Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Nov 1945

Vol. 98 No. 7

Private Deputies' Business. - Cost of Administration of State Departments—Motion.

Mr. Blowick

I move:—

That, in view of the enormous and ever-increasing burden of national taxation, Dáil Eireann is of opinion that a Select Committee with power to send for persons, papers and records be set up to inquire into the cost of administration in all State Departments with a view to ascertaining what economies can be effected and how waste and over-lapping can be eliminated.

The reason why we have tabled this motion is that many people are taking serious notice of our national expenditure and of the increasing burden of national taxation. The proposal in the motion is for the setting up of a Select Committee to see what economies can be effected. It is the belief of many people that there is very serious over-lapping and serious wastage in many Departments. The facts concerning national taxation at the moment are definitely disquieting. For over ten years now our budget has been unbalanced. During the last ten years expenditure has been in excess of revenue each year, according to the Statistical Abstract for 1943. The State debt has grown alarmingly from year to year. The cost of servicing State debt is becoming a really heavy burden. If something is not done to check it, it will become a serious handicap on the future working of the State. In 1924, the State debt was £13,993,000, the dead weight part of it being £10,399,000. In 1937, it had increased from practically £14,000,000 to slightly over £73,000,000, the dead weight part of the debt being £37,250,000. In 1940, it had increased from £73,000,000 to close on £94,000,000, the dead weight part of which was £53,500,000. As regards the statistical material that is available to us there is one thing lacking and that is that no official balance sheet has ever been published by the Department of Finance to show what the State debt really is from year to year.

The increase in the growth of State debt and in dead weight debt has become definitely alarming. The servicing of debt in 1926 was just under £1,000,000. By 1932, the figure had gone up to £1,500,000. In his Budget statement last May, the Minister for Finance told the House that the servicing of debt was costing £4,000,000 a year. It may be argued that a lot of useful things are being done with this money, but I hold that if we had kept down the debt over the last number of years we would be in a very happy position to-day. If, for example, we had this £4,000,000 which the servicing of State debt is costing the country to play with we could do many useful things, and could increase many services that are very badly needed. When, from time to time, demands are made for more social services and for the execution of public works of many kinds, the usual answer that we get from the Minister for Finance is that money cannot be saved and that these things cannot be done without putting further taxes on many articles that are already taxed to capacity. If we had that £4,000,000 to play with, many useful things could be done with it.

There has been, for instance, an increase in the number of civil servants. In January last the House was told that the number of civil servants in the country was 30,333. That means, according to the census taken in 1936, that there are 23 civil servants to every 1,000 occupied persons. The Banking Commission in its report drew attention to the abnormal increase in the number of civil servants. In 1927, the total number was in the neighbourhood of 9,000, and to-day the number is 30,333. Taking the activities of any Department of State that I am interested in. I must say that this very steep rise in the number of civil servants does not point towards efficiency. From time to time I have occasion to deal with the Land Commission. That Department is understaffed at the moment, and even though I believe it was not understaffed before the emergency, it expects to have some of its staff returned to it. Certainly, the increase in the Civil Service, not only in the Department of Lands but in every other Department, does not seem to be making for more efficiency.

The decline in agricultural output is down by 11 per cent. and in industrial output by 24 per cent., while at the same time the physical volume of money has increased. The balance of our sterling holdings shows a very steep increase, our Exchequer issues are abnormally high, while our State and local debts are increasing. I would like to have an explanation from the Minister for Finance as to where exactly he thinks all this is leading. Many people throughout the country are alarmed at the trend things are taking. We are definitely going into debt year by year. The servicing of debt is costing a very great amount, and Government Departments are, in my opinion, costing much more than they ought to cost. As regards the Departments, here are a few figures which I desire to give. In 1930-31, the Department of Finance was costing £54,851; in 1943-44, the cost had increased to £78,737. The Office of Public Works in 1930-31 was costing £85,492. In 1943-44, the cost of it had risen to £143,840. The Civil Service Commission in 1930-31 cost £11,273, and in 1943-44 it had increased to £23,724. The Department of Agriculture was administered in 1930-31 for £435,867, and in 1943-44 it had increased to £1,352,844. The Department of Lands was serviced in 1930-31 for £544,851, and in 1943-44, even with a reduced staff, it cost £1,277,000. The Department of Industry and Commerce in the year 1930-31 cost £87,270, and in 1943-44 it had increased to £258,918. The Secret Service went up from £1,409 in 1930-31 to £20,000 in 1943-44.

The general procedure in both Houses of the Oireachtas does not permit of the detailed examination of various items. It may be said that the Public Accounts Committee can go into all this. They can, but they are powerless to effect any curtailment. Their broad function, put in a nutshell, is to see that the money voted by the Dáil for a particular purpose is spent in that particular way. The select committee envisaged in this motion would have power to send for persons, papers and records. They would have power to make a full and thorough investigation, and to make representations to the Government as to where expenditure could be saved. I move the motion for that reason, coupled with the fact that my experience has been that, although the cost of administering State Departments has increased, the efficiency of that administration has decreased rather than increased.

Mr. Cogan

I second this motion. It seeks to supply what I think is a long-felt need. It seeks to provide that the expenditure of the State and the administration of our public Departments be subject to close scrutiny by a select committee of this House. Such a committee as we envisage it would have power to examine in close detail every item of expenditure. It may be said that this House, in dealing with the Estimates when they come before it, has the same power. But a committee such as we envisage would have further power. It would have power to send for any particular official who is dealing with any particular matter which the committee questions, and to send for documents and papers in relation to the administration of that Department. This committee could go into close detail, and find out if each and every Department of the State is functioning efficiently and economically. Every business, whether it be large or small, must be subject to scrutiny from the top. We, as the elected representatives of the people, are the directors of the State and of the administrative machinery of the State. It is our duty, as directors of the entire administrative machinery, to examine the working of the entire administration with as close attention as is paid by the directors of a business firm to an examination of the working of all its departments. We claim—and that is the reason for putting down this motion—that a democratically elected deliberative assembly such as this is not fully qualified to go into the details of administration with sufficently close attention to find out if there is waste or over-lapping; to find out if there are officials who are redundant; to find out if there are officials who are not giving full return, or if they are employed in such a way that they cannot give full return to the State; to find out if there is over-lapping—if there is an office at one side of the street dealing with a matter which an office at the other side of the street is dealing with at the same time. If there is duplication, overlapping and waste, that ought to stop. It would also be the function of this committee to see if money voted even for purposes apart from the payment of salaries and expenses of officials is voted wisely.

Glancing over the Estimates for other years I happened to glance at the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture for 1937, and I found that a sum of, I think, £80,000 was voted in that year as a subsidy on the export of calf skins. I am certain that if a small committee of this House were to examine that question carefully they would definitely come to the conclusion, that that subsidy was unwisely spent; that the provision of a subsidy to ensure the slaughter and waste of calves, and the export of the skins to some other country, possibly at no price whatever, was unwise. As Deputy Blowick has pointed out, there is attached to this House a Public Accounts Committee which examines the expenditure in detail from year to year. But the Public Accounts Committee is handicapped in that its function is merely to see that the money is expended for the purpose for which it was voted by the House. It has no function to consider whether the money was wisely or unwisely voted. If this House, in its wisdom or unwisdom, were to vote £1,000,000 to-morrow for the erection of a colossal statue of the Minister for Finance in the centre of the city, and that expenditure subsequently came before the Committee of Public Accounts, who found that the money had been duly spent and the statue duly erected, then the committee could not even comment on the wisdom or unwisdom of that expenditure. But the committee which we envisage would examine the Estimates before they are presented to this House. They would examine them before a decision is taken on them, and would make their recommendations as to whether they are wise or otherwise. This committee would go closely into the entire expenditure. Glancing again at the 1937 figures for the Department of Agriculture, I find that the salaries and wages of the officials of that Department amounted to £172,000 in that year. The estimated figure for 1946 is £245,152. That is a very substantial increase. It is typical of every Government Department. It is typical of the entire State expenditure. If we go back to 1929, we know that in that year the State expenditure amounted to about £20,000,000 as against £47,000,000 for last year. A very substantial portion of that increase is due to an increase in administrative expenditure. Has that expenditure been justifiable? Are we certain that the State is getting value for all this expenditure? Are we certain that every official of the State has work to do and is doing it efficiently? We can only get assurance on that matter by examining administration in detail.

The Minister may tell us, of course, that it is one of the functions of his Department, and a very big function of his Department, to keep a very close eye on the expenditure in our Government Departments. The Minister's predecessor, in his Budget statement this year, and also in his Budget statement last year, referred to the struggle which he had in order to keep down expenditure. He referred with alarm to the increase in the volume of expenditure. He told us that there were almost pitched battles in the Cabinet between him and the Ministers of other Departments in connection with their demands, and that he found himself frequently fighting delaying actions and frequently had to give ground. But I do not agree that the Department of Finance is capable of dealing with this question fully. The proof that they have not been very successful is in the enormous increase in expenditure over the past ten years, or even over the past 15 years. It is an alarming thing and a disquieting thing that while in every privately-owned business or business concern there is somebody whose main function is to ensure that there is no waste—and that somebody, generally, is the owner of the business —you have not the same thing in connection with the Government. The private individual, the owner of the business, will see that, as far as possible, there is no waste or inefficiency in the running of his business; and why? Simply because self-interest demands that he must keep a close eye on such matters or else he will find himself in the bankruptcy court. But in a democratically-governed State there is no person holding the same position as the owner or the directors of a business, because experience has shown that in a country such as this there is not a widespread public opinion in support of economy. Why? Because the ordinary citizens of the State are not, so far as central State expenditure is concerned, direct taxpayers. They pay indirectly, and they are not as alert to the need for economy as they would be if they were paying a direct contribution out of their income. Experience has shown that the ordinary people, who are not direct taxpayers, who are not in the income tax-paying class, are more concerned with securing moneys from the State than they are with securing economies. We remember that when the present Government were in a minority in this House and wished to recover popularity, one of the first things they did was to vote £2,500,000 for family allowances. They were, therefore, meeting a popular demand for increased social services, and the danger that I see, and which many people see at the present time, is that while you have that popular demand for increased expenditure you have no check upon inefficiency or waste in Government Departments.

There is nobody who feels that we must get the last ounce of value out of money expended. The ordinary citizen will say: "Well, the Government is spending a lot more money, perhaps, than their predecessors, but a lot of us are getting some share out of that expenditure." Thus you have a state of mind which makes for lax control and for apathy in regard to seeing that State Departments are run efficiently. I said that that is the position as far as the indirect taxpayer is concerned. He is not unduly concerned about high taxation, or high expenditure. If we look at the Agenda for the Government Party Árd Fheis, we see that it was crowded with demands for increased expenditure; but there was no demand, as far as I know, at any rate, from any branches of the organisation for a tightening up of efficiency in the State Departments. That Árd Fheis has been referred to in the official organ of the Government, I think, as the only body which is in a position to give constructive and intelligent criticism of Government policy, but in all this constructive and intelligent criticism there was no demand for efficiency in the running of our State Departments. Now, as far as the direct taxpayers are concerned—those in the income tax-paying class—it might be said that they would be very anxious about the position. To a great degree some of them are, but even in that class—and they are a minority in this country—there are many who feel that Government expenditure benefits them to a considerable extent. Take for example, the business man in the ordinary town or village. That man might say: "Well, I am paying a very high rate of income tax. It is a severe blister, but the Government is spending a lot of money on various social services, and a good deal of it is coming back across my counter and I am getting considerable benefit from it." Thus you find that the number of people who are keenly interested in securing economy and efficiency in Government administration is narrowed down to a comparatively small minority. Perhaps, the people who are most insistent at the present time on a better standard of efficiency and economy in our public services are our industrialists. They have been for some time making demands in that direction, but I think everyone will agree that our industrialists are in a peculiar and delicate position, and they will not bring extreme pressure on the Government to cut down expenditure. I cannot imagine any of the Irish industrialists marching four deep up Molesworth Street with brass bands, and banners proclaiming: "Cut down income tax or else." I think they would be very slow to do that.

Thus we have a position in which we have a huge governmental machine, with a huge staff of 30,000 officials, and over that huge machine we have no body which is keenly and vigorously alive to the need for dealing with it, and no one with power to go into the details with the Minister.

I might refer to the fact that a considerable amount of the increased expenditure has been due to the social services. We might dwell upon that aspect, but this motion does not seek to reduce essential social services. It seeks to ensure that these social services are administered efficiently, and that officials will not waste their time, and public money, in many directions. The economies which are desirable could be secured only by having a close and detailed examination of every branch of governmental expenditure. That is not possible in this House. It is only possible by having a committee, similar to the Public Accounts Committee, but with this distinction, that it would deal with moneys before they were expended and not afterwards. If the proposal is accepted, I think we will be making democracy more efficient in this country. The viewpoint is frequently expressed that democracy is clumsy and inefficient; that it is not able to deal with the immense and complex machine which it is nominally supposed to control; that bureaucracy has taken things completely into its own hands, and that the elected representatives of the people are powerless. One way to make control by representatives of the people more effective, to make democracy work more effectively, would be to sub-divide some of the functions of this House, and to place them in the hands of a committee, such as is envisaged in the motion.

The Minister may be inclined to ask this question: Do you envisage this as a permanent committee, or, simply as a committee to examine the accounts, present a report and then disappear? Personally I think that one of the functions of the committee, having gone into the accounts, and into the matters set out in the motion, would be to recommend whether or not it would be desirable to have such a committee permanently in the same way as the Public Accounts Committee. I strongly hold that such a committee should be a permanent feature of our governmental machinery, and for that reason the Minister would be very wise to accept the motion.

Mr. Hughes

There is a good deal to be said in favour of this motion and I hope the Minister will accept it. I suppose every Deputy appreciates the difficulties and the problems which a Parliamentary Committee such as this will have to face up to. Nevertheless, we ought to bear in mind the circumstances under which we live and remember that a period of depression is almost inevitable after every war. History has shown clearly after all wars that there is bound to be a downward trend in values, and a reduction in the amount of money in circulation. One might describe that process as the road back to normal conditions. That road back is likely to be very difficult and thorny. Although there may be an interregnum for three or four years in a country like this, which is mainly devoted to food production, we know very well that when conditions in other food-producing countries become normal, the volume of world competition is bound to have the effect of reducing the value of food produced here, and to react on our trade.

Deputy Blowick and Deputy Cogan have given figures to show the continuous rise of expenditure and of national indebtedness, culminating in staggering figures. In his Budget speech last May the Minister for Finance gave the national income as £131,382,000, of which £37,500,000 was local debt, and the cost of servicing as approximately £4,000,000. So far as we are concerned the other side of the picture in pre-war days showed that agricultural output fell by 11 per cent. since 1938, and industrial production by 24 per cent. So far as national indebtedness generally is concerned, it may appear that our capacity and our national income are sufficient to bear these charges, but if what I envisage happens—and I think the House will agree that it is inevitable that a falling back follows a reduction of national income—the question arises, whether the security of the State could continue to bear the cost, because the security consists of the national capacity of this country to produce.

That is an aspect of our national, economic position that ought carefully to be taken into account. The Minister for Finance has, in a number of recent Budget statements, given expression to uneasiness and disquietude regarding the rising costs. This year he said:

"As regards the Civil Service, the growth to which I have referred in previous years still continues and, on the 1st January of this year, the total number of persons employed reached the peak point, so far, of 30,333 civil servants. This was 787 higher than the number on the same date last year and 1,252 above the 1943 figure."

One would expect that, before 1944, we would have reached the peak point with regard to any increase in State services due to emergency conditions. Still the curve regarding the Civil Service continued to show an upward trend. The Minister went on to say:

"The cost of the service has risen in a still more disquieting measure. The annual outlay on remuneration of civil servants is now estimated at £7,300,000. The corresponding estimates for 1943 and 1944 were £6,100,000, and £6,470,000 respectively. The increase in the rates of ordinary and emergency bonus was the main element in the expansion here... The figures of cost I have given, so far, refer to the salaries, wages and bonus of civil servants, including part-time employees... They do not include payments for overtime or travelling and subsistence expenses. Nor do they include payments to persons remunerated on a piece-work, task-work, capitation or free basis or to persons employed on schemes of work of a temporary nature, as none of these persons can be regarded as a civil servant. Adding all these payments to the £7,300,000 I have already mentioned as the amount which we are now spending on Civil Service remuneration, we arrive at a total figure of over £8,100,000. I can remember a time when the entire cost of government for the 32 counties of Ireland was not much more than that sum."

The cost of the Civil Service for the last financial year was £8,100,000. To get a complete picture, we must refer to the number of civil servants. In 1932 the number of civil servants was 21,793. In 1939 the number was 26,775. Apart altogether from the emergency, there was a very steep rise in the number of civil servants employed as between 1932 and 1939. In 1941, the number of civil servants employed was 27,400; in 1943, 29,081; in 1944, 29,446, and in 1945, 30,333. That does not include some persons who were working in a temporary capacity. The cost of salaries, wages and allowances over the same period was: 1932, £3,819,542; 1939, £5,065,117; 1941, £5,480,785; 1943, £6,100,000; 1944, £6,740,000; 1945, £7,300,000. Add travelling and subsistence allowances to that figure and it is brought up to £8,100,000. The Minister has expressed alarm and concern in recent years in his Budget statements regarding rising costs and the cost of administration. In his last Budget, he said:

"As I said last year, it is the expansion of State activity itself rather than the growth of the Civil Service that causes me the greater concern. I look upon the restless activity of the State as the disease and the growth of the Civil Service, however distressing, as merely one of the symptoms. But I would remind those who regard the symptom as the greater evil that we cannot have the disease without the symption. Government policy has raised the tempo of activity in every Department of State."

That is typical of the references made by the Minister in recent years to the problem of the cost of administration. But nothing has been done about it, though, so far as I remember, some sort of inter-departmental committee was set up early in the emergency to see how far economies could be effected. The House has not been informed of the result of the inquiries made at the time and it is not reflected in any of the statistics.

The Deputies who tabled this motion are doing a service in bringing this matter to the attention of the House and in suggesting that something definite should be done before the burden becomes oppressive and out of all proportion to the national income. I have said before that, so far as this Party is concerned, we would not at any time criticise expenditure aiming at the stimulation of production. That is, after all, a necessary pre-requisite to better social conditions, to social security and the other admirable things which we all desire. The community has to pay for social services and social security. The cost of those services must be related sooner or later to the national income. Expenditure on stimulating production is, therefore, economically sound. The greatest criticism that can be levied at our expenditure at present is that so large a percentage of it is directed to other than productive schemes. Now that we have to travel back to normality by a very difficult and thorny road, we should face up in a realistic way to the problems which require to be tackled. We should see how far expenditure can be curtailed and ensure that a larger proportion of it is devoted to stimulating production. I do not want to labour the question unduly. The former Minister for Finance has, as I have said, expressed his concern about this whole problem and I take it that the present Minister is prepared to do something about it.

In a reply to a question put down by Deputy McMenamin on the 4th February, 1942, which appears in a tabulated form in the Official Report, the number of civil servants and State officials and the cost of such officials are given under different headings. For instance, Secretaries of Departments, chairmen of boards of commissioners and heads of Departments of State, numbered in 1932 15. In 1939 the number was still 15 and in 1941 it was reduced to 14. Assistant secretaries in 1932 numbered 14, in 1939 the number had risen to 25, and in 1941 it was 24. Principal officers in 1932 numbered 22, in 1939, 44, and in 1941, 46. Assistant principal officers numbered 30 in 1932, 58 in 1939, and 60 in 1941. Junior administrative officers in 1932 numbered 24, in 1939, 43, and in 1941, 49. Higher executive officers numbered 176 in 1932, 202 in 1939, and 221 in 1941. Junior executive officers numbered 429 in 1932, 620 in 1939 and 604 in 1941. In the different categories there is a steep rise over the period.

One thing which has struck me about this whole problem of administration is the necessity of expediting the work in Departments, getting quicker decisions and improving the machinery generally in each Department. I must say that I do not know very much about it, but it often struck me that there is not a sufficient distribution of executive responsibility in each Department. Files appears to be travelling up to the one individual to make an executive decision all the time. The executive responsibility is placed on one individual and the system has the effect of simply glutting up the lanes through which the files have to travel to that one man. The British Government found many years ago that they had to change that system in their Departmental work and to divide executive responsibility to a greater extent. I think a step of that kind would definitely make for economy and that instead of having one executive officer you should have three or four dealing with decisions. If they made mistakes, you would have a way of dealing with them. Certainly it seems unreasonable to have all the work of a Department travelling towards one man while the junior officers are employed in making notes on the files as they travel up to him.

Most Deputies are familiar with the manner in which the machine functions and with the way in which matters travel up to one man to make a decision. It seems necessary, in view of the volume of work that has to be handled in our Departments nowadays, and the expansion of social and other services to the community, to have more expeditious decisions. Expeditious decisions, I feel, mean a reduction of work for the Department in the long run. If you can get rid of a file and get a decision on it promptly it will mean that the work will be done much cheaper. I may be altogether wrong in that idea but it has often struck me that a more divided responsibility, so far as executive decisions are concerned, would lead not merely to more expeditious decisions but to economy.

I do not think there is any necessity to go into any great detail on the subject matter of the motion. So far as the proposal to set up a committee to examine into problems of this sort is concerned, there is nothing new about it. Britain, America, and other countries have dealt with this problem in a somewhat similar manner. I think President Truman was chairman of a committee in America that sat for some months examining how departmental work and, as a matter of fact, war production generally, could be speeded up, and departmental decisions made more expeditiously. Surely, if this Parliament is the supreme authority so far as expenditure is concerned—remember every penny spent in administration must be voted in this House, and must be properly accounted for to this House through the Committee of Public Accounts— this proposal should meet with approval. I think it is economically sound that no Minister can, without the consent of the House, expend beyond the sum of money voted for the financial year. If the House has power to control expenditure in that way, surely it is not unreasonable to suggest that the House should get an opportunity of setting up a committee of this sort to examine into national expenditure and indebtedness at the present time? Considering the circumstances in which we now live, and facing realistically the problems with which we shall be confronted in the next four or five years, if we take time by the forelock and have a careful examination made by sending for executive officers, documents, and economists if necessary, to find out where economies can be effected, and where administrative costs generally can be tightened up, it will have beneficial results. I have pleasure in supporting the motion.

Mr. Corry

To my mind, this is one of the most popular motions that could come before the House. If it did nothing else except to call attention to the expenditure on the Civil Service in this country, it brings us nearer to a true realisation of the position. Deputy Hughes commented on the increase in the number of higher executive officers from the year 1932 to the present, but that increase was only to be expected. We had in 1932 a nation that was staggering, industry dying out, agriculture said to be dead, and social services gone by the board or severely reduced.

All these services have been brought to life again. New industries have been started, housing schemes trebled, unemployment assistance and widows and orphans' pensions provided for. To administer all these services it was necessary to recruit extra officials. Social services have increased by leaps and bounds. As a matter of fact, if you take the Estimates for 1932 and compare them with the Estimates for 1939, the big change becomes at once apparent. Compare for instance the housing position in 1932 and 1933. We need not go very far to see the need for increased officials to deal with that service. Then any Deputy who for the last few years has had occasion to go round to the Department of Supplies, as most of us had, can see where the increase arose there. Of course it was an abnormal increase, an increase that was necessary for the war period. Now that the necessity has passed, we can expect that the officials will disappear also.

Then we have to consider the large number of officials who had to be brought into the service on account of the campaign that was carried on here against tillage. People got the idea that they had a certain amount of support in their attitude towards tillage. That meant that inspectors had to be brought in by the Department of Agriculture and sent around to inspect, and there had to be prosecutions in an endeavour to secure that the people would be fed during the emergency. That is why more officials were called. As regards expenditure: not so many years ago we had to fight a general election on the issue that more expenditure for the Civil Service was considered necessary.

As I have said, it is an important motion, although I do not know that setting up select committees or commissions to inquire into anything is going to do any good in this country. I do not believe it is. I have already given my views on that matter in the House. In my opinion, a select committee or commission will report just as the particular Department that sets it up wants it to report—nothing more and nothing less. I have no belief in them; I never had and never will have.

They just go in and do as they are told.

If a select committee is appointed in the morning to inquire into this matter, how is it to be constituted? Is it to be a select committee of civil servants? Are they to find whether there are enough civil servants or whether they require more or less? Are they to inquire as to whether their salaries are high enough; as to what economies can be effected? It is rather a joke. I do not see any great use in it anyway. I do not believe in setting up any man as his own judge. If that kind of committee is set up, I should like to hear from Deputy Blowick or Deputy Cogan, who is going to constitute the committee. Is it going to be a select committee of members of the Oireachtas, such as that proposed in connection with the method of election of the Seanad? Where is the committee going to come from? Whom is it to be composed of? I should like Deputy Cogan and Deputy Blowick to tell me. Is it to be a select committee of the House?

From past experience, I cannot place any reliance on such committees. Some of the recommendations made by select committees of this House that were set up from time to time would not lead anybody to place any reliance on the findings of such committees. I do not want to labour the question. I have given my views as well as I can.

Mr. Coogan

I find it difficult to follow the last speaker. He says it is a good motion and when he says it is a good motion I am sure he means it is worthy of support.

Mr. Corry

Worthy of consideration.

Mr. Coogan

Worthy of consideration. The arguments he has advanced would seem to be against the motion. I should like to direct attention to portion of a statement made by the Minister for Finance in introducing his Budget this year. Speaking of the tendency of legislation generally, of coming to this House seeking subsidies, social services, palliatives of all kinds, he said:—

"I could give many instances to drive home my argument that we cannot have more State services without more State servants. To think otherwise is a pure delusion, and those who in this House, in the Seanad, in the local boards and elsewhere make speeches and propose motions in favour of additional measures of social security, guaranteed markets, guaranteed prices, minimum wages, further land division, extended afforestation and regulation of a hundred and one activities are all, in effect, advocates of a larger and more costly Civil Service, of what in other moods some of them would call a bigger bureaucracy."

That statement of the Minister for Finance, introducing this year's Budget, contains a very strong condemnation of Government policy looked at solely from the angle of finance. I should like to put this point of view to the House: The tendency of all legislation in recent years has been to set up new machinery. Every time we introduce a measure providing for some subsidy, some palliative, some social service, the inevitable result is a Civil Service demand for staff to administer that particular service. As long as the House is so minded, so long, as far as I can see, will the increase in taxation continue. There are undoubtedly Departments of State in which it was essential to provide necessary social services to combat existing social evils and in so far as Government policy was directed towards remedying existing social evils, I am sure no Deputy would question the expenditure involved or the provision of the necessary staff to administer the particular service. But, when everything that comes to this House involves, directly or indirectly, a demand of some kind for extra staff, then we have to sit up and ask ourselves where we are going because, in the ultimate, it is we who, by passing these measures, authorise the increased expenditure. It is futile for Deputies, particularly Deputies on the Government Benches, to come here and say they support this motion while in actual fact they are the people responsible for imposing extra expenditure upon the country.

The Minister went further. He said:—

"There are, I admit, spheres in which the extension of Governmental activity was and is inevitable, in which the results aimed at are in the public interest, and can be achieved only by the Government, or can be much more effectively achieved by it than by any other agency. But are we sufficiently critical in judging whether this condition is fulfilled in each particular case? I am convinced that we are not, that, on the contrary, most of us—and this is true of all Parties in Dáil and Seanad— whatever theories we may profess, show in practice a bias in favour of Governmental action and against leaving desirable reforms to the initiative of persons and organisations outside the charmed circle formed by the Oireachtas and the Government."

Now, in connection with 99 out of every 100 measures which come before this House we have hardly one word of criticism from the back-benchers of the Government Party. We have no critical analysis of the Government measures and we certainly have no effort on their part to check the spiral of increased expenditure and increased taxation. We have made some effort to try to point out the error of their ways but without success.

Mr. Corry

We never hear you. You are dumb. That is why we have to talk.

Mr. Coogan

I am afraid the Deputy must not have been here on many occasions. Again, I will quote the Minister:

"My remarks on these matters in previous speeches have evoked such a poor response that I do not feel hopeful of being able now to impress the House with a sense of the dangers we are incurring."

All I will say to that is that he had a right to try to impress his views first of all upon the members of his own Party, and, having converted his own Party to his views, then I am sure that, if he came to the House, he would have the full support of the House behind him in the views that he had expressed. As he further says:

"We cannot continuously increase the power of the central Government without restricting the freedom and undermining the morale and the self-reliance of the citizen."

To-day we have reached this position as a result, that everybody in this country, poor and rich, is looking to the State for something, and, when they look to the State for something, it is generally to the Deputies on the opposite benches, they look. The business man is looking for a subsidy. The worker is looking for some measure of relief. The unemployed are looking for a greater measure of relief for their benighted condition. Does it not all boil down to this: that the Government policy up to now has been what I might describe in common language as a stop-gap policy? When an emergency of some sort arises, they are like the improvident and neglectful farmer who does not look after his fences in time. He sticks a bush in a fence for the time being, and says: "That will keep them out overnight, anyway," and then carries on in a merry, reckless fashion until all the fences are down. Then the Minister went on to say:—

"Those most hostile to totalitarianism are often the warmest and most persistent advocates of direct State activity in many spheres. State control carried far enough is totalitarianism."

I agree with every word the Minister has said in his Budget statement— every word of it is true—and I hope the present Minister for Finance has made a very close study of the implications contained in its passages, and that we shall see a new departure in financial policy. It is futile to attempt to stop gaps; it is futile to attempt to provide palliatives for every evil. You have to face the broad issue that the Government policy has never been directed towards providing full employment for our people, and until that policy is faced up to broadly, you will have Minister after Minister coming to the House to provide another measure of relief for some unfortunate people who cannot find a living in their homeland. Thousands of our people are forced to emigrate; thousands of our people cannot get employment here.

In these circumstances, I hold it is futile to be attempting to provide medicine which will not care the disease. You need a surgical operation; you need to cut out the canker that is at the root of this thing. You need, in other words, to face up to the serious economic position in which this country finds itself at the moment. We have to find, if at all possible, a method by which we can keep our own people at home and put them into productive employment on the land and in industry.

I will go further and say that, in attempting that, the Government will certainly need to consider some measure of protection, some measure of assisting the policy of full employment. My suggestion on that point is that they should endeavour to find the measure of protection or subsidy, whatever you like to call it, that will be needed from some other source than State funds. In other words, if a particular industry feels that it needs some form of protection in its infant stages, the subsidy should come from the industry itself. The industry itself should be so financed that it can find within itself the measure of relief it needs. I am not going to particularise any industry, but if a particular industrialist feels that he cannot compete with an outside competitor in the early stages of his development, by all means let him have some form of protection, but let that form of protection be directed solely to putting him on his feet. But, once he is on his feet, let him fend for himself. That should apply to all forms of economic activity. It will be possible to find within the framework of any industry, whether it is agriculture or a manufacturing industry, a method by which what I have in mind can be carried out, so that the industry can get the protection it needs without coming to the Exchequer for a subsidy.

Now, as I say, our present financial and social policy is leading rapidly to the pauperising of this country. We have become a nation of beggars. We have become a nation of job-seekers, of subsidy-seekers, or relief seekers, and seekers for all kinds of palliatives, and the people on the opposite benches are the very people who are responsible for that state of affairs. As I listened to the figures quoted by Deputies Cogan and Blowick and also to the figures quoted by Deputy Hughes, I was highly amused. I do not think it is necessary to go into any detailed figures to convince any intelligent person that the cost of administration in this country has increased out of all proportion and that the service we get for the increased cost is if anything, less efficient to-day than it was ten or 20 years ago. I do not think it is necessary to go into the cost or into the personnel of the different Departments to convince any reasonable person that our policy is tending in such a direction that, at some stage or another, we must arrive at a definite full stop.

We have at the moment reached saturation point and we cannot go much further in the direction of taxation. Supply Services, which not many years ago cost somewhere about £20,000,000, to-day cost well over £40,000,000—£46,000,000, to be accurate. The cost of administering this country in 1913-14—the whole 32 counties—was somewhere between £11,000,000 and £13,000,000—it was £12,000,000 exactly, I am informed. To-day, the cost is well over £50,000,000. We have to ask ourselves whether we to-day are any better off, with our home Government, with our independence, than we were in 1913-14. Is the taxpayer to-day getting a better crack of the whip? Is he getting any more out of the country to-day than he got in 1913-14? I need not remind Deputy Corry that the local rates have gone up within the last ten years or so, in some cases to five times what they were.

Judging by the demands being made in legislation coming before the House, I cannot see how taxation is going to stop even where it is. I am a member of a local authority, the Dun Laoghaire Borough Corporation, and I know full well that the schemes we have in hand and in contemplation at the moment make it almost inevitable that our rates, which at present are 18/6 in the £, will not stop short of 30/- within a few years. The Minister may say that we can afford to pay, that the ratepayer has never paid enough for housing, public libraries or other social services. He may also be able to justify an income-tax of 7/6 or 8/- in the £. We are not fighting a war, we have not fought a war and, judging by the statements made at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis, we are not likely to fight a war. I put it to the Minister that there are many Departments of State in which it is possible and highly probable that the pruning knife could be used and expenditure cut down.

We took over an administration from the British Government at a time of crisis and we had to take whatever machinery was at hand then and carry on. We never really got down to the job of deciding for ourselves whether that imperial machinery imposed upon us suited us at all or not. We have patched it and we have introduced new machinery here and there but, taking it by and large, we are still carrying on the old imperical basis. In fact, we have gone worse: we have added Ministers and Secretaries and Departments of State at an alarming rate. Whatever may be said of the bad British Government in the past, it is certain that they ran this country with a Chief Secretary, an Under Secretary and a few individuals down at the Castle. They were sufficient for Ireland under the Lord Lieutenant and were able to run the whole show. Now we have Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, and so on ad infinitum.

I say seriously that we have never examined this position from the purely Irish point of view. We are running an Army on an imperial basis, on the basis that we are prepared to undertake the defence of this country against all comers. Has anybody ever seriously stopped to think of that? I am sure they have, although they will not admit it in this House. How long could we defend ourselves against a foreign power under existing conditions of war? I would say 24 hours; though some Deputies might disagree with that and say a week. I wonder if we ever asked ourselves whether it is worth all this expenditure. I am not singling out the Army through any objection in principle to the Army or anything like that, but I hold it is a State service in which a very serious reduction could be made in expenditure. Furthermore, I hold that the present defence policy is all wrong that instead of an Army on the infantry footing, we should have something like an air force and a submarine service, if we as an island State are serious about our defence.

That is one particular Department where we should ask ourselves whether we should undertake this job of defence at all or not. Would it not be enough for us to have, not an army but a gendarmerie, to assist the unarmed police force in times of necessity? A reserve of 1,000 men would make up the kernel or skeleton of a larger army which could be brought together in times of crisis. We have also to consider whether it is desirable to have a professional army on the present lines, whether we should not have a volunteer army, in which every citizen would serve. That may be cheaper in the long run. I have not gone into this point, but I say seriously that these are matters which should receive the earnest consideration of the House.

I have had experience of the police force over several years, and know that we took over the existing machinery of the R.I.C. willy nilly, as we were driven into the position of having to fit out a force without delay and carry on on the same lines as the R.I.C. If we had had time to think things over at that time, I hold that an entirely different police force would have been established here. However, by virtue of the circumstances that existed then, a police force on that model was brought into being. It has continued since and, like every other service, it has increased and extended every year. I hold that we could have devised a much more simple system, that we could have got a less complex and a much cheaper system. Even though we have now proportionately much less in numbers than the R.I.C., we are still over-policed.

I am sure any police officer in this State would agree that a better and cheaper system can be devised, and I seriously suggest—as I did before to the Minister for Justice—that the time has arrived for considering these problems. In a few years time, the old members of the Gárda Síochána who came in in 1922/24 will be going out on pension and the time is opportune to try to devise a cheaper and more efficient system. By increased radio and increased transport communication, coupled with a simpler system of policing the countryside, that could be achieved. The Minister says it could not, but we have never tried it. The police service is a sample of the circumlocution which Deputy Hughes has described. You get, from the Guard to the Commissioner, a process of submission right up and a process of transmission right back. Of course, the cute fellow in the service contents himself with submission and the cute fellow on top contents himself with transmission. They never let themselves go outside the two words.

It is the same in the Civil Service; it goes from the clerical officer to the junior executive officer, to the higher executive officer, to the assistant principle, to the principal, to the assistant secretary, to the secretary. The whole lot of them, one after the other, say: "I think you should see this" or "Submitted for your information", and so on. In nine cases out of ten, the fellow below always tries to find out what the fellow up above is thinking and the fellow who is near the Minister is wondering what the views of the Minister would be. The result is that initiative, executive responsibility and everything that goes with it are killed and we get complete stagnation and impasse. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. to 3 p.m. on Thursday, 8th November, 1945.