In his Budget statement last year, the Minister for Finance, in pleading for time to reconsider the general financial and economic position, stated that it was obvious that we were at any rate faced with this fundamental fact that the country was burdened with taxation of unprecedented severity. Last year, the Central Fund and Supply Services cost nearly £72,000,000 —£660,000 above the Estimate. There was one word which was very much to the fore in the Minister's Budget statement last year, and that was the word "retrenchment". According to the Minister, retrenchment and economy were to be the watchwords. This year he has not told us that taxation was of unprecedented severity. He has given us the same information in another way. He has told us that taxation absorbs 25 per cent. of the national income, and that the total charges, including national and local taxation and insurance contributions, amount to £27 per head of the population per annum. Last year, the tax revenue brought in nearly £1,833,000, according to my calculation, above the Estimate. It is a very noticeable fact that, in respect of items which many of us would not by any means regard as luxuries, there has been a substantial increase in the revenue accruing to the State. For example, in regard to spirits, the revenue raked in £430,000 more than in the previous year; in entertainment, £115,000 more, and in betting, £80,000 more. The Minister claims that beer brought him in £400,000 less than the Estimate, but he forgot to mention that in fact he collected from beer drinkers £353,000 more than in the preceding year.
The final figures, then, for the Central Fund and Supply Services for the coming financial year amount to £73,135,000, to which were added certain items in respect of provision for increased remuneration for certain public servants, bringing the total expenditure to £73,811,000. As against that, the Minister explained that the tax revenue which he expected to receive would amount to £64,790,000; non-tax revenue, £8,560,000, making a total £73,350,000 between tax and non-tax revenue. Certain adjustments are made—Road Fund, £300,000; borrowing for capital purposes, £600,000, and adjustments in the flour subsidy, £330,000, leaving the final figure £72,720,000. That is a figure which connotes the largest amount ever to be collected from the people, and the largest ever to be placed upon them, whether by way of direct or indirect taxation.
The House has to remember that the Minister was not burdened in respect to his budgetary accounts in the same way as his predecessor was. He had the advantage of working in a year when circumstances had altered considerably for the better, when the flow of goods had become reasonably sufficient towards meeting demands, when the international situation had improved and when the agricultural and industrial position had shown a distinct improvement not only because the factors militating against industrial and agricultural effort in 1947 had disappeared, but because certain other factors, such as those I have referred to, came into the picture and enabled matters to advance towards more normal conditions. In other words, the hold-up that we had in 1947—from the period of a comparative improvement which we looked forward to in 1946, the rather bad period that we experienced—had passed over, and it looked as if we were well on the way to getting over the economic difficulties in regard to scarcities, the lack of materials for production and so on.
The general improvement in the situation was revealed in the fact that the Minister was able to make substantial savings in respect to food subsidies. I think the amount was about £3,600,000. In the Estimates for Supply Services, he made a further saving of £2,500,000. In respect to turf, the savings on the turf subsidy amounted to £1,000,000, and in the case of the Bord na Móna and county council scheme to over £1,500,000. These two items with the savings on food subsidies, came to more than £6,000,000. But in spite of the fact that the Minister had the agreeable opportunity of getting these windfall savings, and of putting them to the credit side of his account, it does not appear that the taxpayer has benefited judging by the figure of £72,720,000 which I have mentioned: it does not appear that the taxpayer has benefited to the extent that one might have expected, having regard to these windfall savings.
There were other items, such as the increased postal charges, under which the Minister was able to pass on nearly £500,000. He was able to collect nearly £500,000 from the commercial and general public. He saved, in respect of agricultural and fertiliser subsidies, over £300,000. The total reduction in respect of Gaeltacht services, mineral exploration, agricultural and fertiliser subsidies and tomato houses, came to £428,000. There was also a lesser sum spent on farm improvement schemes amounting to £160,000, so that there was a reduction in productive expenditure in respect of these items of £568,000.
I need not go over the items dealing with the savings in respect of cash grants for social services which the Exchequer is no longer paying and which meant a very considerable reduction, almost sufficient to offset the cost of increased old age pensions. There is also the fact that, by the system of selling certain articles, such as tea, sugar, flour, bread and farm butter, at unrationed prices, the Minister brings in very considerable sums. I do not know what amount it is expected tea will bring in, in respect of sales off the ration, during the coming year. Sugar brought in £1,400,000 last year, tea brought in £355,000, butter £70,000. Savings in respect of subsidies on these items, if the savings went against the subsidies, would have amounted to £1,843,000. Deputies will, therefore, perceive that, in respect of reductions in subsidies, in respect of certain economies in regard to productive expenditure and expenditure which the Minister regards as unproductive, in respect of certain windfall savings and increased revenue from postal charges and other fees, there should have been a very large nest-egg available to the Minister for distribution to the taxpayer for more benefits than seemed to accrue under the Budget statement.
The reduction in the standard rate of income-tax, the reduction of 6d. in the £, will amount in the present year to £733,000. On a total collection of £72.7 million that works out at a reduction of about 1 per cent. It is true that in a full year, with the allowances the Minister is granting, that will amount to considerably more, but the fact is that during the present year, when the Minister is budgeting for the collection of nearly £73,000,000 from the people, he is able to give a remission in respect of that item of only 1 per cent.
The increased allowance for dependent relatives, from £25 to £50, is a good concession. I only wish that more could have been done. It seems to me that an explanation will be required as to why, in the case of a person who has a relative at home who does housekeeping—if that relative is not in receipt of remuneration—the income-tax payer who may be only a teacher or pensioner, should not be entitled to the same allowance in respect of the housekeeping of his sister, let us say, who gives practically her whole time to the work, as a business man who employs a housekeeper and is in a position to pay her. The business man may be able to pay £100 a year or more, but the person on a very small income, who is barely in a position to pay his income-tax charges at present, in spite of the fact that the Minister is going to grant some of these pensioners an addition can, I think, make the case that if the housekeeper allowance is entitled to a substantial addition he should be placed more on a comparative basis.
In regard to income-tax remissions in general, if the Government believe in private enterprise and in the encouragement of individuals to invest capital in the country and give employment, it certainly seems to me that the incentive given by the reduced rate of income-tax to that particular class is extremely inadequate. At present the citizens of Dublin have to pay substantial increases in rates and they have to pay increases in respect of other charges. The Minister told us recently that we would have to pay more for our electricity. We are paying more for our bus fares, and wherever the citizens have to call upon the services of trade union or professional workers, whereever they have to secure the services of other people, they will certainly find that the fees are greatly increased. These times do not, perhaps, enter into the cost of living, but in the case of the smaller income-tax payer it can be fairly argued that the remission he is getting, even with the addition of the allowance, does not compensate for the increased cost of living. Admittedly, it has increased.
The Minister also referred to the need for increased capital and deplored that we were not doing more to get capital into Irish enterprise and to encourage Irish investors. If the only encouragement the Minister can give them is the reduction he has given in respect of income-tax, and if at the same time they are to have an increase in the cost of living and in the services that they have to call upon in almost every respect, they will surely be able to show when they examine their balance sheets, if they keep balance sheets, that instead of coming out with a larger amount, or any amount, on the right side, they are probably suffering losses, greater losses. All those increased charges are ultimately going back to the consumer.
One of the statements the Minister made last year was that urgent and strenuous efforts would be made to remedy defects in our economic position. The Government have the advantage of securing certain assistance through the agency of the Marshall Aid Plan, but they have rather neglected to show us what urgent and serious efforts they have been able to bring to bear on what they told us were our serious economic problems. I should have mentioned that when dealing with the figures in the Budget statement the Minister gave us no explanation of the reasons which led him to increase the flour subsidy from the Budget provision which he had made last year of £7,134,000 to £9,860,000.
One of the promises made by the Minister last year was the promise to investigate the question of excessive profits. Like the Minister I have always been interested in this question as to whether or not there were people who were taking altogether excessive profits and exploiting the consumer during a period of scarcity when the consumer was unable to defend himself. "Excessive profits," the Minister said "are still being taken in an number of instances." I do not see any reference in the Budget Statement, and I do not think the Minister said anything to-day, on the question of profits. This is a very important matter because a great deal of attention was given to it by the Minister in the past. In fact, it was the chief theme of his speeches when financial business came before the House. Speaking on the Vote on Account on 14th March, 1947, the Minister, then Deputy McGilligan, said at column 2265:—
"It is also true that what is stated to be the admitted profits only represents 50 per cent. of what was made, so that, if the £35,000,000 be true, these people made £70,000,000. They paid to the State £35,000,000 and took £35,000,000 to themselves."
The Minister was quoting there from a not very authoritative source, I am afraid, in respect of a revenue question of that kind; but he nevertheless used the figure for all he was worth. He has now had an opportunity of showing—and he indicated in his Budget Statement last year—that he intended to go into this matter. The House is still waiting to see whether the £70,000,000 that the Minister took as the basis for his case two years ago had any reality:—
"The deduction has often been made that business people — I do not say that they made this amount, because they had to pay the Government part of it—extracted from the community over the five years of the war something approaching £100,000,000. Suppose they took only £50,000,000—making a reduction of half to allow for any mistake in these figures—it would appear as if the business people of this country got £10,000,000 a year, over those years, over and above what they were getting pre-war."
Then the Minister proceeded to justify this statement in column 2266 by pointing out the effect of these excess profits on work:—
"Any worker who is asked to produce more at this time, particularly in the light of the admission made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce yesterday, may easily stand back from the situation and say: ‘I was once a £4 a week man. You have reduced my earning capacity to £2, and you have now given me something in the nature of 15/- or so, but, for giving me a £2 15s. 0d. wage, where I previously had £4, you want me to do more work. For whom am I working and what will I get out of the new production?'"
In column 2270 he said:—
"I think the worker at that point would say: ‘Greater production for whom? Who is going to enjoy the fruits of it? Give me no greater share than pre-war but give me the old share. Promise me something better out of the new production and I will see in what way I can bend my efforts to get better production to help everyone in the community.'"
Last year the Minister told us:—
"The substantial wage and salary increases already secured by all classes of workers, with such further advantages as shorter hours, paid holidays, children's allowances and other increases in social services, have gone as far as is possible, in present circumstances, to meet the claims of social justice, and I would make a most earnest appeal to all employees not to seek further increases in monetary remuneration or improvement in working conditions unless warranted by exceptional circumstances. Recent experience confirms that the benefit of an increase in money incomes is rapidly swallowed up by rising prices."
That quotation may be found at column 1057 of Dáil Debates, 4th May, 1948. This year the Minister again referred to industrial earnings. At column 493 of Dáil Debates, 4th May, 1949, the Minister said:—
"Industrial earnings were, by September last, 82.4 per cent, on average above those for September, 1939. This increase corresponds with the rise in the cost of living since pre-war, so that workers generally have now been fully compensated for the rise in living costs."
Last year the Minister said the increases, coupled with the improvements in conditions and in social services, had gone as far as was possible in the then existing circumstances to meet the claims of social justice. This year he tells us that "the increase corresponds with the rise in the cost of living since pre-war so that workers generally have now been fully compensated for the rise in living costs." Those of us who take an interest in these matters have noticed that in Sweden, for instance, where trained economists' views are taken very seriously into consideration, particularly in inflationary periods or in a situation where a Government has to consider carefully what steps it should take in regard to these matters, it has been frequently stated by Swedish statesmen that increases in wages have no meaning unless they are accompanied by corresponding increases in production. The Minister gave us certain figures in regard to the increase in industrial production, an increase which is very welcome and which indicates that the advance made from 1946 to 1947—and which to a certain extent was held up in 1947—was again resumed in the past year; and I think the percentage increase from 1948 to 1949 corresponds rather closely with the increase in the industrial production rate from 1946 to 1947. The Minister, in dealing with this question of wages and the fact that the full compensation for the increased cost of living since pre-war has been made, has made in my view a rather serious omission. He has failed to tell us what is the increased production. What is the nature of the increased production which he attributes to the increased remuneration and to the increased wages that have been paid? I think from the point of view of having statistical information upon which we can base some idea as to where we are going and upon which to make comments worth while on matters of national economic policy it would be very necessary that the Minister should acquaint us with the total amount that is represented by the increase in wages and salary expenditure as compared with pre-war and, as against that, where it is possible to make a relative comparison, the actual increase in production in the volume of goods. According to his Budget statement, the Minister seems to have some doubts particularly in regard to agriculture—he has not expressed them in regard to industry—as to whether we are keeping pace with the needs and conditions of the present time.
The output in regard to housing is admitted on all sides to be unsatisfactory. The reasons for that unsatisfactory position are attributed to scarcity of skilled workers and so on. The Minister stressed at great length the very large proportion of building costs which come from the Exchequer. One almost felt, if one were to take the figures seriously, that there must be a case for closely examining the whole question of costings in regard to housing and the extent to which subsidies improve the situation as regards the supply of houses to all those thousands who are looking for houses at the present time. I think the Minister should ask his statistics bureau to examine closely into that question and let the country have the benefit of an investigation as to the relationship between the present range of subsidies in regard to housing and the incentive and practical effect of such subsidies in encouraging the ultimate output of houses.
When one hears so much about extortionists and exploiters, one wonders whether the blame is always put on the right shoulders. Perhaps it is that too much is being taken by the manufacturers and distributors of building materials. In any case the important thing for the country to know is whether the output in regard to housing is keeping pace with the increased cost. The country should be satisfied even now that the improvement in the position which the Minister apparently visualises well may occur. In regard to the Transition Development Fund, I think the Minister mentioned that he hoped that building costs would settle down. When one considers the fact that the Transition Development Fund is to be called on at the present time, as well as the State subsidy and the burden that is laid upon local authorities and upon the ratepayers generally, it certainly seems to be a matter that would require careful consideration and investigation. If the Minister has anything definite to show that, in fact, building costs are going to settle down and that next year the position will be considerably improved, either because the costs of material and labour are going to bear a lesser proportion of the total cost or because so many houses will have been built, then the demand will have been very largely met and the backbone of the problem broken.
With regard to agricultural output, I think it is quite clear that what farmers demand and what they believe is their right, is that there should be lower costs. This is largely an agricultural country and I think the history of this country and of other countries where agriculture plays a prominent part, is that agriculture has been forced to assume heavy responsibilities. Obligations have been put on agriculturists as a result of the State interfering in the management of their affairs. Obligations and responsibilities have been put upon them that might be all right for factory managers, joint stock companies and the industrial world generally, but in agriculture we have many fluctuations to which other forms of industrial activity are not subject.
The total surplus from the Irish small farmer is comparatively moderate and the special arrangements which the farmer might expect from the State in the way of reducing costs, providing him with better market facilities and giving him a guaranteed price for his produce over a period of years, are after all the real incentive. If he were to feel or could be persuaded that he has the State behind him in these matters, that he is not being asked to bear an unreasonable burden, if there was a definite State policy by which he could be assured over a period of years of a reasonable return for his produce, and a fair remuneration for himself and his family, I am sure the problem of the agricultural labourer would be very largely settled. At the present time I think the farmers feel that we are, willy-nilly, forcing upon them urban standards in regard to employment, remuneration and conditions generally without at the same time taking the necessary steps to put them in the position in which they should be, if they are to attempt to face those responsibilities vis-a-vis employers in the towns and cities of the country.
I think the Minister indicated that the agricultural income per head of the agricultural producing population was about £135 a year at the present time. In 1938 the industrial income per head of industrial producers was £127 a year. I do not quite know what it is at present but it is clear that agriculture is now only reaching the stage, in spite of the increased volume of money, in terms of pounds that the industrial worker had reached in industry in 1938.
I should like to deal with the question of profit because I think it is important. We are either dealing seriously or we are not with this question of profit and the incentives that are necessary if the workers are to believe that those who are employing them and who are charged with the responsibility of increasing production and perhaps building up an export trade are carrying out their duties honestly to the community or not. It is four years since the leader of the Minister's Party, the present Minister for Education, stated, as reported in Volume 100, column 2516:—
"Industrialists who have kept industrial production going during the war have done so by almost superhuman exertions and by astonishing ingenuity and persistence and very great courage. The system of taxation of industry adopted during the war was such as to undermine men's courage and to make them feel that it could not be worth while taking chances, because taxation was so imposed that it put as big a burden on the extension of an industry as it did upon the excess profits accruing in an adventitious way as a result of war circumstances. While the Minister takes a shilling off the income-tax and says that the excess profits tax is to be abandoned after the 1st January next, he does not offer the industrialists the kind of hope or spur that they are entitled to get. The Minister knows that if we are to have industrial expansion here, we must have an additional amount of capital put into industry. He must know that the most effective and satisfactory way of developing an industry is that such profits as the industry can make and can profitably use in the expansion of business should be put back into the business."
I do not know how the Minister for Finance can reconcile the statements of his leader with such statements as I have read out made by him two years ago. He is now in a position to tell the country what exactly is the truth of this whole matter. I omitted to state in dealing with the question of revenue the increases which have taken place in respect of the consumption of beer and other commodities as compared with pre-war. It is rather interesting because the Budget, as well as being very important in determining economic trends, has a great deal to do with social conditions in the country. In 1938 the consumption of beer was 648,516 barrels and in 1948, 897,387 barrels, an increase of 38 per cent. We consumed 9,471,000 lbs. of tobacco in 1938 and in 1948 12,500,000 lbs. That is an increase of 32 per cent. In a recent statement, the Taoiseach, speaking, I think, at Tramore Chamber of Commerce, said that we did not pay the attention we might have paid to the portion of the annual Budget statement dealing with capital issues and expenditure. I do not know whether the Taoiseach had time to look at some of the speeches of the Minister for Finance in the past with regard to capital expenditure. I was listening to the broadcast statement of the Taoiseach and he compared the huge amount of money which the Government is to spend during the present year, inflationary trends notwithstanding, with the amount spent in 1948. We were all listening to the account of the universal celebrations of D-Day. We all heard something about them, as we could not turn on a radio without breaking in on them. The war was not very long over in 1946 and whether the Government takes 1946 or 1947, they are certainly taking a year in respect of economic comparisons which cannot be described as being in any way un-favourable to them. In the 1947 Budget, however, actually £8.2 million of borrowed money was set aside for capital expenditure; electrical development, £2,000,000; telephones, £1,450,000; local loans, £500,000, plus £850,000 from money already accumulated; turf, £1,550,000; airports, £2,136,000; bloodstock, £100,000; glass-houses and poultry, £100,000; and tourism, £150,000. We have been told, of course, by some of the Parties now on the Government side of the House that full employment and national production schemes could all be got going without any cost to the taxpayers, without anything being necessary except to apply the produce of the national credit — whatever that may mean. Without any cost whatever to the taxpayer, we were told that it would be possible to arrange that the national credit would be pledged to those production schemes.
The Minister has admitted to being somewhat of a crank in these matters and that he has a certain kinship with Deputies like Deputy Captain Cowan, but in this Budget and the previous Budget the Minister has laid down that the ultimate test with regard to capital expenditure must be whether it is going to pay the charges in respect of interest and sinking fund or not. He admits, I grant, that there may be some advantage to the State from some of these schemes which cannot be measured altogether in these terms, but on the whole he has said that that must be the ultimate test. He was very much stronger on that last year when he was cutting out some schemes originated by the last Government and put into operation by them and he emphasised the necessity of State schemes paying their way in the narrow financial sense. I could not resist looking at some of the statements that the Minister and some of his colleagues treated us to with regard to capital expenditure when they were on this side of the House. I quote column 2273, Volume 104, No. 16, March 14th, 1947:—
"The Government preached very much about inflation. Inflation is a sort of bogey-man at the moment. The Government's very activities show that they do not know what inflation is. They are doing what I have mentioned already, but in addition we heard of a vast reconstruction programme, of great telephone extensions, of marvellous stretches of broad straight roads, more money on airports and a lot of luxury hotels."
They were all very strong on the luxury hotels.
"I do not know what fantastic business there is that the Government have not accepted. We have heard of the various Bills for reconstruction, adding £100,000,000 or £200,000,000. The one safeguard we have is that they are only programmes and no one expects them to be put into effect. But if they were put into effect, is not every one of those expenses. I have mentioned inflationary?
Surely it is realised that to pour more money out to the country, without adding to the stock of consumable goods in the country means inflation? We can build roads until the country is riddled with straight, terraced roads. Do we add to production? Only very remotely, very indirectly. We hear of telephone extensions, putting this country on a par with Sweden, one of the greatest telephone-using nations in the world. What do we want it for? How much money is to be spent on telephone extensions? Will it get any more consumer goods produced in the country? The money we have spent on airports and the money we propose to spend will not bring any more goods in, but there will be more money flowing through in circulation.
The same applies to these luxury hotels, only we have added to it that you bring in, not merely money to make future claims on our small stock of consumer goods but bring the people to consume the goods. Yet, these are the designs that the Government have on our economy in the future."
That was the Minister two years ago. In his recent Budget statement, he said:—
"On the whole, it appears that the upward surge in prices has spent itself and that, if the forces making for inflation are held in check, further increases will be avoided."
So that inflation, apparently, is only being held in check and there is still danger; and when one regards the increases in prices compared with those of the preceding year and the figures for industrial and agricultural output, it can be stated that there certainly would seem to be danger of inflation, particularly if costs here should continue to rise.
In that connection, it might be proper to ask the Minister whether any steps are being taken by the Government to consider the situation which will arise here if steps are taken in a neighbouring country to try to put their price level more on parity with price levels in other countries. There is a general belief apparently—and reference has been made to the matter in the neighbouring Parliament—that costs are altogether out of keeping with costs of competing countries, and particularly costs in the United States of America, and that something will have to be done to adjust that situation. Should that adjustment be made, it will have repercussions on us here, and it would be well that we should know what exactly we are going to do should that situation arise.
I was dealing with the question of capital expenditure. The Minister set out the amounts that he was providing on electricity and turf development, on housing and telephone capital, all the same type of items that he described two years ago as being disadvantageous in the national interest by reason of the inflation they would help to create, and which he described even last year as being of a megalomaniac nature, schemes which would only be undertaken by a Government which had no regard to the true national interests but simply thought of national advertisement and aggrandisement for themselves. I notice that in the report of his radio address, published in the newspapers of the 26th April, Mr. W. H. Taft, special assistant to the E.C.A. mission to Ireland, is reported as having stated in a broadcast talk from Radio Éireann that one of the chief ways in which we could improve our dollar position and our economic situation generally was by a better organised tourist programme. He continued:—
"Another most important source of dollars can come from tourism. Ireland, by its relative proximity to America, with its beauty and attractiveness of character and with millions of Irish-American relatives, is potentially rich as a tourist country. Its wealth is only potential because accommodations and travel facilities are too few to take care of the American traveller.
To build hotels and to attract the tourist from the United States— who is now flying across Ireland to Europe—needs energy; the desire to attract foreign investment in hotels; hotel management training; the better preservation of wild life; more money for advertisement; the official preservation of national monuments, which, in a country stimulated by history, are disgracefully neglected— in a word, a forthright and determined policy—and that is what Ireland does not have."
In his Budget statement, the Minister referred to this question of tourist traffic and indicated that it had probably reached its peak, while other countries—not alone the continental countries like Belgium, Holland, Scandinavia and Italy—whatever their other difficulties may be, are concentrating on developing the tourist traffic. You have countries like Canada and South Africa doing everything possible to build up the tourist trade with the United States of America. The Minister has indicated the importance of the tourist industry to us here. In his Budget statement, dealing with the balance of payments he says:—
"The trade deficit for 1948 was almost as high as that for 1947— £89,000,000, as compared with £92,000,000. The improvement in the balance of payments as a whole is attributable mainly to increased income from tourism, the number of visitors in 1948 being about one-third more than in 1947.
It would be overoptimistic to rely upon a continuance of tourist income at such unprecedented levels and so it is all the more necessary to secure a substantial increase in exports."
Then he says that the gap in respect of invisible items is being—
"bridged only if investment income, pensions, emigrants' remittances, sweepstake receipts, etc., remained at their present level and tourist income did not sink below £35,000,000 a year."
As the Minister for Industry and Commerce pointed out, even at the figure of £28,000,000 at which it stood in 1947, it was much more valuable to this country than the whole of our exports of live stock.
The Minister is making certain arrangements in the Finance Bill in regard to gifts for public and charitable purposes. With regard to the position of university education and endowments for education generally, I have often wondered — and I think the matter received some little consideration in the past, but not sufficient to bring it to any definite decision—about the taking of action towards remission of those who would make endowments for educational purposes. The Minister has an opportunity now. I am sure he is much more interested in this question than anyone else here. He knows that endowments for Irish education, particularly university education, are few and far between. I think only two or three legacies of value have been left to the National University since it was established, by men of Irish birth or extraction in far away countries. When the university was founded, I understand, it was anticipated that circumstances would be entirely different from what they have been, and that considerable sums would possibly be given by wealthy Irishmen and women in other countries. That has not happened, and, when the Minister is making certain changes in the law in favour of those who are making gifts for public charitable purposes, would he not go further and give a special remission to Irish citizens who show their interest in education, and particularly university education, by leaving sums of money to the Irish universities? It would be a very worthy gesture and a gesture that might be of value to these institutions, if the Minister would indicate that he was prepared to consider it.
