Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 9 Nov 1939

Vol. 77 No. 8

Financial Resolutions.

Debate resumed on Resolution No. 9 (General).

The Minister for Supplies in the course of his speech this evening stated that the increased price, and the increased tax on sugar were attributable to the higher price of imported sugar. If that is so, then I say the responsibility lies with the Government for the failure to purchase the necessary reserve supply of sugar before the war actually commenced. The Minister also stated that the price was being brought up to the British price. I do not know whether it is necessary in this State in financial matters to follow British standards in regard to the price of an essential commodity, and I do not know why the Minister for Supplies put forward that argument, if it was an argument, in support of the increased taxation of sugar. I should like if the Minister for Finance, when replying, could give the House information that I think it is entitled to, and that I am sure he can get for the House, namely, the average price per cwt., including duty, paid for imported sugar during the five months, April to August, and also the average price, including duty, paid for any sugar imported since the war commenced.

When referring to this question recently at a meeting which he addressed, a certain Deputy said that the increased price of sugar was in his opinion brought about as a result of the failure of the farmers to grow the necessary amount of beet this year, although they had been warned about it in the early part of the present year, and also last year. That Deputy represents a County Dublin constituency, and I am wondering if he is aware that three years ago I reported to the Minister for Agriculture that a certain surplus of beet grown by small farmers in the Midlands was left on the roadside as the factories refused to take it. I reported then a certain number of cases which occurred in my constituency when small farmers overproduced, if you like to use that word, and then found themselves in the position that the factories would not take in the beet, the reason given being that they had no room for it. There is also another reason which is, perhaps, unknown to the Deputy who was speaking at a meeting of a certain Dublin organisation, and that is that there is a general feeling amongst farmers and everyone else that this Government has not been paying an economic price for beet for the past three or four years.

This discussion is on taxation and expenditure. The price that growers get for beet does not arise.

I was dealing with a statement made by a Fianna Fáil Deputy.

The Minister is not responsible for every statement made by a Fianna Fáil or other Deputy.

I hope when the Deputy goes to the next Party meeting he will not talk about conditions outside his constituency.

The Deputy might leave him to the Minister.

Yes, Sir, I will respect your wishes.

Leave him to the members of the Chamber of Commerce.

I do not believe that members of the Chamber of Commerce would be interested in the price of beet. As far as I know the members of that responsible body are not beet growers, with the exception of my friend Deputy Belton. In his statement the Minister also talked about the desirability and the willingness of the Government to control prices and profits of manufacturers and distributors. If the attitude of the Government in increasing the tax, and also the price of sugar, is any indication of their desire to control profits or to prevent profiteering, then I say they are leaders of the profiteering gang in this country at the present time, and are giving a bad example in that direction. The increased tax on sugar, with the previous increase in the price, alleged to be brought about by the Irish Sugar Manufacturing Company, is an invitation to wage-earners and to poor people to look for something that will compensate them for the increased cost of living. Deputy O'Higgins rightly referred in his speech to the provocative language used by the Minister for Finance in connection with that matter in the concluding portion of the speech. It is no harm to quote his words referring to the increases under various sub-heads:—

"These increases will bear heavily on every class and there will be a strong temptation to demand corresponding increases in wages, salaries and profits. If such demands were successful, the effect would be to increase prices still more, and to give occasion for new demands. In that way an artificial price structure would be built up which would inevitably collapse at the end of the war, if not before, leaving behind widespread unemployment and depression."

This is the provocative portion of the Minister's speech which, in my opinion, is likely to have reactions that, I am sure, he never intended to bring about.

"The Government feels that it has a duty to do everything in its power to avert such a development, and is determined to set its face against the efforts of any class to obtain compensation for the rise in prices at the expense of the community. Action to the same end is in contemplation with regard to all classes of public servants, and if the war continues for a long time, the Government may be forced to adopt more drastic measures."

Perhaps the Minister, or some of his colleagues will explain what is meant by the "more drastic measures" to which he refers. In my opinion, it is only natural that wage-earners, and poor people who can do so, should take the necessary steps, through the organisations of trade unions with which they are associated, to get compensation for the increased cost of living which has been brought about in this case as a result of the deliberate act of the Government and the Sugar Manufacturing Company which it controls.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce—the new Minister for Industry and Commerce—wanted, in the House to-night, to get Deputies to accept the fact that the Sugar Manufacturing Company was a private concern, and, with that idea in his mind, he refused to give certain information to Deputy Mulcahy in regard to the salaries paid to employees of the Sugar Manufacturing Company. Now, the Sugar Manufacturing Company is the child of the present Government and everybody knows it. The board of directors of that company consists of followers and political supporters of the present Government, and is nominated by the Government, and the present managing director of the Sugar Manufacturing Company is a civil servant on loan from the Government to this so-called private company, which is maintained by private funds and by capital provided by the taxpayers of this country.

Now, the increase in the price of sugar has had other disastrous effects, and I am sure that both the company and the Government, who are responsible for this increase in price, must have been well aware of the effects of the increase in the price of sugar. That increase affects the price of jam, which is a very important food so far as the poor people of this country are concerned—particularly in this year when there is an excellent supply of fruit of every kind. It also affects the price of confectionery, which is consumed in large quantities by the average wage-earner in this country. The Minister for Supplies, and other Ministers, challenged members of the Opposition, and challenged members of this Party, when opposition was made to taxation of this kind, on the ground that we should indicate in what other way the taxation could be raised. We are quite entitled to oppose taxation of this kind without being called upon to indicate what other taxes would be raised by us, in such circumstances, if we had the responsibility. The responsibility for the government of this country has been given by the majority of the people to the present Government, and it is the duty of that Government, and their responsibility, to put the burden of taxation on the backs of those who are best able to bear it. What has been put on in this Budget with regard to excess profits? We have not heard a word about taxation on ground-rents from any member of the Government.

I thought the Deputy was advocating economies.

I am; but I hope what I am saying will tempt the Minister to read up the speeches that he made in connection with the taxation of ground rents and the purchase of ground rents, and that he has not forgotten the speeches he made in that connection when he was in opposition and representing the county of Dublin.

The Minister would like to forget them.

There are other matters that could be raised, but they can be debated to better advantage in connection with another matter that will come up for consideration on a motion on the Order Paper, standing in my name and that of a colleague of mine, and also a motion in the names of Deputies McGilligan and Mulcahy. Consequently, I do not like to say anything in connection with this Budget which might be repeated when these motions come up for consideration. The fact of the matter, however, is that the Ministry is not bringing before the House a Budget that they can claim to be balanced. As a matter of fact, they are only raising, by these various increases in taxation, a sum of £603,000, against a deficiency of £1,620,000, and they say that they hope to get another £400,000 by way of a saving in expenditure, thus reducing the deficit to £617,000. They indicate the sub-heads under which that saving can be made, such as Land Commission expenditure, unemployment assistance, employment schemes, housing expenditure, and services for which the Local Loans Fund makes provision. Now, we know that any attempt at economy in such a service as that of the Land Commission would mean a decrease in the employment of persons hitherto employed in the Forestry Department of the Land Commission, or of persons employed in connection with other improvement schemes. Only a few days ago, the responsible Ministers supplied me with information concerning the number of persons employed in my constituency, during a certain week in August, in connection with Land Commission and Forestry improvement schemes, and I have also got similar figures for the latest date for which such figures are available. At any rate, the fact remains that the figures show that there has been a reduction, since the beginning of the war, in the number of men employed in Land Commission improvement schemes and other similar activities in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, all of which goes to show that, even in advance of this Budget, there has been a suspension of activities of that kind in the country. Now, that is going to increase unemployment and, possibly, to increase the payment of unemployment assistance to an amount higher than was paid in any corresponding period of any previous year.

Even after making provision for this £400,000, which the Government say will be saved by way of a reduction in expenditure of that kind, there is still left a balance of £617,000, which has to be provided for in the future, and the hope has been expressed by a Minister, who says that this is a balanced Budget, that there will be something to come from some other hidden source to cover that. We heard a lot, some time ago, about a former Fianna Fáil Budget, which was described as the poor man's Budget. Well, with this increase in the tax on sugar, and with the tax on beer, tobacco, cigarettes and so on, I hope it will not be claimed that this Government is any longer entitled to claim that it is a poor man's Government.

The House, Sir, is facing—and I should say, not merely the House, but the Dáil and the country—a grave and serious situation, and in considering the financial problem which has arisen out of that situation I shall try not to be unduly polemical The position which has necessitated the introduction of a Supplementary Budget was not unexpected or unforeseen. Speaking in this House, on the introduction of the main Budget, on the 10th May last, I outlined the basis on which that Budget was framed; and I told the House that, in formulating the figures therein for revenue and for expenditure, it had been necessary to proceed sometimes upon one, sometimes upon the other, of two assumptions, not quite consistent with each other. I said that the first of these assumptions was that a major European War was likely and that it was necessary to take certain precautions against that contingency; and that the second, with certain qualifications, was that war would not, in fact, befall. Then, I went on to say that "the Estimate for Defence may, perhaps, be said to have been based upon the first assumption; those for most of the other Departments and"—this is pertinent to this debate—"for our revenues upon the second". I proceeded to say that "these considerations have to be borne in mind in relation to the figures with which we have now to deal and, above everything else, it is to be remembered that the outbreak of a general conflict in Europe would render our Estimates, or indeed any Estimates that could be made here or elsewhere, of little value as a basis for public financing".

To-day we are confronted with the situation which I envisaged when I made that statement and, as was anticipated then, the situation has reacted to disorganise the public finances. This is a grave and serious situation with which to deal. It is a grievous task to have to deal with that situation and only a man of the highest public spirit would shoulder, as Minister for Finance, the oppressive burden of that responsibility. I think it would be well if the House would bear that fact in mind in the course of this debate. Sometimes, it seems to me that that fact is lost sight of. Statements have been made here regarding the Minister for Finance, who is grappling with a very difficult situation, indeed, which, in my view, were unworthy of those who made them. If the debate were to continue in that strain, I think it would be a great dis-service to this nation. It would, indeed, be a great dis-service to this nation to approach the financial problem embodied in this Budget imbued with a spirit of partisanship. If we cannot discuss the Budget without misrepresentation or vilification, if the serious straits in which the nation finds itself are to be considered merely as a chance to snatch advantage for this political party or that, then I have no hope that this country will be able to maintain the position of neutrality which it has taken up—perhaps not be able even to preserve its independence.

I have seen this Budget described in one newspaper as a "war Budget". It was, in fact, described in headlines in one newspaper as a "war Budget". That is a grave misrepresentation. This is not a war Budget. This is a neutrality Budget. This is the Budget of a nation which stands at peace in the midst of nations at war. This is the Budget of a State that is concerned to maintain the pacific attitude which, in the exercise of its rights as an independent entity, it has decided to adopt. The cost of maintaining a neutral position in time of war varies with the circumstances in which the non-belligerent State finds itself.

If it be geographically remote from the field of war, the maintenance of neutrality may be comparatively inexpensive. If, on the other hand, the pacific nation is in fairly close proximity to the seat of war, if it lies, as we do, almost in the very centre of the major theatre of naval warfare, if its territories offer, as ours do, very valuable facilities to such of the belligerent powers as may be disposed, and may be able, to take them, then the precautions which must be taken, lest the need to defend that neutrality may arise, are likely to be costly and expensive, indeed. We are finding them so, anyhow, and, as the struggle between the belligerent nations becomes more acute, are likely to find them still more so. Indeed, in certain circumstances, counting the cost only in money, it may be more expensive for a small nation to remain neutral than to be at war. For if such a nation were at war in association with powerful and wealthy allies, then a large part of the cost of its belligerency might be borne by those allies, whereas, being a non-belligerent, the whole burden of the state of preparedness in which it is compelled to maintain itself must be borne by itself and by itself alone.

Against the money cost of maintaining neutrality we can set one great saving which would not be available if we were at war. There has not been and, please God, will not be any expenditure of Irish lives. Is that not worth the increase in certain rates of taxation which the dislocation of our former tax structure, occasioned by the war, has necessitated? That is the one great economy for which this country has to thank the present Administration. Is it certain that if any other Administration had occupied these benches that economy would have been secured for our people? When this Government is attacked in the House, and in the Press, because it asks the people to give the State the wherewithal to maintain that neutrality, which has saved our people from the sacrifice of human flesh and blood which is involved in belligerency, let the people ask themselves these two questions. And let them ask themselves this further question: What is the occult purpose which lurks in the minds of some—I say "some"—of those who criticise and misrepresent the steps which the Government have taken to safeguard the neutrality of this country, which is what the attacks on this Budget really come down to? An attack upon this Budget is an attack, indirectly and by implication, upon the policy of neutrality which the Government have adopted.

Talk sense.

It is not an attack upon this tax or that tax. It is a deliberate attack upon the policy of neutrality; for we cannot preserve our neutrality unless, as I have said, the State is furnished with the wherewithal to maintain it. That is what is implicit in some of the statements I listened to to-day, and in some of the attacks made on this Budget in certain organs of the Press.

Is it more expensive than war?

I have said that, in certain circumstances, it may be. During the war of 1914-18 certain States in Europe were involved in war, and the greater part of the cost of their belligerency was defrayed by their allies.

What about the war of 1932-37?

You killed all the calves.

I suppose Deputy Keating is in a warlike mood. He is continually at war with himself and with us. I was saying that that is what the attacks on this Budget really amount to. However, the Government must be granted by the Dáil the supplies necessary to maintain the neutrality of this country or else, if the Dáil refuses to provide such supplies, then the Dáil must be prepared to face up to the alternative.

Mr. Brennan

And that is war.

Or to permit us to become a defenceless prey to whatever country cares to occupy our territories and use them for warlike purposes.

My blood is running cold.

I would not be surprised. It is not the first time, however. I am sorry to have said that, let us try to forget that and get away from it; the Deputy will have a chance later on.

This is a written speech; it is not being delivered extempore.

A Chinn Comhairle, am I entitled to rely upon my notes? I cannot speak in the same irresponsible way as Deputy Morrissey does.

I was going to ask the House this question: How have the steps which the Government has found itself obliged to take to maintain the neutrality of this country been misrepresented? Perhaps an example, taken from the speech delivered in this debate by Deputy Dillon, will exemplify the type of thing I mean. I wish to make it clear that I do not desire to imply that Deputy Dillon was guilty of conscious misrepresentation in referring to the mobilisation of the defence forces. Far from it; I think the Deputy spoke, as he sometimes does, without reflection. Those who read his speech to-morrow will not appreciate that fact and will believe that the Government, in mobilising men at the outbreak of the war and then disbanding them, was guilty of wilful and wanton extravagance. But what are the facts? Let the House try to recall the position which existed at the outbreak of the war. No person in this or any other country within the range of warlike operations knew what the morrow was going to bring forth. We were within range of such operations, with territory that would, perhaps, offer substantial advantages to whomsoever might try to seize it. We had even within our territories subversive elements and organisations which had tried to defy the laws and authority of the State, organisations which—even in the comparatively recent past—had not hesitated to make open and murderous attacks upon the lives and properties of the citizens, and who had developed a technique of terrorism which presented a most difficult problem to the forces of the law.

In these circumstances, the Government, after full and serious consideration of our problems, thought it prudent to sanction a partial mobilisation of the defence forces. That, I submit, was the least step which ordinary prudence should dictate. As soon as the position became clearer, even in the first couple of weeks of the war, steps were taken to reduce the number of men with the colours, and those steps, I understand, are continuing. Now, was the action of the Government wrong in ordering a partial mobilisation of the defence forces; was that not a course which prudence would enjoin? In the face of a situation of doubtful menace, was it not wise and prudent to order a sufficient mobilisation of the forces of the State?

What was the menace?

I am sure that Deputy Dillon would be the last to question that. He indicated his readiness to look at these problems on occasions with an impartial and objective viewpoint.

What question of panic was he referring to?

The Deputy can be perfectly certain that this Government would not take upon itself the responsibility of mobilising the forces of the State—a step occasioning a dislocation in certain circumstances in men's lives and one which meant imposing a great burden on this State—unless grave and serious conditions existed. It may have been—because the Government does not profess to be omniscient or infallible —it may have been an error of judgment. Perhaps, if the Deputy had been in our position, with the information which he would have had, he might have been able to see further. But the fact remains that, looking at the situation as it presented itself to us, would we not have been culpably negligent if we had not ordered a partial mobilisation of the forces, such a mobilisation of the defence forces as seemed to us to be reasonably necessary to deal with any situation which was likely to arise?

It would be well to know what the menace was.

In that event, we had better discard Cabinet government altogether and allow everything that is within the knowledge of the Government of the country to be broadcast throughout the land. That is what the Deputy is asking. Now does he think he would be able to apply that practice to the councils of his own Party, a much less important entity in the life of this State than the councils of the Government of the State? Would the Deputy go out and broadcast to the country the considerations which led his Party to certain decisions? Not at all; they are carefully locked in the Deputy's breast and locked up within the breasts of the camarilla that governs the Labour Party.

I have more respect for the Labour Party than to make statements about murderous attacks being responsible for panic in the country.

The Deputy can remember two murders, in very close proximity to himself.

What are they?

They were less than three years ago; the Deputy can remember them.

I would not make that statement about murderous attacks.

The Deputy will have an opportunity of making a statement later. The Minister is now in possession.

I was asking the House, in the face of a situation which I described as being one of doubtful menace, what should have been done. We are not in the secrets and councils of every other Government in Europe. We had to look then at the situation as it appeared to us. We knew that it might not develop in the way we apprehended, we knew it might not be even likely to do so, but we had to take precautions against it. These had to be taken in the interests of the people of this country. But, as soon as the situation clarified itself, as soon as we saw that in some respects we had been unduly apprehensive from the point of view of internal order as well as other matters, would it not have been foolish for us and extravagant in the extreme to have maintained with the colours the full strength which was mobilised in the first place? But that was the gravamen of the charge that Deputy Dillon brought against us, that we had ordered partial mobilisation of the Army and that, within a few short weeks we had proceeded to demobilise some of the men again.

Accordingly, Deputy Dillon seems to blame the Government because it acted prudently in the early stages of the emergency, and blames it yet again because it did not spend extravagantly when the position had further developed. This partial mobilisation of the defence forces was not the only step which had to be taken at the outbreak of the war. New services, which find no place in the peace-time organisation of this State, had to be set up. A coast-watching service had to be organised, a censorship constituted and a Department of Supplies established.

Do not forget the black-out.

No, I am not forgetting the black-out. I am talking, however, about services which had to be set up, and I do not think that even the Deputy, in his attempt to misrepresent the Government's position, would describe the black-out as a service.

No, it is not.

Mr. Morrissey

Not even the Minister will do that.

In any event, every one of these services was an essential part of the organisation which the policy of neutrality, adopted by the Government with the unanimous approval of this House, necessitated, and there is nobody knows that better than the former Minister for Defence, Deputy General Mulcahy.

Let the Minister not start telling me what I know.

I am not telling the Deputy, because he does know. These, as I have said, were all new services necessitated by the outbreak of the war; but not merely had new services to be set up, but other services had to be expanded. The strength of the Gárda Síochána had to be increased. The cost of that increase has been criticised here even by those who agree with the Government that the only attitude possible for us in regard to the European War in the present circumstances of our time and in the present condition of this country is an attitude of strict neutrality. The increase in the Gárda was criticised, for instance, even to-day by the Leader of the Opposition. His policy and, I understand, the policy of his Party, is to keep this country out of war; that is the policy of the Labour Party; that is the policy, the proclaimed and effective policy of this Government; and it is the almost unanimous policy of the citizens of the country as a whole, as expressed by the duly elected representatives of the people, who alone have a lawful mandate to speak for them. But surely in the light of what is common knowledge, none of us can be unaware of the fact that it is not the policy of every element in this State. I suppose that not even the Leader of the Labour Party, not even the Leader of the principal Opposition, or any other member on the benches opposite, is ignorant of the fact that there is in existence a small but close-knit, secret and very active organisation, with ramifications extending outside this country, whose one aim and object is to embroil us with our most powerful neighbour even when she is at war. If that organisation had its way, this State would be at war, and at war with Great Britain. That is a fact which those who have criticised the expenditure on the Gárda Síochána force appear to have overlooked. Those who proclaim that neutrality is the only possible policy for this country seem to overlook the fact that there is, as I have said, a secret, close-knit and active organisation which has a policy contrary to that——

Will the Minister name the organisation?

——and which has for its object the precipitating of this country into war, and into war with Great Britain.

I think the House should be told the name of the organisation.

The Sugar Beet Company.

The children of the present Government.

Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann.

It may be an easy matter for Deputy MacEoin to jibe at. Perhaps it is that the policy of that organisation is Deputy MacEoin's policy. I do not know, but he has shown a certain amount of sympathy with it on occasions.

Would the Minister deal with his own policy?

Deputy MacEoin is accustomed to speak for himself.

I can always give expression to my own views.

I am dealing with the circumstances which have made it necessary for the Government to ask this House to grant the supplies which are necessary, if the Government is to maintain law and order in this country and to make effective the national policy of neutrality. Is there any section in the House who would wish the position were otherwise? Is there any Party in the House which would wish the activities of the organisation to which I have referred to go unchecked? If there is not such a Party or such a section, why is it sought to deprive the Government of the resources which are necessary to deal with that organisation, because that is what is implied by this demand to curtail expenditure on the Gárda now. In conditions as they exist to-day, every man in that body is required to make the Gárda effective to enforce the law of this State and the authority of this Dáil.

That is a shocking reflection on the Gárda.

It is not a shocking reflection.

That the 220 or 225 men you took in last week make the Gárda an effective force.

I have said that every man is required, and the House may be assured that the Government, knowing the use which certain sections of the House would make of the occasion offered to them by the introduction of this Supplementary Budget, would not have brought in to the Gárda force one man more than it was convinced was absolutely necessary to enable that force to discharge the duties and fulfil the functions entrusted to it.

We have been told that we ought to economise in expenditure. The Minister for Finance, in his statement, pointed out that we did at the moment envisage economies which would amount to about £400,000. I know that they are not all the economies that will be sought. I know that others will be sought, because it is the desire of the Minister, and of the Government as a whole, to ensure that the Budget of this State is properly balanced. But if we wish to make economies, and if there is a demand from the other side of the House that, instead of imposing taxation, we ought to make the Budget balance by economising, then I submit that it is the duty of those who feel like that, as I do, to give to the House and to the country the full benefit of their ideas and views upon that matter. No Deputy elected by the people has a right to come into this deliberative Assembly, into this great council of the nation, and say, as has been said by implication, that their ideas as to how the common good might be advanced by economising are not at the free disposal of the people, but are up for sale.

I asked Deputy General MacEoin last night to tell us what economies he would make, and his answer was "Give me the responsibility and I will tell you." Is that the sort of way in which the people should be treated by their elected representatives upon an occasion such as this? If there are economies which will save the people from taxation, and if any Deputy in this House, whether he sits on the Government Benches, on the benches opposite or on the benches of the Labour Party, knows of them, knows of some way in which public money could be saved, then it is his duty to get up here and state publicly the way in which he believes that money should be saved.

Tell us about the two million now.

No Deputy should hold himself out to the country as being prepared to sell his ideas upon this matter in return for public office——

That is what you did. You said you could save two million.

We are dealing now with a different situation. I could be as irresponsible as the Deputy is now if I were in opposition and we were living in days of peace, but we are living in times of almost universal calamity. It is all right for Deputies who can come here. Deputies are safe and secure in their beds. Deputies can sleep o'nights. They are not living in peril of their lives, as people in other countries are. We can at least meet in this Assembly. We can discuss this matter and we can do that——

Mr. Morrissey

Because you are Minister.

——because we have a Government headed by Eamon de Valera in power. The great majority of the people of this country believe that to be true, but whether it be true or false, whether another Government could have adopted and maintained the attitude which we have adopted, let no Deputy in this House try to lull the people into a false security merely to gain some slight Party advantage. Our neutrality is not inviolable. Our neutrality is not out of danger. Our neutrality is not unalterably secure. The maintenance of our neutrality demands eternal vigilance on the part of the Government, and the loyal support of our own people.

Mr. Morrissey

I hope it will survive this speech.

There is no purpose to be gained by trying to make light of this international situation merely in order that you may ride out of the dilemma into which some of the shamelessly partisan statements made to-day have landed you. The position is that we have seen, as I said at the outset, the complete dislocation of our tax system. We formerly derived a large part of our revenue from Customs. There is going to be a heavy short-fall towards the end of the year in that revenue. We have got to find some other way of making good that deficiency. We must be careful to preserve our public credit. We want to close the year with a Budget that is unmistakably balanced. There are two ways of balancing that Budget. One way is to make good the deficiency by increasing the existing rates of taxation upon some commodities, or to devise other taxes to make up for those which have shown themselves deficient. The other way is by trying to secure economies in public expenditure.

Try that.

Deputy Belton tells me to try that. Very well. I am very willing to try that. I am very willing to represent to my colleagues that they should try that but I should like to have the benefit of the assistance and the experience of Deputy Belton on this matter. He has been in this House longer than I. He preceded my advent to it.

I brought you in.

Very well; Deputy Belton brought me in. Do not let him forsake me now. He gave me a good example and perhaps very often he has given me the advantage of his advice. Perhaps I did not always take it but I am open to listen to it now and to take it.

I shall take you at your word.

Will the Deputy tell me what are the services in which he would propose to economise?

I am only allowed to speak once.

I am sorry the Deputy has already spoken and that he is not at liberty to address the House a second time, but perhaps some of his colleagues who have remained silent will tell me. Perhaps he will induce Deputy MacEoin to tell us what are the economies that he would propose to make in the public services. Does he propose to reduce the Army? Does he propose to reduce the Guards? Does he propose to curtail expenditure on educational services? Will he cut the old age pensions?

The 1½d. a lb. on sugar cut them sufficiently.

There was a duty of 1½d. per lb. on sugar when the old age pensions were cut before. However, we can leave that aside. We shall let bygones in that respect be bygones. Will he reduce the expenditure on unemployment assistance or on employment schemes? We have been attacked in this House by Deputies who in one breath have called upon us to reduce expenditure and in the next breath condemned us because we have said that we were going to try to economise to the tune of at least £400,000. The £400,000, in the minds of those Deputies who are calling upon us to reduce expenditure, has been criticised not because it is too little but because it is too much. As I have said, I do not profess to be infallible and I am sure the Minister for Finance does not. We are plain, ordinary men like other Deputies in the House, thrown up, as Deputy Dillon has said, from the masses of the people. You are just as talented as we are, but we are anxious that that talent of yours should not remain buried, that it should be brought into the light of day and placed at the disposal of the Irish people. Therefore, I say that in the present situation, if there is any Deputy who knows where economies should be made, he should tell us now. After all, even if there was not such a situation in Europe as would make a general election undesirable, the next general election is in the ordinary course a long way off. We had one in 1938 and we are not due to have another until 1942. Are we to be told that the people must groan under the burden of unnecessary taxes simply because some Deputies in this House, who know how money can be saved, will not open their mouths until after the next general election, and even then will only open their mouths if the people return them and their Party in a majority to this Dáil?

I submit that is not a fair way to treat the people of this country. But that is the way in which people are being treated by those who, like Deputy MacEoin and Deputy Davin here to-night, said that it was not their responsibility: that it was not their duty to tell the Government and their colleagues in this Dáil, and the people of this country, how money could be saved in the present emergency. I say it is their duty. We have taken upon ourselves the odium, and we have been criticised for it, of outlining certain services where we think money could be saved. We, at any rate, have had the courage to stand up in this Dáil and say that there are certain things upon which we think money could be saved and must be saved. Is the country to look to us and say: "After all, bad and all as the members of Deputy de Valera's Government are, they are better than the Deputies of the Fine Gael Party, and they are better than the Deputies of the Labour Party, because, whatever may be the consequences to themselves or their colleagues in the Party, they, at any rate, have had the courage to stand up and say that there are certain services upon which they think economies could be made, and that they are prepared to make them."

Now, I think that after all we should not be left to be the only heroes in this State. There are courageous men in other Parties. Surely there are Deputies in other Parties who have the moral courage to stand up and open their mouths, as we have. I would like to hear the views of Deputy Hickey upon that matter, because Deputy Hickey held himself out in the House to-day as a responsible Deputy, as a Deputy, mind you, who had moral courage, and I do not want to be taken for one moment as questioning that fact. I have formed the same judgment of Deputy Hickey as the Deputy has himself, and I think that he is a responsible Deputy. I think he is a Deputy who has the moral courage to stand up and say unpopular things, and I am asking him now——

I think the Minister should talk in a serious way, and not in the flippant way that he has been talking for the last half-hour.

No, this is not a subject for flippancy.

On a point of order. I wish to make the charge that the Minister has been frivolously wasting the time of the House.

I disagree. A major issue has been raised in this debate.

Mr. Morrissey

A point of order has been raised.

The Chair is not of opinion that the Minister has been acting flippantly. The Minister has had a good deal of interruption, and the Chair is of the opinion that he is carrying on the debate in a proper way.

I submit that the Minister is deliberately inviting interruptions, that he is behaving in a flippant and frivolous manner and wasting time. I submit further that he is not debating the question before the House.

The Chair cannot agree with the point of order raised by the Deputy. The Chair is of opinion that the Minister is carrying on the debate in a proper way and is putting his arguments in a very forcible way. Perhaps his manner of speaking may not be very grave and may have created a certain amount of hilariousness, but in the opinion of the Chair what he is saying is to the point.

On a point of order, I submit to the Chair that the Minister has not produced one argument in the last ten minutes.

On a point of order, I submit that Deputy Mulcahy is now wasting time.

A point of order has been raised which is purely a matter of opinion. The Chair has given its opinion. There may be members who do not agree with the ruling of the Chair, but the Chair is convinced that the Minister is carrying on the debate in a proper way. It may be the opinion of individual members that he is not doing it in a way that pleases them, but that is not a matter for the Chair.

I do not propose to dwell on that point very much longer. I am going to sum up the situation, as I see it, in regard to the demand for economy which has been voiced in this debate, and say that it is merely a partisan catch-cry, merely political flap-doodle, because the Deputies who have demanded economies do not know where the economies are to be made. Otherwise, I imagine that, if there were any Deputy in this House who knew economies which could be made with the general approval of the public, he would be only too glad to stand up here in this House and get whatever kudos might come to him by showing to the electors who sent him here and to the citizens what a wideawake and farseeing Deputy he was. Since everyone is silent on that point, I have only got to assume that the members of the Opposition and the members of the Labour Party who have demanded that economies should be made do not, in fact, know in what services economies are to be sought.

Is the "plan" dead?

We had a rather extraordinary statement, or may I put it this way: there is one Deputy in this House who certainly has two sides to his character, and that is the Deputy who leads the Labour Party. Invariably, when he comes to speak on the Budget, in the opening portions of his speech the Deputy is as stern an economist as Gladstone was reputed to be.

Not to mention yourself, of course.

But when he comes towards his customary peroration, in the concluding portions of his speech, he becomes a spendthrift prodigal son. In the first part of his speech to-day, Deputy Norton condemned the Government because it is imposing additional taxation, not additional taxation to expand the existing services, but the additional taxation which is required to maintain the existing services; but in the concluding portions of his speech he condemned the Budget because it had not made provision to meet further expenditure.

He condemned your vendetta against the workers. The Minister forgets that portion of it.

No, I do not forget it. We had a very moving and sentimental passage in Deputy Norton's speech in which he referred to the fact that in practically the whole of his constituency, consisting of two counties, the maximum amount which might be paid in unemployment assistance was 14/- a week, and said: "All that this Government provides for an unemployed labouring man in my constituency who is married and has a family of four children is 14/- per week." That is all, he said, that this Government provides. Well, this Government is not so generous as that. This Government does not provide the money. The only function that this Government has in regard to the payment of that 14/- per week is to call upon the people to provide that 14/- per week.

That 14/- per week is provided out of the taxation in this country. It is provided in no other way. It is provided out of the taxes which Deputy Norton in the opening portion of his speech so strongly condemned. That is where that 14/- a week comes from. Out of the proceeds of the taxes on tobacco, out of the proceeds of the taxes on beer, the taxes upon spirits, the taxes upon sugar and the proceeds of the income-tax, the death duties, the corporation profits tax and other imposts which the Minister for Finance has to impose, come the finances to maintain the public and social services in this country. Where is that money going to come from in future? It is going to come out of the same source. Unemployment assistance in this country amounts to £1,100,000 per annum. A tax of ¾d. on sugar will only bring us in for the remainder of this year £240,000. Perhaps it will bring in £700,000 in a full year. It does not go half-way to pay the present cost of unemployment assistance. Yet, the Deputy, who stands up here and condemns the Government for proposing that extra tax on sugar, does not sit down before he is demanding that the Government should increase expenditure. Where is the consistency in that? Where is the moral courage of which Deputy Hickey was speaking?

It is true that Deputy Norton said that the imposition of taxation is a relative thing. Then he went on to tell us that the tax upon luxuries would not be felt. Where are the luxuries coming into this country? Where at all are the luxuries in this country that would produce anything like £100,000 if taxed up to the hilt, let alone produce £1,000,000? Where are those luxuries? We have few motor cars. They are dwindling because we have no petrol to drive them and, what is more, those who paid taxes for those luxuries will not be in a position to pay them any longer.

Thanks to the Minister.

Thanks to whom did the Deputy say?

To the Minister.

No; thanks to the situation that was created by the war and the Deputy was one of the Deputies looking for war; now the Deputy has the fruits of that.

Will the Minister explain why after over seven years of his policy it is necessary to expend £1,100,000 on unemployment assistance?

The fact is that the unemployment problem was there before we came into office.

But the Minister had a plan.

Where is that plan now?

I was saying that the fact is that the problem of unemployment remains; that it was in existence before this Government came into office and that we tried to deal with that problem.

The Minister and his colleagues promised the people that they had a solution for that problem. They said to the people: "We have a plan; nobody knows how to work this plan but ourselves."

The Minister should be allowed to proceed without interruption.

We want to know what has become of the plan.

Deputy Mulcahy asked me why is it that we have to provide over £1,000,000 for unemployment assistance.

Yes, after being more than seven years in office.

Yes, after seven years' unparalleled efforts by this Government to solve that problem it still remains.

Mr. Morrissey

It has increased.

The pity of it is that it is still there. I was saying, and I would like the Deputy to bear with me if I repeat myself, that the problem of unemployment is still with us. I said it existed before we came into office, but it was more grave and serious before we came into office than it is to-day in the midst of a war. The Census which was taken in 1936 shows this significant fact. It shows at any rate that between 1926 and 1936 as many as 36,000 more individuals were in employment in this country at the end of that period than at the beginning. The number of people in remunerative occupations increased by 36,000 between 1926 and 1936. Accordingly there is no gainsaying the fact that since 36,000 souls have been put into gainful occupations in the period between 1926 and 1936, the problem of unemployment, bad as it is to-day, is not so bad as it was before we took office.

And we have the fact that 42,000 men have gone out of employment in agriculture in the last seven years.

Yes, but 66,000 persons have gone into employment in industrial occupations.

Mr. Brennan

How many left the country?

The fact is that of the people who were in this country in 1936, as compared with the number in the country in 1926, there were 36,000 more in employment in 1936. We had a slightly smaller population, it is true, but there was a greater proportion at work in 1936 than in 1926. Therefore, as I have said, grave and serious as the unemployment problem is to-day, it is not as bad as it was when this Government first took office.

Mr. Morrissey

Does the Minister, as the new Minister for Industry and Commerce, really believe that?

This debate cannot be carried on by way of question and answer.

Mr. Morrissey

I am asking the Minister does he believe the statement he has just made?

I am not prepared to doubt the statement made by those who, on the Census night in June 1936, reported themselves as engaged in gainful occupations. It is on their statement that my figures are based, and I see no reason why these people should lie to the Census enumerator.

Mr. Morrissey

The Minister believes, so, in the statement?

I believe that is the position. I was going to point out the inconsistency of Deputy Norton, who, in one part of his speech condemns us for imposing taxation, and then in another part of his speech condemns us for not increasing expenditure which would necessitate a still further increase in taxation.

There is another aspect of the speech made by the Minister for Finance which has come in for a certain amount of criticism. It has been criticised by Deputy J.M. O'Sullivan, by Deputy O'Higgins, by Deputy Davin and the members of the Labour Party. That was part of the statement by the Minister for Finance, that nobody should take advantage of the present situation to force up wages and the costs of production. That statement has been criticised and stigmatised as an attack on the workers.

What has been quoted by the Minister was not part of the statement made in his Budget speech by the Minister for Finance. What the Minister for Finance said has been twisted by the Minister.

That statement by the Minister for Finance has been stigmatised as an attack upon wages and workers and those in salaried employment. But can this State go on if every fresh increase in taxation warranted by the circumstances in which the people find themselves is to be taken by all those who are in sheltered occupations as an excuse to force up their own remuneration in order to compensate them for the rise in the cost of living which is the inevitable consequence of an increase in taxation?

What does the Minister mean by sheltered occupations?

The Deputy knows as well as I do what sheltered occupations are—those occupations where individuals are in a position in which they can bring such coercion upon the community as a whole that the community is almost prepared to pay them anything in order to keep them in employment. Those who are in secure salaried jobs in the public service are in sheltered occupations.

The transport workers, et cetera?

The people in this community can be divided roughly into two classes: Those who are in sheltered occupations and who, therefore, are very largely immune from the uncertainties and the anxieties which the war condition has created for the greater number of their brethren; and those who are not in sheltered occupations, those whose daily bread depends on their being able to get not merely a job but the materials which would make that job productive, and those others who are compelled to sell their produce in one market to one buyer. They are not in sheltered occupations. The farmers of this country are not in sheltered occupations. The farm labourers of this country are not in sheltered occupations. The man who is engaged in the steel working industry in this country at the present moment is not in a sheltered occupation. The man who is engaged in assembling motor cars in this country is not at the present moment in a sheltered occupation.

He is not in any occupation.

Most of them unfortunately are not. The men who are engaged in the garages of this country are not in sheltered occupations. The moment the petrol supplies are reduced their jobs are in danger. They are not in sheltered occupations. But there are other sections of this community—they are the smaller section of this community—who are in sheltered occupations. The public servants all over this country are in sheltered occupations. Deputies may joke about it, but it is no joke for those who are in casual employment in this country. They are not in sheltered occupations either.

What does the statement of the Minister for Finance come down to except this, that since the lives and fortunes of every member of this community are menaced by the present international situation in Europe, then every member of this community must accept and must shoulder his fair share of the burden of protecting this community and maintaining it immune from attack if possible? That was what the Minister for Finance meant when he said that the present impositions should not be made an excuse for forcing up the rates of wages or other costs of production. What is going to be the position of this community, in the uncertain circumstances of the future, if, every time the Minister for Finance has to come along here and impose fresh rates of taxation, those who are in a position to do so will utilise that occasion as an excuse for extorting a greater share of the country's production for their own use? Then the position is going to be this, that those who can do that can pass on to the less fortunate element in the community the whole cost of the government of this country. Accordingly, I think that if we are going to win through in the present situation there must be a frank realisation on the part of everybody in this State that every individual must accept and must shoulder a fair share of the sacrifices that are necessary. I have never tried to conceal from the people that I, at any rate, was very apprehensive as to what might be the position here in the event of a European war. When I tried to point that out to Deputies here I was criticised and condemned by the Opposition Parties because my speeches had too gloomy a tone. I should like to read for the House some of the criticisms which were offered upon my last Budget speech. I was told then that I was a dismal Daniel, and that I was a Job and a Jeremiah. Well, unfortunately the position which was visualised then has come to pass. It has involved us in a great deal of public expense. It has involved every one of us in a great deal of private discomfort. It is not a nice thing or an easy thing to fall over your own feet, when leaving your own door at night, because of the black-out, and because of the other precautions that had to be taken to ensure that no excuse would be offered to anybody to imply that our neutrality was an ineffective one. We have had to do a great number of other unpleasant things. We have had, above all things, to come here and ask the Dáil to impose additional taxes in order that we might carry on the public services, but, however expensive our neutrality has been, however unpleasant for all of us it has been, it has, at any rate, this one great saving advantage, that we can all of us go home to-night and peacefully lie down to sleep, and that we can all think our children will sleep peacefully, without the thought that because we are at war some enemy will disturb their slumbers.

I think as the Minister has barely sat down I should make one remark. It is a remark I think which will get me support, outside the ranks of my own Party, amongst a very wide circle in this House. It is this, that if the Minister wants to introduce into this House any spirit of seriousness, as he attempted to prove to-night we should require, then the Minister should be kept out of this House. I do not suppose the House has witnessed in many years such a heavy-footed and light-headed exhibition of buffoonery as that to which we have just listened. If the Minister thinks that people are going to go home to-night and sleep easily in their beds I would make one exception. If any colleague of the Minister whispers to him one-tenth of the foolish things he has said here to-night he will not rest peacefully to-night, not if he has any sense of shame, any sense of dignity or personality, any sense of appreciation of what this House requires in a serious crisis. I wish I had the gift of a naturalist at this moment, the men who have from time to time traced the history of growing life from the grub to the chrysalis, the grub that emerges as a butterfly. I remember when the Minister sat here—I use the term metaphorically—as a somewhat grubby member of the Opposition. What was he remarkable for? For what he has asked this House to avoid, vilification and vituperation. He was much more remarkable for that than for any skill in argument or debate. The years have rolled by. The Minister no longer hugs his shroud about him. He emerges, after the lapse of time, as one of Dublin's brightest socialites; the man who can go to the Chamber of Commerce and vilify his own colleagues, and throw his own past to the winds. The Minister told us to-night that he was criticised for being a Job and a Jeremiah. They were somewhat dignified if rather pathetic figures. But the Minister discarded dignity to-night. If the Minister is going to adopt rôles hereafter, if he cannot appear naturally, I would advise him rather to appear as a Job or a Jeremiah than to indulge in the old slapstick comedian antics, and appear here as a Chaplin or a Grimaldi. If you search the annals of all the mimes and mummers and barn-stormers who ever lived and raved and ranted, I do not believe there will be found another exhibition—remembering the seriousness of the discussion in which we are invited to take part— comparable to that to which the Minister has treated us here to-night.

I am afraid the Deputy is mixing up argument and vituperation.

I am reminding the Minister of his past. I have not yet used the phrase about people being spat upon, or people so unclean like lepers that no one will touch their hands. I give the Minister a present of two of his sweetest-smelling rhetorical flowers from the many bouquets he handed across this House. There was a strange mixture of this comicality and arrogance to-night. No self-inebriated egotist that I ever listened to was so arrogant as the Minister to-night. Our neutrality and our independence depend upon what? That we, extending a charity that would cover a multitude of sins, will take this Budget and pass it and say it is the only thing that can mend the evils or help to repair the evils that have come upon the community. I am not disposed to surrender any intelligence that I have to the Minister in that respect.

The Minister told us that this is a deliberative Assembly. Apparently, the Minister's idea of a deliberative assembly is that they are merely to announce plans and we are to accept them as national endeavours. I refuse to accept that. I particularly refuse to accept it on a document which, on its face, bears so many marks of blundering and incapacity. Members of this Party have in recent weeks had contact with members of the Minister's Party and, amongst other things, we have queried what was the reason for the mobilisation of the large number of men called to the colours. I do not know if we precisely asked what was the meaning of the new police force. But never did we get the answer given here to-night, and I doubt if any member of the Minister's Government will stand over what he said. He says that the group of people who have been mobilised and who stand under arms were brought there because of the murderous attacks made on the people, on the community, and the technique of terrorism that had developed, and which was likely to be enforced internally.

I never heard that excuse before for the mobilisation of the Volunteers. I do not believe it is true. I do not believe, either, that only for the new recruits to the Guards we might have been embroiled in belligerency with our great neighbour at a time when that great neighbour is at war. If the Minister is going to approach the House seriously, he ought not to try to put up that type of bogey, because that bogey has not been raised in secret conferences by any member of his group. I can say it is inaccurate, and it is misleading the House to put that forward and, if needs be, we shall ask for a statement as to why these people were mobilised. I denounce here and now what the Minister has said as false, and I believe the Minister knows it to be false.

The Minister also stated that, if we did not vote for this Budget, Irish lives are going to be lost, Irish flesh and blood will be embroiled in war. I do not believe it. No case has been made to justify that statement, and it is simply not true. Why should the statement be made? Because the Minister knows that he cannot defend the details of this Budget, and hence we get all the rhetoric and folly and the mixture of comicality and arrogance that we had to-night about our neutrality, our independence and our great neighbour at war, and the statement about Irish flesh and blood being wasted in the war.

We heard nothing to-night about the ¾d. on sugar, and that is what the populace want to hear about. We heard nothing about the ½d. on the pint or the 2d. on the glass of whiskey, or the yet undisclosed amount on the packet of cigarettes. These are the things that the people know about and they want to know why are these things being imposed. They want to know what prices they are likely to face and what is the necessity for the imposition of this additional money. Even if some extra imposition by way of tax is demanded, we are still at liberty to say that the proper means have not been adopted.

We have had this all-sufficing arrogance that enables the Minister to say: "If you do not take this Budget as I present it to you, you are going to wreck neutrality and possibly the independence of the country." That sort of thing will not pass for argument. It was quite clear from the restlessness that could be observed amongst his followers that it was even failing to pass for argument with the members of his own Party. I suggest that when it is read over by the Minister it will appear to him as the folly which it presented itself to us when he spoke.

What does the Budget situation reveal to us? It is quite a serious one. According to the Minister for Finance, two aspects have to be looked at. On our expectation of revenue we are out to the extent of £1,620,000. On the other side, the Minister told us we have incurred heavy expenditure in a variety of services. I am using the word "services" in inverted commas, very distinctly. We have Air Raid Precautions, the Volunteers and the Censorship, as well as coast-watching. We have an undisclosed amount so far as these expenditures are concerned. We are down £1,620,000 as far as the estimates of revenue are concerned. We are going to meet that in what manner? We are going to impose certain taxes which will hit certain parts of the community very hard, and when we have done that we have met about £600,000 odd of the deficit.

The Minister then turns to economies, and he says he will make them to the extent of £400,000. How that is to be divided we do not know, but we do know what services it will come from— unemployment assistance, employment schemes, and housing. These are three of them. There is the Land Commission work in addition, and the draw from the Local Loans Fund. First of all, this point has to be noted. The Ministry, as a whole, ask us to see that employment is provided; that nobody should dismiss men; that it should be remembered that every man dismissed is going to be a burden on the community. The five services that the Minister picked out for economies are services which, I suggest, are going to lead definitely to unemployment. However, for the moment let it be. We meet £600,000 by extra taxation, and we have a possible saving of £400,000. The rest is to be borrowed.

What about the new expenditure which, presumably, is also to be borrowed? That is not mentioned. The Minister for Finance contents himself with the phrase that he has achieved practical equilibrium. The man who walks on a tight rope up amongst the folds of a circus tent, and who is on the point of falling, has, I suppose, achieved what could be described as practical equilibrium. What is going to happen to him, almost immediately, is quite clear. However, we have made an attempt to meet this problem. How is it to be done? Something is to go on income-tax, starting from the next financial year. Immediately ¾d. is to go on sugar, and taxes are to go on beer, spirits, and tobacco.

It is not open to us here to discuss, at this moment, on this particular Resolution, the other imposition that is going to be put on, the ¾d. that is going to be added to sugar, but it is in any event in the context, and the context is this—what has been done for the last couple of days in regard to sugar imposes upon the community an extra taxation of £1,400,000. This £1,400,000 is to be derived from what has always been regarded as an essential of life.

The late Minister for Finance, now the Minister for Industry and Commerce, plaintively asks the House what else is there to tax. I did not think that in the life of this Dáil we would hear the echo of that old phrase. I remember when the then Minister for Education, Deputy Derrig, told us quite plaintively in this House that it was wrong for us to complain of taxes being put upon necessities of life because, he quite candidly explained, there is nothing else left to tax. After so many years of Fianna Fáil government we reached that point two years ago, and we are now back at it. There is nothing else left to tax except a necessity of life, and on that necessity of life we are imposing a burden of £1,400,000. By taxation, the State will gather in nearly £750,000.

If I am asked at this stage do I object to a tax on sugar, I say immediately: "Until all other resources have been exhausted I do object to a tax on sugar." If I am asked is there anything else to tax, I will say that as long as any other range of commodities is open for taxation—outside, possibly, bread—I will choose them in preference to sugar for taxation purposes. And if the Ministry tell me that they have given this matter consideration and have thought deeply over it and have the same view about sugar as I have, then I say the position that is disclosed is lamentable, that we are down definitely and clearly to the last resort.

Is there any other way of getting taxation? As speeches are made here the suggestion appears to be that the scheme of things that has been hammered out by the Fianna Fáil Government in the last five or six years is perfect, that it may suffer a slight change here and there, but that the general scheme is as good as can be thought out. With that proposal, if it is made in such terms, I disagree entirely. I think that the fabric of things in this country has been very seriously disturbed by Fianna Fáil, and not to the benefit of the country, and I think that considerable savings could immediately be made if we discarded, what an economist recently has called, all the political will-o'-the-wisps we have spent seven years in following.

But there are other points to raise, and I want to get the sharp contrast between two things which, to my mind, constitute a definite scandal in the community at the moment. I suppose we hear more at the moment in the way of preaching to and threats against profiteers than we hear of anything else, and yet these sheltered profiteers, the profiteers who have been sheltered by Government action, are being let get away with the loot. It may be said that that is a mere statement, but two sets of the looters have been caught out. They have been reported upon by Government commissions, and in one case a finding was made as to the exact extent of the swag with which these people had got away.

The Minister for Supplies cautions people against hoarding. He adds to that threats about jail for profiteers, and that cry is taken up in chorus by the whole Government. I have here two reports which were both produced by the Prices Commission. One is an ancient document of the year 1934. The other is not so remote. The 1934 document is the result of the deliberations of the Prices Commission, investigating the prices charged for wheaten flour. Flour is one of the things that the Government have very definitely protected. I think, personally, I suffered more odium on this matter of flour than any other individual in the State. I was supposed to have brought the firm of Rank into the country. If I did bring them—and I deny that I did—I certainly did not allow them to extend to the point to which they have extended at the moment, and I certainly never stood over them in respect of any damning indictment such as is contained in this report.

The Prices Commission, in 1934, reported generally on the position in regard to flour that the Commission were of opinion that the prices charged for flour in the Saorstát were unreasonably high. They gave reasons for that conclusion. I only propose to deal with a couple of them. This, remember, is prior to the year 1934, and the scandal then revealed has continued since. Reporting in the year 1934, and dealing with the period before that, they say:—

"The following facts afford an eloquent commentary:—

"Twenty-three milling units showed an aggregate net loss on business in 1930 of over £13,000. In 1931 they showed an aggregate net profit of over £379,000, and in 1932 the aggregate net profits earned by twenty-four undertakings totalled over £263,000. These results included, of course, profits from maize-milling, etc., but arose chiefly from flour-milling activities."

That is by no means the most eloquent statement in the report. This is, to my mind, the best phrase. They talk about the recent flotation of Messrs. Ranks (Ireland), Limited, and give a certain number of figures which represent an achievement in this country that should be chronicled as amongst the greatest piratical efforts of any industrial undertaking in the world. That firm, whoever brought them in, saw their chance in the years 1931 and 1932 and 1933, and what they did was, they floated an Irish company and through that Irish company they sold to the Irish public, whom they invited to subscribe, a certain number of shares, but they definitely safeguarded to themselves the control of the concern. The number of shares sold without the control of the firm being transferred brought them in £533,000. Before that, the Prices Commission report stated that concerns previously capitalised at a lower aggregate figure were incorporated in a new company with a nominal capital of £700,000, and it was possible for the promoters to make a successful flotation on the basis of a market value of £1,452,000. They got from the investing Irish public a little over £500,000. That £500,000 sum did not ensure to the Irish investor the control of the company. How was that amazing achievement brought about? The Prices Commission tell you. They say that it was largely due to the following assurances contained in the prospectus for the loan:

"The amount required annually to pay the dividend on the 350,000 6 per cent. Cumulative Preference Shares is £21,000; on the basis of the average profits for the last three years the dividend on the said 6 per cent. Cumulative Preference Shares is covered more than seven times, and on the same basis the amount available for dividend on the Ordinary Shares, subject to Reserves, is over 38 per cent."

And the Ministry got that report in 1934 and have done nothing about it ever since.

If my offence was rank, and it was supposed to be, I suggest that the offence of the Ministry is still greater. What has happened since? Calculations have been made and have been quoted from this side of the House, and they have not yet been offset with any contrary statement of figures, that at this moment on the sale of the 3,000,000 sacks which this community require as a necessity in the way of flour consumption there has been netted £3,000,000. I do not see how any Deputy in this House can go down to his constituency and say with any feeling of assurance that he is going to back the Minister in setting his face against any increase in wages, profits, or salaries in these hard times when in those other times, and in the years since 1934, this firm—and the outsiders still control the running of the firm—have been getting away with loot to that unimaginable extent.

The findings of the Prices Commission Report of that year merely showed you that picture. People could fill in the details if they had skill enough. But there was shown a picture of glaring profiteering and it was profiteering being done at the expense of the community as a whole. It was being exacted from people on a foodstuff which the majority of the people must buy.

The situation, although the amount made is less, is possibly more scandalous when one turns to this question of bacon. I need not go through this whole matter of the report of the prices charged for bacon. I can summarise it, I think, fairly accurately and concisely, A group of men were selected by the Government in order to run a particular scheme for the betterment of the bacon-producing industry. They were told in an address, from which a quotation was given in the interim report of the tribunal, on which the whole matter is founded, that it was necessary in their own interests to try to prevent the great rise and fall in the price of pigs from time to time, and in the interests of the bacon curers it was suggested that they should flatten out prices. In order to do that it was suggested that they might have to accumulate a fund, and it was even suggested in an heroic mood that these capitalists, these great industrialists, might forego profits for a year or two.

These capitalists and industrialists knew a game that was better than that. They were chosen, presumably, both for their skill in the business and also because it was felt that they had some instinct for the public good. They were put into a position of superiority over the community. They were put into a position where they could, if they liked, do harm to the community by exacting ruthlessly prices for the commodity which were not deserved. They carried on and their operations were examined over a certain number of years. For four years the figures are given with this comment made by the tribunal— that excessive profits were taken by the curers in the period from 1934 to 1937. The amount calculated by the Prices Commission that these curers got away with was £305,000 or £306,000. That leaves out the year 1938, which was a better year than any of the others analysed here.

When we have in our hands for many months a report so condemnatory of the attitude of these people who were put into that superior position, I do not see how we can accept the proposals of the Ministry that we should, for instance, say we want £400,000, according to a report sent in by a committee of our own and accepted by us, when it has been proved to us that certain curers diverted certain machinery to their own use and pocketed nearly £400,000. I do not see how I can go to anybody and say to him that the bacon curers on this board have got away with nearly £400,000 and we are going to let them keep it; that in these years of hardship we are going to turn the blind eye on their proved profiteering. I do not see how we are going to say: "Instead of that we will get that £400,000 by cutting employment schemes, unemployment assistance, and defaulting in the obligations that we have incurred up to date in housing." If there is £400,000 to be got I want to see that the pockets of each of these curers are searched before I will vote one halfpenny in the way of economy from employment schemes, unemployment assistance, or the failure to give housing grants.

When that report was brought before the House we had a debate upon it. The best that the Minister for Agriculture could say on that matter was: "I do not defend these people." He would have been a brazen man who would make that attempt. To-day we had a Bill introduced to abolish that group of people. But they can laugh at us, because they have in their pockets over £300,000 of public money which they got on this commodity. They got it because, as business men with an acute business instinct, they were trusted with a public duty and they betrayed that public trust. The Ministry sits down supinely to try to scratch and dig out nearly £400,000 by economy, and this group are held up to public odium and scorn as having robbed a stated sum. I suggest that before there is any attempt made to exact further money by taxation, and particularly by the taxation of such commodities as sugar, the milling position should be examined, and the position of the bacon curers should be examined, and we should find out what we can get back for the people from those folk who have been demonstrated so definitely and clearly to have robbed the community.

What suggestions have we to make about taxation? has often been asked from the benches opposite. It does appear a joke at this moment to say to any members of the present Government: "Did you not promise a saving of £2,000,000 in taxation?" That has got to be so big a joke that they can even laugh at it themselves. But it was seriously made; at least it was made with sufficient pretence of seriousness to delude the community into voting for them. Is it now to be understood definitely and clearly that all that was a hollow mockery? The Ministry have thrown up their hands at that, and the best the committee on economy can produce is that they are going to cut the four or five services mentioned in the Budget statement. I do not at all accept the statement that there are not other places where economies can be found. For a couple of days this House has resounded with the term "sugar" and the situation about sugar is deplorable.

We had a pretence for years of aiming at and achieving self-sufficiency. Then the war came on. I do not suppose a better statement could be got of just how the depth charge, so to speak, exploded around self-sufficiency than is contained in the lecture I referred to read before the Statistical Society on "The Social Income of the Irish Free State, 1926-38". This phrase occurred in that:

"Then the outbreak of war demonstrated, not the desirability of the autarchic day-dream, but the futility of a pretence of it founded on the importation of semi-manufactured articles."

For seven years the people of this country have been exhorted to make sacrifices, to give in to this, that, and the other imposition, to live laborious days, to put up with taxes, to be harried in their daily life, and all to the end that one day—and it was promised almost as a day soon to dawn—this country would be self-sufficient. It was already self-sufficient in agriculture, and all we needed was to dot a few sugar factories, a few alcohol factories and peat undertakings round the country, and we would be almost entirely self-sufficient. We were swept off our feet, not allowed to stop to think and argue about the industrial development which was proceeding so fast that the Minister in charge of it was at times overburdened, and we could not get a statement of the real economy behind the grand facade of the new industries.

Then the war came and the present Minister for Industry and Commerce went before the Chamber of Commerce. The Minister was in a funny mood before that Chamber. He has evidently decided that he is going to give to Rathmines what was previously meant for the Republic. He was in a mood of candour before the Chamber of Commerce and told them that the economy of this country is a dependent one. That was a satisfactory phrase. Two words that are contrary are "dependence" and "self-sufficiency." He rather I think rudely and brusquely tore the veil aside from his predecessor's doings. Nevertheless, he clearly demonstrated that the economy of this country was dependent on outside supplies of semi-manufactured goods, machinery, replacements, stores, and everything else.

Self-sufficiency was blown up in the early days of the war. We have to keep the pretence still. We have pretty nearly closed down the industrial alcohol factories, and the peat briquette concern is finished. Peat, we were told, in a mood of exultation, was a new industry that was going to be the second industry in the country, next only to agriculture and, as far as Ticknevin is concerned, it has gone. The sugar beet factories at all costs must be kept going. In addition to self-sufficiency, the Ministry prided itself here in early or mid-September, that they had shown considerable forethought in the whole matter of supplies. A new Government Department, a new branch of Industry and Commerce, had been set up under a Minister and special civil servants were allocated to it. They were considering the getting in of essential commodities and in the first couple of speeches we listened to, we saw that the only thing they felt able to boast about was the position with regard to sugar. I asked a question to find out precisely what was the situation with regard to sugar. I start off with the figures repeated here yesterday and to-day, and which may be repeated again in this context, that the consumption of sugar was 100,000 tons, that the sugar factories produced 60,000 tons—sometimes we are told 66,000 tons, but we do the factories no wrong if we say 60,000 tons— that we get in 40,000 tons, which saves us as far as one year is concerned.

But lo and behold, on 1st September, it was found that we had 783,000 cwts., as near as makes no difference to the 40,000 tons we required. That was a grand position. The Minister told as that we were now safe until the production season in 1940 came, that is to say, somewhere about mid-October or mid-November, 1940. The situation as expounded to this House was that we had not exactly self-sufficiency in sugar, but by dint of an addition of 40,000 tons imported to what the factories produced, everything was right until November, 1940. Then we are told the price of sugar is to be raised 1½d., ¾d. of which is tax which the Minister thinks fit at this time to impose as a burden on the community, and the other ¾d. to pay for the cost of the importation. What about the forethought of the Department which anticipated the Department of Supplies? Where are the supplies they got in? Why is there any necessity to charge for these importations, if they had done their duty as they explained to us they had? Is it proper that a Minister who made so bad an error with regard to this importation in respect of sugar should be transferred to the Department of Supplies and given control of the whole supplies of the community?

In any event, we are going to pay ¾d. on sugar for taxation purposes, and another ¾d. for something in the nature of increased cost due to importation. A tax of ¾d. brings in £700,000. If we had the amount of sugar in on the 1st September that the Minister boasted of, we need no other importations until next July, or if we wanted to forestall, we could get in four months' supply during these months. Sugar is on sale at present at £17 6s. Why can we not buy it now? What will it cost us if we buy it now? Less than £40,000. Why should we not buy it? The Minister knows why. The Minister knows that the sugar beet factories must be kept going next year, and, presumably, he is going to offer beet growers in this community an extra price. What will we be paying eventually for home-produced sugar? As far as I understand, a calculation has been made, and it is proposed to give for home-produced sugar something in the neighbourhood of £27 a ton, when we have sugar on offer at £17. That is what is called self-sufficiency. We are going to pay £27 a ton for an article that is freely on offer at £17, and the community are to be scarified by these extra costs of sugar. We are not merely going to pay that huge price for what is offered at a relatively low price, but we are going to tax that substance to bring in another £750,000.

If that is what I am asked to subscribe to as being the best plan to save this country, even its independence or its neutrality, I am not sure that I might not prefer war; but I do not regard that as the only way that this matter can be met. The pamphlet I have referred to before holds out very little hope for this country on the present pattern of its economic development. Grave and serious as war may be—and in the background there are hungry years ahead of the people who will be touched by the war, and few can hope to escape—even for the period it lasts some of the community will do relatively well, and it is suggested in this lecture to which I have referred, that this country might do well, if its natural development were allowed to progress, if the people were not diverted into unprofitable occupations, and if the pattern of economic development were not distorted by politics.

At the moment we, being of different Parties, are asked to join with the Government, who still are a Party, and are playing Party politics. We are asked to join with them when they bring forward a Budget which, I say, is weak on its face, and that is put to us in the sacred name of independence, neutrality and saving the lives of the people. That is what I described at the beginning as arrogance. It is presented to us as the only plan, based on what I suggest are falsehoods, to buttress the weak statement made on the Budget by certain Ministers. The Government have been luckier than most Governments in this country. They got the co-operation of the community; they had the toleration of the community in very many of the things that the community feels sore about. They should not abuse that confidence. People in this House are anxious to give the Ministry a free hand. They should not be insulted by being told that all the excogitations of the Fianna Fáil Party and the Economic Committee have only resulted in the meagre saving of £400,000, in the bad choice of the ways in which that £400,000 is to be saved; the further statement that increased taxation is necessary; the shockingly bad choice of the articles on which the increased taxation is placed, and the definite, bewildering and disquieting silence with regard to the future.

What is the extent of the piling on going to be? Is the Minister prepared to say that even in the short period between now and the next normal period for the introduction of a Budget there will be no further increase in taxation, and that whatever we are going to do, whether simply putting off the evil day or borrowing, these methods are going to be resorted to, instead of further taxation? I suggest that it is well known to the public at large that there is extravagance rampant all round the Government, that there are fatuous schemes still persisted in, which are wasteful and detrimental to the economy of this community, and not likely to last, possibly not going to last for the period of the war, and after sacrificing all that I ask here and now what gain or immediate benefit there will be?

The Minister for Finance must know that there is widespread disquiet over what he announced in the House yesterday. The Minister knows well that it is not going to be possible to adhere to both exhortations of the Government, to pay this tax and fill the revenue, if he wants to avail of the fruits of the tax and, at the same time, expect ordinary business and ordinary households to keep everyone in employment. The two things are not possible. It may be an unfortunate phrase, and there may be something in the background, but when Ministers are pleading for support from all Parties, I do not understand why the phrase that has been so definitely commented on in the Budget was ever written into it—that which threatens drastic action in certain events. We are told that further increases, unfortunately, are probable, and the Minister tells us that there will be a strong temptation to demand corresponding increases in wages, salaries and profits. We are told then about the spiralling of prices of various commodities that would be started as a result—a commonplace of economics—and we are told that the Government is determined to set its face against the efforts of any class to obtain compensation for the rise in prices at the expense of the community. How can the Government expect to be taken seriously in that matter, when the bacon curers and the millers are ranting around the country, boasting about their profits and talking about how much they have made—some of them boasting that they do not care whether they are nationalised, confiscated or socialised, because they have made their pile and their stuff is safe? That is what is being said, and these phrases are current in certain circles.

Some effort must be made to grip these people, and no matter whether one report is dated 1934 and the other a year ago, it is not too late for the Government to mend its hand, and if an example were given to this community, by extracting from the millers and the bacon curers some part of their ill-gotten gains, it would do far more good than hours wasted in debate in this House. Then we would have some way, then we would have some ability to approach other people who are not yet proved to be profiteers, but about whom the anticipation of profiteering has been raised, and say to them: "Take a lesson from the example that has been given to you in the case of the millers and the bacon curers; take a lesson from that before you embark on any such policy." How can the Ministry pretend to be amazed at the feelings that have been aroused at the use of that phrase, about the Government being determined to set its face against the efforts of any class to obtain compensation for the rise in prices at the expense of the community, when, in their own immediate past, there are these definite exactions made by the millers and those who profiteered and trafficked in bacon? If the Government is determined to set its face against the efforts of any class to obtain compensation for the rise in prices at the expense of the community, let it be remembered that the millers did what I have mentioned without any necessity for them to get compensation for the rise in prices at the expense of the community, and the same remark applies to the bacon curers. At the moment, there may be a temptation to get compensation for the rise in prices, but I cannot see how any Minister could take action in such circumstances against any group when there can be hurled against him the remark that can be hurled against him in connection with the millers and the bacon curers. I suggest that the Government should read that phrase, with pointed meaning, to those two sets of people who have certainly mishandled this community in their dealings with them for six or seven years past, and it is no use to abolish one group if you let the others continue.

Apart from that, does the Minister think that it is possible to avoid an increase in wages, salaries and so on at this time? For some years past, the people of this country have had to face the fact that the purchasing power of £4, £5 or £6 a week had gone down, as a result of the high prices that had to be paid for certain commodities due to subsidies and so on. The purchasing power was brought down in that way, and the wage-earners were induced to agree, for a period, to the reduction, by appeals to their patriotism, when the Minister was engaged in his whipping campaign and boasting about whipping the people with whom he now wants to be so friendly. On these grounds, he could appeal then to the people to stand behind him and give him strength to emerge victorious even though the poor people had to suffer certain deprivations.

That burden is still there, and now, on top of that burden, the Minister adds certain other burdens by way of taxation. That is not the whole of the story. He knows that everything that comes in from other countries—and the Minister for Industry and Commerce says that we are dependent on other countries—has increased in price. Is it inside the limits of human patience to tolerate a still further decrease in purchasing power when, no doubt, the future will show still more glaring examples of profiteering even beyond the few examples I have given?

There is one other example which I should like to give, not so much to the Minister as to the House in general. We ourselves, as one group of the community, are in a delicate position at the moment in talking to outsiders in the community about not seeking any increase in wages and salaries or profits. There was a time when the Ministers ranted around the country on public platforms about the amazing monetary emoluments that were to be got by those in office, and when they came into office they, in a self-sacrificing way, insisted on cutting down their emoluments, but at a time when there was certainly no great burden, through increased prices, spectacularly before the people, the Ministers decided that their salaries were not sufficient, and that our salaries as Deputies were not sufficient, and all were accordingly raised. It behoves us, therefore, to be careful when we set out to lecture the community not to try to look for increases of wages and salaries to meet increased prices. We may have a case for what we did here—I think there is a case to be made—but we are in a somewhat delicate position, and we should not adopt this very superior air towards people on the £3, £4 and £5 a week level—not for travelling expenses and allowances, but for their entire subsistence—and if that phrase about the determination of the Government to set its face against the efforts of any class to obtain compensation for the rise in prices is to be used, I think it should be used with full advertence to the facts.

The Minister should have told us whether he apprehended any demand for increased wages, salaries and profits, under what circumstances these apprehensions had arisen, and how far he had gone to meet those who thought they should get increases by lessening the burdens these people have to bear on small salaries. But, merely in the vague, it was a deplorable thing that the Minister should have written into that speech that particular phrase, and read it as he did; and still more deplorable that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should have argued, as he did to-night, with regard to the very justifiable comments that were made on his speech. This is a bad Budget. It is a shocking situation which has been revealed with regard to the country. The country would pardon this Parliament a lot, but one thing that they will not pardon is hypocrisy, and that phrase, in the context I have mentioned it, smacks very much of hypocrisy, and I hope the Minister will advert to it.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported.
Committee to sit again to-morrow.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 am on Friday, 10th November.
Top
Share