I move the Second Reading of this Bill. The sum involved has been provisionally imposed. I do not know that it is necessary to say anything about the Second Reading of the Bill which legalises what we have already done and makes available 14 millions out of the Central Fund for services necessary to be administered for the next four months.
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - CENTRAL FUND (No. 1) BILL, 1923.
I second the motion.
Before you put the motion, may I ask the Minister a question? It is proposed in Section 3 of this Bill to authorise the Minister for Finance to "create and issue any securities bearing such rate of interest, and subject to such conditions as to repayment, redemption or otherwise as he thinks fit." Would it not be well to acquaint the Dáil, even in some vague way, as to what he considers, or thinks he will consider, the rate of interest which these securities will bear, and the period of redemption to be assigned to them?
The Minister has moved the Second Reading of a Bill to allow the "issue out of the Central Fund, and apply towards making good the supply granted for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March," of this year of a certain sum of money, and a further sum of money to be issued out of the Central Fund towards making good the supply granted for the following year—a certain sum on account. I am going to speak on the motion that this Bill should be given a Second Reading. Since coming into the Dáil this afternoon we have had presented to us Estimates of the receipts and expenditure for the year ending 31st March, 1924. In the paper that was issued to us on Sunday containing the Estimate of the services for which the Vote on Account was required we had a total sum of £42,278,000 estimated as required for certain services, and that has been published widely in the papers as a very large sum indeed which has to be paid by the people for the coming year. On the additional form of Estimates of receipts and expenditure we find that the sum of £42,278,000 is only part of the estimate of expenditure. There are over £4,400,000 in addition to that required to be spent in the coming twelve months. In the absence of an explanatory statement from the Minister, it seems to me that somebody is called upon to tell the public, if not the members of the Dáil, that there are £4,400,000 required for the coming year over and about the forty-two millions to which reference was made yesterday— £3,726,000 for services which will be paid for out of the Central Fund, and £691,000 as capital issues, making the total required for the coming year £46,696,664. There are estimates presented on this paper of receipts, and it is estimated that £20,500,000 will come out of taxes, and £5,500,000 out of other revenue postal services, and £3,000,000 an instalment of the British contribution towards compensation for damage, really I take it a sum equivalent to the amount which was payable to the Irish Treasury and collected in Britain. Now we are presented with this statement of Estimates of Receipts, and I think we have the right to ask the question, whether we have the right to an answer or not, upon what schedule of taxation this Estimate of revenue is based. Are we to assume that it is a continuation for the whole of next year of the taxes which are at present in force? I notice that there is, in fact, an estimated decline in the revenue of £2,300,000, and I am sure the taxpayers as a whole will be very pleased to know that there is to be a decline in the gross amount of tax revenue, unless indeed the decline is to be accompanied by a decline in ability to pay. I am afraid this Estimate rather suggests a very pessimistic outlook on the part of the Minister, because he has estimated the necessity of borrowing £20,000,000 while at the same time estimating a decline in the revenue of £2,300,000. I think that even at this stage some explanation of these figures should be presented to the Dáil. I want to deal with that question in a somewhat more detailed fashion. We are to be told in three weeks' time what the scheme of taxation that the Minister proposes is to be, and I am desirous of drawing attention to the need for some alteration in the present incidence of taxation. We are assuming, according to this paper, a decline of £2,300,000 in the gross revenue. I ask the Minister to think very seriously of the way the present taxation rested upon the people who are least able to pay it. It is not recognised as it ought to be, what a large proportion of a poor man's income, or a poor woman's income, has to be paid away in taxation, and I will ask the Dáil to bear this in mind when thinking of taxation, that what you ought to think about—what we ought all to think about —is not the amount that is paid by an individual, but the amount that remains to him after the taxation has been paid, the amount that is left to the individual taxpayer to live upon after his taxes have been paid. I have taken a very moderate estimate of the food consumption of an average healthy working-class man and family, and I have assumed two adults and four children. I have assumed a consumption of a lb. of tea in the week, 5 lbs. of sugar, and what those who are able to speak with authority will admit is a very moderate estimate of the non-teetotaller, hardworking artisan or labourer, a pint and a half of porter a day for 7 days a week. I am assuming that three members of the family will, on an average, go to a football match, a theatre or a cinema or a concert once a week. I have assumed the consumption by this average family of two ounces of tobacco and cigarettes in the week, and I have assumed a very moderate consumption of matches, confectionary, condensed milk, cocoa, coffee, currants, dried fruits, etc. Now, I do not think anyone will complain that that is an exaggerated or extravagant budget of taxable goods, and that budget means the payment, at present rates, of no less than 7s. 9d. of a direct tax upon what are necessaries and ordinary comforts. Over and above that if men and women are extravagant then they are paying, of course, a very much larger tax than that, and my observation of men in all walks of life points to the fact that there is a very much greater consumption, in the higher ranks, at any rate the wealthier ranks, rather than this amount of a pint and a half of porter a day. But supposing even we take the case of the agricultural labourer who is asked in some parts of the country to live on 25/- or 30/- per week, we assume that that man has a wife and family but that he cannot get to the town to enjoy entertainments and the pleasure of paying Entertainment Tax, and that he does not drink a pint and a half of porter a day or even a half one daily, but contents himself for a whole week with four pints, the taxation on that particular labourer, who is living in the country and cannot enjoy these amenities, as they may be called—even for him the direct taxes on his income, which the wife to a great extent has to pay, is no less than 5s. 4d. out of the week's consumption, and that is a very high tax and it means too small an income to be left for the purchase of commodities which are non-taxable. The direct tax of 20 per cent. on a man's income, a family income, is very high. I want to direct attention to this, and I hope it will be taken into consideration within the next two or three weeks, if we are not able to get any information to-day. We are paying at the present time for, I suppose, 90 per cent. of the tea that is consumed in this country, a tax of 6?d. per pound, but so far as the information that is available will enlighten us we are going to be obliged to pay an increased tax of 1?d. on tea. The normal tax is 8d.; the preference that is allowed by England on Indian tea as compared with China is, I think, 1/6th. So far as we have been vouchsafed information there is not to be any agreement for preference for British Colonial commodities. We are to pay henceforward, presumably after the 1st of April, the full 8d., because no arrangement has been made for a preferential tariff, and I am sure the women folk will be glad to have some assurance from the Minister that the preference that they have been enjoying for the last year will not be withdrawn and that they will be enabled to buy tea at a lower rate than that which the full tax would allow them to buy. We do not want it to go out from here that there has been an increase in fact on the tea duty of 1?d. in the pound because the Minister has failed to make any arrangement in regard to preferential duties. I am sure that he would not be willing to say: "We shall make arrangements to give preference to the British Dominions on motor cars and we fail to give that same preference on tea." Whether we are to have an assurance that a preference is to be given on motor cars and parts of motor cars to Britain and her Dominions I do not know, but I can hardly imagine the Minister will have the hardihood to say: "We are going to give a preference on motor cars made in England or made in Canada over American and French cars, while refusing to give a preference to tea grown in India over tea grown in China." And while I am on this taxation question I want to urge upon the Minister that before he finally decides the rates of taxation on motor cars and films, and on any other of the commodities that touch Irish industry at any point, he will consider it wholly in the light of Ireland's concerns. As was said yesterday, it is obvious after one moment's thought that the present taxation upon motor cars and parts does not fit in with Ireland's requirements. And the present taxation upon cinema films does not fit in with Ireland's requirements. In the case of motor cars I would urge the desirability of making a distinction in the rate of taxation between non-assembled cars and parts of cars and the completely assembled cars. I am sure the Minister will calculate as closely as possible the income from taxation, whether it will do damage because of the decline in imports, or whether he will be able to so adjust taxation as to ensure that imports will remain high enough to produce the maximum amount of revenue. Upon the question of films I am sure he will bear in mind every representation that is made to him, and, especially in view of the probability, and I think it a proved probability, that unless there is a revision of the present taxation there will be a decline in the attendance at cinemas, and consequently a reduction in the revenue derivable from the entertainment tax. I would ask the Minister to pay special attention to that aspect, which as Minister for Finance, he is of course bound to do, and assuredly will do.
Amongst the principal items on this list of expenditure there were two, to which I referred yesterday, viz., the Property Losses and the cost of the Army, upon which I desire again to say a few words. We attempted to impress upon the Dáil that some conditions should be imposed upon the recipients of compensation for property loss which would oblige them to spend a proportion upon home-produced goods. We fail to impose that condition, and there is no such obligation upon the recipients of compensation, but I want to ask the Minister to be more insistent than has been the case on the expenditure of Army funds upon articles produced in Ireland. I am quite willing to admit that this will require an increase, and that it will involve an increase in the cost of articles. I am frankly willing to admit that if we are going to buy in the cheapest market we will buy very few things in Ireland, and if buying in the cheapest market is to be the criterion of our public expenditure then Irish manufacturers will receive very little benefit, or, rather, Irish industries, I should say, will receive very little benefit from the expenditure of public moneys. But I think that it is well to face the fact that the country cannot afford to buy in the cheapest markets. Our expenditure will of necessity, in my opinion, require to be used for the development of the home market. And here we have the home market, and, provided that there are conditions imposed upon the rates of profit and the scheme of organisation or industries, then the advantage will lie wholly with the utilisation of Irish experience and ability, and Irish materials and resources for the supply of Irish requirements. I would go further and even suggest to the Minister that he could, without very revolutionary action, devise a means of ensuring that even the amount of pay that is expended upon the soldiers could be directed into the purchase of Irish-manufactured goods. A proportion of every soldier's pay could, by means that I think are practicable, be directly and of necessity utilised in the purchase and consumption of home-manufactured articles. But in this case, where the spending is wholly at the disposal of the Government through the Army, or through the various other Departments, but particularly through the Army, I would ask the Minister to consider the importance of giving imperative directions that purchases should be made, where possible, of Irish goods. We have had for too long now the excuse given to us that in giving away contracts they had to be given to English manufacturers because they were wanted speedily, and Irish manufacturers would not supply in time. And that excuse was a valid one six months or a year ago, but it ought not to be valid now. It would simply mean there is lack of foresight as to the commodities required. Now, I have had brought to my notice no later than last night an instance where uniforms have been ordered from London at a price several shillings below the price that they could be produced in Ireland, and ordered before the Irish manufacturers had an opportunity of tendering. These orders were given away to London because, in the case of a tunic and breeches, they are four shillings below the price that they have been able to produce them at in Ireland. But what is the explanation? So far as I can gather, the only possible explanation lies in the fact that the Irish Trade Board rates are being undercut.
The minimum rate fixed in what was a sweated industry has been undercut by British manufacturers, and they are therefore, able to supply a tunic and breeches four shillings below the Irish quotation—41s. as against the present price of 45s.; and great coats at 42s. as against 45s. The immediate complaint I am making is that this order, at any rate, and I think I am quite right in saying many other orders, have been given to English houses without Irish manufacturers having had a chance to supply them. This question of contracts has given a great deal of trouble to manufacturers, to members of the Dáil, to Ministers, and to the people concerned. A Committee was set up which was supposed to oversee the giving away of contracts. I am very much inclined to the opinion that despite all the promises of amendment, in regard to the giving away of contracts, that the Contracts' Committee has not been able to ensure the reform which was absolutely essential, particularly as regards goods required by the Army. While I am touching upon this question of contracts, I want to ask Ministers whether a greater good is going to be achieved by concentration and centralisation in contracting for specific articles, or whether a greater good is not likely to be accomplished by encouraging the small dealer, grower, or producer in and around the neighbourhood where the goods are required? The practice hitherto, before the Irish Army was in the market, was to encourage in every locality the local people to supply commodities for the consumption of the soldiers in the barracks and camps. I think the tendency is distinctly away from that at the present time. The tendency is to hand over the contracts to some large centralised contractor, and allow him to purchase where he can; but he may, or may not, encourage the local grower, the local butcher, or the local market gardener. Without being dogmatic on this question, I would urge Ministers to ask for a close inquiry by the Contracts' Committee and their technical advisers, as to whether a greater social value will not be derivable from the encouragement of the local grower, the local feeder, and the local butcher to continue to supply the local markets in the same way as he has been doing hitherto. I doubt very much whether it is good politics to discourage local enterprise of this kind by centralising the purchasing power, and inviting contractors simply to buy where they can find the readiest supplies, which means, in effect, to encourage traffic from one end of the country to a central market, and then buying in a central market and re-distributing. Touching on this question I would like to draw attention to certain questions that have arisen in regard to contracts for canteens in barracks Here again, I daresay, pure business would lead the Army to farm out the right of serving soldiers in canteens. Whether the authority is good or not, I want to say that I am led to believe that there is a tendency towards farming out canteens. I suggest that that is more likely to lead to over drinking, and, consequently, demoralisation, than a more rigid supervision of canteens; and, especially, if it happens that a dry canteen as well as a wet canteen is in the hands of the same contractor, encouragement would probably be given to the consumption of intoxicants. I think the encouragement should be entirely the other way in the Army as in most other places. I would urge the desirability of devising something approximating to the Gottenburg public house system, where all the profits to the management would be derivable from non-intoxicants, so that all the encouragement from the management will come from the consumption of non-intoxicants; and that so far as the management is concerned they will derive no profit from the consumption of intoxicants. I am not now suggesting that the price should be reduced to mean that there will be no profit or no tax, but that at any rate whatever inducement there would be to push a trade, it would be to push a trade in non-intoxicants. This is the last occasion, I suppose, for two or three weeks on which we shall have any opportunity to raise any question before the Ministry in a public manner, and I am going to take the opportunity of asking the Minister for Home Affairs or the Minister for Defence, whoever is responsible, to put some stay upon the exuberance, to speak mildly, of the men engaged in raiding houses. It is not an infrequent complaint that the attempt to catch prisoners in houses in the middle of the night is combined with an attempt to terrorise all the people in the house, women and children as well as men. Even when the object of the search is proved not to be on the premises, and when the men are going away the attempt at terrorising after the bird has flown does not do any good to the Government, it is not doing any good to the Army, it is not doing any good to anybody. It is doing a great lot of harm to many people who have experience of violent threats and outrageous treatment by the men engaged in these raids. It is not an isolated instance that I am thinking of. I shall bring to the notice of the Minister responsible a particular case, but I want to raise a general protest, and to ask the Minister to curb, as I say, the exuberance of the men engaged in these raids. Indiscipline in these forces we all know is liable to lead to very terrible consequences. The reputation of the Army and of the Government would be much higher and will vary in many quarters according to the discipline of the forces engaged in the work which the Government find it necessary to undertake. I will ask the Minister to bear in mind that there will be an aftermath and that when the present trouble is over, there will be all kinds of forces in the country that will have to be kept under discipline, and if they are allowed to be indisciplined now the problem that we are dealing with at present will be intensified. I have ranged over a variety of subjects, but I believe that it is the duty of the Dáil to take advantage of this kind of financial Bill to deal with subjects of a general character in the way that I have done, or in the way the Dáil thinks best, and it is not right to allow three weeks to pass without a general discussion of the questions which are of public concern and moment.
May I refer to one item that concerns the Army? I would wish that the Minister for Defence or someone acting for him were here to take a note of the few remarks which I intend to make concerning separation allowances. There have been some dozen of cases brought to my notice within the last week or two where forms have been sent to the parents of boys serving stating that they had insufficient evidence to prove any claim for dependents. I have here a scale in which it is stated that the extent of dependents' allowance per week is:—Where the recruit gave an allowance to his dependents not exceeding 12s. the dependents get nothing; where he gave from 12s. to 18s. the dependents get 7s. a week; when it is not proved that they get 12s. a week from the recruit then there is no dependant's allowance. I know of one case where a woman had two sons in the Army. Both were earning small wages, and on the two boys the mother proved she got 7s. each, that is 14s. between the two, which would, according to this scale, entitle her to come between the zone of 12s. and 18s., and get 7s. dependant's allowance. She gets nothing Had she been getting the 14s. from one of the boys she would now get 7s. allowance, but now she gets no separation allowance from the two. I would suggest to the Minister for Finance that he would make a recommendation to the Minister for Defence that in a case like this, where two boys had contributed to the support of their mother, it would be taken that it had come from one. It is only fair that that mother should get 7s. a week, which is the minimum of the scale allowance. I do not think I am unreasonable in asking that. I think that in the case of a woman giving two sons to the Army, the fact that they were earning small wages each should not debar her now from getting separation allowance equivalent to what she would get if she had been supported by one son. I must certainly say of the Paymaster's Department, that in every case which I have brought to his attention that within a few days he had the complaint investigated and payments made, but there are a considerable number of complaints still. If I put questions on the Question Paper dealing with all the questions I get I would want a Question Paper for myself. What I did in these cases was to send the complaints to the Paymaster-General to get them attended to. I had another case yesterday, and this is a matter that ought to have the attention of the Ministry. I know in the days of the British Government there was a special scale fixed. At present the Inspector goes round and he asks the woman what it cost to keep her son. He has no standard in front of him. In this case the woman said he was earning 25s. a week, and it cost 20s. to keep him. In that case there is no dependent's allowance. Had the woman said that it cost 13s. or 14s. to keep him she would have got 7s. a week. That is a practical illustration of a case that was brought before me yesterday, and because the mother said it cost £1 a week to keep her boy out of the 25s. he gave her the Paymaster-General turned down the case. If that is a laughing matter for the Dáil, the mothers of these boys do not consider it a laughing matter.
If I might interrupt for a moment I would like to say this: in my case I was laughing because when I was advising people in the time of the British Government I always instructed my clients properly, and I never made a mistake of that kind.
Mr. BYRNE
Well, I did not get an opportunity of instructing my client, but because the woman told the truth she gets nothing. I say that the Government themselves ought to make a scale of 16s. a week to be deducted for the boy's upkeep, and have that as a standard. The difference between that and what he gave his mother ought to be given to her. What I want to say to-day is that I know of a case where a woman said it cost 14s. to keep the boy and the other woman said it cost 20s. to keep her boy. The one gets separation allowance and the other does not. I hold the Government Department ought to have a standard scale themselves on which to base their allowances, and not have Inspectors going round putting those questions to the mothers of the boys. I hope the Government will seriously consider the question, and if a boy has been six months idle that ought not to be taken into consideration for the purpose of depriving his mother of any Army allowance. If, at the end of six or seven months' idleness, the boy joins the Army, I think his mother is entitled to some allowance, and that something should be done in that direction. I do not intend to go into any other item on this proposal to-day. I am satisfied to deal only with one matter which affects a large number of poor people, some of whom have come to me during the past few weeks.
The discussion, so far, has not been very interesting to me. It has centred round, chiefly, the spending of money which we have to pay in taxes. No effort has been made to show where these taxes are to come from, and no attempt has been made to show where any saving can be effected. Deputy Johnson says it is too much to charge a family seven shillings in taxes, and Deputy O'Brien says you are not giving enough in allowances. The Postmaster-General then comes along and he wants £1,300,000; and the total of the bill is £42,000,000. Where is it all to come from? This point should be considered instead of all this embroidery. It is costing £21,000,000 sterling to run the country when you eliminate the Army cost and the property losses. I believe it was estimated in the First or Second Dáil that, if they got the running of the country, they could do it on six millions. I used to say it ought to be run for ten millions. Now we have got it up to twenty-one millions, and if the Deputies who have been speaking had their way it would mount up to one hundred millions. There is one item here on which I would like to get a little information. It is an item of £85,000 for Haulbowline Dockyard. Perhaps I am too previous in asking an explanation of that, as it may come up again. It seems a new expense, however, and new expenses should be all checked in the bud. We will have to begin and stamp out all attempts to raise expenditure in this country.
We had a very interesting and good-humoured discussion here early to-day as to whether or not it was more desirable to change or disfigure the face of Deputy Gorey's grandfather's clock in order to conform with the requirements of the law, or allow the farmers to break the law by leaving the clock as it originally stood. It matters very little to the hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of working—or perhaps I should say workless—men in this country who have been thrown out of employment as a result of the destruction whether or not they have to go by Greenwich or Dublin or Kilkenny time when they find that they have no work to do and no job to attend to which would keep their wives and families from starvation. It is generally admitted that under ordinary, normal conditions this country would not be asked to find the millions of money that it is obliged to find this year. It is also generally recognised outside the Dáil—and I am sure by the members of the Dáil too—that under ordinary conditions a considerable saving might be made in the different Departments of the Government, and particularly in respect of Army administration. Objection has been taken from time to time in the Dáil by members of the Government to members on these Benches raising questions concerning the Army. I fail to see what harm is done by raising questions here when everything we say is well known to the people in the different areas throughout the country. It is customary when anybody —even a member of the Dáil—seeks entrance to barracks here or in the country to search him. From what I know of the conduct of the Army in many places in the country, as well as searching people going into barracks it would be very desirable that they should be searched coming out. A good many cases of extravagance have been brought to my notice, and if there was proper supervision the cost of the Army in a particular centre would not be what it is represented to me to be. It would be very interesting to find out what ten or twenty or thirty soldiers in a certain depot or a barracks in the country cost the Government, apart altogether from the question of dependents' allowances. It would be very desirable that the Government, in passing Bills that are sent up to them, should try and discover whether or not the expenditure in a certain area is above what it should be in ordinary conditions. If they worked out a mathematical problem of that kind it would perhaps enable them to discover extravagance in many directions. It is generally recognised by the people that the war, which is supposed to be conducted on behalf of the people, is more a war upon the people than for the people. Everybody in touch with his own particular area is very glad to realise —as I think the people do realise—that the country is gradually but surely recovering from the shock it received last June or July. If the country is to be brought back as soon as possible to what it used to be and ought to be, a very serious effort must be made to open up the many railway lines and sections of lines that have been closed down—particularly in the Great Southern and Western area. I have noticed that when a bridge is blown up on the South Eastern or Midland Railway an effort is immediately made to repair that bridge. But in hundreds of cases bridges have been blown up on the Great Southern and Western Railway, and, in spite of repeated representations to the Government by the people of the area and by the representatives of the people, nothing has been done to open up the line in that area. The result is that flour mills and other places of work have had to close down. Thousands of men have been thrown out of work, and are kept out of work, simply because the Great Southern and Western Railway people refuse to conform with the wishes of the people. If the Government wishes to show the people that the country is recovering, and will recover, it must open up all the avenues of transport so as to allow the country to carry on as it would carry on under normal conditions.
I have been told, for instance, that in the case of Palace East, where trouble has occurred within the last two or three days, a certain bridge there has been blown up on at least six occasions, and on every occasion it has been repaired within a period of from 24 to 48 hours, so that the flow of traffic might continue. I do not see why the same condition of things should not exist all over the Great Southern and Western Railway. Now that a Bill has been passed that enables the Government to pay money over to the Companies, I hope that during the Easter recess the Government will use all the power it possesses to see that all sections of the railway, especially in the southern portion of the country, will be opened up without delay. I notice that considerable numbers of the Railway Protection Corps are stationed in different areas all over the railway systems. I fail to see, with such numbers of troops protecting the railways at many different points, how it is that the necessary repairs cannot be carried out so as to allow traffic in the country to be carried on. I view the stoppage of trade in those areas in a very serious light. While the trade in the Free State area is being paralysed through the destruction of transport communications, the people of Ulster, who glory in the war in the South, are capturing the trade behind the backs of the people who are living in the area under our jurisdiction. Not alone do the Ulster people glory in what is going on in the South, but they are very cautiously helping, from behind the scenes, to do whatever they can to encourage the carrying on of this war between different sections in the Free State. If we have the means at our disposal, we should not hesitate to use them so that the flow of traffic is carried on. I am sorry the Minister for Defence is not present, because I wish to bring under his notice, and the notice of the Government, cases where Army accounts are long overdue. There are also cases where accidents have occurred as a result of which inoffensive citizens have been shot. In the April of last year such cases occurred in which the Army Authorities recognised their responsibilities and promised compensation, but that compensation has not yet been paid to the dependents of the people accidently shot. I hope that from the figures we are asked to vote away now the Army Authorities will make provision for the immediate payment of accounts long overdue, and especially of compensation to dependents of people accidentally killed by military forces. One thing strikes me peculiarly with regard to army administration. The view that I have held is confirmed by practical experience. It is a bad policy on the part of the Army Council to leave soldiers belonging to a certain area in that area. Many of the things which have occurred, and which unfortunately cannot be now satisfactorily settled, would not have occurred if you had troops, who were not natives, in certain areas. I hope in any reorganisation schemes which will be considered that this will be attended to. It is not right nor fair to the individuals themselves to have them serving in the Army in their native districts. I join in this discussion particularly for the purpose of impressing on the Government the necessity of opening up the avenues of communication in the country, so that it can be proved to the people how far the Government forces have justified themselves in the work they set out to do, and justified us in supporting the Estimates that are now being called for.
Before the Bill passes this stage there is one question which I think it is the duty of the Dáil to ask and the duty of the Minister to answer. We were told by the Minister for Defence to-day that letters to and from prisoners have been stopped. I presume that applies to internment camps and military prisons. This is the only opportunity, for at least two or three weeks, we will have of getting replies, and we ought to have an answer as to why these letters have been stopped. On the one hand it is suggested the stoppage is because of something happening outside; on the other hand, because certain things that have happened inside. It seems a very drastic mode of punishment to cut off letters to and from relatives and friends and prisoners. I should like to know the exact reasons for that and to know whether those regulations apply also to deportees, presumed citizens, and some who now apparently disavow citizenship of the Saorstát. If so, why do they apply? Sometime back there were certain regulations enforced in Mountjoy which were not enforced in other internment camps. The reason was because of certain things that happened in Mountjoy. These regulations were enforced against prisoners in Mountjoy who had not been prisoners there when the acts, which were the source of that particular mode of punishment, were committed. I am sorry I was not here yesterday when the President was referring to the Estimate for the Governor-General's establishment. When this question was previously before the Dáil the President justified the vote of £10,000 because he said it was a new establishment in connection with which certain initial charges had to be met. I should like to know if the amount put down in the vote for the coming year includes the salary of the Governor-General, and whether the £1,000 and some odd pounds over the £10,000 is merely for the upkeep of the establishment, or is the establishment going to cost £11,000 this year as compared with £10,000 last year? The whole thing, in my opinion, is excessive. I should like to know from the Minister for Home Affairs whether he is in a position to inform us that he is able to carry out the forecast he made some months ago in regard to removing prisoners from the ordinary civil prisons in the Free State and leave those prisons in the charge of the General Prisons Board purely for civilian prisoners. There is another item which puzzled some of us, though there was an explanation given last year. It recurs this year; it may be necessary and probably is. I should like to know whether the Secret Service referred to is Army In telligence or deals with political matters. What kind of Secret Service is it? These are questions which the Dáil should demand an answer to, and it is the duty of the Minister to answer.
I just want to make a slight correction relative to the remark of Deputy Wilson. He suggests that my Department is about to suffer a loss of £1,300,000 for the coming year and that no improvement is shown in the matter of working compared with the previous year. That is not correct. The loss will be in the region of £1,000,000, and it is hardly fair, in the absence of a statement on the Budget, to send it forth to the public that a loss of this kind is being incurred. Furthermore, I believe that when the services rendered to the Government are taken into consideration, the losses on the Post Office will be very much smaller. It is only right, in the interest of the Service itself, to make that statement.
I should like very briefly to reply to Deputy Johnson with regard to the question of Government contracts. The policy of the Government with regard to the spending of money on contracts, whether for the Army or the Civil Service of the State, is that every penny possible shall be spent within the Saorstát. That is the general policy. Now, Deputy Johnson complained that certain purchases are being made without the Saorstát, and that Irish commercial firms did not have an opportunity of tendering for those. Yes, certain purchases have been made without the Saorstát. In every case these were emergency purchases, and I am sure the Deputy will be very glad to know that at the present moment over 90 per cent. of the purchases being made are made in Ireland. During the present week, contracts have been placed for boots and leggings for the Army running into something like £40,000, and all those contracts have been placed with Irish manufacturers——
In the Saorstát?
In the Saorstát. In fact the Contracts Committee, in dealing with the question of the supply of boots, even gave a preference of 3d. extra on the boot, if the manufacturer would guarantee that the sole leather of the boot had been manufactured in Ireland. That was considered good economics, good finance. I thoroughly agree with Deputy Johnson, and the members of the Dáil Contracts Committee would agree with him, that buying in the cheapest market is not always good economics. As a matter of fact, I can assure him that over 20 per cent. extra price has been given for those boots that are being purchased in Ireland to that which would be necessary to purchase similar articles across Channel. The Ministry of Industry and Commerce is interested in the contracts question from the economic point of view. We have to deal with the question of unemployment. We have to try and reduce the number of the unemployed, and we have, above all, to try and ensure that the people who have work in this difficult time shall continue to have sufficient employment to keep them working. That is our policy. With a view to securing that, we try to avail of expert advice and to place expert advice at the disposal of Irish manufacturers who seek it. In fact, sometimes we go to Irish manufacturers and try to get them to organise their business to meet the huge demands which are coming from the Irish Army at the present moment. As will have been seen by the reference I made to extra price in the case of boots, a reasonable allowance is made for the Irish manufacturer, and in this respect I would like to point out that we have found Deputy Johnson and those associated with him most helpful in the matter of contracts. We have found Irish Labour in different places quite prepared to increase their output in order that the firm for which they were working would be able to compete on reasonable terms with cross-Channel firms. We have also found Irish manufacturers are fully alive to the situation, and are availing of the present opportunity—it is a great opportunity— to try and place their industries on an economic footing. In only one case has the Contracts Committee found it necessary to cancel the contracts which a firm held because the firm did not comply with the condition of fair wages. That was in one case only, and the Contracts Committee had no difficulty in concelling the order which the firm held. As far as the Ministry of Industry and Commerce is concerned, we shall at all times welcome helpful criticism from everybody in this Dáil in this matter of contracts. I am sure the whole Dáil is interested in the question; and we can assure them that we view the question of purchases from the purely economic standpoint. The sole principle which guides us in the placing of contracts is whether it is good economics, and the Government's Policy is to spend every penny it possibly can in the country.
There are a few words I should like to say with regard to payment out of the Road Fund. I certainly congratulate the Minister for Local Government on the increase. It is really necessary for the expenditure on the road work. During 1922-1923 we have had £100,000 for the expenditure. During 1923-1924 we have had £450,000. The increase is 350 per cent. I think that will go a great deal in the way of relieving the workers throughout the country, and above all things it will be a great stepping stone towards preventing people throughout the country from becoming an encumbrance upon the Labour Exchanges. I can assure this Dáil that the organised workers of Ireland do not want to be on the Labour Exchanges as long as they can find employment. I am sure that this Government, after the passing of this Estimate, will have the goodwill of all those workers. The roads of Ireland at the present time are in a very bad state, and hundreds of men can be employed on them. We are, at the present time, dependent on the Labour Exchanges, and above all things, when it is taken into account that the farmer class is not giving the amount of labour at the present time that it gave heretofore, the number of people thrown out of employment must be an encumbrance on the ratepayers or on the State at large.
I want to deal for a moment or two with the question of the unemployed, and with particular reference as to how they can be relieved by this extra expenditure. I would like to place before the Dáil one particular case in the town of Athlone. The sawmills there have been closed down and 110 workers have been thrown out of employment. These will now be added to the list of the Labour Exchange, and I was wondering would it be possible for the Government, and would it not be more economical, to start some industry where that industry has ceased to exist, instead of giving these disemployed men grants for doing nothing at all. I think it would be much better for the State where industries have closed down if the Government could see their way to re-start these industries so as to give employment. With reference to the question of contracts, you can get a lot of stuff manufactured yourselves at the present time. I saw by an advertisement in one of the papers that you want hundreds of articles of furniture. These could be manufactured in Athlone, where they have the machinery. If you take over the works you will save the State and you will save the workers from being looked upon as going for charity, with their hands out to receive alms, for that is really what they are looked upon as doing at present.
With regard to the motor tax collected throughout the country, this money was heretofore refunded to the counties where it was collected. I have it on the best authority that the Secretary of the Westmeath County Council has received approximately £2,500. That speaks very well for the constituency I represent, and of the regard they have for the Government, when they are coming forward and paying this amount of money. It is to be hoped this will be refunded to keep men in employment. If some grant does not come, 150 men will have to be dismissed. Another matter that calls for attention is the question of Old Age Pensions. Something will have to be done with regard to this, and it may be that a new Act will have to be brought in to deal with grievances that exist. I am a member of one of the Old Age Pensions SubCommittees, and I find that if a working man and his wife are living together, and that that man is earning £2 a week, and that the woman is seventy years of age, she cannot get the Old Age Pension because her husband is in receipt of £2 a week. Take the other side of the picture, and you find that if a person has been fortunate enough to have invested in the bank £600 in ready cash that person is entitled to the Old Age Pension, while the working man who is earning £2 a week is not entitled to it. That is a matter, I think, that wants to be looked into. The Old Age Pension is certainly a big encumbrance to the State, but it is better to give the pension to people who are entitled to it rather than to people who hand over business premises or land to their sons and daughters for the purpose of getting the pension. I have nothing further to add until the Estimates come again before the Dáil. I certainly congratulate the Minister for Local Government for his pluck in coming forward and giving us that amount to keep people employed on the roads.
There is one point in the speech of Deputy Johnson which I think it right to dwell upon for a moment. There seems to be in the Saorstát a prevailing ignorance as regards the incidence of taxation on films, which the Deputy mentioned, for example, and upon motor cars. May I remind the members of the Dáil that in August, 1921, there came into operation what was known as the Safeguarding of British Industries Act. Under that Act the Board of Trade is empowered, if called upon by the complaints of British manufacturers, to levy a tax upon the products of foreign competitors. For example, dealing with films and the allied industry of photography, in May or June last petitions were made to the Board of Trade on behalf of the combined British manufacturers of photographic materials, and also by the Association of Lens Makers. Evidence was heard from these, and it was proved to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that owing to the exchange between Germany and Austria on the one hand and Great Britain on the other, that it was possible for the most superior type of photographic instruments, the Zeiss lens and the Goerz lens, for cameras, made in Dresden by the I. K. Firm, which has the largest capital next to the Kodak invested in that industry in the world, to be placed on the market. It was proved that it was possible to put the highest type of optical instruments on the market at a price lower than the British manufacturer could produce, and consequently, for the safeguarding of the industry, the tax was immediately imposed. Up to the present moment we have been working here under the fiscal system that we took over, and the result is that films, photographic plates, and the other things I have mentioned, come into the country with an ad valorem duty. The moment we proceed to run our own fiscal system, as from April 1st next, for the purpose of symmetry and the purpose of adjustment what is referred to here in British finance, that is bound to take place later on when we get our fiscal system into line, and the result is that we impose these duties. I take it that is the intention; otherwise there will be the difficulty of our having one system here and then across the border another. The only thing novel about the matter is that film and optical instrument makers, and all those things that we protected for England, if they come into this Saorstát from England, they come in from what is practically a foreign country. A few days ago the Mersey Docks Board arranged to impose 9s. per ton on Irish butter instead of the ordinary 8d. on inter-coastal traffic that had hitherto prevailed, because in their conception of the new relations Ireland was a foreign country. Now, with reciprocity, England is a foreign country as regards Ireland, and the films and motor cars and the rest of that come under taxation that was not imposed hitherto on those coming from England. Further, it seems to me, from what Deputy Johnson said to-day, and from what he said yesterday—I hope I am not misunderstanding or misrepresenting him—that the cinema trade is shocked and terrified at this imposition. It need not be unless it continues to buy and procure these supplies from English sources. There is no earthly reason why, instead of great distributing houses in London having charge of the importation of all this stuff that is employed here and retailing it at a profit to sub-agencies or retail houses in Ireland through the operation of these fiscal arrangements, Irish houses should not be distributing agencies for the Saorstát, and consequently trade and commerce would be enormously aided thereby. I wanted to speak on that point because I was under the impression from what has been said about films and the allied goods, that the fact has not been generally recognised that there was protection. Not only was there protection through the Safeguarding of British Industries Act, but furthermore there has been given a protection to the British industry in motor cars owing to the fact that when the British motor trade began to realise that the industry was threatened practically with extinction as regards the moderately-priced cars by American and Canadian and French mass production, the trade decided to concentrate upon the light car. It was found that the light car appealed to the largest number of buyers in Great Britain. For city men, for professional men, doctors and the rest, it provided an excellent runabout. It was also good for touring under favourable conditions. There was an official definition of the light car that the calculation of the bore and stroke should not exceed 1,500 cubic centimetres. The British trade concentrated upon that, and by putting on a tax upon horse power instead of upon tyre or petrol consumption the situation was brought about that, whereas the Ford car bore a tax of £23, and the Chevriolet, a Canadian car of a similar type, bore a tax of £21 or £22, the competing car in England was only subjected to £9 10s., or £11 at most, and we are continuing that in Ireland, so that we are really giving preference to the British cars so long as the Minister for Local Government continues to impose the duty by the calculation of the bore and stroke merely, instead of on the basis of consumption.
On the question of figures generally it may be a trite thing to say, but it helps, or should help, to bring home to the people that "the State," as Tom Kettle once said, "is you and I and the man around the corner," and that the attack that has been going on for the last year, while it purported to be an attack on a vague entity known as "the Government," was, in reality, an attack on the people of the country, and the reason for that attack was that the people would not make a neat parcel of their wills and their intellects and hand them over to a very small section which could not show and have not shown since by their conduct that their judgment or intellect was anything to brag about. You have a figure here, £42,278,000. You have an Army figure of seven and a quarter millions for last year and ten and a half millions, if the estimate works out correctly, for the coming financial year, so that within two years the people will have paid eighteen million pounds for the Army, and they will have paid that because their will, their constitutionally expressed will, was challenged. It is a grim lesson in democracy, and it will only prove worth while if we learn the lesson well and if, down through the years, we remember it. Then it may be worth while. Whether it will be worth while really to the people who are living to-day, who will be paying it to-day, is another point, and it should teach us that to have recourse to violence, to have recourse to outrage, for a political preference—and that is what it comes to—is questionable wisdom for any country. To put out an invader, to claim the right to run your own affairs, to claim the right to make your own laws on the grounds that you know best your own interests and your own requirements, is one thing; having done that to turn on the majority of the people and wage a criminal campaign for a formula is quite another, and, getting down to the elements of the thing, we cannot stick our heads in the sand and pretend that there was not a very considerable political problem here, that there was not close on a million of our people in the North East, close on a quarter of our population, who were utterly opposed to the ideals for which the bulk of the country was standing; that scattered through the rest of the country you had close on another half million, and probably, in addition to that million and a half, close on another million utterly apathetic, who looked on at the whole thing, with their hands in their pockets and their straw in their mouths, with as much enthusiasm as— probably infinitely less enthusiasm than —they would display at a cock fight. It was eminently a matter for compromise and the men that we sent over there realised that and did their best.
You have had a challenge here for the last year to the collective wisdom of the majority of the people and the people are now paying for it, in terms of pounds, shillings and pence. What they will pay for in other ways, what they will pay for it in moral degradation, what they will pay for it in its influences on the growing youth of the country, remains to be seen. Children growing into their teens in the atmosphere and amidst the circumstances we have had for the last year are not getting a chance. It will be strange, if will be providential, if they grow up decent citizens with a proper idea of their responsibility. In any case, take the Army figure and take the compensation figure and let us hope that the people will realise that the blowing up of a bridge, whether it be a road bridge or a railway bridge or any other wanton act of destruction of property, is not a thing that they can afford to take a detached view of. It is a destruction of the country's material wealth and it is something for which the people in the country will one day, sooner or later, have to put their hands in their pockets and pay for. Optimists try to tell you that it is on the whole something to which there is a silver lining, that where a people that has not been doing its own house-keeping for centuries, whose habitual attitude of mind was an attitude of negation, a destructive rather than a constructive attitude, that this experience may not be wholly to the bad if it brings us more quickly to a responsible outlook, and if, in sheer reaction against all this turmoil and wanton destruction of last year, we take on that outlook more quickly than we otherwise would, that it is as well to take that for a silver lining, and if anyone can take comfort out of that particular view I suppose he is entitled to do so.
Of course, the challenge is fizzling out, and it is fizzling out in the sordid and squalid way one would expect. There is very little ennobling in it, and there are very few redeeming features in it, and very few outstanding acts of personal courage or gallantry, if we except one in the first week here in Dublin. I wonder have these people, who threw down the challenge, any sense of their responsibilities, and I wonder have some, who helped to press the button and did not participate in the event, any realisation of the tremendous responsibilities that are upon them. It is fizzling out in a sordid and squalid way; and Ireland has lived to contemplate an estimate of 40 million pounds for the coming year and endless and infinite harm done to her moral tone and her growing youth. That is the victory, and it was all done on the shibboleth that "the people have no right to do wrong"—that is the irony of the whole thing. How much wrong has been done in the last year? In one year of her history was ever so much wrong done in Ireland as has been done last year? People say in written documents to each other that the British will come back, and that their coming back will be the act of God. What blas phemy! If the British came back, if by any possibility they were to wipe out our forces and to annihilate us, what kind of country would these people have to rely upon to assist them? A country broken-hearted, with its morale bludgeoned out—a country thoroughly loathing the standards and the shibboleths to which it used to respond. It is simply with no partisan bitterness that one says these things, but in the hope that gradually the lesson will sink into the minds of even the most thoughtless people of the county that you cannot simply fling out in a wanton way and do damage of that kind and hope to escape the material and moral consequences. That is the only contribution I want to make with regard to these figures.
Now, I have been asked certain questions. One, I think, was addressed to me about the conduct of raiding parties, and the Deputy asking it was not clear as to whether I was the person to apply to in that matter. In Dublin particularly within the last few months the thing has ceased very much to be a military problem in any real sense of the word, and has become more and more just a matter of armed crime; a matter of lootings and arson, and more recently an attempt to intimidate the whole population. They were not to have recourse to places of amusement, and there was to be national mourning. We met that, not with the regular uniformed troops, but with simply an extension of the Oriel House principle. There is a good deal of plain clothes protection for the citizens of Dublin at the moment. I will be glad to receive from the Deputy specific instances of abuses. We are not standing for that, and we realise as clearly as he does, and perhaps, because of our position, more clearly, the necessity for checking such abuses, and they will be checked if we get the information and individuals will be brought to book. I ask him to remember this: that on these raids these men are brought into contact for the most part, in seven-tenths of the cases at any rate, with people bitterly hostile to them, people who certainly do not spare them from the point of view of tongue-lashing. Also, these men are overstrained, they are working very hard and are exposed to constant risks. Some of them do not get more than four or five hours' sleep in the night, and if they do swagger a bit or show a certain amount of gasconade in the face of the receptions they get in the most of these places it is a thing that one can understand, but at the same time a thing that one has a duty to check and correct and as far as possible to eliminate.
The other question was about the prisons. As regards these, we have not yet reached the stage when the civil prisons are absolutely available for civil prisoners and no one else. I am informed by the Minister for Defence that big preparations are on their way and will shortly be completed that will enable him to remove from the prisons almost all the military prisoners—I think certainly all the male military prisoners. Speaking for my own Department, our attitude will be "God speed the day." The present system does not tend towards efficiency, but we cannot end it or handle it until the situation arising from the presence of military prisoners is ended.
I would like to know what the opinion is as to whether we should adjourn now for an hour, and come back and take the other stages of this Bill. We have only now passed the Second Stage of it. We have still to go through the Committee and the other Stages, and I am quite willing to come back at 8 o'clock. Otherwise, we will have to meet to-morrow morning.
With regard to the further stages of this Bill, Deputies have probably forgotten that we are discussing the Second Reading of a Central Fund Bill. I hope this debate will not be taken as a precedent. We are working under rather peculiar circumstances at the moment, and, therefore, I thought it better not to enforce the strict rules of order. Deputies expected to have an opportunity of discussing specific proposals for taxation, but on this occasion they have no such opportunity. On the other hand, an estimate of receipts and expenditure has been placed in their hands, and as no machinery exists by which it can be discussed this afternoon I allowed it to be discussed upon the Second Reading of this particular Money Bill. Once we were transgressing the Rules of Order I did not stop certain Deputies who introduced matters for which they have a peculiar fondness, and which they endeavour to introduce into almost every debate. I think, however, the disorder, if I may so term it, must cease with the Second Reading debate. We cannot have a repetition of it on the other stages of the Bill.
With regard to the point raised by the Minister as to the other stages, so far as we are concerned, they are purely formal after the Second Reading is gone through, but, on the general question you raised when we are asked to vote a certain sum of money, is it not competent for us to move the deletion or reduction of some particular sum in order to discuss any matter appertaining to the use for which this money will be put? Unless I misunderstand very greatly indeed the practice, in respect of Consolidated Fund Bills, of which this is a copy, it is possible to discuss the general question upon that issue.
The general question of taxation?
Taxation and the subject for which the taxes are to be used.
Not the general question of the incidence of taxation; or the amount or kinds of taxes that ought to be imposed.
Is there anything to prevent the President coming here to-morrow?
No; in the morning. The Seanad meets to-morrow, and this Bill will come before it. We could finish in an hour if we come back.
If we merely take the Second Reading debate on the lines we have been going on, it could be concluded by a speech from the President. Then, if the Committee Stage is taken it will not be necessary to have the same points raised so that there is nothing to prevent us from going on now, or adjourning for an hour, and then finishing.
That is so. If it is agreeable to the Dáil I will now move the adjournment, and that we resume at a quarter past eight.
Agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 7.10 p.m., to be resumed at 8.15 p.m.
On resuming,
The Parliamentary Paper dealing with receipts and expenditure has been referred to in the discussion, and I think, for the information of Deputies, some slight explanation of it ought to be given. Part 1 discloses the total receipts set out under four different headings, A, B, C, and D. The tax revenue is made up of Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise, Stamps, Death and other Duties. In the case of Inland Revenue, there has been collected in Great Britain a sum estimated at £1,300,000, which is attributable to Saorstát Eireann. On the other hand, there is a provisionally estimated sum of £3,000,000 which has been collected here, but is attributable to Great Britain, and a discharge of this sum in two payments will be found on page 2, Sub-section A— the last item on it—"Payment to Great Britain for adjustment of Revenue," £1,300,000 (1922-23) and £1,700,000 (1923-24). The item £1,300,000 has been discharged. The other sum, £1,700,000, remains to be discharged out of next year's revenue, and accordingly provision is made for it there. It is a provisionally estimated sum, consequently it will not be discharged until the exact amount is known. Non-tax revenue items are shown under Sub-head B, page 1. They are made up of receipts from three Postal services, Miscellaneous and Special Rate under the Damage to Property Act, £300,000 instalment to the British Government of their contribution towards compensation for damage between January, 1919, and July 11th, 1921.
(C) Capital raised for special purposes. The discharge for that is on page 2, Item C, also. That is, having raised the money, provision is made there in the expenditure side of the account for its issue.
The fourth item—the Unemployment Insurance Act—is for making good all sums that will be required to fund that account. Part II. indicates the expenditure side. Deputy Johnson has referred to certain items which were not before the Dáil on yesterday, because they are not in the nature of Supply services Those are charges on the Central Fund— statutory liabilities—which must be met, as will be observed from a perusal of the various items—local taxation grant, payment to the Road Fund. Whatever sums come into revenue in respect of them, provision is made there for the discharge of the same amounts. In this case there are £450,000 included under that head, £200,000 of which will be got from local authorities. In respect of damage to property the other £250,000 is estimated to be collected from motor taxation—and will appear on the revenue side of our receipts. The third item is what I have already explained—that is, Capital issues. The only other item it is necessary to draw attention to is the last item on the fourth page, which is a sum of £10,500,000. Last year we presented Estimates for £38,744,000, and it is estimated that the total expenditure will amount to £28,244,000. The main reason for that saving is that the compensation for damage has not materialised to the extent it was anticipated. A sum not much is excess of £1,000,000 has been paid, and the enactment of the Damage to Property Act, which has already passed, will facilitate the flow of awards in respect of which a considerable amount of delay has been occasioned by reason of the necessity of getting a release from every person who gets an award from the Compensation Commission which is at present sitting. Until that Act becomes law those people have a legal right—as has already been explained.
That deals now with the first exhibit of receipts and expenditure under the Constitution. Reference has been made during the discussion of this Bill as to the Taxation Law. The Revenue Commissioners are satisfied that the law as it stands extends to goods coming from Australia or Canada, or any one of the other Dominions, the same rights as operate in Great Britain, that is to say, that those goods are entitled to the same reduction in taxation—that is, one-sixth, which is roughly what the amount is in the case of tea, cocoa, coffee, chicory, currants, and other dutiable goods, such as figs, raisins, prunes, sugar, molasses, saccharine, and so on. In the case of ad valorem duties—the duties on motor cars and watches and clocks and musical instruments—what the late Professor Mahaffy used to call objects of vulgar amusement, and so on—they would be entitled to one-third reduction, and the duty they would pay or be liable for would be 22 2-9. Cinematograph films, positive one-third, negative two-thirds of the full rates. I think that will ease some people's minds, although it may possibly ease the Treasury purse as well. However, I think it is a reasonable thing, and, from the point of view of not disturbing taxation, it is the most equitable arrangement which, as the law stands, I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners, could be made. I do not think that this would be the time for going into any detailed examination or explanation of the revenue. I might say with regard to Income Tax that the revenue is not anticipated to be the same amount as last year by reason of the reduction from 6/- to 5/- which scarcely operated last year, the revenue for the previous year having been at the rate of 6/- in the pound. Furthermore, after two bad years the reduction will be more marked. On that account there is in this year's estimate a sum of £1,000,000 less entered under that heading for revenue.
I think that the other points that have been raised have been met. There was one which I do not know if the Minister for Home Affairs mentioned, the question that was put to me about letters in and out to the internees and the prisoners that we have got. It appears that those who are directing the activities of the Irregulars have decreed a time of mourning and we thought that it was unreasonable that all the mourning should be on one side and that there should be an opportunity afforded to prisoners to take part. I think it was an excellent idea. At any rate it brings home to them some of the disadvantages of the present situation. We do not support this particular line of action that is going on. We are no parties to it, and it is our duty to correct it. From what has happened in the various places of internment nothing but strict discipline must be put into force if they are to be brought at all to a conception of the shocking atrocities that they have committed against the State. When they appreciate that it is quite possible that they will come to their senses. Mention was also made, I think, by another Deputy, of visits and of certain exuberance of spirits on the part of persons raiding. I can only say with regard to that that we have 10,000 prisoners. The murderer of Dr. O'Higgins is not yet dead; he is still living. The murderer of my uncle is still living. The murderer of young Emmet McGarry is still living. Ten thousand prisoners as well are all living. I think that while it is possible certain excesses may occur in many parts of the country those particular matters must not be forgotten. Even if out of the 30,000 or 40,000 or 50,000 troops that we have got there is a certain percentage—and it is a very small percentage—who have at some time or other allowed their hot blood to obscure their commonsense, as far as the Army is concerned and as far as the Government's conduct of this particular operation that we have on hands is concerned, there is something of which we must be proud, and that is the remarkable forbearance that has been shown towards people who have started this and are persisting in it, and who, whenever the weight of the people's wrath falls upon them, squeal, and turn and squirm. There are not six cases, as far as I can learn, and as far as I am informed, throughout the country in which the property of these people or their friends was interfered with, and their shrieks in each one of these cases had been heard from one end of the country to the other, and even in America. I have been in communication with many people who have lost valuable property and priceless records, and I have had to implore one particular man to place on record the losses that he has sustained, not for the purpose of recrimination, not to show what a serious loss has been occasioned him, but simply to see if it were possible by any means to bring home to any thinking person that may be amongst them these inhuman acts they are committing. If there be shame in that, I accept full blame for that shame. I think that is all I have to say on the Second Reading of this Bill, which provides for something like £14,700,000 odd. It is necessary, as I have explained, in order to allow the public services to be carried on to the 31st July next. Details will be furnished in connection with the particular items questions have been asked about. A question has been asked about the Governor-General's establishment. The particular sum inserted there does not refer to the Governor-General's salary. I have not got the figures as to what extent the sum of £10,000, provision for which was made in last year's estimate, was spent. I rather think that no half of that sum was spent. In connection with these sums voted, if not spent in one year they do not carry on. A balance does not be transferred from one year to another. One must strike a further sum, so that there is no indication on the Paper, and there will not be until the details of the Estimates are being considered any information available to know what savings there have been in any of the Services. I formally move the Second Reading of the Bill.
Question: "That the Central Fund (No. 1) Bill, 1923, be read a second time," put and agreed to.
I move the suspension of Standing Orders in order to enable the Dáil to go into Committee on this Bill.
Agreed.