We are opposing this motion, which has been so briefly recommended to the House by the Parliamentary Secretary. Whatever mistake they may have made yesterday in reference to the Bill that was then before us, with regard to the date of introduction, we are, at any rate, presented with the proposition at the present moment that a Bill which has not yet been introduced, which we have not yet in our hands, is to be passed by this House to-morrow at 12 o'clock. There is no doubt whatever about that. The Parliamentary Secretary tells us that we have spent 168 hours on finance business. 90 of those had reference to the imposition of taxation, and 78 hours up to the moment—78 hours and 40 minutes—have been devoted to considering the items which fall to be accounted for in the taxation in the coming year. To add ten hours to that would mean about 88 hours, which is a limited length of time to leave for the consideration of the Estimates. It is all the more limited when we take into account the fact that a Minister of State spent a very considerable time last night and a time the night before in dealing with a single Vote for £60,000. I presume it might be agreed that he spent one hour and a half on that £60,000. An hour and a half is a fairly considerable amount of time for a single individual to spend in speaking on a Vote for £60,000, when £28,000,000 besides fall to be dealt with, and a complaint has been made that the House has wasted so much time. Certainly we cannot exculpate a Minister of State for addressing himself for an hour and a half to a subject concerning only £60,000, during which time I am told he was called to order seven times. If, therefore, there has been a waste of time, that Minister has certainly been extravagant in the use of it.
The sum of money which is involved in this Closure Motion amounts to approximately £11,000,000. Obviously, careful consideration and examination of those sums of money are not going to be afforded in the limited time which is at our disposal. Two Estimates of outstanding importance to the vast majority of the people of the country have still to be dealt with —Agriculture and Compensation Bounties. Occasionally we hear from the front bench opposite, and perhaps as often again from the benches behind, that whatever economies are to be effected in this State can only be effected at the expense of social services. They mention no other item as a matter upon which any economies can be effected. In one of the Estimates which is now down for our consideration, the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture, we find that the sum of money which is proposed to be raised this year is approximately £1,000,000—£998,995— and if we take into account the other expenses which are in the Estimate it amounts to £1,030,000. The sum which appears lower down in each Estimate, bringing in other charges, is the figure which was usually adopted by the gentlemen opposite when they were on those benches. It is to be found in the lower portion of page 200 of the Estimates for Public Services, 1935-6, that the total expenditure given is £1,766,608, and the receipts amount to £736,921. Comparing that with the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture, published in 1932-3, which amounted to £407,408, or, taking the second figure, £415,000, we find a difference in those two Estimates of £615,000. Even if we exclude from the figure the item of £300,000, which is down for the wheat subsidy, we still find a figure of £300,000 over and above what it was in 1932-3. Examining still further the number of persons who are employed in that Ministry, as compared with 1932-3. We find there is an addition of 476 persons in the Department of Agriculture.
When we examine the sum of money that came into this country for cattle in 1931, which was over £12,000,000, and compare it with the figure for 1934, £4,256,000, we find there is a fall in the receipts from cattle alone of about £8,000,000. One would require to almost multiply what are called the advantages derived from the new agricultural economy to anything like balance that loss. And the loss does not stop there; it goes into other items such as sheep, pigs, etc. Yet this Estimate has got to be forced through this House without consideration either in relation to the number of persons employed or the cost that is going to be entailed in that way, or as to the losses occasioned by reason of our present agricultural policy. It is a strange thing that, when moneys are required and economies are going to be made, it is in respect of old age pensions and unemployment insurance we are going to make those savings, and not in respect of the increases in cost which have been entailed in the administration of the various Departments of State.
I have already referred in this House to the increase that has taken place in three separate Estimates— the Army, the Army Pensions, and the Gárda. These three items are £800,000 up this year as compared with 1932-33. Going down through the list, I see we have got here before us Estimates that, according to Radio 2RN, "have to be passed." I find that the increases for administration or administrative costs are not confined to the Ministry of Agriculture, but there is a kind of catholic distribution of these large sums of public moneys which have nothing whatever to do with social services. On an examination of the Revenue Commissioners' charges on the same level as I have examined those of the Department of Agriculture, taking in all the charges. I find that the present year is responsible for £924,800 as compared with £817,000 for the year 1932-33. The charge there is up in this Estimate by over £100,000 a year. Examination of administrative costs has established one fact—that social services such as unemployment assistance, old age pensions, housing, etc., do not exhaust at all the big administrative costs of £11,000,000 out of the total £28,000,000.
I find that the Civil Service Commission is costing this year £19,000 as compared with £13,429 in 1932-33. In that Estimate the charges have gone up by almost 50 per cent. If we take other figures as to the Estimates that are usually handed out in January, we find that in one Estimate there is £14,624 as against £7,593 for the year 1932-33. That is the Industrial and Commercial Registration Office. What is the reason for the enormous increase in the cost of the Civil Service Commission? There is only one answer. We are having a swollen list of officials throughout the country. In a short time, if it is not so already, the biggest employer in the State will be the State itself. The State exists for finding employment for persons in these various stages in agriculture and its ramifications. As to the efforts to give £1 value for £100 spent, the whole thing could be summarised in one sentence—that the Government finds itself in a fix and it makes a noise. The noise resulting from these increases is overshadowed by the claim that there is a larger number of persons in employment. Let us take the Vote we had last night—Law Charges. I need not go into a comparison there beyond stating that the figure this year is £64,439 as against £58,067 in 1932-33. That Estimate is up by over £6,000. In the face of these figures, is it any wonder that we have a motion such as this before the House? Is it any wonder that it is not desired to let the people know to what a height the administrative costs of this State are rising, or that there should be a reluctance on the part of the Government that the House should be allowed to proceed to examine closely and with attention these figures? The country should have that examination if it were to take 13 weeks. The House is entitled to an examination of every item of expenditure that comes before it.
The estimates for public services this year as published amount to £28,737,710, as compared with the figure of £21,906,962 in the year 1932-33. What are those social services to which so much reference has been made by the Ministers? The first big item is the unemployment insurance, £1,300,000; old age pensions, £600,000, and relief works, £500,000, and we arrive at a figure of £2,400,000. Deputies want to know in what way we can evade cutting down social services if we are to cut down our expenses. I will tell them. The whole of that £2,400,000 was provided for last year. Even the widows' and orphans' pensions were provided for last year. This year there is no additional item in respect of social services that we have been told of. The Minister may add that he has to provide for housing charges. Those housing charges will have to be provided for in the future. They are liabilities in respect of money that has been borrowed and planned with the liability falling upon future years. Future years will have to provide for the advantages derived this year, last year and the year before. The £2,400,000 was provided for last year and there is no necessity for any interference with it this year.
If we want to find economies they can be found in one of the last items in the Estimates. I refer to Export Bounties and Subsidies for which there is a sum of £2,705,000 set out in the Order Paper. The Government can find economies in respect of the increased cost of the Army, in respect of the increased costs of the Gárda, and in respect of the increased cost involved in the Ministry of Agriculture's amending Acts of a sum far in excess of the cost of these social services that I have mentioned. But besides that, these social services had already been provided for and they were provided for last year. They did not enter into our calculations in respect of the increased taxes imposed this year at all. It is no wonder that we should have a case made on behalf of the Government to force these Estimates through at short notice. Was it in keeping with that particular line of argument or that particular line of considering the case that we had the Minister speaking for one and a half hours last night on an Estimate of £6,000? Where is the waste? Surely, in the case of a large business such as Agriculture, that at any rate ought to have been disposed of before he came along here to closure that motion.
The Minister spoke about the Seanad holding up Bills. Is there any case made by anybody that the Seanad held up Finance Bills during the 12 years during which it was in operation, whether or not there was a majority there one way or another? When Deputies speak of our having a majority in the Seanad I want to say that we had no majority in the Seanad except what we were able to persuade in respect of the case we made. The Seanad is entitled so long as it is part of this Oireachtas to give consideration to this or any measure; but it has never held up a Finance Bill, so that excuse falls to the ground. Finance Bills have been brought to the Seanad with less than 21 days given them. The Minister who has moved this motion has made no case about the urgency; he gave no reason why those moneys should be passed in nine hours. Years ago, when a terrible catastrophe affected the State, and when by reason of that men's minds were turned in other directions, we recollect the denunciations that came from members on the benches opposite who were then outside this House when this course was proposed. But here we have these same Ministers and Deputies to-day when no excuse at all exists for forcing through this motion, except that they do not want to be kept here to answer questions, deal with the items and make a case for the increased estimates that the people are called upon to pay. That is the real reason for this motion before us, and it reflects neither respect for the House nor is it any credit to the Government as showing consideration for what is due to the country in respect of financial measures.
