I move that the Bill do now pass.
Finance Bill, 1939—Fifth Stage.
The Minister is not speaking on this?
Oh, no. He spoke once too often.
On the occasion of the introduction of the Budget, the Minister favoured the House with a very large collection of figures. Some of them were informative. Some of them were apparently introduced for the purpose of mystifying—if that term could be applied to such an intelligent assembly—the Dáil. The sum and substance of the whole thing was that the Minister sought by reason of his speech and of his figures to give the impression that the increased expenditure in this State for the last seven years was largely, if not entirely, due to the cost of social services. He drew a distinction on the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill, pointing out that the Finance Bill was really scheming to collect a much smaller sum than I had said. If it pleases the Minister's aesthetic financial taste, if he has such a thing, I will qualify my statement by saying that—scheming to get a certain amount of money under this Bill, and scheming to get it under other Acts or other procedure, and boiling it all into the same revenue account, which is all that matters—he is hoping to collect over £32,500,000, whereas the revenue collected in 1931-32, was almost £25,500,000, leaving the Minister over £7,000,000 more to spend than was available in 1931-32.
The Minister claims to have saved £2,000,000 which had to be spent by his predecessors under certain agreements ratified when the Minister may have been an unwilling member of this House, but nevertheless ratified by this House, and he is proposing to take from the Road Fund £150,000 this year, so that he has in all exactly £9,165,000 more to spend than the revenue which was collected in 1931-32. The question now arises as to how it is being spent, and what different services have been expanded. He claims to be spending on social services this year, according to his White Paper, the sum of £10,121,454—that is an estimate, and we must distinguish between estimate and expenditure—subject to certain deductions of one kind or another which the Minister made in his speech. If he reduced the figure of £35,000,000 by £1,000,000 for over-estimation, this particular figure fails to have a reduction of an equivalent proportion made in respect of it. He has taken £100,000 from the Relief Fund, and he has reduced the Public Works and Buildings Estimate by £100,000 also. Assuming for a moment, however, that the £10,000,000 were correct, and comparing it with the corresponding figure for 1931-32—I am speaking now from recollection, as I have not got the table here before me—there is something like £5,500,000 of a difference. As I have shown that the extra money which the Minister has to spend amounts to £9,000,000, the sum of £3,500,000 has to be accounted for in some other direction.
The Minister's case in the second part of his speech was that they are paying the same rates—that they inherited those rates—to civil servants and to Guards as were paid before the Government took up office. We have not questioned that. We do not dispute it. The Minister will recollect that, when he endeavoured to change those rates, we objected, and opposed him with some success as far as the Guards were concerned. We would do it again, because if a bargain is made with a member of the Gárda Síochána it should be kept, just the same as if it were made between one country and another. I think the Minister and the Government have at least learned that lesson, because their attempt to break those bargains was a costly affair for the State. If one could check the increase that has taken place in superannuation, there appears to have been a very steep rise between the year 1932 and the year 1935, or between 1933 and 1935, but my recollection is that there is not a figure that can be easily compared in the returns of 1932.
It is advisable, first of all, to examine this question of the additional cost of social services. That £10,000,000 which the Minister takes for the expenditure under social services, on table 7, I think it is, is subject to a deduction, as I have said, from the Unemployment Relief Fund of £100,000. He proposes to borrow a quarter of the £1,400,000 which has to be spent on unemployment relief. That means that, so far as taxation is concerned, it is not called upon to bear this £350,000. Taking those services which are not, properly speaking, social services—Local Government, Land Commission and the Gaeltacht Services—the cost of those three amounts to £2,210,462, to be deducted in addition to £650,000 for over-estimation, leaving the net cost of social services provided for this year at £7,260,992, as compared with £3,620,009 for 1931-2. That reduction for overestimation is made in the same proportion by which the Minister reduced his £35,000,000. The excess expenditure on social services now provided for and to be paid for as compared with 1931-2 is, therefore, £3,600,000. The money that the Minister is getting in taxation, together with the savings, amounts to over £9,000,000. There is, therefore, a sum of over £5,000,000 to be accounted for.
We are not disputing that the Minister is spending—we know that he is. I read out on the last day the various increases that had taken place under Votes that could not properly be alleged to be social services. Going further into the list of employees of the State—civil servants, Post Office officials, Guards, etc., we find that there has been a decrease in certain Departments of 129, but an increase in all the other Departments of 5,100, leaving a net increase in the personnel of 4,971. That is a very steep increase. Some of it, it is true, is due to the social services the Minister spoke of. For example, in connection with unemployment insurance and assistance, the number has gone up from 284 to 1,116, an increase in personnel of 832. The number employed in the Post Office has gone up by 836. I take it there is value in respect of any increase in the personnel there—that it is not a cost on the State. The Minister will find that in the course of his Second Reading speech he made reference to the personnel of the Guards. He said that he did not think the Gárda numbers had increased by more than 3 per cent. Speaking from recollection, and I think I am fairly correct, the figures for 1931-32 were 5,433 Guards, and for last year 6,000, which is a very much larger increase than 3 per cent. It is almost four times 3 per cent.; it certainly is 10 per cent. of an increase. These are the headings in respect of which one would have expected to see some economy made. For many years we listened to criticism in connection with the cost of the Guards and of the Army; but the bulk sum has increased in both cases.
There would be a certain satisfaction in connection with this Budget if it were balanced. In my view, it is not balanced. Last year's Budget was not balanced; neither was the previous year's Budget balanced. We should like to hear from the Minister, in the course of his observations in connection with the Final Stage of this Bill, what answer there is in respect of that. That is a matter that vitally affects the credit of the State. Even members of the Minister's own Party, however anxious they may be for the success of Government policy, if questioned by intending investors, in the event of a loan being floated, as to how we have balanced our accounts in the last three years, are bound in conscience to say that we have not balanced them. The Minister knows quite well what the result of such an admission would be and how damaging to the credit of the State, State. Apart altogether from the question of the credit of the State, if we never had to go into the public market to borrow money, it is the Minister's responsibility and our responsibility to see that the Budget is balanced each year. Once in a while, through accident or some untoward circumstances, the Budget in a particular year may be unbalanced, but to have three years in succession with an unbalanced Budget is not to the credit of the State, or to the credit of the Ministry, or to the credit of the Oireachtas. I regret, therefore, that it is our duty to vote against this Bill.
Perhaps the Minister might answer a point. Deputy Cosgrave has just compared the number of Guards in the year 1931-2 with the number estimated for this year. Does the number estimated for this year include the 220 mentioned by the Minister for Justice in dealing with his Estimate?
These are yet to be recruited.
Compared with the number on the strength last year, the Book of Estimates therefore will show an increase of about 220?
I would not like the Deputy to fall into the same sort of error as Deputy Cosgrave. The Deputy is aware that the figures which were given in the Book of Estimates for last year were given for the purpose of comparison only, to show the maximum expenditure which might take place on the Gárda rank and file. It does not necessarily follow that there are 6,000 Guards.
I compared Estimate with Estimate. I did not compare Estimate in one case with expenditure in another, or expenditure in one case with Estimate in another, but Estimate with Estimate.
I understand that altogether there are to be 220 added to the strength, so to speak, and possibly the number that might be recruited to fill certain vacancies would amount to another 60 or something like that, but the main increase stands. I do not intend to deal with the point that was adequately dealt with by Deputy Cosgrave both on the last occasion and on this occasion, namely, the alleged excuse for the immense increase in expenditure that has taken place—the pretence that the great bulk of that particular expenditure is due to social services. That pretence has been sufficiently exposed by the leader of the Opposition. I put it to the House, and I put it to the Minister, and I think the country ought to ask, is it getting any reasonable value for the huge increase in expenditure? For instance, is it getting any reasonable value for the additional number of people who have been taken on in administration? Deputy Cosgrave pointed out that there is a net increase of something like 4,900 in the personnel of the administration of this State. I think it is the duty of the Government at last to face this problem of the continued increase in the personnel of the administration of the State. Have they given to the State and to the people any additional advantages? What has the country to show in the way of increased productive wealth as a result of almost 5,000 additional people in the personnel of the administration of the State? What has the Government to show in any important direction in return for the increased expenditure in this State?
As was pointed out repeatedly from these benches, and always ignored I must say by the Government, these Budget charges are only portion—a major portion, undoubtedly, but still not a complete account — of the burdens placed on industry and on the people by the policy of the present Government. As we pointed out on several occasions there are burdens placed on individuals, on employers, on industry, and on the ordinary consumers that are not any longer mentioned in the Budget. Therefore, we are all the more entitled again to ask: Has the country anything to set off in the way of advantages at all comparable to the burdens that the policy of the present Government has put on it?
Does anybody pretend that Government employment of 5,000 people, extra to the numbers employed when they came into office, is a contribution that has increased the productive capacity of the country as a whole? I do not want now to indicate how the principal industry has suffered under their policy—we have repeatedly dealt with that—but taking all types of production, the older industries and the new industries and agriculture, is there a sufficient return either for the expenditure or for the increased personnel for which the Government has been responsible? That question needs only to be asked to be answered. At the present day very few people have any doubt as to what the answer should be, but I was hoping that the Government was waking up to the importance, if not of solving questions of this kind, at least of facing them, and seeing that they were there.
I spoke of increased burdens. Very few days pass that some additional burden is not put on the people. We spent some hours yesterday discussing another measure—the in many ways very absurd and costly Anti-Air Raid Bill—to put increased burdens on them, and again only portion of it will be shown in the Estimate. A certain proportion must be borne by the local authorities and, in that way, the Government shovels a certain amount of its responsibility from the taxpayers to the ratepayers who, in many cases, are the same people. But apart from that, the measure that we were discussing yesterday—and it is typical of Government policy—was putting new burdens on industry. Not merely is the expense of the new measure for protection against air attack to be partly borne by the Government, and partly borne by the local authority, but portion is to be borne by industry. Is that a method of helping industry? I think it is quite typical of Government policy that, at the moment when owing to the condition, for instance, of the railways they have to appoint a commission to attempt a solution of the very difficult problem of transport, another Minister comes to this House and proposes to put additional burdens on the railways for anti-air raid precautions. That is what, among other things, we were doing yesterday.
It is the same all through. Additional burdens are being put on, and the House must ask itself if we are eating, as we are, into our reserves, where ultimately is the money to come from for social services? We may, as one Deputy on the Government Benches put it on one occasion not very long ago, be able for awhile to live on the accumulated capital of the past. But is that good policy? Is there any indication that the increased expenditure by the Government, and the increased personnel of Government employees, have led to an increase in the productive capacity of the country? There was a time when it seemed rather clear—it was rather bruited abroad by some of their more indiscreet followers—when it looked as if the Government had deliberately set out to interfere as much as possible with private employers and to substitute for them either State employment or State controlled employment, i.e., directly or indirectly controlled. I had hoped that that particular phase had passed away, but when we look at the present Finance Bill and the present proposals for taxation we must ask ourselves whether ultimately the aim is not, or if not the aim, the result will not be a gradual substitution of the public employer, namely the State, for the private employer. Is that the policy of the Government, deliberate seven years ago, now again adopted in order to get over their immediate difficulties in the vain attempt to what they call balance the Budget? Is it their settled policy or, to use favourite words of the Minister, their "considered" policy, to interfere with and to put as many difficulties as possible in the way of employment by private employers? Looking at the general financial policy of the Government for a number of years and especially at the proposal before us this year it is very hard to avoid the conclusion that such is the aim of the Government, or at least that such will be the result of their policy.
There was a time when the man who is mainly responsible for Government policy put before the people as the idea that we might have to aim at what he described as the hair-shirt policy. We do not hear that spoken of any longer. But would not that be the result of Government policy, or to change the metaphor, is not that the goal to which the Government policy is leading? Is there not bound to be, as a result of the ridiculous policy of the Government in the way of expenditure and the corresponding increase in taxation, whether concealed or confessed, a considerable lowering of the standard of life of the population as a whole? Is not that inevitable? It may be cloaked for a short time by the mere fact of the expenditure, but if we are eating into our reserves instead of increasing our productive wealth, then the result is inevitable and combined with other portions of Government policy it is extremely difficult to avoid the conclusion that the result will be to reduce this country to the level of some of the poorest peasant countries in Europe. At least we have the advantage that up to the present we have escaped that particular fate. There is no more talk now about that celebrated hair-shirt policy, and I gather from the tone of the Minister's speech in introducing the Budget a certain amount of hope that that policy had been abandoned. But when we turn from the tone of the speech to the actual proposals it is very hard to find justification for that particular hope.
Deputy Cosgrave referred to the increase in the number of Guards. What is the necessity for that? It is the boast of the Government—we need not ask now whether it is an unfounded boast—that the country was never so peaceful. I wonder, therefore, what is the justification for this particular increase in the number of the Guards. Why is it, with what the Government claim to be an increase in the peaceful attitude of the people of this country, that it has been found impossible to make savings in one of the services that had always been singled out by the present Government, when they were on these benches, as a service on which savings could be made? The other great service was the Army, and this year there has been what we consider, and what the country considers, quite an unjustifiable increase in the expenditure on that service—pure waste. Even yesterday we were discussing some of that increase and the laying of a certain portion of that burden on the shoulders of the local authorities. They were brought into the Bill merely to secure that they would bear a share of the burden. We had what might have been a simple measure made complicated, and to a large extent inoperative, so far as useful results are concerned, in order to bring in the local authorities. The only justification the Minister for Defence really had for bringing in the local authorities into that Bill was that they could be saddled with responsibility for a considerable amount of the expenditure.
It is just like that right through. The taxpayer has been thrown more or less as a shuttlecock between the local authority and the central authority, and the aim of the Minister for Finance is to unload as much as possible on to the shoulders of the local authority. Whether the burden is to be borne by the local authority or the central authority, the taxpayer has to meet it, just as he has to meet the various concealed taxes that are put on essential commodities. The mere fact that they do not appear in the Budget is not proof that the ordinary housewife has not to pay them when she goes out to purchase sugar and other such commodities. The burden is there, and the whole story is the heaping of burden after burden on the people, not staying to think whither that is going to lead.
I appeal to the Minister to address his mind to that problem. It was put up to him very strongly from his own side of the House. It is not a matter that ought to be a Party question; it is a thing that affects the future welfare of the country, and the Minister for Finance must be alive to the importance of facing that particular question.
Year after year, since this Government came into office, we have had increasing expenditure. Has there been, through these years, a corresponding increase in the capacity of the people to bear that expenditure? Is it not a fact that it is becoming more and more difficult to hit on expedients to find that money? As Deputy Childers pointed out here, and as we have always argued from this side of the House, the income-tax undoubtedly first hits the person with the large income, but it is bound to go down and to affect employment. There, I think, Deputy Childers was on perfectly sound ground. He made an appeal to the Minister for Finance to mend his ways, and I hope an appeal coming from that side of the House will be listened to, because it is an appeal that ought to be listened to.
We have certain industries here, and I suggest that the Government should put themselves the question seriously: is the best way to help those industries by means of continual subsidy and continual interference, or by a reduction in the cost of the raw material? Would they be helped better by a removal of hindrances? Undoubtedly, a certain amount of subsidising and protection by means of tariffs is necessary, but is it not time the Government asked themselves whether they are not going altogether too far in that direction, and whether you can run a country for any reasonable length of time with a policy of having to subsidise and protect everything? Even the main industry is being subsidised. If you have to subsidise every industry, the question must arise where ultimately are the subsidies and the other forms of help to come from? It is time the Government faced that particular matter.
Can we, as a House, justify the passing of a measure of this kind without being able to show that the country is getting value for it? Is it getting value for the immense additional sums in the way of open and concealed taxes that are being heaped on by this Government? Is there a sufficient return in that respect shown even by Government figures? Has there ever been serious consideration, not of the number of people put into new industries, but of the number of people working as a whole, taking into account the number who have had to leave this country as a result of not being able to find work in it? Is it any tribute to the success of Government policy in dealing with unemployment that there is a sum of £1,500,000 put down in the Estimate for relief works for the present year? Have we not reached the position in which, apparently, this is a perpetual charge? That was, more or less, the position which was acknowledged by the Minister a couple of years ago. That being so, what justification is there for borrowing any portion of that sum? Apparently it is a thing that is not going to be diminished; on the contrary, it will be increased.
This year, in order to balance the Budget, and not because there was any increased employment, a certain sum was taken off the amount that was to be devoted to relief works. Apparently, the necessity for spending that money in the way of giving employment is still there. Has the unemployment problem been dealt with? There is not even a pretence of dealing with it. Whether you look at the productive capacity of the country, or the problem of unemployment with which the Government were going to deal, you still have a tremendous lot of lee-way to be made up. You have had a distinct deterioration in the productive capacity of the country, you have made no sufficient inroad into the problem of unemployment, and yet you are spending this immense amount of money extra and you have 5,000 people extra to help you to spend it. For these reasons, apart from those we have already dealt with in previous discussions on the Budget, we feel that the Finance Bill ought not to be passed by this House.
There is one phase of this matter that, perhaps, is not sufficiently borne in mind, and that is to what extent the imposition of taxes and the increased expenditure generally have affected the lives of the citizens of this State generally. In a big industrial centre, such as the City of Dublin, which, perhaps, has not felt the effects of the economic crisis as much as other parts of the country, it may not be as apparent as in other places. One has to get into close touch with the main industry of this country, which is agriculture, in order to realise fully the effect of the Government policy and Government expenditure in this State. One remarkable statement in the report of the Banking Commission struck me—as I have no doubt it struck other Deputies here—and that was that one of the reasons, or perhaps the principal reason, why we were able so successfully to get over the effects of the economic war, was because the number of farmers who conducted their business in this country without paid labour was altogether beyond the proportion of such farmers in other countries. Speaking from memory, I think that we have something like 350,000 farmers in this country working their farms without paid labour, and that we have the comparatively small number of 50,000 farmers employing labour. Now, the effect of taxes and increased expenditure, generally, has been that the 50,000 farmers who were employing labour have had, unfortunately, to restrict their own expenditure, with a consequent effect on employment, and, of the huge number of smaller farmers in this country, who work their farms without paid labour, it must be said that it was they who felt the real pinch of the economic crisis; it was they who had to tighten their belts, and it was they who had to bear the brunt of the situation and who, in reality, were the sufferers, the silent sufferers, as a result of the policy of the Government and of the tremendous increase in expenditure that we have had in recent years.
Now, in this connection, one has to refer to the number of people who emigrated from this State within the last seven or eight years. Why did they emigrate, and from what class did they come? They emigrated in order to try to better their conditions, and they came mainly from the class of small farmers to which I have referred. They were the unpaid workers in this State, who were content to remain unpaid, or practically unpaid, so long as their people could conduct their little farms with some degree of comfort and so long as they could get a square meal, and, perhaps, a packet of cigarettes at the end of the week. When these silent sufferers, as I have called them, began to feel the pinch so intensely that they could not provide even the meagre comforts that their children were in the habit of getting, it was only natural to expect that these children would say to themselves that it was time to look somewhere else, and they did look somewhere else and came up either to Dublin or some other industrial centre in this country, vainly looking for employment, or else went to some other country where they could get it. That is one of the main consequences of what I might call the lamentable extravagance of Government finance during the last seven or eight years.
Reference has been made here to the increase so far as administration is concerned. There has been a huge increase in the numbers concerned with administration in this country, and I think that most of us—and particularly those engaged in the industry of agriculture—feel that, perhaps, we have a little too much administration. There have been additions to the numbers of officials, here, there and everywhere, and we all feel that business has been hampered, almost, by the number of officials. Take the case of the ordinary working farmer who is struggling to exist under the most adverse circumstances. He is hounded by weed inspectors and warble fly inspectors.
Does the Deputy want weeds and warble flies?
No, but I say that the man who looks after the warble flies might look after the weeds also, and that there might be a considerable saving even in that one direction. There is not a great distance between the warble fly and the weed, and I think it might be possible for one man to look after the two things.
Did the Deputy make that suggestion on the Vote for the Department of Agriculture?
Well, I think it might be more appropriate to raise the matter before the Minister who actually provides the money.
Oh, no.
Of course, if the Minister refuses to provide the money, we will all have to fall into line.
The Deputy is at his old game now.
My main object was to make the point, which, possibly, may not be apparent, although it ought to be, that the policy of increased taxes and increased expenditure is falling in this country on the people who are least able to bear these increases—the people who, mind you, are perhaps the least able to show any apparent effects of the consequences of this policy, because it is really the small farmer who is least able to express himself. He has, perhaps, many advocates to try to express his condition, here and there amongst the Parties in this House—in fact, I should say, amongst all Parties in the House, because I do not think that any particular Party in the House regards this matter of the condition of the farmers as its own particular province. I think that every Deputy in the House knows as well as I do that it is amongst that class, if one were to get down to their homes, that one would find the real and actual effects of the policy of the Government in the last five or six years. In view of these considerations, I think it is time for us to take full stock of the position.
The Minister told us, after he had been in office for a couple of years, that he had reached a position of normalcy in budgetary matters, but then we found that normalcy meant that the amount of taxation taken out of the pockets of the people of this country openly was going to be kept as big as it was at that particular time, after the addition of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 to taxation, but that while open taxation was going to be kept like that, the result of the policy of the Government was going to be hidden away in other directions, and that another £5,000,000 or so was going to be taken out of the pockets of the people in additional taxation unaccounted for, you might say, in the books of the community, but taken out of their pockets over the counters in the country as a result of the increased price of bacon, the increased price of flour, and the increased price of butter, and so on. So that, not only were the people, in what the Minister was pleased to call times of normalcy, going to pay open taxation, as high as they had to pay in the early days of the economic war, but the addition to the open taxation of that time was going to be doubled in a hidden kind of way.
Deputy Bennett asks the Minister if he has at all considered what the effect on the people of the country has been as a result of that increased burden of taxation. We want to know from the Minister here, when he is so satisfiedly placing this blister—this increased financial blister—on the country, does he realise that the population of this country fell by 30,000 in the last two years? Does he ask himself why? Does he realise, as Deputy Dillon pointed out to him the other day, that the external assets of the people of the country fell by £10,000,000 in the last two years? Does he understand that the savings of the ordinary people, as expressed in the amount of money put into Savings Certificates and the Post Office Savings Bank, have substantially fallen during the last two years? In the year 1936, £975,000 was the additional amount put into the Post Office Savings Bank and Savings Certificates by the ordinary people who accumulate their savings in that way. Last year that sum had fallen to £547,000. That is, the savings of the people had fallen by £400,000 on a previous figure of £975,000. Before the country became afflicted by the type of taxation and the type of policies that have been pursued since 1931, the annual savings of the people, as reflected in Post Office deposits and in Savings Certificates, were £1,340,000. That, I say, has now decreased to £574,000.
What we are particularly concerned with is the latter day trend of such things as show the effect on the people of the country of these policies and as show the circumstances of the people who are supposed to pay this great additional burden of taxation. I have told the Minister already that he is not going to get it, and that particularly, he is not going to realise his expectations in the matter of income-tax. The Minister cannot get it and he knows he cannot get it in a situation which shows that the population of the country fell by 30,000 in the last year. We had a brochure published the other day showing the trend of unemployment in 1938 as compared with 1937. On page 22 of that document we read in paragraph 2 that
"as regards unemployment the number of persons on the live register was on the average greater in 1938 than in 1937. The increase was due mainly to decreased employment on employment schemes and in certain protected industries."
Let us take a look at the last two years. If we take the early months of this year and compare them with the corresponding months of two years previously, what is the trend? Deputy Bennett thinks that Dublin may not be so badly hit. I dealt with Dublin a short time ago. Dublin has been very seriously hit. I think the figures I gave were that the addition to the number of persons in receipt of unemployment assistance in the last few years has been on the average about 5,000 per month. Let us take the country as a whole for two years. The number of persons dependent on unemployment assistance in May, 1939, had gone up by 11,031, an increase of about 18 per cent. as compared with the number in the same month a few years ago. For the month of April the increase was 15,000, or 25 per cent., as compared with a few years ago and for March the number was 13,272 or 22.5 per cent. as compared with two years ago. For February the number was 13,540 or an addition of 23.5 per cent. as compared with two years ago. That is, taking the last four months, not only has the number of persons who are dependent on unemployment assistance for a living gone up, but the number of persons in receipt of home assistance showed an increase for every single month for the first four months of this year. There were about 2,000 more receiving home assistance than during the corresponding months two years before.
The Minister has all these symptoms in front of him, symptoms showing that you had a lesser quantity of potatoes and a lesser quantity of cabbage grown in the country, that you had less bacon consumed in the country as compared with a few years before and that there was a substantial decrease in the consumption of bread. It is in these circumstances that the Minister places a Bill before this country upon which Deputy Cosgrave commented so pointedly to-day. How long does the Minister think it is going to last? When are the Minister and his colleagues going to realise that the more he piles on taxation of this kind on the people—and he does it not only openly in the Budget here but hiddenly in the way in which I describe, on flour, bacon and everything else like that—the nearer to breaking-point the strain on the people approaches? From every place to which the grabbing hand of the tax collector can be turned by the Minister for Finance, something is being extracted. Local authorities are being forced into the grabbing business. Since the Government came into office the total amount of money collected in rates throughout the country as a whole has gone up by £1,172,000 or 25 per cent. That is only up to 1938. If we are to judge by the bill presented by the county councils to the ratepayers last year, then the increase is very substantial because, while for the year 1937-8 the county councils presented their ratepayers with a bill that was 26 per cent. greater than before the Minister's policies began to operate, for the year 1938-9 there was another £250,000 added to the bill.
From every direction, as I say, to which the clutching hand of the tax-gatherer can go, money is being taken from the people as a result of the policies pursued by the Government. That is happening while the external resources of the people have gone down, while their savings have gone down and while the number of people themselves have gone down. Judging by the conditions disclosed in the last two years their position is getting gradually worse and the burden that is put upon them this year is one that cannot be borne. I wonder has the Minister any conception of what is going to be the result of that? The Minister must know that, when we read here that the increase in unemployment was due mainly to decreased employment on employment schemes and in certain protected industries, there were fewer industrial concerns working in 1938 than in 1937. He must know that there was considerably less employment in 1938 than in 1937. If the figures that are available for registered unemployed at the present time are any index as to the position of agriculture this year, there is no more employment in agriculture this year than last year. There probably is less. But, on the employment side, the report says:
"As regards employment, the volume of employment as indicated by the net contribution incomes of both National Health Insurance and Unemployment Insurance Funds was somewhat greater in 1938 than in 1937..."
—somewhat greater. Again, it is the present-day tendency that is important. "Employment is somewhat greater." I doubt very much if it was but, at any rate, I have pointed out before and I want it to be more and more understood, that so far from increasing the annual increment in the total volume of employment in this country during their period of office, as compared with the annual increment in the increase in the volume of employment before they came into office, the Fianna Fáil policy has reduced it. Between 1926 and 1931 the annual increase in the volume of employment, as measured by the standard they take themselves, was measurable at 11,400 full-time employed persons, when there were no elaborate relief schemes going on, and when there was no tremendously big expenditure of money on building that, as an average, over the last few years, has increased the number of persons employed in building by 8,000 or even 10,000 persons a year. For the last few years there was a considerable amount of employment on relief schemes.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present——
Between the years 1926 and 1931 the average annual increment in the volume of employment in the country could be expressed as full-time employment over the whole year for 11,400 persons. That average annual increment was absolutely reduced when the Fianna Fáil policies began to operate, in spite of all that has been said and argued and driven home about the wonderful work-producing policies that they had adopted. The average annual increment in the volume of employment given between 1931 and 1938, expressed in terms of full-time employment for a certain number of persons over the whole year was 10,571, less than the average annual increment before they came into office, in spite of the fact that every year for the last few years an additional 8,000 or more persons were employed in house building than were in the years 1929, 1930 and 1931; in spite of the fact that an average of 20,000 persons a month, over the last two years, at any rate, were employed on relief schemes and employed on relief schemes in such a way that they reflected themselves in the National Health Insurance payments by a greater volume than they normally would, because of the rotation schemes and because of the fact that National Health Insurance cards were stamped for a very big percentage of them for a part of a week and did not reflect a whole week's work. However, that is the position. But, under this statement here that as regards employment the volume of employment as indicated by the net contribution incomes of both the National Health Insurance and Unemployment Insurance Funds was somewhat greater in 1938 than in 1937, is hidden the fact that the average annual increment in the volume of employment has practically completely stopped in the year 1938 as against 1937 when tested by the volume of the amount of money paid into the National Health Insurance Fund, and that instead of 10,000 additional persons getting full-time employment as an increase over the year before, the increase that you do find in the figures is an increase of 1,000. That increase is entirely negligible and shows that, having reduced the natural tendency to increase employment every year, one after another, they have now come to a full stop and that, just as they came into office with the rising population and now they have a falling one, the population having fallen by 30,000 in the last few years, they came into office on an increasing average in the volume of employment and now they have brought it to a full stop, having reduced it over a few years. It is with that full stop that we get not only the bill for taxation we have got for the last few years but we get an additional bill.
The question was asked here: "Is the Government going to be the employer of the future?" The Government cannot be the Government of the future because no Government can do for a people the ordinary work of the people any more than a Government can keep our consciences for us, or can rear our families for us. They cannot do the work of the nation. The only thing they can do is to endeavour to create circumstances in which ordinary employers and ordinary workmen, working together, can by co-operating do the work of the nation. The figures that have been disclosed for 1937 show that the increase in the volume of employment indicated by the Census of Production figures for that year was increase in employment given either through Government Departments or on relief works in one way or another. Out of an increased number of 7,324 persons, I think it is, who were employed, according to the Census of Production, only nine of these were persons additionally employed outside Government employment. If that was the position in 1937 over 1936 the Minister has probably a shrewd idea that the position was worse in 1938. It certainly was worse in the City of Dublin and if any increase can be shown any place in 1938 over 1937 it certainly is not either in agriculture or in industry or in any other way except employment in some Government Department or other.
These are indications of the general condition at that time of the people who are now being presented with this bill. This bill cannot be paid by people in the condition shown by these symptoms. The other day a member of the Deputy's Party gave them 12 months or 24 months to wake up. It will not be time enough to wake up in 24 months: it will not be time enough to wake up in 12. There is an Agricultural Commission finding out for the Government what they ought to be doing in regard to agriculture; there is a Transport Commission finding out for the Government what they ought to be doing in the line of transport; there is a Housing Commission finding out for the Government what they ought to be doing in housing; and there is a Drainage Commission finding out for the Government what they ought to be doing to provide employment of one kind or another. If the Government is waiting until they hear from these commissions as to what they ought to be thinking about, then it will be too late to tackle the situation, and I do not know what may happen to the unfortunate people who have to live in the meantime. Such responsibilities as the Minister bears and requires money to carry out cannot be borne, because he cannot get money out of the people in these conditions.
Before Fianna Fáil came into office we were told that this country was overtaxed by £2,000,000, and that one of the first problems that they, as a Government, would be prepared to tackle was the reduction of taxation. How was that promise carried out? Actually, for this present year, when you take general taxation and local taxation into account, the taxation that has to be borne by the general taxpayers and the ratepayers has increased by £11,000,000. To my mind, that is an unbearable burden on the taxpayers and ratepayers of this country.
Much has been said about the unfortunate condition of agriculture. It has been pointed out by Deputies from all sides of the House that agriculture is in a very distressful condition and requires immediate and urgent attention by the Government. To my mind, we must admit that the economic war was mainly the cause of that condition, but side by side with that cause and coupled with that cause, is the high burden of taxation and overhead charges that our agricultural community has to bear. These are the causes and one would expect that since the London Agreement there might be indications of recovery. There have been indications of slight recovery, but there should be better indications of a better recovery; and one of the reasons, to my mind, why the recovery is not more pronounced is the fact that the burdens imposed on agriculture are beyond the capacity of the people to bear.
Agricultural output in 1931 was £62,000,000 and that fell to £47,000,000 in 1937—the last year for which we have figures available. During that period, as has been pointed out here in this House, production went up in most countries, especially in most of the countries that are competitors of ours in the British market. Denmark and Holland increased their output enormously, as also did New Zealand and Northern Ireland. Government Ministers have been making the excuse that world conditions are responsible for the present condition of agriculture in this country. Do they realise that, when there was that enormous fall here in agricultural production, from £62,000,000 to £47,000,000, at the same time in Northern Ireland the output was increased from £10,000,000 to £16,000,000, and the pig population of Northern Ireland increased enormously during the same period, while our output here in this country in pigs, poultry and live stock was reduced? Although we had a fallen output and a reduced income, we had an enormous increase in taxation. How have we been living during that period? Has the country been economically sound during that period and can it continue to live as we have been living for the past two years? Have we been living on our actual production during that period? I believe we have not. Any prosperity that we had was a form of artificial prosperity. There are indications at the present time that the sources of that prosperity are gradually drying up. Taking the Estimate that came before this House for different Departments, we voted £1,500,000 for the "dole" direct to the Department of Industry and Commerce, while for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Finance there was a further £1,500,000 for employment relief schemes and minor relief schemes. To that we can add approximately £500,000, being contributions from local authorities. That is £3,500,000. Taking the amount of capital that is put into housing, water and sewerage schemes, you might practically double that sum, making a sum of approximately £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 that we have been spending annually here for the last few years. While there may be much good done in the way of social benefit for our people through these schemes, I submit that that type of scheme is non-productive work and that it is a heavy drain on the resources of this country. To embark on that type of social work the country should be in an economically sound position and there should be increased production to offset the demand on our income for that sort of social non-productive work.
Examining the £1,500,000 direct "dole" and the £1,500,000 to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Finance, that sum of money— at least £3,500,000—that is being spent on work that is non-productive, is an enormous drain on the resources of the country. That sum alone is an indication of the enormous burden that has been placed on the people generally and on the agricultural community in particular. After all, it is on agriculture that we must rely to balance our imports.
This bill, as has already been pointed out by Deputy Mulcahy, is altogether beyond the capacity of our people to bear. I think it is bound to show a diminishing return. The whole thing is a reaction on our production and a reaction on our credit. One of the most pressing needs of the agricultural community at the present time is credit and we have—as has been pointed out during the discussion on the Land Bill during the last couple of weeks—the necessity of establishing some form of credit for agriculture. The only means of establishing that form of credit is by security of tenure on the land and to make that a collateral security for credit. Again, so far as we can judge, the Government intend to destroy that as a means of credit, although I admit that the Minister for Finance said he believed that the establishment of security of tenure was very important as a means of securing credit for the farmers.
What attempt is being made to help agriculture? Does the Minister believe that under present Government expenditure this country can continue? Must it not be admitted that if we want to improve the present position and to carry on at all, we must improve and increase profitable production and that the only way to improve production is to encourage private enterprise? Will this Bill have the effect of encouraging private enterprise? Will the increase in income-tax encourage private enterprise? Does the Minister not realise that it is going to have the very opposite effect and does the country not know it, too? The sooner the Minister and the Government waken up to a realisation of the real position and face up to their duties and responsibilities, with a determination to come to the assistance of agriculture, not by subsidising it, but by relieving those engaged in it of the heavy burdens of taxation placed on them at present, the better. Until that is done, there is no hope for the country, or for agriculture, and no hope of agriculture competing against Denmark, Holland and Northern Ireland in the only market which we now all agree is available to this country. It has been pointed out that Deputy Childers has given the Government one more year to face up to their responsibilities in this matter. I do not think there is much time to be wasted, and I think it is going to be a close shave in any case. I believe that something should be done, and done immediately. This Bill is not at all in the interests of the country, and, as far as this Party is concerned we must oppose it.
I think I ought to offer a word of congratulation to the Leader of the Opposition on the school of political gastronomy which he conducts in this House. Those of us who listened to the speeches delivered by himself, Deputy John Marcus O'Sullivan and Deputy Mulcahy must agree that so far as the cooking of figures is concerned, they are all master chefs.
Does the Minister suggest that any of the figures I gave him are not figures taken from official returns?
I am not going to say——
No, the Minister is not going to say any more than that.
I just want to repeat what I have said——
But the Minister will not go beyond that.
——that so far as the cooking of figures is concerned, they are all master chefs. I would, however, give you a word of advice, that when you serve a dish once, do not serve it too soon again, and do not keep on serving it, as Deputy Cosgrave has done with regard to that letter he wrote to the Independent during the South City by-election, because, after all, even the best dishes, no matter how cunningly dressed, when served too often, are no longer appetising or even attractive.
They are not as costly as the Minister's dishes.
We are treated to-day to an examination of the tables which I circulated for the convenience of Deputies and for the better elucidation of the Budget when I made the financial statement. In regard to that, we were told that a comparison was made between the revenue collected—that was the word used—in the year 1931-32 as compared with the revenue which we hope to collect in the current year, 1939-40. Deputy Cosgrave knows as well as I do that the phrase "revenue collected" is commonly and properly applicable only to the proceeds of taxation, and, bearing this in mind, and turning back to the year 1931-32, we find that the actual revenue collected during that year was not £25,496,000, as Deputy Cosgrave suggested, but £21,286,000.
Revenue collected?
The revenue collected.
Will the Minister look up Iris Oifigiúil and see what the figure is?
That was the actual amount collected by the Revenue Commissioners and the other tax-collecting agencies in 1931-32. For this year, we estimate to collect £26,485,000. It is true that there is a figure of non-tax revenue, revenue derived from investments, interest upon Government funds invested in various undertakings and concerns, and I am glad to say that, due to good management of these Government investments, there will be a considerable increase in the non-tax revenue for the current year compared with 1931-32.
Including Land Commission annuities?
The point I am coming to is that Deputy Cosgrave has challenged Table 8 on the ground that the figures given there for the social services proper exaggerate the actual expenditure which we propose to incur upon these services. And upon what grounds? On the grounds that we include within the category of social services proper the expenditure which it is proposed to make upon the Land Commission services and upon the Gaeltacht services. I think the Deputy does not do himself justice, or, at least, I would say that he does not do the intelligence of those who have to criticise his statement justice, because, after all, what is the purpose of the Land Commission? The main object of the Land Commission is the same as that purpose which was sought to be served when the State established the old age pensions scheme, the widows' and orphans' pension scheme or any one of these public services, the primary purpose of which is to relieve poverty and unemployment.
Including the halved annuities.
The primary purpose of which is to relieve poverty and unemployment and to improve the condition of the mass of the people. Everybody knows that the original purpose and the present purpose of the Land Commission is to remedy the grave social problems of poverty, unemployment and congestion arising from the maldistribution of land in private ownership and the natural poverty of certain large and densely populated districts. That was the original purpose for which the Land Commission was established and that is its primary purpose and the principal objective to-day. Therefore, because it exists to relieve, as I have said, the grave social problems which arise from unemployment, maldistribution of land and over-population of certain poor lands, it is primarily a social service. The Gaeltacht Services, Deputy Cosgrave says, should not be included. The Deputy also takes exception to the fact that we include within this category of social services the expenditure which we propose to make upon Gaeltacht Services. Is Deputy Cosgrave serious in that? For what end are we trying to develop the rural industries in the Gaeltacht areas, if it is not with a view to relieving the endemic poverty in those areas which, as the Deputy knows well, were formerly classified as congested districts? The Gaeltacht Services, through which it is proposed to deal with this problem of endemic poverty in these congested districts, are as much social services as unemployment assistance or the provision of milk for the children of necessitous families. It is quite clear that the moment we examine Deputy Cosgrave's objection to include the Land Commission in the Gaeltacht Services, we find that that objection is not well founded. The figures which I gave and which show that, as far as social services are concerned, the expenditure which is proposed in this current year, 1939-40, £5,570,000, did not appear in the year 1931-32.
Expenditure or estimate?
I am remembering what the Deputy said when Deputy O'Sullivan addressed a question to me regarding the provision made for the Gárdaí. I am comparing estimate with estimate in certain expenditures.
But not in this.
The figure which I am giving for expenditure in the current financial year is naturally the estimate. In the figure which I am proposing to give of revenue in 1931-32, I am dealing with the actually realised position, with the expenditure which took place on the services within this category, and with the revenue actually collected that year. How did tax revenue for the year 1931-32 compare with our estimate of the taxes levied for the current year? It was £5,199,000 below our estimate for the tax revenue for the current year. The expenditure upon social services in 1931-32 was £5,570,000 below our estimate of expenditure for the present year.
Will the Minister deduct his own figures?
I will deal with that, but all in good time. Therefore, though I have never said it, it could be shown that a large part of the increase in taxation is practically traceable to the fact that we have expanded social services. These are not the only services that have been expanded. The Deputy said that we appropriated for the ordinary purpose of public services certain sums of money which were formerly paid over to Great Britain. A sum of £2,999,000 was the actual figure which was collected formerly as land annuities and paid over to Great Britain. We will make it the round figure of £3,000,000.
The actual figure is £2,960,000.
Very well, but for the purpose of more easy mental calculation we will make it £3,000,000, and we will proceed to see how that figure was dealt with. We first of all halved the land annuities.
Which is a social service and charged as a social service.
Now, one second. We have not charged the halving of the pre-1923 land annuities as part of the social services. I was saying that, first of all, we halved the land annuities. Dealing in round figures, that means that the farmers who are paying pre-1923 land annuities and from whom these £3,000,000 were collected for the purpose of transmitting them to Great Britain, are now allowed, at least, to retain £1,500,000. They are £1,500,000 better off.
What about the rates?
For every £ which they would pay prior to January, 1932 to the Land Commission, we allowed them to keep 10/- back and we took only 10/- from them. For what purposes did we apply it? It is not sent across the water. It is kept here, and Deputies will find that it is expended upon all these services which come within the category of developmental services. In the year 1931-1932 there was spent on those services, including afforestation, agriculture, fisheries, industry and commerce and so on, £645,000. This year we propose to spend upon those other services, including export bounties and other services for the benefit of farmers an increase roughly of £1,532,000. There you have accounted for £1,500,000 of the pre-1923 land annuities which were collected. I know that the Deputy will challenge me in regard to certain other matters and that in regard to unemployment assistance we are going to borrow a large proportion——
Unemployment relief?
We are going to borrow a large sum. But I would ask the Deputy to bear in mind also that in that service which may be regarded as similar to those which were classified as social services proper and which are mainly expenditure upon education, that there is an increase from £620,000 in 1931-32 to £3,940,000. Not merely are we spending £1,500,000 upon developmental services; not merely are we spending £5,000,000 more upon social services proper, but we are also spending a sum of £620,000 more upon educational services. If the Deputy cares to tot all these up I think he will see that they represent a substantial increase of over £7,100,000 spent in this year for the benefit of the people and accounting as I have said for that part of the pre-1923 land annuities and also for the fact that we have as against these increases in expenditure a corresponding economy due to the fact that we no longer pay over to Great Britain a sum of £1,152,000 in respect of R.I.C. pensions. That is the position. No matter how the Deputy looks at it, he will see that every penny piece of this increased expenditure has been accounted for and he will have to agree —because his votes and the votes of his Party in the House so testify— that that expenditure is justified and is for sound public purposes. We have heard statements by Deputies like Deputy Bennett that there are too many officials. I was not in the House but I took occasion to read the reports of the debates on the Estimates and I did not find that Deputy Bennett, on the appropriate occasion, when a suggestion might have been fruitful and beneficial to the farmer, urged that the weed inspectors might do the work of the warble-fly inspectors. My recollection is that when these warble-fly inspectors were being first appointed no member of the Fine Gael Party, any more than a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, made a suggestion that, instead of the county councils appointing warble-fly inspectors, they should ask the weed inspectors to do the work.
Mr. Brennan
The county councils were opposed to them.
Everybody knows that the greater number of inspectors administering the Weed Acts were appointed by our predecessors. They were so zealous for economy that they would not have appointed more than were sufficient to do the work. If they only appointed just the number which was sufficient and reasonably necessary to do that work, these weed inspectors would not be able to do the work of the warble-fly inspectors in addition to their own.
You do not know what you are talking about.
When a Deputy like Deputy Bennett, who is supposed to know what he is talking about—
You do not know what you are talking about.
I am more polite to Deputy Bennett than Deputy Gorey is to me. I am taking Deputy Bennett at his face value and, when he gets up and says that there are too many weed and warble-fly inspectors, all I can assume is that it would be beneficial to Irish agriculture to let the weed flourish and to let the warble-fly breed.
Is it in order to discuss, on this Bill, work which is paid for by the county councils? The only item in connection with the warble-fly in this Bill is £200 for compensation.
The Deputy ought to take his medicine. I know that I ought to confine myself to what is actually in the Bill.
The Minister has not gone into the question of the deductions from his Estimate.
Deputy Cosgrave started off by serving up a reheated cold joint. He discussed his letter to the Irish Independent and that is not in the Bill. When he sets that bad example, let me, at least, flatter him by imitating him.
What about the 5,000 extra officials? Will the Minister deal with them?
I may. I was going to deal with the point which the Deputy himself made. The Deputy drew my attention to the fact that, in the Estimate for the current year, there is provision for the recruitment of 6,000 Guards.
For 6,000 Guards—not the recruitment of them.
If the Deputy is a precisian in these matters, let me say that he drew my attention to the fact that there was provision to maintain an establishment of 6,000 Guards. The Deputy reminded me that in the year 1931-2 the provision was for 5,443 Guards.
While the Minister is getting the figures, I will give him a little information about the inspectors. That work is administered by the Department of Agriculture and the inspection is done by Albert College students on vacation.
If the Deputy would write that for me, I should remember it. I just want to deal with the Guards——
Mr. Brennan
Keep off the weed inspectors.
We have some weeds.
The Deputy ought to be a sportsman. When he is worsted, he ought to take his beating and not become abusive. We do know now that the agricultural policy of the Opposition Party is to cultivate the weed and breed the warble fly.
You did not reduce taxation by £2,000,000 a year. You increased it by £9,000,000, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
I have been asked as to the position regarding the Gárda Síochána. The position is rather extraordinary. Undoubtedly, the amount of the Vote has gone up. I said, when I previously addressed myself to this question, that it had gone up not because there had been any great expansion in the strength of the Guards, but because we had inherited from our predecessors a contract which we had to honour, a contract which the Oireachtas compelled us to honour even in the days of the deepest depression —the year 1931-32. We could not interfere with this contract of service which we had inherited from our predecessors. What do we find? We find that in the year 1937-38 the expenditure on salaries, wages and allowances of the Gárda Síochána amounted to £1,554,000 and in the year 1931-32—I am taking the audited figures for both years—to £1,444,000, an increase of £110,000. I made a calculation and I find that, owing to the effect of these incremental scales, the tendency is for this figure to increase at the rate of 1 per cent. per annum. That will continue until a stable position is reached. In the six years, therefore, between 1931-32 and 1937-38, the cost of the Gárda, due to the effect of the incremental scales established by our predecessors, would have increased at the rate of 6 per cent. If we add 6 per cent. to £1,444,000— that is to say, if we add £87,000—we get, as representing the natural cost of an unexpanded Gárda Síochána in 1937-38, on the basis of 1931-32, a figure of £1,531,000.
Now mark what I have said: that if we had not brought a single man into the Gárdá Síochána between the years 1932-1938 the cost of the Gárda would have risen from £1,444,000 in 1931-32 to £1,531,000 in 1937-38. That is to say it would have increased by £87,000.
If no junior men were admitted.
It has increased by more than that—by £110,000. The difference in the figures between 1931-32 and 1937-38 for the salaries, wages and pay of the Gárda Síochána was £110,000 more in the latter year than it was in the former, and of that £110,000, £87,000 was due to the effect of the incremental scales. That leaves us with £23,000 to be accounted for. Now, if Deputy Cosgrave's statement was founded on fact that the increase in the strength of the Gárda in the year 1937-38, or the current year because the same figures are given in the Estimates for the two years—last year and this year,—then the increased provision would have been such as would be required to cover an expansion in the personnel of the force of at least 500 officers and men, and that would have meant, on the lowest computation, that instead of there being only £23,000 to cover this increase in the personnel of the Gárda, we should have required at least £100,000. I am bringing that out because I have got here before me the actual figures for the strength of the Gárda, officers and men at the 31st March 1932. The total strength was 7,008 officers and men. On the 31st May of this year the total strength was 7,105 persons, so that so far from the strength of the Gárda having increased by 500 officers and men, as Deputy Cosgrave has suggested, it has, in fact, increased by only 97 officers and men.
I take it that the Minister does not question the accuracy of the figures I quoted or the sources from which I quoted, because I have the figures here in this publication before me. That is the only information that we have got in this House. It says: the strength of the Gárda— 6,000 men this year and last year, and nothing further.
The Deputy is no novice in this House, but, unfortunately for himself, sometimes he thinks he is dealing with novices, and when the Deputy's colleague, Deputy O'Sullivan——
That information is on page 117 of the Book of Estimates.
——made the very point which the Deputy is now making, I warned him and told him that there was always an ample margin in these Estimates to cover any contingency or any inflation in the strength of the Gárda that might be necessary due to untoward circumstances.
Like Ministerial promises.
Whatever they are like, the facts are as I have given them: that so far from Deputy Cosgrave's assertion that the strength of the Gárda has increased by 500 officers and men from the year 1931-32 to the year 1939-40, the strength of the Gárda, officers and men, has only increased by 87.
It is given here under the Minister's own hand, "Seán Mac an tSaoi, Aire Airgeadais".
Those are the facts.
There are the figures under the Minister's own name. They are his own figures. If they are wrong, the Minister is welcome to them.
They are not wrong, and that is the provision that I am asking the House to make, as it may be necessary, and as we asked them to make it last year. We believe in providing a margin for contingencies. It is because of that fact, notwithstanding that during many financial years the Exchequer had to meet unforeseen demands upon it, and notwithstanding anything that the Deputy has said in this House, that we were always able to balance our Budget, and not merely balance the Budget but, as one of the tables which I have had circulated shows, to make substantial investments in developmental and other services.
Would the Minister say what he is doing with the extra 105 men in the Gárda?
Again, the Deputy is no novice, and he knows as well as I do that that is a question which ought to be addressed to the Minister for Justice. Now, I believe in minding my own business.
The Minister should not allow that.
And if the Deputy wants to know what is being done with them he can put that question to the Minister for Justice. Table III, which sets out the "Financial Transactions and Cash Operations of the Exchequer for the period 1st April, 1932 to 31st March, 1939," shows that our investments under one head and another exceeded our Exchequer receipts by £8,617,000, and it is due to that fact that, as I pointed out at the beginning of my speech, our revenue from non-tax sources has considerably increased.
I do not think there is anything more I need say in defence of the measure now before the House. The debate upon it has been one of those rambling, discursive discussions which I think do not advance the public interest very far. Some of the conclusions which Deputy Mulcahy likes to draw from certain published figures are not justified by the facts.
Am I not justified in drawing the conclusion from the published figures that the population of this country has gone down by 30,000 during the last two years?
The Deputy is not justified in giving the public the figure —and drawing the conclusion that the rate of increase in employment over the period 1931-32 to the present year was less than it was over the period 1926 to 1932. The Deputy quoted some figures in regard to national health insurance and he knows as well as I do, and he ought to tell the public, that a large portion of the increased revenue in respect of the National Health Insurance Fund was due to the better enforcement of the National Health Insurance Acts: to the fact that people who had not been meeting their obligations under these Acts were, due to more efficient administration on the part of the Deputy's Department, now being compelled to meet their obligations. It did not mean that more people were being put into employment, but that the Deputy was making a better collection in respect of those already in employment.
Does the Minister accept this, that in dealing with employment and the trend of employment the Department of Industry and Commerce have taken the National Health Insurance Fund and the Unemployment Insurance Fund as the only real criterion of the volume of employment given in the country?
But they made the reservation which the Deputy failed to make in his speech here to-day.
What is that?
The one which I made now—that in dealing with the figures of the earlier years in relation to National Health Insurance one must always bear in mind that there was a tightening up of the administration over that period, and that accordingly an allowance must be made for that fact.
Does the Minister claim that between 1932 and 1938 there was such a fierce tightening up—as compared with the tightening up which he admits went on before that—that it was able to obscure about 12,000 additional persons who were put into employment as a result of increased housing and relief schemes?
Whenever I want to be fair and just to the Opposition, and to give them full benefit for everything they did, they refuse to take credit for it. They want me to believe that they were, in fact, as inefficient as they themselves now pretend they were.
The Minister wants to close his eyes to facts.
I do not. I am opening my eyes to this fact, that I am perfectly certain that the Deputy, when Minister for Local Government, and charged with the administration of National health Insurance, did tighten up that administration. I know the Deputy believes in efficiency, and I am not going to be so unfair and so unjust to the Deputy as publicly to say that I believe that he—having been for four or five years Minister for Local Government—did not leave National Health Insurance in an effective position as a collecting agency. I am perfectly certain he did.
But the Minister is completely running away from the fact that the normal and natural increase in employment here has been brought to a standstill—that it has been lessening gradually under the administration of the present Government, and has now been brought to a standstill.
The normal and natural volume of employment covers everybody who is in work.
It has been brought to a standstill.
On the figures, there had been a rapid increase in the rate at which people have been put into employment until the end of last year. I am quite prepared to admit the effect of the international situation in putting people here on the unemployment register. I am not like the Deputy; I will be candid with the public. I will not put a gloss on one set of figures which the other set will not bear.
Is the Minister prepared to say that that is reflected in the National Health Insurance figures?
It is reflected in the figures on the unemployment register.
Is it reflected in the National Health Insurance figures?
Now, Sir, I was going to say something about a statement which was made by Deputy O'Sullivan in his speech. We have heard a great deal about the burdens on our primary industry. We have been told by Deputy Bennett and Deputy Hughes that agriculture is more heavily burdened than it can bear. But we heard the Deputies' Leaders, the Deputies' Front Bench colleague, Deputy John Marcus O'Sullivan, suggesting that wealthy urban communities like that in the City of Dublin should be relieved of their fair proportion of the cost of their own self-defence, and that the amount of which they were relieved should be put as an added imposition upon the backs of agriculture in this country. The difficulty about the Opposition is that they do not know on which leg they are standing. If it is admitted that provision has to be made against contingencies, which we all hope and trust, will never arise, is it not only right that the wealthiest community in the State should bear their fair proportion of the cost? Is it not only right that those who are remote, those who would not form a target for an enemy, those who would never be an object of an attack by an enemy, should not be asked to bear an undue proportion of the burden?
It is A.R.P. against the Government we want.
That is what Deputy O'Sullivan was looking for.
I remember when Deputies were crying for markets of one sort or another, and when they got them they were not satisfied. In the same way, I am perfectly satisfied that if the need for A.R.P. actually manifested itself, the Deputy would not regard it as sufficient justification for the fact that no measures had been taken that at one time he thought only A.R.P. against the Government were required. The fact is that the House is agreed that some provision must be made for A.R.P., and the question is: where can the cost of that provision be most equitably placed? The State is bearing a very large proportion of it—I would almost be prepared to say too large a proportion of it—and the communities which may be the primary object of attack will have to bear a certain proportion of it also. The Government's views on that matter are before the House in a Bill, but I do not know whether or not the speech of Deputy O'Sullivan represented the views of the Opposition. I understand that a division was challenged on this issue last night. If so, then I take it that the policy of the Opposition is that they prefer to tax the farmers— that Deputy Professor O'Sullivan prefers to tax the small farmers of Kerry —in order to defend the wealthy capital of the country, rather than that the citizens of Dublin should be asked to bear their own fair and due proportion of the cost. That is the position. This Opposition, which has been telling us during this debate about the sorry plight of agriculture, wants us to impose additional taxation upon the farmers, and particularly upon the small farmers of Kerry and the congested areas, in order that the wealthier sections of our people should be allowed to get off some share of the burden.
You have taken the last penny that the farmers could give you.
Has the Minister considered collecting all the sacks that were scattered through the country for turf and distributing them as amateur gas masks?
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 54; Níl, 33.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Carty, Frank.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Friel, John.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Munnelly, John.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George C.
- Benson, Ernest E.
- Brasier, Brooke.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Broderick, William J.
- Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
- Coburn, James.
- Cole, John J.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, John L.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, James.
- Keating, John.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- Norton, William.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- Pattison, James P.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
Tellers:—Tá, Deputies Little and Smith; Níl, Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried
This is a Money Bill within the meaning of Article 22 of the Constitution.