Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 Jun 1942

Vol. 87 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Finance Bill, 1942—Second Stage.

An tAire Airgeadais (Seán T. O Ceallaigh)

Tairgim go ndéantar an Bille Airgeadais, 1942, do léigheamh don dara huair. Níl an fhaid chéanna sa Bhille i mbliana ná an oiread céanna cúise conspóide—tá súil agam—agus do bhí le tamall de bhlianta anuas. Mar is léir ón teideal fada is Bille é chun diúitéthe áirithe ioncuim dúithche d'éileamh agus do ghearradh, chun an dlí bhaineas le custuim agus ioncum dúithche (maraon le mál) do leasú, agus chun tuilleadh forálacha i dtaobh airgeadais do dhéanamh. Bhí an chuid is mó dá bhfuil sa Bhille ar eolas ag na Teachtaí sara bhfuaireadar in aon chor é mar isé cuspóir an Bhille éifeacht do thabhairt in aghaidh na bliana airgeadais ar fad do na rúin le n-ar ghlac an Dáil tar éis na Cáinfhaisnéise. Os rud é nár gearradh aon chánacha nua le Cáinfhaisnéis na bliana so ní déantar leis an mBille seo ach na cánacha atá ann cheana do bhuanú. O thaobh lucht íoctha cánach de isé cuid is tábhachtaighe den Bhille an chuid sin de a bhaineann le Cáin Bhrabúis Chorpráide agus níl ansan féin ach maolú áirithe dá dhéanamh i gcásanna ina bhfuarthas an dlí, mar atá sé in Acht Airgeadais na bliana anuiridh, do bheith ró-dhian.

The main purpose of this Bill is to give continuing effect to the taxes and duties embodied in the Financial Resolutions which have been passed by Dáil Eireann following the Budget. As Deputies are aware, the Resolutions have statutory effect for only a limited period under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927. In fact, all or nearly all the important provisions of this Bill have either been the subject of Financial Resolutions or have been referred to in my Budget speech. They have, therefore, been debated already at considerable length. In the circumstances, it is hardly necessary for me to give a very detailed analysis of the Bill at this stage. Should Deputies require elucidation of particular points they will have an opportunity of raising them on the Committee Stage.

I might, however, be permitted to refer again to one or two of the major issues that were discussed in the debates following the Budget. As on previous similar occasions, amongst the matters within the province of the Minister for Finance to which prominence was given were the growing volume of Government expenditure and the question of borrowing to meet deficits.

Looking first at the recent trend of Government expenditure. I find that this subject is one of the war-horses mounted on every possible occasion by Deputies in certain parts of the House. Just as often as that matter was raised I have been at considerable pains to demonstrate the reasons for the expansion which for 1942-43 has reached a figure of £44,270,000. I have even had on occasion to remind Deputies that there is a war on and that, even though we are neutral, this country has been involved in financial outlay which may be directly traced to necessities arising out of the war-time conditions obtaining elsewhere. I refer in particular to the large block of expenditure under the headings of military and civilian defensive measures, special employment schemes, supplies, damage to property and personal injuries, which run up to a total of something between £10,000,000 and £11,000,000. Apart from these specific war-time additions to the tax burden there is also the general rise in prices and cost of living, which have, naturally, brought in their train an unavoidable increase in the cost of government. Added to all that, expanding social services and the fact that the State services are mainly staffed by young people on rising incremental scales of pay have also helped to swell costs.

Taxed on the one hand with squandermania, the Government has yet been reproached on the other with the alleged niggardliness of its provision for the relief of distress and for social services generally. While it is true that only one new large-scale benefit has been introduced under this year's Budget, I would point out that the existing social services, many of them of most generous proportions, are being fully maintained and, in cases, expanded,

Despite whatever may have been said to the contrary in this House, I am satisfied that the recent Budget, which refrained from imposing any additional taxation, evoked generally a lively sense of relief. I do not presume to claim more for it than that, since the times are not such as would enable any Minister for Finance to introduce a Budget which could aspire to more positive signs of popular acclaim. Criticism has, of course, been voiced in some quarters on the decision to resort to further borrowing, whereas in others the procedure has been welcomed. While I deprecate the circumstances in which borrowing seems to be the better part, I feel that if borrow we must the conditions of the present day are reasonably favourable for the purpose. We must admit that these are exceptional times in which it is necessary to follow exceptional courses if we are to keep the ship of State afloat. Even economic purists would agree that conditions in which there is a general slowing down of the economic machine—conditions just such as we, for reasons outside our control, are experiencing at the moment—are those which justify an unbalanced Budget. Furthermore, our credit is sound and money is cheap. Our position being thus I submit that borrowing will prove a lesser evil than that of adding further to the existing load of taxation. It must be remembered, when all is said and done, that the deficit for which I have budgeted is roughly only 12 per cent. of the revenue I hope to receive, namely, £38,365,000, and that side by side with the new debt created from time to time the process of extinguishing old debt still goes on, though, of course, the pace of extinction is not so rapid.

At all events, there is no gainsaying the fact that the deficit is there and since it cannot be liquidated by any magic known to me, the most that we can do is hope that, in the event, it will not prove to be of the dimensions now predicted. Always assuming that revenue will come in on the basis estimated it is not beyond the realm of possibility that last year's experience of a diminished deficit will be repeated. Deputies will recall that last year after the various post-Budget adjustments which had to be made following tax concessions, we anticipated a deficit of approximately £4,542,000. At the end of the year we found that the actual deficit had shrunk to the much more comfortable figure of £2,697,000.

The financial reckoning which we have to meet is, as I have mentioned, of the order of £44,000,000, and I trust it will not be necessary to increase this sum appreciably by Supplementary Estimates in the course of the year. There has been criticism of the volume of Supplementaries introduced last year, and I may say that I yield to no one in my dislike of such additions, not least because of their upsetting effect upon my budgetary calculations. It should be appreciated, however, that especially at present the requirements of government often change from day to day and the Minister for Finance, being a realist, cannot allow services to be starved merely in order to keep within the bounds of Estimates framed many months, perhaps, before the expenditure is incurred. Deputies may, however, rest assured that when preparing their Estimates the Departments concerned endeavour to include therein all the charges that can reasonably be foreseen at the time and for which provision may properly be made in accordance with the canons of Government finance. Such Supplementaries as may prove unavoidable in a financial year receive in my Department the most careful scrutiny as to their necessity and amount before they are presented to Dáil Eireann.

After these introductory general remarks, I now propose to deal briefly with the individual sections of the Bill: Section 1 (which corresponds to No. 1 of the Financial Resolutions passed on Budget day) is the customary "charging" provision for income-tax and surtax imposing those taxes for the current year and securing the continuance of relevant enactments. It will be observed, however, that as compared with other years, there is an amplification in the form of the section. The necessity for this amplification arises from the reimposition of excess surtax which is to be charged for the year 1942-43 at the same rate as that for 1941-42.

Section 2 (corresponding to Financial Resolution No. 2) is designed to combat a device whereby in certain trades which afford an opportunity for holding stocks for appreciation the trade is discontinued and the trading stock which has appreciated in value is disposed of in such a manner that the profits on appreciation escape the income-tax net. Section 3 deals with the special case of a trader erecting buildings or installing new machinery to produce, by means of a process which in normal conditions would not be economic and, therefore, not feasible, a commodity at present— having regard to a shortage of supplies arising out of the emergency— urgently needed in the country. The effect of the section is to secure that, by special allowances year by year, the ultimate loss to the company when the particular use of the machinery or buildings ceases to be commercially profitable shall be set off against the tax liability.

Mr. Cosgrave

Is there any item other than a petrol substitute included in that?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Yes, a number. Section 4 introduces an allowance for deficiencies for excess surtax purposes based on the same broad principle as the proposed allowance for deficiencies, which will be referred to later, in the case of excess corporation profits tax. The effect of the "deficiencies" allowance will be that, when in due course the whole period of the charge to excess surtax can be surveyed, it will be found that, taking into account all variations of profits upwards and downwards as compared with the standard, an individual will not have paid "excess" tax on more than the net total excess of his profits for the whole period over the standard profits.

Section 5 relates to a matter raised on the Committee Stage of last year's Finance Bill when it was represented that, on the existing basis of assessment to income-tax, hardship may be involved in the treatment for tax purposes of a person in the early years after he has commenced to carry on a trade or profession. The section affords relief by providing that, on the taxpayer's application, an adjustment may be made so that the aggregate of the assessments for the first three years shall not exceed the aggregate of the actual profits for those years.

Section 6 introduces a similar relief in relation to the case of an individual first entering on an office or employment.

Section 7 extends the provisions of Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1941. The 1941 section provided that a net loss sustained in the standard period for excess surtax should, to a certain extent, be carried forward and set off against the profits in respect of which the individual was chargeable with excess surtax. The new section provides that any unexhausted balance of loss may be deducted from the profits of subsequent excess surtax years.

As to Part II—Customs and Excise— Section 8 is intended to provide additional powers so as to prevent the improper use (i.e., the use in motor vehicles) of oils such as paraffin in respect of which a rebate of duty has been granted. The section also confers a concession on the owners of agricultural tractors by allowing them to use rebated hydrocarbon (heavy) oils in such tractors even though the tractors may be diverted to purposes other than agricultural.

Part III—Death Duties—is concerned with certain reliefs from death duties which I mentioned in my Budget statement.

Section 9 provides for a measure of relief in respect of the death duties chargeable on the property of persons who die from injuries caused here during the emergency by the armed forces of other countries.

Section 10 is a natural continuation of the provision contained in the Finance Act, 1940, which, in effect, secured that the dependents of domiciled Irish people, who had been killed, should not be deprived of certain death duty reliefs granted in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Section 11 puts right a trivial drafting error which crept into Section 26 of the 1940 Finance Act.

As to Part IV—Corporation Profits Tax—Section 12 is the first of the provisions on the subject of corporation profits tax. It deals with the particular case of a company which commenced to carry on its business more than one year, but less than two years, before the 31st August, 1939, and has not had a trade year ending in the year ended on that date—or, in other words, has not made up accounts covering a period of 12 months ending on a date in that year. The section empowers the Revenue Commissioners, on the application of the company, to make an estimate of the company's pre-war profits for adoption as the standard profits. Without such a provision the company would have been thrown upon the minimum standard of £2,500 or the substituted standard.

Section 13, broadly speaking, provides that where a company is formed to take over the business of a predecessor company the standard profits of the new company may be computed as if the succession had not occurred and the predecessor company had continued to carry on the business.

Section 14 provides for the allowance of a "deficiency of profits" for purposes of excess corporation profits tax and follows the Budget announcement. The effect of the allowance now proposed will be that, when the entire period of the charge to excess corporation profits tax can in due course be surveyed, the position will be found that, considering all variations of profits in the period (whether up or down) as compared with the standard, a company will not have paid excess corporation profits tax on more than the net total excess of its profits for the entire period over the standard profits.

Section 15 is inserted to correct a small drafting flaw which occurred in connection with a Committee Stage amendment to Section 35 (1) (c) of last year's Act.

Section 16 relates to the substituted standard. Under Section 39 of last year's Finance Act the substituted standard was arrived at by adding up the amounts necessary to provide 6 per cent. on the company's paid-up ordinary capital and the fixed rate on the debentures and paid-up preference capital. As announced in the Budget speech, an alternative basis of computing the substituted standard is now to be provided. The alternative, as will be seen from sub-section (1) of the new Section 16, is based on the amount necessary to provide 7½ per cent. on all the company's paid-up issued capital (including debentures). A special rate of 9 per cent., however, is provided for new companies, that is, companies formed on or after the 1st January, 1934.

It will be obvious to Deputies that the alternative basis now provided will be operative and will be of substantial benefit in the great majority of substituted standard cases. There may, however, be odd cases in which the old basis would be better for the company than the new; for example, where a comparatively large proportion of a company's capital consists of 10 per cent. preference shares; and this is the reason why companies are being given a right of election between the former basis and the proposed new one. This right of election gives rise to a difficulty since a private company, for instance, might issue in the future preference shares at an abnormally high rate of dividend and then, by opting for the "old" substituted standard, evade some or all of its due burden of "excess" tax. Sub-section (2) of Section 16, which was foreshadowed by Financial Resolution No. 3, is directed against the possibility of such a device, and under it a company cannot be allowed a higher percentage in respect of capital issued after Budget day than 7½ per cent. in the case of an old company or 9 per cent. in the case of a new company. Sub-section (2) is in addition framed to meet another device whereby in certain cases a company might after Budget day write up assets fictitiously and issue shares to the extent of such fictitious writing up.

Section 17 is, in a sense, complementary to Section 16. It amends Section 41 of last year's Act which, in the case of a company whose standard is computed by reference to actual profits, allows a deduction from the profits of the chargeable period in respect of fresh capital issued since the end of the standard period. The amount of the deduction under Section 41 is 6 per cent. on the paid-up ordinary shares and the fixed rate on the paid-up preference shares (including debentures). An alternative basis of computing the deduction is now afforded for all the fresh capital issued and paid up at 7½ per cent. for old companies and 9 per cent. for new companies. In view of the right of election a difficulty precisely similar to that already mentioned in connection with Section 16 arises. Sub-section (2) of Section 17 (which was foreshadowed in the second paragraph of Financial Resolution No. 3) is included to meet this difficulty.

Section 18 corresponds to Financial Resolution No. 4 and is designed to ensure that, in the case of a director-controlled company, in computing the company's profits for a chargeable period a sum shall not be allowed in respect of the controlling director's remuneration greater than the sum which was allowed in respect of his remuneration in computing the profits of the standard period.

Section 19 provides that, notwithstanding that assessments for accounting periods ended before the date of the passing of the Act may technically have become final and conclusive, such adjustments may be made as may be necessary to give effect to the retrospective relieving provisions in this part of this Act.

Section 20 is self-explanatory.

Coming to Part V—Miscellaneous and General—Section 21, which was the subject of Financial Resolution No. 5, imposes a stamp duty of one pound on every banker's licence.

Section 22 relates to trustee savings banks. Its primary purpose is to clear up certain doubts which have arisen since Section 31 of the Finance Act, 1940, was enacted, e.g., as to the sale of depositors' existing investments in Government securities and the continued application of the former code of law governing these banks. It extends to income from investments of the banks with the Minister for Finance the income-tax exemption which has applied, under the Income Tax Act, 1918, to their investments with the National Debt Commissioners. The other provisions in the section are to facilitate administration.

Section 23 makes the necessary provision for the transfer to the Exchequer from the Road Fund of the sum of £100,000 already taken into account in the Budget statement.

Section 24 implements a Budget announcement by providing for the discontinuance of the making of assessments to the old excess profits duty.

Section 25 is the customary "care and management" provision.

Section 26 is the usual section relating to the short title, construction and commencement of the Bill.

There is one other matter to which I think I should refer now and that is to a discussion which took place with Deputy Mulcahy, in which Deputy Cosgrave also had an interest because he raised the matter first, as to the amount of yield of corporation profits tax for 1941-42. Some confusion seems to have arisen with regard to the yield and I will endeavour to put the matter right.

Reference to my Budget statement last year will show that I hoped to get from all the proposed changes in corporation profits tax an additional yield of £1,400,000. On the other hand I explained that the extra shilling in the pound of income-tax, which I also imposed, would probably not yield me more than £300,000 (Official Reports, Vol. 83, col. 37). As Deputies are aware, corporation profits tax is allowable as a deduction in computing profits for income-tax purposes. If there had been no increases in corporation profits tax I could have expected that the extra shilling on the income-tax would have yielded about £780,000 in the year 1941-42.

Thus it will be seen that under the original proposals, for the purpose of the Budget balance, there was a loss in income-tax amounting to £480,000 to be set off against the expected gain of £1,400,000 from the changes in corporation profits tax as originally proposed, leaving the net gain at £920,000.

On the 10th June, 1941 (Official Reports, col. 1743, Vol. 83), when speaking of the financial effect of the concessions which were granted by me after the introduction of the Budget, I said:—

"It is not possible at this moment to state with any degree of confidence what the financial effect will be of the proposed changes in corporation profits tax but it is clear that we cannot this year count on a considerable portion of the revenue of £1,400,000 which we had hoped to get. The yield next year from my new proposals should be substantial. As it is, I will probably have to add something in the neighbourhood of £500,000 to my borrowing figure in the current year."

As Deputies will observe, the £500,000 was given as a very rough indication of the extra amount which might have to be borrowed as a result of the concessions I made after the discussion.

In the course of the discussions which have taken place this year, Deputies Cosgrave and Mulcahy overlooked the fact that the concessions granted in respect of corporation profits tax meant an increase in the yield of income-tax. After granting the concessions, certain increases in corporation profits tax remained and on the same day, 10th June, I said (column 1821, Vol 83, Official Reports): "With the revised proposals the income-tax yield will be about £760,000." In fact, it was rather more, but taking it at £760,000, if I now compare the estimates with the ascertained results by bringing the figures together, we get the following: original White Paper estimate corporation profits tax, £648,000; estimated gain from increase in corporation profits tax charges (as originally proposed), £1,400,000; original estimated gain from extra 1/- in the £ income-tax, £300,000, making a total of £2,348,000. The actual receipt from corporation profits tax including increase from higher flat rates and reduced margin for ordinary corporation profits tax and including receipt from excess corporation profits tax, £910,000; gain from extra 1/- in the £ income-tax, £760,000, making a total of £1,670,000. Net loss from corporation profits tax concessions, £678,000.

I said last year that I estimated, roughly, that the concessions I gave would cost me at least £500,000. That was a rough figure; I had not calculated it and I had not time to get my officials to calculate it. I thought that was what it would cost, but the actual cost was £678,000. I hope the figures I have given now will clear up the matter.

Mr. Cosgrave

I suppose it is better to deal first with the matters that have been raised by the Minister in the concluding portion of his speech. On a previous occasion, when dealing with the Budget statement, the Minister was at a loss to know where I got certain figures. I said that the Minister had got £600,000 less from tobacco than he had budgeted for. I gave him the benefit of £50,000 in that connection. I was speaking in multiples of £100,000. He asked where I got those figures. I looked up the finance accounts published somewhere about the autumn and they gave a figure of £6,590,000, representing customs duties on tobacco. I added to that figure £1,870,000 which he imposed. I overlooked the fact that the Minister had stated in his Budget speech that he had reduced the withdrawals from bond since February, 1941, to 1/65th of the annual clearances, as against the 1/52nd that had been the rule. In other words, each week he allowed out four-fifths of the amount of tobacco which had been released in the previous year. He went on to say that he got £670,000 more than he estimated. As we are clearing up matters, the Minister will find that in column 2293 of the Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 86, No. 7, he said:—

"Actually, the receipts were not my estimated £6,735,000 but £7,410,000. The result was £670,000, approximately, better than I estimated—not £600,000 less."

His estimate of £6,735,000 was a lean estimate, having regard to the amount that he stated he was allowing to be withdrawn from bond. If he allowed four-fifths of the previous year he would not have estimated on getting a quarter less than the previous year. He said it would be even more than a quarter. However, I will take his own figure of £6,735,000. He actually received £7,141,000.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

£7,421,000.

Mr. Cosgrave

That is a new figure?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It is the final figure I have got.

Mr. Cosgrave

That will make a difference.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Not to the Deputy's argument, I hope. I wanted to give him the final figure.

Mr. Cosgrave

I have got three figures—£7,141,000; £7,410,000, and that has gone up since and it is now £7,421,000.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

And £50.

Mr. Cosgrave

It is rather difficult to deal with this matter. I have told the Minister where I got my figures.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

And the Deputy knows where I got mine.

Mr. Cosgrave

Yes, it was a little belated, I admit. Anyone who has had experience in an accountant's office will realise that the rise would not be in the man's salary who brought in, on the 1st June, figures he should have on the 31st March.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The Deputy is aware that a lot of these figures come from all over the country weeks after the actual money might be lodged with the income-tax collector, say, in Cork, Galway or Dundalk, and the information might not reach the office for some time.

Mr. Cosgrave

If that be the Minister's difficulty, I am accepting it, but I should like to point out that it does not lie in the Minister's mouth to make criticisms of others, particularly when we give him information as to where we got our figures. With regard to the £648,000, I presume that is settled. The Minister got £262,000, and, so far as we are concerned, from our information, he expected to get from that imposition £1,548,000.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is not a complete statement.

Mr. Cosgrave

I am giving it now as we got it. Twelve months ago the proposal was that the Minister was going to get an extra £1,400,000 by reason of the new impositions, and he expected, according to the White Paper, to receive £648,000, making a total of £2,048,000. He gave concessions and told us that as a result of the concessions he expected to have to borrow £500,000 more. That left him anticipating a receipt of £1,548,000. Is that not correct?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

No. The concessions in the corporation profits tax meant that I lost a very considerable amount in corporation profits tax, but I gained a good deal in income-tax. It is very difficult to separate them. You have to take all these factors into account. I have given the details.

Mr. Cosgrave

These are factors that the Minister did not take into account when addressing the House here on the 10th May.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I did not give these dates but I did give the results.

Mr. Cosgrave

Really. The only information we have is that he expected to have to borrow £500,000 more.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is right.

Mr. Cosgrave

We expected—it was an intelligent anticipation, even if I make that observation myself—that he would get £1,548,000 in respect of that. He got £910,000. Were we not entitled, on the facts as they stood, to ask some question about that or to comment on that?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

To ask questions, certainly.

Mr. Cosgrave

Not to comment?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Well, informed comment, I would admit.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister is more than courteous; he is amusing.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I think the Deputy if he reads over the rather long statement I have made on that subject——

Mr. Cosgrave

There is no necessity. I need never read figures. I need only hear or see them and they satisfy me and I do not boast about the way I got my information or education in these matters. It happens to be a facility. The Minister would have it if he took the same pains to understand them when they arise. If we have settled that up, there is only one outstanding matter, one might say, in dispute between us. The Minister was apparently in a very uncomfortable frame of mind on the last occasion and he said no companies got a concession in the payment of income-tax. We know that. It does not matter whether the companies get it or not if the individuals get it. The shareholders in a company are the company. You may call them by another name, but the company would not be there if it were not for the shareholders and the benefits flow to the shareholders of whatever legislation is passed here benefiting them. No more than that was intended in my statement. If the Minister thinks that I should have been so specific as to indicate individuals rather than companies, he is welcome to his mentality with regard to that matter. These are really minor details which, in the normal course, would call for more broad-minded treatment on the part of the Minister. We leave him there.

We are going to spend £44,000,000 odd and apparently the Government is proud of it. The question which concerns the country and this House is, is there value for it and what are the outstanding circumstances of our time? The most remarkable thing in the present circumstances of this country is, first of all, that we are reducing the numbers in employment; the cost of food has risen from 158, index of August, 1939, to 209, February, 1942. If you take in all items, it has risen from 173 to 237—a very steep rise, a rise that is very largely influenced by the policy of the Government. In a neighbouring country, where taxation has risen almost to peak point, the increase in the cost of food items—I am speaking now from recollection—is 25 as against our 51. If we boast about expansion in social services, must we not admit that there is necessity for them and that the necessity for them is, to some extent, traceable to whatever lack of planned economy we have in this country? Surely, if there was one thing more than another which people were led to believe prior to the Government taking office, it was that they had a plan and that they were going to deal with the situation, that there should be more people in employment, that there should be less taxation and that there should be great expansion in industrial and agricultural activity throughout the State.

The Minister said in the course of his Budget speech—and again to-day he seems to take some credit for it—that this is a time for borrowing; it is a suitable period for borrowing; money is cheap. This is not the first year that we have had an unbalanced Budget. That is my principal cause of complaint —that this is not merely an epidemic; the disease has become endemic with the Government. We are paying off some old debts. If we are, we are paying them off with borrowed money and there is no indication as far as one can see, in any quarter, of any plan either for the present or for the future. There are some indications of an early general election. This Budget was described, when it was introduced, as one of them. There is another evidence of that to be seen now on the roads around County Dublin. People are employed on the roads whom one only sees employed at election times. That is my principal cause of complaint against this Government: it is always playing politics. It is not concerned so much with the real vital needs of the day, of the moment or the future as it is with maintaining and keeping political control. They have been very fairly treated by the people of this country and in this Parliament since the emergency arose. Every co-operation that could be extended to them in a difficult time was extended and both the people and the Parliament are entitled to expect better service than they have got up to this.

It is idle to tell us there is no means of saving out of that expenditure of £40,000,000—idle. The Minister seems to be very annoyed when I suggest to him one particular item, that is, the Army. Two years ago, the Government appeared to be suffering from a fit of nerves and every possible opportunity was availed of to instruct the people as to the dangers that were immediately besetting us. Unless I am mistaken, that was the most dangerous period since the emergency started. I have got no evidence to the contrary. If they were then doing their work, and I expect they were, the measures that they took to defend this country at that time were the maximum measures, involving the maximum expenditure, in respect of defence. Now, expenditure on the Army has gone up 50 per cent. Does not the Minister know, and does not every member of the Government know—or ought they not to know— that if these matters are left to soldiers, there is no limit—the sky is not even the limit now—to the expenditure that will be asked for in connection with defence?

If we are to take the long view, without venturing into the realm of prophecy at all, examining only past experiences, we know there are always difficult times after wars. It is said that this war is going to be an exception. We were told the same thing about the last war. The last war was said to be a war that would result in the exaltation and security of small nations. Was not that forgotten the moment the war was over? Assuming that this is going to be different and that an extra effort will be made when this war is over to deal with pressing problems, we in this country at present have no plan for dealing with that matter. We have to admit that the competition of our competitors— and they are at the ends of the earth— in respect of the goods we are going to export is exceedingly keen, and if we are to meet that competition in future and are to derive any benefit from our export trade, we should like to hear what other principal means there are of improving that trade, except by increasing the value and the volume of our exports and decreasing the costs entailed in securing that purpose. If we approach the matter from that angle, obviously a £44,000,000 Budget, with a declining income, or, at best, a stationary or static income, is no inducement to our people to remain on the land. The Ministry know quite well that, even in the pre-war period, the remuneration available to persons on the land was not a sufficient attraction to keep them there, and if we are to maintain that population on the land and make any effort towards a development of our trade, an increase of our output and so on, there must be a better livelihood for those engaged in agriculture than they have had for the past ten years. These are the matters which I think the Minister would be very well advised to take into account.

On the larger question, the history of this country has been very much upset by the controversies and differences of the past 20 years. We have at least this much in common—and it is not much—that we made a revolution, but have not brought about a commensurate improvement in conditions in the country when a magnificent dispensation of Providence gave it its freedom. That much at least can be said of the two Parties. They were able to make a revolution, but so far as building up the country and making it a place for Irish men and women to live in is concerned, examining these two decades, we would venture to express the hope that the next two decades will be far better. In conclusion, I say to the Minister that, so long as he has the frame of mind which he has, he is almost inviting expenditure. It is his duty to see that there is economy in the State, and when considering the very heavy taxation at present in force, he must bear in mind that while he might have put on more taxes in his Budget this year, he would not get more money, that we have reached saturation point, and, in consequence, the House is entitled to expect from him a real contribution towards economy in the coming year.

Professor O'Sullivan

It may have been your good fortune, Sir, during the last few weeks, occasionally to have been in the House for a few moments when we were discussing finance and money. I think we did devote a few moments to that topic, and I gathered —and I am afraid that I sometimes backed up the Government in the line they were taking—that there was no useful work for which there was any lack of capital in this country. I did not mean by that mainly Government expenditure in the sense of expenditure on Government offices. If we look through the Book of Estimates, we will find that that is one of the main directions in which money has been spent, but I had not that in mind. There are a number of Departments the usefulness of which at the moment may be doubted. Nobody can pretend that they are working to the satisfaction of the people. The Minister for Supplies seems to have distinguished himself particularly in not foreseeing practically any of the problems he would have to face until the problems hit him in the face. Then we had hurried, unconsidered action. The only matter in which he acted promptly was in enforcing the principle that if anybody made a suggestion to his Department, it was the equivalent of high treason. I understand that to suggest anything to the chief officials of the Department of Supplies as to what they should do called for condign and exemplary punishment and we had an example of that. I refer now not to the six people on whose behalf and without whose authority representations were made, but to the man who made the representations. Merely because he approached a Government official and made a suggestion to him, he was punished.

That is the proper attitude for the Department to take up towards the public and it is the proper attitude for the public to understand that they are there to carry out the behests of the all-wise Departments. It reminds me of the celebrated story told about another great nation in the east of Europe. A short time after the Bolshevik revolution, a workman was hanging on at the risk of his life to the bar of an overcrowded tram, and when some people passed him in motor cars, he said: "They are my servants; I am their master." Much as we differ from that great Republic in other matters, that is an aspect of their outlook which we have absorbed to the fullest. I am not criticising the great bulk of the officials of that Department, who are bound down by the instructions they get from on top, but we have a Ministry of Supplies which satisfies nobody, a Department of Local Government which seems bent on making local government impossible and certainly non-existent, which suppresses councils which do their duty properly and leaves in existence some of the greatest scandals in the way of county councils. I could well believe, when the present Minister for Finance was Minister for Local Government and Public Health, that there was one glaring instance where, as Minister for Local Government, he would yearn to suppress a certain county council in the south-west of Ireland, but as Chairman of the Fianna Fáil Party, it was a thing that he would have to think gravely over before he would contemplate doing anything of that kind. That is where the money goes—in Departments like these.

Deputy Cosgrave referred to a matter to which I have referred frequently here, especially in the last couple of years. I have not protested so loudly against the amount of expenditure, but addressed my remarks rather more to whether we are getting value for the money. Deputy Cosgrave also referred to the problems that are likely to face us after the war. In view of the experience that we have had of the foresight of the Ministry— of the Government as a whole—in reference to war problems, I hesitate about asking the Minister to exercise foresight in regard to post-war problems. If the wisdom and foresight of the Government is exemplified, for instance, in the activities of the Minister for Supplies, then it might be rash to urge the Government to try to do a little forethinking in connection with problems after the war. Yet they may be very serious.

Take a matter that may become very pressing for this country. Its economic position during the war, in some respects, may be not so threatening, but to what are we to look forward after the war? What about agriculture? What is the prospect for agriculture? Have the Government as a whole given any serious consideration to the statement of two prominent members of the Government—if there is such a thing as prominent members of the Government—one, that the dairying industry was dead, and the other, that the cattle industry was dead? Are the Government satisfied merely with the enunciation of that extremely black and pessimistic doctrine by two of their Ministers, or are they taking any steps to deal with the situation that that is likely to produce? Is there any evidence that they are doing anything of the kind? I can see none. Supposing, however, we are still in the position after the war of having largely to rely on agriculture, and surely that is inevitable—I am not now going into the particular form of agriculture; that certainly requires a great deal of consideration, and more, I am afraid, than it is likely to get, if we are to avoid being led away by shibboleths—what form is agriculture going to have in the future, or is it going to have any form?

The Minister knows perfectly well that the land is not getting its proper re-conditioning material. He will have the excuse, of course, that it is impossible to get that material in the proper time. Very good; suppose, for argument's sake, we grant that excuse, the problem is still there. Furthermore, I find one particular instance where it seems to me that some work could be done, because it depends on ourselves alone and not on the importation of any material, but it is a direction on which the Government have—I do not like to say deliberately—banged the door, and that is arterial drainage. I find no evidence of any signs of life on the part of the Government as a body, or of any department of government, in that particular direction. I am very familiar with the answer that I generally get from the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Hugo Flinn, that there are no economic schemes. Well, now, let us look upon this matter as a whole. Let us take, not merely the schemes separately. I should like the Government to examine the question in connection with the national economy as a whole. A large number of people are leaving this country.

Again, I am not going to use that now for the purpose of criticising the Government. To my mind, the problem has become too grave for that sort of thing. I am looking at the matter mainly from the point of view of the interest taken in the people that leave the country. I am afraid that very little interest is taken in the people who leave the country, especially in a certain direction. Now, emigration is not a thing that can be remedied from morning till night. But if young men are leaving the country because of the lack of work here, surely here is the place where work could be done. Even supposing that by the mere balance sheet a particular piece of work could be described as uneconomic, would it not be better to go on with such work if it would keep a number of people in this country, and if it would help to save the contributions that we pay to a number of people for doing nothing at the present moment?

It is a mistake to consider work of that kind in isolation from the general unemployment problem of the country. It will require a very big and a very heroic effort on the part of the Government to deal with that problem properly, but I have no evidence that they are even considering it. We were told, and there may be one or two Deputies on the Minister's own benches who might say that we were told ad nauseam, that there was no useful project for which money could not be found. Now, that is true, I believe, so far as a number of private industries are concerned, industries promoted and taken up by companies. I think that if they have a reasonable prospect of success finance will be forthcoming. But here, in what could be real work, adding to the land of the country and making up, therefore, in some respect for the impoverishment of the land that must take place owing to the lack of sufficient manure—here is an opportunity for work on which money could be spent. I believe that if you take all the circumstances into account, not merely the actual estimate of the increased value of the land as against the upkeep of the schemes afterwards, but other considerations as well, such as those I have mentioned, it is work which the Government should have been preparing years ago to carry out, and that they should not merely have reached the stage of “considering the report.” That simply means that useful work has been postponed and land left unreclaimed.

If agriculture, in two at least of its main arms, is going to be paralysed— the dairying industry and the cattle industry—what are the Government doing? Supposing that dismal prophecy is true, and supposing we accept it, what are the Government doing to compensate agriculture for that catastrophe—a real catastrophe. I cannot find that there is any evidence that they are doing anything, and the main fault that I have had to find for the last couple of years has been that we are not getting value for the money we are spending. To my mind, the actual amount of the money we are spending is secondary to that. If I could feel, and feel honestly, that we are getting value, that the problems that are likely to face us will be faced, and faced with intelligence, foresight and the preparation of hard work on the part of those in authority, I confess that I should be easier in my mind than I am at the present moment, but often, it seems to me, money is spent in ways that are wasteful. Money is refused where it could be really productive. Other countries, not as dependent as we are on agriculture, still find it a paying proposition to reclaim land, and yet here I am met continually with the reply and the excuse that the scheme is not economic, that there are hardly any economic drainage schemes left in the country. I think that, actually, is the view of the Department that is responsible for arterial drainage. I mean the genuine view. I would ask the Government to look at the thing in a bigger way than that, and to consider the other economic effects that it may have in the way of absorbing the unemployed. It does seem to the ordinary person a scandal to see thousands of acres of land flooded. That causes a feeling that the Government are not doing their part in this particular matter. I merely put that forward as one of the inducements that might be borne in mind by the Government. Considering the condition of the country as a whole, it would, I think, pay to do work of that kind.

Mr. Hughes

There are two minor matters that I want to deal with first. The intention of Section 8, I presume, is to prevent the use of kerosene in motor vehicles. It appears to me that the section is worded to exclude tractors which are constructed for use for agricultural purposes. We talk a good deal about the development of agriculture, and I presume the Minister is sympathetic in giving facilities to agriculture with that end in view. Under the law, these tractors can be used for the delivery of beet to the factories, because it comes under the term of agricultural produce. A problem, however, arises if a farmer uses a tractor for taking back pulp, which is a manufactured article, from the factory. Because the pulp does not come under the term agricultural produce, the farmer is prohibited by law from using the tractor for taking the pulp to be used for the feeding of cattle to his farm since the farmer cannot use the duty free kerosene for that purpose. I think it is unreasonable to adopt an attitude of that kind.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I think that point is covered.

Mr. Hughes

As far as I can see, it is not. Provision is made for a purely agricultural tractor. I would ask the Minister to cover the taking of pulp back from the factory.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I will look into it. I would restrict the use of the tractor to the carrying of what I would regard as agricultural produce, and I think pulp would come under that.

Mr. Hughes

If the Minister implements that view I shall be satisfied.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It may be difficult to do it, but I will see what I can do.

Mr. Hughes

There is a good deal of doubt about it, and I would be glad if the Minister would clear it up. The Minister is giving some concessions to recently established industries in this Bill. There is another matter that affects agriculture, but no provision is being made in the Bill to meet it. Deputy O'Sullivan referred to it. It is the necessity of preserving the fertility of the soil which, to my mind, is the greatest asset this country possesses. No matter what Government is in office there should, I think, be a conservative policy as regards the preservation of that asset. Everything possible should be done to increase the fertility of the soil, to hand it down to posterity in good condition. It is unavoidable, during the present emergency, that we have to draw on the fertility that is in the soil, but it should be our policy to restore it as early as possible in the post-war period. I understand that if a farmer is assessed for income-tax at the present time, and makes an application for concessions in the matter of providing capital to restore the fertility of the soil, it is not entertained by the Revenue authorities. I would ask the Minister to look into that aspect of the case. Surely it is only fair, if the State requires a man to draw excessively on his capital resources which in the farmer's case consist in the fertility of his soil, that his claim to put aside some capital to meet the cost of the restoration of that fertility ought to be allowed. I understand that such claims have not, so far, been entertained with favour. The Revenue authorities were not sympathetic towards such claims. I hope the Minister will look into both these matters.

I agree with previous speakers that an expenditure of over £44,000,000 for a little country with our resources is a huge one to ask the people to face at the present time. The Minister, in his Budget statement, when speaking of the provision that he has to make for borrowing to a substantial extent, suggested that a good deal of that capital would have to be repaid by agriculture—our main industry. It appears to me to be an extraordinary situation that while the Government, and the Minister for Finance in particular, appreciate that, no real effort is being made towards a reorganisation of the agricultural industry. It is true that over a very long period the output of our agriculture has remained static. As compared with some other countries it has, in fact, receded to some extent. Deputy Cosgrave pointed out that in the last two decades neither Administration had done very much to make the lot of this country any better or any happier. Possibly they were faced with a great many difficulties. But, at this time, when the world is passing through the greatest crisis that it has ever experienced and when economists are warning the world of the problems that lie ahead for every country and the great difficulties that must be surmounted in a post-war period, I think there is all the more reason why we should get down to the problem of doing something by way of reorganising our agricultural industry.

Probably at the end of this war we will find ourself in the position that many of the commodities that we exported pre-war are no longer there to be exported, because the raw materials necessary for the production of these articles were not available, and that several sources of production, from which we had a surplus to export, will no longer be in the position of having a surplus; that these commodities will not be there and that our income from these sources will be dried up. If that is so, the cost of administration in a set of circumstances like that cannot possibly be met. We will probably find ourselves in the position that many of the people who left this country to go across the water, attracted there by the high rates of wages, will be sent back to us. We will also inevitably have to demobilise the Army to a great extent at that period. The possibility is that our sources of income from our sterling assets, which we talked so much about during the last week, may be considerably reduced, because the rate of interest on these capital sterling investments may undergo a very considerable reduction. With the probable reduction in our income, we cannot possibly hope to face a cost of administration of the magnitude or volume of the present figures. The fact that the Minister got over his difficulty by borrowing, and that he found himself unable to balance his Budget because we had reached saturation point and it was impossible to tap any new source of income, is simply postponing the liability that must be faced in future. As the Minister said, most of that liability will have to be borne by the agricultural community. As I say, no real attempt has been made to reorganise that industry. It seems inconceivable when you see what other countries, particularly our neighbour-country——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister for Finance is not responsible for reorganising agriculture. He is only responsible for collecting taxation. He is not responsible for reorganising the agricultural industry.

Mr. Hughes

Do you not think that he spends the taxation?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy can deal with that.

Mr. Hughes

I am criticising the manner in which it is spent. I am suggesting that it could be more profitably spent, and I am suggesting how that ought to be done—that we will have to increase production if possible.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The matter I drew attention to was that the Deputy was asking the Minister for Finance to reorganise the agricultural industry.

Mr. Hughes

I suggest that I am entitled to do that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think it is his province.

Mr. Hughes

You, Sir, permitted two other Deputies to develop the same point and that is why I claim——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think they addressed the question to the Minister for Finance.

Mr. Hughes

Absolutely. Within the last half hour the matter was discussed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The general policy of administration should not be raised on a Finance Bill anyway. However, I will let the Deputy proceed.

Mr. Hughes

It is a different ruling anyway.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There was no ruling, as a matter of fact. I just drew the Deputy's attention to the fact that I did not think the Minister for Finance was directly responsible for the duty which the Deputy was putting on him.

Mr. Hughes

I think there is a necessity at present to review the position we find ourselves in with regard to that important industry. Deputy O'Sullivan drew attention to the fact that in a recent statement the Minister for Agriculture referred to the decline of the dairying industry. As a matter of fact, we know that in the coming year it is quite possible we may find ourselves without sufficient butter. We know what the position of the pig industry is. Ten years ago we had an export trade of about 500,000 cwts. of bacon and 500,000 live pigs. To-day the situation is that we have not sufficient bacon for our own requirements. So far as exports are concerned, the egg industry has diminished to a very substantial extent. I am simply referring to these three matters to indicate the trend of agriculture at present and the necessity for giving immediate attention to its development and reorganisation. If the burden that the Minister told us in his Budget statement would have to be thrown back on that important industry is to be borne, I think it is necessary that it should be reorganised and put in a position to bear some of the charges that the Minister suggests must be borne in future.

Yesterday and to-day we were discussing education here. We dealt with the provision of a very substantial sum for education. While the discussion mainly centred around the teaching of Irish and the restoration of Irish as a living language, I do not think anything was said about agricultural education. One of the handicaps we suffer from here is lack of education in that respect. There is no doubt that our failure to expand agricultural production as compared with our competitors in the same market, such as the Scandinavian countries——

Mr. O Ceallaigh

We have only finished a discussion on that subject on the Education Estimates.

Mr. Hughes

Were any references made to agriculture?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Certainly.

Mr. Hughes

No.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I was here.

Mr. Hughes

I am merely touching upon it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The matter was raised on the Vote for Technical Education.

Mr. Hughes

I was merely pointing out that we were handicapped in so far as our competitors were undoubtedly educated. They had a better technical knowledge of their work. That in itself was a great handicap so far as we were concerned. The result was that we were unable to compete and they eventually captured our market to a very great extent. I understand that at present there are discussions taking place with regard to the price of cattle and the type of beast that the British are prepared to take from us. I suggest that this is the time when something should be done about getting a quid pro quo. I am sure we are all most anxious to maintain our exports, but we can only maintain them if we get essential raw materials in return. The most important thing that we require is artificial manure, particularly sulphate of ammonia. This is the time when we should say that we can only maintain our exports, even in live stock, if some effort is made on the other side of the channel to release essential artificial manures, particularly sulphate of ammonia. That is the one article which is not controlled on the other side, and that indicates that they have ample supplies.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is definitely out of order.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

What the Deputy is suggesting is not my job.

Mr. Hughes

A discussion has taken place on the price of some of our exports.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is outside the scope of the Finance Bill.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

On the Budget statement it is usual for anything and everything to be discussed, but on the Finance Bill we usually keep within the limits of what is contained in the Bill.

Mr. Hughes

I think that the taxation we have to face—£44,000,000—is far beyond our capacity. With our present facilities for production we cannot face such a high cost of administration. The reduction of these administrative costs is an urgent matter and in the coming year the Minister ought to make every effort to reduce to the minimum the cost of administration of the different Departments.

Mr. Byrne

I wish to avail of the opportunity afforded by this Finance Bill to draw attention to the very high cost of living in Dublin City. The immediate result is a very low living standard for certain of our people. Large numbers of people have crossed the water because they can get there better wages than would be given them at home. If it was not for the fact that they have crossed the water and got employment, I dread to think what would have happened had these people been left at home to depend upon the present Government to provide them with the means of living. If it was not for the wages sent by these people to their relatives in this city and in other parts of Ireland, the standard of living, low as it is to-day, would be much lower.

The people of Dublin, especially the working classes, have nothing to thank the present Government for, even though the Minister introduced a Budget, which, according to him, meant no increase in taxation. Strange to say, while he brought in a Budget that meant no increased taxation, within a few days of its introduction a very essential commodity, butter, went up by 2d. in the pound. Wages did not go up at the same time. This week, although there is no increased tax on tea, the price to the working class people in Dublin has gone up from 3/4 to 4/- a pound and there has been no increase in wages to meet the increased cost. I think the time has arrived when the Government should pay a little more attention to the requirements of the people and to the hardships which they are tolerating.

Deputies from various parts of the House have referred to the bread queues in Dublin, caused by what I believe is an unfair distribution of flour to the bakeries. It is not due to any scarcity, because in some parts of the country they can get 100 per cent. of the bread supplies. The position in Dublin is quite different, because the working class people there have to line up by the hundred in queues outside every bread shop.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are considering the Finance Bill, 1942, on Second Reading and the Deputy is travelling away from that.

Mr. Byrne

On the Finance Bill, I submit that nearly every subject is mentioned in it and I am quite in order. There is money provided in this Bill for every service I have referred to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Not in the Finance Bill.

Mr. Byrne

I thought this was an opportune time to draw the Minister's attention to the deplorable conditions in Dublin and the hardships the people have to bear.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That would be appropriate on the Budget, but not on this Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is evidently mixing up the Finance Bill with the Budget statement. The Finance Bill is very definite in its objects.

Mr. Byrne

I bow to your ruling, but I am sure that if I had the Bill in front of me I could base, on some of its sections, my argument with regard to the deplorable conditions in Dublin City.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I do not think so.

Mr. Byrne

Money is provided by this Bill for every service we have.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy looks at the Bill, he will not see any reference to the matters he has raised. The object of the Bill is to raise taxation; the Deputy is dealing with administration, which is a different thing altogether.

Mr. Byrne

Might I ask whether the moneys provided in this measure cover the provision and distribution of flour and wheat?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No relation whatever.

Mr. Byrne

Then I will merely bring to the Minister's notice the conditions under which the people of Dublin are living and ask him to do something to remedy the hardships they are bearing.

Mr. Corry

The Deputy is surely out of order.

Mr. Byrne

I will not go further with that point, but I think the time has come when we might hear something from the Minister, who, to my knowledge, has not yet expressed any opinion about it, with regard to family allowances.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is no provision in the Bill for family allowances.

Mr. Byrne

I know that, but I thought he would express his views on family allowances, if not in his Budget statement, at least on this Bill. I desire, before the House adjourns for a fortnight, to draw attention to the terrible conditions under which the people of Dublin are living and the struggle they have to get bread. It is not fair the way they are being treated in this city.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must find some other means to draw attention to that. He cannot do so on the Finance Bill.

Mr. McMenamin

I am somewhat reluctant to say anything on the Bill. For the last eight or nine years I felt it was rather useless to say anything in this House on financial or economic matters. I arrived at the conclusion, after this Government was in office for two years, that the members of it had apparently made up their minds that, having failed to break down the State with arms, having got control of administration they would endeavour to break it down economically. The question arises now, have they succeeded in their attempt to break it economically where they had failed to do it with arms?

This Budget has been described in this House as a bad Budget, as a good Budget, and as no Budget. To be quite candid, I would agree with Deputy Dillon that it is not a Budget at all. When a Minister has exhausted the entire taxable capacity of the country, he looks around and says, "I wonder can I get money anywhere else to pay all these bills that I owe?" Being in power, and being in control of the State, he can exercise authority to get the money from somewhere and he proceeds to borrow it. If money was borrowed for a useful State purpose I would be the very first to approve. The policy of the Government has led up to the position that it has got to borrow, and it borrows, of course, on the pretext that abnormal circumstances obtain. If that were true, I would approve of borrowing.

I think it has been stated here, and it has not been disproved, that it is useless in this emergency to increase the incidence of taxation because such an increase would not yield any greater revenue. If it is true that we have reached that position—and I agree that we have—that again is subject to argument—the fact that the Minister, having a gap so wide as approximately £4,250,000, did not make any attempt to close that gap by taxation convinces those that argue that this country has reached saturation point with regard to taxation—what is the prospect for the future? We are glibly told that we are borrowing now because there is an emergency. The emergency that exists to-day is nothing, in my view, compared with the emergency that will obtain in this country when the war is over. If we have reached saturation point to-day—as it is clear we have— for causes that we need not proceed to analyse here, which lie in the Government of this country for the last ten years—what is going to happen in this country? That is a question that perplexes me. After ten years of reckless spending, a considerable part of which was directed to the contraction of production, we have reached saturation point. What is going to happen in the post-war period?

Deputy Cogan, speaking on the Budget, asked what had posterity done to bring the liability that this Budget imposed upon them? It should be clear to Deputy Cogan that posterity had not done anything; it is what we have done to posterity. This evening Deputy Hughes said that a duty devolved upon us of handing to posterity in a better condition than we found it, our inheritance, that is, the land of this country. What is the use of talking about posterity? What do we owe to posterity? Posterity will judge us in this matter. By our reckless conduct we will leave to them a position that will be utterly intolerable. The spectacle of the next 20 or 25 years in this country appals me. After all the claptrap that one has heard for the last ten years about a new order and the necessity for a new order in the world, the new order that will obtain in this world when the gentlemen who are going to create it are finished with it, is a new order of misery, suffering and poverty. What resources will we be able to leave to posterity to meet that condition of affairs?

Deputy Hughes, Deputy O'Sullivan and Deputy Cosgrave have been emphasising the necessity for doing something to increase the fertility of the land. Under the conditions that we have—and they are, of course, very bad—the Government say they cannot do anything to improve the fertility of the land because they cannot get the means. That does not affect the issue at all. Should this war last for another three or four years, what is going to happen to the population of this State, with regard to even the bare necessities of food? What amount of wheat will be produced from the land of this country, say, three years hence, if no fertilisers are provided in the meantime? After that period—if peace is proclaimed in the world—what is going to be the position in this country? Then it will be a case of going back and starting to rebuild. The land, which is the only resource of this country, will be completely exhausted. That will be the state of affairs post-war, when this country will have to face the demobilisation of what is for us a huge army and the return from England of 100,000 to 150,000 men. Has the Minister introduced this Budget quite indifferently to all these issues and their implications? I would be glad to get from him—of course I will not get it—a general survey of our present position and our capacity to meet the issues that will confront us. We deserve to suffer for the sins we have committed, which have brought about the present conditions. It would be regrettable that the people that brought about such a condition of affairs did not reap the harvest. It generally happens that people who have sown in the wind reap the whirlwind. Difficult as it may be, I hope that I will live to see the reaping of the whirlwind.

A great deal has been said here about agriculture, wheat, butter and bacon. The tragedy I see about these things is that year after year we are proceeding into a worse position with regard to them. In the past few months there was a good deal of discussion here about black markets in oatmeal, tea and flour. When people were talking about these things, did they know what they were talking about?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Deputy trying to bring these in under this Bill?

Mr. McMenamin

I should like the Minister frankly to tell the House and the country—I believe in being perfectly frank, blunt and honest, because I think it is a good thing—what is the revenue position. Has it reached saturation point and was it out of sheer necessity that he decided to borrow this year? I do not want any glib claptrap about the Government borrowing because it was cheap to borrow. Every Finance Minister who will come after this Minister will have that same excuse to make. No matter what the price is, it will still be cheap to borrow. I should also like to hear from him whether there is any organisation within the Government making provision for the position, when peace comes again, with regard to assimilating the men in the Army who will be demobilised and with regard to the return of all the young men who have gone to England, I take it, temporarily. There is no use in putting this matter on the long finger, because if the Minister remains for four or five years in his present office, and if he has to deal with this problem, it would be wiser for him to take stock of it now, to tell the country what it is and what its implications are and what plans he and the Government have for dealing with it when the occasion arises.

Mr. Cogan

In view of the excessive burden imposed on the tax payers in this year's Budget—the excessive burden of expenditure under which the country groans and which taxation is unable to meet—I should like to ask if the Minister has any plans for reducing that burden of expenditure. Has the Minister any plans for inquiring into the various headings under which expenditure is incurred in the various Government Departments, with a view to securing some reduction in the burden? The citizens are becoming alarmed by the fact that every day new services are being added, new expenditure incurred and the number of officials in the employment of the State increased, while at the same time it is very difficult to observe any improvement in the administrative machinery, or any sign of increased efficiency. In the debate on Education, it was pointed out that there has been no improvement in the general educational standard.

So far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned, there is nobody who would dare to suggest that there has been any improvement, even during the past 20 years, in the condition of the agricultural industry. What return are the taxpayers getting for their money which is being put into the alleged development of agriculture? The dairying industry has declined and pig production has declined. Almost every branch of the industry has declined, and it is only the present emergency which has brought about a temporary increase in the area under tillage.

We are entitled to know whether the Government have any plan, even now, after so many years experience and with their experience of the present emergency, for the future of agriculture. So far as we can ascertain, they have no plan. The Minister for Agriculture, in his famous speech in Cork University, which was the only occasion on which he attempted to outline the future of agriculture, seemed to express the conviction that agriculture has no future, that it must continue to decline, that production must continue to decline and that the number of people permanently engaged in the industry must be reduced, if there is to be any improvement in the standard of living of those people. I think that is the most alarming feature of governmental policy at present. If the community are to bear the excessive and ever-increasing cost of administration, there must be some plan to improve the productive capacity of the people. There must be some plan to add to the volume of production, so that the nation will be able to continue to exist and to support its present population. So far, there is no indication of any such plan.

I have pointed out that the number of people permanently employed in agriculture is altogether below the number required in order to get the last ounce of productivity from the land and in order to ensure that the land will be worked to the best possible advantage. Yet, we have the fact that the Minister responsible for agriculture can hold out no hope of the provision of increased employment in agriculture.

What has the Government to show after ten years of extravagant and expensive administration? So far as I can see, the only visible improvement in our social and economic conditions is to be found in the cities and large towns, where a number of people have been provided with better housing accommodation. For that, the Government deserve some credit which I am prepared freely to give them, but has the economic condition of even the people in these large towns been improved? Have they been put in a position to pay the rents of the new houses with which they have been provided? So far as I can ascertain, they have not, and they are to-day facing even a more serious condition of poverty than they had to face in the past. While a large percentage of them have better housing accommodation, they are faced with the fact that they are unable to pay for that housing accommodation and with the prospect that they may have to go back to the conditions from which they were rescued. This is mainly due to the fact that the cost of living has been allowed to increase enormously through failure of another Department of the Government, the Department of Supplies, to ensure equitable distribution of existing supplies and cheaper distribution of such supplies. Inequitable distribution has led, as it always does lead, to profiteering, black marketing, and all the other types of racketeering which inflict excessive burdens upon the poorer sections of the community.

Some people, in the past ten years, have got rich; some people, in the past two years, have got very rich as a result of the failure of the Government to plan the provision and distribution of supplies to the poorer sections of the community. That is the position in our cities and large towns. In the country, the position is even worse. There, we have at least the foundation of prosperity in the fact that we have a very considerable area of undeveloped land, land that would be suitable for improvement, reclamation and drainage, but nothing whatever has been done, in spite of all the money which is being spent by our Government, to improve the condition of the soil in rural Ireland. In the past, we were inclined to denounce, and freely denounce, the old landlord class who ruled our rural areas. We got rid of them. Some of them were bad, but some of them were not so bad and, in clearing out that class, we destroyed a section of it who contributed far more to the development of the land than we have been able to contribute under our own democratic administration. In every part of the country we see drainage schemes, which were carried out by landlords, being allowed to deteriorate.

An Ceann Comhairle

That appears to be a matter of administration, as the Deputy himself has suggested.

Mr. Cogan

Yes, Sir.

An Ceann Comhairle

But administration may not be discussed on a Finance Bill.

Mr. Cogan

I am only touching on it lightly.

An Ceann Comhairle

Light touches on several Departments would consume much paint or whitewash and would take a considerable time.

Mr. Cogan

The people are entitled to some recompense for the money they have put into the Minister's hands for drainage and land reclamation purposes, and having regard to the fact that 100,000 of our people are unemployed and that we are exporting the best of our young men to Great Britain, it should be the duty of the Minister to see that something is done to provide employment for those people, and particularly to provide employment in our rural areas through the improvement of our soil, thereby putting something aside which will be of benefit to the nation in the future. I have touched on the question that our rural areas are entirely underpopulated.

When I say that, I am referring, not to the congested districts in the West, but to the main portion of the area of our State. I believe that until there is a proper economic plan, which will provide for such a development in agriculture as will enable us to increase enormously the number of people permanently employed in production in agriculture, apart altogether from development schemes, there is no future whatever for this country. Such a scheme cannot be planned in a day. It cannot be planned by one Minister. It must be planned by the Government as a whole, and it must be planned, mainly, by the Minister for Finance who, in the last analysis, is the man who will have to provide the money.

If the Minister is prepared to say to the Minister for Agriculture and to the Minister for Supplies: "I am not satisfied with the volume of agricultural production in this country; I believe that the present volume of production is inadequate to provide for the maintenance of the present population of the country; I believe that something must be done to develop agriculture"—if the Minister for Finance were prepared to say that, and prepared to say that any worth-while plan for the development of agriculture would receive his moral and financial support, we would be making some progress. The Minister, as I pointed out, has been responsible, both in his present capacity as Minister for Finance and in his former capacity as Minister for Local Government and Public Health, for a very considerable improvement in the housing of our people in our towns and cities and, to a limited extent, in rural Ireland. I say, to a limited extent, because, as far as housing has been provided in rural Ireland, it has only been for the working classes. I believe that there is a much bigger housing problem, awaiting solution in rural Ireland, in the housing of our farming community.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may have a suitable opportunity on the Local Government Vote to-morrow.

Mr. Cogan

It is, I suggest, a question that is bigger than local government, because it is a question which entails such a change in our entire economic position as would call for the concentrated attention of the whole Government. Such a policy can only be carried into effect if the Government are prepared to plan for the marketing of all agricultural produce so as to ensure that whatever is produced in the agricultural industry will secure a fair market at reasonable prices.

An Ceann Comhairle

Such a plan would be made, I presume, by the Minister for Agriculture, and was actually advocated on his Estimate.

Mr. Cogan

It was.

An Ceann Comhairle

And, therefore, it may not be advanced now.

Mr. Cogan

I think that the Minister for Finance has a very considerable amount of control over the Department of Agriculture, inasmuch as any claim that is put up by the Minister for Agriculture is subject to the approval of the Minister for Finance.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Might I suggest, with respect, Sir, that if that interpretation with regard to the Minister and this Bill were adopted, the Deputy would be entitled to discuss every Department of Government in detail on this Bill?

An Ceann Comhairle

Precisely.

Mr. Cogan

I have no intention to discuss any particular Department of the Government in detail. I am simply suggesting, first of all, that the entire sum which the people of this country are called upon to contribute to the Exchequer, must be reduced, and very drastically reduced, and that there is scope for such reduction. I am not, however, one of those who hold that while the number of people in the employment of the State should be reduced, no provision should be made for the employment of such people. I believe that it is necessary to reduce the number of people employed in various Departments of the State where the numbers have been allowed to increase to too great an extent.

I was trying to point out that, in reducing the number of officials in the State, some means should be found of providing them with alternative employment. The only way it could be provided would be by the State taking steps to reorganise, develop and promote other industries, as well as undertaking such public works of development as are urgently called for at present. Such a plan would enable the Government to cut down drastically the personnel of many Departments without at the same time throwing the people concerned out of employment. I know, of course, the Minister will say that all Departments of State are understaffed. That is the usual answer we get. The extraordinary thing is that year after year the number of people entering State employment continues to grow, while the services rendered to the community do not show any sign of a visible increase. In view of that, something very drastic will require to be done to keep expenditure at a level which the people can bear. In addition, something very far-reaching will require to be done to raise the volume of production, because it is out of the goods that our people produce—the people who work —that all services, national and local, must be financed. For that reason, the future of agriculture must be so planned as to provide the necessary increase in production. I hold definitely that it is in the home market we will find the widest scope for the permanent increase in agricultural production which is so urgently needed. When the emergency passes, all the foodstuffs of every kind which we have been accustomed to import should be so restricted as to guarantee the entire home market for produce of our own agriculturists. We should guarantee that, not for one year, or for two years, but should make the market an unchangeable one, at reasonably secure prices, for everything which the farmer produces, particularly tillage produce.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I have no intention of attempting to answer a number of the questions that were put to me on details of administration or on the detailed working of different Departments of State. As Minister for Finance, I have a certain knowledge of the administration of agriculture as I have of the administration of a number of other Departments. I do not know what amount Deputy Cogan knows about agriculture. If one were to judge by the number of speeches we hear from him on the subject he must be the greatest agricultural expert in the House. I have listened to his speeches with interest, but what I have remarked about them is that it is always the same old tune. I wish he would vary it a bit. It would add a little to the interest of the people who listen to him and might get him a bigger audience. But it is always the same tune—the tune that "the ould cow died of." That is what we hear from him day after day, in season and out of season. I do not say that there is not something in what he says. Perhaps he knows a little more about agriculture than I do, but what I do say is that he cannot possibly be right in all his propositions. In practice, what he says is that there should be only one market here—the home market—and that it should be capable of consuming all our agricultural products. Take cattle production, for one thing, I do not see how that could happen.

Mr. Cogan

I did not say anything like that.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The Deputy will have more opportunities for talking on agriculture. He can talk on it every day the House meets, this week and next week, if we meet next week. I am sure we will be all very glad to hear what he has to say. I do suggest to him that he should speak a little more carefully. Perhaps on occasions we all make statements we would not make if we thought a little more carefully. If we did that, we might be a little more precise in our language. I think, in regard to some of the statements the Deputy made to-night, that he would like to change them when he comes to read them.

It is true to say that very few of those who took part in the debate on the Finance Bill to-day, or on the Budget on the 6th May, devoted themselves completely to the subject of the Budget. Instead, they devoted themselves to a greater extent to what was not in it. They did that when they could not find anything in the Budget or in the Finance Bill to condemn or criticise. They talked about a plan for the next generation, and asked "what are we going to do for posterity?" Deputy Cogan varied that a little by asking "what did posterity do for us?" That, to a large extent, was the attitude of a number of speakers in this debate. Even Deputy O'Sullivan fell into it in, shall I call it, his criticism of the Finance Bill. He and several other speakers asked what was our plan, and all because they could find so little to condemn in the Finance Bill of this year or in the Budget statement of the 6th May. Individual members of all Parties— they were not speaking for their Parties, of course—have said to me, every one of them, that they were delighted with the Budget.

It was a pleasant surprise for them. I have heard that from innumerable people everywhere I have been in the last few weeks. "A damn good Budget,""An excellent Budget,""Never expected it to be half as good," were the comments I heard. Deputies know as well as I do that that is a true comment, including Deputy McMenamin. If I had added considerably to taxation, they would not have been a bit surprised. They all expected it; there is not a Deputy who did not expect it.

Mr. McMenamin

Should not you have done it if you were doing your duty?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

No, I did my duty. The country recognises that I did my duty and did it well. The unusual thing was that I succeeded in doing my duty and in pleasing the vast bulk of the people and the majority of Deputies, whatever they may have said for debating purposes here. These are the facts as I know them. I am glad that the matter raised by Deputy Mulcahy, and which was originated by Deputy Cosgrave in criticising my figures, seems to have been cleared up to the satisfaction of Deputy Cosgrave. The figures I gave are official figures, accurate figures, and they cannot be gainsaid. Deputy Cosgrave said the Government are spending £44,000,000 of money and are proud of it. I do not know that I can truthfully say we are proud of it. I do not hesitate to say, and I have said it since I became Minister for Finance, that we are bearing a very heavy burden of taxation in this country. I do not want anybody in this House or the country to be without knowing the extent of the burden we are bearing.

Mr. McMenamin

They do know it.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I hope everybody knows it. I know it better than anybody, because I have the job of "raising the wind." I should like that to be borne in mind by every Deputy, particularly Deputies on the Opposition Benches, who charge us with squandermania and extravagant expenditure. Deputy O'Sullivan, after re-echoing the criticism of Deputy Cosgrave about extravagant expenditure, went on to ask why we are not implementing the recommendations of the Drainage Commission. If we do put these into operation, as I think they should be put into operation as soon as we can do it, that job will be entirely uneconomic. The estimate of the commission is £7,000,000, but it will probably be £10,000,000 or £11,000,000 before it is finished. The Deputy spends a lot of his time criticising us for extravagant expenditure and then he wanted to know why we do not spend £7,000,000 or £10,000,000 more. That is inconsistent. Deputy O'Sullivan is not the only one, because Deputy Cogan was on the same racket. "Look at the conditions in the rural areas," he said. I know that in County Wicklow many of the small farmers' houses are in a bad condition.

This Government have spent a huge amount of money in providing good houses for the urban and rural population. The County Wicklow has done particularly well in providing houses with the active assistance of the board of health. There is no other county, with the possible exception of County Wexford, which has done as well in regard to housing in the rural areas as County Wicklow. Magnificent work has been done there in regard to housing. The provision of houses has cost a considerable sum and will cost a lot of money for the next 25 or 30 years. But the Deputy, while talking about our extravagance and the big bill we have to meet, wants us to do twice as much, and even then he would not be satisfied as long as there was an insanitary house in Wicklow or anywhere else. You cannot have it both ways. I should like to see every insanitary house wiped out in town and country, and every insanitary school for that matter, and there are plenty of these to be wiped out yet. But Rome was not built in a day and, with all the goodwill in the world and even if we had all the finance, we cannot get the materials to do these things now. Therefore, house building is almost stopped and the rate of building schools has very much reduced much to my regret and the regret of the Government.

Deputy Cosgrave says that we are proud of spending £44,000,000. If there is anything we are proud of, it is that kind of constructive work we have done for the benefit of this generation and the generation to come. We do not apologise for that. Housing has cost a lot of money both to the taxpayers and the ratepayers, and I should like every taxpayer and every ratepayer to know how much it cost in his own county. I should like that to be brought home to them and that they should look around and see if they are not getting good value for that money. If this Government are proud of anything which they have achieved, they are proud of the revolution they are responsible for in regard to the housing of the community up and down the country.

Deputy Cosgrave talked about employment going down and the steep rise in the cost of living for which the Government are responsible. I cannot object to that criticism because it is true. Employment has gone down considerably and there would be greater numbers on the unemployed list, as several Deputies reminded us, were it not for the number of people who emigrated. But Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Cogan and others at any rate should be fair and say that employment has gone down, numbers of people have emigrated, and the cost of living has gone up, but there is a war on. I think it was Deputy Cogan said that the country had little to thank the Government for and Deputy Byrne echoed these sentiments. If there is one thing that the people know they have to thank the Government for it is keeping the country at peace. I wonder if there is anybody who would like to see that condition changed even at the cost of greater employment. If conditions were otherwise, we might have every man, woman and child employed at very high wages, as they are elsewhere. I do not know whether Deputy Byrne or Deputy Cogan or Deputy Cosgrave would be better pleased with a change of that kind. I say that they should be fair in their criticism.

Deputy Byrne also complained about the scarcity of tea. Thanks be to God, there is still some tea in the country, and, even though they have to pay for it—and some of them pay pretty highly for it—there is tea for most of the people—almost all. If conditions were otherwise, if we had not the active, intelligent and far-seeing Minister for Supplies that we have, even the quantity of tea that is available might not be available. The same thing applies to butter. The quantity of flour and bread on sale is certainly not what everybody would like to see, but bread and flour are available.

Mr. McMenamin

And tea.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

And tea.

Mr. McMenamin

Tea and petrol and timber and iron—the Minister should not stop there.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I will tell the truth, what the Deputy would not do.

Mr. McMenamin

It is the whole truth we want.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Yes, the whole truth. I will tell exactly what they have, if the Deputy wants the figures.

Mr. McMenamin

Tell us what you have not got.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The Deputy wants to get me off the track. He wants me to indicate what we have not got, what we are to do for the next generation, what we are to do for posterity. The Government are responsible to the people of to-day, to the people of the past ten or 11 years who elected them, to the people who will elect us whenever the next general election takes place. Deputy Cosgrave mentioned a general election, and said it was suggested that this Budget was a general election Budget. So far as I am concerned, there was no such intention on my part, nor on the Government's part —and that is the whole truth.

I do not know anything more about this general election than anybody else here. I take it a general election will be due next year, and it looks to me, speaking as an individual member of the Dáil, that this is not a desirable time for a general election. I am not giving out Government policy now, because I have not discussed it with anybody. I merely want to answer Deputy Cosgrave's remark about this being a general election Budget. It is no such thing. I did not think of a general election when I was framing that Budget. I had in mind that we would probably have another Budget to produce before a general election. That is the whole truth. So far as I am concerned, the question of an election did not arise in my mind in the preparation of the Budget.

Deputy Cosgrave said, and I hope I am not misrepresenting him, that perhaps there was something in the idea of a general election when one saw around County Dublin working on the roads men who are employed only at election times. I have not had time to inquire about that, but I asked Deputy Seán Brady, a member of the Dublin County Council and of other boards, to find out for me from the responsible officials whether there was any truth in the statement that there were unusual numbers of men working on the roads in North County Dublin and I am told, from the horse's mouth, so to speak, from the best authority I can get, that there is no truth in that statement.

Deputy Cosgrave says that the Government are responsible for the steep rise in the cost of living. Even if he were on these benches, with the Government of which he was the Head, at a time of war like the present, the mighty financial magician could not have kept the cost of living from rising. He talks of the increasing cost of social services being due to the lack of planned economy. Indeed it is not. It is due, again, to events and things over which we have no control, things that are outside the purview of this or any other Government in this country. If the emergency continues, and if the unfortunate condition of affairs which induces a spread of unemployment continues, the cost of social services will go up and up and the cost of living may go up and up, too. The Government will have to try to meet it and we will see then whether there is any truth in the statement, that I believe there is no foundation for at all, that we have reached saturation point in taxation.

Deputy Cosgrave wanted to see a decrease in the cost of the Army. God knows, so would I. I would be very happy if I could see the cost of the Army reduced by 50 per cent., or down to what it was before the emergency started. It was then less than £2,000,000 and now it is £9,000,000. Suppose we could take £7,000,000 off the Army Vote, what could we not do with that £7,000,000, or with even £3,000,000 or £4,000,000? We could do a lot in the way of housing, in which Deputy Cogan and others are interested, and a lot in the way of the social services that so many people are interested in. Nothing would please me better than to be satisfied that the period of danger was over and that we could reduce the size of the Army and, therefore, its cost.

When Deputy Cosgrave first made reference to the period of danger having passed, I could find nowhere any foundation for that statement. I have made inquiries since that statement was made some weeks ago by Deputy Cosgrave—he repeated it in a milder form this evening—and I wondered on what information he bases his opinion. Perhaps he is in more intimate touch than I am with big affairs and big Governments and people who might have an influence or an interest in these matters. At any rate, any information that is available to me as a citizen or as a member of the Government does not bear out Deputy Cosgrave's statement that the period of danger for us has passed. There is no truth in it, I believe, and no foundation for it. I would be very happy to think that Deputy Cosgrave was right and not I, and that we could save some millions of pounds on military expenditure.

From certain points of view there is no more wasteful way of spending money than on an army. From some points of view at present it is a good thing, when unemployment is so rife, that a man can be taken into the Army or into the Construction Corps, where he will be well fed, well housed and looked after properly. That is all to the good, but it is not productive employment, and that is what I would like to see our millions spent upon. If we had not that Army well equipped and manned by men who knew their job and were determined to carry out their duties, the history of the past two or three years in this country might have been different, and we have to bear that in mind. We have to bear the cost of the Army, and it is a heavy cost, a big burden, and, even at the expense of repeating myself, I will say that I wish to God we could stop it or stop a lot of it and so be able to use the money for productive purposes.

Aside from the Army cost, there is at least £2,000,000, or maybe £3,000,000, put upon us as additional expenditure by reason of the emergency. I am sure if we went into all the Estimates we could, at a modest figure, take £9,000,000 or £10,000,000 as representing emergency expenditure. If we could take that off £44,000,000, it would bring our total figure nearer what I thought we ought to be spending here for the services we are getting, and nearer what the taxpayers ought to be asked to bear. But, whatever is necessary in order to keep war away from our shores, in order to keep this country at peace, to keep it as well defended as we can have it defended, is, I think, well worth the money. I think, if the case were put to the people of the country, whatever the cost, they would be prepared to bear it.

I agree with Deputy Cosgrave that the Estimate for expenditure on the Army ought to be examined and scrutinised meticulously and criticised from every point of view, because soldiers are usually young men and not the most careful people in the world about money. Anything a soldier wants he usually thinks he must get and somebody else has to count the cost. I can assure Deputy Cosgrave that every item that goes into the make-up of that £9,000,000 that is spent on the Army is fought over, argued over, wrangled over and discussed with the Army people and the Department of Finance to an extent that, perhaps, he ought to know something about. It was as bad and worse at one period when Deputy Cosgrave was in office. We have the same wrangles, that he must have some knowledge of in days gone by, going on all the time to try to keep Army expenditure within what we regard as reasonable limits. The Army people say that we are the damnedest lot of screws and hard-hearted people that they could come across. I know there are many things that should be done for the soldiers. Deputies on all sides of the House must have heard complaints about the allowances to married soldiers, the allowances for men going on leave, the allowances to officers. Some of these allowances are very modest. If we were to do anything in the nature of increasing allowances for these soldiers, their wives and children and for the officers, their wives and their children, comparable with what is done in other Armies elsewhere, it is not £9,000,000 we would be asking for, but it might be very considerably more. I often wonder if some of those who criticise the Minister for Finance for his extravagant expenditure were in my place and listened to the tales of hardship that I have to listen to, not only from the Army, but from the Civil Service and other places, where people are struggling hard to live on small pittances, what they would do. I am not by nature a hard-hearted person. I am not, but, as Minister for Finance, I have to try to be hard-hearted and hard-faced when I think of what I may be up against when I come to the Dáil. If some of those men who criticise most volubly and most severely were in my place, we might have a very much bigger bill and Deputy Hickey would probably say: "And quite right too." But maybe Deputy Hickey, if he were in my place—I know he is not hard-hearted by nature——

Mr. Hickey

I might have a different view about money from the Minister.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

——would spend a great deal more, but he might not spend it to such good advantage as I am spending it. I have to prevent myself from getting soft-headed as well as soft-hearted. Some of my friends say I have not succeeded very well, but I do my best.

Mr. Hickey

The Minister's powers are too limited. That is what is wrong.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

They are limited and perhaps it is just as well. Deputy O'Sullivan spent a lot of time criticising the Department of Supplies. That is something we are pretty well used to now. I have already said what I think of our Minister for Supplies and the work that he has done. Agricultural credit was mentioned by a number of Deputies. We are examining that matter at present. Whether anything will come of the examination or not, I do not know, because it is a very difficult and ticklish subject.

Mr. Hickey

It is a very important one.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It is important, not alone from the present point of view, but from the future, and, as Deputy Cogan indicated, it is important from the point of view of planning after the war. In regard to arterial drainage, Deputy O'Sullivan suggested that we had done nothing. We did set up a commission years ago, and it will probably give Deputy O'Sullivan some little satisfaction to know that not only did the Government adopt in principle the recommendations of the Arterial Drainage Commission, but they had a Bill drafted some months ago. That Bill is going the rounds of the Departments for Departmental examination and criticism. There are snags in it, and it is very difficult to reconcile the views of the different interests.

Mr. Hickey

Of course, in the last analysis, the Minister for Finance stands in the way.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I take a long view of it, and I see at the end of it an expenditure of £7,000,000.

Mr. Hickey

I thought that.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I need not say any more. Deputy O'Sullivan says that it seems to be the view of the Government that there is no economic drainage scheme left in the country. Economic drainage schemes of a very small kind and land reclamation schemes have been carried out every week of the year in the last few years as a result of large sums of money being provided by this Government. They are provided in this Finance Bill as well as in others of recent years for farm improvements. We spent some hundreds of thousands of pounds —not a small sum of money—and it is improving the land, improving the position of the individual farmers who get the grants. The Department of Agriculture or the Department of Finance are not niggardly in sanctioning these grants. A great number of schemes has already been completed. Good work is being done. We are providing in this Finance Bill for more money for that purpose.

I do not think there is any more I need say. I know, as I have said, that taxation is heavy. I would like to repeat that I have nothing to hide in that direction and I do not want anybody to suggest that we are doing anything to cover up what we are spending. I do not agree with the suggestion by Deputy Cosgrave that we are proud of it. We are proud, certainly, and we have reason to be proud, of certain items in that expenditure for which we were responsible.

There is one other thing. Deputy Hughes mentioned the question of the fertility of the soil. He was very interested in that. So were other Deputies. He wanted to know what allowance was being made for the fact that the soil fertility was now being used up and how the farmers who pay income-tax were going to be recompensed for that. First of all, there are very few farmers who pay income-tax. I do not know what the percentage of farmers who pay income-tax is, but it is very small. However they manage to escape the net, they do escape.

Mr. Cogan

They have no income.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I know some who I think ought to be paying, who are not paying. I know some who, if they were shopkeepers in the town or manufacturers, would be paying. There are only two or three I have in mind. They are not paying, because they are farmers. We are making certain allowances in industries for machinery that is bought specially for emergency purposes for the manufacture of things that cannot be provided except by allowing special expenditure during the war. The income-tax people have authority to take that capital expenditure on machinery for special emergency purposes into account, and expenses incurred by the agricultural community to restore the fertility of their soil, when the date comes to expend money on fertilisers and so on, will come into the calculation, provided they pay income-tax.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 16th June.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.3 p.m. until 3 p.m. Wednesday, 3rd June.