"That a sum not exceeding £8,081,717 be granted on account for or towards defraying the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for certain public services."
Amendment by
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
Motion by the
(resumed):
"To reduce the vote by £500."
I am glad to say that in the revised text of this motion the error which I pointed out yesterday has been amended, and now all the sixty-eight items in the vote are brought into line. It might seem a small point, but it is important as showing the final establishment of uniformity in the public accounts of this country. I would like to draw the attention of the House and the Minister, as this is the only opportunity we will have of discussing Estimates, to the great improvement in the form of the Estimates which we have received this year as compared with those which we received in the last few years. At present all the items have been brought into line and very good work has been done in the way of simplifying public accounts. The Estimates which were received in the early years of the establishment of the State, in 1922, 1923, 1924, and 1925, were extremely complicated and very hard to understand so far as Deputies were concerned, and practically impossible to understand so far as the outside public were concerned. As I say, very good work has been done in the direction of simplification, but there is one dark spot in the form in which these Estimates are presented, and that is that a certain item which appears in most of the Estimates has not only not diminished but has seriously increased, namely, Appropriations-in-Aid. We are asked to vote a sum of over £8,000,000 to tide over the period until after the general election, but during that period probably the sum of £8,400,000 may be actually spent by the State. It does not appear in the Vote on Account. That £300,000 or £400,000 extra will be spent by departments in running the administration of the country out of moneys which they collect, and which are put down here as Appropriations-in-Aid. I think, five years ago, the Appropriations-in-Aid were not more than £400,000 or £500,000. This year, for the first time, they have passed a million. That is to say, a million pounds are being collected by departments, and a million pounds are being disbursed in the public administration without that money being actually voted by the Dáil. That is, I think a retrograde step, and one which should not be allowed to continue. Many of these items of this money which will be collected will be, as far as I can make out, practically in the nature of revenue while, on the other hand, other sums have been simply transferred from one department to another. That is, I think, the principal objection that I can find to the form of the Estimates which we have received this year.
There was an ancient resolution proposed, I think, in the British Parliament that the power of the Crown has increased, was increasing, and should be diminished, and if the motion of Deputy Baxter could possibly be interpreted as meaning that Appropriations-in-Aid had increased, are increasing, and should be diminished, then I would be very glad to vote in favour of Deputy Baxter's motion. I am afraid I cannot read such an interpretation into his motion, and certainly not in the remarks with which he explained the reasons for which he put it down.
I would point out that American experts were brought over to investigate the estimates of Northern Ireland some years ago, and whereas they found that the British system of estimates was, on the whole, sound, the one thing they could not understand was this antiquated survival of Appropriations-in-Aid which denies the Parliaments the right to vote certain moneys which are, in fact, collected and spent by the State.
As far as the general debate on this motion is concerned, I will not detain the Dáil very long. I think yesterday's debate was quite long enough, but there was nothing of particular importance, certainly nothing new, raised in the course of the criticisms of the Government's financial proposals for the coming year. It was simply a rehash of very well-worn catch-words which have been indulged in both in this House and out of it during the course of the present Parliament. There has been, I regret to say, a great inconsistency amongst various proposals that have been brought forward for a reduction of expenditure. Perhaps such liberty and self-contradiction is permissible amongst the different Parties who occupy the central Benches in the Dáil; they allow a wide liberty of self-contradiction to their members. But it is very painful to see that this incoherence, with regard to the proposals for a reduction of taxation or criticisms of the votes has spread, with disastrous results, into the ranks of the Irish Labour Party.
What Party do you belong to?
It is very painful to listen to the incoherence of the Irish Labour Party, because we had all formed great expectations for the future of our own national Irish Labour Party, and the present state of confusion and chaos in their ranks would not be in the interest of the nation. Let us hope that, although their criticisms of the votes which we are asked to pass have been entirely contradictory, after some time they will once more recover their unity because, now that they have had time to live down the fools they made of themselves when they excommunicated the Shannon scheme, they are, after all, one of the only two possible Parties in the State to-day.
Excepting your own.
Many of the proposals that have been made for the reduction of expenditure, in the course of the debate, have been, I submit, out of order.
Is the Deputy in order?
There have been proposals for the abolition of departments of State. I submit, a Chinn Comhairle, that these proposals, in this debate, are out of order, as such abolition would involve legislation in order to change the existing terms of the Ministers and Secretaries Act.
There have also been proposals for the suppression of the Army. There have been proposals, as I mentioned last night, that the State should retire from the League of Nations and take no part in promoting the peace of the world. The nett result of these proposals is, naturally, that we should hand over the political and military protection of this people to some outside State. If such proposals were made in any other country in the world they would not be considered merely as verging on disloyalty, but as definite treason to the nation and to the State.
Deputy Baxter, in explaining the reasons why he put down his motion, demanded a reduction in the cost of the administration and a corresponding increase in the Pensions Bill of the State. There is general agreement, amongst all sections of the House, that the country is suffering from over-taxation. There is complete disagreement, in all parts of the House, as to how that over-taxation is to be remedied. That is very natural, seeing that the reduction in the cost of administration must, necessarily, be a very complicated matter and one which will require expert study.
The President of the Executive Council, some time ago, when protests were made to him as to the cost of the Government, said that the people were getting damn good value for their money. I do not think that is the general opinion of the country. I do not think myself that that is accurate. I think that there are very few instances in any branch of life in this country in which we get good value for our money as compared with many other countries. But just as the cost of good government is high in this country so the cost of good commodities in other directions is high, and it will take a very long time, and a great deal of work on the part of the people, to improve the quality and to bring about that state of affairs which the President maintains is already in existence, whereby we will get good value for our money. The financial proposals of the Government this year do not substantially differ from those of last year, but they differ very considerably from the proposals of the Government three or four years ago — the criminal period in the life of the present Government — when they refused to recognise any difference between the extraordinary expenditure of the State and the ordinary recurrent expenditure. During the first three years of the life of the State the people were overtaxed very many millions. They were forced to pay out of revenue very large sums which were expended on services which were of a non-recurrent and extraordinary nature. But when a proposal, made in 1924, clearly to distinguish between all those sections in the Estimates which may be considered as capital charges and all those which were definitely recurrent, the proposal was met, with disapproval by members of the Farmers' Party; it was described by Deputy Hewat, on behalf of the Business Party, as leading inevitably to national bankruptcy. But in the following year, 1925, the Government definitely adopted this principle and they made a division between the ordinary and the extraordinary Budget. But in making that division they left out one very important item which, I maintain, and other Deputies maintain, should not be borne upon the vote as a recurrent liability which has to be met out of taxation, and that is the enormous sum, which Deputy Baxter in his motion proposed to increase, which we have to pay for pensions, superannuation and retired allowances. It is mostly made up by the cost of paying for the late R.I.C., and is legitimately to be considered as part of the foundation charges of this State.
If it was so considered by the Minister, and if steps were taken to fund this great amount and to spread it over a large number of years, enormous relief could be given to the taxpayers of this country. Proposals have been made here, not only in the course of this debate but previously, for the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry into the cost of administration. The Government have pointed out the difficulty of putting into the hands of any body of experts the responsibility of deciding on national policy, of deciding what departments are more important than others, those which should be suppressed and those which should be increased. I think that, in view of the political speeches which have been made in this debate, the Government would be very wise if they accepted that suggestion and appointed such a Committee. Apparently it would have to sit for many years, possibly until the election after next, but if it were appointed it would be a very subtle and, I think, rather underhand trick on the part of the Government, because by appointing it they would remove the principal and, in some cases, the only plank of a certain number of parties that are going to appeal to the electorate. It would be a very underhand trick for the Government to do so, but, of course, the Government, as we all know, is capable of anything. If this Committee were appointed it is quite obvious that it could not consider the question of a reduction in the cost of administration without taking into consideration the whole question of the operation of Article 10 of the Treaty, which is the millstone around the neck of the present Government.
The Minister for Finance described Article 10 of the Treaty as the worst Article in the Treaty. If I, myself, had to choose which Article should be removed from the Treaty, I think that probably it would pay the country better in the long run to have Article 10 of the Treaty removed instead of the Article which prescribes the oath. I am quite sure that the Irish signatories to the Treaty never intended that this Article 10 should be a constant source of difficulty, or that it should prevent economical administration in this country. The Minister and the Government would be entitled, as well as any Commission they set up, to go into this whole question and approach the British Government with a view to funding the sum which is required to carry out the terms of Article 10 of the Treaty. I do not see why the British Government should have any objection to such a course.
I am afraid that the Deputy can hardly advocate amendment of the Treaty in what one might call this haphazard fashion.
So many suggestions have been made for a reduction of taxation, and so many of them were out of order, that I ventured to follow the same path and suggest that this at any rate is a definite line which the Minister could follow, and which, I think, could result in a substantial reduction of the taxation from which the country is suffering at the present time.
The old saying that it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose, no matter whether a case is good or bad, has, I think, never been better illustrated than by the debate that has taken place on Deputy Baxter's amendment to reduce the Vote on Account. The Deputy wants to have a reduction, but, as Deputy Sears pointed out, he is not willing to have any of the big items interfered with. He has an academic idea in his mind that a reduction could take place, but does not say where. His idea is somewhat like that of Alice in Wonderland: "off with his head." The Minister for Finance is to be executed, but the Deputy does not say in what manner the execution is to be carried out. Deputy O'Connell is going to vote for the amendment, and says that the money of the country should be used for the benefit of the classes requiring it. I think that there is a fair distribution of money amongst the wage-earning classes as far as the Government can carry out such a distribution. Nothing is perfect, unfortunately, but the Government has made a good attempt to have a fair distribution amongst all classes. Deputy Byrne and Deputy O'Connell alluded to the unemployment which, unfortunately, is still frightfully rampant through the country. A good deal of money has been spent on the roads, on the Shannon scheme, and there is a substantial sum in the estimates for the carrying out of preliminary work on the Barrow scheme. All that money, to a great degree, will be distributed amongst the workers of the country. Of course, work like the Barrow drainage scheme will benefit the whole area, farmers and all others concerned, eventually.
took the Chair.
I agree with a great deal of what Deputy Good and Deputy Shaw said on the matter of lowering the income tax. I think Deputy Davin does not approve of that.
I said nothing at all about it.
I am sorry. I think it was Deputy O'Connell who referred to the matter.
The Deputy said, I think, that the reduction of a shilling in the income tax last year did not produce the return that might be expected in the matter of providing more employment. We all realise, of course, that if income tax were lowered sufficiently and the county rates as well, that people would spend more money on improving their land — on drainage works and schemes like that. The present rates of income tax, as well as the county rates, are a frightful drag on anyone who at the present time is anxious to improve his property. If you had reductions in both these directions a good deal of constructive work would, I believe, be carried out, and labourers at present unemployed would be given work. I might mention that a year ago I improved a mile of the river running through my place in the hope that I would be recouped more or less in the way of income tax reductions. The income tax was reduced 1/-, but I found that was not enough. If it had been reduced by 1/6 it would have made a very great difference to me, and, I am sure, to a great many other people who feel as I do on the matter. I think that if income tax were reduced it would offer a great inducement to people with capital on the other side to come over here. For instance, if the rate here were lower than it is in England, I am certain that many people on the other side, people fond of sport and so on, would be delighted to come and settle here, and also that it would have the effect of inducing the best elements amongst those who left us to come back. Several suggestions have been made with regard to saving money, but many of them, I think, are not feasible. Suggestions have been made to reduce the Army and to do away with the Ministries of Fisheries and External Affairs. I think that these things are all quite impossible. In my opinion the Ministry of Fisheries is one of the most important that we have. The fisheries of this country constitute one of our greatest assets. I think, so far from doing away with that Ministry, that more money ought to be given to it to enable it to increase its usefulness.
As regards the Department of External Affairs, I think it would be very ill-advised to abolish that Department, since it is the badge of our freedom. It shows that we have a right to negotiate as a free nation with any other nation. If we had not a Minister responsible for our foreign relations, we would have no such outward indication of the powers we possess. What has been said about the reduction of the Army is, in great part, ridiculous. I am convinced that it is absolutely necessary for us, as for every other nation, to have a small, effective Army for defensive purposes. It is only for defence that we want it. Deputy Redmond asked what was the good of having an army which was not able to repel invasion. If our Army would not be able to keep a foreign enemy permanently off, it would, at least be able to keep them at bay for a certain time, until our friends would come to our assistance. A case in point is Belgium. If it had not been for the breathing space that the small army of Belgium gave to France at the commencement of the Great War, it might have meant disaster for the French. Deputy Redmond stated that as the Army could not repel invasion there was no use in having it. When I was a student at the Royal Military College many years ago, we were taught by the professors that it would be impossible for the British Army to prevent a landing, and that, moreover, it might be undesirable to prevent it. The suggestion there put forward was that on landing the invaders should be trapped between a force further inland and the Navy. The English did not propose then to disband their army because it could not repel invasion. Even apart from that, I do not think that our country is in such a state of perfect quietude that we would be warranted in bringing the strength of the Army much below what it is. It might be reduced slightly, but I do not think it should be brought much below its present strength.
Every week we read of arms being recovered, and even yet we know that there are a few individuals — they are very few — who have told us in no uncertain terms that even yet they would not mind having another "go" if it were possible. That being so, the suggestion that we should do away with the Army is ridiculous. We would, too, be robbing ourselves of a certain amount of dignity if we, of all the nations, with the exception of Denmark, were to have no army. Some of the Deputies recommended that we should have an army only for ornament. Other Deputies suggested that we should not have an army at all, because it was ornamental. I think it was Deputy Redmond who said that we might have a small army for ornamental purposes. I suppose the purpose would be to provide a bodyguard for the Governor-General. If we are to have an army at all, we should have a small, efficient army. That is what the Government are working for.
Deputy Good touched on the Land Commission. He did not altogether damn it, but he expressed no great hope for the future of land division. I think the Commission are distributing the land fairly well. We would all like if they could do it more speedily, but it is a matter in which it would be possible to go too quickly. It is evident that in some cases the occupying owners have found great difficulty in carrying on. I was greatly struck by the reference by Deputy Roddy to the system in Germany, by which the Commissioners there, when distributing estates, lend money to the new occupiers to enable them to work their holdings. There is the same difficulty as regards working capital here. In a great many cases the lands which have been newly divided are being let out on the eleven months' system. The occupiers have not got the money to stock the farm. That is not desirable, and I think the German system is worthy of consideration, so that these newly-appointed land owners may have a chance of success. Otherwise there is, for many of them, only too good a chance of failure. It is in the interests of all that the division of land should go on as quickly as possible, and that it should be a success. At the same time, we must realise that it must be done carefully or the second condition might be worse than the first.
Whatever may be the result of the coming struggle at the polls, whether the present Government retains office or whether another Government succeeds them, the foundations of the State have been well and firmly laid for those who are to legislate in the future. They will not have the difficulty that this Government had four years ago, when it took office and found everything in chaos. The present Government will leave the State in good order and, on that foundation, I think there is just reason for hoping that a great superstructure will be erected which will do credit to this country before all the nations of the world.
The opinions which I have to express may be, to a certain extent, in the nature of repetition. The fact that they are in the nature of repetition will not weaken them in any way if they be true. We have to examine this vote in the same way as a business man examines his balance sheet and takes stock at the end of the year. We have to do that in order to arrive at an appreciation of the conditions in the country. There must be some relation between taxation and the economic conditions existing. One has to examine somewhat into the economic conditions in order to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the taxation which is being imposed is more than the people can bear. I do not like to be too pessimistic but, in my opinion, the economic conditions in the country have not improved since this time last year, when we dealt with a similar vote. In fact, I think the economic conditions have disimproved. I arrive at that conclusion from my own experience and from the information obtained from the statistics placed at our disposal by the Government. I am largely judging the conditions by my knowledge of affairs in the country. I am sorry that I cannot regard the condition of affairs in the rural districts or in the country towns as in any sense satisfactory. Everywhere we find complaints. We find them particularly in the towns.
The reason is that the towns are a reflection of the conditions existing in the country. If the farmers have not much money available for spending, the effect is very soon felt in the towns. There is grumbling and growling proceeding in all the small towns of Ireland, and there is open and plain evidence of a depressed economic condition. There must be a relation between the economic condition of the people and the taxation they are called upon to bear. Remembering that, I have constantly expressed the view that every effort should be made by the Government to bring taxation to a level commensurate with the ability of the people to pay. Since I have come into contact with Government departments I have begun to realise the difficulties Ministers are faced with when they endeavour to economise. I realise that it is not nearly such an easy matter as I thought in the beginning. At the same time, it is a case with us now of "Needs must when the devil drives," and if the money is not available to meet the demands made for taxation we will have to find some way of cutting expenditure.
It is not necessary to deal with figures to any extent, as there has been no great change in the Estimates as compared with last year. There has been no appreciable reduction in the expenses of administering the depart ments due to the special efforts of the Ministry to economise. The reductions which we find here are largely automatic. They have not taken place because of any particular efforts on the part of the Government. They were normal reductions which would take place in any case. If I dwell to a great extent on the condition of the farming community, I will make no apology for doing so, because the whole basis of our industrial structure depends upon agriculture, and if agriculture is not prosperous the country cannot be prosperous. With the exception of one or two industries, practically all the industries of the country are to a certain extent parasitic upon agriculture. They are either providing the agriculturists with the means of subsistence and production or taking their products and marketing them. The whole basis of our economic structure rests on agriculture, and the condition of the agricultural community at present is a very serious one. I have definitely come to the conclusion from observation and information I have received that a great number of farmers are not making ends meet; that their outgoings are exceeding their incomings and that they are drawing on capital. I am confirmed in that by the reports of the Joint Stock Banks, which shows that deposits decreased last year and have been decreasing from year to year.
Simultaneously with this decrease, there is also a decrease in the investments of those banks in Great Britain, which is a pretty clear indication that some portion of the community is living on its capital. To a certain extent that theory is confirmed by our growing adverse trade balance. That is, we are buying more than we are paying for in goods; we are, in fact, withdrawing our investments in Great Britain to a certain extent. If that is the position it is unsatisfactory, and it cannot continue — it must come to an end. We have to find out how we are to bring it to an end.
I recognise that this is a problem that is very difficult to solve. I am not going to state that over-taxation is the whole cause of it — I do not believe it is — but I believe it is an important factor in placing people, particularly agriculturists, in the position that they are not able to make ends meet. In most countries taxation has a tendency to find its way eventually on to the producer. It is passed from one to the other until it eventually stops with the producer. I do not say that all taxation comes down to the producer. I agree that income tax and perhaps other taxes do not finally come down to the producer. But I think it is generally acknowledged that taxation in this country has a tendency to be pushed on to the producer, and the farmer is the main producer. It does not come on always in the form of direct taxation, but in reality the farmer pays taxation on almost every article he buys; he pays taxation on those he produces and distributes. The result is that the farmer is finding himself faced with a cost of production on the article he is producing which makes it impossible for him in many cases to make the production a paying one. The worst feature is that the cost of production is, to a large extent, out of his control. He has to make those payments.
I have heard the Minister for Finance state that he does not believe taxation can be reduced, but that he does believe the capacity of people to pay can be increased so that they can meet the present taxation by increased production. I take practically the opposite point of view in that regard. I do not agree that taxation can be met by increased production. I believe that exactly the contrary must take place — that we must have reduced taxation before we can have increased production, and that when we have increased production it is quite possible that we can again have increased taxation. The producer, particularly the farmer, who finds himself faced with certain definite fixed charges, knows that if he endeavours to produce to a greater extent these fixed charges will be applied to the extra production. It is well known with regard to agricultural produce that increased production in many cases means increased cost per unit of production, with the result that, while overhead charges remain too high, to stimulate the farmer in any artificial way, or force him in some way to produce more, may actually cause him to increase his losses rather than decrease them. If we are to have increased production, the first necessity is that we should have decreased cost of production, and inasmuch as taxation forms part of the increased cost of production, then I am against the present taxation.
The Minister might very well ask — he has already asked us several times — how we propose to have taxation decreased — are we merely expressing a pious opinion, knowing quite well that it cannot be carried out? I say that taxation will have to be reduced, and that if the Government does not reduce it the economic conditions in the country in a short period will be such, and the demand for relief will become so overwhelming, that this Government, or some other Government, will have to face up to the problem and find some method of reducing it. When they are up against it, some method will be found. It has been stated that Deputies should point out, after an examination of the Estimates, where the cost of Government Departments can be reduced. I stated that I did not believe that could be done — that the examination which the Estimates receive here will not allow Deputies to point out any particular items which can be reduced. I have confirmation of that statement from the interjection of the Minister for Finance yesterday when Deputy Cooper was claiming credit for certain reductions in the Army Vote. The Minister for Finance practically said that these reductions were not due to the Deputy's criticism. I believe that they were not very much due to that criticism — they may have been partially due. Although I have great respect for Deputy Cooper's powers of criticism, I do not believe that the result of that criticism would be effectual reductions in the Army Vote or the other votes.
I gave the Farmers' Party credit for reductions too.
Very small ones, I must say. I believe, and I have been supported in that belief by members on the Independent Benches, that the only really effective means of dealing with this and finding out where reductions can take place is by appointing a committee of inquiry. I believe that the Minister will eventually have to give in to that demand. I believe that such a committee must deal not only with the details of departmental administration, but with policy, and must make recommendations with regard to policy. I am not in a position to state whether such a committee can make recommendations which will result in any appreciable reduction. Similar committees in Great Britain and the United States, however, have made such recommendations. Even the Government of Northern Ireland were not above appointing an individual to go into their departmental administration. The Minister stated that a departmental committee had been appointed and was making inquiries with a view to pointing out where reductions might be made. I believe that that Committee is working, but I have no faith in the recommendations of departmental committees composed of civil servants as to possible reductions. Civil servants have certain ideas fixed in their minds after long terms of service, and if we are going to have any change in regard to our departmental methods we will have to get men with fresh minds free from the red tape of officialdom. There may be many possible economies that could be made in administration which the Minister has no possible chance of discovering and which will not be brought before him by a departmental committee.
I believe that the Committee I have suggested would find itself in a position to make recommendations as to policy, and that such recommendations should be made and should be considered. We have been told that if we are to have reductions we should point out where reductions can be made which will affect policy. We have not hesitated to do that. We had the moral courage to suggest considerable reductions in the upkeep of the Army and Gárda Síochána. I am glad to see that the Army Vote has been reduced very close to the amount estimated by the Minister in his speech last year — £2,000,000. I still maintain that we do not require an army costing £2,000,000 I do not say that we should not have an army, but I believe that we can maintain an army for £1,000,000 sufficient to meet any possible military or other requirements. The argument that we should keep an army for the sake of the maintenance of our national prestige is one that we cannot tolerate in the present economic condition of the country. Existence comes before prestige. While we have people on the verge of starvation we cannot argue in favour of the maintenance of an army for the sake of the upkeep of our national prestige. I regard the argument that the Army may have to be used at some period, either in coalition with England or independently, to repel invasion as a really fantastic one. That position is not likely to occur in our generation. I believe that the only purpose of the Army is the purpose of maintaining law and order, of keeping internal order and peace, and that, in fact, it is only another police force. Why is it necessary to have another police force? Have we not a large and very expensive police force at present, and is that force not sufficiently powerful to maintain law and order and internal peace? I maintain that it is, and that the Army, as at present constituted and at present acting, is not in any way helping, except that it may be regarded as a menace to those who are likely to create trouble. I would further point out that a standing army without any possibility of active service, except internally, which I regard as very unlikely, becomes in itself a menace and is liable to give opportunities for intrigue of an undesirable kind, and may sometime, as we know from the experience of other countries, result in very undesirable happenings within the country. For that reason I believe that we are justified in our demand that the Army be reduced to a very low level, and that one million pounds would be sufficient to pay for its maintenance.
There were one or two statements made by Deputies to which I would like to refer. In particular, it was stated from the Labour Benches that proper provision was not made for unemployment, and I understood Deputy O'Connell to say that State aid ought to be given for increased production. I have a good deal of sympathy with the request from the Labour Benches for something to be done to relieve unemployment, but my view is that it must be brought about eventually by means of stimulated individual production rather than by State aid. I believe that the continuation or the extension of State aid to the unemployed, or even of State aid for the purpose of producing employment, is rather a dangerous policy and one that is not likely to improve conditions. As a rule, State interference with business is never successful, and I think it is wrong to believe that the State ought to embark on large business undertakings or on large commitments for the sake of producing employment.
Does the Deputy believe in the Government giving loans to farmers at a low rate of interest?
I will come to that. I do not disapprove of the State endeavouring to relieve unemployment, but I believe that the fundamental job for the State is to improve economic conditions and to give individual employers a chance of building up their industries, thereby giving employment. When the State does give a loan to a farmer to improve his homestead, it probably also gives him an opportunity of employing labour.
Of stocking his land.
I am not arguing that labour ought not to get some help, but I am arguing that the development of that is not a wise thing, and I say that the development of State aid to the farmer to any great extent, in the way of grants or doles of any kind, is not likely to help the farming industry very considerably. Carried too far, I think that that is liable to be dangerous for any class. It is likely to take away reliance and self-confidence to have everybody running to the State, as they have very often been doing.
Hear, hear. We must take a note of that.
Is the Deputy pleading for a reduction of the Agricultural Grant?
The Agricultural Grant has nothing to do with it. It is a readjustment of taxation and has nothing to do with State aid. I have always maintained that. In regard to what Deputy Egan said. I quite realise that there is unnecessary extravagance, and that if we are to have retrenchment and economy we must not expect it all to come from the Government, that the people themselves will have to start economising too. It is very palpable to anybody that there is unnecessary extravagance.
On a point of order. Is a lecture on social extravagance in order in this connection?
Yes, for Deputy Heffernan.
It is directly connected with the question of State extravagance.
I submit that it does not affect the vote in any way.
I want to point out that in my opinion extravagance does not exist amongst the agricultural community. It exists amongst other classes in the community. It is rather a mystery to me where these people get the money, but as far as outward appearances are concerned they are getting it. I believe that if things are to be put right economically it will not all have to depend on reductions in taxation. In regard to the question of land settlement, I agree with Deputy Roddy's remarks, and I think very serious consideration ought to be given to them by the Minister for Lands and Agriculture. I believe that in the present economic conditions if the Land Commission persist in settling men who have little or no capital on the land, without providing some other form of assistance for them, it will fail, and that it is already failing in many cases. I believe it is a fact that lands, which have quite recently been divided, have gone out of the hands of the men who got them, that they have been letting the land for grazing, and often surreptitiously, without the knowledge of the Land Commission. If that continues we will have a real crisis in a few years.
I would ask the Deputy if he considers that unfair, and if he knows of cases where land has been let after it was divided why has he not reported the matter to the Minister?
Perhaps I have.
The Deputy did not raise the matter in the House.
In conclusion. I want to say that I am still of the opinion that if the economic condition of the country is to be put right, the Government must set the example. There is room for economy, and economy can be effected. I believe if this committee which I suggest is appointed that its appointment will eventually result in recommendations which will produce economy. If the Government goes to the country without showing that it is prepared to take some very definite steps in the nature of reducing taxation I believe that the answer it will get will not be in accordance with the opinion which it holds now as to the possibilities of the election.
I listened with a good deal of amusement to the speech made by Deputy Esmonde, and the more I listened to it the more amused I was. It is quite clear to me that his trip around the world had not the same effect upon him as in the case of Deputy Cooper. Deputy Esmonde came back here, and neither the mighty spectacle of Niagara nor the invigorating air of the Blue Mountains of Australia clarified his thoughts or enabled him to weigh or size up the importance of the language he uses here. That was quite the contrary to the case of Deputy Cooper. Speaking here on the 8th February, Deputy Esmonde used these words: "Although the disloyal, unpatriotic and rapacious civil servants are to-day secure, and while they are appealing across the water to what the Minister for Justice has described as ‘a bad, useless and unnecessary court....'" With the question of the appeal to another court I do not propose to deal, but I do propose to deal with Deputy Esmonde's allegation that civil servants are absolutely unpatriotic and rapacious. No Minister, according to the official report, appeared to consider it worth his while to reply to the charges made by Deputy Esmonde, and perhaps on consideration there was a reason for that. After the nonsensical questions as to the colour of the National Flag, and as to what was the National Anthem, which have recently been put by Deputy Esmonde, one perhaps ought not to take too much notice of what Deputy Esmonde says. But lest he might imagine by the Ministerial silence that his statement was irrefutable, I want to take this opportunity of protesting in the strongest possible terms against that libellous statement regarding civil servants.
Nobody has served this nation in its new-found freedom and its new-found course better than the civil servants. Their service has drawn encomiums from Ministers time and again, and every Deputy who has had recourse to different Government Departments knows perfectly well the consideration and the attention which he receives from civil servants. Deputy Esmonde may not have got that, but perhaps there may have been a good reason for it. If Deputy Esmonde makes the same class of statements in these departments as he makes here one could sympathise with the uncivil civil servant who happens to deal with him. I think every Deputy will recognise, as every Minister has recognised, that the civil servants have served this nation well during a time of evolution, during a time of revolution, and during a time of experiment, and I think it ill becomes a Deputy to charge civil servants with being absolutely unpatriotic and rapacious. If Deputy Esmonde thought he was doing a service to the nation by making these allegations I want to assure him that, so far as the Civil Service and so far as the mass of intelligent public opinion is concerned, Deputy Esmonde will be regarded as doing a great disservice to the nation.
On a point of personal explanation, I have not got the text of the official report on that matter, but I would like to make it quite clear that I did not accuse all civil servants of being absolutely unpatriotic and rapacious. I consider the action of some civil servants, in going against the unanimously expressed wish of this House that the decision of the Supreme Court of this country should be final, as disloyal to the nation and unpatriotic, but I would not, of course, suggest that that applies to the great mass of civil servants.
The civil servants are responsible to the different Ministers, and the different Ministers are responsible to this House.
I think the Deputy should have said ex-civil servants.
So much for Deputy Esmonde's speech in connection with civil servants. To-day he treated us to quite an interesting lecture on the need for unity and the value of unity. That coming from Deputy Esmonde was a lecture well worth listening to. I listened to it at times with amusement, and at times with a good deal of reverence.
There will be no split in his Party.
One must realise that in this House Deputy Esmonde's Party is the personification of unity, thinks with a single thought, moves with a single action and, generally, has a singleness of purpose in its conception and in its outlook; and that is, perhaps, more than any Party in this country can say to-day. When Deputy Esmonde made some inquiries about, and reviewed the position of, the Labour Party, I thought he was considering the question of making overtures. That would be nearly as serious as Deputy Esmonde's speech on unity; not quite, but very nearly as serious. It was rather interesting to me because all the indications are that, notwithstanding the smoke screen last night and to-day, Deputy Esmonde is negotiating for a return to his original and, perhaps, natural home.
The prodigal son!
If Deputy Esmonde has any doubts as to the unity of the Labour Party his doubts will be very quickly removed when the next General Election is over, and perhaps he will have a tangible illustration of that in his own constituency.
I intend to take this opportunity of referring to the work of the Civil Service Commission. I will not deal with the way in which it fills appointments; that is not a matter I want to deal with here. I really want to criticise the class of papers that are set at examinations held under the auspices of the Civil Service Commissioners. The Urban District Council of which I am a member, the Rathmines Urban District Council, proposed some time back to promote a person to the rank of clerk, his duty being to send out accounts, invoices, etc. Before he could be promoted he had to be examined—to undergo an educational examination. A representative of the Ministry attended and duly examined him. Two of the questions that were put to him were: "Who was the author of ‘Dracula'" and "Who wrote ‘The Riddle of the Sands'"? I ask the Minister for Finance, in all seriousness, what has "Who wrote ‘The Riddle of the Sands' " or "Who was the author of ‘Dracula,'" to do with the sending out of accounts or invoices by the Rathmines Urban District Council?
Is the Deputy asking us further riddles?
I have another illustration. The Civil Service Commission recently held an examination confined to auxiliary and temporary postmen with a view to appointing them to the establishment. If they were appointed to the establishment they would start off on a basic wage and bonus, combined, of 38/- a week, and after about eleven years of service would come to a maximum of £3 12s. The Civil Service Commission set examination papers for those men, and, considering the nature of the post, one would not imagine that the papers would be unduly severe. The men turned up for examination and they found themselves asked to describe the main features of the Saorstát Constitution. I would like the Minister for Finance to ask members of his own Party what are the main features of the Saorstát Constitution. I venture to say that the replies would be nearly as interesting as the replies which the Civil Service Commission got to that question when it was set to auxiliary and temporary postmen. These people have been away from school for ten or fifteen years. They were asked in another paper "Who was Godfrey O'Donnell?"
Ramsay Macdonald?
No, Godfrey O'Donnell. It would be more reasonable if it were Ramsay Macdonald; he would be of greater public interest, at any rate. In the name of all reason, what has the identity of Godfrey O'Donnell to do with filling the appointment of postman? What has it to do with delivering letters? The fact that a man would know who Godfrey O'Donnell was is no indication that he could deliver letters. The Minister should take some steps to have examination papers set which are reasonable and which bear some relation to the position to be filled.
I wish to join with other Labour Deputies in protesting against the reduction in the amount allocated for the relief of unemployment. First, I would like to refer to Deputy Redmond's remarks. I happen to represent one of the largest fishing centres in all Ireland, not in the Saorstát alone, and I do not agree with Deputy Redmond that we should abolish the Department of Fisheries and leave it the Cinderella of the Department of Lands and Agriculture. That is the parrot cry of a Dublin daily paper that has been attacking this and another Department for a considerable time. I notice that it has been silent for the last six months. I wonder at what price is that paper silent? I would like to know from Deputy Redmond is it the policy of his new Party to abolish the Department of Fisheries? If it is, it will be news to some of my constituents. In an important portion of my constituency Deputy Redmond addressed a large meeting some weeks ago and he gave promises of what he was going to do in the interests of the fishermen.
I also disagree with Deputy Redmond on the question of external affairs. Some time ago, when Deputy Magennis was in the Government Party, he gave us a lecture on what the Department of External Affairs signified; he indicated it was the outward and visible sign of a separate nation. I agree, and for that reason I object to this particular office being abolished.
Deputy Lyons made a rather peculiar statement here last night—to solve the unemployment problem by creating further unemployment. He held that in the Local Government Department there were too many officials and large numbers could be dismissed. I speak as one who has some conception of the work of the officials engaged in that department, and to my own knowledge I know that heads of that department have put in over twelve hours a day and have often worked on a Sunday. That applies to the Roads Department and to other sections. I am sure other Labour Deputies who have approached the Local Government Department on behalf of constituents will bear me out in that statement.
The officials apparently do not observe Trade Union rules.
They are breaking the Trade Union rules in various departments. I am glad the Minister for Education has come in. I can now mention that there are great complaints in my constituency over the Compulsory Attendance Act. While I agree with it, I think it should not have been enforced until better sanitary accommodation was provided in the schools. The schools should be improved to meet the increased attendance that will take place. In some rural areas children have to walk over three miles often in inclement weather. There are other disadvantages, and I ask the Minister to have some arrangements made during the winter-time, at least, so that where there is not proper accommodation the Act should not be enforced.
The Minister cannot see to the terms of the Act being carried out. He has no discretion in the matter. He must carry out the law.
I was merely drawing the Minister's attention to the grievances that exist in my constituency. I notice that Vote 37 (Circuit Court Officers) is reduced. Civil Bill Officers in my constituency have not been paid for the last six months.
I wish to draw the attention of the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Industry and Commerce to a great grievance that prevails amongst my constituents touching on the question of Workmen's Compensation. A sailor injured in England in a boat registered in England brought forward his case in the Free State Courts. Having heard doctors, solicitors, and witnesses, the Court held that as he was injured in a foreign country the Irish Courts had no jurisdiction. They advised him to take up the case in England. He went to England, and after legal arguments the English Courts held that inasmuch as he was domiciled in the Free State, under the 1925 Act they had no jurisdiction.
He was nobody's child.
He was nobody's child in that particular case. I think some arrangement might be made to meet such cases. The English arbitrator will not grant any award to any injured sailor if he is domiciled in the Free State.
We have heard a lot about the Shannon Scheme. The Labour Party did approve of the Shannon Scheme, but there are certain matters in connection with it open to question. We have heard a lot about the relief of unemployment. How can we expect to relieve unemployment if thousands of pounds worth of machinery and girders that could be manufactured in the Free State are being imported from Germany? While the workers in Irish foundries are idle Irish workers are being asked to erect iron girders that are manufactured in Germany. The wages they receive for that work amount to 30/- a week.
It is noticeable that the reduction which has taken place in the Estimates is mainly on such items as the improvement of estates and other work likely to give relief to the unemployed. While I agree that the Government is making a case for the abolition of the Ministry of Fisheries by curtailing grants and refusing to give the Minister the money he requires in order to assist fishermen. I notice that no arrangements are made for sailors. The Minister for Finance is really the man against whom the fishermen have a grievance. No matter what expenditure the Minister for Fisheries proposes, it is generally turned down in the Ministry of Finance, probably by some official who knows nothing about the needs of the fishing industry. In regard to the Local Government Department, I desire to draw attention to the orders that are being sent out to public bodies in reference to vaccination. I remember, during the Sinn Fein days, that the Dáil made a decree in 1919 giving the Irish people the same right to conscientious objection as existed in England. I do not know if any Act has been passed here empowering the Local Government Department to enforce vaccination in the Saorstát. I do not know if that decree of the old Dáil in 1919 has been rescinded here. The Government have no mandate, and the Local Government Department have no authority from the people to enforce compulsory vaccination.
It would be as well if the Deputy did not touch on that point just now.
Very well. I will only ask the Minister for Finance to consider the position of the fishermen.
The Deputy must understand that there is a general desire to wind up the discussion, and it is only reasonable to give the Minister for Finance an opportunity of winding up.
I will speak now and perhaps some points could be raised afterwards.
On a point of explanation——
I would ask to be allowed to speak now, and if there is time afterwards perhaps other Deputies could speak.
I am not going to sit under that.
What grievance has the Deputy?
I want to explain a point in Deputy Everett's speech.
Then make yourself clear in a few words.
I want Deputy Everett to observe the difference between the cost of the Local Government Department, namely, £486,793, as against the amount for unemployment, namely, £233,526. My point was that every office in Government Departments is overstaffed.
A great number of points have been raised, but I do not know that I will be able to touch on all of them. There were certain points which were discussed by various Deputies which I could not undertake to meet at present. Reference, for instance, was made to income tax and corporation profits tax. If I had anything to say on these subjects I would not say it now. The question of income tax and the question of corporation profits tax are matters that should be discussed when the Budget is before the Dáil. Deputy Esmonde made a criticism of the form of the Estimates, and I may say that I am, to a considerable extent, in agreement with him. The question as regards Appropriations-in-Aid has been considered by the Public Accounts Committee, and that Committee did not recommend the abolition of such appropriation. They found that they were assisted in their investigation of the work and expenditure of the various Departments by the existence of these Appropriations-in-Aid, but I think that there are items which appear as Appropriations-in-Aid and which ought not to appear in that form. We find, for instance, in the Vote for the Department of Justice there is an appropriation in connection with the Gárda Síochána of £53,000, and of that sum £39,000 represents the Police Rate. I do not think that that should appear as an Appropriation-in-Aid, because its appearance in that form, deducted from the gross vote, tends to disguise the total cost of the police.
There are several items which by statute must appear as Appropriations-in-Aid at present, but I think an opportunity ought to be taken to alter them, In the Secondary Education Vote there is a sum of £36,600 from local taxation duties. That, I think, should not really appear there, although it must appear at present by statute because it reduces the net Estimate to an extent to which it should not be reduced. There are similar sums in the Technical Instruction Vote and in the Vote of the Ministry of Lands and Agriculture. In the last vote there is a sum of £58,750 coming from Excise and Customs duties and the Church Temporalities Fund. That reduces the net amount of the vote of that Department below the net cost. There are other cases where considerable sums appear as Appropriations-in-Aid, but they appear quite properly. In the Army Vote there is, for instance, an Appropriation-in-Aid amounting to £60,000 for surplus and unserviceable clothing in store.
That appears properly, because the net cost of clothing can only be ascertained when we deduct that sum from the cost of new stores. I have felt for some time that this whole question of Appropriations-in-Aid should be examined. It is possible that the Public Accounts Committee, having had experience of the present system for a few years, may be able to pronounce a more definite opinion upon the matter than they were able to pronounce previously when it was before them. I always thought that the demand for economy by the abolition of the Ministry of External Affairs was a particularly senseless demand. You save very little by abolishing a Department if its work is not abandoned.
Sometimes you may not save and efficiency is lost by abolishing a Department. The work of that Department needs to be done unless this country is content to sink to a status to which I do not believe it would be content to sink. You do not save by pushing the work on another Ministry and by having another Parliamentary Secretary, except perhaps you save the difference between the salary of a Parliamentary Secretary and that of a Minister. That, of course, when one is talking about over-taxation and the need for economy, does not carry us a very considerable distance.
I also thought that there has been no Department more maligned and misrepresented than the Fisheries Department. The fisheries problem is an extremely difficult one, and can only get adequate consideration by having a separate Ministry. If that Ministry were joined with the Ministry for Industry and Commerce or with the Ministry for Lands and Agriculture that problem would not get the attention it needs. Our fisheries are in a bad way. It is necessary that something should be done and that the Minister should be invested with the responsibility for examining the problem and devising a policy. I do not say that everything which the Minister for Fisheries has proposed in the way of expenditure has been agreed to. The Department of Finance should not be blamed for the state of the fisheries. The difficulties of the whole position, such as the lack of capital and the lack of skill and enterprise in the industry, are matters that cannot be settled merely by the granting of funds, either for propagandist or instructional purposes or even by loans from the Government.
Deputy Davin stated that the beet sugar subsidy has been increased without the leave of the Dáil. It was not increased. The amount of the subsidy was laid down in the Act, and that cannot be varied. The only thing that happened was that, perhaps, the pessimistic view that was formed of the lack of readiness, with which the Irish farmer would take up the cultivation of the new crop has proved to be ill-founded. Instead of finding difficulty in getting 4,000 or 5,000 acres for the first year, it was found possible to get a great many more acres. The first year was good for the growth of beet; there was a good crop and a high sugar content. There will be no difficulty in getting an increased acreage in the second year.
Is it not a fact that both the Government and the Belgian firm had guarantees before them before the agreement was made?
They had nothing to rely on. It had got to the very last stage before there was a certainty that there was going to be enough beet actually grown.
I would like the Minister to clear up one particular point which seems to be in doubt as the result of a statement recently made in the country. Are we to understand that there is no hope of an additional subsidy for another factory, even in two or three years' time?
No. If an offer were received from a reputable firm to put up another factory, and at a substantially reduced rate of subsidy, it would be considered, but no second factory would be sanctioned at the present rate of subsidy or anything approaching it.
Are we to understand that the principal shareholders of the present company would not be given an opportunity of erecting another factory at a reduced rate of subsidy?
Not at present. We would need to have experience of two sugar seasons to have absolutely firm grounds on which to work for the future. If we had the experience of the work of two seasons and the knowledge of the profits made we would have firm ground for fixing the rate of subsidy for further factories. We would certainly not be anxious to go ahead before that. Unless we got some extraordinary good offer we would not consider going ahead before that. Deputy Davin said that there was provision in the Estimates only for preliminary work in connection with the Barrow drainage.
It is not customary to anticipate legislation in the Estimates, so that when the legislation is passed further sums, if they are necessary to be voted will be voted. It may not be necessary to vote them, because it may be possible to find money to carry on in the Local Loans Fund. In any case, when the legislation has been passed, the necessary steps will be taken to provide the funds to give effect to that legislation.
There is no provision for relief grants in this year's Estimates. We have been reluctant heretofore to provide substantial funds for relief grants at this time of the year. In the past the major portion of the money that was expended on relief grants was provided by way of a Supplementary Estimate in the autumn, so that the expenditure might take place in the winter, that period of the year when employment is most difficult to get and when the hardships of life are greatest. It is for that reason that no funds are provided now. I think it is just as well to evade the provision of small funds before an election, because it would certainly awaken all the feelings of cupidity that are existent. While we may, after the election, provide £30,000 or £40,000, I felt very strongly that it was most undesirable to do it now and that the small sums that may have been provided would not have given any substantial relief to such distress as exists.
Does that mean that the proposals put up by the local authorities to the Minister for Finance, through the Department of Local Government, must remain over until the general election has taken place and that the people who should be provided with employment must wait until some Government is returned at the next general election?
That is not a question of relief grants. After all, there was very little in the way of relief grants last year. The only sum that was voted was £50,000, and that £50,000 was for the completion of schemes we had initiated. There was no money provided last year to initiate new schemes.
Is it not a fact——
It would be better if the Deputy would take a note of any questions he desired to put.
The Deputy can get the information he wants by way of question, at any time, or he can raise the matter on the adjournment. Deputy Baxter spoke about the general need for reducing expenditure and Deputy Heffernan spoke much on the same lines, but with somewhat different emphasis. The adverse trade balance is to some extent alarming, but it would be easy to be too alarmed about it. All that it means is that certain national reserves are being eaten into. But an adverse trade balance will not, in itself, bring about any break up here. An adverse trade balance, many people have pointed out, is a thing that will ultimately be rectified without any particular action being taken. Of course, it will only be rectified when the national reserves have been depleted to an extent that may prejudice future development. The actual adverse balance of trade is undoubtedly much less than the apparent or visible balance of trade. I have never been able to get sufficient figures to come to an absolutely firm figure in regard to what the actual adverse balance of trade is, but undoubtedly there are big sums coming into this country from investments abroad, as well as from such things as pensions to British ex-Service men and what is called the American letter. Against that we have certain sums going out by way of dividends, although they are not so much, and we have sums like land annuities. I do not think so much at all goes out by way of pensions, because a great number of the pensioners live here, and it is difficult to say what the actual adverse balance of trade is, but certainly the invisible figures are in our favour. There is a great deal more money coming in than going out; that is the dividends on investments, the pensions and the other money remittances are greater than the remittances going out. But there does, of course, remain an adverse balance of trade.
Could the Minister make a return of the dividend warrants showing the amounts that he refers to?
At a certain time we will be able, in our income tax papers, to give further details that have been available heretofore. I do not think, at the present time, anything like complete figures can be given. There is no use regarding this whole matter in the abstract; there is no actual benefit in comparing the figures of a number of years ago with the present figures and expecting that any lessons can be drawn from the two sets of figures, without explanations and without regard to the conditions; there is not much use in saying there is an adverse balance of trade, and that taxation must be reduced. Often we hear things joined together which do not always logically follow upon one another. It does not follow that every reduction in expenditure is necessarily beneficial. There may be reductions in expenditure that would be harmful. I think everybody will admit that there is State expenditure which is beneficial and there is State expenditure which directly or indirectly is productive.
I have already said in the Dáil that there would be nothing easier than to reduce expenditure if we were prepared to reduce expenditure regardless of consequences, but I do not stand, and I do not think many responsible people will stand, for a policy of reducing expenditure regardless of consequences. Some of Deputy Heffernan's remarks seem to be "We must reduce expenditure regardless of consequences or other people will reduce expenditure regardless of consequences."
If the wrong thing is going to be done I presume it is going to be done, but we should try to do the right thing; we should not stand for a policy of reducing expenditure regardless of consequences. The Government that is in existence has tried to reduce expenditure and has tried in this matter to take always a middle course, to consider all interests, to consider the immediate needs of the nation and the future prospects of the nation. There are cases in which by disregarding future prospects, by simply putting off the evil day, you can reduce expenditure. We have not tried to do that. We have tried to deal with the whole thing in a reasonable, business-like and moderate way. In my last Budget speech I showed a certain division of expenditure; I took six or seven items and showed that they absorb by far the greater portion of the money allocated for State services, and they were things which I asserted, and I do not think I was seriously challenged, in which expenditure could not be reduced. I do not believe that any benefit will come to the State by reducing expenditure on education. We may try to get better value, we may try to carry out reforms and reorganisations and adopt new systems and new plans, but I do not think there is going to be any benefit to the State or to the taxpayers by a reduction of expenditure on education. I have stated already that you cannot get any benefit by reducing salaries further than they have been reduced. The result would be that the difficulty of getting suitable men for the teaching profession would be increased. I do not think anything can be gained in that direction. I do not think you are going to gain anything by reducing expenditure on the Department of Lands and Agriculture. On the contrary, I think, with the consent of the Dáil, the accounts provided for the Department of Lands and Agriculture have increased and the services of the Department have been extended, and I do not see that there is going to be any change in that policy. I do think that the money that is expended on the various services of the Department of Lands and Agriculture is money well expended and money that will give a return, and to cut down that expenditure, and to cut down the various activities of that Department, would not improve the condition of the people of the country; it would disimprove it. You can go to various other services to which the same thing applies. The money we expend—and this is a factor which is not without significance, and which I think should be borne in mind —on the various Government services is very largely derived from the taxation of luxuries; that is very largely taxation which people need not pay, if they do not want to pay. In so far as it is not that, it is taxation on income which must be earned, broadly speaking, before there is any tax on it. Blessed are they who pay income tax, because they have the income to pay it. But leaving out income tax, and the estate duties, which provide, perhaps, a little over a quarter of the total tax revenue, the remainder is raised on the liquor tax, the amusement tax, the tax on motor cars, and the tax on motor cars is very largely a luxury expenditure.
The import duties on boots are not a luxury tax.
There is a certain amount from boots, but it is a comparatively small proportion of the tax revenue. The major portion of the tax revenue is something in the nature of a tax on luxuries. I need not repeat the things I said before about the Geddes Committee. I do not deny that you may have circumstances in which such a Committee would do service of value. I do assert, however, that those circumstances do not exist now. The circumstances which existed when the Geddes Committee operated in Great Britain do not exist here, nor any circumstances like them. I think such a Committee could only be effective, as the Geddes Committee was effective, in reviving and enforcing the demands of the Treasury or the Finance Department, but so far as any radical exploration goes it cannot do it effectively, and no Committee that can be got up will do it; that is, dealing with department expenditure and dealing with policy. Policy is not a matter for such a Committee; policy is a matter in which the Dáil can take its own decisions, decisions on which it can obtain information, and it would be a mere shirking of responsibility for the Government or the Dáil to set up a Committee to deal with matters of policy. Deputy Cooper talked about the savings effected in the Army Vote. It has seldom happened that things have been raised by Deputies on votes which have not already received some attention from the Department concerned, or from the Department of Finance. Occasionally it may be that discussions in the Dáil will lead to a saving, but on balance the effect of discussions on Estimates is to lead to increased expenditure. The weight of argument and of discussion is in favour of further expenditure, and on the balance saving is not, and cannot be, the result of discussions in the Dáil. I do not think it ever happens that the contributions of individual Deputies make towards economy. I do not say that Deputy Cooper need take that to himself.
I would not be so vain.
Taking the discussions on Estimates as a whole, there are more demands for expenditure and more insistence for increased expenditure than for economy as a result of them, and that is, perhaps, a natural thing. There is a responsibility in departments, and in the Department of Finance in particular, to urge economy and to try to eliminate items of expenditure which are unnecessary or largely excessive. By no device can you get economies effected unless the departments concerned, and more particularly the Department of Finance, do their duty. You cannot get them by means of a discussion in the House, or by any sort of an ad hoc outside Committee.
Deputy Cooper referred to certain increases in the staffs of departments. There was one factor which, perhaps, he did not entirely take into account, namely, that in the early days many of the departments bore on their votes the salaries of staffs that were on loan to other departments. Recently that has almost disappeared, and officers have now been transferred and allotted to their new departments, and their salaries appear on the vote of their new department. So that some apparent increases and some apparent decreases are really a regularising of the position that arose when the Government was newly set up. Of course, there are departments in which there are actual increases of staff. The Board of Works is one. Acts like the Drainage Act involved an increase of staff there. The increase resulted from a decision of policy of the passing of legislation by the Dáil. The Revenue Commissioners' staff has been increased because the new Customs duty demanded it. Last night Deputy Nolan suggested that £600,000 out of the £690,000 which the Revenue Commissioners cost might be attributed to the cost of collecting income tax. That, of course, was a statement very far from the facts. Probably the cost of collecting income tax would be about £170,000 or £180,000, and by far the greater portion of the remainder is the cost in connection with the Customs and Excise duties. Certainly the cost in connection with Customs and Excise duties is substantially over three times the cost of collecting the income tax.
Could the Minister give the exact figures?
I could not give the exact figure, but if the Deputy looks at the Estimates he can make a fairly close calculation for himself. If he looks at the Estimates he will see that where the office of the Chief Inspector of Customs and Excise costs about £225,000, the corresponding office on the income tax side costs about £70,000 or £75,000. There have been increases in the personnel of the Land Commission. The new Land Act necessitated that, and the urge of Deputies is all for greater expedition. If there is any attempt made to meet that it will mean, of course, increased staff.
Various Deputies said that the Government was set up on too expensive a scale. A certain scale was inherited and a certain form of organisation. It may be that if we had started from scratch we could have done better. I believe that we could, but we have tried to adapt the machine to the new requirements. We have gone a very considerable way in that direction, and that is a process which continues. We have effected many readjustments which have led to greater economy and efficiency, and they are going on. Deputy Connor Hogan said that huge capital schemes should not be entered on except on special conditions. Without saying that huge capital schemes should be entered upon, I take the opposite view to him. I think that we should never hesitate in our position to enter on sound capital schemes, no matter how big they may be. We have a comparatively small National Debt. We have a country that is in great need of development, we have a tide of emigration and a certain amount of unemployment, and if we could get good capital schemes the thing to do is to go on with them.
You see sometimes in speeches in the newspapers a lumping together of current expenditure and capital expenditure. With the total arrived at the Government is held up to opprobrium because expenditure is so high. In some cases, I think, we might be more justly held up to opprobrium, because the total was not high enough, and because there was not enough capital expenditure added on to the current expenditure. It is really the current expenditure that matters, and that is borne on taxation. Capital expenditure, provided always that it is sound, is not a burden or a disadvantage at all. We have tried to provide employment by various types of capital expenditure, and if there is a diminution in the figures providing for certain types of capital expenditure that is not due to any alteration in policy but rather because it is difficult to estimate exactly for a vote such as, say, the Local Loans Fund. It is difficult to estimate exactly in the case of that Fund, because the estimate will depend on so many factors: the number of applications submitted which can be got through; the number outstanding and nearly completed before the beginning of the financial year, and the repayment of loans already outstanding. The Local Loans will be given out on the same conditions as last year. In view of the conditions that obtained it was not found necessary to provide so much for the coming year as last year in order to continue in the same way. The same consideration applies to housing. We have not altered our policy in regard to housing or in regard to local loans. I do believe that the Local Loans Fund, as soon as a new National Loan has been issued, and when money is available, should be made open for additional purposes, but I do not think it would be wise at the present stage to open it for the very considerable demands that, for instance, would arise if we were to open it to housing.
And for repayments over an extended period.
That is one of the principal arguments in favour of opening it for such a purpose; to give a longer period for repayment. Some Deputies talked about the delay in putting the Arterial Drainage Act into force. I do not think anyone can say that there has been delay up to this. If there are not a sufficient number of schemes in the course of construction this summer, then it will be time enough to talk about delay, but there was no possibility of having schemes in operation before next May. That was to be the starting point, and it would have been impossible to have any schemes before then. This Act, so far, has demonstrated one thing, and that is that a great lot of the schemes which it was desired to have carried out are bad schemes and should not be carried out. Of the one hundred schemes submitted by the county councils and examined by engineers and valuers, sometimes by an engineer alone, only a small proportion of them seem to be good ones. If, ultimately, 700 or 800 schemes are submitted and examined, I do not suppose that more than 100 of them will be found to be really good schemes that ought to be carried through. Of the 100 schemes that have actually been examined, there is only one of them, I think, that could be carried out without a grant, while the number that could be carried out with a 33 per cent. grant is small. If the Dáil were willing to agree to a policy of paying 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. of the cost, of course you could get plenty of schemes. In regard to arterial drainage the real fact is, as I think I stated before, that already the best drainage schemes, broadly speaking, have been done. Those that remain to be done are the middling and bad schemes. Some are so bad that they should never be done.
Is the figure of £50,000 in the Estimates for this year merely a speculation?
No, it is based on the information at present available. I admit that there is a certain amount of force in the remarks made by Deputy Nolan with regard to the substitution of some sort of a luxury tax for income tax. However, I do not believe it is practicable, and at any rate this is not the time to discuss it. I admired the skill with which Deputy Norton kept if not quite within order, certainly out of order most of the time, and I do not propose to reply to his particular point.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 26. Níl, 39.
Tá
- Pádraig Baxter.
- Daniel Breen.
- John Conlan.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- David Hall.
- Connor Hogan.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- William Norton.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Tadhg O Donnabháin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
- William A. Redmond.
- Nicholas Wall.
Níl
- Earnán Altún.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Máighréad Ní Choileain Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Michael Egan.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- William Hewat.
- Donnchadh Mac Con Uladh.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- Martin M. Nally.
- John T. Nolan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Seán O Bruadair. Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
- Seán O Raghallaigh.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Liam Thrift.
Tellers.—Tá: Deputies Heffernan and P. Hogan (Clare); Níl: Deputies Dolan and Sears.
Amendment declared lost.
Main question put and agreed to.
Ordered—That progress be reported.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Progress reported. Committee to sit again on Tuesday.
I move the adjournment of the Dáil until Tuesday, when I propose to ask the House to sit late.
Was there a proposal that we should meet at 11 o'clock on Wednesday?
Yes, and adjourn at 4 o'clock.
The Dáil adjourned at 4 p.m. until Tuesday, at 3 o'clock.