Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 13 Jul 1928

Vol. 25 No. 4

PUBLIC BUSINESS. - CENTRAL FUND (No. 2) BILL, 1928—SECOND STAGE (Resumed).

The question before the House is "That the Bill be read a Second Time."

I was wondering if it would be possible to reach agreement whereby we would finish this stage to-day. It might, perhaps, be agreed, for instance, that I might be allowed to reply at 11.30, as it would be desirable not to split this particular Stage into three parts.

We are agreeable to that proposal. When speaking on this Bill last night I pointed out that an examination of the Exchequer returns for the quarter, and the comparison of these returns with the total annual yield over a period of four or five years back, indicated that this year the Estimate of the Minister for Finance, as contained in his Budget statement, was likely to prove altogether false. It seems to us that it would result in the necessity of using borrowed money to meet ordinary current expenditure. We heard a good deal about balancing the Budget in the past. Some of us, of course, understand how that is done, namely, when the Minister for Finance is in difficulties he can take a particular section and say, "This is not normal expenditure. It is completely abnormal. It is not likely to occur again." In that particular way he tries to make the balance work out. He indicated, however, very clearly, I think, in his statement that he himself was getting anxious about the position. He admitted that it would require great and sustained effort to obtain economies to make it unnecessary to impose new taxation next year.

It is in the light of that statement that I say we ought to examine these returns and see what we are heading towards. The only thing towards which I see we are heading definitely is that for this year current expenditure will have to be met with borrowed money and that next year we will again have to face the necessity of increasing taxation, as was done this year, because the devices adopted this year were admittedly such as would only bring in revenue for one year. The Minister for Finance himself admitted that. If you examine the devices you will realise what is being done. You are bringing in largely into this year's account revenue which would come in next year. As one of our Deputies put it, the Minister this year is living on his seed potatoes. That being the position, I think we ought to be much more careful about the question of economy in administration. That led me to speak about the general national policy of the administration, and I pointed out that when we talk about economies, salaries, and so forth we are talking of them in the light of the general national programme. What I find is that our fundamental philosophy, if I might put it in that way, in respect to the country in general, is different from that of those on the opposite benches. Some of us, at any rate, when the Treaty was passed, felt that it was not merely that the national purpose for which we had been working for years was frustrated. I am talking now about the political independence of our country.

As regards matters fundamental and in regard to the whole question of the social and economic life of the country, I say that our whole idea of what the social and economic life of this country should be was, so to speak, destroyed, or, at all events, the possibility of achieving it in a reasonable time was destroyed. What we find is that the Ministers opposite are moving along a line which means that the country is going to get neither the fruits of the policy which a majority of us had been standing for from 1919 to 1921 nor the fruits of the alternative policy put forward now by the Minister for Finance.

They are drifting, drifting along, letting things slide. The policy of laisser faire mentioned here may be all very well if things are going well. If things are going well it is not a bad maxim to let very well alone. It may not be a very heroic attitude but it sometimes is a wise one, unless you are certain by your interference that you are going to mend matters. Surely there is no excuse for raising that maxim to a dogma when things are going badly, for, if you do, it only means that you are letting things get worse. You must actively interfere. We hold, unlike Ministers opposite, that active interference is necessary by the Ministry if we are going to get the country out of the rut in which it is at present. There is, for instance, the attitude of mind displayed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce who says that it is not our business to see that there is no unemployment.

The Minister for Agriculture says: "Let the other fellow go to the devil; we will help those who help themselves." That attitude of mind is, we think, a wrong one, and it is not going to work out to the general prosperity of the country. We ought to see some strategic objective, if I might use a military term, before the Ministry. We cannot see it. We can see the objective that the Minister for Agriculture has for the moment. We can see that well enough. We see that it aims at trying to secure a larger share of the British market. Very good; we understand that. We may differ with him occasionally as to the methods by which he tries to secure that objective, but that is on the tactical question, if I may again use a military term, of how they are going to work. That is all right. That is a matter where there is an ordinary difference of opinion. That is very natural, and we understand that attitude, but we say it is not enough. We say it is all right that we should have the best organisation, that our butter should be the best in the English market, or that our creameries should be organised so as to be as effective as possible, but is our objective to be that this country is to be run simply in order to supply food to the British? We hold that that should not be the strategic objective, if I may say so, of the Agricultural Department.

We come again to the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, and we examine what they are aiming at. We see the Shannon scheme. We know what that is for, and we must approve of the general idea. That is to supply the country with the power that is necessary to run our own industries and to make us independent of foreign sources of power, such as coal, etc. Everybody on this side understands that, and so far as that objective is concerned, everybody must agree with it, and we do agree with it, but we are doubtful on this point: whether in the circumstances of the moment it was wise to start that big scheme with the possibility of having a greater amount of power than we could use for a number of years, and, therefore, having national capital sunk in a way in which it was not going to be reproductive for a long period, with the results shown here on our balance sheet every year, bearing portion of the debt. sinking fund and interest on that sum, and, therefore, increasing our taxation. While we agree with the general objective of it, we say that it was not done in the way that we would have done it, in any case. We think that it would have been far more economic to start with the Liffey scheme and work it where you are going to have an immediate demand for the supply, and link it up afterwards. However, that is a matter upon which people may differ. They may say "Very well, the people who are doing it in the other way have the responsibility for it, and we are not going to hamper them in the carrying out of that work. They have taken a certain step; it cannot be undone, and, therefore, our duty should be to make it a success now that that step has been taken." That is common sense, and that is the attitude we take towards an enterprise of that kind, the ultimate purpose of which we can see. In other directions, however, we fail to see any systematic following up of that particular purpose. For instance, if we are going to have the power by which to run our industries, surely we ought to start out with a definite plan to restore our industries.

It is not enough to stand idly by and to see the flour mills closing down, which we will want if we are going to start any programme of work to supply our own needs. The Minister for Finance will perhaps say: "Some of them should be closed down; they are not run efficiently or economically, and therefore let them go to the wall." That again is the policy of the survival of the fittest. The policy of the survival of the fittest as applied to the human side of view is not a very wise one to-day. What does it mean? It does not mean that those who survive, if we take it on general terms, are the people who should survive. From the point of view of what is best, these are not the people who survive. In the case of the material side, the same thing happens. What happens is that those who survive are those who in the environment of the contest are best able to do it. If we take the ultimate values of a concern and these views as to those who should survive, I say it is the big mills, such as those at the Dublin port, which are established long enough, that would ultimately be able to stand up against competition. These are not the only mills that we want to survive. The same applies to the big breweries. If we carry that on to a logical conclusion. if we are to be self-supporting and get all these things that we want for ourselves, what is going to happen?

It means the elimination of all sorts of waste. It means doing things by machinery where human beings would be eliminated as far as possible, and therefore it means ultimately a lot of unemployment unless we are able to compete in the world markets. Now, what are the chances of our competing at present in the world markets except in the special line of food producing? Is there any hope, with the terrible handicap upon us at the present time, of developing our industries so that we would be able to compete with Germany, America, England and so on in the field of manufacturing enterprise and commerce? I do not think there is, and what we ought, therefore, at the moment concentrate upon is to get for our own people here the necessities of life and to try to maintain our population. We cannot do that if we persist in following international standards. I do not talk now of international standards of living.

If you take international standards you may have a lower standard of living, whereas if you take a more rational standard you may have a higher standard of living. For instance, there are special patent flours and so on that may be regarded by some as a higher standard of living. But the medical profession and others who have studied the problem scientifically believe that from a food point of view straight-run flour would be better. It might mean education before we would be able to be content with that straight-run flour. In the same way there is the question of clothing. These are the things that can only be tackled if we are tackling them as a whole with a definite determination on the part of the Ministry to work for that objective so that every part of their work should fit in with that scheme. That is what I say that they lack on the opposite benches. There is no general purpose before them which would appear to be rational and which would enable us year by year to progress. That is a topic which represents our fundamental attitude. I could talk for a considerable length of time upon it, but I do not want to do anything more at this particular stage in connection with this Bill than to indicate what our objective is and what ought to be the objective of any national Ministry in this country. That objective should be not to take international values, but to take the conditions of our country and see what we are able to produce, what are the needs of our population, try to supply these needs at home and forget, as far as we can, what are the standards prevalent in countries outside this. We will, unfortunately, not be able to cut ourselves completely off. I have said time after time that if we want to approach this problem a good way to approach it would be to approach it as if this country were surrounded by a wall. That is the same sort of thing that a pure mathematician will do if dealing with certain physical problems. When talking of rigid bodies he knows very well that these rigid bodies do not exist in Nature as he would have them.

In the same way, when speaking of other things, he talks of flexible strings. He knows that they are not flexible strings. What happens next? Immediately that the fundamental question, without the embarrassment of the difficult details, is envisaged an engineer comes along and tackles the actual problem. When I speak of tackling this problem as if the country were surrounded by a wall, what I mean is how we could maintain our population if by any chance we were cut off. If we tackled that problem and considered it in all its details I am satisfied that we could here, now, in this country, maintain a population two or three times the size of our present population. I say that because of the fact that we have the food that is necessary here and that we can produce the clothing that is needed. Why should we be getting boots from outside and giving employment abroad? The raw material is here. It can be tanned here. The wall will not prevent us from getting from outside the ideas that we actually need. We can get all the ideas, the up-to-date machinery can be got from outside, and we can set out to manufacture here for ourselves; we can manufacture the clothing, shelter and so on that we want. But the things that we cannot produce here and which it would be quite uneconomic to produce here——

What about latest fashions?

Latest fashions! If the wall were around the country you would have to have your own fashions. Your own latest fashions might be just as good, and the possibility is that they would be much more appropriate to us in the climate and conditions that we have. I think that you will admit that down in West Cork, if you have materials got from outside and you go along a muddy road, that the materials from outside are not nearly as suitable as those which can be produced in this country. If we did not get things from outside——

You must educate the people into it first.

By all means educate the people into it, but you will not educate the people into it if you hold out the idea that the whole purpose of this country is to supply foodstuffs to the English markets; that our whole salvation and our whole purpose is to produce food for England. That will not educate the people. That was the big loss I saw in 1921, when you introduced into the country the spirit of cynicism which we see now in these benches opposite. It is that cynicism, that callous sort of effort which is withering up everything—you can see it here in the Dáil. Sneers follow any attempt to build up in a really constructive way. When any suggestion in that direction is mentioned you get the withering sarcasm of the people who call themselves realists. The fact is that they are only narrow materialists and they are not good materialists at that.

They are not realists.

Fundamentally they are only so-called realists. Any Cabinet in which a mind of that kind dominates cannot do good work. Good work cannot be done in it. That mind is withering in its consequences, and it requires a great deal of moral courage on the part of those who have good idealism left in them to stand up against that. That thing is operating right through the country, and if there is one thing more than another that is hindering the national advance in the last five years it is because the people have become cynical. They have seen people who had been talking idealism suddenly reversing engines, and they are now not capable of proceeding in a sustained way in what would be regarded as a course of idealism rather than a course of the most material imperialism.

Why not get back to the Irish kilts?

If you had no means here in this country of producing any other form of clothing but Irish kilts then I would say go back to them. When we were producing what we needed ourselves, good men, men as good as on those benches, lived in Irish kilts.

I agree with you.

The point is that we want to proceed along native lines which will take stock of our own particular conditions, and we will not go blindly, because such and such a thing is done somewhere else. Even if there are maxims in the books of economists these maxims are sometimes falsehoods, and a lot of these are maxims of economists which were passed about from mouth to mouth as if they were inspired sayings, and were used by the economists and passed for real thinking. I happened to be going down last night and I met the same sort of attitude and heard the same sort of expression obvious now from Deputy Carey.

It was not an unfriendly one, surely?

No, neither was the remark I heard unfriendly. It was "taking in our own washing." How often have we seen this thing before? How often have we heard that that was our policy—"taking in our own washing"?

What is the world doing, taking the world as a unit? What does it exist on? One section of the community supplying the needs of another section. It is a sort of a division of labour. Some one section of the community is supplying the wants of another section. Do not be using parrot phrases of that kind, using them to damn real efforts to try to get the country out of its present position. This field is a wide one. It is one on which we could talk for quite a long period, and probably talk more profitably than on any other subject. But I do not want to go into detail further than to indicate what our attitude is and what we find lacking in the opposite benches as far as their policy is concerned.

I would like now to come down to a narrower subject. Before I pass from what I have been referring to, however, I would like to say that I recognise—we here recognise, as well as Deputies of other Parties, as well as any of you realists, any of you who come along and sneer at proposals of a general kind that do not happen to fall in with the current fashions—the difficulties there are in carrying out a programme such as we indicate. We know it, and we know, too, that an Executive that has every day to attend to things from a needle to an anchor, whose Ministers have to contend with such matters, has not the leisure or the opportunity to work these problems out in detail. We know that any Executive that tries to put such a programme into operation wants, working with them, a body such as a Development Commission, a body that will work out all the details.

The question of policy can well be left to the Ministry—the big question of policy. They can come along and say: "Shall we do this or shall we do that?" There are to be considered, no doubt. questions touching on the balance of disadvantage, and questions of expediency will be cropping up. All these questions are for the Ministry. But let them have assisting them a body of people who will have nothing else to do, people who will be experts and who will thoroughly appreciate the difficulties there are, who will be able to make plans so as to avoid the rocks that undoubtedly there are in a course of that kind.

Deputy Little spoke about the big question of credit. That is a very difficult and a very complicated question. Talking about idealism and realism, we had an example in the case of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He stated that before he went in there he had certain opinions about banking machinery, and when he went in he changed those opinions very considerably. The banking machinery and the plausibility were too much for him, and he lost much of what he was able to see when he was outside the wood, but now that he is in the trees he is not able to see the wood for the trees. That is fundamental undoubtedly in questions dealing with an economic programme or a general economic policy such as I have indicated. It has to be examined pretty closely, and the way I see it is this: We know the part money plays, we know its history and how it has operated, and we know the extent to which, from being an absolute servant, it has become a master in industry.

There are times when theories and certain solutions have to be revised. It is found they do not fit in with the facts, and you have an occasion generally for a re-examination of the problem down to the very foundation. As far as we here in this country are concerned we should examine these things down to the very foundations, cutting ourselves adrift from the theories and fashions that have become current. If we ask ourselves how are we going to get on, is it not obvious that the things we can produce here we should produce here and the things we cannot produce here we should get from outside? We have, of course, to send some of our material across in order to buy what we get in from outside. We have to send goods in exchange for other goods. The goods we exchange are naturally the goods we can produce best. I do agree with the statement made by the Minister for Lands and Agriculture. If we confine it simply to goods that we have to export, as far as the goods we have to export are concerned, by all means let these things be the ones we can produce to the best advantage. The moment we begin to export we are undoubtedly competing in an international market, and we will have to be prepared to meet outside competition. But we can shelter ourselves in the things we produce at home from that form of competition, and the only way it would enter is indirectly on account of the standard we set up by the goods that we export. As long as we can produce to suit our own people and produce a surplus of the things we are best able to produce in order to buy the other things that we want from outside, we are in a good sound economic position, and we ought to be able to maintain our population.

Now, as to economies. I would not be too anxious about economies in this sense if I saw the Executive on a general course, the objective of which I could see. But I see them letting things go on; I see them hanging on, following a system which they have inherited from outside. The more you work that system, the more you have to work within it. If they are going to maintain that, they will have to cut down their expenditure in order to make it possible for the community to carry on at all. Probably the big difference that the Labour Party has with us would be that the ultimate results of our policy will tend to cut down social services. If they look ahead they will see that that is what we are hitting for. The time will come when, if we are to ask the Minister for Finance to do something to establish a certain social service that may be necessary, we will be met here with the reply: "Look at our Budget. Can we afford to tax our people more? Can our industries stand it?" And we will come to a stage when there will be a standstill, and that stage is being rapidly brought about by the fact that the producing sections of our people are relatively smaller here than in any other country. They are being depleted mainly through emigration. They are narrowing down. Young people are coming along. Only a proportion of the population is much greater than it should be for a stable community.

The central body is coming round, and while, so to speak, all the time the proportion is maintained, absolutely they are diminishing. The proportion between the young and the old and the intermediate producing section is decreasing. Though the whole country is actually going down in all classes, if you take the proportions it is bound to be diminished, and, therefore, a time will come when any hopes of the Labour Party—and I share their hopes and desires as far as having the most adequate possible social services are concerned—that they are going to have social services possible in the future will not be realised unless under changed conditions. They must realise that we cannot do it under the system which we are now adopting.

This deficit which we are facing this year is going to mean a further contraction. What happens? When the Minister for Finance wants to get £200,000, where does he go for it? He goes to the sugar tax, because if you were to go elsewhere you would have to establish more efficiency and you would not get the tax as easily. If he wants to cut off something, it will be cut off the old age pensions. Why? Because it gives a fairly big return. You will find in all these cases wherever there is a question of deficits of any kind, these social services will suffer. If the members of the Labour Party look ahead and ask themselves where they are going, they will agree with us that the time has come when we ought to try to force a different attitude from the Ministry.

I tried to express my own view by saying that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot have the furniture that we might have in a lord's mansion. If we want our liberty, and to get away from the kicks in the lord's mansion, we will have to be content with the plain furniture that we have in a cottage. I have no hesitation in saying— and very few on these benches, and on the opposite benches for that matter, if the Deputies there have not completely lost any views they had in the past—that we are prepared to face the alternative and take the plain furniture of the cottage. To my mind, you can do that, and the standard of living really need not come down. I am not referring to the international standard set up outside, but to the standard of real living, living so as to have the most perfect human lives it is possible for us to have.

The matter of salaries is there. What part does the question of salaries play in that whole scheme? We have been talking, for instance, about the Governor-General's salary. There is nobody on the opposite benches who knows better than we do that £20,000 will not save the nation, that it will not be the economic salvation of this country. We know that. But we are against the spending of that £20,000 because we believe that there ought not to be a penny more than absolutely necessary spent on any administration that is not reproductive. That is our objection. We are told because of the policy of having accepted the Treaty that we are to accept this. We say that they are maintaining a standard which is not necessary by the Treaty.

We believe that from £10,000 to £15,000 can quite easily be saved on that establishment. Do we want it at all? We say we do not. We think that it is ridiculous that this small country should be spending so much on two figureheads, taking them in any sense, apart altogether from any implications about our international relations and think of it from our own point of view. There are two figureheads, one in the North of the country and one in the South. Between them they have a personal salary of £18,000, £3,000 more than the President of the United States gets. The United States have about 117,000,000 of the richest people in the world. Their head is not a figurehead. He is an active President and does his work as actively as an active Prime Minister would do it, and he is only getting from that huge population £15,000. Look at this country, with less than 4¼ millions of people, where we are paying two figureheads the sum of £18,000. I say it is wrong. It does not induce the ordinary taxpayer to pay taxes. I put this to the Labour Party. They will admit, if they want social services carried out, it will depend on the willingness of the average taxpayer to pay his taxes to the State. Do they think it is going to make for willingness in that respect for them to see £3,000 more than is paid to the President of the United States paid to figureheads? I say it does not. If I were an extensive taxpayer I would say: "If you want social services and want me to contribute to them and I am prepared to do it, you are not going to waste my money on these affairs. Do without the social services of carrying on an expensive concern and give me value, or cut these down and let me feel, at any rate, that every penny I give is being used for the general advantage of the community." We say the same about the Ministers' salaries. We are told here that they are worth their money. To my mind, what you are worth depends altogether on what your effectiveness to the community is and what is being done in the general interests of the community. That is not the standard we ought to take.

I take it that we are here from the point of view of public duty and not from the point of view of earning our living. If we are here from that point of view pure and simple it is not the ideal that most of us on these benches anyhow stand for. We have stood for the payment of Deputies. Why? Because we realise that if men are to devote themselves to this particular work they ought to be relieved from what would be their other work, and of the necessity of earning their living during the hours that they are employed here. We know that Labour members could not act if there were not payment of Deputies, and we know ultimately that the representation of the people would be with the richer classes. Therefore we say that a sum should be given which would enable them to devote themselves to the public interest, but we say as that is the case the numbers ought to be the smallest that would be effective. Why should we have 150 who have got to be paid if 100 could do the work? To my mind, 100 would do, and when we see the Minister for Local Government coming along and suggesting that a deliberative body in Cork should be cut down to 15 and no excuse given for it, when there is no payment there, we ask ourselves whether they would not apply to themselves in this House the things that they apply to others. Would we not be better off? In my point of view a smaller number would do the nation's work. 100 would do it as well as 150. Instead of having a large number here we are often addressing our talk to empty benches. Someone else will, perhaps, come in in half an hour afterwards and repeat the same thing, because he was not here when the previous speaker had spoken. We are expecting decisions on matters from people who are out in the Lobby when they are being discussed here.

All that sort of thing is waste to my mind. It is on that question I am talking, and trying to illustrate it. I asked our representatives on the Committee of Procedure and Privileges to get an hour off here for tea. Why? Because I considered that it was an excuse getting out of the House at tea time for people to neglect their work. I say the representatives of the people have to be paid. We know Ministers have to be paid. The question then is: what is the sum on which they can devote themselves to the public work and do it reasonably? We have come to the conclusion, and feel we have good grounds for it that a Minister here could do the work, if animated with a proper public spirit, that is required from him, with £1,000 a year. Money is not a reward. I hope any public servant is worth more to the country than what he gets in actual cash. He ought not to enter the public service if he expects that his only reward is the cash value. We were asked about civil servants and engineers, and what our views on these were. My idea of the salaries is that we ought to cut out ruthlessly at the top everything that we look upon as waste. We will have to do it here. The allowances given to Ministers and Deputies ought to be clearly understood to be allowances to enable them to devote themselves to the public service without the distractions that they would have otherwise. We do know that they have to live. We recognise that. We believe the present standard afforded by the taxpayer should not be more than £1,000.

They tell us we will not get a good man. I deny it. I do not think the best public service is going to be got by the attractions of salaries. We are told we must have a high standard of pay to attract young men into the service. I do not believe it. It is my view that there is something innate in us in this country to look for an occupation sheltered from the noise, so to speak. We find the same thing in America. A large number of our people there, instead of going into business, go into public offices and become public servants. I was talking in Boston to an observant and able Irishman of American birth, not long ago, and he gave me examples and pointed out how the Irish people over there had lost on account of the fact that they were content to go into offices and take more or less minor employment because of what appeared to be their lack of enterprise in facing the difficulties and dangers of business. Now, that is strongly here. There have been no openings in the past for our young people, with the result that the professions and Civil Service were the only openings for all the young people. I do not think we ought to offer any unnecessary attractions in that particular direction. I think we ought, as far as possible, try to provide, if we are working to build industries, that we will have people getting into the industries and managing them, and our objective, so far as we look on it from a material point of view, ought to have that as its main purpose.

With the salaries then, if we start at the top, we should recognise that people can live on £1,000 and can comfortably educate their families on £1,000. We have seen it done, and know it is done. We say this: the top hats may have to be cut off and done without. Very well. We will be none the less respectable, if that is our purpose, by doing without the silk hats. We can do without them, and we are not going to suffer rationally for doing without them. It will be a good example for the general run of the country. As to the intermediate salaries, there is a point under which a person cannot live. These are the salaries I want brought up to the mark. In Donegal, I think it was, one of the Labour Deputies talked of a man getting 26/- a week. We have one man with nothing to do getting £10,000 a year, and another man is not able to get 26/- a week. It is absolutely wrong, and, as far as we are concerned, we do not stand for it. We believe there ought to be available for every single man in the country employment which will bring him in enough recompense to enable him to maintain his family, and the whole organisation of the State ought to be to that end.

When a young man takes up a career in the Civil Service, what does he want? He wants to get the amount that is necessary to maintain himself independent of his parents. That sum can be estimated, and a scale can be fixed for him. He wants, if he gets married, to be in a position to maintain a family, and he wants, when he comes to an age between 30 and 40 years, to be in the position in which he can have his children educated. These scales under our own conditions can be determined, and I think if we are going to work matters out at all reasonably we ought to sit down and get these scales and not inherit any scales from abroad and have them calculated and worked out. I forget which Deputy spoke about a married man getting a larger salary than a single man. He said that in some cases a single man might have dependents. These things, in the long run, will work themselves out. You cannot possibly arrange for all these cases. If we are to work out a scheme, we ought to work it out so that the young man, coming into the Civil Service, will be able to get a salary that will enable him to maintain himself independent of his parents, and that a married man will get a salary that will enable him to maintain a family and that he will be able to feel that sufficient provision is made for him in his old age, so that he will not be dependent upon anybody. I hope what I have said will make clear what our attitude on salaries anyhow is, and what our economic purposes are.

We are opposing this Bill, not merely because we think it is wrong to bring in a second Vote on Account in this particular way, but we are against it because we are dissatisfied with the general policy of the Executive. We are dissatisfied with their letting things slide. They could have saved twenty or thirty thousand pounds if the principle which they are applying to Cork was applied to the Seanad. What is the meaning of having 60 Senators here? We see ourselves faced with the necessity of imposing next year a further burden on industry, or doing what is worse from our point of view, cutting off the social services. They will not economise, and they will not set up a Committee that will be representative of all parties that would go properly into all these things and deal with them on broad lines. They will not even set it up from the point of view of the general industrial rehabilitation of the country—a body of people to carry out the policy after telling us definitely what it is. We are opposing this Bill, but in any honest effort that will be made by the members on the opposite side—no matter how we may differ with them fundamentally in certain things— to try to put this country in a condition in which we hope to be able to retain the best of our people, they will get our help. If they do, at any time, bring forward a measure of that kind, we will do our best, as far as we are concerned, to try to make the best of it. We have tried to do it in any of the economic measures that have been brought before us—on the Creamery Bill, for instance. There is a certain amount of unpopularity attaching to certain things, but we took our share and tried to do our share. We will continue to do that provided there will be root interests. We will work for the country as a whole, and deal with its problems on the understanding of what is the capacity of this country to meet the expenditure that is required.

I think Deputies who have listened to Deputy de Valera will agree that the general policy which he outlined has not been worked out in any detail, or does not appear to have been worked out in any detail by him or his Party, because when he came down to particular instances the only instances he had were instances that would be quite as useful and as likely to be used if he had no policy at all, the sort of instance that one could use to appeal particularly to those sections of the electors who know least about the difficulties of carrying on government and of getting a suitable and efficient personnel. I do not want to deal particularly with those points of detail which he has raised and that have been raised many a time already. There is no use in hoping that you are going to get your public services filled by people in ordinary times who are making a conscious personal sacrifice to do it. You are not going to get your Ministries filled by any people possessing capital or anything of that sort who would suffer substantial losses by becoming Ministers. Every person is perfectly aware that unless one has become used to it for a considerable time, the personal attacks, the violent criticism and all that sort of thing that a Minister has necessarily to endure are the things that would constitute for the person who had to make say a financial sacrifice something in the nature of an additional one. You could easily, by cutting say ministerial salaries, injure the country and the public service very severely. You could very seriously restrict the choice of people who would be available for ministerial offices. I think it has been stated in the Dáil that we already have had experience of people refusing, on two or three occasions, to enter the Ministry because they could not face the loss, either immediate or prospective, which it would involve.

You lost nothing by not having them.

I do not think that is so. Your government should be run by fairly normal people, and I think there is nothing that could be more dangerous than to have people who, say, had a fanatical devotion to some idea and were prepared to throw over their own concerns, regardless of their own interests, their families' interests and all the normal considerations that influence people, in order to pursue that fanatical idea. It may be all right for people to do so in times of great national crisis, but your arrangements should be for the ordinary working of your machine, and you should expect on the whole that it would be worked by normal and typical people. I have already said on many occasions all that I would wish to say about the Civil Service, but Deputy de Valera makes it more difficult for me to take his general argument seriously when I find him only coming down to instances that are the kind of thing that would be effective on an electioneering platform, the things that would make a certain appeal, and that would make their greatest appeal to the people who have least thought about the problems of government, people whose own experience was limited practically to their own affairs.

Some Deputy on the opposite side seemed to indicate that Ministers advocated divergent policies. The fact is that different Ministers, in charge of different Departments, necessarily look at problems from different angles. But it is wrong for Deputies on the opposite side to conclude that, because different Ministers lay emphasis on different aspects of problems and policies, they are not agreed on the general policy of the Government. It has been said that there is no general policy. Deputy de Valera has indicated in general terms a certain policy of the Fianna Fáil Party, and it seems to me that his argument amounts to this, that because the Government's policy is not identical with his, the Government has no policy. I do not want to misrepresent him or to seize in a debating way on any particular point, but his policy—and it is a policy which he expresses as subject to modifications—is the policy of the stone wall, or, to put it in another way, the policy of aiming at making the country absolutely self-contained, subject to the inevitable necessity of bringing in certain goods. It is a policy of making great sacrifices for the mere purpose of being self-contained. I think that is his policy. He has suggested that, so far as the Government may have a policy, it is simply one of growing food for England. We do not accept Deputy de Valera's policy of striving too much at making the country self-contained and self-sufficing. We recognise that you cannot ignore standards outside. You may talk about standards for the country, but you have got to remember that there is the case of the individual, and it seems to me that while we may have different standards in a sense, different practices and different habits, taking things generally it is not right for us to accept any policy that we think would involve a lower standard than people outside have, or that would deny to our people things that all other people over the world have.

What about those who cannot get anything?

I am coming to them.

They do not count.

I do not think that the Deputy's policy will cure that evil at all. I think it was a mere question of maintaining a large population here. I do not say that the Deputy wants that, but he has talked about the necessity for trying to have the population increased. We also believe that the population ought to be increased, but we believe that it ought to be increased without lowering the general standard of living, such as it is, that it ought to be increased with an improvement in the standard of living.

If we were aiming merely at an increase in the population and had no regard to the standard of living, I think that the way in which that could almost certainly be brought about would be by stopping expenditure on education, and a few services like that —particularly education—and perhaps using the money that we would save in that way to relieve people on the land from certain direct taxation. The lack of education would tend to close the doors to emigration, and the absence of direct taxation would make some sort of existence on the land possible to greater numbers. But nobody would contemplate that we should simply try to get a population by degrading the general level, and in those portions of the country where there is some comfort, bringing the level down to that of the barest existence.

When I said that the land could support no more people, I naturally did not mean that the land could support no more people if we had no regard to the standard of living. I did not even mean that the land could support no more people if we had the lowest standard everywhere amongst the agricultural population. Obviously there are places where the standard is a little higher than other places. If you lowered that to the lowest level you could increase the agricultural population. What I meant—and I think it was clear from the context—when I said that the land could support no more people was, having in mind the need for some reasonable standard of living, that no more people could be supported by the industry of agriculture.

What about wheat-growing?

Even with wheat-growing. Deputy Flinn asked what was the need for all this expenditure on agriculture, what was the need for the policy of the Minister for Agriculture, if we believed that no more people could be supported on the land. The need for it is to make agriculture more remunerative, to improve the standard of living of those who are employed in agriculture, and that, it seems to me, must go along with any attempt at industrial improvement. One of the reasons why I am very anxious to go slow and to go carefully in the matter of tariffs is because agriculture is in such a depressed condition. If agriculturalists generally were fairly prosperous, then I would say that, for the sake of the community as a whole, for the sake of the future of the country, in order more speedily to obtain means of employment for the young people of the country who cannot now live in it, sacrifices should be demanded of them. I believe, and I think that it really cannot be seriously disputed, that any policy of promoting industry by tariffs or in any other way—but I take tariffs for the moment—in the first instance would result in an additional burden being thrown on existing producers. I have admitted in this House that in certain cases tariffs have been imposed and, owing to peculiar circumstances, that there was no increase in cost of the articles supplied, or that it was only an increase for a very short time, and that consequently we did get an increase in production and a new industry without any burden falling on the general community. But there were other instances where a burden has fallen on the general community. The result of any general policy of tariffs, or the result of any extension of the policy of tariffs, must be that, for a time, and in certain instances permanently, an additional burden will be thrown on the existing producers. Deputy Moore asked why so-and-so was imported. We could go about keeping all these things out, and we could do that speedily, but the result would be that an additional burden would fall on existing producers, and in the main that burden would fall on the agriculturalists.

Why not give the agriculturalists some protection then?

Let me develop my point. There is a very great difficulty in protecting agriculture in this country. Perhaps it is because of the vicious circle again, largely because there is such a small urban population in the country. But the burden of rapidly increased manufacturing industry must fall on the agriculturalists. It is all very well to say that the agriculturalist himself would get benefit from that. Undoubtedly he would. Any increase in industrial production would help the agriculturalist. It is a thing that would reduce railway freights, increase the population, and is one of the things that might relieve the general taxpayer from having to pay £400,000 a year towards the upkeep of the Post Office. Ultimately great benefits would follow to agriculturalists from an increase in manufacturing industry. Ultimately, if there was a sufficient increase in manufacturing industry, it might make it possible, or easier, to help the agriculturalist himself by protection. But the difficulty is that immediately the burden is thrown on agriculture—this is a matter that might be the subject of a separate debate—and it does seem to me that any sharp increase in the cost of living, any sharp increase in the agriculturalists' burden, while it would give some more population in the towns, might drive people out of employment on the land much more rapidly, and the whole country would lose rather than benefit. It is for these reasons that we have hesitated to plunge into a policy, regardless of the cost, of aiming at increasing the amount of manufacturing industry.

Will the Minister allow me to ask him one question? I do not want to interrupt, because I think we are all interested in the efforts he is making to deal with this matter. He said that in certain industries with a tariff there had been an increase in cost due to tariffs, and that in certain industries there had not been an increase. He is speaking as a result of experience. Would the Minister tell the House in what industries there have been increases in the cost to the consumer from tariffs, and in what industries there have not been increases in cost to the consumer?

I will take an instance. Take cigarettes. For a short time there was a good deal of revenue collected on the importation of cigarettes, and that went into the Exchequer. At present, as far as I know —I am not very familiar with the cigarette question—leaving out certain differences that might be due to tobacco duties, there has been an increase in the cigarette industry without any increase in cost to the general community. On the other side, take boots. The cost of boots is higher than it would be here if there was no tariff. So far as boots imported are concerned, there is no burden on the community, because the revenue goes into the Exchequer, and some other tax has been remitted. Deputy de Valera may smile at this, but if he examines it he will find that I am perfectly right. So far as boots made in the country are concerned, the people who buy them have to pay more. I do not know what is the exact amount, but they pay more than they would have to pay for boots if there was no tariff. That additional money goes to the manufacturer to keep the industry going, and it is a contribution levied off the general taxpayers in the interests of that industry. When we put on the boot tariff we estimated that we would get £250,000 yearly, and we remitted a certain duty on tea, which also gave us about £250,000 per annum. If this boot industry developed to a certain point, when it could just supply or almost supply the home demand, and that you had keen competition amongst the boot manufacturers here, that would drive prices down to, shall we say, the English level, then the position would be that the home demand would be practically supplied. It would undoubtedly be supplied at a price that was just sufficient to prevent competing boots coming in over the tariff. It would mean that therefore no revenue would come into the Exchequer, and that the population buying boots would pay roughly £250,000 yearly more than they would pay if there was no tariff. Consequently it would mean, when you had reached that point, and until you had gone beyond that point, that the general population was paying a contribution of £250,000 yearly for maintaining the boot industry in this country. Deputies can work it out.

I would like to point out to the Minister——

I did not mind giving way to the Deputy to ask a question, but he will have some other opportunity of dealing with this.

The Minister did not answer the question.

I think, in fairness to the boot manufacturers, this matter should be cleared up. Is the Minister satisfied that it is the manufacturers and not the retailers of the boots who are responsible for the increased prices?

I am prepared to prove to the Minister that the statement he made is incorrect.

He cannot do it now.

The Deputy can seize many other opportunities.

I think the Minister ought to be fair to the manufacturers. I think it is the retailers.

The general policy is that the manufacturer, whether he gets the whole amount of the tariff or not, will always, until you reach the point where internal competition drives him down, get pretty near it. There may be exceptions to that just as there are exceptions to many other things, but there is no use talking about tariffs without recognising things like that, and that in general, as a matter of fact, sometimes the manufacturer needs a tariff because he has to labour under disadvantages. He might be getting fifteen per cent. extra for his boots, and not make a single penny, and he may be giving his whole time and energy to building up the industry. I am not accusing the manufacturers of profiteering, but, if a tariff is needed, one of the reasons why it is needed, especially in a new industry, is that only a tariff would enable it to overcome the disadvantages. Labour may not be so skilled, or it may be difficult to get it. You may have transport difficulties, or selling difficulties may be greater. But whatever the reason the public is going to pay, in general, something near the amount of the tariff. I would assert to members of the House, without any fear, that the general proposition is that, and that is one of the reasons why we must be careful about going too rapidly.

Have blankets increased?

I never said that they will not.

What we are suggesting is that you should give us a schedule.

Deputies must allow me to continue. There is another reason against trying to go excessively rapidly with this matter, and that is that if you give a very high rate of protection you are liable to have your industries hastily organised, and ill-organised factories set up on uneconomic sites. Generally, you would have a number of industries started on such a basis—industries that could never be economic apart from the tariff. During the European War there were many industries set up which collapsed afterwards. There were even some industries set up which the Government took a hand in saving, and which it would have been wiser to let die out, because they were ill-situated, ill-laid down, and generally were such that they could never be as economic as they might have been. A tariff that would enable anybody to start to manufacture a particular article simply means that people are going to come in when they see a sure prospect of a profit. Factories would be started in workhouses, and buildings of that sort, which may be ready to hand but which are utterly unsuitable and, perhaps, ill-situated. Machinery of a wrong sort is going to be got in, and the whole industry is going to be built up by a slipshod method, with the result that for a very long time the people are going to be paying more than they ought to be asked to pay for a particular article.

Might I ask the Minister a question?

I will not answer any more questions.

Deputies, instead of arguing with the Minister, ought to allow him to finish his speech.

The real difference that I see between the policy outlined by Deputy de Valera and the policy of the Government is this: that Deputy de Valera wants to have everything produced in the country that could be produced in it. He wants to set out to cut off imports, so far as imports car possibly be cut out, and he looks upon the stone wall as the ideal, the impossible ideal, and the thing that we are to come as near as possible to achieving. We look upon the thing in a different way. We see that, for strength and development—every kind of development, cultural and otherwise—the population of the country should be increased. We see that the population cannot be increased merely by getting increased agricultural efficiency. We see, therefore, that industry must be built up. We believe, however, that in the beginning, industry can only be built up by throwing an additional burthen on agriculture. We are trying to increase the prosperity of agriculture. We are going slowly with our tariff policies because we believe that at the present stage there are other policies as well as tariff policies, such, for instance, as industrial policy. Because we believe that at the present time agriculture cannot bear an increased burthen our aim in industry is not to produce everything that the country might produce, and not to try to get as near the stone wall policy as possible.

Simply to build up industries for which the country is not suitable does not provide a means of supporting an additional population so as to give variety to the economic life of the country, variety in employment and variety of outlook, and get the conditions of industrial development. We are aiming, so far as possible, to have industry conducted on an efficient basis, and if there are any things that could get a world market, then we would prefer those things to some other things, because we can do these things at less cost to the people. I believe if we were to attempt the stone-wall policy it would simply mean throwing back the wheels of progress to a certain extent. It would mean depriving the people of the country of things that they will want, the things that the peoples of other countries have, and it is not going in the long run to be a lasting policy. You cannot in the modern world, with modern means of travel and communication, set up some sort of peculiar people here. We must take it that the people of this country will march in step with the peoples of the rest of the world, and any attempt to have entirely different standards here will not, I think, be successful. Someone, I think, talked about the revival of the kilt. In my opinion, some of the things that it has been suggested that we might do would be just as preposterous as reviving the kilt. There are things that you simply cannot do, and you will not, I think, induce the people to make such a futile attempt. It is quite a different thing to try to have, for instance, distinctive habits of living and, to some extent, distinctive habits as regards dress, cookery and food. Most countries have those peculiarities, and by means of those special ways we can avoid some economic evils at the present time.

There were many other matters mentioned that I have no opportunity of dealing with now. We cannot come to the Dáil and announce half-baked policies that we have not thought out. But we have not had to wait for the Deputy's suggestion to begin thinking out. On a great many lines, we have done things before they came here, and we will not be deterred by their presence from doing many other things. We have many things in preparation. As regards insurance, some Deputy pointed out that the position in regard to it was not satisfactory. We recognise that, and have had committees sitting on that question. An investigation of that has been going on for the past three years. One of the reasons why we waited until some months ago to introduce the Mutual Insurance Bill was because we hoped that we might soon have a more comprehensive scheme. We cannot come down and lay our difficulties before the Dáil. The Dáil would really not be able to help us in our difficulties. The Dáil might criticise our scheme, but as regards hammering out the scheme we must do that ourselves.

I expected the Minister would have something to say about housing.

I have already said something about housing.

We are prepared to give the Minister extra time if he wants to finish.

Deputy Corish asked about housing, and I indicated that where any costs have been incurred a subsidy at the old rate will certainly have to be paid. I said there might be cases where, if no costs were incurred, and perhaps no work done before the new Bill comes before this House, in such cases they would have to receive the new rate of subsidy, whatever it might be. There may be cases where practically all the steps have been taken and where it will mean the loss of a summer, and of a definite and specific scheme being postponed if some definite statement cannot be given to the Department. If the body Deputy Corish represents has a scheme and lays the facts in regard to it before the Minister for Local Government, and if that Department thinks it is a case where in all circumstances the full subsidy should be given, we would undertake to recommend to the Dáil that the provision should be such as to enable the full subsidy to be given. I have no doubt in relation to work of that sort that the Dáil would agree to that. In cases of that kind we can meet them. I am not in a position to make a definite statement that would cover every case, but we are not going to take any steps that would cause housing schemes to be held up. Deputy Corish will be in a position to get definite information from the Department that would enable him to go on.

I should like to ask the Minister for Finance, as Deputy Rice is not here, if there will be any possibility of the Committee set up representing the builders and members of the trade unions issuing a report as to how far they have gone, and whether it is possible to get any further? Will they state definitely what is the position with regard to building costs, and put us in possession of information so as to let us know how the position stands?

The only thing I can say on that is if we get no report we must in October lay our proposals before the Dáil independent of the report. It will be more satisfactory if we could get a report that will help the whole scheme, but if we do not get the report a scheme will be laid before the Dáil.

Has any attempt been made to bring together a second time the conference which broke down in Cork between those interests?

I cannot answer that.

Is it not time that there was somebody here who could answer?

The Deputy knows how to get the information, and he need not try to be offensive.

I am not trying to be offensive.

The Deputy should put down a Parliamentary question to get information on a matter of that kind.

I understood the Minister to say that where schemes were uncompleted and preparations made for the building of houses consideration would be given to these people for the full grant. I have a case where a scheme was held up owing to a dispute between the District Council and the Department of Local Government. Is that a case where a full grant would be given?

The Deputy should put the case to the Department of Local Government. If a person began building on the understanding that he would get the full grant he must get the full grant. If he has not taken definite steps of that sort he might not have a case for the full grant, but we will consider the matter and let him know our view on the matter.

I am speaking of an instance where the land was acquired and the plans approved, but sanction was withheld by the Department of Local Government.

In the case of persons who have begun to build and have partially completed the building of houses, are we to take it that there will be no money available for these people before next autumn? Are we to take it that the Minister has no money for giving grants to these people?

There will have to be a vote in the autumn for that.

Does not the Minister realise that means that building will be suspended in many hundreds of cases until next autumn?

Unless he is prepared to recommend retrospective payment.

There might be some slight dislocation and trouble to people, but they will get paid as soon as we have had their cases looked into.

Would the Minister give an indication as to how he proposes to exercise the powers of borrowing given to him by Section 2 of the Act?

Just in the usual way.

Might I ask will the policy be continued of allowing the flag of Saorstát Eireann to be insulted in a foreign country, while the flag of that country is honoured here?

I think we will not commit the country into war.

Question put.
The Dáil divided. Tá, 69; Níl, 55.

Tá.

  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Craig, Sir James.
  • Crowley, James.
  • Daly, John.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Doherty, Eugene.
  • Dolan, James N.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Egan, Barry M.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Gorey, Denis J.
  • Hassett, John J.
  • Heffernan, Michael R.
  • Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
  • Hennessy, Thomas.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Henry, Mark.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
  • Jordan, Michael.
  • Kelly, Patrick Michael.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • Law, Hugh Alexander.
  • Leonard, Patrick.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • Byrne, John Joseph.
  • Carey, Edmund.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Conlan, Martin.
  • Connolly, Michael P.
  • Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James E.
  • Myles, James Sproule.
  • Nally, Martin Michael.
  • O'Connor, Bartholomew.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Hanlon, John F.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
  • O'Reilly, John J.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearold.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Redmond, William Archer.
  • Reynolds, Patrick.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Shaw, Patrick W.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Tierney, Michael.
  • Vaughan, Daniel.
  • White, John.
  • White, Vincent Joseph.
  • Wolfe, George.
  • Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Níl.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Daniel.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Cassidy, Archie J.
  • Clancy, Patrick.
  • Clery, Michael.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Colohan, Hugh.
  • Corkery, Dan.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fahy, Frank.
  • Flinn, Hugo.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Holt, Samuel.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Kent, William R.
  • Killane, James Joseph.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mullins, Thomas.
  • O'Connell, Thomas J.
  • O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
  • O'Leary, William.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas.
  • Powell, Thomas P.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sexton, Martin.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
Question declared carried.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 17th July.
Top
Share