, after investigation, they find it is not possible to do anything, they have the responsibility and we realise that they alone can be the judges. With Senator Fearon's consent and with the leave of the House, I propose to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

The Seanad adjourned at 9.10 p.m.sine die.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 9 May 1945