Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 8 Mar 1940

Vol. 79 No. 4

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

Mr. Brennan

Before we adjourned last night, Deputy O'Reilly had been telling the House of the satisfaction which the people derived from the fact that a Fianna Fáil Government had been in office for the last seven or eight years. He feared to visualise what the condition of this country might be if there was any other Party in office. If Deputy O'Reilly is satisfied with the position of the country at present, it is extraordinary. What have we had for the past seven years? What have we to-day? We have declining production, a declining population, and a decline in wealth. We have increased unemployment and increased expenditure on Governmental services. If that is something about which Deputy O'Reilly or anybody else feels satisfied, it is extraordinary. Deputy O'Reilly told us that were it not for the Fianna Fáil Government we would have lost the art of wheat growing. I did not know there was an art in it, and I have always been growing it. What, however, we have not found is that Fianna Fáil has made the growing of wheat economic in this country. After all the talk about self-sufficiency, and of the great relief it was to this country to have that policy in operation, we have no evidence yet that all the wheat we require in this country could not be more economically supplied from foreign sources. It is a good thing, and a right thing, that in times of stress we should be able to go back and produce whatever we require, but I have yet to learn that it is a good policy or that it is good business for me or any other farmer to grow a crop that does not yield me a profit while I can grow another crop that does yield me a profit—that is, if the first crop is a necessary which can be bought elsewhere. If I can make £5 an acre on growing oats, and if I lose, or the State loses, £5 by my growing wheat, I should not grow wheat unless it is an absolute necessity. That is exactly what is happening. Every acre of wheat that happened to be grown in this country was a national loss, because some other use could have been made of the land which would have yielded a profit. The growing of wheat has not alone put up the price of flour in this country but it has been used by the flour millers as an excuse to rob the people of the country. Nevertheless, Deputy O'Reilly and other people are quite satisfied that the people of this country should be grateful, and have a right to be grateful, to Providence that a Fianna Fáil Government has been in power for the last eight years.

We are confronted with a new situation. We are in the middle of a crisis, a world war. Is there any evidence of that in the Vote on Account before us to-day? Bar the fact that we are making provision for a Ministry of Supplies and—although it is not disclosed in the Vote on Account, it has to be paid for—that we have set up an absolutely superfluous Ministry for the Co-ordination of Defence, we have no evidence of the existence of the crisis in this Vote on Account. If there was any attempt made to deal with the crisis as it developed, we would have some evidence of it in the Vote on Account. We are just simply jogging along in the same old rut—increased expenditure and unemployment. There is one item in the Vote asked for to-day which is a condemnation of the Government policy because the Government itself offered to stand upon success or failure in that regard. That is the provision in regard to unemployment. Of the total of £10,500,000 asked for in the Vote, practically £1,000,000 is provided for employment schemes, unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance. The very fact that we have to provide such a large amount for the relief of unemployment, not withstanding all the protestations that the self-sufficiency policy would provide a cure for unemployment, carries its own condemnation. Here we are at the end of eight years and we have not gone a step further. We have, in fact, gone back on the position which the Fianna Fáil Party found in existence when they came into office.

There are quite a number of well-meaning people in this country who want all Parties to co-operate to try to bring to the country whatever measure of relief and success it is possible to bring to it. Now we are quite prepared to do that, but on what basis? Is there anything in this Vote that would induce us to go in and say to the Government: "We now see a change of heart and a change of policy. You have, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce has said recently, made foolish speeches in the past but we believe you are now ready to change your policies and your tactics." So far as this Vote on Account is concerned there is no change indicated. What are we asked to co-operate with? Increased expenditure and increased unemployment? Has any attempt been made to produce more in this country, beyond telling the people that they must till more? What provision have we made for tillage in this country? What provision have we made for greater productivity? On this side of the House, we have been endeavouring for years to try to induce the Government to make some provision for supplying cheaper artificial manures. I have been at it for years. We could find millions of money to put into bogs and industrial alcohol factories to turn out a substitute for petrol at 3/- or 3/6 per gallon, but we could not find money to put into the land.

Everybody realises now that the land is the only staple asset we have, and that once that fails the country fails. That is a truth which, I am afraid, the Government and the members of their Party did not recognise in time. They have recognised it in the last few years, and they also have come to realise that this country has been living on live stock. Having realised it, however, they have sat down and done nothing, and now the position is that we have reached a crisis. We are asked to till more land and we have no manure. There may be numbers of people on the far side of the House who do not appreciate the importance of that, but I am sure there are others who do. So far as I am concerned, I am quite prepared to co-operate with the Government or with anybody who tries to encourage increased production. If we do not secure increased production now, when we have an opportunity of getting a good market for our produce, we will never get into it, and it is absolutely essential that we should do something in that connection now.

What is the position at the present time? We had a tariff on foreign manures and, as a result of the economic war, we had a cutting down of the purchasing power of our people. The farmers, since the time of the economic war, were not able to use artificial manure; they were not able to buy it. The result was that the manufacturers of artificial manure in this country, instead of extending production, were forced to restrict it, and they were also obliged to restrict the importation of the raw materials utilised in the home production. When the crisis came we had a tariff on foreign manure and a restricted importation of the raw materials for home manufacture. How could we be expected to co-operate?

If any Deputy on the far side of the House can go through this Vote on Account, and can point out to us any items in it in connection with which during the last eight years, the Government have been successful, he ought to do it. There does not appear to be any standard by which we can judge the Government and claim success for it. Instead of attending to the things that mattered in this country, the Government devoted the finances of the people towards an unplanned industrial campaign. Instead of attending to the thing that really did matter, the land, the Government simply frittered the money of the people away uselessly in other directions. Then we had the hankering after constitutional codology when people ought to have been minding their own business.

We have now reached the day of reckoning. Now the stewards have been called to account for their stewardship. What have we confronting us? The policy of the Government, once it got into power in 1932, was simply to spend, spend, spend. They worked on the assumption that the more favours they showed the more votes would come, that there would be more votes gained through spending rather than through saving. That percolated right down through all the local authorities. We have now come to the end of our tether. This Vote on Account does not represent by any means the burden that is being placed upon the people. The rates have gone up to an enormous extent. The cost of living has gone up. We have a situation at the present time where people who have pigs to sell cannot get a price for them. Other people have not sufficient money to buy bacon, the prices are so frightfully high. The whole thing has been made a complete mess.

The Minister for Supplies seems to enjoy all this, but the people in the country do not enjoy it. I can assure the Minister that there are people, particularly those living in the small towns, who are very badly off. They are the people whom the Minister misled into supporting him when he told them that not alone would he put them working, but he would have to send to America and other countries for their sons and daughters and bring them home in order to put them working here. Those unfortunate people are now unable to buy the ordinary necessaries of life. That is the position in the country and especially in the small towns. If we are going to have any change of policy there ought to be some indication of it, but there is no such indication forthcoming.

There is an unfortunate position growing in the country. There is a feeling of want of confidence and a feeling of unrest. I am sure the Government are aware of that. What are they doing to allay it? They just bring in a Budget the same as last year with increases here, there and everywhere. If this country is going to get anywhere it must have confidence in the Government. There must be a feeling established that the right thing is being done. We have had evidence within the last five years that the efforts of the Government to create employment—they took the taxpayers' and the ratepayers' money in order to provide employment—have been a complete failure. Figures were given in the House yesterday by Deputy Mulcahy showing a new angle on unemployment. His statement certainly came as an eye-opener. If you take the National Health Insurance contributions and the Unemployment Insurance contributions you will find there has been a decrease in the increment of employment during Fianna Fáil's term of office. The Deputy's statistics give a true indication of the conditions in regard to employment and unemployment. We had all the factors relating to that under consideration yesterday and the information that was supplied to the House was very illuminating.

The Government should take its courage in its hands and drop its flabbiness, because it always has been flabby. It has carried out experiment after experiment with the people's money on schemes that were of no value, but so far as anything else was concerned it was just a flabby Government without backbone. We have now come to a situation in which it will take a supreme effort on the part of somebody to redeem democracy, because those people over there have pratically ruined it in this country. We are travelling along a road to which apparently there is no end. If the people become dissatisfied, and they are becoming dissatisfied, and if they feel that they are being led up some kind of boreen which will get them nowhere, then you will have an end of democracy. A feeling of confidence is an absolute necessity. If the Government want to put the country on its feet, it must endeavour to engage the people in profitable employment. If it merely engages the people in employment of a nature which, in the main, requires to be subsidised, then a feeling of lack of independence will inevitably appear and only dissatisfaction will result.

There is no use in telling the people of this or any other country that there is a certain debt owed to the community, and that because of that people must work for small profit or no profit. The only incentive there is to work is to make a profit so that one and one's family can live in comfort. That is the only basis on which people will work and give of their best, but apparently this Government does not realise it. We are quite prepared to co-operate with the Government in the present crisis if they will give us anything to co-operate with them on, but so far they have not done so. Deputy O'Reilly told us last night that he does not see any hope, and I am afraid he is right. I hope some other body will take the place of this Government that will give the country hope and relief to its people who are being sorely hit, and thus redeem faith in democracy.

Mr. Cogan

I refrained from speaking on the Vote on Account last night because I felt it would be impossible to do so in a cheerful mood. The Minister for Finance has frequently complained that farmer Deputies depress him with their speeches and make him feel gloomy. Last night I did not think it would be right for me to speak and send the Minister for Finance off to bed in a depressed and gloomy mood. If one were to endeavour to speak in a cheerful way in regard to the economic condition of this country, one would need to picture the conditions of 20 or 30 years ago, when the country was in a sounder economic and financial condition than it is to-day, or perhaps, better still, to try and visualise a future time when conditions will be improved. I think it would be easy for anyone to visualise conditions more desirable than they are at the present moment. One can picture this little country with its present economic resources and its rather small population living in the future in a condition of comparative comfort, of the farmer being in a position to pay his way, to employ at least one man for every £20 of his valuation; but while one can picture that condition for the future one must admit that there is no hope whatever for an improvement in the economic condition of the country until a reasonable effort is made to reduce the present burden of taxation, all the rates and charges which have been imposed on the community and, at the same time, to increase the productive capacity of the people.

We have before us an Estimate of expenditure running into £30,000,000 for work which is mainly unproductive and does not add to any extent to the wealth of the nation. It is that burden which is crushing the nation out of existence. Something must be done to lighten it. I am afraid the Minister for Finance does not really grasp the true condition of the agricultural community. He has displayed on various occasions a typical city mentality, and told us that the farmer is the monarch of all he surveys. If the Minister wants to understand the value of the farmer's so-called kingdom it might be well if he went with a farmer into a provincial bank when the latter was seeking a loan of £20 on the security of his farm, or, as the Minister would call it, his kingdom. He would probably see his majesty, on making that request being pitched out on his head for daring to seek a loan on such security. That illustrates the position in which the main industry of the country is at the moment. Various ideas have been put forward to improve the present position.

We have been told that the State should raise money by any and every means possible to give full-time employment to the unemployed. I agree, provided it is productive employment. One can compare this State to a small farm on which there is living a large family of adult workers. If the majority of the members of that family are idle, and not engaged in productive work, how long is the owner of it going to survive? Again, if a farmer was to employ his sons on works that may be compared to national development work, such as drainage and afforestation and other schemes, he would be faced with the danger that he might not be able to meet his demands because the income he derived from such work would not be sufficient to meet his outlay. Bearing these comparisons in mind, the first duty of the State should be to see that every unemployed man is engaged on productive work, on the production of goods which can be used either within the State or exported in exchange for commodities that the country needs. It follows from that that the main work to which the unemployed should be directed is agricultural work.

A few days ago, when travelling through a part of the country where the land is poor and of an inferior quality, I observed that for miles I did not see anyone working in the fields. A considerable amount of the land adjoining the public road, which was under grass, appeared to me to be more suitable for tillage, but it was practically derelict because it was poor, light land and unsuitable to be in grass. If the necessary capital was available, that land could be put into production. At the same time I noticed 24 men removing a ditch to widen the public road. I agree this was very useful work, but I wonder is that a sound policy, or was it right to have 24 strong, active men busily engaged on work which will not be immediately productive?

Is not the great need of the moment the production of more food? Could not that type of work take second place to the production of food? I believe that even if it were necessary to subsidise labour on the land, it would be sound policy. I do not agree that the giving of subsidies is always wrong. The Minister for Agriculture stated that he is prepared during the coming year to subsidise drainage, by giving grants-in-aid to farmers to improve their land. If it is right to give grants-in-aid in such cases, would it not be equally desirable to give grants to subsidise farmers to increase the production of food? There would be difficulties in the way, of course, just as there are difficulties about giving grants to farmers to reclaim or to improve land. These difficulties could be got over, seeing that there is such an urgent need for increased production.

An unemployed person with dependents at present receives a weekly allowance from the State of 14/- or 15/-. If that unemployed person was sent to work with a farmer, and if he still received 14/- or 15/- from the State, the farmer could find the balance, so as to bring the wage up to the standard fixed. Would not that be sound economic policy, and calculated to increase production? Would it not be better to have a man working on the land and producing food than to have him making weekly pilgrimages to the local employment exchange to sign his name and draw the degrading and demoralising dole? It would be better if that man was engaged on productive work rather than on the various types of relief schemes. Everybody agrees that relief schemes are necessary as long as it is not possible to employ people on productive work. If it were possible to engage them on productive work would not that be better than what are called long-term development schemes? The income of the community is not sufficient to meet present expenditure. Every effort should be made to increase the income of the community by increasing the wealth-producing capacity of the people, and by cutting down all waste in public administration. I suggest that for the Minister's consideration. That is one way in which production on the land could be increased and the national income improved. The tendency is to get away from productive work into employment under the State, under local bodies or into industry. Employment on the land is steadily decreasing.

No matter what the cost, and no matter what changes must be made in the law, we must seek to make the production of food more profitable than any other form of employment. We can do that by ensuring that the farmer gets remunerative prices for the products of the land and that wages are subsidised, particularly when the Government is concerned and where men are on the unemployed register. Many of the demands made upon the House in this Vote could be drastically reduced. Many of the items could be described as nothing more or less than sheer waste of public money. Starting with the first item, the President's establishment, that is one that could be dispensed with. There is far too much money spent on education, having regard to the results obtained. Young people are leaving agriculture, and unless a change is made in the present plans children, who will be the citizens of the future, will not be trained to work in what is our most important industry. The present tendency is to get away from productive work and seek other sources of livelihood. I appeal to the Government seriously to consider the present position. This Government is spending nearly £10,000,000 more than their predecessors and are getting very poor results.

The housing problem has been tackled, but that has been done at enormous expense. We know that inadequate results have been obtained for the amount of money spent on housing, that big profits have been made by capitalists who advanced money, that big profits have been made by people who provided the materials, and that big profits have been also made by people engaged in the housing business; and that, as a result, a very heavy burden has been imposed on the taxpayers and on tenants of the houses. It may not be possible to proceed with housing to the same extent in the future, owing to the shortage of materials. I appeal to the Minister to amend the Government's plans for housing, so that while a certain amount of building could continue, they should concentrate on home-produced materials. I quite agree that we have industries which impose a very heavy burden on the community, but there are industries which it is desirable to have and which have improved our economic position. I refer to the cement and other industries which provide material that was very much needed in the life of the nation and that should be continued. There are other branches of industry which are not adding anything to the wealth of the nation and that might be discouraged. I urge the Government to ascertain if it is possible to direct the unemployed community and those engaged in non-productive occupations on to productive work on the land. That could be done if Ministers had the will and the energy to do it.

Mr. J.P. Kelly

The Deputy who has just spoken told us at the outset that his speech would be depressing, and, having listened to him, I must say that his speech has been somewhat depressing, but not to the same extent as previous speeches by the Deputy have been. I have listened to his speeches in this House for a couple of years past and on every occasion his speech was most depressing. On the present occasion he has not come up to his usual standard of depression. That in itself, for a Deputy who claims to represent the farming community, is a sign of progress. One would imagine, from listening to the speeches of the Opposition yesterday, that the Government were doing nothing for the farmers. Yet, when we come to examine this in detail, we find that a large proportion of the £10,000,000 which is being voted on account now will go back directly to the pockets of the farmers. Apart altogether from such items as £228,000 for agriculture, £450,000 for supplementary agricultural grants, and £113,000 for export subsidies, we find other sums which will go back directly to the pockets of the farmers. If you take any one particular item you will find that the money will be expended in this country by purchasing goods or by giving it to certain people who, in turn, will purchase goods from the farmers.

One Opposition Deputy yesterday said that the country was overrun with officials; that we had too many inspectors. The officials whose salaries will be paid under this Vote are mostly the sons and daughters of farmers. The money that we give to them is mostly expended in purchasing food which is produced by the farmers, their own relations. So that if you examine this in detail you will find that 95 per cent. of this money goes back directly to the pockets of the producers. The Opposition, of course, may not like these figures. Again, I see here an item, "Unemployment Insurance and Unemployment Assistance, £431,000." A number of farmers' sons are included amongst those who will draw that money. It has to be remembered that we have now farmers' sons registered as unemployed who were never registered when Fine Gael was in office.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear.

Mr. Kelly

They were idle. I remember in 1931 complaints coming from those unemployed farmers' sons. We have not such short memories as to forget that quickly. When we consider these matters, I think that the amount that is going back directly to the farmers of the £10,000,000 we are voting here justifies us in saying that the farmers are not forgotten in this Vote. While Deputies ask us to reduce the Estimates, at the same time they request us to indulge in extra expenditure. One Opposition Deputy last evening asked why the Government would not buy ships to bring in more goods into the country. It is a well known fact that the farmers are worth more than a whole fleet of ships in producing the food that is necessary.

Some few years ago a large quantity of our food supplies was imported here. All our wheat was imported and all our sugar was imported, to mention only a couple of items. These are now being produced here. If we were forced to import all our food at present, we would be in a dangerous position. Our national flag might save our ships from being torpedoed, but it could not save them from the dangers of mine fields. Consequently, no matter what ships we had, we might be left short of food. Therefore, I say that anything that tends to increase the productivity of the land should be welcomed. It is much better that we should produce wheat here than have it going down into the sea and, instead of investing money in the purchase of ships, we should give it to the farmers to enable them to produce the foodstuffs that we require.

The Opposition do not appear to like the idea of compulsory tillage. Some Deputies say that the tilling of the land is only preventing the growth of good grass. It was also stated that if we produce more corn we will have no bags in which to put the corn and no twine to bind up the corn when it is reaped. We had a lot of wild and irresponsible statements trying to impress on the farmers the likelihood of a position that will not come about. One would imagine that the Minister for Supplies and the Minister for Industry and Commerce were looking at such a position developing without taking steps to counteract any evil consequences. We have sufficient confidence in the Minister for Industry and Commerce and in the Minister for Supplies to know that they will counteract any such things that may arise.

The compulsory tillage scheme compels the farmers to till 12½ per cent. of their arable land. When Deputies talk about a shortage of good grass, they should remember that 87½ per cent. of the arable land will still be available for the growing of grass. I think that 87½ per cent. of arable land should satisfy the most enthusiastic supporter of the grazing system. That large proportion of the land will still be under grass. It is a very peculiar fact that where we have too much grass or too much grazing we have not so much beef production. Take Meath, the county I represent. That has the distinction of being the great grazing county. I do not think, however, that we can lay claim to being a beef raising county. It is quite true that for a couple of months of the year, in the summer time, we produce beef—grass fed beef. In the other months of the year we do not produce beef and we have the position that victuallers in Meath are forced to go into the Dublin market and purchase beef there, take it down to their stalls in Meath and sell it. It is clear therefore that where we have most grazing we do not produce so much beef. On the other hand they are able to produce more beef in the tillage counties than we can produce in the county I represent. We have, of course, gone in for the feeding of stores and the "polly" trade as it is known in the country districts is largely carried on in that grazing county. The cattle are purchased in the spring, sold in the autumn, and for the other six months of the year the land is lying idle. That is the position that compulsory tillage is going to cure. Its curing will be to the advantage of the beef farmers, of the working people and of the nation.

In passing this Estimate we will be providing for the social services that have been carried on. I do know that the Government have been investigating the possibilities of reductions in certain quarters and it may be that when the Budgetary position is disclosed we may find some changes in this respect. Well, I would like to see reductions in the Estimates. We must remember that it is necessary that these social services should be carried on. For instance, provision is made here for the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to carry on his housing campaign. Deputies on the Opposition side state that it is now too expensive to go on with the erection of houses. There are many subsidiary industries that depend for their existence on the erection of houses. This housing campaign gives very useful employment. While housing is being carried on, the farmers are relieved of the expense of carrying the dead-weight of a number of unemployed on their shoulders. such industries as cement works, brick works, and tile factories give much employment. Apart altogether from the number of builders and builders' labourers, masons, plasterers and so on, employed in the construction of the houses, there is the effect of employment on the subsidiary industries.

While recognising that the economic situation is not what it should be I am satisfied that the Ministers who occupy the Front Bench have given careful consideration to the whole matter. They are capable of handling it satisfactorily, and they are aware of the needs of the people. Members of the Opposition have stated that Ministers have a city mentality. But Ministers who have been born in the city understand the position of the farmers. They understand the position of the unemployed. They come down to the country frequently and speak to those people. They find out their needs, and we, the local Deputies, can tell them what the position is. They have first hand information. That phrase "city mentality" appears to be greatly in use recently. It has been used by members of the chief Opposition and by the Deputy who spoke representing the farmers. But the members of the Government understand the problem they are dealing with and they are capable of handling it to the advantage of the country. The biggest problem facing them now of course is the reduction of the number of the unemployed. They are taking steps to ensure that we will not have the same number of unemployed in the future as we have at the moment. The Minister for Agriculture has informed us that he intends to bring in a scheme which will deal with the matter in the rural districts. I am satisfied that as a result of the steps taken by the Government, the position of the unemployed will be much improved. I am satisfied that the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Supplies together with the other Ministers are fully capable of handling the position.

Professor O'Sullivan

After the good will displayed by the Deputy who has just sat down it would be difficult to expect a pessimistic speech from him. He was very determined in that. I think he described Deputy Cogan as "our little ray of hope" but he himself was determined to be the whole sunshine of hope. We are glad to learn from one of the supporters of the Government that at last they are going to deal with the unemployment question. Though the last Minister for Industry and Commerce did not do it he is, we are now assured, going to give his side help to the present Minister for Industry and Commerce to do it. I gathered from the speech to which we have just listened that the principal crop produced at present by the farmers is a crop of officials. We have always stated in this House that the things in which the Government had been most successful was increasing the number of officials in the country. We are told now by one of their supporters that this is the great boon the Government has conferred upon the country, that officials are appointed to find positions for the sons and daughters of farmers. If so, I can share the disappointment of Deputy J.P. Kelly and the Ministers in realising that the farmers do not always appreciate the boon that the Government has given them. Apparently the best paying crop of the farmers is officials.

The present watch-dog of the public finances, the man who is supposed to protect the taxpayers, went down some time ago to the south-west of the country and took as his slogan, modifying a previous slogan of the Party on prosperity, "Spend, spend, spend, and there is no reason why it should ever stop." That Minister is now the guardian of the public purse! Yet, people are surprised there is no diminution in the Estimates. The slogan is, increase officials, spend money, but take good care not to ask yourself whether the sources will dry up, until they dry up. But when they do show signs of drying up to do not let that affect your conduct; go on, content yourself with issuing a few warnings so that when the catastrophe comes the Minister and his predecessors can say: "We warned you." It is no matter if the public retort: "You took no steps while in office to make preparations for things of that kind; you indulged in the policy of spend, spend, spend and there is no reason why it should ever stop." After all, the Minister is the present guardian of the public purse, and he said taxation was only the redistribution of wealth. What are the facts? Notwithstanding the fact that, apparently from time to time, as we gathered from Deputy J.P. Kelly, the Ministers had been told by their followers what the situation is, can anybody pretend that as a result of spending and spending and spending that the Government has indulged in for a number of years, the situation that confronts the Government, the Parliament and the country at present is one that should not give cause to every serious person for grave anxiety no matter to what Party he belongs. The only result of your spending has been to dry up and to increase the drying up of your ordinary sources of employment.

Even with all that money that the Parliament has put into the hands of the Government, does the Government claim that it has sufficiently coped with the problem of unemployment that it went into office with the promise of solving? Apparently, the Government's followers in this House are still hopeful. Is hope as strong as it was eight years ago, notwithstanding the increased rates fostered, prompted and asked for by the present Minister for Finance? Spend more in rates, he said; you cannot spend enough; pile up the burden; that is the way to make the nation prosperous. Is the nation prosperous? Is it capable, from the economic point of view—which is probably not the most important point of view—of facing the situation that every country in the world may shortly have to face? Are we in a better position to do that as a result of the spendthrift policy which the Government have encouraged and insisted upon in the last eight years, and which, apparently, they still insist upon. Is the Government in a better position as a result of that policy to face the position which every country may soon be called upon to face? Europe is facing a serious situation, and we, here, must face it. Has the Government a shared of policy barring the hand-to-mouth existence which they pursue—the misuse and waste of public funds and the waste of national credit—to meet the prolonged continuation of the war, on the one hand, or the stoppage of the war, on the other hand? They cannot say that they did not know that a crisis of this kind might be upon them —they spoke of it. Have they taken a single effective measure to meet it? The only thing they did was to decide to buy a large quantity of warlike stores. They never explained why that was necessary, and they have not been able to carry out their intention. We had a demonstration of that last week when discussing the Supplementary Estimates.

The Government is doing a lot for the farmers, we are told! When Ministers or their followers get up to show what they are doing for the farmers, what is the proof? That they give a certain amount of money back to the farmers. Where did the money come from? Government policy is to take as much as possible from the farmers and everybody else in the country, give a little back to the farmers, and say "Are we not generous with you?" They take steps to bring the real source of the wealth of the farmers to the brink of ruin and then they try to buy over the support of the farmers, to get the farmers to close their eyes to the real state of affairs by giving them some money from the public purse. The Government try to get them to forget the damage done to agriculture by their making the industry unprofitable, and they hand back to the farmers 5/- out of the £5 damage caused directly and indirectly, hoping that the 5/- will be regarded as sufficient compensation. That is a policy which leaves us with diminished resources and diminished hopes of being able to face the crisis which the country may, in a short time, be called upon to face.

Does the Minister for Finance think that the prospects are as bright as his supporters on the back benches would like to think they are? Has he or his colleague beside him or any member of the Government any policy whatsoever? As our "ray of hope" put it, there is a sign that, on occasion, some Ministers at least are becoming aware of the situation, judging by their words. Ministers are beginning to issue warnings. If you are to pay heed to what they say, certain members of the Government are alive to the danger of the situation. If you accept their words, some members of the Government recognise the unwisdom of the policy of "expansion" and self-sufficiency which has been pursued by the Government, so far as any Government could pursue it, over a number of years.

Not so long ago, in dealing with one of the industries on which a large amount of money has been lost—the turf industry—the Minister for Industry and Commerce took it upon himself to give warning about undue optimism. Where is the undue optimism? I am at present looking at the "undue optimism" opposite me—the former Minister, Deputy Lemass. We had from that Minister the most glowing, optimistic pictures. The present Minister for Finance was only a candle to his sun as far as optimism was concerned. His successor does not find things quite so bright or rosy, and he has to warn the nation against undue optimism and the damage which such optimism may cause. As another Deputy has put it, there is, at least, some evidence that a few of the members of the Government are waking up. Whether they will be able to do anything with their colleagues is another matter. If you are to judge from this Book of Estimates, there is not much prospect of that.

I find myself in difficulties sometimes in discussing Estimates in this House. When you get a Budget from the present Government, you never can be sure that it represents all the money that is to be raised—there is no mention of the huge amount of money which is to be raised by concealed taxes, but we are not even told of all the acknowledged taxes that have to be paid before the end of the year. The Budget is deceptive in that respect. It is far from showing the total amount of money which is to be taken out of the people's pockets. There is what I might call "private taxation"—taxation for the benefit of certain individuals, some deserving and some less deserving. The public pay for it, but it is never presented in our Budget. We meet with a similar difficulty in dealing with our Estimates. We pass the Vote on Account, and then we pass the Estimates in spring or summer. When the following February comes, we find that a considerable additional sum has to be voted by way of Supplementary Estimates for extra services. At the close of the present year we were presented with Supplementary Estimates amounting to £750,000. It is difficult to ascertain what the exact amount is. I am not including the £1,000,000 for the Army, in respect of which there are certain savings which cover it. It is becoming more and more difficult to get any connected view of the expenditure for which the Government are making not merely themselves, but the country, responsible, because if the policy of the Government is to spend and spend, and never to stop, the duty of the country is to pay and pay, and that need never stop either, except when there is nothing left to pay with—and the Government are trying to secure that.

We have complained in the past about the reckless expenditure and multiplication of officials, and have pointed out that that was the great success which the Government could show in dealing with unemployment; but we never knew until we were told to-day that it is the farmers who are benefiting, that the real purpose of and justification for that expenditure is to provide jobs for farmers' sons and daughters. The unfortunate farmer does not appreciate it, and the Minister for Finance, when I opened with that remark, thought it unfortunate that the farmers did not appreciate it. After all, why not? That Minister is the person who sees that that particular thing grows, and again it need never stop, and apparently it is never going to stop. Are there any signs of economies in this Vote on Account? Unfortunately, I have not had time to examine the Estimates in detail yet, so that there may be a provision in them for an economic commission. If there is, there is some reference to economies and some proof of economies in the Estimate, but about the only evidence there is.

The present condition of the country is serious, and serious from many points of view. It is serious economically and serious in the despair which is entering the hearts of the people, which is still worse than even the economic disadvantages. That is not due to the outbreak of the European conflict, and there is no use in pretending that it is. It may be made worse as a result of that outbreak, but it is not due to it. It is due largely to the inefficient policy of the Government, to the deliberate policy of the Government over a number of years. It is now showing, and it was bound to show, and the only question there could really be dispute about is when it would begin to show. I wonder whether the Fianna Fáil Deputies, who, we are told, keep their Government in such close touch with what the people of the country want, and with what they are saying, really put before the Government what the situation down the country is. Our towns are largely deserted, so far as business is concerned, and that has been growing. Year after year, I have had to refer to that. It is growing still, and why should it not? What money is there to spend in the towns now? Are the numerous industries set up—some, perhaps, useful but others purely petty —any compensation for the damage done?

But, more serious than that is the fact that the people have lost belief. It is not now any longer that our supporters have no belief in the capacity of the Government. I am not aware that they ever had, but I should like the Fianna Fáil Deputies to tell the Government whether their own supporters have any belief now in the Government, whether they have any real belief in the Government's capacity to cope with the present situation. That is a desperately serious thing, not for the Government, but for the country, that at a time like this, when serious tasks have to be faced, we have a Government which is visibly collapsing before our eyes and falling down on the work they have to do. That is particularly apparent since last September and, concomitantly with that, you have a growing despair in the country, a growing lack of faith on the part of everybody in the capacity of the Government and in the capacity, therefore, of the country to face whatever may come.

I wish the Government would seriously face that situation. The country is capable at the moment, I believe, of drifting anywhere, and I see no lead from those who are responsible for the welfare and future of the country which will pull the people out of the morass of despair into which they have fallen. The serious danger is that it may drift anywhere, and the Government are not helping in the slightest. Parliament itself, I believe, is falling into disrepute. And why not? It is becoming more and more difficult to discuss things with any fruitfulness in the House, and Parliamentary institutions themselves are in danger. What is the point of people coming here week after week, asking for information and putting points to Minister after Minister, to be met with a point-blank refusal? There was a time when we got information—excuse me; when the Government answered and answered volubly—but the only difficulty then was that one could not trust the information one got. Now the tactics of "we will not answer" are adopted. We put up question after question on serious matters to the Government, and the reply is silence—sometimes ignoring the points made, but, at other times, simply adopting, in plain words, the line: "We will not answer."

At a time when belief in the Government is disappearing, is it well for the Government to throw contempt on Parliamentary institutions and to make serious discussion of serious questions more and more a matter of difficulty? The Government are doing nothing to help the House and nothing to help the country to face what the Minister for Finance and one or two of his colleagues may know—the situation which may at any time confront this or any other country. We have asked on many occasions here and on public platforms that the ordinary back bench members of Fianna Fáil should tell the Government what exactly is the position in the country. If they have done that— and it is their duty to do it—we have seen no result of the representations they made. I gather, listening to Deputy Kelly, that they did so from time to time, but that it is mainly on the many excursions which the "city-bred Ministers" whom I see opposite take down the country that they gather all the information that makes them capable of dealing so ably with agricultural problems; but occasionally that immense knowledge which they then garner is supplemented by representations now and then from members of the Fianna Fáil Party. It is the duty of the members of this House, of every Party, to put the Government au fait with the feeling in the country and with the problems that face the people of the country.

Deputy Cogan referred to a promise of the Minister for Agriculture to give loans for drainage. When it comes, however, to what may make in many places thorough drainage, that is the drainage of individual farms, really possible—arterial drainage—do we get a policy? No. Just as in the matter of economies we get a commission. We get up here—those of us who are interested in that particular question— session after session in this House, and ask the Minister for Finance—and get the answer from his eloquent Parliamentary Secretary—"What is exactly the position now with regard to the Drainage Commission?" The answer we get is "Well, I am urging this matter on as quickly as possible, and I hope that in a very short time the commission will be able to report. It is important work, of course, and it requires consideration." The next session we put the same question and we get the same answer. The only unfortunate thing is that the weather does not also forget to rain just like the Government forgets to do anything.

We had a set of figures here yesterday, and many serious questions in connection with these figures, put by Deputy Mulcahy, and from these there emerges what anybody could see— except the Minister for Finance, who at that time, was the optimistic Minister for Local Government and Public Health—that the Government was urging ever higher taxation. Perhaps he is not quite so optimistic about finance at the present time? No, I gather that he is not. At that time there was no end to spending; that was the policy. It was pointed out, and pointed out repeatedly, from these benches, that, as a result of that, you were drying up the real source of private employment. It was pointed out that, if you put taxation after taxation and burden after burden on, it was inevitable that, although you might put people into employment and say that you were putting them into employment in this and that industry, five here and 50 there and so on, the inevitable consequence of the increased burdens on the people must be to drive a number of people—of whom there could be no statistics at the moment— out of employment. From the figures that were read out here yesterday by Deputy Mulcahy it is clear that that is what has happened; that is, that you may boast that in various industries— some of very doubtful value—you put so many people into employment, but it is quite clear that you made it more and more difficult for the ordinary private employer, whether he is a farmer, a shopkeeper, an ordinary industrialist, or an ordinary private individual in any way of business, to keep people in employment. Private individuals, as a result of Government taxation of one kind or another, whether it is concealed or openly acknowledged, have had to cut down their staffs.

That is the result that you have to show for this immense expenditure, for this collection and expenditure of public money. It has not justified itself. That particular policy has not justified itself. After eight years, I suggest that the Government, if they have the interest of the country at heart, should re-examine the whole thing for themselves. Otherwise, they are leading to catastrophe, not for themselves only— that is a slight matter, if I may say so—but to catastrophe for the country. Then, when you come to Government employment and the economic public works that were to be found to absorb those who were not able to find employment in the ordinary way in the various industries that were built up, what do you find? Apparently, those people were forgotten who were to be driven out of ordinary industry as a result of Government policy. What do we find in that regard? Have we not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister, Deputy Flinn—or at least he was the Parliamentary Secretary to the previous Minister and is also Parliamentary Secretary to the present Minister—have we not the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary had to acknowledge that there was no plan for dealing with employment and that he could not find reproductive work? All that he can do is to appoint a drainage commission —a commission to inquire into what —into a thing that he has again and again got up here and told us is uneconomic; that you cannot find in arterial drainage, he says, plans that are economic. That is the result of the Government's effort to absorb into public employment the people who, as a result of their policy, have been driven out of ordinary employment.

We saw this useless expenditure, and we tried to drag, but tried in vain to drag from the Government some kind of justification for that expenditure, and we have never got it yet. We were told some 12 months ago that so much was to be spent on army stores that were necessary for the defence of this country. It was acknowledged by the Government that there was no good in having men unless you had arms and ammunition, and that that would be got—it is a pity we can't keep it when we get it—does the present Book of Estimates show that that could be got? You diminish the amount that you have down for Army supplies. Why? Is it not because you could not get them? Yet, a Minister, when that question was put,—one of the two Ministers, the twin Ministers, for Defence, though whether they might be described as the heavenly twins or not, we need not say; one of them does nothing, at any rate, and I do not know what the other one does—at any rate, the question was put to one or other of them as to where he was going to get these Army supplies. The ex-Minister—the Minister for Nothing—stood up and, when I challenged him, said that his colleague would reply, and his colleague got up and said that he would not tell us, but that he could get them. Does the Book of Estimates show that he could get them? Still, however, the expenditure on the Army goes on, but for what, this House and the country has never been told. This House has not been told what useful purpose is served by it, but it is to continue. Whenever any extravagance is pointed out, the Government simply refuses to answer the criticisms that are made.

There are Deputies in the House and, from their eagerness to speak on this Vote on Account, I gather there are some who at least will give public expression to the view that the Government retains their undiminished confidence and that they still have hopes—well-founded hopes, they hold— that the Government is at last going to deal with unemployment, that the Government is at last going—they would not admit, of course, that it is in a morass—but anyhow that the Government is going to save the country. I put it to such Deputies to throw their minds back a little and compare their hopes now, still apparently flickering, with the beautiful, vigorous flame that was there eight years ago in connection with all these big questions that were going to be solved; and I put it to them that there are more questions to be solved to-day. I put that to the people who get up here and appear still to have full confidence in the omniscience and omni-potence of the Front Bench to face the situation. I, personally, do not see even a willingness on the part of the Government to face it.

Minister for Supplies (Mr. Lemass)

Deputy O'Sullivan said that it was becoming a matter of increasing difficulty to have serious discussion upon serious questions in this House. Clearly he has found the difficulty insurmountable, because he certainly did not attempt to discuss seriously any of the serious matters with which this House has to deal. I came in here because I was told that Professor O'Sullivan had obviously prepared an important speech and that it might be worth while listening to him. The speech was not worth listening to; it did not contain one constructive suggestion from beginning to end. It was nothing but hot air. I ask Deputies in this House—even those behind Deputy O'Sullivan—if they can remember now, 60 seconds after the speech has been concluded, what it was all about, what it was leading up to, what point Deputy O'Sullivan was trying to make, what course of action he was proposing that the House should take into consideration. They cannot remember.

Mr. McMenamin

Can the Minister not? Then he had better sit down.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. Lemass

I propose to sit down quite shortly.

Mr. McMenamin

This is not the place for the Minister. He confessed it himself; it is his own opinion.

Mr. Lemass

The opinion that counts is not the opinion of the Deputy. Let us consider seriously what the position of the country is and the line of approach which should be taken if an improvement of that condition is to be secured. I submit that the line taken by Deputy O'Sullivan and by those on the opposite benches who have previously spoken in this debate is entirely wrong. Deputy Brennan, a short while ago, said——

Mr. McMenamin

The Minister has forgotten what Deputy Brennan said.

Mr. Lemass

He asked us to take into serious account that there was growing uneasiness and growing unrest in the country. He spoke as if he deplored that, but I do not know why he should deplore it. Surely all the efforts of the Fine Gael Party since the outbreak of war have been directed to promoting a feeling of unrest.

Mr. McMenamin

We stole the ammunition out of the Magazine Fort.

Mr. Lemass

Would Deputy McMenamin stay quiet a little while? Am I correct or am I wrong, that every speech made by every leader of the Party opposite for the past six months has been designed to one end and to one end only—the promotion of unrest, the creation of a feeling of uneasiness? Of course that is so. The Deputies opposite know that it is so. I do not know why they should consider it good policy to follow that line, to make speeches of that kind. Clearly such speeches are serving no national interest. Do they think that they are serving a Party interest? I do not think they are. Do they believe that, if they can succeed in promoting the type of unrest which their speeches are tending to create, the resulting upheaval will put them into office? I think quite the reverse would be the case. It would be an extraordinary set of circumstances which could possibly result in the return of Fine Gael to office, and certainly not the circumstances that will result from the creation of an upheaval, very largely upon an artificial basis, promoted by speeches such as we have had here to-day from Deputy O'Sullivan and such as we have had on many occasions from more responsible members of that Party.

There are grounds for uneasiness about the situation. Nobody denies that. Long before the war began, members of the Government endeavoured to convince the public that the situation resulting from the outbreak of war would be one of grave difficulty for us, would be one which would cause uneasiness, one which it would require all the wisdom of the people and the strength of the nation to get us safely through. Why is the task of the Government being made more difficult, and deliberately so, by people who, presumably, are responsible, who are devoting all their energy not towards making constructive suggestions for the solution of our problems, not towards easing the difficulties of the Government arising out of the war situation, but towards intensifying those difficulties by adding to them the feeling of unrest about which Deputy Brennan has been talking to-day?

The subject matter of this discussion is, presumably, the Vote on Account and, arising out of that Vote, the question of the amount which the Government has taken from the country in taxation and the purpose for which the money so taken is being spent. Deputies opposite are quite entitled to contest the wisdom of the Government and the general policy of the Government in these matters, and some Deputies have done so. Deputy Cogan said here that the burden of taxation is too heavy and that it had become more than the country could bear. That is a point of view which can be seriously put forward and one which, naturally, the Government must take very seriously into account. It is a question which the Government is continuously asking itself—whether the burden of taxation is beyond the resources of the country and, if so, whether it is essential that we should reduce that burden, even though it means lopping off services which, in the ordinary course, would be regarded by the people as essential.

The bulk of the money which comes here in the form of taxation goes out mainly on certain services. It goes out to finance social services, old-age pensions and other payments of the same kind, for the relief of unemployment, and for one service or another like that. It goes out for education for the Army and for the police force. If you take the social services, education, the Army and the police force out of the Estimates, the balance is very small, as the bulk of our expenditure is under these main headings. The very Deputy who spoke here to-day in regard to taxation being too heavy, concluded his speech by urging the Government to extend its subsidies to agriculture by making direct contributions to the cost of agricultural labour and in other ways, without adverting to the fact that such an extension of Government schemes of assistance to agriculture is going to increase the burden of taxation. It may be good policy to do that. I am not going to deny that useful results for the country as a whole may be secured by taking a further sum from the public in taxation, provided that we can spend it in a manner in which it will give increased national income and make it easier for the people to pay those taxes. That may be a sensible course to follow, but Deputies who urge that the burden of taxation is too heavy, and give no indication as to the directions in which they think a reduction should be sought, and in the next breath urge that new expenditure should be undertaken, are obviously failing in their responsibility to the people and in their duty as public representatives. We could reduce taxation; we could curtail expenditure upon any of the services; but let us consider whether it is wise to do so or not.

Our expenditure upon social services is heavy. It is a heavy burden for us to carry, but we have got to recognise the fact that the social services existing in this country fall behind those existing in Great Britain, and even behind those existing in other countries in respect of which a comparison might more usefully be made. Britain is a wealthy country with immense resources; its whole industrial and social organisation is much stronger than ours, and, consequently, it can bear the burden of enhanced social services much more easily than we can. But, inevitably, the comparison that would be made by our people is between the social services existing here and those in Great Britain. They will not consider the services existing in Denmark, Bulgaria, Sweden or other small countries whose economic conditions are more similar to our own. The comparison would be made with Great Britain, and that comparison reveals that our social services, unemployment assistance, old-age pensions and other payments of that kind to people for one cause or another are much less than those made in Great Britain. To attempt to reduce them further is going to add to the unrest and is going to provoke unrest. In my opinion, that would be an unwise step to take. I am prepared to say that, until we can get increased production, and through that increased production an expansion of our national income, we cannot contemplate bringing up our social services to the British level. We cannot afford to do that; there are people who seriously contend that we are living beyond our means at present. Whether they are right or not, we have reached the stage at which we can go no further until we have increased our resources, and we can only do that by increasing production either in industry or in agriculture, or both.

Deputy Cogan did not make one serious contribution. He said we should reduce expenditure on education. Deputy O'Sullivan, who was a Minister for Education and has very intimate association with our educational system, did not even deal with that suggestion. He made his own suggestion. It could be said quite seriously that we are spending too much on education. We are spending a great deal of money on education, but if Deputies want seriously to consider the reduction of our expenditure on education that they have got to examine it in detail. There is no use in making a general statement of that kind and leaving it in the air. We can only reduce expenditure on education by lopping off some of the educational facilities which are there now. Which of these facilities do Deputies think we should do without? In an emergency, we could do without many—we could do without all of them—but have we reached such a degree of emergency that we must at the present time, in order to reduce taxation, eliminate some of these educational services?

Deputy O'Sullivan did, of course, suggest that we should reduce expenditure on the Army. The Government does not spend money on the Army or the police force merely for the pleasure of spending it. It has very definite responsibility to the public to preserve peace within the country and to protect the safety of the nation both from external and internal attack. The responsibility is on the Government to decide to what extent it is necessary to take precautions in order to protect that safety. Deputy O'Sullivan has no responsibility. He is prepared, of course, to advise the most reckless gamble the country could possibly face. It is "heads I win, tails you lose" with him. If the Government takes his advice, and disaster follows, it is the Government that is going to be blamed. If the Government does not take his advice he can always argue that his proposals for the reduction of taxation were ignored. The expenditure on the Army has been kept at the minimum which, in our opinion, is necessary under present circumstances. We are spending far less than other neutral countries which are circumstanced as we are. Because of a variety of circumstances, we have been exceedingly fortunate that we have been able to come this far without having to incur upon defence the vast expenditures which other European neutral countries have had to face. It is, I submit, playing with serious matters for a Deputy in Deputy O'Sullivan's position to confine his proposals for dealing with the taxation position to the one suggestion that extravagance in Army expenditure should be eliminated. There is no extravagance. There are many people who would seriously contend that our expenditure upon that particular service is totally inadequate to meet the needs of the situation. However, while the Government has to carry the responsibility of deciding what particular minimum measures are necessary to secure defence, the Government must take the responsibility of asking the House to provide the money to meet them.

I do not think we could seriously contemplate at the present time a substantial saving upon the cost of our police force. Again, that is a matter upon which the opinion of the individuals who are charged with the responsibility must be the determining factor. Certain individuals will have different opinions as to what precautionary measures are necessary to deal with any particular situation, but in the situation that is there I think we cannot contemplate any substantial reduction in the size of our police force or in the resources made available to it.

Deputies can go through the Book of Estimates and pick out a small item here and a small item there which might possibly be eliminated, but the main sources of expenditure are the big things I have mentioned, and in respect of each of those it is not possible to contemplate any serious diminution, at least, sufficient diminution to be noticeable in the matter of taxation. If, therefore, our tax burden is becoming unduly heavy—and nobody can deny that it is becoming heavy— we have got to try to make it easier, not by the reckless abandonment of essential services or the unscientific elimination of expenditures which are deemed necessary, but by endeavouring to make it possible for the people to bear the burden by increasing their productive activity, by adding to the national income, by getting an expansion in activity in industry and agriculture. We are all agreed about that but, of course, we disagree as to the methods most suitable, the methods most likely to be productive of that result. One thing certainly will destroy any plan to that end and that is a widespread feeling of unrest, a widespread feeling that some individuals are profiting unduly out of the existing circumstances and that the hardships which some people contemplate or are suffering are due to such circumstances. That is why Deputies opposite are doing a national disservice in continuing the type of agitation in which they have been engaging. Mind you, I have no objection whatever to a Deputy coming, supported by facts, to show that things are wrong in relation to one industry or another, in relation to the price of one commodity or the price of another. But Deputies should be certain of their facts before they start a campaign of that kind, because if the idea gets abroad that some individuals are getting away with it, that the conduct of national affairs is biassed in favour of one section to the detriment of another, or that the machinery which has been set up in order to ensure that there is fair distribution of available commodities and no excessive profiteering in any direction is not working satisfactorily, we are in for a period of very considerable unrest which is going to enhance to a great extent the difficulties arising from the war situation. It is not true. So far as it is humanly possible to devise methods of preventing it, it has been done. The machinery at our disposal may work faultily; there may be mistakes—the judgment of individuals is never perfect—but I want Deputies to understand what the intention is, what the purpose is. So long as they approve of that intention and that purpose then they can confine their criticisms to the ability shown in carrying them out. Our ability is open to question, but the intention is clear, and the intention is to ensure that there will be no profiteering in any direction, that there will be equitable distribution of commodities in respect of which there is a scarcity and that, so far as it is possible to do it, the State will hold the scales evenly between one section of citizens and another, between one individual and another.

Deputy O'Sullivan said the burden of taxation which is being imposed is drying up the ordinary sources of employment. If our tax burden had reached the stage at which it could be said that it was drying up the ordinary sources of employment, then I would agree that we had passed the danger mark and that, even if it meant lopping off educational services or social services or other Governmental services which are considered essential at the moment, we would have to do it in order to get back behind the danger mark, but I do not think it is true. We have examined all the available information, statistical and otherwise, with great care to make sure that that is not happening. Here and there danger signals appear but, generally speaking, it can be said that the number of persons in employment is increasing, has increased year after year, and is still increasing. No doubt there has been in the last six months an increase in the number of persons unemployed. That has been due mainly, if not entirely, to the return to this country of people who were previously employed in Great Britain and who have not been as yet absorbed into employment here and, of course, there were some industries hit immediately by war conditions with resultant unemployment. While the number of unemployed remains so large as to be a matter of serious concern to everybody, it is a fact that the number of people in employment has also increased and is still increasing, as all the available statistics show.

Confusion has been caused in the minds of some people by the statistics relating to employment in agriculture. Before the unemployment assistance scheme began to operate, and before expenditure at the present level was undertaken upon relief works, all over the country there was a number of people who, when the persons preparing the statistics came round, described themselves as employed in agriculture and who are now describing themselves as being unemployed because they think there is some advantage to be derived from so describing themselves. They think that they are going to get unemployment assistance or employment on relief works. That factor, of which every Deputy from a rural area is quite aware, has upset the validity of comparisons between the present time and previous periods in relation to the number of persons employed in agriculture. There is no Deputy residing in a rural area who does not know that that has happened. The county surveyor is approached about relief works in particular districts, and he says that he does not think that a Government grant will be given for that purpose because the number of unemployed on the register is not large enough. Then, within a week or two, the requisite number of unemployed appears on the register. That has produced a change in the statistics but it has not produced a change in the circumstances. That change in the statistics has misled Deputies into believing that there has been a substantial transfer of persons from agriculture to other occupations.

At the present time there is, in many rural areas, a scarcity of labour. I base that statement upon information which has come to me through the employment exchanges but more particularly upon leading articles in a number of papers which I have read within the last week or two. Some of these papers were sent to me with the articles marked for my information. These show that in certain rural districts there is at present a scarcity of labour. That situation may become more pronounced as time goes on. It is, however, true only of some areas. It is certainly not true of the Western counties in which there is a special problem of migration and where there are actually more upon the unemployment register than there were last year. It will not be easy to deal with that situation. The problem of unemployment in the West of Ireland—it is not really an employment problem so much as a problem of chronic poverty —is the most difficult of all this country has had to face, even in normal times, and it is one that is likely to become more pronounced in time of war because the various measures which are being taken to stimulate agricultural production, and to enforce it, are not having the same reactions upon employment in the western areas as they have in the midlands and eastern counties.

These are two problems, in relation to which we want, here in the Dáil, a pooling of ideas. So far as the Government is concerned, it has never hesitated to express fully the various proposals that are under consideration by it. It has elaborated its plans from time to time for dealing with various aspects of the problem, but we are not getting the same approach to them from the Party opposite. They seem to be more concerned with making debating points against the Government. Whatever justification there was for maintaining secrecy about their plans in times of peace, I submit that we have got to get a better approach to the problem in times like the present than was revealed by the statement of Deputy O'Sullivan to-day. Let us get their ideas as to a solution of the problems that face us. If their ideas are worth adopting we guarantee that they will be adopted. There may be genuine differences of opinion but it is not, I suggest, in accordance with the responsibility of Deputies opposite to refuse to give us the benefit of their ideas.

There is one other matter to which I desire to refer. Deputy Brennan spoke about the Government neglecting economic considerations for the purposes of constitutional "codology". I think that was the exact expression he used. That type of language may go well at the cross roads. It is true that a large part of the energy and the time of the Government were devoted, during the past eight years, to constitutional problems. We removed the Oath and the Governor-General. Other changes were made, and finally the whole Constitution was recast. It is easy to call that constitutional "codology". The farmer who is in an immediate need of credit in order to enable him to proceed with his agricultural activities, the unemployed worker or others, may be influenced by the type of speech we have just heard from Deputy Brennan and fail to see behind these changes in our constitutional position a significant and important development. There are Deputies on the opposite benches, just as there are Deputies on these benches, who would not agree with that type of speech and who are as glad as any member of the Government that these changes were made. They are glad of the advance in the national status which has been accomplished by these changes.

An important practical result of these Constitutional changes and of this Constitutional "codology" to which Deputy Brennan referred is that we have been enabled to preserve neutrality in this country during the present war. That is a real, practical advantage, and I ask Deputies to appreciate that fact. There may be Deputies who think that neutrality is a mistake, but I think the great majority of the people believe that it is a good policy and are glad of the changes which made it possible. It is unwise of Deputies to speak in that manner about the various changes which have enabled us to secure the immense benefit of being neutral during the present conflict. There are, of course, certain problems associated with neutrality. The fact of being neutral will not enable us to escape many of the difficulties caused by the war, but it enables us to face them with some confidence that we shall be able to get over these problems certainly more easily than if we had to face problems associated with active belligerency. However, the Government is fully alive to the fact that there are in our present conditions factors which must cause grave concern, even uneasiness. We believe we are strong enough to be able to deal with that situation, and that, with the co-operation which is necessary from all sections of the people, we shall be able to bring the country out of this crisis, if not stronger, at least no weaker than when it entered it.

Mr. Dillon

Just a passing reference to the passage with which the Minister concluded his speech. The right of this country to decide its attitude in the present war arises from the Treaty negotiated by Michael Collins and Arthur Griffith in London 20 years ago, and from the Constitutional position which was secured for this country by Kevin O'Higgins and Deputies McGilligan and Cosgrave in the negotiations which took place during succeeding Imperial Conferences and which culminated in the Statute of Westminster. The independence of this State and its right to determine its attitude without reference to any other country in the world in Constitutional and international matters was founded upon the achievements of these men. With that let us leave the matter and come to deal with what the Minister for Supplies has just said on other questions.

I want to direct the attention of this House, and especially of Fianna Fáil Deputies, to this outstanding fact. The figure appearing on the Book of Estimates this year is £30,511,000. That is subject to expansion by Supplementary Estimates during the year. I want to compare that figure with the actual expenditure in 1931, the year before the present Government came into office.

Taking the expenditure in that year on the same basis as the Estimates are here prepared, we get a comparison between £30,500,000 in this year and £19,500,000 in 1931. That is an increase of £11,000,000. Now, either the members of the Fianna Fáil Party consider their leaders to be rogues and frauds, or else they think them to be very imprudent men, because the Ministers of the present Government were the men who got up when those Estimates for £19,500,000 were put before this House and said that burden was entirely beyond this country's capacity to bear. They either meant that or they did not mean it. I assume they meant it. I do not think they were consciously rogues or frauds; I think they meant that, but, in the name of common sense, if the resources of this country were strained to the limit by the burden of £19,500,000 in 1931, how can any sane man claim that it is expedient to impose upon our exhausted country and our exhausted people a burden of £30,500,000 in this year? If the Government are entitled to ask us questions, surely we are entitled to get an answer to that question?

Will the Minister for Finance look back to the speech that Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly made in 1931, when he was giving the views of his Party, as its Deputy Leader, on the burden of £19,500,000? When he does that, will he then collate that statement with the demands he is sponsoring at the present time? I agree with the Minister for Supplies that every Deputy has a responsibility analogous to that of a Minister of State. He must make his contribution to preserve public confidence; he must make his contribution to reassure the public mind; he must make his contribution to steady public opinion in difficult times. But he has another duty. He has a duty to show the people that, when he tells them there is no necessity for undue alarm, the people can trust him, and the only way he can secure that confidence is to demonstrate before the people that when there is real and urgent cause for grave alarm and drastic retrenchment he will not be afraid to get up and say so. Mind you, the true test of courage is first to be afraid and, being afraid, to face your duty none the less. I do not deny that I am afraid of the situation that has developed in this country, but I believe there is sufficient courage and I believe there is sufficient character in our people to meet the danger and to overcome it if they know its nature.

On the cover of this Book of Estimates is a figure for £30,500,000. Dismiss from your mind the idea that that represents the true burden that is being placed upon our people, because to that figure must be added the Central Fund, which represents another sum of approximately £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 and, far greater than that, there must be added the concealed taxation on flour, £3,000,000 a year. There must be added £1,000,000 on sugar; there must be added the unascertained sum on bacon; there must be further added the £1,000,000 extra that is being levied by way of local rates, and there must on the top of that pyramid be placed the increased cost of goods being produced in this country behind tariffs of 75 per cent. and restrictive quotas, all of which have to be met by the working people of this country, very few of whom can boast of that degree of prosperity which has proved unsatisfactory to the Dublin Corporation employees. Direct taxation may not touch the wage earner of this country, although it bears heavily on some of them, but the indirect taxation is largely extracted from their pockets.

I sat beside the Minister for Supplies recently at the Commerce Society of University College and, addressing those students of our university, he bewailed the difficulties that beset him. He bewailed the unemployment problem that was overwhelming us and said that he waited eagerly for some young men to get up and tell him how to solve it. Having thus prepared his ground, he used this sinister phrase: "If this problem should exceed our capacity to solve it, democracy may fail in our day and we may have to turn to other methods to overcome it." Now, that is dangerous talk. Democracy has not failed in this country. Fianna Fáil has failed in this country, but democracy did not fail this country in the first ten years of its existence as an independent State.

Mr. McCann

It nearly finished it.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy is a new member—I forbear. Democracy carried this State through the great difficulties of the civil war. Succeeding on that, the State was built up and, the supreme triumph of our ability to implement democracy, the organs of Government were handed over by the victors of that civil war to the vanquished, and they became the established Government of this country. In what other country in the world did democracy so gloriously function? In the United States of America, after the civil war, there was the period of 20 years of reconstruction. In Russia the civil war meant slaughter and bloodshed and iniquity of every kind. In France the pages of its history were stained for generations. In every country in the world where civil war has had to be fought to the end, ruin and destruction have stalked in its wake; but in Ireland, under the democratic institutions established by the men who had prevailed in the civil war, peace was restored, order was ordained and justice done. More than justice, magnanimity was shown, and yet those who took over Government see fit, at the end of nine years, to suggest that democracy is going to fail, and fail because those who have been working it here for the last nine years have failed to deliver the goods.

Their predecessors never came before the electors to tell them that they had a plan to abolish unemployment. Their predecessors said that they recognised the immense difficulty of unemployment. I remember well in 1931 the Cumann na nGaedheal Party going before the country and saying: "Roosevelt cannot cure it, Baldwin cannot cure it, Benes cannot cure it, the French Government cannot cure it, and we are in the difficulty that they are in; we are all doing our best to cure it, and we all recognise that it is one of the supreme tasks that confront us—to cure it—but we will not degrade ourselves by seeking the votes of the unemployed with false promises: that if they give their votes to us we will end their tribulations". But Fianna Fáil did not scorn to do that. They said that: "Roosevelt may fail; France may fail; Great Britain may fail, and Scandinavia may fail, but we have a plan," and thousands of men and women went out and voted for them to give that plan a chance of succeeding, and the plan failed. And, because it failed, we are to be told that we must abandon freedom, that we must abandon democracy and accept the particular form of authoritarianism which may recommend itself to the Minister for Supplies. God forbid this country should ever sink so low in demoralisation as to accept that advice. Fianna Fáil have done much to degrade our people, but I do not believe they have quenched the spark of liberty that has sustained our people down through seven centuries of suffering.

What was the plan? When the plan came to be unveiled for the admiring public to behold it, it was economic self-sufficiency; sky-high tariffs, quotas, restrictions and the goal, economic self-sufficiency. There are two States in Europe which still believe in the ikon of self-sufficiency, Russia and Germany, but they are the only two States left in the civilised world which believe in economic self-sufficiency. Cordell Hull of America has repudiated it; Chamberlain, the son of Joe Chamberlain, the father of Tariff Reform, has repudiated it; Daladier has repudiated it; Scandinavia has repudiated it; every civilised State in the world has repudiated it, but this poor group of men are still staggering along on the futile path that leads after that will-o'-the-wisp down into the bog. That is why we have 120,000 unemployed in this country at the present time. It is the policy of economic self-sufficiency that has left the people poor and it is economic self-sufficiency, or the quest of that folly, that has left thousands of our people hungry at the present time.

Is proof wanted of that? In some of the most dramatic figures that have ever been given in this House, Deputy Mulcahy I think proved that fact last night. Statistics are seldom dramatic, and they are extremely difficult to extract, but, I say advisedly, in the most dramatic statistics that we have ever had brought before the House, Deputy Mulcahy buried economic self-sufficiency last night. There are still Deputies on those benches who believe that the policy of Fianna Fáil stimulated employment in this country. What are the facts? The Minister for Supplies, with extreme dexterity, to-day says that the census returns are deceptive because many of those returning themselves in the past as agricultural workers now describe themselves as unemployed. Dismiss the census returns! Forget them! If they are unreliable in that regard, I present them to the Minister and undertake not to refer to them again.

I turn exclusively to the stamps that were licked and stuck on the national health insurance cards and the unemployment insurance cards of this country. I do not suppose the Minister for Supplies is going to argue that men who are not employed get cards, buy stamps, lick them, and stick them on the cards. I accept that criterion strictly, and I accept without reservation the Minister's official returns with regard to those statistics. Dealing exclusively with them, I direct the attention of the House to these astonishing facts: that every year the number of persons employed in this State has increased since the State was founded. Now, there are two classes of employees in this country. There is the employee who stamps an unemployment insurance card, what one may call an industrial employee, and a national health insurance card. That employee has two cards. Then you have the large body of employees comprised of agricultural workers, domestic workers, and others of that class. They stamp only one card, a national health insurance card. The figures relating to these statistics must be carefully studied with a view correctly to evaluating the employment given to men when the practice is to employ them on broken time. Otherwise, on one 6-day job you may have two men employed because although one works from Monday to Wednesday he must stamp a card, and the second man, working from Wednesday to Saturday, also stamps a card. It might appear that you were employing two men when, in fact, you were only giving one week's work to one man. Bearing those conditions and factors in mind, what do the figures prove? That for every 1,000 men extra that Cumann na nGaedheal put into work each year between 1926 and 1931, Fianna Fáil put into work only 754 in each year between 1931 and 1939.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy's arithmetic is wrong.

Mr. Dillon

That is not all, because these astonishing figures go on to show that of the 754 Fianna Fáil put into office, a substantial number were put into work as a result of relief work, and a further substantial number were put to work as a result of an intensive housing drive which, as we all know, is work of a non-recurrent and impermanent nature, because if you build all the houses you want, you cannot go on building houses. If you deduct from the Fianna Fáil figures those employed on relief work, you find that for every thousand Cumann na nGaedheal put into work, Fianna Fáil put only 658. If you further deduct, as you should deduct, the excess housing done out of borrowed money in a special drive, which is non-recurrent and will shortly cease to employ men at all, for every 1,000 Cumann na nGaedheal put into work, Fianna Fáil put only 554. Do Deputies understand that in every year from 1926 to 1931 the average annual increase of persons put into employment was 11,400? From 1931 to 1938, the annual average increase was 8,549, including all the relief work and all persons put to building houses out of borrowed money, and if you exclude them in order to get a basis of equal comparison with the circumstances in which Cumann na nGaedheal worked, you find that while Cumann na nGaedheal put 11,400 into work every year, Fianna Fáil succeeded in putting only 6,311. Is it any wonder unemployment is becoming an acute problem?

The average annual improvement in the employment situation by Cumann na nGaedheal—the despised Cumann na nGaedheal which cared nothing for the poor—was nearly twice as great as that of the Fianna Fáil period of office. Remember also that Fianna Fáil was piling on taxation, was raising tariffs to a point to which they were never raised before, and was clapping on quotas. Fianna Fáil was interfering in every possible way with the normal economic life of the country, while their despised predecessors had the reputation of believing in a policy of laissez faire. They did so little to interfere with the normal economic life of the people that they were denounced as being disciples of the Manchester school. These despised persons did just twice as well for the working people as their successors, and that in a period which was one of declining world prosperity, decline which culminated in the economic catastrophe of 1931. Not only was Cumann na nGaedheal putting people into employment, but emigration, which had reached its peak in 1923, had dwindled away to nothing, and for the first time in a century there was no emigration in 1932. To-day the annual increase of employment is about halved; the number of our unemployed is greater than it ever was before, and the tide of emigration has flowed during the last three years at a greater rate than it ever flowed since the Famine of 1847.

These figures, I have no doubt, are a revelation to the Deputies in the Fianna Fáil Party. I implore of them to digest them, to check them, to go to the rooms of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Supplies and to ask for the means of rebutting them. I invite them to do that. I urge them to do it.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

They will do it. I have the figures here.

Mr. Dillon

I hope the Minister has. He cannot rebut them.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I can.

Mr. Dillon

They are absolutely true, and nothing that the Minister can say and no wangling of figures can controvert them. They are taken from the official returns of the Minister's Department, and he will have ample time to answer them.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I wish to say this——

Mr. Dillon

I do not want the Minister to interrupt. These figures are taken from his official returns.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

They are not. They are his—faked statistics.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister can wangle them what way he wishes; they stand, and will be repeated and proved——

Mr. O Ceallaigh

They will not.

Mr. Dillon

——against this foolish and incompetent Government that we have at present.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

This is a mare's nest.

Mr. Lemass

Two and two make four, even for Deputy Dillon!

Mr. Dillon

Four years ago I remember directing the attention of this House to the fact that we were travelling the road of Newfoundland. I admit that a great many of our friends as well as our opponents stated that that was an unduly pessimistic view, that we were crying "wolf" when, in fact, there was no immediate peril. I think many persons who took up that attitude are beginning to realise that they were mistaken, and that we were right. In national affairs it is not enough to perceive the danger when the danger comes upon us. If the country is to be protected from the consequences of economic folly, the nature of that folly must be detected and understood in time to mend your hand. We said as long ago as four years, that if the Government economic policy continued we would go the way of Newfoundland, and the way Newfoundland went was that they came to a point when they could not pay their way. The hungry were left hungry, the naked were left unclothed, the public servants were unpaid, and anarchy was upon them, and in that situation they turned to the British Treasury and asked them to send out officials to take over the Government. They did so, and at this moment popular government in Newfoundland is suspended, and the country is being run by three British Treasury officials who are trying to bring it back to stability. We have not got that recourse if such a catastrophe comes upon us.

It was open to Newfoundland to appeal to the mother country to aid it in its time of stress. We know no mother country. We are ourselves a mother country. We stand in that relationship to no other nation in the world, and if we were driven to the stress to which Newfoundland was driven by the folly of its leaders, we would not appear as the prodigal child at the doorstep of any country but as beggars on the threshold of a stranger asking an alms. God forbid that that should come upon us, because if it does posterity will describe this generation of Irishmen as the poorest that this country ever produced. Let us look back and trace what the adverse balance of our trade has been. In January, which is the last month for which figures are available, the trade statistics show that we imported £4,671,000 of goods, and exported £2,399,000 worth of goods. Our adverse trade balance on that month's trading alone was £2,272,000. Our adverse trade balance on the previous 12 months' trade was £16,500,000.

Mr. Lemass

More than it has been for a long time.

Mr. Dillon

It has been worse—it has been much worse. For the last four years the adverse trade balance has constituted a deadly drain on our national resources.

Mr. Lemass

Nonsense.

Mr. Dillon

The net external balances held by the joint stock banks have shrunk catastrophically. In the last couple of months they have shown some tendency to resilience, but only after immense losses have been suffered. It is well that the Minister for Supplies reminds me of that. The net external assets of our joint stock banks, which represent one of our most valuable invisible exports, have materially shrunk in the last four or five years. We are now confronted with a very grave situation, in which we floated a national loan not many months ago and, for the first time in our history, failed to get it taken up.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is not so.

Mr. Dillon

It is so.

Mr. Lemass

That it is the first time —nonsense.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Do not go into that. I can prove it is not so.

Mr. Dillon

I have great sympathy with the Minister in his difficulties; but he heard his colleagues say that there is no necessity to reduce taxation at all, that he does not think it desirable or possible in existing circumstances to do so. There comes a point when we have to speak out, and I think that point has come.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I mean the point whether 100 per cent. of the loan asked for was raised.

Mr. Dillon

I know the Minister got it underwritten by the joint stock banks. When we only got £3,000,000 of the money, they took up £4,000,000.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It is not true that that never happened before.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister can deal with that later. The situation is that it happened.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The Deputy withdraws the statement that it did not happen before?

Mr. Dillon

I do not.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

We will have to tell you.

Mr. Dillon

I will be much obliged to you. The fact is that if you examine all the vast trust funds that the Government normally hold, you will find that they are stuffed with Government paper because they are taxed to the limit to invest their funds in successive Government loans. We are now reaching a point in which the joint stock banks are getting stuffed with Government paper. That is a very dangerous point to reach. There is no doubt that our banking institutions are as solid and solvent as any in the world. But, nevertheless, it is right that, at a certain stage, the attention of the Legislature should be directed to the fact that you cannot indefinitely continue to pack the portfolios of the banks with Government paper that is virtually non-negotiable without gravely imperilling the whole economic life of the country.

I am not going to go further on that line, because I do not think it is expedient to go further at present, but it is something that requires to be noted. It is a symptom that requires to be evaluated in the general economic position of the State. I am telling this House deliberately now that the birds which the Government released during the last four or five years are coming home to roost, and that their return is gravely imperilling the future of the country at this moment. Heretofore it has been our duty to say to this House: "If you continue on the present lines, you will be confronted with a very serious crisis in two or three years' time." It is right and proper to say now that you have chosen to ignore those warnings and commonsense demands that you should know and face the fact that the crisis has come upon you.

Mr. Lemass

You make the same speech every year.

Mr. Dillon

I do not. I told you the line you were travelling, I told you where you were going to go, and, in my opinion, we have now got there. I think the yield of our taxes is going to dwindle. I think the experience of the Minister in the last loan makes it clear to him that he can borrow no more, and I believe that in this financial year that is coming upon us we are going to be confronted with the difficulty that bills will fall to be paid and we will have no money to pay them. Remember, if that happens, the axe is going to fall where it is most handy for the Minister to wield it——

Mr. Lemass

If it does not happen, will the Deputy admit that he is wrong?

Mr. Dillon

——and the silly, irresponsible, futile attitude of the Minister for Supplies will make no contribution to the solution of our present difficulties. The Minister is a flippant and irresponsible man, and his colleagues know that. That is one of the reasons that he occupies the Ministry he does to-day, and the Minister knows that. There are amenities which all sides of the House respect, but if we go into the reasons why there was a Ministry of Supply and a Ministry for Co-ordination of Defensive Measures established, we will go further than the normal amenities of public life usually allow.

Mr. Lemass

The answer to my question——

Mr. Dillon

The answer to my question is one that the Taoiseach alone can give, and I am not going to press him to give it in public; he said enough in the discreet surroundings of the Cabinet room. It is a matter for congratulation that the less responsible elements of the Cabinet are being segregated, because it is some indication that the Government as a whole are awakening to the gravity of the situation that they brought upon us. The special warning I want to give to the House is this: that if the day dawns when we have not the money to pay the bills, the axe of economy is not going to fall in places where it would do least hurt to the economic life of the country, or to the lives of individual citizens in the State. It is going to fall where it will cut quickest, and that is in the relief of the poor and in the protection of the afflicted. I have said to Deputies time and time again: "If you allow this crisis to come upon us, the suffering will not be felt by the rich, because they can go and take their riches with them; the suffering will fall upon the poor who have no other source to turn to but the country where they live; the suffering will fall upon those who have invested their all and staked their all in Ireland, and are unable to get out of it."

I put it to the Minister for Finance that he ought to face the situation courageously. I think it is grave enough to ensure that if the Minister for Finance gets up in this House and says: "Certain of our plans have miscarried; we admit that we are, perhaps, deeper in difficulty than we had foreseen was probable, and we want help to get out of it," he will get it. He would get it as he often got it before when he was in difficulties and when he wanted help.

I think the proposal of this House to constitute itself a Council of State, to save our common country is one that should receive sympathetic reaction in the minds of any Deputy. But there is no use in our constituting ourselves a Council of State if the views of only one man are to prevail. There must be a common counsel and common wisdom and if we arrive at a common conclusion, then I am not afraid of the alternative. I think there is still a democratic way left to surmount our difficulties and that is—to change the Government. I think this Government has a solemn duty before it commits itself to a course of conduct which involves a state of ruin that no individual politician in this country can repair. It should give the country a chance of availing of the most effective democratic system for the relief of the present situation and that is to change the personnel of the House. I have little faith in coalition. But I do beg the House to remember this that long ago Aristotle gave the warning that when incompetent men find themselves in a dire difficulty they are prone to blame the system under which they live. It never occurs to them to turn in upon themselves and see themselves as others see them. It never occurs to them that it is not perhaps the system but the men who misuse the system who are responsible for the country's plight.

I put it to this Government who have done so many hurts in the last eight or nine years to this country that the most sovereign injury they could inflict upon it to-day would be to identify the disasters they have brought upon it, and the mistakes they have made during the last eight years, with our system of government. The Government should agree with us that the Irish people are as capable of working democratic institutions as any other country in the world. Let the Government go before the people with their own sins upon their own backs and let the people pass judgement upon them. I ask them not to go to the people with the authority of the names of those who constitute the Executive Council, telling the people that the misfortunes with which we find ourselves saddled are the result of the system of government under which we live.

An Ceann Comhairle

I fail to see how the idea of democratic government and the advocacy of a general election could be related to expenditure or alleged consequent unemployment which is the subject chosen for discussion by the chief Opposition Party.

Mr. Dillon

Very well, Sir, I do not wish to be irrelevant. I submit to the House there is only one remedy to cure unemployment, and that is the remedy of prudent government and a sound policy. I think I have shown to the satisfaction of the House that national self-sufficiency and all that the Fianna Fáil Government stood for has impaired the position of the country, diminished employment and injured the economic fabric of the State. I never pretended and never shall pretend that we have some sovereign remedy which is going to convert the unemployed into employed persons overnight. When the unemployed come to us and say: "What are you going to do to get us jobs—what do you promise?" our answer must be: "We promise nothing but to do our best." That was the answer that the Cumann na nGaedheal Government gave to that inquiry. And the best that Cumann na nGaedheal could do was very good. That was not the answer that Fianna Fáil gave. They said it could be done and that they would do it. Their performance was a bitter disappointment. I want to say again what I have said before—that if any Deputy in this House can produce a plan which will secure a 48 hours' working week at a fair wage for every ablebodied person in this country, I do not care what the cost is, or what the sacrifices involved for the rest of the community may be, I will support that plan and commend it to the country. But I will be a party to no fraud on the people of this country. I will not hold out to them the example of Germany in the solving of unemployment nor the example of Russia in the solution of unemployment. The solution of unemployment on the lines of Stalin and Hitler was the solution sponsored by Nero and Caligula in Ancient Rome, except just that Stalin and Hitler made the solution of unemployment the slavery of all the people, whereas Nero and Caligula made the question the personal privilege of the wealthy citizens of Ancient Rome. Nero and Caligula believed in private property but Stalin and Hitler believe in Communism and in the slavery of all the people.

The result in both cases was the same for the slaves. The remedy does not lie in that way. The remedy of Stalin and Hitler has nothing to commend itself to anyone. Their remedy is not a rebuke to democratic countries. If we choose to sacrifice liberty we can remedy unemployment in the same way as Hitler and Stalin do. But the poorest man and woman in this State have as much right to liberty and to the principality of his or her own soul as the richest and most influential person in the State. That view is shared by Deputies on all sides of this House. Accepting this as a common basis of our views for the future, I see no means of curing unemployment except through the means of good government and the energetic exploitation of our national resources. I see a certainty of greater unemployment following on the policy of economic self-sufficiency followed up to now by the Fianna Fáil Government. If the Government find themselves unable to face up to the difficulties that now confront them, there is no need to invite our people to abandon democracy. We should rather invite them to abandon Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Dockrell

Some previous speakers have dwelt upon the shortage of artificial manures and the consequences that will be produced by this shortage. I know very little of that subject. But there are other shortages in goods that have been supplied by neutral countries up to now. Since the outbreak of the War, those neutral countries have taken up the attitude of forbidding the export of certain commodities. That means that no supplies are available from these neutrals for this country. I think one of the duties for the Minister of Supplies should be to warn certain neutral countries where they have in the past sent supplies to this country, that if they are not going to maintain the supplies during the period of difficulty, then when things become normal again this country will reserve the right to limit the import of those commodities to countries that have stood by them in times of difficulty. I would like to ask the Minister for Supplies if that course has been adopted and if that view has been put forward to neutral countries. The Government side of the House have asked for some suggestions along certain lines. They indicated what is perfectly true that we are passing through a time of difficulty. I think one of the most important things at the present time is to educate the working people that they have to pay their share in one way or another of all the taxes imposed by Government.

If that could be really established in the minds of all classes, the task of government would be easier. I rather sympathise with the Government in their difficulties regarding the number of people who are clamouring for various kinds of relief schemes. Relief schemes are all very well, but they have this terrible disadvantage—they have to be paid for out of the pockets of the ratepayers. I understand that, in the past, the Government had a sort of formula which was applied to any suggestion put forward for a relief scheme—namely, what would the unskilled labour-content be? Up to a point, that was very logical, from their point of view, but, in the past, people have been amazed to see things neglected that would really tend to create permanent employment if some sort of effort were made to solve the problem that comes before us.

We heard again to-day that Fianna Fáil had a plan for dealing with unemployment. I take it that it is not malice that prevents them from producing that plan, and that really we are down to the position that the Government hoped, by assailing the unemployment question from all sides, to make some inroad on the figures. I suggest to the Government that some new technique or some new plan will have to be found for dealing with the unemployment question. The question is: Are they brave enough or bold enough to put some of these measures into operation? We have heard that a crisis has come upon this State, due to the outbreak of war. I do not agree with that. I think that the crisis was slowly coming on us, and that the situation has merely been exacerbated by the outbreak of hostilities. I am afraid the underlying difficulty in this country is a champagne taste on a beer income. That explains the resolute refusal of the Government to tackle some of the situations which would have yielded employment. At present, a large number of countries have stuff to export, and the real difficulty is in obtaining shipping. The Government raise their hands in horror and say: "We have no ships. What can we do? We are dependent on other people." We had a ship-building undertaking that had to close down. Why was it closed down? I suggest to the Minister that the cause was our champagne taste in wages on a beer income. Some people think that, even at present, some of the smaller sailing vessels which are laid up could have motors fitted, and could do short trips with advantage to this country and to other ports.

Now we come to two of the major problems that confront the country— the unemployment problem and the housing problem. There is a certain amount of relationship between them. The housing problem is a very complex one and has many aspects. I think I am right in saying that we never had a debate on housing per se in this Chamber. The present Government are doing a lot of house-building, and they proudly point to the number of houses they have built in contradistinction to the number of houses built by their predecessors. Of course, they conveniently forget that their predecessors laid the whole of the legislative ground-work for them, of which they have availed themselves and on which all the present housing schemes are based. I do not ask the Government to give any credit that they do not think is due to their predecessors for having laid the foundations, even if they have built more super-structures. Now, I come on to some of the things that we think they are responsible for. It is not so long ago that Deputies were suggesting that such was the demand for workers to build houses for the working classes that the building of shops, offices, cinemas and churches would have to be reduced in order to release the necessary workmen. Of course, when we look at that to-day, we realise that it is a joke. What is the housing problem that concerns the Government? Although my remarks may apply to the whole country, I have lived most of my life in Dublin, and I suppose I look at the housing problem, which in Dublin is biggest of all, through a Dubliner's eyes. We have a number of people housed in one-room tenements which are, in a great many cases, insanitary and unsafe. If you press the Dublin Corporation as to why they do not condemn them, they will say to you: “Do you want us to put the people out on the street? Where are they to go?” I see Deputy Tom Kelly looking at me, and I do not know whether he will endorse the conclusion I have arrived at.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should not draw his colleague into a debate on the Dublin housing problem.

Mr. Dockrell

I do not wish to. I do not wish to bring down his condemnation on me when it is undeserved. I am throwing no bricks at the corporation What is the position as they see it? They are more or less urged to build four- and five-roomed houses, with baths, and to let them to people who come from the single rooms in tenement houses and try to get an economic rent for them. That is impossible, and here, again, I will say that probably the officials and professional men dealing with housing in the Dublin Corporation are as skilled as any you will find anywhere, but they have started on the basis of certain premises, and, if those premises are not admitted or altered, these people will be the first to admit that the method of dealing with the problem is quite different from the method by which they are trying to solve it. A number of people think that we have taken on too much and that cottages on the outskirts should be built, with fewer rooms and much lower costs.

One is immediately brought up against the problem which has arisen in places like Crumlin—I have heard it myself—in the question: "How can you take people out to Crumlin and expect them to come in to work on the docks?" That criticism is quite right, so far as it goes, but it goes only a certain distance. The difficulty of the docker living in Crumlin is due to the fact that he cannot get a house on the docks, the reason being that people have rushed into the houses built in the congested areas. If something like saturation point were approaching, you will get what happens in other large cities, namely, houses to let or to be obtained in practically every locality in the city. The corporation have started to build houses in the most congested part of the city and they say that the need is greatest there. I have a good deal of sympathy with that point of view.

An Ceann Comhairle

For the information of the Chair, would the Deputy say whether the corporation or the Minister is responsible for the location of the Dublin houses?

Mr. McGilligan

Does the Minister not subsidise it?

Mr. Dockrell

The Corporation have to get their plans passed by Local Government. The Government are responsible for the direction of local government, and, up to a very short time ago, the member of the Government occupying the Front Bench took a very active part in the direction of that policy. I am merely trying to show that the Corporation are the victims and not the criminals, and that the Government should be got to take a more enlightened view of the problem —and I use the word "enlightened" in its broadest sense—that they should bring everything that can be pressed into service to the aid of a solution of the problem. I shall come on to unemployment in connection with housing, and that is why I am making these remarks, which, if applied to the individual Estimates, might appear more appropriate.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has made his remarks relevant.

Mr. Dockrell

I suggest that what the Corporation should aim at is getting a very cheap class of house on the outskirts of the city, which could be built by a very much simpler process than the present process, and that they could then make £1 do the work of a great deal more.

Mr. T. Kelly

Would these houses live for 40 years?

Mr. Dockrell

I do not know whether they would.

Mr. T. Kelly

We must take that into consideration, because we borrow money for 40 years.

Mr. Dockrell

There are people who suggest that you will yet have to put them in canvas tents, and canvas tents will not live for that number of years.

Mr. T. Kelly

The Government must get value for their money.

Mr. Dockrell

I am looking for value. That is what I am trying to get.

Mr. T. Kelly

Does the Deputy think that canvas is good value?

Mr. Dockrell

Canvas is very poor value, but needs must when the devil drives. I am not advocating canvas.

Mr. T. Kelly

I am afraid we will get into that debate to which you referred, Sir.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is not obliged to reply to interruptions.

Mr. Dockrell

My affection for Deputy Alderman Kelly is such that I felt it would be a sin to pass over any of the difficulties that beset the Corporation by reason of the advice of many of their friends. Another matter to which I suppose the Government will give due regard is that matter to which, I understand, a great deal of attention was paid at the recent Housing Inquiry, that is, the question of by how much houses have been increased in cost by reason of tariffs. I do not know to what extent the Minister might consider that, but it is certainly an undesirable factor that houses for which the country has to pay should be increased in price by tariffs. That, however, is merely a passing phase and when the Report comes up, that matter will possibly be debated here and, in any case, the Government will give due weight to their recommendations.

That brings me to the unemployment problem. The question of unemployment is many sided. There is, firstly, the point that some of the people are not physically fit, but nobody would suggest that that should be a means by which they could draw unemployment benefit. I think it is probably a reason why they should be helped, but there is in the labour exchanges a very well-defined line of demarcation, and I am afraid that some of the people describe themselves as being in categories with which no employer would agree. That results in people being on the books for very long periods, and one wonders whether some shift could not be made from one class to another. People wonder why the unemployment problem is largely made up of unskilled workers, but I think that in some industries there has been a steady encroachment by the trades on the work of the unskilled labourer. In fact, it has been estimated by some people to amount to 20 per cent., and I make this suggestion to the Government for what it is worth, that some number of the unemployed could be put to work on schemes which would be reproductive and for which the taxpaying classes—and in that category I include everybody who has a back to cover and a stomach to fill—have to pay. Even the unemployed worker has to bear concealed taxes on his food.

I suggest that there is a very wide field in some of those works for employing the unemployed. Naturally, some of the labouring classes will say that that is taking the bread out of their mouths; but that is not true, if you accept the statement that they would be put to work only on the schemes for which the community have to pay. I do not know how many Deputies are old enough to remember a controversy which arose years ago in another country. A number of agricultural labourers were in the workhouse, and a neighbouring farmer conceived the idea of suggesting that if they were given to him, he would put them to work on the land for no wages. I am not for one moment advocating such a policy as that, and I mention it so that it may be readily understood that I am not suggesting that the unemployed should be put to work for people who are engaged in business for profit; but it is certainly a very nice question, where the community have to bear the cost of non-productive labour, whether the labour which is unemployed should not be put to work on some of those schemes, and, in saying that, I mean corporation or Government schemes.

It seems to me that the Government will have to make some original approach to unemployment, unless they are to suggest that, like Mr. Micawber, they are waiting for something to turn up, and that when the present economic tide turns in their favour, it will reduce the volume of unemployment. I should be glad if the Minister would deal with that question. If his reply is going to be made the occasion for unfolding the famous "plan," I should like to withdraw the suggestion I have made, but it seems to me that the problem will have to be approached from an angle from which it has not yet been tackled.

Mr. Coburn

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again on Tuesday, 12th March.

The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until Tuesday, 12th March, at 3 p.m.