I move the Second Reading of this Bill, which gives statutory effect to the money already voted.
CENTRAL FUND (No. 2) BILL, 1928—SECOND STAGE.
It was stated by the Minister for Finance that taxation had been reduced. That cannot be held to be an explanation of the present position. We find the revenue down by £959,000. We are faced with a declining revenue, which is a very serious situation. Obviously the State must find new sources of revenue to meet such decline, and such sources must offer to the citizens some returns in the way of service other than those which are at present afforded. The present services cost too much, and the benefits which the trade and industry of the citizens derive are not commensurate with the burden imposed by these taxes. If they were we would not be faced now with the situation which is developing. When before four months of the financial year have expired it is already manifest that the whole basis of the Minister's Budget proposals has failed, it is time to take serious notice of the position. The Minister budgeted for an extra £1,149,000 this year. Already the revenue for fourteen weeks is over £950,000 less than it was for the same period last year. I wonder how the Minister will account for that and what will be his explanation. If taxation had been reduced, the explanation of course would be comparatively simple. But taxation has been increased, and increased in such a form that receipts into the Exchequer should immediately react in that increase. But the very taxes from which the increase was to be derived, which were depended upon to bring in this million odd, are those which are responsible for the greater portion of the decrease in revenue.
By shortening the brewers' credit the Minister hoped to secure an extra £350,000 this year. Some of the proceeds of that forced collection ought to be, and are actually included, in the receipts from taxes to date. However, what do we find? The receipts from Excise are down by £405,000; a decline of £405,000 in fourteen weeks. By how much will they be down in 52 weeks? What chance has the Minister of receiving from these taxes what he collected last year, not to mention the extra sum of £350,000 which he has budgeted for? If he does not secure that, what chance has he of balancing his Budget? The more we consider the present position the more alarming it becomes. It cannot be explained by abnormal clearances being made before the Budget. The actual position is the reverse. So far as there was any expectation of a boom from the Minister for Finance, it was anticipated that there might be some reduction in the liquor duty. At the very worst there was certainly no anticipation of an increase in those duties. Therefore, there was no inducement to release goods from bond in anticipation of the Budget. On the contrary, the inducement was to allow the goods to lie in bond in the hope that there would be a reduction. The explanation, therefore, must be found in the diminishing power of the people to pay. Is the Minister alive to the gravity of that position? Is he content to ignore it, and to drift on, Micawber like, in the hope that something will turn up? If he is not so content, we would like to know what steps he proposes to take to deal with the growing deficit, or to make good the failure of his recent Budget proposals.
There is one proposition to which I should like particularly to refer, and that was the proposal originally made in the Dáil by Deputy Hugo Flinn to establish a State scheme of re-insurance. Every method should be sought of obtaining this extra revenue, which is required at home, and not put the extra burden of a loan on the people. We had before us—I do not want to go into it now—an Insurance Bill, which was very restricted in its form, and which might be much extended. I am not permitted to debate that now. But I am making suggestions to show that revenue could be derived from a further consideration of that matter. The estimated value of the property belonging to public authorities is, I believe, £20,000,000. The insurance premium might be taken at 1/6 per cent., or a premium income of £15,000. If the Company continued to hold an average of only ten per cent. of all risks, the Company would offer to the Minister for Finance about £18,000,000 of risks. The Company would pay for their re-insurance about £13,500, less 25 per cent., or a net payment of £10,125. Thus the Minister would receive £10,125 per year. The outgoings would be, say, loss due to maturing risk, at eight per cent.—the Minister calculated 7.35, as far as I remember, for Ireland —£1,080; administration costs, £1,500; total outgoings, £2,580; or an annual profit to the Department of Finance of £7,545. It may be said that that is a small amount, a negligible sum—but it is profitable beginning, and in our present plight we will have to take account of every thousand pounds and every ten thousand pounds which it is possible to get for the country. You would have there the nucleus of a complete scheme for State re-insurance. Handling thus the safest and simplest form of re-insurance, a staff would be trained and an organisation built up enabling the State to handle re-insurance on a much larger scale. The way would be thus paved for a system of national re-insurance, such as obtains in France. Incidentally, though not quite pertinent to the subject, I might mention that in Canada——
I do not know how far the suggestion for a State scheme of re-insurance is pertinent to the Central Fund Bill.
To show by what method money might be obtained for the State to meet the deficit which is obvious in the present Budget, and which cannot be avoided, as far as I can see.
I do not want to rule out the Deputy, but I do not want him to go too far. This is a Bill which deals with expenditure, and I do not think it is relevant to raise on it the question of taxation, although it is quite relevant to indicate that existing taxes do not produce a certain revenue, and to compare the figures of revenue with the figures of expenditure, to show that expenditure ought to be decreased. I think that a different scheme of taxation could not be advocated on the Bill, or on any stage of the Vote on Account. Still less do I find myself able to connect what the Deputy is now saying with this particular kind of Bill; but I will let him go on to a certain point.
This Bill purports to grant powers for raising money, and, as an alternative to that, I suggest that Deputy Fahy's suggestions are in order.
What is in order on these Bills is largely a question of practice. The main debate on a Vote on Account, which, ordinarily, only takes place once during the financial year, is in Committee. The Bill is required to give statutory effect to the resolutions passed in Committee and reported to the House, and the Second Stage of the Bill is, of course, an appropriate occasion for debate on general questions. But I find it difficult to fit in this scheme of State re-insurance with anything I have ever heard of on a Central Fund Bill. I am not ruling it out, but it is a matter of time.
Will the Ceann Comhairle allow me to help him a little in the difficulty which he has? What Deputy Fahy is trying to do has a direct precedent in France, where the exact provision which Deputy Fahy is now advocating was introduced in a law for assuring the balancing of the Budget by means of new fiscal resources. It is exactly the same system, and for exactly the same purpose, which Deputy Fahy is now advocating.
The title of the measure which the Deputy read out would seem to strengthen my own view, that the time to discuss this is on the Budget proposals rather than the Central Fund Bill. It is a question of debate rather than of method. However, I will allow Deputy Fahy to proceed. The only thing is that if we are to have the Second Stage of the Central Fund Bill availed of for a general debate on, say, State insurance, such as took place on the Second Reading of the Mutual Insurance Bill, it would be rather extraordinary.
My purpose is to show that if the principle adopted in France were followed a considerable sum of money could be obtained for the Exchequer, with great benefit to insurance, and that you could get about £175,000 per year. In France legislation was introduced to compel every insurance company operating in France to offer for re-insurance to the Caisse Nationale whatever portion of re-insurance the Minister fixed. That safeguarded the interests of the policyholders, as well as enabling the French native companies to compete on better terms with the outside companies. It gives an insurance to the policyholder that even though it was a small company it was carrying on proper business, and had in a way State support at the back of it. If that were adopted in this country it would strengthen Irish insurance in addition to benefiting the Treasury.
Each year it is calculated that about £4,000,000 are paid out in insurance premiums from the Free State. It is very hard to get exact figures, and that is a rough estimate. Supposing the principle of State re-insurance were adopted, extended and established here, of the £4,000,000 paid in premiums, about £2,000,000 are in respect of insurance other than life. Supposing that of these risks the companies were to offer the State fifty per cent, then the re-insurance premiums payable to the State would be about £400,000 per annum, while the risks maturing would not represent more than £200,000. Taking £25,000 for salaries and administration, it would mean a net profit to the State per annum of £175,000, in addition to keeping all that money here, and it would certainly strengthen Irish companies as well. These are rough figures, but I submit that by adopting this scheme the Minister for Finance would help considerably Irish industry, keep money at home, and meet to a considerable extent the deficit which he is bound to have if things proceed as they have been proceeding for the first fourteen weeks of the year.
The Minister for Finance has already been asked to make some definite statement to the House as to the economies he foresees can be promoted in the Government service. He was asked to do that already on the Budget, and I think that the present occasion is an appropriate one to reiterate that request. The reason is obvious. It is that not alone, as Deputy de Valera has pointed out, have we a scale of expenditure in this country that is altogether outside our limits and outside our capacity to bear, but that our financial policy at present seems to be in a peculiar condition. We started off this financial year with the supposition that we were going to have an increased revenue of £1,100,000. That was to come in chiefly by means of expedients that the Minister adopted, and which have already been adopted in the British Budget, shortening credit to brewers, making certain changes in the income tax collection, and so on. But, instead of having the comfortable assurance that this year our revenue, by virtue of these expedients, will be increased by £1,100,000, we find that for the first three months of the present financial year our receipts are down by £900,000. Whether that indicates a general falling off in revenue or a failure of the expedients which the Minister had hoped would bring in additional revenue, I do not know. What I do know is that if, as well as copying the expedients of the British Chancellor with reference to the collection of taxes, we had adopted some of his expedients with regard to the reduction of administrative expenses, our position might be a good deal more hopeful for the present financial year. Sometime or another this problem will have to be faced. It has been faced in England already by the setting up of the Geddes Committee, which went rigorously into expenditure in each Department. The result undoubtedly was that the British people felt that their Chancellor was doing his utmost to endeavour to reduce taxation. They felt that some body was brought into existence in which they had confidence, and that it really set out to cut out waste and to refuse unnecessary expenditure. We have not such a body in this country. The Economy Committee that was set up has nothing to show for its labours, and when it eventually has something to show, I think it will not be on the scale that the House has a right to expect, because the Committee in the first instance is not representative of public opinion in this matter. It was simply as an expedient, in order to meet the clamant cry in the country that there should be a reduction in expenditure, that the Government set up this Committee. The public has not confidence in it, and nothing has happened to show that they ought to have confidence in it. We have heard nothing from the Ministerial Benches to show to what extent that Committee has proceeded with its labours, or to what extent it will be able to reduce the burden of taxation.
There is no doubt that the administration which we took over from the British Government is altogether top heavy, and that amalgamations could be effected. National Health Insurance and Unemployment Insurance are very glaring examples of an extraordinary proportion of the total outlay being expended on overhead expenses. In addition to that, we have the fact that in a great many of our Departments we have special professional annexes. We have an Engineering Department in the Local Government Department, the Land Commission and the Board of Works. It has already been suggested from this side of the House that the exigencies of these various departments are not such, and that the work is not of such a highly technical character, that we could not get the same staff of engineers to carry out all these different works.
We have also the question of the Civic Guards. It has been stated frequently from this side of the House that the number of that force is altogether in excess of the requirements of the country. It is true you have recently added to the duties of the Force: you asked them to carry out certain works for a short space of time, in connection with the Census of Production. You have them collecting certain statistics in regard to tillage. I do not know to what extent these labours which are demanded from the Police Force can be relied upon ultimately, when you require really expert information, and when you desire to be absolutely certain of it. There is no doubt that in the larger areas you are making additional calls upon the Police Force in regard to traffic regulations. Nevertheless, I find that in Scotland, where you have a larger number of thickly-populated centres, you have one constable to every 752 of the population; in this country you have one constable for every 426 of the population. If we take as a basis of comparison the Scotch County Boroughs, which I think would be a more reasonable comparison, because there are several cities in Scotland and we have only one large city here—if you take as a basis of comparison the strength of the Police Force in the County Boroughs you find in Scotland there is one constable for every 1,062 of the population, whereas in this country we have one constable for every 426 of the population. In addition to that, even if we are satisfied that the strength of the force should be maintained at the figure the Ministry require, we ought to see that the amount that is voted ought to be spent. There is no use voting money here as we are doing on the present occasion for the upkeep of the public services which we think are necessary and essential for the maintenance of public order and safety if the money is not expended. In 1925-26 there was £61,291 unexpended, in 1926-27 there was £43,730 unexpended. In the Appropriation Accounts no doubt that will be explained as a saving. Whenever money is spent in less amount than what has been estimated for that is said to be saving. Over-estimation has characterised the Government accountancy during the last few years. In the last Public Accounts Committee Report it was stated that over-estimation amounted to 14 per cent. There is no proof whatever and no statement from the Minister to show that there is any system of internal checks in the Department which would reduce that over-estimation and which will see that the money as voted by the House will be expended. You have the same thing with regard to the Army. We believe the whole cost of the Army ought to be reduced, but if it is necessary to spend the amount which the Ministry allege is necessary for the maintenance of the Army, to strengthen the Police Force in this country, and to defend it from foreign enemies, it ought not to be the case that you should have, as you had in 1925-26, £389,649 less in expenditure than the amount actually granted, and in 1926-27, when the Ministry ought to have been in a position to make up their minds definitely as to what their future Army policy would be, that they ought to have been in a position in which they could say what the Army should cost after a certain number of years' experience behind them and ought to be in a position to reduce them to a certain standard, still they were in the position that £276,716 was unexpended.
I submit that that state of affairs and the position with regard to Army pensions, where you had large amounts granted in 1925-26 and in 1926-27 running into hundreds of thousands of pounds, which were not, in fact, expended in those years, are a plain indication that the Government Departments are not exercising, in the making of Estimates, in the control of expenditure and in the cutting out of waste that supervision which is necessary and which ought to be expected.
With regard to the general policy of the Government, we are of opinion that the policy which was outlined by the Minister for Agriculture yesterday—namely, that the attention of the nation and the attention of the Government ought to be concentrated on the production of better butter and on the improvement of our dairy produce for the British market is not satisfactory. Only to-day you have a statement in the British daily Press that unemployment in Great Britain is increasing enormously. There is no doubt about that. In spite of that fact and in spite of the fact that our competitors in the British markets have immensely greater resources and better technical training than we have to improve their produce and to get in front of us, we are still—because we are told we have such a splendid Minister for Agriculture whose policy must rule—persisting in putting all our eggs into one basket, and believing absolutely that the only hope for agriculture in the Free State is to concentrate on the improvement of our farm produce for sale in the British markets.
We would like to have some assurance from the Government with regard to the other side of the picture. I think even the Minister for Agriculture, who I regret is not here, will admit that there is another side; in fact, he admitted as much to Deputy Dr. Ryan the other day, and said that there was some element of truth in the statement that we should, so far as we could, encourage the growing of wheat and try to make ourselves within certain limits as self-contained a nation as possible. The difficulty with regard to the Minister for Agriculture seems to be that he does not see the point about the home market as distinct from the foreign market. He is apt to look on the question of Irish industry from the point of view of a speculator on the London Stock Exchange, who asks himself whether it would be better to put money into the Irish agricultural industry or into some foreign manufacturing industry. There is no doubt from the purely business point of view, looking at it from the point of the speculator, that we must admit that our nation is far behind other nations in regard to productivity, but is that going to discourage us? Are we going to look at this from the standpoint of the ruling prices in the British market, from the point of view of conditions in Canada or elsewhere, or are we going to look at it from the point of view of real statesmanship—namely, that our population has been dwindling, that the economic fact is that while bullocks have been increasing men have been decreasing? One must realise that the steps proposed in the present policy of the Government are not sufficient, nor do I think that they can claim they are sufficient, to change that state of affairs.
Some policy is, however, necessary to make the Irish people feel that the Government are doing their best for the farmer, to make the man who tills the land realise that he has a real friend in headquarters in Dublin, who is doing his best to reduce railway freights, to see that he gets good prices for his produce, to see that he will not be left in the position in which he has hitherto been left— namely, that the man who employs only a herd and raises bullocks is going to get the same relief in agricultural rates and in income tax as the man who gives good employment and is a real benefit to the district in which he lives. I think that all these points deserve consideration, and I hope that the Government, in view of the serious condition of affairs in England and the steadily-growing wave of depression over there, will realise, as we do, that while we are anxious to sell our products in as perfect condition as possible, and at as high a price as possible, we feel it is necessary to build up our industries at home, that the bulk of our population who are attached to the soil are either leaving the soil for America or drifting into the towns, and that some policy is necessary to keep our population on the soil in future.
There is also the question of the Gaeltacht. When that question was being discussed here the Minister for Finance, while he was quite plausible, as he generally is when putting up a bad case and making excuses, was not even doing justice to himself in the matter. The fact is that since the old Congested Districts Board was abolished the Land Commission have done nothing at all in comparison with what that Board used to do in poorer districts. The result is that you have Deputies from various Western constituencies getting up here and, to the amazement and disappointment of Ministers, asking for doles and subsidies. Why is that? The reason is that under the old British regime you had a special department established and special arrangements made to deal with poverty and with small-holders, to provide them with employment throughout the year, to distribute land, and to give them grants for building and roofing their houses and for other purposes. The Land Commission—I do not think any of the heads of that Department will contradict me—are not doing the same amount of work as was done by the Congested Districts Board, and there is nothing like the same number of men employed in the Congested Districts as there was under the old regime.
The very estates which the Land Commission have distributed, or are proposing to distribute, were all arranged for and the entire work in connection with their distribution was actually prepared and done by the old Congested Districts Board. The present Land Commission carried the work through and finished it, and now want to take upon themselves the honour of doing work which was really done by the old Congested Districts Board. Despite the fact that the Congested Districts Board had to cater for the poorest sections of the people, had to distribute all these doles and grants, at which the Ministry scoff, they proved it could be a genuine business proposition and they handed over to the National Exchequer a sum of over one million pounds. Our experience of the present Minister for Fisheries does not lead us to believe, if he continues in his present aimless way, that he is going to do the things which the Congested Districts Board did. When the Ministers and Secretaries Bill was going through, he and other members of the Government had ample opportunity to state their policy. They had the assistance of their officials, and they had the Gaeltacht Commission Report, and despite the fact that they had two years to consider the question it was revealed that they had no policy to deal with one-third of our population. On the other hand, however, we are asked to subsidise the creamery industry because the Minister for Agriculture tells us that sixpence a gallon is going to be a safe financial foundation for the future prosperity of the country. I do not believe it.
I say that while these other problems of the poorer areas and of unemployment are not being considered by the Government, while they have no policy to deal with these problems, it is not fair that Ministers should present us with Bills like the Creamery Bill and tell us that in the particular matters they have in hand they require our support and that they feel that the situation is all right. We cannot feel that. We have no proof of it. We feel that it would be better to ease off legislation, not to introduce so many Bills, to try and realise that, after all, what the country needs is a rest, and see what the officials that we already have and the Departments that are already in existence are doing. Let us try them out. Let us examine them. That comes back again to the original question of the value of the Economy Committee of the Minister for Finance. That Committee will, no doubt, tell us that certain economies of a small nature are possible, that, as the Minister says himself in a jocose manner—a manner that I think is not the appropriate manner that a Minister for Finance ought to adopt in this matter—a messenger might be saved in this Department, or that the buttons of a Civic Guard might be saved in some other way. No doubt the Economy Committee, in line with these jocose suggestions of the Minister, will tell us that certain small economies are going to be effected. They will be only a small matter, and the real point is not that we must have all these officials and departments, but whether they are giving value to the country or not, whether they can say, as in the case of an ordinary business firm, that they are doing work that is of real value and that is really necessary for the country, and that they are not simply kept there for preserving red-tape regulations. That question will not be entered into, but these are questions that are constantly coming before the Dáil.
I trust that after the session that is now being closed and when the Minister will have the task of revising the estimates and preparing them, if he hopes for more co-operation and helpfulness from the Opposition, he will realise that in these financial matters especially, this House, as representing the people, cannot take for granted the position that he sees and that is perhaps quite clear and definite to his mind. The country cannot see that. The country sees that it is being bled white. It sees all its poverty and depression. It does not see that it is rounding the corner. It demands from the Government some special effort that it will exercise more care, and that now when the conditions have changed and when it can expect a genuine will for work that it should work forward in the right direction for the advancement of the country. I hope the Minister will acquiesce in the request of the Opposition in this matter.
I have to regret again that the back benches of Cumann na nGaedheal are not contributing to the debate. They are leaving it all to us. The tone of the discussion, some of which the Minister for Finance has heard, has been by no means controversial. I certainly am not anxious to introduce into it a note of controversy. I look at the financial position frankly with a very real anxiety. I look at it from the point of view of the Ministers' successors and their successors. The position is very serious. Let us take this perfectly simple fact. I am not now anxious to use one word of controversy. I recognise that we are all up against the really big problem in this country of how to make our very narrow means stretch to our necessities. Take this fact. You have the total capital value of this country estimated at three hundred and fifty millions of money. If you add together your central tax revenue, your local tax revenue, and the five and a quarter millions that we send across the water, they are equal to ten per cent. on that total capital value. That three hundred and fifty millions includes the whole of the assets which are supposed to be covered by the five and a quarter millions that we export. The idea that you can carry on this State in a condition in which you first have to take ten per cent. off your total capital value for the functioning of the State, as distinct from the maintenance of the individual people in it, to me is an appalling state of things. I find it very difficult to see how that can be adjusted. You can say that you cannot do without this or that. Well, if you have to raise ten per cent. on your total capital value every year for your housekeeping, before you begin to live in your house, you are in a position which no ordinary man could maintain. None of us can get ten per cent. on our money with safety.
If this State is running its Governmental institutions, local and otherwise, on the lines that it has to raise for Governmental purposes broadly ten per cent. upon its total capital value, before an individual in the State can clothe and house himself, this country is certainly in a position to cause the greatest anxiety to anyone who looks forward. The Minister for Finance is responsible for a very remarkable statement. I am not now putting it to him in a controversial sense. I am putting it to him as something to be examined and justified. He told a meeting that the land of Ireland could support no more people. The Minister for Agriculture has certain very progressive policies of one kind or another. We have a Creameries Bill, Co-operative Bills, Agricultural Credit Bills and all sorts of Bills. What is the purpose of all those Bills if the statement made by the Minister for Finance is true that the land can support no more people? From the Central Fund from which we are now taking money for various purposes in a year we sent to the relief of that industry roughly three millions of money—to that industry which in the view of the Minister for Finance—he may have changed that view, and I am now giving him an opportunity of saying so—cannot support any more people.
That is the basis upon which we are to continue to provide ten per cent. of our total capital value every year; ten per cent. of the total capital value of this country for the Central Fund, for the local fund and for the export of capital abroad. The Minister may not be anxious about this, but certainly I think it ought to give him cause for anxiety. People have curious ideas of looking at national balances. The tendency, I am afraid, is to look at your balance sheet in terms of money. You produce money, with goods as an accident. You produce goods, with the maintenance of human beings as an accident in the production of goods. What I am suggesting is that in this country, at any rate, we ought frankly and fundamentally to alter that and look at the production of goods as an accident compared with the production of a livelihood for the people. If the land cannot support any more people, what is the good of the land? If the land policy which is super-added to that cannot enable it to produce any more people what is the justification for that land policy? The Minister for Finance may, since he made that statement, have found some hope in the policy of his colleagues, but I can see the condition quite easily in which everything which the Minister for Agriculture is asking for is attained, in which he can get such goods, in which he can get more goods, in which he can get higher prices for goods in the market, and yet the land will continue to be in the position of not being able to maintain any more people. Those are the fundamental things which I am offering to the Minister for consideration. I believe the statement made by the Minister for Finance was a very courageous statement, and a statement that, if it were true, it was a statement in the making of which he did a very real service to this country.
But it is not a statement which one can reconcile with the agricultural policy and the Agricultural Department into which we are pouring all this money from the Central Fund to-day. One finds the same thing in relation to fisheries, and I heard the Minister for Finance speak very sympathetically of the fisheries the other day. There is no one in Ireland who will say with more real meaning than I do that that is an extremely difficult problem. It is not so easy a problem to solve. What is absolutely certain is that the money that has been taken out of the Central Fund in aid of that purpose is not being operative in maintaining more people in Ireland from the wealth of the fisheries. If the money which is now being used in the Fishery Department was given to a business firm to use in a year in the progress of that business, they could undoubtedly distribute many times as much money to the ordinary fishermen as they do. We have had experience of doing it and we know. Business is not carried on in its gross. Business is carried on in its net, and if at any time in the carrying on of the Irish fishery trade we had at our disposal to use in that business the money that was used by the Department the fishing industry would now be on a different footing.
I do sincerely say that as far as I know, and as far as I have been able to investigate, no money which to-day is being taken out of the Central Fund to be given to the Fishery Department is operative for the provision of a livelihood to maintain many in Ireland in the sea coast fishing. I am not now saying anything in relation to the inland fisheries. Probably most of the good work that was done in relation to the inland fisheries was done by the Civic Guards and not by the Fishery Department at all. Probably the development of the inland fisheries was through the supervision of the Garda. I cannot speak with any knowledge of that. That money is not being translated into the livelihood of men, and that is the test. Our balance-sheet every year ought to be just this: How many livelihoods of men on a standard of frugal comfort are we producing out of the resources of this country and how is our Governmental policy in relation to the gathering in and expending of money being operative in increasing or decreasing the capacity of this country to produce livelihoods for men? You can produce all sorts of money and yet not do it.
The policy which the Minister for Agriculture stands over, as far as I understand it, is diametrically opposed to the policy of the Minister for Finance at any time I have heard him speak upon the broader subject of national development. One single customer for the perishable products of one single trade and all sorts of ancillary advantages and controls in the possession of that syndicate. You can think of any revenue you like, you can build up any possible amount of goods you like, any quality of goods you like, and it has no necessary relation whatever to the production of extra livelihood for a single man in this country. If you were to look at agriculture simply and solely from the point of efficiency and you had to put an engineer, an economist, a business man or a farmer in charge of it, and you simply asked him to produce from the actual acreage in Ireland the amount of agricultural produce which he now produces—just that—you would not require the people you have here. It is upon the inefficiency of our system of agriculture, and not upon the efficiency of our system, that we maintain in this country the agricultural population which we are maintaining. I think the Minister for Finance agrees with me. That now is an extraordinary statement to make. You do not need it. Tear away your roads, pull down your hedges, get rid of your land hunger and work this country purely and simply as a farm efficiently for the production of agricultural produce, and you can produce agricultural produce and more agricultural produce than you are producing to-day, and of a higher quality, with one-third or one-fourth of the population. Now that is what is happening there. There is, as far as I can see, the confusion of these two ideas. The Minister for Agriculture has a perfectly clear idea in the use of money which he is taking out of the Central Fund. He wants to get more agricultural produce. He wants to get a better quality of agricultural products, but he is not working to maintain a larger population in this country. And there is nothing whatever, no necessary connection what ever between the success of the policy of the Minister for Agriculture and the success of the policy for which I believe the Minister for Finance stands I am going to complete now the quotation from the Minister for Finance. He said that Ireland can support no more people—I am not speaking now exactly literally, but I am certainly not misrepresenting him. He said: "If any of your young people, if the young people of Ireland are looking for maintenance they must look for it in industry." Now your whole Central Fund expenditure, its whole confusion, its national inefficiency is due to the fact that there are those two perfectly clear and distinct antagonistic lines of thought operating in the Government at the present moment. Can you justify paying out of these central funds for the purpose of agriculture, for the maintenance of the I.A.O.S., for the development of creameries, funds as you are now doing for an industry which the Minister for Finance said cannot support any more people? That is the crucial test. Which of them is right? Until that fundamental difference of opinion is reconciled there can be no sound government of this country from that Front Bench.
Take again the question of expenditure. A great deal of the expenditure of this country is going upon the enforcement services. I take two of the outstanding enforcement services, and I am not using the term in its technical meaning. I take the Army and the Gárda Síochána. I am not going to deal with those on conventional lines. The cost of the maintenance of the judicial machinery and of the law in this country is depending simply and solely on the relation of the people to that law. If the people are sympathetic to that law, if they are enthusiastically anxious to uphold it, if they feel it is their friend and that those who are in charge of it are their friends, we can cut and hack that expenditure on the maintenance of law in this country down to any figure we like. I am speaking as one who is very anxious to see the necessary cost of the maintenance of law reduced by putting the people behind the law. Is this amount of money which we are now taking out of the Central Fund greater or less through the atmosphere and the policy of the Front Bench opposite? If they would feel, if they would try to be more sympathetic, if we did not have the scornful remarks——
Hear, hear!
If we did not have these obvious differences of opinion which we have had in this House on that Front Bench, would the cost of the maintenance of the law in this country, and the amount which we now have to vote out of the Central Fund be what it is? I remember a discussion about prisoners here and I remember a very sympathetic attempt being made by the President to find a way of accommodation. I remember another Minister following him with violent diatribes. I remember the Minister for Finance actually tying himself into knots in an honest attmpt to find a formula which would relieve that situation and which would relieve that disturbance and the cost which was created by that situation, and we found another Minister immediately afterwards deliberately overthrowing the boat again. From one side to the other the feeling rose again, and every one of those things—that atmosphere of mind—is inevitably reflected in the amount of money which we vote out of the Central Fund to-day for the maintenance of what you call law and order.
I raised the question here before very sympathetically in relation to one Department of the State as to whether I could get some approximate figures. I took out the figures that went on enforcement expenditure in the Department of Industry and Commerce and compared them with the amount which went obviously on production. I put the figure of production as high as ever I could. I think the House will recollect that the proportion obviously going to production was small compared with that going to enforcement. Those are the things which matter.
We have high over-head expenses here, and the destroying of high over-head expenses is a ruthless process. I have seen it many times in life. People who are living on a standard of expenditure, who are living in a house of a certain kind, using transport and social facilities of a certain kind—the spectre of shame was lying over those people. The man who does not know that he can balance his individual budget, who is living to a special standard which he cannot maintain, who is living upon a standard of personal expenditure in relation to other people and which he cannot maintain, has in front of him the spectre of shame. It is the same also with government. The remedy in every one of these cases, and the remedy that made the difference between perturbation of mind, anxiety of mind and very grievous pain to those people, was the deliberate crushing down of their overhead expenses. They did try different methods and did deliberately do certain things, although they could live within their means. I have three cases in my mind now where that process of deliberately getting down to a different standard has meant that they have gone back considerably above the standard from which they broke down and which they could never have maintained unless they had gone back.
It is exactly the same with this Government. We are travelling first class with third class tickets. We are a poor country, trying to maintain the simulacra of wealth and luxury. We are trying to maintain standards of expenditure and personal grandeur and governmental munificence which we cannot afford to do. We are trying to get 10 per cent. on our money, before we begin to live, for overhead expenditure, for preventable expenditure in many cases. I do not think this thing can be done in a day. I am not saying it can, and the Minister's successor will not do it in a day; but we ought to begin to do it. There does not, unfortunately, seem to be the sign. There is certainly no sign, in the amount we are now voting out of the Central Fund, of an attempt to do it. I think on the part of all sides in the House there ought to be a deliberate understanding that in those things which it is necessary to do and which are unpopular, in order that we can get back to the standard of living which this country can afford and begin to develop on, all parties in this House ought to be prepared to take their share of the unpopularity.
We must really face this problem.
We cannot continue to give out of the existing production of this country for the maintenance of a standard of governmental living and for its amenities—we cannot afford to give that proportion of production which we are doing, and it is in that spirit, and not in any controversial party spirit, that one who is really deeply anxious, looking forward 50 years at least, and who cannot see a solution on the present lines 50 years hence, asks the Ministry now to begin the work which their successors will have to carry out.
In exactly the same way as in the retrenchment of expenditure, so, too, in the production of revenue. I do not intend to deal with that for more than two minutes. The proposal which is made to-day by Deputy Fahy follows the example of the French Government who faced exactly the same difficulty. They did it when faced with the franc gone away to 240. One of their means of doing that was to hand over a certain amount of their re-insurance revenue, and they got that re-insurance revenue specially for the purpose of balancing the Budget. I am not worried about the re-insurance revenue amounting to £175,000 any more than I am worried about the Mutual Insurance Bill. They are just necessary links, essential links, preliminary links to a thing which has to be very slowly built. It does not matter who takes on the job of getting back for Ireland the one and a half millions of money going out of this country for insurance, if the job is going to be successfully done it will have to be done slowly. We want it begun now, and if the Minister will take that particular little scheme of reinsuring his own local authorities' assets as a basis, he can from that develop to the building up on the top of that mutual society of the central organisation which is absolutely necessary as a centre through which he can co-ordinate existing and future Irish national insurance schemes into one big national scheme, so that he or his successors will eventually get back into the country the money which is now going out. In the process of tackling that he will have opposition, all the forces will gather from the four corners of the earth to attack the effort. I have no doubt whatever about it. If he is going to make a success of it he will need the assistance of every party in the House, and he will need the assistance and cooperation of organised and enlightened public opinion throughout the country. But when he has done that, and begun slowly to build upon the little germ of mutual insurance, and when he has won out there, he will have set the foundation of a scheme not merely for getting back into this country one and a half millions of money, but he will be winning back into the possession of this country control of the five fingers of the grip which is responsible for that system of production which we now have of a single customer enforcing upon this country by ordinary economic and commercial need that standard of living which has meant in the past, and if allowed to continue will mean in the future, a miserable small population living on a standard of comfort as low as the people will endure.
Like Deputy Flinn, I do not intend to make remarks that could be called controversial this evening, but I would like to know, before this Bill goes through, whether the system of raids and searching which is going on in Dublin is going to be normal for the future. I am not asking from any political point of view, but as a citizen interested in the rights of citizenship and all that, whether the raids and entering of houses on the part of the police authorities, the searching of people at Mass, and so on, is going to be continued indefinitely, or whether the Government has any change of programme to announce. Two days ago there was a raid for over two hours on a house in Dawson Street, and four men, rather highly paid, were during that time employed in searching a number of people on the premises as well as everybody else who visited the premises during that time. I do not think that the two hours' raid, which was a very expensive thing, amounted to one solitary item in the way of results. I do not think that they learned anything, and I do not think they have new information of any kind as a result of it. This has been going on week after week for a long time, and it looks as if, instead of easing off, it is being intensified. Last Sunday week a man well known to a number of Deputies on both sides of the House (Maurice Twomey) was observed at Mass by a C.I.D. man. The C.I.D. man kept his eye on him so that he would not escape him, followed him, arrested and searched him. A few weeks ago two ladies, one of whom was a hard-working member of a hard-working profession, were accosted by the C.I.D. They were told to get into a taxi, and they were taken to Pearse Street Station to be searched. The C.I.D. men admitted that they never had seen one of the ladies before.
They apologised, and told her that it was because she was in bad company she was arrested. The bad company lady is a partner in an important establishment in town; she has never been a member of a political organisation in her life, and she has never been accused of a political offence. They never found her with any political document, yet before her friend she was described as bad company, and because the other lady was in her company both of them were subject to this scandalous thing, that walking along in broad daylight through Dawson Street they were accosted by C.I.D. men, told to get into a taxi, brought to Pearse Street and searched. I wonder do Deputies realise that that sort of thing is going on every day in the week? A doctor, who, to my own knowledge, has not got one hour in the 24 to do mischief of any kind, was arrested quite recently in the streets and brought to Pearse Street to be searched. I am not asking it from any political point of view, because generally I leave political arguments to other people. I am asking it from the point of view of a citizen: is this sort of thing going to be normal, and do the Government consider that any good is going to come from such a policy? I wonder whether Ministers opposite would not admit—in private, at least—that that raid on Cumann na mBan was more of a stimulus to activity on the part of that body than if they got a gift of £1,000. Is it not on raids and all that sort of thing that such bodies thrive? It will be a rather serious thing, I think, if it goes on—if the Government has no policy other than to continue this system of arresting all sorts of people on suspicion, taking them to different barracks to be searched, and all that sort of thing. I do not think it will lead to the stability that everybody so much desires, and I hardly think it will lead to political contentment. Before the Vote passes, I think we should have some statement upon that from some responsible Minister.
With regard to the Vote generally, I think, as it is coming so near the time for dissolving, that the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Local Government should make some statement on the question of unemployment. The other evening we had a very unsatisfactory statement from the Minister for Finance on the motion for the adjournment. He told us to go home, each Deputy, and study. I am sure he did not say it in any cynical way. I am sure that he was as sympathetic as anyone else with the unemployment problem, but his only solution was that each Deputy should go home and study what could be done for the unemployed. I submit it shows a great shallowness of thought on the part of the Government if that is all the Minister for Finance can tell us on the subject. If the Minister for Finance looks at the trade returns and realises that the greater portion of the necessities of the people of this country is coming in from abroad. I think he need only ask himself what would give employment to the people here if we are making contracts outside the country for the supplying of our necessities. What would give employment if our clothes, boots, furniture, agricultural machinery, building material and a great portion of our food are all produced abroad? What would give us employment, I wonder, unless we get contracts for supplying other people with goods? I think we should not expect the Belgians, the Germans or the Russians to give us contracts for supplying furniture or building materials to them when our own people are not expected to give us such contracts. It seems to me that there is a great deal too much mystery made about the problem of unemployment. People talk about it as if it were a thing that could not be solved, that it was a very difficult subject. But until we have advanced a great deal further on the line of supplying our own necessities I do not know that we should talk about the difficulty of it. It seems very natural to me at all events, that the one way of employing the people of the country is that the requirements of the people generally should be met from within the country. If we decide that we are not going to supply such requirements from within the country, then we have got to contract with some other countries, either implicitly or explicitly. Otherwise we will be without employment. It cannot be said that the Government has attempted to help the people to achieve that position of supplying their own requirements from within the country. There has been more cynicism on the question of tariffs than on any other question. The other evening the Minister for Agriculture— usually he does not talk nonsense— made the remark that a tariff is an unnatural thing. I wonder if there was ever a more shallow remark made on any subject before. A tariff is an unnatural thing. This Dáil is an unnatural thing. The nation is a very unnatural thing. Practically everything one mentions in the way of civilisation is an unnatural thing, and everyone who apparently believes in nationhood would not deny that he submits to the nation as a fundamental thing. To talk about a tariff as an unnatural thing seems to me as shallow a thing as could be uttered on the subject. One was further amazed to find Deputy Morrissey pleading for more production. We are all agreed that more production is a very necessary thing, that it must be done if even the present population is to live in the country. But the method adopted by most countries to stimulate home production is to exclude foreign goods. Was there ever a party, I wonder, less enthusiastic for the exclusion of foreign goods than the Labour Party?
Yes.
The Deputy himself has been very silent on it until now.
At all events, I submit that we should all get a lot more determined on that question, and that we should not talk about the exclusion of foreign goods as an unnatural and artificial thing; that we should regard it as a fundamental right of the people; that since no other country is prepared to support our unemployed we should claim the right to help our unemployed, and that we should not be so anxious to talk about the difficulties, about higher prices and so on, as was the case here in the debates on tariffs. In the Minister for Agriculture's statement it was also revealed that he practically gives up the idea of Ireland producing grain. He says we simply cannot grow wheat for our own requirements. We all know we cannot grow barley, because barley is coming in in such huge quantities from abroad that there is practically no market for it in the country. We cannot produce malt. It is rather a curious thing that in Ireland, studded with malt-houses, we cannot produce malt. We can produce oats, but at a price which does not pay. Then the Minister for Agriculture leaves us with this prospect with regard to agriculture. We go in for the production of butter, eggs and beef, and for a rather unstable quantity of bacon, because, apparently, he does not object to bacon coming in here from Poland, Latvia, China, or anywhere else. He says if we are able to buy that bacon cheaper and sell our own at dearer prices that it is all right. As Deputy Derrig pointed out, the market for bacon abroad is weak and undependable. Again I think the Minister for Agriculture's statement on the subject of bacon is hardly sufficient. I think he should be able to say why it is that we cannot produce bacon as cheaply as the Poles, the Latvians, or such people. In a country where there is such terrific unemployment, and where men are prepared to work, practically for any wages, it should not be a difficult thing to meet that competition. It struck me as a very weak point in his argument. Anyhow his picture does not show any great room for any increase in population. It does not show any great room for absorbing even the present unemployed population. If his picture of the tendencies he favours in agriculture in Ireland is accepted, I think it shows that the population employed in agriculture will probably continue to decline, because the efficiency, all the best machinery, and all that sort of thing that he favours in such industries as he mentioned, are not going to lead, at all events, to an increase in the number of people employed in agriculture. The Government, apparently, are quite content to jog along in that way, making such apologies as we recently heard, that nobody should object to our Tariff Commission taking so long over a case, because in America cases have taken much longer time.
I think in the present circumstances of this country that to make such a comparison with America is merely fooling, and denotes a lack of interest on the part of the Government that is rather lamentable. Certainly, in the present conditions, I think the Government should explain what is to be done with regard to the huge unemployed population in the towns. If there is to be no further forcing of industry than the present system allows, if there is to be no such thing as excluding foreign furniture, foreign agricultural machinery, or anything of that kind, it is a very bad outlook for a great number of towns with a surplus population. I do not mean to say, supposing a greater number of things were excluded, that all the towns would necessarily gain, but, at least, a certain number of towns would gain, and if they were encouraged, something would be done.
During the discussion on the Vote on Account a great deal was said about the roads. I think we should be told definitely what is going to be the position in October when the two millions grant is expended. It has been stated by several road engineers that the machinery for road-making is being put aside, as there is no prospect of sufficient money being available for road-making for a long period, and that a great number of road hands are being disbanded. That is a pretty serious outlook, especially on the eve of winter. I think it is time there was a definite statement on the whole subject of transport. What does the Government intend to do after their experience of the two millions grant, with the experience of the working of the Railway Tribunal, also with the fact in front of them that railway receipts are down £55,000 this year, and that road transport is greatly increasing? Are they satisfied that the two systems should be continued? Have they made up their minds on which side they will throw their weight? Are they going to continue paying for trunk roads, thereby encouraging road transport, and, at the same time, are they going to continue their support of the railways by maintaining the Railways Tribunal, and asserting control over the railways that the Railways Act gave them? We should really have some definite statement on the subject, because a great many people are anxious about it. Thousands and thousands of miles of roads have not been affected by that grant. If sums for the maintenance of the roads that have been improved by the two millions are not available from the Road Fund, it will look as if we had wasted two millions, and a great many other millions as well. I hardly think that the Government has given the subject the attention that it requires.
For instance, I cannot reconcile statements from two different Ministers on the subject. The Minister for Finance in the course of the Budget discussion said:
We realise that what the Deputy said is quite correct. The prospects for the Road Fund do not seem to be as good as they would need to be.
The Minister for Local Government replying on the Local Government Estimate, said:
We have no reason to think that the finances available for the improvement and maintenance of trunk roads are not going to be there.
That shows you how far they are separated.
One is future tense and the other is present.
Have they really anything in mind or are they letting it slide in a very happy-go-lucky way? A great deal was said in the discussion that took place on the Vote on Account about salaries. Some of the remarks struck me as hardly being serious they were so wrong; that was with regard to the attitude of this Party on the question of salaries. Deputy Davin wanted to know if Deputy de Valera thought £200 a year sufficient salary for an engineer. I think neither Deputy de Valera nor anyone else could answer that question, because surely the salary must have some relation to the means of the employer. If the farmers of the country are as badly off as they seem to be— and as I think, and as Deputy Davin thinks they are—probably £200 is much too high.
That is very interesting.
took the Chair.
Deputy Dr. Hennessy followed with illuminating remarks on the subject. He was against small salaries, and against certain economies that the Government practised. Deputy Hennessy showed great humanity in his remarks, but when there was an opportunity in the division lobby Deputy Hennessy voted for an increase in the sugar tax on every slum child, on every slum invalid, on every old age pensioner, on every unemployed person, and one wondered what sort of inconsistent humanity Deputy Hennessy was made of. The Deputy was quite sarcastic about the Fianna Fáil Party favouring economies. He did not favour economy. In the interests of the poor, he was altogether against economies, but in the interests of the poor also, he voted for the sugar tax, the cinema tax, and various other taxes. Frankly, before this debate closes, I think we should have a general statement as to Government policy. We should have a great deal more information as to whether they intend to continue the same course and whether they think that that course is going to lead to anything but intense suffering, continuous emigration, and the other misfortunes that at present afflict the country.
I want to take advantage of this Bill to try to elicit some further information on the question of housing. I notice on Tuesday last the Minister for Finance stated that he had very little time to refer to the matter. I know that he did not mean that in any flippant spirit. But I do think that the House and the country generally are entitled to get some information as to what the intentions of the Government are on this important matter. Since May 15th grants both to local authorities and to private persons have been withdrawn, and I know that some people and some local authorities had schemes ready to start when the news was broadcast through the country. I know for certain that the Wexford Corporation had a scheme ready. They had a certain amount of money, and they were basing the cost of their scheme on the amount of money that they thought they would get from the Government by way of grants, but that scheme has now been knocked on the head. I think the Minister will agree with me when I say that this is the wrong time to stop giving grants to local authorities, because if houses are going to be built, and built economically, the proper time for building them is during the summer and in the fine weather. They have promised us a Bill in the autumn. Nobody knows what that Bill will be like. Whether it will embody the promise given by the President and the Minister for Finance early in the year that we were going to get long-term loans or not we do not know. But I think the Minister will agree that if the Bill is kept over until the autumn nobody will be in a position to start any housing programme until next year, as it is most uneconomic, I suggest, to start building houses in the middle of the winter. You have wet and short days, and things of that kind, which make the cost of building houses dearer than if the houses were built under the ideal conditions that we have during the summer time.
A certain amount of money was allocated for local authorities for housing this year—a sum of £5,000. I wonder if that is all spent yet. When we referred to the smallness of that item, during the passage of the Local Government Estimate, we were informed by the Minister for Local Government that, in his opinion, it was entirely adequate, that he saw no anxiety on the part of local authorities to apply for grants. Our answer was that it was because of the fact that it was impossible to secure long-term loans, and that the grants themselves, with short-term loans, would not solve the housing problem. If that £5,000, small as it is, is spent, I think it goes to show that there is an anxiety on the part of the local authorities to do the best for the people. Speaking for one local authority, the Wexford Corporation, we have built forty-two houses within the last two years. We had another scheme ready, and the fact that the grants are withdrawn has stopped it. I do hope that the Minister will endeavour to do something before the Recess, because this is the time of the year when houses can be built to advantage. Surely the grants could be renewed until such time as the Government are in a position to bring forward the Housing Bill that we are promised.
Deputy Moore said that the Labour Party were not anxious for tariffs—I think that that was the sense of his remarks. I want to assure Deputy Moore that this Party was pledged to tariffs long before the Fianna Fáil Party came into existence, and that we are as anxious as any other body to have the industries of the country protected. We certainly are not out for wholesale tariffs. We want tariffs to protect existing industries; we want tariffs to protect industries which are staple industries in their own areas, and we are as anxious that the people should support the manufactures of their own country as any other party or individuals are. I do think that the Minister for Industry and Commerce and his Department could do a great deal more in that direction. I think that some person in that Department should have assigned to him the duty of being a propagandist, if one might call it so, or something of that kind; that something should be done by the Department to draw the attention of the people to articles that are manufactured in the country, because a great many people do not take the trouble to find out whether things are manufactured here or not. I was glad to notice that during the past twelve months various local authorities opened their eyes to the fact that it is necessary to support our industries in order to enable the country to live, and that they have had exhibitions held. I have no doubt that that has been doing a certain amount of good, but I consider that it should be one of the foremost functions of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and of his Department to try to educate the people up to the importance of supporting the products of their own country; that if the Minister and his Department would apply themselves to something of that kind the people would realise that it is in their best interests to support the products of their own country. I know quite well that in many cases it would be useless to suggest to our unemployed that they should buy everything Irish. That would be an impossibility, because of the fact that a great many among the unemployed have very little money to purchase anything. But many things are brought in that this country manufactures as well as, and in many cases better than, outside manufacturers, and at the same price, and if we could get the people to think about these things and to realise the importance of supporting them, it would go a long way towards solving the unemployment question.
On tariffs I agree with some of the remarks which came from the Fianna Fáil Party, and I agree especially with their plea that the Tariff Commission should not wait until a particular industrialist comes forward with an application for a tariff. Many people running industries in this country are content to live with a small turnover, forgetful altogether of the fact that there are numbers of people living around them who could be engaged in these industries if the manufacturers put their best step forward and endeavoured to have a tariff placed against an article that is competing against them from the other side of the Channel. I believe that it should be the function of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to inquire into the various industries to find out what they are capable of, and there are many industries at present in the country that are capable of greater things.
If the Minister and his Department would apply themselves to find out what their capabilities are they would be doing very good work. We know that there are a great many lackadaisical people amongst the employing and industrial classes who are content to go on living in a rut year after year. If the country is to be put on its feet in a proper manner the Minister will have to go into those people's places and endeavour to persuade them to get out of that rut and to do something, not alone for themselves, but for the community at large. After all, I take it that we are all here in the interests of every class in the country, and it is only by means such as I suggest that, in my opinion, we are going to have our towns industrialised and that we are going to do good for the people. Again I would ask the Minister to request the Executive Council to reconsider their policy in so far as housing is concerned. As I have said, they have promised us a Bill in the autumn, but I do think that in the interim period the grants ought to be renewed, so that some councils and private persons that I know would be in a position to go ahead with schemes that they have in hands and that they are ready to proceed with.
Even the newspapers complained the other day of the hasty manner in which financial measures were being passed through the House. That was unsatisfactory from the national point of view. But the way in which this Bill has been presented to the House is even more unsatisfactory. The Minister for Finance was not even here on its introduction. We got no satisfactory explanation as to what we should anticipate the result of this Bill would be. We are put in the position of legislating in the dark. Section 1 of the Bill deals with the granting of supplies from the Central Fund, and Section 2 empowers the Minister, in whatever way he thinks fit, to raise by borrowing any money which may be required. We have had no explanation as to what he proposes to do, or as to what his necessities are, as he perceives them. For instance, we do not know exactly how much money is at his disposal at the moment, or what he anticipates he will get in from time to time. We may make our own calculations, but I think we are entitled to know what his calculations and the calculations of his Department are as to the money that is to come in, and as to how far he may have to look for short-term loans from the banks. Further, we are entitled to know whether he proposes to issue more of the National Loan. I suppose about half of that Loan has been issued already. Does he propose to issue more of it?
These are questions in respect of which one would imagine, on a Bill of this kind, in an ordinary business way, we would have been told at least roughly what the anticipations of the Minister were. But we have got no information at all. We differ altogether from him in his policy, because we regard credit as a national asset. We have asked that the Government hold an inquiry, so that we should know exactly what is the position of credit in Ireland. I should imagine that any Minister would say to himself: "The first thing I have got to do when I am issuing a loan is to find out what is the total credit in the country—what is the total amount of money which could be invested, and what is the total amount of goods and services which can be relied upon as a basis for credit." These are matters which one would imagine the Minister for Finance would inquire into, and, having done so, would be able to calculate, perhaps, how much of that should be attracted into national purposes. That would be a national line on the question of national loan. It would deliver the Minister for Finance from the hands of the international financiers, who regard money purely as a monopoly and something which they sell at the highest rate which they can get. Because the national view is not taken, each one of us who has to pay either taxes or rates, and who is earning his own living, is forced to serve the international financiers. That is because of the link which exists between them and the Minister for Finance. Instead of earning for ourselves in this country, we are forced to earn in order to pay these financiers high rates of interest upon National Loan and upon other loans, because this cuts through every aspect of life. We saw already that this policy forced the Government to charge six per cent. to the farmers for their money. They have not, for one reason or another—probably because they are under the control of the bankers, whom they have to obey—introduced into the Agricultural Credit Act a clause by which the deposits of the farmers could be used for the purpose of financing agricultural credit. The present position is that the farmers deposit their money in the banks and get roughly about two per cent. for it. When they look for money, they have to pay six per cent. That surely is a rotten situation. It is a situation which the Government should tackle, and, personally, I believe it has more to say to the poverty of this country than any other single issue. In fact, it would be a miracle if Ireland were prosperous while those conditions are allowed to continue. At present, what happens is that the banks, getting that money at two per cent., lend it on short-term loans to English banks for financing English interests, so that Irish money is actually being used to finance our rivals—money which should be lent to the farmers at, at least, a slightly higher rate of interest than the farmers are getting themselves. For instance, if the money were deposited in an Irish bank at two per cent., the Irish bank should be able to lend back the money at three per cent. or three and a half per cent.
Then, again, there is the contrast which exists between the rates which the Government will have to pay for these short-term loans and the rate which they have already given, which is really a gift to the banks. The rate they have charged for fiduciary note issue is only about one and a half per cent, and they will probably be paying four per cent. or five per cent. for their short-term loans. The whole situation, from the point of view of common sense, is a chaotic one and one which justifies us in taking up the attitude of opposing this Bill right through. Until the Government begins to take a more national attitude on the question of finance we will have to do that. If the Minister will take up that national point of view, he will not find that his hand will be weakened from this side of the House. He will find that the more intensely national he becomes in his financial policy the more support he will get from the whole country. The more support he is bound to get, because he may find the solution of most of our problems in taking up a really national attitude on the question of national finance.
There has been a good deal of talk in this House lately, and especially on yesterday, on the question of production. The Minister for Lands and Agriculture gave us advice yesterday to produce more and to sell in the best market. That is really good advice. We know where the best market can be found generally. But there is, certainly, a great difficulty in the way of the farmer selling his produce at all times in the best market. The question of production is a simple one to preach. It is quite easy to tell the farmer to produce more. The farmer can do it and he is just as sensible as most other business people in the country. But he has a difficulty in producing more, because he wants to get money when he has produced more. In other words, he wants to find a market for that produce. His difficulty would, then, seem to be not the question of producing, but the question of efficient selling. That, to my mind, is just as important as production. The general banking policy, I suppose—I do not know much about banking—would be to produce more. I do not know whether they mean to consume less. Certainly, the policy is to produce more. Lloyd George, after the war, also enunciated that policy. They did produce, but they could not sell. The point as to selling depends altogether on the number who are to consume. I take it the world is not consuming less. I take it that the world will consume as much as ever it did. Therefore, the point for us is to get at the consumer. The most economic market for farmers in this country is, undoubtedly, the home market. In the home market, the farmer has less expense in selling. He gets paid immediately and he enjoys a great many advantages. Unfortunately, the home market, not having the cash to buy, cannot buy a sufficient quantity from him. He is compelled, then, to try and sell in other markets products that are, perhaps, not suitable for those markets. At the same time, the amount that he pays for the production of his necessaries, instead of going to this country, goes to foreign countries. Therefore, the home market is short of that subsidy and, being short of that subsidy, it cannot possibly consume. That is one reason why I, amongst others on these benches, and I suppose on the Labour benches, advocate a policy of protection. The country, under that policy, would be in a position to retain certain sums of money for distribution in the home market and that would enable the producer to produce more, because he would have the consumers. To my mind, the question of production is altogether regulated by the question of consumption. If the farmer finds that he can get a satisfactory price, if he finds he can sell, he will produce. As I said yesterday, there is no industry in this State so completely disorganised, so completely left to its own, without sufficient education and without organisation, so far as the marketing of its products is concerned, as the agricultural industry. Even in respect of local fairs, where farmers sell their produce——
Surely that is a long way from a Bill to empower the Minister to raise funds for the running of the national services?
Mr. O'REILLY
Perhaps it is, but I thought that I might, perhaps, enable him to raise more. I submit to your ruling, but I presume I am not prevented from going into the question of the transport of livestock?
If it involves a question of Government policy and there is a Minister responsible in respect of it, it is permissible.
Mr. O'REILLY
I take it that the Minister responsible, in the first place, would be the Minister for Agriculture, and, in the second place, the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Minister for Agriculture, I am quite sure, controls our marketing system. I have had a great number of complaints about the method of holding fairs throughout the country. You often find two or three fairs in the same locality, all clashing, one fair without any buyers and another fair with all the buyers. Most people will admit that that state of affairs is undoubtedly against the seller at all times. The seller in that case is the farmer. I believe some step should be taken to organise the fairs so that farmers will not take cattle and stock and produce to the fairs and markets and find themselves without buyers.
The transport difficulty is one that, I think, everybody will admit the Minister for Industry and Commerce has not paid sufficient attention to, if he has given it any attention at all. You have not alone the question of railway transport, but you have the question of shipping, which members of the cattle trade have at all times made serious complaints about. I hope they will continue to make these complaints until some satisfactory results are brought about. You have the position in the port of Dublin of having to transport stock without any alternative. There is no competition in that port. The shipowners there seem to be monarchs of all they survey. They charge what they like and accommodate themselves without giving any accommodation, except, perhaps, an occasional speech, to the men who really count—the farmers and the producers of the wealth of the country. The same thing arises out of the statement the Minister for Agriculture made yesterday. He told us quite seriously that we were in a position to put beef in a better condition and better quality beef on the English market than the Canadians. That is not so. We could put better quality beef on the market, but do we put it there in as good condition as they do, or as cheaply as they do? We do not. We did not kill out the Canadian cattle trade. The Canadian cattle trade was killed out purely and simply by the people of the United States consuming more Canadian cattle, because they had closed out the Argentine cattle. There is no use in our congratulating ourselves because we knocked out the Canadian cattle. They were in a position, through efficiency in transport and in organisation, to knock us out, but in the meantime they got a better market. If the normal state of affairs returns we will be faced in a short time with more Canadian competition, and I do not think we have taken any particular steps to prevent their placing us in a rather awkward position again.
I do not know if I am in order in referring to the Land Act. In the constituency from which I come, there are a number of estates which have not yet been vested. One estate has been in the hands of tenants for the last eight or nine years and has not yet been vested. Another question which was referred to by Labour Deputies has to do with grants for labourers' cottages. In the constituency which I represent, there are a great number of people in need of cottages, and there is a cry for money to build them. I believe that if the money could be found that would be a very deserving and worthy purpose for it. There is also an agitation there for the purchase of labourers' cottages and there is an agitation for additional land to be given with the labourers cottages. That is another question. Other countries have solved that question or are in the act of solving it. I do not believe that an acre is economic to the labourer. I do not believe it is very much good to him. Another point about those cottages is that at the present time they cost the ratepayer anything from £4 10s. 0d. to £5 per cottage. He would be well rid of them and the labourer would perhaps be in a better position to carry on if he had the cottage bought out and if he had an additional four acres to make his present little holding economic.
At this stage, I suppose it would be very difficult to refer to anything new. But I believe that when a Government comes before a national Parliament and asks it to vote it £7½ million for national services, the least we might expect from the Executive of that Government would be a definite statement as to where the two main features of Government policy are tending—where the national policy of the Executive Council is heading for and where the economic policy of the Executive Council is heading for. We were told here about a month ago by the Minister for External Affairs that we had accepted an invitation from America to attend the Outlawing-of-War Conference.
We were told that with a flourish of trumpets, and a very important letter was read by the Minister for External Affairs. That was certainly an advance, if one may say so, in the proper direction. But when one considers that letter in connection with the report of the Imperial Conference where certain reservations were made by the predominant partner in the British Commonwealth of Nations, called the British Empire, that certain acts of that predominant partner would be carried out, and no conference would be allowed to consider them as an act of war, that is to say, that England would be entitled to land troops in Canada, Australia, or the Irish Free State, and that such action on the part of the predominant partner would not be regarded as an act of war, one would like to know whether our delegates at the Outlawing-of-War Conference are going to go into that Conference accepting these reservations, or whether they will refuse to accept them like Switzerland, France, Italy, or any other nation. To secure peace among the nations is, we are told, the main object of the Conference, but are we to enter that Conference with exactly the same notions of peace as other nations? Are we to enter it, like Switzerland, France, and Germany, realising that such action on the part of any other nation would be a definite act of war, or are we to enter it realising that it would not be an act of war? If the latter are to be the conditions, then one might well say that peace on such conditions would be a peace of slavery. We would like to know what the Executive Council have to say on that matter. That is an aspect of our national policy about which one is entitled to ask information when we are asked to vote seven and a half millions for national services. I regard that as a very important matter, and I hope that the Executive Council also regard it in that light. Next to the preservation of the Gaeltacht, I regard it as the most important matter at present before the country.
One is also entitled to ask where the economic policy of the Government is tending? One is entitled to ask are we to continue a policy which has left us fifty thousand unemployed, a policy that in one county alone with which I am acquainted from £15,000 to £16,000 is being spent on home assistance, that leaves these people to starve practically for the next twelve months? Is there to be no indication from the Government of a general or immediate relief? Are we to have no indication as to the position regarding road grants, regarding housing schemes, regarding anything in the nature of relief schemes, or such matters? Are we to have no indication from the Government as to its agricultural policy beyond what we have at the moment, when the depression in agriculture is being met by an Agricultural Credit Corporation which will lend money at 6 per cent. and, in most cases, will not lend money to people who need it most? Are we to have no indication as to the facility with which the land that is now going to the production of grass will be brought into the production of food for the people?
Are we to have no indication as to how soon these ranches are to be broken up? Are we to have no indication as to what is to be the general line of our agricultural policy beyond what it has been for the past three or four years? I do not wish to labour matters which have been laboured before, but I think we are entitled to ask on these two or three scores what the policy of the Government is. Has it any intention of going any further than it has indicated already in the matter of preserving what I might describe as the soul of the nation in the Gaeltacht? Is it going to sit idly by and allow thousands of emigrants to go out of the country yearly and make no definite attempt to stop them? Is it going to allow our greatest national asset to be drained away? Is it going to sit idly by twiddling its thumbs and make no real effort to stem that tide of emigration? These are matters on which we have had no definite indication from the Government. They are matters on which before we vote away seven and a half millions we ought to have some indication. National policy and economic policy—if one may say so, there has been no indication as regards either from the Executive Council. Before we vote this money we should have a definite declaration on these two matters, national policy and economic policy.
There is one aspect in connection with this Bill which requires special attention. That is the failure of the Government to deal in any effective way with the problem in the congested areas. For a number of years past people in those areas had hopes that efforts would be made to improve things for them. In the opinion of experts, and also in the opinion of people who live in the congested parts of the West and who have knowledge of the conditions prevailing there, it is an established fact that these conditions cannot prevail much longer. When we realise that a native Government has been in office for some years, that it is supposed to have all the sympathy that a native Government should have with the people and that it has done nothing to tackle that problem, we are bound to admit that it is a matter which now requires the very serious attention of this House before it passes this Bill. I would like to have some assurance from the authorities that they recognise that the problem is there though they have made no attempt to deal with it. Let us hear what their future plans are in regard to it. I have painful experience in connection with the Government attitude on this question. It is not pleasant for me to stress it. I do not like to be harping on it. But when I see the various cases in regard to which I made application to various Departments and which received no attention, I am forced to stress the matter again.
Take those who have suffered in the congested areas—the evicted tenants, for instance. In at least three cases that I know of, these people are wandering about the country expecting the fulfilment of promises made in the past, to the effect that evicted tenants would be treated as wounded soldiers of the land war and be reinstated in their own land or in some other holdings. I know of three persons, the remnants of the disabled forces of the land war, who are still in the country and are anxious to get land. They made application to the Land Commission; the Land Commission has investigated their cases and was satisfied that they were genuine. I made application to the Land Commission and interviewed officials, who satisfied themselves that these men were evicted tenants, but, notwithstanding the fact that this same Department had land in the district to distribute, these evicted tenants were turned aside and strangers who came over from England, some of them as recently as 1918, got portions of land. These are statements I make deliberately. They may seem astounding to many Deputies, but nevertheless they are founded on fact, and these facts have been made known to the authorities. In view of these conditions, I am not satisfied that any money should be sanctioned by this House for a Government scheme that fails to do justice to the evicted tenant, that fails to do justice to the congests although aware of their condition, that wantonly flouts all honesty, that flouts all sense of national spirit and even of decency by compelling these men to wander about the country while the Land Commission has land at its disposal for distribution, some of which has been handed over to strangers instead.
Stress has been laid from time to time on the great work of the Department. I suppose the Department have kept themselves busy and are endeavouring to make things better for the farmers. I heard a statement made by the Minister for Agriculture not very long ago in which he laid great stress on the improvement the Department have brought about in live stock in the country. There may have been a better breed of cattle produced. It is quite possible by ordinary means to arrive at a selection by which you can improve the stock of cattle in the country, but I have no hesitation in saying that, while I admit that the Government may have certain good objectives in view, and while ultimately you may obtain the big objective of having pure breeds of cattle in this country, the Act was not applied in the way in which it would have given the best results. The attempt to improve the live stock was pursued too vigorously and applied too rigidly, with the result that, as the Minister knows, in many parts of the country there have been complaints, and complaints founded on fact, that owing to the drastic limitation of bulls there has been a considerable lot of cows without calves.
It may be a good thing to have a good breed of cattle in the country, but even a medium breed of cattle is better than none at all. The ordinary farmer, in his intelligent or, if you like, in his unintelligent, way of looking at it, prefers to have a medium sort of animal rather than have none. It is the opinion of farmers in the country that the epidemic of abortion, or whatever the disease is amongst cattle, was the result of the limitation of bulls being applied too rigorously. It is also the opinion of many experienced farmers, who may not be able to go into the matter scientifically, but who, nevertheless, have at the back of them years of experience— and that counts for a good deal—that the introduction of these foreign breeds of bulls will not give the best results. They are not acclimatised, and therefore cannot give the best results. In discussions I have heard, it was suggested that a more practical way of dealing with the situation would be if the Department took up breeds already in the country—and in the West we have some fairly notorious breeds, such as the Roscommon herds—and developed them. They would in that way create a breed of our own, rather than continue importing bulls such as shorthorns.
In that respect there is in the West another problem. The Department limit the number of bulls of a particular species coming into a district. Quite logically they aim at improving not alone the breed but also the milking strain. In some of the poorer districts the farmer depends much more on the production of calves for export than on the commercial value of the milk. It is easily understood that the species of bull suitable for the production of a store animal is not suitable where the aim is to increase milk production. However, where the aim of the farmer is the production of a store beast he naturally wants a bull of that strain. The Department are too rigid and they take no account of local conditions. In some districts the value of milk would be considerably less to a farmer than the value of a calf as a store beast. The Department send in a certain quota of bulls of each type— a certain proportion of store-producing and milk-producing animals. The farmer, however, will continue to take his cows to bulls of his own selection with the result that bulls of the store variety would have too many cows and the consequences cannot be good. These points have been urged by various committees of agriculture to the Department with, so far, no beneficial results. I have found the Department quite generous as far as yielding to demands for increasing the number of bulls in a district is concerned. Of course they are only quite anxious to assist, but they are entirely too rigid as to the quality of the bulls they send. I am not at all satisfied that they have met the requirements of my part of the country in supplying the people with what they require in the way of particular breeds.
Mention has been made here of the lands purchased by the Land Commission and not vested. On a previous occasion I referred to an instance where the Land Commission had purchased under the Act of 1903. The estate was purchased so far back as 1908 or 1909 and interest has been paid in lieu of annuities ever since, but the estate has not been vested.
I do not think the Deputy can go into details on this Bill. The debate should be confined to questions of general policy.
I understood that provision was made for the Land Commission in the Estimates.
The debate is concerned with general policy rather than details. This is not the place to go into detail.
I would like to hear some statement made by the Minister responsible that he recognises that there is a serious problem in the congested portions of the West, that he intends to deal with it, and deal with it in some way that would meet requirements. We are asked to vote here a sum of over seven million pounds for various services. We realise that the State services that are essential must be maintained. But we do realise also that the services that are essential can only be maintained to the extent that the country can afford Any person who speaks differently from what I said as to the conditions of the farmers and their inability to meet this expenditure tells an untruth. There is no use in speaking of an upward curve. It is very encouraging to speak in that way, and, sitting in this House here, one may be inclined to talk in that way. But when one spends a week-end down in the country, and discusses the position there with the farmers and shopkeepers, one must realise that there is a very different angle, and one hears little there about the upward curve. These people have been asked to continue a rate of taxation which is mainly responsible for their undoing. It is entirely wrong for this House to vote Estimates or give power to this Government to deal with Estimates so large as these, without discussing them and endeavouring to reduce them and reduce them bearing in mind that the taxation drawn out of this country is more than can be afforded.
There is an item here for the Gárda Síochána. We claim that that is unnecessary, even though it is an essential service. We claim that under normal conditions it is excessive, but under present conditions it is impossible. If it were merely a case of paying salaries to the Civic Guards, it would still be a grievance, and a big grievance, but when one comes to know, as I do, that at least in one instance a sergeant of the Civic Guards is in receipt also of an Army pension awarded him within the last month——
The Deputy cannot go into that on this stage of the Bill.
That is a shame if I am prevented from doing that.
I want to make it clear to the Deputy that he cannot go into details on the Vote on Account. I am not depriving the Deputy of any right at all. The Deputy has no right to go into details on the Second Reading of this Bill. We are not in Committee.
If the money was for the purpose of developing any form of industry in the country, if it were mainly for the improvement of the farmers' conditions; if, for instance, it was for the purposes of the Agricultural Credit Corporation, for which the farmers had been so long looking forward and out of which they expected some benefit; if portion of these moneys to be granted from the State was used for the purpose of reducing the rate of interest at which money could be borrowed by the farmers, there would be something to be said for it. The farmers have been told that all loans made by this Agricultural Credit Corporation must be treated on business lines, and that they must pay at least six per cent. for the money. That is a rate of interest that the farmers cannot and never will be able to pay under present conditions. No doubt the farmers will borrow money at that rate, because they must have money or clear out. But the State must make up its mind that unless conditions improve the money lent at six per cent. will eventually have to be borne on the Central Fund Account, because the farmers cannot pay it. If portion of this expenditure that is spent in a non-productive capacity were directed towards reducing the rate of interest on the money borrowed by the farmers from six per cent. to four per cent., that taxation would be tolerable, because it would ultimately benefit the people in some way. Again, if portion of this money were spent in the planting of the waste lands around the Western coast and other parts of the country; if it were spent on drainage schemes that would give employment in addition to having beneficial effects on the various localities and be a special benefit to the farming industry, the taxpayers would the better bear it, because ultimately it would benefit the entire community, and it would be a medium of employment.
Again, if any portion of this taxation were levied for the purpose of developing any of our industries, it would be a different matter. Down in Leitrim we have the coal-mining industry. The industry there is seriously in need of some aid from the Government for the purpose, say, of giving railway facilities to transport the coal to various markets. If any provision had been made for dealing with the development of that area or for development on lines of that sort, this House would be quite justified in passing the Estimates to meet the taxation. But, judging from the results that I have seen from the various Departments under the headings of which these Estimates are asked for, there can be no such hope. We have their total and utter neglect of the conditions there. There is the failure of the Land Commission to deal with the evicted tenants on the western coasts or to deal with the matter of the congests in the West. Judging from the failure to a large extent of the Department of Agriculture to bring about any improvement in the conditions in my part of the country, I am satisfied that we are not justified in accepting the Estimate put down under this head. This money will have to be raised from the people, and the people are not able to afford the amount asked from them.
In the matter of the item for the Gárda Síochána, again I say that is excessive. The amount down for the Army is excessive, and the same can be said of the various other headings. I am not at all sure that any honest effort has been made to make this Credit Corporation a help to the farmer. Even if improved by the amendments that have been brought in in the last week, I do not think it is seriously intended to meet the situation as it exists. I am satisfied that unless some form of credit can be devised that will give easy facilities to the farmers to borrow money at a reasonable rate of interest, the whole fabric of farming has come to the pass that it can no longer go on. I am satisfied that an honest effort on the part of the Government in an attempt to provide those credit facilities that are so necessary for the farmers has not been made. Most of the farmers in the country and the small investors have money to spare. They have this money on deposit in the joint stock banks. They have a considerable lot of money there at 2½ per cent. interest. If the Government were anxious to borrow money at that rate of interest. I think they ought to give to these small investors the security that they are giving to the Agricultural Credit Corporation and to a large co-operative effort. The farmers could be organised in a large way and have a State guarantee given to them for this money. These small investors would lend that money at 2½ per cent., and if it were made available for the farmers at that rate it would be really beneficial to the community. I fail to understand why the Government will content itself with dealing second-hand in a matter of this kind. I fail to understand why they cannot borrow the money, in the first instance, themselves and give that benefit to the farming community.
There are Deputies on the opposite benches, some of them coming from my part of the country, and elected by practically the same people that I have been elected by, and they know as well as I do what are the conditions down there in Leitrim and Sligo. They know that the farmers there do need assistance of a very drastic and immediate kind, and I wonder very much why the voice of these Deputies has not been raised on this matter. These and other Deputies on their benches should insist, as far as they can, that the Government would make an honest effort to reduce these Estimates and reduce them very considerably. It is no use to say that they are essential services. No matter how essential they are, the country cannot afford to raise that money in the present state of depression. In the second place, having brought about a reduction in the Estimates, there should be some honest attempt made in the matter of credit facilities in the congested areas in the West of Ireland, and in Leitrim particularly. In that way they would improve generally the condition of the people they represent here. I say that with that knowledge in their minds these Deputies are failing in their duty if they pass these Estimates without pointing out to the Government the duties they owe to their constituents.
The silence of the Front Government Benches and, in fact, of the entire Government Party in this debate has been most eloquent. Deputy after Deputy has asked them to give us a general indication of their policy in relation to national and economic matters, and they have been silent. Deputy after Deputy has asked them if they have any policy on national or economic matters, and they have been silent. Deputies have asserted that they have, in fact, no policy, and theirs, shall I say, was the silence of consent. This is a Bill to authorise the Minister for Finance to issue out of the Central Fund and apply towards making good the supply granted for the services of the year the sum of £7,438,635. Seven and a half million pounds, one-third of the total amount required to run the services of this State! The only argument advanced for the Bill by its sponsors is complete silence. No doubt the less said about it the better. The silence on the Government Benches may be a device to conceal their lack of policy; it may be the product of a very great wisdom. So long as they remain silent as to their policy no one will be able to criticise it. So long as they remain silent they are not liable to be misrepresented. Having by this clever stratagem, carefully avoided the possibility of misrepresentation, they use the other opportunities which are afforded them to misrepresent those who are not as silent as they are.
I would like particularly to refer to the matter of misrepresentation, because the remarks which I made concerning the financial resolution which preceded this Bill were misrepresented. The few Deputies who were here while I was making those remarks will remember that I was endeavouring to show that the cost of government in this State had become more than double the cost of the government of all Ireland prior to the Great War, and more than double, not in relation to money values, but in relation to the prevailing prices of agricultural produce, so that, not merely had they become more than double in terms of cash, but they had also become more than double in terms of real prices. It has been alleged that I was endeavouring, consciously or unconsciously, to make an argument in favour of the restoration of the British Government in this country. I was not. I was making an argument, to the best of my ability, in favour of the termination of British authority in this country, because I think it can be easily shown that the huge cost of government which the Irish people have to bear is very largely a direct consequence of the fact that we have not succeeded in terminating British government here.
During the course of the discussion upon that Resolution I, for example, asked the Minister for Justice, who was absent then, but who is present now, what proportion of the seven and a half millions it was proposed to expend in prosecuting the campaign which he is directing against certain individuals with Republican sympathies. I asked him if he could give us some estimate of the money which was spent in carrying out the sixteen raids and arrests upon Mr. Peadar O'Donnell during the last month, and, if it is intended to arrest Mr. O'Donnell sixteen times again during this month, exactly how much is he going to cost the Irish people. And if we are going to spend money carrying out activities of that kind, we would like to know exactly what we are getting in return. They may drive Mr. O'Donnell into a state of ill-health. He is, in fact, I believe, in very bad health in consequence of the treatment he has been receiving. We may even drive him far enough as to upset his mental balance and make him useless as a citizen; but is that the only advantage we are going to get in return for all the expenditure which these raids must have cost us?
Deputy Moore made reference to other raids, and to the growing practice of stopping people in the streets, ordering them into taxi-cabs, and taking them to be searched in Pearse Street Barracks, which is going on every day in Dublin, but of which no hint appears in the press. How much has that cost us for the first quarter of this year, what proportion of the money is going to be expended in that way, and why should it be expended? Will he deal with the general matter of the policy of his Department and tell us if it is the policy of the Department by this pin-pricking method to revive bitterness and ill-feeling in this country? Is he deliberately attempting to awaken in the hearts of a certain element amongst our people the desire to hit back wildly in order to avenge themselves for the torments to which they are being subjected? If not, what is the policy? Have they no more policy in respect to these matters than they have in respect to other matters? Are they, as I said during the discussion upon the Financial Resoultions, merely like children playing blind man's buff, stumbling along with their hands out waiting to bump into something in order to grasp it? Certainly, that does appear to be their policy—aimless, nothing consecutive about it, nothing indicative of previous planning, mere dealing with events as they turn up, a day-to-day policy, a policy of expendiency and the policy of the bankrupt shopkeeper anxious to stave off the evil day.
It is because we feel there is no policy, in fact, behind the Government, that they do not know exactly where they are going or where they are dragging the nation, that we are anxious to force them into a statement in this House, so that they will be compelled to think out a policy that will be at least presentable. The Minister for Finance appears to think that we may have some more insidious design in endeavouring to force a statement from him, but in fact we have not. If he has a policy let us hear it and let us criticise it. We may be able to improve it; I have no doubt we will. But if he has no policy, let him say so. Nature abhors a vacuum and there being no policy there, it will be up to the Irish people to put one there and even, if it is necessary, to put a different set of individuals there to manipulate it.
Here we have a Bill asking Deputies as representatives of the people to vote seven and a half millions which will have to be squeezed out of these people. Deputies know the conditions that prevail in their constituencies. They know that industry is languishing, that the general standard of living is declining, that there is poverty and unemployment widespread throughout the country, and before they give a vote for a Bill to expend out of the Treasury of an impoverished people the sum of seven and a half million, they should at least demand from the Executive that will have the spending of that money some indications as to the lines upon which they are going to work.
In the course of a week or so we will be adjourning for probably a long period. During that time the Executive will be free to act without the possibility of criticism here. They will be free to expend that money in some cases on services which have not yet been approved of by this Dáil. It was a custom, when dealing with Votes on Account, that new services would not be proceeded with until the amount of the Estimate for the Department concerned had been passed, but as the Minister for Finance indicated, it is possible that that rule will have to be departed from on this occasion, and, therefore, it will be possible that services of which this Dáil has not yet approved, or which it has not debated, will be put into operation with the money we are now voting. It is well that the Government should give us an indication as to exactly how they hope to direct the activities of the State in the interests of the State during the period covered by this Vote on Account. Even if they cannot see beyond the end of that period they must have planned out, however vaguely, some line of action to be followed during the next few months. We would be glad if they told us what it is. I do not think it is sufficient that one Minister should reply. The Minister for Finance may make a statement in conclusion, but we have received indications that the Minister for Finance, in many matters, sees differently from his colleagues. When they meet at an Executive meeting, no doubt they are able to strike a compromise and effect Party decisions that all will adhere to.
The Deputy knows.
I do. The same applies to every party.
He has experience of it himself.
But individuals expressing that policy are bound to colour it with their individual views. Therefore, in order to get a clear indication of what the Government's policy is, as a whole, it will be necessary that individual Ministers will expound that policy as they understand it, and particularly in relation to their own Departments. We have had discussed here to-day already in a rather unsatisfactory manner one very important question, that of the facilities which the Government are prepared to give to promote industry in this country. We had to discuss it in relation to a particular amending Bill which narrowed the scope of the discussion, but if the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who very adroitly evaded any attempt to nail him down on a specific statement in that discussion was anxious to tell the House what his policy in relation to Irish industry is, he could avail of the opportunity given him by the discussion upon this Bill. We would like to know how exactly do the Government see the industrial future of this country, or do they, in fact, see it with any industrial future. Have they attempted to visualise the Ireland they would like to see in existence, and having visualised it, have they planned out steps by which they are going to make their ideal a fact? It does not appear to be the case. We have had general statements made, some of which were already quoted in this debate, which would indicate rather the contrary. It is quite obvious if the evils which afflict our people are to be ended, if the decline in our population is to be arrested, and if emigration and unemployment are to be ended, it can only be done by the development of our industrial arm.
I have said before in a previous debate that it is my opinion that our agricultural industry is over-staffed and not capable of employing a very large number of additional workers. The Minister for Finance made a somewhat similar statement which would appear to indicate that that was his future policy. When I talk of agriculture I mean agriculture as an industry. Undoubtedly there is a very big future for the industries associated with agriculture. They can be developed to an extent far beyond what they are at present. You have the dairy industry, the bacon-curing industry, and similar industries. It is on the industrial side that we must look for the remedy for the evils that afflict our people. In the development of industry we must remember we have to find employment for those now without it and provide an avenue which will enable us to keep at home 30 or 35 thousand adult people who are forced every year to go to America, Canada or Australia to earn their livelihood. They are unable to get it in their own country. How can we develop our industrial arm? We have had a discussion here already to-day in connection with the provision of credit facilities. It is obvious to anybody who studies the question that it is necessary in the first place that we should provide the infant industries in this State with an adequate measure of protection against the opposition of their much more highly capitalised foreign competitors. It is useless to hope that industries will spring into existence in this country fully armed and equipped to meet that competition unaided. In that respect the policy of the Government appears to be worse than useless. I say that deliberately. If their policy were useless it would be one thing, but when it becomes worse than useless it is much more serious, because they are keeping up a pretence of doing something while in fact they are doing nothing. They set up a Tariff Commission to give the impression that they were willing to facilitate industries in getting tariffs if they were able to make out a case for them, whereas in fact that Tariff Commission has become typical, perhaps, of Government services, a monument of festina lente.
We have had a report recently from that Commission with regard to the application for a tariff on flour. I asked yesterday in the debate on the Financial Resolution if we could be told how many flour mills in this State have closed down and ceased business since that report was published. I know of one. It is possible that there may be more. Can we be informed what exactly is the price we have paid in order to find what the Tariff Commissioners believe would result from the operation of an increase of a farthing in the price of bread? What price have we paid? How many men have been unemployed as a consequence of that report? What volume of Irish capital has been wasted? Have we avoided the probable increase of a farthing in the price of bread? We had a discussion here only last week on the subject of profiteering in bread. Reference was made to the report of the Food Prices Tribunal which said that in every town of the Free State visited, with the exception of Limerick, they found that the level of bread prices was in excess of what it should be with regard to the price of flour; that in fact profiteering in bread was taking place. If we have an Executive prepared to allow an old-established Irish industry to go to the wall, to avoid a rise of one farthing in the loaf, we maintain that it is up to the Executive to take drastic action to prevent profiteering in bread to the extent, in some cases, of much more than a farthing in the loaf. If they were in earnest in their protestations concerning the probable increase of a farthing in the loaf they can prove their earnestness by taking effective action against those who are profiteering to-day. They can do more than that; they can, if they know how, take steps that will prevent an inevitable increase in the price of bread following on the disappearance of the Irish flour milling industry.
You will remember that was our contention, that the price of flour is at a particular level in Ireland to-day because there is a price-cutting war in progress between the English millers, a war between different groups of millers, each endeavouring to undercut the other in order to capture the other's trade. When the Irish flour-milling industry is gone, and when that war in England is over, the victorious group will emerge and proceed to reap the fruits of their victory. The price of bread will increase much more than a farthing as a result of the turning down of the application for a tariff on flour. That is only one industry. We must remember that for months past there have been hanging around the offices of the Tariff Commission representatives of many other important Irish industries.
Does the Deputy intend to go into the general question of tariffs?
I am only dealing with the development of the industrial resources of the country. I do not intend to deal with it any longer except to mention that representatives of these other industries have been endeavouring to get the Tariff Commission even to make a beginning in the hearing of evidence concerning their applications. It is probable that shame will force them into making a beginning in the near future. We would like to know what exactly the delay has cost us. Have any coach-building establishments closed down in the recent past, or are they likely to close down in the near future, in consequence of the delay? Have any woollen mills closed down, and how many are likely to close down in the near future, in consequence of the delay? How many men have been unemployed or are likely to be unemployed as a consequence of the delay? It may be a good policy to hasten slowly or look before you leap, but we should know what we are paying for that policy, how much it is costing the Irish people in hard cash.
I do not intend to deal generally with the main question of protection. I take it the big majority of the Deputies in this House have accepted the protectionist as against the free trade policy. It is merely a question as to the effectiveness of the manner in which the policy is going to be put into operation. But merely to say that we are frankly a protectionist party, as members of the Cumann na nGaedheal have said, and then do nothing, is, I maintain, hoodwinking the Irish people. We discussed early in the afternoon the matter of credit facilities. I asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he considered that the policy of the Government as represented by the Trade Loans Guarantee Act was adequate to deal with the existing situation. He evaded answering. I asked him did he think that it would be necessary to supplement the Trade Loans Guarantee Act with any other provisions. He avoided answering very cleverly. He is probably an adept at getting out of tight corners. Perhaps I should not take from the President an honour of which I think he is very proud, of being the most astute Deputy in the House.
The Deputy can do a little bit of that too.
We are learning. The fact remains that we have an Act in existence which has been admittedly a failure in so far as the giving of adequate results is concerned. When I say it is a failure, I do not want to imply that it has not done some good. It has, and because it has done some good we are voting for the continuing Act. But in so far as it has not produced any considerable industrial revival in this country or decreased by any considerable extent the volume of unemployment, the Act has been a failure. It has not realised all that we were told to expect from it when it was first introduced in 1924. For some time after, whenever the Act was mentioned, Deputies were told to await the results of the Banking Commission. The Banking Commission was going to show a way out of the difficulty. It was going to place its finger upon the root cause of the existing economic evil. It did not. The Banking Commission, in that respect, as I said, proved a damp squib. It did not help the Government in any way, and then we have this admittedly inadequate Act continued without any indication from the Government as to whether or not they intend to take additional steps to put Irish industries on their feet. The Minister, of course, said: "If you have a scheme, let us hear it." He knows as well as every Deputy in the House that a Party like ours has not got the resources or the information which would enable it to put forward a definite, concrete and complete scheme. We have ideas; we mentioned them. We believe that these ideas would be worth working out to their conclusion, to see exactly where they lead to. If the Government are prepared to adopt the suggestion which we made some time ago, and establish an Economic Commission with an economic general staff, a body that will take these ideas and work them out, as I suggested, to their conclusion, we will co-operate in every way possible, but when the Government take up a merely negative attitude and say if you have ideas produce them, and imply by that that they themselves have none, then we must face up to what the consequences are going to be. We must remember that they are the Executive officers of this Dáil. If we had a scheme we could not put it into operation. It is the Executive that must put all such schemes into effect. If they think it is a bad one, it is useless suggesting a scheme from these benches because the effectiveness with which the scheme is to be put into operation will be in proportion to the belief which the Executive have in it. It is up to them, we say, to think out this thing themselves. They know the situation; they have their Statistics Branch there to give them all the information concerning it, and if with that information, and knowing the difficulties, they cannot find the solution, then we maintain it is up to them, in common decency, to bow themselves out and let someone else take charge who will at least make an attempt to find a solution.
One of the big difficulties in connection with revival of industry in this State is that the owners of capital in this State are very reluctant to risk that capital in Irish Industry. They prefer to go and invest their money in oil wells in America, rich mines in China, diamond mines in South Africa, anywhere across the broad world except in Ireland. £230,000,000 of Irish capital are invested abroad. We are getting interest upon that capital undoubtedly, and it takes a big slice off the net adverse trade balance, but that capital could be much more effectively used in Ireland in giving work to Irishmen. We maintain that it would be possible to devise a scheme such as we suggested in the debate upon the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce, a scheme of a State-guaranteed or a State-controlled national investment trust which would provide for the owners of that capital the security which they fear they cannot get if they place it directly into Irish industry.
Or even if the Government considered the suggestion made by Deputy MacEntee to-day, that instead of guaranteeing loans, to be secured through the Industrial Trust Company of Ireland, they were to guarantee shares issued by the company seeking loans, giving to the people who would be anxious to invest in these concerns the measure of security of guaranteed dividends which they cannot get now, that would be a step along the right lines. In any case we maintain that it is up to the Government, knowing the facts as they do, and with all the machinery of the State at their disposal, to provide some avenue by which our available resources and capital could be directed to oil the machinery of industry. Unfortunately, however, it does not appear that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or any other Minister, is anxious to reveal the Government's mind in that connection if, as I said, they have, in fact, thought about the matter at all. The several attempts made here in the course of today's discussion to nail them down to particular points all failed, and future attempts will, no doubt, fail too. The Minister knows, and I think he has admitted that the present Government policy is not adequate to deal with the situation and, knowing that, it is up to him to supplement it by some other method.
I do not want to delay the House too long, but I would impress upon the Government the advisability of taking, not merely this Dáil, but the people of this State, into their confidence. While they maintain this mysterious attitude of theirs—"Leave it to us. We know more than you, but we cannot tell you about it. Leave it to us and all will be well"—they are not going to get from the people that co-operation which alone can make their efforts successful. If they would even take this Dáil into their confidence, tell this Dáil what their difficulties are, tell us where and in what way they failed to devise a solution of these difficulties, then I am certain that every Party in this House would willingly co-operate in finding a solution, and in helping the Government to meet the situation. If they would take the people into their confidence, tell the people exactly what their difficulties are, they would find that they would get in response that degree of co-operation from the people that they are not getting now. But while they maintain their present half-contemptuous and half indifferent attitude they will not get that co-operation either from this Dáil—because it would be against human nature—or from the people. When they say: "We have a policy but—hush!— we cannot tell you about it," when they say that Deputies on this side of the House as they have often said, are only babes in this matter, and that they cannot waste their time instructing them, they are going to continue drifting until they hit the rocks and go down.
I pointed out the other day that the report issued by the Statistics Branch concerning the figures of the recent census showed that in many counties the decline in the last inter-censal period was actually much higher than the decline that took place between 1850 and 1860, the worst decade in our history. In many of the counties, particularly on the Western seaboard, our people are going faster than they went immediately following the famine of 1848. That is an indication that something is wrong. I ask the Government to take the bandage from their eyes, to see the danger signal there, and, realising the danger, endeavour to secure that the whole people as a unit will face the danger. If they get the united action of the people I have no doubt whatever that every difficulty can be and, we hope, will be successfully overcome.
I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without trying to find out what is the policy of the Government. I wonder what is the national policy of those gentlemen who, in 1922, laid down the stepping-stones to a Republic. We have travelled over a number of these stepping stones during the last few months, and I think somebody has got them into a wrong line.
A DEPUTY
You slipped off them too much, anyhow.
took the Chair.
I do not know where they are going to wind up, but we see where they are definitely leading us to, and when we come to consider those stepping-stones that they have laid before the Dáil during the last few months we can definitely see the line of action that these gentlemen are taking. When we see that those stepping-stones have now installed here definitely as portion of the Oireachtas a Unionist majority, have handed over the reins of power definitely to that majority, to the old gang, that ascendancy gang who were in power here and who cost a hundred years of trouble and toil to get rid of, we see where the stepping-stones have wound up. That is, apparently, the national policy of the Government. That is the end of the famous policy that was started with the threat of "immediate and terrible war." You can follow that policy and the Government's economic policy, and you can see the same line of action, the line of action of the weak sister, the line of action of the poor crippled countryman who can do nothing but howl every time he gets a crack. That is the national and the economic policy of the Government. When I heard Deputy Lemass allude to the increase in the price of bread of a farthing on the 4lb. loaf as the danger that the Executive Council were trying to avoid, another thought occurred to me as to what they were trying to avoid, and I remember that this famous Tariff Commission went over and spent at least as much of their time, if not more, in England, carrying out investigations there than they did in investigating the flour mills in this country, during the time that they were supposed to be carrying out investigations for the purpose of bringing out their report. I suppose when they landed over there they were again met with the strong argument, and they were told: "We are importing into that little island of yours over £2,000,000 worth of flour every year. Be careful how you interfere with our trade." Then they came back and said: "We will not have a tariff." No wonder I feel this matter rather keenly, when I remember that a sum of £28,000 a year was paid in my constituency alone in wages by three flour mills which will now be closed down owing to this weak-sister policy of the Government.
Deputy Flinn expressed wonder at the difference between the policy of the Minister for Finance and that of the Minister for Agriculture. The policy of the Minister for Agriculture is very clear to me. The Minister for Agriculture has got a great idea into his head, that a farm of forty acres can support a man, his wife and a grown up family of from sixteen years upwards. They can all work away on that farm for a while until they get enough to carry them to America. In addition to that the Minister's idea is that that farm should support about seven inspectors. That, I think, is the policy of the Minister for Agriculture, that that man, his wife and family are to slave from five in the morning until ten at night in order to support a gang of inspectors, senior agricultural inspectors, junior agricultural inspectors, poultry officers, creamery officers, and all the rest of the officers who cost £113,000 a year. That is the agricultural policy of the Government, and the only hope that they can hold out to what they state is the sole industry in the country is money at 6 per cent. They say: "We will give cash at 6 per cent., that is, to one out of every nine of you. The rest of you can go to the wall." That is all the hope that we can get from the present Government.
Deputy Lemass alluded a while ago to the policy of the Minister for Justice. He wondered what way the Minister was going to spend his share of the £7,000,000. Down in my country there is a chap named Con Healy on the run for the last two years, and seven C.I.D. men are permanently employed hunting him. They have not caught him yet. I wonder how much it costs to keep these seven C.I.D. men in permanent pursuit of one individual. I am sure that it costs more than would keep that individual in comfort, for a few years at any rate.
But when I turn to another portion of the Minister's Department, public works, I see that the Department of Justice intends winding up when it finishes depopulating the country by spending £4,000 at a little place called Cahirciveen on a Civic Guard barrack. Perhaps that is going to be the last refuge of the Minister for Fisheries when he is driven from his stronghold into the wilds. He is going to retire into the Civic Guard station on which already £100 has been expended. The vote this year is for £1,000 and it is the intention to spend another £2,500. I wonder is it machine guns they are putting in or an 18 pounder to keep foreign trawlers outside the three-mile limit, or, are they afraid Con Healy will come down and wipe them out when he is tired of being hunted around Cork? It is no wonder we have decided to oppose the granting of £7,000,000 to the Government when we see the manner in which the money is to be spent. Fancy spending £4,000 on a Civic Guard barrack at Cahirciveen. I cannot get over that when I remember that the farmers, their wives and families will have to provide the £4,000. The ordinary cottage built on one of the estates that are being divided costs on an average £250. While £250 is paid for a house for the taxpayer and his family we are to spend £4,000 for a barrack for the Civic Guards. An Economy Committee was set up under the economist party in the House which joined the ranks of Cumann na nGaedheal last year. We have not yet seen any report from the Economy Committee. No doubt they are quite satisfied, as all the members of the Committee have, I think, only £1,000 yearly. That satisfies them.
We heard a lot of talk about the division of land, and I heard a statement made here by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Fisheries that, to his mind, it was not just to take over an estate in Co. Tipperary, because, presumably, it was wanted by a District Justice. Apparently that is a good reason why the congests should remain where they are, and why the evicted tenants should still be kept out of their holdings. I notice another question here——
The Deputy cannot deal with details on this debate.
I am only dealing with policy.
The Deputy is proceeding from detail to detail, with an occasional remark about policy.
This is apparently the definite policy of the Government, and I had to give a few details to illustrate their policy fully. I like to give illustrations whenever I can, and I think the few I have given absolutely justify our attack on their policy. The Government has no national policy. The only policy which the Government has is definitely to instal as the controlling power the Freemason lodges. That is the present policy of the Government to denationalise the country, and their economy policy is driving 30,000 young men and women out of this country every year, while they spend twenty-six millions yearly to govern the remainder. The sooner that Government is got rid of the sooner we will have an opportunity of living in the country.
There are a few things that I wish to refer to. The Minister for Finance made very light of the fact that the revenue for the first quarter of the year was one million pounds below the expenditure, and that the receipts were very much less than one would expect, bearing in mind the devices by which the Minister hoped to increase revenue this year. It will be remembered that in his Budget speech the Minister stated that he would have to find, by various devices, £1,149,000 extra in taxation. When the resolution for the granting of the money was being discussed in Committee, I pointed out that, although the Minister hoped to get in the year extra sums amounting to £1,100,000 in all, namely, £300,000 by a curtailment of brewer's credit, £150,000 by the collection of Schedule A. income tax, in one instalment, £250,000 by the collection of income tax arrears, £200,000 by an extension of the McKenna Duties, and £200,000 by the increased sugar duty, instead of having an increase in the first quarter a substantial reduction is shown in all the principal items. For example, I pointed out that although the Minister expected £13,889,000 from Customs and Excise, he realised in this quarter only £3,201,000, or £347,000 less than in the same quarter of last year, and that, although he expected £4,200,000 from income tax, property tax and super-tax in the quarter, he only got £687,000, which is £282,000 less than in the same quarter in the previous year.
Although he expected £250,000 from the Corporation Profits Tax, he only got £25,000 in the quarter. Having pointed all this out, the Minister for Finance said that we may expect these variations. "I am a long time dealing with these matters," he said, "and I have been watching from month to month and from week to week these Exchequer returns and they do not affect me in any particular way." Since that statement was made, I thought it would be worth while to have made out the figures for the corresponding quarters in other years. What do we find? We find, not going back farther than 1925-26, that in the first quarter of that year—I will not give you the detailed figures so that I may save time—he got 25.4 per cent. of the total revenue. In the same quarter of 1926-27 he got 23.7 per cent. of the total revenue; in 1927-28, 25.5 per cent.; and this year he gets 21.7 per cent. I hold that, unless the Minister can point to some exceptional circumstances, it is fair to compare the first quarter of this year with the corresponding quarters of other years. If we take this indication, as I think we ought, the Minister's Budget will, certainly, not be balanced this year. He will not get nearly that revenue which is required to meet what he has himself segregated as normal expenditure. I might point out also that the balance in the Exchequer was only £1,349,006. That is all that is left, although a loan was raised last year which brought in £6,292,000 and although there were Saving Certificates issued during the first quarter of the year amounting to over a quarter of a million. If borrowing is to continue at that rate, I, for one, cannot see how we are going to maintain the services we have got.
Everybody realises that what is happening at the present time is that the producing part of our population is being driven out by emigration. What would naturally be the producing part of the population—the young people and the able-bodied people—are being driven out by emigration, and we have to carry on the service of education to deal with the young people and the service of old age pensions for the older population, and we are, at the same time, diminishing more and more the proportion between the productive part of the population and that part of the population for whom we have to provide social services largely. We are spending on education, say, 4½ million per year and we must remember that we are doing that largely for the benefit of foreign countries. We are saving the American people, who get a larger proportion of our young people than other countries, the cost of education that would fall upon them if they had to educate their young citizens. From their slender resources, the community here are preparing citizens for another country which could very well afford to bear the burden of that social service. It is clear that we will have to change our whole system if we are going to carry on. That has been evident to us for a very long time.
Our attitude, when we talked about reduction of salaries and things of that kind, has been completely misunderstood. What is fundamental in our attitude is this: we recognise that we are a comparatively small country, and that we cannot afford to carry on our administrative services here on the same scale as if, for instance, we were a part of the British administrative system—the centre of an empire. We, as I tried by an example long ago to point out, had to make the sort of choice that might be open, for instance, to a servant in a big mansion. If the servant was displeased with the kicks of the young master and wanted to have his freedom he had to make up his mind whether or not he was going to have that freedom, and give up the luxuries of a certain kind which were available to him by being in that mansion. He had to give up the idea of having around him the cushions and all the rest that a servant in the mansion might have, and the various things that might come from the table of the lord. He had to forego these in order to get the liberty of living his life in his own way in simpler surroundings. If a man makes up his mind to go out into a cottage, he must remember that he cannot have in the cottage the luxuries around him which he had when he was bearing the kicks of the master. That is simple common sense. If he goes into the cottage, he has to make up his mind to put up with the frugal fare of that cottage. As far as I am concerned, if I had that choice to make, I would make it quite willingly. I would say: "We are prepared to get out of that mansion, to live our lives in our own way, and to live in that frugal manner." I believe we could have that in this country if we tried to get after it. But we cannot have the two things. We cannot carry on administration on an imperial scale here and have a population of the size that this country could maintain. We believe that there can be maintained on the soil of this country, in comfort, with a proper policy, a population two or three times the size of the present population. But you cannot maintain that population on the standards of administration that have been set here by this Executive. I put it to the Deputies that they should make up their minds which they want. If they want the policy of the opposite benches—"efficiency," as they call it, in providing food for export to England—then they can make up their minds that they are going gradually to develop into being a big ranch, run economically, from the costings point of view, and supplying with the greatest possible economy food for the English people. The Minister for Agriculture talked about the 500 acres in Canada and the three men and 24 horses—I forget his exact figures. Is that what we want to develop into?
Do we want to develop over here into producing beef and all the rest in the same standard Ford fashion, if I might say so, that they are producing corn in Canada? As far as we are concerned on these benches, we definitely made up our minds—it is not to-day or yesterday that most of us made up our minds on the question— that we do not want that type of thing at all. The Ministers on the opposite benches spoke some time ago—I think it was on the Flour Tariff debate— about trying to introduce straight-run flour here and trying to get the people to change their taste regarding patent flour, and we were asked if we would help them in a campaign of that kind. We will, and we will do it more logically, because we will extend that principle of using straight-run flour right through the whole administration and right through the tissues and the life of the country. We believe that nothing is being done by the Ministry on the opposite benches but tinkering with the whole problem as they are tinkering with the question of the protection of our industries. If you tinker with some of these things and half do them you will neither have this nor that. Deputies on the opposite benches are fond of making the charge against us that we are trying to make the worst of both worlds. That was how Deputy Cooper put it. But they are trying to do two things which are incompatible. They are trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. I hold they are guilty, in the most flagrant way, of attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable. You cannot reconcile the maintenance of a population in this country which the country could support with the policy of having this country, and continuing it, as an out-garden for the British.
We are dissatisfied not merely, to use Deputy Hogan's words, with the national policy of the Executive—that is, the relations between this country and England—but we are profoundly dissatisfied with the policy of the Executive in relation to the economic welfare of the country. When we speak of setting up an Economic Council or Development Commission, what we really have in mind is a body that would sit down to examine the details and carry out the details of a policy that we have described in one phrase, time after time, in order that it might sink into the minds of the people—the idea of making the country self-contained economically. We are repeating that phrase, time after time, because it is the simplest phrase which gives expression to our policy. If that policy is decided upon, in order to carry it out we must have a body that will be relieved of a lot of the anxiety and daily disturbances that Ministers who are dealing with Executive work have to contend with.
I now move the adjournment of the debate.
Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday.