Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 7 Mar 1940

Vol. 79 No. 3

Vote on Account, 1940-41 (Resumed). - Committee on Finance.

Mr. Bennett

We have here a Vote on Account for £10,630,000. It is right perhaps that we should draw some attention to this expenditure. From 1932 until now the increase in expenditure and taxation has risen by something like £9,000,000. Outside of that we have indirect taxation imposed amounting to about £3,000,000 at least. There are, in addition, numerous items added to local taxation the effect of which has been that the national income, and certainly the national income of a great portion of the population of this State has been considerably reduced. Obviously, one cannot go on extracting ever-increasing amounts from the ordinary pockets of the people without making the economic position something desperate. That is to say, except in cases where you have by the Government methods or otherwise increased the income of the particular person you tax. Now, in regard to the bulk of the people of this State the reverse is the case. I do not think that any Deputy in any quarter of the House will get up and say that the incomes of the great bulk of the population have been increased or that they have been able to hold their own in the last eight or nine years. Yet in face of that additional taxation, direct and indirect, amounting to probably £15,000,000 to £16,000,000 has been imposed. There has been direct taxation in local bodies and there has been concealed taxation in the case of such things as wheat and beet.

The Government cannot go on with schemes of extra taxation without playing have with the ordinary economic life of the country unless, of course, the income of the people is being increased. But the fact is that the incomes of the people of this State have been steadily reduced. One of the particular effects of this taxation has perhaps been the reduction in employment. One might have thought with the advent of the present Government, the unexpected increase in taxation that has followed and the huge expenditure of public money generally that the direct effect, at all events, would be a reduction in unemployment. If anyone ever believed that the reckless expenditure of public money could reduce unemployment that belief has now been falsified. We have had eight years of that experiment and the result has been a clear proof that the unemployment problem cannot be helped in that way. To-day we have far more unemployed than we had in 1932. We have possibly a greater addition, too, in those who are only in receipt of part-time employment. One of the most deplorable things in this whole business is that employment on the land has been steadily reduced. There are to-day fewer men permanently employed on the land than there were eight years ago. There are fewer now than at any time perhaps since the institution of this State. It could not well be otherwise.

When the times grew worse the farmers were bound to economise in something and the only thing they could economise in right at the start was labour. The farmers could not meet the whole of the local taxation, the increased price of all commodities purchased and at the same time spend the same amount of money on labour. There had to be drastic economies effected by the agricultural holder and one of the things he had to do was to reduce expenditure on labour. Very many farmers throughout the country, though they regretted it very much, had to fall back on reducing the number of their labourers. They could not cut their outgoings in any other way. Their taxation, rates and annuities had to be paid and then there was the increased cost of the ordinary necessaries of life to be met. The ordinary implements for the farm cost more. The one thing left to them to cut was their expenditure on labour. Consequently we see everywhere around the country sad evidences in the deterioration of the land and the condition of farming generally. One has not to travel very far to see this. One has only to go into any farming community and see the condition of the moist land everywhere. One has only to look at the fields that ten or 12 years ago were in fairly good condition to find them now over-run with rushes, flaggers and other weeds that grow on damp lands. That is because there has been no attempt made by the individual farmer to drain these lands or to clear out the openings of the drains during the last eight or nine years.

The farmer can find whatever labour he can afford to pay for essential work on the farm—to save his hay if he is a dairy farmer, or to put in his crops if he be a tillage farmer. But work that should have been essential but which could lapse for a few years without any dire results he neglected. No attempt was made to keep the lands in proper order by drainage. Drainage is expensive work. It requires a great deal of expenditure by an individual farmer to keep his farm drained. Where drainage has not been carried out, lands which were once fertile have, in some cases, deteriorated into swamps. Again, you find that on farms where you used to see well-kept farm buildings and well-kept fences these are not now in a proper condition. The farmers could not attend to them. In many counties there are practically no fences and there are, consequently, differences between neighbours because one man's cattle trespass on another man's land.

At a time when a great effort was being made to house the people, the farmers' buildings went into dilapidation. The housing policy of the present Government was one of the items that did give employment. If it had not been for that, the position in regard to employment would have been disastrous. But for the number of people put into work by housing, a position which was deplorable would have become disastrous. The unemployed would have overrun us. In a period when huge sums of public money were being spent on housing— useful work which was giving employment—farmers' houses and out-offices fell into a state of dilapidation because the farmers had not the wherewithal to keep them in proper condition. There is little help for the farmer in that respect. He has got either to do the work himself or to leave it undone. If he had been fairly prosperous he would not have regretted expenditure on labour for the doing of these things, but virtually every Deputy knows that he was unable to afford the necessary expense.

Many Acts have been passed to provide help for other sections and to assist in providing employment. These efforts did not succeed very well. They were experiments. While farmers were letting workmen go because of their circumstances, we had sums of money—in one case one-third of a million—dumped into a bog. That sum, spread over a number of farmers, might have enabled them to put a big hole in the unemployment problem. We had various other examples of wilful extravagances in experiments. We have had Acts passed recently for the development of social life. We have had Acts passed to provide fire brigades and other amenities for people in the towns, partially at the expense of the local rates. It is possible to provide light and water for people in the towns at a certain expenditure. The State bears its share and local bodies the other share, but the farmer has to dip his hands into his pockets all the time. There is nobody to give him light, water or drains. He has got either to provide them himself or to go without them.

We are asked to point to any item in respect of which these Estimates could be reduced. It is not our job to point out to the Government where they can retrench. That is there job. This country was run on £9,000,000 less than it is being run at present. If you take indirect taxation into account, it was run on £15,000,000 less. Let them take a lesson from the manner in which it was run before. The manner in which it was run then pleased a number of people. The people were better off and there were fewer unemployed. They have a headline there. Now, we are setting a new headline. The Government have refused to economise but they are asking local bodies to economise. Recently, a circular was sent to the local bodies advising economy. It went so far as to suggest that they should riddle the cinders so that there would be no loss. A Government that put £333,000 into one bog as an experiment and that spent countless other millions in helping financial hogs to extract the last penny from people asks local bodies to riddle the cinders. We are asked to point out to that Government where they are to economise. If we come down to such small things as cinders, there are in this Vote some cinders to which one could point one's finger. The President's establishment has gone up from £3,600 to £3,900. That is not much. It is only a flea bite but is the President to be asked to riddle the cinders in his Department and effect some reduction. The Oireachtas is costing £1,000 more than it did last year. We might riddle the cinders here to some effect. The Department of the Taoiseach is up by £300. These are infinitesimal increases but a Government which has increased expenditure in respect of nearly every item and which has increased the number of officials has no right to go to the local bodies and ask them to riddle the cinders. They themselves should pass things through a sieve and riddle not only the cinders but some of the small coal and some of the turf.

You cannot go on squeezing the people all the time and, yet, expect that a case can be made by anybody in this House for the reduction of the number of unemployed. It is impossible to go on squeezing the people unnecessarily year after year, extracting the last 1d. from them with a forceps, and expect that, by some miracle, circumstances may so alter that the farmers who own the land may be able to employ a few extra men. We have had recently adoption of the principle put forward by us that, when all is said and done, it is to the land we have to look to for any improvement of the position into which we got during the last six or seven years. That is generally recognised now, I am glad to say.

There has been an all-round conversion to the belief that the experiment of bolstering up every section at the farmers' expense has failed, that many of the wild-cat schemes, such as bogholes and others, have failed, that there is little hope for such schemes as alcohol factories and other such schemes and that, in the end, we have all of us, Government, Opposition, Labour, Independent and every other section, to recognise that the only hope of resurrection for this country depends on the prosperity you bring to agriculture and that the only hope there is of reducing the number of unemployed is in bettering the conditions of agriculture. You will not better the conditions of agriculture, or of any other class, until you get a fairly big sieve and drastically riddle the expenditure of one Government Department after another and try to lop off about 33 per cent. of this expenditure of £10,000,000, and of the total expenditure of some £30,000,000. Then, perhaps, with the expenditure of some portion of that money in the direction in which it ought to have been expended long ago, in aiding the agricultural community, the class which, it is now admitted, is the only class to which we can look for any hope for the country, there may be some chance. It is idle for any Deputy to spend his time going through item after item in this huge list of expenditure, and the best thing I can say to the Government is, in their own words: "For God's sake, start riddling the cinders."

Mr. Hughes

The Minister for Supplies, speaking at University College last night, said that if there was one thing more than another that might make a discerning person uneasy about the future of the Irish race, it was the apparent absence of interest among the young generation in public affairs, the apparent absence of any movement of thought amongst them, of any of that questioning of accepted theories which preceded the emergence of new facts. Evidently, the Minister is becoming distrustful of his own policy and is looking for a new movement to bring new ideas to the surface, and he is amazed that the younger generation is not producing such a movement. Does the Minister not realise that Government policy, during the last seven or eight years, is responsible for the present state of despondency, hopelessness and inactivity amongst our people?

During their period of office, we have had a huge increase in the cost of administration, an increase, as Deputy Bennett pointed out, of approximately £9,000,000, together with an increase in the cost of local administration, and side by side with those increases, a catastrophic fall in agricultural production, our main industry. Production in agriculture fell from £63,000,000, in 1931, to £48,000,000 last year, and when we compare that with our competitor countries, our competitors in the market which everyone is beginning to realise is the only market available to this country, and when we see the tremendous strides which they have made during that period—in Northern Ireland, agricultural output increased from £10,000,000 in 1931 to something like £16,500,000 last year—we begin to appreciate the problem with which the country is faced at present. The difference between the Government's policy and ours is that the Government believe that the only solution of unemployment, or for any of our social or economic problems, is piling on new burdens of taxation and giving the people some sort of direct dole or Government employment. We are diametrically opposed to that policy because we firmly believe that the solution of unemployment is to be found in encouraging private enterprise. The best employer to be got in this or any other State is the private employer, and the man who is going to get the best value for money spent is the man who puts money into enterprise and produces something which is a national asset.

In speaking of expenditure here, one is struck by the fact that when one compares the services provided last year with those provided in 1930, there is no apparent improvement in any of them. Services, so far as the people are concerned, were as good then as they are to-day, and yet there is an increase in the cost of these services of approximately £9,000,000. In other words, not only had we to pay through the nose for those services, but we got damn bad value for the money. One does not always grouse if an article is costly, provided it is good, and sometimes if you get good services, although the administration is a little expensive, there is some compensation, but I suggest that the services which the people of this country have got for the money expended do not at all justify the expenditure of that money. What is really wrong? To my mind, what is wrong is the problem of unemployment. As I have said before, the Government felt they were going to solve the problem themselves, but any sort of prosperity which we have had during the régime of the present Government has been purely artificial. It was created by various schemes—unemployment schemes, minor relief schemes, housing, water and sewerage schemes. Some of them, I admit, were good and useful social works, but they were nonproductive and they were a continuous drain on the resources of the country.

I submit that if you propose to tackle big social problems, the safest and best time to tackle them is during a period of prosperity, and in order to provide the wherewithal to tackle these problems, it is the responsibility of the Government proposing to tackle these social problems to promote the necessary prosperity side by side with their attempt to solve these problems. It is only by doing that, that you can preserve the resources, and particularly the financial resources of the country. That was completely lost sight of by the present Government. They completely lost sight of the fact that we here, as an agricultural country in competition with the keenest agricultural producers in the world, Denmark, Holland and other countries, had to be free of all these burdens, and certainly of any heavier burdens than our competitors had to bear, if we were to compete in that competitive market. That principle was completely ignored by the Government. Tariffs and burdens of all sorts were piled on the backs of the agriculturists of this country—piled on the back of the main industry of this country. The burdens and charges on production here were higher than in Denmark, Holland and Northern Ireland, with the result that we were unable to compete and our production fell, and that fall in production—that catastrophic fall—was inevitable under Government policy. Time and time again our people, in a desperate effort to try to husband their resources and to preserve their means, lost money as a result of this. They were producing an article with an increased cost of production and they had at the same time to sell below the economic level because their cost of production was too high. As a result, eventually, their financial resources were drained and dissipated by the policy of the present Government and they went out of production.

As I have pointed out, side by side with that situation you had the Government going in for wholesale relief schemes and social work, which was not sound economics. For instance, you had £1,500,000 doled out directly from the Department of Industry and Commerce for unemployment, and you had, through the Office of Public Works, another £1,500,000 for minor relief schemes. You might add to that another £500,000 by way of a contribution from public bodies, making £2,000,000 from the Office of Public Works, and you might also add about another £3,000,000 for housing, waterworks schemes, and so on. In any case, you had something over £6,000,000 a year for such things. Now, I admit that some of the work on which that money was spent was good work, but none the less it meant a continual drain on the resources of the country, and yet, during that period, agricultural production was falling and no responsible person in the Government appeared to show any concern about it. That was the situation that obtained when this emergency arose and when this present conflagration broke out in Europe.

I submit that, notwithstanding the gloomy picture I have tried to paint, it is not yet too late to undo the damage that has been done to agriculture, and that this present situation affords this country an opportunity of rehabilitating the agricultural community and marshalling the resources of agriculture so as to build up a sounder and better economy within the State. Now is the time for a bold and courageous attempt to be made by the Government, and to go in intensively for agricultural production and, by a proper agreement with the British Government, to secure a market for our produce, not only during the war but also in the postwar period, and, if possible, to secure a preferential treatment for our produce there and, at least, get rid of that vicious quota system which was the product of the economic war. There is an opporunity available to get rid of that system. That opportunity has not been available up to the present, but I am convinced that it is there to be availed of now, and I say that it ought to be availed of.

Dr. Hannigan

On a point of order, Sir, may I draw your attention to the fact that there is not a quorum in the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Hughes.

Mr. Hughes

I was pointing out, Sir, that there is an opportunity offered here for remedying this situation and that the masses of the people are coming to a realisation of the fact that the economic structure of this country rests absolutely upon our main industry, which is agriculture, and that there is a responsibility on the Government to rehabilitate that industry that has suffered so much during recent years. That can only be done, in my opinion, by making available ample credit facilities for our farmers, and by reducing the existing burdens of taxation. I think there are some signs that the Government are beginning to appreciate the danger of the situation. The Minister, in introducing this Vote, referred to the economy committee that has been set up and said that, in the face of increased war costs, he had managed to save the situation in so far as there is no increase for this coming year. The Minister, however, will need to go much further than that and will have to pull down these burdens within reasonable limits and within the capacity of our people to pay. He will have to drop a lot of these attempts at any other new-fangled ideas such as peat schemes, alcohol factories, and the huge expenditure on an Army, that is unnecessary.

A Deputy

And torpedo boats.

Mr. Hughes

Yes, expenditure on torpedo boats, coastal watching, and all that kind of nonsense, that has not been justified in this House and that cannot be justified in this House. Drastic retrenchment is necessary and a helping hand will have to be given to agriculture. As I have said, an opportunity is now offered and assistance is urgently needed. We feel that that assistance has not been given, or is not likely to be given, to the extent that is necessary. The Government must mend its hand if it is going to save the situation. It must reduce this huge expenditure in view of the type of administration we have now as compared with what we had in the past. That is the first thing that must be tackled—a reduction in the huge cost of administration in this country, and, side by side with that, we have to develop and to get into production all our people, and a good deal of that can be done on the land. With regard to the amount of money that is spent directly on minor relief schemes and so on, I personally would not question the amount spent on such schemes if that money were spent on productive work, but the fact is that we are spending too much money on work of a nonproductive nature, and that is what is draining the resource of this country and crippling the economic position of this country.

Mr. Belton

It is rather extraordinary that more interest is not taken in this debate. If the country could see the sparse attendance at this debate in the House, it would not reflect great credit on political enthusiasm when a general election comes along. We are called upon here to vote £10,000,000 on account of a sum of £30,000,000 odd. I wonder if the Government responsible for putting up this demand have considered the real situation which obtains in the country at the present time. As a Government in the present emergency they fail lamentably. When an emergency occurs in any country that is free, the busiest man in that country, and the man who is requisitioned immediately, is the Minister for Finance; but our Minister for Finance, when the emergency broke on this country, might as well have been on a holiday in Hollywood as Minister for Finance here. He did absolutely nothing, and he confessed in this House that he had no power to do anything.

The bank rate of interest went up. In no country in the world but this does the bank rate of interest go up without the knowledge and consent of the Minister for Finance; and it went up in this country. I put a question to the Minister subsequent to that period as to who was responsible for the increase and as to whether he was consulted. He said he had not been consulted and that the people responsible for the increase were the Banks' Standing Committee. This country is a business and there is nobody looking after it. I am not blaming the Minister for Finance personally; the powers of his office do not extend to control of the bank rate, though they should. We hear a lot about formulas of freedom, but that is the essence of freedom. We have the power to have it but we have not taken it; we have left others in control of our money, in control of our credit; and while others are in control of our credit, while we have not taken control of it, we cannot have anything but the condition we have—thousands out of employment, unemployment growing and unemployment assistance a deadweight on the backs of the taxpayers and the ratepayers. That has been a growing burden since the present Government took office.

This year, one would expect to see some signs of improvement, to see the Government surveying the situation and preparing some machinery to amend the present situation and to look to the future. We are confronted now with a war situation all around us. What has the Government done? A spectacular thing: five torpedo boats to defend our shores, a few bombing planes, millions of pounds spent on an Army. From a military, naval or aerial point of view, it is absolutely a waste of money. If anybody wishes to attack us, our few torpedo boats which cost us such a lot of money, our Army which cost us a lot of money and our bombing planes which also cost us a lot of money, would be worthless in the defence of this country. There is only one way to defend it within our resources. That one way is to produce here what we want during the emergency. If the money spent on bombing planes, on the Army and on torpedo boats were pumped into agriculture we might not be afraid of any unemployment as far as foodstuffs is concerned.

We heard the Minister for Supplies speak here to-day. I do not think we have a supply of anything. We are growing more corn this year, but will we have sacks to put it in? Will we have binder twine to tie it with; will we have wire to truss the straw? I asked the Minister for Supplies that question to-day; he was certain that we were all right regarding that. I said to him—and I knew what I was taking about—"merchants are not satisfied that they will get supplies." Then the Minister jumped to another position, he shifted his ground and said: "Well, whatever will be there will be equitably distributed." Is it of very great use to me, if I have 100 acres of corn to reap and tie and I get my full share of the binder twine that is available, but can only get enough binder twine to tie ten or 20 acres? What is the Minister for Supplies doing? He gets his whack out of this £10,000,000. What are we paying him for? I wonder if he realises the position we are in.

The Minister for Agriculture sits down in his office and makes an order —I presume, under the Emergency Powers Act which we foolishly gave him—that the owner of every holding or farm in the country must till 12½ per cent. of the arable land. The effect of that will roughly double the area under tillage. To break up land that is growing grass is only preventing it from growing good grass, unless there are fertilisers, manures to put into that land to cultivate a crop. Have we those fertilisers? We have not. Where is the sense in breaking up land that is growing something and leaving it to grow nothing but weeds if you have not fertilisers to put into it? Notwithstanding what the Minister for Supplies said here to-day on another Vote about all that is being done with the Belgian Government, it must be remembered that the Belgian Government had, when war broke out, unlimited—so far as our requirements were concerned—superphosphates for sale and available for use.

We had a tariff to protect our own manure works here. Should it not have been the first steps of both the Minister for Supplies and the Minister for Agriculture to see what were the supplies of manufactured superphosphates and other manures, and also to see how the raw materials for our manure factories stood? What are we told to-day?

The Minister for Supplies, who expects us to vote this money to him, told us that they bought phosphates in Africa—an adequate supply for the factories—but that only 25 per cent. has been delivered and they cannot get ships to deliver the balance. I am a member of the Dublin Port and Docks Board; I have no other knowledge of shipping, but, from time to time, new information and intelligence comes up and is debated by people who are practical shippers, and who are very largely in that line of business. There was no trouble whatever in getting ships. In fact, thousands, perhaps millions, of tons of shipping were lying idle. We are a neutral country. After the war broke out we declared our neutrality. Some countries have ships perforce lying idle. They dare not put them out on the seas. Why did we not buy them and ship those phosphates from Africa to Dublin? Would it not have been better than buying the torpedo boats or the bombing planes or spending millions on an Army? It was not done. Although it is not exactly the province of the Minister for Finance—it is the responsibility of the Minister for Supplies—I would like when the Minister for Finance is replying that he would inform the House if he got any requisition from the Minister for Supplies for money to buy ships to transport to this country the necessaries of life that this State requires if it is going to survive as an independent neutral State during the present conflagration. I think the Minister for Supplies has lamentably failed in providing the materials that we require. He talks about wheat and beet. Does he not know that they will not grow by pressing a button? Does he not know that they have to be fertilised? He was in charge of the Ministry and it was his job to make fertilisers available. He did not do it.

We have not government by an individual here; we have government by an Executive Council and I take it that when the Cabinet meets inter-Departmental controversies and discussions take place. I wonder did the Minister for Agriculture consult his colleagues on the Executive Council before he made that tillage order. I am sure he did. Surely, the ten or 12 members who constitute the Executive Council would not require to be practical agriculturists when discussing a matter of such far-reaching importance and such essential national importance in the present emergency to discuss it from a business point of view. They know that if they are only growing a head of cabbage or a drill of potatoes in their own gardens it requires manure. Did they not ask the Minister for Agriculture, or did he not explain to them, that manure was required if this tillage order was going to be of any national advantage? We all know that you can increase the area under tillage but have less production. There is a certain amount of fertilising that has to be done for crops. It is better to have a small area with adequate manuring than a large area without manure. The question of breaking up the land did not meet the national emergency. The only thing that would meet the national emergency from a food point of view would be to break up more land if there were manure to fertilise it. The Minister for Agriculture should know from statistics available that there is less farmyard manure this year than there was last year, thanks to the policy of the Government in practically killing stall feeding. There is less farmyard manure to manure a larger area this year. So far as superphosphates are concerned, the most that we are assured of is 80 per cent. of last year's supply which was not at all adequate for the area under cultivation.

From a social and a national standpoint, even apart from the national emergency, the greatest danger threatening this country is unemployment. Here there is the necessity for more food production. You cannot produce extra food without extra employment. So there you had at hand the dual purpose of increased tillage; to provide more food that is necessary for the nation to carry it through the emergency and to create more employment in producing that food. These two purposes both hinged on more fertilisers being available. The provision of fertilisers has been neglected. It is such culpable negligence that it almost amounts to treason. It is astonishing that the Government did not meet that situation and it is more astonishing still that the country is lying so quietly under that neglect by the present Government, that Government which coolly comes along and says they want another £30,000,000 for the coming year to neglect the national business equally as well as they neglected it last year. Now they are asking for £10,000,000 on account to neglect the nation's work. Should not the Government consider the appalling situation that is confronting this country? I am sure they did, but they are not taking any steps that I can see to meet that situation.

There are about 120,000 people unemployed while all around the country there is work waiting to be done. There are thousands of acres of land in this country—perhaps millions—that could be brought into production. The Government should lay it down as a law that no able-bodied man or woman will get money without earning it. It is time that was done. Otherwise, how can the few who are producing continue to carry the day to day maintenance of the State and carry the thousands who are perhaps doing necessary work but not directly productive work, in addition to carrying the old and the young and 120,000 unemployed and their dependents out of a population of less than 3,000,000? The thing is an economic impossibility.

And consider the future. Consider the young boy and girl growing into manhood or womanhood, who have seen their father going week after week to draw the dole. When they come into manhood or womanhood they also set out to draw the dole. They never think of work. Before long, we will have a large population in this country who do not know how to work, who never worked and who will not work. I think the position is terribly serious. I would appeal to the Minister that the time has come when something big and bold and drastic must be done. Take, for instance, an activity that gave a vast amount of employment here in the last ten or 15 years, in which the Minister was personally interested and, when he was Minister for Local Government, did all a man could do in that capacity to help forward—that is, house building. Practically all housing operatives are idle at the present time. Thousands of pounds weekly are out of circulation and all those who used to benefit, when that money was in circulation, if not actually unemployed, are next door to it. This city feels the poverty caused by the breakdown in housing.

The Minister is now Minister for Finance, the Minister for the public purse in this country. I said a moment ago that such an office in any other country in the world would carry with it the inherent control of the banking system of the country. I am not going to preach bank robbery or inflation, but I am going to advocate some forward move that will put the people working. Ministers come in here and guarantee prices, but no power on earth can guarantee prices in this country if you are going to have hundreds of people idle. How can you guarantee prices if you have hundreds of people without the money to buy the commodities for which you guarantee these prices? The guarantee that our farmers want is the provision of whole-time employment for the workers of this country, not a guarantee to cover prices. We do not want any price fixed in pounds, shillings and pence. We want to see the people of the country working and no other guarantee is worth the paper it is written on. In this country we have all the materials, with the exception of timber, necessary to build ordinary houses. In Dublin we have thousands of skilled operatives. Many of them are idle; many more have gone to Wales where they are making huts for the British Army—at less wages than those for which they would work here at home. That in passing; that is a detail. While we have all these materials available, there are at least 20,000 additional working-class houses required in the Dublin City area. I do not think the Minister will dispute that figure. That does not take into account houses that would be built by ordinary speculators for middle or higher-class people—if we have any such in this country.

Why should we not have our workers employed in assembling the materials we have here, and erecting houses for the people who are clamouring for houses? There is one man in this country who should be able to answer and he is the Minister for Finance. He controls the public finances. He should control the national credit and the banking system in this country and he should be able to give us a definite answer. I hope he will deal with that when the time comes. I hope also that neither he nor anybody else, in discussing this matter, will say that I advocated in any way social credit or inflation.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy seems to be advocating legislation, which may not be done on the Vote.

Mr. Belton

I think that is hardly necessary. I am pointing out the danger of unemployment.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have followed the Deputy very carefully.

Mr. Belton

I am asking a question and the Minister can advocate legislation if he requires it.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister would not be in order in advocating it on this Vote.

Mr. Belton

We shall meet him then on another Vote. I am just putting the unemployment problem to him and, though in local politics and as Minister for Local Government, I crossed swords with him on many an occasion, I pay him the tribute that he has always shown a very great personal interest in the point I am developing, in housing. I think that if there is one activity which provides employment, as the Minister knows, it is housing. Surely he must ask himself the question: how cannot we in this, a creditor country, get money to build houses? Surely a creditor country should have great national credit? It certainly beats me to know how this creditor country with all the materials, with the exception of timber, necessary to build the thousands of houses that are required cannot go ahead with the building of these houses. We export our money, we export our operatives, we leave people in the slums and those who will not emigrate go on the dole, while the few who are working will have to pay for that dole. I would appeal to the Minister to start, but then I cannot appeal to him, I suppose, to initiate new legislation?

An Ceann Comhairle

No.

Mr. Belton

Well, I leave him to his own devices when I appeal to him to consider this problem and the solution of it. If there is any trouble about new legislation, let the Minister face the racket. I shall not, in face of the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle.

Consider another aspect of this matter. Much public and private money, the credit of the country and the credit of individuals, have been pledged to start new industries and on the whole I agree with that. These industries have been fostered, nursed and brought to the vigour of full maturity, by the sacrifices made by all the people in the shape of tariffs which they have borne and with which I agree. Some of my colleagues may not agree with them but I do, 100 per cent. Would it not be a pity to let these industries decline when we have gone to the expense of bringing them to the stage of development which they have now reached? The Minister knows, first hand, that many of these industries manufacture materials for house-building. If house building declines or ceases, have not the factories to close down? Have not the operatives in these factories to get out, go on the dole or emigrate? The factories cannot pay the interest on the money advanced to build them and to purchase machinery. You have them there as white elephants. Such instances will grow and multiply, if you do not continue the industry that requires the finished articles of these factories as the raw materials of that industry. In other words, the new factories that provide the materials for the building industry cannot survive unless the building industry goes on.

In the building industry all that is required is the provision of money— that is, as regards the speculative side of the building trade. What is most required is money to help private individuals to purchase their houses. The Minister knows that the facilities that were given and that were found to be satisfactory and safe have been withdrawn. He may say that that is not quite accurate, but from the point of view of a practical business proposition I may say they have been withdrawn. I appeal to the Minister to consider restoring those facilities in order to help the building trade. If we find difficulty in getting essentials into this country, the Minister should consider advancing money or credits to provide ships that would fly our flag and bring in essential commodities, the raw materials or the finished articles that we require here.

Looking down this list, I can see all that is paid out for unemployment assistance and unemployment insurance. There is here an item relating to pensions. This State is not 20 years of age, and yet there is £500,000 going out for pensions. No wonder the people in the country are asking why should they work and what are they working for. Where did all the pensioners come from over-night, as it were? If any one of us was down the country and read this list of items representing the handing out of money for which nothing is given in return, I do not think he would feel very much like throwing off his coat and waistcoat and tucking up the sleeves of his shirt.

I hope we will get something by way of a formulated programme from the Minister. I hope that some attempt will be made in the near future to grapple with this question of unemployment. Why could not some machinery be set up? Why could the Government not take over certain public works, let them be connected with either land reclamation or bog reclamation? Why do they not provide areas where work can be carried on and why not try to meet unemployment within large areas? They could schedule those areas and anybody who found himself unemployed in a particular area could go to the local Gárda barracks, or the local post office and there get a travelling voucher that would take him to where the Government would have State employment for him and where the Government would maintain him. If he is an able-bodied man he would work for his maintenance.

If something like that is not done soon a serious position will arise. The time will soon come when something like it will have to be done or you will not be able to feed the hungry. Why not do it now? The Government could adopt some scheme that will make it compulsory on able-bodied people to earn their living, if they cannot get a chance in the ordinary way. We have society organised and you may call it a capitalist system, or whatever system you like, but, as it is organised, in the ordinary course of competition, if some people find themselves crushed out of employment, perhaps you cannot blame them. It would be a bad country that would allow anybody to starve, but he would be equally a bad citizen who expects his country to keep him idle. He cannot make the work, the Government can, and it should at once set about establishing the machinery that will carry out the dual purpose of maintaining those who find themselves crushed out of employment and not able to earn their own maintenance, while at the same time, if the State maintains the citizen, that citizen will render some service to the State for the cost of his maintenance. Is there anything wrong in that? Is it not essential that it should be done?

We all know there is a good deal of malingering. Many people who have been drawing the dole have come to me and said: "I suppose you have not a job?". That is the way they start looking for one. If you ask them why they are looking for a job they say: "We will be knocked off the dole—it is only a few shillings, but it is useful—if we cannot assure them in the labour exchange that we are making an attempt to get work." They then ask you to sign a document for them and they add "If you sign that for me I will be all right and I will continue to draw the dole." That sort of thing has been going on. If a fellow is turned out to starve he will stretch his conscience before he will starve. It is the Government that should provide the machinery so that those men will not have to stoop to that type of subterfuge.

The Government can undertake land reclamation, but no individual can. Land reclamation will pay for itself at any price, but it will take a long time. When land requires a lot of labour to reclaim it, it will take such a long time, when reclaimed, to repay the money expended that the ordinary individual cannot afford it, but the State can. On the one hand, the State would be giving out money for nothing and on the other hand it would be keeping people accustomed to work and making them better citizens. I think it is the greatest evil we have in our midst and every effort should be made to try to cure that evil. It is disheartening and nauseating to be observing every year the giving of large sums towards unemployment assistance when we all know that home assistance is paid out as well. From the Government Benches they have boasted of the provision that is being made towards unemployment assistance.

It is the greatest condemnation of the Government that one could have when they have to admit the necessity for increasing the amount in that respect. It would represent much better government and it would be a better sign of prosperity if a proud Minister for Finance could come in here and tell us that no unemployment assistance was being budgeted for because all who wanted work were working, and anybody who found himself temporarily out of employment would be provided by the Government with work whereby he would be able to contribute to his own maintenance. I need not moralise on the benefit to young people growing into manhood and womanhood to be put into work at that age instead of wasting their lives as many of them are doing at present. I hope when the Minister for Supplies gets this money his Department will make better use of it than it did last year, and that he will look further ahead and buy essentials, even if the price has gone up; that he will endeavour to get money or credits to buy all essentials before they get dearer still.

I hope that the Minister for Agriculture, with the Minister for Supplies and the Minister for Finance, will get together and make sure that the essentials for producing food for man and beast will be made available in adequate quantities. From information that I have received in the last ten days from all over the country, I am afraid that there has either been some misunderstanding or that someone has failed to honour promises made. Correspondents—farmers— from places as far apart as Donegal, Cork, Kilkenny, Wexford, Leix, Westmeath and Roscommon have written to me to say that the Minister for Agriculture assured a deputation of farmers in the beginning of February of this year that adequate credits for agriculture would be placed at the disposal of every farmer. I do not know how true that is, but I am giving the information to the House as I have got it. We know that if the promise was made it has not been honoured, but whether it was made or not it is something that the Minister for Agriculture should apply himself to. We heard a good deal about credits yesterday. I would develop that now but for the fact that we heard enough about it yesterday, and that there will be another opportunity next week to speak on it. All that I will say on the matter is this, that if the Minister for Agriculture makes an eleventh hour or a death-bed repentance and comes to the conclusion that he must supply adequate credits for agriculture, I hope that when his appeal goes to the Minister for Finance it will be sympathetically considered.

Mr. McGovern

In this Vote on Account the Government are asking for a sum of over £10,000,000. If a comparison be made between the total sums estimated for the current year and for the year 1940-41 it will be found that, instead of a reduction, there is an increase of over £250,000 foreshadowed for next year. It is true that more has been spent than was estimated for last year. That happens every year, and we may expect the same thing will happen this year. Since I became a member of the House, seven years ago, the Estimates presented year after year show an increase, although the present Government got into power by promising that they would cut down all extravagant and unnecessary expenditure. They used to remind us of the time, some 30 years ago, when the taxation for the 32 Counties was about £10,000,000, and tell us that there was no justification for the increase in expenditure here. They promised that if they got the chance they would reduce taxation by at least £2,000,000 a year, that they would provide for all the unemployed and make this a land flowing with milk and honey. But, unfortunately, we have had eight years' experience of that Party, and find that, instead of achieving the happy results they foreshadowed in those days, they are simply marching with the times, so that to-day taxation in the State, instead of being £10,000,000 a year as it was for the 32 Counties in 1910, is almost £40,000,000 for Twenty-Six Counties. That is the sum that is required for national purposes, including Central Fund services and the provision made by way of Supplementary Estimates.

That being the position, we can say that we are marching with the century, because the figures I have given show that on the average there has been an increase of £1,000,000 a year in the last 30 years. If that continues for the next 30 years, I wonder will the State be able to bear it? While the present policy is in operation, I am afraid there will be a need for a steady increase in public expenditure. Think of what unemployment is costing, of all the ill-spent money there is, and of the increased expenditure on officialdom as well as the money that has been wasted on wild-cat schemes. If all that continues the expenditure will go on increasing year after year, but where, I ask, will this money be found? I am afraid that the Minister has reached the bottom of the taxpayers' pockets. I pointed out to him some months ago when he came in with his Supplementary Budget imposing new taxes on tobacco, stout and other things, that, instead of deriving any benefit from these taxes he might lose, because owing to the high prices charged for these commodities, people could not afford to buy them, and consequently their consumption would go down. I think the Minister will find that to be so at the end of the financial year. When you have that state of affairs in a country the position is very serious. Expenditure is increasing, but the ability of the taxpayer to meet it is being lessened year after year. That shows that we are reaching a very critical point. We find that production is not keeping pace with this increased expenditure. In the case of the principal industry of the country, agriculture, there is less profitable production to-day than ever before.

I was talking to a man engaged in the egg trade recently, who actually lives in Northern Ireland, and who ships eggs, and he told me that the price there was 30/- per cwt., while the price in Éire is 21/-. There has been some change made since last week, but I do not know how it has affected the position. The price of lambs is also affected, as here again the Irish producer has to sell mutton under the price paid in Northern Ireland. There is no value at all placed on hides. There is complete confiscation of hides owing to deliberate interference by the Government. The position with regard to agriculture is that while farmers are expected to increase tillage, and are making every effort to do so, they have not the capital necessary to provide seeds, labour and manure. Those who have capital cannot get the manure because of the failure of the Minister to provide the necessary phosphates. We have been urging the Minister to provide the necessary supplies, and while we have a Minister for Supplies, just as the great nations at war have such Ministers, yet the supplies are not being provided. Phosphates have been purchased in Africa. They could have been got from alternative sources but the Minister did not want these phosphates. The only kind of phosphates he wanted was rock phosphates, which would keep the factories here going. Every farm is a little factory, and it could produce plenty of food. If raw phosphates could not be got manufactured phosphates should have been provided from another source. The Minister made no attempt to provide manufactured phosphates.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy had ample opportunity of discussing that question on the last Vote, yesterday and to-day.

Mr. McGovern

I quite agree. We have listened to it day after day.

An Ceann Comhairle

Then why repeat it?

Mr. McGovern

That was only a passing reference. The most serious thing is the unemployment problem, and the burden that it is imposing on the taxpayers, apart altogether from the demoralisation that it is causing among young and old, who should be engaged on productive work, instead of reporting week after week at the local police barracks. I know people who travel four miles to the local barracks to report themselves for the purpose of receiving 2/-. It is hard to expect that people reduced to that position are ever going to be good citizens of this or any other State. It is a sad commentary, after eight years of office by the present Government, that we have 120,000 able-bodied citizens being supported week after week on nominal pittances to keep them from starvation. The production of agricultural stuffs has been going down, while prices are not at all comparable to the prices that people have to pay for their necessaries. What agriculturists have to sell is sold at reduced prices, but they have to pay inflated prices for what they buy and no profit is left. there is a constant struggle to make budgets balance and make ends meet in every household, but nothing is left the people for the improvement of their position generally.

I hope Ministers will make some attempt to provide employment by introducing some scheme to put those relying on unemployment assistance into productive employment that will also give a return to the nation for the money that is being spent, and train these people to be good workers and good citizens. I notice that some Ministers have promised to consider bringing forward some such scheme. I hope it will not be neglected, because the country is at present becoming demoralised and impoverished. This should be a very favourable opportunity. As Deputy Belton pointed out, there is need for increased production and an assured sale for what is produced on the land. It should be a suitable time to devise a scheme to put idle hands at work on the production of food. That cannot be done successfully without manures. I do not want to refer to that matter now, but I hope the Minister will consider having something done with the least possible delay.

Mr. Cosgrave

In the course of his observations on this Vote this evening Deputy Mulcahy crystallised into short space practically a wholesale condemnation of the economic and financial policy that has been pursued during the last seven or eight years. The general impression one gathers from supporters of the Government in various parts, is that Ministers have learned that the theories they held some years ago, and for many years previously, have generally proved to be unsound. When we come to consider the actual results of the policy pursued, as announced this evening by Deputy Mulcahy, we have now arrived at the point when there is no annual increase in the numbers of persons registered for national health insurance. That is surely a warning not only to the Government but to the country, regarding the danger of pursuing that particular line of policy. There had been an average increase in the numbers of persons registered from 1926 and 1927 to 1932, of 11,400. A new economic, financial, and agricultural policy started in 1932, and now after eight years, notwithstanding all the efforts made—and they were many—notwithstanding all the industries which Ministers boasted had been established, and notwithstanding the huge sums of money collected over and above the annual revenue and expenditure each year for the previous five years, we have to record that there has been an actual deterioration in the progress of the country.

It is all the more remarkable having regard to the statements made last night by the present Minister for Supplies who, up to a few months ago, was Minister for Industry and Commerce. He was the Minister charged with the responsibility of inaugurating a whole new series of industries of one kind or another. With a sound and sensible policy for the starting, maintenance and extension of industries everybody would be prepared to agree.

Where there is disagreement, however, is in the practical application of that policy to the special circumstances of a country such as this. It is quite true that the Government's policy in connection with industrial expansion was cut across by their agricultural policies during the period. However, they learned the evil of their ways in that connection and stopped the nonsense which had been in progress for some five or six years, and they are welcome to whatever credit they give themselves for putting a stop to their lunacy.

The prosperity and the possible continuance of an industrial arm in this country is dependent more upon the prosperity of the agricultural industry than on anything else, and the policy of the Government should be directed in every possible way towards improving the agricultural industry. Taking this Vote on account as a case in point, the very few agriculturists that I have come across since the publication of the Book of Estimates have directed my attention to the fact that, notwithstanding the increase in the sum that is estimated to be spent this year as compared with the sum that was estimated to be spent this time 12 months, the estimate for agriculture is down by £279,000. If that had been at the same level as it was last year, this Book of Estimates would record on its face £500,000 more money than was on the Book of Estimates last year. It is quite true that there was a marked increase in the number of persons contributing to unemployment insurance during the years that were taken by Deputy Mulcahy from 1932 to 1938 as compared with 1927 to 1932. It is quite true that there would be a difference of something like £4,500 a year, so that a section of employment in the country is greater than it was. The annual increase was greater than it was during the years preceding the change of Government. Then the question arises, at what cost; whether it is likely to be continued; how far we can be sure that its continuance is in accordance with a sound economic policy throughout the country.

If, owing to the extension of our industrial secondary arm, we throw out of employment or out of business people who are engaged upon the land, one has to make up the advantages that are derived, on the one hand, from the industrial secondary policy and, on the other hand, the disadvantages to the agricultural policy. It does not require any very close examination of the general trend of agricultural prices to come to a definite conclusion that there is not much money in agriculture in any country. The most successful agricultural countries are the countries of Northern Europe. We have Denmark as an example, Norway, I suppose Sweden to a certain extent, and Finland. We had before us a short time ago measures dealing with pigs, bacon, etc; but the Minister will find that we have scarcely ever exceeded the sum of £5,000,000 per year for our export of pigs and bacon to the British market, whereas the lowest figure for Denmark in recent years has been about £20,000,000. There is evidence there of an agricultural country, and an industrial country also, making money out of its export of pigs and bacon to the British market, selling them in competition with others, in that country, while the balance of trade between Great Britain and Denmark bears no comparison whatever with the favourable position that we occupy in that connection. In my view it would be far better if the trend of the economic expansion of this country had been directed towards agriculture with as much zest, industry and persistence as has distinguished the Government's effort in connection with the industrial expansion. The only objection that agriculturists or other people in the country have to the extension of the secondary industrial arm is whether the cost is beyond the capacity of the people to bear; whether the results are commensurate with what it has cost the people; and whether these costs have any reaction upon our agricultural production and economy which outweighs the advantages which have been derived from the industrial expansion.

A question arises at once in connection with our population figures. It must be remarked that while there was a greater emigration figure for the years 1923, 1924 and 1925 than for the last few years, nevertheless there was this remarkable distinction between the two, that there was not only a gradual but a remarkable drop in emigration in the years from 1923 down to 1931. In 1932 it had stopped altogether, whereas lately it would appear that we are getting back to the emigration problem again. If that be the measure of our success within the last few years, then one can only say that the Government's economic and financial policy has been a gigantic failure.

The second test that I would apply is the fact that we have now reached a point where there is no expansion whatever in the number of persons recorded in the National Health Insurance. We come to a dead stop. We are there at a point; for a great number of years we had added to it each year but now there is a dead stop. There may be an explanation of that. It may be that the disrupting circumstances prevalent in Europe may have some effect. There may be another— that even the figures of the last six or eight years were swollen by reason of the capital costs of starting quite a number of industries throughout the country and that once those capital sums had been spent we had reached a point where employment must be on the down-grade. Obviously there has been quite a sufficient list of facts presented by Deputy Mulcahy this evening to warrant the closest attention and scrutiny of the Minister. It is true that we have this satisfaction in connection with the Book of Estimates presented to-day and for the last few years, that the increase in the previous years had been much more marked. We have also satisfaction in noting that while the Government itself causes year after year increases in its demands upon the public for money, nevertheless it keeps its eye upon the smaller local authorities throughout the country; that it takes them to task and notifies them that they must reduce expenditure. When one compares the Book of Estimates for 1931-32 and for 1932-33 with the Book of Estimates to-day there will be found to be an expansion of 50 per cent., whereas if one looks up the corresponding increase in local taxation it will be found that the figure has gone up from £5,000,000 to only £6,800,000, an increase of £1,800,000 on £5,000,000. The local authorities could send back a memorandum to the Minister saying: "We realise the necessity and the responsibility upon us of economy and the essential reason for reducing our expenditure but, at any rate, we are not as bad as you are."

Deputy Mulcahy disclosed in the course of his observations all the money that has been spent which has been collected in taxation over and above what had been collected in the years 1927-1932. But he omitted just one item and that was that there were other moneys than those which had to be collected in taxation. We have undertaken a liability in respect of housing and I suppose other matters. But the Minister and himself are at loggerheads over one particular item. The Minister holds that the Budgets have been balanced in the last few years. I hold that in the last four years there has been balanced only one Budget. We have, by reason of bad finance, added £1,500,000 to the dead-weight debt of the country. It is past history now as to whether the Budgets are or not balanced. The question is what is to be the policy of the future? The Government policy has failed according to the two tests and two very fair tests which have been mentioned by Deputy Mulcahy (1) the decrease in our population, and (2) we have not been able to add any people to the list of those who are registered each year under the National Health Insurance. But when we take that figure of National Health Insurance we must bear in mind that the man who earns three or three and a half days' pay in the week is being qualified for a week by reason of these three or three and a half days and that it is not fair to compare that man with the man who gets six days' work in the week.

We are entering no objections whatever to certain new services that have been provided such as the unemployment assistance and the money for the relief of unemployment. The objection that I would urge in connection with the housing problem that has been undertaken is that it is bad financially and bad economically to add to the dead-weight debt of this country because of that housing programme. If you want to carry out social services, carry them out by all means, but carry them out by paying for them and not by borrowing for them. We are committing a very serious error in this country if we compare our social services with those of other countries. The social services themselves could be divided into two classes—the class of social services that one would normally expect in a sound country and the one that is bad financially. Those social services should include hospital accommodation, the care of the infirm, looking after widows and orphans, and persons entitled to the old age pensions. But when you go further and provide money for unemployment and claim credit and generosity for that, you are indicting your own country for your own inability to provide economic employment for those people. The higher those figures, come to and the greater the charge they impose on your public, the greater they reflect on your charity financially and the greater they reflect on your capacity and business efficiency.

Now looking over these large increases in the Estimates for public expenditure one is naturally struck by the fact that while social services are generally charged as the reason for the great increase in the cost of running the country, nevertheless the social services do not account for more than half the extra cost in the Book of Estimates. We have got to this position where we have interfered so much with business one way or another that the increased cost of government exceeds by approximately £500,000 the money spent on social services. We are in this position that we are now the most costly run country in Europe and for our size the country that has to provide most for social services. The present economy of our country is unable to get our people any gainful occupation. If we mean to make any effort towards increasing the prosperity of our country we have to direct our attention to finding out in what way that is best accomplished. In my view— I have explained it year after year, before and while this Government has been in office—the only exports that are worthy of our maximum efforts are agricultural exports. I have explained that we will not get the agriculturists to go in for expansion in exports unless they are doing business that pays them and unless the Government contributes to the lessening of their costs. The Government can help them by reducing their overhead costs. To cut down expenditure was the promise of the Government. They said before they got into office that they were capable of reducing the cost of government here by £2,000,000 a year. The man would be a poor financier and a poor administrator who could not take £4,000,000 off that list which has been increasing year after year. If the Minister would bend his attention towards that he would do more towards retrieving prosperity in this country than he could achieve by any other steps that could be taken. The present position while it has many warnings is perhaps not just dangerous at the moment. It may become dangerous. The point is now that because of the increase in the cost of living, raw materials and so on, there has been an interruption in employment.

When the war ends, if it ever ends, there is bound to be a slump in those prices and it is unlikely that, just at that time, when there is a slump, we are going to have great industrial expansion. It is all the more necessary to save all we can and to make an effort to reduce the costs of this country, to expend special moneys only where there is going to be a real result and to keep them from being thrown into bogs—to invest these moneys in good, sound land schemes and, above all things, to reduce the bill of costs with which we are blistering the people at present.

Mr. O'Reilly

Deputy Cosgrave has made a very interesting speech and has given a good deal of thought to the subject. At the same time, to say that the figures relating to National Health Insurance and the figures regarding population are a clear indication of further collapse in our economic position is to say what would hardly stand examination. It could be shown clearly that there is no decrease in the birth rate, that there is actually an increase. The same thing would apply to emigration. To my mind, the real indication of the difficulties we have to face is furnished by the increase in unemployment. The increase in unemployment is, I believe, directly connected with the unfortunate slump which occurred in agriculture. Unemployment quickly followed that. That took place some time after the war. It is quite possible that it would have taken place before the war but for certain other factors. Be that as it may, if that depression could be removed here, it would solve all our problems.

I do not think that there is a commodity produced here which we could not buy more cheaply elsewhere. That was the way ten or 12 years ago and it is the same still. We may examine the position of Denmark and deal with its exports to the British market but I prefer to examine the position of the Danish farmer. How much are they involved? Are they more involved than the farmers of this country? What are their debts? It is quite easy to quote total figures and say that all is well with the farmers there but the farmers could have sold all their stock and the result might be a large figure which would by no means be advantageous to them. The real question is: What is the position of the individual farmer?

What is the position of the farmers in Great Britain? Take, for example, meat. What would be the price of our cattle if Great Britain was not paying a bounty of 5/- or 7/6? Could we continue to sell butter at 9d. on the British market? As to eggs, mentioned by Deputy McGovern, we are getting the second highest price on the British market. Evidently, it is not a good price but still it is the second best. These are some of the things we have to consider. Suppose we had to compete with others in the British market how much would we have to lower the cost of production to farmers? Would complete de-rating affect the matter? If we removed all the annuities and other charges on the farmers, would they still be able to sell butter at 9d. and beef at 7½d?

Mr. Brennan

Is there no hope?

Mr. O'Reilly

These are the things which you and I and every one of us should consider. These are facts. Deputy Cosgrave recognised that fact quite well.

Mr. Cosgrave

Would the Deputy explain the difference between a supposition and a fact?

Mr. O'Reilly

Deputy Cosgrave fully realises what the situation is, but some of the other Deputies do not.

Colonel Ryan

The price of butter is not now fixed at 9d. per lb. in competition with any country.

Mr. O'Reilly

No, this Vote prevents it. Deputy Belton spoke about the building of houses and said that no money could be got for this purpose. I am sure money could be got for building houses but the point is: Will you get tenants who will be able to pay the rent? There may be some item in the costings attention to which would allow these houses to be let at an economic rent. I take it that the difficulty is that that has not been possible. However, there may be a way of doing it and labour costs might not constitute all the difficulty. What Deputy Belton said is no indication that credit is lacking. There is a difficulty about agricultural credit. The difficulty is in being able to dispose of agricultural produce at remunerative prices. It may be a little bit worse than it was. Beef is rationed in Great Britain. What effect that will have, I cannot tell. If the war lasts, the whole situation may be much more difficult than it is to-day. People may reduce the consumption of meat and turn to something else. One thing this Government can be satisfied with is that, if this war produces the results that quite a number of people say it will produce, and if it happens that the ships cannot operate, we took every step to produce all we possibly could here.

We can pride ourselves on this much, anyhow, that the bulk of the farmers have had an opportunity of learning something about the growing of wheat. It was a forgotten art when we took over. It had almost disappeared, and if this war had taken place before we took over, what would be the position? We were then importing almost everything we wanted. We were importing lamb, beef and other things, but by the policy we pursued, we assured the people that at least they cannot die of starvation. The bulk of the commodities the people need can be produced here.

Mr. Keating

You damned the farmers, anyhow. You are talking through your hat.

Mr. O'Reilly

There are just a few things we may be short of. Artificial manures may be scarce, but we took every step to see that we would produce here as much as we could. If the Party opposite had been allowed to continue their policy to this day, I wonder what would be the position of the country in the matter of food, or even in the matter of shelter? We had to face all that big difficulty at a time when the depression was perhaps reaching its zenith——

Colonel Ryan

And when there was no war.

Mr. O'Reilly

——and while the Deputy and his colleagues were preaching that the land flowed with milk and honey when the late Government was in power, when there was not a stone put on top of another.

Colonel Ryan

There was a little more than now, anyhow.

Captain Giles

You knocked them all down.

Mr. O'Reilly

Not one stone was put on another and there was sheer neglect with no hope or indication of anything about to be done to reorganise the position of the country. When we leave office, it can always be shown that we made every effort to give the people an opportunity of beginning production. We put houses over them and we divided land——

Colonel Ryan

With enough to eat, too, I suppose.

Mr. O'Reilly

——and if you had an election to-morrow morning, next week, or next year, the people are not likely to forget that. There is no indication that they are in any way forgetful, or that they listen to the nonsensical talk from the opposite benches.

Captain Giles

The silence on the Government Benches has at last been broken and by a Deputy who is talking through his hat. If he were honest with himself and with the House, he would realise that the situation we have in the country to-day has been brought about by sheer hypocrisy and high falutin nonsense for the last eight or ten years. Millions of pounds of the people's money were squandered, not alone on unnecessary officials and increased salaries, but on bog holes. The people to-day realise where they stand and they also realise that Fianna Fáil has let them down. We have this Vote put before us to-day in the usual nice fashion, and we see that agriculture is left in the same starved condition, while salaries, buildings and so on must get their full amount of taxation to keep them going. The country realises now that the Fianna Fáil policy has failed, and the Government also realise it. It is their duty to change that policy and to devise a policy which will meet the national emergency which exists to-day.

We have to meet a war situation at present which will bring many more problems than we have at the moment. In a war situation, what the people want is production from the land and to-day the people on the land are neglected by a so-called Irish Government that fiddles here and there with all sorts of schemes, but will not face the fact that the salvation of this country depends on the production from the soil. Give agriculture a chance and you will not have any trouble with the unemployment problem. The land will absorb all our idle men, if only given a chance. We have had too many experiments and the time has come for the Government to put a stop to them. We have had bog experiments, and others, but if there is money to spare, the place to put it is in the pockets of the agriculturists and let the unemployment problem be solved by the private enterprise of our people. Huge amounts of money are being wasted all over the country in taking out turns and widening roads. We have too many officials and red tape of all sorts in connection with the few people who are doing this work. The money should be left in the pockets of the farmers so that they may employ those who are unemployed, and so that the turns may be taken out by private enterprise; but, of course, that would be bad policy, because it would not afford an opportunity for the giving of employment to all the hacks and political "chancers" who have to get employment on those schemes.

This country is cursed in that it has thousands and thousands of officials doing jobs which they do not know how to do, but who are drawing big salaries week after week for the sole purpose of bolstering up Fianna Fáil régime. It is time that Fianna Fáil realised that they have been a blister on the people for the past ten years. We hear a great deal about neutrality, and we boast of our neutrality. Yes, we are proud that we have neutrality, but we must realise that our neutrality will cost us a huge amount of money and worry. Whether or not we have neutrality, we have this one fact, that there are between 120,000 and 130,000 idle young men in the country who cannot get a day's work and who have to live as State paupers. We, of the old régime, who brought freedom to this country, did not fight to bring the country to the position it is in to-day. We meant to see every man earning his living in his own way, and we did not mean to see a horde of State paupers cringing, crawling and begging for a living. No, we would rather have died than have lived to see such a time. We have this patriotic Irish Government who will not face facts, but who twist and turn like eels. They will not face the national position, the economic position or any other position. The whole thing is governed by: "Hold your seat while you can and let who likes clear up the mess"; but, thanks be to God, there are men in this country, valiant, strong and noble, who are not afraid or ashamed to say that they will step into the breach and save the country from the downward trend it is taking to-day. Yes, Ireland can always throw up sons, and she will throw them up again, who will take over the reins of the Government in the country and give peace and prosperity to a long suffering people.

Deputy O'Reilly was the only backbencher of Fianna Fáil who stood up to defend the policy of this great national Government. He spoke for five or ten minutes and said absolutely nothing. He told us about Denmark and he told us nothing about Denmark. He started off to say something and wound up by saying nothing. He knows that in the county he comes from there is destitution in every farmer's home and poverty in every workman's home. He knows that he has been silent for the past seven or eight years, while destruction of all kinds went on in that county. He saw land torn up and given out in uneconomic patches to men who never intended to work it, and for the majority of whom he signed letters in order that they might get that land. I say that it is his duty boldly to face the facts to-day. It is he and Deputies like him who have brought the country to its present position by their cowardice in sitting behind the Government and allowing his own county to be destroyed by bringing men from God knows where at huge cost to take land from the sons of the real farmers. Yes, he will defend his policy here, but he will also defend the policy of the Fianna Fáil Party on the platform in his own Royal County of Meath. It is a disgrace to see that county, the only county in Ireland that could save this country to-day from destruction, being used in the way in which it is being used and where the best land in Europe is being divided up amongst a lot of wastrels who would never work it. You have ditches and fences raised and a lot of that land has gone back again to the old 11 months' system.

I say to Deputy O'Reilly that there is a wastage of hundreds of thousands of pounds, but he is silent. It is good policy to be silent—there may be votes in it—but I say that the curse of an angry people will follow those who see what is going on around them in the country at the moment and who remain silent in face of it. The country is in a sad and sorry plight because we have men in power who are hypocrites. They came into office in 1932 and they said, from every platform and on every poster throughout the country: "Give us power and we will give work to everybody; we will set the wheels of industry turning and every man will have a living." What have you to-day? Has every man got a living here? No, but you have half of the people scrounging on the other half, and the farmers carrying a huge amount of taxation in order to bolster up unemployment and carry idle men on their backs. I say that they are unable to do so and that it is unjust and unfair of any Government to ask them to do so.

We have plenty of young men looking for work who cannot get it. Why? It is because the money is gone. What we want is a bold and national front and not to approach the problem in the "slingeing" and cowardly way of the Fianna Fáil Party. Oh, leave it to us and we will solve the problem of Partition and the problem of unemployment, and we will tackle John Bull, as you said you had done. You certainly have throttled and strangled agriculture here and filled your own pockets with money to which you were never entitled. There is not a half-a-dozen of you on those benches opposite who are honest men. The country has found you out. It has found out that you were deceivers. You go around to your secret meetings and clubs but you will not go around and see where we will get more employment on the land, the land of Ireland that is quite capable of holding far more people than are on it to-day. Why do you not make a bold attempt to put money into some method of keeping men from the street corners, the dole and the labour exchanges, and getting them back on the land to till and drain the farmer's land? If we have to get money to relieve unemployment, then let it be given through the farmers and not through the thousands of officials who are paid to keep these exchanges going. Private enterprise has been killed in this country, and the only thing to do is to give private enterprise the place that it should have in this nation because any man who is working in a private capacity is a man who knows what he is doing. He is working in his own interests in the first place and he is not going to squander his own or other people's money.

Wipe out all the different schemes that you have been going on with, and all that type of nonsense, and give any millions that you have to spare back to the land from which you took it. Let the farmer look after his own work. He does not want any officials or anything else. He will work his land if it is a paying proposition and he wants no officials, but he cannot make his land pay at the moment because you have strangled agriculture. The farmer has not the wherewithal to stock his land or to work it. He has to beg and scrounge from his neighbour to pay his rent and rates, and he is the whole year round borrowing from his neighbours. Is that the freedom that we fought for? If it is, perhaps we should not have fought for it. We would not have fought for it, I think, if we thought that a lot of hypocrites would seize the reins of power. Away with you, you lot of hypocrites, because you are nothing more. There you sit on those benches with your long, silent faces, but we will fight tooth and nail until you face the facts. You draw your salaries—and a good many of you never saw a salary in your lives before—not for the purpose of fattening and battening at the State's expense, but to do right for this country, and that is to see that every man should be working for his own rights and in his own way. Do away with your horde of officials that have agriculture strangled at the moment. Do away with all these weed inspectors, tillage inspectors and so on. We want none of them. If a national endeavour is needed and you call on the agriculturist and tell him what to do and give him the wherewithal with which to do it, he will do whatever is needed without compulsion. It is compulsion that has been the death of this country. You have used compulsion for the last eight years and it has strangled agriculture. There is not an agriculturist in the country who is not honourable and patriotic, and he will do his duty without any officials. Do not drive him, and he will give a good return, and the only return that will be of any real benefit to this country will come from the farmer on the land. You are building up big cities and towns, with sewerage schemes, waterworks, lighting schemes, and all the rest of it. That is what is destroying our nation. I would rather see our cities and towns lit with the old candle or lamp than to see the tens of thousands you are spending in drawing our people from agriculture. You are not lighting the homes of the farmers.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should address the Chair.

Captain Giles

Oh, no. The farmer has got to pay for all those things, and that is why you have the flight from the land, and you will have it so long as you pamper your big towns and cities. Give back to agriculture that which you have taken from it. Give agriculture its rightful place in the Irish nation, which is the first place. No other industry is entitled to it, but you have given it the second place and started your monopolies and so-called industrial development. I say that our so-called industrial revival is held in the grip of foreigners, and Englishmen, and people from Czecho-Slovakia and other places, but the poor old Irishman must take second place for this so-called Irish industrialisation. We want Irish industry to spring from Irish enterprise, and I certainly do not want to see one penny of foreign money coming into it. We had what Deputy Dillon told us about the flour industry and all those things. The Government Party is deliberately throttling Irish industry by allowing foreigners to come in and strangle us. I say to the rank and file of the Fianna Fáil Party now, in 1940, to do their duty honestly, that is, to stand up and say to the Government: "If you nine men on the Front Bench do not do what the country wants, we will not stay behind you." They have not done that so far; they have been sitting in silence behind the Government, and that is the cause of the country's downfall.

It must be realised that those nine men on the Government Front Bench do not know the first thing about agriculture; they are men with the usual city minds and mentality, accustomed to going around the usual social society circles. They will not go down and look around the countryside, either on Sundays or week-days. They go at 80 miles a hour in a high-powered car, when they have to go; and they will not look to right or left and will not see the impoverished farmers and the tumble-down homes, and the land devoid of cattle or stock of any sort. Ah, no; they stay in the social circles in Dublin; and why not, while there are sheep on the back benches to allow them to stay there. All that should be changed, they should get up, they should close this House and take a month's circuit of the country and see the destruction which has been wrought during the last ten years. If they do that, then there will be no need for the country to tell them to get out, because they will be honest, and they will walk out.

Mr. Nally

First of all, I wish to appeal to the Minister—if he has anything to do with it, and on this Vote he has—to endeavour to get the Land Commission to speed up the acquisition and division of land in County Mayo. They have lands on hand in that county for the last ten years which have not been divided yet. The reason that has not been done is simple. Lands were acquired in a place called Ballyvary in County Mayo, but all the people in that neighbourhood who would ordinarily get that land were supporters of Fine Gael; so not one perch of it has been divided. The Land Commission has given the excuse that they intended to take over other lands and have a comprehensive scheme. The farm I refer to was taken over nine years ago.

Captain Giles

Send them all up to my county.

Mr. Nally

Five years ago they took another farm near that and that land was divided; but the other one which was taken over nine years ago has not been divided—it is there still. That land has been let in grazing by the Land Commission since, and the net loss the Land Commission had by running it on their own responsibility for the last nine years has been £560. This is the way the money of this country has been expended. I intend to vote against this Estimate.

That is only one case in Mayo. I know, of course, that I will not be allowed to go into details and to give particulars about various areas, but I would like to appeal to the Minister also to divide the 5,000 acres of land which the Land Commission stated here about a month ago they have on hands in the County Mayo. I would appeal to him to see that, if the Land Commission does not divide that land, they cultivate 12½ per cent. of it, as any farmer would cultivate it. I also want to appeal to the Minister to see that, when the Land Commission takes over land and acquires it, they pay for it just as anybody else would. I know of a farm taken over in County Mayo, over seven years ago, the owners of which have not got anything from the Land Commission for it yet. I know several such cases. In one certain case in the parish of Crossboyne, there were about 3,000 acres of land and the Land Commission have been asked to take that over for the past ten years, but they have not taken them over. Also in the same parish there is a poor unfortunate woman with only six acres of land. They took over those six acres and put her practically out in the street. The price that that woman was to get for the land was £185—it was put up and sold by public auction for £185. The Land Commission stepped in, an inspector came the next day and served a resumption order. That was two years ago. They prevented the sale of that land; they took it over from that woman two years ago, but nothing has been done there since. She has not got a penny of the £185 which she was supposed to get if they gave her the auction price. That poor woman has been drawing home assistance for the past year. That is the conduct of the Land Commission, and it is conduct of that kind that puts the Government in the position it is in to-day.

We all remember that, some years ago, we had a great deal of difficulty ourselves, when our own Party was in power, with certain Departments, and I think Fianna Fáil will find themselves in the self-same position if they do not keep an eye on those Departments and make them do their duty, for which they are being paid.

There is a townland in the parish of Aughamore with about five or six holdings of untenanted land which the Land Commission has been requested to take over for the past four or five years, and they have not done so. I appeal to the Land Commission now, even at this late stage, to go in and try to relieve congestion and take over these lands which have been practically derelict for the past nine or ten years.

There is also a place called Ranahard near Claremorris where there are ten tenants whose poor law valuation is under £5. Petitions have been sent in to the Land Commission time and again to give these people economic holdings. They have said that they will migrate; here, for more than ten years, the Land Commission has absolute power to migrate these people or to give them additions in the locality, but they have not done so. They have all the powers they want. They should remember that, under the old Congested Districts Board we had the late Sir Henry Doran, who had charge of it. We all know what he did when he was in charge. If that Board had been allowed to continue, the whole Gaeltacht area would have been fixed up by now and the land question would have been fixed and settled to-day. It appears to me that the Land Commission is out for one purpose only, that is, to continue the well-paid officials in their jobs. If we send up complaints about certain districts, or an application to acquire land, we have an inspector coming down, coming out in his car, in about a week or ten days; then we hear no more for about six months; then another inspector comes, though nothing has been done. That is what I would appeal to the Minister to look after.

With regard to housing, there are very many complaints about it round the country, that is, when the free grants are given for housing. A number of complaints have come to me that persons who build a house and put in a claim cannot get the money, even the first instalment, or the second instalment, for a considerable time. In the past I have not had very much trouble with the Department, as a general rule. Whenever I sent in a report to the Minister for Local Government or to the Housing Department, they gave it attention. Recently, however, there has been great difficulty in getting payment, when the work is done for which a certificate has been issued.

I would like to learn also from the Minister, before this vote is taken. exactly how much of the last £7,000,000 loan was subscribed, and what has been done with that money since it was subscribed around November. I am sure the Minister would be able to tell exactly what he has done with it, and exactly how much of it was subscribed. The great difficulty we have down the country at the present time is that people are under the impression that the Fianna Fáil Government is in practically a bankrupt condition. I do not say that, nor do I think that they are. There is one thing we have to admit: the taxation which the present Government have put on the people cannot be borne by the people. I cannot see that the Government is running the country any better than the Government before them. Yet they have increased taxation by about £15,000,000 a year since the old Government left in 1932. The people are economically poorer. The Government say that they know the conditions before us; that they know the conditions of farmers; yet they are asked to cultivate more land, to break up about 900,000 acres more than they did last year. If they cannot get as much manure for the land as they got last year, how are they going to do that? There is no possibility that the farmers can do it. They will not do it. They would like to do it if they got the service which the Government should give them and is paid to give them. If the Government had looked out in time, there would have been no difficulty in getting the manures and phosphates which they cannot get at present.

I see also that the cost of the Gárda Síochána is tremendous. When the previous Government was in office it cost £1,583,000. Now it is costing £1,888,000—an increase of £305,000. The conditions in the country are not better than they were seven years ago. The Gárda Síochána may be very efficient, but I do not think they are anything to boast of, if we can judge by the condition of affairs we see around us in the City of Dublin and what we have been reading in the Press. We know very well that what we read in the Press is probably censored before we read it, and does not exaggerate things.

Look at the Army pensions. The Estimate for that is £586,000, an increase of £394,000 since Fianna Fáil got into power. The Army is only established about 16 or 17 years, and its cost is increased by over £2,000,000.

There are various other services which I do not want to go into now. All the other services we see here comprise, I think, at least an increase of £15,000,000 since Fianna Fáil came into office. With the high taxation and with the high cost of living, with the cost of rates all over the country, and with the services which we get from the Government, I am very much afraid that we are very near national bankruptcy, and I think it is the duty of the Government to economise in every direction. There are certain attempts to economise in this, but when the entire State was run for about £11,000,000 in 1915, there is no great economy when three-fourths of the country has to pay in taxation £36,000,000 a year and borrow a lot more. Every Deputy knows the taxes we have to pay and the price we have to pay for flour. The Minister told us yesterday that we were paying almost the same as Britain was paying. To-day the price of flour in Britain is 22/6 a sack. In this country it is 47/6 a sack. We have to pay twice as much as they pay in England. Just imagine, one of the poorest countries in the world has to pay double the price for the flour they use than England has to pay, which is the wealthiest country on the face of the earth, or was the wealthiest country— I do not know how she stands to-day.

Take sugar. When Fianna Fáil came into power 2½ per lb. was the price of sugar. It has now gone up to 5d. per lb. There is an increase in the price of tobacco, but notwithstanding the increase you have put on tobacco and the increase on whiskey and stout, you are getting less revenue from them to-day than you were getting six months ago, before you put on the increase at all. Look at the cost of maize. That is all due to the inefficiency of the Government. They did not look out in time. They could have got cargoes of maize from whatever countries it comes from, from Liverpool for that matter, if they wanted to and had looked out in time.

At the present moment about 145,000 people are unemployed in the country. Fianna Fáil when they came in had a plan to absorb all the unemployed and put them to work and give them good jobs. I am afraid that plan did not work. I suppose they put their plan over until the next election. They will have another plan then to induce or misguide the voter into putting them into power again, but I am afraid the eight years of office of Fianna Fáil will mean that they will never be able to get back again. In fact, people down the country would simply say that the front bench is nothing but a plunderbund, out to plunder the people of this country, and they have plundered the people of this country ever since they came into power.

Mr. Brennan

I listened with interest to Deputy O'Reilly a while ago, and I was moved to make a comparison between Deputy O'Reilly's pessimism to-night and Deputy O'Reilly's optimism in 1932 or 1933, when he and I addressed the same audience in County Galway. Apparently, to-night, from Deputy O'Reilly's point of view, there is no hope for this country. There does not seem to be any. He says that we cannot do anything about cattle, about butter, eggs or pigs. What do we want to do? I remember when he promised the people of Newbridge an El Dorado if they returned Fianna Fáil. Do you know how that was to come about?—by abandoning the British market altogether and by concentrating on the home market. That was the El Dorado Fianna Fáil were going to bring us in 1932. To-night, of course, we have changed from all that. The Deputy told us to-night that, as a matter of fact, only that Fianna Fáil was in office this country would probably starve during the present war, that the art of wheat growing had been lost when Fianna Fáil came into power. I did not know there was an art in wheat growing because, as a matter of fact, I always grew wheat and I did not think there was any art in it; but Deputy O'Reilly is evidently not a wheat grower.

Colonel Ryan

He could not grow a head of cabbage.

Mr. Brennan

I can tell you that there is an art in growing wheat economically in this country. We have not been able to do that yet. That is all that was in question at any time. I always grew wheat and I am still growing wheat. I did not grow it for sale. I grew it for my own farm and for use in the house and I think it was good. I always advocated wheat growing and advocated it here. Deputy O'Reilly thinks that only that Fianna Fáil was in to reorganise or make some attempt at reorganising the resources of this country and, apparently, reviving the lost art of growing wheat, we would all die of hunger. Is not that mere rubbish at this time of day? Is Deputy O'Reilly, as a representative of the farming community, satisfied that this Vote on Account as presented here to the House represents any kind of advanced programme under the present circumstances? Is there anything in that to cope with the present situation? Is it not just simply a repetition of what we have had, of the old expenditure? That is all it is. We have nothing new in it except to make accommodation for a Minister for Supplies and a new Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures. For the defence of what? If Deputy O'Reilly is satisfied with that in the interests of farming then he is easily satisfied.

Progress reported.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 8th March, 1940.