Menu
-HOME
Baile
-DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí
-DÁIL DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Dála
-SEANAD DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Seanaid
-SEARCH
Cuardach
-ABOUT THIS SITE
Faoin Suíomh Seo
-LINKS
Nascanna
Previous - Lch. Roimhe Seo Up - Suas

Dáil Éireann - Volume 36 - 19 November, 1930

ORDERS OF THE DAY. - The Adjournment—The Economic Situation.

The President: I move the adjournment until to-morrow. The statement I have to make is not a spectacular one. It does not foreshadow any alteration in Government policy. Its object is to give a general survey of the economic condition of the country and to indicate the steps which we have taken and propose to take to deal with such difficulties as have arisen. The existence of these difficulties it is idle to deny, but to magnify them is as dishonest as it is unwise in the interests of the nation.

In these days, no cry is so loud or so popular as the cry for State assistance. If one were to judge by the note struck in certain utterances which are from time to time reported, it would be difficult to avoid the conclusion that this country has been hit by an unparalleled wave of depression; and our citizens are the victims of unfortunate circumstances which are peculiar to the Saorstát; and that the Government can and should take drastic steps which would provide a sure and expeditious cure for all our economic ills. But any such impression will not survive a sober examination of the facts.

One of the major indices of our economic position is to be found in the [63] development of our foreign trade. Although there has been a widespread and almost catastrophic fall in the general price level, our exports have increased substantially during the past four years. The adverse balance of our visible trade has fallen from £19.3 millions in 1926 to £10.2 millions for the year ended on the 30th September last—a drop of no less than 47 per cent.

In any endeavour to get a fair appreciation of our present position, it is a matter of no small interest to examine the recent trend in the external trade of foreign countries. An analysis of the available trade returns for forty-three countries for the first eight months of the current year shows that in only nine countries besides the Saorstát has the value of exports increased as compared with the corresponding period in 1929. These countries are: Algeria, Spain, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Palestine, Rumania, Russia and Yugo-Slavia. In the case of six of these countries, the latest returns available cover a shorter period than eight months, while in certain cases there are special circumstances which indicate that a close comparison cannot be made between their trade returns and ours.

In considering our domestic position, it is worth pointing out that the aggregate actual income of Saorstát tax-payers assessed for income tax purposes has increased by £4¾ million during the period 1923-24 to 1928-29— the latest year for which figures are available. When every necessary reservation is made in the interpretation of these figures and when allowance is made for the increase during the same period in the purchasing power of money, it cannot be denied that these are satisfactory figures.

Another important index is to be found in the statistics relating to unemployment. The average number of persons registered as unemployed during the current year up to the end of October is 50 per cent. lower than the average number registered during 1922. The average number of claims to unemployment benefit current is 58 per cent. lower than the corresponding number in 1922. The number of persons insured under the Unemployment [64] Insurance Acts increased steadily from 242,494 in the insurance year 1922-23 to 284,382 in 1928-29.

Since 1923 we have floated three National Loans, the aggregate amount raised being £23 millions, of which approximately £3 millions was raised by an external loan. Net sales of savings certificates issued since 1923 amounted to £5½ millions, and deposits in the Post Office savings bank have risen approximately to £3.2 millions. Net sales of savings certificates during the period from 1st April last to the beginning of the current month, in fact, already exceed by more than 100 per cent. the sales during the corresponding period last year and are higher than the sales for any complete year with the exception of the year 1923-24 and the year 1928-29.

These facts at least suggest that during this period Saorstát citizens, after providing for current consumption, have had an appreciable margin available for savings. Our revenue position is good. Our social services in relation to our means compare favourably with services which other countries provide. Our National Debt is comparatively low and has been devoted, in the main, to remunerative objects. Our credit to-day stands as high as the credit of the strongest countries in the world. Within the past week, the quotation for external loan in New York was 3 points higher than the quotation for 5 per cent. War Loan on the same market; the latest quotation is 2¾ points higher than the quotation for War Loan. The Second National Loan, which was issued at 97, yesterday reached 105 on the Dublin Stock Exchange.

This summary, which is not and does not purport to be exhaustive, will suffice to show that so far as our general position is concerned there is no justification whatever for alarmist statements and no call for heroic measures.

Agriculture is, no doubt, passing through a period of acute depression as a result of falling prices, and this has been accentuated by the bad weather which has interfered with this year's harvest. Distress, due to bad prices, is mainly felt in the butter industry, and the low level of butter [65] prices is, I fear, likely to continue for some time. The most serious aspect of this fall is due to the fact that dairying is, to a large extent, the foundation of our beef and bacon production.

We export, and must continue to export, nearly half our total production of butter. Our exports amounted in value in 1929 to 4½ million pounds, while our imports amounted to £360,000. If we are to maintain production, we must continue to find a foreign market for at least 4 million pounds' worth of butter, and, important as this figure is for us, its relation to total world production is so small that no action of ours can either stabilise or increase prices on this market.

There is an application at present before the Tariff Commission for a tariff on butter. I do not propose to discuss the merits of this application. It is a highly debatable question which can only be dealt with in the light of the complete information which the Tariff Commission will be able to obtain. Other methods of relieving, to some extent, the immediate difficulty in the butter trade are being examined.

So far as distress has been caused by the weather conditions of this season, this distress is obviously greater in poorer districts. It is in these districts that immediate relief both for farmers and farm labourers is most urgently required. It is proposed to vote a sum of £300,000 for the provision of employment, and a considerable portion of this sum will be utilised in providing employment in rural areas. In this matter we must, of course, cut our cloth according to our measure. On the one hand, we must take into account the need for relief and, on the other, the capacity of the taxpayer to foot the bill. The Relief Vote will come up for debate as a separate issue, and I do not propose to deal further with it at the moment other than to say that it is, of course, a temporary expedient to meet a temporary situation.

The problem of agricultural depression still remains, and it is important that we should all realise what that problem really amounts to. Speculation [66] as to what our position would be if we were completely self-contained is vain. We are at present a country with an enormous export surplus which must be sold on a foreign market, and as such we cannot escape the reaction of world conditions. Already we have experienced their effect. Prices of live stock and live stock products have fallen steadily since the year 1921, and when our farmers ask themselves what does the future hold, what they really desire to know is, are these prices going to fall further? Nobody can answer that question with certainty. We can only speculate, but in our speculation we must take cognisance of the ominous fact that, with the exception of butter, the fall in prices of live stock and other products is far less than the fall in the prices of cereals. Our economy consists, in the main, in the production of live stock and live stock products; the economy of countries like Canada and Australia consists in the main in the production of cereals for sale. I am not at present concerned with politics or politicians but with farmers, and every farmer in the country knows that the price of cattle, sheep, beef, mutton, bacon and eggs, has fallen far less than the price of feeding-barley, oats, maize and particularly wheat. We are all discontented with the price of our live stock products, but what is the position of the farmer who is growing wheat or oats for sale as such? There is at least one claim which we are entitled to make in this year, 1930, and that is that the policy which we have consistently urged on our farmers, viz., to produce live stock and live stock products, and to use grain as their raw materials, has saved this country from the deplorable conditions existing in agricultural countries which, either from necessity or choice, have concentrated on the production of cereals, and especially wheat.

The consideration, however, that our condition is better than our neighbours' does not alter the fact that it will require courage, work, and understanding both from the Government and the producer if we are not to be faced with harder times. To find the best method of assisting agriculture to surmount its difficulties is one of our [67] main problems at the moment. The De-rating Commission has been sitting for almost a year, and has practically concluded its work. Its report is being drafted and will shortly be in the hands of the Government. I do not wish to anticipate in any way that report or to suggest that de-rating in whole or in part is the most effective method of giving relief to agriculture, but it is obvious that we cannot announce our policy for permanently aiding agriculture until we are in a position to take cognisance of the facts and considerations which the exhaustive examination of that particular Commission will place at our disposal.

I do not think we need waste time in examining the various political panaceas which have been put forward for the salvation of agriculture. Our position in regard to agricultural tariffs is quite simple. So far as beef, mutton, eggs and feeding-barley are concerned, the imports of these are so negligible that tariffs cannot possibly affect the position. So far as the imports of feeding stuffs, wheat and flour, which amount to about £12,000,000, are concerned, any tariffs on these would bankrupt the farmer. The world price for wheat at the moment has reached an almost unbelievably low level, and shows no sign of an increase. Notwithstanding that a Canadian farmer and two men can produce 400 acres of wheat per annum, they cannot sell it at a price which covers the cost of production. The cost of production of the same amount of wheat in this country would be at least five times as great. In these circumstances, the people who suggest the encouragement of wheat growing, mainly at the expense of the farmer, as a means of relieving farmers, are not worth considering. With regard to imported feeding stuffs, these are our raw materials. The fact that they have fallen to such a comparatively low price has been one of the factors which have saved the country during the last three years. I cannot force myself to take seriously the organisation which suggests that taxes be imposed on these raw materials.

With regard to imported bacon, it is admitted that no tariff can increase [68] the price of Irish bacon on the home or on the foreign market. Equally, it is clear that the effect of a tariff on foreign bacon would be to increase the price of low grade bacon to the farmers in the poorer districts and the labourers all over the country who must buy bacon. These results do not commend themselves to us as a method of relieving agricultural districts.

In industrial life, there have been developing in recent years international movements of which the importance has not been fully recognised in the Saorstát. Nevertheless, these movements are fraught with issues of much moment to countries such as ours, striving to increase its industrial activities, and deserve the close attention of all those seriously interested in the factors relating to industrial development.

A series of International Conferences has been held in Geneva, in which the ruling purpose has been the removal or reduction of obstacles to the interchange of commodities within European States. The most active parties at these Conferences have been the countries which, having attained to a high degree of industrial expansion, must enlarge their markets for the output that improved methods of manufacture have, in recent years, so greatly increased. Needless to say, any concerted action with this object involves possible dangers in every State holding the ambition of securing for its people a better balance between secondary and primary production. On the other hand, a sufficient increase in secondary production is necessarily dependent on opportunities for export trade, and countries like the Saorstát stand to gain, as well as to lose, by any common endeavour to facilitate entry into foreign markets.

I mention these considerations in order to show that any doctrine of self-sufficiency in industrial policy is inevitably too facile, and too short-sighted. Such a doctrine may indeed amount to recklessness if based on neglect to study world conditions. There are at present at least five clearly marked groups of States discussing and negotiating economic agreements among themselves, to the [69] effects of which we cannot be indifferent. Economic forces are deploying on the international field which, if their bearing on our interests were not constantly and carefully studied, might go far to stereotype these activities by which we live. They might nullify the best-meant efforts to widen the scope of these activities and broaden the basis for the exercise of our industrial and commercial abilities.

So much skill, experience, and persistence are being devoted to the object of retaining and expending existing markets for secondary products that it is essential for us to admit to our minds, and communicate to the people, no conception of our possible achievements that is not founded on a sober consideration of all the available facts. The Government believes that in creating a whole-time Tariff Commission it will be greatly facilitating industrialists in procuring consideration of that kind for their immediate problems. When first constituted, the Commission had adequate time and experience for the work on which it had to engage. But circumstances have recently undergone a radical change. Conflicting economic interests throughout the world, working under conditions of crisis in many countries, are bringing about changes in fiscal and trade policy, kaleidoscopic in their nature. It becomes imperative for the protection of our interests that the body to which we must entrust the examination of new fiscal proposals should be enabled to come to more prompt, but no less carefully-reasoned, conclusions. The members of the new Tariff Commission will be freed from all other duties and thus will be in a position to concentrate not only on the precise applications before them, but also on the study of all the surrounding and constantly altering factors that must be taken into account.

The Executive Council will be newly empowered to refer proposals to the Commission for examination and report. But it should be understood beyond any possible ambiguity that the Executive Council has no intention of using this power in any case where industrialists themselves can reasonably be expected to prepare and advocate their case. In this connection, I must [70] repeat the axiom, which cannot be too well or too widely appreciated, that it is utterly futile to expect, or pretend to expect, that industrial development can be founded on anything but the requisite measure of skill, initiative and judgment among industrialists themselves. It is so easy to speak of Governments or Departments starting an industry somewhere, but to do so betrays a dangerous indifference to the fundamental necessities of the problem. To start, operate and maintain any substantial industry under the conditions with which the State is now confronted requires a concentrated energy, a width of technical knowledge, and a soundness of judgment such as were not always demanded of the manufacturer in the past.

I have stressed the difficulties and the dangers before us, because if they are not known and honestly appreciated, we shall make no real contribution towards overcoming them. But I do not hesitate to say that if we are not mere political partisans, we are justified in drawing comfort and encouragement from our present circumstances. Many other countries envy our condition. The advance our producers have made during recent years has been maintained and secured. Employment in our tariffed industries remains satisfactory. The register of unemployed is practically the same this year as last, notwithstanding the termination of the great Shannon works, and is much lower than in previous years.

Our exports have substantially increased, notably in manufactured goods, and up to September of this year have exceeded in value the total for any similar twelve months in the last five years by from 1½ to 5¾ million pounds. Contemporaneously, our imports have been reduced, and while an estimate of some invisible items in our trade is not yet practicable, there is little doubt that that trade approaches a satisfactory balance. Taking all circumstances into account, we have no reason for depression over what has been accomplished.

It is recognised, however, that, so far as we reasonably can, we must lighten the present burdens on industry so as to encourage and support the essential [71] initiative of those engaged in it. With this object, the Government has decided on a very substantial reduction in the contributions paid by employer and employees under the Unemployment Insurance Scheme. The total contribution payable for a man will be reduced from 1s. 7d. to 1s. 1d., and the reductions for women and juveniles will be in proportion. The result will be to relieve the employer and employee in industry and commerce to the extent of some £225,000 per annum, while the taxpayer, who has to find the State contribution and the cost of administration, will also be relieved to the extent of about £64,000. These reductions have become possible owing to the approach towards solvency of the Unemployment Fund, the debt of which is now relatively small. They will, undoubtedly, afford a very substantial relief to industry, and facilitate it in meeting pressing competition.

It gives the Government a special satisfaction, in taking this step, to know that there are few other States in the world to-day where it would be possible, and that a country where it can be done, and done without risk to the Unemployment Fund, shows an essential soundness and stability in its economic life which we should openly prize and need not habitually depreciate, or, by recklessness, endanger.

Mr. de Valera: We are asked to debate this statement of the President without any opportunity to examine wherein the figures he gave us are true or fallacious. I noticed here to-day that the Minister for Agriculture, whose habitual attitude towards figures is that you can prove anything by them, took very good care himself to keep to averages which we had no opportunity of checking with a view to ascertaining whether he was making proper use of them. The President also gives us figures. Now we had heard long before we heard the President's statement, that there are some mysterious experts at Geneva who envy us. I wonder do the farmers in this country envy one another at the present time? What we want is not the opinion of some unnamed experts [72] of Geneva, or the electioneering statement of a professor, who is a member of the Government Party, that the last six or seven years have been the most prosperous period in Irish history. We have been hearing of Government spokesmen “turning the corner” for many years past, and all we have got from the President now is a repetition of the statement that everything is splendid in this country. There is not one of those who are finding fault with the Government's policy—its present policy and the policy which it has been following up to the present—who does not realise, perhaps better than the President or members of the Government Party, that we could in this country be really prosperous, that we have in this country resources which, if properly utilised, would give our people a standard of living far higher than the standard they are able to maintain at the present moment.

What we object to is that these resources and the possibilities of this country are not being used as they ought to be used and that the direction which ought to be given from the Government Benches is not given. Everyone of us knows, or ought to know, what has been the history of the economic destruction, if I might use the expression—it is practically an economic destruction—of this country during the last 70 or 80 years. Everyone interested in Irish economics in the past and in the national movement realised that it was the doctrine of free trade, of which we have had expression again from the Government Benches to-day, and which was imposed on this country by British interests, that was responsible for it. We know that there is no other country in the world suffered the destruction of population we have suffered in this country for the last 80 or 90 years, and this destruction of population is going on before our eyes. Since the present Government took office we have had something like 200,000 of our people driven out of this country. These are the figures given in the statistics of the various Departments. There has been a decline in population of 76,000, and an increase of births over deaths of about [73] 127,000; that gives a total of 203,000. On one occasion the President stated that economists stated that the value of the loss to the country of each emigrant as regards the production of wealth was nearer to £1,000 than £500. Therefore we have lost over £100,000,000 of wealth in the period that the present Government is in office. Why is it our people are leaving this country if everything is so fine as the President stated? Why are our people driven out? Is it not a definite test of prosperity whether our people can be retained in the country or not? If there is a general world depression, surely there cannot be all that attraction abroad, if things were anything like represented here? Therefore we want nothing else to satisfy ourselves, whatever figures may be put forward by the President, that things in this country are not what they ought to be, when we find that diminution of our population going on.

As I have said, we have got to debate the question without any opportunity of testing the figures the President has given us, examining them, and seeing wherein they are wrong. As far as we are concerned, at any rate, we are quite satisfied that there has not been an improvement in the wealth of the country since the Free State came into being and we have got the figures to prove it. I happen to have here a few figures with reference to the situation in the country in 1923 and the position as it is this year. Since 1923 there has been a decline in tillage of about 226,000 acres; there has been a decline in the number of cattle of 244,000. There has been a decline in the number of pigs of 241,000. If we try to estimate, even on a conservative basis the amount of wealth that is being produced—the production of wealth in the country in this year as compared with the year 1923, or the past year as compared with 1923—it is something about 5½ millions less; that is, we are producing something like 5½ million pounds' worth less than we were producing at that particular time. On what can the President find a basis for satisfaction? I cannot see it.

If we examine the general condition of our trade, what do we find? We [74] find that we are going in, for the most part, for the least profitable, from the point of view of maintenance of our people, form of production. We are sending out materials that require very little labour in their production. Instead of exporting, as far as possible, the finished product, we are sending out these products practically in an unfinished state. It is obvious what we are doing then by sending out raw materials. Take boots, for instance, where we send out raw hides, giving employment abroad in the tanning of these hides, the tanning of the leather, and buy boots afterwards in exchange. What we are doing is giving raw material to the stranger to work up, and in buying these imported articles, paying for his labour upon them.

We are getting strangers employed— that is a fact—when our own people have got to go idle. If you look at the list of exports and imports, as I have pointed out many a time, you will find that we are importing under the heading of food, drink and tobacco, although we are supposed to be an agricultural country, more than we export. There is a motion in the paper here in Deputy Dr. Ryan's name, and the articles covered by it represent unnecessary imports, on the one hand, of close on £3,000,000. Then, with regard to the whole question of grain, there is something over £11,000,000. That is, if we examine our imports we find that at least 50 per cent. of these imports are unnecessary, and if we set out to produce for ourselves the things we can produce in this country, we could double the present amount of tillage and give profitable employment upon it.

On another occasion I examined the question of the imports of manufactured articles and on a conservative basis we found that if we ourselves manufactured the things we could manufacture in this country you could give employment to something like 90,000 additional hands. That is, we could practically with certainly by producing these things we could produce which we are paying the stranger to produce at the present moment for us give employment to all our unemployed. We have been trying to get [75] some figures of unemployment we can rely upon. Evidently when we look for these figures we are told that nothing exhaustive can be got, but a partial list can be given to us by the President when it suits his purpose. These, as everybody knows, cannot be depended upon at all. They are no evidence of the state of unemployment in the country. At the present moment when the members of the Government are talking just as they are talking to-day of the prosperous country, we who know things by contact with the worker, the shopkeeper and the farmer down the country know that the condition of things is very different from what they pretended it was, and when we wanted to examine the position of the country as a whole we took bulk statistics and found the position revealed by these bulk statistics was the same as we found by our contact with the people to be true. So far as we are concerned on this side of the House, there is absolutely nothing in the President's statement that gives us any hope that the Government are going to adopt a policy that will make for the real up-building of this country. They are simply standing out on this question of what is practically free trade. They are thinking solely of the export market and are completely blinding themselves to the fact that we could with the resources of this country, if we set ourselves out to use them for that purpose, give employment to the people who are at present unemployed and increase the output of wealth in this country.

I think, according to the Census of 1926, that the total output of wealth from industries and agriculture amounts to between £80,000,000 and £86,000,000. I can easily see that no decent standard of living would be possible for the community as a whole with that production of wealth, with three millions of people producing a total wealth of something between £80,000,000 and £86,000,000—I am not quite sure of the figures, as I had no opportunity of knowing what the President was going to speak about. In the Economic Committee we were able to show that the output of wealth from the land could be increased, [76] that more wealth could be produced from an acre of wheat than from an acre under grass, whether it was used for milk or beef. That was proved definitely by the figures that were given. Of course the Minister for Agriculture will not pay attention to any figures that will not suit his own purposes.

Mr. Hogan: Are you still engaged in talking about wheat?

Mr. de Valera: I am still engaged in talking about wheat, and I hope we will talk about it until the policy that is behind the talk is put into practice.

Mr. Hogan: You will be a long time talking.

An Ceann Comhairle: Let us have no interruptions in this debate.

Mr. de Valera: The production of wealth obviously must be increased if the economic condition of the country is going to be improved. There is no other way of doing it. We have heard about the farmers. We are told that there is a De-rating Commission sitting. If it sits as long as other Commissions it may be that things will have righted themselves by the time the report is given. But here we have a Government collecting and sending out of this country three million pounds which are not due from this country, two millions of which, if given back to the farmers, would be equivalent to the money required for de-rating. That money, as I say, is Irish money and ought to be kept at home. There is no evidence that the Government is going to keep that money, which is rightfully ours, for the Irish people or the benefit of the farming community.

I do not wish to speak further on this matter. We have got to deal with the statement we have got. The only notice we got was that the President was going to make some statement on national policy. The only thing I find he has said is that there is a sum of £300,000 that it is proposed to give on relief. It is a very strange thing that we have to be adopting relief measures if everything is as prosperous as the President has stated. It is practically a recognition of the conditions that [77] we contend exist, and indicates that there is at the back of the President's mind some thought that things are not as rosy or as fine as he would wish. He proposes to give £300,000 to relief, and says that there is a De-rating Commission sitting. I suppose the suggestion is that if the farmers wait for it there will be a favourable report. What is the purpose of telling us about this Committee? Why should it be introduced here if there is not some purpose behind it?

Mr. Davin: To keep Belton out of the bye-election.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Davin can make a speech later.

Mr. de Valera: There is a reduction in the insurance contributions. The fund, we are told, is nearing solvency. I suppose it will be nearer solvency when these contributions are taken away. Is that the idea? If it is not, it is obvious that the fund will not be as solvent afterwards as it is now. Otherwise, I would like to know what the President's explanation of the matter is. These are the only things that we heard from the President to meet the present situation, except the assurance that everything is splendid and that there is no need for heroic measures. I do not think that those who are in close contact with the people will agree, and I wonder whether the Farmer Deputies and others on Cumann na nGaedheal Benches are satisfied with that view.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell: I agree with the last Deputy that it is rather difficult to debate a statement which has been made without any notice by the President, that is, to have anything in the nature of useful debate. I am afraid it is one in which one could, if he wished, travel over the whole economic field, and I doubt if the Leas-Cheann Comhairle would not find it very difficult to rule out anything that might be said on this particular question. I wish to confine myself, however, to some points actually raised in the President's statement. At the outset [78] he deprecated the tendency to paint a very gloomy picture of the conditions that exist in the country at the present time. I think those who listened to him and who know what the conditions over the greater part of the country are just at the moment, will agree that he sinned in the other direction. While it is not right that an over-gloomy picture should be painted, neither is it right that an over-glowing picture of the conditions in the country should be painted. The conditions in the country undoubtedly are serious, and, as has been pointed out, that has been admitted in effect by the Government themselves.

A reference was made to the statistics regarding unemployment. It was pointed out that the number registered was lower, that is, the number claiming unemployment benefit was lower. As has been repeatedly pointed out in this House, that is not giving a true picture of the condition of unemployment in the country. People cease to register unless they are entitled to get unemployment benefit. They will not bother to register or to put down their names in unemployment exchanges unless they feel they are going to get benefit, and when their benefit is exhausted they cease to trouble about registration. That affects, of course, the number of people claiming also. I do admit that the increase in the actual number of people registered read out by the President is a hopeful sign, but then again it may be as between the year which he mentioned—I think it was 1922-23—and the present year that there is a very great difference in the amount of compliance with the Act. As the President knows, in those years there was a great deal of looseness in the administration of the Act, and there is undoubtedly very much better compliance with the Act than there was in those earlier years. That, I believe, would account for the percentage of the increase.

The same thing would apply, to some extent, to the sales of the Savings Certificates. Surely the President knows that the organisation for the sale of certificates has been very much improved in recent years.

I do not want for a moment to paint a gloomy picture, or to be unduly pessimistic [79] about the state of the country, and I am ready to recognise any facts that go to show the country is in a healthy condition. I am afraid there is too much importance paid to the points brought out by the President; for instance, this boast that we hear continually about the price of our National Loan. I do not pretend to be an expert in financial matters, but I believe that when you see State funds, like the National Loan, at a very high price or premium, it means that money is not being invested for industrial purposes, and is usually accompanied by industrial depression and inactivity. Looked at from that point of view—I think there is something to be said for it—the fact that the National Loan is at the price it is does not indicate a healthy condition. We need only look across the Channel and see that the War Loan there is at a premium, though we know what the conditions are in regard to unemployment and industrial depression there at present.

Speaking of unemployment, the President referred to the reduction in contributions. I take it the benefit is not to be reduced.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. McGilligan): No.

Mr. O'Connell: In so far as that is the decision, it is satisfactory, and will afford a certain relief. I now come to the question of the Tariff Commission. One always likes to see one's advice being taken. I am sure the President will not blame me if I remind him of what was said by the Leader of the Labour Party in 1926, when the Tariff Commission was before the House. The very thing that the Minister is proposing now was urged upon the Government at that time by the Labour Party. They took over four years to find out that the Labour Party were right in what they then urged. I remember how strenuously the suggestion was opposed that the Tariff Commission should, in the first place, be a whole-time body, but especially—and this was specially stressed—that the Tariff Commission should have the right of themselves to take up and examine cases where they [80] thought a tariff might be usefully imposed.

It was left to the interested party to come forward and make application to the Tariff Commission. If there was nobody sufficiently interested in the development of a particular industry here, then nobody made an application for a tariff and there was no question of assisting in any way an industry that might be very suitable to the conditions of the country. I am very glad that that has been changed and that the suggestion has now been adopted as a sound and practicable one. It is well that it has been found out, even at the end of four years. But I do not like that reservation which the President made that they will not act if they think that the industrialists themselves could reasonably be expected to make application. I do not like that limitation. It would seem to be going only half way towards what I think the President has recognised to be a necessity. It would be very difficult to say, if this reservation is made, whether or not industrialists themselves might reasonably be expected to apply for a tariff. It might very often not suit the individual purposes of the industrialists themselves to apply for a tariff whereas it would suit the interests of the community very much if a particular industry were developed and protected. Numerous cases of that kind could be cited.

It is something to be thankful for that the President has recognised that owing to the particular conditions of this year there is a necessity for taking action for relieving the distress that has been caused. He mentioned a certain sum of money—and I say at once I do not think that is sufficient—but so far as it does go it is something that that fact is recognised and that the position is going to be met by such action. No one for a moment thinks or ever thought that relief schemes of this kind are anything but temporary expedients. No one ever suggested anything else. I would like to point out to the President that in addition to the hardships that have arisen owing to the bad harvest and the bad weather and the failure to save the harvest and the fall in prices there are other factors, particularly in the south and west [81] of Ireland, which enter into the consideration this year and make the position very difficult. At Christmas and around about that time there are thousands of families that depend upon the American letters to relieve their distress and to bring some comfort in the Christmas season. Owing to the conditions in America and Canada at the present time there is sure to be a pretty great shortage from that source this season. There is the further fact that the number of unemployed, or, what is more serious, what I have often referred to as the under-employed, amongst the small farming portion of the community is being added to, because whatever measure of relief was available from emigration is now practically stopped. All these will increase the distress which would in any case have occurred owing to economic conditions, and they make the necessity for a measure of immediate relief much greater than in previous years.

I hope no time will be lost in getting this motion passed in reference to the relief schemes and getting the work set on foot. There will be other opportunities of going into these at greater length, and I do not want to dwell upon them here.

There is just one other point arising out of the President's statement. At the outset he deprecated any outcry for State assistance. I do not think there is any objection, in fact, there is a great deal to be said in favour of State assistance, looked at from the right point of view. No one ever suggested that the Government themselves should actually set up industries. I do not think that that was suggested by anybody. They certainly should encourage industries. They have done it already. The Shannon scheme is a big example of national industry. Where would be that national scheme of industry to-day if the State had not come into the field and organised it? There is very great necessity for State direction and organisation and for State encouragement of industry. It is only right that people should look to the State for encouragement and direction. We had a reference to that by the Minister for Agriculture in an earlier debate in his [82] admission that there was a great gap, indeed, between the price the agricultural producer got for his eggs and the price the consumer had to pay in Britain or in this country. Everyone knows that the difference between the price that has to be paid in Dublin and what the producer gets for his eggs or fowl or anything of that nature is very great indeed. It is all swallowed up by the middleman. The Minister admitted the need for organisation. I go further and say it is the duty of the State to come to the help of the individual farmers, to direct them, to guide them towards organisation for the purpose of marketing their produce so that they will be able to get more for their work.

As I say, I do not see that there is that old-time objection that we hear advanced from time to time. I think it is practically dead. It should be dead. In view of what the present Government themselves have done, there should not be continual deprecation of State interference or State assistance. It is only natural that when people find themselves in distress they should look for guidance to those whom they have elected to power in this country. There will be other opportunities on motions on the Paper for discussing and dwelling further upon particular points in connection with the President's statement, and I do not wish to refer further to these points at this stage.

Mr. Lemass: I am personally at a loss to know what aim the President had in view when he adopted this unusual procedure of moving the adjournment of the Dáil for the purpose of reading to us a number of inaccurate, misleading, and misinterpreted figures. Does he really think that he can create the reality of prosperity by pretending that it exists, or does he really believe that other nations are, in fact, envious of the prosperity we are enjoying? Is it the Government's view that the problem of unemployment can be removed by suppressing the figures relating to it, or by producing wrong figures in this House? It seems to me that if the statement just made by the President is the sum total of the Government's policy for dealing with [83] the present situation, then this country is faced with a period of much greater hardship than anything it has known during the past four or five years, and the sooner the Government is removed from office in the interests of the people of the country the better.

It is very hard to know where to begin to put Deputies right concerning the figures produced by the President. He tells us that the number of Savings Certificates issued has shown a remarkable increase, and that the price of Government stock is higher than it was some time ago. He did not offer to produce the figures relating to bank deposits. I suggest to Deputies that the fact that the financial resources of the people are being put into long-term gilt-edged investments is an indication of commercial stagnation and not an indication of commercial activity. If the country were prosperous, if trade were active, if industry were reviving, these resources would be withdrawn from the gilt-edged market and made available for the financing of the activities of industry and commerce.

The figures relating to the external trade balance are also flung at the Dáil in the hope that they will be misunderstood. Undoubtedly the adverse trade balance has decreased because the aggregate value of our imports and exports has decreased. The aggregate value of our total trade has gone down because of the world fall in prices. The adverse trade balance has been further decreased because of the obvious fact that we are now in the position of possessing a very valuable export trade in tractors from the port of Cork. In fact, there has not been any decrease in the quantity of goods imported, nor has there been any substantial increase in the quantity of goods sent out.

If Deputies will take the figures recently published for the first nine months of this year, they will find the industrial position, as revealed by these figures, is rapidly becoming worse. For example, the quantity of wheat imported during that period was 800,000 cwts. less than the quantity imported in the same period last year, while the quantity of flour imported [84] had increased by 175,000 cwts. Less wheat is coming in to be milled and more flour. The employment that used to be given in the production of flour from imported wheat for our people is now being given on the Mersey side.

Similar conditions obtain in respect of other trades. The President stated that employment in the tariffed industries is being well maintained. That is not true. The employment given, for example, by the coach-building industry has very seriously declined in the last twelve months.

Mr. McGilligan: They were 300 up on 1st September.

Mr. Lemass: I do not know what figures the Minister is talking about.

Mr. McGilligan: The figures for the tariffed industries were up by 300 on 1st September.

Mr. Lemass: Included in the aggregate total which the Minister has given now are industries like tobacco, which are not tariffed industries as such.

Mr. McGilligan: They have not increased.

Mr. Lemass: There are other industries like that.

Mr. McGilligan: The 300 is outside the tobacco industry.

Mr. Lemass: For example, the Minister regards the motor industry as a tariffed industry.

Mr. McGilligan: It is.

Mr. Lemass: There are tariffs on imported motor parts and motor cars, but the industry does not exist. I say that in the industries in which we are or should be vitally concerned, such as the coachbuilding industry, the woollen industry, the flour-milling industry, and industries of that nature, employment is going down, despite the fact that a number of them are tariffed. I do not think the Minister can contradict that.

Mr. McGilligan: I do not know why flour should be brought into the tariffed industries.

Mr. Lemass: It should be, but it is not. Employment in the woollen industry [85] is going down. The inadequate tariff imposed proved practically ineffective.

Mr. McGilligan: Nonsense.

Mr. Lemass: Absolutely ineffective in restricting importation.

Mr. McGilligan: Quite wrong.

Mr. Lemass: Is it not a fact that the quantity—not the price, but the quantity—of cloth imported here for the year 1929 was substantially higher than the quantity imported in 1928?

Mr. McGilligan: Yes.

Mr. Lemass: Let the Minister look at the nine months' figures I have referred to and he will find that the quantity of cloth imported during the first nine months of this year equals the quantity imported in the entire year 1926.

Mr. McGilligan: Because there has been a fall in price.

Mr. Lemass: Surely the fall in price does not account for the increase in the quantity imported?

Mr. McGilligan: It does. It brings certain articles under the exemption limit which previously were not under it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: It would be much better if the Deputy were allowed to make his own speech.

Mr. Lemass: The figures produced by the President in relation to unemployment were produced, I submit, by him, although he must have known that they were going to have the effect of misleading Deputies concerning the position. We are told that the number of persons claiming benefit this year is 58 per cent. less than the number who claimed benefit in 1922. Is it not a fact that there was extended benefit in 1922? Were not the Unemployment Insurance Acts extended in that year so as to provide benefit for a large number of people who are not now entitled to it?

Does not that fact account for the decrease in the number of persons [86] claiming benefit? We are told that the number of persons registered as unemployed is also less. I submit that that is also accounted for by the fact that this extended benefit no longer operates and that people do not bother to register as unemployed unless they are likely to receive an advantage from so doing. I admit that a decrease in unemployment was to be expected in view of the fact that the population has decreased and because over 300,000 persons emigrated since 1922 because they could not get employment in this country. The figures relating to the total number of persons insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts have also been produced as proof of improved conditions. These figures have increased as Deputy O'Connell pointed out in consequence of the better enforcement of the Acts in the first place, and in consequence of such projects as the Shannon Scheme, which brought under those Acts for the first time a large number of persons who were formerly agricultural workers and therefore uninsurable. The Government is, of course, in a very favourable position to pretend that things are different to what they are, because they have taken good care to suppress the information which Deputies should have to enable them to judge the position in its true light. The Minister has promised to make a long statement this evening to explain why he now discovers that no unemployment statistics were ascertained in 1926. In 1928 I asked the Minister why the unemployment statistics that were ascertained by the Census of 1926 were not published, and he told me they were being prepared.

Mr. McGilligan: That was not the question.

Mr. Lemass: It was similar in effect.

Mr. McGilligan: No, it was different.

Mr. Lemass: I do not think so. The Minister told me that the statistics were being prepared and would be published within four months from the date of the question.

Mr. McGilligan: The statistics referred to in the Deputy's question?

[87] Mr. Lemass: Twelve months ago I asked a similar question, and the Minister told me it had been decided by him that in the same volume as that containing unemployment statistics there would also be published statistics concerning industries and industrial occupations, and that such was the reason for the delay in publishing the volume. When I asked to-day, for the third time, I was told that the Minister has discovered now what he did not know last year or the previous year, namely, that no unemployment figures were ascertained when the census was taken. I say that the figures have been suppressed, because the Minister knows that their publication would finish for ever the making of such statements as that which we have heard from the President this evening. This game of pretending that the last eight years have been the most prosperous which the Irish people knew in all their long history would be finished if the Minister for Industry and Commerce was not prepared to manipulate his Department so as to prevent the people getting the information to which they are entitled and for which they have paid.

The Government's contribution to the relief of the situation that exists in this country, in so far as they are prepared to admit that there is any situation to be relieved, is, first of all, the reduction in the contributions to be paid under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. Of course, a reduction in these contributions was to be expected. The President comes to the Dáil and announces this great concession as if it was something upon which the Government had determined as a special gift to the people in the existing circumstances. Deputies know that the Unemployment Insurance Fund has been showing a large surplus each year for the last few years, and that it was only a matter of time until either the contributions payable would be reduced or the benefits obtainable would be increased. The Government choose to reduce the contributions. It costs the Government nothing. In fact, a reduction in contributions will mean that the Exchequer will have to pay considerably less towards the fund [88] than it has been paying hitherto. The Exchequer's contribution will be decreased side by side with the contributions from the employers and employees. The second step to be taken to remove poverty is the establishment of a whole-time Tariff Commission, the names of the members of which have already been announced. It will not be an improvement on the last one, inasmuch as some of its members are avowed free traders. What use will it be to increase the production of reports such as that which we got yesterday? If we had fifty Commissions producing reports like that every day of the week, how is Irish industry going to be improved?

It is not a whole-time Tariff Commission which we want, but a whole-hog Protectionist Commission. So long as the Government policy is going to be one of innate hostility to Irish industry, and based on the assumption that tariffs are unnecessary, then no matter what machinery they erect, the position will not be improved. I have asserted before, and I assert again now, that the attitude of the Government should be that protection is the right policy for every industry, and that the job of the Tariff Commission should be to decide whether reductions or exemptions should be given in particular tariffs in consequence of the circumstances of, or their effect on, particular trades. The establishment of the whole-time Tariff Commission will not improve matters in view of the personnel of that Commission and the policy of the Government that is behind it.

Then, of course, we are told that there is a De-rating Committee sit ting. Like Deputy de Valera, I want to know why that particular matter was brought into this discussion. Is it intended to give farmers, in the constituency in which there is about to be a bye-election, the impression that a favourable report will come from that Committee? Was that the reason? The Minister for Agriculture says that he does not think that a favourable report will come from it. Then why was it mentioned here? If there is not to be a favourable report, then obviously it will not help to solve the problem of depression, the problem [89] of poverty, and the problem of unemployment.

The third and last step to be taken to solve these problems is the granting of a sum of £300,000 for relief measures. I have no objection to the granting of that money, but I hope that no Deputy is under the delusion that, by the mere expenditure of £300,000 this year amongst the unemployed, the problem of unemployment will be solved, or even that any considerable alleviation of the misery that exists amongst our people is going to take place. I do not know what the number of the unemployed is. I made an estimate before of 50,000, but that estimate was questioned by the Minister. I do not think that it is an exaggeration to say that there are 50,000 industrial unemployed in the Free State, but whether the number is 50,000 or 40,000 it is, I think, much larger than the number which could be said to represent the normal reserve of Industry. Neither do I think that the world depression, which is so often referred to, has produced any considerable number of unemployed in this country. The world slump has not yet resulted in any considerable increase in the number of unemployed here. Of those unemployed in the Irish Free State a very large number are persons whose occupations are permanently gone, due to causes that are neither temporary nor stationary, and which arise out of the fact that there is a dearth of industry in this country. The problem of unemployment will not be solved, and our idle men will not be provided with work, until steps are taken by the Government to create a situation which will make possible a revival of industry.

As Deputy O'Connell has pointed out, the world depression has undoubtedly hit the agricultural community very hard, and has created a very serious situation amongst the farmers, whom he describes as under-employed. There are upwards of 200,000 persons engaged in agriculture in the Twenty-Six Counties on farms of less than 15 acres in extent. Of that number 35 per cent. live in the counties of Galway, Mayo and Roscommon. These persons are undoubtedly hard hit by the collapse in prices and the [90] bad weather which prevailed this year. Their situation is likely to be desperate unless special measures for their relief are undertaken. A Vote of £300,000 is inadequate for that purpose, even if it be spent entirely on the relief of such persons. The fact is that there are more persons endeavouring to get a living from the land than the land, as now utilised, can support. The result is that the standard of living is low, that there are no reserves, and that any period of depression produces immediate hardship. Until the system of using the land is altered so that more employment can be provided on it, and until industries have been started that will give occupation to the surplus population on the land, we are likely to have these periods of depression recurring quite frequently and relief votes being passed here in order to deal with them.

I think we ought to face up to the fact that the problem is too big to be solved out of taxation. We cannot take any adequate steps to deal with the situation if we confine ourselves to the amount which we can afford to vote out of current revenue for that purpose. If relief schemes are properly devised, then they will repay themselves, directly by increasing our wealth and wealth-producing capacity and indirectly by improving the health and the social standards of the people. When, however, we come here with a suggestion that the good credit position of the State, about which we hear so much, should be utilised for the benefit of the State, or, in other words, that money should be borrowed for the purpose of undertaking definite State schemes of work at this period, we are told that economic schemes cannot be devised. The Minister for Finance and his colleagues think of these questions in terms of interest and sinking fund only, ignoring the fact that the lives and the livelihoods of men, women and children are also involved.

We cannot consider the advisability of embarking upon such State schemes on a narrow basis of financial economy alone. We must also consider that there are wider national interests affected. We have suffered a very considerable loss in population as a result of emigration during the last seven or [91] eight years. Emigration is not economic. If it were possible to estimate in terms of money the loss which the State has endured in consequence of emigration it would be shown that the capital loss to the State would amount to five or six times our national debt. If we could keep these men and women working at home, as a result of borrowing and spending money for that purpose, then that borrowing and spending would be justified even if the Comptroller and Auditor-General had to report that it resulted in a financial loss. It is because the Government have hesitated to tackle the problem in an adequate manner that they deserve the censure of the Dáil and the people. This £300,000 is only a sop thrown for the purpose of silencing the critics in their own Party.

It is common knowledge that members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party have become thoroughly dissatisfied at the attitude of the Government. We know that there was a Party meeting last night, at which there was some strong talk about the attitude of Ministers. As a result of that we have this sop of £300,000 flung at the Party, which they can use to bribe their own supporters and keep them quiet. We know that it will be spent, as every other similar Vote was spent, for the exclusive benefit of Cumann na nGaedheal supporters. We know that no supporters of either Fianna Fáil or the Labour Party are going to benefit by it, no matter how urgent their needs may be. This £300,000 is for the purpose of keeping the back benchers of Cumann na nGaedheal quiet, and for that alone. The Government appear to be absolutely indifferent both to the needs of the country and of the people.

It would perhaps be too much to hope that the Minister for Agriculture would change his outlook at this stage. He has been imbibing wisdom from our betters in London and has, no doubt, come back confirmed in the faith that absolute freedom of trade between the two islands is in the best interests of both, even though all history gives him the lie, so far as this country is concerned. The Minister [92] for Industry and Commerce, of course, has no concern in the matter at all. His first act when the Dáil reassembled after a five months' adjournment was to ask to ratify a commercial treaty with Portugal. That is indicative of his whole policy. We will get other opportunities, as Deputy O'Connell pointed out, of discussing the various measures which the Government propose to take to deal with the situation as they come before us. The one point that it is necessary to make clear now is that the statement which the President made here to-day was not delivered for the purpose of informing the people of the country concerning Government policy. It was not delivered for the purpose of removing any fears and doubts that may exist amongst the people. Its sole purpose was to prevent the stampede from the ranks of Cumann na nGaedheal which has been threatening for the past month. It was a pure political manoeuvre and an attempt to represent it as anything else is so much hypocrisy.

Mr. Shaw: I am very pleased to see that the Government have realised the seriousness of the situation that has been caused by the unprecedentedly wet season and that they have come to the rescue, as I knew they would come, with this sum of £300,000 for the relief of the persons affected. I do not say that the £300,000 will meet the situation, but it is something to go on with. I am sorry to see that the Fianna Fáil Party are so worried and annoyed because the Government have come to the rescue of these people. As there will be a debate at a later stage in connection with the allocation of this money, I will only draw attention this evening to some of the persons who are suffering most and whom I have seen myself. They are not living in Dublin, but in the country, in the middle of the areas where the floods have caused the most damage. There are many people, as I can testify myself, living in low-lying areas who have lost all their crops—their turf, potatoes, and hay. Undoubtedly, their condition is very serious. I hope, when this money is being allocated, that they will get a fair proportion of it. I know many industrious [93] people, and the potato crops they sowed in the spring, and which they hoped to have to keep them during the winter, are at the moment under water. During the last few weeks of the Recess I have been over parts of the country “having a shot” and I have seen for myself the conditions under which many people in the low-lying areas are living. In their homes they are up to their knees in water. I have asked myself the question, why were these people ever born to live under such conditions? Their crops have been lost and the water is pouring into their houses. In my opinion, a considerable proportion of this money ought to be allocated for their relief. Through no fault of their own the crops have been lost. They ought to be provided with potatoes or whatever else they require to enable them to feed their children and themselves during the winter period.

The reduction to be made in the sums paid by employers and employees will be very much appreciated. This reduction will help to develop trade and employment in the country. It is a great tribute to our Government to be able to do that. There is no other Government in the world that, under the present conditions, could come along and do what our Government is proposing to do. I have been in England recently. The conditions there are nothing short of deplorable. The number of unemployed is increasing there every other day. The prospects there seem to me to be very bad.

Mr. Davin: What benefit do they get when out of work?

Mr. Shaw: The conditions there seem to be worse than in any country in the world, with the exception perhaps of America. I have seen them for myself, and I have heard people there say so too. Owing to the state of unemployment and the succession of financial crashes that have occurred in many countries of the world, the purchasing price of almost every commodity has been adversely affected to a considerable extent. Although I know and realise what the conditions are in this country—I know they are very bad—I think on the other hand, [94] that in view of the circumstances which I have mentioned, we could be a lot worse off than we are. The people have no money to spend in England. In view of that they are not able to purchase our agricultural products to the extent that they used to. Because of that, the prices for our agricultural products have been very adversely affected, and in the circumstances we cannot expect a very brilliant year. In view of the fact that we will have another opportunity of discussing this vote, I do not intend to say much more at the present time, except to congratulate the Government very sincerely on its splendid effort. As I said earlier, I do not think the sum that is being provided is at all enough, and I hope it will be possible to do something more for our farmers who are certainly very hard hit by present conditions.

When the persons to whom I have referred have been provided for out of this Vote, I hope that any of it that is given by way of providing employment will be spent on drainage schemes. A considerable amount of money has been spent on the roads, and not enough, in my opinion, on drainage. Everyone knows that every acre of land that is reclaimed is a national asset to the country. I will conclude by again congratulating the Government on taking the step it has taken. I hope it will not be necessary to do this again, but should the necessity arise I know that the Government will do what they have always done, namely, come along and save the country.

Mr. Davin: The statement made by the President this evening will, no doubt, be regarded by the Government Party managers as a successful attempt to forestall the discussion which will take place on the motion on the Order Paper in the name of Deputy Ryan, and on the other motion to be moved by Deputy O'Connell. It will not, I am sure however, deceive the thousands of people throughout the country who are hoping and expecting that this session of the Dáil, at an early stage, will take the necessary steps to deal with the serious situation which we all know exists all over the country. [95] I am not going to be trapped into the discussion which, in the ordinary course, will take place to-morrow on the motion to be moved by Deputy Ryan, and therefore to that extent I am not going to satisfy the curiosity of the people who sit on the Ministerial Benches.

In the discussion on a Bill that was before the House this evening, the Minister for Agriculture admitted, for the first time as far as I remember, that the low prices which the agricultural community are now receiving for their agricultural produce in the local and foreign markets are due to the number of middle men who come in between the producer and the consumer whether the consumer be a citizen of this State or of some other country. On that matter, Deputies are well aware that the question of profiteering which the Minister now admits to be taking place——

Mr. Hogan: I do not.

Mr. Davin: Deputies will remember that this House set up a Food Prices Tribunal three or four years ago. The members of it made certain recommendations which, in their opinion would, if given effect to, have dealt satisfactorily with the profiteering which was admitted to be going on in the country. In my opinion profiteering is going on to a greater extent now than it was at the time that the members of that Tribunal reported. I desire to ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce when he proposes to adopt the recommendations that were put before him by that Tribunal for the purpose of dealing with the question of profiteering. The President and other Ministers have adopted the policy of referring to Commissions every awkward question that has been raised in this House during the past six or seven years. If these Commissions have any sort of an awkward question to deal with, they generally sit for a number of years. During the sittings of these Commissions, if any awkward questions are asked by Deputies in the House, they are told by the Government that they can do nothing until they receive the report of this, that or the other Commission.

[96] The President, in his statement this evening, made the same kind of promise in regard to de-rating that has been given to Deputies in regard to other matters. He said that the Government hoped to have the report of the De-rating Commission in their possession at an early date, presumably giving the impression to Deputies, who do not know what has been going on, that the Government will act upon whatever report this Commission may make. I have no faith whatever in that particular Commission, and on a previous occasion I said so in this House, because it is composed of too many people. I can see that body making probably a majority report and two or three minority reports, and the President and his Ministers doing what they have done on previous occasions, namely, coming before the House and saying that they cannot make up their minds because this Commission could not agree upon a definite scheme in connection with de-rating. I am sure that the President will, as a result of the statement he made this evening, satisfy the curiosity of many of his wavering supporters in the County Dublin. That statement may have the effect of possibly reducing the number of candidates who might otherwise take part in that by-election. That will serve a useful purpose from the point of view of the party managers; but will it satisfy that particular section of the President's supporters in the country?

With regard to the question of the development of industry, I want to know from the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he can furnish the House even with approximate figures showing the extent to which private capitalists have put their money into industries which have received the benefit of tariffs. I ask the question because I want to find out whether there is going to be any possible chance of ever hoping for the development or the setting up of new industries while relying solely on capital put into these industries by Irish or foreign capitalists. I hope the Minister will furnish the House with whatever information he has on that point. I agree with Deputy O'Connell when he says that if [97] we are to look forward to industrial development in this country the State itself will have to go in and provide the capital for that particular purpose, and, having provided the capital, will have to take such steps as will guarantee to the new industries a guaranteed market for whatever they are prepared to turn out. I am one of those who hold that the boot tariff has failed to serve the purpose for which it was imposed.

The Minister for Agriculture in dealing with tariffs on imported food stuffs refused to approach the consideration of such claims because he is of the opinion that the imposition of these tariffs will help to increase the cost of the particular commodity to the consumer or purchaser. Does he deny that he has a share of responsibility for the imposition of the boot tariff? And does he know that the failure of Irish capitalists or of the Government to put into that industry a certain amount of capital is enabling those who are importing boots in increased quantities to pass the amount of the duty on to the purchasers in this country? If it is good and sound policy to provide capital at the expense of the taxpayers of this State for the development of industry, it is far more sound from the national point of view for the Government to take such steps as would protect the millions of capital that the Irish farmers and landowners have in the land, and which is the only national asset we have.

Deputy Shaw took off his hat, but I was glad to see he did not lose it, to cheer the President and to congratulate him on coming forward with a supplementary estimate of £300,000 for the purpose of relieving the distress which exists. Does he realise that the £300,000 the President has promised to provide for this particular purpose means only £11,000 per administrative county in the Free State? Is the Deputy going to get up in this House and tell the people, particularly his constituents, that that meets the immediate demand in regard to unemployment and distress in his own area?

Mr. Shaw: It is the first instalment, and I said that I did not consider it enough.

[98] Mr. Davin: I consider it is not enough to meet the immediate demands of the situation. I do not profess to know very much about Deputy Shaw's constituency, but that amount does not meet the immediate demands so far as my constituency is concerned—£11,000 to help the people who are suffering from the results of unemployment and low prices, and the poverty created thereby during the next six or seven months. The President is not aware of the situation that exists in the country if he thinks that scheme meets the immediate needs of the situation. I deny it. With regard to the setting up of the permanent Tariff Commission, four years ago Senator Johnson, who was then leader of the Labour Party, spoke on the 30th June, 1926, on the subject. He opposed the proposals then made for the setting up of what was meant to be a part-time Commission. It would be of interest, perhaps, to the President to hear me quote some passages from the speech made by Senator Johnson on that occasion. He said:

“It should not be a part-time Commission; its members should not be men selected to inquire into one application or another application, and when they have turned the applications down, return to their Departmental work. It ought to be a Commission set up by the Executive Council, a Commission which would necessarily have an immense amount of work to do, which would relieve the Department of Industry and Commerce and somewhat relieve the Department of Finance, but which would be a Commission with very considerable powers to inquire into the effects on the national economic life of tariffs which have been initiated and imposed, the effect upon the particular industries and the reactions upon other industries. The Commission should have power to inquire into the needs of an industry. It would require to understand what the policy of the State is in regard to the whole question.”

That was four years ago when the agricultural and industrial community of this country were looking forward to [99] the work of the Commission as likely to bring them some hope. Four years have elapsed since that recommendation was put forward. What has been done in the meantime for the agricultural community as a result of that part-time Commission? To give an illustration of their activities, apart from the question Deputy Lemass has raised in this House on so many occasions as to the long time taken by the Tariff Commission to deal with the application from people associated with the coach-building industry, as a result of pressure which was brought to bear on the Minister for Agriculture last year, he asked the members of this part-time Commission to inquire into an application made by the Irish Grain Growers' Association. I am sure the members of that Association will not be glad to-morrow to read the President's statement that he does not take their views into consideration.

I wonder from whom the President and the Minister for Agriculture take their views regarding the needs of the farming community? Is it that a Party meeting is relied upon to get this information? I do not think that Deputy Shaw would go out of his way to mislead the Minister on this question. Members of the part-time Tariff Commission were requested on 3rd December last year to inquire immediately into the effect of the proposals put forward by the Irish Grain Growers' Association. Twenty-one persons gave evidence in support of that demand. I want the House to understand that as far as I know these 21 individuals were practical working tillage farmers. Fourteen persons, some of whom never took a spade or shovel in their hands, were brought by the scruff of the necks to give evidence against the proposals. Technical experts were also brought forward to give evidence, but as I have not read their evidence, I am not competent to express an opinion upon it. The point I want to make is that though that Commission was set up on 3rd December and concluded its public sittings on 12th March, we are told by the President to-day that they are at present engaged in drafting their report.

[100] If anyone can read anything into the speech made by the Minister for Agriculture in Carlow one can easily anticipate what the recommendations will be. The very fact that they have gone out of existence as a result of the action taken by the Ministry goes to show that these people will not be allowed to live so long as to be called upon to defend whatever report they are going to make. However, a permanent Tariff Commission is now going to be set up. That body is going to consist of civil servants, presumably of the same type and outlook as the men who have been on the part-time body. I venture to suggest—I would not say anything in this House against any of the civil servants who are to act on that body. I am not sure whether the names of those who are to serve on that body as published are correct—that they are bound as civil servants to be influenced by the emphatic statements made on these matters by the Minister for Agriculture and other Ministers. Therefore, the farming community have little to hope for from such a body, whether it be a permanent or a temporary one. I hope, however, that, seeing that the members of this particular body will be engaged on full-time work, that that fact alone will enable them to bring in their reports or recommendations, whatever they may be, with greater speed than the body which is now disappearing. I always held the view that it was quite impossible for busy men like the men who composed the part-time body to do their duty to the State as the heads of a Department from day to day and from week to week and, at the same time, to do this very difficult work which requires very great consideration and to do it in their spare time. The Ministry, after four years, have come to the conclusion that a permanent body is necessary. I hope that some better results will come from this body than those we have seen up to the present. I am sure it will satisfy many of the big industrialists as well as members of the Chamber of Commerce and so on, to know that they will, in future, get the benefit of the reduction of £250,000 which will come as a result of the re- [101] duction in contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund.

Mr. McGilligan: They will not.

Mr. Davin: The President gave the impression that it was being done so as to help industry and commerce.

Mr. McGilligan: And that it is to be divided between the employers and the employees.

Mr. Davin: Yes, and the amount which the employers will benefit is supposed to be given in the shape of help by the Government for the development of industries. I hope it is not the same help as was given three years ago when the same Government reduced the income tax by one shilling in the £. Can the Minister tell us in what way that reduction of income tax helped in the setting up of any new industry in the Saorstát in the intervening period?

Mr. Good: By comparison of the unemployment in the Free State to-day with unemployment in Great Britain.

Mr. Davin: I want to state that I am expressing the opinion of my own Party in stating that any saving to be effected in this respect should go for the purpose of better unemployment benefits to the people who are out of work, and an extension of the period for the payment of benefit. I object, because I know from previous experience, that any assistance supposed to be given for the development of industry never has the desired effect, and that its only effect will be to help to provide those bloated capitalists, many of whom live in the County Dublin, with more money to spend on pleasure. I believe that the Government Party managers will regard that also as another gesture at a very critical time to people who might otherwise be looked upon as very doubtful supporters.

Mr. Moore: Before the President or any Minister replies, I think we might have some explanation of one apparently contradictory feature of his statement. The President seems to exult in the fact that the Government had saved the farmers in the Free State from the danger of cereal production. He seemed to say that corngrowing [102] had proved a terrible misfortune for many countries, and that the Government's wisdom in discouraging the production of wheat, for instance, was fully justified in the present circumstances. At the same time he referred to another fact in connection with the agricultural life of the country—that the price of butter has gone down to a very serious extent, and that it is likely to go further. He said that a market has to be found abroad for about £4,000,000 worth of butter every year.

I think it is admitted that the present price of butter in the English market, or, at least the prices paid to the producers, is below the cost of production. Certainly, most farmers hold that 95/- per cwt., which was the price paid for butter for a good many weeks past by the Central Marketing Organisation, is very much below the cost of production. In the face of that, I wonder how are we to take the President's statement with regard to corn-growing? Is it a lot better to be supplying £4,000,000 worth of butter to the British below the cost of production so as to encourage them to produce goods cheaper in order that they may be better able to compete with our manufacturers in the making of goods—is it a lot better to do that than to encourage the growing of wheat for our own consumption? I think that no body of agriculturalists would very seriously maintain that view. I think if we are producing at a loss at all, we should, at least, produce for ourselves at a loss rather than produce for our neighbours at a loss. To my mind, that would seem very much the better thing.

I think that a good deal of confusion has arisen amongst the members of the Government with regard to grain-growing. They are deliberately confusing the issues in this way. Countries producing wheat for export are in a bad way, being unable to find a market for their production. The Government argue, therefore, that the production of wheat would be a bad thing for us. But nobody has ever proposed that we should go so far in the production of wheat as to grow wheat for export. Yet the President's statement could only have been [103] founded on that supposition. A similar statement certainly was to be found in an article written by the Minister for Education at an interview given by him after his return from Geneva.

The President's words this afternoon seemed to be almost a repetition of what the Minister for Education said after his return from Geneva—that wheat-growing countries were to be pitied, and that this Government's wisdom in not giving any encouragement to the growing of wheat in this country was fully justified by the present circumstances. So far, however, from that being proved, it seems to me the cases assume a much stronger complexion than ever, in view of the President's prophecy that the price of butter will continue to fall for some time to come; and that we shall be in the position that £4,000,000 worth of butter will be produced annually in this country to be sold abroad very much below the cost of production. The point is one on which I would like an explanation, because as they stand the President's remarks are contradictory. There is a further matter that I would like some information on. The President, in referring to the European situation, talked about the movement against tariffs. He seemed to think that it was rather a sinister movement, and that it was initiated by the big indusrial countries that were at present without sufficient markets for their products. If I am right, I think the movement started with the World's Economic Conference called by the League of Nations, and that there were a number of Saorstát representatives at that Conference, and that those representatives signed the unanimous report that issued from that Conference practically in favour of Free Trade.

Mr. McGilligan: No, no.

Mr. Moore: There was certainly the suggestion that there should be a strong effort made to get rid of tariffs.

Mr. McGilligan: That is not so. Has the Deputy got the report?

Mr. Moore: It is not in the Library.

Mr. McGilligan: Then when did the Deputy read it?

[104] Mr. Moore: In my own home. At all events, I think the Minister will not deny that the whole tendency of that report was to deprecate the imposition of tariffs; as a matter of fact, it suggested the immediate reduction of tariffs in every country and it was, in spirit at all events, a free trade document. It is rather strange that one of the Saorstát representatives who signed that report was the present Chairman of the Tariff Commission. I think he was at that time, too, the Chairman of the Tariff Commission.

Mr. McGilligan: Who signed what report?

Mr. Moore: The report of the World Economic Conference. It was signed by the present Chairman of the Tariff Commission.

Mr. McGilligan: Did the Deputy read that at home, too?

Mr. Moore: Yes. There were three or four representatives from this State at that Conference. I presume the reference to the movement for co-operation between various countries which the President made in his statement touches on the coming together of the Scandinavian nations and other nations in South-Eastern Europe and I presume the purpose of that was to cover the failure of the Imperial Conference. It would not do if people were to think that all the time and money spent on the Imperial Conference was entirely wasted or that there was no parallel for it in other countries. We were told then that this movement towards co-operation is general and that therefore it was quite natural for the Saorstát to spend plenty of time and money endeavouring to come to an arrangement with regard to inter-Common-wealth trade. If people are satisfied with that sort of explanation, it cannot be helped, but I rather think the farmers will not be satisfied. They will not be satisfied either with the programme set out here this evening. Obviously, the £300,000 to be spent on unemployment is of no great importance to farmers. It will, I hope, give a good deal of employment [105] to those now without work, but it will not by any means give all the employment that will be required.

The decision to reduce the payments in respect of unemployment insurance is not a thing that will affect farmers. The one thing that they will have to be satisfied with is the setting up of a whole-time Tariff Commission. If that does its work well and satisfactorily no one will be more glad than we on these benches, but it seems to me that in the present circumstances a great deal more than that is required. Judging from the accounts that reach us every day, the position of the average farmer could not be much worse. To ask him to put his trust in a whole-time or a part-time Tariff Commission and to say to him: “That is all we can do for you,” is a callous attitude on the Government's part.

The Government has gloried in the fact that they have created an efficient State. They have declared that the money spent on the State was well spent and that the people are getting thoroughly good value. Now at a period of greater crisis than we have ever experienced in our time the farmers are told that the State cannot do anything for them. “This wonderful State that we have been urging you to admire and to consider as a tremendously good investment, is powerless to do anything for you in this time of crisis.” That is rather an unfortunate message for any Government to send out, and excuses such as that State interference is unwise and should not be expected in ordinary business will not justify the denial of more prompt and efficient assistance for farmers than was outlined for us this evening.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Hogan): I am disappointed, in more senses than one, at this debate. I did think that people who were protesting so much about the state of the country would take the matter seriously enough to discuss it intelligently. After listening to this debate for two hours, I must say that the people most vocal during the last six months in their references to the scandalous and bankrupt state of this [106] country seem to be utterly unable to make a single constructive contribution in respect of any issue dealt with by the President. The best thing they can say is what has been said by their leaders—“We want notice of those figures; they appear to be right, but we hope to find on examination that they are wrong.” That is just about what Deputy de Valera's speech came to.

The President gave some figures which are very important as an indication of the financial and economic conditions of the country. He gave them, not with the object of showing that this country is extremely prosperous or even prosperous, but with the object of showing that the picture painted by Deputies opposite, both here and outside, and by supporters of theirs through the country—that this country is not only bankrupt but is in a worse position than any other country in Europe—is not alone false, but unpatriotic. I will even go so far as to say that such statements are treasonable. There is no use in attacking the President's statement on the lines that it indicates this country is at the moment brimful of prosperity. The President has made no such case whatever. What are the figures which he has given? Is it denied that the National Loan and our loans generally are an indication of our credit? Is it denied that quotations of these loans on our own Exchange and on the London and New York Exchanges are at least some indication of the country's financial credit and stability? I do not think that that can be denied.

I take it that, apart from reading and re-reading their own speeches, Deputies read the papers. I take it that they keep themselves in touch with such commercial matters as the ordinary man in the street is bound to take into consideration. Even the man in the street, not to speak of statesmen, is bound to keep in touch with certain information of the nature I have referred to. Are the figures which the President has quoted correct? Is it a fact that all our loans are at a premium? Is it a fact that the Agricultural Credit Corporation, which we established, and which borrows, to some extent, on the credit of the State, [107] finds no difficulty in getting money? Is it no indication of our financial position that we are able to borrow at least as good as England or as good as any of the first-class countries of the world? Is it any answer to the President's statement for Deputy de Valera to say, “I have not had an opportunity of examining the figures; I do not know whether they are correct or not,” and practically to indicate that he proposes to examine them, and his only hope is that they may be found to be incorrect?

That is the point of view I complain of. I say, in all seriousness, that it seems to me the condition of the country—and when I speak of the country I mean not only the farmers, but the industrialists, the merchants and the labourers—is looked upon by the Party opposite, not so much from the point of view of co-operating in bettering it, but from the point of view of seeing what political capital, at the expense of the Government, they can make out of it.

I say that quite deliberately. I think that that is a shocking point of view. I remember two or three years ago, when the trade balance was not as healthy as it is now—when the trend of the trade balance was in the opposite direction—day after day and week after week listening here to speeches made from the opposite benches in which figures were quoted to us regularly showing the trend of the trade balance and the amount of the adverse trade balance. Personally, I am not so young as to think that the trade balance by itself is a clear indication of the state of the country commercially or financially. I go no further than to say that it is some indication. But the very people who used the trend of the trade balance then to show that the country was going towards bankruptcy take no notice whatever of the trade balance now, when the trend is shown by the fact that it has fallen from 19.3 to something like 10. What does that attitude indicate? Does it indicate concern for the country? I say it does not—that it does not indicate concern [108] either for the farmers or for the business people of the country. It indicates concern for whatever political capital can be made out of the misfortunes of the people. I protest against that attitude, and I say that that has been the attitude adopted by the Party opposite in this debate. That is one aspect of the question.

The people who do not know anything about these figures, the people who do not know what way the trade balance is going now, the people who do not know anything about how the National Loan stands, who want time to examine those matters, are ready to give us other figures. We are told that tillage has declined, that live stock has declined, that the number of cattle in the country is less than it was and that prices have declined. It is suggested that they have declined more in this country than in any other country. If that is not the suggestion, then there was no reason for making that statement at all. If the decline in this country has not some special significance, why should it be always quoted and why should the quotation of that decline in prices and in tillage be always accompanied by quite disingenuous explanations? Deputy Lemass actually told us that recurring distress in this country is due to the method we have of using our land. I suggest that everybody knows and that everybody, except the politician, is willing to admit that the decline in prices, stock and tillage in this country is due exactly to the reasons for the decline in prices and in stock in every other country—the conditions which inevitably followed the European War and the waste and extravagance of that war. I dare say some of the Deputies opposite were children in the year 1920. But some of them had come to the use of reason in the year 1920—I pay them that compliment. If any farmer or any business man were asked in 1921: “What is going to be the effect during the next eight or ten years of the European War—all the waste, all the extravagance, the immense debts and the loss of production that occurred during the years 1914 to 1921?”—he could tell you at once.

[109] [An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]

Was there a farmer in Ireland who did not know that the increase in tillage during the years 1914 to 1918 was not an entirely artificial increase brought about by entirely artificial prices, and that the increase was bound to stop the minute these artificial stimuli were taken away? That increase was bound in the circumstances to be followed by a decrease until you had practically reached the point at which the increase started. Everybody knows that. It is like quoting the prices now and the prices in 1924. The question is not whether our prices now are high or low, not whether they compare favourably or otherwise with 1924, but whether they are lower than they should be for the year 1930. That is really the question.

We are told that we have adopted a Free Trade policy. How is it possible to discuss this issue with any profit if loose language like that is used? What is the “Free Trade policy”? We have a Free Trade policy in a country where we have tariffs on, amongst other things, textiles, clothing, boots, woollens, bottles, margarine, furniture, soap and candles. We have tariffed, on the admission of anybody who has examined the matter, almost fifty per cent. of our tariffable imports. And that is called Free Trade! I accept that definition of Free Trade. But if that is Free Trade, then I am not a Tariff Reformer. If that is Free Trade, what does Tariff Reform mean? It must mean wholesale and indiscriminate tariffs. That is what is meant by Deputies opposite when they talk of tariffs. Deputy Davin talked about the Tariff Commission. He reminded us that Deputy Johnson, four years ago, advocated a permanent Tariff Commission, and that now we are setting up that Commission. He told us that if we had had a permanent Tariff Commission during the last four years we would have had less delay, and he suggested that we would probably have more tariffs. That is an understandable point of view. But let us be clear, anyway, as to where we differ. My view is that the more delay there is about tariffs the better. Our [110] point of view is that tariffs are, in the main—with some exceptions—a tax on the consumer in favour of particular industries. Tariffs, in the main, with very few exceptions, mean taking the money out of the pockets of the consumer and giving it to specially protected industries. That may be right in certain circumstances. It may be necessary, in order to encourage industry, that industrialists in this country should get special protection, but if they are to get protection, the interests of the consumer must be safeguarded at least as carefully as the interests of the industrialist who, in his own person, is going to profit by these tariffs.

We make no apologies, good, bad or indifferent, for any delay that may have occurred in the imposition of tariffs. Delay or expedition does not really matter in the case of tariffs. What really matters is that the tariffs, before imposition, should get the most careful examination, so that their reaction on the consumer, on the industry itself, and on the country as a whole, should be fully measured, and so that the tariff, if it is to be imposed, should be the minimum tariff in the circumstances. It is extraordinary that at this hour of the day, with the experience of highly-protected countries like Canada, Australia and the United States of America before us, you should still find leaders of a responsible party advocating wholesale tariffs as something essentially good, something that cannot do harm. What is the position of those high tariff countries to-day? What is the position of the Canadian and Australian farmer? Deputy Lemass mentioned—I am sorry he is not here now—that I went over to London. I did go over to London— quite openly, and I will go over again whenever I require to go. I shall not sneak over to Lord Beaverbrook to give him my views on Irish politics.

Mr. Cooney: You will go whenever you are required.

Mr. Hogan: Whenever I think I ought to go I will go to London, and I will make no apologies to anybody for so doing. When I get to London I will do just as I wish, and accept any invitation I care to accept, and meet any people I care to meet, without [111] any apology or without any explanation. I am telling that to Deputy O'Kelly. I had the advantage of being able to make some first-hand inquiries into the position in tariffed countries, countries where you had indiscriminate tariffs without any examination, where tariffs were imposed on a wholesale scale, without any attempt to measure the necessities of the case, or the consequences that would follow. What is the result? Does anybody suggest at the moment, does the Labour Party suggest, that you have prosperity in very much richer countries like Australia as a result of tariffs, or that you have prosperity in Canada as a result of tariffs? These are highly tariffed countries. Surely anybody who has given the matter any study will realise that even the wealthiest country can be brought to the verge of bankruptcy by tariffs. All sorts of inefficiency and worse even than inefficiency, namely, corruption, can flourish in a country where tariffs can be put on perhaps indiscriminately for political reasons. Surely anybody who has given the smallest thought to the matter must realise that. Is that your ambition for this country? It is not ours.

Take the position of this country. We are an agricultural country—I will not go into this question too deeply as we will debate it again— with a big export surplus of agricultural produce. It is now practically admitted that no tariff can increase the price which the farmer receives for his produce, with negligible exceptions. It is practically admitted that the only effect of tariffs is to increase the price of everything that the farmer has to buy, so far as they have any effect. It has been admitted by the leader of the Opposition that a tariff on bacon would not increase the price. It must be admitted that no tariff on eggs in a country like this, where there