Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 May 1943

Vol. 89 No. 19

Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 6—General (Resumed).

The Minister for Finance, I think, struck the right note in the first sentence of his Budget speech when he said that the task confronting him was not an enviable one. After listening to part of this debate I have a certain amount of sympathy with the Minister. A Budget of £40,000,000 is a terrible imposition on this country, especially when we see that our buying in the first three years of the war exceeded our selling, as far as visible transactions are concerned, by over £17,000,000. It has been stated here that the £170,000,000 or £200,000,000 that we have in foreign securities are far from being gilt-edged. Now, if they are not that, or if we lose a substantial portion of them, how are we going to meet the difference there is between our buying and selling in the last three years, a difference that is put down at £17,000,000, and if, on top of that, the Minister has to borrow more? I think he has been taken to task for not budgeting to borrow still more. In view of all that, one can endorse the words uttered by the Minister himself, that his task is not an enviable one. The position is that we require £40,000,000 to keep the machinery of State moving in a country where production is gradually dwindling.

Deputy McGovern and Deputy Hughes dealt with the Budget largely from the agricultural standpoint. I was speaking recently to a man in the faculty of agriculture who has a first-class theoretical knowledge of farming. In fact, his theoretical knowledge is so good that he can give one a practical demonstration of farming. He knows his job. We discussed the question from this angle. It is claimed that in 1942 we had 675,000 acres of land under wheat. The Minister for Supplies, when speaking here on his Vote on the 14th April last, in referring to wheat said: "I think the maximum quantity that we can now expect to receive from last year's harvest is 270,000 tons out of a crop of 675,000 acres." That, I should say, represents about the worst farming in Europe. It would not be a great crop to get 270,000 tons of wheat from half that area, or even to get 270,000 tons from 270,000 acres. The Minister's statement reveals a very serious situation. It reveals this that productivity is contracting.

I am not going to criticise or blame the Government for its policy last year or the year before now that it find itself confronted with a potato shortage. I am quite satisfied that the potato shortage is, in the main, due to local productivity which, in turn, due to a shortage of fertilisers. Neither am I going to harp very much on artificials, though I am a very strong believer in them. But let us face the facts. We had not artificials last year and we have not got them now. We really had not them during the first or second year of the war. It will be till enough later to blame whomsoever blameworthy. Let us face the fact that we have not got them. The only manure we have is farmyard manure. It does not take an expert on farming to realise that the numbers of live stock are contracting. The area under tillage has increased, but artificial manures have disappeared. Therefore, the limitations on our agricultural productivity are the limitations on our manure supply. What I most blame the Government for is for failing to pick out that important point and attend to it. I do not believe in control—I suppose I am about the hardest-controlled man in the House—if it can be avoided, but more attention should have been given to procuring all the manures possible, making all the manures possible and conserving any good substitute in order to cultivate the land.

I remember reading ten or 15 years ago an address by Signor Mussolini to Italian farmers. He said, in effect: "We want so much more wheat but the country cannot afford to put any more land under wheat. It is up to you to increase the yield. Any credit or manures you want, the State will provide. We want one more quintal per hectare this year." They met the following year and he congratulated the farmers on producing not one more quintal but two. I think the Government should aim at that. I am, I suppose, as practical a farmer as is knocking about. My whole problem is to get manures and that is the problem of every farmer. On that depends whether we can carry on or not. Attention should be given to the live-stock population and live stock should be housed in the winter so as to collect all the manure possible. I do not think that it is a great economy to divert straw from the manuring of land to industrial purposes. There, again, you will have to strike a balance and see which is more important. The man on the land and the man in the town must "work in." They are complementary to each other in the times through which we are passing.

It is a shocking revelation that out of 675,000 acres of wheat—if we had such an area under wheat; it would be casting a reflection on our statistics to doubt that we had—there should be available for bread only 270,000 tons, which represents only four barrels to the acre. No land will pay on that basis. The State would have to subsidise production of that kind. If the State did so, the citizens would have to pay the subsidy. If you feed a dog on his own tail, the tail will disappear quickly and the procedure to which I have referred would be equivalent to feeding a dog on his own tail. I hope to have an opportunity, before the dissolution, of having a discussion on agriculture with the Minister for Agriculture and to bring out that point. It is dangerously important. Let us take that as the key and discuss the position from that angle. What hope is there for this country, an agricultural country, getting out of debt if its fertility and productivity are reduced to that extent? What about the millions spent on our Agricultural Department for over 40 years? I do not want to go back on history, but I am afraid that we are now paying for our neglect of agriculture from the setting up of this State in 1922 to 1937. The fertility of the country had been raised by the increased use of artificials during the 30 years that preceded the Treaty. That use reached its peak just before the war 1914-18. Land was growing meadows that never was able to grow meadows before. Pastures were improved by top-dressing. I knew the banks of the Shannon well at that time and there was a constant stream of steamers on the Shannon bringing artificials from Dublin to the harbours along the river. The Great War made artificials scarce and, before things were righted, we had rumours of war and wars begat other little wars here. That stopped the use of the artificials. Then we had the depression in agriculture, due to the rush back to the gold standard in 1925. The farmers ran into debt and were not able to buy artificials. The depression continued until 1931 when Britain went off the gold standard. That was followed by the economic war, so that the land of this country has been starved.

Here we are with the fertility of our country very considerably reduced as compared with the time when we were boys. The Minister remembers the "cross of gold" referred to by Arthur Griffith about 30 years ago. Ireland, he held, stood crucified by Britain's over-taxation. If the over-taxation were arranged in sovereigns, these sovereigns would stretch from Dublin to Galway and from Antrim to Cork. On that cross of gold, Ireland stood crucified, as Arthur Griffith contended. I wonder what would Arthur say if he saw his old friend, the present Minister for Finance, introducing a Budget for £40,000,000 in a country which has since become poorer. That is a situation that does not call for election speeches but for serious thinking. It is a time for sitting down and grappling with the problem. I fail to see how there is any hope of our paying our way.

As to the shortage of potatoes, that is inevitable. This flippancy of blaming this Minister or that Minister, blaming shopkeepers, blaming farmers, blaming everybody will not produce potatoes. There is one thing which will produce them, there is one thing which will avert famine, there is one thing which will preserve our neutrality and only one thing, and that is manure to retain the fertility of the land so as to give us sufficient food. I hope the Minister for Agriculture will pluck up courage—I am afraid he will not—to come in on this Budget debate and enlighten us as to this mystery about the wheat. If I could not grow eight to ten barrels of wheat to the statute acre I would feel that I could not carry on. The average for the country is a little better than four barrels. If the individual cannot carry on, how can the country as a whole carry on? That is what we are up against.

We had an increase of tillage last year and it was natural to find more corn grown, more oats, wheat and barley, because once you roll your corn crop in the spring you can shut your gate until you take in the reaper or binder or whatever tackle you have to reap it. You may have to pull up an odd thistle here and there. You have not to put in manure. You expect the residue from the previous crop to give the corn crop. If you have to manure land which has been manured for a previous crop in order to give a wheat crop, the rotation and the general farming are not very sound. You cannot grow potatoes without manure, but you can make some attempt at a corn crop. That is the reason why you have a larger area under corn crops last year and less under potatoes. I have not got statistics to justify my saying this—I do not know that anybody has— but I am satisfied that the yield from potatoes last year, owing to the fact that there was not sufficient nourishment for the crop, was less than the year before, that the yield of the year before was less than the previous year, and that this year the yield will be less still—all for the want of manure.

Will the Deputy relate the question of potatoes to the Budget?

I do not think there is much difficulty in relating the "Murphys" or anything that means food or money or taxation in this country to the Budget. The "gentleman who pays the rent" is now disappearing from the country. All these are in very close relation with the family budget and the family budgets combine to make the national Budget. The want of feeding stuffs has diminished pig production. I heard Deputies saying here that potatoes were fed to pigs. I agree that they were. But it is not an economic proposition. I suppose if you let a pig get fat enough and feed him with potatoes and a dressing of turnips he will have to put on some meat some time, but it is not an economic proposition.

I said three years ago in this House, and I repeat it, that a wrong policy was adopted and a wrong path taken the day the Government abandoned the white loaf. We are eating the bran and pollard that should be turned into bacon, pork and milk, which in turn would keep up our live-stock population. The manure from that increased live-stock population would nourish and fertilise our land so as to keep up its productivity. That is going down and the Budget is going up. We want a Minister for Finance strong enough to say: "Thus far and no further". The country cannot bear any more taxation. The productivity of the country is going down and we must have less taxation if we are to carry on. The Minister in his Budget speech I think foreshadows that.

My purpose in dwelling on this is to emphasise the danger of an increasing debt and less income. The Minister must relate the taxation that he wants to collect to milk, bacon, poultry, eggs and meat. We are producing these in diminishing quantities. It is a popular thing to come here and tell us all that must be done. The nation collectively must observe the same principles that have to be observed in private business. A private business has to be worked, developed and cared for out of its own means. After all, the nation is only a multiplicity of private efforts. The collective effort of the whole must be on the same economic and business lines. I suggest that this country is not now on economic lines.

In striking the balance the Minister should have told us something about our foreign investments. The country must balance its trade budget. It must sell as much as it buys, just as an individual must pay his debts in order to be solvent. The nation that does not sell as much as it buys is not paying its debts. That visible adverse balance must have a set-off some other way in the invisible balance. Our invisible income was our foreign investments. Those foreign investments are not so secure now: I know quite a lot of people who had investments in Britain and they have not been getting the dividends. Those investments were not in any Government securities but in ordinary commercial shares in business undertakings in Britain. If those have gone down, I do not know where there is any way of recouping those people, who have lost their all.

We are in a very serious position with regard to transport. I do not know how far it would be relevant to criticise transport administration in a general discussion such as this. If there have been wastage and incompetence in any Department of State, it is in the Department of Supplies. I wish I could speak of a constituent's business as I can speak of my own. In a country where transport is the very life of the country and where we are curtailed in the energy to promote that transport, were I in charge of the Department, I would make it an offence for any mechanically-driven vehicle to travel empty if it could get a load of any kind. Instead of that, I have been fined £90 because my vehicles took a load on a journey where they had to go empty to bring back a load. I wish I could dissociate entirely the personal element from that and I would be very glad to be in a position to speak on a case of that kind where a constituent was concerned other than myself.

We are short of petrol and of kerosene. Lorries are going the road, but they cannot bring fuel on the journey: they must go empty to bring back an agricultural load from the other end. A man is prosecuted for taking a load of fuel, to wit, nine tons per day, into the City of Dublin. Why, Grangegorman would not suggest such a procedure. What is the sense of it? Tractors, using kerosene, are engaged on the land. There is a curtailment of kerosene for the national emergency, for tilling the land, yet because a man who was using kerosene for agricultural purposes could serve a fuel, purpose as well, he is prosecuted. Is there any wonder that there is a deficient Budget? Is there any wonder that the country is going down, when incompetency like that is allowed full run here?

There is a shortage in the revenue from kerosene and petrol, which shows that there is a very considerable shortage in the supply of these fuels. Yet, are we using them to the best advantage? I should think the Minister for Finance should have something to say on this matter. After all, he can get none of the bouquets: no Minister for Finance gets any of the bouquets going around for the Government; he will have to bear all the bricks, especially in times like these, He should see that the Departments controlling vital services—like the Department of Supplies—are, at least, competent.

I am nearly 30 years farming in the County Dublin. An old farmer told me, about the time I was starting, that no County Dublin farmer ever survived—and he said: "I have this from my father", so it goes back about 100 years—who did not have his carts going in and coming from Dublin loaded both ways. The Minister for Supplies is wiser even than that old man, or than 30 years' experience has taught me. Again, I am sorry for having to introduce the personal note. I do not want to criticise him severely, as he is not here; but I hope that, if there is a change, whoever succeeds him will be less spiteful than he was.

We have another funny Department called the Forestry Division. The extraordinary thing about it is that, if a man cuts a tree on his own land, he is liable to prosecution and to a maximum fine of £5, under the Forestry Act, for cutting that tree without a permit; but a thief can come into a man's land, cut the tree and steal the timber, and take it away, and the Forestry Division will not prosecute him. I do not think it is in the spirit of this debate to pursue that in any further detail.

We have another beauty of a Department—the Censorship. The Censor seems to arrogate to himself power to censor everything. When the censorship was set up, the understanding was that anything that might interfere with, compromise or offend international relations would be censored, so as not to involve this country in complications with any other country. Surely, however, the limit is reached when an advertisement is censored, when everything that goes to the papers has to be sent to the Censorship Office. I do not know how an election can be fought in those circumstances.

Those of us who are working the country find great difficulty in understanding Government policy in those Departments that we have to deal with. Again I come back to supplies. No petrol is being allowed out now.

Would the Deputy come back to finance?

I suggest, with all respect, that if the people of this country are asked to put up £45,000,000 to finance this year, they have a right to put their difficulties to the Government, and ask them to have some regard to the business of those people who have to put up that money. The Department of Supplies gets a big chunk of the money that is being asked for in the Budget. That Department of Supplies will have to defend itself. I think no other Department in the State will be called upon to put up as big a defence as that Department. Before the Budget is passed, and before the Department of Supplies gets its share of the money we, who represent the people, will have something to say as to what return that Department is giving for what is being asked for it. The Department of Supplies has petrol now but will not let it be distributed. Why? Because the Department wants to force people to fit gas producers. I have a gas producer fitted to a car that I wanted for business purposes, but I would not get a permit to use it. I am producing charcoal but I will not be allowed to use it. Other people are in the same position. The Minister for Supplies has suddenly taken it into his head to withhold petrol and to say that gas producers must be fitted. If the Minister were in the House now I would like to ask him how many gas producers are stored up ready for fitting.

I suggest that it is the problem of paying our way and preparing for the post-war conditions referred to by Deputy Byrne that should now be under consideration by the Minister for Finance. The Minister told us that he could not think of increasing income-tax because so much would be taken from a person's income that the incentive to private enterprise would be destroyed. Deputy Byrne also asked the Minister why he could not borrow millions of money. I would agree to borrow millions if there was a productive outlet for money at the present time. I do not see that outlet. As other countries are considering post-war planning it is time that we gave it some consideration. This is a good time to borrow from the point of view of getting cheap money. There is plenty of money in this country but nowhere to invest it. Materials are scarce. In fact, materials are now far more important than money. I do not see how money could be spent to advantage at present. If the war ended suddenly I wonder what provision is being made to deal with the promise about bringing back the exiles. Supposing the exiles returned and that the 100,000 people who went to Great Britain also returned, what provision is being made to find employment for them? It is time that some planning was done in that respect.

When the Minister is replying I should like him to deal with the transport problem. During the year the amount of money provided for in the Budget will have to be found. Is the position secure as regards fuel for harvesting? Have we sufficient petrol and sufficient kerosene to gather the harvest and to bring home the turf? Will there be more economy during the year than was the case last year, or is petrol that has meant so much to our national life during the emergency going to be wasted by drawing turf from the Atlantic seaboard and then allowing the lorries to return empty? Is it not possible to set up a business committee to form a clearing house so that goods could be taken back from the city to the country and delivered there? Alternatively, can these lorries not be used within economic distances to feed the railways and thus save petrol on long journeys? If petrol will not be available the country should know how it is proposed to provide fuel for Dublin during the coming winter. If fuel cannot be provided for Dublin, if business is curtailed, and if there is not sufficient electric power to run industries how will the £40 million odd that this Budget deals with be paid?

In my opinion this is the most serious Budget that came before the Dáil since this State was set up. I am afraid that a sufficiently serious view has not been taken generally of the present situation. A serious view will have to be taken if it is found that in and around Dublin, which contains a quarter of the population of Éire, there will not be sufficient transport to bring up fuel and food. The potato crop around Dublin would not feed the city beyond September 1st, after which long distance transport would have to be used. If that long distance transport is not available we will be up against a terribly serious situation in Dublin City and County.

As a representative of County Dublin who knows a good deal about the food problem and the fuel problem, as one who put 30,000 tons of fuel into Dublin last year but who was unable to put in any this year, I can say that it will be a terribly serious job to fuel Dublin if petrol and kerosene are short and coal is not plentiful. All the coal coming in will be required at the Pigeon House to produce electric light and energy. The Minister finds himself charged with the job of finding the money to finance the Estimates. They are not of his making; he is just charged with his bit of the work and I think he has done well in the straitjacket in which he finds himself. I think, however, it is due to the House and to the country that when he comes to reply to the criticisms of his Budget he will deal with the absence of facilities that are required to work the country—the shortage of materials and the shortage of equipment with which people find themselves confronted. Above all, if he is not able to reassure the country on the question of transport, he will want to go a little bit further than saying, in effect: "I want £40,000,000 from you and you must give it to me. I want to finance the services." If the people cannot carry on their business owing to lack of transport and various other things, the Minister knows that it will be necessary to explain to them what he will substitute for petrol, coal and electricity. There is every evidence from the speeches we have heard from Ministers, and particularly from the Minister for Supplies a fortnight or three weeks ago, that the supply position is becoming more acute. The potato crisis has arisen in Dublin since. Bearing in mind all these facts, the Minister will require to go a little bit further than merely demanding £40,000,000 and will want to tell the people how they are to get it, particularly if the services which they require to enable them to carry on their business are held up for want of supplies. Those supplies can only be procured by Government action.

Some Deputies have criticised the Minister and the Government and said that certain negotiations should have taken place, that the Government should have sent over some representative to treat with the British Government about certain matters. I might feel inclined to say that too, but I am not going to say it, because if I knew as much about these things as the Minister perhaps I would not say it. After all, the Government has certain secrets and more inner knowledge in matters of this kind than a Deputy or an ordinary citizen. I am satisfied that the Government on that score is perhaps doing its best, but I put it to the Minister, in conclusion, that its best in the light of the doleful picture painted here a fortnight ago by the Minister for Supplies is not good enough and that the Minister will require to say something more on this occasion than merely to come along and demand a further £40,000,000 in taxation.

There are just two or three points that I want to raise arising out of the Minister's speech. The first refers to that part of the Minister's statement in which he referred to the growth of the Civil Service. I think he will find very few people in the country to agree with his statement that this country is not a bureaucracy. Possibly it is because of the amount of interference which the Government has considered necessary to make in our day-to-day lives that that situation has arisen. He followed that statement up by saying that policies are determined by Ministers and carried out by civil servants, but even the super-men we have as Ministers in this State could not possibly deal with all the things that they now have under their control. These things must be left, to my mind, anyway, to civil servants and we have to all intents and purposes in many spheres a bureaucracy. The Minister then went on to suggest that this is a situation that is likely to continue after the war, that Government interference will not decrease with the end of hostilities and that we shall continue to be controlled and regimented as we are to-day. I think if that is a true picture of the future it is a very sorrowful one to look forward to. There is, I think, very little doubt that most things would be much better done by private enterprise than through Government interference. Those of us who have suffered from Government interference in recent times must have been particularly struck by the slow movement, on the whole, of Government machinery—the fact that it is so hard to get anybody to take the initiative or to make an independent decision, whereas in the ordinary commercial concern these things are dealt with naturally day by day, every hour of the day. Decisions are taken without safeguards which, doubtless, the system of the Civil Service requires. I think the picture certainly that the Minister has drawn of continued Government interference is one to which we cannot look forward with any equanimity, and one which we should do all that we can to prevent from developing. The figures show the terrific increase there has been in the personnel. Apparently a large part of that is purely temporary and presumably will go at the end of the war.

The second point in the Minister's speech to which I wish to refer is that where the Minister says that we have all a close interest in the post-war outlook of other nations with regard to the monetary and the financial situation, particularly certain schemes. Presumably he refers to the schemes which have lately been formulated independently by the British and the American Governments or, at least, by persons deputed by these Governments to deal with them. Those schemes were very similar and it may be that something on those lines will develop to deal with the situation which will arise in due course and to prevent the emergence of the appalling conditions which existed in 1929, 1930 and 1931 throughout the whole world. The Minister says that we are concerned with those schemes or with whatever development may come from those schemes, and yet when questions were put down here about three weeks ago in regard to the conferences which have been or are about to be held on those matters the reply was that we had not been invited to attend those meetings and that we were not taking any steps to be included in those discussions. Surely it is difficult to reconcile the two statements, that we are interested in the outcome of those negotiations, but that we are not bothering about trying to attend them.

On the question of excess profits tax and the hope for an eventual fall in the value of stocks, the Minister said he felt that when that position arose some provision would have to be made. There is, I think, another thing which the Minister should consider—it is of a somewhat similar nature—and that is that we are all, by force of circumstances at the moment, prevented from carrying out the normal repairs to our plant and machinery. Therefore we are debarred from making a claim for those repairs in the computation of income tax. The need for those repairs will naturally become greater as the years go by, and by the time the war is over the plant may be in such a condition that repair is out of the question, and that replacements will have to be effected. I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to envisage any means of dealing with cases such as that.

That is not being overlooked.

There is just one further item to which I want to draw attention, and, in a way, I think it is the most astounding one of all. The Minister said towards the end of his speech: "In the sphere of agricultural output it would seem that, notwithstanding compulsory tillage and high prices, the general volume of production has not altered much." That seems to me to be a matter which calls for a good deal more elaboration than was given by the Minister, because, as Deputy Hughes has already mentioned this evening, there has been a most remarkable increase in agricultural production across the water. I do not remember the exact figures, but I have seen them recently, and they are almost unbelievable. That particular country is suffering from the shortage of man power from which every country at war must suffer, and it does seem to me that, at the back of that terrific increase in production, there must be something which is being done by the Ministry of Agriculture, by the farmers themselves or by the county war agricultural committees. Surely they must be applying some knowledge which it would be worth our while to get hold of, and to apply, with any necessary modifications, to our particular circumstances, so that we too may greatly increase our agricultural production. On the part of those of us who live in towns and cities, I suppose there is no desire to see the prices of the primary products go any higher than they are at the moment. At the same time, I am sure all of us would like to see the primary producers, the farmer and the farm labourer, receiving a higher reward for their labours than they get at the present moment. But those two incompatibles can presumably only be made compatible by greatly increased production. By greatly increased production it should be possible, without any increase in price, to give a higher reward to the farmer and the farm labourer, which in its turn would obviously be of benefit to the whole country. I think this is a very serious matter, and, while it does not come directly within the province of the Minister for Finance, it may be that, in his reply, he will have some words to say as to whether it is possible that any progress on those lines can be made. Admittedly, we have certain difficulties which do not exist in Great Britain. For instance, in that country I suppose there is not the same shortage of artificial manures. At the same time, we have advantages which they do not possess, and it does seem to me that, when they have been able to effect such very great increases in production, it ought to be possible to learn something from them which would enable us to do the same.

The Minister is again this year in the happy position that it is not necessary to balance the Budget. How long that position will remain, how long the balancing of Budgets will remain universally unfashionable, it is difficult to know, but it is certainly a happy position for the Minister. He has no longer to try to cut the cloth according to the measure. He can simply permit expenditure and revenue to run on parallel lines, and if they do not coincide he can always fill the gap by borrowing. The most serious feature of this Budget is not so much the sum which is being demanded from the taxpayers of this country as the fact that there is no evidence, so far as the ordinary citizen can learn, of any real value being offered to the community for this expenditure of £46,000,000. It has been, I think, the custom of Ministers for Finance—I think the Minister referred to it also in his Budget speech—to compare national expenditure with national income. He stated that that was a good yard-stick with which to assess his efforts. It is not, however, an effective or efficient yard-stick. As we know, national income can be varied according to the manner in which national expenditure is employed. For example, if a substantial portion of the amount demanded from the taxpayers were utilised for the purpose of increasing production, the production of food or of any other essential, it would have the effect of increasing the national income. We are told that, as compared with this country, the national income of Great Britain has greatly increased. How has the national income of Great Britain been increased but by the expenditure of moneys by the State on production, whether it is the production of implements of war or the essentials of peace? Therefore, comparing national expenditure with national income is no guide to the Minister or to this House in regard to national finance. The only safe guide is the volume of production within the country and, as we all know, the position at the present time is that production has not reached the level which the nation is entitled to demand. When we see scores and even hundreds of respectable citizens of this city congregated around provision stores, endeavouring to secure potatoes for their family meals, it is surely a clear indication that the finances of the State are not being properly managed. In view of the fact that the Minister has left his seat and is not taking any notice, I will not continue to speak until he has resumed. I do not think I should be expected to speak while the Minister is not paying any attention whatever.

I am sure the Minister is listening to everything.

He came over here to hear you better.

In that case, I will continue. In his statement, the Minister said that, in the case of primary products, producers must turn from subsidies, guarantees, and other adventitious aids and concentrate on increasing production and efficiency. This raises one of the biggest issues that could be raised in this country. If the primary producer is to be denied any aid whatever in carrying on his production, the question naturally arises as to why should secondary producers be aided by the Government, by the taxpayers, in their production. Why should a distinction be made, as is here being made, between the primary producer and the secondary producer, between the farmer and the manufacturer?

If it is the settled policy of the Government here and now to leave the primary producer completely at the mercy of whatever change or changes may take place in the level of prices for agricultural and primary products generally, while protecting the manufacturer, sheltering and guarding him against all such disadvantages, surely there is nothing facing this country but a steady and continued decline in agriculture. The fact that we have not here to-day an adequate supply of bacon, butter or potatoes is a clear indication that the agricultural industry has been neglected and starved.

I am not blaming the present Government alone for this. I believe that the trying position in which the ordinary food consumers are placed by reason of the shortage of essential foodstuffs is due to the neglect of agriculture not only by the present Government but by their predecessors. Why was the primary producer left, in 1922 and 1923, to face and bear the full effects of the complete collapse in the world prices of agricultural products? Why was he left to produce, over the ten years during which the Cosgrave Government was in office, at prices which did not enable him to carry on production and make a profit? Why was it that when the country, tired and sick of the Cosgrave administration, determined to make a change and when the present Government came into power, they continued their policy of neglect of the primary producer?

Why was it that they not only allowed the farmer to bear the full effects of the still more depressed condition of world markets but imposed upon him the additional strain of carrying through an economic war with Great Britain, and why was it that, in addition to that, they compelled the farmer, while denying him the protection to which he was entitled, to bear the full cost of protecting the industrial producers? That is the real cause of the decline which has taken place in the economic condition of the country during the past 20 years. It is a matter which will not be allowed to rest upon the Minister's airy assertion that the primary producer will be left to fend for himself and to produce in competition with world market prices, while bearing the expense and cost of protecting our secondary industry and also of maintaining a very expensive administration.

The Minister may assert that various aids, small subsidies of various kinds, are being given to agriculture by the general taxpayer, but so long as the agricultural worker is unable to earn by his work, no matter how skilled he may be, an income which compares with the income of the industrial worker, there can be no hope whatever that any intelligent man will continue to work on the land. During the administration of the present Government, the number of men engaged in agriculture declined by 40,000. That decline is certain to continue. If we had the men with the knowledge of agriculture who have left this country, even since the beginning of the emergency, to work on the production of war material in Great Britain, we would not have a shortage of potatoes and other essential supplies at present.

Reference has been made to the huge expansion in agricultural production in Great Britain. That expansion has been brought about, I admit, by the employment of methods which are not entirely within our reach. For example, the British farmer has at his disposal almost unlimited quantities of artificial fertilisers and, in addition to that, almost unlimited quantities of tractor fuel and other equipment necessary for intensive production. We, in this country, however, had at least something which would enable us to expand production here, and that was a surplus of skilled agricultural workers who, by their labour, if employed on the land, could have substantially increased production to the extent of making this country self-sufficient, at least so far as the essential foodstuffs, such as bread, potatoes, butter and bacon were concerned. We know that the food situation for the coming year, which ought to be the first consideration of a Government which costs this country £46,000,000, is alarming.

At present we have a shortage of potatoes. That may be got over in the course of a few months, but it will cause a very considerable amount of suffering to the people, and particularly the people in the towns. Undoubtedly, it will cause great hardship to the poor people in the towns and cities. Now, that is a suffering that could have been avoided if there had been any kind of intelligent direction as to agricultural policy in this country.

Surely, in an emergency such as this, a Government should be strong enough and far-seeing enough to plan an entire scheme of production for the people, and to estimate accurately the number of acres of wheat, barley, oats, and so on, that would be necessary to feed our people, and to make the necessary provision to have that acreage grown. They have failed to do so.

The Minister for Agriculture stated to-day that the shortage of potatoes was due to a reduction in yield. Surely, a Government, with the responsibility of feeding our people, and realising that the yield of harvests cannot always be relied upon to be satisfactory, should have made provision to enable the necessary acreage to be made available in order to provide for human and animal needs, even allowing for a deficiency in the yield. They should have left a sufficient margin to deal with such a deficiency.

Contrast that attitude with the attitude of the British Government in regard to their farmers. Realising how important and essential it is to provide food for their people, the British Government have made available a subsidy of £10 per acre so as to ensure that the nation's food supply will be safe. Now, that would cost a considerable amount of money, and because it would cost a considerable amount of money, I have not condemned this Budget. I have not condemned the Budget on account of the amount of money demanded, but because of the failure of the Government to increase the production of essential foods and, thereby, to increase the national income and national wealth, which would ensure safety and security for our people. That is the strongest condemnation that could be brought against this Budget, in my opinion.

The Minister, of course, may say that it has never been the fashion or the custom to protect agriculture: that the agricultural producer has always been left to take his chance in a world market, and that the fact that we produce a surplus makes it difficult to protect agriculture as against the protection that is afforded to the ordinary industrial manufacturer. The industrial manufacturer is protected by means of tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions on imports. I quite agree that in the case of agriculture the case is not entirely the same, but why should a primary producer be victimised simply because he produces a surplus? Why should a man who produces a surplus of food, let us say, be forced to see his family go hungry simply because Providence has been kind and has provided a greater supply than the home market can consume? I think that that is a question to which the Minister should direct his attention. If it is necessary, in order to maintain the level of prices of primary products—and in this connection I am dealing, not with with the present emergency, but with the conditions that must prevail in the post-war period—if it is necessary, in order to maintain a decent level of prices that will provide a decent level of income for the producer, then I think it would be in the national interest to give such protection to the primary producer as would tend to increase the national income because, after all, the national income is the sum total of the value of the products of the country.

References have been made to inefficiency in agricultural production, to the fact that agricultural production has not increased in efficiency and that the output per man and per acre is not as high as the experts would like to see it. How could agricultural production be efficient—how could the maximum amount be obtained from the land—when the farmer, year after year, during the last 20 years, had to face the most disastrous reductions in the prices of the commodities which he produced? I have not been in the habit of referring to personal matters in this House, but personal matters have been referred to during the course of this debate. For instance, Deputies have referred to things which happened in connection with their own businesses.

Well, I have had the experience of helping to finance and establish a co-operative creamery. One would imagine that nothing could be more desirable in this country than the establishment of a co-operative creamery for the efficient production of dairy produce. That was in 1929, but during that and the following year butter prices collapsed, the creamery closed, and I found that I had lost completely all the capital that I had invested in that creamery and in the provision of cows to supply the creamery. That is typical of what has been happening to the farmers, year after year, over the last 20 years, but then we have Deputies like Deputy Dillon, who know nothing about agriculture, getting up here and talking about the low milk-yield of cows.

I do not think that Deputy Dillon intervened in this debate.

Perhaps not, Sir. I am only saying that Deputies in this debate have referred to the low production in agriculture and the low milk-yield of our cows, and I wish to say that I attribute that entirely to the instability and insecurity which prevailed in the agricultural industry over the last 20 years. Stability of price is the first essential by which to bring about efficiency. It is the first essential to bring about a reduction in profiteering prices. So long as the prices of agricultural products fluctuate, there will always be ample opportunities for the profiteer or the speculator to make excessive profits at the expense both of the producer and the consumer, but when the prices are stabilised, then the profiteer is, to a great extent, eliminated. The industrial manufacturer, so far as the home market is concerned, has been protected, and prices have been arranged so as to cover the cost of production, and where there is a surplus for export, prices are also regulated by subsidy. I say that agricultural producers must be protected to the same extent as the industrial producer is protected. When the Minister says he is not going to protect the primary producer, but is going to leave him to fend for himself, he is making a statement that will be challenged in this country and, when it is submitted to the people, that policy will be condemned in the very near future, because the fundamental object of the new Agricultural Party is to ensure that the prices for primary products shall be such as to enable the agricultural producer to pay his workers a decent wage, and to leave a reasonable margin of profit.

The Minister referred, very properly, to the growing extent to which the State is interfering in the life of the community. He suggested that that is a problem to which every Deputy should direct his attention. I quite agree. In a planned national economy it is essential that there should be central control of our entire economic system, control of imports, and control of exports. The amount of foodstuffs for live stock imported will depend, in the post-war period, upon the price at which we can export agricultural products. In the ordinary course of events there would be no case for importing raw materials for agriculture unless there was a reasonable prospect of re-exporting at a profit to the community. That is one of the matters over which central control must be exercised.

The question arises whether the essential control ought to be exercised by Government Departments or by producers co-operatively organised. I believe that the people who can best control the production and marketing of our primary products are the primary producers, co-operatively organised. I think events have proved that the practice of Departmental officials interfering and attempting to control the ordinary business affairs of the community has proved itself a complete failure. No civil servant, no matter how efficient he may be in his own particular profession, can be regarded as competent to direct the primary producer or the businessman engaged in distribution. He has not got the training or the mental outlook necessary for such direction. It should, therefore, be the function of whatever Government is in office to ensure that all sections—those engaged in agriculture, industry, distribution, importation and exportation—should be organised so that they can control their own particular branch of this nation's activities. That would eliminate to a great extent the unsatisfactory and inefficient control of those activities directly by the State. We should then have a form of decentralisation which would give the people who are primarily concerned the control in their own industry to which they are entitled. That is, in my opinion, the only way in which we can stem the expansion of State interference in the life of our people.

The Minister congratulated himself upon the buoyancy of the revenue and referred to the revenue obtained from what he described as "our little weaknesses". The Minister referred to the fact that the revenue from cigarettes has increased enormously, that the consumption has increased. He attributed that increase to increased smoking amongst the fair sex. The tendency at the present time is towards increased consumption of tobacco by women. There is also every indication of a similar trend in regard to the consumption of alcoholic liquor. It may be that, if the standard of consumption of alcoholic liquor by women reaches that of what used to be described as the stronger sex, the difficulties of the Minister for Finance in balancing the Budget will disappear completely and that the Budget will in fact be more than balanced. Sooner or later, Governments in this country and Ministers for Finance will have to face up to the question of whether or not the Minister for Finance should be put in the position of being a monster preying upon the weaknesses of our people, and gloating over their degradation and ruin. If the standard of consumption of alcoholic liquor amongst women should reach the present standard of consumption amongst men, we will have reached a stage of degradation in our national life and, apart from the economic considerations I have mentioned, the future of this country will be hopeless. Sooner or later, Ministers for Finance will have to regard questions of this kind not merely from the financial standpoint but from the moral standpoint and from the standpoint of the best interests of the race.

I appeal to the Minister to learn something from the mistakes that have made themselves apparent during this emergency. I ask him to realise that the fact that we have fallen down on our job of supporting our population, supplying them with essential food stuffs and, to a great extent, with essential supplies of clothing and fuel, is due largely to neglect of the land. The land can provide not only food, but to a great extent raw materials for clothing, and it can also provide an adequate supply of fuel. If the men who were driven out of this country by Government policy during the past 20 years, and particularly during the past three years, had been allowed to remain, were given financial assistance where necessary, and were encouraged to develop and expand primary production, our people would not be called upon to suffer the privations which they are now suffering.

Therefore, let the Minister take this as his yard-stick to guide him in the future in his financial policy—that is, to see how far we are increasing and expanding the production of essential materials. It does not matter so much how expenditure compares with national income; it does not matter so much whether the rate of expenditure is increasing or diminishing, if the standard of production goes on steadily increasing and if the standard of living is thereby steadily raised.

The Minister's statement, when he was introducing the Budget, revealed nothing and concealed nothing of which the House and the country were not already aware. His statement may truly be regarded as just another reminder of the ghastly failure of this Government's administration. Some of the views, even the less dismal ones, expressed by the Minister, are in striking contrast to the pre-election utterances of the Government Party on other occasions. If we compare some of the statements made by the Minister on this occasion with the catch-cries displayed on the green posters—intended, of course, for green people—with which the country was plastered in 1938, 1937, 1933 and 1932, we will get an indication of how hopelessly the Government have failed.

Without putting any great strain on our memories, we can remember when this Government promised work or maintenance for all; when they promised that they would create such a boom of prosperity here that not only would all our unemployed be absorbed into useful and productive employment, but that it would be necessary to search the towns and cities of America in order to bring back Irish emigrants to participate in the employment here, and to carry out the various schemes which the Government then had in mind. I am sure it is a matter of great disappointment that no indication was given as to the steps that are to be taken to solve the many and varied problems with which the country is now confronted. I do not see that it is worth anybody's while to take the Minister or the Government to task for any lack of plans for the post-war period.

Quite clearly the Government have shown that at no stage since they came into office, not alone during the war period, but in the piping days of peace, were they able to solve even the ordinary problems of the country. During the past 18 months we have had shortages of essential foodstuffs in Dublin and in other cities and towns throughout the country. If any person predicted such shortages of foodstuffs three or four years ago, I do not suppose anybody would have had any hesitation in recommending that person's committal to a mental hospital. Imagine having a shortage of milk, butter, bread, and, more recently, flake meal and potatoes! The potato shortage existed for at least a fornight before any effort was made on the part of the Government or Ministers to offer an opinion or an explanation as to the cause.

It is really an amazing situation that the Minister for Supplies, who apparently was responsible for the fixing of prices in so far as foodstuffs are concerned, seems not to have any responsibility in securing an equitable distribution of those foodstuffs in a city such as Dublin. It seems extraordinary that it is found necessary to fix the price of potatoes at a figure which is 8d. a stone in excess of what potatoes can be purchased for in England. It is unnecessary for me to dwell on the disastrous effects of these shortages on the health of the people generally, and of children in particular. I am quite certain that if a survey of malnutrition was made in this country it would reveal an alarming situation. If that survey were made, notwithstanding any opinion expressed by our financial experts as to the impossibility at this stage of introducing children's allowances, I am sure it would reveal a situation which would form an unanswerable argument in favour of the introduction of a scheme of allowances. The greatest asset this country has is its children, the jewels and pearls of the nation. If we fail to protect their health and to provide them with sufficient food, clothing and comforts to enable them to grow up into healthy citizens, we are guilty of a criminal act against the nation.

The time is long overdue for a reorganisation of the medical services. The Government appears to be the last body in the country that ever thinks a change is necessary. It cannot fail to be aware that in other countries, even in countries where the most conservative opinion exists in regard to reforms and changes in services such as the medical services, they are far ahead of us. I do not think there is any doubt that within the next few years you will see established in England a State medical service. There must be, and the sooner it comes the better, a drastic reorganisation of the medical services here. That reorganisation can be brought about in such a way as to preserve the integrity and self-determination of the medical profession, at the same time providing adequate services for the people under State control. I think it well that attention should be drawn to the very undesirable position that exists in Dublin in so far as hospital accommodation for sick people is concerned.

That is a matter that might be raised on the Estimate of the Department of Local Government.

I do not propose to go into it in detail but merely to refer to it in the most general way. I will not go into it in the thorough way that other speakers dealt with agriculture.

I have not heard any reference in this debate to the position of hospitals in Dublin.

I merely refer to the fact that the hospitals are overcrowded and that it is extremely difficult to find bed accommodation in them for patients. No real effort has been made in recent years by the Government and responsible authorities to provide the additional accommodation that is clearly necessary. The position is particularly bad in so far as the fever hospitals are concerned.

That is not our responsibility.

It does not seem to be the responsibility of the Government.

I cannot hear you.

The Deputy should understand that in this debate the matters for discussion are financial policy, taxation and expenditure. The provision of fever hospital accommodation in Dublin does not arise. Such details as the Deputy now refers to should be raised on the Estimate.

I understood that the debate gave scope for reference to activities in practically any sphere, provided that the matters referred to were not entered into in detail.

The Chair dislikes contrasts with other speeches. No other Deputy referred to fever or other hospitals in Dublin. Neither has there been any detailed discussion of Agriculture or other Departments.

I was merely referring to the situation which exists, a situation which has been accentuated by food supply shortages and other economic difficulties, and one that has caused gross overcrowding in our fever hospitals, particularly in Clonskeagh.

If the Deputy does not obey the Chair's ruling he will have to resume his seat. The Deputy may continue his speech, omitting all mention of Clonskeagh or any other Dublin hospital.

The epidemic that exists in the city is due to the failure to provide money to carry out an immunisation scheme on a sufficiently extended scale. The present epidemic has now been prevalent for some months and will continue for some further period, I understand. If the fullest use had been made of the materials that have been in the hands of the authorities here for over ten years, materials for the immunisation of the population against diphtheria, the present epidemic would not have occurred. In other countries, in a lesser period than ten years, where immunisation schemes have been carried out on a thorough basis, the disease has been completely eradicated. It is true that the non-carrying out of a scheme on an extended basis here is due to mere obstinacy on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister for Local Government and Public Health in refusing to pay the very modest fees requested by the dispensary medical officers. Clearly, this scheme can never be properly and thoroughly operated if the dispensary medical officers and the Dublin City services are not availed of, as up to the present they have not been availed of. That is one of the principal reasons why the present epidemic has been able to reach the dimensions which it has now assumed.

There are many other matters to which I might refer, such as the shortage of fuel, the dislocation of transport and others of that kind, for all of which the Government have been largely responsible. But as I feel, like most other members of the House, that this is the last occasion upon which the onerous responsibility of introducing a Budget will rest on the shoulders of the Minister for Finance, I think I may slow down my criticism of the Government. From my interpretation of the general tone of the speeches in this debate, I think that that idea has also influenced the different speakers who have participated in the debate. Deputy Norton said yesterday that the Government would get their walking papers very soon. I hope they will go out with grace.

I am glad that this Budget is being discussed calmly. It is a tame Budget, but it is the Budget we expected. Everybody knew that the gap between revenue and expenditure would be bridged by borrowing and that we would have no new taxation. We have now had 20 years of national Government—ten years by each of the principal Parties. Therefore, we have a basis for comparison. The national position and the economic position must be considered. The national position is sound. But what of the economic position? There is cause for anxiety about that.

There is something really wrong in that regard. It will be necessary for the best elements in the country to tackle that problem and tackled it must be if we are not to be economically strangled. The Minister and many others boast of the social services. Many of these social services are excellent—old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions, pensions for the blind and the proposal regarding allowances for children. But some of our social services are lop-sided and costly. Far too much is expended on the Civil Service for running them.

It is time we awoke to the realisation that the agricultural community are carrying too many idle persons on their shoulders. We are doing our best to harness our rivers so as to provide power for the country. It is time to harness our man-power so as to produce useful results for our people. Unfortunately, we have close on 100,000 persons idle, while between 70,000 and 80,000 have gone to work in England. Here we are floundering in a state bordering on bankruptcy when all these people should be working under State control and giving useful service to the people. It is time to harness our young man-power. No person, male or female, should be drawing State money without earning it. Of course, it will be said that the financial system will not permit of these things being done. If the financial system will not permit of our tackling these problems in the right way, I think that it should be changed or modified in some way to meet the needs of a nation which is economically dying. A warning should be sounded at present, because things are not looking well. An intensive tillage policy is being carried out and, at the same time, we are in economic danger. That tillage policy should give every idle man work, and plenty of it. Yet, we have not been able to provide work for our idle men. We cannot pay, we are told, the amount necessary to secure the production of our foodstuffs. There is something wrong in the financial system which permits of that state of affairs.

What this country needs is national unity—union of all men of good will to solve the problem, so as to provide work for our people in the land of their birth. We have been tinkering with the Party system for 20 years and we have failed. I do not blame either side. We all have failed and I think the day is coming when we must cease bickering over small things and tackle the big problem before us. The country is yearning for the old unity and the restoration of the Irish national spirit must come. I was at a reunion of the Old Republican Army in the Gresham Hotel recently. It was a happy reunion and it was pleasing to see those who had previously fought against one another meet at such a social function. We decided to do all we could for unity, with a view to putting things, economic and national, in proper order.

Will you get the bankers to join you?

When we have unity, we will deal with the bankers. There is no way of dealing with the bankers until we have national unity. The next election will bring a national Government, no matter what people say. I do not care whether it is Deputy de Valera or Deputy Cosgrave or Deputy Norton who will unite the forces, it will be for the good of the country. There is no use in having national freedom and economic strangulation. We can barely save the country by our united efforts. Why not do the thing in the right way? Going out of this Parliament after ten years of office by each Government, we have the national position sound and the economic position dangerous. Let us unite to solve the economic problem and make things secure for our generation.

I feel quite satisfied with the comments that have been made on the Budget statement which I had the honour to put before the House yesterday. Deputies who have been in the House will, I think, agree with me that there was really very little discussion of the Budget. Deputies who spoke here to-day, and at least one who spoke yesterday, found so little to criticise in the Budget that they decided it was safer to let the Budget alone. I think I am not misrepresenting the position when I say that they thought the Minister for Finance was in so strong a position and had put so convincing a case before the House that there was little to be said in the way of criticism of the Budget or the Budgetary statement. That is how I understand the absence of the usual type of critical comment that we have been used to here on Budgetary statements on the day of the Budget and the day or days following, when the discussion was carried on.

I said yesterday in my statement that one thing we can be satisfied about, and I maintain that we should be satisfied about, was that our financial position here was sound. Despite the fact that this year we will have to borrow and in some other recent years, especially since the emergency, we have had to borrow to balance our Budget, if we compare our position with any of the States in Europe, large or small, particularly with small States like this, or if we restrict it even further and say small neutral States, we find that the Budgetary situation here is as sound and solid as it is in any of these countries.

I certainly have to admit as Minister for Finance that the Budget, certainly in the pre-war financial sense, has not been balanced except by borrowing. But the ratio of the borrowing to the ratio of taxation for our annual expenditure is low, relatively speaking. I am not suggesting that I want to see the ratio increased. I should like to keep the ratio as low as possible. That would be the wise and prudent financial course for any Minister for Finance to follow. I do maintain, and I think there is general agreement on it— nobody has said a word against it, nobody has criticised it—that the ratio of borrowing here has not been more than this country should adopt. All Parties and Deputies are of opinion, and so far as I have been able to find out, judging by the Press and popular opinion, it is generally accepted, that it would not be wise or prudent in present circumstances to ask the taxpayers to pay the full 100 per cent. of the cost of the services we have had to adopt here—the additional and costly services—owing to the emergency which has come upon us.

I referred in my statement to the cost of the Army and the auxiliary defence forces. It is five times as heavy as it was in the last pre-war year. That is a very considerable addition to our financial burden. Besides that, there is about £3,000,000 of additional financial provision that we have had to make because of the emergency. There is, therefore, more than £11,000,000 additional provision required this year over the last financial year before the war period. Deputy Norton yesterday, and other Deputies to-day suggested that, even though we have provided millions of additional money for social services, we have not provided anything like sufficient. I think the most soft-hearted, charitably-minded Deputy—it may be Deputy Byrne who spoke to-day, or perhaps Deputy Hickey—must realise that there is a limit to what this nation can do, a limit to our resources.

Under the existing system.

Under the existing system or, you might say, under any system. Is there not a limit to what we can do in the way of social services? I maintain, and nobody disputed it to-day or yesterday, that our social services, bearing in mind that there must be some limitation to our resources, bear comparison with those of any country with anything comparable to our resources.

What about New Zealand?

I should like sometime to go into detail on the question of the social services even in New Zealand. I would be happy to go into a detailed discussion some time or other with Deputy Davin on that. I think we can show, with regard to social services, that we have in some respects done better than New Zealand. I had the pleasure and privilege of meeting the Prime Minister of New Zealand when he was on a hurried visit to this country. I met him at the aerodrome. I was anxious to talk with him on the affairs of his country and the affairs of my own. We had not very much time, but in the course of our trip from the aerodrome and back again to the aerodrome I showed him some of our housing schemes. He asked me for some particulars as to the number, the cost, and the type of houses which I was able to show him, and he said: "I wish we were able to do that in New Zealand."

Did he tell you what they were giving to old age pensioners there?

I am giving one example where the Prime Minister of New Zealand acknowledged, so far as housing was concerned, on the figures that I gave him, that he would be happy if they had done as much.

Did he tell you how much labourers were getting there?

That is one example. I think we can bear comparison in many ways—not perhaps in every way—with what they have done under similar circumstances even in a country like New Zealand.

Did you ask him anything about the cost of living in New Zealand as compared with here?

One matter that was stressed yesterday by Deputy Norton and to some extent by Deputy Cosgrave, and by other speakers here to-day, was the question of our failure to solve the unemployment problem.

Certainly, we have not solved that problem, but I would like to know from Deputy Norton or from Deputy Cosgrave or from any other Deputy who criticised us, what country has solved the unemployment problem. We have not, admittedly. We have tried and we have gone through our industrial development policy. We were going a good distance on the road to provide decent employment at good wages for additional thousands of people year by year. Deputy Cosgrave pointed out that, in comparison with certain years when his Government was in office, our Government had failed to do as well in the provision of employment for new persons by bringing new persons into industry.

One can take certain years and figures from certain types of statistics. Deputy Cosgrave took certain years and pointed out that, during those years, 11,400 persons per year were put into employment. If we take the whole period of office of Deputy Cosgrave's Government and a similar number of years under this Government, that would give us one set of returns and show that one side or the other had achieved certain results.

Deputy Cosgrave chose to select certain years that suited his argument and I am going to select certain years that suit my argument, and I think I am entitled to do so. I find that, at the 31st December, 1931, the number of persons insured under the National Health Insurance Act was 436,249. At the 31st December, 1939—just after the outbreak of war and before the economic situation here was very deeply affected—the number of insured had increased to 599,592. In the eight-year period from 1931 to 1939, there was an increase of 163,343 in the number of those placed in insurable employment.

No, not necessarily; surely it means a greater compliance also with the Act?

It does, to some extent.

I think the society will acknowledge that.

Every year there are a few people—not a great number —found out, who are not complying with the Act.

The Minister should ask the society.

I would like everyone who is not complying to be found out, but there is not such a great number found out annually. I doubt if it would add the last odd figures that are here—343.

You can never detect it in a way that involves a prosecution. People often go in of their own accord, but cover up their tracks sufficiently to avoid a prosecution.

That may be, but I do not think the number would be very big. I would like to get the figures. I had some knowledge of this matter when I was Minister for Local Government and Public Health and, despite the activities of the inspectors, the number was not very big. The figures I have given show that 20,000 persons per year were put into insurable employment, and that compares well with the figures that Deputy Cosgrave chose to give us for the years which he selected. On the question of finding a cure for unemployment, can Deputy Norton point to any country which has found a cure?

Yes, New Zealand again.

I know of no country, even including New Zealand. I wish the Deputy would make a visit to that country.

We get fairly good information from it.

The war has provided a good deal of employment in all countries.

I was about to point out that the only countries I know of which have absolutely solved the unemployment problem are those countries which have adopted totalitarian methods.

Does the Minister remember that the Taoiseach said that no unemployment should exist here?

In Germany, Italy and Russia, there is no unemployment. Britain to-day, despite her love of the democratic system, has been forced to adopt the methods of the totalitarian and communistic countries.

In putting men to works of destruction.

That is so, unfortunately, but she has cured unemployment.

It can be done in peace time as well.

The United States also has cured unemployment. One of the things that President Roosevelt thought he was going to do, when he came into office, was to end unemployment. You have an example there, where the President and his Government spent thousands of millions of dollars in trying to end the unemployment that occurred in the United States after the big financial collapse of 1929.

Does that mean it is not solved?

There was a period of years when the President of the United States and his Government were given every power that they asked for and unlimited money was placed at their disposal, yet what was the end of that experience? Up to the year before America entered the war, they were almost as badly off as regards employment as before they started.

Does that mean it cannot be solved in this country?

I would like the Labour Party to realise that, as far as I can see, there is nothing like 100 per cent. employment to be got for our people, unless we adopt the system that is adopted elsewhere, unless we take people by the back of the neck and put them wherever we like, to do what we like and make them do it.

Have they ever refused to go where they were asked to go to work?

There is no country I know of where the individual will stand for his rights and fight for his individual freedom more than in this country.

And a good job, too.

Where is the Lemass Plan now?

Where is the Labour Plan for ending unemployment?

You got your chance.

Every day and every week, we are being asked, as members of the Government, to take more and more control of the activities of this country, to centralise everything, and we are being asked to do these things by the Labour Party—all going in the direction of totalitarianism.

If those in control are not doing it, it is the duty of the State to do it.

The only places I see, from my experience as I look around, where there is a complete cessation of unemployment are the countries I referred to; and I do not think that Deputy Hickey, Deputy Norton or Deputy Davin want that system in operation here. You can have that system. There is unemployment in rural areas. You can end it—Deputy Norton can end it—by going down to Kildare and organising the farmers on the system adopted in Russia. I do not think he will do that, or that that is his intention; but I do not see any other way of achieving the 100 per cent. employment that the Labour Party is looking for in this country. There cannot be 100 per cent. abolition of unemployment, unless you adopt methods of that kind—coercive methods—that this country will not stand for from any Party—Labour Party, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or anyone else.

Is not that an admission of failure?

Are you satisfied that you have tried to solve it?

We have not solved it. I believe we would have done so if we had had reasonable peace in this country during our first few years, but we were up to our necks in a fight for economic existence. I am glad to say that we got the backing we did get from the Labour Party in that fight. They stood up well to it.

I hope your colleague the Minister for Local Government will remember that and will not be telling lies in Rathmines about it.

Every member of the Government knows it. I am not talking of the ports. I am talking of the economic war. In the economic war the Labour Party certainly did give us backing, but we did not get backing from them for other aspects of our policy. Perhaps it would be impossible to expect it. We got it in the economic war. As we were in the midst of that fight for a number of years it was made difficult for us—as we had powerful opposition from the Front Opposition Benches, with all their interests in the country, helping the enemy—to solve the big problem of unemployment. That fight was only over in 1938 when, after a few months, we were launched into the middle of this emergency, which has gradually but very effectively upset our economy and stopped the development of industry which was going on here successfully. It was gradually doing the job that we always intended it should do, in trying to bring about, on a good economic and financial basis, the development of industry.

Everybody here knows now that in present conditions it is not possible to develop our industries or to build houses. I should like to see additional houses being built for our people every year. I should like to see the schools to which Deputy Mulcahy refers on occasions, bad schools and crowded schools, abolished and new schools built. Many other things require to be done, such as drainage and work of that kind which would give useful employment. It is not money that is stopping us from doing them. Many things require to be done, but we have not the materials or the supplies at present.

What about the cost of money? That has something to do with it.

Indeed it has.

It has something to do with the rents of houses.

It has. I have not time to develop all the arguments that I should like to develop in reply to a number of speeches that were made to-day and yesterday, but as we will have the Finance Bill next week, please God, I may have an opportunity to do so. This Government has shown its anxiety to stimulate employment. It has tried to do that in a reasonable, but nevertheless progressive way. The Budget has shown the extent to which this Government is prepared to go financially in developing this country. Complaint has been made of how the cost of government has gone up. The cost of government has certainly gone up, generally speaking, since we came into office, but where additional taxation has been put on the people for a variety of better services, the country realises that it has got good value for the extra money. A number of suggestions were made, not to-day or yesterday, but on other occasions, concerning a variety of things that should have been done and on which a great deal more money should be spent. There was a motion on the Order Paper recently asking for the absorption into useful employment at adequate remuneration of all adult citizens capable and willing to follow useful occupations. I tried to get an estimate made of what that would cost.

It is what the Constitution states.

If we tried to do that now it would cost over £20,000,000.

Do not frighten us.

Who would get the £20,000,000?

When Deputy Dillon was vice-president of the Fine Gael Party, he advocated the provision of family allowances. He was not the first to advocate it in this House. I think the Deputy thinks he was. He did not set down any figures as to what the rate was to be or the cost until he left the Fine Gael Party, and then he proposed that there should be a family allowance of 5/- weekly and a national scale after that. I think the Deputy suggested 5/- and that would cost us £9,000,000.

That would smash us. It would break the banks!

It would break the people.

If Deputy Davin were Minister for Finance he would be the last man to make that proposal or to give even half of it.

I would get the money cheaper than you would if I wanted it.

I will only refer to one other item. Deputy Norton, Deputy Hickey, Deputy Keyes and Deputy Corish have a motion on the Order Paper proposing that old age pensions at the rate of 20/- per week should be granted to persons over 65 years of age, and providing further that in computing the means of applicants under the old age pensions code any net income not exceeding £2 per week shall not be taken into account. They might let us know how much it would cost. It would cost us £8,600,000 a year.

Is £1 a week too much to give?

Not one man in the Labour Party would propose that if the country had the misfortune to have that Party elected as a Government.

That will be good for the Irish Times to-morrow.

Question put and agreed to.
Financial Resolutions ordered to be reported.
Top
Share