I move: That a sum not exceeding £10,630,000 be granted on account for or towards defraying the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for certain public services.
Vote on Account, 1940-41. - Committee on Finance.
There is an amendment in the name of Deputy McGilligan "That the Vote be reduced by £350,000". This is the Vote for the coming financial year. It would be convenient that the Vote on Account and the amendment be taken together.
Agreed to.
The following are the details:
|
£ |
£ |
||||
|
1 |
Teaghlachas an Uachtaráin |
1,300 |
1 |
President's Establishment |
1,300 |
|
2 |
Tithe an Oireachtas |
42,200 |
2 |
Houses of the Oireachtas |
42,200 |
|
3 |
Roinn an Taoisigh |
4,900 |
3 |
Department of the Taoiseach |
4,900 |
|
4 |
An tArd-Reachtaire Cunntass agus Ciste |
6,860 |
4 |
Comptroller and Auditor-General |
6,860 |
|
5 |
Oifig an Aire Airgeadais |
24,600 |
5 |
Office of the Minister for Finance |
24,600 |
|
6 |
Oifig na gCoimisinéirí Ioncuim |
308,000 |
6 |
Office of the Revenue Commissioners |
308,000 |
|
7 |
Pinsin tSean-Aoise |
1,170,000 |
7 |
Old Age Pensions |
1,170,000 |
|
8 |
Deolchairí Cúitimh |
18,000 |
8 |
Compensation Bounties |
18,000 |
|
9 |
Oifig na nOibreacha Puiblí |
48,900 |
9 |
Office of Public Works |
48,900 |
|
10 |
Oibreacha agus Foirgintí Puiblí |
411,500 |
10 |
Public Works and Buildings |
411,500 |
|
11 |
Longlann Inis Sionnach |
1,640 |
11 |
Haulbowline Dockyard |
1,640 |
|
12 |
Saotharlann Stáit |
3,200 |
12 |
State Laboratory |
3,200 |
|
13 |
Coimisiún na Stát-Sheirbhíse |
8,300 |
13 |
Civil Service Commission |
8,300 |
|
14 |
Cúiteamh i gCailliúna Maoine |
400 |
14 |
Property Losses Compensation |
400 |
|
15 |
Coimisiúin agus Fiosrúcháin Speisialta |
3,100 |
15 |
Commissions and Special Inquiries |
3,100 |
|
16 |
Aois-Liúntaisí agus Liúntaisí Fágála |
165,400 |
16 |
Superannuation and Retired Allowances |
165,400 |
|
17 |
Rátaí ar Mhaoin an Riaghaltais |
45,000 |
17 |
Rates on Government Property |
45,000 |
|
18 |
An tSeirbhís Sheicréideach |
6,700 |
18 |
Secret Service |
6,700 |
|
19 |
Costaisí fén Acht Timpeal Toghachán, agus fé Acht na nGiúirithe |
Nil |
19 |
Expenses under the Electoral Act, and the Juries Act |
Nil |
|
20 |
Costaisí Ilghnéitheacha |
3,500 |
20 |
Miscellaneous Expenses |
3,500 |
|
21 |
Páipéarachas agus Clódóireacht |
59,000 |
21 |
Stationery and Printing |
59,000 |
|
22 |
Measadóireacht agus Súirbhéireacht Teorann |
11,480 |
22 |
Valuation and Boundary Survey |
11,480 |
|
23 |
Suirbhéireacht an Ordonáis |
11,310 |
23 |
Ordnance Survey |
11,310 |
|
24 |
Deontaisí Breise Talmhaíochta |
450,000 |
24 |
Supplementary Agricultural Grants |
450,000 |
|
25 |
Dlí-Mhuirearacha |
23,000 |
25 |
Law Charges |
23,000 |
|
26 |
Ollscoileanna agus Coláistí |
78,200 |
26 |
Universities and Colleges |
78,200 |
|
27 |
Pinsin do Bhaintreacha agus do Dhílleachtaithe |
150,000 |
27 |
Widows' and Orphans' Pensions |
150,000 |
|
28 |
Oifig an Chíosa Chúitigh |
1,100 |
28 |
Quit Rent Office |
1,100 |
|
29 |
Bainistí Stoc Riaghaltais |
18,700 |
29 |
Management of Government Stocks |
18,700 |
|
30 |
Talmhaidheacht |
228,000 |
30 |
Agriculture |
228,000 |
|
31 |
Iaseach |
10,700 |
31 |
Fisheries |
10,700 |
|
32 |
Oifig an Aire Dlighidh agus Cirt |
14,500 |
32 |
Office of the Minister for Justice |
14,500 |
|
33 |
Gárda Síochána |
665,500 |
33 |
Gárda Síochána |
665,500 |
|
34 |
Príosúin |
28,000 |
34 |
Prisons |
28,000 |
|
35 |
Cúirt Dúithche |
13,000 |
35 |
District Court |
13,000 |
|
36 |
Cúirt Uachtarach agus Ard-Chúirt an Bhreithiúnais |
18,000 |
36 |
Supreme Court and High Court of Justice |
18,000 |
|
37 |
Iris-Oifig na Talmhan agus Iris-Oifig na nDintiúrí |
15,900 |
37 |
Land Registry and Registry of Deeds |
15,900 |
|
38 |
An Chúirt Chuarda |
17,400 |
38 |
Circuit Court |
17,400 |
|
39 |
Oifig na nAnnálacha Puiblí |
1,700 |
39 |
Public Record Office |
1,700 |
|
40 |
Tabhartaisí agus Tiomanta Déirciúla |
1,050 |
40 |
Charitable Donations and Bequests |
1,050 |
|
41 |
Riaghaltas Aiteamhail agus Sláinte Phoiblidhe |
403,000 |
41 |
Local Government and Public Health |
403,000 |
|
42 |
Oifig an Ard-Chlárathóra |
4,400 |
42 |
General Register Office |
4,400 |
|
43 |
Gealtlann Dúndroma |
6,500 |
43 |
Dundrum Asylum |
6,500 |
|
44 |
Arachas Sláinte Náisiúnta |
100,450 |
44 |
National Health Insurance |
100,450 |
|
45 |
Oifig an Aire Oideachais |
64,900 |
45 |
Office of the Minister for Education |
64,900 |
|
46 |
Bun-Oideachas |
1,410,000 |
46 |
Primary Education |
1,410,000 |
|
47 |
Meadhon-Oideachas |
155,120 |
47 |
Secondary Education |
155,120 |
|
48 |
Ceárd-Oideachas |
105,000 |
48 |
Technical Instruction |
105,000 |
|
49 |
Eolaíocht agus Ealadha |
17,200 |
49 |
Science and Art |
17,200 |
|
50 |
Scoileanna Ceartúcháin agus Saothair |
60,000 |
50 |
Reformatory and Industrial Schools |
60,000 |
|
51 |
An Gailerí Náisiúnta |
2,140 |
51 |
National Gallery |
2,140 |
|
52 |
Tailte |
654,090 |
52 |
Lands |
654,690 |
|
53 |
Foraoiseacht |
76,420 |
53 |
Forestry |
76,420 |
|
54 |
Seirbhísí na Gaeltachta |
36,000 |
54 |
Gaeltacht Services |
36,000 |
|
55 |
Tionnscal agus Tráchtáil |
104,600 |
55 |
Industry and Commerce |
104,600 |
|
56 |
Seirbhísí Iompair agus Meteoraíochta |
29,930 |
56 |
Transport and Meteorological Services |
29,930 |
|
57 |
An Bínse Bóthair Iarainn |
980 |
57 |
Railway Tribunal |
980 |
|
58 |
Muir-Sheirbhís |
3,800 |
58 |
Marine Service |
3,800 |
|
59 |
Arachas Díomhaointis agus Congnamh Díomhaointis |
431,700 |
59 |
Unemployment Insurance and Unemployment Assistance |
431,700 |
|
60 |
Oifig Chlárathachta Mhaoine Tionnscail agus Tráchtála |
4,700 |
60 |
Industrial and Commercial Property Registration Office |
4,700 |
|
61 |
Puist agus Telegrafa |
877,000 |
61 |
Posts and Telegraphs |
877,000 |
|
62 |
Fóirleatha Nea-shrangach |
23,500 |
62 |
Wireless Broadcasting |
23,500 |
|
63 |
An tArm |
1,118,400 |
63 |
Army |
1,118,400 |
|
64 |
Arm-Phinsin |
194,530 |
64 |
Army Pensions |
194,530 |
|
65 |
Gnóthaí Eachtracha |
33,000 |
65 |
External Affairs |
33,000 |
|
66 |
Cumann na Náisiún |
2,700 |
66 |
League of Nations |
2,700 |
|
67 |
Scéimeanna Fostaíochta |
500,000 |
67 |
Employment Schemes |
500,000 |
|
68 |
Conganta Airgid um Easportáil |
113,000 |
68 |
Export Subsidies |
113,000 |
|
69 |
Oifig an Aire Soláthairtí |
3,300 |
69 |
Office of the Minister for Supplies |
3,300 |
|
70 |
Bord Cuartaíochta na hEireann |
3,000 |
70 |
Irish Tourist Board |
3,000 |
|
AN TIOMLAN |
£10,630,000 |
TOTAL |
£10,630,000 |
The Order Paper and the White Paper in connection with this have been circulated to Deputies. Deputies are aware that the purpose of this Vote on Account is to enable sums to be made available for the carrying on of what are termed the Supply Services during the interval which must elapse in every financial year before the Dáil has had an opportunity for discussing each Supply Service Estimate in detail. Normally, the greater part of the first four months of the financial year has elapsed before all the Estimates have been considered by the Dáil and the Appropriation Act passed into law. It is, therefore, customary to provide in the Vote on Account sufficient moneys to cover the working of the various Departments and Services for the period from the 1st April to the 31st July. The amount necessary in most cases approximates to one-third of the total net estimate for the year, but in some instances a departure from that proportion is necessary. The various items comprising the Vote on Account of £10,630,000 are set out on the Order Paper and in the White Paper which have been circulated. As Deputies will already have observed from the volume of Estimates, the total net provision for the Supply Services in respect of the year 1940-41 is £30,511,359. The net provision for 1939-40, including Supplementary Estimates, is £31,422,626. The original net provision for 1939-40 was £30,248,897, but to this figure we must add £370,000 for Supplementary Agricultural Grants, giving a new total of £30,618,897. This £370,000 was taken into account in the 1939-40 Budget and, after the necessary legislation had been passed, was provided by Supplementary Estimate. As compared with the revised total of £30,618,897 (i.e., excluding all Supplementaries except that for the Agricultural Grants) the provision for the coming financial year is down by £107,538 or, making allowance for the fact that the Estimate for the Tariff Commission was not moved last year, we find a net decrease over the whole Supply Services of £106,788, as at the outset of the two years.
In considering this decrease it must be remembered that arising out of the war substantial increases in expenditure have had to be provided for in various directions. For instance, the increase in bonus payments to civil servants, as compared with the current financial year, has meant an additional provision of, roughly, £150,000. New services, such as the Department of Supplies and Censorship Service, have had to be instituted, and rising cost of materials has been reflected throughout many of the existing services. Notwithstanding all these factors tending towards increased expenditure, I am happy to say that the activities of the Economy Committee, coupled with a rigid scrutiny in my Department of all items of expenditure, in co-operation with other Departments have resulted in a reduction instead of an increase in our total requirements as compared with the current financial year. Taking into account the Supplementary Estimates in the current financial year, the total of the decreases in the various Votes amounts to £1,360,849, while the total of the increases amounts to £449,582.
There is a motion down in my name to reduce the entire Vote by £350,000. That figure of £350,000 was as good a calculation as I could make within a certain limited time of the amount I thought should be withdrawn from the Government in relation to the Volunteer portion of the Army. It was intended, therefore, to give rise to a debate on this question of the Army—a debate which would, of course, arise more suitably on the motion in the names of Deputies O'Higgins and MacEoin. I understand that an arrangement has been come to whereby time will be given for that particular discussion after Easter. I should like to know if that is so.
I think the matter is being discussed by the Whips.
I want to have on record what the agreement is. I understand that Government time is to be given for discussion of this motion as soon as possible after Easter, the time to be arranged between the Whips. Is that right?
Some such conversations have taken place.
This matter has already been raised several times in this House. A debate took place on the 3rd and 4th January, when the matter was passed over on the basis of an inquiry which was going on. The implication was that the report of the inquiry would be tabled, and that it would be discussed. The matter was again raised by question by Deputy MacEoin. When he endeavoured to raise it on the adjournment, he was advised by the Ceann Comhairle, I understand, that it was not a matter which should be raised in a casual way, that it should be raised by way of motion. A motion was put down. The Government were asked if they would give time for discussion of the motion, and there was delay in answering that question. In these circumstances the Vote for the Army came on and, on the understanding that time would be given for the motion, Deputies refrained from discussing the raid on the Magazine Fort, the court of inquiry, and certain repercussions from it. The Vote was allowed to go through without discussion on these matters. At the same time, Deputy Norton had a question down, and, when he attempted to raise the matter on the adjournment, a certain point of view was put to him which he accepted. Deputies on this side were then informed that time was not going to be allowed for discussion of this motion. Accordingly, the next step was taken of putting down this motion to reduce the Vote on Account by this amount. That motion was specifically aimed at a particular part of the Army, but not the whole, in order to give rise to a general discussion on Army policy, and to allay the public mind regarding that scandalous episode at the fort. I was informed to-day that the Government had changed their point of view, and had definitely promised time for discussion of this Army matter after the vacation. With that record, it will be understood that I cannot lightly abandon the right I have to speak—perhaps for a considerable period—to-day, and to discuss on the Vote on Account this Army matter without having a specific assurance that the debate will take place on the motion at a time to be arranged, but specifically stated to be as soon as possible after Easter.
I understand that the Government Whip has indicated that time will be given.
The Government stated that they were not going to allow Government time for the discussion of this motion. I understand that the Government have now intimated, through you, that they are prepared to give time after Easter on a date to be agreed.
Early after Easter.
And stated to be reasonably early. There was mention of the time to be allowed being three hours.
I do not like to be dragged into these matters, but I am quite certain that this matter can be arranged.
It is accepted that the Government are offering Government time to discuss this motion at a reasonably early date after Easter, that date to be suitable to the Opposition Party and the Government. The suggestion has been made from the Government side that only three hours of Government time should be allowed. A number of speakers desire to intervene in this matter, which is considered important. I had not an opportunity of discussing the matter with the Government Whip, but I consider that three hours is not a reasonable time, and I think it would be possible to arrange for a reasonable time—a day, if necessary—for this discussion. Perhaps the Tánaiste will agree that, if the matter is to be discussed in Government time at all, it cannot be satisfactorily discussed in three hours and that a reasonable time should be given so that Deputies will not feel that they are being choked out in argument. I ask the Tánaiste if he can assure us that a reasonable time will be given for the discussion of the motion. It would not extend beyond a day.
I am not one of the Whips, and I was not intimately concerned with the details of these discussions. I understood that discussions were proceeding between Deputy Mulcahy and the Whip on our side and that general agreement had been reached to give time for discussion also this Army matter. I understood also that the discussion on the Army business would not take place on this Vote. That is as much as I know, but I am sure that no obstacle will be placed from this side of the House in the way of any reasonable proposition put up from the opposite side.
I do not know anything at all about the discussions which have taken place or are alleged to have taken place, but I assume that, this being a Vote on Account, it is permissible for any Deputy to deal with the question of the administration of any Department of State, including the Department of Defence, or the Department for Co-ordination of Defensive Measures, and that the right of individuals in the House is not in any way affected because one group may arrange with another group to discuss a particular matter at some time in the future. If I want to discuss the administration of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs or the Department of Defence, I presume that I can do so on this Vote on Account.
No independent Deputy and no Party is bound by an arrangement reached by the majority Party in the House as to the main matters to be discussed on this Vote. I would remind the Deputy, however, that the subject matter of discussion on the Vote on Account is expenditure—administration on broad lines, but not such details as were, or might be, raised on an Estimate.
Since the question of expenditure arises, I presume that I am entitled, on a Vote of this kind, to give reasons as to why a particular Minister should not be paid a salary because of the manner in which he does his duty.
That is usually raised on the Minister's Vote.
That, I submit, seems to be a rather narrow ruling. I want to make a compiaint about the manner in which a Department is administered. I am being asked to vote one-third of the expenses of that Department on this Vote on Account, and portion of the one-third which will be voted will be used to defray the salary of a Minister who, I think, should not get a salary because of the way in which his Department is administered.
When the matter arises we will see. The Chair does not rule in advance, nor does it give hypothetical rulings.
I have had a few unfortunate rulings on the matter I have in mind, and I do not want to get another one on this matter.
I am somewhat in a dilemma now. Deputy Norton has raised a point which does not specially affect me at the moment, interested as I am in finding out what is the position of the debate on the Army. As a preamble to my main point, may I suggest that if a remark of yours, Sir is to be taken as a binding ruling in advance which would limit the debate beyond what we are accustomed to, I would, for instance, understand that it is possible to make a speech here giving reasons why salary should not be paid to a certain Minister because of his policy in connection with his Department.
Yes.
And his policy is exemplified in the broad details of the administration of his Department. There will be a border line which you, Sir, will prevent us crossing from time to time as between policy and administration, but a border line on the right side of which we are safe.
The Deputy might take it as a guiding principle that details which might be raised on an Estimate should not be discussed.
I understand that has been the ruling generally accepted and generally adhered to. On this other matter, which is, to my mind, the more important matter, I have a motion down to reduce this Vote by £350,000, and as I am placed at the moment, I am entitled to talk and Deputies of other different Parties are entitled to speak for a couple of days on that motion alone. As I intend that motion, it is specifically aimed at the policy of the Government in regard to the Army over a number of years, culminating, as I suggest it did culminate, in the weakness which led to the scandalous episode in connection with the Magazine Fort. I am in the position, placed as I am now, that I can have that debated over the next couple of days, and I am asked to surrender that.
Nobody has asked the Deputy to surrender it.
Let me speak. It has been suggested that it had better be surrendered because——
Nobody is stopping the Deputy from speaking, either.
No, but there are rather some high-smelling red herrings being put across the path.
The Deputy is more familiar with them than anyone else in the House. The odour hangs around him still.
I have no monopoly of the fish trade or anybody in it. That is the Government's job at the moment. It has been suggested that I should surrender that right which I have at this moment, because it is considered that a debate on the Army should more properly take place on a definite motion, and there is a definite motion on the paper. With that point of view, as so expressed, I agree. The only thing in the balance now is when will the debate on the specific motion take place and over what period will it range. I am quite prepared to accept that it should be arranged by agreement between the Whips after Easter, with the provision that it should be as early as possible after Easter, that, of course, however, subject to agreement; but, on the matter of limitation of time, some period of three hours has been mentioned. Personally, if any agreement is made, I will submit to it, but I understand that no agreement was made on that point, and I suggest that a three hour period for a debate on this motion is ludicrous. I am prepared to waive the rights which I think I have at this moment on the understanding—I state it here now to have it contradicted or accepted—that this motion, in the names of Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy MacEoin, will be given Government time at the earliest possible date after Easter, and that there will be no three hour limitation, but that the Whips will try to get together to see what reasonable limitation can be put upon that debate. On that specific arrangement, I will withdraw this motion, but I want to know if that is the specific arrangement.
As I said, Deputy Mulcahy is more familiar than I am with what arrangements have been made, and I will stand by whatever he says.
The only familiarity I have with the position is that I was expressly told last night, on behalf of the Government, that they were not going to allow this time for this motion. I, therefore, when advising the Ceann Comhairle in accordance with precedent as to what matter was to be discussed on the Vote on Account, told him that the policy with regard to the Army in certain aspects was to be discussed. It was then communicated to me by the Ceann Comhairle, having been in touch with the Government, that the Government had changed their mind on the matter and that it was possible to make an arrangement. I said that I entirely agreed that the only type of satisfactory discussion you could have on the matter was on a formal motion, that anything else was injurious to Parliamentary institutions, and I completely accepted the offer to have the discussion on the motion, but I did not agree with the idea of restricting the discussion to three hours. I had neither the time nor the opportunity to get beyond that, but I take it that the Tánaiste would agree with me that a discussion on this matter could satisfactorily be carried out only on a formal motion which led to a decision, and that he would also agree with me that if a discussion on the motion is going to lead to a decision, however unsatisfactory it may be to Parties in the House, reasonable time ought to be allowed for it.
I understood that it had been accepted by both sides that there would be a discussion on the motion—perhaps the motion already on the paper, and that it would take place as early as possible after Easter.
With no limitation as to three hours' debate?
Oh, that is not so.
That is agreed? There is to be no limitation?
The question of time is open for arrangement.
When it is stated to be open, it is not to be limited to three hours?
That would not be open. I understand from the Whip of the main Opposition Party that the question for discussion on this Vote by speakers from that side, is that increasing Government expenditure has reacted disastrously on employment.
The very important fact to which we think it necessary to draw attention at present is that the Government is a poor substitute as an employer for the ordinary employing machinery, either industrially or agriculturally. In bringing the House down to consider certain facts in connection with that matter, I have been encouraged, firstly, by an article in the Sunday Independent of 3rd March last, wherein is discussed that increased taxation means more unemployment and less security for workers and, secondly, by the type of speech made by the Minister for Supplies, who for so long was Minister for Industry and Commerce and was responsible for unemployment, at the University last night. The Minister for Supplies last night said that our public life required “the stimulus of a new challenge to the assumed facts and accepted theories upon which all their political policies and theories were based”. He thought that we were facing a real danger now; that it arose out of the unemployment position, and the fact that the machinery of the present system was not dealing with the unemployment situation; that the only hope that some light might be thrown on the matter was that the younger generation would wake up and take interest in public affairs; and that neither the industrial leaders nor the Labour leaders at the present time appeared to have any clear appreciation of the parts they must play if we are to cope with unemployment.
The Minister for Supplies who, as I say, has been for so long a time Minister for Industry and Commerce, who started with a plan to deal with unemployment and who, together with his colleagues in the Government, succeeded in getting a very substantial sum of money—all taken from the pockets of the taxpayers and ratepayers of this country—went to the Commerce Society of University College, Dublin, last night, and said that we were in very great danger and that we wanted something in the present situation in the way of the stimulus of a new challenge to all concerned: a challenge to the assumed facts and the accepted theories of the situation. So far as we can see from his remarks, the challenge that he seems to expect is a challenge that youth will throw a brick through the national parlour window and thus make people wake up inside in order to see what it is all about.
It paints the Minister for Supplies as being in a very hopeless position, but the Minister for Supplies, more than anybody else, is one of the people who is responsible for "the assumed facts and the accepted theories" in the present situation, and one of the assumed facts, belled and bellowed from one end of the country to the other and rammed down the throats of the people here in this House and in the country—and the outstanding fact —is that ever since the present Government took over the handling of substantially increasing portions of the people's money, and spent that money themselves, employment has been increasing and continuing to increase, and that everything, so far as the increasing of employment in the country is concerned, has been going on splendidly. That is one of the assumed facts, and the only theory that I can see operating on the situation since Fianna Fáil came into office was that the Government were the people who could best spend the money that our people have.
Now, I think it is nearly time that we got some kind of realisation of the facts so as to pin them down definitely for everybody, and that we should ask the Government, with regard to certain facts, whether they do accept these now, because for the many years we have been placing facts before the Government, it has been rammed down our throats that we did not know what we were talking about, that we were inexperienced and did not understand figures, and that figures were dangerous things in the hands of inexperienced people. What is the outstanding fact with regard to employment and expenditure when we look back over the last few years? One of the outstanding factors can be judged by the National Health Contribution Fund. We can come back to the significance of that later on, but the annual increment in employment, from 1926 to 1932, was 11,400 persons in full time employment. That was the annual increment every year from 1926 to 1931. Judged by the same standard, what was the average annual increment from 1931 to 1939? It was 8,594. In other words, the average increase in employment in the country, expressed in terms of a certain number of people in full-time employment, was 2,806 per annum less for the last eight years than it was for the previous five years. During all that time you had thousands of additional men employed on housing, thousands of additional unemployed on relief schemes, and you also had large numbers of persons employed in new industries. Yet, in spite of the additional employment on housing, in spite of the additional employment all the year round on relief schemes, and in spite of the increase in industrial development here, the annual increase in employment, as measured by the National Health Insurance Fund, was 2,806 less per year for the last eight years than it was in the five years before that.
During the last eight years, however, the Government was spending huge sums of money more than the previous Government did. When abstentionism ceased in 1927, we set out to carry on this Dáil with a full representation. Let us take the period from 1927 to 1931; that is, from the first election of 1927 to the end of 1931. Let us have a look at that period from the point of view of taxation—at least, I will not say from the point of view of taxation, but from the point of view of the amount of money taken out of the pockets of ratepayers and taxpayers throughout the country and spent by Government machinery—and let us take the same period and the amount of money taken annually out of the pockets of the people from 1931 to 1939. We shall see an enormous difference. I have pointed out what amounts to this: that for every 100 persons put into additional employment annually, between the years 1927 and 1931, there were only 754 persons put into employment annually in the last eight years. In other words the natural increase in employment in the country was reduced by 25 per cent.; and in what circumstances, so far as the spending of money is concerned? The total amount of money taken out of the pockets of the ratepayers and taxpayers combined, in the year 1931-32, was £334,251 less than the amount of money taken out of the pockets of the people in rates and taxes five years before that. It was less by £334,251, and during that period there was a natural increase in employment equivalent to 11,400 persons additional per year in full time occupation. Between the years 1927 and 1938, there was taken a sum of £4,701,000 extra in taxation out of the people's pockets, and £1,607,675 extra in rates. So that, between rates and taxation, in the year ended March, 1939, there was £6,308,675 more taken out of the people's pockets, and to be spent by official machinery, than was taken out of their pockets before the present Government came into office. They spent that amount of money. In addition to that they had for spending £1,850,000 land annuities paid up, they had the £2,000,000 which, out of the taxation of £21,000,000, the previous Government paid to Great Britain for repayment of local loans, pensions, and some debts of that particular kind. As well as £6,308,675 rates and taxes, they had £1,850,000 land annuities and £2,000,000 extra. That was taken from the people and spent by the Government over and above the moneys that were in the hands of the previous Government. With that enormous additional amount of money spent through Government and official sources, not only was the normal growth of employment in the country not maintained, but it was reduced by 25 per cent.
If you look at the trend of employment publications issued by the Department of Industry and Commerce for the year 1936-37, page 10, you will get some impression there as to the average number of persons employed month by month for every month in 1936 and 1937 on relief works. They were in 1936, 7,378 and in 1937, 22,971. A Parliamentary question on the 8th February, 1939, gives the information that during the year 1938, for every month of the year, the average number of persons given employment on employment schemes was 19,190; and, in column 1086 of the Official Debates of 21st February, 1940, the same information is given for the year 1939 and it is indicated that for every month of the year an average number of 18,112 persons were employed on employment schemes.
I asked the Department of Public Works whether those figures for the year 1939 meant that 18,112 persons were given full-time employment over the whole year and they said they did not, that actually the men were employed on an average from three or four days. With a view to finding out what influence that position had on the figures also published in the trend of employment publications by the Department of Industry and Commerce—a sample of it can be got in page 28 in their first issue, dealing, I think, with the year 1934-5—I asked in respect of how many of these national health insurance payments were made monthly and in respect of these how many unemployment insurance payments were made, and the figures quoted are as follows. In respect of the 18,112 persons employed monthly on employment schemes during the year 1939, the number who paid national health insurance payments was 14,992; the number who paid unemployment insurance payments was 8,985 and the average number who were not liable was 3,120. Therefore, the figures that are given as the full-time employment equivalent of the national health insurance figures in the publications with regard to trend of unemployment are actually inflated, by reason of the fact that a full payment of national health insurance is paid for a person who works three and a half days in the week.
That correction has been made—at least, I have made that correction— and the position, therefore, with regard to employment equivalent of the National Health Insurance Fund—I want to record it here, as it is a matter that will have to be referred to from time to time in the future—is as follows. The National Health Insurance Fund, reckoned as full-time employment for a certain number of people, shows that the equivalent for 1926 was 285,000 persons; for 1931, 342,000; for 1933, 355,000; for 1934, 370,000; for 1935, 384,000; for 1936, 399,000; for 1937, 415,000; for 1938, 416,000; for 1939, 417,000. The point has to be made that the figures for 1938 and those for 1939 are inflated, by reason of the fact that persons who worked for three and a half days per week in very large numbers throughout the country are set up in the National Health Insurance Payments as if they were full-time payments. When we apply the necessary corrective for that, that is, when we eliminate from the figures quoted for employment in the year 1939 the exaggeration of those figures due to the part-time work on employment schemes, we find that the full-time employment equivalent of the National Health Insurance Fund for the year 1939 is 410,753 persons, as against 342,000 in 1931 and 285,000 in 1926. So much for employment schemes.
I have indicated also that a very large number of persons—an abnormally increased number of persons—has been employed on housing. The total number of persons employed on housing over the year 1939, more than were employed in the year 1931, was 9,522. The House should know how these figures were arrived at. It has been accepted, and is still accepted, that the building of one house gives employment to 1½ men for 12 months. Deputies will find, from information that has been provided by the Department of Local Government and Public Health, that the total number of houses built in the year 1932 was 3,349; that the total number of houses built in the year 1939 was 9,004; and that 4,173 houses were reconstructed during the year 1939. That meant that, on the basis of 1½ men for a year, to build a house, and a quarter of a man for a year to reconstruct a house, the employment on housing in the year 1931 was 5,023 men over the whole year, and the employment in the year 1939 was 14,545. So that 9,522 persons were employed on State-aided housing over the whole of the year 1939 more than in the year 1931. That takes us back to this: that whereas in the five years ended 1931 employment in the country increased by 11,400 a year in terms of the National Health Insurance Fund, and in the eight years ended 1939 increased only by 8,594, it would only have increased by 7,501 if the relief scheme employment was not counted in and it would only have increased by 6,311 if the additional expenditure on housing was not counted in. So that, for every 1,000 of an increase in employment in the five years ended 1931, there was only 754 of an increase with housing and relief schemes counted in, in the last eight years. That would have only been 658 but for the relief schemes and it would only have been 554 but for the relief schemes and housing. It brings us to this, that but for relief and for housing the natural increase in employment in the country over the last eight years was only 55 per cent. of what it was in the five years before and that the taking by the Government, and through local bodies, in the increased rates, of £10,000,000, and the expenditure thereof did nothing as far as increasing employment in the country except to reduce the natural increment by 25 per cent., and, outside housing and relief schemes, to bring it down to 55 per cent.
Now, that is not taking into consideration the amount of money that was taken out of the people's pockets by millers, by bacon curers, by the butter subsidy, in order, we were told, to improve and increase the prosperity of this country. These are not taken into consideration. We are not going into these things at all. We are simply taking the amount of money spent by the Government and by local authorities. In spite of that huge amount, that was the result. Everybody who is endeavouring to keep employment going, and, on the other hand, endeavouring to meet the amounts of money that are being taken out of the people's pockets by the Government, knows only too well what is more and more being pointed out by speakers and writers throughout the country, that the spending of money by the Government is the most inefficient, the most wasteful way in which money can be spent, and that we have reached a point now that makes it impossible for this country to keep up, through its normal machinery, the normal growth of employment.
We had the Minister for Supplies indicating yesterday that neither among the industrial leaders nor the Labour leaders does there appear be any clear appreciation of the part that they must play if we are to cope with unemployment. He raises the question as to whether democracy suits our needs and what should replace it. The fact is that we have not been having democratic methods of Government operating in this country for the last four or five years—you can go back to 1932—the last seven years—when the people who are the producers, the people who are the vital centres from which production must come and around which increased employment must grow, year in year out, were being robbed more and more of the vital thing that is necessary for them to keep their production increasing and to keep their employment increasing, that is, their capital. And here we are. We are being presented with increasing bills. The amounts of money that I have already quoted as having been taken from the people were amounts of money up to March, 1939. The Iris Oifigiúil of, I think, 6th March, shows that £693,000 was taken out of the people's pockets in taxation up to the 6th March this year more than last year and, as far as the ratepayers are concerned, the county councils alone have issued for the year we are passing through at the present moment a bill for £150,000 more than last year.
What has been the result on the population position in the country? The Government came into office at a time when the population of this country was rising. It continued to rise for a few years, but, under the impact of the policy which takes money out of the people's pockets and spends it inefficiently, the population was quickly driven down. We can take three periods since 1926 when we consider the population. The first is from the year 1926 to the year 1932. The population figure for the year 1926 was 2,971,000; 1927, 2,957,000; 1928, 2,944,000; 1929, 2,937,000; 1930, 2,927,000, Then the population began to rise: in 1931, it was 2,933,000; 1932, 2,949,000. In that particular period the population which had been falling all along stopped falling and began to increase, but the net fall in the population over these six years was 22,000.
The next period that we ought to look at is the period from 1930 to 1935, when there was a rise in population. In 1930, as I say, the figure was 2,927,000; in 1931, 2,933,000; in 1932, 2,949,000; in 1933, 2,962,000; in 1934, 2,971,000; in 1935, 2,971,000. The increase had stopped and we were about to turn. During that period the population rose by 34,000.
The third period that should be looked at as a separate period with regard to population is the period 1932 to 1939. In 1932, the population was 2,949,000; in 1933, it was 2,962,000; in 1934, 2,971,000; in 1935, 2,971,000; in 1936, 2,967,000; in 1937, 2,948,000; in 1938, 2,937,000; in 1939, 2,934,000. So that we have the position that although the population was rising when the Government came into office, and continued to rise for three years afterwards, by the time we had reached 1939 the population had fallen. It had fallen by 15,000 persons as compared with the year 1932 and during the period from 1935 to 1939 the population fell by 37,000 persons—that is during the last four years. A factor which had a special bearing on that was the recurrence of emigration from this country, which had stopped in 1931 and 1932.
The Minister for Supplies says that the situation is dangerous and that he wants a challenge from somebody to bring us back to facts, that the industrialists and the Labour people are not going to make any contribution towards a solution of the problem. In the meantime, as apparently in the past, the only people fit to do anything, fit to work, fit to spend, are the Government of the day. I want to give the Minister for Supplies and his colleagues a challenge. When the taxation of this country was on the 1926-31 level and was kept steady at that level, when the burden of rates and taxes was diminishing rather than increasing, employment in this country was steadily rising, emigration was fading away, the fall in population was being arrested and the population was being, in fact, increased. All that was done at a time when there was a very considerable economic disturbance in the world. We were able to weather that disturbance because of the policies that were being pursued here. Such was the condition of affairs at the end of 1931 that in reviewing the world's position Our Holy Father the late Pope Pius XI, in the Encyclical, Caritate Christi Compulsi, issued on the 3rd May, 1932, stated:
"If we pass in review the long and sorrowful sequence of woes that, as a sad heritage of sin, mark the stages of fallen man's earthly pilgrimage from the Flood on, it would be hard to find spiritual and material distress, so deep, so universal, as that which we are now experiencing; even the greatest scourges that left indelible traces in the lives and memories of peoples struck only one nation at a time. Now on the contrary the whole of humanity is held bound by the financial and economic crisis."
The circumstances of 1930 and 1931 were such that our Holy Father could write these words. They were such that two years before that, the League of Nations set up an economic commission to report on the economic depression of that time. A year before the Encyclical was issued, that is on the 14th May, 1931, the Report of the League of Nations on economic depression was issued. It reads:
"It has already been pointed out that Europe suffered less than most other parts of the world, especially up to the autumn of last year. The national income of countries largely dependent on the production and export of cereals has been reduced more than that of manufacturing countries. Countries such as Denmark and Ireland, whose principal exports are animal food products, were relatively slightly affected by the depression until the autumn of 1930. The fall in the price of animal foodstuffs up to that time was not great and was largely offset by a reduction in the prices of fodder."
The special committee set up to investigate the world-wide depression by the League of Nations had to report that Ireland was one of the two countries that out of the whole world had succeeded in weathering the depression. That, I maintain, was attributable to the policies that were being pursued here. Our employment had increased in a natural organic way year after year to the extent that full-time employment had been found for 11,400.
What is the position with regard to the present Ministry? It was only, I think, about 1933 or 1934 that the present Ministry began to find out that there had been a depression in 1929-30. They found that out after the effects of that depression should have passed, as far as this country was concerned. Every year from 1932 to 1938, the index of business activity in Great Britain has shown a steady increase in such activity. It was down to 80 in 1932, but by the autumn of 1937 it had risen to 113—a steady rise. It fell somewhat in the year 1938, but it has gone up again now and is somewhere near the 110 standard. By a steady rise over that period, economic conditions in Great Britain showed an improvement of 30 points. As even the Ministry are appreciating more and more every day recently, economic conditions in Great Britain have a very important bearing on economic conditions here and the improvement that started from 1932 in Great Britain should have reacted favourably on conditions here. The improvement that has taken place in Great Britain since 1932 is such that people there who are examining the question of how they are going to pay for the war, consider that among other things consumption has to be reduced in Britain, but that the standard of living has risen so much since 1932 that they need not bring the standard of living down to the level at which it was in 1932 and they will be able to pay for the war at the same time. That is, the British people can pay the enormous cost of the present war without bringing the standard of living below the 1932 figure. While there was nothing in the general situation that should react in an adverse manner against employment here, whilst we had headlines week after week referring to the great industrial development and what the Government were doing to create employment here, the fact remains, in spite of all they have done for the relief of unemploy ment, that the increment of employment is reduced by 25 per cent. below what it was during the five years before they came into office.
Dealing with the present situation here, is there going to be a facing of these facts? Will the Minister for Supplies and his colleagues, instead of looking for somebody with a youthful outlook to come and throw a brick in through the window or a spanner into the economic or social situation here, accept the challenge of the records that are written in their own Departmental history? Will they accept the challenge of these facts and will they understand why it is that industrialists and others find it difficult to carry on their business, the main difficulties being that the Government, as I have stated again and again, think that they can spend better than anybody else, and that there is not a pocket in the country in which they have not had their hands for several years?
There is one other aspect that I should like the Minister and his colleagues to consider. Not only was the annual increment reduced, but for the last two years there has been no increment of employment shown in the country by the National Health Insurance Contribution Fund. I would like to draw attention to this particular aspect of things. On page 28 of the report on the trend of employment and unemployment in this country there is a reference to the conditions of employment up to the year 1934-35. This particular report was published in September, 1935. On page 28 there are two columns showing the employment equivalent in the case of the National Health Contribution Fund and the Unemployment Insurance Contribution Fund. Then it shows the difference and indicates that in the year 1926 there were 124,000 persons who paid National Health Insurance Fund but did not pay Unemployment Insurance Fund; that in 1931 there were 154,000 persons in the same way, so that between 1926 and 1931 there was an increase of 30,000 persons who paid National Health Insurance Fund but did not pay Unemployment Insurance Fund.
In reply to a Parliamentary Question on the 21st February last it was indicated that in the year 1939 there were 153,000 persons who paid National Health Insurance Fund and did not pay Unemployment Insurance Fund, so that between 1931 and 1939 instead of an increase there was a fall of 1,000 persons. A footnote on the page says: "The following are the principal classes excluded from the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Acts which are included in the scope of the National Health Insurance Acts: (1) Persons employed in agriculture, horticulture and forestry; (2) persons employed in private domestic service; (3) female professional nurses for the sick and probationers undergoing training as such; (4) outworkers not employed under contract of service; and (5) crews of fishing vessels wholly remunerated by shares in profits or gross earnings who are not excluded by special order from the health scheme".
In the past five years from 1926 to 1931 there was an annual increment of 6,000 persons in that class added every year. Not only has there been no increase in that particular class, but there has been a diminution of 1,000 during the last eight years. Here we have some indication as to the kind of people who have been hit; that is, people in agriculture and horticulture, people in domestic service and outworkers or people not employed under a contract of service. While there has been a building up on relief schemes, on housing and in industry, you have the wiping out of any increment of employment in these other directions, and I submit when you have that, that the ground is being dug from under your industrial structure; that that is just the sign that all the forced developmen of employment carried on for the last few years cannot last except something is done to reverse the policy which is hitting employment of that kind in the way these figures show.
I submit that if the Minister for Industry and Commerce wants a challenge, he will find in these facts that challenge, and I suggest that it would be much cheaper, that it would be a much more satisfactory political and social and economic development, if persons with Ministerial responsibility would accept the challenge of facts, the accumulated experiences of themselves and their Departments over the last eight years, and would work from that challenge and not wait, not carry on the policies that are bringing these dangers about until a challenge of a different kind comes. If the policy is going to be pursued which brought about that situation, then the challenge will come.
Under war circumstances there is a natural tendency to drive the Government to accept greater responsibility, to do additional spending. When the tendency is like that, because of the war situation, it makes it all the more essential that these facts will be looked at and that more strenuous efforts than might otherwise be made would be made under present circumstances to redress and counteract the tendency that is shown in the policy at the present time and that the Government would make up their minds strenuously and effectively to try and leave more of the people's money in their pockets and see if the people would not, as in the past, make a better use of their money than the Government have made of it when they were handling it for the last eight years.
We are being asked in this Vote on Account to vote a sum of £10,000,000 odd for the purposes of supply services for some months to come. I think it is appropriate, therefore, that not merely should we review the general economic position of the country, but this Vote also provides the opportunity of ascertaining whether the functions of the various Departments are being carried out equitably, and with due regard to the high responsibilities which reposes in Ministers. There is one Department in the State in respect of which I have very considerable ground for misgiving as to the manner in which it has been administered, judging by recent affairs concerning it. I refer to the Department of Defence where we have a Minister responsible for the conduct of the Army, a Minister in whom the House reposes considerable authority and from whom it is quite entitled to expect a very high standard of efficiency, and, may I say, entitled at the same time to expect a very high conception of fair play from that Minister in his dealings with persons under his control. But we have seen some actions by that Minister recently which certainly do not justify the House in assuming that the Department for which he is responsible is being efficiently administered by him, or that fair play is being meted out to those who are subordinates of his. I want to direct the attention of the House to certain facts concerning the administration of that Department which arise, I submit, from the fact that we are now being asked to vote a salary for the Minister under this Vote on Account, and which, consequently, brings under review the question of the ability of the Minister to function in that Department.
We had an example recently of a raid on the Magazine Fort in the Phoenix Park. I do not want to go into the details of the raid because, I suppose, judging by the publicity which the matter received, the circumstances of it are familiar not merely to Deputies but to the public. We were informed by the Minister that a military inquiry had been set up to ascertain whatever degree of deliquency arose out of this particular raid. In the course of its investigations this same military inquiry required certain officers to attend before it for the purpose of its inquiry into the affair. A number of officers were summoned to attend before the inquiry and did attend. Bear in mind this was an inquiry. This was not a court martial; this was not a court of law; this was not a tribunal before which officers were arraigned as defendants; this was not a tribunal which preferred specified charges against officers. This was merely a court of inquiry, and no charge whatever was preferred against any person brought there as a witness. The court of inquiry held its meeting. Officers attended as witnesses, and, much to the astonishment of some officers, when the court of inquiry had finished its deliberations, or perhaps even before the inquiry had concluded, notices were served on certain officers in these terms:
"The Minister for Defence has had under consideration your conduct on the night of the 23rd December last when an armed raid occurred at the Magazine Fort in the Phoenix Park. The Minister feels that it is not in the interests of the Service that you should retain your commission. He is satisfied that your conduct on the occasion in question would merit retirement for misconduct or inefficiency, but, before taking the necessary steps to that effect, he is prepared to give you an opportunity of tendering your resignation voluntarily from the service, and to recommend acceptance of your resignation. Your reply to this communication should reach the adjutant-general not later than five days from the date hereof."
If any totalitarian State in Europe were guilty of methods of trial of that kind, I think it would justify the severest condemnation by people who still believe in preserving the basic elements of justice in dealing even with an opponent. But note the terms of this particular letter: "The Minister feels it is not in the interests of the service" that this particular officer should retain his commission, and he is satisfied "that his conduct would merit retirement for misconduct or inefficiency", but before he acts finally the Minister will give him five days in which he must reverse the entire process by which the Minister arrived at a conclusion of this kind. That notice was served on an officer who was only recently promoted for exceptional efficiency, and his promotion was confirmed by the Government.
Another officer has had a very tender experience at the hands of the Government in being notified that the Minister for Defence was satisfied, on the evidence given by this particular officer at the inquiry, that he should be dismissed the service. The particular officer who has been dismissed the service has been employed as a stores officer at the Magazine Fort for many, many years, but merely as a stores officer—merely as a caretaker in other words; and during the period of his control there, with the exception of this isolated incident, not a single charge could ever have been preferred against him for the manner in which he discharged his duties, and not a single pennyworth of military property has gone astray. Yet, on this particular occasion, when the guard at the Magazine was reduced to negligible and indefensible proportions, a raid takes place and this officer who has served the nation from 1916 onwards gets an abrupt, brusque note intimating to him that he is being dismissed the service because the Minister for Defence is satisfied on his evidence at this socalled inquiry that he should be dismissed. The officer, in fact, was not on duty in the Magazine on the night in question. The officer, in fact, was at Confession in a city Catholic church on the night in question. It might have been better for him, in the eyes of the Government, if he had not been either at Confession or in a church. It might have been better for him had he been in the Magazine. He might now be in the Army, but because he made an unfortunate mistake, from the service point of view, of being in a church instead of being in the Magazine, the officer loses his position, and loses all the service which he has rendered to the State from 1916 to date.
Another young volunteer lieutenant has been similarly treated. What I would like to do is to call the attention of the House to certain facts which emerge from this situation. The first thing is that since the raid on the Magazine the guard there has been considerably strengthened. Picked troops are now being employed there. Additional officers are now on duty there. The whole place is now being defended as never before, all of which proves conclusively that the Government clearly realise that their previous method of defence was entirely inadequate to protect the place. But yet, because of the fact that a raid took place while it was not securely defended, those to whom a nominal responsibility had been assigned, and those who had no responsibility whatever, are now being treated in this manner only to save the faces of people who imagine they have untainted political faces.
I have allowed the Deputy to proceed for a long time on this particular line, but I am afraid he is going too much into detail. On the Vote on Account general policy only may be discussed, so that I am afraid the Deputy is transgressing the general precedent by going too much into detail.
May I point out to the Chair that on this Vote on Account we are voting portion of the salary of the Minister for Defence. I want to show to the House that the Minister for Defence——
The Deputy understands that this particular case that he is referring to will become a matter of further inquiry and, possibly, of litigation.
If that were so, I would not raise it, but unfortunately the Minister for Defence has declared that, although you could easily be court martialled in the Army for almost nothing, in this particular case the officers will not be given a civil trial, and will not be given a court martial, but are being dismissed the service, or compelled to resign in accordance with the terms of the notification which has been served upon them. I want to try to awaken in the House some sense of sympathy for officers that have been treated in that unfair way.
Has the Deputy not seen that a plenary summons has been issued in this case by the officers affected?
It has been issued in one case and I will take that case no further.
I am afraid they are all governed by the same circumstances.
No, the others may consider that they have no legal case. These are three officers who are entitled to have their cases heard in this House, and not be treated in this fashion by a Minister who has apparently run riot.
I do not want to be drastic with the Deputy, but I am afraid I will have to rule him out of order if he pursues that line much further. This is a Vote on Account on which only general financial policy can be discussed. If the Deputy was to continue he could go through every item seriatim.
This is a method to facilitate the Government to get a Vote on Account to enable them to carry on for a certain period. What we are doing is enabling the Minister for Defence to get the salaries for his Department until the end of the month, and the month after. I want to show the House reasons why we should be chary about giving this particular Minister his salary because of the unfair attitude displayed in these cases.
I am afraid I will have to rule the Deputy out of order. He is going too much into details on this particular Vote.
Do you suggest that I cannot call the attention of the House to the fact that while we are to take responsibility for voting the salary of the Minister for Defence, it is not possible to direct the attention of the House to the unfair manner in which that Minister functions in his Department at present?
That opportunity will arise on the Estimate for the Department of Defence.
When these men have been sentenced to inconvenience and economic death? Meantime the Minister will have the salary that we vote for him, but these officers will have no salary, unless someone can be induced to persuade the Minister to reconsider his attitude in this matter.
I am afraid I will have to rule against the Deputy, in the first place because he is going into too much detail, and in the second place, because many of the matters referred to will be dealt with by another form of inquiry publicly.
I cannot understand why I am being ruled out of order on these grounds unless you are empowered to assure me that there will be a public inquiry into the three cases. The Minister responsible stated that there will be no further inquiry into these cases and no court martial.
I think we can take it that news has reached us publicly in this matter that there will be publicity of the circumstances, and that these officers will get the appropriate opportunity there.
One officer may get it. I submit I am quite entitled to call the attention of this House to this most unusual procedure, whereby three Army officers, who were brought before a tribunal as witnesses, on the evidence which they gave there were then put into the category of being defendants, and were found guilty, without getting any opportunity to defend themselves, and against whom never any charge was preferred until they received the declaration.