Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 4 May 1945

Vol. 97 No. 3

Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 3—General (Resumed).

Mr. O'Leary

I was dealing last night with social services, in which there has been some improvement, but there are sections that seem to have been forgotten by the Government. I refer to the working of the National Health Insurance scheme. The amount of benefit paid to-day under that scheme is the same as when it was introduced by Mr. Lloyd George. Members of the Society have been expecting an increase in the amount, owing to the emergency conditions, but the benefit remains at 15/-, after nine days' illness. Is it any wonder that tuberculosis is on the increase? I had such an experience during illness, and had no income for nine days. People in that position, with a family depending on them, are expected to meet the rent collector, the insurance agent and other calls when they have no money. Worry of that kind does not tend to restore health. If the breadwinner has to go to a sanatorium he knows that his wife and family have to try to exist on 15/- a week, and whatever help they may get from the good people connected with the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. They may also get an extra 3/- a week as home assistance. At the present time, before the home assistance officer can give a grant to a family he must have the consent of the county manager or the superintending officer, although he knows that the help is needed. Family allowances were welcomed by the poor. That was a step in the right direction and should have been taken years ago. In the past the wages of the workers were small and it was a struggle for parents to bring up a family. The position is no better to-day, because while wages have increased the cost of living is very high. Passing through Moore Street one notices that the shops display beef, mutton, chickens, fish and other commodities, but they are not within reach of people who have no money to purchase them.

The old age pension and the vouchers have made very little of the fathers and mothers of this country, when they have to go from shop to shop with the voucher. The Minister should have applied the scheme in cash and have it paid in the usual way through the post offices instead of having decent men and women being handed vouchers, as a pauper would be, for a couple of ounces of butter, a couple of loaves of bread and a sup of new milk. The system is wrong, and no matter what Government is in power they should tackle that question. If a Minister were to come in here that would do good to the people who are in want he would never go out of power because it is the poor people who are the majority of this country and it is the poor who are suffering and who have made the sacrifices all along. In rural Ireland, some time ago, an additional half-crown was given to old age pensioners. I have here a letter from a woman in County Wexford who applied for the additional half-crown to the county manager and whose application was turned down because her son was working and drawing the agricultural rate of wages.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is discussing administration of the Act:

Mr. O'Leary

Is it not relative to the social services that the ratepayers are asked to provide for?

An Ceann Comhairle

It is administration of the Act. The Deputy understands that he will have an opportunity on the Estimates of getting after all these matters he has mentioned.

Mr. O'Leary

I thought one could discuss any matter relating to social services on the resolution.

An Ceann Comhairle

Not administration in such details as the Deputy has referred to, such as a woman being refused a half-crown.

Mr. O'Leary

I was just bringing these matters to the Minister's notice. Probably the Minister is not aware that such things are going on throughout the country.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not his function.

Mr. O'Leary

I think the means test in connection with old age pensions is too rigorously enforced. Take the case of some of the people who had small pensions from the British Government or from their previous employers.

When they are entitled to receive old age pensions, they receive only 6/-. That means that their total income is 16/- a week. Could any Minister or T.D. exist for one day in the City of Dublin on 16/-? Yet the old age pensioner in the country area is expected to live on 16/- a week. Widows are expected to live on 5/-. Although I have stamped a card for years, if I should die to-morrow my widow would get only 5/- per week. Although I have paid subscriptions to the National Health Insurance Society since I was 18 years of age, I have been a non-benefit member since I came to the Dáil in 1943. There are thousands like me. Thousands of people become unemployed and exhaust their right to benefit, and they get nothing. The whole system of national health insurance will have to be considered, because it is when one is sick that one needs nourishment. There is no use in talking about campaigns against tuberculosis as long as the conditions I have referred to exist.

We are, please God, approaching the end of the war. We have to consider what will be the position of this country after the war. During the emergency, money had to be found to erect air-raid shelters and to provide equipment for the Army. Money will have to be found to meet the depression that will have to be faced when the war is over. I would ask the Minister and the Government to consider the position of the old people. In Enniscorthy there is a county home, most of the inmates of which are old age pensioners who could not exist outside. They get 7/- a fortnight out of their old age pensions to buy tobacco. If the Minister were to provide for an increase in the old age pension, I am sure no one in the House and no taxpayer outside the House would grumble, because the money would be devoted to helping a deserving class. No one will object if the money is to help people who are in need, and why should they?

Reference was made to unemployment. As I said last night, those who talk about the unemployed are not sincere when they are keeping some young man or woman, who could be an official, out of a position. It is the duty of every Deputy, when elected by the people, to remain in the House during the debates. The farmers and businessmen on both sides should listen to one another. I do not know what the people in the public gallery say sometimes when they come here and see not five Deputies in the House and only one Minister. It appears to them to be a one-man show. It is the duty of every Deputy to remain in the House and listen to the views of other Deputies, and to consider what is the best programme to adopt.

There are people here who think that once they get in it is all right to forget about the people outside. The procedure here should be the same as in every other public body in the country, where the members listen to one another's views and criticisms. But what does happen here? Some Deputies do not know what other Deputies have said until they get a copy of the Official Debates. They should be here listening to one another's views. If they did that, there would be better understanding between the Government and the different Parties. I like to hear what other people say about me, and I like them to listen to what I have to say about them. Otherwise, I regard it as backbiting.

An Ceann Comhairle

Does the Deputy mind if I say that he might now deal with the Budget?

Mr. O'Leary

I will conclude by asking the Minister to give every consideration to the down-and-out section of our people. I am sure he will do that. We have to admit that social services have improved to some extent, but I think the family allowance should have been given in respect of all children, instead of having an unemployed man with two children getting nothing, while his next-door neighbour who has plenty of money is drawing the allowance. That is a great grievance, and I would ask the Minister to see if something can be done to meet it.

Mr. Anthony

I have listened with very great attention to the Budget statement, but as I did not get a copy of that statement I have to depend on what I saw in the morning newspapers to help me to avoid any serious mistakes.

Minister for Finance (Mr. O Ceallaigh)

Did not the Deputy get a copy?

Mr. Anthony

I did not.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I am surprised at that.

Mr. Anthony

I understand the reason for it. Through scarcity of paper, only 40 copies were issued. I am not complaining.

An Ceann Comhairle

I understand that copies were available. They were in the office.

Mr. Anthony

I know they were in the office, and I was offered a copy. I want to be quite fair to the officials. There are one or two anomalies in the incidence of income-tax, to which I should like to refer. For a considerable time we had a very low rate of income-tax here. I quite understand and appreciate the reasons for the increase. In that connection, I welcome the statement made here yesterday by my old friend Deputy Davin. I hope he was giving expression to what is now the considered policy of the official Labour Party, when he agreed that if we are to have increased social services it will mean increased expenditure, and, of course, that increased expenditure will have to be reflected in the Budget. Bearing that fact in mind, I want to call attention to the anomalies to which I have referred. Take the case of a widower with a family, none of whom is under the age of 16. If that widower employs a housekeeper he is not allowed any rebate in income-tax, because of the fact that the children are over 16 years. The rebate is allowed only when the children are under 16; if a housekeeper is employed she must be in charge of children in respect of whom the claimant is receiving a rebate in his income-tax. In my view, that is a very great hardship. A grave hardship exists also in the case of a single man who has a mother and two or three sisters to keep. There are thousands of such cases. I think some attempt should be made to ease that position.

I will have another opportunity of dealing with old age pensions and widows' and orphans' pensions. I could take advantage of the rules of order and relate those matters to the present discussion, but I want to occupy as little time as I possibly can. I do not at all endorse the view expressed yesterday by some Deputies who want to see drastic reductions in salaries and emoluments, from the top to the bottom. One of the Farmers' representatives made that statement. I deprecate that kind of meanness and littleness. I cannot find any other words to describe the mentality behind it. The suggestion that civil servants on £400 or £500 per annum should get a drastic reduction in their salaries is, to my mind, a very mean suggestion. I do sincerely hope that that view does not represent the considered opinion of a number of farmers in this country. If it does, it must be a very small minority of farmers. I hope so, at any rate.

I should like to see that Deputy of the Farmers' Party having his views a little bit broadened, and if I can help in that direction I should be glad to do so. I wonder if people who claim that we ought to have drastic reductions in salaries, beginning with the Uachtarán and going down to the civil servant on £400 or £500 a year, have any idea at all of what it means to keep up an establishment in Dublin? There are many craftsmen and tradesmen a lot better off on even £5 a week than some of the civil servants I know who are on £400 or £500 a year. Surely the Deputy who expressed the view which I have quoted must realise that there is such a thing as an appearance to be kept up. Once and for all, I do hope that we have done with that kind of small talk. There is, of course, a number of under-paid civil servants, and I hope that at some time or other that will be rectified. I will conclude by again asking the Minister to see that something is done in the case of the single man with dependents and in the case of widowers with children over 16 years. They should be given some concession as regards income-tax, and any such gesture on the part of the Minister for Finance would be heartily welcomed by them.

Mr. Corish

This, to my mind, is the most colourless Budget ever introduced in the Dáil; a Budget without vision; a Budget which reflects the bankruptcy of the Government so far as policy is concerned: merely words, words, words; 45 pages, in my opinion, of academic nonsense; not a word, good, bad or indifferent, as to what the post-war policy of the Government is to be; not a word as to what the Government propose to do for the rural community. Everybody will remember the plight of the agricultural community after the last war. Even though the Minister has not declared through the medium of this Budget what the Government proposals are in connection with agriculture, it is to be hoped that something will be done for agriculture. It would be a hackneyed phrase to use, but I suppose I had better use it, that the whole community is dependent upon the farmers and the agricultural labourers. If farming is allowed to drift after this war into the same position as it was after the last war, one shudders to think what will become of this country.

Now that the war in Europe is coming to an end, one would have thought that the Minister would have said something as to what the policy of his Government will be in connection with the situation which will confront us and confront the world when hostilities have definitely ceased. We will be faced, I presume, with a position in which a large number of people who went to Great Britain to seek a livelihood during the war period will come back to this country. In answer to Deputy Norton the other day, the Taoiseach stated that during the last three or four years about 170,000 people went to Great Britain to seek employment. It is to be expected that a good number, if not all these people, will come back here. We are wondering what the Government proposals are to deal with that situation. Coupled with that, there will be a demobilisation of the Army which will mean, I suppose, another 30,000 people placed on the labour market. Along with that, there are at present over 70,000 people unemployed and queuing up at the labour exchanges; over 250,000 people altogether. Unless something is done now to deal with the situation which will prevail then, I can see nothing but a very black future for this country and its people.

I am wondering, and I am sure the Dáil is wondering, if the Government, through the different Departments, are making any effort to get into touch with Ministers on the other side of the Channel to see if anything can be done to help the situation here. This country is in need of raw materials such as coal, iron, steel and other commodities of that kind. It is apparent to everybody now that, in view of the food shortage in Europe and the fact that Great Britain will have to make a large contribution to the easing of the situation on the Continent, she herself will be in need of certain commodities we are producing. I think a magnificent opportunity presents itself to the Government now to get into direct negotiation with the British Government with a view to some kind of a barter arrangement which would be of mutual benefit to the two countries. I believe that the time has arrived when negotiations should be initiated, and I should like to hear from the Minister that something of that kind is being done.

A great deal has been said during this debate about the question of tariffs. Deputy Giles suggested last night that all tariffs should be removed in the interest of the farmers. I am as anxious as anybody here to see that the farmers will get everything as cheaply as possible; but I do not think that there is a general outery on the part of the farmers to have certain tariffs removed. Deputy Giles belittled the products of Irish industries; he belittled to a very great extent the implements which are being made for the agriculturist, particularly mowers, ploughs, and things of that kind. I come from a town where all this agricultural machinery is manufactured and I have no hesitation in saying that it can be proved that the machinery produced there is second to none and was always able to hold its own, even when American and British machinery was being imported here. As a matter of fact, at present, owing to an arrangement by which the British Government give a certain quantity of steel and other materials to Wexford firms, Wexford machinery is being used all over Great Britain. There is a big demand from the other side of the Channel for this machinery and they cannot get enough of it. It certainly comes very badly indeed from a public representative in the Parliament of the nation to suggest that that machinery is of an inferior quality. About 800 people are employed at present in Wexford in turning out that agricultural machinery. It is the staple industry of the town of Wexford and, if there were any interference with that industry, the town would be in a very bad way indeed. In Enniscorthy, certain ironworks are turning out magnificient machinery and, if there is any interference so far as tariffs are concerned, they would suffer considerably.

Some Deputies dealt with the question of the cost of living. That is a very serious problem which is being felt very severely by various people all over the country, especially those with low salaries and those depending on old age pensions, children's allowances, and things of that kind. I suggest that the Government have not made any serious attempt to cope with the cost of living because, if they had, the Minister would not be in a position to take advantage of it in his Budget to the extent of over £4,000,000 which is collected in excess profits tax.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That figure is not correct.

Mr. Corish

I am not deliberately misquoting the Minister. I understood that is what he said. I think it was something like that.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Excess profits account for about £2,500,000.

Mr. Corish

Let us take even the £2,500,000. I suggest that if the Government are in earnest in dealing with the cost of living, they should see to it that an adjustment is made in the various manufacturing centres, the various factories, so that the cost of living would be reduced before manufacturers are in a position to pay this huge amount of money to the Revenue Commissioners.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The Deputy would not prefer that it would be left with the people he has in mind?

Mr. Corish

No, I would not. Another statement was made by Deputy Giles to which I take exception. He said that we were supplying Great Britain with cheap labour. I do not think anybody will agree with that statement. So far as I know, the people who cross to the other side are not working at a cheaper rate than anybody else in Great Britain. They are receiving the trade union rate of wages, and, if I know Irishmen, they would not be prepared to go to Great Britain and work at a lower wage than what is paid to the people already there. I think it is only right that that statement should be made.

A good deal has been said about social services and social security. Deputy Davin referred to the Beveridge Report which, he said, would come into operation soon. Of course, that is not correct. There is some kind of social security scheme coming into operation in Great Britain.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There may be.

Mr. Corish

That might be taken as a vaccination "may"; it is really "must" in that case.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There has been no decision by the British Government to bring anything like that into operation. There was no Bill introduced in the British House of Commons, so far as I know.

Mr. Corish

All the same, I think we are entitled to draw the inference that it will come into operation soon. While the Beveridge scheme, or the scheme which is contained in the White Paper issued by the British Government, might not be suitable for this country—we might not be able to afford it, as some people say—there has been a scheme put before the country by the Most Reverend Dr. Dignan, and I am sorry to say that the reception which that scheme has got from some of our Ministers is anything but edifying.

I think we are entitled to assume that Most Rev. Dr. Dignan, before he prepared his scheme, consulted persons who are in direct touch with the plain people of the country. He has the priests in his own diocese, and during his sojourn in Maynooth he was in a position to get information from bishops from other parts of the country, and we may take it that what is contained in his scheme is a reflection of the views of those other bishops and the priests in his own diocese. It is to be regretted that the Minister concerned has though fit to throw cold water, to say the very least of it, on the scheme submitted by the Most Reverend Dr. Dignan.

I submit it is very necessary that some kind of social security scheme should be adopted. There are certain social services in operation, but there are numbers of people who have not yet come within the ambit of any of these social services. As has been pointed out by other speakers here, while the social services are a tribute to the Government, they do not go far enough. During the debate recently on the Estimate for the Department of Education, reference was made to the school-leaving age. While I agree that it would be a very desirable thing to have the school-leaving age raised, I think it will be found that people are in such straitened circumstances that they are compelled, when a boy, especially, comes to the age of 14 years to put him into some kind of employment. It is usually a blind-alley occupation, and anything but good for the child, but it is because of the parents' financial or economic circumstances that that has to be done.

I submit that the raising of the school-leaving age will not be popular in this country until something is done by the Government to extend the provisions of the Children's Allowances Act, so that it will bring in all the children under a certain age. The Minister could, of course, make a stipulation, if he thought it necessary, to the effect that unless a child was sent to school certain action would be taken; but I suggest before that is done—although I am in favour of it— that the Government will have to make some effort to extend the provisions of the Act, so that every child of school-leaving age will be covered.

Agriculture has loomed largely in all our debates and reference has been made to certain products. During the past five or six years Deputies have referred here to the shortage of butter and, in reply to questions put down on various occasions, we were told that the production of butter was just as high as ever, but because of the absence of fats, people were using butter for cooking purposes. That answer was made repeatedly. Notwithstanding that, I find, in a Government advertisement in the Irish Independent of Saturday, March 3rd of this year, an item which is headed “The Way Back”. It says:—

"The production of butter, bacon, eggs and poultry has declined since 1939. We must recover the lost ground and get back again to normal production as soon as possible."

What interest has the Minister concerned to serve by telling the House, in reply to question raised here and by public bodies outside, that the production of butter was just as high as ever, when everybody was aware that that was not the case? Here the Minister concerned is given the lie. I am not suggesting that the Minister set out deliberately to tell lies, but he should have made himself familiar with the circumstances before he gave an answer which was definitely wrong. It was apparent to everybody that the production of butter was not what it should have been.

Old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions and children's allowances have been mentioned. Time and time again in a debate of this kind the means test for old age pensions has been referred to. I think the Government, if they are serious in dealing with social problems, will have to do something in connection with this matter. I have heard Deputy Anthony year after year referring to the means test. He is a member of a society in which there is a superannuation scheme.

The thrifty member of this society pays in a certain amount of money each year in order that he may qualify for a superannuation allowance at the end of a certain period. Because that man has been thrifty, when he comes to 70 years of age he either gets no pension at all or his pension is cut. On the other hand, any waster who comes along, who has made no effort to keep his wife and family, who instead of saving has squandered all through the years, gets the full 10/- per week. Surely that is not an encouragement to men and women to be thrifty? But that is not the worst of it. When a person applies for the old age pension, he or she has to go through a very searching examination. Everything in their lives must be laid bare before eventually they get the 10/-.

Within recent years, the Government have agreed to give an extra 2/6 to old age pensioners. One would have thought that would have been given automatically, through the medium of the post office, to persons who had qualified already for the old age pension.

Mr. Anthony

Necessitous old age pensioners.

Mr. Corish

Yes, but the person had already gone through a means test. We find now that, before the 2/6 is given, the home assistance officer has also to make a searching inquiry.

An Ceann Comhairle

Would the Deputy consider that as administration?

Mr. Corish

Well, I thought that was general policy, but I do not wish to go outside your ruling. Would you bear one second more with me and I will finish my argument?

An Ceann Comhairle

If one Deputy is let off, the Deputy knows what happens to the rest.

Mr. Corish

I agree. What 10/- would purchase before the war it would take 17/- to purchase now. That is the position which the Government must deal with. I suggest that this 2/6 was given in an indiscriminate fashion, without any advertence to the position of the particular people concerned.

In regard to widows' and orphans' pensions the Minister knows that there are two types of pension, contributory and non-contributory. I suggest there should not be any difference at all. I have come across many a case in which a man worked for 30 or 40 years, and suddenly became idle for a period of about 12 months. In consequence of the fact that he was idle over that period, his wife loses the contributory pension, if he dies. Surely, that is a bad state of affairs, and is not proper treatment to a man who was prepared to give of his best to his country and to his family as long as he was able, and as long as the money was forthcoming. A man must have a certain number of stamps within a prescribed period immediately before his death and loses his rights if he has been idle. That should be re-examined in the light of the instance I have just mentioned. There is also a difference between the pension paid to a rural widow and an urban widow. That difference should not exist at all, and the same pension should be paid in every case.

In conclusion, I would ask the Minister to take the House into his confidence as to the Government's intentions in regard to agriculture. Immediately after the last war, the bottom fell out of the agricultural market, and the farmers were in a very bad way. As a consequence, they were unable to pay the farm labourers anything approaching a living wage, and the wages went down to 12/- or 13/- per week. I hope steps will be taken to prevent that happening now, at the end of this war. If the matter is approached in the right way, if our Ministers get in touch with the Ministers on the other side, it will be found that Great Britain is in such a position that she will be prepared to take certain goods from us, in return for goods which we require in order to keep our industries going.

Mr. Coogan

I cannot agree with the last speaker that the Minister's statement is so much academic twaddle. I think we have in it a great number of concrete facts, from which many pictures of our social, economic and financial position here can be drawn. The Minister made a most significant statement to the House, when he said, on page 41:—

"High budgetary expenditure and deficit financing are the most potent of all inflationary forces, and their effect is most harmful where, through heavy rates of taxation, enterprise is deterred from an extension of productivity."

In that statement, we have the kernel of the whole situation here. I do not know if I should take the Minister as making an open confession to the House when he makes that statement. If we relate that to the policy of Fianna Fáil since they came into office, and particularly to the policy during the past five years, he and his Government and Party stand indicted, since their policy has been, from start to finish, one of high budgetary expenditure and one of financing deficits. During the past five years, the Minister has not balanced one single Budget. He has had to raise £16,800,000, by borrowing, to balance his Budgets over the past five years, an average of more than £3,000,000 per year.

We hear a great deal of talk from the Labour Benches about increasing the social services. In the face of the figures we have here to-day how are social services to be increased except by increasing budgetary expenditure and inevitably increasing inflation?

Eventually, we get into the vicious circle and the higher the spiral goes the less the man in the street will have in real money. I would like to put before the House the picture I have drawn from the Minister's statement.

Take in the first place, the man who is liable for direct taxation. That man finds himself in this position to-day: that his rates have gone up by 28 per cent, that his taxation has gone up, in the matter of income-tax, by 116 per cent., and that in other respects it has gone up by 60 per cent. His cost of living is supposed to have gone up by 70 per cent., but I believe that it has gone up by far more than 70 per cent., because you have here a statement from the Minister that the wholesale prices of goods during the war have doubled. I venture to suggest—he has not given us any figures for the retail prices—that the retail prices for goods, when they can be obtained, have trebled and quadrupled, so that the ordinary taxpayer is in the position that he has these increases to meet in his domestic budget.

If you look at the other side of the picture, and try to find out what he has to pay in indirect taxation, what do you find? You find, according to this year's Estimates, in Customs and Excise alone, more than £21,000,000 being drawn from the pockets of the ratepayers. That sum of £21,000,000 has to come from practically every item in the household budget to-day. There is hardly an article of ware that goes into a house, any article that a man wants in the way of ordinary employment, or to carry on his ordinary business, or run his household, that is not subject to taxation. It would be far easier, I suggest, for the Customs and Excise officials to tell us what is not taxed than to tell us what is taxed. Practically every commodity is taxed, and what does that mean? It means that this £21,000,000 of indirect taxation is being extracted, at the same time, from the pocket of the man who has more than enough to meet in the way of direct taxation. If you reduce that £21,000,000 to the basis of the ordinary family budget in this country, dividing it by the 3,000,000 of our population, what do you get? It amounts to £7 per head of the population, and that means from £30 to £35 being paid in indirect taxation by every family in this country in the current year.

Is it any wonder that the salaried official or the ordinary wage earner in this country, in those circumstances, cannot make ends meet? Is it any wonder that in the City of Dublin more than 200 national school teachers are in the hands of money lenders, or that a vast number of the teachers to-day are surrendering, not only the deeds of their houses, but their insurance policies? Is it any wonder that the civil servant finds himself in the same boat? If the Minister would take the trouble to examine some of the files in the money lenders' offices, he would find the names of a big number of his own salaried officials on their books, and the result of that is that these men, instead of giving their whole time, thought and energy to the State, are worried out of their wits as to how soon the bailiff is coming, or how long they can keep him off. That is the way the man in the street, the ordinary salaried official or wage earner is affected by this—the man who, in order to enable him to meet the increased cost of living, has been given a bonus of 5/- a week, or the school teacher who has got a miserable bonus of 1/- a week, which has been described by a well-known journalist as "Derrig's bob"—an insult to an honourable profession.

As I see the case, the Minister has gone into the question of what is the taxable capacity of the citizens of this State, their capacity to bear any more, and has come to the conclusion that the burden is already so high that the citizen cannot bear any more taxation. In my opinion, the taxes already imposed on the ordinary citizen of this State are far more than they can bear, and are far beyond the capacity of the ordinary citizen to pay. The other picture that can be drawn from the Minister's statement is this: that on the one side we have deposits in banks, deposits in savings certificates and post office savings, mounting up and up, and that, on the other hand, you have revenue coming in from betting, beer, spirits and entertainment, mounting up and up. Now, the inference I draw from this is not one of prosperity.

When deposits in the banks mount up, it shows that the people who have been able to save money have a lack of confidence in industrial enterprise; that they are afraid, because of conditions here, to take the risk of investing money in industrial enterprise and prefer to hang it up in the stocking or put it in the bank and leave it there rather than invest it in industrial enterprise so as to enable such industrial enterprise to develop throughout the country. On the other hand, you have what the Minister described as an insatiable appetite for sensation and amusement. In my opinion, it is more than an insatiable appetite: it is a Gargantuan appetite and, judging by the statements furnished by the Press recently as to betting transactions at race meetings in this country, it is clear that a great number of people have come to the position where they do not feel that it is worth while to hold on to any money they have and that they might as well throw it away. Those are two aspects that, I think, deserve very serious consideration by the Government, and the question will have to be faced by the Government sooner or later of whether or not squandermania should be allowed to be rampant throughout the country. There is also the question as to whether or not it is a sign of the times that our people are hanging up their money in savings or bank deposits and not permitting it to take its place in productive enterprise in the country.

Now, coming to the matter of our farming community, the Minister seemed to paint the picture that the farming community were in a glorious state of prosperity, and were considerably better off than they had been in previous years. Figures were given as to the gross and net agricultural production, which I do not propose to go into now, but the general picture drawn by the Minister was—that the farmer is much better off now than he was in previous years. Whilst I agree that a certain appreciation has taken place in the farmer's position, I would remind the Minister that it was only in 1938 that the economic war ended, and that up to 1938 the farmer had come through years of depression, years which left the farmers in many counties in a state of absolute bankruptcy. If the farmer is getting a little back now, it is only right that he should get a little back, but I do not think the farmer is in the prosperous position that the Minister says he is in, and I hope that, in painting that picture, the Minister has no sinister motive, or that he has nothing up his sleeve for the farmer later on when it comes to next year's Budget. The farming community, as I know them, are a struggling community at the best of times. It is very rarely that in one year they can make ends meet, or that even a prosperous farmer can put by £200. Is it not the position here that our farming community are not able to provide for the second or third child of the family on the farm? Is it not the position of the farmer that he must educate those children for the professions, or send them to labour abroad, outside the farm? Until this State faces up to its responsibilities in this matter, I see no hope for this country. I do not believe for one moment in the various palliatives that have been put forward by the Labour Party—by both Labour Parties here. Social services are all very well, but there is only one cure for unemployment, and that is employment. There is only one cure for the economic ills of our people, resulting from unemployment, and that is to put those people into profitable employment. Providing palliatives by way of social services is merely tinkering with the problem. The Minister says that we have a higher number of people over the age of 65 than Great Britain.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

A higher proportion, not a higher number.

Mr. Coogan

A higher proportion, and we have a lesser proportion of working people, that is, people between the ages of 16 and 65. It is a well-known fact—everybody who has studied population figures in this country knows it—that there are two things which vitally militate against this country's progress. One is that we have too few marriages and the second, that these marriages take place too late. There are far too many childless marriages.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Is the Deputy married?

Mr. Coogan

He is, for a long time.

Mr. Flanagan

And the Minister?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Yes, well married.

Mr. Coogan

In the rural communities, it is not because of choice that that situation obtains, but because the economic condition on the farm holding is such that they are not able to provide for early marriages. The eldest son has to wait too long to get together a dowry for a sister or to provide a profession for a brother, before he can undertake the business of settling down in life. That is the vital fact which is killing the economic and social life of this country to-day and neither this Government nor the previous Government faced up to it. Until this fact is faced squarely and broadly, and some solution found, all this tinkering in the way of social services is simply by the way.

I want to put it seriously to the Minister that, far from looking to the farming community for anything by way of taxation, he should undertake, so far as lies in his power, to put money in the way of the farming community, so that they can find the means of ending this state of affairs. If the farmer were in a prosperous condition, if he could draw upon his deposits in the bank to finance the giving of a profession to a son or daughter, to send the others out to earn a livelihood and to enable the eldest son or daughter to settle down in the home, it would be done. I can bring the Minister or any member of the House to areas in my constituency where for square miles there are only old maids, old bachelors or childless couples.

Mr. O'Leary

Maybe they are too hard to please.

Mr. Coogan

They are not, but they never had an opportunity of settling down. They never could settle down, and it is one of the vital social and economic problems we have to face. In the post-war period, thousands of men and women will be coming back from the armed services of the British Empire. There are, I believe, something like 200,000 of these people in those armed services to-day and 250,000 of our men and women are working in England, and there is a possibility that these will come back to us.

Mr. O'Leary

Did the Deputy know the bachelor in Kilkenny who died worth £40,000?

Mr. Coogan

There may be one bachelor in Kilkenny who died worth £40,000, but I doubt if he made it on the farm.

Mr. P. Burke (County Dublin)

Perhaps these people should study the matrimonial columns.

Mr. Coogan

The Minister's only effort at match-making has been to reduce the levy on the firm making matches, so as to enable them to provide a greater supply. I suggest that he should undertake match-making of the kind I advocate.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That would be a whole-time job.

Mr. Coogan

I daresay it would. Very many figures have been placed before us by the Minister and the statement he has made on these figures is, to my mind, a masterpiece of understatement. I go so far as to say that in particular respects there is a certain amount of suppression of the truth. It is clear to me, reading his statement closely, that this House will be called on to pass another Budget before the financial year is out. We are in this extraordinary position, that, although we are approaching the early demobilisation of our Army, the Minister believes that the cost of that demobilisation will be more than would be necessary to keep the Army on a war footing. It is an extraordinary position that the payment of gratuities and allowances and the cost of demobilisation generally will be more than would be involved by keeping the Army in being. We have not got the figures from the Minister for Defence, and I do not propose to criticise that aspect now—it will be for another day—but it seems extraordinary that, despite the fact that our Army is to be disbanded, we shall have to find more money for the Army this year than in any year during the war.

The Budget has been described as a standstill Budget. It is not a standstill Budget. The Revenue Commissioners hope to take out of the taxpayers' pockets another £1,800,000 and, in addition, the Minister has made no provision whatever for the credit fertilisers scheme which, up to date, including this year, will involve a sum of £1,080,000. He has made no provision for deferred pay for the Army, the accumulated amount of which is £655,000. The average payments in the year amount to£299,000, and I take it that this amount also has to be met this year. Further, no provision has been made for superannuation, the estimated cost of which is £300,000 a year, so that if superannuation is to be provided for this year, an extra £300,000 under that head must be met.

I calculate that these items alone will cost the State £4,125,000, and if we add to that sum the increased cost in respect of demobilising the Army, it is quite conceivable that the House may be asked for another£6,000,000 or £8,000,000 before the financial year is out. I should like to hear the Minister on that point. I am afraid the Minister has not put all his cards on the table, that something has been held back, and I cannot disabuse my mind of the suspicion that this Budget savours strongly of an election Budget.

With regard to the general state of our finances, the Minister has told us that the total liabilities of the State to date amount to£93,082,000. If we add to that the net liabilities of local authorities, we get a total indebtedness of £131,000,000. He has also told us that liabilities in respect of depositors in post office savings banks and holders of Savings Certificates amount respectively to £31,199,000 and £14,547,000, a total of £45,746,000. I do not know very much about the manner in which the deposits in post office savings banks and in Savings Certificates are utilised, but I have reason to believe that the money is used in the ordinary way of State administration and State expenditure, and, if so, in order to get a picture of our liabilities, we must add £45,750,000 to the £131,000,000. We must further add the £60,750,000 of State guarantees, and then, if we put our assets against our liabilities, we find the position that the State has liabilities, direct or indirect, of £237,000,000 odd and assets of £36,000,000. Therefore, if to-morrow morning all these liabilities had to be met, if there was a run upon the State and all these liabilities and guarantees had to be met, we would be in the position of paying about 3/4 in the £. Any business or domestic concern run on these lines is normally regarded as being bankrupt. Far from being in a happy financial position, as I see it, we are heading towards State bankruptcy, and the Government is not taking the necessary steps to remedy that position.

In addition, we have the extraordinary position here that our price level is 70 per cent. above pre-war, whereas the price level in Great Britain is only 30 per cent. above pre-war. Despite the fact that that country is fighting the greatest war in history, it has succeeded in pegging down the cost of living to 30 per cent. above pre-war, while we here, in a state of peace, have not been able to do it. Because of the disparity in these price levels it is inevitable, unless they can be equated, that our purchasing power will be seriously affected, both internally and externally. In other words, our £ is going to go bad unless we can rectify that position. We have also the extraordinary position that we have something like £300,000,000 of assets and securities frozen in Great Britain, and so far as Deputies can see, nothing is being done by the Government to rectify that situation.

The Minister told us, in his Budget statement, that there are grandiose schemes on foot for afforestation, for example. The Minister in charge of afforestation assured the House last week that, if he could develop afforestation more than it has been developed, he would be only too happy to do so. He said that he would like to step up afforestation from something like 4,000 acres per year to 10,000 acres per year, but added that he cannot do that because he cannot get the land. About two months ago, an Arterial Drainage Bill was put through this House. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, who had charge of the Bill, assured the House that the cost of drainage schemes under that Bill would be in the neighbourhood of about £7,000,000. The Minister for Finance now comes to the House, two months later, and tells us that the cost of arterial drainage will have to be more than doubled, so that the country is going to be asked to provide a sum of over £14,000,000 for that purpose. I am not quarrelling with the expenditure of £14,000,000, but I think it is an extraordinary state of affairs that the Parliamentary Secretary, when piloting the Bill through the House two months ago, should have made such a gross underestimate.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That was the estimate that was made by the commission that considered this question of arterial drainage.

Mr. Coogan

When did that commission sit?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

About three years ago.

Mr. Coogan

Surely, the engineering staff in the Board of Works—the Arterial Drainage Commission staff now—had some idea of the figures for the post-war period, and should have been in aposition to make an estimate of the increased cost based on post-war estimates, and in that way let the House know the true facts. My point is that underestimation of that kind seems inexplicable. If it is any way symptomatic of estimation generally, I do not know where we are going to find ourselves. I put it to the Minister that he should have taken his courage in his hands when preparing this Budget because, for many months past, it has been clear to any reasonable unprejudiced-minded person that this war was over, bar the shouting. Therefore, the Minister should have based his Budget on a peace footing and on the proposals which his Government have for the peace era that is now opening. Instead, all these post-war projects are hidden away if they really exist at all. I, and I am sure every member of the House, must feel keenly disappointed that the Minister did not take the House into his confidence, and give us some indication of what the Government proposed to do to tide us over the post-war period. It is idle to talk of reafforestation, of arterial drainage, and of rural electrification schemes.

We know that all these things are on the stocks, but I submit to the House that there are far more serious matters to be considered than these internal problems. We have, first of all, the problem of getting back our lost markets, the problem of getting into the greatest market in the world, and certainly now in Europe. What are we doing about the problem of providing food, meat and drink for starving Europe? Are we doing anything about that? These are some of the things that Deputies wanted to know, but they have not been given any information about them. As to the problem of relief for starving Europe every member of the House, I am sure, will agree that some measure of relief should be extended to those people. Since this is a small State anything that we can do in that direction will be a mere gesture, a mere drop of water in the ocean. Are we serious and practical about this? Could we really send any food to starving Europe in the morning if we were so minded? We had not enough potatoes last year, we have not enough wheat for ourselves, we have no bacon, we have no eggs, we have no poultry and no butter. What are we going to send to starving Europe?

I want now to deal with a part of the Minister's statement with which I am in entire agreement with him. I refer to the cost and growth of the Civil Service. I was glad to hear the Minister say that it was time to call a halt in regard to State interference. It is time to end this business of looking upon the State as the universal provider for every ill, to expect it to provide a panacea for all our wounds and ills. It is time to end this business of the State becoming a fairy-godmother for all her children. It is time that the people themselves should, by their own initiative, enterprise and energy, provide for their own wants. It is time, too, that Deputies should cease coming, as it were, hat in hand, for further contributions from the State to relieve this, that or other social ill. If Deputies ask for more of these things it means that more money must be provided for them.

In the first place, it will mean more Civil Service staff to administer them and, in the second place, it is only, as I said in the beginning, tinkering with the problem. Our problem is the broad one of getting our people on the land into increased production. We have at present 30,333 civil servants in this small country, with a population of less than 3,000,000. We have a civil servant for every 95 or 96 persons. If you add to that the members of the Army, the Gárda and pensioners, I venture to say that two persons in every 100 are getting their living, directly or indirectly, from the State. That is not a healthy situation. It was inevitable that, in the emergency period, services would have to be increased and staffs supplied for those services. Some of those will, I dare say, disappear in the near future, but, apart from the emergency, we all know that the Civil Service has gone up by leaps and bounds since Fianna Fáil came into office. There has been an increase of from 5,000 to 7,000 civil servants in that period. Many of those increases were, as I have pointed out, due to the introduction of new social services but when will this small country sit up and realise that it is a small country? We are running our Administration almost on the old imperial basis. Our taxation in 1912/13 was about £11,000,000 for the entire country. Now, it is about five times that. The number of civil servants must have been quadrupled since 1914. There are about 16,000 civil servants in the Six Counties of Northern Ireland and there are 30,000 down here. It is clear that we have reached the end of our tether in this respect. The State is top heavy with Civil Service personnel. I should prefer a small Civil Service, better paid, to the system we have at the moment. I feel that we have too many Government Departments, too many sub-departments, and too many Parliamentary Secretaries. After all, in the British days, this country was run by a Chief Secretary and a small staff. We had no Minister for Finance, no Minister for Industry and Commerce, no Minister for Defence or for the Coordination of Defensive Measures. We had a Chief Secretary, an UnderSecretary and a small staff and the whole country was run by that body.

Mr. Burke (County Dublin)

Or overrun?

Mr. Coogan

It may have been overrun in other respects, but I am speaking of administration. We should see what small countries like Sweden, Norway and Denmark are doing rather than imitate the imperial model across the water. The Minister says that the expansion of State activity is the real disease and that the growth of the Civil Service is only a symptom. I agree. But every Deputy who has spoken in this debate has asked for more doles, more social services and more palliatives. If those are granted, the State must pay for them and for the increased staffs to administer them. I think that we have reached saturation point in that regard. The Civil Service has overreached its limit numerically and must be pruned down. This country, being a poor country, cannot undertake a social service scheme on the Beveridge lines. We are almost as far as we can go in the direction of social services, unless the people who advocate those services are prepared to contribute more than they contribute at present to them. In my opinion, the State will have to drop out of this business altogether, and industry and agriculture, perhaps, will have to find some means of providing the social services themselves. Let those social services be built upon the fabric of the industry and let the consumer pay for them not by way of taxation but in the price of goods. We should not look to the State for everything.

As regards industry, taxation is admittedly excessive. Whilst our industry has not had the experience of dislocation during the Great War which industry in Great Britain and other countries had, nevertheless, many industries here are fighting for a footing. They are fighting world monopolies and the cartel system; and it is only right and fair that, at least in their years of infancy, those industries should get a fair chance of making good, always provided that the Minister for Industry and Commerce ensures not only efficiency in production but in the quality of the output. The Minister has made the case that, in the matter of excess profits, he has been lenient and has left a margin of 25 per cent. which those concerned could put into reserves for the post-war period. He stated that the position in Great Britain was that excess profits were taxed to the extent of 100 per cent. In a sense, that is not correct. As I understand, the British Treasury has undertaken to give post-war credits back to industry to the extent of 20 per cent., so that the difference between Great Britain and ourselves is a matter of 5 per cent., not 25 per cent. Be that as it may, I do not think that industry should be asked to bear the burden which is being imposed upon it now. Taxation of all kinds—direct and indirect—is a dead weight burden upon industry. The heavier you render that burden the more you cripple industry. If our industries are to have any chance in the post-war period, taxation must be reduced. I do not see how our industries are to carry on under the present heavy weight taxation. They may need a certain measure of protection to enable them to get into their stride but, once they are in their stride, industry and agriculture should, so far as possible, stand on their own legs.

Tariff palliatives have failed throughout the world. America, the greatest tariff country in the world, is rapidly coming to the conclusion that the policy of tariffs is wrong and is about to abandon that policy. We choose to live in splendid, or unsplendid isolation. We are not endeavouring to get into touch with the people outside who are endeavouring to solve the economic and financial problems of the world. No effort was made, so far as I know, by this State to get into touch with the Dominions Conference, which sat to consider the position arising from the World Conference. There is a danger that, by reason of our isolationism, by reason of our refusal to get into touch with those people, we may be left high and dry. The resources of the world are being pooled for post-war development, particularly in the belligerent countries. Are we doing anything to get our fair share of that pool? Have we any representative at any of the economic or political conferences which are taking place to-day, or are we waiting, Micawber-like, for something to turn up to save our faces? The war is over. We have no longer the excuse of war or neutrality for dodging this question. We have no longer the excuse of threats by belligerent powers for failing to approach one side or other. We have got to go out, put our proposals before people and ask them for a share of whatever is going. The danger is that, unless we do that soon, we shall be late. Deputy Morrissey has given a picture of the position as regards timber. That picture represents the position in the case of every other raw material which is wanted here for either industry or building. It is high time we approached the people across the water, as a beginning, and tried to get the position rectified.

Mr. O'Donnell

As I was entering the Chamber last evening, coming around the corridor I wondered what had happened within the precincts of the House. When I came in, I listened to a certain Deputy, who is not in the House at the moment, holding forth at an alarming rate against the farmers. He was so vehement that I felt like apologising for our entrance to this House. It seemed that we had no right here and he would up by calling us a lot of beggars and mendicants. He talked about meeting a gentleman in the corridors of the Department of Agriculture, going around with papers in his hand and said that he asked him: "What are you looking for?" This gentleman replied: "I am looking for a market for eggs." Well, there is no necessity to look for a market now because the markets of Europe are open to us. There was never a time in the history of this country when there were so many markets available. The Deputy's version was that we have only one market. If you go into a fair with a herd of cattle and there is only one buyer there for these cattle, you know what happens. He will not bid you at first, but a "tangler" comes along and he bids you a certain price. Then a second "tangler" comes along and bids you a still lower price. In the end you are forced to sell at whatever price the one real buyer is satisfied to give you. That is not our position at the moment. We have the finest markets in the world available but the Minister should see that we capture these markets. Deputy Coogan has given a good deal of advice on that matter with which I quite agree. It was painful to listen to the other Deputy to whom I referred, a Deputy whose name is honoured in my native county as well as in all Ireland, and very justly so, too. If, however, we had taken that Deputy's advice some years ago our cities would have been razed to the ground. It was the most painful episode I ever listened to, and I have been in this House for two years.

I see that our taxation for the next year will amount to £52,000,000. With 3,000,000 of a population that means about £17 per head for every man, woman and child. With the population at 2,750,000 it would be £19 per head. That is certainly very high and we do not know where it is going to end. Obviously, the only thing we have to export from the country is agricultural produce. We, agriculturists, will feel the pinch more than any other section. Practically all other sections in the country who have the advantage of trade union conditions work only an eight-hour day while our men and boys, women and girls have to work from 12 to 14 hours a day. We are like Atlas holding up the map of the world. We carry the whole crowd on our backs and yet we are told we are beggars. We ask for very few things from the Government but we are not consulted about anything.

Deputy Coogan referred to the arterial drainage scheme and said that the expenditure in connection with it would probably be double the estimate which was £7,000,000. under that scheme you are taking away water that may be needed very badly in certain parts of the country. That was pointed out to you two years ago by your humble servant. We do know that England has taken up this question of providing water supplies for farmsteads and the authorities have formulated a scheme which is estimated to cost £25,000,000. At the same time we propose to take away the water from many farmsteads. It is quite right, of course, to draw off the water where there is flooding but we may need that water in other parts of the country. In addition, we have passed a Rural Electrification Bill which will involve a considerable expenditure. If you utilise your rivers to electrify the country, there is the danger that you may leave many houses waterless. I put that suggestion to the Minister in charge of the Bill and he replied that electricity does not use up water. I suppose we cannot get on without electricity and the Shannon scheme has undoubtedly proved its worth. It was called a white elephant shortly after it was introduced but, I suppose, Éire would be bankrupt without it. At the same time we can go too far with these schemes.

If you draw a line on the map, taking Athlone as the centre of Ireland, there is no place that would be more than 40 or 50 miles distant from the sea, and I understand that electricity can be developed from sea water. That has been shown in the West of England, in the Severn Channel. There is the danger that if you carry out electrification at the expense of leaving certain farmhouses waterless your scheme will do more harm than good, and at the same time you are imposing very heavy taxation on the country. I know what electricity is going to do and all the drudgery it will bring to an end. Having had a residence of 25 years' in the city, I know both sides of the question, rural and urban. Yet, if you use up the waters of our rivers in such a way as to deprive farmsteads of adequate water supplies, we would prefer to stick to the dip candle and the paraffin oil. It may be, however, that we cannot compete with other countries without electricity. I would suggest that arterial drainage, electricity development and water supplies for our farms are as indissolubly bound together as the Siamese twins, and I think that the arterial drainage scheme and the electricity scheme should not be proceeded with before making a national survey as regards our water supplies, and that the provision of water supplies should go hand-in-hand with the two other schemes.

I do not like introducing Party matters, but when the Deputy who spoke last evening was connected with this Party—it was the Farmers' Party then, and later the Centre Party—he led them into the Government Benches at the time, no doubt with a very good object, but during all these years milk never went more than 5d. a gallon, and we all know the result. I have myself sold 40 pigs as low as 21/- per cwt. Later on we had the present Government plunging us into an economic war. We have to contemplate all the squandermania here while there is £300,000,000 of Irish money invested abroad. The present Government may not be to blame for that, but it is time that they looked to the future. Deputy Coogan made reference to that matter. If a man has £400 or £500 in the bank which he wants to invest that money is very often sent out to be invested abroad. There is £10,000,000 or £15,000,000 invested at the moment in Burma and what is it worth? If the war ended in the other direction, as it might have, what would it be worth? This money, it should be pointed out, came from the farmers originally. Apart from agricultural produce, we are exporting nothing from this country but Guinness' stout, a certain quantity of whiskey and a few poplin ties.

It is true that we want an industrial right arm for the nation. Having lived for 25 years in the city, I know that you need to provide employment in the towns and cities and that therefore you must develop your industrial arm. I think it a great injustice, however, that the people working on the farms have to work from 12 to 15 hours a day. Pulpit, Press and platform clap us on the back and say: "You are great fellows", but it is all tosh and humbug. I have seen one of my lads come in with one of my workmen at a quarter to ten in the evening after working for a neighbouring farmer at threshing. Another son came in with another workman at a quarter to eleven, old time, from a neighbour's threshing. One boy said to my son: "Where are you going?" He told him he was going out with the L.D.F. and the remark then made was: "You are going to your grave." Farmers' sons have to work late into the night when the ricks are open. We farmers are taunted as being mendicants, looking for doles and begging. The Irish farmers never begged from anyone. They would starve before they would become mendicants. A good deal of tosh is talked about farming but it is not fair to grind farmers with heavy taxation. All they want is fair play, not doles. I suggest that we should send some of our Ministers to Europe where there are markets for produce and let the farmers get on with the work at home. There was never a better chance for this country than under this Budget. We wanted parts for agricultural machinery last year but could not get them. At one time Mr. James Larkin described the Minister for Agriculture as the worst Minister in Europe. The Minister for Agriculture is an honest man. He is a most approachable Minister. I asked him recently, about securing agricultural parts for harvesting work, for the Massey-Harris and Hornsby machines, and the Minister stated that parts had been ordered but that there was no guarantee that they would arrive owing to transport difficulties. I suggest that they should be brought in by aeroplanes, and if Irish aeroplanes are not available he should get them in by American machines which can carry from 50 to 80 tons. I mentioned to the Taoiseach on a previous occasion the necessity of having supplies of machinery available and the suggestion I made was acted upon. I am grateful for that.

I was called out recently, late at night, in a great state of alarm. I thought some domestic tragedy had happened, but learned that a blacksmith was unable to complete some repairs to machinery because the electric current had been cut off. If a bomb had dropped in the town of Cahir there would not have been more excitement at the time. The current was restored after a week. We have been told that no parts of agricultural machinery will come in this year. That is a matter that should receive attention, seeing that it is a vital one for the food supplies of our people, as well as for providing exports in the form of cattle. These are matters that should be attended to instead of some of the codology that goes on from time to time. Europe is starving at the present time, and if our population are to be well fed so that we will not have a recurrence of what happened in 1918 when disease spread throughout the world, our farmers must be in the position to provide foodstuffs. I remember that during the 'flu epidemic in 1918 there were on one occasion 15 coffins in Clonmel. Give the farmers the opportunity to produce food and they will do so. We heard here on many occasions what one Party did and what another Party did, but the Farmers' Party make no apology to any Party for their policy. Although I am the only occupant of those benches at present, all that farmers want is a fair show. It is difficult to get help on the land or in farmers' houses. The whole system of education seems to be wrong. Recently I had an advertisement for a maid in three newspapers and I got no reply. Although they are well treated by their employers at home girls who go to England, and who go into service in houses where they can turn on hot-water taps, do not want to work in farmers' houses where they would have to feed hens and pigs.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid the Deputy is wandering.

Mr. O'Donnell

I am sorry, but it is no wonder. I want to tell the House what I think will help farming, as numbers of young people from country districts are going to the towns and cities to look for work.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I wonder if it would be possible at this stage to ascertain if we could finish with these Resolutions to-day. The House will be adjourning until May 15th, and to revive this debate then would be a rather stale proceeding. If there could be an understanding that I could finish to-day I would be prepared to do so.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Can the Minister indicate how long he will require?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I will take whatever time I get from the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies should know that whatever points they want to raise can be raised on the Finance Bill.

Mr. Norton

If the Minister gets in before two o'clock perhaps he could finish.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Could it be agreed that I could get in at 1.30 p.m.?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid there is a question on the Adjournment also.

Mr. D. Morrissey

The Question on the Adjournment will not affect whatever we do now.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That question must be taken at 2 o'clock. If I got half an hour, or three-quarters of an hour I would be more pleased.

Mr. Norton

If speeches were rationed between this and 1.30 perhaps that would suit.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has no power in the matter. It can only be done by arrangement.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Perhaps Deputies could arrange that amongst themselves.

Mr. O'Donnell

Is there to be a 20 minutes' limit on speeches?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Will those Deputies who want to speak agree to 15 minutes?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It might be of assistance to know what time the Minister would require.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

If I get started at 1.20 or 1.15 I will be happy.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Say half-past one.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

All right. I will take what I can get, but I should like to reply to the points that were raised.

Mr. Norton

The Minister can do that during the Presidential election campaign.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I should like to do it here.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister will be called not later than 1.30 to conclude.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Is that agreed?

Mr. Flanagan

There are four Deputies to speak. Does that mean that they will have a quarter of an hour each?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot ration the time but the Minister will be called at 1.30.

Mr. Norton

It is a gentleman's agreement.

Mr. Flanagan

We will see who are the gentlemen. Many Deputies have criticised and discussed the Budget. The Fianna Fáil Deputies do not seem to be taking a very great part in the debate.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

They have a Minister here who is able to do that for them.

Mr. Flanagan

It just shows that they are disinterested in the question of how to relieve the people of the burden of taxation. When there are only three Fianna Fáil Deputies in the House, two of them being new Deputies who were never here for a Budget debate before, it does not look very well at all. This is the second year that I have been in the House when the Minister introduced his Budget. I was hoping that there would be some reduction in taxation this year, but there was none. I hope the Minister will be here this time 12 months to introduce a Budget which will bring some relief of taxation. If there is anything I can do to see to it that the Minister will be here to introduce that Budget, I am prepared to do it. There is very little use in Deputies getting up to criticise the severe burden of taxation from which the people are suffering at the present time if they do not make some constructive suggestions. We can all criticise very bitterly, but how many Deputies have given the Minister any idea as to how to reduce taxation? If I were in the Minister's position, the first thing I would ask is, "What are your solutions for the reduction of taxation? How are we to do it?" We must not forget that at present in this small country there are two Governments, one in the North and one in the South. We all know very well that this country is too small to keep two Governments. No attempt has been made by the Government of the South, as far as the past five, six or seven years were concerned, to bring about unity whereby taxation would be considerably reduced under one native Government. As far as the question of Partition is concerned, I am satisfied that no steps have been taken by the Government, even to make representations to the British authorities, with a view to having a conference to consider what can be done about settling the question. I believe that if the whole country were united under one Government, taxation would not be what it is to-day.

Furthermore, I may point out that out of every four people in this State, three are living out of one, simply because you have able-bodied men being paid big pensions. Nearly every one in this country is in receipt of a pension to-day, with the exception of the labouring man and the small farmer. The country cannot stand it. The Minister, probably, with the help of his Party, will be leaving this House and, as Deputy Davin said, this is probably his farewell Budget. He does not give two hoots whether it is or not. We should realise that we all have a responsibility to the taxpayer, and our aim should be to relieve the people of the severe taxation they are suffering from at present. In my opinion the people who are suffering most from taxation are the poorer classes and the working classes. We have at the moment, as the Minister knows, thousands of able-bodied men who are unable to secure employment in this country, and I suppose that provision has to be made by the Department of Industry and Commerce for the payment of doles. I think doles are the greatest disgrace. Fianna Fáil Ministers and Fianna Fáil Deputies should be the very last people to talk about doles. If I had my way, and I am sure if other members of this House had their way, there would be no such thing as the payment of doles. When I made that statement in my constituency the Taoiseach made reference to it and he said: "That gives you an idea of the type of man you are electing to Parliament. If Deputy Flanagan had his way the poor unfortunate unemployed people might go to the county home, if he deprives them of doles."

The Taoiseach made statements time and again, and so did the Minister for Finance, that if they had their way in this country and if they were returned to power, there would be no need for any man to draw the dole, because every man would have full-time employment. How can they put every man into full-time employment? The way they can do that is by living up to the policy they had in 1931-1932, namely, one man, one job. That policy has completely disappeared. In my constituency I could name 500 or 600 men who have four or five jobs, while the cream of Irish manhood is being forced to take the emigrant ship, not from Galway Bay or Cobh to be borne to the greater Ireland beyond the Atlantic, but to England. It has been stated that we have nothing but agricultural produce to export. I see something that is far more important that has been exported for many years past—the life blood of the Irish nation. They are not going for the love of any foreign country. They are being forced to go by a native Irish Government, compelled to leave their own land and to go in search of work. As we have pointed out here time and again, they are compelled to go because they are denied the food, the work, the clothing and the shelter that Almighty God has provided in abundance for every man on Irish soil. If this country were properly worked, every man would be in full-time employment. There is no truth in the cat-calls that came from the Fianna Fáil platforms at every election campaign that if certain plans for social security were adopted they would not work. I say they were never tried.

Mr. P. Burke (County Dublin)

Will Deputy Flanagan put some constructive suggestion to the House that we will be able to assimilate and to adopt?

Mr. Flanagan

The constructive suggestion I will put to the House now is the suggestion that the Taoiseach put to the Irish people in 1931-32. Mr. Lemass, the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, stated in Athlone:

"If I fail to solve the unemployment problem and the problem of poverty and starvation within the present system, I will go outside the system."

He has definitely failed to solve it within the system and he has not gone outside it and, as far as I am concerned, I think they have very strange ideas of social security.

Mr. Furlong

Fantastic.

Mr. Flanagan

It is nearly time for the Deputy to be going, with his I.R.A. pension. There are three people suffering for his pension.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is not in order.

Mr. Flanagan

I may point out that, as far as we are concerned, the only way this country can be improved is by formulating a scheme under which there will be full-time employment for all, at fair wages. The wages that are being paid at the present time in this country are a downright disgrace to any Christian Government. The ordinary working man is living a life of misery, poverty and starvation, while the vast majority of our farmers are bankrupt, not through their own fault, not through lack of energy in working the land, but simply because of the lack of financial capital to put them into a working position. I want to know from the Minister if he can give us any idea, when replying, of the proportion of taxation imposed on the Irish people that is due to the repayment of interest to the banks. If we had to pay no interest for the money borrowed, taxation would be considerably reduced.

Year after year, since Dáil Éireann was first established, Ministers have introduced Budgets and long-winded speeches have been made on every Budget. I assure Fianna Fáil that I have no doubt I will be here until my beard grows down to my toes, but I know that in 20, 30 and 40 years' time, the same Budgets will be introduced; the same burden of taxation, the increased cost of living, unemployment, poverty, emigration, debt, low wages and starvation, will be discussed and the wages of the workers will be increased with the speed of a snail.

Every year we have the same kind of Budget; we never have any substantial reduction in taxation. The only way we can have that reduction, I am convinced, is by adopting in this country a system whereby the Government of the people will take over complete control of the banking system. Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party, when they heard a speech I made in this House on this subject many months ago, inquired where it was going to end if the Government issued money ad lib. No Government can do that unless they have something behind it. At the present time we are supposed to have gold behind the currency that is in existence. You can have something more substantial than gold behind it. You can have food; you can have production. If the Government of the State issued currency with the backing of what we can produce here, we would have the people of this country producing more because there would be less taxation on them, and we would have money issued by the Government free of interest in order to put them into a position to increase their production, thus increasing the nation's wealth. The Taoiseach and the Ministers at present are mere pawns in the hands of the bankers and capitalists who are running our country to-day. The Minister for Agriculture, even when he speaks about the price of barley, cannot act according to his own conscience; he has to have a “confab” with Messrs. Guinness. It is men like Messrs. Guinness who are running this country to-day. They hold that Government and that Minister in the palm of their hand; they cannot dare to breathe against the will of the capitalists. It is an appalling state of affairs to have any Government, in the name of democracy, controlled and run by bankers and capitalists. That will continue until the Irish people rise up against it. I am afraid the lead will have to come from the people themselves. They will have to rise up against the capitalists of this country, and demand the food, clothing and shelter which Almighty God has provided in abundance for them.

In order to comply with the gentlemen's agreement, I am afraid I have to bring my statement to a conclusion, for fear any member of the Fianna Fáil Party might say that I am not a gentleman. I should like to speak on the subject for about three hours, which I might have done if I had been in the House yesterday, and probably I would have been able to give a more detailed reply to Deputy Paddy Burke of County Dublin. The Minister knows the economic ills from which this country is suffering, but I honestly believe that a few plain truths and facts as to how he is held in the hands of the bankers and capitalists will do no harm. However, he will be joining the ranks of the capitalists himself in a few months' time.

Mr. Norton

I want to concentrate my remarks on just one aspect of the Minister's Budget statement—his references, rather unenthusiastic and uninspired, to the whole scheme of social services. Apparently, in order to do the bogey man in the House, the Minister took the trouble to have the Beveridge proposals examined. He told the House what those proposals, adapted to Irish conditions, would mean, and he also gave us a quotation as to what the cost would be if the British amendments to the proposals were put into operation here. It is good in any case to see the Minister and the Government thinking about the cost of social services, but it is rather striking that the Minister could find time to ascertain what the Beveridge scheme would cost here while his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, could not possibly dream even of examining the proposals submitted by his Lordship, Most Rev. Dr. Dignan. I do not think it was very complimentary to Dr. Dignan that Sir William Beveridge's proposals should get preference in the matter of costing over the proposals which were submitted by his Lordship here.

If there was any one impression conveyed to me by the Minister's speech, it was that he believes that an extension of the present social services is impracticable, and he sheered completely away from the proposals which were submitted to the Minister for Local Government by Dr. Dignan recently. I think Dr. Dignan's proposals were based upon very wide research, upon profound thought, and a broad human understanding of what the people of this country require in order to give them a reasonable measure of comfort and contentment. It is rather unfortunate that the country should have to-day in charge of the Department of Local Government and Public Health a peevish and irritable Minister, who approached Dr. Dignan's proposals with naked hostility, with prejudice, and with an apparent attempt to down those proposals before they received any clear examination at all. As a matter of fact, not content with showing his displeasure at the proposals, his hostility and prejudice towards them, the Minister afterwards proceeded to engage in a fracas with his Lordship as to the status of his Lordship as chairman of the National Health Insurance Society vis-a-vis the omnipotent Minister for Local Government and Public Health. I put it to the Minister for Finance, who has a much more mature and much more balanced mind than his colleague the Minister for Local Government, and who, I think, has a wider and more patient appreciation of human needs, that there is everywhere a growing appreciation of the essentiality of social services, as a means not merely towards national contentment but as a means towards providing the people with the standard of comfort which is their inalienable right.

Even in the midst of war, the world to-day is concentrating a large portion of its thinking machine on planning social services for the postwar period. If the world is doing that, it is doing it for some reason sufficiently cogent to induce it to believe that a planned social security system is essential to human welfare.

While the world is thinking in those terms, we cannot afford, unless we are going to be the twilight of the world, to ignore what the rest of the world is doing. Already Great Britain and the Six Counties have far outpaced us in their standard of social services. That very fact alone is producing increasing barriers to a possible reintegration of the Six Counties with the Twenty-Six Counties of this State. Every new and better social service in the Six Counties is another barrier to the ending of Partition. Every time we lag behind in the fight to provide our people with security against want, against poverty, against squalor, against unemployment and emigration, we are building up new and still more insurmountable barriers to the ending of the unnatural division between the Six and the Twenty-Six Counties of this country.

I believe that co-ordination and development of our social services are absolutely essential to a planned national life and a planned social life. The Minister must know that our present social services are utterly chaotic from an administrative point of view. We have old age pensions administered by the Department of Local Government. We have children's allowances administered by the Department of Industry and Commerce. We have a whole code of national health services administered by an entirely separate society functioning under its own rules. We have unemployment assistance and unemployment insurance administered by the Department of Industry and Commerce. We have widows' and orphans' pensions administered by the Department of Local Government. We have a whole scheme of home assistance administered locally, on no type of planned code, by the local authorities, and we have a dispensary and medical service which, as Most Rev. Dr. Dignan has said, is really a relic of the detestable poor law system in this country. After 23 years of native Government, are we satisfied to contemplate the continuance of a condition of chaos in respect of social services such as is revealed by that type of administration under which various Departments endeavour to administer separately and in a self-contained manner social services which ought to be part of a co-ordinated whole? The present method is wasteful; it is uneconomic. There is no indication of comprehensive planning about the present scheme of social services; there is no co-ordination to avoid the waste and inefficiency which inevitably arise when a number of what ought to be allied services are being administered by separate Departments.

When we look at the scales of benefit provided under our social code, the position is still more appalling. We have, firstly, the widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions scheme under which, if a widow in a rural area has an income of 5/- a week, she does not get a single penny under our widows' and orphans' pensions legislation. Can anybody imagine, in the year 1945, with prices what they are to-day, with the value of the £ as little as it is to-day, saying to an unfortunate widow, whose husband was not insured for widows' pension purposes: "If you have an income of 5/- per week, we can give you nothing under our widows' pensions legislation; if you have an income of 4/- per week, the State will go to the trouble of giving you a widow's pension of 1/-per week and you can walk two or three miles to the post office and get that 1/- each week"? Does it not seem a mockery of human suffering to offer people with an income of 4/- per week a non-contributory pension of 1/-per week? Is it not a further mockery to say that a State which is raising £52,000,000 in taxation, a State in which exists a substantial number of people who are getting away with a large amount of swag annually from extortionate profits, cannot afford to pay any widows' and orphans' pension when a widow has an income amounting to 5/- per week?

Our unemployment assistance benefit and our unemployment insurance benefit make no perceptible contribution to maintaining even in passable decency the unfortunate recipients who are compelled to exist on these allowances when they are unemployed. We have an old age pensions scheme which is destroyed by the manner in which the present means test is administered. That old age pensioners who have served the nation for 70 years must be subject to the inquisition of the present means test before they can get the low pension of 10/- per week is, I think, a reflection on our whole conception of human values in this country. I know of no set of economic or financial circumstances which compel us to carry that iniquitous means test to such an extraordinary degree as it is carried to-day in the administration of old age pensions. We have a national insurance health code which is not in fact a national insurance health code at all. We are satisfied to-day to give a man, with a wife and five or six children depending on him, 15/- per week, with perhaps another little allowance on that, while he is ill and expect him to recover his health while compelled to exist on a sum of money which is probably less than 25 per cent. of his normal earnings when able to work. That is the picture of our social services. I think they are chaotically administered. I think the standards of our social services are appallingly low. If we are to get a measure of contentment amongst our people, if people are not always to be in a bog of poverty, if they are not to take a permanent place amongst the depressed classes of the world, it is essential that we should reorganise and extend our social services in every possible way.

I admit at once, because I do not think the contrary can be asserted, that social services in the long run must be financed out of the productivity of the nation. You cannot provide a high standard of social services in a nation where productivity is appallingly low. Unfortunately, that is our position to-day. The Minister, in the course of his speech on Wednesday, indicated that, notwithstanding all the artificial aids for agriculture, our agricultural productivity was relatively stabilised and he apparently held out no hope that there could be any great acceleration of our agricultural productivity. Certainly we had no plan revealed either by him or the Minister for Agriculture for the maximum utilisation of the enormous potential wealth which resides in the 12,000,000 acres of arable land in this country. I say to the Minister, who must be concerned with national productivity, especially in view of the pains which he took to reveal to us the extent of our national income, that the Government ought to reveal their plan—we had none in the Budget—for intensifying national productivity in the sphere of agricultural and industrial development. I remember, and so does the Minister, when the Government used to tell us in 1930 and 1931 that unemployment need not exist here; that, as a matter of fact, it was just a sheer demonstration of legislative laziness that brought about unemployment here. We all remember the story— that is a not inappropriate description of it—that the Minister for Industry and Commerce told us when Fianna Fáil got into office in 1932, that not only would they stop emigration, but that they would have to bring back the emigrants from America, because so much work would be made available here. Either the Government believed that or they did not believe it. If they did not believe it, and if they admit it now, they ought to make an apology to the people for deluding them. If the Government believed that unemployment need not exist here and that we would have to comb the United States of America so as to bring back the emigrants to do the work that could be provided here, we ought to see some evidence of that planning and development which would absorb the unemployed at present here, not to speak of bringing back the emigrants from America.

Is there any real impediment to the development of our agricultural and industrial resources? I can see none, except an unwillingness to tackle the problem courageously and with vision. We have in this country an abundance of credit. We have probably £300,000,000 frozen in Great Britain. We are exporting more goods to Great Britain than she is sending to us. She is, in fact, sending to us much less than we send to her and she is chalking up I.O.U.'s in the Bank of England which may be frozen after the war, because she may be willing to trade with us only on a barter basis and not allow us to repatriate our frozen credits. We have an abundance of credit here available for national development. We have an abundance of idle men and women, as is revealed by the unemployment figures at the labour exchanges, and a still greater abundance is likely to exist here when the war in Europe terminates. We have a relatively undeveloped agricultural industry and a relatively unscratched industrial potential.

I suggest that the Minister ought to avail of this opportunity, within a few weeks of the termination of the war in Europe, to tell us what are the Government's plans for dealing with a situation of that kind; what are the Government's plans for providing full employment for our people. We have a choice between planning or drifting. If we continue to drift as we have been doing during the past 23 years, then we will have with us for the next 23 years all the evils which have been characteristic of our life during the past 23 years. We will have a continuance of large-scale emigration; we will have a continuance of large-scale unemployment; we will have a continuance of a hard core of unemployment that defies remedy; we will have a continuance of a policy of low wages; we will have a continuance of a situation in which large masses of our people are compelled permanently to live in a condition of impoverishment. That is not a situation any Minister can relish; that is not a situation which ought to continue; that is not a situation which ought to be tolerated for a second in a country which, if its resources were properly developed, is capable of providing each and every one with a decent standard of living.

I do not believe our conception of human values ought to be that of sending our people to the emigrant ship, to the labour exchange, to the home assistance officer. This is not a desert island, this is not an American dust hole. This is a fertile land which, properly organised, is capable of giving all our people a decent standard of living. We have the credits, we have the materials, we have the man and the woman power available. Is there any reason why these cannot be harnessed in a national crusade in order to try to eliminate impoverishment, increase the productivity of the nation, and produce more wealth which can be utilised in improving the standard of living of our people? That is the problem to which the Government should have applied themselves. They have not done so. That is the problem the solution of which has not been revealed in the proposals submitted in this Budget. The Minister ought to tell us what the Government really contemplate in that regard.

Mr. Browne

The Minister is asking us in this year's Budget for £52,367,000. I feel that by the introduction of such a huge Budget he is setting a bad headline to all sections of the people. I base that argument on several things. The Minister has told us that, in order to balance the Budget, he will require a sum of £3,707,000. He has to meet a deficit on last year's expenditure and he anticipates an increase in expenditure during the coming year. If we compare the Minister's methods with the methods adopted by the ordinary individual in business or in any profession, no matter what may be his means of livelihood, all I can say is that the Minister's methods are most unsatisfactory. I can see nothing but insecurity in the Minister's policy.

Let me take, by way of example, an ordinary labourer who, at the end of the year, finds himself in debt and comes to the conclusion that he must borrow £10 to meet his liabilities. He then has to look at the other side of the picture and he finds he must borrow another £15 to meet his liabilities in the coming year. That puts him in the position of having to borrow £25 in order to meet his debts. If the ordinary labourer has to do that you may take it that the same applies to other sections of the community. They have to carry on their businesses by borrowing in order to meet deficiencies and to cover increased expenditure; in other words, they are following the headline that has been adopted in this Budget.

I believe that expenditure in many Departments should have been examined with the object of reducing it. I feel that there are Departments in which a big saving could be made. In that way I believe that the amount the Minister asks in order to balance this Budget could be met. Let me take the Department of Defence, where the expenditure is roughly £8,000,000. It was quite plain to everybody for the past three months that a saving could be made in this Department. It was quite plain that we are nearing the end of the war. I believe an investigation of the Estimate for the Department of Defence would enable us to save sufficient to meet the deficiency. Considerable savings could be made as regards the L.D.F. and the L.S.F. because their activities have practically come to an end. With demobilisation of army units and one thing or another I believe the greater portion of the £3,707,000 could be obtained and perhaps a little bit might be added from other Departments where savings could be effected.

The Minister said that the farmers have had a fairly good time. All I will say is that they got a very bad start. I remember what the agricultural position was like in 1938. The farmers were then in great difficulties; they were never at a lower point in their history. They had to start off from a very bad position as regards finance and we all remember the demand for huge schemes of agricultural production. The farmers had to produce sufficient food and fuel for the people. They took off their coats and produced all the food and fuel that were needed by our people. I agree they got a fairly good price, but I do not say they had a good time, or anything like it, because their overhead expenses, the ups and downs and the uncertainties of the market had to be considered, so that everything was not in the farmers' favour.

I remember periods inside the past 12 months when we had cattle at the fairs and there was not a man to ask where we were going with them. I asked a question here in January and the Minister for Agriculture could not say then if there was any prospect of increased prices for cattle. My complaint is that a big number of the farmers who have small holdings were obliged practically to throw away their cattle last January, because they had to sell them at the price at which they bought them six months previously. The unfortunate men wanted money to prepare their farms during the spring. They lost money on their stock and they have no possible hope of recovering what they lost. The outlay of the farmer is also very high, as everything he has to purchase to keep his house going costs about three times more than it did in 1938. If the value of the food he has produced for the nation has increased, that increase is well met by the increases put on him in the way of overhead charges.

We are now at the end of the war and have got over the period by producing sufficient food and fuel for ourselves, so there is now the hope that we may be able to produce a surplus for export. We must be able to tell the farmers that, if they produce certain lines of agricultural goods for export, they will receive a guaranteed price for that export surplus. If that is not done and the surplus is not produced in order to balance our imports, I can see fairly dark times facing the farmers.

Reference was made yesterday to old age pensions and to the period when there was a maximum pension of 9/- per week. I would like Deputies who referred to that to take into consideration that there was then very cheap food. In those years, you had the 2-lb. loaf for 3d., the stone of flour for 1/- or 1/6 and the ounce of tobacco for 6d. In other words, the 9/- then was much better than £1 to-day. To make up for that difference, there has been an increase of a paltry shilling. Even that shilling is being administered in a way that is no credit to the Exchequer. The Department of Finance gives the administration of a county a certain amount to increase the old age pension, subject to the condition that the county put up a subsidy of at least one-fourth of the cost. There is a means test and the old age pensioner has to qualify for home assistance in order to get that shilling. He has to make application to the home assistance officer who must report that he is in such poor circumstances as to be allowed the extra amount. If his case is not sufficiently bad, even the 1/- will be refused. The increase should be given to every old age pensioner and it should not be an increase of only 1/-, but a decent one, even if it were only a temporary increase; and it should be administered in a better way.

As I am near the end of the 15 minutes' time limit for speeches, I conclude by saying that some different method must be found of meeting the cost. If the Department of Finance is to continue the policy of borrowing, it will mean putting bigger responsibilities on the people who come after us. It is a wrong thing and will be an injury to the people who will have to come after those of us who are debating this budgetary finance here to-day.

Mr. Everett

I have listened for some days to the speeches and have failed to understand the mentality of some members of the Fine Gael Party. They have nothing but condemnation for the increased Budget and increased taxation, yet in the next breath they are condemning the Government for not granting increases to national teachers and are advocating social services. Deputy Cogan states there are too many civil Servants and gives the impression that the 30,000 civil servants were all arm-chair men, overlooking the fact that a large percentage consists of auxiliary postmen in rural areas on 15/- a week and a number of unestablished civil servants at 50/- a week. That is not honest criticism. Then we have appeals to go hat in hand to Britain, and we are told that there is now a golden opportunity. I maintain that any Government in power is fully alive to the seriousness of the situation, without going cap in hand to any other Government, and does not need advice from any section of the House to make a misericordia appeal to anyone else. Acting as Irishmen, we are prepared, even when another Government is in power, to do what is right in the interests of the country.

One thing on which the Minister is to be congratulated is that he has secured the co-operation of certain members of the Fine Gael Party in frightening people in regard to the Beveridge Plan. We had Deputy Coogan telling us that the Labour Party need never ask for increased social services. The Minister for Finance has succeeded, with the advice received from officials, in frightening them. It is said that the Beveridge Plan applied to Ireland would cost £23,000,000. The Fine Gael members are easily frightened. Even Beveridge did not ask that the whole Plan be put into operation immediately or that the whole amount be spent in a particular year in Britain. Dr. Dignan's plan, if the Minister gave the same consideration to it, would not cost much more than we are paying at present on social services. It deals with the co-ordination of all the services we have. The Minister talks about £9,000,000 at present going out on social services. There is £4,000,000 spent on old age pensions, in giving the 10/- a week to keep them from starvation, and there is £2,250,000 spent on children's allowances, of which rich and poor get the benefit. Over and above that £6,250,000, there is very little left for any of the other services. The Dignan Plan is the co-ordination of national health, home assistance, unemployment assistance and all those other schemes. With an increased contribution from those engaged in industry, I believe we could give greater services even than those promised to the unemployed and employed people in England.

If we take even the railway services at the present time, under the new management, we find that 20,000 workers are guaranteed, at 65 years of age, pensions of something like 35/- a week, and when some of the Deputies here talk about this £52,000,000, do they ever consider that that only equals, in purchasing power, about £30,000,000 pre-war? When you talk about 10/- or £1, it must be remembered that £1 pre-war was worth, in purchasing power, about 34/- to-day. I know that in many of the rural areas it would take at least 34/- to purchase now what £1 would buy in pre-war days. For that reason, I say that this is not an election Budget, although some Deputies have described it as such. I say that it is not an election Budget, because it has not brought any hope to the poor or the unemployed, who were expecting that the Minister, in his Budget, would make some gesture towards giving them some relief. The old age pensioners will not come out to vote for the Minister or his Government in this election, and neither will any of the people in receipt of pensions of one kind or another, or in receipt of home assistance or unemployment assistance. Therefore, this is certainly not an election Budget, so far as the people who are depending on home assistance or relief of any kind are concerned. It is a Budget for the capitalists of this country, since nothing is being taken from them and there is no increase in taxation on them.

The Minister has pointed out that unemployment has been reduced in this country. Unemployment in this country has been reduced, but, unfortunately, it has not been reduced as a result of any plan made by the Government. I do not want to repeat what has been said by other Deputies, to the effect that about 250,000 of our people went to work on the other side during the war, and that a great many of these people will be returning here, but I should like to know what plan we have here to meet that situation. I do not say that all of these people will come back to this country, but certainly a very large number of them will come back. Have we any plan to meet that situation? Surely those people, who have been in receipt of good wages on the other side and who have been living in a certain atmosphere that is different to that in which the people of this country live, will not be satisfied merely with the small allowance handed out to them here through the unemployment exchanges. I say to the Minister and to the Government—and particularly to the Minister, before he goes out of office— that some gesture should be made to the needy people in this country. It has been pointed out that there is 10/- a week provided for old age pensioners, but the Minister may not be aware that quite recently—within the last 12 months, at any rate—a very severe means test is being imposed against these old age pensioners: such a test as has not been known in my experience for 20 years. I have known the Minister for a number of years, and I am sure that he is not one who would be a party to the working of a red-tape machine in order to deprive, by way of a means test, those pensioners of their 10/- a week or to reduce their pensions in any way. A number of cases, however, have been brought to my notice within the last six months, where people who, previously, and in the Minister's own time in office, had been granted a full pension, are now being deprived of some of that pension as a result of the imposition of the means test. The same applies to those in receipt of blind pensions. Some of these people are being offered 5/- a week, as a result of the tests that are now being applied.

With regard to men employed by county councils, I should like to say that owing to the Minister's policy, or the policy of the Government, we are not able to grant those men any increase in their wages. In that connection, I do not want to attack the county managers. It is not their fault. They are good Irishmen, as I know, but the policy of the Government prevents the unfortunate employees of these councils from receiving more than 29/- a week. The same applies to forestry workers; men who, after giving 25 or more years' service in the Forestry Department in Avondale or Aughavannagh, have been unable to obtain pensions on the ground that they had received £39 in the previous year. Accordingly, before these men could be granted a pension of even 10/- a week, we had to go to the county manager and arrange for a certain number of weeks unemployment. That is all due to red-tape, and surely the Minister should get rid of that kind of red-tape in the administration of the affairs of the Department of Local Government.

I regret that the Minister did not make some effort to relieve the destitution that prevails amongst a large section of the community at the present time. Most of the people who are now depending on small wages are faced with a high cost of living, and in most of the country towns there is no provision for what a man has to pay for the necessaries of life. There is no proper inspection by the Gárda. I know that some shopkeepers have become very wealthy as a result of the charges they make for various commodities, and if a customer objects to these charges, it only means that he will not be served in that shop again and, practically, will be deprived of the things he needs unless he is prepared to pay the higher price. I ask the Minister to consider these matters, and I also would urge him to remove this means test in regard to pensions. I am satisfied, from the speeches that were made here on the Fine Gael benches, that they are determined that no further advances should be made in the social services: that is, if Deputy Coogan is speaking on their behalf. He says that there should be no further increase in the social services because the country cannot afford to pay them. I say that the country can afford to pay for these services. I think that we could prove that, with a contribution from the insured person and the worker concerned, with a contribution from the public bodies, along with what the Government have given up to the present time, greater benefits could be provided for the people; and with the provision of those greater benefits and greater security you will remove the fear of want and hunger from these people in their old age.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

A very wide field, in matters of public interest, has been dealt with or touched upon, in one way or another, in the course of the debate during the last three days. I should like to deal with many of these matters, but I am afraid that in the time now left at my disposal I shall have to restrict my desire to deal with all these matters, and pass over many of the things upon which I should like to comment, reserving my comments on them for another day. Perhaps, when the Finance Bill comes along, I shall have an opportunity of answering the various points that were made by a number of Deputies—points which they have made in the course of the discussion, and which, I am sure, they would like to have answered. In the limited time at my disposal, therefore, I shall try to pick out from many of the statements made, with which I should like to deal and reply to, those which might be regarded as the more important ones, and endeavour to deal with these.

First, I should like to say, in reply to some Deputies, that in every one of the Budget speeches for which I have been responsible, at any rate, since I became Minister for Finance—and I have had seven Budget speeches, including the emergency Budget speech of 1939, this being the seventh—I have endeavoured to put before the House and before the country a clear, precise statement of the country's position: cloaking nothing, hiding nothing, giving to the Dáil and the country, as I say, a clear, objective statement, without any reference to Party, without any praise for anything that this Government may have done, without taking any credit, but giving to the country, as a Minister for Finance should do on occasions of this kind, once a year, a clear statement of exactly how we stand financially and economically. I have tried to do that on every occasion and I have done it, I think, in as objective a way as any Minister for Finance in any country could do it in the Budget statement I made to the House this week. I have not cloaked anything which any member of the House would be likely to raise relating to our financial or economic condition. It was a long statement. I read it fairly rapidly and it took me an hour and 25 minutes. Some may have thought it was too long, but I wanted to give the House and the country, so far as my ability and the ability of the very able officials I have assisting me in the Department allow me to do so, the clearest possible account of our conditions, and I am satisfied, despite the criticisms I have heard, that I have succeeded in doing so.

One Deputy did suggest that I cloaked or hid certain matters. I tried to cloak nothing, whether it was for or against me or my Government. I wanted the country to know the financial position as we know it, such as it has been made by the Government, by the Dáil, by the whole Oireachtas, to see clearly where they stand and where they are going, without caring what happens as a result. I wanted everybody here to know that this country is at present bearing a very heavy burden of taxation. I have stressed that over and over again. Nobody in the Dáil has stressed it with greater force than I, and I do not see that we can possibly face this year with any less taxation. I have said that I am unfortunately not in a position to give any remission of taxation, but I was happy enough, though the demand is greater this year than last year, in the thought that we could get on without asking the country to bear any further imposts. As I say, it is at present bearing, and has been bearing, especially since the war, a very heavy impost.

Deputy Morrissey made the statement yesterday in the course of—if I may say so—his able criticism of this Budget that, since this Government came in, it had never produced a balanced Budget. That is not true. I will not go further than that, but if time allowed I could give the figures of each Budget for the past 13 years.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I hope the Minister will demonstrate that on another occasion.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I will, certainly, and I will give the Deputy the figures. There were a number of years in which the Budget, according to certain strict standards, if you like, was not balanced and it might be argued from other standpoints that it was balanced, but will the Deputy tell me where in any part of the world now there is a Minister for Finance who, according to the old-fashioned strict standard which used to rule, balances his Budget?

Mr. D. Morrissey

Oh, now. At the moment?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Yes, at the moment.

Mr. D. Morrissey

We are not in the same position as other countries.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Though not in the war, we are affected as much as any other country.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Even before the war, the Minister was not balancing his Budget, and he knows it.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

We were.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I shall be glad to hear the Minister demonstrate that.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I would not make the statement unless I were able to demonstrate it. Our nearest neighbour, who is so often quoted as an example, is in the war. We are not, but we are affected very materially, financially and economically, by the war. How much of their costs do they bear out of taxation compared with us? I put that question to the Deputy and to the House: how much do they bear? How much does America bear?

Mr. D. Morrissey

The Minister knows there is no analogy.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There is, because we are very materially affected and we cannot stand aside in isolation, as Deputy Coogan suggested. We are affected in practically every item of our daily lives by the war conditions around us. We cannot escape them.

Deputy Norton in the first short speech he made on Wednesday—and he repeated it to-day to a certain extent—said that the Minister had made no reference in his Budget statement to post-war plans and conditions. He said he had gone carefully over the 43 pages of the Budget statement and could find no such reference. I have heard of people being colour blind, and I have heard of people suffering from other forms of blindness, but if Deputy Norton had looked at all the statement, he would have seen that there are about six pages dealing with post-war affairs. How he managed to put the blind eye to these six pages, I do not know, but, of course, when people's Party political instincts are in the ascendant, strange things happen.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Hear, hear!

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That does not apply to Deputy Morrissey's Party any more than to my own or to myself. I have often used my Party political bias to good effect.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Very good effect.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

But I am not doing it in relation to the Budget.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I did not say you were.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I come here to the House as Minister for Finance on the occasion of the Budget statement to render an account of my stewardship and of the nation's economic and financial affairs. I do it, so far as my ability and intelligence will allow me, in the most unbiassed objective way a human being can. I try to tell the House and the country exactly where we stand and let Government or Party take the consequences. I want the country to know where we are and where we are going. I tried in my statement to let the country know, and I think I have succeeded in doing so.

Not alone have we dealt in the Budget statement with post-war conditions as they may affect us and with post-war plans, but in the last year or year and a half, we have put before the country in concrete form plans and schemes with estimated costs — big schemes costing millions and even hundreds of millions—which are to be put into operation as soon as opportunity offers and when materials become available. Very few Deputies referred to this. Most of those who spoke said there was not a word in the statement about post-war plans, or about what is to become of the people who are employed here or of the people who may return here from England.

I am seriously exercised in my mind about these people — those who are employed here and the others who may return—and, as Minister for Finance and a member of the Government, I can say that the Government have given very serious attention to that problem over the last couple of years. We did take time by the forelock with regard to drainage. That problem was agitating the country long before the Dáil was established. The commission that was set up to examine the question of improving the drainage of the country took about two years to examine the problem. The best men and the best brains that we could get in the country, experts and others, were selected to examine it, and after about two years the commission made recommendations which the Government adopted in toto. It reported that to put a modern, scientific, up-to-date scheme of arterial drainage into operation would cost approximately £7,250,000. That estimate was based on pre-war prices. Taking post-war prices, and revised ideas of what areas of land would have to be drained, into account it is, I believe, a modest computation to say that the scheme, when concluded, will cost a sum that will be nearer to £14,000,000 than to £7,250,000. That is one plan. We have also our building plans. A White Paper was circulated on these. We heard many references to-day to British White Papers, but this White Paper of ours was completely ignored. Party political bias was so strong on the Opposition Benches that the Deputies there would not even mention it.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I mentioned it.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The Deputy did in a very passing way.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Not at all. I made an important reference to it.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There are a number of other plans and schemes that I could go through. There is the rural electrification scheme that will cost £20,000,000 at least. Unfortunately, a beginning on these schemes is entirely conditioned by the possibility of being able to get materials after the war. That is, unfortunately, our difficulty. But we have those schemes in such a state of preparation that we are ready to give the word "go" the moment materials can be got. I think that Deputy Morrissey or some other Deputy mentioned the difficulty of getting timber. Linked with that is the important question of having our own mercantile marine. I hope that, not only will we keep the number of ships we have, but that we will increase the number this nation will own, so that we will be able, with God's help, to bring from foreign parts in our own ships, the timber that we will require to put our building schemes into operation.

Mr. Anthony

By that time, I hope we will have the Cork Regional Hospital built. It was promised many years ago.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I hope so. There has been a good deal of talk about our social services. I often get vexed when Deputies and others throw up at the Government the statement: "See what is being done in Britain about social services; look at the magnificent system of social services that is in operation there". America is, or used to be, a much richer country than Britain. It will be hard to tell how they will stand after the war. But, considering our resources, and that America is a much richer country than this, it has not as good social services as we have. Deputies should realise that. Our social service system is not ideal. It could be improved in many respects, but that is not an easy thing to do. Some Deputies talked about the co-ordination of our social services. I think it was Deputy Everett who said that if there was co-ordination we would save so much money that we would be able to give much better social services. When I was Minister for Local Government, and since, I have examined the question more than once of trying to get the ideal system of co-ordination that some Deputies think is possible. I think it is not possible. These services are so interlocked, and overlap to such an extent that it is very difficult to say where social service begins and where it ends. Co-ordination is not the easy thing that some Deputies imagine. I can assure the House that if it were an easy thing to get one Department to look after all our social services it would have been done long ago. I am not saying that the services are ideal or that they are sufficient. What I do say is that what we have decided to provide for ourselves in that way is as much as we can afford.

There has been a good deal of mention in this and the other House about the Beveridge scheme. I have also discussed it with deputations at different times. It has been suggested to me that we ought to put that scheme into operation here, or that, at any rate, if we cannot do that, we should put the modified scheme which the British have published in their White Paper into operation here. I have had that scheme examined by the most expert people that we have in our service. I have said to them: "Tell me what it will cost, and be very careful about your estimate." I have given the House the figures, and I suggest that no one in his senses would dream of saying that we, out of our meagre resources, could pay for the modified scheme based on the British White Paper. That scheme would mean another £20,000,000 a year out of State funds. Therefore, I suggest, no one could dream of saying that we could afford that. Let us, for goodness' sake, drop that idea and get away from it. While we want to improve our social services, we will do that within the measure of our resources. I do not object to anybody examining any scheme from that point of view. If we could get better value for the £9,000,000 odd that we are spending on social services, it is reasonable to say: "Let us see if that sum could be better spent." If Deputies would like to include with that an examination of our social services generally, as to whether they could be better organised, that also, I say, is a reasonable proposition. That question is, actually, at the moment in the course of examination. In all seriousness, I would beg Deputies, with a sense of responsibility, not to be throwing at us schemes that would cost the State sums in the region of £20,000,000 a year, without taking into account at all the extra sums that must come out of the pockets of the people who are likely to benefit from these social services.

I was asked by Deputy McGilligan on Wednesday what financial advantage we hoped to receive from the development of the Shannon airport. Unfortunately, in present circumstances, at any rate, I do not see any financial advantage. I do not see that we are going to get any revenue that will remunerate our expenditure on the airport at the Shannon or the one here near Dublin. The development of air services has only begun. We do not know what is likely to happen. Would Deputy McGilligan, or any other Deputy, suggest that we should not use to the fullest advantage, the unique geographical position that we occupy vis-a-vis the western Continent? I think that no Deputy would suggest that, from the point of view of national prestige, which is important, we should not, as a country especially favoured geographically, make use of our position and keep up our close and intimate connection with a continent with which we are already so intimately closely connected, even by ties of blood. I have to admit that, so far as I can see, there will be no profit in the immediate future out of the development of the airport services on the Shannon. We have already spent over £1,000,000 on what is called the Shannon airport — in Foynes and County Clare—and we propose to spend this year — whether it will be spent completely within the year or not, I do not know—a further sum of £350,000 on concreting the runways in County Dublin.

Séamus Diolún

Cad mar gheall ar na hOllscola?

Seán T. O Ceallaigh

Níl a fhios agam cad a thiocfaidh as.

Séamus Diolún

An mbeidh a thuilleadh airgid acu?

Seán T. O Ceallaigh

B'fhéidir go mbeadh. Tá súil agam go mbeidh. Deputy Blowick was very much concerned that we should exercise economy in expenditure. That brings me to a point which Deputy Dillon mentioned—the question of over-estimation. Every year, the Minister for Finance sends out an urgently-worded letter, when the time comes for sending in the Estimates to the various Departments, and begs them to estimate for the following year as closely as possible. When the Estimates come in, each is scrutinised in the most minute way in my Department. Expert officials go through every item to satisfy themselves, in the first instance. Then, they get over the officials from the Department concerned and they discuss every item of the Estimate. It is not possible to estimate in advance with less than 5 per cent. of error. Oftentimes, estimation is out by more than 5 per cent. In the year to which Deputy Dillon referred, there was over-estimation of less than 5 per cent. I do not think that we are ever likely to get a lower percentage than that, bearing in mind that, however we may try to avoid it, Supplementary Estimates are almost always necessary on behalf of some Department. If we can keep within the 5 per cent., we shall be very lucky. That is my experience. Since I became Minister for Finance, I have taken a personal interest in seeing that every Estimate was examined in the closest way. Officials, who are called in from the Departments concerned, have to defend every item in their Estimates, as submitted to us.

Mr. Dillon

In that particular year the Minister will observe that certain Estimates represented much more than 5 per cent. over-estimation.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I am taking the Estimates as a whole. I had not had an opportunity of looking into the details of that year since the Deputy referred to the matter, but I shall look up the matter again. As I am dealing with a point raised by Deputy Dillon, I may mention that the question regarding Army contracts, to which he referred, has already been taken up by the Department of Defence—that is, the suggestion the Deputy made about getting out of our liabilities.

Mr. Dillon

Not getting out of our liabilities; winding up our liabilities.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Arranging with those with whom we were in negotiation that certain liabilities would——

Mr. Dillon

Be equitably settled up.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Yes. We are not trying to get out of our liabilities in any improper way. Deputy Coogan suggested that, on figures which, he said, he derived from the Budget statement, this country was running into bankruptcy. That is not true. Deputy Coogan should look into the figures again, as given in the Budget statement. If he goes over his own speech and compares his figures with the figures given in the Budget, he will find that he has counted in certain charges twice over. In that way, he got out a figure for our liabilities far in excess of any amount of which the Minister for Finance is aware. I tried to give a full and truthful account of our assets and liabilities. I want to hide nothing. I want to give everybody the fullest information as regards our position. I have done that, and if Deputy Coogan will examine the Budget statement again and compare it with his figures, he will find that he is in error in suggesting that any approach to national bankruptcy is exposed in the Budget statement I put before the House.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister will agree that, if the national income reverted to anything like its pre-war level, our financial position would be very precarious?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I agree.

Mr. Dillon

That should be borne in mind. The war will not go on for ever, thank God.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

And, therefore, we shall have to measure our expenditure against our resources when the war is over, as well as during the war. In that connection, the many demands made from all parts of the House for increased expenditure should be borne in mind. Deputies cannot have it both ways. We cannot have industrial development so long as taxation remains at its present level. Industrial development and high taxation will not go hand in hand. In reply to a number of speakers who referred to the high rate of taxation on industry, I want to point out that tax on excess profits by industry was not imposed, through the instrumentality of the Minister for Finance, before January, 1941. Therefore, for 16 months of the war period, all industry escaped excess corporation profits tax. During that time, excess profits tax was being paid in Britain. I should like those interested in industrial enterprise to remember that. In addition, the tax here represented only 75 per cent. of the excess profits. Therefore, those concerned have in their pockets—not promises, as in the case of Great Britain, which was referred to—for the last three years a sum represented by 25 per cent. less than the rate of tax in operation in Britain.

Deputy Dillon, Deputy McGilligan and Deputy Norton asked me for some particulars about the match company. I have ascertained from the Stock Exchange Year Book that the authorised capital of the company is £400,000. I could get more detailed information from the Revenue Commissioners, but such information is strictly confidential, and even if I asked for it, it would not be proper to give information of that kind in the House. I restricted myself, therefore, to answering the question in so far as I could with the knowledge that is published—that the capital is £400,000. Any Deputy who wishes to get further information about the affairs of the company can, by paying 1/- at the company's office, get such information from the memorandum and articles of association of the company.

Mr. Dillon

This concession then represents about 12 per cent. of the authorised capital?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That may be so.

Mr. Dillon

It is a substantial sum.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

A considerable amount of that money has to be divided amongst wholesalers and retailers—about £17,000. I was also asked a question as to the number employed in the industry. Speaking from my own personal observation, I think there would probably be several hundred, but I could not be sure of the exact number.

Question put and agreed to.

Financial Resolutions ordered to be reported.