Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 23 Nov 1928

Vol. 27 No. 6

APPROPRIATION BILL, 1928—SECOND STAGE (RESUMED).

Debate resumed on Question: That this Bill be now read a second time.

Mr. BRISCOE

I tried yesterday evening to show that if the Government paid attention to the value of money paid on services, or paid for items which are certainly not productive in any shape for the country, that no matter how small the item was it could be made use of. I said yesterday with regard to the Vote for the establishment of the Governor-General, and I think I proved it, that if that money were capitalised over a certain period it would mean that for the amount that we are paying, if that money were saved, the country would be the richer to the extent of between £400,000 and £500,000 over twenty-five years, on the basis of present and future Votes. I now turn to the Army. It was stated by the Minister for Defence that the average cost to the State per soldier was something like £135 per year. That sum of £135 is somewhere about the average grant made for a normal house that is built. If, for every solider that we cut down expenditure on, we devoted that money towards helping to solve the housing question it would mean that you would have an extra sum of £135 for every house per year per man. Deputy Davin suggested that at the present time he thought, with the huge number of unemployed people that there are in Ireland, it would be wrong to reduce the Army before certain works could be found to absorb them. I say if that particular soldier is demobilised, and if he is employed on building a house, his salary would go in the subsidy or grant given for the building of the house so that the question as far as that soldier is concerned would be easily solved.

I do not wish to delay the House at any length except to say that we on this side of the House recognise that the policy of the Government with regard to housing is all wrong. Perhaps I might say this to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that while he may not approach the proposition from the same angle that we do, he has a responsibility to the State with regard to the Shannon scheme which he put through this House. It is quite clear that there is going to be an over-production of consumable energy, to the extent of something like forty million units of electricity—that is, the overproduction for which there will be no use. In other words, an over-production of electricity which will be wasted.

MINISTER for INDUSTRY and COMMERCE (Mr. McGilligan)

Do you know that?

Mr. BRISCOE

Do you dispute it?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Let us keep to the third person.

Mr. BRISCOE

Does the Minister dispute that?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I have disputed it for years past.

Mr. BRISCOE

I make the statement that for the present and for the next few years the total amount of electrical units that can be consumed in this country by every possible means will be about seventy-five million units at the outside.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That can be——

Mr. BRISCOE

That you will find users for.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

You are amongst the prophets now.

Mr. BRISCOE

It is not prophecy at all. It is fact. I say that if the Minister for Industry and Commerce considered the matter that he would try to find a means for the consumption of every unit of electricity generated, and would be interested in seeing the housing question solved. I am prophesying an over production of electricity. I do not wish to delay the House except to say that unless the expenditure of the Government is tackled on the basis of seeing what return the State is going to get, whether they are going to increase their assets or keep on spending money on frivolous things while the country is getting no benefit in return, it is about time that the Government would either go out of office or at least change their attitude, and see if it would not be possible to do what the people of this country consider to be necessary, and which will have to be done eventually.

Dr. HENNESSY

I understand that the Opposition have the feeling that they have not been treated very well in this discussion so far—that Deputies on the Government Benches took no notice of them. I do not know that my intervention will be regarded as much of a compliment in that respect. It is said that a lot of nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest. We had a surfeit of it during the course of this debate, and the Front Opposition Bench should be suffering at the moment from a bad attack of mental dyspepsia. I have great sympathy with the Ceann Comhairle, who had to listen to all the speech-making on this discussion yesterday, and which is continued to-day.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

A physical ailment prevented the Ceann Comhairle from listening to it yesterday.

The PRESIDENT

I might say, sir, that was a merciful dispensation of Providence.

Dr. HENNESSY

The Ceann Comhairle said the other day that his heart bled for me. Well, physiologically, I think that is a heresy. Nevertheless, I feel very much for the Ceann Comhairle, and I reciprocate the kindly feeling he expressed for me. What I feel is that the Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle should have their brains encased in steel. I certainly do not envy them their salaries, because I think they are very much underpaid for what they have to undergo in this House from time to time. I was sorry, in the course of this debate, to hear Deputy de Valera complain that he was the victim of what might be described as moral assassination. I have no sympathy with that, but somehow I have the feeling that anybody who would look at Deputy de Valera would not regard him as a successful Don Juan or a successful Don Giovanni. I remember, in connection with defamation, that there was a certain royal household half a century ago a member of which was physically effeminate. It was supposed that he was sexually debilitated.

Mr. DERRIG

Is this a medical lecture on the subject of the Appropriation Bill?

Dr. HENNESSY

Anyhow, suddenly the rumour got afloat that he was the father of six unofficial children. A communistic paper made the comment on that that they were only boasting. However, I believe, notwithstanding the rumour, that he remained unmarried until the day of his death. Now I have not heard very much in the way of useful suggestions with regard to this Appropriation Bill as to where economies can be effected. Of course the old story about the Civic Guards and the Army was introduced. I believe that if you had not the Army and the Civic Guards that you would have anarchy. I believe that the expenses for both forces have secured, as I said before, constitutional law and the rule of the majority in this country, and I say that they are absolutely necessary in their present numbers. I believe that if you wanted to raise a loan in the morning and if these forces were abolished, that loan would be a failure. I think that the Civic Guards and the Army are a necessity for this country, and that economically they are a good proposition. I have heard a lot said about the delinquencies of the Government. I am not going to get into that or defend them. They can defend themselves. But there are other people who have their delinquencies, and I would refer them, in conclusion, to a speech recently delivered by the President of Sinn Fein. If they study that speech they may become a little more moderate in accusing other people.

Mr. KENT

In listening to the debate last evening, I was very much impressed by the remarks of Deputy Corish in which he brought to the notice of the Executive Council the destruction of Liberty Hall in 1916. The extraordinary thing to me is that since 1916 there has been no compensation whatever paid to that public body as regards the destruction of Liberty Hall and the furniture in it. I know another case in the country somewhat similar to that. Perhaps it may differ from that case in more ways than one. It is a case of a house that was attacked on the 2nd May, 1916, by the British forces. After five or six hours of stubborn resistance the house was partly, or I might say wholly, demolished. When the military got possession of that house they destroyed the furniture and took away valuable property that was inside it. Subsequently there were two lives lost. There was an application made, I think, in 1922 to this Government when it came into power, but for some reasons unexplained the application for compensation was turned down. I made several inquiries from time to time, but I could get no reason to explain why the application was turned down. You must all remember that the men who went out in 1916, amongst others the President and some members sitting on the Front Bench opposite, nobly fought for the cause of their country. Their action helped to bring this House into existence. If it were not for them, I doubt if some members on the benches opposite would be occupying to-day the positions they do. Coming back to the case which I was dealing with, and which I hope the President and the Executive Council will consider, I trust that the Minister, when replying would take it into consideration, and do something in the way of giving compensation for this house. The house cost £2,000 to build twenty-five years ago. The furniture alone was worth between £400 and £500.

In the course of this debate I heard references and comments made to the interests of other countries, such, for instance, as Soviet Russia, and Poland, I think it is very unfair, when we seem to take such a great interest in the affairs of other countries, that we should not first look after the interests of our own people and do justice to the men by compensating them—men who made such noble sacrifices as they did make in 1916.

My friend Deputy Sheehy, the gallant member for West Cork, spoke about the catches of herrings and mackerel down in Kinsale and Baltimore, and said it would be advisable to keep them in this country. To my mind, it would, in view of the way that taxation is increasing year by year. In view of that we will require all these herrings and mackerel because we will have nothing else to fall back upon, and it will be well for us to have the herrings and the mackerel. The ratepayers of the country have been reduced to such a state that they can hardly eke out an existence. It is very painful for me to have to refer to the case that I mentioned. I do not wish to go further into that matter, but I would like to lay all the facts before the House. I am absolutely certain that the President, when this case is brought before him, will consider it sympathetically, and I am absolutely sure that he will do full justice to it.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I have been left under some mystification by Deputy Briscoe. One is whether he realises what the Appropriation Bill means or not. A Deputy announced last night that in the discussion on the Appropriation Bill we do not see as we ordinarily do a number of civil servants present so that the points raised could be answered. Apparently the Deputy thinks the Appropriation Bill is a second gallop on the Estimates, and that it gives him a chance of raising the things he had forgotten previously. There is a certain amount of mystification as to what the Appropriation Bill is, judging by the speeches delivered. This is not a runover the Estimates again. That is not what the procedure has been. The Deputies are not used to the procedure. The procedure that has been found useful in practice has been that on an Appropriation Bill general matters, but not small details, such as questions about old age pensions and certain small things affecting Deputies' constituents, are raised, general matters relevant to the particular Bill; not general taxation, for taxation has nothing to do with this. The second matter about which Deputy Briscoe left me in doubt was what the Shannon scheme has to do with housing. I wish that point had been developed. He contented himself with a prophecy which he describes as a fact, and the fact is that under no conditions can there be used in this country more than a certain number of millions of units per annum. That is what he calls a fact.

Mr. BRISCOE

On a point of explanation, I said yesterday I thought it would have been far better if the Minister for Finance, who is responsible to the House for finance, would be in the House to hear criticisms of the Bill and to give explanations if necessary. I thought it was not fair that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should be left here to answer for another Minister's Bill. With regard to the Shannon scheme, I did not make the statement that under no circumstances could a certain number of units be used. What I said was that a certain number could not be used under existing conditions.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

And that is not prophecy?

Mr. BRISCOE

I never suggested a prophecy, though I may belong to a nation of prophets. I say under existing conditions that the greatest number of units for which an outlet can be found would be about 75,000,000, and that at some future date, when industry increases, as I hope it will, there will be a certain increase in the number of houses, and there will then be a greater use of the current produced. But I say that for a certain number of years there will be a surplus amount of energy generated. Now, that is not prophecy.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The Deputy says something will not happen, and then he says that is not prophecy. It seems to me he does not understand the meaning of the word prophecy. I would like if the Deputy would seek the opportunity of giving his views as to what are the existing circumstances with regard to his assumption in that matter, and what the likelihood is of an increase in consumption if we do something about housing. I do not know what it is that is required to be done about housing.

Mr. BRISCOE

Building.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That we should build a sufficient number of houses to raise the consumption of electricity from 75,000,000 units to 110,000,000 units? That is the problem the Deputy has to face if he is going to get the Shannon current utilised. Deputy Corish raised a point, dating back to 1916 about Liberty Hall, and Deputy Ruttledge raised a point with regard to certain ex-R.I.C. men and particularly one man. These are not matters that should be raised under the Appropriation Bill. How what happened to Liberty Hall in 1916 becomes relevant to the Appropriation Bill in 1928 I cannot see. With regard to the ex-R.I.C. man about whom the Minister for Finance is alleged to have made a promise and about whom I think he made a certain statement, and asked that a certain letter of his should be read before the matter was raised again, that surely is not a matter that falls under the Appropriation Bill of 1928. Deputy Fahy is concerned about a number of Commissions we have set up to deal with a big number of things, and he hopes that good results will come from them. Having by implication derided the various Commissions that have been set up he suggested that another Commission should be set up with general terms of reference to find out what good we are getting from the expenditure of money on educational services in the country. That is a Commission that might be usefully set up, for there is too much disposition in this House to say on education votes: "This is for education and let us spend all the money we can on it." The educational service is one regarding which there is less criticism and analysis than other services, and it costs the country very much. All we got from Deputy Fahy by way of criticism in his speech in which he derided Commissions in general is the suggestion that we might have a Commission to inquire into the question of what is the good of the money spent on education, what is the good of education, and what is the result of the expenditure of money on education. Previous to that he gave an example of how the educational system is overborne by the political situation in the country, and he gave a certain anecdote with regard to a teacher putting particular types of questions to a class.

Deputy de Valera wants our Ambassador in the United States of America to be able to answer questions about the Twenty-six Counties, and by implication about the Six Counties, and whether there is one nation or whether there are two nations here. Deputy Fahy told the Dáil that an inspector criticised a teacher for asking this type of question, and Deputy de Valera criticised the Ambassador who does not give the answer.

Although Deputy de Valera was recently announced to have stated that his policy with regard to the Twenty-Six Counties and the Six Counties was that there was no clear-cut solution, that it was better not to talk too much about it, a matter on which silence is ordained at home is a matter on which the ambassadors abroad must lecture the people, and a matter on which inspectors get aggrieved because teachers put questions about it to classes. Is that what is to pass for criticism in the Appropriation Bill? Deputy Little criticised external affairs. I gathered that Deputy Little has pledged that when his Party comes into power one of the first things to be achieved is the neutrality of this country guaranteed, as he previously said, by France, Germany, England and the United States. One of the aims of the Republican Party, as it is called, is that we are going to get our country's neutrality guaranteed by these four nations. We gathered last night, for the first time, what is to result from this neutrality, or what is the advantage that is going to accrue to the country when that guaranteed neutrality is secured. We were told about Belgium. I interjected: "Did the guarantee of neutrality save Belgium very much?" I was told it had not, but "Look at the advantage it has been to other countries. What we want is to have our neutrality guaranteed. If it is broken it will not do us much good. We will be subject to the horrors of invasion to which Belgium was subject, but it will do other countries some good." It is a bright prospect. It is not the prospect that previously was held out as a result of guaranteed neutrality.

The Deputy had a second example to put before the Dáil; he had the example of Holland. He referred to the neutrality of Holland and emphasised that the territory of Holland was not invaded. And why? Both countries, both peoples, were anxious to invade Holland, and what was to prevent their doing so? It was because they had the object lesson of what world opinion meant in the case of the invasion of Belgium. By what State or nation was the neutrality of Holland guaranteed? The Deputy will find, though it may not be any addition to European history, that there was no guarantee of neutrality given to Holland save whatever guarantee Holland had in her own armed forces.

Mr. LEMASS

Had not Belgium the same guarantee? Had not Belgium an identical guarantee with Holland, and did Belgium's armed forces do anything more than attempt to protect their own country?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That is an argument against armed forces. Is it an argument in favour of guaranteed neutrality?

Mr. LEMASS

It is not against it.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The object sought here is to abolish the Army and the Civic Guards. We are told they are no good to prevent invasion. Let us aim at guaranteed neutrality, and the result of that will be that it is going to be a tremendous weapon from the point of view of world opinion on behalf of certain other nations; but the country is not going to be preserved from invasion. Deputy Little forgot to say whether public opinion was swayed or was not swayed by what Deputy Law referred to—a certain invasion that took place of the sovereign rights of the Greeks at a certain period. The historical lesson was not completed by Deputy Little. The Deputy set out to prove the thesis that guaranteed neutrality was the aim and object of the Party on behalf of whom he spoke. The Deputy wanted to show us what were the advantages of guaranteed neutrality, but then he stopped very short. The idea of public opinion being swayed was given in the case of Belgium, but it failed in the case of Greece. The idea of securing benefit from guaranteed neutrality was not shown in the case of Belgium. The virtue of guaranteed neutrality was attempted to be shown by Deputy Little, but when the actual results of guaranteed neutrality were specified, it would scarcely be regarded as guaranteed neutrality at all. I do not know by what method exactly the Deputy would seek to have the guaranteed neutrality for this country established, or how he would manage to get that neutrality guaranteed by France, England, Germany and the United States in the event of a war arising.

Deputy Clery was very concerned about some items which pertain to my own Department in particular. One was the establishing of some new method dealing with kelp. He made the allegation that a letter was written to my Department three months ago, and no acknowledgment was received. A Deputy who waits for three months nursing a grievance about a letter that was not acknowledged, and then simply talks about it here, can scarcely be considered serious in regard to the business about which he wrote. If the Deputy was really serious about the kelp industry, and was anxious to see how far his suggestions could be made use of, he would scarcely have waited so long. The Deputy wanted to find out what exactly the Department was doing. There were many occasions during the days on which the Dáil was sitting when the Deputy could have put me a simple question or written me a note asking what was happening about the letter he sent. Instead of that, he left over this business, which apparently is very important for his constituency, for three months until he got an opportunity of parading the fact that his letter was not replied to as a fault of the Department. I hope the Deputy will give me a reference to the date upon which he sent the letter. He promised to do so. We will see then if the Department has any record of that letter being received, or if there is any record of an answer being sent out.

It is peculiar if the Department would not reply to a letter about kelp, because if there is one thing that has occupied the attention of a particular section of the Department during the last year it has been the question of kelp. At the moment at least two bodies from outside have been called in to give the benefit of their advice on proposals before the Department. A variety of proposals in regard to kelp have come forward of which two stand out. Discrimination between the two needs some care and this matter has to be very carefully considered before a decision can be come to. The proposal will have to be considered from many angles, from the chemical, the financial and the market angles. The proposals are in and consideration has been given to them for many months. I do not admit that there has been any delay in dealing with this matter and I do not promise that the matter will be cleared up quite soon. If the Deputy had been really concerned for his constituency he should have done something more than merely send in a letter and then wait for three months until he got a chance of complaining about it. Deputy Clery speaks in a vague way of deposits of clay in Erris and he asks what has my Department been doing in regard to mineral deposits. Just because the Deputy does not know about a thing, therefore he concludes that nothing has been done. I wish the Deputy had been more precise and more definite in what he was speaking about. I know that there are parties definitely interested in certain deposits in Mayo and I know there are other clay deposits in which people are interested along the western seaboard outside Mayo. I cannot identify any particular place from the vague reference the Deputy has made. He can always address a letter to me or to my private secretary and through myself or my secretary he can get into touch with the people who will tell him whatever information there is available. Instead of that it is thought to be the duty of a Deputy—a duty fulfilled or achieved to his constituents—to have something which he believes can be worked up or attended to. He remains quiet about this and then uses it as a complaint whenever an occasion offers.

The Deputy went further to complain of my attitude with regard to suggestions about trading in fish with Russia. I do not regard the suggestions that were made, as they were made here, as very serious or as seriously meant. If the suggestions that the Deputy has to offer about kelp are on the same level of seriousness with that suggestion, I do not think very much attention ought to be paid to them. I wish people would understand what I did say with regard to trading with Russia, fish being the particular item under consideration. As far as trade relations with Russia are concerned, that matter will be dealt with in the order of its importance. The matter of trade relations with certain countries is dealt with according to the order of importance, political, diplomatic, or from the point of view of trade. I asked was there any hindrance to the people who wished to trade with Russia at the moment, and if it could be pointed out that any impediment could be traced to the fact that there were no formal trade relations with Russia, I would like to have it brought to my notice. That would immediately bring Russia up from the position it occupies in our list; Russia would then reach a plane of higher importance. I had only one proposition put to me with regard to an interchange of commodities between this country and Russia, but that proposition, when examined, did not prove to be a business-like one. That was the only case that was brought to me. If any further business proposition came up like that, and if we found that any difficulty in dealing with Russia arose out of the fact that we had not formal trade relations established with Russia, then that matter could be attended to. If people think that the reason there is no trade relation with Russia is because of some previous contrary agreement with England, then I ask them to test that out by bringing forward some business-like proposition which would help us to establish some form of trade relations with Russia. I have no hesitation in entering into this matter at the moment if it becomes sufficiently important.

Eventually there will be an opportunity of opening relations with Russia in a formal way. These negotiations will establish trade relations in a formal way; but with so many countries to open up trade relations with what happens is that the most important are taken first. Russia at the moment, reckoned on the volume of trade with that country, ranks very low in the scale. I would like that the question of the export of herrings should be considered from another angle. Is it alleged that there are greater catches of herrings than what can be disposed of profitably at the moment? Or even if that question cannot be answered affirmatively, can it be said that the herring catches that are made when disposed of are disposed of less profitably than they could be disposed of to Russia? Is that the allegation that is made? Is it the allegation that the opening of direct communication by sea with Russia would mean better profits for the fishermen who catch these herrings? These are the things that should be put up formally here in this House if there is going to be a case made for the establishment of trade relations with Russia. These are some of the matters with which I dealt when the question of a trade in fish was last raised in this House.

Deputy Derrig referred to police raids and to matters that he had been told just before coming into the House. He made certain allegations in his statement. It is quite impossible to follow that statement without the name of the party against whom the allegation is made or the name of the locality. Surely this matter that he raised is a matter for a parliamentary question. It is a matter for a parliamentary question except that there is only one impediment to a parliamentary question from the point of view of the Deputy. It does not give him the same opportunity of making the insinuations that he made without the party whom he is charging being named, and the charges being precisely stated.

Mr. DERRIG

There are no insinuations at all. It was only in the interest of the general co-operation of the National Forces that I made a statement. I am quite sure that if the Fianna Fáil were not in the House that every one of them would find that their houses would have been raided in the same way.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The insinuation that was made was that a gentleman, an official in some way of the police forces, had been drinking in a district for two days, and in order to excuse his conduct, to explain his absence from his office, or his presence in that district for the period he had to make an allegation that he was engaged in supervising certain people in that district. That is what I regard as an insinuation, that is the charge the Deputy has made, and he puts it forward on the word of a friend of his with the statement that he believes his friend to be as truthful as anybody who will advise the Minister for Justice when he comes to reply. That charge, at any rate, is made without giving the name of the man against whom it is made, and without an opportunity for having the matter investigated and giving, perhaps, a certain answer. But the advantages conferred by that method on the Deputy are quite clear. He gets a certain amount of publicity by raising the matter in this way, and he is able to get that publicity without there being any chance of the thing being contradicted here in the House. These are the advantages which he would not get by putting down a question giving the names and having the matter investigated.

Deputy Moore revealed himself in his usual simple way yesterday. He challenged any Deputy voting on this Bill hereafter if he could say that he was satisfied with all the Votes. He answered that question for himself by saying that no Deputy could possibly, honestly and conscientiously, say that. Therefore, his argument was that this Appropriation Bill should be refused. It was not long until we heard from certain Fianna Fáil members afterwards that they did not disagree with all the Votes that are going to be passed. Would Deputy Moore's argument run the counter way and say that if the Fianna Fáil Deputies are not dissatisfied with all the Votes, that they should vote for the Bill; or is this a further example of the simplicity which the Deputy ordinarily brings to bear on matters in this House? He said that Deputy Byrne had spoken of strengthening the industrial arm, and he said that that was a peculiar statement to come from Deputy Byrne, seeing that the Deputy is a member of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. It was a very correct statement to come from Deputy Byrne, being, as he is, a member of this Party that has tariffed 50 per cent. of the tariffable imports to this country.

Mr. MOORE

And a Party that preaches free trade in the Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I have not heard of free trade being preached in the Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. MOORE

I gave you a quotation from the Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That is not free trade, and if the Deputy will go home and read it again he will find that that quotation is not in favour of free trade, that it is pointing out certain disadvantages of tariffs——

Mr. MOORE

That is the way to preach protection.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The Minister for Agriculture did not go to the Chamber of Commerce to preach protection. Deputy Moore seems to think that he was brought down there to preach protection, and he seems to think that any Minister going to the Chamber of Commerce must be invited always to speak for or against protection. But at any rate, if there are to be discussions on tariffs of a general type, why not proceed on the recognition of facts, and a recognition of the fact that there have been tariffs placed on a considerable number of articles imported previously without tariff into this country? I have given a calculation that fifty per cent. of the articles which can be tariffed and that are imported into the country have been tariffed. I have always said when I mention that figure of fifty per cent. that it may be argued as to whether or not I have to segregate all the articles in that calculation on which a tariff could or could not be placed. There could be an argument about that, but eventually one can get a basis that there are certain groups of articles coming in on which a tariff could be placed.

Let us get back to the time when the State was established and see what percentage of articles coming in have been in fact tariffed, and in the face of that I ask would Deputy Moore still consider this a free trade Government? Again, we get from Deputy Moore the type of remark which apparently it is part of the considered policy of the Fianna Fáil Party to make. He asked what is the director of industry doing to liquidate mills going out of commission, and then he gives a list of the mills that are going out of commission. I have stated previously, and I gave, in reply to a question put down, a list of places that have been closed down. I said that on a calculation based on this and any conclusions to be drawn from it that there was a tendency for them to be wrong. I heard a great many calculations made on that matter, and most of them wrong. Is it alleged of any country that an index of the prosperity of the country can be made clearly and completely on the basis of the figures of the number of factories that have gone out of existence? If that were the case, it would appear that in the last five years the industrial position of Germany had become much worse, because in Germany in the last five years large numbers of factories have gone completely out of existence. About 70 per cent. of her factories did disappear. They disappeared for rebuilding, reconstruction, and because there were big amalgamations. Goods that previously were made in small factories, small units, were afterwards made in economic units. A simple calculation of the factories gone out of existence in Germany would, if that were an index, leave us a picture of Germany that does not correspond with the truth. Yet we know that is not so. What were the causes?

Supposing there was to be one big central flour mill erected in this country. It is quite likely that one properly equipped mill built in a suitable position would result in the wiping out of nine-tenths of the country mills that at present exist. Yet, that mill when erected could supply most of the needs of the country, and certainly could supply all the needs of the country previously supplied by the mills put out of action. That central mill would probably reduce the number of people employed. It would be more efficiently equipped, and yet that mill would be a more economic unit and would turn out more goods than the twelve or thirteen mills at present in existence. According to the calculation of Deputy Moore, we would have the position that the number of mills in the Free State had been reduced by eleven or twelve. That sort of simplicity may be good enough in a debate, but it does not do for a criticism of the economic policy of the country.

Mr. MOORE

I think the simplicity is the Minister's own argument.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

If it is the Deputy will have an opportunity some time after of countering it.

Mr. LEMASS

Not in this debate. You took good care of that.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I will give Deputy Moore an opportunity here and now, if he likes, to counter it, if he is ready to do so.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

That would be a third irrelevant speech on tariffs.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I think Deputy de Valera stated the other night that if the business people, or the agriculturalists or, generally, the people who are engaged in production, did not show sufficient enterprise it would be the Government's business in some way to remedy that. How was not precisely stated—these things are never precisely stated. But I have heard that previously advanced by other speakers on that side—that the Government should run industries—not help to run them—and at the same time we are told that no official of the Government should be paid more than £1,000 a year. Business would be taken over where industrialists fail, where good chances are obviously seen—because the Government is not going to go into bad business—and the Government is to go into industry. It is to do that with the salaries of the managing directors scaled down so that they could never raise beyond £1,000 a year, and there is going to be success, prosperity and good living in the country after.

Deputy Moore was very anxious about the transport situation, and, like many other people before him, complained that nothing had been done— or rather he did not complain, because he did not advance, even by insinuation, that he wanted co-ordination of the different branches of transport. But he wanted to know what is being done about it. He wanted to know. He did not offer any suggestions. I waited a long time to hear Deputy Moore, who is recognised, I believe, as an expert in transport, to indicate what he thinks ought to be done, but so far we have failed to hear that from him though this year's Appropriation Bill has offered him a chance to do so. Certainly a speech like that on this debate would have been much more relevant than nine-tenths of the matters that were debated. We got nothing but insinuations from the Deputy that there was no indication given as to what was going to be done about this. The Deputy himself did not even state the facts upon which a decision could be taken. He did not even venture a suggestion. He did not even indicate his belief that all the data are available on which a decision could be made. He just wanted to know, and he complained. Surely that constructive criticism which Deputy Little said has been forthcoming so often and so copiously from that side might have been given on this very important matter of transport. Even the Deputy might have advanced timidly to express the point of view that there should be co-ordination. A great many people have advanced to that point, at any rate, but Deputy Moore preferred to be silent on it.

Deputy Carney was concerned about the people of Donegal. The position of Donegal is quite well known. Anybody who looks at the map will see one or two of the things to which Deputy Carney referred. But I cannot understand one of his points. He said that this was a county united only by a bridge at Ballyshannon with the Twenty-six Counties, a bridge, he went on to state, which could not bear the weight of traffic that would have to pass over it if all the needs of Donegal were to be supplied via that bridge. At any rate he said that the people of Donegal could not pay the huge rates that would be imposed if all their material had to come from Dublin. Again we got no suggestion. We were told that the bridge at Ballyshannon cannot bear the traffic, and even if it could the people in Donegal cannot bear the rates. Therefore they are driven to Derry, and the Deputy said that they must go to Derry and then they have to pay 33?% on one thing and 25% on another, and, he hastened to add, mind you, that that was not an argument against tariffs. I do not know what it is an argument in favour of. I do not know what useful suggespres tion he was indicating to the House as to how the situation might be remedied.

Mr. CARNEY

Would the Minister allow me to explain?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Certainly.

Mr. CARNEY

I pointed out the disabilities under which the people of Donegal labour for the express purpose of showing that during this period, until such time as this country is united, both North and South, the people of Donegal are labouring under a disability out of which they think they should be helped by means of a subsidy such as I suggested.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I see. So that the North, the matter about which Deputy de Valera tells his followers not to talk too much about because there is no clear-cut solution, is to be solved in Donegal by a subsidy.

Mr. CARNEY

To a certain extent. If they can produce a national asset like the sugar-beet industry, the Shannon electricity scheme, potatoes or flax, they should be subsidised to the same extent as those parts of the country which do so already.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I did not know that anybody in Donegal was producing electricity through the Shannon scheme.

Mr. CARNEY

If they cannot do it they should be subsidised to the same extent as other parts of the country that are producing national assets.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I do not know any part of the country that is being subsidised to produce the Shannon scheme. Apparently the Deputy does not understand the finances of that scheme—that it is to be paid for eventually by the consumers of electricity.

Mr. CARNEY

And partly by the people of Donegal, who cannot afford it.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

By nobody in Donegal, unless anybody in Donegal wants to buy electricity from the Shannon. There is not a solitary soul in Donegal paying a penny for the Shannon scheme.

Mr. LEMASS

Who is paying the interest on the loan?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The consumers eventually will pay it, and at the moment the people who subscribed to the National Loan are paying it. Is the Shannon scheme anywhere in the Appropriation Bill?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Oh, now!

Mr. LEMASS

That is a good retreat.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

If it is being paid for in any way except that which I have stated it must appear somewhere in the accounts. Where is it? The Deputy ought to be able to find it, or if he cannot he ought to consult his financial expert, Deputy MacEntee. Let us get between the two indications where it is to come from, and let Deputy Carney remember that for the future there is nobody in Donegal subsidising the Shannon scheme.

Mr. CARNEY

What about the beet factory?

Mr. FLINN

I take it that certain borrowed moneys are going to pay for the Shannon scheme. I take it that those borrowed moneys are being obtained from the resources of the State. Therefore the Shannon scheme must be financed by the resources of the State and must appear in the accounts of the State. Let us understand that.

The PRESIDENT

Perhaps it would be a good thing if Deputies, before getting into a discussion on this matter, would read, number one, the Minister's speech in introducing the proposal for the hydro-electrical power scheme on the Shannon, and number two, the Bill setting up the Electricity Supply Board. If they did that I should say that they would know more about it than to introduce it as a matter that affects any single penny in the Appropriation Accounts.

Mr. LEMASS

Not in the Appropriation Accounts. Nobody ever said that it did.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Now we have it that nobody has said it has anything to do with the Appropriation Bill, we will pass on.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Both Deputy Carney and Deputy Lemass spoke of buildings in O'Connell Street and referred to the fact that imported stone had been used in these buildings. Deputy Carney, I think, asserted that some thousands of pounds had been given by the State—I think he said for the purchase of a site in O'Connell Street.

Mr. CARNEY

A site which was supposed to have carried £18,000. That was the notice on it.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Compensation— money for a destroyed building.

Mr. CARNEY

There was a notice on it to this effect: "This site carried a Government grant of £18,000."

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That is to say, compensation—money for a destroyed building. I wonder if the Deputy would consult any people who have got money for destroyed buildings to find out how far they are satisfied that the compensation money covers the cost of rebuilding. Will the Deputy go further and state, even if the money did cover the cost of rebuilding, why we should impose on people who were unfortunate enough to have their property destroyed, the condition that they must use stone from Mountcharles, when the people of the country generally have not such a condition imposed upon them? Let there be no confusion of thought with regard to the people who are rebuilding in O'Connell Street. They are not favoured citizens; they are unfortunate citizens whose property was destroyed and whose compensation awards do not in fact pay for the new buildings that they have to put up. Why should a heavier burden be put on those people? They are not in a better position than the ordinary citizen, and an argument founded, as Deputy Carney did found his argument, on the fact that they are getting £18,000, has no relevancy, or, if it has any relevancy, it is only to show that these people are worse off than people who enter on building on their own. Why should they be made to take stone from Mountcharles? They would themselves, presumably, take stone from Mountcharles if Mountcharles stone is cheaper, quality and durability being regarded.

Mr. LEMASS

Would they be let? Is the Minister certain that the financial interest which controls the supply of building materials would let them?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I see. It is no longer a question of protection in the sense of imposing taxes upon some foreign material coming in—it is no longer a question of protecting Mountcharles.

Mr. LEMASS

We did not suggest protection in that respect.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I am wondering what was suggested.

Mr. LEMASS

We want to know what you propose to do about it.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

And I am asking what I was asked to do about it. I simply asked—it was a mistaken argument, as I think it is recognised now— that if people are to get £18,000 as a gratuity from the State have we a right to say to these people: "You must build with Irish materials"? Certainly there is a case if those are the facts, but they are not. Is the ordinary citizen going to be asked to use Mountcharles stone instead of imported stone? It is either a case of protecting Irish material or the Deputy runs off on another line that I never heard before, that there is some agreement in the building trade against the use of Irish material.

Mr. GOOD

Which he knows about, and which nobody else knows about.

Mr. FLINN

There is an organisation amongst architects. There is no doubt about that.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The Deputy is the first and the only orator since O'Connell who apparently is an authority on architects.

Deputy FLINN

rose.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The salaries of these architects are not in this Bill. Let us keep to the Bill.

Mr. FLINN

The cat has come back.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

What did the Deputy mean by that remark?

Mr. FLINN

What I was suggesting was that there had been a general suggestion by the Minister for Industry and Commerce that there had been complete irrelevancy in the discussion —that every word which was said from this side was irrelevant—and that therefore that must have gone on without the proper supervision of the authority in the Chair, and that now that a proper authority is——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Minister made no such suggestion. The suggestion was made by Deputy Flinn, whose suggestions are uniformly and persistently made against the occupants of the Chair, whoever they may be and whoever they have been, since he came into the House. I want to tell the Deputy that he cannot continue that particular course. No such suggestion was made by the Minister. It was made by the Deputy. It is an untrue suggestion and unworthy of the Deputy—at least. I should say that it is in consonance with his usual conduct.

Mr. FLINN

rose.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I will not hear the Deputy further.

Mr. FLINN

I see. I am not allowed to answer.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Minister——

Mr. FLINN

made a remark.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

What did the Deputy say? Will the Deputy repeat that?

Mr. FLINN

No.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

"The privilege of the cat." Is that what the Deputy said?

Mr. FLINN

No, sir. I did not say that.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Deputy Flinn's conduct towards the Chair is intolerable, and I call attention to it. I name Deputy Flinn for insolence to the Chair.

Mr. FLINN

I think I deserve a fortnight's holiday.