Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 12 May 1933

Vol. 47 No. 9

In Committee on Finance. - Financial Resolutions.

Debate resumed on Financial Motion No. 19:
That it is expedient to amend the law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance.—(Minister for Finance).

When I closed last night I was asking the Minister if he really believed that this country would be able to stand a tax burden of over £38,000,000 in national and local taxation, seeing that the turnover in our trade for last year had shown a fall from £86,000,000 to £64,000,000, a fall of £22,000,000, at a time when the chief export trade was destroyed, when we had a growing unemployment roll, and when there had been an increase of from 90,000 to 125,000 in the number of people in receipt of home assistance. Truthfully, the Minister can claim that his Government is the Government of the poor, for it seems to me that the Government is determined to make us all poor, and reduce us to a common level of penury.

In the Budget there is a sum of nearly half a million pounds allowed for increase in advantages under the new old age pension scheme. In that connection I would point out to the Minister responsible that it still seems to be as difficult as ever for some of our poor people to secure their pensions. Difficulties that should have been smoothed away long ago still continue to exist.

A plea was made in the House yesterday in the matter of the brewing and distilling industries. I support that plea very strongly, for I believe that those Irish industries which are of so much importance to the Irish farmer from the point of view of raw material have been grossly ill-treated and disregarded by all Parties. The Minister told us that there was a slight increase in the revenue from both of those sources, the tax on spirits and the tax on beer. This is rather exceptional, and I think the Minister must have been aggrieved to know that some of those pilgrims that he was going to welcome last year "from the arid wastes of prohibition" must have come amongst us in greater numbers than he anticipated, because the revenue had been going down up to then. The previous year it showed a decline of nearly a million pounds. I think if the Minister would like—and I am sure he would like—to get an increased revenue from this very desirable source, the best way to get it would be to reduce the taxation upon it still further. When you consider that in the case of a glass of spirits over 60 per cent. of the cost spells duty, as does 50 per cent. of the cost of a pint of beer, you will agree that in a democratic country like this it is outrageous to have such a high tax prevailing on such products as Irish whiskey and stout. The increased consumption of those articles would help the revenue, without having any ill effects whatever on the moral well-being of our people. In fact, social conditions would be helped very much and people would feel all the better and happier if beer could be had at a cheaper rate.

Last year we raised the cry of milk for necessitous children, and I think that the question of the supply of free milk to necessitous children is a very good item in the Minister's Budget. There is one important point about it. This milk should be available for poor children without it being necessary to give its administration the taint of pauperism. What I mean is that home assistance should not be made a condition in the giving of the milk.

While I am on the subject of free milk, I may observe that we are now going to have free turf. I hope the administration of these schemes will be carried out, not in a very discriminate manner, but in a manner which will cater for the needs of deserving people without regard to political affiliations. In other words, I hope the free grant of milk and turf will not be made factors in the political prostitution of our people. While I quite agree that free milk is necessary for our poor children, at the same time I think that in the case of our working men there is an equal necessity for good, cheap beer. Beer, good stout, porter, or whatever you may like to term it, is a very valuable food. For dockers and other hard working men who cannot go home to their meals I think a meal made up of bread, cheese and beer is a much better thing than forcing them to live, as they have to live now, on that foreign imported luxury called tea. In this country we produce the best stout in the world and it is rather anomalous that we cannot get it for our working people at a reasonable price.

In its main points I think this Budget is bad. It is not a true balance sheet of the nation's position. The loss in trade cannot be set off by emphasising the strength of the national advance. We can advance to a better state of things by being true to first principles, and our national characteristics cannot suffer by discarding sophistry in finance and facing the position honestly and squarely. This Budget does not do that. It is bad in its conception and it will be evil in its results. This Budget embodies the principle of complete disregard of international agreements, the repudiation of just debts and State robbery of the farmers. Any Budget founded on these principles cannot have any luck or grace following it.

Last night Deputy Dowdall appealed to the House to cultivate a spirit of forgetfulness and forgiveness. I will also make an appeal to the House, but I will appeal to the House not to forget but to remember. I will ask Deputies to remember that the British left this country in 1922 and that British political domination in this country ceased in 1922.

What about the Six Counties?

Deputies should also remember that control of the Twenty-Six Counties was handed over to us to make or to mar. If there has been any marring done, we have ourselves to blame.

I had not the advantage of hearing the statements made in regard to the Budget, but I read an account of the proceedings here in the Press. It would seem as if the Opposition are somewhat disconcerted by the Budget. In fact, they were so amazed that there was no increase in income tax that they were unable to say anything at all on Wednesday and they had to recast their programme completely yesterday. The Leader of the Farmers' Party was so much amazed that income tax was not increased that he forgot he was a farmers' representative and we heard very little about them. Deputy O'Neill made quite a lot of statements here. We were told unemployment is on the increase, but I do not agree with that. Organised efforts have been made during the last 12 months to create unemployment.

Statements made by former occupants of the Cumann na nGaedheal Benches would seem to bear out my statement. A former Deputy, speaking recently at a Cumann na nGaedheal Convention in Kilkenny, stated that he had not been in town for some time past and he did not intend visiting it very much in the future. He continued to say that when his breeches were worn he intended to patch them and when his boots got worn he intended to mend them, and the same would be the rule for all his family. I can easily visualise "Dublin Opinion" coming out with a cartoon of this former Deputy in his shirt and with his breeches across his knees putting a patch on the seat of it, and the statement at the bottom: "A victim of the political economic war. What happens a Deputy when he loses his seat." I am very much afraid that after the next general election there will be a lot of other Deputies, now in Opposition, patching their seats.

There is a certain policy we hear preached amongst certain sections of the community and it is to the effect that if you have two men employed do with one and if you have three men employed try to do with one, but let two be the outside. That does not come from a class of the community particularly badly off. I know unfortunate farmers who found it hard to pay rates and annuities, but they still kept their men in employment and stuck it out. I know of other classes in the community who have incomes and who sacked their gardeners, grooms and other employees even before the economic war was started. I hope our new Land Bill will take particular care of that class of the community.

Deputy O'Neill alluded to one matter that a Cumann na nGaedheal Deputy should be the very last to mention here. He said that a man would require to be a member of a Fianna Fáil Club, a supporter of Fianna Fáil, in order to get employment on works financed by Government grants. Some of us do not require very good memories to recollect the political patronage that existed here for ten years when Cumann na nGaedheal were in office. During their term of office an order was sent to every employment exchange, to every Department in which employment of any description could be given, even the Post Office, to give first preference in all vacancies, not to married or unemployed men with families to support, but to ex-members of a particular Army. That condition of things prevailed up to the day we took office here. Deputy O'Neill or any member of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party should be the very last to make any allusion to political patronage arising from grants for the relief of unemployment. I was rather amazed to hear Deputy O'Neill make that statement, when we remember that the rules sent down to employment exchanges have practically precluded Fianna Fáil supporters from getting employment. The Republican supporter of the last ten years had to go through a very tough time. He had not a sound position and he had not permanent employment. Cumann na nGaedheal took care that he would not have. If he succeeded in getting a position, two detectives were put on his track. He was arrested going to work in the morning, taken to the local police station and kept there until night, no charge being made against him. When that happened on four or five occasions and when his employer found that he could not be sure of his services, he lost his job. I have known checkers and guards on the Great Southern Railways who were actually pulled out of the train from here to Dublin at least 37 times in three months and searched, until they lost their positions. Deputy O'Neill's allusion to that was an allusion that we could very well have been spared. Furthermore, 99 per cent. of the managers of the employment exchanges are ex-officers of the National Army.

What has this got to do with the Budget?

The Deputy is in order in replying to statements made on the Opposition Benches yesterday, though the argument has not much bearing on the Budget.

Has it anything to do with fact?

That is not for the Ceann Comhairle to decide.

It has to do with very solid fact that Deputy Mulcahy should be well aware of.

Has the Deputy found what percentage of ex-National Army men were employed by Cork County Council on the roads last year?

I have the knowledge that we have got repeated demands at the Cork County Council from the ex-Minister for Local Government for information as to how many ex-members of the National Army were employed—not how many men with families were employed.

Was he told?

I expect he was. He might have got some little inkling of the fact.

Is the Deputy's case that people who serve their country should not get employment in the country?

Deputy Belton accepted us with all our faults in 1927. I admit his stay was very short. He was like the swallow.

He put you on the right road.

He accepted Fianna Fáil with all its faults when he went up as a candidate for Fianna Fáil.

He brought you in here.

All the bridges were blown up and all these things done at that time and you accepted the policy of Fianna Fáil in the presence of Cumann na nGaedheal.

On a point of order, is the past history of Deputy Belton and Deputy Corry relevant to the Budget of 1933-34?

It is not. Neither is the history of 1927.

Deputy Corry did not tell us——

We are going to have a statement from the Deputy who was on Parnell Bridge and threw his rifle over.

You never fought a man fairly; you shot him in the back.

That statement is not a fact.

The Deputy must get back to the Budget.

A statement has been made here——

Talk about the hardships of the farmers once more.

A statement has been made here reflecting on my personal honour. That statement is not true and the Deputy should be asked to withdraw it.

Statements were made about me which were not true and which were not withdrawn.

Deputy Anthony stated that Deputy Corry shot a man in the back.

I withdraw the statement that he shot him in the back and I will say that he shot him in another place.

Deputy Corry on the Budget.

Deputy O'Neill made another statement which was rather interesting. He alluded to the appeal made here yesterday on behalf of the brewing and distilling industry and he enlarged the case a lot. He told us how important it was to the farmers. Did Deputy O'Neill ever go into the figures in regard to the brewing and distilling industry? Does Deputy O'Neill know that in 1920, 1921 and 1922 the Irish farmer was getting 50/- to 52/- per barrel for his barley from the brewers and distillers and that the price of a pint of stout was the same in 1922 as it is to-day? The duty on the pint of stout was the same in 1922 as it is now, but the Irish farmer during the past four years has got only an average of 14/6 per barrel for his barley. Did Deputy O'Neill ever inquire what the brewer has done with the 37/6 per barrel which he has robbed from the Irish farmer? They want a reduction in the price of stout. We would all like to see it. I admit that the pint of stout is the only luxury the worker has.

It is not a luxury; it is a necessity.

Was not the trouble that the brewer did not buy Irish barley?

I should like to know if Deputy O'Neill has ever studied that aspect of the question. The brewer could reduce the price of the point of stout by 2½d. and still have the same profit that he had in 1922.

What about excess profits?

He should not have excess profits.

That is a matter for the Minister for Finance.

It is a matter for those who put up the argument here. I have got the circular that other Deputies got which was alluded to by Deputy Cosgrave on Wednesday. Deputy Cosgrave on Wednesday, and other Deputies to-day, put up the argument that there should be a reduction of duty. I should like these Deputies to explain what the brewer has done with the 37/6 per barrel—the difference in the price of barley between 1920 and the present time. The brewer has not passed that on to the consumer.

Ask the Minister for Finance.

The duty on stout, porter and whiskey is the same now as it was in 1920. Why has not the brewer passed on the reduction in the price of barley to the consumer? We are entitled to an explanation of that before we hear any further argument for a reduction in the price of stout. Let the brewer reduce it. He has his profits and excess profits, as Deputy O'Leary told us. But for the Bill brought in by our Minister for Agriculture last harvest, the brewer would very quietly have bought his barley this past year for 10/6 per barrel, the price prevailing in England, and have still kept the price of the pint at the same level as it is to-day. Those are facts we should like Deputies to consider before they speak here. The farmer is producing barley and is not getting the cost of production for it. When we have Deputies coming in here asking that the duty should be reduced, I think the first thing the brewers should do if they want anything done for them is to divide that difference of 37/6 between the farmer and the consumer. Let them pay 15/- per barrel more for their barley to the farmer and let the consumer get the benefit of the other 15/-. The brewer can then keep the remaining 7/6 for himself as additional profit. Let the producer get what he is entitled to get, the cost of production. Let us not hear any more arguments in favour of the brewers or distillers until somebody asks them what became of the 37/6 per barrel that has been robbed from the Irish farmer.

We had a lot of other statements following somewhat on the same lines. We had the worn-out statement about the economic war. The people have given their verdict on that and the people's decision is known fairly well. We see that this year, first of all, there is an allowance of £2,000,000 made for the farmers, in respect of 50 per cent. of their annuities. There is also provided for them a sum of £2,450,000 in respect of bounties and subsidies. As I stated before in this House, I am in some agreement with Deputies opposite— Deputy Keating may not agree with me—that the farmer does not see the whole of this bounty. He sees very little of it. The only bounty that is definitely assured to the farmer is the butter bounty. The farmer does get the benefit of that, but were it not for the fact that Fianna Fáil was in office there would not be a creamery running in the country to-day. Deputies opposite voted against the Stabilisation of Prices (Butter) Bill. Is there a farmer in the country who could produce milk at 2½d. per gallon? That would have been the price of milk were it not for the subsidy allowed and the butter bounty that has been given.

As regards the other bounties, I admit it is rather questionable whether they reach the farmer or not. I have examined the question fairly closely and I have got fairly damaging admissions from cattle dealers as to what becomes of the cattle bounty. As a matter of fact, one cattle dealer told me that the most the farmers got out of it is 5 per cent. With other Deputies in this House, I am anxious that the farmers should get every single penny we can give them. Let Deputies come with me and examine the question, and let us go to the Minister for Agriculture and ask him to see that that money goes direct to the farmers either in relief of rates or otherwise instead of paying it to the cattle exporters, so that Deputies who pretend to represent the farmers cannot deny that the farmer will get the benefit of what is allowed to him here. As one who is a farmer himself, who represents farmers, I am anxious to see that the farmer gets what he is supposed to get. Let him get it in a direct way so that he cannot deny that he gets it. Let us have no middleman between the farmer and the authorities who pay the bounty, be that middleman a cattle dealer or anybody else.

We hear complaints in general. I have put up the question of the creameries and put it very definitely. Deputies opposite went into the Lobby in this House and voted against the farmer getting 4d. per gallon for his milk. That shows their interest in the farmer. That cost £440,000 last year.

Who paid it?

Who paid it remains to be seen. That was the subsidy given. Deputy O'Leary will probably say the consumer paid it.

He will, and the taxpayer.

Deputies should realise from experience that interruptions do not make for relevancy.

I am sorry for interrupting. Deputy Corry himself does not interrupt as a rule.

I would not like to call Deputy O'Leary's statement an interruption. I would say it is an assistance. Does Deputy O'Leary wish that the farmer should produce milk and that the consumer should get it under the cost of production? Is that Deputy O'Leary's argument? Deputy O'Leary should stand to that argument when he goes before the people on the next occasion. Is he going to tell the farmers that the consumers should get what the farmers produce under the cost of production? I think he will be prepared to admit that 2½d. per gallon for milk is under the cost of production. I do not know what way Deputy O'Leary voted on the Butter Bill, but I know what way the majority of Deputies opposite and their Front Bench voted. That is one item of £440,000 the farmers did get——

From themselves.

——and that the farmers would not get if Cumann na nGaedheal had their way because we have the admission of their Minister for Agriculture that he prevented the farmers from getting it before. "That was the statement put to me 12 months ago and I turned it down." These are facts we should like Deputies opposite to consider. Then we have another class to whom Deputy O'Neill alluded, the old age pensioners who, he said, were finding it difficult to get their pensions. The fact that there was a large amount extra paid last year for old age pensions does not bear out Deputy O'Neill's statement. The fact is that we are providing £479,800 in addition to the old age pensions—that is half a million pounds—for the old and infirm of the country, those who have not the barbed wire entanglements of the Civil Service to guarantee them a pension in their old age. We are providing £500,000 extra for that particular class. They would never get that £500,000 if the Deputies on the Opposition Benches had to give it.

When such a Bill was passed here three years ago, the Cumann na nGaedheal Council resigned before they would give that money to the poor. These are facts that Deputies opposite do not like. We had a statement from Deputy O'Neill about the milk provided for the poor. The Deputy said that milk should not be given to those in receipt of home assistance, that it tended towards pauperism. Deputies who have any connection with home assistance boards or who are dealing with the poor know that these bodies, during the past eight or nine years, were unable to provide what would enable the unfortunate families concerned even to eke out a fair existence. I am sure that state of affairs is within the knowledge of every Deputy who is a member of a public board. I consider the milk was given out in the proper way, as it removed that political taint that Deputy O'Neill complained of, and any charge of favouritism. Surely there could be no charge of favouritism when the milk was given by the boards of assistance. My only regret is that apparently enough money has not been provided for that purpose. That is the difficulty we found in Cork.

Reference has been made to the great increase in the cost of home assistance, and that has been used as a lever for the statement that a certain class is not poor. It should be remembered that the class in question was never provided for before. In the past, unemployed able-bodied persons were unable to obtain home assistance. I have been dealing with home assistance figures since the Commissioner left in 1928, so that I know what I am talking about. I know that we never considered such cases for home assistance. Otherwise the bill would have been far greater than it is to-day—and it is pretty high. That is the reason why the cost of home assistance has gone up, because this Party and this Government are not going to allow the people to be hungry.

Then we had references to housing. I ask Deputies to examine carefully the amount provided in this Budget for housing. As a result of our policy acres of ground in the Twenty-Six Counties that were lying derelict for the last ten years—in fact since 1914 when they were provided for a scheme of cottages which it was found impossible to proceed with owing to war conditions—are now being availed of. These acres were left lying idle, and the unfortunate people who thought that they would be able to enjoy a cottage and an acre of ground have been waiting since 1914. I wonder would the Deputies opposite like to be waiting for houses since 1914?

Deputy Corry on the Budget.

Yes, on the Budget that the Deputy did not read. In this Budget £500,000 is provided for loans under the Labourers (Ireland) Act, so that the Deputy should realise how close I am keeping to the Budget.

At what rate will the money be lent?

The Government is now providing 60 per cent. of the cost of every house and every acre of ground.

At what rate will the money be lent?

How much was provided previously? Why was not money provided for the past ten years when Cumann na nGaedheal were in office? Why were these labourers left without houses? The cottages are now being built. There are Cumann na nGaedheal majorities on every public board in Cork County, and these boards are very glad to get the money and to use it. Cork County Council has unanimously applied for £250,000 to build cottages. That County Council has only 18 representatives of Fianna Fáil out of 68 members. The ex-Minister for Local Government never troubled about these labourers. Cumann na nGaedheal was more concerned about keeping down income tax for their particular class of supporters. What I am concerned with is, that in Cork County 1,200 families will be provided with homes under the Labourers Acts. In my opinion that is government and good government. If I read the reports from medical officers of health concerning the condition of the houses of some of the unfortunate people who have been left in them for the past ten years, Deputies opposite would leave this House in shame.

We had another class of the community, small farmers, that the ex-Minister for Local Government was adamant should not get any assistance whatsoever. That class wanted assistance to make the houses in which they live habitable. I appealed to the ex-Minister for Local Government for some grant which would enable small farmers to repair their houses, to put them into a condition in which they could be lived in, or to build an extra room or to put on a decent roof. Such work was always forbidden. The then Minister for Local Government had his eye on Dublin City and never looked outside its boundary. We have provided for that class in this Budget. We have provided for them under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, the Labourers Acts, the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act and the Gaeltacht Housing Act. About £2,500,000 are being provided for houses in this State this year. That is a big task, but, thank God, we have a Government to undertake it.

Yes, in 1933?

Yes, in 1933. I know the reply I got—I am sorry I have not got it here to read it—when I made an appeal to the Deputy to do something for small farmers who were dwelling in insanitary houses.

What year was that?

It would be about 1929.

It was not in 1923.

It was in 1929. They had to wait until the present Minister for Local Government and until another Executive Council came into office to provide for their needs. If they were depending upon Deputy Mulcahy, if he was in office, they would have to wait for ten years more, and the Deputy knows that. These are moneys that have been provided and that are of great benefit undoubtedly to the agricultural community. Then we had the usual wail about the loss of the English market. We heard Deputy Mulcahy on that last night. The Deputy totted up all that had been lost, but he did not tell us that England had extracted from us something equivalent to a 25 per cent. tariff in 1931 and 1930. Although we exported practically the same amount of produce the price we received fell by £6,000,000, and Deputy Mulcahy at that time thought that the farmers could well bear it. The Executive Council of which he was a member continued to export out of the farmers' pockets £3,000,000 in land annuities and send it across the water. Speaking here on Friday last I showed the benefits that have been derived by having a Minister for Agriculture who is doing his job: one who knows his job and is doing it.

He did not learn his job yet.

The Deputy had better be careful. He changed over to these benches last Friday.

We will change you before long. You came off the rock of the Republic.

We will lead you by the nose into it yet.

Deputies must address the Chair.

I am sorry.

I have had expressions of regret for interruptions from two Deputies to-day, but the best proof of repentance is not to repeat the offence.

On Friday last, speaking in this House, I dealt with the imports of bacon into this country over a period of three months. I took the imports for the first three months of 1932 and compared them with the imports for the first three months of this year to show what effect the policy of our Minister for Agriculture has had.

Perhaps Deputy Corry will excuse me for a moment. A time limit was fixed for this debate. The Minister for Finance is to wind up at one o'clock. Nobody wishes to intrude on the time of Deputy Corry, but seeing that the Deputy has now been speaking for three-quarters of an hour, I suggest that if he goes on for another three-quarters of an hour the Opposition will have very little time to make measured representations to the Minister before he proceeds to reply.

They had all day yesterday to do it.

Deputy Dillon surely is aware of the fact that the Chair has no control over the length of speeches in this House.

I will be as brief as possible.

Speak as long as you like.

I was given a very bad example by Deputy Belton himself last week. I can assure Deputy Dillon that I do not wish to delay the House unduly.

Leave the defence of the Budget to the Minister for Finance. We will attack it. Give us the chance.

When you attack it we will all fall down, everyone of us.

I do not know that anybody need be afraid of a Deputy who says that he does not read any Dáil documents.

I read more than you think.

On Wednesday last Deputy Dillon gave us a very learned discourse on pigs. I was rather surprised that a Deputy who got such a fine education as he did and had such a fine profession should have to turn to pig rearing for a living.

He said that I did not know a pig from a parrot.

Apparently he found pig rearing was more remunerative than following his profession.

Is this in order?

He knows no better— never did.

The imports of bacon for the first three months of 1932 amounted to £236,746. For the first three months of this year they amounted to £3,000. In other words, the Fianna Fáil Government preserved for the Irish farmer a market worth £233,000 to him for three months.

Would the Deputy say where he got the figures?

From the returns dealing with imports and exports to be had in the Library.

We have got enough of them.

These are solid facts that some Deputies do not like. Still it is a fact that the policy of our Minister for Agriculture has preserved a market worth 1,000,000 pigs per year to the Irish farmer. Deputy Burke was very vocal last night with interruptions. A short time ago he told us here a little story about a gentleman who went to law, won his case and found, having won it that he had no money. During the election I was told the same story in Skibbereen, but the amazing part of it, which Deputy Burke left out, was that the Deputy himself was counsel for the litigant. That is why the poor fellow had no money when he won his case.

The Deputy was a long time rooting that up.

During the last three-quarters of an hour Deputy Corry has been dealing with the Budget and a variety of other subjects as well: historical, personal and æsthetic. However, I think there is one observation he made which requires to be dealt with. Felon setting is an old game in this country. I do not know how familiar Deputy Corry is with felon setting, but if he had a teacher he has learned his lesson well. Deputy Corry said here to-day that organised efforts were being made to create unemployment for the purpose of creating a dismissing workers from their employment for the purpose of creating a critical state of affairs. Coming from Deputy Corry that observation has little significance, but his repetition of it here to-day calls to mind that very similar language was used by a Minister of State from a public platform recently. It is a grave charge to make and, in my opinion, a scandalous charge to make. Most of the employers of this country, and particularly the rural employers in this country, are reluctant to part with the men who have been in their service and with whom they have been working for many years. Those who have parted with them, in the vast majority of cases have parted with bitter reluctance and only because they were no longer able to afford to pay them. I know that Deputy Corry is anxious to leap into the fray once more. I listened to him, however, for three-quarters of an hour and I suggest that he should at least listen to me for three minutes.

With the permission of the Chair, I only wish to say that I will take Deputy Dillon down to my constituency, if he likes, and show him absolute proof of my statement. I can tell him that on the night of the poll I had, in one polling booth in my constituency, nine men on hands who were sacked that day because they would not vote as they were ordered to vote by their employers.

Deputy Dillon will resume.

Short of squaring off Deputy Corry or threatening him with violence, it is not easy to keep him in his seat. Deputy Corry went on to say that the people had given their verdict on the economic war and had expressed their views finally and definitely as to whether it should be carried on or not. I challenge that. In evidence of it, I refer to the speeches made by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs who, before the election, said to his constituents that if they wanted a settlement of this war they must give Mr. de Valera an unqualified mandate to speak for the people and that once he had got that mandate a settlement would be forthcoming without further delay. The same Minister, shortly after the election, went to Roscommon and told the electors that they had done well in returning him and that, contemplating the signs and tokens, he was glad to be able to tell them that a method of settlement was under consideration and the means for bringing it about were in hand. He was the only man in Ireland who saw those symptoms and who hoped that the settlement would be brought about. He is still hoping and I imagine that a great many of the people who voted for him are still faintly hoping, and some of them have given up hoping.

I do not know that there is much profit to be gained by going over what Deputy Corry said. I cannot help referring, however, to Deputy Kelly's allegation that I said he did not know a pig from a parrot. What I said was that the Deputy would not know one end of a pig from the other.

Well, I only put it in a more genteel way.

This Budget has one outstanding feature, and that is the estimated expenditure. In 1929, the actual expenditure of the State in this country was £25,000,000 and at that time, very properly, in my opinion, the present Minister for Finance said that the burden was unbearable. To-day, the Minister's estimated expenditure for the coming year is £6,500,000 more. The present Minister for Finance, when he was one of the leaders of the Fianna Fáil Party in the country, and before he assumed Ministerial office, with all the responsibility of his position in the Fianna Fáil Shadow Cabinet said that, speaking as a Minister for Finance elect, he was prepared to say that economies of £2,000,000 could be effected in the general administration, quite apart from reductions in the salaries of public servants.

Arising out of the remark the Deputy has just made, could the Deputy give me the reference?

I could not.

I ask for the reference because I do not remember making the statement.

I could not give the reference, but although I am reluctant to refer to a statement of Deputy McGilligan, the Minister must surely remember an occasion when Deputy McGilligan read out an official publication from the Fianna Fáil Party 20 times in the course of one debate.

I have the document here, if the Deputy wants it.

The Deputy sleeps with it.

Surely the Minister for Finance will excuse the Deputy having it before him on this occasion when his eyes behold a bill of £31,500,000? The Minister, when the estimated expenditure stood at £25,000,000, undertook to reduce it to £23,000,000. To-day he has announced his intention of increasing it to a minimum of £31,000,000. Two and six make eight. The Minister for Finance was £8,000,000 wrong in his estimate of the benefits that a Fianna Fáil administration would bring to the taxpayers of this country.

That is one way of looking at the present situation as revealed by the Minister's Budget, but the President will remember that when we were dealing with other financial matters in this House it was the President's wont to say that in contemplating the burden laid on this country, having regard to our respective capacities to pay, we should multiply it by 66 in order to compare it with the burden laid on the British people. I should like to multiply the expenditure of a Fianna Fáil administration by 66 and compare it with the British Budget, bearing in mind our respective capacities to pay. The British Budget calls for a sum of approximately £860,000,000, and almost every section of the community in that comparatively wealthy country cries out that such a burden is overwhelming and is crushing down that mighty industrial and wealthy country. If we make the President's comparison, our taxation is £2,079,000,000. How can the Minister—how can any Deputy in the Fianna Fáil Party, with their own record, with their own promises, with their own protests—defend an expenditure of £31,500,000? How on earth can they ask people to endorse a programme that includes such an expenditure? Do they for a moment believe, if they told the people in 1932, when they were contesting the general election, that within 12 months of their being returned to office they would increase the expenditure of the central administration by over £6,000,000—do they imagine for a moment they would have secured the verdict they did secure?

I remember when the Minister for Finance introduced his first Budget, he spoke of the solicitude of the Government for housing, and of their determination to deal with unemployment without counting the cost. He spoke of their resolve to graduate the burden of taxation with special reference to the family responsibility of each individual taxpayer. I recognised the fine spirit that inspired those views. I was glad to pay tribute to them. They were high principles and fine ideals and the Minister went on to say, when he was introducing that Budget: "Make no mistake, we are in the presence of a great emergency and the only reason I come to the House with expenditure of these proportions is, one, that we have not had time to deal with the Estimates exhaustively ourselves and, two, that by universal admission there is an emergency and we must take emergency measures to deal with it." The full implication of his Budget speech last year was: "We will tell the happier story next year; we will lighten the burden, do not hinder us now by asking us to reduce our resources this year in order to get the situation in hand." This year he comes back and we discover the burden, instead of being lightened, is increased, and increased out of all proportion, and that what was an emergency Budget has become the normal expenditure of the State. There is no mention of emergency now. The Minister does not pretend that this is a Budget he may never again have to present. There is no reference in his speech to this Budget as an emergency Budget. It contains, apparently, the normal revenue which we are to look forward to so long as this State survives.

When the Minister spoke of social services he referred to unemployment and housing. Both of these purposes struck a responsive note in my mind. Anything he proposes to do towards remedying these two evils I am prepared to support, and help in every way I can. Listening yesterday to one of the representatives of organised labour we saw what the conditions of unemployment in this country are. Everybody knows, who wants to speak the truth, and is not afraid to tell the truth, that real unemployment is increasing in this country; that men who were in permanent positions, and who had that kind of employment which gives a man a feeling of security, are losing their employment, and that there is a mass of what I might call fictitious employment created such as was described by Deputy Davin yesterday. Young girls and young boys, it is true, in the State, are getting employment, but for every boy and girl who gets employment in this State there are men walking into unemployment out of which I can see very little chance of deliverance.

I tell the President, as I told him six months ago, that this is not a matter which employers can view with indifference. It is not an easy task, when one's resources are no longer equal to retaining in employment men who worked well for one in the past, to tell them that they must now find other employment when one knows their chances of getting another job are comparatively remote. I ask the Minister to look into that question fearlessly and to ascertain the true facts, and I think he will find the general policy of his Government has resulted in an increase of unemployment rather than otherwise.

Now we come to housing. Last year we were told that, forthwith, the business of housing would be put in hand and the crying evil of insanitary dwellings would be made an end of. Deputy Corry, speaking to-day, referred to the conditions of housing down the country and said he would not recite them here because Deputies on the opposite benches would blush; and Deputy Kelly interjected: "Indeed they would." Would Deputy Kelly blush if I recited here the condition of housing that obtains in this city?

I certainly will not.

What are the real facts? What work has been done to get the people in this city out of houses condemned ten or 15 years ago as unfit for human habitation? We were told that the Government were going to make available abundant funds, and that they would add more, and that if there was any delay in spending these funds they were prepared to go into the business themselves and take control and push it through. Yet, looking at a return of the builders' labourers unemployed this year, as compared with last year, we find there is a reduction in the number of unemployed of 28 men; that there were 2,069 builders' labourers unemployed in such trades as carpenters, bricklayers, stonecutters and masons, plasterers, painters, plumbers last year; there are still unemployed 2,030. Does that show any evidence of any real activity going on in the business of dealing with that problem, or does it show any constructive work done, when we find that there are as many as 15 people living in one room in Dublin, when we find two separate families reared in one room, and when we find people at the present time living in cellars? There was quite recently at least one case to my own knowledge of a family living in a coal cellar in Dublin. What defence has the Government, which has been in office for 12 months with a knowledge of these facts before them, and having avowed their intention to put an end to them, to make to-day when these conditions still prevail? There are hundreds and thousands of unemployed people living in this city under conditions not fit for beasts much less for human beings. What has the Government to say in its own defence for having allowed that condition of affairs to continue?

The Minister for Finance has thrown out the challenge to-day: "If you want to reduce expenditure make your suggestions." That might be a legitimate reply if the Minister did not occupy his seat here in this House, and a high place in the Government, on the undertaking that he was going to reduce expenditure on public administration by £2,000,000 a year, and on the undertaking that he was convinced that the cost of administration in 1929 was far beyond the capacity of the people to bear. But since the Minister has forgotten that and challenged me, by implication, to suggest to him a method of reducing expenditure I make this suggestion. I am glad that he shows no tendency to make his economies at the expense of the social services in this country, but I deplore the fact that he is prepared to sponsor a political and economic policy which creates the necessity for social services that should not be necessary, and that are not wanted elsewhere.

There are two ways of producing the desired economy. One is by making up his mind, and by the Executive Council doing the same, as to whether they want a Republic for the Twenty-Six Counties or whether they would accept co-equal membership of the British Commonwealth. If they make up their minds that a Republic is necessary then they should take it and take it now. There is nothing to stop them. If the people want it, the people have a right to get it. Then we can review the situation in the light of our new constitutional status. We can decide the standard of living which this country can afford to its people as an independent nation and we can cut our cloth according to our measure. There can be little doubt that when the Minister finds himself face to face with that situation and turns to us all for counsel how best to meet it, he cannot hope to come into this Dáil and ask that we should maintain a standard of public expenditure which will be measured at £31,000,000 per annum. If the people want a Republic, it will be our duty to measure our expenditure according to our resources and we know what we have to do. On the contrary, if the Executive Council make up their minds that the future of this country lies in co-equal membership with the other nations of the Commonwealth, then they have a clear and open course before them as well, and that is to put an end to a war system which is creating a widespread and ever-increasing poverty among our people. I quite agree that the essential and permanent social services should not be touched, but I suggest that when normal prosperity is restored to our people, after the terrific handicaps which have been put upon them by the economic war are removed, a situation will then exist in which a number of the social services set out will not be necessary.

It is not a normal thing, nor is it a desirable thing, that the central Government should have to distribute free milk. By all means, when the necessity is there, and when the poverty is widespread, let the Government step into the breach and meet the grave emergency. But who can say that it is a desirable situation that our Government should be distributing free milk to the people. It is not a desirable thing, nor is it a commendable thing, that our people should have been reduced to such a level that the central Government should be supplying them with free fuel. If it is necessary, by all means it is the duty of a Government to stand between its people and destitution. But surely it is not a desirable way of remedying that situation to be acknowledging the inevitable existence of destitution and to be relieving it with free milk and free turf. Surely the object of an Administration should be to restore a measure of prosperity to the country over which it is appointed that will secure that every section of the community will have a moderate standard of comfort and will not stand in need of grants of the very necessities of life.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce, in a flood of rhodomontade yesterday, proclaimed that the dawn of prosperity was at hand; that he saluted the rising dawn of a new industrial development. He looked to me like a man who was saluting the morning after the night before. Here is a record of his glorious industrial achievements: the marble quarries which have been derelict for many years were again in production, and the stone quarries were experiencing a new era of prosperity. The stone quarries' prosperity is characterised by the picture of young able-bodied men sitting on the sides of roads with a hammer in their hand doing the work that we used to give to the poor old derelict paupers in the poorhouse. When a man was past his labour, when a man was so hopelessly unable to do any work that was useful, 20 years ago the custom was to put him sitting on a heap of stones, give him a hammer and let him break them. The stone-breaker was the synonym for futility and for a spent and past life. One of the fruits of the Minister for Industry and Commerce's new industrial resurgence is that the young men are promoted to the stone heaps to break stones with a hammer. "We have also examined," he said, "the possibilities of producing here nitrogenous manures of various kinds." I hope that last remaining branch of the manure industry will be spared the munificent interference of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who embarked on a scheme of development for the rest of the manure industry in this country, with the result that the Minister for Agriculture was wailing through the land that the people were now buying manures and that it would result in serious injury to the whole country if they would not buy them. He now knows that the consumption of manures in this country has fallen by 25 per cent., largely as a result of the interference of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

He went on to say that they hoped to give considerable employment in the production of peat for fuel. I see the distinguished sponsor of that new industry in this country has just arrived in the House. I trust that the peat industry may thrive in the hands of the Minister for Defence, but if his best contribution to public policy is to be nothing better than the peat industry God help the future of our native army. I doubt if the President seriously believes that we are going to build up a great industry in this country by providing peat as a substitute for coal in the ordinary requirements of this country for fuel. I very much doubt that a single member of the Executive Council believes that that is anything but a very harebrained scheme. Of course, it is very good propaganda. Of course, it is difficult for me to go down the country and to say to some chap who has 50 acres of bog: "President de Valera says this is a gold mine; I tell you, what you already know, that it is worth just so much as you are going to cut and burn in your own house." His answer will be: "Is not President de Valera a very smart man, and he says it is going to be a gold mine; why should not I believe him?" My answer is: "Why should he not?" Where ignorance is bliss it is folly to be wise. When you have not got meat it is well to have promises. I am afraid that there is not a member of the Executive Council who does not fully realise that putting their hand to turning the peat bogs of this country into gold mines shows very little practical common sense.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce, carried away by the flood of his own eloquence, went on: "The only solution of the unemployment problem is the provision of useful work. The Government is devising means of getting a larger number of people employed on the land. There is no reason why the land should not give as much employment as the land of Denmark."

Did the Minister for the moment forget what that observation should bring to his mind? While we are engaged in telling John Bull that Caithlín Ní Houlihan is prepared to lay down her life rather than submit to his scandalous blandishments, Denmark is beating at his door begging to be allowed in. Denmark is prepared to do anything by way of trade concession with England—to do anything that England asks in order to be given permission, not to increase her exports to England, but to maintain the exports she has. She is prepared to take her steel from them; she is prepared to take her requirements in coal from England, and almost anything else that England would ask Denmark is prepared to do.

What is the use of putting people on the land if you destroy the market in which the products of the land have got to be sold? What is the use of talking of providing employment for people if you tell them before they begin to work that they will get no pay for the work they are to do. It is all very well for the Labour Party to be talking about unemployment. I sympathise with the man who is ready to do a day's work and cannot get it. But what have the Labour Party to say about a man who not only is ready to do a day's work, but who does the day's work and finds at the end of the day that not only is there no pay for him but that on the contrary he has lost. Is there an agricultural representative or one engaged in agriculture in this House who does not know men who have to work with all the skill and industry they can command, who have done the best they possibly could and having done the best work, discover at the end of the day's work that far from having earned something, they have actually lost money in putting seeds and crops into the land?

That is why they got rid of you fellows.

I would remind the House that conditions may have been bad in 1929 and in 1930 and I think the times were bad in those years. But the Minister for Finance and his Executive Council cannot get away from the fact that we are 40 per cent. worse off now. I do not for a single moment suggest that the Fianna Fáil Government is responsible for the low prices ruling for agricultural produce throughout the whole world now. The President smiles, but I would remind the President that his own Deputies are perpetually suggesting that anything we say along these lines is for the purpose of slandering his Government and pretending that they are responsible for the whole thing. That is untrue, but I say that whatever the conditions are in the world market at present he and his Government are making those conditions 40 per cent. worse by the policy he is pursuing. I do not think the President can get away from that. The President may say: "It is worth it; we are getting the land annuities; we are advancing to a fuller constitutional status." If that is the view of the Fianna Fáil Party, I think the President is making a damn bad bargain. True we may be advancing towards a Republic, a Republic for the Twenty-Six Counties, but I think there are very few people on these benches who will derive any advantage from this Twenty-Six County Republic, when they find that it is a barefooted Republic towards which they are advancing. There are few of the slashing figures on the Fianna Fáil Benches who will find any advantage from that Republic when they are compelled to come here to the Dáil in báinins.

The President's view is that we are to get back to the simpler life, that we are to get back to a standard of living and cut ourselves away from the rest of the world. I doubt very much if his followers appreciate what his view is but the fact remains that no matter what our conditions are— and I do not deny that world conditions have deteriorated in the last few years—the President's policy has made them 40 per cent. worse than they need be. You can indulge in extravagance of that kind but you have to pay the price——

Does Deputy Dillon stand for the policy enunciated by his father and the late John Redmond?

I do not think it is desirable from any point of view that we should now embark on a discussion of the policies of men who are gone. Suffice it to say that we have certain problems to face, and we should face these problems reasonably and without rancour. We should simply speak frankly and freely the truth about them. The Minister for Finance took Deputy O'Neill sharply to task for suggesting an explanation of the increased figure for bank clearances. I think the Minister felt that Deputy O'Neill, in suggesting that the bank clearances were due to the withdrawal of money for the purpose of lodging it in other countries, was doing something calculated to injure the credit of the State. Surely the Minister himself could have avoided that. It was he who brought it into issue. He referred to it in his Budget speech as an index to the prosperity of the country. Surely the onus is on the Minister to show what is the explanation of the bank clearances.

I am in business and I find it difficult to believe that the figures for bank clearances—if they have increased—are any indication of an increase in the trade of this country. I think the Minister himself does not believe that, and I am sure the Minister for Industry and Commerce does not believe that there has been any increase in trade or that there has been any increase in normal bank clearances. I do not think the Minister would do more than his duty if, having brought this question into issue, he proceeded to clear it up and to let us know what was the reason for the increase in bank clearances. The Minister has dealt very trenchantly and very severely with the question of collecting the Excess Profits Duty. Does the Minister remember what he said about that in 1929? He spoke of blackmail——

Will the Deputy quote what I said?

I was reading it yesterday with admiration. Demosthenes could have done no better. His indignation rose to glorious heights of oratory.

Deputy Dillon complained that Deputy Corry spoke for three-quarters of an hour. The Deputy has taken over that much time now.

There is a difference.

Oh, there is a difference.

Perhaps Deputy Kelly is right, but he must remember that this time is usually reserved for members of the Opposition in order to give the Minister an opportunity of knowing what is in their minds.

If the Opposition was interesting I would say "yes" on that matter myself.

I would not like to get the reputation of being as "interesting" as Deputy Kelly. People might begin to suspect my intellect. The Minister for Finance three years ago waxed very eloquent on the question of the Excess Profits Duty and income tax arrears. I think there was a rebuke from the Minister to Deputies on this side of the House which was deserved. It might be interesting both to the Deputies on the Fianna Fáil and Cumann na nGaedheal Benches to know that the vast bulk of these arrears were not paid because President de Valera and the old Sinn Fein Party told the people not to pay them. Is not that so?

That was not what the Minister said then.

Is it not a fact that between 1920 and 1921 the Custom House was burned? I am not suggesting that it was done for plunder or robbery. It was done as a result of high national policy. You were resolved to make the administration here under the British régime impossible. That was the time when Deputy Brennan and others were on the run, meetings of the county councils were held by county councillors who were on the run and everything was done that could be done to make the British administration in this country impossible. That was done at the instigation of the Minister and as part of the old Sinn Fein policy. I think Ministers should now bear that in mind when they wax eloquent and talk about disreputable attempts to defeat the collection of income tax. You did not even seek technical grounds 15 years ago. You told them that their patriotic duty was not to pay and that anybody who paid was a West Briton and supporting the continuance and maintenance of John Bull in his position over Ireland's prostrate body. Now, they are traitors and villains because they will not stump up. The Minister ought to have some regard for human nature.

You need only go back ten years.

I prefer to go back to the time when you were both at it. The Minister went on and said that the construction of a hypothetical Budget was a fruitless task. He proceeded to construct it and to show that, according to this fruitless enterprise, we were a great deal better off than we thought we were, and that revenue was coming in in top style and that really all these jeremiads were so much nonsense. I should like to remind the Minister for Finance that the measure of a nation's prosperity is not the capacity of the Minister for Finance to impose taxes or to collect them. You can live on your capital for a certain time, and that is what this country is doing. I have no doubt that the Minister can extract, by the gentle methods employed by the Revenue Commissioners, this much tax, and a great deal more, if he puts his mind to it, from the people for a given number of years, but, when he has completed that job, neither in his nor my lifetime will the country revive from the operation. If the taxes are left on their present basis next year and the year after, the revenue will steadily shrink and will continue to shrink. The Minister knows that as well as I do. Everyone in the Executive Council knows it, if they are meeting or discussing the situation with business men anywhere. It seems idle to get up and attempt to show that, in fact, the country is prospering greatly.

In regard to this native fuel, I want to sound a note of warning. There is a provision of £25,000 in this Budget to provide native fuel for necessitous houses in districts where such fuel is not usually available. Does that refer to turf or may coal be used?

I want to sound a note of warning in that connection. The only destitution which really calls for relief of that character in this country is in the cities. No person in a rural area is going to be short of a sod of turf, if he wants it, because his neighbours will always give it. It is perfectly manifest that it is wrong, if there is a real necessity for the provision of fuel in the houses of the poor, simply because the Minister for Defence wants to make a little hullaballoo about turf, to thrust a wholly unsuitable form of domestic fuel on poor people who really stand in need of the best that can be got for money.

Why is it unsuitable?

I know that the President is fairly familiar, as I think most men here are who have anything to do with St. Vincent de Paul work, with the conditions in tenement houses under which the poor are living. Does the President seriously suggest to me that the most suitable fuel for a tenement room fireplace is turf? Did he ever try to boil a kettle on a turf fire in a tenement room?

Go down to Paddy Gorman, the turf merchant, on the Canal Bank, and he will tell you.

If Deputy Briscoe is prepared to say it is suitable I merely say that I disagree, but let us end the matter at this. If it is suitable, I have no objection. I submit that no better opinion could be got on the matter than that of Deputy Kelly, who is more familiar than any one of us with the conditions under which the poor live here. If he is prepared to advise the President that, to the poor people in the tenement houses, turf will be as useful a fuel as coal, I have no further objection to make, but what I do object to is that this provision of this necessary amenity for poor people should be made the means of bolstering up some hare-brained scheme of the Minister for Defence. If the people want fuel and the Government are going to make money available for it, their prime consideration should be to make available to the poor the best form of fuel for the poor and not for the Minister for Defence.

The poor in the cities do not want turf and well Deputy Briscoe knows it.

That is my suggestion. If I am wrong, I am very glad to withdraw my contention. The outstanding point in this Budget is the fact that we have to find £31,000,000. The outstanding point in it is that, while expenditure is rising, trade is failing. We have to-day the report of our exports to Great Britain during the past month, and, in every single department, there is a substantial fall and it is particularly striking in connection with butter. While we exported five times as much butter, we got just twice as much money. A few days ago the Minister for Agriculture announced here that he and the Minister for Industry and Commerce were creating new hosts of officials every day. Unemployment is rising except in the Civil Service, according to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Agriculture. Taxation is rising; trade is falling. Where is that leading? Surely it is leading on the path of the Rake's Progress to eventual national bankruptcy? How long can it go on? It can go on until the last penny of the people's capital is spent.

The time has come for this Government to pause, to assess the situation and to make up its mind as to what it proposes to do. It has got to bring down expenditure to a lower level than that at which it stands at present. It can be done in two ways. One is by ending the economic war and by resolving to work in harmony with the other nations of the Commonwealth of Nations. That is only one of two ways. There is an alternative which can be put in hands to-morrow. If the people want it, it should be put in hands to-morrow, and that is the establishment of an independent Republic for Twenty-Six Counties of this country and a definite resolve made that in the future we will cut our cloth according to our measure. I am ready for either of these two alternatives. I always have been ready for them, but I have always stipulated that the majority of the people will decide between those two alternatives and that nobody else will decide, and once they have decided nobody will presume to upset their judgment by force.

I am still prepared for that judgment to be taken and I shall be glad to hear from the Minister who interrupts that he is prepared now to give an undertaking that the will of the people, no matter what it is, will be supreme, and that an attempt by anybody to upset that will by physical force will be rigorously and ruthlessly dealt with. If he accepts that, I accept it. It is up to the Government to make up its mind, unless they are going to drive our people into destitution and misery. Whatever the people's decision is, once it is given, they can look to us for as hard and sincere work as we have been giving in the past two years. If it is to be a Republic, let it be, and let the people learn what that will mean. Let the people learn what a reduced standard of living is, and what all the material evils that will flow from that state are going to be. If we have got to have them then let us have them, but let the people make up their minds in the full possession of the facts. Let them know what it means. Let them know that it means a lower standard of living for every man, woman and child in the country. If they make up their minds to that I am prepared to accept their verdict, but until that decision is taken I am going to tell the people what it means, and I am going to tell the people the way I think economy in public administration should be carried out.

Tell us now.

I will tell you. I do not want to use language which might even savour of discourtesy. Without any intention of being discourteous I say that the first thing is to stop blathering about a Republic. Do one thing or the other. Stop telling us we are marching on to the Republic, and that everyone who criticises anything Fianna Fáil does is a traitor to his country. You want to know what I would do. I would make up my mind that what I wanted to secure for our people was real freedom, without any particular label, or any particular tag. I would tell the other members of the Commonwealth of Nations that we wanted to make a success of this business; that we wanted to live in friendship and in goodwill, sharing the advantages of our mutual co-operation; that we did not want any treaties or anything else; that we wanted to settle down as a nation within the Commonwealth of Nations, each nation equal with the other and not looking for fight; that we took that stand in the confident belief that it was the preliminary to the restoration of the unity of this country and to its full national life; that any outstanding differences which exist between our people and the people of any other nation of the Commonwealth we were prepared to sit down at a table and settle; that we did not expect to settle them by ramming our views down their throats any more than we would allow them to ram their views down our throats; that we expected a settlement on the basis of sensible compromise, always provided that we began negotiation on the understanding that we sat down to the table as equals, meeting one another as equals, but as equal friends and not as equal enemies. That is my way of producing a situation in which we could succeed in reducing expenditure to normal levels, by reducing social services the need for which has been created by the economic war, and by reducing the personnel of the Civil Service and not their salaries. That is the kind of economy I would like to see. Those are the two alternatives. Let the people make their choice. It is all they have to choose between. I am not afraid to describe the alternative I would choose, or the path I would take. It is high time that the President made up his mind what path he is going to take and take it, leaving it to the people to decide whether they want to follow him in the full realisation of whither his path is leading.

They have made up their minds long ago.

The Deputy has just wandered into the House in the last couple of minutes.

Mr. Brady

And you only wandered in a short time ago.

I will not indulge in cross-talk. Let them make up their minds what they are going to do. Let them make up their minds that whatever they do they have to bring public expenditure within the capacity of the people to pay. Let them remember when they go to the country for their verdict that their first duty on seeking that verdict is to tell the people the bare and naked truth, to tell them they are going to increase taxation by £6,000,000 instead of telling them they are going to reduce it by £2,000,000. Let them tell the people the full meaning of what they are asking them to do. Having told them, let them make up their minds to accept the verdict of the people loyally, and be prepared to stand with every other man in the public life of this country in adopting the principle, once and for all, that the majority of the people will rule the country, and that whatever they decide is best for Ireland is what the dominant party of this country will carry out.

[The President rose.]

Before the President speaks, am I to understand that there is an agreement that this matter concludes at one o'clock, and that the Minister speaks at that hour? The position appears to be that the President will speak now, will be followed by the Minister at one o'clock, and that nobody else will be allowed to speak.

The position is that nine members of the main Opposition Party have already spoken, and only five members of the Government Party.

And there are to be two more in succession?

I do not know that it will be in succession.

Is there any doubt about it?

I understood there was an agreement that the Minister's reply would take place at one o'clock, and that automatically whoever was speaking or whoever wanted to speak would then be cut out in order to allow the Minister for Finance to speak. To me it seems there is a proposal now that the reply will be divided between two Ministers, and that they will begin before half-past-twelve instead of at one o'clock. That seems to be quite clearly a departure either from the spirit or the letter of such an agreement. Personally, I think any such agreement is thereby broken, and is no longer binding on us.

This is an extraordinary position taken up by the Opposition—that we have sat here for two days listening to criticism on general public policy and that we should not be given any time to reply.

That is not the position.

Or that the reply should be confined to one Minister.

That is not the position.

What is the position? We have not been wasters of time.

Did you listen to Deputy Corry this morning?

Yesterday this debate ranged over everything that could come into the minds of Deputies, —everything that they could think of away from the Budget.

Is the President speaking on the Budget Resolutions or answering the point put?

I propose to make a speech in reply to questions on Government policy which have been raised.

I called on the President to speak. I have no information as to how long he is going to speak or as to whom the Chair will call after him. There may be some opportunity for a member of the Opposition to intervene.

Has the Leas-Cheann Comhairle any information of an agreement to call on the Minister for Finance at one o'clock?

Is it a matter of a Standing Order rule which the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is going to enforce?

Deputy McGilligan has come in, as he always comes into the House, to try to break agreements.

I understood it was decided yesterday that the Vote would be taken at one o'clock.

No. There was a distinct agreement that the discussion would end at one o'clock. Surely the President will agree that if that agreement, which was made to convenience the chief Government Whip, is going to exclude anybody it ought to be a member of the Government Party, seeing that the Minister has the last word? The agreement was made to convenience the chief Government Whip.

On two recent important occasions when Government policy was criticised——

Is there an agreement that the Minister will speak at one o'clock?

The Chair has no authority to enforce agreements between parties. It is only the honour of both parties that binds them in such agreements.

I want you to decide—

Is this a point of order?

Yes. I want to know— I think I have as good a memory as any Deputy but I will leave it to Deputy Sir James Craig and other Deputies to agree with me—if it was decided yesterday that the Vote would be taken at one o'clock.

I understood there was an agreement that the Minister would be called upon to conclude the debate on one o'clock.

Not at half-past-twelve.

On two recent occasions when important matters were being discussed here, in order to give members of the Opposition an opportunity of making speeches, I refrained from making the reply I intended to make. I confined myself, as a matter of fact, to a period of ten minutes. On this occasion I do not propose to do so. I think we have been very fair with the Opposition. It is quite clear that if there are points which I cover, in all probability the Minister for Finance will not go over the same ground. Deputies have already wasted five or six minutes which might have been sufficient to permit me to say what I intended to say.

Question! Has the President ever done it?

I am in no particular state of anxiety now to convenience Deputies.

Neither are we.

Deputies have been unable to criticise the Budget. I have been here for some years listening to Budget debates and during the whole time I have never heard such irrelevant speeches as were delivered to-day and yesterday. Not a single attempt has been made to deal with the Budget. I challenged the last speaker; I asked him to tell us where economies were to be got and his answer was economy in speech. He did not exercise very much economy in speech himself. Do not talk about the Republic— that was one of the ways we were told in which we were going to get reduction in public expenditure. The Budget statement has been issued and I suggest that what is wrong with those who have been speaking on the other side is that all their prophecies have been proved untrue.

The Rake's Progress had only begun. The policy of the Government to relieve unemployment, to deal with housing and to deal with a number of other crying public needs was going, we were told, to lead to such extravagance that we were going to be bankrupt. We were told that the Treasury was going to be bankrupt within a year.

Who said that?

That was the substance of the statements made here last year, and this year, when the Minister for Finance has been able to produce a Budget which has surprised everybody, even those on the opposite benches, Deputies have to try to get material for a Budget debate by going back on history and, while going back on it, they try to misrepresent it. I am not going to go back on history. I am going to give an opportunity to those on the opposite benches who tell us that there should be economies, to point out where the economies can be effected. Reduce the number of public servants is the only suggestion I have heard. I would like to see the Deputy in the position of Minister for Finance and starting out to reduce the number of public servants at the moment. How would he do it? Put them out of employment, or pension them off?

I would effect economies by refraining from what the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Industry and Commerce openly confessed they do, and that is taking men on in hordes.

They are taking them on to do public work. The total amount of expenditure looks high; I am not going to deny it; I am not going to deny for one moment that the expenditure is high. But let us get the alternative. The alternative is to continue the miserable slums and make no attempt to end them; to let children go without the necessary milk; to let homes be without fires and to allow public work to go undone. Of course that is one of the ways of reducing expenditure.

It was not suggested by me.

I did not interrupt the Deputy very much. I asked one or two, what I regarded as pertinent questions. I did not question every statement the Deputy made. I will go through some of the social services provided in the Budget and I would like to know if there are any members on the opposite side who will say provision should not be made for them. Let Deputies tell us what are the particular items we should drop. For instance, we have provision for old age pensions to the amount of £3,250,000. Is Deputy Dillon going to say that the Pensions Bill is to be repealed?

We are not going to get it there, then. I will say this much about it, that as there is generous provision being made in respect of pensions, extreme care should be exercised in the matter of administration. At the present moment, I am not at all too satisfied that that care is being exercised. I say that anybody who gets a pension and who does not come within the terms to deserve it, is robbing his neighbours. As regards child welfare, there is provision to the extent of £22,500, made. Are we going to cut that down? There is £100,000 provided for a milk supply. I expect the present Government is blamed for the fact that there are children who need milk and who cannot get it, unless it is provided at the public expense. Are we really to blame for that? Just take into consideration the bread lines in the United States and examine whether it is better to allow these people to starve or to feed them. Are we to allow the children to go without necessary milk or should we supply it? Our view is that it is a public duty to supply that milk and to see that the children who come into this world as our citizens and who need milk will get it. In the case of school meals——

On a point of order.

Precedence must be given to a point of order. What is the Deputy's point?

The President has announced his intention of asking a number of questions. I desire to know if it will be in order for Deputies to answer each question seriatim as he puts it. If it is not in order, and I think it is not, let it be understood——

That is not a point of order. The Deputy is now making an argument. The rules of the House must be observed.

I realise that they are awkward questions.

I am quite prepared to answer them.

There are other Deputies besides Deputy Dillon and he need not imagine that all my remarks are addressed to him.

It is unfair to ask certain questions and possibly then say afterwards that they could not be answered.

There is a provision of £17,250 for school meals. Are we to drop that? For the welfare of the blind there is a sum of £7,750. Are we to drop that? There is a contribution to the unemployment insurance fund of £238,000. Is that to be dropped? There is a provision of £25,000 for turf. To-day we have had the suggestion that turf is not a suitable form of fuel for our poor.

In the cities.

Yes, it is, even in the cities, and there will be more than the poor burning turf in the cities before long.

Hear, hear!

We know that.

You can be quite nice and warm with turf, too.

I warmed myself before with turf.

Get back to the bogs.

The Deputy should go back to Sandy Row.

Then there is provision for the unemployed. We had Deputies on the opposite side going into the Lobby and voting in favour of a scheme for maintenance if work could not be provided. I promised that we would make an attempt to provide work, even though it might be a small attempt in the first year. We would be reluctant to look for maintenance if we could give employment, and we prefer trying to give employment. We mean to live up to our pledges. The Deputies opposite went into the Lobby and voted for it. I told them that we would be asking them to make sacrifices and we would be asking the people they represent to make sacrifices. I hope they will be just as pleased with the sacrifices as they were when they voted for the resolution.

It is not a sacrifice to commit suicide.

The items I have mentioned make a total provision of £4,110,000. Under a second heading there is provision made for various works. For local loans, the sum of £2,150,000 is provided. For housing grants to local authorities and individuals, there is the sum of £371,000 provided; for Gaeltacht housing, £82,000; improvement of estates, £190,000; relief schemes of other sorts, £150,000; public health schemes, £250,000; drainage of bogs, £100,000; turf development, £50,000, making a total of £3,343,643. I should like to know what items in that list Deputies want cut out. Are the Deputies who have been talking about the slum conditions of Dublin going to vote against the provision of these loans for housing? There has been reference to what was described as the "foolish scheme" of the Minister for Defence to provide turf. The general policy of this Government has been referred to a few times during the debate. Our general policy is the policy on which we went before the country, the policy for which we got the approval of the people. The Deputy who spoke about loyalty to the will of the people should give a chance to that policy. In the good days to come, he promises loyalty——

Reduction of taxation.

The loyalty which he is going to give them, let him give now to the expressed will of the people.

Six million pounds additional taxation.

I take it that the loyalty the Deputy referred to was not conditional loyalty. The expression meant something. Let the Deputy extend his loyalty now to the will of the people as it has been expressed. If there is any suggestion that we, on our side, did not inform the people properly of what we proposed to do, there were a number of eloquent gentlemen on the opposite side who had an opportunity of so informing them. If there was some over-statement on our side, there was equal over-statement on the other side. Nobody can suggest that the people did not get an opportunity of hearing both sides. Our policy is to give an opportunity to the Irish people to render the services that, in the past, we paid foreigners to render for us—to provide out of our own resources and with our own labour the things we paid foreigners to provide for us in the past. We used to be laughed at when we said we intended to grow our own wheat here. The scheme has begun and it will go on. We are going to produce our own wheat here. Perhaps Deputy Dillon and those speaking as he does share the views of the English economist who came over to speak here the other day and who dwelt on the possibility of our moving too rapidly. What a terrible thing it would be if the green fields which gave us the name of the "Emerald Isle" were to be ploughed up and, when they were ploughed up, we found that our scheme was not going to be as economical as we thought! I can tell him that if we had all the land necessary to provide our home needs ploughed up, we would not have as high a proportion of our land tilled as Denmark has and other Continental countries have. Even after that, this country can be called the "Emerald Isle"—long after we are producing from our own resources all our needs in the way of cereals.

Our policy is to produce off the land, out of our own resources, with our own labour everything we can produce here. We went after the production of wheat. Why? Because wheat was one of the big items on our import list. The Minister for Industry and Commerce went after the development of our capacity for the production of flour. Why? Because flour was a big item on our import list. We set out to cut these big items down. There is another big item. That is, the amount of foreign coal coming in for domestic purposes, while our own fuel is here at our doors ready to be used. That is what is behind the scheme of the Minister for Defence—to use that home fuel, to make it available for our own people, and to keep the wealth it represents and the labour it represents within our own community. That is the policy that is going to reduce us to the hair shirt or báinín. If we did come in here in báinín we would not be a bit colder than we are and we might look just as well.

The Minister for Finance in a báinín!

It does not matter in the slightest. In a very short time we can have our own designs and they will be just as artistic as anything we are likely to get from abroad. We will not be completely cut off. If there are new ideas abroad, we can make use of them and we will be ready to make use of them. Let us see whether this is a foolish policy in the long run—this policy of trying to produce for ourselves, out of our own resources, with our own labour, the things we were formerly buying from outside. Is it such a foolish policy in the present condition of world economics? We had a disciple of free trade the other day half admitting that he was a convert to this policy. There are people who are able to find reasons why a thing is successful when it is successful, but if we were to wait until these gentlemen found the way we would be waiting a much longer time. Irishmen in the past studied the problems of this country in relation to the circumstances of a neighbouring country and they long ago satisfied themselves as to what is the best road to travel. I have said that the recent conflict with Great Britain has driven us along that road at a pace which is, perhaps, rather fast—faster than we would of ourselves choose—but, at any rate, there is the consciousness and knowledge that we are being driven along the right road.

A pious hope.

It is not a pious hope; it is a certainty. What alternative have the Deputies who are criticising the policy of the Government to offer? As far back as 1929, when we were on the opposite benches, we tried to warn the Ministry of that time of what was coming. We tried to point out to them the necessity of shaping their policy to meet what was coming. I remember reading an extract from a letter, which I shall read again to the House. It was published in the London "Times" of January 7, 1929, by a former Parliamentary Secretary to the British Ministry of Agriculture. This expert knew what he was talking about. He knew the conditions. The British had the power of protecting their own agriculture. They had the power to see that whatever damage was going to be done, they were going to suffer as little as possible from that damage so far as the protective powers of their Parliament could manage and they would let other people suffer it. This is what this gentleman wrote:

"Speaking as a lifelong observer and practitioner, I have never known in spite of the recent magnificent harvest, its inherent conditions worse, or its ultimate outlook less reassuring."

He was speaking of British agriculture. He goes on to state:

"Two visits in the last twelve months to South America have convinced me that there is no agricultural product whatever, even including butter, milk and potatoes, that may not with the aid of modern science be landed in this country in reasonably good condition from that El Dorado of effective agricultural competition at a lower cost than that at which British farmers can now produce it."

He was an expert who was warning British agriculturists of what was in store for them. He was pointing out that as against undeveloped countries where there are only nine people to the square mile, working with modern scientific aid, we could never hope to be effective competitors in the British market. He did not hold out any hope for British agriculture. If that were the case in Britain, what is going to be the case with us, with our agriculture?

We are 40 per cent. worse.

What guarantee has anybody on the opposite benches that if this policy of ours, which is the people's policy, were adopted at any time, namely, the policy of making ourselves self-sufficient, the British could not have clapped on the 40 per cent. to protect British agriculture against us? Of course, they could. If we were to continue paying them what our predecessors paid, we would in such circumstances not only be paying them the annuities but, over and above that, 40 per cent. on our trade with them unless we were willing to slow up on our policy of developing our industries.

Surely the President does not suggest that this is the people's policy?

It is, of course, the people's policy. I am speaking now and the Deputy will wait until he has an opportunity to speak later. It is, of course, the people's policy.

The people voted definitely at the last election to retain the annuities here. They voted for the policy of trying self-sufficiency here.

They voted to end the economic war.

They voted for a policy of making here what we were importing from outside.

The policy of self-sufficiency was Arthur Griffith's policy.

The policy of self-sufficiency goes back much longer than Arthur Griffith or anybody of recent times. Do not be talking nonsense. Go and read up Swift and others of the century previous. The policy of self-sufficiency for this country has been preached in every generation by people who recognised that there was always an economic war between Britain and ourselves.

Self-sufficiency is common ground. Deal with the economic war.

The Deputy cannot listen.

I can listen.

Deputy Belton will have to listen or leave the House.

The President stated——

Deputy Coburn will sit down.

Deputies

Chair, Chair!

What about all the personation at the last election?

I have said that Deputies who blame us for the 40 per cent. tariff the British have put on our produce blame us as if that would never have been put on had we not held on to the annuities which by right are ours. How do they know that? How does anybody know that?

They could not have it both ways.

Could they not? Why?

We would hit back then.

Hit back then! We are hitting back now.

You are getting others into the hole.

Hit back then! Do what another Deputy suggested. Put your arms around Mr. Thomas's neck and say "Dear Mr. Thomas we really do love you. We want to be on good terms with you. Will you not take off the tariff on our cattle? Will you not give us a good settlement?"

Who suggested that?

Deputies

Sit down!

Misrepresentation is an old weapon in the President's armoury.

If the Deputy had any other way of getting Mr. Thomas to settle——

Do not try to twist my words.

——I should like to know it. The Leader of the Opposition went down the country at the last election and said to the people "Give us a majority and we will settle the thing in three days." He did not condescend to tell the people how he would settle it. All he did condescend to say was: "You will have only to pay half your annuities. We will let you off with half your annuities for a year or two" and he was going then to look for a settlement on the basis of the farmer's inability to pay. He had ten years to discover the farmers' inability to pay.

They were never unable to pay until last year.

He only came to know about it when he wanted an election appeal, but the people let him know what they thought of this policy. He has not told us yet where he got the information that he was going to settle on the basis of half the annuities. Our attitude is this: these moneys are ours, ours by every right. We had a Deputy on the opposite benches—Deputy O'Neill— last night suggesting that we were not going to pay back to the British people money which they had lent. Perhaps there are other Deputies on the opposite benches who have that sort of view and that what is really taking place is that they are voting against us because of that view. I would ask such Deputies to go and study the matter a little further and they will then approach it from quite a different angle. This is not a question of giving back to the British people money which they lent us. What is the position about the land annuities? The land of Ireland was taken and given to British adventurers as rewards for military service. The landlords had it and when the British Government found that United Kingdom bonds or United Kingdom cash was going to be of more value than the rents of the land which the landlords could not very well get, they made up their minds that they were going to buy out the landlords and try to get the Irish tenant-farmers to pay for it. Who borrowed the money and who lent it? It was a united State at the time of which the Irish people were then part. It was that united State that borrowed the money and it was that united State that lent the money. When there was going to be a break-up of the partnership, one of the partners said to the other—they did not do it as an act of generosity because there was much more due to us on the score of over-taxation—one of the partners said to the other, and put it in an Act of Parliament, that the rents and the annuities that came from the tenant-farmers would remain in the Treasuries here, north and south. They are in the north at the moment and they are here now. They have remained in the north, and in the south, and the responsibility for the payment of the bonds would be a responsibility for the British Exchequer alone. These are our moneys by law, and surely they are our moneys by right.

If the descendants of the adventurers who came over here were to be bought out of the land which their ancestors got as a reward in the past for their services, do you not think that the persons to whom they rendered those services are the proper persons to provide the cash? We have no compunction in saying to those, who state that we are going to use some little legal quibble to defraud some people outside that we are quite satisfied we are justified in this action, and justified in claiming that the money is ours. What are we to do? Are we to continue to hand over three millions land annuities and a couple of other millions every year to Britain? Are we to go on smilingly paying, even though we are satisfied that the greater part, at any rate, is not due? Is that the alternative? I know, of course, that if you go over to Britain to-morrow and offer to pay the annuities and say that you recognise the secret agreement—and I repeat that it is a secret agreement——

That is a bad phrase.

It is not a bad phrase. It is an accurate phrase, describing exactly the document that has been withheld from the Irish people, a document on which lawyers on the opposite side tried to make a case for giving away all the land annuities, but did not even state one——

In this House.

——a document that was not revealed to the Irish people until we revealed it, when Mr. Thomas relied upon it as an argument for his case. It is a secret document, and the British put up as one of the terms that we should recognise it. We are not going to recognise that agreement, and if the Irish people want to recognise it they will have to get other people to do so. The Irish people were told that before. I believe I can depend on the Irish people to recognise the policy of our opponents who hope that the British will be able to bring us to our knees, and that they will get back into power to make the surrender. I believe they will never see that day. At the present time they are going around collecting funds, saying that the present Government is going to be thrown out because there is going to be a majority against them in the country. It is the people who are going round saying that who are talking about economies. Our policy is to retain what is our own. It is not a policy of hostility to any outside people.

One way or another, for the last 20 years, at any rate, I have been connected with the Irish political movement, and to say that hate was the basis of that movement is a lie from beginning to end. It has not been a policy of hate. It has been a policy of love for this country and for our own people, and if any foreign country takes umbrage at that, while we may regret it, it is not going to change our attitude. We are going to hold what we believe to be our own, and if outside people try to coerce us, and to make us suffer, then we have only to make up our minds and to bear that suffering. We have been told that we cannot win, that we may as well surrender at the start. We cannot win unless we make up our minds that whatever we may have to suffer we will suffer it, rather than give away what are our rights. We have always met representatives of the British in a spirit of goodwill. There was never an offer made by them. Deputy MacDermot talks about an offer of £15,000,000 or £20,000,000 to try to settle the case. I would like to see Deputy MacDermot entrusted with the settlement. He would begin to find out then, that Mr. Thomas, Lord Hailsham, and the other British representatives, are not going to give away, simply because you put your arms around them and say: "Oh, dear Mr. Thomas, I am very found of you; really I am."

I was reading a list of the provisions that we are making for social services. I come now to the provision for educational services. I will not go through the individual items, but the list includes universities and colleges, primary education, secondary education, technical education, reformatory and industrial schools, agricultural education, instruction in boat-building and a grant for the training of native Irish-speaking nurses, making a total of £4,500,000. The figures will be found in the Votes for Education in the Estimates. Are we to cut these out? I have said before that we are not satisfied that we are getting full value for the money being spent. I believe that if the Government could devote itself to looking after that aspect, and was free from other preoccupations, they could do better, and could get better results from £4,500,000 than we are getting at the moment. I suppose the same would be true about everything to the end of time. You have £4,500,000 provided for educational services; and for public health services, including medical treatment for children, the treatment of tuberculosis and other diseases, including hospitals and insurance, the total amounts to £386,000.

We heard about the farmers. One would imagine that the present Executime Council was putting a burden on them, or was not coming to their assistance. As the butter question has been mentioned, I would like to point out that if there was no question of an economic conflict with Britain at all, the problem of the dairying industry would be in existence. We would have to meet it or the industry would go down. What are the provisions made for agriculture in this Budget? There is an agricultural grant of £599,000, a supplementary agricultural grant of £900,000, and an additional agricultural grant of £250,000. That means more than half of the total agricultural rate, and it is the definite policy of the Government not to go further in that direction. We promised that out of that of the land annuities, £2,000,000 or £3,000,000, would go to agriculture, and we said that we would use it for the relief of rates.

Have you done so?

We have done much better in the first place. We found if we went on with de-rating that we were not going to benefit the section of the agricultural community which we thought was most entitled to benefit, those who were getting most out of the land, and we came to the conclusion that if we were going to give complete de-rating, we would have to act contrary to general policy, which is to give local bodies as much responsibility and power as possible. If we were going to supply revenues for local bodies from the Central Fund, what particular incentive would there be to local bodies to manage that money properly? Therefore, we decided that instead of giving the £2,000,000 by way of complete de-rating we would content ourselves with meeting the agricultural rate charge to the extent of half. So far as the contributions from the Agricultural Grant are concerned we are to give half and to give the farmers a remission of half the annuities during the whole period that they would otherwise have to pay. We have funded the annuities for the first half of this year and we have reduced them for the second period by one half. That means that we have given to the farmers this year in that way £3,225,000.

And you have taken £5,000,000 from them.

We have done nothing of the kind, but the British have done it. What is the alternative? To continue paying the £5,000,000.

I will answer the President if he wants an answer.

There are other people in the House besides Deputy Belton. He need not think so much about himself. Anyway, his answer will not carry much weight with anybody.

I will go down to Ennis and answer the President on it.

You will not come back.

Deputy Belton and others like him want to have it both ways. They want to keep the annuities and they want to maintain their rights without having the difficulty of doing it. We know these sort of gentlemen. We meet them constantly, and Deputy Belton is evidently one of them.

We have paid the British twice and we are paying our own Government once. That is not fair.

We are providing, therefore, out of the Budget this year half the total amount of the agricultural rate. In addition, there is the beet subsidy under which the farmers will get £162,000. There is a sundry grant for agricultural purposes, £195,000; bounties on exports which to a certain extent offset the tariffs £2,355,000, so that a total sum of £7,683,000 is provided directly this year for the relief of the agricultural community. That is the sum that, in one way or another, is going to assist farmers this year. Are we going to cut that sum down? The farmer Deputies will of course say "no."

Give us our markets.

You have no power to give them the markets. The British have the power—they may not be exercising it—to keep the markets for themselves. The British Government will have a nice task when it comes to deal with Lord Snowden and other people that it will have to deal with in another direction. The fact is that this year definite relief for the farmers is being provided, as a result of Government policy and activity, to the extent of £7,683,000.

What about the loss of our market?

Neither Deputy Dillon nor anybody else on the opposite side can restore them except at the price of five millions a year. The country has already paid 50 million pounds in the last ten years. We are not going to pay that sum of money, and it was on that policy we went before the people.

But the President will not go into the front line trenches himself.

It was on that policy that the people spoke and spoke in no uncertain voice.

(Interruptions.)

Deputies will have to understand, even members of the Government Party, that the President will have to be listened to without interruption. There is no need for all this uproar. Deputies will have an opportunity of discussing all these matters when the Finance Bill comes before the House.

The President can keep his seven millions, but give us back our markets.

Would the President give us some details about the seven millions?

A Deputy

Sit down.

Who is telling me to sit down?

Deputy Dillon spoke about housing. Here are some details in connection with the Government's housing policy: Local Loans for Housing of the Working Classes, £1,000,000; under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, £500,000; under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, £200,000; the Gaeltacht Housing Act, £40,000, as well as grants for housing amounting to £370,000, making a total provision in this year for housing of £2,110,000.

At 5½ per cent., which the Dublin Corporation refused.

Would Deputies on the opposite side tell us what particular item amongst those I have read out should be cut down?

Keep your seven million and give us back our markets.

The Deputy will have to conduct himself.

I am not interrupting at all.

I am now giving the Deputy a final warning. If he interrupts again, I will call on him to leave the House.

I think that warning should apply to all sides of the House. As far as I can see, the House is being turned into a circus.

Last night a Deputy was speaking and obviously his economic theory was that we would have to have an export trade to the moon or the people on this earth could not live at all. The sum here for the relief of the poor in one way or another is £4,110,000; for the provision of work, £3,343,000; education services, £4,541,000; public health, £386,000; agriculture, £7,683,000, making a total of £20,000,000 for social services. Let Deputies who are opposed to this come along during the subsequent debates on the Finance Bill and say which of these items can be cut down and why. Our social policy is known. We said that we regarded it as the fundamental duty of a Government that opportunities for getting a livelihood should be provided for the citizens: that it is the duty of the community as a whole. It is only through the State, directly or indirectly, that that can be done. We are trying to get an ultimate solution of the problem by putting people on the land—giving a certain section an opportunity on the land of providing the necessaries of life and giving other people, by an exchange of services and goods an opportunity of engaging in industries to provide the other things we require—the fundamental necessities of life—clothing, shelter and so on. That is our policy. We did not suggest that it would be effective overnight. We are not able to change the effects of British foreign policy which operated in this country through centuries. We cannot deal overnight with a policy that, as Deputy Dowdall pointed out last night, has operated here for the last 90 years. We did not suggest at any time to the Irish people that we could do that.

The President did at the last election.

We did nothing of the kind.

Allow me, you did. You said you could give every man, woman and child in this country a living if you were returned.

I know perfectly well what I said myself. Possibly, my speeches were more widely reported than those of any other Deputy, of this Party at any rate, and I deliberately warned the Irish people and told them that this could not be done overnight.

And I said the same myself.

Very good. It is well that we have got agreement on that point at least. The Minister for Agriculture has started to do the work in his direction. The Minister for Lands and Fisheries will, in a very short time, be doing his work with regard to the division of land where we hope to be able to get done in a few years what otherwise we would have to look forward for a generation to get done if we were going to adopt the principles adopted up to the present time. The policy of the acting Minister for Lands and Fisheries with regard to supplying our own fuel, to as reasonable an extent as we can be expected to supply it within a few years, is being put into effect.

When this Government has its four or five years of office run, with an opportunity afforded to the Ministers to work out the programmes on which they are engaged, along with the programme which the Minister for Industry and Commerce outlined as being already initiated and in full operation at the present moment, then Deputies can come along and ask us why have we not done such and such instead of talking as Deputy Dillon has done, as if he were an innocent baby, and expecting that we could produce all these things out of a hat.

As the President has been talking for about 50 minutes, I do not propose to occupy the time of the House further, as I presume a division will be taken at a quarter to two.

I am not going to convenience those people to-day.

We did not expect anything better from Deputy McGilligan.

This is not a point of order, I presume. I do not understand why the Minister has been suppressed to-day. If the Minister could not have made a better case for his own Budget than the President has made for it, then he is more incapable than even I thought him to be, and my opinion of the Minister is, notoriously, not high. The President spoke of three points. Do not let him cause any embarrassment to the legal adviser behind him by speaking about secret agreements. There is a smell of Green Street Courthouse behind that and it is likely to cause bursts of Homeric laughter amongst the people. That is the first thing. The President also stated that we are hitting back against the British. If you put a bantamweight into the ring with a heavyweight and the bantam hits out with all his weight, the repercussion is bound to be against himself. This country did hit back at various times and at times did it with success, but the fruits are now being gathered. The country is in the most demoralised and scattered state that it was ever in and that is the result of putting weaklings into the ring. We were told that this country sent across the most mentally alert men that ever left its shores. There are three of them here now— the fourth has evidently gone. They had a great case and now we see the results. Let us not talk about hitting back until we are at least sitting up after the count has been taken and getting into form for a new encounter.

The President has asked us for economies. The President used to speak about them himself and when we asked him where they were to be made he told us—vaguely! May I repeat again what I have often quoted? I want to have it impressed upon the people who wrote it. This is taken from the oft-repeated election poster of Fianna Fáil:—

"Economy means the elimination of waste—the getting of 20/- value for every pound of the taxpayers' money spent on the Public Service. Fianna Fáil is satisfied that substantial economies are feasible without reducing social services, inflicting hardship on any class of Government servants, or impairing in the slightest degree the efficiency of the administrative machine."

That might sound merely like a preamble, but there was something good to follow:—

"It has examined with minute care the Estimates of supply services for the current year.—"

The very things the President has been reading. They had examined them for two years—

"and is convinced that a saving of many hundred thousand pounds can be made, not including such items as the sum of £1,152,500 paid to the British Government in respect of R.I.C. pensions and other similar payments not required by the Treaty."

Leaving this out, Fianna Fáil was convinced that without cutting the social services "the burden of taxation could be lightened by not less than £2,000,000 per year." If the President ever again has the effrontery to ask in this House where economies are to be found, he should be asked to sign on the dotted line his own promise, that is, that the burden of taxation can be lightened by not less than £2,000,000 per year without reducing social services, without inflicting hardship on any class of Government servants or without impairing in the slightest degree the efficiency of the administrative machine. Where is that promise now?

Deputy Dillon said, quite properly, here to-day that Deputies opposite sit on those benches by false pretences. That was a false pretence and it is now admitted to be so. The President should not stand here in the role of questioner but in the role of the man who is expected to give the answer. Where are these economies? Last year the presumption was that it was not their Budget. This year, it is their own Budget. Where are the economies that were to be effected without reducing social services, or inflicting hardship on public servants, and without counting the land annuities and the R.I.C. pensions? What did the President's speech to-day amount to more than reading out and saying that if you want economies you must cut these? When he was looking for place however, he said that we can save £2,000,000 without reducing social services, or inflicting hardships. You can test every other promise by what has been achieved in respect of that one.

The Minister for Finance, we are told, has produced a Budget which has surprised the people—"staggered" would be a better word—and it has not been discussed. It is difficult to discuss it with people who so blandly neglect all that they said previously, who wipe on one side all they promised and who are indifferent to the weight of taxation which lies upon the people, which, before they came into office, they described as intolerable.

Deputy Dillon entered into a calculation which, to some degree, I have made before. I want to have that calculation thought out again, magnified as Deputy Dillon magnified it, according to the famous ration by which the President relates our affairs to that of England—the 66 to 1. What would be thought of an English Government that promised a reduction of £132,000,000 in its services—which is only our £2,000,000 multiplied by the same factor of 66—and having got into power on the strength of that promise, increased their Budget by £400,000,000, which is only our £6,000,000 multiplied by the same factor of 66; and furthermore, having done that, they decided that they had got to borrow £200,000,000, following on the same principle of multiplication by 66? That gives the situation in a microscopic sort of way. What would be thought of an English statesman who promised £132,000,000 reduction in the taxation of the country, but who instead of effecting that economy of £132,000,000, imposed £400,000,000 extra and, in addition, showed that his Budget would not balance without borrowing to the extent of £200,000,000? What more detailed criticism do you want of the Budget than to state that that is what we have been brought to? It may be due to depression, or to the economic war, or to world-wide depression. Somehow we find that the Minister for Finance does not cut as cheerful a figure this year as he did last year. His jokes have all departed.

The Deputy opposite provides the jokes.

Possibly I am a little bit buoyant, like the revenue that he describes, but the Minister himself is not buoyant. The Minister is heavy.

There is matter here, but there is vacancy over there.

Unfortunately there is matter and matter. Last year, the Minister was preening himself in his new feathers, but since then he has moulted many of the brilliant feathers of his financial integrity. He has been plucked of his feathers and he does not present the idea that he would even provide a substantial meal. But two things are mentioned to show the buoyancy of the revenue. One of them was referred to by Deputy Dillon. It is one of the pillars of the Minister's Budget statement—the bank clearances. We must have that explained later. If you attempt to explain it except by showing it represents an increase in the wealth of the country, you are prejudicing the credit of the State. The other pillar of his policy is a substantial reduction in the volume of unemployment, but we have to query that, too. These are two vague statements capable of explanations other than the Minister has given. There are a couple of things in his Budget that are capable of only one explanation.

Let us take the question of income tax. Next year, the Minister budgets for a revenue from income tax of £4,696,000, with an effective rate right through of 5/- in the £. In the year 1931-32, the exact amount collected, according to this table, was £3,820,000. This year he has budgeted for £4,696,000, that is £800,000 of a difference. What was the effective rate in 1930-31? It was 3/3. There was a lag and 6d. was put on at the end of that year. What is the effective rate now? The rate now is 1/9 more and yet we are to get a return of only £800,000 extra. There used to be a calculation in good times that an extra 6d. on the income tax brought in £500,000. We have three extra sixpences and threepence in addition and we are not budgeting for an extra one and three-quarter millions; we are budgeting for an increase of £800,000. What does that mean? Where is the failure? Why does not an added 6d. yield now the same half million that it yielded previously? Why is it that this extra 1/9 in the income tax, to-day, on which the Minister can count fully to operate in the next year, is only estimated to bring in something like three-quarters of a million instead of one million and three-quarters. Last year we saw that there were three classes of income tax payers. First, there is the man with the fixed income, the civil servant, and people like him. They cannot escape. There cannot be any evasion so far as they are concerned. There cannot be any fluctuation for them except, of course, in the case of ordinary individual allowances for family, or a drop in the bonus. In cases of that kind the amount of the assessment can be calculated with mathematical accuracy. There is a second class of people, who live in this country but who get their money from investments abroad. There is a third class, the big class, the business people, and it is from them that we get most of this particular kind of revenue.

This year we are estimating that the full extra 1/9 will only bring in an additional three-quarters of a million, and not an additional one million-and-three-quarters. Where has the missing million gone? When is the return from the increased industry which has been talked about by the Minister's colleagues to commence? Everybody knows that this is a definite recognition that all the talk about increased industry is so much nonsense. If we have business growing, increased wealth circulating, and the benefit of this pilfered money from England, to the extent of £9,000,000 for two years, how does it come that the increased income tax rate of 1/9 is not to bring in one-and-three-quarter millions additional revenue but only £800,000? Despite all that, the Minister tells us the revenue is "buoyant."

Again, with regard to excise, the revenue in 1931-32 was £5,460,000, in 1932-33, £5,238,000. Next year, it is estimated at £5,020,000, an estimated drop of £420,000. Why the drop? Surely, the answer is clear—namely the lack of purchasing power. The estimate for duty on beer and spirits is less than the amount received last year. Yet, the Minister tells us the purchasing power is higher and that the revenue is buoyant. Tobacco is another item. The amount of unmanufactured tobacco brought in here from 1931 has decreased, from £11,000,000 to £7,000,000. Are we to be told that the deficiency is made up by the amount of Irish-grown tobacco manufactured and brought into use? If that is the argument, it is no answer.

Surely the Deputy has sufficient intelligence not to fall into the error of his colleague on the Front Bench opposite with regard to tobacco actually consumed, and tobacco taken out for consumption.

That it means the amount taken out, I know. What is the amount taken out? Why is there such a difference between the two amounts I have quoted—£11,000,000 and £7,000,000? What was the special rush that caused that big increase in one year and caused the drop in another? You do not answer the question by saying that these things depend not upon the tobacco actually consumed, but upon that taken out for consumption. The Minister can deal with it. That is, at any rate, the situation as revealed by two items: that the money we looked to get from excise, the money we looked to get from those who spend it on beer and spirits, is estimated to be down next year by about £400,000, and that the income tax, although this heavier rate operates, is only going to bring in £800,000 extra over, not this year, but the year before. The Minister for Industry and Commerce told us that this country is rolling wealth at present. Speaking on the Public Services (Temporary Economies) Bill he said there was more industrial development in ten months than there had been previously in ten years; that trade was better than it ever had been; that traders told him they never had less bad debts than they had in this year; and that their cash returns were greater than ever before. He added to that, that tillage was increasing, and he threw in at the end "and we had retained in this country for circulation here money that used to go outside." Add all these things together: the good business, the increased tillage, the circulation of £4,600,000 here which used to go abroad. Why is not all that reflected in that item of income tax? Why is there a lack of purchasing power with regard to beer and spirits?

There is no lack of purchasing power in regard to beer and spirits, except that people's tastes are changing, and have been changing for ten years.

Their taste for making incomes is changing. That is the answer.

There will be an answer to it.

That is the answer the Deputy might make if he were sitting here.

These hypothetical answers that I might make are of no account. The answer that is important is the one the Minister might give. If we have great industrial activity which we never had before, if trade is good, if cash returns are better than ever before, if there are fewer bad debts, if tillage is improving, and if £4,600,000 is retained in this country, why is not all that reflected in the Budget Estimates which the Minister presented? Last year the Minister said he was left a deficit by his predecessor of £1,195,000. That was an actual deficit in the sense that expenditure and revenue did not meet and that was a gap to be closed. In addition, he said that the old taxation was yielding so little that if it was continued only at its then height there would be a gap of £3,600,000 to be met. That was, therefore, a hard year he had to face up to. This year he ends with a surplus of £1,141,000 and he has to budget for the second year in which he is going to retain in this country £4,600,000. Let us take the two years together. We have had the advantage in one year, and we are going to have the advantage in this year of the retention of £9,000,000 of money that used to go outside the country. The Minister had £1,141,000 coming in when he entered into his Budget arrangements this year. We have to increase taxation slightly and we have to borrow £3,000,000. Why is that? Again, may I repeat the advantages? There was a deficit last year of £1,195,000, a deficit that has been wiped out. We have £1,141,000 in hands. We have £4,600,000 to spend this year, and we had it and spent it last year. We have £9,000,000 more circulating than ever before, and yet we did not get the £2,000,000 of economies promised. We did get cuts in the salaries of public servants. We get the agricultural grant reduced and we have to borrow £3,000,000. Is that a proper Budget?

I am sorry to have to interrupt the Deputy, but I shall have to move in a few minutes that the question be put.

I have been speaking——

Twenty-five minutes.

Less than 20 minutes. The President spoke for 50 minutes and Deputy Dillon for 50 minutes.

The Deputy had an opportunity yesterday if he chose to come into the House.

So had the President.

I took my time.

I am taking mine to-day. In 1930, Deputy MacEntee, as he then was, expressed his dislike of certain budgetary methods that were then announced. He said the Budget was a defence of squandermania and he expressed disagreement with the principle of meeting a Budget deficit by increasing the public debt. He said that that simply was an incentive to under-tax and over-spend. He went on to say that he felt that when the Minister for Finance found a deficit in the public revenue he should face the Dáil with proposals which would liquidate it. Such a deficit, he said, normally could only arise through some failure either of foresight or courage or control on his part and he ought to take the responsibility for it and not leave it to his successor to shoulder the burden he has created. Last year he told us that certain things which he regarded as normal expenditure had not been budgeted for in a proper way. What were they? Contributions to Local Loans Fund, £570,000; Public Works—New Works, £160,000, and then three small items: Forestry, Wireless Broadcasting and Land Commission—Improvement of Estates. He said these were not proper items for borrowing. The Local Loans Fund was picked out specially. The Minister had a word to say about it later:

"As to whether our contribution to the Local Loans Fund should be regarded as normal or abnormal there may be some room for argument. In view of the fact, however, that the Fund is now being mainly used to finance public health works and housing schemes, which, the former particularly, cannot be said to yield a full economic return, it is my opinion that these contributions should now be regarded as a provision which should normally be made out of revenue."

Finish the sentence.

"Otherwise, we shall be compelled to continue the same high charges for loans from the fund as have hitherto prevented many local authorities from proceeding with necessary public works. As this year's contribution to the Fund, however, will be made out of revenue of an unusual and perhaps non-recurring character, the question will remain open for another year."

How is it being provided this year?

By borrowing.

No. It is being provided out of surpluses.

£1,600,000 is being provided by borrowing. Is not that so?

Yes, for works of an unusual character and of unusual magnitude.

Is that a test for the future—that if the Ministry wants to spend money of an unusual character and of great size it then becomes a matter of borrowing? It is a new principle. It was not the Minister's principle last year. Is the Minister going to make the same high charges for loans from the fund as prevented the local authorities using the money? In other words, is the Minister going to charge the local authorities the full service of this debt at the rate at which he can borrow? But is he? The local authorities will want an answer to that. Is this £1,600,000 going to be lent the local authorities at whatever rate the Minister can borrow nationally? If that is so he may budget on a borrowed item, but on his own principle he cannot unless he abides by that standard. We are going to borrow £1,230,000 against what is called the Deferred Annuities Fund. Let us consider that in relation to the individual. If I go to a bank and ask for an overdraft I put them in the position of questioning me about my finances. I think I would cut a somewhat awkward figure if I put up the sort of case that the Minister for Finance has put up for the nation here. If I say to the bank: "I want £1,000 and the security is about £1,100 which I think is mine; it is true there is a lawsuit pending about it and it is true that though I have retained the money in my possession for two years I have now spent every penny of it; but nevertheless I want you to lend me £1,000 on the strength of that £1,100."

Is there a bank in existence that would lend money in such a case? If there is a bank that would lend money to such a person I think it is a bank that would very soon be wiped out as a banking institution. That is the position here. We are borrowing £1,230,000 and we are borrowing it on the strength of the Deferred Annuities Fund which is to be built up on the strength of these annuities and retained here whether we have proved our title to them or not. This money retained for two years we have now completely and entirely spent. Where is the fund on which anybody would lend money to us in these circumstances?

I think I have allowed the Deputy to make his point and I move that the question be now put.

I protest against this. I have not had an opportunity to complete my statement.

There was an arrangement made yesterday and the Deputy has the full benefit of it.

That agreement has not been carried out.

I am prepared to hear the Deputy for a further three minutes.

I protest against being closured in this way.

There was an agreement come to and the Deputy has got the benefit of it.

There could not have been an agreement because the President, a person who never broke an agreement in his life, spoke until a quarter past one.

Deputy McGilligan had full advantage of whatever time remained. The Deputy never came into this House except for half an hour during the last three days.

The agreement was not that the President should stop at one o'clock.

The vote was to be taken before one.

The President wanted to speak and that altered the agreement. There is one other point that should be mentioned and it shows quite clearly the situation to which we have been brought. We were promised that when the land annuities were retained in the country there was going to be full de-rating. I am not going to enter into the question whether full de-rating would be better or worse than what the farmers are getting, but full de-rating was promised. Last June Deputy Cosgrave made a speech in which he said he did not believe it would now be possible to collect the annuities; then there was a threat of jail for that. A little later when it came to the general election the President announced that that was his policy and now we have that thing boasted of, a policy for which there were threats of jail in June last. Some time ago when it was said the rates would not be collected this year we had again the hint of traitor in the air. Now we see there is a promise of £450,000 for the local authorities to relieve them of some of their burdens.

£450,000 is not going to the local authorities, though they will get some benefit from it. It is going to the relief of the unemployed.

The councils have succeeded at any rate in getting £450,000 in the way of relief of unemployment and of the rates.

No, they have not. That is not their doing. The scheme was under consideration long before.

We heard nothing of it until after the agitation was started. It was as a result of the agitation that this money is being given. At first there were threats of jail for the people who mentioned this.

Let the Deputy give the matter of what could be done under the Public Safety Act, in this connection, some consideration.

The Minister would not have the temerity to avail of that Act. The local councils had better be vigilant still. They have gone some length and they have had some success. It may be that they have not a full success. There is no improvement in the conditions in the country and therefore the councils have to meet the burdens of those who are out of work.

I move that the question be now put.

In view of the fact that further opportunities will be given for debate on the Budget, I am accepting the motion that the question be put.

Question put: That the Question be now put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 61.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, William Frazer.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corkery, Daniel.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Timothy.
  • Daly, Denis.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Doherty, Joseph.
  • Donnelly, Eamon.
  • Dowdall, Thomas P.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hales, Thomas.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Keely, Séamus F.
  • Kehoe, Patrick.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • O'Brien, Donnchadh.
  • O'Dowd, Patrick.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).

Níl

  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Belton, Patrick.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Bourke, Séamus.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Broderick, William Joseph.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Burke, James Michael.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John Aloysius.
  • Daly, Patrick.
  • Davin, William.
  • Davitt, Robert Emmet.
  • Desmond, William.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
  • Dolan, James Nicholas.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finlay, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Rogers, Patrick James.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Keating, John.
  • Kent, William Rice.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • McDonogh, Martin.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McGuire, James Ivan.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Morrisroe, James.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Connor, Batt.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Neill, Eamonn.
  • O'Reilly, John Joseph.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Traynor: Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Motion declared carried.
Main question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 73; Níl, 53.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, William Frazer.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Corkery, Daniel.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Timothy.
  • Daly, Denis.
  • Davin, William.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Doherty, Joseph.
  • Donnelly, Eamon.
  • Dowdall, Thomas P.
  • Everett, James.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hales, Thomas.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Keely, Séamus P.
  • Kehoe, Patrick.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • O'Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Dowd, Patrick.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).

Níl

  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Belton, Patrick.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Bourke, Séamus.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Broderick, William Joseph.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Burke, James Michael.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John Aloysius.
  • Daly, Patrick.
  • Davitt, Robert Emmet.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McGuire, James Ivan.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • O'Connor, Batt.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • Desmond, William.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
  • Dolan, James Nicholas.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finlay, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Keating, John.
  • Kent, William Rice.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • McDonogh, Martin.
  • O'Neill, Eamonn.
  • O'Reilly, John Joseph.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Redmond, Bridget Mary.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Rogers, Patrick James.
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Traynor; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Motion declared carried.
Resolutions reported.
Report Stage fixed for Friday, 26th May.
The Dáil adjourned at 2.15 p.m. until 3 o'clock on Wednesday, 17th May.
Top
Share