Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Mar 1945

Vol. 96 No. 13

Committee on Finance. - Vote on Account, 1945-46 (Resumed).

Mr. Donnellan

We have listened for quite a while, in the course of the debate, to a number of items that were mentioned here in connection with our export trade, but, in my opinion, while that is important enough in its own way, there is one export that concerns this country much more, and that is the export of our people. One thing that the Government should realise is that something must be done to prevent that, and I think that the one Department of Government that has the chief responsibility in that connection, so far as we in the West of Ireland are concerned at any rate, is the Land Commission. It is that Department of Government, to a certain extent, that is responsible for the conditions in the West which have brought about the export of our people, because at the present time lands are being held in the West of Ireland and have been kept in the hands of the Land Commission over a long period of years. Those lands are not being divided and allotted out to our people as they should have been, with the result that many of our people have to leave the country. That is also the cause of production from the land not having reached the peak that it should have.

I have here a Report of an Inter-Department Committee on Seasonal Migration, 1937-38. On that committee was no less a person than the present Minister for Lands, and in page 30, paragraph 57 of that report, I find this:—

"At present the Land Commission has on hands to be dealt with in the congested districts counties some 18,800 holdings and parcels of land purchased for the most part over 25 years ago by the Congested Districts Board and upwards of 37,000 holdings acquired by the Land Commission since the abolition of the Congested Districts Board for the purpose of improvement, rearrangement and/or enlargement where necessary before resale. The preparation of these estates for resale will entail work...."

And then it goes on to explain that as a result there were at that time 55,800 holdings in the hands of the Land Commission. I think it is up to the Government to make at least some attempt towards handing over these lands. Several times here, during the past 12 months, other Deputies for my constituency as well as myself raised the matter of the division of lands held by the Land Commission, but we are always told that we must wait until the emergency is over. Surely, the emergency does not affect us so much as all that. Some of the chief inspectors of the Land Commission have been taken over and put into the compulsory tillage section. I think that that is a great mistake because you are hampering the chief department, which is the Land Commission, so far as production on the land is concerned and so far as keeping our people at home is concerned. I urge the Government to hasten the division of estates. I put down questions in this House and approached the Land Commission about estates so that certain people might be prevented from buying land that tenants expected would be divided amongst them. In a certain area in County Galway recently the Land Commission allowed people to come in and buy land which had been set in conacre for the past five or six years, with the result that the former holders have no conacre now. That is one reason why agricultural production in that county is not as good as it was. If land of that type was acquired there would be an improved output and a cessation of the export of our people. We heard a good deal about the importance of the home market. It is a very valuable market and the only hope of this country. Every effort should be made to make it a safe market. The only way to do that is to build up the population from the present miserable figuré of 2,500,000.

One way to do so would be to take steps to keep our people at home on some of the 55,800 holdings now in the hands of the Land Commission and to develop certain industries. If we could bring about that position it would be a happy one. Perhaps it could not be accomplished in our life time, but that was the aim of those who in the past sacrificed their lives for the independence of this country.

I notice that one item in the Vote on Account concerns Secret Service. In the year 1932-33 the expenditure on that head was attributed to the infirmities of Cumann na nGaedheal, and it was stated that no such service would be required in future. Since then the amount required for that service has increased to something like £20,000, or over 20 times what it was in 1932-33. I wish the Minister would let the Committee know who were getting that money, what class of people they were and what useful purpose they served in this State. I do not know if I am correct, but I understand that that Vote is not submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General for examination.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Of course the Deputy understands that there is a special Estimate for Secret Service, on which he can raise that matter.

Mr. Donnellan

I am just mentioning it now. I think I am entitled to raise it on this Vote on Account.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes, but the Deputy is going into details. There will be an Estimate later under that heading.

Mr. Donnellan

Then I will raise it in the proper time. I think it is a very serious thing to have money under a heading of that description spent without knowing who is getting it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will have his opportunity when that particular Estimate comes on.

Mr. Donnellan

Then I will refer to it later. Our people are worrying at present lest they may be driven back to the position they were in before the outbreak of this war. For instance, the labouring man does not want to find himself in a position where he will have to accept starvation wages, and producers of agricultural products do not want to find themselves compelled to sell beet at 30/- a ton or wheat at 27/6 a barrel. These are things that should be guarded against, more especially in view of the fact that thousands of people who are now absent from this country will be returning home. As Deputy Norton pointed out last night, our people in future will not be willing to line up at labour exchanges to seek work, but will expect some results from the plans made for them by the Government. Accordingly, it is up to the Government to have preparations in that respect made in the proper time. Anything I have said is not meant by way of criticism. I know that it is easy to criticise, but I ask the Government in their plans to consider the question of expediting the work of the Land Commission. People talk about the value of our exports, but what about exporting our young people to labour in foreign countries? I believe that 90 per cent. of our people will agree with what I say, that they are disappointed with what has been achieved by native Governments in the past 20 years. However, there is no use in going back on the past. We must look to the future, and for that reason I urge the Government to do something that will obviate the export of our young people by the provision of work on the land at home and by the establishment of industries. That is the way to build up the population and to put this country into such a position that it will not be dependent on foreigners to buy our produce. I admit that the Government will not have an easy task before it, but I am asking them to do the best they can, and that being so, I can assure them that they will get any assistance this Party can give them. What has been done by the Government to develop certain of our products is all to the good, and has been in the right direction, and if they face the position that now confronts us, I believe they will get the co-operation of all Parties in this House, especially in their efforts to keep our people on the land and to increase production.

Speaking for County Galway, I think that the lands at present held by the Land Commission should be immediately divided. This excuse of the emergency is very old and it counts no longer. One would think that we were a people in the heart of the war area. I could understand an excuse of that kind coming from a British Minister or from a Minister of a belligerent nation, but surely that excuse cannot hold here any longer. I would ask the Government, especially the Department of Lands, to make sure that that state of affairs will not be allowed to continue. Place our people on the land which the Land Commission has in their possession at the moment. I would also appeal to the Government to prevent people from outside districts coming in to purchase land on estates which are required for the tenants of the particular district. By doing that, the Government would take the first step towards increasing production and keeping our people at home. By doing that, it will establish the people on the land of their forefathers, the land to which they are entitled and in many cases the land from which their forefathers were driven. In this way, the Government will be doing something to achieve the programme which our people in the past visualised as one of the first objects of this Dáil. They looked forward to the day when a native Government would do something to keep our people at home. That was what they worked, fought and died for and that is what this Government, 20 years later, has not given them in the way it should.

Mr. Corish

One would have thought, now that the end of the war is in sight, that the Minister would have said something as to the position of this country after the war. One would have thought that the post-war plans of the Government would be indicated to the House by the Minister for Finance. We have been told that inquiries were made during recent months, that there is a special subcommittee of the Cabinet sitting and deliberating on this matter. I suggest that the time has now arrived when the Minister and the Government should take the Dáil into their confidence and give us some idea of what they have in mind, so far as planning for the future is concerned.

Within the past few weeks a report has been published in the newspapers on a post-war building programme and this morning we have received a White Paper indicating, not what the Government propose to do, but what demands have been made on the Government by various local authorities and other people concerned. I have carefully read that document and I could not find any paragraph or section of it which definitely stated that the Government propose to carry out any of this building programme.

As the Minister knows, housing of the people is a very important matter. I want to give credit to the Minister for Finance for the great work he did in that connection when he was Minister for Local Government. He did that, of course, because of the fact that he had been, for a number of years, a member of the Dublin Corporation and was very familiar with the housing situation. I think he was satisfied, as a result, that large-scale housing schemes were absolutely necessary for our people. In 1932 and 1933 we had two Housing Bills—the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bills—which are now Acts. Under these Acts certain financial provisions were made for housing. Certain grants were given and certain arrangements made in connection with the Local Loans Fund to advance money at a certain rate of interest. At that particular period the arrangements were suitable or almost suitable, at any rate, to enable local authorities to proceed with large housing programmes. From then on, up to the outbreak of war, materials had become very costly with the result that local authorities hesitated, even immediately pre-war, to proceed with housing schemes.

The Minister for Local Government was approached with a view to securing better terms for housing. The Minister will remember that the financial position was that a subsidy of two-thirds was paid to the local authority on houses costing up to £300. I am speaking now of provincial towns. After pressure had been brought to bear on the Minister by people interested in housing, it was agreed that the subsidy would be increased to two-thirds of £350. That was helpful but since the war began the amount of subsidy given by the Government is not at all sufficient to enable the authorities to proceed with housing schemes and to have houses let to people at rents which they would be able to pay. The house that cost £300 or £350 in the year 1938 would to-day cost £700 and that, in my opinion, would prevent local authorities from proceeding with housing schemes even if materials were available. There may be some reduction in building costs after the war but I do not think it will be very great.

The Minister knows that it will be very hard to get materials for a considerable time. There is some Irish material available but I am very much afraid that unless the rate of interest is lowered and unless two-thirds of a subsidy is given on the complete cost of the house, local authorities will be reluctant to proceed with the housing schemes which are now so badly needed.

I may tell the Minister that it was possible up to 1938 to build, in the town of Wexford at any rate, at a cost which enabled the corporation to let a four-roomed house at rents of from 4/9 to 5/2 per week. In 1939 that had increased to 6/6 per week but the same house now would cost about 15/- per week. I think the Minister will agree that to take a man from a slum area where he had been paying a rent of only 2/- or 3/- a week and ask him to pay a rent of 15/- a week is going to create a situation which will bring about absolute chaos in the finances of the local authorities. The Minister knows quite well from his practical experience in the service of the Dublin Corporation that it is very hard sometimes even to get people to come out of slums. He knows the position in that connection and I need not tell him that when you have to compel them to come out of a slum where they have been paying 2/6 a week and ask them to pay 14/- or 15/- a week for a new house the position becomes ridiculous. I have had experience of taking people out of slums and putting them into new houses. I know these people feel that they are unequal to paying the rent of the new houses. The result is that they get into arrears in the payment of the rent and they find their way back to the slums. The houses in which they lived have of course been demolished but they find their way back to houses in the same vicinity. They are taken in there as lodgers in one room and the position is no better, in fact in a great many cases it is infinitely worse, than at the time they were taken out of the original houses.

I know the Minister is anxious to help. I suggest to him that at this stage there should be some kind of commission or committee set up of members of this House to examine the housing situation. I feel certain that in anything the Minister does he is anxious to secure the co-operation of every Party and every individual in the House.

I believe he can get that if he sets up a commission or a committee of inquiry, composed of Deputies. There are many Deputies who are members of local authorities and I am sure they would be willing to pool their experiences, so to speak, and submit their conclusions to the Minister through the medium of a committee which he could set up.

This White Paper is all right so far as it goes, but it does not state definitely that it is proposed to proceed with certain work immediately the war is over. The Estimates this year show an increase and, so far as this Party is concerned, we have never been very much against increases so long as the money is spent in the interests of the people. It will be noted that the Estimate for agriculture is reduced this year. The Minister has, of course, given the reason for that. Almost every Deputy who has spoken has referred to agriculture and I think, no matter what interest a Deputy represents, and no matter what part of the country he comes from, he should be interested in agriculture. It is a hackneyed phrase that agriculture is the staple industry of the country, but that, nevertheless, is true.

I think the time has arrived when the end of the war appears to be in sight and when we should have a definite pronouncement from the Government as to what they consider the position of agriculture is likely to be in the post-war period. We have a Farmers' Party in this House. Within recent weeks they tabled, and the House discussed, a motion asking for certain guarantees to be given to agriculture in the post-war period. I suggest everybody in the House feels the same way so far as that matter is concerned. After the last war agricultural matters were in a state of chaos. The fact that agriculture suffered so badly had certain reactions in the urban areas.

Up to the time the war started the position of the agricultural labourer was an unenviable one. A great many people to-day are inclined to pay a good deal of lip service to agriculture and the agricultural labourers, but are we to use agriculture and the agricultural labourer only during a period of stress in this country, during a period of emergency? Surely we ought to recognise that these are the people who are keeping us alive, that these people are the foundations of industry, and that if agriculture is not kept on a proper plane there will be reactions in other parts of the country.

At the moment an agricultural labourer has £2 per week, which was given to him by the wages board. Certain adjustments have been made in the prices of agricultural products, and these are thought by the Minister to place agriculture in such a position that it will be able to pay that wage. I am not sufficiently informed in so far as the working of the agriculturists is concerned to know what their economic position is, but I do know that even now £2 per week is not sufficient to maintain an agricultural labourer and his family. I would like anybody here to contemplate what his position would be if he were asked to live on £2 per week. What I am afraid of is that, bad as the position is now for the agricultural labourer, if some kind of planning is not done to prepare for the post-war period the position will be infinitely worse.

Something ought to be done soon by the Government, some statement ought to be made, as to what they propose to do in the post-war period. Are we to go back after this war to the position in which the agriculturist will be entirely dependent upon a foreign market? I know it is necessary to export commodities from this country, but let us export only what is surplus. If this country were properly developed, properly organised, I believe the home market would be capable of taking considerably more from the farmer than it is taking. It is to be hoped that the Government will, in the very near future, indicate their proposals in connection with agriculture. The agricultural labourer will not go back to the position he occupied pre-war and neither will the farmer. I will give the farmer credit for this, that if his position is made sufficiently strong to enable him to pay a decent wage to his labourers, he will be only too happy to do so. I believe there is a good feeling between the agricultural labourer and the farmer. That is as it should be, because without the co-operation of those people this country would be in a very bad way indeed.

I noticed in examining the Estimates that there is a reduction in employment schemes for urban areas. There is a decrease of £20,000. I am wondering why that has come about because, even though 150,000 people have migrated from this country, we still have a registered number of unemployed to a total of 76,000. That is a very high figure, when we remember all the people who have gone out of the country. We know that there are still large numbers of unemployed in our urban areas. We know that there are many good schemes waiting to be carried out. I know that at the present time it is not easy to get certain materials for certain schemes, but there are schemes which would not require the materials which are at the moment in short supply, and they could be undertaken.

Last year I mentioned here that the Wexford Corporation had submitted proposals to the Minister for Local Government for the provision of a public park. The labour content on that particular job would be about 80 per cent. Up to now no sanction has been forthcoming. I believe schemes of that kind ought to be encouraged. An Act was passed here a few years ago which enables the acquisition of land to be short-circuited, but when we asked that that Act should be brought into operation, the Minister refused. We all know that when the Minister for Lands, Deputy Ruttledge, at that time was trying to get that Bill through the House, he laid great stress upon the fact that this would enable the local authorities to take over land more speedily than they had been able to do in the past. I notice that unemployment assistance has been reduced this year by £110,000, and I am anxious to know how that came about, because the number of unemployed was about the same as last year. Whilst there has been a decrease in the amount of money paid to the unemployed over a long period, I notice that there has been no decrease at all in the rate which the local authorities are called upon to pay to subsidise unemployment assistance. In 1933, or 1932—I forget the year the Act was passed—it was laid down in the Act that the Cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford, I think, were called upon to pay the sum of 1/6 in the £ in order to supplement the money the Government contributed to unemployment assistance. Towns like Wexford, Sligo, Dundalk, Drogheda, Clonmel and Kilkenny were called upon to pay the sum of 9d. in the £. That is a big impost on small towns.

I think that the time has arrived when there should be some reduction in the amount asked for from the local authorities since the Government itself has very considerably reduced the contribution which it pays to the Unemployment Assistance Fund. Surely a proportionate decrease should have been made in the case of the contributions made by the local authorities as was made in the case of the contribution of the Government. I would ask the Minister to look into that, because at the present time local taxation is increasing. Anybody who has read the newspapers in recent weeks will find that the rates of county councils and urban councils have increased. In most cases that is brought about by schemes initiated by the Government. The Government stipulates that certain things should be done, and gives a certain amount of money, I agree, but the local authorities are also asked to pay a certain amount of money which to my mind is out of proportion to the amount the National Exchequer pays.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is discussing a particular Estimate rather closely.

Mr. Corish

I am discussing taxation of local authorities, and I submit I have a perfect right to bring it in.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot deal with it in detail.

Mr. Corish

Well, I am going away from it now. I say that the Government gets the kudos but the local rates feel the brunt of these schemes.

Some Deputies have mentioned the control of prices. It has been the policy of this Government since the outbreak of the war to prevent trade unions from seeking wage increases for their members. Stipulations have been made in connection with wages in a town like Wexford where a workingman's wages cannot be increased over £2 10s. 0d. a week. That is a policy which we have denounced since its initiation by the Government. Bad as that is I suggest that the Government has made no serious effort to control the prices of foodstuffs and wearing material. I have only to refer to the fact so far as the drapery trade is concerned that the Minister for Supplies has given such a margin of profit that the drapers of this country are able to sell at considerably less than the prices agreed to by the Minister himself. If you go into any draper's shop in the country the draper is in a position to sell an article a good deal less than the price fixed by the Minister. I defy contradiction on that. Whilst the Government have made every effort to keep down wages they have made no serious effort to deal with the question of prices. I have no more to say on the matter except that I would ask the Minister when he is replying to this debate to give us some idea what it is proposed to do in order to save agriculture in the post-war period and also if he has any new financial proposals in connection with housing.

Housing, as the Minister knows, is a very, very important social function in this country. The local authorities are anxious to help but the local authorities hesitate to proceed with the building of houses for which they will have to charge a rent which the people are unable to pay.

Mr. Halliden

A considerable time ago a commission was appointed by the Government to report on post-war agricultural policy. That commission was composed of experts on various matters. Although it did not comprise any farmers, so impressed was it with the desirability of keeping the key industries in a proper position that immediately or at least as quickly as possible it issued an interim report on dairying and store-cattle industries.

An interim report was supplied to the Government in July or August of 1943. That is practically two years ago and it is incomprehensible why the Government have taken no practical steps to implement any of the findings of that report. The dairying industry is a key industry in agriculture. There were very practical and very essential recommendations in that report and the Government have taken no steps to implement the findings. It is rather unfortunate that an important report like that should be pigeon-holed by the Government at this time. We have brought the matter before the Dáil and before the Minister frequently and still nothing has been done. As Deputy Corish has said, every Deputy who spoke on the matter referred to the unstable position in which the key industry of the country is. The report was supplied to the Government practically two years ago and no steps have been taken to implement its findings. That is very unfortunate and it shows the attitude of the Government towards the agricultural industry. If this ineptitude continues I am afraid that the farmers of the country, their families and labourers will find themselves in the unfortunate position in which they were after the last war. In support of what I say I find that in the Estimates for the coming year there is a reduction of £282,000 for agriculture. I believe that if our Minister for Agriculture were on the alert he would not allow that colossal sum of money to be diverted from agriculture and put in the Treasury for some other purpose. I have asked him some time ago to give, or, at least, to try to secure an additional grant for farm improvements. The Minister told me that he had no intention whatever of making an additional grant for that purpose. When we asked for a five years' long-term policy, the excuse the Minister gave was that he was afraid the Minister for Finance would not foot the Bill. It has become fashionable for Ministers who are asked for essential moneys of this kind to put the blame on the Minister for Finance.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is always the case.

Mr. Halliden

The Minister for Finance does not seem to be physically or mentally anything the worse of turning these proposals down. He comes back smiling and as benevolent-looking as ever. That big sum of money, however, which could be used for many useful purposes is taken from agriculture. It could be usefully applied in increasing the price of beef, in subsidising, to an extent, the price of milk supplied to creameries, or in supplying seed wheat to those people who had tremendous failures last year, owing to the fact that proper seed wheat was not supplied to them. Many uses could be made of that money and yet it is lost to farming this year.

Side by side with that, we find increases in other Departments where curtailments were expected and demanded. I wish to refer in particular to the establishment of the President in respect of which there is an increase of £535 in the Estimates. There is also an increase in the amount for the Department of Lands of over £52,000, including £5,000 for travelling expenses. These increases are very galling to the taxpayers and particularly to the farmers who, more than anybody else, are bearing the burden. Fully 50 per cent. of the community are engaged directly on the land. Practically 25 per cent. are employed in distribution, the remaining 25 per cent. being made up of civil servants and others. In view of the fact that practically 75 per cent. of the people live, directly or indirectly, from the land, it is only reasonable to conclude that the bulk of the rates and taxes must fall on them, and in that connection I should like to say that we of this Party particularly feel that grave injustice is being done by the increases in these directions. At the same time, we find a decrease of £10,000 in the amount of old age pensions.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There is really no decrease there. It is more apparent than real. No decrease so far as old age pensions are concerned is intended.

Mr. Halliden

There is mention in the Estimates of a decrease of £10,000, and if the Minister has £10,000 left after paying the old age pensioners——

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There might be 53 payments to be made within a year. The next year there would be a reduction. There is really no reduction in the amount.

Mr. Corish

There might be 53 Fridays.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Yes, that might happen. We are not seeking to make any saving on old age pensions.

Mr. Halliden

That is satisfactory, because that sum of £10,000 required explanation. If we let the matter pass, we might be told down the country that the Estimate showed a decrease of £10,000 and asked why we did not say something about it in the Dáil. We have now got a satisfactory explanation. Another matter which is troubling us in our part of the country is the shortage of wheat offals. We are told that our dairy cattle are not producing sufficient milk because they are not properly fed. We find now that wheat offals, bran and pollard, have been completely withdrawn from the market and at present there is an emergency ration on the market. Shopkeepers have told us that that emergency ration is made up of bran, pollard, beet pulp and one or two other ingredients. It is sold at £19 per ton. The controlled price of bran is £10, of pollard £10 and of beet pulp £7, but when all are mixed together, the controlled price is £19, which must be paid by the farmers if they want to feed cattle, pigs or poultry. I hope the Minister will explain how by mixing a £10 ration with another £10 ration and a third ingredient at £7 or £8, it is possible to produce a mixture valued for £19.

So much has been said about agriculture and the dairying industry generally that I do not intend to delay the House by repeating what has already been well and wisely said, but I think the time has come when the Government should take action on the interim reports supplied by the Post-war Agricultural Commission. Some of these reports have been issued for almost two years. There is a report on poultry and another on cattle diseases, but we have not been told what is happening. That is very unfortunate. It is well known that there are colossal losses every year from diseases in dairy cattle and other cattle, but the Government are silent on the matter. I ask the Minister to give us an assurance that something will be done in the immediate future so as to inform farmers and those depending on them as to what is to happen in the post-war period and whether the same unfortunate position is to arise as arose after the last war. The farmers and those depending on them — shopkeepers and the urban population generally — want to know what is to happen in the post-war period and I hope the Minister will give us a satisfactory answer and will induce the Government to give us information in this respect.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I listened with attention and very considerable interest to the variety of speeches made on this Vote on Account, and I appreciate the efforts made by the numerous speakers to put fairly and reasonably their points of view before me as Minister for Finance and spokesman for the Government in this debate. Taking them generally, I do not think the criticisms offered—and there were plenty of them—were altogether unreasonable. I might say in this connection that though the war is not yet over, there has been a good deal of complaint that the Government has not announced its post-war plans.

I am no prophet. I do not know when the war in Europe is likely to end, though, for the sake of everybody, I hope it will end soon. Even when the end of the war in Europe does come and peace is formally declared, my belief is that the economic situation will not appreciably change for a considerable time—perhaps a year or two years. It will be only possible to put the plans which the Government have into operation slowly and, perhaps, with great difficulty. Some of the more important plans which the Government have prepared have already been announced. However, anxious the Government and the Dáil may be concerning the implementation of those plans, it will be a considerable time before they can be brought into full operation.

Deputy Mulcahy suggested the setting up of a body to watch the economic situation and advise the Government in regard to it. The best body to watch the economic situation is the body which the Dáil has appointed and upon which it has placed that responsibility—the Government. It is their responsibility to watch the economic situation. They should look for advice and assistance, I agree but I think they get that here in the Dáil. They get it from Deputy Mulcahy and his colleagues and from members of other Parties, including our own Party. They get advice from Deputies every day the House meets and they get it in the Press as well. They are, certainly, not without advice and assistance from members of the Dáil and the public, through the medium of the Press, and otherwise. Several Deputies have suggested that it would be wise for the Government to listen to advice tendered to them. I agree.

During the course of the debate, it struck me as strange that, so far, we had not got to the position here in which members of the House, irrespective of Party, interested in some economic, industrial, financial or other problem, would come together of their own free will to discuss the particular subject in which they had a special interest or of which they had special knowledge, thereafter putting their suggestions, through that voluntary body, before the Minister or the Government of the day. That would be something which members of the House might regard as useful procedure. Perhaps the history of political Parties here was such that co-operation of that kind would not have been easy in the past. But we are getting away from the early history of the formation of Parties and the bitterness associated with certain aspects of that activity and, perhaps, co-operation of the type common in other democratic institutions may be possible here at an early date. It would be for the good of the country, as a whole, if that type of discussion amongst members of the House were possible here. I noted one remark which Deputy Mulcahy made—"the more information we get from the Government, the more our hopes recede". If we are to accept the implication of that remark, then the less information we give the Deputy, the more hopeful for the country he will be. I wonder if that is the interpretation which the Deputy desires in respect of the remark he made.

General Mulcahy

We might not be as much disturbed in mind but the position of the country might be just as bad.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I should not like to see the Deputy without hope. I should not like to see him always in a depressed mood. Perhaps, we shall, therefore, furnish him with fewer reports. I agree with Deputy Mulcahy, Deputy Hughes, Deputy Cogan and other Deputies, who said that they would like full, free and frank discussion on this Vote. I am prepared to discuss any matter arising on the Vote—and a great many things arise on it. I am prepared to do that in the fullest and frankest manner. As Minister for Finance, I should like as many Deputies as possible to speak on the Vote and raise as many points as they wish. I get a sufficiency of information and have officials here to supply me with answers to the questions put and I am anxious to give all the information in my possession to Deputies with regard to the financial business of this House.

In opening his speech last evening, Deputy Hughes said that the figure, of which this Vote on Account is part, was a staggering one and unprecedented. He urged that it was a very severe burden. I agree with him and underline what he says. I should like the House and the country to realise the position. The figure is a record one and the State is asked to bear a very heavy burden, as Deputy Hughes properly said. Basing their statements on the Book of Estimates, the newspapers have pointed out that the Budget will be for a sum of well over £50,000,000. As Deputy Hughes said, that is a staggering figure for three-quarters of a country. It is a marvel where all the money comes from and how we are able to afford that sum. Again, I should like Deputies on all sides to realise the size of the bill and its staggering and unprecedented nature, to quote Deputy Hughes.

I would like every Deputy and every taxpayer in the country to realise that. Far from wishing to hide it, I wish the country to know it and to realise it, and that at the same time Deputies and the country should know what value they are getting for this money. I want all to realise that. Despite the size of this enormous bill—this very heavy burden, to quote again Deputy Hughes—there is not a day that the House meets that some Deputy, speaking for his Party, does not ask us to spend more and more. All Parties, with my own Party probably heading the list, want to have more money spent. Deputy Hughes wants more money spent in certain ways, and Deputy Mulcahy wants more money spent—for good and proper objects admittedly. Even yesterday there were demands for a big increase of expenditure, despite the unprecedented nature of the bill that I, as Minister for Finance, am asking the House to adopt. I am asking the House to provide the Government with the cash for that great expenditure. Despite, as I say, this enormous bill, there was hardly a Deputy who spoke yesterday that did not say that he wanted more money for this, that or the other good object. There was not one Deputy who suggested where I could save £100,000 or even £10,000. There was not one Deputy to point to a figure in the Book of Estimates and say that the amount there indicated was being uselessly spent. There was, perhaps, one suggestion made this morning by Deputy Donnellan about the Vote for Secret Service. He said that we were spending £20,000 a year on secret service. We have never spent £20,000 on it. We have the sum of £20,000 in the Book of Estimates, but a sum like that has never been spent on it. It is wise to have that provision there, and if Deputy Donnellan asks for details of how the money is spent he will not get them. As long as there is a Government here, whatever Government it is, it will need to have money of that kind at its disposal, and I am satisfied that whoever is Minister for Finance will see to it that none of it is wasted.

When savings are made the Minister is criticised. Deputy Cogan said yesterday that the only saving made was on agriculture. That statement was not true, and his colleagues, sitting beside him, had to correct him. As Minister for Finance, I am willing and anxious to save wherever I can. The Estimates from the various Departments are asked for about the month of October in each year. They begin to come in at the end of November and during December and January. As they come in it is hard work—I do not object to hard work—and serious work fighting with every Department trying to get savings made in the Estimates sent in. That is my job, because as Minister for Finance I have to try to cut down expenditure. I admit that I have not been very successful. Expenditure has gone up by leaps and bounds, even since I became Minister for Finance. I want, however, to assure the House that there is no item in the Estimate for each Department that is not carefully scrutinised, rigidly examined and fought over. That is the truth. But knowing what the House and the country demand, and knowing what is necessary for the welfare of the community as a whole, I, taking the broad view, do not adopt the penny wise and pound foolish policy. I cannot, as Minister for Finance, go around with an axe cutting anywhere and everywhere. But, as I have said, the cost of government has gone up by leaps and bounds, even during the years that I have been Minister for Finance, and even though I have tried to economise.

I do not know what is going to happen to our finances when the war does come to an end. We are at present living through a period when there is too much loose money in the country, when many people have more money in their pockets than they know how to spend in a useful way. That is the position at present, but it will not always be the position. The hard times will come some time after this war as they came after the last war. The people ought to remember that. We, too, must try to bear that in mind as the Dáil and the Government prepare for the future. I do not think there will be any radical economic change immediately the war ends. The Government will have time to put its arrangements as rapidly as possible— but nevertheless, I believe, slowly, too slowly perhaps—into operation. There will be changes in the economic and financial sphere and money will not be as plentiful as it is to-day. Taxation cannot go on at the high rate at which it is at present if we are to develop our country industrially, and, when I say industrially, I include our greatest industry, agriculture. We will have to develop both our arms, industrial and agricultural.

May I digress for a moment on that subject? When I speak of developing the industrial as well as the agricultural arm it reminds me of Arthur Griffith. He brought me up, politically. I want to say that the movement that brought this Government and this Dáil, into existence—was founded on Sinn Féin. It was founded on the gospel of Sinn Féin of self-reliance, as taught to us by Griffith. That was the foundation of our movement for winning independence for our country. Unfortunately, I noted very little of that philosophy in the speeches delivered here in the last two days. All the speeches were to this effect, that the Government must do this and must do that, and asking "why does not the Government initiate this or that," or put such a programme into operation. The advice that I give to everybody in the House, and to all Parties, is that we should think more of what we can do for ourselves, what we can do in our own sphere, in our own various social activities—economic and business activities—what we can initiate and put through by relying on ourselves and not be always putting our hand out to see what the Government will do for us. Sinn Féin, as I have said, was founded on self-reliance. It was that which brought us into existence politically. I say this, particularly to the Fine Gael Party: do not forget the philosophy of Arthur Griffith. I say to all Parties, to my own as well as the others, that philosophy should not be forgotten, politically, by those who claim Griffith as their patron.

General Mulcahy

Do not start us on that.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The House started it, and I am only underlining it. I did not start it. I want the House and the country to get back to Sinn Féin and self-reliance.

Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Hughes raised the question of our policy and what it is likely to be vis-a-vis Britain post-war. I hope our policy will be to develop trade relations on the most friendly nation basis, to develop our trade, our intercourse, our commerce, with our nearest neighbour so far as we can, to the good of both countries, to develop them to the fullest possible extent. That is, I think, the wisest policy for this country to adopt. Britain is our nearest neighbour. We have been in the past Britain's best customer. There were times in the past, over long periods, when no country bought more from Britain than we did. It suited us, even when this Parliament was established with a Government of its own, and we continued that policy. If it suits us commercially, economically and financially, I see no reason why it should not continue as long as we get value for our money. But I also say that that should be borne in mind by Britain as well as by us, that we are nearer to them than any other country, geographically speaking. As long as we have suitable goods to offer, at suitable prices, if we are prepared to buy from them the industrial goods that we need, I think they ought to be ready and willing to buy from us at suitable prices the goods we have to sell.

It is properly said here that we cannot live without exporting. That is true. We cannot live without importing and, in order to import necessary goods, we must export. A Deputy mentioned tea and petrol last night— two commodities that will be as necessary in our economy in the future as they have been in the past. We have to purchase these things from abroad. Some day, some way of producing petrol at home may be discovered. It has not been discovered yet, at any rate on an economic basis, and when that day comes maybe we will be able to produce our own petrol, but I cannot see any possibility of even Deputy Corry producing tea on his farm. I believe Deputy Corry is an excellent farmer and produces many good things, such as beet seeds and other things that were not previously grown in this country, but tea, I am afraid, will evade even the expert agricultural hand of Deputy Corry, and we will have to export in order to provide Deputy Corry with that tea. Whether he drinks tea or not, I do not know. Maybe he prefers beer or coffee. But, at any rate, I think even Deputy Corry must agree that to provide certain goods, that we cannot produce or procure otherwise than from outside sources, we must export in order to pay for them.

Up to the present our exports have been mainly agricultural. We do hope to develop the industrial arm and to export industrial goods in future. We do export industrial goods at present. From this city alone one very old established firm in Dublin—Jacobs—exported biscuits almost to every corner of the earth. Jacob's biscuit tins were to be seen in China, Japan, India, Australia, Canada, and all over the world. I hope developments of that kind will continue after the war and that they will grow and prosper. It will be necessary to have proper understanding with our nearest neighbour, to begin with, so that our trade with that country may grow and prosper to our mutual advantage.

Deputy Mulcahy asked, in reference to the export of men and money, why we should not use our own money to set our own people to work. I think it was hardly necessary for him or any other Deputy to ask that question. We have practised that policy since we became a Government. We have practised it against the bitter criticism of Deputy Mulcahy and his Party during the last 12 years. There has not been an effort —we made many, and we made many successfully—there has not been one occasion when we did use the money of this country to develop industries here that we have not been fought and criticised every inch of the road in developing that policy. We intend to continue that policy, to develop it, and to use all the financial and other resources of this country to set our people to work, to provide employment for them, to do everything we can to prevent the necessity for emigration. That is our declared policy and the policy practised and pursued at all seasons, every day, since this Government was formed and founded and got authority here. There is no intention of changing that policy as long as we remain the Government.

Perhaps it would be as well at this moment to answer the many queries that were raised about post-war plans for employment. Deputies said that they have no idea as to what the Government's plans for the future are— that the Government ought to announce plans for post-war employment. I think it is true that the Government have not alone announced several important plans, schemes of work for the future, but have published them broadcast, and have not alone done that but have asked the House to pass legislation to implement certain aspects of them. The House has passed that legislation.

The first big scheme was the arterial drainage scheme. It took a long time to develop. First of all, we had to set up a commission. A very representative commission was set up, and it took some years to consider its report. The report was presented to the Government, and was very closely examined by the Government. Then the Government announced to the House here that, with certain slight reservations, the recommendations of the commission were adopted. It then took a couple of years to get the very intricate piece of legislation drafted and put through the House. It was put through the House very effectively by my Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Paddy Smith, who did a great job. One of the best pieces of parliamentary work that was ever done in this House was done by Deputy Paddy Smith in conducting that Bill through the House. The House will agree that he did his job very well. I think Deputy Hughes was one of those who complimented him on that piece of work. That is a post-war plan, which it was estimated in the report would cost the country £7,000,000. I do not want to adopt the mantle of prophet; I hope my dismal prophecy will not be borne out, but I am afraid it will be double that—that by the time the work is completed it will have cost £14,000,000 rather than £7,000,000. That is my anticipation.

The next big plan was for rural electrification. Why would not Deputy Cogan, or his colleague, Deputy Halliden, remember those two plans that were brought up in the interests of agriculture primarily, and in the interests of the country as a whole? There are two big plans. The cost of rural electrification was estimated roughly at £20,000,000; it will probably cost nearer £40,000,000. Those are huge figures. The farmer will not be asked to bear all the cost of providing himself with electricity for light and power.

The Dáil will be asked for a very considerable sum to help the farmer to instal electric light and power, and to pay what, generally speaking, he would not be able to pay—the small farmer, at any rate—out of his own pocket. We will have to ask the Dáil to provide a considerable amount of the capital charge. We have asked the Dáil, and the Dáil has agreed, to provide, as a beginning, £5,000,000. As time goes on, the Dáil will be asked for the balance of the money necessary to cover a considerable part of the cost of providing the farmer with light and power. I hope in days to come that, in the same way, water will be brought into the farmers houses and yards. I hope to see the Minister for Local Government or some other Minister asking the Dáil to provide money to do that. I should be very glad if the responsibility fell on me. I should like to be able to come into this House to introduce a Bill asking the Dáil to provide money to bring water into the farmers' yards and maybe into every room in their houses. Perhaps some day it will be possible to provide hot and cold water. That would be my ambition.

I was shocked when I read some words by Deputy Cogan in the debate on agriculture here the other day, when he said that this Government and the Minister for Finance have no interest in agriculture. What right has he to say that? What right has anybody in this House to say that the Government is not interested in agriculture, least of all Deputy Cogan? The Government would not be fit to be here if it were not interested in agriculture. It would not be fit to hold its job for 24 hours if it did not have agriculture always in mind as the primary industry, on which our whole economy is built. That was a foolish and ridiculous statement for Deputy Cogan to make. He knows it is not true. Although I was brought up in the City of Dublin, in the slums of Dublin, I am not such a fool as not to realise that our foundation is agriculture, and that we must have regard to that industry at all times, while not forgetting other industries—the industrial arm generally. The fact that we have looked after agriculture well during our 13 years of office has kept us here, and has kept the farmers behind us. Where can you find a better Farmers' Party than our own Party, composed mainly of people interested in agriculture, who know the needs of this country and its people? The fact that we are here is sufficient indication of what the agricultural community thinks of us and of our administration over 13 years.

General Mulcahy

And the fact remains that, between 1934 and 1939, 48,000 men disappeared off the land— farmers and workers.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Deputy Mulcahy, during the last 13 years, has rattled all over the country the bones of those men who have gone. Every one of his colleagues has done the same. They have told the farmers how we were letting them down; how we were ignoring agriculture.

Mr. Keating

On a point of order——

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The farmers as well as others in the country have availed of the opportunity of telling Deputy Mulcahy and his Party what they thought of them, and what they thought of their criticism of our Government.

Mr. Keating

On a point of order, does the Minister think that the farmers, in the economic war——

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Keating

Does the Minister think that the farmers——

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Keating

What is it?

An Ceann Comhairle

It is a debating point. It is not a point of order.

Mr. Keating

After he and John Bull murdered the farmer——

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Everybody knows that what I say is true.

Mr. Keating

Everybody knows that the economic war murdered the farmer.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

If we had not done our duty by agriculture, we would not have lasted as a Government.

Mr. Keating

If that is your duty, God help the poor farmers.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The farmers were never better off in their history than they are to-day. Even moderately prosperous as they are now, they are better off than ever before—not necessarily due to this Government, but due to the conditions of the times, largely, and due to some small extent, at any rate, to the foresight of this Government, and to the care we have taken of agriculturists.

Deputy Mulcahy referred to Australia, and to certain revolutionary changes in banking laws that have been initiated in the Parliament of Australia in the last few weeks. I would suggest to Deputy Mulcahy that the economic, financial, and other conditions in Australia are very different from conditions here. Australia is in the war, has had to provide a large army and navy, has had to go up to the neck in debt, and therefore has had to take what the Government there believe to be a very stringent, not to use any stronger word, control of finance. They have gone so far there that they are taking complete control by law of the Central Bank and, through the Central Bank, control of all banking operations. I think I am not wrong in saying that the governing body of the Central Bank is to be abolished and that one governor in future is to rule the bank. He will have an advisory board mostly nominated by the Government and, in all matters, the governor of the Central Bank will be subject to the Minister for Finance, who is there called the Treasurer. Does Deputy Mulcahy say that we should adopt that system here?

General Mulcahy

Does the Minister say that I suggested it?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I do.

General Mulcahy

Then the Minister should have listened to me. He had better read what I said.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I listened very carefully.

General Mulcahy

I will make a milder suggestion later on during the day.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I suggest that he quoted that——

General Mulcahy

The Minister should have listened to me.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I do not want to misinterpret the Deputy, if he states he did not suggest that. I took it that that was the inference the Deputy wished to be drawn.

General Mulcahy

The Minister should listen more carefully.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I listened carefully, but I do not want to misinterpret the Deputy. I want to underline what Australia has done. If a question is raised here as to what Australia has done, we want to know whether people desire us to take similar steps here or whether it would be wise for us to follow the Australian example. Deputy Mulcahy also raised the question of interest rates. We shall have a talk on that later on, perhaps.

One other matter referred to by Deputy Mulcahy in conclusion was the hopes that were raised in the people's minds when the first Dáil was established in 1919 with regard to economic and social betterment. I am glad Deputy Mulcahy keeps that in mind. I hope I always keep in mind, too, the democratic programme adopted by the first Dáil on January 21st, 1919. I am very pleased to here anybody refer to that. Many members of this House have read it and know of it, but it would be an advantage if every Deputy studied that document and from time to time questioned the Government of the day as to how far the promises held out in that document have been implemented or tried to be implemented by succeeding Governments here. As one who had a special interest in that document, I have borne its contents in mind and have tried since I got a measure of power here to implement, so far as circumstances would allow, the social and economic programme contained in that document for the welfare and betterment of our people.

To return to agriculture. A couple of years ago I made out a list of the sums of money spent by the Dáil in a variety of ways for the betterment of agriculture. I have revised that list and I think it would be no harm for the agricultural community and those interested in agriculture in the Dáil and outside to realise the extent of the financial provisions made in a variety of ways by the Dáil out of its resources to help the agricultural community. In giving these figures, which amount to nearly £9,250,000, I wish to repeat what I said before, that I do not think it is too much to spend on agriculture. I think Deputies will bear that in mind. I think they will realise my interest in agriculture as Minister for Finance in what I have already said to-day, speaking on behalf of the Government. I do say that, whatever we spend on agriculture, we ought to spend as much as we can in order to make agriculture prosperous. That is what we would like to do. What we are asking the Dáil to spend in the Book of Estimates now being discussed is not too much. If we could afford more, I would like to see more spent on agriculture in some directions.

Before I read out this list I should like to refer to the apparent reduction in the Vote for Agriculture. This reduction is more apparent than real. We provided a certain sum last year as a subsidy for fertilisers. It was not all spent as we could not get the fertilisers. We are not providing the same amount of money this year. But I will say this much, that if the fertilisers come in and we can supply to the farmers the fertilisers that we would like to supply to them, I would not hesitate to ask the Dáil for the extra money to provide the additional fertilisers. There is no real diminution in the Vote for Agriculture.

This list is similar to one which I quoted two or three years ago in a debate on a similar subject. The ordinary Estimate for the running of the Department of Agriculture amounts to £984,635. Deputies may criticise the Department of Agriculture and the Minister for Agriculture as much as they please, but I do not think anyone will seriously deny that the Department of Agriculture was set up to assist agriculture and does its best to do that. Other items are:—Estimate for agricultural produce subsidies and payments proposed from the Price Stabilisation Fund, £1,065,000; grants for relief of rates on agricultural land, £1,870,000; estimate of amount required to meet deficiences on Land Bond Fund arising from the reduction in land annuities in 1933, £637,000; the approximate amount which farmers will receive from flour and bread subsidy, £2,024,000; farm improvement scheme, £350,000 — Deputy Halliden thinks that that is not enough, but it is a very considerable sum—seed and lime distribution schemes, £85,000; rural improvement schemes, £90,000; improvement of estates, £171,000. The total of these comes to £7,276,635. In addition to that, £637,000 provided directly by the State, the farming community not now having to pay £1,565,000 land annuities, which were paid under the Land Purchase Acts passed prior to 1923. That sum was wiped out after the economic war and the agricultural community have not to pay it. It is more than £1,500,000, and it can be regarded as a direct subsidy to agriculture. In addition, a fertiliser subsidy of 2/6 a barrel is payable after the war to every farmer growing wheat. This subsidy is valued at £380,000 for the coming season. The total of these figures for the assistance of farming, amounting to £9,221,635, is not inconsiderable, even out of a Budget of £50,000,000 or £52,000,000.

Mr. Cogan

Could the Minister give figures showing what the contributions of farmers were towards that sum?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I could not. I ask the Deputy to give them if he wishes to have a shot at doing so.

Mr. Cogan

Farmers are more than half of the total population, and it may be assumed that they would provide more than half of the amount.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

They do not contribute anything like half that amount, directly or indirectly. This much is true, that the farming community do not pay in direct taxation anything like the same proportion as other sections of the community, for instance, the industrial community. Many farmers, if they pay any income tax at all, should be paying more than they are paying.

Mr. Cogan

They have to have the incomes before doing so.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I know that they have them. I know friends of my own, big farmers, who do not pay one shilling in income-tax and who should be paying. They escape on account of the poor law valuation of their land. Some of them pay whatever they have to pay, but if they paid here as they pay in England, there would be an examination of their accounts and their profits, I know that it would be very difficult to have that done. I would not like to have to tackle it. If proper arrangements were made for the examination of the accounts of many farmers who are not now paying the income-tax they should be paying, I should not like the job of starting out after them. It would be pretty difficult work and I might not be much the richer in the end, having regard to the cost. If we are to be honest and truthful, I think Deputies on all sides will admit that they know farmers, prosperous men, some of them in a large way and some of them in a small way, who should be paying tax on their revenues, who are not doing so.

In his speech Deputy Cogan referred to the huge increase in the cost of administration compared with 1930. I do not know why the Deputy selected 1930 particularly. He might have taken 1922 or 1923. One year would be just as effective as the other. The Deputy might have started with 1932 and compared this Government's record then with the last year of office of the previous Government. The Deputy's point was that the cost of administration had increased enormously compared with 1930, and that no part of the increase was used to increase production. There was never a more unfounded statement made in this House. Deputy Cogan is famous for making foolish statements, and that is saying a good deal. Why his Party put him up as their principal spokesman I do not know. With all respect I think Deputy Halliden would have been much more careful and more effective. An exaggerated statement carries no weight. Bearing that in mind, the Deputy would be well advised in future to be guided by someone with more experience of public life than he, before making such foolish statements.

I have gone to the trouble of making out a list of the principal increases in expenditure since 1930, comparing the figures in the Book of Estimates with those for the 1930-31 period. To use the Deputy's words there have been considerable increases. I shall read out the increases over the 1930-31 period:— Office of Revenue Commissioners, £430,000; Old Age Pensions, £1,038,000; Supplementary Agricultural Grants, £672,000. Does that money not go into production? The Deputy said that no part of the big increases had helped production. Is not that £672,000 for grants to agriculture? What are agriculture doing with it? For Widows' and Orphans' Pensions there was an increase of £250,000. I questioned that figure. There were no widows' and orphans' pensions in 1930. I think the subsidy last year for Widows' and Orphans' Pensions from the Exchequer amounted to £450,000. The amount this year is £250,000. Last year the amount was £450,000. The increase under the heading of Agriculture amounts to £509,000; Gárda Síochána, £812,000; Local Government and Public Health, £1,416,000; National Health Insurance, £177,000; Primary Education, £539,000; Secondary Education, £285,000; Technical Education, £247,000; Department of Lands, £679,000. Most of that increase went into the division of land and the improvement of estates. The Deputy will probably say that the money does not go into the development or to the improvement of agriculture. The increase in the provision for Forestry amount to £196,000; Industry and Commerce, £221,000; Transport and Meteorological Services, £718,000. These services did not exist in 1930. In Unemployment Insurance and Unemployment Assistance the increase amounted to £705,000; Posts and Telegraphs, £979,000; the Army, £6,755,000. That is a huge amount. I hope it will not continue. Army Pensions increased by £424,000; Employment and Emergency Schemes by £1,250,000; Agricultural Produce Subsidies by £825,000. Does the Deputy suppose that that expenditure does not go into production? For the Department of Supplies expenditure increased by £5,350,000; Food Allowances by £582,000; Children's Allowances by £2,230,000. The total of these increases amounts to £27,289,000.

That is an enormous figure—as big as the Budget was in 1930. Some other Estimates have decreased, the total of the decreases amounting to £1,905,000. That makes a net increase, if we take off the decreases in certain Estimates, of £25,384,000. That, undoubtedly, is a huge figure. Deputy Cogan can read that list at his leisure again when it is published in the Dáil Debates, and, some time or another, in a discussion here on agriculture or on any matter upon which he might wish to have a discussion, I would like him or one of his colleagues to say what item in that list could be eliminated without the State and the community suffering some disadvantage from its elimination. I do not know, except in the case of the Army Vote, what prospect there is of seeing any large item in that long and costly list being eliminated without disadvantage to the State and the community. I do not say that even the increase of £6,755,000 in the Army Vote is going to be eliminated. It is not, and it would not be safe for the State that it should be eliminated. I should like Deputies—and I appeal principally to Opposition Deputies—to take that list and see what they would eliminate, and what part of the huge increase in cost, to which Deputy Cogan referred, could be cut down. Everybody wants the old age pensioners maximum of 10/- a week increased, but the cost of old age pensions has increased by well over £1,000,000 since 1930. Nobody would suggest that that should be reduced. Then, take the case of Supplementary Agricultural Grants, and the possibility of effecting a decrease there. I know that not only the members of Clann na Talmhan, but many others besides, have repeatedly asked that all rates should be taken off agricultural land, so there would be no chance of a decrease there. In the case of widows' and orphans' pensions, I am sure nobody would suggest eliminating that figure of £250,000. The Vote for Primary Education has gone up by more than £500,000 in 13 years. I do not know where cuts could be made there, or in the case of the Votes for Secondary and Technical Education.

There is an increase of £679,000 in the Vote for the Department of Lands. Now, from all sides of the House there is clamour for more expenditure in that direction. Deputy Donnellan was on that subject even to-day. He said that the Land Commission ought to be more active. Well, if it is more active, it will cost more, and I should like the House, and particularly Deputy Donnellan, to know this: that I, as Minister for Finance, was largely responsible for inducing the Government to stop the division of land during the war. I was largely responsible for that decision, but I was forced, when emergency departments were set up to deal with such vital matters as our food supply and defence, to find experienced staffs for the Department of Supplies, the Department of Defence and the Department of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures. Large numbers of experienced men were required. In the matter of compulsory tillage, it should be obvious that there was no use in sending out as inspectors people who had had no experience of these matters. Of course, you could get plenty of people in the City of Dublin or in the Cities of Cork, Limerick, and so on, and take them in to help, but what use would people of that type—people like myself—be in dealing with tillage? What use would I be in going out on the land in order to tell people what amount of land they should till or whether or not the land was fit for tillage? We had to get experienced men.

Mr. Donnellan

Surely you did not require to take the chief inspectors of the Land Commission in order to look after tillage.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

We did not take the chief inspectors. We took a certain number of inspectors—experienced men—and sent them out to deal with the matter of tillage. It was necessary to send experienced people all over the country in order to see that food was grown by our people, since it was essential that we should produce as much food as we possibly could, and we could not get such experienced people except from the Department of Lands.

Mr. Donnellan

I do not agree. I think you could have got them elsewhere.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

No, we could not. I assure the Deputy and the House that I, as Minister for Finance, did not want to take in hordes of officials into the Government service from outside. I know, from experience, that once you take these so-called temporary officials into the Government service, they never leave it until they die.

Mr. Donnellan

Naturally.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I fought as hard as I could against bringing in any number of officials from outside, except the barest minimum. Of course, we had to take in a certain number, but I wanted to use the officials who were there already, so that we could afterwards send them back to their jobs, in the Land Commission and elsewhere, and they are already being sent back. Most of those who were taken from the Land Commission are now back in their former jobs.

Mr. Donnellan

And they are active?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Yes, they are active, and instructions have been issued to get most of these people back as soon as possible.

Mr. Blowick

Back to the land.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Yes, back to the land, if you wish to put it that way. I take responsibility for that decision, and I think that the House, if they knew of all the circumstances, would approve, and would admit that the first job to be done in the emergency was to get as much food as possible grown here.

Mr. Cogan

And yet the land held by the Land Commission was allowed to go derelict during that period.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

No, it was not. The Deputy should not make statement of that kind. That is another foolish statement—another "Cogan" statement, "Cogan" being a synonym for foolish.

Mr. Blowick

Well, whether it is a foolish statement or a "Cogan" statement, I hold that sufficient effort was not made by the Land Commission to secure the best use of the lands held by them and that is a "Blowick" statement.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Oh, Arcades ambo—and I hope the Deputy understands that.

Mr. Blowick

At any rate, the policy pursued by the Land Commission would not encourage people to till their land.

Mr. Corry

It is your own fault, down in your part of the country, if the people there do not till their land.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There is another figure which I shall give to the House, and, again, I wish to say that I do not want to hide anything. I want to give the House the fullest information possible on all matters, and this is a figure that Deputies may use in order to hit the Government hard in the days to come. Let them fire away with it. They will get the facts and the truth, at any rate. Deputy Cogan referred to the high cost and the big increase in cost of administration. The administrative cost of the Civil Service on January 1st, 1944, was £7,284,950. That is a huge figure. On January 1st, 1930, it was £4,600,000, so there has been an increase in those 14 years of £2,680,000, approximately. I would like everyone—the Dáil to begin with, and the country—to know these figures and realise them.

Mr. Cogan

Can the Minister explain those figures?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I can, of course. I do not think it would make much impression on the Deputy, but I can do so. Everybody in this House knows the reason for the increase. There have been put into operation new services which did not exist before this Government came into office in 1932, and to administer those services huge staffs have been necessary. Take the last one. Deputies on all sides of the House, without exception, I think, demanded children's allowances. Now, you cannot operate a scheme like children's allowances, which costs £2,600,000, without staff. You cannot go into a Department and say: "Here, administer the children's allowances," without the officials saying to you: "Very well, we will do so and administer it efficiently, but you must give us the men and women to do it." I had the administrative cost of children's allowances in mind at the time, but I do not remember the exact figure now. Probably, it takes close on 200 officials, at a cost of between £90,000 and £100,000. Look at the long list of services that have been introduced since 1930, at the request of the Dáil. They are services which did not exist before, costing millions, for which staff had to be provided. There is the explanation. Deputies will demand new services to-morrow and, even while demanding them, will not tell us how to administer them without additional cost.

Mr. Cogan

Is it part of the explanation that temporary officials remain in Departments until they die?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Well, it is an exaggeration to say they remain until they die. Most of them remain until they reach the age of 65. When an attempt is made to put anyone out, there is a queue of Deputies waiting at the Minister's office, saying: "Don't put that one out or I'll be ruined in my constituency." One of the first to come will be Deputy Cogan, saying: "Don't touch County Wicklow, whomever you have to fire out anywhere else. Don't come near my constituency, because that girl or boy is a son or daughter of a most influential constituent and backer of mine."

Mr. Donnellan

And, of course, you take that into consideration.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I do, certainly. I am not saying I always act on it. I think I have kept the House too long. There were a lot of questions raised here on which I would like to give the House more information. The question of social services has been discussed before, so I will not delay on it. In 1930-31, the social services, such as they were, cost us £3,400,814. I go back to that year because Deputy Cogan started his speech by comparing that with the position to-day, and I take it he is the spokesman for his Party. The social services this year, 1945/46, cost £9,655,852. In 1930/31 there were no direct subsidies given to local authorities to help in social services, but in 1945/46, as given in this Book of Estimates we are dealing with, those direct subsidies to help social services through the local authorities—mostly in food and fuel; if any Deputy wants a list I can get it for him—amount to £5,473,100. Those two items together come to more than £15,000,000. Deputies can see that big increase in the cost of services since 1930/31, a cost which now reaches to over £15,000,000. I do not think any Deputy would suggest that any of these social services should be or could be abolished. I hope that some of the subsidies will disappear when the war ends, or soon afterwards.

Deputies desired in many cases that I should go into detail about the future for agriculture and prices for agricultural produce. That would better come from the Minister for Agriculture, and Deputies will have an opportunity on the Estimate. I do not think the Minister for Agriculture, any more than any other Minister, would object to Deputies asking for particulars on these matters. I hope he and other Ministers will give Deputies the fullest information. It would be difficult, I would even say impossible, for the Government to give at present any guarantee of fixed prices for agricultural goods over a five-year period after the war. Deputies ought to know from the history of this Government and the policy that it has carried through regarding agriculture, that we have a certain definite policy which we have brought into operation against very bitter opposition from many of those who said they represented the farmers in this House over the last ten or 12 years. It was not true that they represented the farmers. We had more authoritative spokesmen for the farmers here in our own benches than there were in all the rest of the House combined, including the new Farmers' Party.

I am glad to hear that those who now officially claim to speak for the farming community are not adopting the policy that was officially announced here as being the policy of agriculturists as opposed to the policy this Government put into operation. I am glad to note from the speeches of Deputies Cogan, Donnellan and Halliden in the last day or two that they are in line generally with the policy of this Government. The development of agriculture is the first thing and the keeping of the home market, to provide our own people with the goods produced here at home as far as we can. That does not exclude the export of agricultural produce, but our own people must be looked after first. As a corollary to that, in order to get the farmers to produce the goods we must pay the farmers. I know that many farmers, including our friend, Deputy Corry, who is not in the House at the moment, do not admit that they are getting enough. But when did a farmer, at a fair or anywhere else, ever say that he got all he wanted? I think that that is enough, at any rate from me, with regard to the Government's agricultural policy. I hope the question will be developed in greater detail in later debates with perhaps the Minister for Agriculture.

I agree with Deputy Norton that the agricultural community have made a very substantial contribution for the benefit of the nation. I do not know where we would have been were it not for the farmers of this country. They provided the food, or the greater part of the food, necessary to keep us alive during the war. I shall not develop discussion on the industrial side any further, but I hope it will be developed in detail in later debates. I do want to say in reply to a question of Deputy Norton as to what are the Government's plans for the post-war period, that our plans are to continue to develop and expand still further the industrial developments that were initiated and carried through up to the time war broke out. If the war had not come upon us, our industrial developments would have expanded very considerably. We have plans, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce will probably furnish information in regard to them at a suitable time. I think big plans are in preparation for a big expansion in industrial development after the war. I do not think I shall say any more in that regard. I do not know whether Deputies are tired of me, but I am tired myself.

One remark with regard to housing. Deputy Corish knows that there is no subject in which I am more interested than housing. I admit fully that the housing financial situation at present is such that there will be no advance in housing developments as things stand. It is not possible at present, nor has it been possible during the war to do much in regard to housing. I marvel at the amount of work some local authorities have done—Dublin Corporation, for instance. How they have kept going has been something that is very much to their credit. There will have to be a re-examination and review of housing finances at some future date—I cannot say any more than that. Probably the subject will be developed at greater length by the Minister for Local Government. We must continue to build houses until every slum in this country—and I include agricultural slums—has been wiped out. There are numbers of them still in all parts of the country, rural and urban. We must continue that essential social improvement policy of providing houses.

No country in the world—and that is a big statement—provided more generous subsidies for housing than were provided by this Government with the assent of the Dáil from 1932 onwards. I have met members of other Governments and discussed this question with them. Take the present Prime Minister of New Zealand, who was here on a visit at the beginning of the war. I took him round and showed him what we had done in housing. I gave him the terms of the finances of housing. He marvelled at what we, who did not claim to be a Labour Government, had done and he said to me that he doubted if it could be bettered anywhere. It was certainly not bettered by his Government anywhere which was more generous with subsidies to housing than this Government has been. Because of the cost of building and the changes that have taken place, the financial situation will have to be reviewed, but any more than that I cannot say. We have to keep housing going some way. I hope the Government will continue to do that for a long time and that we shall be allowed to continue this progressive social improvement policy which includes housing in town and country and the provision of better social conditions for all our people.

Question put and agreed to.

Vote reported and agreed to.