Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Mar 1935

Vol. 55 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Vote on Account.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

I move:—That a sum not exceeding £10,172,000 be granted on account for or towards defraying the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for certain public services, namely:—

1	Governor-General's Establishment	£670
2	Oireachtas	37,900
3	Department of the President of the Executive Council	3,800
4	Comptroller and Auditor - General	5,500
5	Office of the Minister for Finance	21,000
6	Office of the Revenue Commissioners	242,000
7	Old Age Pensions	1,150,000
8	Local Loans	440,000
9	Commissions and Special Inquiries	3,820
10	Office of Public Works	33,200
11	Public Works and Buildings	296,000
12	State Laboratory	2,460
13	Civil Service Commission	6,400
14	Property Losses Compensation	37,000
15	Personal Injuries Compensation	550
16	Superannuation and Retired Allowances	150,400
17	Rates on Government Property	30,000
18	Secret Service	6,700
19	Tariff Commission	1,800
20	Expenses under the Electoral Act, and the Juries Act	Nil
21	Miscellaneous Expenses	2,500
22	Stationery and Printing	45,000
23	Valuation and Boundary Survey	9,900
24	Ordnance Survey	11,500
25	Supplementary Agricultural Grant	450,500
26	Law Charges	22,000
27	Haulbowline Dockyard	2,500
28	Universities and Colleges	77,900
29	Electrical Battery Development	4,000
30	Quit Rent Office	1,150
31	Remuneration for management of Government Stocks	15,200
32	Office of the Minister for Justice	11,400
33	Gárda Síochána	662,000
34	Prisons	24,000
35	District Court	12,900
36	Supreme Court and High Court of Justice	16,500
37	Land Registry and Registry of Deeds	15,700
38	Circuit Court	18,400
39	Public Record Office	1,600
40	Charitable Donations and Bequests	1,000
41	Local Government and Public Health	366,600
42	General Register Office	4,060
43	Dundrum Asylum	5,000
44	National Health Insurance	105,600
45	Office of the Minister for Education	54,100
46	Primary Education	1,360,000
47	Secondary Education	130,700
48	Technical Instruction	77,200
49	Science and Art	14,900
50	Reformatory and Industrial Schools	61,000
51	National Gallery	1,900
52	Agriculture	333,000
53	Fisheries	16,500
54	Lands	571,500
55	Forestry	76,800
56	Gaeltacht Services	27,600
57	Industry and Commerce	105,200
58	Transport Services (late Railways)	650
59	Railway Tribunal	900
60	Marine Service	3,900
61	Unemployment Insurance and Unemployment Assistance	503,000
62	Industrial and Commercial Property Registration Office	5,200
63	Posts and Telegraphs	700,000
64	Wireless Broadcasting	13,600
65	Army	501,000
66	Army Pensions	130,000
67	External Affairs	26,700
68	League of Nations	4,540
69	Relief Schemes	175,000
70	Export Bounties and Subsidies	900,000
71	Repayment of Dáil Eireann External Loans	4,000
72	Compensation Bounties	17,000
	TOTAL	10,172,000

As Deputies are aware, our Standing Orders provide that the Estimates shall be disposed of and the necessary legislation, that is, the appropriation Bill passed into law before the 1st August. On the other hand, it is also provided that the consideration of the Estimates cannot be taken until after the commencement of the new financial year. They cannot be taken before the first day of the new financial year.

Meanwhile, provision must be made for carrying on the public services. The usual practice in that regard is to provide, by means of a Vote on Account, for the expenses of the various Departments up to the 1st August, up to the date at which the Appropriation Bill in the ordinary course must become law. Roughly, the amount for which the Vote is taken in this way works out at about one-third of the total supply votes. In the case of some of the Departments less than one-third will be required before the critical date; in other cases more than that amount is wanted. The amount set out in the Vote on Account is the amount that will enable the various Departments to carry on until that date. In case the main votes are not passed before that time, the sums which are provided by way of a Vote on Account cannot be used for the initiation of any new services. If a Department has some provision in its estimate this year for work that it has not hitherto been doing, it cannot start that work until the main Estimate is passed. It cannot use the money it gets by way of Vote on Account to do some work that the Dáil has not pronounced on either by the passing of a Supplementary Estimate before the end of the preceding financial year or by way of a sub-head in the main Estimate of the current year.

Furthermore, no part of the Vote on Account can be used to defray expenditures for which statutory authority is required, nor is it usual to include in the volume of the Estimates provision for such services or for expenditures which can only be initiated by legislation. It will thus be understood why the present Vote on Account makes no provision for, amongst other things, the balance of the agricultural grant for the coming year nor for, widows' and orphans' pensions. These and other matters will be the subject of legislation which will be introduced at an early date. The Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Bill, in working out the details of which some unexpected difficulties have been encountered, will be introduced before Easter. It and other measures will involve a substantial addition to the figure of £28,737,000 odd which is now included in the Estimates which have been presented to the Dáil for the supply services.

In that connection, I should like particularly to remark that the apparent reduction in the amount for the ordinary supply Estimates for the coming year is largely due to the new provisions which we propose to make for financing local loans and, accordingly, the supply expenditures which ordinarily fall to be defrayed out of revenue show on the whole a substantial increase. I feel it is necessary to emphasise that lest a superficial survey of the Estimates should engender a feeling of undue optimism in regard to next year's Budget, which, indeed, in due course, will present its own difficulties for solution.

It is customary in dealing with the Vote on Account to take three Resolutions together. The first of these is No. 8, which is the ordinary supply Resolution which we are now debating; the other two are represented by Nos. 9 and 10 on the Order Paper. These latter are ways and means Resolutions. The first relates to those of the additional and Supplementary Estimates for the current financial year not covered by the Appropriation Act of 1934 and it may be regarded, therefore, as complementary to the individual supply Resolutions already passed in connection with these Supplementary Estimates. The second Resolution is the ways and means Resolution corresponding to the supply Resolution moved in connection with the Vote on Account, in which case the amount is £10,172,000. This Resolution is necessary in the process of making the money available out of the Central Fund to meet the grant of supply.

In conclusion, perhaps, I might appeal to Deputies in discussing the Vote to avoid questions of detail, for it is scarcely possible to answer a matter of detail unless due notice has been given that the particular item to which it relates is going to be raised. This is desirable even when the main Estimates are under consideration and it is much more desirable when we are dealing with a Vote on Account, when any one of the matters that are comprised in the main Estimates might be made the subject of discussion. I think if the House would agree, it would facilitate business if general matters were discussed on the Vote on Account and we here on the Government side could arrange with Deputies on the other side of the House to have any Estimates in which they are particularly interested taken early so that there may be the fullest opportunity for discussion.

Mr. Cosgrave

Occasionally we hear in this country references to the desirability of founding an Irish culture, of the national traditions and so on, and it is an extraordinary thing that almost since the Dáil was established we have followed practically all the attributes, much of the practice and practically the whole of the constitutional usage of the British House of Commons. We have just listened to an introductory speech by the Minister for Finance in connection with the Vote that is before the House for a sum of a little over £10,000,000. It might be well if I were to emphasise here and now that some of the attributes of Irish culture that we would much enjoy are punctuality and efficiency, and, above all things, not to waste time. We received copies of the Estimates yesterday at four o'clock. They may have been delivered at an earlier hour, but I entered into possession of my copy at four o'clock. If I am not mistaken, that is probably the latest date on which they have been issued. I make no complaint about that whatever. I do say, however, that if one expects Parliamentary discussion and criticism and so on from any member of the House outside of the Front Bench, Deputies should be in possession of a book of figures running into 300 pages more than 24 hours before Parliament meets. In the absence of that, the House would be entitled to a little more lucid explanation of the sums which are asked, the reasons for the changes and some other particulars in connection with the whole business which would enable Deputies to discuss this matter intelligently. The book of Estimates cannot properly be compared with last year's Estimates for the simple reason that there have been something like £2,000,000 of Supplementary Estimates added. I presume we will be invited to consider this year's Estimates on the basis of last year's book of Estimates, plus £2,000,000. Of course, anybody who knows anything at all about Parliamentary business knows that that is humbug.

If my recollection is correct, we were told last year that there would be no such thing as Supplementary Estimates during the year. Full provision had been made for everything. On that basis, I presume, full provision has been made for everything this year, with the exception of the two items mentioned by the Minister. It is not absolutely necessary, in order to provide the sum of money that was available for the agricultural grant three years ago, to wait for Parliamentary or legislative sanction for it. It was cut off without statutory authority; it can be added without statutory authority, and we can get statutory authority for it afterwards. The sum now asked for would be very little less than half the sum asked for during the years 1928-29, 1929-30, 1930-31, and 1931-32, when the sum total of each Estimate was something like £21,000,000. We have heard during recent years expressions from various Ministers as to the depressed state of agriculture. We know it constitutes the means of employment for more than half our people; it maintains more than half our people, and, in considering Estimates of national expenditure, some relation must be made to the ability of the people to pay and some consideration might reasonably have been expected in the Administration to ensure that no undue burdens were placed upon the people at this particular and very difficult time.

Since the Dáil sat—and I submit the figures subject to correction—I find that in respect of unemployment assistance, 237 officials have been engaged this year over last year; in the Department of Industry and Commerce, 96 extra officials; in the Department of Lands, 208 extra officials; in Agriculture, 265 extra officials, and in the Revenue staff, 212 extra officials, and, if to that number be added the increase in the numbers of Civic Guards, 136, ten sergeants, five inspectors and one chief superintendent, we get a sum total for these seven services of 1,175 persons—a pretty considerable increase in a year. On looking over the Estimates, I find that there were 221 Guards in last year's Estimates over the previous year, and taking into account that very big increase in the Gárda Vote, it is obvious that the statements made by the Ministry when they were in Opposition, to the effect that that particular Vote would admit of a very big reduction, were either extravagantly made or made without any reference whatever to the facts. It might have been possible for them to have continued with the old numbers without any increase if we were to relate that to the ordered conditions that prevail in the State. What is still more remarkable is that transport, which cost £10,000 two years ago, and which was estimated to cost £12,000 for the current year, for the coming year is set down at £22,000. In two years, the increase in the Guards amounts to 373.

Referring to the Army, we find, although it is rather difficult to get out the exact number from the Estimates as provided, that we are apparently providing for an Army of 25,000 men, at a time when it is admitted that the principal industry in the country is in by no means a prosperous state. In the Army Estimate, on page 304, although it is not a material error, appears a total figure for the cost of the Army, not alone as set out in the Estimate, but embracing the other services which have to be rendered to the Ministry of Defence, including office accommodation, superannuation, rates, stationery and printing, posts and telegraphs, Army pensions, and so on. I make that criticism now with all due deference. It is the type of criticism which was employed when the House was differently constituted from what it is at present. It is not a fair criticism, but the figure last year, in comparison, is £1,900,000 and naturally one would be shocked at the enormous increase. I find, however, that the second figure must be wrong —Superannuation, Vote No. 16, £465,000. On investigating that Vote, I find that the total is £451,090 and, later, on examination, it would appear from page 72 that the Army expenditure in that connection is £396.

There was time enough occupied in presenting these Estimates to present them in proper form. The sum asked for is enormous, and, as I said in the beginning, it so happens that, during the first ten years of this Parliament, we fashioned ourselves, or, at least, the Opposition fashioned themselves, upon the English model, and, in consequence, what takes place on a discussion of this sort may weary and, perhaps, worry the Minister but that is all. Very little more is effected. Normally, if one had a really Irish cultural discussion upon this matter, if it were the wisdom of the House that was looked for rather than the regimenting of the Parties, we might expect to have some better result than there is, but certainly no cultural explanation could excuse the delay in publishing this book of Estimates nor can it explain or justify the enormous increase in the public moneys that is being asked for.

There is a reduction in the Local Loans Account from £4,200,000 to £1,300,000. Would it not have been reasonable to expect an explanation in that connection other than that we are going to have legislation? The Local Loans Account is made up, year after year, of money which is to be available for local authorities not in a position to borrow money themselves. Last year, the sum of £4,000,000 was so much eyewash. Anybody who knew anything of the circumstances knew that £4,000,000 would not be required by local authorities during the year. Was it the intention at that time to build up a fund, or to pretend to build up a fund, which would be available in the event of local authorities requiring it for the next few years, and, if it was so intended, was the money to be put into that fund or lodged in the bank at half per cent. interest, while the Central Fund was liable to five per cent. interest if it were to borrow the money?

Mr. MacEntee

Whoever told you that the Central Fund would be liable for 5 per cent. interest?

Mr. Cosgrave

If it has to borrow £4,000,000 in order to put it into the other fund, obviously it has to pay 3½ per cent. or perhaps 4 per cent. If 5 per cent. is not being paid, what is the justification for charging people 5½ per cent. for loans from the Local Loans Fund? These are matters which we would be much more interested in hearing rather than in having a dissertation on the Standing Orders. For 12 years we have been accustomed to the Standing Orders. Nobody reads them. Ministers read them less than anybody else. I speak from experience. I observed with some glee the fact that, little as we knew about them, the present Ministers know less. If the Minister knew about them before to-day he would not have wasted the time of the House explaining to us what the Standing Orders provided for in connection with this Vote.

Very large sums of money are proposed to be spent on building and renewing barracks in various parts of the country. There is some extension in connection with drainage and so on. The turf scheme is apparently paralysed, if not dropped. There is no appearance of the plan to provide, not alone continuous and general employment for all the people here, but sufficient to attract people back to this country again. We have a slight increase in the sum provided for broadcasting. Occasionally when listening to the news broadcasted from the national station here one misses items of information which are given out across the water. We are a truthful people presumably. We wish to be a truthful people. Suppression of the truth is not a national attribute and ought not to be. For instance, on St. Patrick's Night there was information from the B.B.C. about incidents which happened down the country. We do not wipe out our national offences by not admitting them. If they are there, they are there. There was a disturbance in one part of the country and we could hear nothing about it from our own station. We had to learn of it from the B.B.C., or from the newspapers the following morning. It is not the first time that has happened. Speaking of that, we also find a large sum of money provided in the Estimates for a publicity bureau. So that we have (1) a Government newspaper; (2) the Ministers; (3) the publicity bureau; (4) the radio. These four can conspire to keep from the public, if they desire, any information they like or propagate their own policy. An institution like the broadcasting station or the publicity bureau should not be merely a Party institution in the State.

We have, as I said in the beginning, something like 1,175 officials added to the cost of administration at a time when perhaps the people's income is less than ever before. We have this increasing list of items of expenditure. If we have in its train, as we have had some experience of already, labour unrest, because the cost of living cannot be defrayed out of present wages, wages will consequently have to rise. As they rise the cost of living rises again, and there must be a further increase. Let us make no mistake about it. Unless the normal productivity of the country is equal to the expenditure which the country has to meet nationally, locally and otherwise, this thing of increasing prices and so on is going to make it impossible for people to balance their budgets.

In that connection there is evidence in this list put before us to-day that it was compiled in haste; that it has no relation whatever to the people's capacity to bear the cost; that we are being faced year after year with a continual and rising cost of administration. Do not let it be understood that it is only people with small salaries. There are evidences in this book of Estimates of considerable sums of money being paid to people who have four-figure salaries which were not paid a couple of years ago. We had very little reason to expect, from the criticism of Ministers when in opposition in connection with large salaries, any such line of policy being adopted. One item particularly shows the short-sightedness of the Administration. Last year we provided £1,500,000 for unemployment assistance. This year £100,000 is added to that. In other words, we are expecting a still greater draw upon that particular fund. This is a time in which we might reasonably expect some limitation of expenditure, but instead of that we have an increase.

General Mulcahy

The Minister told us that we should not be misled by the figure on the front of the book; that the inside of the book contains what he called a substantial increase in expenditure. The Minister has presented to us books of this kind on previous occasions and it is worth while having a look at what they meant. The last book of this kind that the previous Administration submitted to this House was for the year 1931-32 and on the cover of that book there was printed £21,921,573. It was subsequently necessary by Supplementary Estimates to raise the estimated figure of expenditure to £22,747,374; but the expenditure for the year was less than the figure on the front of the book originally; it was £21,722,888. Then the Minister came along and he presented his first book for 1932-33. On the front of that book was the figure £21,969,623. He was not entirely responsible for that figure.

He assumed his responsibility manfully, and as a result of Supplementary Estimates he raised the total Estimate figure for the year by about £5,000,000, to £27,063,027. The actual expenditure was £24,217,504. We may excuse him somewhat for that year. But he was in dire necessity the following year, 1933-34. He presented his book and it disclosed the figure of £22,039,915. He added to that, and as the year went on, he raised the Estimate to £27,918,195, but he succeeded in carrying on. To the extent that he spent £26,039,980 by the time he reached the end of 1933-4, he had spent £4,000,000 more than appeared on the front of his little book. He had spent £26,000,000. Last year the figure was £29,709,107. We do not know what he will wind up with or spend, but he succeeded in warning us through the medium of a Supplementary Estimate that it would be £32,179,154. Now he comes along and presents us with this book and tells us that there is going to be more. I do not want to say what that more will be, but we know that in 1933-34, I think the only year he could be made completely responsible for expenditure, he went £4,000,000 above the figure on the front of his book. Meantime he tells us that next year he will be able to present a normal Budget. We would all like to know what next year means.

Mr. MacEntee

The year after that.

General Mulcahy

Does it mean the year beginning 1st April, 1935?

Mr. MacEntee

No.

General Mulcahy

We are not going to get to the normal until 1st April, 1936.

Mr. MacEntee

We hope so.

General Mulcahy

It is now a matter of hope that on 1st April, 1936, we may see a normal Budget.

Mr. MacEntee

There is no certitude in human affairs, so we can do no more than hope.

General Mulcahy

I appreciate the Minister's doubts, difficulties and obscurities. We are still in a period of abnormality and we will continue in it, and we will start with £28,000,000 on the front of the book and with the knowledge that the first year that the Minister knew what he was getting, the year 1933-34, he went £4,000,000 over. His supply expenditure at the present moment in the current financial year has gone more than £2,000,000 above the total expenditure of that year. We are promised no remedy. Meantime we have to pay these bills, and we are waiting to see what normality is to be. The Estimate tells us the Minister expects to pay £300,000 in bounties on wheat this year. As we approach the cra of normality there is going to be no £300,000 for wheat in the Estimates of the Minister for Agriculture. The cost of financing the Minister's wheat policy is on the increase, but the amount will not be shown in plain figures, and the cost of supporting the wheat bounty is going to be paid through the tax-collector, as he is at the present moment standing in so many shops. It is going to be paid over every counter for flour and bread.

On the 27th May, 1934, the Irish Independent in a leading article stated:

"Judging by the progress made recently in imposing taxation, one may soon expect to see the tax-gatherer installed in every grocer's shop."

Government advertisements have not yet been stopped from the Irish Independent, but with all the pressure that is gathering on the unfortunate people who go into grocers' shops to pay the tax-gatherers there, they will not be greatly interested. The ink was hardly dry when that was written, when the tax-gatherer sat inside the shop in respect of bacon. But normality is going to hit the tax-payer on the question of wheat, which is going to be paid by the shopkeeper over the counter. Just as at the present time we are passing towards normality in the matter of budgets, there are considerable sums of money being extracted from consumers over shop counters.

The Minister for Finance had somewhat of a shock during the last year when we had some discussions upon sugar. I said, as I say again, that on the matter of sugar that while contributing no direct subsidy for sugar that a burden of something like £735,000 was being collected over the country from the consumers who went in to buy sugar. The same thing has happened in regard to butter. When the Minister for Agriculture first introduced his scheme in support of the butter industry by means of a levy, there was a difference of opinion as between Deputies opposite, and on this side, as to what would be paid by the butter consumer in the Free State under this scheme. The Minister in introducing his scheme said the question of the cost to the consumer had been raised, and various figures had been given. The Minister said that the figure worked out at £400,000, but that Deputy Mulcahy gave a figure as applying to the cost of the scheme of nearly £1,000,000 but, continued the Minister, some of his figures are wrong. Now I challenge the Minister for Finance to say whether the amount that is squeezed out of the pockets of the consumers of butter in the Free State, and paid over the counter to support the butter scheme, is nearer to the Minister's £400,000 or to my £1,000,000, and if there is not even a substantial sum of money over that amount collected. In May last year under the machinery of the Emergency Imposition of Duties Order, an excise tax of 5/- was put on pigs killed for bacon.

It was increased in October to 7/-. It was increased in December to 10/-. By the end of the year the sum of £182,000 was collected into the revenue in that way. That money was paid by the consumers of bacon in the Free State. It was paid by them in tax over the counter when they paid for their bacon. Since the Slaughter of Animals Act was put into operation the consumers of meat in the Free State pay in tax through their butcher a sum of not less than £285,000. The bacon tariff over the whole year would probably amount to £400,000. Between wheat—even if it goes on the consumer only at the figure of £300,000 which the Minister has in his Estimates this year —butter, bacon and meat, there will be direct taxation on the people of about £2,750,000. Of course, when the light oils and the industrial alcohol and other schemes get working an additional increase will be paid at garages and places like that.

I want to ask the Minister whether his approach to the normal Budget is the approach of passing taxation on to some class of the community and actually collecting it through moneys paid over the shop counter, or whether there is any other factor which he anticipates will contribute to making the Budget situation normal. When he speaks of making it normal does he mean reducing it to a taxation figure such as existed before he came into office? When the Budget is normal will that £28,000,000 disappear off the front of this book and go down to the £21,000,000 which stood there when we came in? Will the Supplementary Estimates, which will be submitted during those coming normal years, be reduced to the size of the Supplementary Estimates to which we were accustomed before he appeared in his present seat? It is important that the Minister should face those questions now and give some kind of an answer to them. The Minister cannot be blind to what is passing around him. The more he declines to give information on matters here in the House, the more Deputies must feel that he knows something of the facts, and that he simply does not want to discuss the facts which he sees until he may have found some kind of solution of the problems which they put before him. The Minister gave us figures recently dealing with our trade balance. He cannot but be aware that before the Fianna Fáil Government came into office we got £11,000,000 or more from investments; we had industrial production to the extent of £25,000,000; we had a market in the Free State for agricultural produce to the extent of £11,000, and we had a market abroad for something like £33,000. As a result of his policy the market abroad for agricultural produce has been very considerably reduced, and it is going nearer to the vanishing point. The income from investments abroad has fallen to £9,000,000, a decrease of over £2,000,000 as compared with 1930. When the figures that were provided the other day in respect of the year 1933 were examined they showed that there was a definite unfavourable balance of £2,717,000, and that our visible trade during the year 1934 has been such as to suggest an adverse balance of £7,000,000 for the year 1934. An attempt has been made to buoy up the hopes of our people by making them feel that inside that trade balance there is the introduction of considerably more machinery on the one hand, and of capital on the other for the development of industry here. Our agriculturists are told to look forward to an increased industrial production here to make up to them for the markets that are being brutally lost to them abroad. The increasing number of people who are in receipt of unemployment assistance are being told that the capital and the machinery which would set up industry here to relieve them of their present distresses are coming. And the signs of their coming are, you may say, the adverse trade balance!

The President makes it a habit from time to time to broadcast to America. In his broadcast last year he told them how things were going on from the point of view of agriculture and from the point of view of industry here. The Government Press, commenting on his speech on 19th March, 1934, interpreted it as suggesting that:

"The reconstruction going along here was running along two converging lines which eventually will meet in a policy capable of rescuing town as well as country and keeping both secure in prosperity which can be successfully defended by governmental action. On the one side is the provision of work for the agricultural community by vast schemes for sugar production, wheat growing, peat consumption, forestry, etc. At the same time the market for agricultural goods formerly stolen from our farmers by imported farm produce is being given back to them by the exclusion of butter, bacon, cheese, flour and other similar imports. Side by side with this is the building up of a numerous wage-earning population in the towns which will naturally constitute a permanent food market for the agricultural areas."

In a broadcast to America itself on the 19th March, 1934, the President said: "The market was now completely reserved for our farmers." The Government have within the last few days produced agricultural statistics showing us the position of agriculture in the various counties; and we are struck by the remarkable fact that in spite of the subsidies for growing so many crops, and in spite of the steps the Government have taken to protect the dairying industry that there were 12,000 less persons employed in agriculture in June, 1933, than there were in the year before the present Ministry came into office. The reduction has particularly taken place in those counties into which subsidies for tillage crops are being particularly pushed. If there is one county in the whole country which is Fianna Fáil in its representation but has never bowed the knee to the Fianna Fáil gods of beet, wheat and tobacco it is the County of Westmeath. We find that the County of Westmeath shines high in the van of the five counties out of the whole of the Twenty-Six Counties in which the number of workers in agriculture has increased after two years of the Government's tillage operations. Against 71 acres of wheat grown in Westmeath in 1931 there were 556 acres in 1933. Westmeath grew eight acres of tobacco in 1931 and that rose to 11 acres in 1933. There are 220 more employed in Westmeath in 1933 than in 1931.

There is an increase in 1933 of 33 in Cavan and 455 in Carlow. When we look to Leix where the beet growing increased from 484 in 1931 to 3,302 acres in 1933 and where the wheat increased from 217 acres in 1931 to 1,115 acres in 1933 we find that there is a decrease of 844 workers in agriculture. In Kilkenny where the acreage under beet increased from 407 in 1931 to 1,059 in 1933, and the acreage under wheat from 966 to 3,240 in the same period and where they grew 60 acres of tobacco in the latter year we find that there are 1,091 less employed in agriculture in 1933 than in 1931. There are 837 less in Kildare than in 1931 and 246 less in Wexford. When we talk in terms of provinces we see that Leinster has shown a loss of 5,069 in employment and Munster a loss of 4,118. In Munster and Leinster the subsidised crops are mostly being grown. When we turn to the three counties of Ulster there is a loss of only 1,765 and in Connacht 1,096.

The Minister was warned more than once in respect of his tillage plans that he had to bear in mind that tillage supported less to the acre than did the dairying industry. When the Minister goes ahead with his costly schemes of subsidising tillage he should take cognisance of what is happening in those areas in the matter of employment. I say that because he will find that subsidisation of that particular kind is not going to give him the employment in agriculture for which he is looking and certainly it is not going to give to the farmers stabilised agricultural conditions.

The only thing the Minister can do for agriculture is to fight to get better markets for our people, to get them the markets that they have been accustomed for their products, markets that they can make secure by reasonable international policies. The farmer whose market is being restricted is being told that he must look to the development of the towns to provide him with a market. He is told that he must also look to the development of the towns to take from agriculture the increasing population that is growing in our rural areas, the people who at the present time at any rate, in spite of the Minister's policy of agriculture, are thrown out of employment. These people are asked to look to the towns. These are the people who are concerned with the way in which the towns are developed. The Minister has been warned and the Government has been warned on very many occasions that the consuming power of our people is being destroyed and that we cannot lose the income from the foreign markets which our farmers were accustomed to have without affecting the whole people.

Tariffs and subsidies have created a vacuum in many ways as far as some industries are concerned. A number of industries have been started here; we are told that industrial development is going on here according to plan. Naturally we are very anxious to see how that plan is developing. But we have got no information as to how it is developing. There has been a certain number of industries which by reason of a tradition and the fight for the maintenance of that tradition, we have been able to get certain information about. There were industries to the number of 19 tariffed during the previous Administration. It was the custom of the previous Administration to publish in respect of every industry which got the benefit of a tariff, a statement as to the number of persons employed in that particular industry on the 1st March and the 1st September in each year. When the present Ministry came into office they tried to stifle these figures. The last figures published were for the 1st September, 1931. They would not publish the figures for March, 1932. But after a certain amount of struggle we got them to give us the figures. The first figures they gave us in their Administration were the figures for March, 1933.

In any case, there was a struggle on our part to maintain the principle that had been established by the previous Administration, and that was that the number of persons employed in every tariffed industry should be published for March and September in each year. The result of the fight we made for the maintenance of that tradition is that we know now how employment stands in certain industries. Were it not for that we would not be able to wipe away some of the confusion and some of the false hopes that are being developed for our people by the propagandist attitude of the Ministers and by the statements that persons interested in industry inevitably fall into when they allow themselves to be carried too far by their hopes.

We have a sample of what the facts are and what the dangers are in the matter of certain parts of the clothing industry. There is a journal published monthly on the basis of encouraging and developing Irish industry and spreading information with regard to it. In the issue for March, 1935, in an article which deals with the question of the clothing industry, the fall in imports and the position of industry generally, we find the writer led into this statement: "In the absence of production figures for the years 1933 and 1934, these imports are the best guide we have to the progress of the industry during these years." The writer had given the fall in imports. Then he goes on: "We are using at least the same amount of clothing. In fact, the reports of retail clothiers and drapers throughout the country show an increased production during the past two years. It is safe, therefore, to assume that the reduced imports are due to an equal, if not greater, supply of home-made clothing."

That statement is entirely wrong. We are not using the same amount of clothing as in previous years and the increased supply of home-made clothing does not, by a very substantial margin, make up for the reduction in imports. In the case of wholesale clothing for men and boys, factory-made clothing, hats, caps, ties and umbrellas, the value of imports in 1931 was £700,000. The imports of these have fallen. The imports of these articles in 1934 totalled £141,598, so that we had a fall in the value of imports between 1931 and 1934 in wholesale clothing, factory-made, for men and boys, of £558,428. Our total production in 1931 was £1,348,233. We had a gross consumption in the country of £2,048,259. The fall in the value of imports between 1931 and 1934 was £558,428. The increased employment in the industry between September, 1931, and September, 1934, indicates 776 persons. The gross output per person in the various industries is the figure that is available from the census of production that is provided every year. The actual published statistics give the figures for the net output, but the gross output has to be taken into consideration when dealing with consumption. The gross increased output in respect of these articles between 1931 and 1934 is only £178,480.

We find that so far as the question of this type of clothing, which is a very big item in our general consumption, goes, there has been a reduction in consumption to the value of about £380,000. In other words, the consumption of clothing of that kind has gone down by one-sixth; the consumption of boots and shoes has gone down by one-sixth, or approximately £315,000; the consumption of jams and sugar confectionery has gone down by more than one-sixth, represented by £331,000; the consumption of soap and candles has gone down by £48,000, or nearly 8 per cent. of our previous production; the consumption of hosiery has gone down by one-seventh, or £133,000, and the consumption of woollens has gone down by £42,000. Where we have the facts and can argue plainly and above-board, it is perfectly clear that the consuming capacity of our people has gone down because it is demonstrable that in necessaries of the clothing kind and what are to some extent necessaries on the food side there has been a reduction, and a substantial reduction, as indicated by the figures I have quoted.

There is only one item in which there has been an indication of increased consumption, and that is furniture. In taking into consideration the consumption of our people in the matter of furniture, we are counting the production in those industries that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is prepared to own statistically but is not prepared to own by name and location. I ask the Minister for Finance and his colleagues whether they on their side, with the materials at their disposal, have made any attempt to examine the situation and verify the consuming capacity of our people, because it is beyond a shadow of doubt, and it is almost absurd to have to argue it, that we could lose the enormous amount of income our farmers have lost and still maintain the purchasing capacity of our people.

It is absurd to argue it, but we want to assure ourselves that the Ministers are aware of it, that they have examined it from their special point of view and from the information that is particularly available to them, and we want them to show some appreciation of what the facts indicate in their actions here. The facts indicate that the industrial effort that is being made here is being made on a certain amount of sand, or is being made on stuff which will be nothing but sand if the present general condition of our export trade is going to remain and if there is not going to be something done to change the whole position in which our agricultural industry finds itself. There is an appalling amount of makebelieve in Ministerial utterances and statements, and figures are twisted in every possible kind of a way. The implications of certain figures are sub-jected to an inflationary movement and others to a deflationary movement. We have the appalling figures to which our unemployed on the register have risen. These are soft-pedalled down by all kinds of explanations, such as that they are people who should have been attended to years ago. At any rate, they are supposed now not to be unemployed. On the other hand, when you come to housing statistics they are given an inflationary tendency, and you have an example of the wild and irresponsible things that Ministers can issue in public statements when it is possible for a responsible Irish journal to make a statement to the effect that "an official return shows the tremendous progress made in the house building scheme of the Free State Government during the year 1934." This is from the Irish Times of the 16th March, and it goes on to say: “In the 12 months ended 31st December last there were completed 12,332 houses, an increase of 7,007 when compared with the previous year, there being only 5,325 houses completed in 1933.” I want to challenge the Minister that these figures are untrue, and that they belie the figures that he has provided this House with in detailed parliamentary answers.

The Minister gave a lumped-up parliamentary answer to Deputy Norton on the 14th February in which he said that the total number of houses erected by 1st February was 19,987. I say that is an untrue figure; it is nearly as untrue as the figures supposed to have been issued in an official return and printed in the Irish Times. I challenge the Minister that the total number of houses completed under the 1932-33 Acts by the 31st December, 1934, was 16,155, and that the number of these completed during the year 1934 was 9,188. In a discussion on such a serious economic and financial situation as exists here at the present time, I think it nothing short of criminal that Ministers would dope out information that was intended to be inspiring when what the people should be getting would be statements warning them as to the directions in which they were going financially and economically.

We have had the action of the Minister for Lands within the last month or two, in the West of Ireland— and if Ministers want a monument to their complete absence of any constructive ability, they must look to the West of Ireland for it—winding up a certain type of industrial effort that was being carried on there in the Irish-speaking districts—practically a wiping out of any hope of a certain class of industrial development there. The unemployment figures in the Tralee area have risen, between 1st July last and 1st January, from 2,900 to 11,000—a rise of 8,000; in the Ballina area, for the Mayo district, they have risen by 5,400 to 8,700; in the Sligo area they have risen by 5,400 to 9,500; in Letterkenny, they have risen by 5,000 to 12,200; and in the Galway area, they have risen by 4,000 to 7,500. So that in a country in which, by the 1st of January, the total number of unemployed persons had risen by 50,000 to 138,000, we have 27,000 of these in the Western counties, and, in these Western counties, where that unemployment is showing itself, the policy of the present Government is to give doles and free meat and free milk, on the one hand, and, on the other, to wipe out the last vestiges of any of that type of constructive work that was being done under the old Congested Districts Board, under which machinery was in operation to help the people to make the best of their conditions or to get the greatest economic benefit out of the handling of it. All that is being wiped out in an area in which these rapidly aggravating conditions are arising and in which, instead, a system is being put into operation, from which I can see no escape, as a matter of policy.

I should like to know what the Government think the development of policy in these Western districts is going to be, if the procedure is to be along the lines on which the Government are proceeding at present. Is it any wonder at all, when we see the general conditions of the agricultural industry and of unemployment throughout the country, that, in spite of the protestations with which the Ministry approached the matter in their earlier days, both the Gárda and the Army are being substantially increased?

The President, as I pointed out a week or so ago, at Ennis, on 20th December, 1931, as quoted in the Clare Champion of 26th December, 1931, said:—

"The Army was there for the purpose of keeping down Republicans, Sinn Feiners and anybody else who did not agree with the policy of the present Government. By removing the causes of dissatisfaction among the people, the cost of the Army could be reduced by £500,000. The police, a lot of whose work was of a political character at present, could also be reduced and another £500,000 saved."

The present Minister for Industry and Commerce, speaking in Mallow, in January, 1932, is reported in the Irish Independent of 25th January of that year, as follows:—

"He referred to the proposed reduction of the remuneration of the Civic Guard as unwise and unfair. He believed that economy could be effected by reducing the numbers of the Guards, since this country, according to public statistics, could be shown to be one of the most law-abiding in the world."

No wonder, in spite of these protestations of the Ministry before they came into office, in the light of the general economic conditions that are arising in the country, the false hopes which the Fianna Fáil Party raised before the people and the effect on the people of the dashing of some of these hopes, they have to increase their Army and their police.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. Flinn)

It always hurts me to be in the wrong. It always hurts me to feel that I am, even to an indefinite and indistinct degree, associated with people who could be in the wrong, but it tears my soul to think that I could be discourteously in the wrong, that I could even live with people who disregarded the decencies of political life and the ordinary human rights of their opponents. It was for that reason that I felt very gravely disturbed indeed when the ex-President of the Irish Free State came here, and, holding up to us the Estimates for this year, told us that he had not seen them until 24 hours before he was expected to discuss them. When he went on to say that it was necessary for him to have in his possession the full and detailed knowledge and information contained in those—I forget whether it was 600 or 300 pages—before he could discuss the matter, and that he could not possibly have been expected to absorb in 24 hours all the knowledge and all the wisdom and all the changes that are in it, I must say I felt that those with whom we are associated here to-day have a grave burden of responsibility to discharge.

When you look back and find that, on previous occasions, in 1929, for instance, there was an interval of seven days, from 7th March to 14th March, between the Vote on Account and the Estimates being presented to the House and when you find that, in 1930, there was a difference of six days, from March 6th to March 12th, in the presentation of these two matters, one must really feel that this Government has gravely erred, has shown a scandalous and a shameless disregard of the convenience and of the interests and rights of Deputies opposite, when, in this case, they have allowed only an interval of 24 hours to supervene.

One feels that no language of apology would be strong enough to meet the case. But when one looks into these figures that I have given and finds that the Vote in 1929 was brought in on March 7th and the Estimates were not presented until March 14th; when one finds that in 1930 the Vote on Account was introduced on March 6th and the Estimates were not presented until March 12th; and when, in their best year, we find that all we got, and then only the Front Bench, was a rough proof of the Estimates on the day on which the Vote on Account was issued, we then know what Deputy Mulcahy means when he says it is criminal to deceive the people in relation to figures; it is criminal to dope out stuff which they know to be untrue.

Deputy Cosgrave said he did not know anything about Standing Orders. He did not say that he did not know anything about the dates upon which the Vote on Account and Estimates were presented to the House. You have the amazing, the discreditable, the typical spectacle, so far as Deputies opposite are concerned, of gross and deliberate misrepresentation of the position. At no time in the recent history of the Administration, of which Deputy Cosgrave was the President, did they ever do one quarter as well as the condition in which to-day they protest that we have only so much improved on. If it was impossible for Deputy Cosgrave sensibly to discuss these Estimates at only 24 hours' notice of what the Estimates were, what sort of position do you think we were in to discuss them when we did not get the Estimates till seven days after the Vote on Account was put to the House?

That was the best point that the ex-President could drag out. I think Deputy Cosgrave's level of debating is gradually getting lower and lower and lower. Certainly I did not think that he could, as Leader of the Opposition, opening a debate of this kind, make a speech as cheap as the speech which he made. Let those who are here try and recall any of the points made by Deputy Cosgrave which was better than that gross, deliberate, and culpable misrepresentation. The second thing that Deputy Cosgrave did not tell you——

Mr. MacDermot

Who?

Mr. Flinn

That is one of those very beautiful points. Some day the Deputy will be immortalised in a foot-note as the man who raised that delicate point of Parliamentary procedure. What Deputy Cosgrave did not tell the other Deputies of the House was that one thing you cannot discuss to-day is all this. If you look back over the rulings of the House, you will find that we were held up time after time for attempting to discuss these figures, though we did not have in our possession then, and though the Government sitting here knew we did not have in our possession then, nor for seven days afterwards, the actual Estimates on which we could discuss them.

He says then that "no undue burden should be put on." That is one of those nice little platitudes which anybody could use, and it is one of the examples of the saying that the effectiveness of a text lies in the expounding thereof. What undue burdens have been put on? A certain chamber of commerce, or the council thereof, met in the Free State to discuss the proceedings of the country for the year and to discuss the approaching Budget of last year. They started out with these nice platitudes about the undue burden of high taxation. Some rather Machiavellian member of that council said: "Yes, but what is the use of saying that? Let us come down to brass-tacks. Let us write down a list of all the burdens that we want taken off and a list of the taxes that we want withdrawn. Then write opposite to that a list of the services which we want withdrawn or, in the case of any services which we are not prepared to withdraw, let us write against the existing taxes which we ask to have withdrawn the alternative taxes which we are prepared to have imposed." That was regarded at first sight as a very sensible thing to do and they started to do it. After they had tried for a bit, and had torn up many papers, they decided that they would not do it. They decided that they would go to the Minister for Finance on a deputation before the Budget and simply say that undue burdens should not be put on. That is an actual case. One of the results was that the Minister for Finance did not see the deputation. He wrote and asked them to give him practical proposals. In other words, he was too busy a man to listen, in an official capacity, in preparation for the Budget, to the sort of thing that Deputy Cosgrave, ex-President of the Executive Council, thinks sufficiently good to say to this House.

The Deputy then went on to say that in previous haleyon times, when honest, Godly men stood here, very bad, bold, unreasonable people in the country, who then, of course, were regarded as utterly incapable of assuming the responsibilities of government, stated that there should be a decrease in the Gárda; but that since the Fianna Fáil Government came into power there has been an increase in the Gárda. Now the answer that we give to that is that there was not merely a change in the Government but that there was a change in the Opposition. We got an Opposition that started deliberately to organise these things which caused an increase in Gárda activity. Of course that will be denied. But what on earth is the use of mere denial from one side or the other in this House? They put forward a proposition, the answer to which they know from this side of the House.

They point out there has been an increase in the transport costs from £11,000 to £20,000 for the Gárda. What increase was there in the transport costs of the Blueshirt army which was being concentrated in every town and village week by week in turn, and which put a great strain upon the capacity of the Guards in every district in that way? Instead of having ordinary difficulties and disturbances at political meetings of the people in the areas to meet, people were being drafted by counties and by provinces into special areas. Under these circumstances how on earth could the existing system of Gárda tackle them, and how on earth could any system of Gárda tackle them without increased transport costs? And when, as a method to prevent the annuities being paid, it was arranged that from 2,000 to 4,000 men should be gathered together for the purpose of disturbing the sheriffs' sales, how could these sales be guarded except by methods of this kind? Unless you are going to increase the Guards in every area to the maximum demand, which might possibly be made by these artificial methods upon the Gárda in these areas, unless you are prepared to multiply Gárda stations by the maximum demand upon them, how could you deal with the situation except by transport bringing Guards from one place to another?

The Deputy then went on to say that what he wanted on a night like this was "an Irish cultural discussion." I am prepared to give way to Deputy MacDermot if he would like to explain that matter. I know he has a flair for the refined meaning of words and he might be able to tell me what was wrong in the opening case made by the Minister for Finance, the only man who has spoken on this side, that so far fell away from the standard of "Irish cultural discussion" that Deputy Cosgrave was entitled to protest. What did he want? Perhaps someone later will tell us. I do not know whether Deputies have ever seen flies over a pond in summer. They skim along in a backward and forward movement over the surface of the water. In this way the Deputy skimmed over the figures in these Estimates. He raised the question of broadcasting. He protested because of things that were not supplied. He did not tell us of the nature of these things. But apparently there were some things that he did not get. There are certain difficulties I may say in relation to such things. There is such a thing as copyright. There are certain things that we have not got a right to use which people, with more expensive establishments have, but apart from that we do not know anything that has been kept back that is not merely a function of the machinery which we inherited and which we are going to improve. But again if there is any specific cause of complaint upon that matter we would be glad to hear it. But it is not the faintest use getting up and saying that he listened in and that from beginning to end the broadcast did not contain some indefinite and undescribed thing that he thought possibly he might have got.

He then engaged in some talk about "labour unrest causing a rise in the cost of living." Well it might. Evidently this is proof that there is no labour unrest here at the moment because the latest figures we have show a fall in the cost of living from 157 to 153. Deputy Cosgrave may know what he meant by that, but I certainly do not, and he certainly did not explain it to the House. He then wandered along and said: "I notice that the unemployment assistance figures previously showed £1,500,000, yet they are now asking for another £100,000." Therefore, he said, that means that we have to anticipate a greater demand and greater distress.

Deputy Cosgrave did at one time hold a responsible position. Whatever else he did not learn, he did learn that in estimating the cost of a new social service no man can speak ex cathedra. If the Estimates of the financial Department and its officials in the actual case of unemployment assistance in a static condition do not vary from the actual figure by more than £100,000 I will be amazed. There is no man that would not regard it as a remarkable approximation to get anywhere as near as £100,000 in a figure of that kind in the circumstances. When this figure was made up, it was made up as a result of a very difficult statistical analysis in which there were 15 different and separate points of statistical importance, no single one of which could be made secure. In those particular cases you make the best estimate you can. The condition of the country, as far as unemployment assistance is concerned, may improve or disimprove. That is a matter which is in the hands of the gods, and I may deal with it later. For a responsible man like Deputy Cosgrave to suggest that a mere difference of £100,000 in the Estimates has any significance is worthy of Deputy Cosgrave.

Then Deputy Mulcahy proceeded. I do not quite know what he was driving at, but he started by reading figures off the front of this book for three or four different years. All he proved to me was that the figures on the front of that book, under the previous Administration as well as under this Administration, must be regarded as an approximation. Whether he had anything else to prove I do not know. If his suggestion is that the figures in the case of this Government had been higher or lower we can argue that as another matter. Certainly all he proved in his analysis was that you could not regard them as facts which were sworn to in an affidavit. Arising out of that, he went on to protest against the tax on bacon, or against the high price of bacon. He did not like "the tax that was being paid over the counter in the shops." I want to know from him and from his Party if he wants that price brought down. If he has no objection to the price being up, then what is he talking about? If he wants the price brought down in the shops, and therefore brought down to the farmer, let him say so. I am not saying whether he would be right or wrong in the matter. I am leaving that as an open question for the moment. It is not the slightest use for him to merely state, as an awkward and unpleasant fact that the price of bacon is X, unless he is prepared to say whether or not he, speaking for the great farmers' Party, behind him, wants it reduced. He went on and said the same thing about sugar. Does his Party want the price of sugar brought down? Does Deputy Finlay, for instance, want the price paid for sugar beet reduced? Certainly questions which he asked in this House the other day would not suggest that. Do the farmers' Party want to reduce the price paid for beet to the producers? If they do not, how does Deputy Mulcahy suggest that the price should be reduced? Is he in favour of taking that action which is necessary to reduce that price? He can buy sugar very cheaply. Sugar could be sold free on board in Ireland at a third of the present price. That was the condition under Cumann na nGaedheal. If Deputy Mulcahy says, "We want the price of sugar brought down to the price free on board" we will know where we stand. If Deputy Mulcahy is prepared to say "the price of sugar beet per ton delivered to the Carlow, Thurles and Mallow factories should be brought down to that level" let him say so and we will know where he stands. Of course it could not be done. Deputy Mulcahy says that it is nothing short of criminal to dope out figures to the public. It is worse than that to suggest things which you are not prepared to stand over for a moment.

Then he went on to butter. He objected to the price of butter. Generally he objected to the tax that was collected over the counter from the ordinary consumer in the price of butter. Well, that is an arguable proposition. I am not saying a word against its being argued, but does Deputy Mulcahy say that the price should come down? He quarrelled about the amount of the bounty. Does Deputy Mulcahy say that the bounty should be reduced? Is he speaking for the Centre Party there? Now I give you the case of all the bright boys of the Chambers of Commerce who wanted taxes taken off, and who wanted special services removed, but who would not put on paper any single tax which they were prepared to substitute by another, or any single social service that they were prepared to take the responsibility of removing. In exactly the same way it is all very well for Deputy Mulcahy to say "bacon is too high to the consumer; sugar is too high to the consumer; butter is too high to the consumer, but I am not going to take the responsibility of any action which will reduce to the producer of bacon, sugar or butter the price upon which the price to the consumer is founded." The one thing to which he did not object, for some extraordinary reason, was the price of beef. The price of beef is considerably higher to the consumer than it would be if the Government threw all control to the winds and said "sell at any price you like." Is Deputy Mulcahy and the great farmers' party taking the responsibility of saying that beef is the only thing the price of which they are not objecting to? I want to know from some responsible person on the Opposition whether they are prepared to reduce to the producer the price of bacon, sugar, butter and beef. If they are not prepared to say that, then Deputy Mulcahy should not have been allowed to make the speech which he did make, that is if anybody has any control over Deputy Mulcahy. I certainly should like to see Deputy MacDermot trying to control Deputy Mulcahy. I think that would be very well worth watching.

Deputy Mulcahy moved on again to "the adverse trade balance." All I can say about the adverse trade balance, as one who has studied this question for a very long time, is that I am told the adverse trade balance of the Free State for the last 11 years was over £150,000,000. When it was suggested to me that in that respect there is an accumulated loss in capital or deposits of a sum equal to that amount I just say that people who say so are simply talking nonsense. Everybody in this House knows they are talking nonsense. Yet we would have to believe that if we regarded the adverse trade balance as it is being called for quite a number of years as a real thing. The adverse trade balance in England for the last ten years runs into thousands of millions of pounds.

Mr. Belton

Does the Parliamentary Secretary mean the real adverse trade balance?

Mr. Flinn

No; I mean what is called the adverse trade balance. I am using the term in exactly the sense or meaning in which it was used by Deputy Mulcahy. It is perfectly obvious that that figure requires analysis. You might have an adverse trade balance equal to the whole imports of the country and the country would be enormously wealthy and prosperous. Let us assume for a moment that the Deputies opposite were to set up as a university——

Mr. Jordan

What an assumption.

Mr. Flinn

Let us assume that they constituted a university for the world. Remember it is not a bit ridiculous that Ireland should be a university for the world. There was for many hundreds of years ago in one university in Ireland twice as many students as there are in all the universities in Ireland to-day. Therefore it is nothing absurd to assume for a moment that a great international university were situated here, though it may be very absurd to suggest that the teachers in that university would be the Front Bench opposite. But we will assume that. We will assume that Deputy MacDermot is the teacher of divine eloquence, and that Deputy Mulcahy is the teacher of law and order, and that Deputy Cosgrave is the teacher of philosophy. There is nobody on the Front Bench now even professing to be a professor of agriculture. But let us assume for a moment that such a university, made up of the wise, clever men of the great and brilliant intellects possessed by our opponents, were set up, and let us assume that the world had the same estimation of their intelligence that they have themselves. What would happen? The seas would be black with ships bringing the students and the children of the world here to learn. Following them would be an argosy of ships carrying gold and silver; carrying food and raiment; carrying objects of art and beauty; carrying all that the wealth of the world would be willing to pay for the wisdom with which it would be instructed in such a university by such teachers. The country would be running with milk and honey. The imports into this country would go up by millions and millions each year and there would not be one single thing exported, but the wear and tear of the grey matter and the great brains of the great professors to whom the world had sent its children to be taught. Now, under those conditions you would have an adverse trade balance of an almost infinite amount and the country would be rich.

In other words, unless you know what are the nature and the value of the things which you import and export which are not to be found in the lists of ordinary imports and exports, you are using in relation to the "adverse trade balance" a word which has no meaning. I put it again to the House that there is no man here who will contend that year by year, in the last ten years, we have lost what would now amount to £150,000,000 in capital value which has not been replaced. If there had been such a reduction it would certainly be seen either in our external investments—which have not been broadly reduced over that period —or you would find it in the figures of the deposits in our banks, or in the possession of our external securities. In none of these things can one find anything approaching £150,000,000. For that reason, whatever may or may not be the position of the country, it cannot be judged on any figure such as what is called an adverse trade balance.

In addition to all that, as the House well knows, you may easily have in an adverse trade balance the very things that you require. I put these facts now to any member of this House who has studied this question, and I think there are a few. We have invested in foreign countries what is estimated at from £180,000,000 to £220,000,000. I want someone to suggest any possible method by which that money could be transferred to this country except in what would appear to be in the shape of an adverse trade balance. You can buy new machinery if you like. But that machinery is being bought for the purpose of further production. You can bring in goods. But you cannot transfer that money to this country except in the form of what is conventionally called an adverse trade balance. There is no way out of it. Therefore, everyone in this country who is advocating the transferring of money now held outside this country is advocating an increase in the visible adverse trade balance——

Mr. Belton

Does the Parliamentary Secretary make that as a positive assertion?

Mr. Flinn

I will put it in another form. If the Deputy, or any Deputy, will tell us a method by which it is possible to transfer money so held into this country without transferring goods I will be very glad to hear it.

Mr. Belton

Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain to me——

Mr. Flinn

Another time. The Deputy will have an opportunity of making a speech, and he will make a very splendid speech if he can explain that. I will give him an opportunity of doing it. I will give anybody who can do it an opportunity of doing it. But it is not an easy thing to explain it. No money was transferred to England for the purpose of creating the investments which we have there. What we did over a period of years was to send hundreds of thousands of cattle and hundreds of thousands of pounds of butter and eggs to England, and we did not take goods in return for them. We invested cattle and butter and eggs, and we left them there. We took the interest on that capital, on that butter and on those eggs in the form of dividends, and those dividends we took in the form of goods.

We have had references here to an adverse trade balance. One thing I am absolutely certain of is this, that when we speak of an adverse trade balance, meaning what is conventionally meant by an adverse trade balance, a loss on trading, a loss of capital, no such adverse trade balance exists now or existed within the last few years, as has been assumed. I suggest that is a matter for very careful examination in the future, and I suggest that it be examined and used in future with a knowledge of the facts that I have put before you.

Deputy Mulcahy said that all this talk about having industries and so on was hopeless from the point of view of maintaining the people; that what we ought to do was "to fight for and get and make secure the markets which we could have, by any sound and reasonable method of negotiation." Deputy MacDermot ought to be familiar with that sort of talk. It is all talk. The terms have not yet been formulated which the Deputies opposite regard as a sound and secure method of obtaining the market which they say exists and which they, in saying that it exists, mean that it exists in the sense in which it would absorb the whole of our produce willingly at a price at which we could produce it. I am not saying there are not such terms, but I do not know them.

I do know the conditions over there fairly well. I do not know at what price the Irish people can offer which they would accept, and the sooner the Deputy can induce those who have that sacred secret hidden to tell it us the better. Possibly, we may have an opportunity of discussing it again. I am not asking that it should be part of the discussion to-day. All I am saying is that those who assume that it is our business "to fight for and get and make secure the markets which are ours for the asking," are talking only nonsense until they come down to brass tacks and tell us the terms which the Irish people would be prepared to offer and which their opponents would be prepared to accept. It is possible there are terms which could be offered which the Irish people would never offer, and which might be accepted as a price of a kind. All I can say is that I would not give very much for the security of tenure of those who depended upon the bargain that would be made under these circumstances.

Then Deputy Mulcahy spoke of "reduction in gross production." I have not gone into the particular cases he took, but all we can say is that there is a reduction in the cost-of-living figure that is independent of the consumption and that could be translated into the cost of the gross production of existing industries. We then had as a second last kick the usual twaddle about the unemployment figures. No honest man, with a knowledge of the facts, will pretend to compare, as two things that are comparable, the unemployment registration of to-day and the unemployment registration before it was subjected. first, to the stimulus of June, 1932, and secondly, since it was subjected to the stimulus of the £1,500,000 granted for unemployment assistance. The figures that I have here plotted are available for students on the Opposition Benches, and if they would like to have a look at them they are perfectly welcome to do so, and I am quite sure that no one of them, with those figures in front of him, would contend that for a moment, whatever he might do on the hustings. When we used to discuss the unemployment question here the figures always trotted out were the home assistance figures. You never hear the home assistance figures to-day. Why?

Mr. O'Leary

It has a more fashionable title to-day.

Mr. Flinn

Is it the Deputy's contention that one is a transfer to the other?

Mr. O'Leary

You tell us that there is no unemployment in the country.

Mr. Flinn

Is it the Deputy's contention that home assistance figures have been transferred to unemployment assistance?

Mr. Belton

I question that.

Mr. Flinn

I am asking the Deputy over there, Deputy O'Leary. If it was, then we would know where we stood. We have just these vague assertions and as soon as they come to an issue they disappear. We never hear a word about the home assistance figures now. Why? Because they do not suit the Deputies opposite.

Mr. Belton

They do not suit the Government.

Mr. Flinn

They do not suit Deputies opposite because they have fallen from 142,000 to 85,000 at the same time that the other figures were going up, and exactly at the same time. If they want to be frank in the matter, above all if they are going to say that "it is nothing less than criminal to try to dope the people with false figures," why do they tell us that? The figure is available to them. What has happened in that particular case is that every man in this country who has not a certain income outside his earnings from service or wages is entitled to unemployment assistance. The House may not know it, but a man who makes £500 a year, and any higher figure you like, two weeks after he gets out of employment, so long as he has not saved the money, is entitled to unemployment assistance. A man would have to have the equivalent of at least £500 capital to escape being on the unemployment register and yet we are told that these are comparable figures. What their significance is I should be very glad to discuss at any time and I should be very glad to discuss it in an entirely non-controversial spirit. I should be prepared to discuss it laying not merely on the Table of the House but on a table between us for any members who did desire to discuss it, all the information I have on the matter.

There is a whole lot of things about the significance of the unemployment assistance figure and the other figures which I do not know and which all the people concerned in working it do not know, but one thing we do know, and one thing that can be demonstrated, is that the total live register at the present moment, swollen by 97,000 people who are there because they are getting assistance, is not a comparable figure with the register which previously concerned itself only with people who were entitled to unemployment insurance as a result of contributions made by themselves. I am making that offer. There is no figure that I have in relation to these matters which I will not be happy to discuss with anyone as a student, but I am certainly not going to pretend to regard as an honest man a man who will simply use the statement that the unemployment registration figures have risen from X to Y in the last year, the last six months or the last 15 months and pretend to regard them as a comparable method of deciding what is the unemployment and poverty condition of the country.

Deputy Mulcahy then went on to say that the only thing that apparently had been done in the west of Ireland was to wind up the Gaeltacht services —the only good thing, he said, that was there. If there is any man in this House who has a better knowledge or a higher appreciation of what went on under the Congested Districts Board, and of the services which some of the men engaged tried to render, than I have, I should be very glad to meet him. I know the work which was done, and I know the work which was tried to be done, but no one who knows the facts would contend for a moment that the Gaeltacht services are being wrongly scrapped. They are being reorganised, and they are being reorganised so that the funds which are put into them will be for the benefit of the people themselves and not for certain other people who require no assistance and deserve no support from the Government. That is the whole truth of the Gaeltacht services. They are at the present moment being examined and put on a purely commercial and business basis for the purpose of seeing that the whole of the money goes to the people and not, as it was going, in overhead expenses. That is a heritage of ours which we have had to shoulder, and which we intend to improve.

I will be human because I have been through this thing from the other side. I know that there are certain difficulties in relation to this motion. I remember once asking the Chair if I could not discuss any of the things which are here, and that being ruled out, I asked what could I discuss, so that I recognise that the position is to some extent indefinite, but it need not be as indefinite as it was made by Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Mulcahy. It need not start off, as Deputy Cosgrave did, with the most magnificently impudent misstatement that I have ever heard in my life in this House; it need not have gone on with vague complaints about undue burdens; it need not have gone on with vague stories about the people having to pay for bacon, sugar, butter and beef; or it need not have gone on with some indeterminate statement about the unemployment registration having risen. It might come down to brass tacks.

Within the ambit of these Resolutions, there is a possibility for somebody on the Opposition Benches to say something of a definite character, true or false, but preferably true, which can then be used for the purpose of the benefit of the country. I am asking them now to get away from the Chamber of Commerce stunt of just complaining and not remedying, and to get away from the Front Bench stunt of just complaining and not remedying, and to get down to something on which they can say, "This is a thing which is wrong; we know, and we will tell you, the remedy"; to get away from the story of "Give us back our markets," and tell us how to get them; to get away from the story of saying "Any sensible man negotiating could do this, that and the other," and to tell us instead the terms which you yourselves would, with the consent of the Irish people, offer across a table to your opponent, terms which you think could honourably be offered by the Irish people, and terms which you think would be accepted by your opponent.

Mr. T. Kelly

That is good for your souls over there.

Mr. MacDermot

Before Deputy Flinn rebukes the Leader of the Opposition, or anybody else in this House, for cheapness of style, he ought to reform radically his own oratory. It happens that this evening he gave us one of his more serious efforts, but, even to-day, he could not restrain himself from falling at intervals into the chapel-gate style of oratory. When I interrupted him to-day, and indeed on previous occasions, to object to his addressing us all as "you" instead of addressing the Chair, I was not making just a trivial and formal point. He and the President of the Executive Council have that habit in common, and the reason they have it is that the President generally, and especially when in a somewhat bad humour, addresses this House like an irritated schoolmaster addressing pupils, and Deputy Flinn, on the other hand, addresses this House as if it were a chapel-gate meeting and, sometimes, as if it were an audience at a music hall. Consequently, I think I am doing something for which the House ought to be grateful when I call attention to the necessity of addressing the Chair and keeping the ordinary formalities that ought to rule in this House.

I venture to think that when Ministers are presenting Estimates like this a certain spirit of humility would not be out of place. I do not think they can quite afford to sit on a high horse and rant at us in the way Deputy Flinn has just been doing. After all, we cannot quite forget, much as they may wish us to do so, the gap that exists between the sentiments they are expressing to-day and the principles they are defending to-day and those which they expressed and defended before they came into office. Whether or not there is a just complaint against the Minister for Finance for not letting us have these Estimates earlier—a subject on which, I admit, I am not an authority —there is, I think, a just complaint against him for not having said a little more when he introduced the Estimates to the House. I think we had a right to expect from him some general remarks about how he viewed the economic and financial situation of the country to-day as compared with a year ago, and we might also have reasonably expected from him some indication of what the Government's present views are upon the general question of the desirability of economy in public expenditure.

When the Minister for Finance was presenting his first Budget he was very definite in telling the House that expenditure of the scale he was proposing was to be regarded as emergency expenditure and that we were going to work towards a state of things when Fianna Fáil promises with regard to economy would be redeemed. By degrees he has shed that point of view. Last year, when introducing the Vote on Account, he was positively triumphant at the amount of expenditure which he was recommending to the House: "We are an expanding community with expanding business. We are asking the Irish people not to skimp us in funds for expansions and extensions." It would be interesting to find out if he is still just in that frame of mind. I have a suspicion that perhaps he is not; that with the investigations of the Banking Commission looming in the not very remote future he may be a little more hesitant than he used to be, or than he was a year ago, in claiming that we can expand and extend our expenditure to a practically unlimited degree.

I have made the obvious remark that the point of view of Fianna Fáil before they came into office was extremely different in these matters from what it is now. I have mentioned the subject of what the nation's expenditure ought to be. There is another subject to which Deputy Flinn gave great attention in the speech he made for us to-night—the subject of the adverse trade balance. He was at pains to show us that it meant nothing, or next to nothing. Was that the view of the Fianna Fáil Party before they came into office? Unless my information is entirely incorrect, the Fianna Fáil Party were in the habit of laying very great stress on the adverse trade balance that existed before they came into office. If it deserved to have any stress laid upon it then, surely it deserves a great deal more now that the adverse balance has enormously increased? I quite agree that there are invisible items which have to be taken into account. I quite agree that our real adverse balance is not £20,000,000. But I understand from those best qualified to give an opinion that we have to-day a real adverse balance of something in the neighbourhood of £10,000,000 after taking all the invisible items, pro and con, into account. At any rate, it is quite certain that the situation with regard to the adverse balance is very much worse to-day than it was during the administration of Deputy Cosgrave, and that if it deserved serious attention in those days it deserves serious attention now to a still greater degree.

To go back to the question of expenditure. There was an impression in the newspapers when they looked at these Estimates that they represented an attempt at economy—that there was to be a reduction. The Minister for Finance to-day frankly admitted that that was not the case; that the reductions were only apparent; that, in fact, there were to be considerable increases; that there are considerable increases shown here already; and that there will be considerably more expenditure to be added.

As to the main items in which there is a reduction, the first is, local loans. That big reduction in the local loans figure of expenditure merely means that a new method of financing local loans is being adopted. The next item is supplementary agricultural grants. There again a footnote to the Estimate tells us that there is going to be new legislation in that connection which will call for further expenditure there. The next item is relief schemes in which there is to be a reduction. There is also to be a reduction in export bounties and subsidies. How far those reductions will turn out to be real reductions I am not sure. I do not believe that either will turn out to be a real reduction. In any case, the export bounties and subsidies, according to the Minister's statement last year, were to be paid for by means of borrowing and not out of revenue, a most illegitimate procedure as it seemed to the Opposition. As against that there are a large number of increases in ordinary expenditure under various headings.

You, Sir, ruled last year that "questions of expenditure and administration may be discussed on this Vote.""The question of taxation does not arise, and legislation may not be discussed.""It is not permissible to analyse detailed items or discuss the incidence of a specific tariff, for example. Matters raised should have a general bearing."

I take it from that that there is no reason why I should not say a few words on some of the main items where increase of expenditure occurs. Before I do so, I might refer to the Dáil Eireann Parliamentary Reports of 20th March, 1928, column 1414, where the present Minister for Justice moved an amendment to Estimates then presented which amounted to £23,000,000 odd. On that occasion he said that he proposed that the Vote should be reduced by £3,000,000, and he did so, he said, because the then Opposition calculated that with very little difficulty and with the desire to reduce taxation to the level that this country can bear it can be reduced by £3,000,000. He defends that point of view at very great length, but I cannot occupy the time of the House in going into these arguments.

There was a Fianna Fáil leaflet issued at the time of the 1932 election which also went into the subject of what expenditure this country could afford and it wound up by saying that "Fianna Fáil had shown in the Free State Parliament the absolute necessity for a reduction in the appalling cost of government. Deputy Cosgrave and his automatic majority called it childish and voted down the proposal for a reduction of £3,000,000." I do not know of any defence for their change of view, except that Government expenditure which appeared both wicked and unproductive when oppoments were in office, seems to them productive and in every way desirable when they themselves are in office.

One of the main items of increase is a palace that is to be erected for the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I do not propose to discuss that, but merely to mention it. Then there is the expenditure on military pensions. I understand that since the miracle of the loaves and fishes there has been no miracle more striking than the multiplication of persons who served in the Anglo-Irish war. The only thing is that, instead of the loaves and fishes being multiplied, it is the persons who are expecting a share of the loaves and fishes who are multiplied, and it is the unfortunate taxpayers who have to provide the extra loaves and fishes required.

Associations are being formed all over the country called Old I.R.A. Men's Associations, and I am informed that there is a considerable amount of log-rolling in connection with those associations; that a good many fraudulent or semi-fraudulent claims are being made, with one man backing another man's claim, and giving evidence of his alleged military services, provided similar evidence is provided about himself. There is a particular incident about the Old I.R.A. Men's Association to which I wish to call the attention of the House. A meeting was held at Carrickmacross, according to a report in the Anglo-Celt of Cavan of last week, at which Deputy Dr. Ward was present. At that meeting he exhorted the members of the Old I.R.A. Men's Association only to accept into membership those who were supporters of the Fianna Fáil Party. I understand he carried his point and that that is the rule in that county with regard to membership of the Old I.R.A. Men's Association. The excuse he gave for it was that no matter what the war services might be of supporters of the Opposition, they were to-day ranged upon the side of Ireland's enemies and therefore ought not to be allowed in. Two things struck me in connection with that, one being that it represents a deliberate attempt to use the whole of this pension legislation as a means of strengthening the Fianna Fáil political machine, and inducing people to believe that their chances of getting a pension depend upon their being associated with that particular machine. The other thing that strikes me is that at a time when, admittedly, the Government are finding it difficult to maintain peace and order in the country, it is something a good deal less than wise, and a good deal less than decent, for a member of the Government to say that everyone who supported the Opposition was ranged on the side of Ireland's enemies to such an extent that they could not—no matter what their military service—be allowed into and could not be regarded as being worthy to belong to the Old I.R.A. Men's Association.

Another item in which there is an increase is unemployment. There is an additional £100,000 being provided for unemployment assistance. In spite of Deputy Flinn's protests it is perfectly legitimate for the Opposition to emphasise that this tremendous need for assisting the unemployed still goes on. In spite of the sky-high tariffs that the Government have erected, and in spite of the enormous amount of money that they have already spent in relief works and otherwise, they have made no real impression on the unemployment problem. I do not propose to stop to argue as to how much the figures are increased, or whether they are increased at all. I am merely confining myself to a statement that no one can challenge, and that is, that the Government have not made any real impression on the unemployment problem. When considering this Vote on Account we are entitled to mention that, because it is an element of very great importance, and has a great bearing on the question of just what degree of prosperity we can boast of and what our ability is to bear the burdens that are being laid upon us. Deputy Flinn objects intensely to anybody complaining of the burdens without pointing to the special burdens that we ask to have removed. He has no right to make any such complaint. When the Fianna Fáil Party were in opposition they complained of burdens all day and every day, without venturing to pick out the items where they claimed economies could be made. They would allege that they had scrutinised the Estimates with the most minute care and, as a result of their scrutiny, they knew that two or three millions could be lopped off without hardship to anyone. They would not mention the items that could be lopped off. The scrutiny they were willing to tell us about, but the detailed discoveries they kept to themselves, merely making a general statement about the big amount that could be lopped off, if only there were skilled people like themselves in office to do the lopping.

The other considerable increase to which I wish to draw attention is in the cost of the Civic Guards. Of course, Deputy Flinn blames the Opposition for that. He had a lot to say about transporting around Blueshirts, and the necessity for transporting around Civic Guards to Blueshirt meetings. He had a lot to say also about the alleged complicity of the Opposition in a movement for the non-payment of land annuities. We are now dealing with the Estimates for the coming year. I do not know whether he expects that Blueshirts are going to be transported around during the coming year on the scale that they were transported around last summer. I do not know if he expects the movement not to pay annuities to develop and become more dangerous during the coming year, because I understood from various Government speakers that they regarded that movement as now broken. Is it true that the Opposition are to blame for the movement not to pay annuities? It is so far from being true, that the Opposition missed one of the greatest opportunities that any Opposition could have, to throw the whole government of this country into confusion, if they wished to use it. The material was there waiting to be ignited, if we had wished to ignite it. But, steadily, from the very moment that non-payment of annuities began to be mooted —and it was mooted immediately the economic war broke out—and no wonder—every responsible member of the Opposition, whether in the Cumann na nGaedheal Party or in the Centre Party did his best to see that no such movement developed. We laid stress indeed on the fact that farmers were having most unreasonable burdens put upon them, and that they would not be able to make all the payments that the Government expect of them. But, if I chose to take up the time of the House and my own time to make researches I could produce here quite a big bundle of speeches, my own and other people's, in which I declared, just as clearly as anyone could declare, against a campaign for refusing to pay by people who were able to pay. And why? It is not because we did not think and do not think that there was a tremendous amount of moral justification to be urged for farmers who refused to pay in view of the fact that they were being mulcted by the British tariffs, but it is because we realised that in this country, with the recent history and even the more remote history that we have behind us, responsible statesmen cannot afford to recommend anything that is likely to increase the tendency of disobedience to the law. The law may smite us, the law may be unjust, but unless it is contrary to the principles of morality and of Christianity to comply with it, well, then it ought to be complied with if one can possibly do it because any other line of conduct must lead in the end to chaos and anarchy and to justification of people who like chaos and anarchy and who are only looking for something to excuse them for their past and present conduct. So far from the Opposition having anything to blame itself for in this matter, I think the Government have very great cause to be grateful to us that we did not take the line which I think would have appealed very much to them if they had been in Opposition: that we did not do our best, as we might easily have done, to set the whole country in a flame against this determination of the Government to exact rates and annuities in spite of the appalling injuries they were inflicting on the farmers by their economic war.

What is the real reason why more and more money has to be spent on the Civic Guards? The real reason is that the whole attitude and policy of the Government has given, and continues to give, new hope and courage to an organisation which denies the right of this State to exist at all. If the Government had the commonsense and common decency to forget their past entanglements and to state plainly what everyone knows to be true: to state plainly and officially that under the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Act the Irish Republican Army was an unlawful association, they would take a step that would carry them a long way immediately towards a reduction of expenditure on the Civic Guards. But the curse of the situation is that while in Kerry, for example, there is a sharp differentiation between the supporters of Fianna Fáil and the members of the I.R.A., in most counties that is not the case. A dividing line does not exist in a great many of the western counties. The I.R.A. is like one of those revelation suit-cases that can be expanded or contracted as convenient. You cannot say with any definiteness how many people belong to it because it changes from week to week or month to month, according to what is going on. But the people who go in and out of the I.R.A. are supporters of Fianna Fáil. There is no Fianna Fáil club in any county outside of Kerry that, I believe, would dare to pass a resolution condemning the I.R.A. for anything that it did. There have been cases in my own constituency—at any rate, there has been one case in it— where a Fianna Fáil club was so rash as to pass a resolution reflecting gently on the wisdom of something that the I.R.A. had done, because they said it embarrassed the Government and at the next meeting they had to recant and rescind that resolution. That is significant of the state of things that exists all over the country. The danger to peace and order arises from the fact that those people who dislike peace and order feel that they have at bottom the sympathy of the bulk of the Fianna Fáil Party, and they will continue to feel that until the Government performs its obvious duty and declares that they are an unlawful association.

The Minister for Finance has returned to the House just in time for me to put him a question before I sit down. I would like to know from him just what he meant by a normal Budget. Does a normal Budget mean a Budget of a larger size or of a smaller size than the present one? Does he think that, on the whole, we should work towards less expenditure or towards more expenditure, and in expressing the view that we are getting near a normal Budget, does he reckon upon our being in the Commonwealth or outside of it because that is a point that is going to make considerable difference to his Budget? Has he prepared for the day when large numbers of people with private incomes will leave this country because they wish to be in the Commonwealth, and if he has not prepared for that day is it because the Government have no intention of leaving the Commonwealth? The subject is of as much importance to our finances as it is to every department of our life, and the Minister for Finance who does not take it into account one way or the other in his calculations as to when he is going to reach normality is ignoring one of the most essential factors of the whole problem.

Deputy Flinn alluded once again to the economic war and to the supposed spirit of surrender that exists in the Opposition, and he asked once again what we would do about it if we were in power? I decline to engage once again in a debate on the economic war, but I think I will make a very brief attempt to answer Deputy Flinn's question. I think if the Opposition were in power that they would try to deal with the dispute over the annuities—the financial dispute which is, in fact, the material of the economic war itself—by making a cash offer of a lump sum of a modest amount. But over and above the question of the financial dispute between the two countries is the question, as Deputy Flinn pointed out, of the quotas and the general agricultural policy of Great Britain. That is a question that would have to be dealt with by a trade treaty. Deputy Flinn, of course, suggested that we would be prepared to barter away the national rights of this country in order to secure a trade treaty that we could face the people with. Now, our position is a very simple one. This country has got to decide whether or not it wants to form part of the Commonwealth, whether it wants to be a partner in the Commonwealth, and if it does not, then the only sort of a trade treaty we could make would be something on an entirely different basis from what we could have if we decide to form part of the Commonwealth. We would wish to see that question of the Commonwealth decided on its merits and from every point of view, quite apart from a trade treaty. Once the Irish people, in the control of their own destiny and realising that it was entirely for themselves to decide whether it would be to their interests to be in the Commonwealth or not, had made up their minds on that question, I think we could know what sort of a trade treaty to try for.

Mr. Belton

Suppose the Irish people change their minds?

Mr. MacDermot

If they change their minds, presumably the trade treaty would have to be changed, too, and the whole situation would be altered. About this we are quite clear—that there is no sense in going on in an indefinite manner, hanging on to the Commonwealth by the tail and, therefore, not being able to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement one way or another, losing many of the advantages that could be got from membership of the Commonwealth and suffering such disadvantages as there may be from membership of the Commonwealth. The situation should be faced and a frank and candid statement of our position should be arrived at. We should have nothing whatever to be ashamed of, we should have nothing to apologise to the Irish people for if, acting upon their decision, we made the sort of trade treaty with Great Britain that we are certain is possible. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance talks about his being in touch with conditions on the other side and about his confidence that we shall never secure a satisfactory market over there any more. I claim to be just as much in touch with the other side as the Parliamentary Secretary is, to have just as much knowledge of the conditions over there as he has and to have as good means of knowing the opinions of politicians over there as he has and I say with very great confidence that we could get back to the position of equality with the British farmers if we went about the matter in the right way. The British farmer himself is subject to restrictions to which he used not to be subject. He cannot produce regardless of Government advice and regulation. To that extent, we should not be in the same position as we were in the old days but, on the other hand, we could be in a position which would make us more secure in the British market than we used to be, that would put us on a better level than the other Dominions and that would put us on a far better level than foreign countries. But the sine qua non for getting anywhere on that question of trade relations and quotas is that we should take a decision on this question of belonging to the Commonwealth or not. As to bartering anything, no such question arises.

When the Minister replies on this Vote on Account, I hope he will not fail to give us an indication of what his views are with regard to the general prosperity of the country as compared with a year ago and also with regard to the question of economy—whether he has reverted to the spirit of his Budget speech of 1932, when he regarded this expenditure as emergency expenditure that must be reduced, or whether his mind is rather as it was a year ago, when he boasted of our expanding and extending expenditure keeping pace with our expanding and extending industrial prosperity.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy MacDermot, at the opening of his speech, condemned, more or less, the Minister for Finance and also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for their general remarks and for failure to give sufficient detail. I think that the details and particulars are contained in the Vote on Account, as circulated. The Deputy also referred to remarks made at an earlier date and said the Minister had spoken in what he described as a "triumphant manner" at the expansion in expenditure. I think that it is only fair to examine the expenditure. I have picked out a list of items in the Estimates for the coming year. This list includes the items which show the largest increases. If the Opposition is so anxious to have details from this side of the House, perhaps they themselves would deal with details. So far, no speaker on that side has dealt with them. I propose to deal with some of the major increases. The first item we come to, in going down the list, is that of old age pensions. Taking the year referred to by Deputy MacDermot— 1928-29—there is an increase in the present Estimates of about £750,000. This Government is paying an increased amount in old age pensions. I do not know whether the Opposition are still in the same frame of mind that they were when they were on this side of the House and when they refused to give any extra assistance to the old people. On one occasion, when they were looking for economies, they took 1/- off the amount payable to old age pensioners. We have given back that shilling, and we have also made increased payments to the old and the blind. That item accounts for £750,000 of an increase. I wonder if any member of the Opposition is prepared to get up and advocate that we should reduce expenditure on pensions to the old, the infirm and the blind. If they did that, they would be giving us something concrete which could be examined, but I do not believe that they would suggest that.

The next item is Local Loans. We are advancing £500,000 more this year than the Cumann na nGaedheal did in their time. Do Deputies opposite suggest that we should restrict that expenditure or cut it down?

Mr. Belton

Is that comparison with last year?

Mr. Briscoe

I am making the comparison with 1928-29—the year Deputy MacDermot referred to.

Mr. Belton

The amount to be voted is nearly £3,000,000 less than the amount of last year.

Mr. MacDermot

Deputy Briscoe is under a misapprehension. Any comparisons I made were with last year and not with 1928-29.

Mr. Briscoe

I agree, but last year's expenditure was our expenditure. The expenditure of 1928-29 was Cumann na nGaedheal expenditure.

Mr. MacDermot

The Deputy said I referred to 1928-29.

Mr. Briscoe

The Deputy referred to a speech made by the present Minister for Justice when in opposition and quoted from column 1414 of the Debates of 1928.

Mr. MacDermot

I referred to the general principles of economy laid down by the Minister for Justice, but I did not go into any comparison.

Mr. Briscoe

I am taking the expenditure at the time of the speech referred to and I am comparing that with the expenditure now.

Mr. O'Leary

I will be reading that for you in a few minutes.

Mr. Briscoe

I do not understand the Deputy.

Mr. O'Leary

I am not surprised at that. Get a translation.

Mr. Briscoe

As long as it is translated into what a Dublin man can understand it will be all right. Public Works show an increase of £225,000. Local Government shows an increase of about £700,000. On secondary education, £100,000 more is being spent, and on technical education, £80,000 more. There is £275,000 extra for the Department of Agriculture, and £600,000 extra for the Department of Lands.

Mr. Belton

And agricultural prices are worse.

Mr. Briscoe

We shall come to that, too. I am talking about increased expenditure by the Government.

Mr. Belton

It is easy to spend but it is not so easy to get it in.

Mr. McGovern

It is being spent on officials.

Mr. Briscoe

I do not suppose that the Deputy is suggesting that it is not a good thing that £600,000 extra should be expended by the Department of Lands for the acquisition and redistribution of lands amongst those who were landless when Cumann na nGaedheal went into office and who remained landless while Cumann na nGaedheal were in office.

Mr. Belton

And will have less if you remain in office.

Mr. Briscoe

I do not know about that. Deputy Belton, however, has had some experience now of the people's opinion of this present Government. He has had a good deal of experience of it, and the experience of his recent colleagues shows that he is nearer to us now than he was six months ago.

Mr. Belton

It is that your Party are coming nearer to me. I brought you in here—the biggest step in your political career.

Mr. Briscoe

At any rate the Deputy is moving around this way, but he has not seen us moving over that way.

Mr. Belton

Well, the House is round.

Mr. Briscoe

I have nothing against the Deputy so long as he continues to move around our way. In forestry there is an increased expenditure of £180,000. Is any Deputy on the other side going to advocate that the afforestation programme should be dropped? Is it not time that we got back to the policy of re-afforestation? Is there any Deputy over there who talks about farming, and talks about it probably nine days out of every ten in this House, who will deny that the country is denuded to a great extent of all kinds of wood or who will deny that it is time to remedy that situation and that the faster we can go in that direction the better it is going to be for the country because it will be an asset in the future? Industry and Commerce is spending £200,000 more. Then there is £1,300,000 for Unemployment Assistance. We maintained all along, when seeking election, that it was the Government's duty to maintain the unemployed if employment could not be found for them.

Mr. Belton

Do you stand by that still?

Mr. Briscoe

Yes, of course.

Mr. Belton

Might I ask the Deputy if it is the policy of the Government to maintain the unemployed, whether what they are offering the unemployed is, in their opinion, sufficient for maintenance?

Mr. Briscoe

Oh, well if it comes to that——

Mr. Belton

Will you take the responsibility? You must carry it out.

Mr. Briscoe

Opinions differ as to what is essential for maintenance, and I admit quite frankly and I believe the whole Government Front Bench will admite quite frankly that the maintenance provided is much less than we would wish to give, but it is commensurate with what the Government can afford to give.

Mr. Belton

The Deputy is shifting his responsibility.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Belton will have an opportunity to speak later. Deputy Briscoe must be allowed to continue.

Mr. Briscoe

The Government are giving £1,300,000 more than was given in the particular year about which I am making the comparison.

Mr. MacDermot

Is it not a fact that before they came into office the Fianna Fáil Party represented that they could cure unemployment by tariffs alone? There should have been no need for unemployment assistance in that case.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy MacDermot has put a perfectly fair question, but he never heard us going around the country and suggesting that we were medicine men and could perform miracles.

Mr. Finian Lynch

What about the famous poster?

Mr. Briscoe

We say and we believe still that the only cure for unemployment in this country is for the Government, on the one hand, to develop the agricultural industry——

Mr. MacDermot

Hear, hear!

Mr. O'Leary

And the best way you can think of doing that is to put all the farmers in jail.

Mr. Briscoe

I say that the agricultural industry must be developed so as to employ the largest number of people.

Mr. MacDermot

Hear, hear!

Mr. Briscoe

Yes, but not the agricultural industry that Deputy MacDermot speaks of—that of a man and a dog on 1,000 acres. We say that 1,000 acres could afford more employment for the people in the tillage of the soil than just in the raising of bullocks and sending those bullocks to other countries. After all, I believe that Deputy MacDermot—I will pay him this compliment if you like—from his point of view is anxious to see our point of view as well, and that he would be the first to give us credit, if he thought we deserved it, for any good move we could make. I do not believe that he is saying these things and not believing in them, but I say now, as a responsible member, that the land should give a living to many more people than it has in the past and that the only way to do that is to get away from the policy of the past. I say that the policy of merely raising bullocks is not an ideal policy for this country. Deputy MacDermot can argue the other way round and he is entitled to his opinion, but we must take things as we find them and I believe that the experience of the past, the experience of the last ten years at least, has proved that the agricultural policy pursued in those ten years was not the ideal policy for the country and that the policy we are pursuing now will show itself to be more advantageous.

Mr. MacDermot

When?

Mr. Briscoe

It is showing results already. Deputy MacDermot will realise that up to about two years before Cumann na nGaedheal went out of office this country had an exportable surplus of human beings of approximately 30,000 a year. These 30,000 able-bodied people—and it must be remembered they were the cream of the country—had to pass medical tests before leaving the country. They had to be fit and healthy and educated. All these people left our shores year after year, but for the past four or five years these 30,000 Irish people have been remaining at home. Add that up. They were not people of 90 years of age who went out and just died. They were people who were able to work, and for whom work had to be found, but for whom work could not be found under the conditions existing in those days. That means that 150,000 able-bodied people, who would otherwise have gone away, have remained in the country in the last five years, and something must be done to provide work for them. Something must be done to provide for the building up of industries, and of the agricultural industry particularly, to absorb them by degrees, in the hope that eventually we may be able to absorb them all.

There has been an increase in Army pensions also. Deputy MacDermot referred to I do not know how many hundred thousands who were drawing pensions under our pensions scheme. I think, however, that any Deputy on the other side who had an intimate knowledge of the period when the unfortunate split took place in this country would admit that the division of the old I.R.A. at that time was approximately 50-50. I do not think that that estimate would be unfairly criticised by any Deputy who had any knowledge of that period. Deputy MacDermot must have forgotten to examine the figures. If he had, he would find that the amount of pensions in 1927-28 was higher than the figure we are providing for those extra people coming in.

Mr. MacDermot

I mentioned no figure, as a matter of fact, but I understand that there are between 50,000 and 60,000 applications, and I merely remarked on the extraordinary multiplication of the warriors.

Mr. Briscoe

Oh, yes; I understand about the number of applications, but I think that Deputies on the other side who had knowledge of the former conditions, will admit that the number of applications turned down was far in excess of those granted. I think that Deputy MacEoin will agree with that.

General MacEoin

Make your own speech now.

Mr. Briscoe

We know that there were thousands who applied and thousands who were turned down. There were a great many applications then also, because one met many disgruntled applicants who were turned down.

Mr. Jordan

Yes, and some of them will apply again now if you are not careful.

Mr. Briscoe

Some of the applications under the present Administration are for increases in pensions, as the applicants were not satisfied with the amounts they got under the last Administration. On the face of it, the amount is not exorbitant, and Deputy MacDermot must at least admit that men who voluntarily took part in the struggle for the country's freedom, particularly those who risked their all, their education and their whole prospects, are deserving of some consideration by this country, whether by this Administration or any other Administration. The fact was that they were all high-principled men who gave their services voluntarily. Some of them were students; others of them might have been fortunate in business enterprises if they had confined their energies to looking after their own interests. I do not think anybody with any genuine spirit objects to provision being made for those who need it, in the first place, and who deserve it, in the second place.

General MacEoin

What about Deputy Dr. Ward's speech, then?

Mr. Briscoe

I have not heard Deputy Dr. Ward's speech, nor have I read it, but I am personally prepared to say that if Deputy Dr. Ward said that pensions should be given only to followers of the Fianna Fáil Party, I do not subscribe to it.

Mr. MacDermot

That is not what I said Dr. Ward said.

An Ceann Comhairle

There was a suggestion a few moments ago that the Deputy in possession should be allowed to make his own speech—an excellent suggestion.

Mr. Briscoe

I understood the Deputy to say that Dr. Ward had said that only those ex-members of the I.R.A. who were members of the Fianna Fáil Party should get pensions. I should like the Deputy to correct me, if that is not so.

Mr. MacDermot

I hesitate to stand up again, but what I said was that Deputy Dr. Ward had made a statement that only supporters of Fianna Fáil should be allowed to join the Old I.R.A. Men's Association.

Mr. Briscoe

I say that, equally, I dissociate myself from that statement because I believe that only those who are old I.R.A. men should be allowed to join Old I.R.A. Men's Association, whether they are in Fianna Fáil or any other organisation.

General MacEoin

I understood Deputy MacDermot to say that Deputy Dr. Ward said that only those ex-members of the I.R.A. who are members of Fianna Fáil should get pensions. I withdraw that statement. I thought Deputy MacDermot said that.

Mr. Briscoe

There is a very big item for a purpose which Deputies have discussed at length—export bounties. The amount is £2,700,000. Whether Deputies realise it or not we have an economic war on our hands and it is because of the economic war——

Mr. Curran

I thought it was over.

Mr. Briscoe

You people seem to forget a lot of things but it is a fact that the economic war is still in existence. Perhaps I might amuse the Deputy if I told him of an experience of my own recently. I received a deputation about a week ago from a group of people in Dublin who were affected by a recent Emergency Order. Amongst that group were two Englishmen who were representatives of an English firm and others representing American firms. While we were discussing the matter one of the Englishmen said to me: "Why do we have to pay 20 per cent. of a tariff over and above the tariff on the same class of goods that comes from America?" I said: "How long are you in Ireland?""Three or four years," they replied. I asked: "Do you not know that there is an economic war on and that England has put a big tariff on our cattle?" Both of them said that they did not know there was an economic war on.

Mr. O'Leary

If they had a few calves to sell they would have known something about it.

Mr. Belton

They must not have been trading in calf skins.

Mr. Briscoe

These were machinery salesmen from England. Deputy Curran thinks that the war is over.

Mr. Curran

Did I say that?

Mr. Briscoe

You said a moment ago that you thought it was.

Mr. Curran

I heard a statement by the Minister for Industry and Commerce that we had already won it.

Mr. Briscoe

That is a different thing.

Mr. Curran

That is what I meant. To my grief, I know it is not over.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Curran said that he thought the economic war was over.

Mr. Curran

I was referring to statements by members over there.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy MacDermot referred to the expansion in the figures of the adverse trade balance. Like every other statement that comes from Deputies opposite, there is no research or no analysis behind that statement. He made the most extraordinary statement. He said the adverse balance was worse. "Worse" was the word he used. I say that the adverse balance may be larger but it is not worse. If any Deputy goes to the trouble of examining the figures for imports and comparing them with the figures for exports, he will find that there is a continual lessening in the imports of articles, the exports of which, previously, were of a recurring nature. Particularly is that so in the case of certain goods manufactured elsewhere and which are now being manufactured here to meet the requirements of home consumption. There is a big expansion in figures for items relating to capital expenditure. You have machinery coming in in quantities in which it never came in before and materials for house building. Portion of it is concerned with the housing programme which the Government has introduced. That programme is of greater magnitude than this country ever before experienced. Deputy Belton knows very well that it is sometimes wise to embark on capital expenditure. I shall give him an illustration of that. On one occasion he and I joined in doing what we thought was a very good deed. We were both members of the Grangegorman and Portrane Mental Hospital Committee.

Mr. Belton

And we got out, a thing that those who are laughing at us could not do.

Mr. Briscoe

If some of them got in they might not get out. The fact is that we found we had an increasing little farm attached to Portrane. This little farm, which we had tilled for the benefit of the inmates and attendants, we had to rent on the 11 months' system. This had been going on for a number of years when the members of the governing body came together and decided that it would be wiser to buy out quite a large farm at a large cost. We proved to the satisfaction of ourselves and everybody else, including the Minister for Local Government and his officials, that we could borrow a large amount of money to buy out this large farm and that the interest and the sinking fund would be less than the rent we were paying for the farms we had previously rented, while, after 20 years, the farm would belong to the institution and we would have no more recurring expenditure in the shape of rents. Deputy Belton is here and can confirm that statement. He can agree with me that it was a very good bargain for the institution notwithstanding the fact that it involved a tremendously large extra capital expenditure in that year. The same lesson applies to this country. Our imports in certain items have gone up tremendously. I ask Deputies seriously to examine them and they will find that the same principle applies as applied to the Grangegorman and Portrane Committee in that one transaction. We are getting in plenty of machinery and plenty of materials for building houses. We shall create assets which will be of great advantage to the community generally. Now that is why I object to the term used by Deputy MacDermot. I am not questioning the adverse balance, but I object to having it said that it is worse, while in reality it is better. Imports were of a recurring nature for articles manufactured outside the country which can be manufactured here and which create a saving in the national economy of the country.

There is a lot of talk about outdoor assistance and dole assistance, and what Deputies opposite call the too generous attitude of this Government dealing with unemployment. Deputies on the Labour Benches will probably say it is a meagre attempt that is being made to deal with that problem. If the Government were able to do more I would say they are not doing enough and that they should do better. In the circumstances, however, they are doing the best they can. What does this nation consist of? It consists of land and of people. If the Government does not take care to provide for the health of the people by seeing that they have sufficient nourishment, and decent accommodation, then they are not going to provide the best type of individual for later years. The best investment any Government can make for the future of a country is to provide for the development, physical and mental, of the people, and the happiness of the community generally. I say that human beings, individually and collectively, are far more important to the nation than the bullock to which Deputies opposite attach so much importance.

Mr. O'Leary

We have to live by the bullock.

Mr. Briscoe

A lot of people died and were replaced by bullocks.

Mr. O'Leary

How did they die?

Mr. Briscoe

They died of starvation and some of them died in the Deputy's own constituency.

Mr. O'Leary

In reply to this charge——

An Ceann Comhairle

No charge has been made against the Deputy.

Mr. O'Leary

There is a charge against my constituency and I shall answer it.

Mr. Briscoe

I am making no charge against the Deputy at all. Deputy Donnelly took me down through his constituency about two weeks ago and some of the things he told me simply amazed me. I asked him how was it, if there was a population of 8,000,000 souls in this country in 1847 there was no trace of where they lived?

Mr. O'Leary

They lived on stirabout.

Mr. Briscoe

I pointed out that in fact with the small population we have at present we have not enough accommodation. Deputy Donnelly supplied the answer to my question. He showed how the clearances were made, houses knocked down and destroyed and cleared away. I say, as I said before, that human beings, whether Deputies opposite agree or not, are more vitally important to the country than bullocks. Deputies opposite keep talking about the price of the bullock, the price that they get, and the price that they should get. When I read the English newspapers I find that the farmers in England are talking about being driven to starvation. Deputies opposite will have to come to realise that farming as it was conducted here, and in England, and elsewhere, has got to be changed and at the same time they should try to keep their eyes on their own country.

Mr. Keating

The Deputy would be a great man to put on a farm.

Mr. O'Leary

I would like to put the Deputy to do some agricultural work for a while.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputies must not interrupt.

Mr. Briscoe

Would Deputy Keating let me hear what he is saying?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should address the Chair.

Mr. Keating

Perhaps the Deputy could give me a pound of Naas sausages.

Mr. Briscoe

They are being made in Dublin now, where some of the agents of the Deputy cannot get at them. I would like the Deputy to make his interjections in an intelligible manner.

Mr. O'Leary

We may not be intelligible enough for you but we are for the Irish people.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order. Deputies must not keep up a fire of interruption.

Mr. Briscoe

I have tried to deal with the main items of expenditure where increases have been very substantial. Let Deputies opposite deal with them when they have an opportunity. I have added up the amount of these increases and they come to something over £8,000,000 and yet our total excess expenditure in that particular year amounts to only £6,500,000. We are doing a whole lot more with our £8,000,000 than Deputies opposite ever did with theirs. We are providing for a greater number of people than they did. We are providing for the future, and we are building up a dignified nation which they never thought of. They kept bowing down to a neighbouring country, listening to what they said and providing for them at the cost of the people here. It is about time they realised that we are engaged in a very vital struggle for economic life in this country. They can examine what we are doing and satisfy themselves that what we are doing is in the best interests of the country. They talk about figures, but they refuse to go into details. When we were in opposition, and opposed their Estimates, we did so on particular items. We opposed Deputy Lynch's Department, when he was in office, on the grounds that it was doing nothing for the money it was spending.

Mr. Finian Lynch

What are you doing?

Mr. Briscoe

We are spending a whole lot less for one thing. I am not saying this in any offensive spirit. I am saying it because the Deputy is here. I am saying it in the presence of the Deputy so that he can answer if he thinks fit. I am not saying it in relation to other ex-Ministers who are not here to answer at the moment. I say that we opposed Deputy Lynch's Estimate on the grounds that we were not getting for the nation any satisfaction or return. Deputies opposite can take any Estimate now and oppose it in the same way. They can present a reasoned case showing how the money is being wasted. The Deputy knows that in the administration of his Department he decided to do certain things in the shape of giving loans to fishermen in the hope that he would be able to assist them to carry on and to pay the money back in the course of time. The Deputy knows that his Department had serious losses because of the impossibility, under that particular scheme, of making anything out of it. In the same way the Deputy may attack our afforestation policy. He can say if he likes that the trees we are planting are no good or that they are being planted in the wrong places. Let him give us some technical assistance or advice, if he can, in showing us that the money we are spending is not well spent, but at least he should not get up and say "You are spending too much money; you are getting no good out of it and the country is broke." I do not know how often it has been "broke" since we came into office.

Mr. O'Leary

It is only reduced!

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister for Finance says it is somewhat reduced like the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. I do not agree with that.

Mr. O'Leary

Never mind Cumann na nGaedheal. Do your own work. Fulfil your promises to the people.

Mr. Briscoe

Part of my work as a Deputy is to help in keeping Cumann na nGaedheal from getting back here.

Mr. O'Leary

They will come back in spite of you.

Mr. Briscoe

They may do it and they may not, but part of my work as a Deputy outside this House is to assist as far as I can in keeping the menace of Cumann na nGaedheal's return to power as far as possible in the remote and distant future.

Mr. Jordan

You will not sweat on that job.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Jordan is probably anticipating some opinion of the public in the coming election in Galway. There is an opportunity there for Deputies to satisfy themselves——

Mr. Lynch

And in County Dublin.

Mr. Briscoe

Let Deputy O'Leary bring his calf down to Galway, parade it there, and convince the farmers that they are not to vote for Fianna Fáil. Let him go down and convince the people of Galway——

Mr. O'Leary

I am not at all anxious to get you out until the people see the full effect of your policy.

Mr. Briscoe

Before I sit down I must say that that last remark of Deputy O'Leary's is something very satisfactory. If that represents the opinion of Cumann na nGaedheal or U.I.P., or whatever it is—that they are not anxious to get rid of this Government—at least they have made one honest admission anyway. We cannot be as bad as they say we are.

Mr. Anthony

I do not propose to follow the bad example shown by Deputy Briscoe, who singled out for criticism or observation a whole lot of items included in this Vote on Account. I think I will set a good example by directing any remarks I have to make to Votes Nos. 32 and 33—Office of the Minister for Justice and the Gárda Síochána respectively. Between these two we are asked to vote £673,000 on account for the year ending 31st March, 1936. Now I might, perhaps, for the sake of brevity, deal with these two Votes under one heading composed of most appropriate words I have at my command—the preservation of law and order in this country. It will be readily admitted that both these Departments do deal with the preservation, or rather the administration, of law and order here. It may have been noticed by many observers that there is, and has been, a growing disrespect for those who administer law and order in this country, because of recent happenings here in the Irish Free State. I do not propose to refer to matters which have engaged the attention of the House within the last couple of weeks, not to the very diabolical murder which was committed, because I understand the matter is still sub judice. I want to confine myself to occurrences within my own constituency and just a mile or two outside it. We have the case of a young man named Murray, in the City of Cork, who for a considerable time was under police protection. It is not necessary to tell the House about occurrences of which it is already aware, but perhaps it may be well to refresh their memories. This young man who was under police protection was attacked by one of his so-called protectors. This policeman, by the way, was not one of the regular Gárda Síochána, for whom I have, and for whom the citizens of Cork have, wonderful regard and respect. It was one of the newlyorganised auxiliary force made the attack on the person whom he was supposed to protect. I am anxious to know, and many citizens of Cork are anxious to know, whether that gentleman was promoted or whether he has been dismissed from the service. He was the so-called protector of a young man whose only fault and the only charge against whom was that he was a member of an organisation which was a constitutional party opposed to the present Government.

Another case which called for comment in Cork City, and which I think should call for considerable comment even in this House, was the case of a man who was both a farmer and a shopkeeper, and whose farm was broken into, his goods and chattels destroyed, a motor car rendered unfit for further use, and the various farming and milking implements, etc., smashed. In or about the same time, almost simultaneously with the attack on this man's person and property, another attack was being carried out on his shop in College Road, in the City of Cork and just on the borough boundary, where he was engaged in the selling or distribution of milk and other agricultural produce. What was the offence which this man committed? Was it that he formed one of a small section of a minority of the people of this country? Perhaps it may be said that this kind of attack was not anticipated. That is frequently the excuse given for not supplying adequate police protection to persons whose lives and property have been threatened. I will just read for the House a placard which appeared on the dead walls in Cork for many weeks prior to the attack on this man's farm, and for many weeks prior to the attack on his shop on the College Road. This placard, headed "Boycott," was posted on the telegraph poles and on the dead walls of the city and part of the County Cork for a number of weeks prior to this attack. The poster is headed "Boycott," and goes on: "Citizens of Cork, do not buy milk or any other foods from J.F. Woods, Woodville Dairy Co., Ballinhassig."

Mr. MacEntee

They must have been reading the United Irishman.

Mr. Anthony

I am reading the poster:

"In 1920 and 1921, Woods was a member of the Orangemen's Anti-Republican Organisation in West Cork. This body of British spies murdered several Republicans during the Anglo-Irish war. Since then Woods has been the most active Imperialist agent in Cork County. To-day he is at the head of a group of Imperialists who are organising the ranchers to pay neither rents nor rates, threatening the farmers who will not subscribe to their policy and their funds. Woods continues his bullying on behalf of Imperialist England. Don't buy from him; boycott Woods and help to smash Imperialism in Ireland."

Now, Sir, I have just related what happened this man's property.

Mr. MacEntee

Would the Deputy be good enough to tell us when these incidents occurred? Can he give us the dates?

Mr. Anthony

They were reported here to the House.

Mr. MacEntee

Can the Deputy give the date?

Mr. Anthony

I can. Questions were asked in this House about it. I will give you the exact date in a few minutes. I can supply you with the Press reports and you can see a copy of the police reports. All the incidents were reported in the Official Report of this House.

Mr. MacEntee

That will not serve to give us the facts now.

Mr. Anthony

I gave the facts in this House to the Minister for Justice and they are reported.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Did these events occur in the present financial year?

Mr. Anthony

Yes.

Mr. MacEntee

When?

Mr. Anthony

About three months ago. They were all raised here and officially reported a couple of months ago in the Official Debates. The reply from the Minister for Justice is there also.

Mr. MacEntee

If the Deputy wants me or whoever is to reply on behalf of the Government to deal with the charges he is making, can he not see in fairness that he ought to give us the dates and give us an opportunity of going into the matter?

Mr. Anthony

I will go down now to the Library and bring up the Official Reports to the Minister and show him the answers I got from the Minister for Justice.

Mr. Corry

This man Woods got compensation in 1922.

Mr. O'Leary

We are not discussing 1922 now.

Mr. Corry

He got compensation as a Southern Loyalist.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Anthony to continue.

Mr. Anthony

The only charge, so far as I can ascertain after making very exhaustive inquiries, that could be brought against this farmer was that he attended a meeting in connection with the death of the young man who was murdered in Marsh's yard. I could not get any information except that. What I want the Minister to understand is this—in this case you have the clear and direct results of the series of inflammatory libels and inflammatory statements made from time to time, not by the ordinary members of the Fianna Fáil Party, but by Ministers at public meetings and at the cross-roads throughout the country. Perhaps the Minister would like me to quote the second case, which only occurred within the last couple of weeks. I want to know have the minority or have minority parties or any minority group in this country any civil right whatsoever? Again, Sir, I want to bring under your notice that the Masonic Hall was raided almost in broad daylight within the last couple of weeks.

Mr. Corry

Was the Deputy not there?

Mr. Anthony

Perhaps Deputy Corry knows more about it than I do. That hall was raided, as we saw by the Press reports, when these men were assembled for dinner. The whole of the crockery was destroyed or smashed to smithereens and the raiders, who were armed, left the premises at their leisure, and all that took place in a street ten or 12 yards off the main thoroughfare of the City of Cork, the Grand Parade.

Mr. Donnelly

What happened the grub?

Mr. Anthony

I agree it is an unpopular thing to talk about the Masonic Order here or outside. But we must remember that no matter who they are, they are entitled to the protection of this State by virtue of its Constitution which offers security to minority parties in this country. That protection has not been given. I have brought before the House two cases in which that has not been done and I speak as a Catholic. In that connection again I am becoming accustomed, and the public generally are becoming accustomed to read in the Press reports after these outrages have been committed the words, "the Gárdaí in the vicinity are very active but so far no arrests have been made." These are almost invariably the words used at the end of the reports. We read them every other day at the end of the paragraphs reporting these outrages. There is a regularity and consistency in the way in which these words appear. That causes great concern not alone to the ordinary, peaceful, law-abiding citizens but I am sure great concern to the Minister concerned and to the officers of the Department of Justice. It is a most remarkable coincidence that most of these outrages have been committed within recent months. We have two police forces and we have two armies under the control of the Government. Is it not an extraordinary comment on the administration of law in the country, with all these forces at the command of the Government, that their efforts are almost nil when compared with the activities of the armed forces outside the control of this House and in opposition to the Government?

I well remember when the present Government was in Opposition the frequent complaints that used to come from the then Opposition who are now members of the Government Party. We had complaints from them as to the frequent interrogation of members of their Party or rather followers of their Party who were employed in many firms in Cork, Dublin and elsewhere. Deputy Corry, for instance, used to get up here frequently and denounce the then Government because of the activities of the police force in taking men out of Ford's and other firms of a similar character in Cork County and City and interrogating them. Deputy Corry had perhaps reasonable grounds for these complaints but I do not hear Deputy Corry or any Deputy on the Government Benches now condemning this outrageous, unwarrantable interference with persons and property in this country. I did not hear any condemnation of undue interference by certain members of the new forces with decent, respectable, law abiding young men whose only fault is that they are members of a political, constitutional party which is opposed to the present Government. I can promise the Minister for Justice and so can every decent law abiding citizen, promise him the fullest co-operation in his activities to put down this wave of crime which is spreading all over the country; and to deal with the intimidation, open and overt which is practised against people who are not of the same political persuasion as the members of the Government Party. During my time there was never greater tyranny exercised in Ireland. Indeed I might say that during the time of the oldest member of the community there was never greater tyranny than there is to-day. If the Minister wants any information in corroboration of what I have stated he can, I am sure, find it in the police reports.

It must be said at the same time that this kind of dry rot in the administration of the law is of recent growth. Nobody can deny that the Gárda Síochána is a well-trained, disciplined and a respectable body of men, but I submit that the morale of that wonderful and splendid body has been almost broken by the establishment of a new force whose only object, whose only work, appears to be the persecution of the political opponents of the Government. I sincerely hope —and in that hope I believe I am joined by many members of the Fianna Fáil Party—that the Minister for Justice and the Executive Council will do everything they possibly can to encourage a better civic spirit amongst our people. If that could be achieved we would not have this recurring expenditure of so many thousands of pounds for the two Departments concerned. I reserve, of course, any contribution I intend to make to the various matters dealt with in this Vote on Account until a later stage when we will be discussing the Estimates. I do hope that the Executive Council will be big enough—and I say it with all sincerity—to see that the law is respected and that we will have ordered and settled government in the country.

I am going to oppose every addition to national expenditure, just as I opposed the introduction in this House of schemes which were to provide amongst other things the establishment of a new army and a new police force. We have only so much money in the common pool in this country. This should appeal to the one Deputy now on the Labour Benches. There should be no more money voted for extra police, extra judiciary or additional armies until such time as the social services that we have heard so much about are well provided for. We are told that there is on the stocks at the moment a Bill to provide pensions for widows and orphans, a very laudable effort indeed and it will have my earnest support. But you have not got an inexhaustible supply of money here any more than the people in other countries have an inexhaustible supply of money, and I contend that every penny, every shilling and every pound taken out of the common pool for the establishment of new armies and other things that we can do without will proportionately lessen the amount of money that will be available for social services such as old age pensions at a period earlier than 70 years, and blind pensions, in connection with which the facilities afforded to afflicted persons might be widened somewhat.

All of these things will cost money. I am not going to advocate here any scheme or schemes that will put an extra shilling on the taxpayer if I do not feel that it is capable of being met by the Government of the day. I am not slow to pay a compliment to the Government—not a bit slow. I have paid them many compliments both in private and public and I have complimented them in this House for restoring the shilling to the old age pensions and for the introduction of blind pensions. But I want to emphasise as far as I can that we are not going to have respect for the forces of law and order so long as people, if not openly encouraged, are let get away scot free after the perpetration of crimes and when we find an almost criminal reluctance on the part of certain persons to identify the criminal. I am not going to suggest that the Government should do anything extraordinary.

Mr. T.J. Murphy

What about the kidnapping of witnesses?

Mr. Anthony

I do not stand for the kidnapping of witnesses or anybody else.

Mr. Murphy

The Deputy must be aware that that happened in County Cork lately.

Mr. Anthony

I cannot say that I know anything about kidnapping in County Cork.

Mr. Smith

The Deputy must be blind on one side.

Mr. Anthony

If that was kidnapping I would certainly condemn it, but I understand that these men kidnapped themselves. That may be true or untrue. I am really surprised at Deputy Murphy, with his experience in this House, referring in that fashion to such a matter, whether it was kidnapping or self-effacement or absence without leave.

Mr. MacEntee

They were law-abiding and inoffensive young men!

Mr. Murphy

Did Deputy Anthony hear nothing about shooting into a rate collector's house, or that a man got five years for doing it? Deputy Anthony's omissions are very significant.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Other Deputies will have every opportunity to supply the omissions. Perhaps Deputy Anthony will now be allowed to proceed without interruption.

Mr. Anthony

I never interrupt, except intelligently. If Deputy Murphy has inside knowledge of these occurrences, then he must know something about the movements of the parties.

Mr. Murphy

If Deputy Anthony is such an apostle of law and order——

Mr. Anthony

I always considered Deputy Murphy to be an apostle of law and order. I always regarded him as an orderly gentleman, and I never associated Deputy Murphy with the kidnappers and I never shall; it would be the last thought in my mind. But perhaps Deputy Murphy has knowledge of these things. I have first-hand knowledge when I say that certain events occurred and that attacks were made on two persons and on an institution in which a number of persons were having luncheon or supper. There cannot be that respect for law and order that we would desire unless the Government insist on an equal crack of the whip for everybody. It has been suggested, and I do not want to utter a half truth, that if you are a supporter of the Government, if you are in any of the Fianna Fáil clubs, it almost amounts to a licence to go out and do what you like.

Mr. Donnelly

That is utter nonsense.

Mr. Anthony

It has been stated in this House that it amounts almost to a licence. I do not want to cavil at any decisions reached or comment upon any decisions made by our judges. I think it would be very wrong on the part of any Deputy, myself included, to comment on these decisions, but there is a feeling abroad that influences are at work in this country, and have been at work for a considerable time, to discredit the administration of the law. And that may not be confined to one Party. I am speaking as one who would like to see civic spirit so well developed that, if we saw a policeman attacked in College Green, he would have a dozen or 20 persons running to his assistance. But that spirit is not there. Our own Army was pelted with rotten eggs in Tralee—that cannot be denied. That is the Press report. I was not there, and I am very careful about my statements. Does that cannote a proper respect for the law or the proper administration of the law? Why is it we have not those people arrested? Surely, with our large body of police, large numbers of policemen in the country, police officers whose primary duty it is to protect the citizens against violence, or groups of persons against violence and mob law, they ought to be able so to protect them? It has not been done. A very ineffectual attempt has been made here and there to carry out the law and to bring offenders to justice. In that connection, the Minister might make inquiries as to what happens to a really efficient detective, a good detector of crime, whether it be political crime or any other kind, a man who has proved to be an active and useful detector of crime. If he is found to be a good detector of crime and to put his hands on the male-factor and the criminal, in a very short time, after an offence of the kind I related a moment ago has been committed he is transferred out of the city to some remote part of the country, so that, as I said a moment ago, the morale of the Gárda Síochána has been lowered. That is a danger which I, as one, have always endeavoured to prevent. I have always endeavoured to support those who administer the law in the Gárda Síochána and to support judges who were endeavouring to administer the law in their own way. All those matters should have the support of every decent citizen in this country, but events go to prove that the present Government have had brought to their notice more crime of different types in the space of time during which they have been in power than in any period in the history of this Dáil.

These matters will all come up again when the Estimates are under review, but, in the meantime, I want to remind the Minister of the example that should be set by the Government and by some of their spokesmen at the cross-roads, who endeavoured, by every means in their power, before Fianna Fáil was elected, to bring discredit on, and to disrupt as far as they possibly could, the forces administering the law in this country. Now they are reaping the whirlwind. We know what occurred after the introduction of the Public Safety Act or Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Act. We know that for a considerable period after the assassinations——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that not going very far back?

Mr. Anthony

Yes, but this Act to which I refer is still in operation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must confine himself to the year under review.

Mr. Anthony

I am dealing with the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Act, which is still in operation. That Act was condemned by the present Ministry when they were in Opposition as being uncalled for and unwarranted.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy voted for it.

Mr. Anthony

All sorts of things were said about that Act——

Mr. Corry

Did you vote for it?

Mr. Anthony

Certainly, and you are maintaining it.

Mr. O'Leary

You did not repeal it.

Mr. Corry

I would like to give you a taste of your own whip.

Mr. Anthony

You cannot have it both ways. You are either supporting that Act or you are not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy ought to address the Chair.

Mr. Anthony

I have been interrupted. I cannot say to Deputy Corry what Deputy O'Leary was told a moment ago—to translate it—but I could say it if I liked.

General Mulcahy

You are a native speaker.

Mr. Corry

You were kicked out of the Labour Party for voting for it.

Mr. Anthony

Can anybody understand that? I cannot.

Mr. Corry

You were kicked out of the Labour Party for voting for that Act.

Mr. Anthony

Not likely.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Corry ought to allow Deputy Anthony to make his speech.

Mr. Anthony

It was the proudest moment of my life and the citizens of Cork proved it. I got an unprecedented poll in the city when I went up for election as alderman. I am still an alderman and I represent the City of Cork with the highest poll any man ever got in the city.

Mr. Corry

And the cases you brought forward here to-night prove who voted for you.

Mr. Anthony

There are not 300 of them in Cork. At any rate, I am sportsman enough to give the minority a fair crack of the whip and I am not going to persecute a man because he happens to be different from me in religion or politics. That is my answer to Deputy Corry and that is what I want the Minister to prove does not exist, because I say it does exist.

Mr. T.J. Murphy

I think the House has begun to weary of the righteous indignation of Deputy Anthony as the sole champion in this assembly of law and order. That fact is more apparent when he seeks to distinguish himself in the rôle in an entirely one-sided way and with a peculiarly jaundiced outlook on that question, because if his speech here to-night is remarkable for anything, it is remarkable for the extraordinary omissions in relation to the campaign of violence that took place in the County of Cork, during the last 12 months, in an effort to destroy public services generally. I will come back to that later on, but I should like to make one remark, and it is, that it does seem strange that this very redoubtable champion of law and order is not prepared to look kindly on the voting of any additional money for army and police services in this country. That does not seem to fit in with the very strongly expressed views we have heard here to-night as to the necessity for asserting the powers of the law much more vigorously than has been done up to the present. Of course, Deputy Anthony would have us remember that at one time he was a Labour representative.

Mr. Anthony

I am still.

Mr. Murphy

He still remembers what used to be a very important matter for him at one time—extensive social services—or, at least, he remembers that here. In another place, he describes them as bunk. At a meeting of the Cork Corporation lately, when a question of statistics in regard to the malnutrition of children in the city arose, Deputy Anthony said that he was going to debunk all this stuff.

Mr. Anthony

To debunk what your Party said.

Mr. Murphy

That was his idea of the extension of social services in the Corporation, but, of course, he has to pay lip sympathy to old principles here to-night, so that we might remember that at one time he was a member of the Labour Party.

Mr. Anthony

Thank God, I am not now, at any rate.

Mr. Murphy

He does not advert to the very many important things that occurred in Cork during the past year. As a man who at one time believed in extensive social services, he must remember still that social services are very largely maintained out of rates, and I hope that he has not forgotten that during the last 12 months in Cork County a very determined attempt was made to prevent the collection of rates, and that many unfortunate dupes of that campaign are in prison at the present time, having admitted that their paymasters ordered them, encouraged them, and actually paid them in some cases, to go out to destroy public communications in order that that campaign should succeed.

Mr. Anthony

I condemned that.

Mr. Murphy

I have not heard a word of condemnation. As a matter of fact, some of the conspirators who were engaged in this campaign were made the subject of a visit by Deputy Anthony in Mountjoy Prison, when he probably wept tears over their fate in finding themselves there.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Of course, there is no money in the Vote for all this.

Mr. Murphy

Deputy Anthony has been carrying on a good deal of this kind of stuff for some time, and it is about time somebody told him what the people generally are thinking about him.

Mr. Anthony

They told me several times.

Mr. Murphy

He is going to hear it from a different angle now. He has not adverted to the fact that it was ascertained, at a sitting of the Military Tribunal lately, that the gentlemen who were hired to break into Marsh's yard were paid £2 apiece by the organisation, the representative of which Deputy Anthony went to console in Mountjoy Prison. He has not said that all over East Cork telegraph wires and telephone communications were cut and trees were felled, highways blocked, and motor cars conveying innocent people who were travelling on their own business wrecked and lives endangered during the last 12 months. He has adverted to certain incidents which are regrettable and which deserve condemnation. I think it is an abuse of his position here to refrain from mentioning the outstanding items in the campaign of violence which has disgraced County Cork during the last 12 months and which Deputy Anthony, having regard to certain speeches in this House and outside, has refused to condemn in a manner that anybody even pretending to believe in the principles of law and order ought to condemn. A rate collector's house was fired into in Tipperary, and a man is doing penal servitude for that offence. Pounds containing cattle seized in respect of rates and annuities were blown up in certain parts of the country, and the cattle in such pounds were actually maimed. There has been no reference to that in this diatribe about law and order which we heard this evening— the sob stuff that Deputy Anthony can call up for the purpose of throwing mud at his political opponents.

I heard last week a statement made by another County Cork Deputy who shed tears over the inability of the people to pay their rates. It was all quite good stuff to use on a motion in favour of derating. The Deputy I mention was, until recently in any case, the editor of a newspaper in West Cork. During the last two years, on two or three occasions, that paper contained reports of meetings of certain organisations in West Cork advising the people against the payment of rates. I have no doubt the editor of that paper saw the stuff that appeared in the paper and passed it for publication. It is no wonder that there should be difficulty in collecting rates when Deputies, in other capacities, have given publication to and, to such an extent, given adhesion to the campaign against the payment of rates. Speeches in favour of law and order are all right, but speeches which would try to instil principles of public honesty in discussing matters of this kind are also necessary.

Mr. Belton

In the Government and Labour Party.

Mr. Murphy

In all parties in facing up to this question honestly and impartially. Having said that much, I should like to try and remove this debate out of the channels that it has very largely run into this evening. I do not want to discuss again the question of the economic war or other matters. I should like to refer to some items in the Vote on Account, not from a detailed point of view, but rather from the point of view of general principles. If I were not debarred by the limitations that the Chair has set in regard to this debate, I should like to express my doubts and fears in regard to the whole future of local government in this country. Local government, in my opinion, is being very definitely strangled at present. There is very clear evidence of that in certain quarters.

Local government in the City of Cork at present is a memory. Public business there is being managed by one individual. The Corporation, that Deputy Anthony is so proud to be elected to, does not, in fact, exist for the purpose of administration in the city. I hope that there is no truth in the stories going around that we are going to have a wide extension of this principle of managerial control. It would be a disaster for the country if we had it. I hope the Government will not follow the unhappy line set by their predecessors in the matter of definitely bringing local government to an end in this country. The principles enshrined in the Local Government Act of 1898 are being definitely killed. I would suggest to the Minister for Local Government that his policy in future should run along the lines of humanising local government administration as we have it at present. There is evidence in various places of the need for action of that kind. Recently, in the South Cork area, disclosures were made that it was possible for patients to die in the Cork district hospital without their relatives being informed immediately. There was evidence also that in the mortuary after death and in regard to the funeral arrangements there was an entire absence of that Christianity one would expect to be associated with a Catholic and Christian burial. That is a matter that the Minister ought to enquire into. The absence of an immediate communication to the relatives of people who die in hospital is a disgrace to the Government of a State professing Christian principles. I say that in no disrespectful sense as things may happen without being brought to the notice of the Department of Local Government, but when they are brought to the notice of the Department they should be enquired into with a view to seeing that the Christian principles that this State professes are applied in the service that has most need of Christian principles, and that is the local government service.

We were told some time ago that with a view to increasing the opportunities for giving extended services it was necessary to unify the existing national health insurance societies. Whatever may be the truth of that, the actual result of unification has been extremely disappointing. I want to say that, to a good many of the workers, the results have meant loss, delay and irritation in the assertion of their legal rights as insured persons. It is no exaggeration to say that the policy of the Unified Society is one of machined hostility towards a large section of their members. I do not say that policy is deliberate as such, but so far removed are the officials from the average members that a great deal of the work of the society seems to be to pick holes, to find obstacles and to create irritation in the administration of the Act. I hope the Minister will believe that I say this in no mere carping criticism of that organisation. I regard national health insurance as a very valuable thing. It is a fine thing that there should be means of providing for people who are sick for a certain time, or who are invalided, rather than that they should have to seek poor law assistance. I believe that it is possible to have that service administered in a humane manner, with every desire to give speedy results to people who in their need have to call for assistance. It has been further represented to me in various parts of the country, and particularly in the part from which I come, that there is grave dissatisfaction at the manner in which cases are being handled by the medical referee. I do not want to press that matter here, beyond saying that general complaints have been made in regard to discourtesy, and that many things form the subject of complaint by people whose cases are subject to examination by that official. I do not think it is right to assume that people in receipt of national health insurance can be regarded as hypocrites or malingerers.

I regret that cases should be approached in that spirit. If what I have been told is true, that is the spirit in which a large number of such cases have been approached. I hope the Minister will inquire into it and see that the humblest member of the Unified Society will be given the rights to which he is entitled, seeing that he is not in a position to incur the considerable expense that might be necessitated in providing rebutting medical evidence in support of his claim.

I want to express my regret that the Vote for Primary Education has been reduced. I could indicate various reasons for a definite increase in that Vote, but within the limits of this debate I can only express my regret that there has been a decrease. I should like to refer to the very small increase in the Forestry Vote. Having regard to what was expected in the way of the development of forestry the increase is necessary. In future, I hope, very much more will be done by the Minister for Lands in that connection, because forestry provides an admirable opportunity to do much to relieve unemployment and to beautify the country. Where a beginning has been made the results have been very successful.

There are other matters that might call for comment, but another opportunity will present itself. In connection with the Unemployment Assistance Act, the amount of money voted is providing a very fruitful source of criticism that would occupy considerable time. I have no desire to do so now. I rose to call attention to a few matters and I was forced by reason of some things Deputy Anthony said to deal with things I had no intention of referring to. Like the Deputy, I believe in the maintenance of law and order, I believe that principle should apply all around, and should not be confined to any particular section, and that the words "law and order" should not be simply regarded as being in the pockets of any individuals or any parties. I think it right to say that. In approaching this matter we could show our honesty much more by being impartial in our criticism, and by showing our condemnation of illegal acts, from whatever source they emanate. That is the spirit that should be abroad, so that there would be universal respect for law and order by all sections that have any regard for the future of the country.

Mr. Belton rose.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not know whether I am to be given an opportunity to reply to-night. I am not anxious to restrict discussion unduly, but I think it has been arranged by the Whips that we should take the Vote on Account to-night and resume the debate on the Central Fund Bill to-morrow. I am quite willing to let the Deputy proceed, provided the Vote will be taken at 10.25 and I shall reserve my reply until to-morrow.

Mr. MacDermot

I do not know how Deputy Belton feels. I suppose it depends on whether or not he will be here to-morrow. I desire to express a very strong hope that an opportunity should be given the Minister to speak for 15 minutes.

Mr. MacEntee

I could scarcely cover all the ground in that time.

Mr. MacDermot

If Deputy Belton could reserve his speech until to-morrow, we could then continue on the same subject. Owing to other arrangements a good many of us will not be here to listen to the Minister for Finance to-morrow.

Mr. Belton

I must enter a protest against the arrangement come to by the Whips of the two big Parties, to the exclusion of other Deputies.

Mr. O'Leary

I do not think there was any such arrangement.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not know what arrangement was come to.

Mr. Belton

There should be freedom of discussion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has not tried to prevent freedom of discussion or to curtail Deputies in any way. If there is an arrangement between the two Parties I cannot enforce that arrangement.

Mr. Belton

Then there is no arrangement.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not know. I can only be governed by the rules of the House.

Mr. Belton

I take it I am in possession.

Mr. MacDermot

I only heard a few minutes ago that there was such an arrangement. I do not know if it is a certainty. On these occasions, I understand, besides the Whips of the two big Parties, some of the Independent members would be consulted. I do not know if that was done.

Mr. MacEntee

I am afraid Deputy Belton may have forgotten that the Government is responsible for the time of the House, and that to-day was allocated for the Vote on Account. The Vote must be taken to-night in order to let the Central Fund Bill be disposed of before the end of the year. That is a Parliamentary requirement.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

All these matters will come up for discussion again, not once but on several occasions, and the Deputy will have ample opportunity, if he so desires, to indulge in criticism.

Mr. Belton

I remember what happened last year and I do not want it to recur. We were then told precisely the same thing, that after the Front Benches had spoken these questions would come up again. But the very same Deputies spoke again to the exclusion of others.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy had all the evening to speak but he did not get up to do so until now.

Mr. Belton

I could not. Was there any danger of the debate falling through? The Parliamentary Secretary in his speech was whirling around and travelling over the whole gamut of Irish life.

Mr. T. Kelly

He did it well.

Mr. Belton

That is only one opinion.

Mr. Kelly

It is a sound opinion.

Mr. Belton

I am sorry Deputy Murphy has left the House after pouring forth on Deputy Anthony and the other people he accused of conspiring against law and order.

Mr. Little

I understand there was a definite agreement with the Opposition that this Vote would be completed to-night.

Mr. Belton

Between whom was the agreement?

Mr. Little

Between the Opposition Party and the Government.

Mr. Belton

What about Deputies on these benches? No one spoke for Deputy Haslett or for Deputy Anthony.

Mr. Little

Does the Deputy not understand that he will have ample opportunity of discussing all these matters on the Central Fund Bill?

Mr. Belton

I do, and I know also that the Deputies on the Front Opposition Bench and on the Government Bench who occupied all the time of the House to-day on this Vote will get the opportunity of doing the same thing on the Central Fund Bill. The closure will be moved in accordance with an arrangement come to between the two big Parties as was done last year. That is how Independent Deputies are treated.

Mr. Little

There will be nothing of the sort done.

Mr. Belton

It was done last year and I protest against its being done this year. Why are not the Independent Deputies consulted before these arrangements are made?

Mr. Little

I am prepared to give Deputy Belton an undertaking that no such thing will be done this year.

Mr. Belton

That is all right, but I claim that Independent Deputies should have the opportunity now of getting after immediately the misstatements made here this evening on this Vote. If these statements are not corrected and contradicted now, the people of the country will believe them. Now is the time, so to speak, to get after the hare. I think that the House should sit for two or three hours to-night and debate this matter fully.

Mr. Little

That cannot be done now.

Mr. Belton

No, but it can be done by secret agreement and by closuring Deputies who do not sit on either the Front Opposition Bench or on the Government Front Bench. As an Independent Deputy I protest against it.

Mr. O'Leary

I also want to enter a protest. The House should have been discussing for the last hour the motion in the names of Deputy Dr. O'Higgins and Deputy O'Donovan.

Mr. J.M. Burke

And I want an opportunity to reply to Deputy Murphy's references to myself.

Mr. Corry

And I want to say a few words about the whole lot.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has no knowledge of any agreement between the two big Parties. The Government, of course, is under an obligation to have this Vote reported by a certain time. As has been pointed out, the matters discussed on the Vote to-night can be gone into again on the Central Fund Bill, while a further opportunity for a full-dress debate will be afforded on the Estimates.

Mr. Haslett

I think it will be agreed that I do not occupy much of the time of the House. Whenever I do speak I am generally able to conclude in about ten minutes. In a respectful way I would like to press home the point that has been raised by Deputy Belton because I feel rather strongly on this. A situation similar to that which we are now discussing arose on the Adjournment debate before the Christmas Recess, and I think I am correct in saying that an undertaking was given then that nothing of the kind would occur again. I think if the Independent Deputies were consulted about these matters that they would be found quite agreeable as regards any arrangements that might be proposed, but I do not think it is fair to treat them in this way. In my opinion, it is time that this question was cleared up. We have a perfect right to speak here as representing our constituents, and it was quite wrong that we should be ruled out because of some arrangement come to privately between the two big Parties.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is not inclined to rule on the basis of any agreement reached by any of the Parties in the House. The Chair is governed by the Standing Orders and will allow full liberty of debate to members.

Mr. Belton

I regret that Deputy Murphy has left the House after fouling the nest he came from. He accused the people of the County Cork of being engaged in a conspiracy against law and order during the last 12 months. We all respect law and order, and we all want the right to live. I am not aware that the people that Deputy Murphy represents stand very high for law and order when a labour question arises. Deputy Murphy, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, and others who spoke from the Government Benches, should give some little consideration to the causes that have produced what they allege has occurred in the County Cork in the last 12 months. No explanation has been offered by them as to why people should be called upon to meet their commitments three times over. The British Government have collected the land annuities from them and the Free State Government want to collect them as well, thereby reducing the income of the farming community to the lowest possible level. If the members of the farming community demand a living wage, is there anything wrong in principle in that? Deputy Murphy and his colleagues demand a living wage for the members of the trade unions. Is there any difference between these two demands? No.

Mr. Donnelly

But they have no land.

Mr. Belton

Land is of no use unless it is worked, and it is on the land that a man loses his sweat to-day and not at other callings. We are asked to Vote £26,700 for the Department of External Affairs. I believe that is the Department that has sold the pass on this country in the last 12 months. If any Department is responsible for the coal-cattle pact it is this Department which, as I have said, has sold the pass in this so-called economic war, and now we are asked to vote £26,700 to keep it going. Deputy Hugo Flinn invited Deputies to tell him what terms we should offer to England for a settlement. I submit that is a very weak statement coming from the spokesman of a Government which started this trouble. As it did that, it is now its job to end the trouble, and it should not be asking for suggestions from other people. In this economic fight it was up to us to use against our adversary every weapon at our command, and the weapon that we could use most effectively against England was the coal weapon. In the whole of this fight it was the only one that caused any commotion or trouble to the British Government. We had proof of that in the trouble caused by the miners in the South Wales coalfields. It was the only weapon that we had to hit our enemy with and that has now been surrendered and on what terms? That we are to take £1,000,000 worth of coal from England. That coal is to be admitted here subject to no restrictions whatsoever. There is no price fixed and no penal tariffs are to be imposed. It is to be paid for by an extra number of cattle taken from us but no condition was made as to the removal of the penal tariffs in force as regards these cattle. That was the type of agreement made by this Department which in face of its incompetence now has the hardihood to seek a Vote of £26,700. Our Government has not published, to my knowledge, the full text of that agreement. Why has it not published it? Why is the country not made aware of this secret agreement? We know all the allegations that were made about the Ultimate Financial Settlement. That settlement was made in March, 1926, and there were complaints that it was not made public until October, 1926. It was alleged that that settlement was never placed before this House for approval or ratification. Has the coal-cattle pact been brought before this House? Have the terms of that agreement even been made public? If so, will any Deputy on the opposite side tell us what those terms are? Will any Deputy on those benches tell us how much coal we have contracted to take from England and how many cattle they have contracted to take from us?

Mr. Donnelly

It was in the papers.

Mr. Belton

I have read every paper I could get hold of and I have made all possible inquiries, with a view to getting the full terms of that pact, and I have not succeeded.

Mr. O'Leary

Did you not hear it described as a good bargain by some of those on the Government Benches?

Mr. Belton

My opinion is that it is a bargain which would not be made outside a lunatic asylum. We want to get to grips with this matter and I am not, therefore, surprised that the Minister for Finance would like to closure this discussion. Before the Minister gets his money to carry on this incompetent Department, we want to know what work exactly that Department has done. Before this pact good household coal was being wholesaled here to retail merchants for 29/- and 30/- a ton. Since the making of this pact similar coal is being wholesaled to the same merchants at 38/-, 39/- and 40/- a ton. Are we getting any more for our cattle? The British are getting a higher price for their coal than they were getting before this pact. They are getting the full commercial price. More than that, we have given them a monopoly without any checks whatever. They can send in their stuff here at the price fixed by themselves. I challenge contradiction of that. We have to return to the British merchants without one penny deduction the cost of the coal landed at the Dublin docks. Let us assume that £1,000,000 worth of coal is dumped on the Dublin docks. We have contracted to take that at Britain's price. We are told that the tariff of 5/- a ton will not be removed. What does Britain care if we put on a tariff of £5 per ton. She gets the price fixed by herself and she puts back to work the 5,000 Welsh miners who were giving trouble on account of the economic war.

Mr. Donnelly

Did you not know that all along?

Mr. Belton

I want the Deputy to know it. I challenge the Deputy to stand up and refute one statement I am making. I challenge him or any Minister or any spokesman on behalf of that Party to refute one word of what I am saying. The coal is coming in on those terms—£1,000,000 worth of it. We are sending cattle over to England. On these cattle there is no regular tariff. They are put into the sales at, say, Birkenhead and they are sold at the British market price. From that market price there is deducted the scheduled tax according to the category into which the cattle fall—£6, £4, 50/- or 25/-. That amount is deducted from the market price. Who pays that? Of course, the Irish farmer pays it. For what purpose is it taken off? To pay the annuities that we are told by the Government will never be paid again. The President of the Executive Council has put his signature to that document agreeing to Britain collecting the annuities off those cattle and giving a monopoly to the British of the Irish market for coal. We are asked to pay as a Vote on Account £26,700 to the Department responsible for that bungling. If the Department is not responsible, who is the individual who is responsible? The House and the country ought to know.

Mr. Morrissey

The President did not sign the pact. It was not signed by any Minister. They left it to a civil servant.

Mr. T. Kelly

You will hear all about it in due time.

Mr. Donnelly

We saw the last settlement produced here.

Mr. Morrissey

I said that the President did not sign the pact and that no other Minister did.

Mr. Belton

The public has not got the correct rendering of that pact officially yet. I am speaking from experience of the actual working of the pact, and I invite any Deputy opposite to challenge my interpretation. If my interpretation is wrong, then I am being swindled by somebody and I should be glad to be put right. We have had too much of the economic war. I do not want to deal with it. I merely want to relate it to the statements made here and the accusations made regarding a conspiracy by certain farmers. I say that they were driven into it. Though I have taken as many risks on their behalf as any other man, it may be news to some Deputies to learn that I often found myself in situations with which I did not agree. I agree entirely with what Deputy Murphy has said that, when we elect a Government, whether we like the personnel of that Government or not, it is the Government elected by the people, and the issue on which it gets its mandate should be respected by the minority as well as by the majority. I agree with that principle and, while I agree with fighting the case of the farmer to the very last point, I do not agree with violating or challenging a greater principle by opposing the law, which would be opposing the majority of the people and would mean the end of all law. I am sure that Deputies will accept that as a correct interpretation of my attitude in the matter. Let them remember, however the aggravation of the situation and how lightly it has been talked of here. It was disposed of by Deputy Murphy to his satisfaction by accusing his colleague from West Cork, Deputy Burke, of having opened the columns of his paper to certain items. What else should he do but open the columns of his paper to news affecting his constituents, so that his constituents could read all sides. I ask Deputies on the opposite side to tell the House the purpose for which this money is being deducted under this pact, if it is not to pay the annuities. The farmers are no more fools than any other section of the community. They see that the money is being collected to pay the annuities.

Mr. MacEntee

May I ask the Deputy, through you, Sir, whether he is going to give an opportunity to take a division on this Vote on Account to-night?

Mr. Belton

I should like to accommodate everybody, but just before you came in, A Chinn Comhairle, and while the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was in the Chair, it was sprung on this House that there had been an agreement between the Whips of the two Parties, and the Chair said that he was unaware of any such arrangement. I believe that that was the case. I speak subject to correction, of course, but I understood him to say that he could not rule to stop me or any other speaker who wanted to go on. We feel that we have been treated with very scant courtesy in matters of this kind, and I want to bring to your notice, Sir, the kind of thing that has happened on practically every similar occasion since I came into the House. Arrangements were come to from time to time in connection with these debates on Finance and Estimates and so on in various forms, and every time it came up precedence was given to those speakers who had previously spoken on it, while those who wanted to speak, but who were not Front Bench speakers, did not get an opportunity of speaking. I want to insist on my full 100 per cent. rights unless there is an undertaking given that no Deputy will get a monopoly of debate and that all Deputies, front benchers and back benchers, Independents and members of large and small Parties, will get an opportunity of speaking in the various stages of the debates that will come up in future. I am prepared to give way to the Minister for Finance if an undertaking of that kind is given; otherwise, unless I am bound by certain rules, I shall not give way.

Parliamentary Secretary to the President (Mr. Little)

Perhaps I might be permitted to intervene to say that I pointed out that the Deputy would have ample opportunity of speaking on the debate on the Central Fund Bill.

Mr. Belton

Yes, but we were told that last year and we did not get the opportunity.

Mr. Little

That could be easily arranged.

Mr. Belton

Well, I take it, Sir, that ample opportunity will be given this year, and in those circumstances I will give way to the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.