Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 14 Mar 1946

Vol. 99 No. 20

Committee on Finance. - Vote on Account, 1946-47.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have got notice that the following matters will be discussed on the debate on the Vote on Account: from Fine Gael: the growing burden of taxation—I presume, from the aspect of expenditure; the falling production, the reduction of the purchasing power of wages, the high cost of living and the tourist traffic. From Clann na Talmhan: the promotion of increased agricultural and industrial production. From Labour, by verbal notice: the Government's financial policy, with its social and economic consequences. That will give very wide scope.

An tAire Airgeadais (Proinnsias Mac Aodhagáin)

Tairgim:—

Go ndeontar suim nach mó ná £16,616,000 chun nó mar chabhair chun íoctha na Muirear a thiocfas chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1947, i gcóir seirbhísí áirithe poiblí, eadhon:—

		£			£
1	Teaghlachas an Uachtaráin	1,600	1	President's Establishment	1,600
2	Tithe an Oireachtais	44,300	2	Houses of the Oireachtas	44,300
3	Roinn an Taoisigh	5,700	3	Department of the Taoiseach	5,700
4	An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste	8,280	4	Comptroller and Auditor-General	8,280
5	Oifig an Aire Airgeadais	28,400	5	Office of the Minister for Finance	28,400
6	Oifig na gCoimisinéirí Ioncaim	385,000	6	Office of the Revenue Commissioners	385,000
7	Pinsin Sean-Aoise	1,260,000	7	Old Age Pensions	1,260,000
8	Bainistí Stoc Rialtais	22,200	8	Management of Government Stocks	22,200
9	Oifig na nOibreacha Poiblí	56,000	9	Office of Public Works	56,000
10	Oibreacha agus Foirgintí Poiblí	326,000	10	Public Works and Buildings	326,000
11	Longlann Inis Sionnach	1,000	11	Haulbowline Dockyard	1,000
12	An tSaotharlann Stáit	4,200	12	State Laboratory	4,200
13	Coimisiún na Stát-Sheirbhíse	10,900	13	Civil Service Commission	10,900
14	Bord Cuartaíochta na hEireann	15,000	14	Irish Tourist Board	15,000
15	Coimisiúin agus Fiosrúcháin Speisialta	1,600	15	Commissions and Special
16	Aoisliúntais agus Liúntais Fágála	220,000	16	Superannuation and Retired Allowances	220,000
17	Rátaí ar Mhaoin Rialtais	56,000	17	Rates on Government Property	56,000
18	An tSeirbhís Sicréideach	5,000	18	Secret Service	5,000
19	Costais faoin Acht Timpeal Toghchán, agus faoi Acht na nGiúirithe	Nil	19	Expenses under the Electoral Act and the Juries Act	Nil
20	Costais Ilghnéitheacha	2,250	20	Miscellaneous Expenses	2,250
21	Páipéarachas agus Clódóireacht	73,000	21	Stationery and Printing	73,000
22	Measadóireacht agus Suirbhéireacht Teorann	13,550	22	Valuation and Boundary Survey	13,550
23	Suirbhéireacht an Ordonáis	12,950	23	Ordnance Survey	12,950
24	Deontais Bhreise Talmhaíochta	450,000	24	Supplementary Agricultural	450,000
25	Dlí-Mhuirearacha	35,000	25	Law Charges	35,000
26	Ollscoileanna agus Coláistí	77,500	26	Universities and Colleges	77,500
27	Binsir do Phaintreacha agus do Dhílleachtaithe	150,000	27	Widows' and Orphans' Pensions	150,000
28	Institiúid Ard-Léinn Bhaile Atha Cliath	8,000	28	Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies	8,000
29	Talmhaíocht	326,000	29	Agriculture	326,000
30	Cúnta Airgid alos Tortha Talmhaíochta	316,000	30	Agricultural Produce Subsidies	316,000
31	Iascach	9,750	31	Fisheries	9,750
32	Oifig an Aire Dlí agus Cirt	18,750	32	Office of the Minister for Justice	18,750
33	An Gárda Síochána	876,000	33	Gárda Síochána	876,000
34	Príosúin	44,900	34	Prisons	44,900
35	An Chúirt Dúiche	17,850	35	District Court	17,850
36	An Chúirt Chuarda	23,300	36	Circuit Court	23,300
37	An Chúirt Uachtarach agus an Ard-Chúirt Bhreithiúnais	21,000	37	Supreme Court and High Court of Justice	21,000
38	Clárlann na Talún agus Clárlann na nDintiúirí	19,550	38	Land Registry and Registry of Deeds	19,550
39	Oifig na nAnnálacha Poiblí	2,100	39	Public Record Office	2,100
40	Tabhartais agus Tiomanta Déirciúla	1,320	40	Charitable Donations and Bequests	1,320
41	Rialtas Aitiúil agus Sláinte Phoiblí	668,000	41	Local Government and Public Health	668,000
42	Oifig an Ard-Chlárathóra	5,300	42	General Register Office	5,300
43	Gealtlann Dúndroma	8,200	43	Dundrum Asylum	8,200
44	Arachas Sláinte Náisiúnta	186,000	44	National Health Insurance	186,000
45	Oifig an Aire Oideachais	80,000	45	Office of the Minister for Education	80,000
46	Bun-Oideachais	1,600,000	46	Primary Education	1,600,000
47	Meán-Oideachas	210,000	47	Secondary Education	210,000
48	Ceard-Oideachas	154,000	48	Technical Instruction	154,000
49	Eolaíocht agus Ealaí	27,000	49	Science and Art	27,000
50	Scoileanna Ceartúcháin agus Scoileanna Saothair	67,000	50	Reformatory and Industrial Schools	67,000
51	An Gaileirí Náisiúnta	3,450	51	National Gallery	3,450
52	Tailte	625,000	52	Lands	625,000
53	Foraoiseacht	72,000	53	Forestry	72,000
54	Seirbhísí na Gaeltachta	10,000	54	Gaeltacht Services	10,000
55	Tionnscal agus Tráchtáil	1,620,000	55	Industry and Commerce	1,620,000
56	Seirbhísí Iompair agus Meteoraíochta	296,000	56	Transport and Meteorological Services	296,000
57	Liúntais Leanbhaí	732,000	57	Children's Allowances	732,000
58	Muir-Sheirbhís	8,000	58	Marine Service	8,000
59	Arachas Dífhostaíochta agus Cúnamh Dífhostaíochta	333,500	59	Unemployment Insurance and Unemployment Assistance	333,500
60	Oifig Chlárathachta Maoine Tionnscail agus Tráchtála	5,000	60	Industrial and Commercial Property Registration Office	5,000
61	Poist agus Telegrafa	1,224,000	61	Posts and Telegraphs	1,224,000
62	Fóirleatha Neamh-shreangach	36,100	62	Wireless Broadcasting	36,100
63	An tArm	1,526,600	63	Army	1,526,000
64	Arm-Phinsin	278,000	64	Army Pensions	278,000
65	Gnóthaí Eachtracha	40,000	65	External Affairs	40,000
66	Cumann na Náisiún	Nil	66	League of Nations	Nil
67	Scéimeanna Fostaíochta agus Scéimeanna Eigeandála	400,000	67	Employment and Emergency Schemes	400,000
68	Liúntais Bhídh	198,000	68	Food Allowances	198,000
69	Cúiteamh i nDíobháil do Mhaoin (Neodracht)	2,500	69	Damage to Property (Neutrality) Compensation	2,500
70	Cúiteamh alos Díobhála Pearsanta (Síbhialtaigh)	1,000	70	Personal Injuries (Civilians) Compensation	1,000
71	Réimhíoca Iasacht Trádála d'Aisíoc	Nil	71	Repayment of Trade Loans Advances	Nil
72	Fóirithin ar Ghátar	1,250,000	72	Alleviation of Distress	1,250,000
	AN TIOMLAN	£16,616,000		TOTAL	£16,616,000

Mar is eol do Theachtaí cheana, isé an cuspóir atá le Vóta i gCuntas ná airgead a chur ar fáil chun na Seirbhísí Soláthair a choimeád ar siúl le linn na Meastacháin do na seirbhísi ar leith a bheith á bplé go mion ag an Dáil—isé sin, de ghnáth, le linn an chéad cheithre mhí den bhliain airgeadais. Go ceann na tréimhse sin ní ritear an tAcht Leithreasa agus cuireann an tAcht sin fuíollach an airgid ar fáil. Mar sin tá de nós againn gan ach dóthain airgid a sholáthar tríd an Vóta i gCuntas chun íoc as na Seirbhísí Soláthair ar feadh na míosa Aibreán, Bealtaine, Meitheamh agus Iúl. Chífear nach foláir, ar an dul sin, tuairim is trian den Mheastachán glan le haghaidh beagnach gach Vóta a iarraidh.

Isé an méid atá ag teastáil uainn faoin Vóta i gCuntas an bhliain seo ná £16,616,000 agus tá an tsuim sin comhdhéanta fé mar atá leagtha amach ar an bPáipéar Bán a cuireadh timpeall agus ar Chlár na hOibre.

Isé an t-iomlán atá uainn le haghaidh Seirbhísí Soláthair na bliana airgeadais seo chugainn ná £47,766,428, suim atá £3,317,960 níos lú ná an soláthar iomlán a rinneadh don bhliain seo agus na Meastacháin Bhreise a áireamh i gcóir na bliana so. Isé méid na Meastachán breise ná £918,955. Fágann sin gur laghdú £2,399,005 atá i gceist gan na Meastacháin Bhreise a áireamh.

Isé an chúis is mó atá leis an laghdú so ar chostas na Seirbhísí Soláthair ná laghdú cheithre milleon go leith púnt, nó geall leis, i gcostas an Airm.

As Deputies are aware, a Vote on Account is necessary to enable the Supply Services to be carried on while the individual Estimates are being discussed in detail. This occupies the greater part of the first four months of each financial year as a rule, and is followed by the enactment of the Appropriation Act. It is the practice, therefore, to provide only sufficient moneys by way of Vote on Account to enable the various Supply Services to be carried on up to the 31st July, approximately.

The various items comprising the Vote on Account of £16,616,000 are set out on the Order Paper and in the White Paper which has been circulated. In most cases, approximately one-third of the total net Estimate for the year is required. The total net sum required for the Supply Services for the coming financial year is £47,766,428 —a decrease of £3,317,960 on the net provision of £51,084,388 for the current year. This latter sum includes all the Supplementary Estimates passed during 1945-46 and these amount to £918,955, so that, exclusive of Supplementary Estimates, we can regard the decrease as one of £2,400,000, approximately.

This decrease of roughly £2,500,000 on the main Estimates for 1945-46 is accounted for mostly by decreases of £4,330,878 in the provision for the Army—this being due to demobilisation —and of £799,814 in the provision for Industry and Commerce—due mainly to decreased provision for food and fuel subsidies. Partially off-setting these decreases there are substantial increases in certain Votes, e.g., Public Works and Buildings, £129,000; Agricultural Produce Subsidies, £125,000; Gárda Síochána, £141,000; Local Government and Public Health, £108,000; Transport and Meteorological Services, £133,000; Posts and Telegraphs, £181,000; Wireless Broadcasting, £112,000, and Army Pensions, £202,000. A major factor contributing to the increases referred to and to those on other Votes is the necessity of providing for the higher rates of Emergency Bonus operative from the 1st January, 1946.

As compared with the 1945-46 Estimates, including supplementaries, the Estimates for 1946-47 show increases on 52 Estimates, with decreases on 17, while two show no change. An additional Estimate for Repayment of Trade Loans Advances has been included, whilst that for Supplies disappears, having been amalgamated with that for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. Hughes

Notwithstanding what the Minister stated about a reduction in the Estimates, there is, in fact, no reduction, because the Minister is comparing two different things. He is comparing the actual expenditure of last year with the Estimates for the present year. If we want a real comparison, I suggest he ought to compare the Estimate for Supply Services last year with the Estimate we have before us, and that will show an increase of £600,000. I presume the Minister cannot assure the House at this stage that we are not going to have the usual supplementaries again, so it is unfair, and I might nearly say dishonest, to make a comparison of that sort for the purpose of misleading not merely the House, but the public, into the belief that there is a reduction in the amount required for the present year.

When you bear in mind what I might term almost the promise made by the Minister for Finance who is now our President, Mr. Seán T. O Ceallaigh, that the first duty and responsibility of the Government in the post-war period would be to lower the burden of taxation on the taxpayers, what do we find? We see here again no real effort made to reduce the burden of taxation. The spiral continues and we have reached in that spiral a new and unprecedented level so far as the burden of taxation on the community is concerned. I suggest that the usual provision for the Central Fund will amount to something over £5,000,000 and, if you take the Appropriations-in-Aid and other things into account, you will find that the sum for taxation purposes will be round about £55,000,000 or £56,000,000. If you add to that a sum of £9,000,000 for local government services, you have the actual sum that must be provided by this country for central and local administration reaching something around £65,000,000.

The national debt of this country, we were told by the Minister last year, including local indebtedness, is something in the neighbourhood of £131,000,000. There is a phenomenal increase in the national income—those were the words used by the Minister for Finance last year—but that does not represent any real increase in the national wealth. It is a monetary phenomenon and it represents no real increase in national wealth, so that the burden of taxation, even taking that phenomenal figure into account, will still be heavy. I calculate that something over 25 per cent. of the national income must be provided by every individual in the country for administration purposes.

I think the real difficulty with which the House is faced is not so much the burden of taxation as the burden of taxation in relation to the real wealth of the country, the productive capacity of the country. We have a curve of taxation soaring steadily year after year and we have no corresponding increase in production. As a matter of fact, the aggregate has fallen and production that you might expect to improve during the war years in a food-producing country has remained extraordinarily stagnant. If we take the gross agricultural production, we were told last year that it had fallen by 10 per cent., but that is not a fair figure, because the raw materials that it was possible to import pre-war are no longer available. But we can take the net volume of production, and that is highly unsatisfactory.

Taking all our circumstances into account—the decline in population, the fact that we have been forced to export 200,000 of our people, the policy by which the Government are pegging down wages and trying to substitute for real incomes doles and subsidies and that sort of thing—a situation has been created which must be faced and remedied by this House. The world has not yet taken any real shape from the point of view of what it will be like in the post-war period. We, in this country, are enjoying a certain breathing space. We should avail of the time now at our disposal to make up our minds as to what we will do to ensure that there will be an improvement in the real wealth of the country, in the national income.

This problem of taxation would not disturb our minds at all but for the other side of the picture, the fact that our production has fallen. Our production, measured not in terms of money, but in terms of physical goods, has fallen substantially during the emergency. Mr. Seán T. O Ceallaigh, two or three years ago, admitted that further increases in taxation can only help to intensify unemployment by destroying economic incentive, increasing the cost of production, reducing efficiency and competitive capacity and ultimately hindering our efforts at national reconstruction and expansion in the post-war period. If we take what our President expressed in his Budget statement as his concern about the economic position of the country, and the burden of taxation that was hindering progress, one would expect his successor would show some indication that he was anxious, and was making a really sincere effort, to reduce the burden of taxation that his predecessor suggested was hampering progress. I feel that the Government are influenced—politically influenced— by the doctrine of Lenin, when he said that the person who controls the ration books of the people controls their votes. I am afraid that the Fianna Fáil Government, in their actions, are concerned more with how their policy affects the votes of the people rather than in pursuing a policy that, in the long run, will bring real prosperity.

We have to-day the paper promised 12 months ago by the then Minister for Finance, an analysis of the national income that we were told at that time had increased from £154,000,000 to £252,000,000. I did not get much time to look over this very interesting document, but I notice that it gives us a lot of useful, detailed information. When we look at this document—I am talking now about our production, particularly our agricultural production— we get a real analysis of the situation at page 37. In 1938 the value, at the then current prices, of our agricultural output was £50,000,000. That represents the gross value. The net value was £41,100,000. The gross value since 1938 has increased from £50,800,000 to £97,300,000 and the net output has increased from £41,100,000 to £90,000,000.

That is part of the phenomenon that takes place. It does not give any real indication of what has occurred as far as agricultural production is concerned. We have a table which gives the real position, and that is the volume of agricultural output in terms of 1938 prices. Taking the gross output there, we are told it was £50,800,000. That has fallen, according to the table, to £47,300,000. It is not a fair figure to take, because we had imported raw materials then that are not available now. If we take the net figure as £41,100,000 in 1938, that has increased slightly to £43,200,000. Again, I suggest, that is not a true figure either, because in it we have turf and I could never understand why turf is put into the category of agricultural produce. Turf is taken from the land, but when we talk about agricultural produce we really mean the production of food. I believe if we exclude turf we will find that the net output of agricultural production has fallen considerably below £41,100,000. When we come to examine that further and to analyse what has happened we find in the last paragraph on page 7 the following statement:—

"This subsistence element in agriculture constitutes a substantial proportion of the national income. In 1938, of a total national income of £154,000,000, £13,000,000 or 8½ per cent., was represented by farm produce consumed on farms without sale. In 1944 the value was no less than £32,000,000, or 13 per cent. of the national income of £252,000,000."

The national income of agriculture, according to this White Paper, is £88,000,000, and of that £32,000,000 is required for subsistence so that the amount required for subsistence has increased from 8½ per cent. to 13 per cent. That is accounted for possibly pre-war by some imported wheat, imported sugar and commodities of that sort which were not produced to the full extent here. The increase in the amount required for subsistence in agriculture has reduced the volume of output so far as the rest of the community is concerned, and so far as the amount available for export is concerned. Dealing with the volume of exports in 1938, exports from agriculture were worth £24,000,000, and in 1945 they had increased to £35,000,000. If we express that in volume, and not in value, and take volume at the 1938 figure, we find that the value of exports, which stood at £24,000,000 in 1938, had fallen in 1945 to £17,000,000, a reduction of £7,000,000, so that the volume for export purposes from agriculture, during a most favourable period so far as a food-producing country is concerned, had fallen from £24,000,000 to £17,000,000. I believe— and I hope the Minister believes—that exports are a vital national asset; a very important national asset. In our position they are more vital to-day than ever before.

It is true that we have substantial sterling holdings outside, amounting to something like £400,000,000. We do not know what is going to happen there. We do not know how far we will be permitted to use these sterling assets that we have outside. It is fairly well recognised to-day that that is a financial problem. The Minister for Industry and Commerce recently referred to it. He stated that the only way to secure our import requirements was to make sure that we had goods to exchange; to make sure that we have physical goods to exchange for our imports, and for capital goods and consumer goods. What strikes me as extraordinary about this failure in our main industry at a time when one would expect considerable expansion from all the extra hours of sweat and toil put into production by the agricultural community during the emergency, is that it appears, from the figures given in this booklet dealing with national income, to have been wasted effort. Compulsion may be absolutely necessary during an emergency in order to produce certain things that are essential to the life of the community, but compulsion is not always right. As a matter of fact, very often it is wrong as far as agriculture is concerned, because a good farmer is always the best judge of what commodities are suitable to his particular circumstances. If there is any real concern as far as the Government, and as far as the responsible Minister are concerned about agricultural production, I suggest that instead of compulsion we want to provide an efficient advisory service; we want to provide better technical education and better equipment.

We have to make every effort to step up not merely output per acre but output per man. It is strange, but a true characteristic of agricultural production in this country, that the man output is one of the lowest in the world. When we talk about the low level of the agricultural wage, that level will remain low while the output per man remains low, because it will be physically impossible for the farmer to pay a higher wage to men engaged in the fields until we are capable of increasing output. That is not his own fault. It is due to the lack of equipment. Educational equipment, technical equipment, modern machinery, modern methods and technique are not available. The gap that exists now between wages in agriculture in this country and wages in agriculture on the other side constitutes a menace so far as the manpower of this country is concerned. We all know very well that if the ban against people going to Great Britain for work were lifted to-morrow, we would be practically stripped of manpower. In our social and economic circumstances it is inevitable that we will be overshadowed to a great extent by the economy and social conditions existing on the other side.

I do not know that any Government could feel happy about a situation that makes for danger. If this country rears families, surely it is not with the intention of exporting our manpower to be an asset to other countries. The population of a country ought to be a real asset to that country. We talk about production but it is certain that we cannot have production if we have not the people on the land and working in the fields. The first essential to production is manpower. We must bear in mind that in 1938 and in the five years immediately before the war we had reduced the manpower on the land by 45,000. The situation was bad then but that condition has continued. Page 45 of the White Paper gives us an idea of what has happened since 1938. In 1938 there were 537,000 men employed on the land. In 1944 the figure had fallen to 526,000. That means that 11,000 people left the land between 1938 and 1944. That trend must be stopped. If it were allowed to continue, in 20 years' time we would have no-one left in this country except the people in the cities and towns.

Let us examine further what the position is. If you turn to the diagram indicating national income in different categories, on page 10, we find there that in 1938, 25.5 per cent. of the national income went to agriculture, although approximately 50 per cent. of the people of the country are engaged in agricultural production. In 1944 that figure increased to 35.2 per cent. The other 50 per cent. of the population is enjoying the substantial balance of 34.5 per cent. in salaries and wages and 30.3 per cent. in profits, etc., and rent. We must face the fundamental problems that are there so far as this country is concerned.

The bald facts, according to that diagram on page 10, are that in the last couple of generations the industrial population of this country has become accustomed to living at the expense of the primary producers. I think it is now recognised that that is unsound because, in the last analysis, that situation hurts the industrial community because the industrial community have to sell their goods to the rural population of this country. If the income of the rural population is low, then purchasing power for the manufactured goods is not available and industry inevitably suffers. I think modern economists and statesmen generally in other countries are waking up to that situation. As a matter of fact, the conference convened at Hot Springs two or three years ago, representing about 44 nations, to deal with this problem of agriculture and food requirements for the people of the world, decided that in the post-war world the aim should be to provide an adequate diet for all the people in the world, to guarantee them against want, to ensure that they would have an adequate diet, properly balanced. As a result of that conference, in recent months, an organisation was set up at Quebec called the Food and Agriculture Organisation, to deal with this whole question of food, the allocation of food and the distribution of food, and to try to avoid the problems created by surpluses in food that had occurred before the war and which depressed prices below the cost of production.

I think one thing that is not appreciated generally here is that the percentage of agricultural production in this country that is available for export is one of the highest in the world and it could be very much higher. Even taking a reasonable estimate, if we had an efficient industry here, we would have 60 per cent. of our production available for export. Because of that situation and because we have that very substantial amount of surplus agricultural production available for export we should be keenly interested in what is happening in the world generally and in conferences or meetings convened to discuss the world food situation. One of the things for which I feel we must severely criticise the Government is their failure to avail of opportunities of this sort to send people who are qualified to discuss matters relating to food and production. I hope the Government and the Taoiseach will mend its hand because F.A.O. will be meeting in the near future in London to discuss this question of food production, distribution, and allocation. In our circumstances, it is a vital matter for us. The man who led the British delegation, the Rt. Hon. Richard Law, indicated on his return from Quebec that that organisation felt that an increase of 20 per cent. in grain over and above the pre-war production of the world and an increase of 100 to 200 per cent. in protective foods would be required. That is an enormous increase in protective foods and it is due to the fact that pre-war the world never had sufficient protective foods. The world had almost enough carbohydrates and calories, in grain and grain products, but of animal food and animal products, the proteins and vitamins that are so essential to good health, the supply was very low in a big number of cases. That is one of the reasons why the tendency in British policy last year was to switch from grain production to animal production.

There is one thing I want to say so far as trade is concerned and so far as the interests of the agricultural com- munity in this country are concerned in connection with the commodities and the price for commodities that they sell on the other side. The British farming organisation is putting up a great fight for the interests of the agricultural community here. That may appear to be strange but it is true, nevertheless. I am sorry to say that the people who are charged with the responsibility here of looking after our primary industry have made no effort whatever to consolidate our trade position. We appreciate that the price of live stock to-day is favourable, that the demand for live stock is very keen because of the acute shortage of meat and the fact that cattle are going to Holland, France and other countries. That is a situation that is not likely to continue. On the other side, the danger is that Great Britain is reorganising her live-stock industry. If she breeds her live stock herself and substantially increases her live-stock production, we may find that the demand there for store cattle from this country may be reduced. That is a matter which requires urgent attention and which has been refererd to here before.

We feel that the Government are failing in their responsibility so far as our trade across the water is concerned. We feel that there is a great and golden opportunity there now to consolidate our position and ensure that our trade for the future is secure. We must take all the circumstances into account; the exchange problems which are there; Great Britain's position and her difficulty of getting certain raw materials and imports of food and other things which are essential to her and also her dollar requirements. We always seem to forget that so far as the trade of this country is concerned there is no dollar problem. She does not want any dollars to trade with us. If we make an effort to increase our exports, as a manufacturing country she will be in a position to supply and will make every effort to supply us with raw materials which are essential. As a farmer, I know we want raw materials and equipment for agriculture. The Labour Party may be keenly anxious, we are all keenly anxious, for materials for building construction. The whole problem is bound up with the question of exchange. Taking into account the situation in the world to-day and the difficulties of exchange, I say we have made no effort whatever to try to solve our own problem. The people are told that it is a question of time; that they will have to wait until the goods are available.

Take a country like Sweden which is trading with Britain. She is not prepared to give timber that is urgently required in Britain unless she gets coal. We know that Sweden recently got 12,000,000 tons of coal from Britain in exchange for timber. It is an extraordinary situation that that country can do that and that, while the world is terribly in need of animal food, we are passing it over for pound tickets. We can have air conferences here. But there is no Minister prepared to make any effort to attend a food conference or a trade talk in London about the future of our agricultural exports. I submit that a trade talk on that matter is far more important than any air conference and that it would bring more real wealth to this country than any air conference will bring us. The sooner we have a response from the Government to the pressure brought to bear upon them from time to time from all sides of the House to attend to this matter the better. It is heartening to notice that there has been a change in some Ministers, notably the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Quite a lot of people in this country, particularly the agricultural community, are concerned with supplying food to the home market, having a home market with guaranteed prices and security. It is a very attractive policy to sell to the home market. That policy of self-sufficiency has been preached for a number of years. All that policy has led to the situation which exists now. One thing is certain, that we must either export goods or men. I believe in exporting goods. Evidently the Taoiseach believes in exporting men. Our young people were reared and brought up here to remain at home. We have a capacity within our economy to put them to useful productive work. The sooner we get down to planning in a real constructive way, face up to the realities of the situation and get away from the talk about a restrictionist policy the better.

The people selected by the Government to plan the post-war policy of this country have made an estimate of our capacity to produce here. Doctor Kennedy said the Leinster counties, properly equipped and organised and operating a policy of modern agriculture, could produce the food requirements of this country and that the remainder of the production of the country would be available for export. I feel that, with an efficient industry here, we would have 60 per cent. of our total production available for export. Until our agricultural situation improves and develops—and there is a real opportunity for us to do it—we will continue to export men when we should be exporting goods. Economists all over the world who have studied this matter are talking about an expansionist policy. Here we are still pursuing the idea of restriction. It is a good political stunt. It is certainly a grand way of appealing to the individual to say: "We will ask you to supply goods for the home market and we will give you guaranteed prices". If we produce 40 per cent. for the home market and 60 per cent. for export, how we fare with the 60 per cent. is more important than how we fare with the 40 per cent. In the circumstances of the world to-day, notwithstanding our substantial assets outside, I suggest that if we want essential goods we must import them. We have to step up our exports and our production from the land. If we are to keep our young people at home and reverse the wrong policy which has been in operation for a number of years, the whole plan has got to be changed.

We have had the reports of the Post-War Planning Committee on Agriculture. There were three reports—a majority report and two minority reports. The majority report simply says: "Produce the goods that your circumstances are suitable for producing". The first minority report simply says: "Produce the goods that your people want whether your conditions are suitable or not". Dr. Kennedy's minority report says: "You are too slow; get on with the job". Right through the report is stressed the importance of this whole question of export. Even in the first minority report, which favours a protective and restrictionist policy, it is pointed out that the value of the home market is about £4,000,000. What good is that to maintain people on the land and to improve the standard of living in this country? Surely it ought to be realised now, in the light of the experience we have had over a number of years, that that restrictionist policy is bad and unsound, and has brought about a situation in which we have exported 200,000 of the finest of our young fellows to seek work abroad.

It is revealed in this analysis of the national income that, notwithstanding the opportunities available to this country, which had not to concern itself with the problems of combat during the war, but merely with harnessing its people to the work of production, the number of people engaged in agriculture fell by 11,000 since 1938. Our aim should be to raise the standard of agriculture to the level of the best. We should be second to no country. We have the capacity to do that—it is merely a matter of providing the facilities, the credit, the education, the equipment and the technical knowledge, and keeping our people at home, because the first essential of production is manpower. If you are exporting your manpower, you surely cannot expect to expand production. As I have said, we should export goods rather than men. It is time to drop the policy of exporting men. We cannot compel people, or we ought not to restrict people in their freedom to go away, if they wish. If they feel that they have a better opportunity of earning a living abroad, they are entitled to go abroad, but we should make conditions sufficiently attractive at home to induce them to stay at home.

There is one other point I have to make about this question of production, and especially about an export trade. I have stressed that tickets are no use to us. It is physical goods we want, if we want to have imports. We hear a lot of talk about the tourist traffic which is so much boosted here. In my opinion, in the circumstances in which we live, that traffic is very little use, because a man comes over here from the other side, enjoys the food he gets here and finds real pleasure in getting food to which he is not accustomed, and then leaves us tickets. We can get nothing on those tickets. I believe that if we kept together the volume of our production available for export, we would be in a position to bargain with it and to say: "Here is a quantity of food for which we want goods in exchange. What are you going to do about it?" Boiled down, that is the situation which exists all over the world, so far as exchange is concerned. Countries are badly in need of certain commodities, and, no matter what exchange facilities are available, they are of little use if there are not physical goods to exchange for them.

The Government have pursued a policy of stabilising wages and keeping down incomes, and, in that connection, I may say that, in this book on national income, I observed another table showing that the increase in income during the emergency in the lower grades was very little, while the increase in the higher grades—in the grades above £1,000 a year—was very substantial. There, again, we see the result of this policy of pegging down wages and salaries and reducing purchasing power. When you reduce purchasing power, you reduce that factor which is so essential to stimulate production, because if the customer is not equipped to buy goods, the goods remain on the market, production is retarded and unemployment results.

The policy pursued here is a policy of providing doles and subsidies, food vouchers, free boots and free milk, which are no substitutes for real income. Politically, however, it has the advantage that the people enjoying that sort of State assistance, people who are brought down to such a low level that they have to look for that sort of assistance, will eat out of the Taoiseach's hand. Again, in the words of Mr. Lenin, the man who controls the ration cards of the people secures their votes as well, and it is good political policy to pursue a line by which you enslave the people to such a degree that you destroy their independence. Coupled with that type of degradation, we have a situation in which we are very effectively destroying the independence of the people, not merely from the point of view of reducing their incomes but of reducing their right to control their own affairs. We are gradually building up an impregnable autocracy in this country whereunder the Ministry are the dictators and a powerful institution like the Civil Service, in a heartless and cold-blooded way, implements the policy dictated by those who seek to wield more and more power over the people.

The provision of doles and subsidies and the hospitals we are promised would not be necessary if the policy pursued were a policy designed to ensure that the people had real incomes. The aim should be to give the people their independence and to pursue a policy which will secure better standards all round and provide them with decent homes and decent conditions. If we do that, we can definitely reduce this bill, because, in the long run, if the man who is paying wages which are stabilised at a low level does not pay a direct income to the worker, he will pay it indirectly in this way. He is mulcted in doles and subsidies, in free boots and big hospital institutions to deal with the high incidence of disease. We have a decadent condition in the country—a falling population, a low marriage rate and late marriages—and year after year a decline in the population in rural Ireland.

The whole picture is very gloomy and does not redound to the credit of those charged with the responsibility of looking after the welfare of this country. Bearing in mind the circumstances in which we live, the opportunities—I am not pessimistic about it —that are there for this country, with its capacity to produce good food, first-class food, the market conditions which are available, the possibilities, by modern methods, of reorganising and expanding production and the responsibility on the Government to ensure that, once that food is produced, it will be sold to the best advantage, leaving a reasonable margin to the producer—these are all responsibilities which ought to be tackled now.

But the Government, pursuing a policy of restriction and self-sufficiency, are not prepared to go into conference with the Government of any other country, except on questions of air services, which are relatively of little real value to the country, compared with the other problems which we feel must be tackled. I hope that not merely this House but the people of the country will avail of every opportunity to bring more pressure to bear on the Government to make clear to them their responsibility for dealing with these matters. It is time we here realised what other countries are realising—that you cannot live in isolation—that there must be co-operation, that there must be trade and must be expansion, if you are to secure prosperity.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

This particular Vote on Account provides a very valuable opportunity for a general review of our economic position, within, of course, the rules of order governing this particular discussion. It has the advantage also that we have present during this discussion one Minister who more than any other individual is responsible for implementing the general policy of the Government. My colleagues and myself have selected for our section of this debate the question of the financial policy of the Government and its consequent reaction on the social and economic life of the country.

We would like, first of all, to get a definition of the financial policy of the Government. I suggest it is to be found in the Central Bank Act itself, the main purpose of which is expressed in the following terms:—

"The bank shall have the general function and duty of taking such steps as the board may from time to time deem appropriate and advisable towards safeguarding the integrity of the currency".

Everything else in the Act is subsidiary to that requirement. The expression "safeguarding the currency" means ensuring that £1 Bank of England notes will at all times enable one to purchase in this country consumable goods to the value of 20/-. In view of the references by Deputy Hughes to "tickets", I think it appropriate to refer to a discussion which took place here in 1942 on that particular subject.

I am about to quote, but not too extensively, because I feel it would be valuable to do so, as the individual I am quoting was then a member of the Government, holding a rank just below that of Minister and because the conditions which he was then reviewing have obviously been aggravated fourfold since that time. The late Deputy Hugo Flinn, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, as reported in volume 87 of the Official Debates, on the 23rd June, 1942, column 1589, referred to the question of our people going across to Britain and the consequent remittances coming into this country, and said:—

"It was an advance migration from the best-off areas, from what we are used to calling in these debates the yellow areas, and the yellower the area the richer the area and the bigger the migration. There is coming into the country at present about £300,000 a month"——

That amount, as Deputies know, is now in excess of £1,000,000.

——"in money orders and postal orders; six times as much as previously. In one little district in Mayo, there is £6,000 a month coming in, and in one island £100 a day. But that is not all. In Donegal, the other day, I changed three £1 notes, and in each case I got an English 10/- note in change. In a crowded chemist's shop in Barrack Street, Cork, a friend of mine was standing by when a woman produced an English £5 note to pay for her purchases and she received her change in English £1 notes. Now, it is that amount of money coming in, and in circulation, which is very largely responsible for producing the disturbance and discontent which is occurring. There are from 2,500 to 3,000 money orders, valued from £3 to £4 each, coming into the City of Cork every week. That is going on all over the country. These are coming in, in return for the labour of our people abroad".

Referring to the conditions on the other side, he goes on to say:—

"It does not matter to them"——

That is, to the British people,

——"what wages they pay to our people so long as they do not allow them to spend it. The whole of the rest of the wages which is earned in England by our people, whatever may be the rate of wages, is paid not in paper here, but paid in goods by us. Anything over and above the bare subsistence of these people who are working there is being paid by us and no one else and is being paid out of our turf, out of our wheat, out of our flour, out of our wool, and out of our other essential and irreplaceable consumables. That is the lure which is bringing all these people away".

He was asked what conclusion he arrived at from that, and said, as given in column 1591:—

"The conclusion is that everyone who goes out from this country, who was otherwise unemployable here, incapable of producing anything here, to the extent to which he is maintained, the country is benefiting. Anyone who goes over there and sends back paper demands upon our irreplaceable commodities is not doing a benefit to this country but, as long as this emergency lasts, a definite damage."

Referring to the paper money, to which Deputy Hughes has made reference to-day, he continued, in reply to an interjection:—

"That paper has been proved irredeemable during the emergency on his own showing. We have £170,000,000 of supposed-to-be liquid sterling assets on the other side. That will not buy a tin of beef, a ton of manure, or a ton of coal. Neither will any of those paper tokens buy anything there, but they are being honoured here in our food, in our clothes, and our consumables."

I think that exemplifies the position precisely as it is to-day. It is in a more aggravated form, since the remittances referred to then as £300,000 a month have gone up to over £1,000,000. The total figure for last year was £13,000,000. That money is charged on our consumable goods and the only return given for it is services to another country and not to the country where the goods are consumed. That is the late Deputy Hugo Flinn on the proposition.

If I wanted to do nothing else on this Vote on Account but give what might be a striking illustration of the general economic position of the country to-day, I could do nothing more useful than give extracts from the recent Lenten Pastoral of his Lordship, Most Rev. Dr. Dignan of Clonfert. He said:—

"If it is true that it is labour that produces most wealth, is it not unbelievable that we continue to send out of our country men and women to produce wealth for other people while our own land remains fallow and requires those same people to work our own natural resources to their fullest?"

Referring to an opinion he received from another ecclesiastic, he says:—

"How true are the things he writes and how sad that they are true? Emigration on a large scale is a slow bleeding to the death of our nation, and yet we seem resigned to it, as fatalists awaiting our doom."

He goes on to analyse why our people leave and says that, generally speaking, economic reasons alone compel young men to leave the motherland and seek a livelihood abroad. He says that no one can reasonably expect them to remain from sentimental love of Ireland. He goes on to use these significant words:

"Give them what they get in other countries and they will remain —constant work, a high standard of wages, good social services and the amenities of modern life."

He goes on, further:

"These conditions can be had in the Ireland of to-day. Our country is largely undeveloped and, consequently, there can be abundant work for all. The required money is there, for our credit is of the very highest. Yet we seem to lack the will to make use of our God-given advantages and the talent to work out and put in operation an economic policy that will give constant employment and a reasonable wage to all who are able and willing to work."

I suggest that, if His Lordship were asked to address this House, he could not use more appropriate words than those he has used in that Lenten Pastoral. In my humble opinion, I would say that, having regard to the high and distinguished office which he holds, for what he has said in that particular Pastoral he deserves, and I am sure he will receive, the profound admiration and appreciation of all our people, not least of all that section which comes within the category of the working-classes.

On a previous occasion here I put a question to the Taoiseach, a question which certainly baffles me in any case, in so far as I have not yet got an answer that will satisfy me. It is this. Is or is not this nation of ours, with its 3,000,000 people, its resources and its possibilities for development, in a position to give a reasonable standard of living to all our people? The answer of those in a position to know has always been: "Yes, even for a greater population than that which is in the country at the present time". If that be so—and it is subscribed to in the quotation which I have given from his Lordship, the Most Rev. Dr. Dignan— and if we have the resources here, why is it, after close on a quarter of a century of home government, we have a constant pool of unemployment from month to month and year to year ranging around the figure of 80,000, with an almost equal figure of 80,000 on unemployment assistance and with a migration roll, as has been demonstrated, of close on 200,000 of our people?

How is it that such a state of affairs has been allowed to develop? Is it, as Dr. Dignan says, for want of the will to remedy the defects? Why should it be that we have Spartan-like or depressed conditions so far as thousands of our old age pensioners, about whom we had something to say here on Friday last, are concerned? Why should we have the lowly position of our widows and orphans? Why should it be that we have a vast number of unemployed and blind people in our community? Why is it that the standard of our social services is definitely below that of most countries in the world—certainly below that of any country which claims to be democratic and progressive?

I remember the time when some of our Ministers, to put it mildly, were exceedingly critical of the conditions operating in New Zealand. They were rather inclined to regard the conditions operating there prior to 1939 as Utopian, but recent events have demonstrated that they have been far from Utopian and that the Labour Government there have achieved the standard which they set themselves out to achieve when they took over office. They had reached that position prior to 1939. A similar position has been arrived at in Sweden, even during the war years, when Sweden was in a most precarious condition. Now you have the position of a neighbouring country. That country is setting itself a standard of social security which will inevitably attract, as it is attracting under less favourable conditions at the moment, people from this island. In that country they are aiming at a measure of social security. They have a long-term policy so far as employment is concerned. They are making all the necessary provisions for old age, and for other services they are providing on a scale which will be regarded as attractive and certainly as reasonable.

If I may be free to comment on the activities of the British Government, I will say that, notwithstanding the difficulties with which they are surrounded—and these difficulties are pretty generally appreciated—and notwithstanding the hostile Press by which they are assailed—some of it pours into this country, particularly on Sundays, giving the impression that conditions in Britain are not favourable to the disposition of those in office—I am satisfied, from what I know of some of these people and of their strength and resolve to avail of the opportunity for which they have been waiting for years, that before their term of office expires they will have justified up to the hilt the vote of confidence which was expressed in them last year.

Apart from New Zealand which, naturally, will be, so far as individuals here are concerned, a country far away, where the conditions are dissimilar in a good many respects from the conditions operating here, I suggest from our point of view, that is, from the aspect of the drain on our man and woman power, the position likely to arise in Britain within the next couple of years will be far more serious than anything that might operate in New Zealand, Sweden or Australia.

If I might summarise once again, in an endeavour to get an answer as to whether this country can give the standard of living which we believe it should give, I would like to emphasise and underline what in my opinion is the salient requirement of this country and the mass of its people. It is to be found in the words of Dr. Dignan—a high standard of wages, constant work, good social services and the amenities of modern life. In every debate that arises here suggesting an extension of services in any form, the Minister of the day usually relies on the old cry: "Where is the money to come from? This country is too poor to extend its services under any particular head." Here at least we have the target set for us and the only solution is that which was experimented on successfully elsewhere, constant work and high wages.

On Friday last I found myself in agreement, at least on one point, with the Minister for Finance, and that point was that social services can only be adequately and properly met when the national income is in a position to bear it and when the total output is such as will enable us to give these services. My disagreement with the Government to-day is that they are not taking the necessary steps to ensure the increase in our national wealth which will give us these services. What better illustration have we that that is the case than that during the last six years—and it applies with equal force to-day—our boys and girls were fleeing this country; that a considerable section of our own community are unemployed, and that others are trying to exist under most depressed conditions? I have found no indication that the Government are prepared to face up to the situation, seeing that it must be met almost in the terms of an economic crisis, after 25 years of control of our own affairs. I suggest to the Government that while the position of a section of the community has improved, there are others living under most depressed conditions and there is no indication that the situation is going to right itself.

On previous occasions from one side of the House or the other in order to ensure a desire for co-operation, a suggestion was thrown out to the Minister and to the Taoiseach, that we might have established what has been described as an economic council, drawn from all sections of the House. Such a body has given fruitful results elsewhere. That council would not exclude individuals outside who are in a position to make a valuable contribution towards the solution of our economic ills. That system is exceedingly popular and works very favourably in other countries. But our Government, for one reason or another, seems to fight shy of a commission or council of that character. May I suggest that if there is any suggestion of loss of prestige in establishing a council of that description, I would be inclined to disagree, because the eventual results would flow in equal measure to the Government and any other section comprising it?

I will leave that aspect of the economic conditions of the country and turn to one in which I have particular interest, and with which the Minister had some association, Government policy in relation to housing and its effect on housing generally.

As is well known, Dublin Corporation was in the market comparatively recently for a loan of a certain amount of money. The result was exceedingly satisfactory so far as the corporation was concerned. I am glad to say that the Minister in the course of the final arrangements leading up to the issue of the loan, was helpfully associated with the corporation. I point out to the Minister—and I expressed this view before—that that is not the last loan Dublin Corporation will have to float. The amount concerned was approximately £1,000,000 which would give us an output of about 1,300 houses. Since we aim roughly in our post-war programme of providing something like 2,000 houses yearly Deputies will have an idea how far that particular loan has gone to solve our housing problem. Actually we need 20,000 new houses to meet the present congestion that exists in this city. It must be evident to the Minister, who certainly has been closely associated with the position, that Dublin Corporation will have to go to the market again—not necessarily within the next 12 months, but certainly not very long after that period—for further money. We were fortunate because of certain circumstances operating on the Continent on the last occasion, as money had been tied up in a good many ways and was not available for investment.

In that case the money was available on terms which, in all the circumstances, were considered reasonable at the time. My suggestion to the Minister is that that might be all right on one occasion, but it is not an indication of a continuation of policy so far as financing public bodies is concerned. Obviously it would be a bad policy to have other authorities, such as those in Cork, Waterford or Limerick, which will have to do as we did in Dublin, going into the open market and finding themselves in competition at some particular time. So that housing may be put on a proper basis my suggestion is to adopt what has been done under the Ministry of Health in England, and that is to supply local authorities out of a fund known in England as the Public Works Loan Fund at a given rate of interest. That would have the advantage of serving all authorities under the same conditions. Some effort would then have been made to reach a position of uniformity so far as charges generally are concerned in connection with the building industry. In our approach to the housing question, that, from my point of view, is an essential and a vital step. I suggested that to the Minister before, and as I think his reaction was favourable I hope that he will take the earliest opportunity of ensuring that it will become the standard policy of the Government in future, so that local authorities will know how to plan, how to proceed, and how to fix rents based on uniform rates so far as interest charges are concerned.

There is another item relating to housing which some of my colleagues on the Dublin Corporation are seriously concerned about. So far as the municipality in Dublin is concerned, it is charged with the solution of what is known as the slum problem. That problem is reflected in the fact that we need 20,000 houses immediately. We propose to reach that programme on a basis of 2,000 houses a year. The figure is based on the availability of labour and materials, assuming both to be normal. Side by side with that question another grave social problem has arisen in this city which may very well be found to be universal as far as the country as a whole is concerned. That is the problem of young married persons who find that they cannot under any conditions get a home to live in in this city. We have reached the position in Dublin now where even furnished lodgings or unfurnished lodgings are practically unobtainable, except in certain cases at rents which are definitely prohibitive. This is a grave social problem, because, while on the one hand we are charged with the responsibility to find a remedy for the slums of Dublin, by the time we shall have reached our present objective, the young married people of to-day will have become the slum problem of the Dublin Corporation. How to solve it is not easy. I suggest to the Minister— I do not mind what Ministry of State is concerned—that we might have co-operation on the subject, which is pressing. It might very well be that a solution would lie along the lines of the establishment of a building society, equipped out of public funds, or out of State funds, or out of State and municipal funds, and that special body would be charged to carry out a programme for that particular section of the communtiy, bearing in mind the physical difficulties with which the Dublin Corporation is set in the solution of its own problem. I am urging and entreating that we might have some indication that this vital and urgent problem which, as I say, is pressing and is causing anxiety to a number of people interested in social welfare and, not least of all, causing anxiety and more than anxiety to the particular category concerned, is receiving the attention of the Government of the present time.

Finally, since the matter may be said to have arisen from the financial position of the Government, may I be permitted to say one or two things on the present situation in education, in view of the crisis with which the City of Dublin now faces? I say this only with the intention of being helpful. I say to the Minister, who has a co-responsibility with the Minister for Education, that it would appear to me and to others that the only difficulty that lies behind this problem at the present time is, to use the words of the Minister for Education, "that we must cut our cloth according to our measure".

Dr. O'Higgins

They must be very corpulent if we go by this Book of Estimates.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

Apparently the merits of the case so far as primary teachers are concerned are incontestable. Really the position with which we are now faced is the product of a low salary basis down the years even prior to the take-over by our own Government. I would suggest, therefore, that there might be a further examination of this particular question at the earliest possible moment because I understand that the difference between the two parties is not so acute as might possibly be represented and that the Minister with his colleague might take the line that, since this will be a clearance out of the educational path, once and for all, of a position that was an obstacle to the best interests of education for a long number of years, a further extension of the offer of the Government, so far as primary teachers are concerned, would possibly help to provide the solution for which we all earnestly hope. I urge, therefore, that at the earliest possible moment it might be decided to reopen negotiations as between the I.N.T.O. and the Minister and that we might be spared a position in the city from which may arise disastrous consequences, not alone in Dublin, but throughout the country.

Dr. O'Higgins

Deputy Martin O'Sullivan in his own words, and in the words of the late Mr. Hugo Flinn, and in the words of Most Rev. Dr. Dignan, painted a very gloomy picture of conditions in this country, but a very true picture—a picture of a tiny little island with a small population and that population falling steadily and progressively year by year—in the words of Most Rev. Dr. Dignan, that falling population being attributable to economic distress, destitution and poverty here at home. It would be unfair to visit the whole thing at the door of one administration alone. Going back a whole century we find, year in year out, steadily, without any stoppage or any halt, the population falling, the young people going away, the race at home dwindling to such an extent that in a period less than a century the population of this country was more than halved. Looking forward even to half that length of time, what can we picture the state of this island as being if a halt is not cried? If the same rate of emigration continues for the next century as has obtained for the last century, the last human being in this country will have disappeared from this island, because in the last century more than our total present population have emigrated. The evil is continuing. Any one of the older Deputies remembers that every one of us laid that hæmorrhage of emigration at the door of a foreign administration, the British Government and British rule. We laid that blame at the door of the British Parliament, honestly and conscientiously, and believing that it was due to misrule and bad government and that it was due to lack of consideration for the people and, above all, that it was a result of over taxation of the people.

We had the Childers Commission of that time, answering a noisy, agitated demand by the Irish people, to go into the question of our taxation. The taxation of the whole island and of the total population of this country was in the neighbourhood of £12,000,000 a year. We had a report made to that foreign Parliament that the people of this country were overtaxed and every one of us clung to that as the reason for emigration of the down-trodden, overtaxed population, where the taxation as against population was in the neighbourhood of £2 or £2 10s. 0d. per head per annum. We told the public what could be done if we got control and command of our own affairs. Twenty-five years ago, approximately, we got control of our own affairs. A home Government took responsibility for home affairs in a time of trouble, turmoil and difficulty, and emigration continued just as steadily as before. But, be it said, that seven years after that Administration took responsibility for the management of affairs, emigration first dwindled and then stopped. We had no emigration between 1929 and 1933, or certainly little or none. We reached the point in 1931, 1932 and 1933, where the population was actually beginning to rise. Then emigration resumed again at the old rate, steady and progressive.

Now we have reached the alarming point that, for the last five years, we have sent out of this country something like 250,000 people—over 200,000 people. With that dwindling population, we have economic distress and destitution so wide-flung throughout the country that there is scarcely a form of dole, whether boots or beef or milk or turf, that has not to be passed out in charity through an expensive channel, an expensive Government instrument. We have boys being exported as well as bullocks, with the value of the boy being roughly equivalent to the export value of the bullock; the bullock brings in about £50 and the boy sends back £1 a week, the annual value of the export of boys being equal to the export of bullocks. In spite of that revenue, we have so much destitution that we have organised on a tremendous scale a multiplicity of charity channels, each of them giving a little trickle just barely sufficient, not to bring about relief of distress or an easement of destitution, but sufficient easement of distress that we can proudly say as our one big boast that there is nobody actually dying of starvation in this country. They may be wasting owing to insufficient nourishment, they may be dying of diseases arising from malnutrition, but we have enough trickles of charity ingredients to ensure that nobody dies definitely of starvation.

With that state of affairs and with less people to cater for, with our last return showing the lowest population ever recorded in the history of this little island, the Minister produces a demand for public services unequalled in the history of the island; a demand for public services alone of £47,700,000; a demand equivalent to £17 per head of the population, or, taking two-thirds of the people, which is a generous calculation, as being taxpayers, £25 from every taxpayer in the country. That is the position we have reached. The general alibi of Ministers, when people talk about soaring taxation and crushing burdens being imposed on the people, is to answer back: "Look at the grand development of social services, the grand big charity organisations we have built up in the country".

I had a look through that Book of Estimates and I took a number of items out of that book that have no relation whatsoever to social services. I took the national expenditure in 1927 and in 1932, and also in 1937 and in the present year. I took the first two periods in order to demonstrate that the outlook and the policy of the previous Administration was this: that whatever money was taken out of the pockets of the taxpayers, good value would be given to the people for that money; that for every £1 taken, 20/- worth of value would be given; that the way to run this country as a sound economic little unit was to see that the very minimum amount of money was absorbed and sucked up in overhead charges, in departmental costs, in Ministerial exaggerations in their own Departments; that out of every £1 taken from the people the maximum amount went back to the people and that the minimum was absorbed by the growth of Government Departments. As was to be expected in a new State, the early years were expensive because people were untrained and officials inexperienced, so that it would take three to do the work that could properly be done by two, if the two were sufficiently trained and experienced. Under each of the headings here you will find that between the years 1927 and 1932, in the services and Departments that had nothing to do with social services, the cost was falling; that the aim was economy; that the goal was value for money; and that the outlook was, as far as possible, to reduce taxation and give industry, trade, commerce and agriculture a chance.

Then we had a change of Government. From the very first year of the change of Government you have under every one of these heads of expenditure which had no relation to social services money going up year by year, taxation going up year by year, numbers growing, expenditure mounting, and unbridled extravagance. In the short period of five years, without any relation to social services or any of these things that we hear Ministerial bleatings about, we had the taxation of the people for a small limited number of Departments increased by a sum amounting to £3,000,000. That went on gaily and steadily until the total taxation of the country was raised from £22,000,000 a year for supply services alone to the staggering total of £48,000,000 a year—just increased by doubling it and the taxation on every individual doubled; increased taxation equivalent to approximately £1,000,000 per annum on every county in this State and that increased taxation imposed by a Party and a group who squealed and wailed and whined from this bench that industry, trade, commerce, agriculture or the working man had no chance of living in this country when they were crushed down by a burden of taxation amounting to £22,000,000 per year.

We had Deputy de Valera from this side, with the pencil of the mathematician, the head of the politician and the tongue of the agitator, painting an appalling picture of a tiny struggling population, of every man, woman and infant crushed down under a burden of taxation amounting to £7 per head per annum. Now when we have reached a taxation burden of £17 per annum on every man, woman and child, of £25 per annum out of the pocket of every taxpayer, and when we have reached a point when the revenue from the export of boys is equivalent to the old-time highest figure revenue for the export of bullocks, we have still a desire for more and more money, for more numbers, for more heads, for more administrators. For what? To administer for a population which is fading like the winter's snow. More administrators and more cost to cater for fewer people; more police, with less crime; more police, with a dwindling population; more courts, to deal with less crime and more courts to cater for fewer people; more Revenue Commissioners to collect taxes from fewer people; greater numbers in every Government Department with less to be done and fewer people to cater for.

Ministers meet these charges, either here or outside, by saying that whatever our increased expenditure may be it is going on social services. I went to the trouble of picking some heads of expenditure out of the Minister's Estimates. We will begin at the top, with the Department of the Taoiseach, which used to be that of the President of the Executive Council. That Department, in 1927, cost £11,000.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy does not propose to go down the list?

Dr. O'Higgins

The Deputy will go as far as he desires to bring home the argument on the items shown in the Vote on Account.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will not be allowed to itemise them.

Dr. O'Higgins

The Deputy will go as far as he considers it is necessary to go to drive home the argument. If the Chair, when he reaches a certain point, considers him to be irrelevant, the Deputy will obey the Chair. The Department of the Taoiseach—in 1927, the Department of the President of the Executive Council — cost in round figures £11,000 in that year and Deputy de Valera from these benches then accused the President of the Executive Council of aping the pomp, the ceremonial and the extravagance of a mighty empire. By 1932, that figure had been reduced to £10,000; by 1937, it was up again to £13,000; and to-day it is up to £17,000. The Comptroller and Auditor - General's Department sprang from £16,000, in 1927, to £24,000; the office of the Minister for Finance, the headline for all other Departments, the headline for all other bodies, committees or tribunals of public expenditure, jumped from £55,000 to £85,000; the Office of the Revenue Commissioners increased from £630,000 to £1,540,000; the office of the Minister for Local Government jumped from £100,000 to £169,000; and the cost of the Civil Service Commissioners multiplied by more than two.

I will not go through all the details, in deference to the desire of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, but I will give a round figure. The Departments which I have on this list are: Department of the Taoiseach, Department of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, Office of the Minister for Finance, Revenue Commissioners, Office of Public Works—not the expenditure on Public Works—Civil Service Commission, Stationery and Printing, Law Charges, Office of the Minister for Justice, Gárda Síochána, District Courts, Circuit Courts, Supreme and High Courts, Land Registry, General Register Office, Office of the Minister for Education, Department of Posts and Telegraphs, Wireless Broadcasting, and Army.

That group of services cost, in 1927, £7,400,000. In 1932, the cost had been reduced to £6,255,000; in 1937, under the present Administration, it had jumped to £8,226,000; and to-day the demand for these services is over £13,000,000. For this group of services alone, not including any of the expenditure which is taking place under any of these Departments, there is that increase from £7,000,000 to £13,000,000, and an increase in the total Estimates over those years from £22,000,000 to £47,000,000, an increase of £25,000,000.

I think that in a debate of this kind we should consider the present, while projecting our minds into the future, to see exactly where we are going and where it is all leading, and, above all, when we are voting money, we should be satisfied that there is a necessity for the money demanded and that the money demanded is not more than is required to do the work. Let us take this particular set of items as between 1927 and 1947. In 1927, we were just emerging from a period of turmoil, a period of trouble, a period of lawlessness, and we were not quite out of that atmosphere in which it was fashionable to be defying the State and breaking the law, when it was heroic and patriotic to be suffering under the lash of the law. That was the state of affairs in 1927, when there was a tiny Army and when an unarmed police force was endeavouring to deal with the situation. If the police force was big in numbers and expensive, it was because, unfortunately, a big minority of the population was determined to make it costly and to make the work difficult. But be that as it may, that is in the past, 20 years ago.

Those conditions do not exist to-day. There is no Party, no group of individuals, no powerful leaders in this country to-day, preaching violence or lawlessness. The policeman is the friend of every decent citizen and the police force has the assistance of every citizen in the State. The task is nothing compared with that which was before them in 1927, yet we have a demand for £1,000,000 a year more for that force, and a demand for a considerably greater number of officers and men. No reason is given, but the money is asked for, the bells will ring and, doubtless, the regimented Party will do what it always did and will march through the lobbies to vote £48,000,000 on to the backs of the people. Industry will be cramped, if not crippled, agriculture will be paralysed, trade will be hampered, the boys and the bullocks will go and the pound notes will come back. Reverend Bishops may deplore that state of affairs, but on the same day we will have a Government Minister saying it is perfectly natural that we should have that flow of boys and girls from the land, that it would be wrong if people remained here where there was not work for them.

The £24,000,000 a year would provide a lot of work, if that extra £24,000,000 that the Minister is taking out of the pockets of the industrialists, the merchants, the traders, the farmers of this country, or, approximately £1,000,000 per annum per county, were left there to stimulate trade and industry, to help to increase production, to help to pay more and better wages. Then the Minister might hope to reach the point his predecessors had reached at the end of their short term of office, where emigration had been stopped and the population was actually beginning to rise. How can we ever hope to reach that point, when we have the Minister bringing in demands of this kind, increasing at the rate of £1,000,000 a year, merely to have more agents and servants, more headquarters extravagance, to administer for a smaller number of people. We have another Minister getting up more or less to glory in emigration and tell the people and the world that emigration is perfectly natural, that it would be a tragedy if the people were kept at home where there was not work for them to do. What is the prospect of there ever being work for the people to do, if all the profits of business and production are absorbed by a Minister for Finance merely to bolster up Governmental extravagance?

Was there any truth in the charges levelled by the present Minister for Finance 15 or 16 years ago, in the charges then levelled by his leader and by his colleagues, that our people were physically unable to bear the burden of taxation which the Government at that time had imposed on their backs? We were told then that our Government Departments in size were only mimicking the pomp and extravagance of a mighty empire, that our people would never get a chance to live or breathe, not to speak of living the life of normal happiness to which they were entitled, until the crushing burden of taxation was reduced by a number of millions of pounds. I ask if there was any honesty in those protestations, or if there was any knowledge behind those speeches? Were they merely the cheap, hollow mumblings of so many cheap politicians, trying to get votes by destructive criticism of a strong, economic régime? Or were they the thoughtless speeches of numbskulls who did not understand public administration? If there was any honesty in those speeches or any knowledge behind them, surely we should not be asked for two and a half times the amount to-day and for 50 per cent. more for Departments and services that had nothing, and have nothing, to do with social services? If our people were crushed out of existence—in the words of then Deputy de Valera—when they were asked to bear a burden of taxation of £7 per head of the population, when he protested that it was cruel and inhuman to expect it to be borne, what is the plight of the same people, less in population, when they are asked to bear a burden of £17 per head of the population?

The Minister for Finance is the Minister supposed to control expenditure. He is the Minister who is supposed, at all events, to ensure that an undue burden of taxation is not placed on the backs of the people. Assuming that he does not change his honesty with the change of seats or the change of position, and assuming that he was an honest Deputy when he spoke from these benches 16 or 17 years ago, he cannot claim to be an honest Minister in presenting this demand to the Parliament of the people this year.

You have there on the face of that Book of Estimates, you have in that extravagant demand, the natural and the logical result of what Mr. de Valera appealed for in June 12 months —a strong Government. There is the result of a strong Government. Convert the term "strong Government" into ordinary language, and what does it mean? It means a Government with a clear majority, a Government backed by a clear majority of regimented dummies. It means a Government backed by a docile, disciplined but dumb majority that will put anything through without question, without challenge, and the stronger the Government in that sense, the stronger the demand and the stronger the desire for more and more power.

If you had a Government over there, not what Mr. de Valera calls a strong Government, if you had a Government without an over-all majority, faced with three or four Parties of varying strength, with a group of Independents numbering nine or ten, so that every Government measure would have to get the support, we will say, of at least five people that were not wilting under the crack of the Government whip, then you would get a good Government; you would get a Government that would have to have a good case and that would have to have a sound case, because they would have to attract the support of at least five Deputies who were not submissive creatures, wilting under the crack of the whip. But, the very minute you get away in Parliament from that state of affairs, then you have what Mr. de Valera calls a strong Government with strong notions, strong desires and strong demands. For it is only Governments that matter and people do not; it is only the requirements of a Government that count and the requirements of the people are to be treated with contempt.

This book, this demand and this instalment of that demand show a strong Government with a strong Party behind it, a Party of weak, silent men, men who would march as gaily through the turnstiles if that demand were for £80,000,000 just as they will after this debate on this demand for £48,000,000. But the worm will turn and the people are not going to stand all the time for a Government greed that is demanding more and more. Steadily, persistently, continuously, peace or war, danger or safety, there is only one thing that is there all the time—the growing greed. The stronger their desires, the greater are the demands by the Minister out of the pockets of the people.

Mr. Cogan

Our Party have given notice that we will, in this debate, raise the question of the promotion of increased agricultural and industrial production. The demand which is made upon the people to-day is an enormous one. It is enormous, particularly in proportion to the capacity of the people to pay, and the main task at the moment should be to secure as far as possible that that demand shall be reduced, that real economies shall be effected in our national services and that public money will not be wasted on unproductive services which add nothing to the wealth of the community and from which the community will derive no benefit.

We have no objection to the expenditure of public money to promote industrial or agricultural development. We have no objection to the expenditure of public money on improving the technical efficiency of those engaged in agriculture or in industry. We have no objection to the expenditure of public money which is directed towards improving our social services, thus bringing about a redistribution of the national income for the benefit of the poorer sections of our people. But we do object to the growing tendency to expand expenditure in all Government Departments irrespective of whether they are serving any national interest or not.

It is our main object in this debate to direct the attention of the Government to the urgent need for promoting the expansion of agriculture and of our secondary industries, because whatever we require for State expenditure must, in the last analysis, come out of production, whether that production is agricultural or industrial. The man who is engaged in production is adding to the national pool of goods and commodities and it is out of that national pool that all State services must be financed and it is out of that national pool that our social services must find the resources with which to carry on.

The need for the expansion of home production is particularly urgent at the present time. For six or seven years the home producer has laboured under the restrictions imposed by emergency conditions throughout the world. Those conditions are in some respects being gradually relieved; in other respects there is still not much immediate prospect of relief, but at any rate, we can hope that, if the world is not engaged in another war in the near future, conditions will improve and that there will be scope for industrial and agricultural expansion. It is with that hope in our minds that we should be planning now for a big drive, for increased production.

During the period of the emergency the Government, acting on appeals from all Parties, and from public opinion outside, agreed to set up a post-war agricultural commission to prepare plans for the agricultural policy after the war. That post-war agricultural commission has finished its deliberations, and has presented no less than three reports. One would have thought that a commission of that kind, a brains trust, carefully selected by the Government, would have sufficient sense of responsibility to reach agreement in regard to agricultural production. One would have thought that such a commission would not allow petty personal vanity or such considerations to weigh in a matter of such urgent national importance. One would consider that such able men, as the members of that commission were supposed to be, would not present any report to the public until they had reached substantial agreement. Instead of that we have three, apparently, conflicting reports. We have an attempt made to divide agricultural opinion in regard to future policy; we have an attempt made to start again a new controversy in regard to what is sound or what is reasonable, regarding the most important question at the moment, the development of agriculture. Any reasonable person reading the three reports of the commission must acknowledge that they are not irreconcilable, as, with a little common-sense on the part of all concerned, they could have been reconciled, and there could have been unanimous advice given to the Government, and to this House, as to how agricultural policy should be conducted in the future.

I have carefully read over the various reports and, as far as I can see, the difference between the majority and the minority reports is a difference of emphasis. In one report there is strong emphasis on the export market and, in the main minority report, strong emphasis on the home market. Good common-sense would indicate that there is nothing irreconcilable between seeking development of the home market to the fullest extent and, at the same time, seeking, as far as possible, to develop external markets. It seems that the agricultural commission thought it would be too severe a strain on their mental powers to reconcile the two irreconcilable reports, and thus we had an attempt made to divide agricultural opinion; to divide the people into pro-home marketeers and pro-British marketeers. There is no need for such a division. I think at present such a division of opinion would be disastrous. Never in the history of this country was there greater need for co-ordination and co-operation in planning the future development of agriculture. What is the reaction of the Government to the report submitted by the commission? Their reaction is not to deal with the problem as a whole, but to take small parts of the various reports and seek to implement them by legislation, and thus in a piecemeal haphazard kind of way approach the fundamental problem of agriculture.

One does not like to draw comparisons between this country and other countries. As a rule comparisons are odious, but it is significant that in Great Britain there is a very carefully planned and comprehensive policy in regard to agriculture; a policy which guarantees the agricultural producer minimum prices over a prolonged period. That is the policy which this Party has consistently advocated in this House. It is the only policy for agriculture. It is natural to assume that you cannot have efficiency in production, and cannot have the confidence which is necessary, in order to get that efficient production, unless those engaged in agriculture can look forward to a fairly long period of security in regard to markets and prices for produce.

Demands have been made in this House and outside it for better conditions for agricultural workers. I think those demands have the sympathy of every section in this House, and of the community, but those demands cannot be met unless the State and the organised community are prepared to stand behind agricultural producers, and guarantee that, if they pay their workers a reasonable remuneration, the State will see to it that farmers get such a profit as will enable them to pay it. It is the failure of the State and of the Government to stand behind agriculture and to give it that security to which it is entitled, that is mainly responsible for the present low volume of production and for the still unsatisfactory standard of efficiency in the industry.

I am satisfied that if we had a sound agricultural policy pursued in the years before the war, we would have produced not only sufficient wheat for our own requirements, without any dependence on imports, but we would also have produced sufficient bacon for our requirements. The standard and output of the land could have been increased by a prudent agricultural policy, which would seek to build up the fertility of the soil which is ultimately the foundation of agricultural prosperity. With increased fertility of the soil, we could have had an increased output of all other produce required for live stock, and would have had not only sufficient bacon to supply the home market during the war period, but also a margin for export. We would also have a much bigger margin of poultry and dairy produce for export. Agriculture, unfortunately, has been made the cockpit of Party conflict. The farmer has been asked to chase the various will-o'-the-wisps such as those produced by the precious agricultural commission, to chase them round and round in circles, instead of being given a definite lead in regard to better and more efficient production.

With wisdom and foresight, it is possible to devise an agricultural policy which will ensure that the farmer will get a fair price for his produce, whether that produce is intended ultimately for export or for home consumption. The ultimate object of all production is consumption at home. That may seem a proposition difficult to explain but we must ask ourselves why do we export our surplus agricultural produce. We do that for the purpose of importing goods for consumption in this country. Thus, it is to supply the needs of the Irish consumer, directly or indirectly, that agricultural policy is directed and it is only a matter of adjustment to ensure that whether the farmer produces directly for the home consumer or, indirectly, by exporting food to be converted into imported consumer goods other than food, for consumption here, he is serving the interests of the home consumer all the time.

When we advocate, as practically everybody in this country advocates, that those engaged in agricultural production, whether they be farmers, farm labourers or members of farmers' families, should have a higher standard of living, we must face up to the fact that the consumer must be prepared to pay a price that will cover the cost of production. There is no use in asserting that you can have decent conditions in agriculture and at the same time cheap food. The policy of cheap food was followed in Great Britain for many years. It has been found to be a disastrous policy. It is now being abandoned in favour of a policy of giving the home producer there a fair return for his labour so as to encourage him to produce efficiently and to secure from the soil the maximum output. Only last week the British Government, going carefully into costings, found that there was no margin of profit in the agricultural industry in Great Britain and they found it necessary to provide all-round increases. That was facing up to the problems of agriculture in a reasonable, sound and sensible manner.

For a long time this Party has been demanding an impartial system of investigating costings in agriculture. We have made that demand repeatedly but without success because the powers that be in this State are anxious to avoid facing up to the problem in a businesslike way. They know that if they provide a fair, efficient and impartial tribunal of investigation into costings in agriculture, it will be proved that the margin of profit in the industry has always been, and is still, too low. To-day the Government have issued to Deputies a White Paper on National Income. While there has not been time given to Deputies to study that White Paper carefully there is one fact at any rate that is strikingly illustrated in that publication, that is the disparity in income in agriculture as compared with income in other occupations in the State. In 1938, which is supposed to be the last normal year, the agricultural community, who represent more than 50 per cent. of the population, divided between them approximately one-fourth of the total national income. The other 50 per cent. of the population divided between them three-fourths of the national income. Even to-day, when the agricultural income has been somewhat increased by reason of the emergency, we still find that the agricultural community divided between them approximately one-third of the national income. Even to-day, when agriculture is alleged to be prosperous and when Ministers are repeating from the housetops that agriculture is prosperous, we have the condition of affairs in which the average person engaged in agriculture derives from that source an income less than half the income of the average person engaged in other occupations. The result of the disparity in income as between agriculture and other occupations is that every intelligent boy and girl who has come to the use of reason tries to get away from the agricultural industry, to get into the towns or cities or, better still, in his or her estimation, to get out of the State altogether, to get across to Great Britain. Thus we have the highest authorities of Church and State bewailing the ever-increasing drift from the land and, worse still, the ever-increasing tide of emigration. But emigration will continue and the drift from the land will continue as long as the standard income of each person engaged in agriculture is less than half that of persons engaged in other occupations. That is a fundamental fact that must be faced.

The Labour Party, in their wisdom, are seeking to face that problem in one way. They are fighting for higher remuneration and for shorter working hours for those engaged in agriculture. The farmer is naturally sympathetic to these demands. If we are to have wages and conditions of employment in agriculture improved on the one hand and if there is a definite ceiling fixed for agricultural prices on the other, it means that ultimately the farmer will be caught in the jaws of the vice and crushed completely out of existence. If, therefore, we are to face up to an expansion of the agricultural industry, or even the survival of the industry, we must ensure that proper machinery is set up to secure for the farmer such prices as will enable him to pay his workers reasonable wages and give them reasonable conditions and leave him some margin of profit on his invested capital.

If we are to have that improvement in agriculture which we demand and which is nationally desirable, it is essential that the agricultural industry must be financed. There is hardly any agricultural country in northern Europe in which there is less capital invested in agricultural equipment than in this country. We have less money invested in farm buildings, farm machinery and farm equipment. Now is the time, having narrowly escaped famine and destitution during the period of the emergency, to plan for higher production, and for that higher and more efficient production we must have improved agricultural equipment, better farm buildings, better and more up-to-date machinery of every kind. So far there is no indication from the Government Benches of any desire or any intention to provide better credit facilities for agriculture. The credit facilities at present provided are admittedly inadequate. The interest charges on loans, whether obtained from the banks or from the Agricultural Credit Corporation, are excessive and are altogether too heavy for an industry such as agriculture, which requires big capital expenditure.

It may be said that if we plan a policy of guaranteed minimum prices for agriculture it does not matter what the agricultural community have to pay for the capital which they require; it does not matter whether it is 5, 6 or 7 per cent., they can pass it on to the consumer. But, even if that were possible, would it be desirable? Would it be desirable that such an unnecessary cost should be imposed on the agricultural community or passed on to the consumer? In the last analysis, the State is the source of all credit, the source of all money; and, because it is the source of all credit and all money, it is ridiculous and absurd that the State should pay interest charges to private firms and individuals for the loan of money which the State itself creates. The State creates all money in this sense, that it is the security behind all existing money, whether it be in the form of bank credits or even paper currency. The money is certainly created on the security of the State. Without that security, not even one single pound note would have any value whatever in this or any other country. We all accept that without question. Since it is on the security of the State that all money is created, why should we permit private individuals to reap huge profits by trafficking in the money which the State itself secures?

That matter is particularly important in regard to agricultural development, because experts have told us that, in order to put the agricultural industry in a sound and efficient and up-to-date position, it would be necessary to expend during the next five or ten years £100,000,000 on the improvement of land and on the erection and reconstruction of farm buildings. That vast sum of money is required by the agricultural industry in order to finance it. Since it is required and since it is in the interests of the community that it should be provided, there is no reason why the community, as taxpayers, as consumers or as producers, should be called upon to bear the high impost in the matter of interest charges.

With reasonable credit facilities and with a long-term policy of guaranteed minimum prices, I am satisfied that the agricultural industry will deliver the goods. There is no need in this country to nationalise the land, as is recommended in other States. There is no need to interfere with private enterprise in the working of the land. Given a reasonable chance, given reasonable encouragement, the farmer will produce the maximum amount of output that can be got from the land. At the same time, having security of tenure in the land, he will seek to improve the fertility of the soil. That is, I believe, the basis of sound agricultural policy, a policy which is long overdue. For 25 years the agricultural industry has been neglected, kicked about, so to speak. For years the agricultural producer was selling his produce less than the 1914 level, while the cost of production was more than double that.

We of this Party hold that the agricultural producer and the industrial producer are not in conflict with each other. We hold that industrial development is just as essential as agricultural development and that industrial development does not conflict in any way with sound agricultural development. The two branches of our economic life are co-related and are equally essential to the nation. No nation can be really prosperous and, at the same time, have a substantial and increasing population which depends entirely upon agriculture. We know that when Germany was defeated, and when the heads of the Governments of the great Powers which were victorious met at Potsdam they decided as a penalty and as a punishment on the German people for having lost the war that they would make Germany an agricultural country. Yet there are some people in this State who have no higher ambition than that Ireland should be a purely agricultural country.

Ordinary common-sense will indicate that a nation cannot be strong, cannot be really independent and cannot provide for an increasing population unless its industrial arm is developed to the fullest possible extent. For years Arthur Griffith preached that policy here—a policy of intensive industrial development. During the years when this State enjoyed legislative independence under Grattan's Parliament we had intensive industrial development here, and some of the great industries which survived over 100 years of free trade were established during that period, when we had a Government which sought by every possible means to promote and protect industrial development.

Efforts have been made during the past 25 years to promote industrial development here, but these efforts to a great extent have been unsatisfactory in their results. We had a position in which non-nationals were encouraged to come into this country and were given special advantages over Irish nationals which enabled them to reap high profits. People from almost every State in Europe have flocked in here to take advantage of our industrial policy, and have been given very special privileges, privileges which in many cases they have abused in order to victimise other industrial producers here and to victimise the general consuming public. In the future, it must be the policy of the Government to ensure that no vested interests such as those are allowed to control industrial development here, and particularly that no foreign vested interests are allowed to dominate our industrial development, but that Irish nationals, with an interest in their own country, with an interest in its population and with an interest in the intensive development of our home industries, will be given the main control of industrial development.

We have seen the unfortunate results of allowing exploitation by foreigners of our industries here and that policy must be completely changed. A decent chance must be given to our enterprising home-born industrialists, who are prepared to deliver the goods and to deliver them at a reasonable price. It is essential, if there is to be sound industrial development, that gross profiteering must be eliminated. Efficiency and economy must be insisted upon in industry just as in agriculture, and we ought now to make up our minds as to what is to be the line of future development in industry. Are we to follow the line of having industry developed directly by the State under State-established companies of various kinds, or are we to encourage the private individual of enterprise and ability to go into production independently and to run his business independently? We have to make up our minds on that question, because, every year, we find added to the number of State companies new organisations of a similar type, organisations which are financed perhaps by the State but which are disguised to a large extent as private companies, and there is widespread dissatisfaction with regard to the operation of such companies.

This nation is capable of producing men of ability, of enterprise and of industry, who, if given a reasonable chance, will, by their individual efforts, produce in this country all the industrial products that are capable of being produced here. The time has come to decide whether we will encourage private enterprise in industry, or whether we propose to drift, by establishing State-controlled and State-owned industrial concerns, into a condition in which we will ultimately have a socialistic State here, because that is the tendency at the moment.

I know that Ministers often feel impatient with private enterprise, and even feel that they and their Departments could do things better than the private individuals, but I think it will be found in the long run that private enterprise is best, whether in agriculture or industry, and the time has come now to curb the tendency to establish State organisations or companies to engage in industrial enterprise. With the elimination of undesirable foreign influence in the control of industries and with encouragement for legitimate private enterprise, I believe there is a big future for industrial development in this country.

We have been unfortunate in the past, not only by reason of external control of this country but also by reason of the fact that many of what are regarded as the basic essentials of industry were not produced here. We had not got the ores and minerals which are the basis of so many big industries, but, with the development of plastic industries and of a new technique in regard to production, it is possible that this country will come into its own in industrial development, just as it is coming into its own in regard to international air transport. It would be a remarkable coincidence if this country were always to be unlucky and I do not think we should develop the mentality that our nation is in the extraordinary position of being bankrupt of everything essential to development. We should be prepared to face the future with confidence and expect from the Government a lead in that direction. We expect them to engage now in a big national drive for the expansion of agriculture and industry, both going hand in hand, co-ordinated and co-operating.

As far as possible, no conflict of interest should be allowed to grow up between the agriculturists and the industrialists. With such an approach to our economic problems, we may, perhaps, bear a substantial portion of the burden imposed upon us by national expenditure. At the same time, we must demand a headline from the Government in the manner in which they run the Departments. Ministers speak in public places and demand increased efficiency from the farmers and manufacturers, and it is only right that the community should demand increased efficiency from the Government, in eliminating waste and unnecessary expenditure in the Departments.

We of this Party put down a motion some time ago calling for an investigation into Government expenditure. That motion was not accepted by the Government, but we have been upbraided from time to time that we were seeking a reduction of expenditure and at the same time demanding better social services. I think the Minister used that argument some weeks ago. We hold that better social services are essential and can be provided without any higher expenditure, if we have a sound agricultural and industrial policy. Such a policy would provide a higher standard of wages for our working community and would make many of our present social services unnecessary. I hope what I have said regarding agricultural development will not fall on deaf ears and that the present Minister for Finance, starting out in his new capacity, will approach agricultural problems in a less hostile frame of mind than his predecessor in office.

Minister for Education (Mr. Derrig)

I should like to intervene to deal with the observations made by Deputy Martin O'Sullivan towards the conclusion of his speech. He referred to the position that has arisen following on the negotiations between the Irish National Teachers' Organisation and myself and the strike action which the executive committee of that body has now threatened. The Deputy seemed to find fault with the principle which most Deputies, in this debate, at any rate, will be prepared to endorse very warmly as being an excellent financial maxim, just as applicable to public affairs as to private affairs, and equally likely to bring the very best results. That maxim is that we ought to cut our cloth according to our measure and not according to the other man's purse.

The Deputy would like that this question of national teachers' remuneration should be examined further and he suggested the negotiations might be reopened between the teachers and myself. I should like to say that, in the negotiations with them, I tried to approach this matter in the most helpful and most friendly spirit. I am fully aware of the unfortunate history of teachers' remuneration for the last 25 years and of the bad results that have accrued. I was most anxious that we should reach a solution which would mean entering with a new spirit into our future educational reforms, so that we could work together in co-operation and in harmony. Those who know of the discussions will not question that the Government approached this matter with a feeling of anxiety to do the best for the teachers, a feeling of sympathy with them and of understanding of their difficulties and of the troubles that they, as well as other classes, have had during the present emergency.

The standstill Orders meant that the Government had to refuse to give increased remuneration, or to permit others to give increased remuneration to their employees, except within certain specified limits. It will be recognised that it would have been extremely difficult for the Government to take out one class, no matter how important it may be in the life of the country, and say that the standstill Orders would not apply to that class, though it would apply to every other class of wage or salary earners. The teachers received the same emergency bonus as other classes, in order to alleviate to the extent that was possible under that arrangement, the hardships caused by the emergency. Feeling that the teaching profession occupied a special position in the country, I was anxious to give that profession the status from the financial point of view to which it seemed to be entitled and to try to bring about a financial solution and a satisfactory solution of this question of teachers' remuneration, which has vexed the country for such a long period of years. I entered into negotiations with the teachers on the basis that, after the emergency, new scales should operate. The question immediately arose as to the basis upon which the new scales were to be framed. Considering the extraordinary increase in the cost of living that has taken place and the possible further inflation that might face us, were we in a position to assure to the teachers full compensation for the increased cost of living since the war began? We were not. The Government are not in a position to award such compensation to any class of public servant, nor do they believe that it is possible to do so. We can only examine particular cases on their merits and do the best we can to provide satisfactory solutions, as satisfactory as all the circumstances will permit.

There has been a general belief among economists and experts who have been considering post-war trends that the present high cost of living will not continue indefinitely, that the present level of prices will fall. We are entirely in the dark as to the extent to which they may fall, or when the fall will occur. After the last war there was a fall very soon after the termination of hostilities and the fall became great and substantial within the years succeeding. Up to the present there has not been any fall, but the belief is that in the course of the next few years there will be a considerable fall when materials held up across the Atlantic and elsewhere are set going in the ordinary ways of trade, when shipping is available and when employment is again going at a normal rate; when goods, in other words, become plentiful and in normal supply, there is every prospect that there will be a fall. No one, I think, contemplates that the present very abnormal increase will continue. Some economists believe that the level of 30 per cent. over what we were accustomed to before the war may be reached; others think that something in the neighbourhood of 50 per cent. may be achieved. These may be in the nature of prophecies, but at any rate they have been offered as opinions by those who have studied the question and who have a reputation in economic matters.

Practically every section, as I have said, of the wage and salary earning classes are worse off than they were in 1938, if you put their present financial income or remuneration into relation with the very high cost of living. We were prepared to go as far as ever we could to try to provide for the period when we felt there would be a substantial fall in the cost of living and to try to arrange now that the remuneration which would be brought into effect upon the 1st September would compensate very nearly, if not altogether, for the level of prices which experts think will rule sometime in the next year, two years or three years.

As I have said, we cannot take a particular class and attempt to give them a certain special status without any reference to the conditions of other classes, nor can we do it without reference to our general circumstances and the resources of our country and what is possible here. The fact is that the majority of our people are in a very much worse off position than they were in 1938 and, unfortunately, that situation is likely to continue for some time.

I think it will be admitted that the Government showed an appreciation of the teachers' position and a real anxiety to improve that position and tried to bring about a satisfactory solution when, in these circumstances, with the war scarcely over, they entered upon these negotiations. The effect of the proposals which have been published would be to increase the expenditure upon national teachers' salaries and the capitation grants paid to convent and monastery schools by £1,250,000 over the expenditure of 1938, bringing the total expenditure under that head to something over £4,500,000. This is a very substantial increase and, in making the increase, the Government have had to have regard not alone to the commitments under other headings—the remuneration of other public servants—but to the reactions of this increase generally upon levels of remuneration and upon employment.

We cannot, no matter how anxious we may be to do the very best we can for the teachers, deal with their position apart from the general question of what the country can afford, how other classes are remunerated and what our other commitments are. We have to bear in mind all the time the reactions in other directions of heavy increases in the remuneration of public servants. The figures I have given do not include the increased cost of pensions which would amount to an additional £160,000 annually ultimately. The present burden for teachers' superannuation is heavy and is to an extent uncovenanted. In countries which have been quoted by way of comparison with us, there is a deduction of 5 per cent. for a pension contribution.

The real question that we have to consider is whether we would be justified in setting up higher standards of remuneration, higher than the experts consider are possible, having regard to our general circumstances—whether we shall be justified in attempting to meet these demands, knowing our national production has not increased in the way in which we would expect. Our future as an agricultural exporting country is very much in question so far as some of our chief commodities are concerned and the national pool, however it may look from the point of view of the expansion in the currency, does not show that great increase in goods and commodities that one would expect if one were to claim that the additional wealth available in the country entitled different classes and interests to put their hands into the pool and take out something additional for themselves.

We do not know what the future trends may be. In referring to the levels of prices which may be anticipated and which are very largely hypothetical, we do not know what the future may hold. We are only looking at one side of the case; we are not looking at the position that would be created if, in fact, all the remuneration of public servants and other classes of the community is increased, even to the extent that I have suggested, even to the extent that it is considered will possibly or probably be below the ultimate level of prices and will not give full compensation. Where are these additional resources to come from? If they do not come from the increased wealth produced in our country, then somebody else has to suffer. If more is taken out of the national pool, the common pool, by certain classes, and the pool itself does not increase proportionately, it means others have to go with less than they were accustomed to.

Great play has been made with the scales offered by me to the teachers in comparison with those offered elsewhere. I should like to refer first to the nature of the increase. In the case of the women, for example, I find that at the minimum we were increasing the scale 56 per cent. over the 1938 scale. At the maximum of the efficient teacher scale, we were increasing it 35.8 per cent. and, at the maximum of highly efficient, we were increasing it by 36 per cent.

As regards the unmarried men, at the minimum we have increased it 53 per cent. At the maximum of the efficient and highly efficient scale, we have increased it 19.5 per cent. and 16.8 per cent. respectively. When the unmarried man teacher marries he receives an immediate increase of £50, and after five years' service his comparative increase over what he would have got formerly, having the same five years' service, was 66.4 per cent. The increase in the maximum married man scale, efficient and highly efficient, was 52.5 and 47 per cent. respectively. To the married man, after five years' service, if we add in the rent allowance of £10 which is available to married teachers in the country generally, it would mean an increase of well over 70 per cent. If we were to add to the remuneration of the married teacher working in Dublin the £40 rent allowance he would get in his remuneration, after five years' service it meant that there would be an increase of 88 per cent. over the 1938 scale. In the maximum of the married man scale, if we added £40 for the Dublin teachers' rent allowance, we would get 65.1 per cent. and 66 per cent. of an increase respectively over pre-war figures for efficient and highly efficient.

It is stated that these figures show up very badly with what has been done elsewhere. I do not agree. Everybody knows that unmarried men and women are heavily penalised at the present time through income-tax in the neighbouring countries. I find that the £225 minimum for efficient unmarried men which we are offering would represent £213 15s. when income-tax is paid. But the £280 paid in Northern Ireland, having a 5 per cent. pension deduction taken away, as well as current income-tax would be only £214, so at the minimum married man's scale the Northern Ireland teacher would be getting, if my calculations are correct—and I think they are—5/- more than his brother in this part of the country. At the maximum of the efficient unmarried man scale a teacher in Northern Ireland would be somewhat better. He would be getting about 10/- a week more. His remuneration, less income-tax at the current rate, would be £356 as against the corresponding figure of £330 here. At his maximum of the highly efficient rating, there would be very little difference, as the figure here would be £355 and above £356. In the case of an unmarried man, if income-tax deduction at the present rate is taken into consideration, there is really very little difference between the actual cash income of the unmarried man here when compared with Northern Ireland. It may be a little less.

Let us move now to the question of women teachers. The minimum would be £201 here if income-tax be deducted, and in Northern Ireland £194. I am taking the 5 per cent. pension contribution into consideration in the case of the Northern Ireland scale. That would mean that the minimum for an efficient woman would be £201 here, compared with £194 in Northern Ireland. The maximum for the efficient teacher would be £308 5s. here and £304 for Northern Ireland. The maximum for a highly efficient teacher here would be £334 and for Northern Ireland £304. In every case the woman teacher in this part of the country would be in receipt of a greater cash income.

As far as married men are concerned the Government made a special effort to treat them as generously as possible. We felt that in their case their family responsibilities meant that a special effort should be made to give them some alternative for the children's allowances that are paid to other public servants. We also wished to see that they were given a status which would enable them to maintain suitably the dignity of their profession and to occupy the status to which the leaders of the teaching profession aspire. Nobody has suggested that this scale would not fulfil this criteria. I find, at the minimum, if we added to the £225 which the teacher who enters the service gets, £50 when he gets married, that makes £275. If we add, when he is living down the country, another £10, that gives £285. His brother in Northern Ireland, having paid 5 per cent. towards pension deduction, and income-tax, will be in receipt of £234. In the case of the maximum of the married man's scale with two children, less income-tax, the teacher's remuneration down here would be £476 and in Northern Ireland £436. In respect of the married teacher with no children the position would be still more favourable in this part of the country. Then, if we add the £40 if the teacher were living in Dublin, it would mean that instead of being £40 in advance of the Northern Ireland teacher, he would be £64 in advance, allowing for income-tax on his rent allowance. The maximum for the highly efficient married man here is £525 and in Northern Ireland, with the same pay for all men teachers, it is £550. That means that our teacher, having paid his income-tax, stands at a figure of £510, while the Northern Ireland teacher, having paid his 5 per cent. pension deduction and income-tax at the current rate, would stand at £436—that is to say, a difference of £74 in favour of the teacher in this part of the country, leaving out of the calculation the rent allowance of £10 in country areas, rising to a maximum rent allowance of £40 in Dublin and Dún Laoghaire.

Mr. Cosgrave

Is there a pension deduction here?

Mr. Derrig

No. It will be said, of course, that allowance is not made for the increased cost of living. The increased cost of living is judged by the cost of living index figure which is issued by the Government Department from time to time. That figure has no relation whatever to the physical supply of commodities available. It is based entirely on certain prices collected in order to maintain a certain measure of the general cost of living but, as everybody knows, we have full and plenty, thank God, in this part of the country of the ordinary food and I think we are not terribly pinched for the other commodities of life as they are elsewhere. So that, if it be argued that the figures that I have given are not genuine, and should be corrected, unless they are corrected either by bringing up the cost of living index figure here to the cost of living index figure in Northern Ireland, or working down from the Northern Ireland figures that I have given to the index figure we have here, making an adjustment in one way or the other, my reply is, put it to the ordinary sensible teacher, who knows what he is getting under this offer and who would be very glad to accept it if he were allowed to accept it. Ask him whether or not it is the position that he will be better off down here than in Northern Ireland and whether or not he would prefer to accept the offer that the Government has given him than go up there and get the terms that are being offered there. I have not the slightest doubt that his answer will be that the offer of the Government here is more favourable.

The women teachers have raised the question of differentiation as between men and women. There has always been differentiation on a sex basis in the teaching profession and even in Great Britain and Northern Ireland the sex distinction is still preserved. I dealt with the Irish National Teachers' Organisation as a body representing both men and women and each particular class of teachers was dealt with on what was considered to be the fairest basis having regard to the amount of money available. For example, when the Government determined to give the most generous treatment possible to the married men teachers, they had no intention, and they would stoutly resist the idea, that unmarried men or women teachers should be brought up to the same standard as the married men teachers. I think the House generally will agree with that. In 1925 women and single men were paid on the same basis in the Irish Civil Service, but how was that brought about? It was brought about through a regression of the men's scales to the women's scales, not by an improvement of the women's scales to the men's scales. The married men's scales were taken out and then the single men were reduced to the level of the women's scales. That, of course, has not been suggested. Presumably what is demanded is that the Government should first do the best it can for the men, both married and single and then, having done the very best they found possible within their resources, they are to be asked to bring the women up to the same level as the single men, or the single men up to the married men. The Government has not found that possible and in the discussions with the teachers, I must say, I was not left under the impression that this was going to be made an issue upon which the teachers were likely to go on strike. I met them on three occasions, I think. The first offer I made was rejected. On the second occasion, when a very substantial improvement was made, practically the whole of that improvement, or a very great proportion of it, went to improve the position of the women teachers. The scales which have been published for junior assistant mistresses, the lowest paid section of women teachers, are very much more favourable from the point of view of percentage increase than the increases for the ordinary trained women teachers but that is because the argument was that the junior assistant mistress was doing the same work as her trained sister. I cannot admit that. I do admit that the scale which the lowest paid section of the teachers is paid should have more relation to the importance of the work they are doing and, viewing it from that point of view, there certainly was a case for bringing the pay of these rather lowly-paid women teachers up very much higher. That has been done but no credit has been given for it.

As I stated in reply to a question, the matter of equal pay for men and women would be a new social principle and I think everybody will realise that it is one which could not be adopted for one body or class without a careful examination of the whole field of employment and a careful consideration of its reactions on all other bodies and classes of wage and salary earners. The Government is quite willing to examine that question at a suitable opportunity and a suitable time but, as I have said, in endeavouring to determine permanent scales of remuneration for teachers or for any other class, we are met right at the beginning with the difficulty of appraising what the permanent level of prices and the cost-of-living figure will be like in future. All we can do is to make the best arrangement possible for this transition period and that is what we have been trying to do in regard to teachers' remuneration generally. That is what we have tried to accomplish in these new scales. In the same way as it would be impossible to have regard to the trend of prices in future to the fullest extent and to make it exactly correspond, when we do not know what the trend is likely to be, we could not at the present time turn aside from all the other work which the Government has in hands. Even if we were in a position to do so, we would be in that state of transition or flux that we could not examine in the objective and detached way in which the whole question of equal pay for men and women in public offices and in the public service generally ought to be examined. There is probably much less difference here than in some of the countries with which the critics are very fond of comparing us.

Now, as I have said, the teachers have threatened strike action through dissatisfaction with the terms offered. I believe that that action is thoroughly misguided, thoroughly foolish, and futile. One of the things that teachers are interested in and that I am very passionately interested in is that the dignity and status of the profession should be as high as possible; that the teachers should be able to look other professions in the face. No profession in this country is of more importance than the profession of teaching; no profession is of more importance for the future of our country. Every individual will agree with that. But, if the strike action is persisted in, if the threat which has been made is carried into effect, it will merely mean, in my opinion, that the whole prestige and status of the teachers as a profession will be greatly, I hope not irretrievably, reduced. Instead of getting that credit and respect which good teachers and teachers who give an example to the community among whom they labour have at all times got in this country, there is grave danger that dragging the noble profession of teaching into strike violence and agitation of that kind will simply bring public discredit and contempt upon the profession.

A minority has determined upon this action. I am not clear that the votes given against the terms were given in favour of a strike. What has happened is that, although during the course of the negotiations the teachers withdrew a certain threat which was made, when the ballot was being taken the members of the organisation were informed that if the Government's offer was turned down a strike would occur, a strike would be ordered, as has been done by the executive of the organisation. Strike action was defeated at their congress here in Dublin recently. Having regard to the assurances given to us and to the trend of events during the negotiations, why the teachers departed from the position that the vote was a question whether the Government's offer would be accepted or rejected and that it should be transformed into a case of either accepting the Government's offer or rejecting it and plunging the teachers of Dublin and the whole primary educational machinery into a state of disorder and agitation is certainly beyond my capacity to fathom.

Everyone knows that no good results can follow. One of the immediate bad effects, if the strike is persisted in, is that we shall have thousands of children roaming about the streets of Dublin. With the fine weather coming on, I am extremely apprehensive as to what the consequences will be. We have a good deal of complaint already and we suffer a good deal from juvenile delinquency. If the children are to be allowed to go wild about the streets without the schools being in operation for a long period of time, I do not know what the extent of the damage morally and otherwise is likely to be or how it can be repaired later on.

Those, therefore, who have declared that this strike should take place should examine this matter again, should reconsider it, and, if they do examine it in a more calm and tolerant spirit, I think they will recognise that the Government have done everything that was possible within their circumstances; that they have not been illiberal; that our people will consider that we have not been ungenerous. Many of them will consider, having regard to their circumstances, regarding this matter from their own personal situation, that we have been more generous than we should have been.

The Government, at any rate, are resolved that they will not be coerced into altering their policy in this matter by strike action. They have examined this matter seriously and sympathetically over a period of time and the question of a strike had not entered into the matter. At all times, I tried to get the Government to give the teachers the best terms possible. I tried to banish from my mind the idea that some body of agitators or malcontents in the teaching body were bent on stirring up mischief and driving this matter to the position when, as Deputy O'Sullivan said, it will have the most disastrous consequences. I hope that wiser counsels will prevail and that, even at this late hour, the strike will be called off and will be averted. In any case, it is quite certain that the Government will not alter their policy by reason of this strike taking place. Indeed I believe that, should the strike take place, the situation that we now have, that a good offer has been made, that it has been recognised as such by a very large number of the teaching body themselves, and which, at any rate, is a great improvement and holds out the greatest promise for the future, will be entirely shattered. If the strike takes place, I hope that it will be as short as possible. Should it continue over some time there is no doubt that in the end the circumstances and the whole situation will be entirely different. Instead of approaching the question from the point of view from which we have been approaching it in recent months, from the point of view of goodwill and earnestness and friendly desire to get the best solution possible, it will have to be taken up again when terrible damage will have been done and passions will have been unloosed. In these circumstances, the Government will be asked to re-examine the situation and to give the teachers what they are now being given.

What is now being given, if accepted in a willing spirit, even though it may not be everything the teachers desire, will at least prove that the teachers as a body are a responsible class; that they are as responsible as we would like to believe them to be; responsible as leaders of opinion in the country and as the teachers and instructors of our youth; responsible very largely for their training and their moral character. If the teachers would look at this offer in a sensible way, if they would only look at it in a responsible spirit, they would certainly accept, because if this strike is persisted in it will be setting a very bad headline to the country at a time when we ought to be bending our energies to dealing with economic questions, to building up our industries, to getting our trade going again and to increasing our national wealth. As a result of this unfortunate action, we shall perhaps be thrown into a series of disputes, of crises, causing turmoil and disturbance. Nobody wants that, and it will certainly redound to the great discredit, I fear, of the teachers in the future, if it can be said that they gave the lead and that it was through their action that this very unfortunate situation first developed and gave rise to the bad results to which I greatly fear it will give rise.

Mr. Coogan

I do not wish to enter into this matter of the teachers raised by Deputy O'Sullivan and dealt with at such length by the Minister, but, as I understood Deputy O'Sullivan's plea, it was a plea to the Minister that, at all costs, even at the sacrifice of a certain amount of pride, if you like, on the part of the Minister and the Government, no door should be closed and no effort missed still to continue negotiations with the hope of avoiding the threatened strike. I need scarcely say that with that wish and hope I personally sympathise, and I would add my humble voice to that of Deputy O'Sullivan to stress again the terrible dangers and evils which may arise if the strike is allowed to continue for any lenght of time.

Everybody appreciates the effects which such a strike will have on the community, but, to my mind, the main problem is that there is in this indication of a threatened strike evidence of a discontented teaching profession, and I know of no greater canker in the social community than a discontented profession such as the teachers' profession. They have the training of the youth in their hands; they have the formation of their characters and the training of their minds in their hands; and if these people are discontented, if they are hampered in their professional activities by worries about finance and economic matters, then I think the results nationally and to future generations of this country will be disastrous. The difference between the Government and the teachers is not such a big one that some effort, even at this late hour, should not be made to bridge the gap.

I do not know the numerical strengths of the different grades of teachers. I do not know how many are highly efficient, how many are efficient, and how many are classed below these grades; but I am sure the vast majority are below the efficient and highly efficient grades, and that it is in these grades that the discontent is expressing itself. While I appreciate the Minister's point of view as regards scales of salaries and comparisons between Northern Ireland and here, and the possible adjustments that might have to be made to equate the salaries there and here, I would stress this point, that, as an outsider, I got the impression that the main trouble is in Dublin, where undoubtedly the cost of living is very high, and where a young married teacher or a young teacher about to be married finds it very difficult to carry on.

A salary of £4 or even £5 a week for a teacher in Dublin is a very poor salary, when one considers what he has to find out of that meagre income. I do not know if it is possible to introduce a sliding-scale system to meet the cost of living, as was done in the Civil Service, by introducing a bonus system, but it should be possible to make some allowance for places like Dublin and Cork and the bigger centres of population, where conditions are entirely different from those obtaining in the rural areas. I do not know anything of these matters, but I throw it out as a suggestion. I again appeal to the Minister, even at the sacrifice of pride, not to let the last moment pass without his making a final effort to come to some terms with the teachers.

The Minister's statement to-day and the amount which he is seeking in this Vote on Account would suggest that we are to be faced this year with a Budget equal to, if not greater than, that which we had to face last year. That is extraordinary, seeing that we have come to the end of the emergency. I would remind the present Minister of his predecessor's remarks. I do not know if these remarks were made in all seriousness, or whether they were merely the unctuous expressions of a gentleman about to assume an exalted position in the country——

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think that such comment on the President should be made.

Mr. Coogan

I am not commenting on the President. I am merely saying that I do not know whether his words were expressions of his own views——

An Ceann Comhairle

The word "unctuous" did not sound very well.

Mr. Coogan

——or merely expressions of the advice given to him, but, whether they were his own personal views or the advice given to him by his advisers, I think the advice contained in the 1945 Budget Statement stands for all time as an indictment of the present Government's administration—not only an indictment of their past administration, but a sound guidance for the future, a warning as to where they are going. The Minister's predecessor said:

"As the European war closes, I can only hope it will usher in a period when the unparalleled calls on our Exchequer and our taxpayers will come to an end."

That was his opening remark, but, judging by the statement made to-day and by the figures in the Estimates for the coming financial year, it is clear that we are not to get any relief in taxation this year. It is also clear that we are far from being about to get any relief in local taxation, that, far from getting any relief in rates, we are heading for a period during the next five years when the average rate in urban areas will soar from anything from £1 in the £ to 30/- in the £. We are heading definitely in that direction, and we here on these benches want to emphasise as strongly as we can the present tendency towards higher and higher taxation. Higher and higher taxation, whether local or central, can end in only one thing—inflation.

Again I want to emphasise what the Minister's predecessor said in his last Budget statement:

"Inflation can be almost as great a disaster as war itself."

I believe, and we have the evidence of it here in this document published to-day on national income and expenditure, that we have reached a position of high inflation in this country, a position which is being forced upon us by external circumstances largely, but one which we are not by any stretch of the imagination endeavouring to rectify or prevent. For the first time during the war years. I find that we have an inward balance in our favour in the passenger movements. For the year 1944 there was an inward balance for the first time since 1938 or earlier. I am going to venture the opinion that that has been brought about largely by the exodus of holiday makers and people of that kind, coming from Northern Ireland and Great Britain in search of a good holiday and good food. That is being done at the expense of this nation; it is being paid for by paper documents, which at present represent very little in international exchange and which will represent considerably less if the American loan is not conceded to Britain— in which event I fancy they will be worthless or nearly so. We are allowing ourselves to be deprived of these goods by a debased currency, much after the manner of the Nazis who invaded París and all France and paid for what they took away in the holiday "Strength through Joy" excursions by paper currency.

I have not had time to digest this booklet of official statistics and do not pretend to have been able to do so, but I have glanced through it to get an idea of its contents and I get the picture that we have a steadily declining population under the present Administration. The test of good government anywhere is that you have living on the land within the jurisdiction of that Government, a contented people that stays at home on its own territory, minding its own business. Here you get a different picture, a people steadily declining, steadily leaving the country for the town and now leaving both town and country for abroad as fast as they can get there. That is the kernel of our economic situation—a declining population. We must remember Goldsmith's words:

"III fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,

Where wealth accumulates, and men decay."

Men are decaying here, in the sense that they are leaving the country because they cannot get a livelihood at home. There is an extraordinary table here which bears out what I have said. Despite all that has been said of the drive on the part of the Government and the farmers, the number of men engaged in agriculture is actually less and growing steadily less throughout the war years. If you go back to 1936, you find it still suffers by comparison. In 1938 it was 537,000; in 1939, 531,000; in 1940, 544,000; in 1941, 556,000; in 1942, 541,000; in 1943, 536,000, and in 1944, 526,000. So far as I can recollect, we had well over 600,000 employed in agriculture in 1936. There you have an indication that men are not finding profitable employment in agriculture, despite all the claims which have been made for its progress and its prosperity.

In insurable employment, we find there were in 1938, 416,000 persons insured under the National Health Insurance Acts; in 1939, 417,000; in 1940, 406,000; in 1941, 402,000; in 1942, 399,000; in 1943, 397,000, and in 1944, 406,000, the last-mentioned figure showing a slight increase for 1944. A great many claims have been made by the people on the opposite benches for the wonderful achievements made for the country, but there is the acid test of those achievements. On the land, the people are declining. Fewer men are finding employment on the land. Taking the broad insurable class of workman, there are less and less in insurable employment. Industry is in the same position, with a steady decline in the number of people employed in transportable goods. There may be explanations for that, due to the war period, but I stress these points because they are the tests by which a country is recognised as progressing or retrogressing.

Taking the other side of the picture, what do we find? National taxation, as compared with 1938-39, is roughly 60 per cent. higher and our rates up to last year were 28 per cent. higher. There is every reason to believe that the rates will soar steadily in the coming years and will not stop short in the very near future. Our national debt has gone to somewhere in the neighbourhood of £131,000,000, and the servicing of it to-day is costing us £4,000,000 per year. These are concrete facts from this publication issued by the Department of Finance, and no one can controvert them. Far from showing us as being in a healthy or prosperous condition, they show us as being in a very unsound economic position. The time has come for us to jerk ourselves up, cry halt and say we are going to try to evolve some system to enable our people to live at home under decent economic conditions.

I want to quote now a paragraph from the Budget speech of the Minister's predecessor last year, as follows:—

"There is no doubt that the present high rates of taxation on both personal and company income operate as a deterrent to individual effort and as a drag on industrial and commercial enterprise."

He indicated his desire to give relief not only to the personal income but to the company income, to the industrial manufacturer, the commercial magnate or businessman. Yet we are faced with the possibility of a higher Budget than last year. Instead of finding the reliefs indicated by his predecessor, we are to have increased taxation.

The Minister quoted something like 52 Estimates as showing increases and 17 as showing decreases. That is an extraordinary position. It simply means that no effort has been made by the Department of Finance to use the pruning knife on expenditure in the various Departments and bring it back to a pre-war or normal level.

Looking over these Estimates year after year, you will find the various Departments showing increases. There has been a steady crescendo right through the years and there can be only one conclusion, and that is that the Department of Finance has been unable to resist the demands put upon it by various Departments, or alternatively, it has failed to use the pruning knife where necessary.

We are burdened here with a Civil Service of something like 33,000 people. As I indicated previously to the Minister, it is a Civil Service operating on a very old-fashioned system, a system aimed at killing all energy and initiative in the lower grades, and holding all the authority, power and initiative in the top ranks of the service. The Minister gave us an indication, in fact an assurance, the last time when this matter was discussed, that he was going to change that; that he was going, where possible, to give executive authority to the lower grades. I think the sooner that is done the better, and the sooner that responsibility is vested in the junior ranks in routine matters, the sooner we will be able to effect some reduction in the growing cost of the Civil Service.

According to the Budget Statement of last year, we had, on January 1st, 1945, no less a number of civil servants than 30,333, and we have had no indication yet as to what extent that number can be reduced by reason of the ending of the emergency. We have had statements recently in the House that the Government contemplate the establishment of two new Ministries, a Ministry of Social Services, as I understand it, and a Ministry of Public Health, so that, far from getting away from this army of 30,000, we are going to add to it, because it is a notorious fact in the Civil Service—and this does not apply in this country solely; it applies generally where you get civil servants—that if you put a civil servant on a job for a month he finds at the end of the month that he needs an assistant.

If he is successful in persuading the Minister for Finance to give him that assistant, in six months, I venture to say, he will have two assistants. Then he will think in terms of constituting himself into a section and, as head of a section, he will have to have a higher status. If he can make sufficient work for himself, he will get the higher status and a staff. Then the section becomes a sub-Department, a Department—and so on goes the little struggle. I want to stress that point of view, that it is only natural, if you put men to jobs like that, they will find work for themselves to do; they will make themselves busy and they will try to improve their position and create newer positions and so make their jobs bigger than the other fellows' jobs. That has been traditional here and elsewhere and, far from trying to stop that tradition, we are going to add two new Ministries and have two new staffs in public health and social services. They will be additional to the existing Departments. I cannot see you stopping anywhere short of 35,000 civil servants in the near future if we are to add to the Departments we have already in existence.

I think we have too many Departments of Government, too many Ministers, too many Parliamentary Secretaries, too many secretaries and assistant secretaries and private secretaries to look after the whole job. There are far too many. We are carrying on here on a scale that might have been all right in Imperial days, but that certainly does not suit the conditions in which we now live. I pointed out to the Minister, and I will reiterate it, that this country was run at one time by an Under-Secretary and his staff in the Castle. He had a very small staff, and that Under-Secretary had to take entire responsibility to the Cabinet on the other side. Here we have the responsibility split up into so many Government Departments, with Ministers, assistant Ministers and secretaries—I do not believe any Deputy could give me the number. Instead of reducing that number we are going to add two new Ministers. Why are all these Ministries coming along? For the simple reason that the State is encroaching so far into the private life of the individual that we have virtually become a communal State.

Again, I have to quote the Minister's predecessor:

"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 greatest concern. I look upon the restless activity of the State as the disease, and the growth of the Civil Service, however distressing, is merely one of the symptoms; but I would remind those who refer to the symptom as the greater evil that we cannot have the disease without the symptom."

Then he goes on to tell us that the Government policy has raised the tempo of activity in Government Departments, largely Departments concerned with economic affairs and the administration of social services. Of course, that is so. The State is muscling-in in every direction in which it can possibly muscle-in, to such an extent that the citizen no longer is a free citizen. He has to depend for a great many things upon the bounty of the State and, if you proceed to give bounty or subsidy to the citizens, or proceed to have quotas or licences for the citizens, you must have civil servants to administer all these things and that is why we have this huge army.

Every measure coming before us is calculated to bring a new army of civil servants and public servants into being. Take the Public Health Bill or the Turf Development Bill; go back on recent legislation and you will find that every measure means a new host of public servants, a new host of jobs. I want to stress again and again, as hard as I can, that in this country in pre-1914 days they were able to administer affairs for £11,000,000 or £12,000,000. One man, an UnderSecretary at the Castle, with a staff around him, had to take responsibility for the entire government of the country. Whatever their faults may have been, they did their job considerably well in those days. The State to-day is muscling-in because, so far as I can see, the Government Party have decided there is only one way of keeping themselves in office, and that is by creating as many jobs as they can for their camp followers.

Bring in more and more Bills that will give us more and more jobs so that we can give more and more jobs to the pals outside. That is one aspect of it. The other aspect is making the citizen depend on you for everything, for his food and bounties of all kinds. If you succeed in doing that, you control him, ala Stalin. He who controls the ration books, Lenin preached long ago, controls the votes of the people, and without professing to have taken up Stalin's philosophy, or without pretending to have accepted any of his principles, we certainly have copied that very principle from Stalin and we have made the citizens of this country dependent for everything, body and soul almost, upon the State.

Citizens have become public mendicants. They have been making demands owing to the present state of Government policy. Despite all that, and all the achievements we have been told of, what do we find from this document that was circulated this morning? I should not say that it was circulated, because that is not the case. It was only by accident that I happened to see a Deputy reading it, and having seen a reference to a White Paper, I thought it extraordinary that Deputies were not given a copy. I asked the other Deputy how he got it, and was told: "Oh, it is available on request at the office." That is extraordinary, as it had been promised by the Minister in the last Budget. What do we get from this great system of bounties, of palliatives, subsidies, grants and public mendicancy? Despite all the claims of people on the opposite benches, we find that at the present time a citizen is spending less on food than he spent in 1938. We find, despite all these professions of an increase in prosperity, and despite the huge paper increase in national income, that the citizen to-day is spending less on food, in terms of 1934 figures, than he spent in 1938. In other words, the citizen is not able to find the money for the food. The food is there if he was able to give it to himself. According to page 5 of the White Paper, the expenditure on food in 1938 was £55.9 millions, and in 1944, £53.6 millions. Another extraordinary figure refers to the expenditure on alcoholic beverages and tobacco. In 1938 it was £22.9 millions, and to-day it amounts to £25.8 millions, or almost half of what the citizens spent on food.

Mr. O'Donnell

They are taking to drink.

Mr. Coogan

Or tobacco. As another Deputy suggests, they may be drowning their sorrows. Again, taking the comparable figures in 1938, £17.4 millions were spent on clothing and according to the 1944 figures the amount was £9.5 millions. In 1938, £14.3 millions were spent on fuel and light and in 1944 £8.6 millions. What conclusion is to be drawn from these figures? The conclusion is that the citizen is eating less food, is buying less clothing, and less fuel and light, but is spending more money on drink and tobacco. I ask any Deputy if he considers that to represent a feature of economic prosperity. Is it a picture that the members of this House should be satisfied with, having regard to the figures I have given already, with a declining population, and a declining number of men employed in agriculture? The whole picture is bad, no matter how it may be dressed up by tables and statistics, and no matter what may be said of increased national income or private income. There are other tables from which the same conclusions could be drawn. If Deputies look at the table dealing with private income they will find, where national income is translated into private income, that in the first three years of the war the citizen was living beyond his means. Private income did not meet expenditure then. It is only within the last two years that there has been a surplus in its favour. That is the picture as I see it. That is the picture that I want to emphasise.

I want to appeal to the Minister to accept the admonitions and warnings given to him and to the country by his predecessor, who now holds the exalted office of President. In the Budget Statement a very sound philosophy on public economy and public administration was laid down. I believe that very serious warnings were also given. I am convinced from the Minister's statement to-day, from the figures in the Vote on Account, and from the Estimates being placed before us, that the warnings of the Minister's predecessor are not going to be heeded; that we are not going to get the economies that the former Minister called for, but that, on the contrary, we are going to go on and on. I believe that we are going to get an increased number of Bills, in which the Minister will come along for more power and more money, and if he gets them, more civil servants. We have reached the peak point. I think we are at breaking point, certainly at saturation point, in the matter of taxation. I am speaking of central taxation and of local taxation. Having gone into the matter with members of the local authority in Dun Laoghaire, I believe, if we are to carry out the programme which we have ahead, we will have to face a rate of 30/- in the £ very soon—within the next three or four years.

I am not so much concerned with that, but I am very much afraid that the Minister for Finance, having reached saturation point in central expenditure and taxation, will be driven, if he yields to any further demands, to divert taxation from the Central Fund on to the local authorities. We had an indication of that already in the increased number of statutory demands being made on local authorities over which they have no control good, bad, or indifferent. They are presented with a bill under a particular statute for some item such as public assistance or unemployment assistance and are told to pay it. They have nothing to do with it but to hand out the money. The pistol is to their head and they have no option but to hand over.

I am afraid the Minister, driven as he will be to find money for the various projects that are in contemplation, will be driven to find it from local rates.

The citizen will then find themselves in this position, that they have to carry the increased burden of central taxation and the increased burden of local rates. When the Minister's predecessor considered this matter last year he held out a warning. He was not satisfied that this country was equal to the taxation point which had been reached, and doubted the capacity of the country to carry an increased burden. He did stress this much, that if the various services were to continue, and in particular the emergency services, we could not carry on. It seems to me that the two tendencies will leave John Citizen in this country in the position that very shortly he will not be able to carry on, because, whatever may be said of taxation, it has this effect, that if you have high taxation it will eventually result in inflation and when you have inflation you begin to have all sorts of social disorders and evils. We are heading that way rapidly at the moment. No member of this House needs to be assured that the pound note to-day is not worth much more than a third of its pre-war value, little more than seven to eight shillings. Nobody requires to be convinced that, if taxation is going to be increased to the extent that I have tried to indicate in local taxation, that is going to have its effect again in this spiral of inflation and you will have a further drop in the value of money. The purchasing power of money to-day is roughly one-third of its value pre-war and if we are going to have increasing taxation we are going to reduce the value of that money still further.

The consequence is the consequence that has flowed elsewhere, that when men find the purchasing power of money declines, that the £ will not give them what they want, all sorts of trouble immediately arise: strikes for higher wages, strikes for better conditions, social evils of all kinds. In other words, you are living in a vicious spiral. I want to appeal to the Minister, between this and the Budget, to give us a practical application of what his predecessor preached in his Budget statement of 1945.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

I listened all the afternoon to the debate. I was anxious to find out what the policy of the various Parties is. I think I discovered, roughly, that Fine Gael do not want any such thing here at all as a home market, that they want a reduced number of social services, in fact, that they do not want any social services at all; that they do not want any of the restrictions imposed upon us as a result of the war and which unfortunately are still imposed and may continue to be imposed for some time to come. The Labour Party, on the contrary, want any amount of spending; they want any amount of credit. Clann na Talmhan were quite impressed with the importance of the home market and believed that great expenditure here was essential to keep the community going. The main point about it is this, that Fine Gael completely forgot all about the emergency we have gone through. The war continued for some six years and owing to our position as a neutral nation, we had to take certain precautions to defend our neutrality. The only defence we could have was the production as far as possible of what we needed and what we could not get outside except by making bargains that might destroy that neutrality. That was not a small job. It was quite a big one. Although Deputy Hughes complained greatly about the low production, especially by the workers on the land and, in fact, by the farmers, he did not refer to the difficulties that the farmers and their workers had to face. The real difficulty that the farmers were in was that they were forced, generally, to do something that they had not been doing for a long time. There was no way out of it. It was compulsory that they should cultivate their land. They had not the machinery to do it in most counties. They had not even the horses to do it. After a year or two they had not even the manure to put on the land. Artificial manures could not be procured. I think it is quite reasonable to assume that production in that case was bound to be low and, production being low, that the remuneration gained out of it was bound to be low. We had nothing to do with that. It was the condition of the world and the crisis through which the world was passing that prevented us from obtaining the necessary machinery and fertilisers.

Notwithstanding that fact, I notice from the White Paper that agricultural wages increased from £5,000,000 in 1938 to £10,000,000, even in face of all those difficulties. It is true that the purchasing power of the money is not as high as it was in 1938. At the same time, it was possible under those conditions to have this increase and it was possible in industry to maintain a reasonable amount of employment. Very few critics have examined the reasons why there were so few employed in industry and why it was so difficult to obtain materials. That was entirely due to the war. Sometimes it was the smallest commodity that could not be obtained and that held up an entire industry. Nobody can easily deny that we got through that trying period in an extremely good manner, and that it reflects a great deal of credit on the farmers of this country and on their industry. I do not believe that the industrialists would have done that. I do not believe many industrialists would start an industry without having the most up-to-date machinery and a proper factory. If we compelled boot manufacturers to produce linen or something else, I do not think they would do it, I do not think they would be able to do it, but we asked the farmer to produce commodities that he had not produced for a number of years and for which he had not the machinery or his land in suitable condition. We succeeded in supporting 2,000,000 people here. Nobody went hungry. What struck me when Dr. O'Higgins was talking—bitterly as usual; I suppose it is his nature— was that he admitted quite candidly that no one died of hunger here and that every regulation was made to prevent that. He could not say that that was the way in his time, which was supposed to be the prosperous time and the good time. I do not think anybody could make the statement and verify it that anybody died of hunger in this country since Fianna Fáil came into power.

Captain Giles

A State pauper never dies quickly. It is a lingering death.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

Perhaps there is some tradition of longevity, I do not know, but I know they did not succeed in keeping alive under the previous Government, when times were good, or supposed to be good. As soon as this deplorable emergency ceases, when the world and its leaders return to normal—because until that happens I do not think we can do very much— the farmers here want bigger markets than they have at present.

The home market is obviously too small and the British market is too contracted. Until we are able to go out and get bigger markets, not alone for agricultural produce but for industrial products. I do not see that we can have any great expansion, whether our taxes are low or high. To my mind, that is the great problem we have. The commission's report, in which they all seem to disagree and could not agree on any policy, indicates that even they did not understand what was wrong with the farmers here. What is wrong with the farmers here is that they have not got a big enough market and have not had it for years. The result is that they are very limited in their outlook, due to the fact that they cannot get a market. I candidly admit that they are limited in the home market as well, but they are not limited so much by the people in the market or the number of consumers here as by the system of distribution we have here. It is an old antiquated system, as I have said on many occasions. Not alone does it penalise the farmer and his worker, but it penalises the workers in the City of Dublin. If that could be solved and we had a simpler and cheaper method of distribution, it would enable the people in the City of Dublin to be better and more cheaply fed. Then they could give the farmers a cheaper service. I think that is much more important than derating or reducing taxation, or anything of that kind. I think that, automatically, taxation would fall if we were to bring about that happy state of affairs. There may be difficulties in tackling that, but I should like very much to see that problem tackled and solved. We should have here a much more direct way of selling farmers' produce in the markets in Dublin, a less expensive, a less cumbersome and a much freer way.

I heard Deputy O'Higgins declare—I suppose he did make himself believe it; he certainly tried to make everyone else believe it—that we were all a pack of sheep in this House; that we wandered just where we were told. When we agree on a thing we do it. We agree on it before it is done, and we stick to it and see it through. It was that principle that helped Fianna Fáil here. No other body but Fianna Fáil brought the people of the country through the troubles during the late war. That was due to the unity and loyalty of the Fianna Fáil Party.

That is the reason the Party on the other side are enraged, because they have not any policy. The Labour Party certainly have a distinct policy, a socialist policy. It may have worked well in other countries, but I am not so sure of that. At any rate, it is a policy. So far as Fine Gael are concerned, they have not one bit of policy. The last speaker did not take the trouble to study the figures that he read out in order to see what they were about. He just painted a picture that suited himself and that he thought might convince others. It was undoubtedly an untrue picture, and I am quite sure he knew that well.

This is the principal occasion on which the Government is criticised. It is a great thing to have people in opposition who can criticise. I believe it is very helpful to the Government. It is a great thing that we have been able to do that during the war. There was no curtailment of criticism. I hope that every Deputy, if he feels like it, will stand up and criticise the Government and throw just the slightest amount of constructive thought in with his criticism, because that will help those in the opposition Parties to formulate a policy which, as I said, is sadly lacking. If there are complaints, perhaps they could not be thrown at the Government so much as against the inefficiency of the Opposition.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

I shall take Deputy O'Reilly's advice and, so far as I can, I will criticise the Government. If there is some constructive criticism in it I hope it will be accepted in the spirit in which it is offered. I was very much interested in Deputy O'Reilly's speech because, with the exception of the speech of the Minister for Education, it is the first that I have heard from the Government side. He delivered it very reasonably, but I am afraid I was not entirely convinced. Really where we are at issue here is in regard to the method and not the final result. I have no doubt that Deputy O'Reilly wishes to see this country prosperous, well fed and happy, and so do we on this side of the House. But where we join issue is as to how to bring that about.

One of the reasons that we do not find this country in the position in which we would all like to see it is that we suffer from low production and low wages. The last speaker admitted that production was low for the last few years and said that, therefore, wages and profits in the agricultural industry were low. I would not agree that that was the reason. One of the reasons we have low production is that we have low wages in agriculture, and from those low wages flow a whole host of evils and difficulties that affect this country and have affected it for more than 100 years.

There has been talk to-day of control of emigration. What makes people emigrate? Sometimes they go for love of adventure, but not in the main. They go for higher wages and better conditions. Until we bring about higher agricultural wages and better conditions in the rural parts of the country, that flow of emigration will continue to a greater or less degree. It is no excuse to say that the war years accelerated the flow of emigration. Although it did accelerate it, it was there before and it will be there after the war unless conditions are improved in the rural districts in order to make living there attractive. Conditions for the great mass of the people cannot be improved without higher agricultural wages. I believe that agriculture can carry those higher wages through increased production. The Government should use every effort to educate farmers and to improve agricultural methods in order to bring about that position. If that is carried out as the main Governmental policy, this country will become more prosperous than it has ever been before.

I often look at countries like Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and I wonder why those countries enjoy the high standard of living, the great degree of comfort and, in the main, the prosperity which they do enjoy. I am convinced that that is due to the high level of wages in those countries. That, in its turn, has forced a condition of high production and these countries, in some almost unexplainable way, became prosperous. There is a high cost of living, but there is a high wage level, and somehow everybody seems to benefit by it. If one looks at countries in which there is a low wage level, one always finds a low and depressed standard of living.

I speak as a city man, who, in his personal capacity, has had some experience of business. I have often wondered if city dwellers realise that the great mass of the people in what I will call rural Ireland, as distinct from urban Ireland, are, in the main, purchasers of only the barest necessaries of life. We have no standard of living in this country of which we can be proud and we have never had such a standard, and I want to see a native Government—I do not care what Government it is—improve that standard of living. I know that the towns will prosper thereby, just as the agricultural community, the farmers and the labourers will prosper by it, and, as a result of that general level of prosperity, this terrible drain of emigration will cease. I know that during the last six years, owing to munition making and so on in England, there have been paid wages in that country with which this country could not compete. The last six years were years out of the ordinary, but that flow of emigration has nevertheless gone on for the past 100 years, and will go on until living here is made more attractive.

I should like to refer to what is termed the high cost of living in this country. There is a high cost of living, and, in fact, it is an understatement to speak of a high cost of living. I think we are suffering from inflation, inflation which has been brought about by a number of causes, but, in the main, by the fact that we are suffering from a shortage of goods. To use a phrase which somebody used somewhere, a large amount of money is chasing an inadequate quantity of goods, and we certainly have arrived at that position in Ireland to-day. We have emigrants' remittances helping to swell that inflation, and we now have the tourist trade helping to swell it. I am not advocating that the Government should stop either the tourist trade or emigrants' remittances. Far from it, but they both are helping towards that inflation from which we suffer. I do, however, charge the Government with this: that during the past six years they have made little or no effort to encourage the people to save. The Government published notices—I think I saw them at railway stations, in some of the buses and in trams—designed to encourage the citizen to save, but the campaign died down a very short time after it started, and I do not see these notices at all now. That would be one way of limiting the effect of inflation.

Another matter to which I should like to refer is taxation. All of us know the effects of taxation on the individual. It has helped to put up the cost of living and the individual has been caused really considerable hardship in his efforts to meet the high degree of taxation which we have at present, both local and national. The efforts of many of our citizens to meet the tax collector's demands twice a year are really pitiable, but I want to refer to the effect of taxation on industry. During the war years, the Government, as a part of national policy—and I can see the wisdom of it—pegged firms down to the 1939 range of profits.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is not aware that taxation is not one of the subjects for discussion? Expenditure is, but the taxes levied and the method of levying them will arise later. This is a Vote on Account for so much money. It is a matter of expenditure, which indirectly brings in taxation, but the Deputy cannot refer to the items of taxation.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

Would it not affect the cost of living?

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sure that taxation affects the cost of living, but it is not for discussion now.

Mr. Davin

The policy affecting taxation can be discussed?

An Ceann Comhairle

Excess profit taxes and such matters do not arise on this Vote. These are for the Budget.

Mr. O'Donnell

You cannot make hare soup without killing the hare.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

If the Chair rules me out, I must bow to its decision, but I did want to refer to high taxation on industry. However, I daresay I will get an opportunity later on.

An Ceann Comhairle

I suppose high expenditure might affect industry.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

If I cannot talk about high taxation, I will go on to refer——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should not misunderstand me. He can discuss expenditure, the magnitude of it, and its effects, but not how taxes are levied or what particular taxes do, because taxes, as such, the individual taxes, are not being considered. There is nothing about taxation in this Vote on Account.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

I can refer to the effect of taxation on industry?

An Ceann Comhairle

High expenditure or taxation.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

The high taxation of the last few years will cripple the industrial effort and industrial productivity in the future. I refer especially to the wear and tear on machinery and to the fact that, owing to the very high level of taxation, industry generally has not been able to prepare, through the seven fat years, for the seven lean years which inevitably will follow. That is a matter of the gravest concern to industry. As a result of this Governmental policy, we will find ourselves, in a short time, considerably crippled industrially. We seem to have entered to-day into an era of Governmental extravagance. Millions of pounds can be spent on everything— electricity production schemes, turf schemes, new hospitals and so on—but I am not so sure that the country will be able to afford them. We have reached a high national income at the moment, but it is only a paper one; and unless the Minister can find a way to decrease some of the unnecessary national expenditure, this country will find itself very crippled in the future.

Mr. Davin

I confess that I was one member of this small group who hoped and expected that the present Minister, when appointed, would secure a very drastic change from the financial policy of his predecessors. If one is to be guided by his speeches here and by other speeches I have read carefully from time to time since his appointment, I am afraid there is not much ground for hope of any drastic change. The financial policy of the Government is wholly responsible for driving an increasing number of our young men and women from the rural areas into the cities and, worse than that, into the Six Counties of this country and into Great Britain. If we had a change of policy, those people might be kept here at home to carry out works of national development. It is tragic to find that, although the world war is now over for seven months, the number of applicants for permits, put into the appropriate Government Department and to the British Permit Office, has not decreased. I am speaking from personal experience, as during last week-end, I was interested in endeavouring to get sanction for a permit for a constituent of mine. I was amazed to learn that the number of persons applying for sanction from different parts of the country reaches an average of between 500 and 1,000 per week, consisting of the best of our young men and women.

In parts of my constituency, it is becoming very difficult for farmers to get suitable agricultural labourers. In some parts they cannot be got at any price, particularly in the areas around bogs where turf development work is being carried on. That is a very serious state of affairs, and if allowed to continue, it will seriously affect the volume of agricultural production. I am certain that we must have some change of heart on the part of the Minister and his colleagues, and a drastic change in the existing financial policy. As Deputy Dockrell has said, the inclination of our young men to leave rural areas for work in Great Britain, or wherever it can be found in our three or four cities, is due to the very low wages paid to agricultural labourers. Something must be done to put that matter right. I believe there is a willingness on the part of a large number of our decent farmers—apart from the policy of the Government and the decisions of the Agricultural Wages Board—to pay higher rates. In fact, they are compelled to pay a higher rate in many areas, portions of my constituency included, in order to secure the services of suitable agricultural labourers. I challenge the Minister to say how the Government proposes to deal with the situation in the coming year or years. What inducement are they prepared to offer to our young men and women—and to our young men, in particular—to remain on the land and meet the reasonable needs of farmers anxious and willing to increase production?

Reading the Minister's speeches and listening to them in some instances here and outside, I feel we are being asked to judge the position of this country by what is commonly called the increase in our sterling assets outside the country and the huge increase in the bank deposits at home. That is no indication whatsoever of the prosperity of the country, or any section of its people, and, although there is an increase—and it is not a very good omen to me, at any rate—in the amount of our sterling assets, particularly during the emergency, and a considerable increase in our bank deposits and in our bank assets during the same period, there is nothing to show that any section of our people have improved their standard of living.

We have 500,000 of our citizens suffering as a result of low wages, wages not sufficient to keep themselves and their dependents in decency and comfort. Then we have old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions, unemployment assistance, unemployment insurance benefit, national health insurance benefit and other allowances of that kind, and I am sure the Minister will have to admit that large numbers of citizens in receipt of these pensions and benefits and allowances are being compelled to put up with a standard of living—if you can call it living at all, in common decency—lower than that of the persons who are compelled to live in our jails, our asylums or county homes. I have no hesitation in asserting that the section of our citizens catered for at the expense of the taxpayers in our jails, asylums and county homes have a better standard of living than the section that have to exist on old age pensions at 10/- or lower a week, on national health insurance and unemployment insurance benefit and unemployment assistance, amounting to about 15/- a week, and other similar allowances of one kind or another.

That is the state of affairs we are confronted with at a time when we are expected to believe that the prosperity of the country is to be judged by the amount of our sterling credits and bank assets and deposits. I am of the opinion, but I may be wrong—I am not a keen student of economics and I have not the advantage of the Minister in getting the opinion of experts—that this state of affairs will not be altered under the financial policy of this Government. In the Vote on Account and in the coming Budget the taxpayers will be asked to find the huge sum of £4,000,000 for annual loan charges for the carrying on of Government services. In addition, the local authorities are called upon to pay £3,000,000 out of the £9,000,000 collected in rates for loans that have to be secured in order to carry on local development schemes.

Is there any other country in the world carrying on under a system of democratic government, where real freedom exists, where such a state of affairs is allowed? We are told we have freedom here in the Twenty-Six Counties in the same sense as exists in any other country governed by a democratic system of government. Although the Minister for Finance is connected with the Government of a country that is politically free, he is not himself a free agent as Minister for Finance in connection with financial matters.

The Minister has not the power in this country, as Finance Minister in other countries have, to fix, for instance, the rate of interest for loans secured by the Government for the carrying on of their services and the services of the local authorities. He has to go to a small private body of bankers, the small number that compose what is known as the Joint Stock Banks Standing Committee, to get agreement from them to fix the rates of interest at which money has to be borrowed from year to year for the carrying on of the services under his control. Therefore, though we are politically free, we cannot claim we are free in the economic sense and that the Minister for Finance has the power, as he should have, to fix the rates of interest under which money can be secured for the operation of State services and the services of local authorities.

When we talk of the position of agriculture and the desire of the agricultural labourers and the sons of small farmers to flee from this country, one has to think of the conditions under which the farmers generally are carrying on here. The Minister has a big share of responsibility for the establishment and administration of the Agricultural Credit Corporation, a body which is State guaranteed and, in certain circumstances, is a State subsidised institution. The Dublin Corporation, in its recent appeal for funds to carry on housing activities and other aspects of its administrative work, asked for a loan of £2,000,000 odd. We are told that in 10 minutes it was heavily oversubscribed, although the rate of interest to be paid was as low as 2¾ per cent. If the farmers who, I am certain, are badly in need of loans or cheap money, if they can get it, in order to carry on farming activities, have to go to the Agricultural Credit Corporation, they must pay 4½ per cent. on the annuity basis. If money can be got at 2 per cent. or 2¾ per cent. by the Dublin Corporation, it should be got by the Agricultural Credit Corporation at an equally low rate and, if that is so, there is no justification for the responsible authorities—and the Minister has some responsibility in this matter—allowing the Agricultural Credit Corporation to charge interest to the farmers at the excessive rate of 4½ per cent.

A big portion of the money put into the banks during the emergency by farmers and industrialists was handed in at a nominal rate of 1 per cent. and invested, perhaps, in this country, though a great deal was invested outside the country to the advantage of the banks. In that connection, I see that the chairman of the Bank of Ireland, which is the Fianna Fáil Government bank, admitted that the assets of the bank had increased by 52 per cent. inside a period of six years. There is no standstill Order to prevent their assets being increased, but the officials who administer the affairs of the bank are tied down by an Emergency Order so far as their salaries are concerned. If the Bank of Ireland and other banks, whose assets have increased by about the same figure, are to any extent bound by the opinion even of the Minister for Finance, they should be compelled, or some steps should be taken, to see that they provide cheap money for farmers and industrialists to enable them to carry out their everyday activities.

When you read the annual reports of the various banks here, you are amazed at the high rates of interest they are allowed to pay their shareholders from year to year. There are eight or nine joint stock banks operating in this State and they have paid rates of interest to their shareholders ranging from 10 to 16 per cent., not on the paid-up capital but on the nominal capital. These are the people who are allowed to charge 5 per cent. and 6 per cent. to those compelled to borrow money from them. This State cannot survive under that kind of financial policy and some day or other, under some Minister for Finance—and I hope it will be the present Minister —if the country is to be saved at all in the coming years, steps will have to be taken to bring about a drastic alteration in the financial policy of this Government. I assert here also that the financial policy of the Government associated with this Vote on Account, and with the Budget, which will legalise the sum we are now dealing with, is not being considered in relation to the rights the citizens are guaranteed under the Constitution. Under certain sections of the Constitution citizens are guaranteed the right to work at decent rates of wages, or otherwise maintenance at decent standards, if those responsible fail to provide work for them. When this Government came into office it admitted that it was the duty of the Government to provide work or maintenance, but gradually, year after year, they are passing that responsibility on to local authorities, and making it an obligation of the ratepayers to provide maintenance for the unemployed, when that responsibility should be on the Central Government.

I am tempted on this Vote to ask the Minister for Finance if he could tell the House and the country what service the Central Bank has given to the general body of taxpayers since it was established, and in what way, if any, it has safeguarded the integrity of the currency, or affected the cost at which money could be found by those who require it to carry on everyday activities. I do not know in what way the Central Bank has been of any service to the citizens of this State generally. I can be enlightened if the Minister will give some information as to the way in which the Central Bank is serving the community. I should like to see the Central Bank under the complete control of the Minister for Finance. Ministers in other democratic countries have the right to give instructions, whenever necessary, on policy, and on matters affecting the issue of credit and the cost of money. Some day the Government will be forced into that position. It is the same position as the British Government were forced into, with the consent of the people of Great Britain, on a recent occasion.

I want to raise a protest against what, under existing circumstances, is the policy of the Government in regard to the continuation of what is known as rotational relief schemes.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is a matter for the Estimate.

Mr. Davin

It is a question of policy.

An Ceann Comhairle

The test is a very simple one. Is it a matter that arises on the Estimate? If so, it does not arise here. I cannot imagine other Deputies allowing the Estimate to go without having a word on that matter.

Mr. Davin

In this Vote on Account we are asked to provide certain money to carry on this particularly objectionable type of scheme.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not see it.

Mr. Davin

In the Public Works Section.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Estimates are not before us for consideration. The main difference between this Vote and the Estimate is that the sums here are for certain Departments and are not itemised. If the Deputy gets the Estimate he will find that it is itemised.

That is not so here.

Mr. Davin

There is a general desire that the Government and the Minister should provide money to provide work for our population in our own country under decent conditions instead of giving them a passport to a foreign country. While work remains to be done our able-bodied people should get a full week's work at a decent rate of wages, instead of having the rotational system of giving them three or four days' work in the week at 36/- weekly.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is back to that again.

Mr. Davin

I have said all I want to say on that matter. I made the point.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is a dangerous policy and depends on how the point is made. The Deputy may claim a full week's work for men without going into details of the scheme.

Mr. Davin

I want, if I may, to refer to another matter which I think seriously concerns the financial policy of the Government, and which the Minister for Education elaborated this afternoon. I refer to the attitude of the Government and the Minister on the operation of the wages standstill Order. We were told that the real reason for the continuance of this objectionable Order was to prevent in- flation. Unless I am a bit of a dunce I cannot understand Government policy in this matter, especially when the same Minister and the same Government are inviting foreigners with unlimited sums of money to come here with which they buy up commodities in short supply, thus putting up the cost of living on our own people. They tell us on the one hand that the worker who has rendered service to the State, in whatever occupation he is engaged in, cannot get any more than the average figure of 3/- in the £ allowed under the Order to meet the increased cost of living that has arisen since 1939, but ground landlords can have increases of 25 per cent. and bank shareholders can have unlimited profits. They can increase their earnings as some of them admit by 52 per cent. while the worker who renders service to the State can only get 3/- to meet the increased cost of living.

Those who work at home suffer this disadvantage, that they are not able to buy eggs, butter or other essential commodities because prices have been put up owing to the large sums of money that are coming into this country in the pockets of tourists. I think there is some conflict of Government policy there. If there is on the part of the Government a genuine desire to prevent inflation, steps should be taken to see that huge sums of money would not be brought in which would be to the disadvantage of those who are living here, by forcing up prices. At the same time workers are prevented by the wages standstill Order getting increases to meet the higher cost of living. The Minister for Education when dealing with the matter related it to the dispute with the teachers' organisation. He said: "The Government will not award compensation to any class to meet the increased cost of living". That is an extraordinary statement. At the same time the same Minister, as well as the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Government invite unlimited numbers of people to come here and buy up commodities that are in short supply. This is a matter of which more will be heard in the future. Certain sums are provided in the Vote on Account for sociál services. I do not want to go into that at great length now. We had a recent discussion on certain aspects of our social services, on the sum provided, for instance, for old age pensions.

An Ceann Comhairle

On a motion.

Mr. Davin

Yes.

An Ceann Comhairle

It may not be referred to now.

Mr. Davin

I did not speak on that motion, and I have no desire to reopen it at any great length. With your permission, Sir, I should like to draw the attention of the House to a statement which was made by the Minister when replying to that motion.

An Ceann Comhairle

No, that may not be referred to. If a Minister speaks to a motion decided in this House within the last month, and if the Deputy seeks to reply now, surely that is reopening the matter.

Mr. Davin

I am making the case, and I assume I am entitled to make it on this debate, that a sufficient sum of money is not being provided for certain sections of our social services.

An Ceann Comhairle

All right.

Mr. Davin

The Minister, of course, took the line, generally, that we were giving whatever we could afford to old age pensioners, widows and orphans and people of that kind. I wonder has he read the details of the National Health Bill, recently passed in the British House of Commons. In a country where the cost of living is 30 per cent. lower than it is in this country, the basic old age pension rate has been fixed at 26/- per week. Will the Minister inquire how it is that Great Britain, which is admitted by her own statesmen, members of her own Government, to be in a completely bankrupt condition, can provide old age pensions at the rate of 26/- a week when we, boasting about the increase in our sterling assets and our bank deposits, can provide pensions for the same class of people at the rate of only 10/- per week, while 15 per cent. of our old age pensioners have allowances at a rate less than 10/- per week? I am merely protesting, Sir, if I may be allowed to do it in this particular instance, against the small sum being asked for in this Vote on Account for old age pensioners, widows and orphans, and for other people who are obliged to live outside our Governmentally controlled institutions at a lower standard of living than is provided for other sections of our citizens in jails, asylums and county homes.

The policy of this Government in regard to the solution of the problem of unemployment and every other problem associated with it must be altered before this country can deal with the desire of large sections of our citizens to get out of the country. In other words, if we are going to stop emigration and to provide employment for our people at home, the only way in which that can be done is by the Minister and his colleagues considering the matter more seriously than they have up to the present and producing some plan for the solution of our unemployment problem. The problem, so far as it relates to rural areas, is more serious to-day than it was at any stage since this State was established.

I invite the Minister, when replying to this debate, to tell us in what way he is going to stop this tide of emigration which is denuding the rural areas of the young men who are so badly needed there at the present time. It cannot be done under the existing financial policy. At least, he will have to admit that the existing policy has failed to stem the tide of emigration, and that the desire on the part of our young men and women to get out of the rural areas into the cities, wherever employment can be found, but particularly to go to other countries, is greater to-day than it was at any time since he became a Minister of this Government.

Mr. Anthony

One or two facts emerge from the debate so far as I have listened to it. I do not intend to waste the time of the House in going into all the details. As a result of the debate, I feel there is only one solution, namely, more production, and still more production, in the agricultural and industrial fields. We hear a great deal about the position of the farmer and the agricultural labourer. I subscribe to what Deputy Davin, Deputy O'Reilly and other Deputies have said, that the labourer is worthy of his hire. The farmer cannot be expected to pay the labourer a living wage unless he himself has made a living wage out of his farm. It is submitted that agricultural labour is very scarce in the country. That is a handicap to further production in that field of activity. The agricultural labourer is a highly-skilled man, and he does not receive an adequate wage. He does not receive a wage commensurate with the wages of his brother in the city and town. In my opinion some of the labourers in the cities and towns do not possess the high skill of the agricultural labourer. That is one cause of dissatisfaction, quite apart from all the other things which we are told tend to increase the drift from the land. In my view the attraction of life in the towns as a factor in the drift from the land has been exaggerated. Undoubtedly, it is the higher wages that are offered there that are the attraction. It is not because there are more dance halls, more picture houses and theatres in the towns that agricultural labourers migrate there. A still greater urge is the attraction of the higher wages. Until such time as the farmer is decently treated, until such time as he is able to produce at a profit to himself, he cannot afford to pay the agricultural labourer the rate of wages he deserves. That question has been debated at considerable length and also the question of the high cost of living.

Many factors contribute to the high cost of living. There is one which has come under my notice. The cost of certain commodities is controlled. In the City of Dublin and frequently in other cities in the Twenty-Six Counties we see printed announcements that the controlled price of a particular garment is 45/- and the shop's price is only 35/-. If the retailer can make a profit at 35/-, his profit if he had sold at the controlled price of 45/- would be increased by 10/-. That is one of the causes of the high cost of living in this country.

Deputy O'Reilly referred to the question of a home market in addition to outside markets. I believe that no really serious and sustained effort has been made to establish outside markets. If we can equalise our sterling assets against the American dollar, we will obtain many things which we very badly require. Our Ministers should take courage in both hands; they should get rid of what I regard as an inferiority complex, and meet Ministers of other countries and discuss with them rather than send their civil servants on important business, which would at least demand the attention of a Minister of State. It is humiliating to find that our Ministers, apparently, feel like cowboys, that they cannot shake off that "bawneen" feeling and say: "We are as good as the others." They should get their chins up and meet the other Ministers. They should get rid of that complex. I am not by any means a pessimist but I should like to ask the Minister for Finance a question. Possibly the most appropriate Minister to whom I should address this question is the Minister for Agriculture. Because of the low and depressed state of agriculture in present circumstances—I qualify it to that extent— because of the low state of production, we are in a bad economic condition, notwithstanding our sterling assets.

Our farmers will want a considerable amount of phosphates and other artificial manures if they are to succeed in getting the land into good heart and condition. The question I would like to put to the Minister for Agriculture is, what does he propose to do in regard to getting our people the necessary means towards further production? The farmer is willing and the labourer is willing. If the farmer goes down, the labourer goes down with him. If the farmer gets sufficient artificial and other manures he will produce more with the aid of his labourers. If we cannot produce artificial manures in our own country we will have to get them from other countries and give something in exchange. That is only ordinary elementary economics. I meet agriculturists who are friends and companions of mine in many cases. They tell me that the continued growing of beet and wheat is tending to lessen the productivity of their land. Any farmer in the House will tell you that.

After a prolonged period of successive crops, without the really proper succession, the land will become something like the dust bowl in Western America. Are we going to allow that kind of policy to proceed just because our Ministers will not go to the other side—not, by the way, cap in hand, but with their chins up—and make agreements with those people and exchange some of our commodities for what they can give us? That is one of the methods by which the productivity of the land could be increased and which would benefit the community at large.

Side by side with that I should like to see a further development in our industrial activity. We are not half industrialised. I am one of those who would not like to see this country develop into a second Manchester. I do not want to be surrounded by smoking chimney stacks. But we should have a well-balanced economy. I am entirely in favour of giving all the help we can to industrial development. The high cost of living has been mentioned frequently this evening. I have the hope that one of these days we will be able to remove all kinds of tariff barriers and that we will be able to compete even with our neighbours across the Channel in many of the commodities which we have to import from them now. We should help our little industries to survive in every possible way we can. But when the toddling infant is able to walk for himself, let him walk. Some of our industrialists should be able to carry on now without any tariffs.

With a continued industrial and agricultural development, I feel that there is a good future before us. I do think, however, that we should not have been presented with the figures with which we have been presented. I have taken pleasure during many years in this Dáil in seeing expenditure grow, but not in seeing it growing out of all proportion so as to be a burden on the backs of the people such as it has become to-day. I realise, of course, that we cannot have the public services and the social services which we all desire without paying for them. I do not join in the cry of "stop thief" and say to the Minister for Finance that this country is going to the dogs, that we cannot afford to pay for this and for that. I know that we can afford to pay, but we cannot afford to have a rake's progress in connection with the finances of the country. There are many things we could have done without. I do not want to be considered unsocial, or uncultured, or untutored. At the same time, I feel that we could have done without some of these colleges for advanced studies. These amenities might come sometime after the emergency has passed and gone.

I do not subscribe to all that has been said about the Minister's extravagance. Under the conditions through which we have passed I think that much of the expenditure was fully warranted and could not be avoided. I feel also that, if some of the expenditure had not been incurred, the Minister would be otherwise criticised. We must face up to the fact that we have passed through a very dangerous and expensive time. There was an emergency created here; we did not create it; it was created for us. We have gone through it. Notwithstanding the high bill of costs we have been presented with, I feel it was worth it. As I said, I am not a pessimist. Even if the Minister had to spend a little more on some of these social services, I feel that the general public would gladly foot the bill. I want to know what steps the Minister proposes to take to see that our farmers will get the phosphates and other manures that are required to develop the agricultural industry, which is, after all, our main industry.

Mr. Everett

It is pleasing to hear the appeals made from all sides of the House to the Government to change their policy in relation to low wages and the attacks they are making on the workers in the rural areas. It is pleasant to hear Deputy Dockrell, a large industrialist and a large employer of labour, disagreeing with the Government's policy of low wages. He advocates high wages and high production; that the labourers in the rural areas should be paid higher wages and that then you will have greater production. At the present time, not alone are we trying to have sufficient food for our own people, but we are anxious to give a surplus to other countries which may require food. The best way to ensure that is to listen to the appeals made from this side of the House, not alone by Labour Deputies, but by Deputies like Deputy Dockrell, and change the policy which has been adopted of attacking the workers in the rural areas. Not alone are low wages being paid in the rural areas, but there is a housing problem there to be solved. Those of us who are on local boards know that for every vacant house there are at least 10 applicants. A number of agricultural workers are looking for accommodation in the towns and cities for which high rents are being demanded. Out of the wages they receive from the farmers they are unable to pay the high rents demanded in the towns. They have to compete against the town workers whose wages are guaranteed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

The Minister for Local Government, on the other hand, as a matter of Government policy, prevents the workers in the rural areas from receiving any increase. Naturally they realise that there is class distinction. They know that county managers have been permitted to increase by 7/6 a week the salaries of officials in receipt of £500 a year while, at the same time, they are not allowed to grant an increase of 2/- to men in receipt of 38/- a week. It is no wonder, therefore, that the workers are leaving the rural areas and going to another country where they can get higher wages. They are not anxious to go. They would prefer to remain at home if they got some consideration. I warn the Government that before the harvest they will have to change their policy. They should try to do justice to those men who live in the rural areas. The Government argument in the beginning was that, if farm workers' or road workers' wages were increased, it would increase the cost of living. We increased the wages of the workers in the towns and cities, and farm labourers and road workers, at about 39/- a week, have to compete in the purchase of food with men in the towns who are in receipt of double their wages. As regards social services, I am surprised that the Minister contemplates a reduction of £250,000 in the amount payable for old age pensions. Does he expect that there will be a smaller number of applicants or does he think that a number of the present pensioners will die because of their inability to subsist on 10/- a week? Has he given any reason why he expects such a reduction or has any instruction been issued to the investigation officers?

An Ceann Comhairle

That is a matter for the Estimates.

Mr. Everett

I hope the Minister will tell us how he proposes to save in respect of old age pensions. On the question of housing, Deputy Anthony and others spoke of the £300,000,000 in sterling which we have in another country. Is there any possible chance, without Ministers going over or anything like that, of requesting or demanding from the other Government concerned some of the material we require for the erection of houses? If they have pipes, window frames, sanitary requirements and other things useful for building, apart from timber, they could give us those in return for the millions which we have lying to our credit in the Bank of England.

We should then be able in a small way to provide houses, even in the rural areas, and to give some consolation to the people who have to live there. We receive from England credit notes and we give them food in return. It is time that we asked for some of the goods we require instead. It is no benefit to us to have millions lying in the Bank of England to our credit and to be furnishing food when we cannot get goods in return.

I am glad that all Deputies representing rural areas have begun to realise the necessity of appealing to the Government, in their own interests and in the interests of city dwellers, to treat citizens of the rural areas with the justice that men in the towns and cities have been treated. To prevent any interference with the harvest that should be done. It is not a question whether farmers can pay or will pay. We know that a large section of the farming community are paying much more than the standard rate. A working farmer will never put a man off with 30/- or 39/- a week but, on large estates, where men are paid by the hour, they are not getting 39/-. These estates could afford to pay a higher wage than is fixed by the Wages Board or than is asked by a trade union. The Government should remove the standstill Order and allow men in rural areas to receive wages which will keep them on the land and guarantee the safety of the harvest. I should rather do that voluntarily now than be forced to do it in the near future. I know members of the Government Party who are paying £2 a week, and all found, to try to keep labourers in employment but they find that their neighbours, who are owners of large estates, are getting off with 39/- a week. I hope that, as a result of the appeals made in the House to-night, the Government will take courage and change their attitude and outlook in respect of the rural areas. The men in the rural areas should be given the same rights as those in the towns and cities. If that is done, they will get larger production, there will be more contentment and less demand for the right to emigrate to another country.

Captain Giles

There is no doubt that there are huge problems before us—problems which are almost insurmountable. The cry from all sides of the House is "social services". I believe that that cry of "social services" has been the cause of all our troubles in regard to high taxation. These social services will have to be segregated. There are some social services with which we cannot dispense but others are mere palliatives and constitute a drag on the whole community. I think that we are all at fault in many of those things. It all comes from Government policy. If Government policy was right, there would be no need for those social services.

The old age pensioners, the infirm, and the widows and orphans should be looked after, but many other things we could drop. Money is being spent on idleness. There should be no such thing as dole, and many types of grants should be stopped We want more enterprise, more thrift and more honesty. These are things that are going by the board for many years. At present you will find that the thrifty man is a fool, and the waster—there are many of them in this country—a clever man. We are putting a premium on idleness. At present we have almost complete State control, which has crippled private enterprise. These are things which some Government will have to tackle so as to bring our country back to a position in which people will stand on their own feet and not be looking either to the right or to the left for the State to give them aid. If left to fend for themselves, they would be far better off. There are far too many, at the top and at the bottom, depending on the State for a living. If the Government were bold and strong, they would tackle this problem. They might lose a vast amount of votes, but some Government will have to face up to it, and I do not see why the present Government should not. A man can go on the dole and draw 15/- or 16/- a week, with free boots, free milk and other gratuities. He can stand idly by while the thrifty man, the man on the farm, works from morning until night for a wage of £2 a week, on which he has to keep a family of five or six. What incentive has that man to work when he finds a waster getting 15/- or 16/- a week, with free boots and free milk? He can go out and spend the whole day in the sunshine, or occupy himself catching rabbits or pigeons, and making £4 or £5 extra. Why should he work? Why, then, should the honest, hard-working man work for an ordinary wage or what incentive has he to work? I do not see why any man should work for a farmer while at the same time the hobo on the dole can go out, catch rabbits and pigeons and have a jolly good time. Unless the Government are deliberately out to put a premium on idleness it is time that they put a stop to that.

The same remarks apply to farmers. The thrifty farmer who works and builds up a nice little home, who erects additional out-offices and stables to house his cattle, finds that he has to meet a greater demand for rates while right beside him the thriftless farmer of no principles, who lets his hay barn, his stables and even portion of his house fall, finds that the more he allows fall down the less he has to pay. Is not that a nice condition of affairs in a Christian country, a country that endured so much to free itself from tyranny in the past? Surely a Government that stands for propping up the waster is not an honest Government?

We hear a lot about social services, but a fact that is forgotten is that the people who are benefiting by social services are themselves largely paying for these services. A person gets four or five shillings a week, and then he finds 1d. per 1b. put on sugar, 2d. a lb. on tea, a penny or two on his pint, 6d. a lb. on his tobacco, and his last state is worse than his first. I want to see that system dropped altogether. It will be a costly thing for any Government to face, but this Government should be manly enough to bring our people back to the state of civilised decency in which they found them in 1932. I do not say that the people then enjoyed prosperity. People even then were in a pretty bad way, but they were better off than they are to-day. I must admit that they are better off than they were under the British, but that is saying very little.

What initiative have the present Government brought to the people, or what hopes do they hold out to them? Here we are, a poor bedraggled country, split into two sections, with Partition almost permanent, taxation going up by leaps and bounds, and with smaller wages paid to the agricultural workers than in any country in Europe. Our agricultural workers are absolutely the greatest slaves in Europe to-day. We have a Government that vaunts its social services, but what have these social services done except to make the country a State of paupers and to make our people dishonest? There is hardly a man getting the dole who does not tell lies in order to secure it, or who is not a rogue in some way or another. Do we stand for that ? If we do, we deserve to come to an end as a nation. We deserve to be reconquered by somebody.

A state of racketeering has been introduced in this country equal to anything that was ever thrown up in Chicago. You find in this country dishonest hoboes who five years ago did not possess a bob. To-day they are able to boast of possessing ten, 12 or 15 lorries and of employing 40 or 50 men. They can boast that they have so much money invested in Irish industry that they do not know where it is invested. It is not the case of honest men getting rich overnight. These racketeers are getting rich at the expense of people who never were guilty of a dishonest transaction in their lives, whose ancestors lived in this country for hundreds of years, who always paid their way and whose only consolation is that they can face their God without being in debt to anyone. What have we done to improve the position of our farmers since we obtained self-government? We got in 1922 a country free from any heavy taxation. The prospect then was rosy but to-day we have a debt of £150,000,000 which the people will never be able to pay. Taxation has been increased several times over and to-day we are seeing the fulfilment of Columcille's prophecy that the day would come when local taxation would be higher than rents. At the present moment my own local taxation is as high as my rent. What return are we getting for that? Practically nothing.

Deputy O'Reilly complained that there was no vigorous Opposition in this House. He said that the Opposition had no policy and that Fianna Fáil has a sound policy. I shall give you the policies of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil and I defy contradiction. The Fianna Fáil policy is expediency, State interference, autocracy, palliatives, low wages and despair. The Fine Gael policy is work instead of doles, thrift not drift, honesty not dishonesty, more private enterprise and less State interference. There are the two policies, and which is the better? The one that has been put into effect in recent years is the Fianna Fáil policy, and it has thrown our people into despair and involved them in serious losses. That is a poor prospect for the country. We hear a lot about the home market but what have you to offer that market? You cannot produce a spade or a shovel; you have to go across the water to bring in the raw materials for manufacture here. We have got a few cheap industries but they are nothing but assembling stations for British goods. We may bolt these goods together but we have not the coal or the steel to produce them; yet we talk of self sufficiency and of native industries. We have "buckos" coming across the water setting up new industry and Commerce opening these industries with great pomp and ceremony. That means nothing more than that you have fly boys jumping the tariff wall, setting up a British industry and giving an Irish name to it. At the present time the country is being exploited by foreign money and foreign capitalists. Not alone are they starting in ordinary industries but they are taking half the land of the country and no effort is being made by the Government to ensure that Irish homesteads will be kept for Irish people or to provide an opportunity for those who are compelled to emigrate to make a living at home.

All through the counties of Dublin and Kildare and my own county what do we find? Rich speculators from all over the world coming in to buy the homes of our ancestors and the slightest effort is not made to prevent it. I say shame on an Irish Government that allows that.

This country suffered a great deal to secure freedom but to-day things have reached such a low ebb that the Government will receive not alone the Briton and the American but even the Jew who comes here to set up industries. I want neither the Briton, the American nor the Jew. I want to see industries started on a small scale by our own nationals and creeping, like a child, before they walk. I do not want to see mushroom industries springing up which will last for ten or 15 years only, during which the capitalists will get away with tens of thousands of pounds' profit. They have certainly made huge profits in this country in recent years and it is not in this country they are investing these profits. That is not a type of development I want to see. I want to see a steady growth. I want to see Irish money and Irish men at the top. I do not want to see foreigners brought in here, because we are as well able to build as any foreigner ever was.

How is it that when an Irishman goes across to England or America, if he is thrifty and honest, he can reach the highest positions? He can become prosperous by his enterprise and on his merits. Why is it that he cannot do the same at home? We have people coming in here across and under tariff walls. I believe that many of them are allowed in in a slipshod way. I would rather see half the industrial development that we have in the country blown sky high and, instead, have industries started in a decent, Christianlike way. We have crooks getting rich overnight at the expense of the farmer and the agricultural worker, with his £2 per week, at a time when the cost of everything has gone sky high. Instead of having to budget for £47,000,000, I think that an expenditure of £30,000,000 a year would be quite sufficient for this country. Away back in the British days the whole country was run for £26,000,000 a year. The people were not too well off then. Some, of course, the quick ones, are too well off to-day. The plodders, who are working on the land, will remain where they are as long as we have the present Government, the members of which shout about their wage policy and their agricultural policy. They have no such policy. The farming community are carrying all the burdens on their backs.

During the past five years we had an intensive tillage policy. Now that the war is ended, the farmer should be allowed to till his land in the way that he thinks he can make most money out of it for his family and himself. The Government say that they must force a tillage policy on the farmers. I ask what right have they to do that? I am a small farmer with 30 acres, and if I am forced to till that land in the way the Government thinks I should, then I will be obliged to sell out in 25 years, so that as a hard-working man I say to them: "Your tillage be damned; you have robbed the country, robbed the land, and robbed the farmers." During the emergency we did not object to interference, but now we think that the farmer should be allowed to fend for himself. He owns his land, and in many cases had to pay a high price for it by having to go to the bank to borrow money. Surely, every man has the God-given right to earn his living in his own way. Let us get rid of all this State interference, and go back to the thrifty, decent, honest old barter system, when there was friendship and decency between people. Now, in the case of your neighbours, every second one is a spy and wants to grab another's farm. The Government had to bring in a new Land Bill to deal with another set of villains who wanted to get their neighbours' lands. The Government would not take the advice that was given from this side, namely, to sell out those who were failures and let the nearest neighbour buy the land. That would be far better than having this huckstering business, throwing people out on the roadside, and putting the emergency man on the road again. That tends to make neighbours spies and the greatest villains. Fianna Fáil talk about the Irish Republic and the Irish Free State. I say that we have a State with despots in the saddle. They will not be able to hold on in the saddle. They want to get rich quick, but the Irish people will turn in revolt on them. Every one of them after five years in office can get a pension of £500 a year for life, and all for what? For destroying the Irish farmer and the Irish worker, and bringing the nation back to the position when she almost cries for Britain to come back again. God save the country from such a set of vipers as we have in the saddle. We will get them out by hook or by crook, and if they do not go we will get them out another way.

Mr. McGilligan

We are presented in this Book of Estimates with a bill for £47,750,000. As has already been pointed out, that is an entirely fictitious presentation, because everybody knows that when we meet this time next year a sum of £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 will have been added to that by means of Supplementary Estimates. Those who content themselves with the complacent thought that the Estimates this year are down on last year should remember that a comparison has to be made between the Budget Estimate as presented last year and the Book of Estimates this year, and should make the further comparison of an Estimate likely to be swollen by Supplementary Estimates with what this country had to face last year. I calculate that we are going to have to meet out of ordinary funds something in the neighbourhood of £54,000,000 or £55,000,000 in the way of taxation. Central Fund charges added to that will bring the figure up by another £5,000,000 or £6,000,000, so that in all you have a sum of £60,000,000 represented in this Book of Estimates and Central Fund charges.

Someone has suggested that the rates budget is in the neighbourhood of another £6,000,000. I have some doubts that it will remain at that figure this year. We have had forecasts from the Government, some new ideas which they have thought of, in order to meet the difficult situation in which they find themselves. Long years ago one of the Ministers in the Government, when we complained of putting taxation on the working man and on the necessaries of life, said to us across the House: "What else have we left to tax except the necessaries of life?" and "Who else can we tax except the working man?" We have now got beyond the point that even ordinary taxation is just failing to meet the demands which the State is putting on the taxpayer. Clearly, the intention this year is to be that, under the new plan, we shall have two budgets presented to the House. We shall have this type of Estimate discussed and passed, and the Central Fund Bill and, after that, what the Minister for Finance is unable to put on the taxpayer he will pass over to the ratepayer.

The Minister for Local Government has already told the House that he is going to take power to ensure that if local authorities do not strike the rates which seem to him to be necessary to bring in the amount of money which he thinks should be brought in, then he will suppress the councils and strike the rate himself. Hereafter, we shall have two budgets, one discussed and passed in this way in the House, and the other secretly done by the Minister for Local Government, who will take over from his colleague, the Minister for Finance, what the latter cannot put on the people in the way of taxes. That sum will be passed over to the farming community, who will have to pay it in the way of rates. That seems to be the new plan which has a certain amount of narrow astuteness in it. The farmers have long rued the day when they listened to the appeal: "Support us in the struggle about the land annuities and we will take half of them off you." That was the promise. When they asked how the gift was to be made, they were told that it would be done through de-rating. Then de-rating passed off the Fianna Fáil map and was no longer in the promised land. Instead of de-rating the rates went up.

Long before the war started the unfortunate farmer could sit down and make an early budget of how much he had to pay in the way of annuities and rates. He found that he was not paying as much in the way of annuities but was paying far more in the way of rates than formerly. On the whole he found that he was paying more between the two than he had ever paid before. Under the impact of an election the Government promised relief to the rural community and said they would remit half the annuities. They were tied to that, but now they are back to the old situation in which they, presumably, think the farmer should be relieved by increasing his rates. If the local councils which had control of the purse do not pay the sums by way of rates which the Minister for Local Government thinks they should pay, then he is taking power to suppress them. That gentleman who presides over local government will suppress the local council and see that the local ratepayers are mulcted so as to swell the revenue of the Government. If you take this Budget of £47,776,000, add to that the £4,900,000 or £5,000,000, and add to that the Central Fund taxation, you are not far short of £60,000,000. If anybody thinks that the local ratepayer is going to get away with anything in respect of the things he paid for in recent years, I promise him that he is in for a sore disappointment.

It must be remembered that it is not only £47,750,000, as this Book of Estimates would have it. That is only actually a kind of token coinage, since the £ sterling now will only buy about what 10/- would have bought a few years ago, so that, looked at from that point of view, this amounts, instead of 47,750,000 sovereigns, to only 47,000,000 half-sovereigns. Having regard to the reduced purchasing power of the £ at the ordinary workingman's command, or at the command of those who are getting their proper share of the increased income of this country, that amount is frightening, because these people should be easily able to bear the increased burden put on them as the result of the war years, if the money they get represented the full value, but actually, as I have said, it only represents half the amount, so far as purchasing power is concerned.

Then let us think of the standstill Orders by which the Minister prevented these people from getting any increase in their wages or incomes, and these people, in so far as they have to pay any part of this sum of £47,750,000, will have to pay a pound in value, the purchasing power of which is only about 10/- now. Of course, the industrialists, whom one reads about, very often, bleating in the daily Press about the contributions they have made, do pay vast sums to the Government in the way of various taxes. Actually, they have been put in the position of what would amount to extra taxpayers for the Government during the past few years. Undoubtedly, they do collect vast sums of money, but they pass on about three-quarters of that to the Government and keep the other quarter for themselves, and I think they are not doing too badly at all. The Minister told the Seanad, in the summer of 1945, that the Irish industrialists had tucked away millions in profits that they had got during the war, and that he was going to get after them. I think that those people can afford to smile now when they see this amount of £47,750,000 because they have certainly tucked away their share, but the ordinary people, the middle-class people, the workingman, the old age pensioners, the teacher, and so on, all feel the weight of that. They feel more than the weight of that £47,750,000, because, as I have already pointed out, the purchasing power of the pound is only about 10/-.

I think it is only right that these industrialists who, through their permitted excesses during the war period were allowed to get away with huge profits, should be asked to bear their proper share of this bill—this mounting bill—that we are being asked to pay. Now, what is this sum of £47,750,000 which, as I have said, will actually amount to about £60,000,000, for? We have come out of a period of war, on which most peoples look back with disfavour. Most of these people look back on these old days as days of uneasiness and unquiet, and they are determined not to go back to the old days again. Most of the nations have decided that if you have no longer expanding populations, you certainly have expanding appetites. It is not, therefore, a question of so many mouths to fill, so much as a question of whether you can satisfy human needs to a greater extent than was done before.

If you can do that, then you need not bother about the expansion of the population, because you will get the expansion of the population as a result of the better conditions provided for the people. Most peoples have adopted the 1937 view in regard to employment; and what this country should do is to make for greater and greater production, and provide better wages, so that our people will have a greater purchasing power which, naturally, will create a demand for more and more production and will lead to increased consumption. What is that book going to do, so far as increased production in this country is concerned? Is it not merely an attempt to patch up out-worn policies and theories? I should like anybody to tell me where there is a glimmer of a new idea in that Book of Estimates, in which we are being asked to pay £47,750,000, or, as I have said, practically £60,000,000. Where is there in that book any idea that most countries would not regard as being at least ten years out of date? What is there in that Book of Estimates about increased production or new production here, or increased or new spending? Evidently, the only idea that has captivated this Government is the political idea. As I often explained in this House on other occasions, in the old days you did think of a man as a person clothed with some dignity: a man who wanted to live his own life as freely and as independently as he could; a man who wanted to get married and settle down, and who wanted to give his services and to work for the community and to get a return for that work and service; to get something on which he could pride himself: a sufficient amount of money to feed and clothe himself and his family, to educate his family, and be able to put something aside for his old age or as a provision against sickness, whether temporary or permanent —something that would enable him to give his children a better life than he had had himself; something in the way of amenities or pleasures; something that used to be regarded as luxuries but are now regarded as semi-necessities, such as tobacco. In the old days the idea was that a man should be able to earn enough to enable him to provide himself with the things which he wanted, but there is evidently a better idea now, and that idea seems to be to ask them to turn their earnings into taxed investments, to ask them to see that whatever employment they give is poorly remunerated. Prevent them increasing wages and then say to the business man: "Now you can gather in all the shekels you want, but let this be the arrangement between us, that we will take three-quarters of the loot and give you 25 per cent. as commission for absolutely and completely soaking the community."

That is the bargain—gather in 75 per cent. any way you like from the community and split the loot with us. We will take the lion's share, but we will give you something to go on with.

The Government then use the money they get from the business men in that way, and they give such things as family allowances, as milk, as vouchers for fuel and matters of that sort, because when you get to a certain stage even people who are thinking more of politics than anything else have to realise that you cannot drive the human being below a certain point of sustenance, not to speak of having driven him well below the point at which any sort of human dignity would be served, and when you get wages beaten down to a low point in comparison with the cost of living, you must give subventions. So the subventions come and then the Government are the fairy godmother and they are, as Lenin said long ago, in control of the ration books of the proletariat, and, if they are in control of the ration books of the proletariat, they will get their votes. That is good politics, but it does not make for good life in a country, and we see the signs of it already so far as this country is concerned.

There was a time when to speak of emigration in this House meant a tumult. Some attempt was made to deny that there was emigration. Now the Minister for Agriculture, when speaking in terms of migration from the country to the towns, says that it is only natural—life on the farm is bad, life on the farm is poor, life on the farm is at a low level—and he could even add to that: "and I have seen that it has been brought to a lower level than ever before." Why should anyone complain if people fly from the homesteads and group themselves into the cities? It is only natural, and apparently, so long as he is Minister for Agriculture, he will hasten that process and will pull people from the land, because they can no longer get their maintenance there, and will drive them to the cities.

Our Irish history is full of condemnation of the people who used to be described as ruthless landlords who threw hundreds of families out on the roadside at certain times. I have often thought that, wherever is the Valhalla to which these landlords of ours go there will be a high place reserved there for the present Minister for Agriculture, because they only migrated or ruined families in hundreds, while he lifted 40,000 people off the land in his time. He is not content with that, and has no shame about it, but he thinks that it is a natural process, and I suppose that, under his breath, he says: "and Heaven send it stronger impetus because they will be off my back and I can say farewell to them when somebody else takes them over."

Who takes over? So far as 300,000 of them are concerned, in the last five years the English have taken over, and they are taking over at such a rate that, as we saw recently, they are going to open new offices in this country. They have got rid of the scandal that used to cause all the prying of eyes as the tram passed along by the corner of Merrion Square. We no longer have these huddled hundreds on the pavement, openly showing themselves and openly flaunting the disgrace of the present Government. They are now better "staggered" in their hours. They come at different times, and some of them are to be catered for hereafter in Cork and others in Limerick, so that Dublin eyes alone will not be offended by the sight, and so that possibly by diffusing the scandal, it will be less of a scandal, or less apparent as such.

But 300,000 of them have left in five or six years, and they are going still. Have we any hope of stopping them? To-day we got the nicely-timed piece of statistical information, just too late for any proper use to be made of it in this debate, but even a cursory glance shows the shocking condition into which we have got. It is quite clear, from reading that, that what the Minister for Finance said in his Budget speech in 1945 has been fully and accurately borne out by the better examination of the figures, that is, as he said in one or two of his emphatic phrases: "Retail prices in this country have, since 1938, advanced by 98 point something per cent." Let us call it double. The cost of living, which is based only upon what the small man of the poor type bought in order to sustain and to maintain life, has gone up by 70 per cent. On the other side of the water, wages are up by 53 per cent. in rates, and the cost of living is up by 25 per cent. Wages actually earned are up by 80 per cent.

Recently we had paraded in this House the standard for our main industry. The Minister for Local Government was concerned that no occupation would be half as attractive as agriculture, and then agriculture was nailed down to this, the standard of the wage paid to the agricultural labourer, £2 per week—the purchasing power of £1 in pre-war days. Across the water, they are getting £3 10s. per week and perquisites, and that £3 10s. is the artificial minimum fixed but not actually being paid at the moment. The average rate being paid is £4 10s. and the Agricultural Wages Board over there have been called together to stabilise the wage rate at £4 10s. and perquisites, and the general belief is that that wage will go to £5 before the summer has come.

How many agricultural labourers will we be left with in this country, if the comparison is as between a £4 10s. 0d. rate on the other side, at which they cannot get men to stay on the land, and our £2 per week, particularly when one thinks of that £4 10s. 0d. as being paid in a community where the cost of living is only half, so far as the increase is concerned, of the increased rate of wages, whereas here the increased cost of living is 70 per cent. up on 1939 prices? How are we to maintain our people here?

The country sank to its lowest point of degradation it has reached in its history when, on the occasion of the passage of the last Emergency Powers Act, the Taoiseach had to ask this Dáil to give him leave to prevent people moving out of the country. An independent member of the House, who was at one time chairman of the Fianna Fáil Party, said he thought he never would have lived to see the shameful day upon which the country would be regarded as a prison, a reserve, from which people could move only on a licence being given to them by the Government. Yet the House was convinced—and the times were not as oppressive then as they are now on the basis of a comparison with conditions on the other side—and was persuaded by the Taoiseach that he must get that power to lock people up in this country and to prevent them moving out.

See how often that power has to be used if there is any attempt at flight from the land not merely to the city —a programme to which the Minister for Agriculture gave his benediction— but up from the country to the city, from the city to Merrion Square and from Merrion Square across to England. Some of these days somebody will calculate statistically what has been the value of the four or five yards of concrete outside the United Kingdom office in Merrion Square to England, and will compare that with the £1,000,000 and a bit which we have spent for the reception of foreign millionaires at Rineanna—the £1,000,000 and a bit spent for prestige purposes to receive what has been called the tip and run type of visitor at Rineanna. There is an attempt to build up a national economy in this country on that sort of thing. We had £1,000,000 odd spent on that, without any regard to a return on it, just because we may get some millionaires from America to come and live in the few luxurious hotels that our Tourist Board is to erect for us. At the same time, we have the bare strip of concrete on the pathway outside the United Kingdom office in Merrion Square, from which so many of our people take off to the far side—300,000 of them in the last five or six years—on a flight that is still taking place and a flight that not one penny of the tens of millions of pounds in this Book will stop.

What else are we doing in this book? What impediment are we putting to any of the other wastages that have haunted life in this country for many years? Is there any evidence in this Book of Estimates that any new line is being taken with regard to getting men at work here, rather than sending them or enticing them to go to work in England? Last July, in a speech in this House. I called attention to that precarious position of ours, in the way we regard the amount of money we are sending out of this country at present, depriving ourselves of its use here and how and, as I thought it was right to mention, putting it beyond our power to use, beyond any reasonable expectation of use, when we lodge it on the far side. When I spoke last July, I spoke in relation to an England which had got through a war victoriously but was almost beggared. A man, now one of the most important Ministers of State on the other side, said: "We are through the war, but we are broke." We have heard of the proverb: "Put a little bit away for the rainy day". I think there is surely an excess of enthusiasm for that proverb, when the rainy day is there but we still keep putting money away—and away, in the most literal sense of the term. We are putting money away, when the people who control the savings bank in which the money is piling up, tell us, firstly, that they may not be able ever to pay it back and secondly, if they do, it will be only after many years and then it will be only half repaid.

When I spoke last July, I quoted from certain English economic journals, all of which agreed as follows on the foundation for their economic observations. Each posited as being likely to happen that all the debt owing to America would be wiped out, that all lease-lend coming and going would be cancelled, that no burden would be on Britain arising out of its commitments to America during the war. That situation has changed very much against England since July. Has that made us any more prudent with regard to the moneys we are sending to England? Not a bit. Has that made us any more anxious about when we will recover the money we have lent to England? Apparently, not a bit. Has it made us even approach the English to know when they are going to deal with us in this matter?

Apparently, no movement has been made towards that. Every member of the Government must know, if he is alert-minded enough to read the newspapers, that arrangements have been going on, but have not yet been put through, as between England and America, under which, if England does get a loan of money—and her condition will be very paralysed if she does not— it is based on certain conditions, not of Britain's making—let us say that—but of the Americans' making. One of those conditions is that the sterling balances which various countries have accumulated with England have to be written down in part and funded in part and then the remaining money possibly may be spent freely.

Since that, there has been a Canadian loan; and English newspapers are now commenting upon this point, that it seems now to be regarded as commonplace that 2 per cent. will be the rate at which moneys will be funded as between countries. What about our £300,000,000 which we had pre-war and the couple of hundred millions we generously added to that since the war? Do we know whether that is regarded as an ordinary type of commercial debt or not? Do we know whether it is going to be written down and, if so, to what extent? Do we know, with regard to the remainder, if any part is going to be written down, how much is going to be frozen and at what rate? Do we know, after all these calculations have been made, what bit of money will be left for us to use as the coinage with which we may throw the capital goods away? As far as I can see, the only thing the Department has done is still further to enthuse themselves about the amazing resourcefulness of England and simply say: "Our eggs are carried in one basket and it does not matter really how much more we put into it; if we lose any part of those sterling assets, our position will be so bad that we might as well lose it all."

In any event, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce so frequently tells us, we have no bargaining power and what can we do but let things take their course? A lot of people thought the money could be spent here at home and that there was no necessity to send to England anything more than was replaced by the type of goods we ourselves required and that we had a certainly unsatisfied population here to whom those goods would be welcome, if they could be endowed with the purchasing power to buy them.

So far are we from having any idea, so far as the Government is concerned, of increasing purchasing power, the one thing that has been rigidly under control since the beginning of the war is the wages of the men who live by labour. They were not allowed to move, except within very narrow limits indeed. The purchasing power was closed down on them, even though they brought production to a higher pitch than pre-war. Then we find we cannot consume it at home and we adopt the type of policy so well featured in the slaughter of calves—we must send the stuff away and, if so, where can we send it and, if we must send it to England, what is the good of being downhearted about the future? We must do the best we can now, whistling our way through this dark wood and then everything will be all right. We will get every payment at 20/- in the £, 20 of the old-time shillings for every old-time pound's worth of goods we sent over.

Surely these are things the Minister should have considered. Surely the Government should have let the populace know what they are thinking about it? Surely we should get some movement about it? Surely there should be some kind of activity, something to indicate that we have at least made England aware that we have not the views with regard to these moneys that England has, or that apparently America has? I quoted in this House, in a recent debate, an article which was featured in one of the Sunday newspapers about a fortnight ago. It spoke of Sweden as a land luxuriating in goods, luxuriating particularly in the type of goods that England wanted. Certain items were singled out—all the parts of pre-fabricated houses that would bring joy to an English populace and joy and repute to the sorely-harassed Minister of Housing on the other side. The stuff was lying there on the quayside, according to this paper, and many other goods that England wanted as well, but that Sweden will not sell. The reason is that, like ourselves, Sweden has more sterling than she wants—and she wants no more of it. One thing they do want is coal and, apparently, instead of using the old device of shop-window, they are using the device of the quayside. They have their export points lined with goods that would bring tears to an Englishman's eyes, but will not bring the goods, unless what the Swedes want is sent over to Sweden. We want coal as badly as Sweden. It is possibly a more serious thing with us than it is with Sweden, as we have not the forests that they have and cannot fall back on the burning of pit-props. Sweden may do that and may burn them, instead of exporting them to England.

The same thing was reported in an English newspaper, about a Minister who went to a Scottish constituency and told them there that there were three countries which were providing England with the necessaries of life— Denmark, Sweden and Éire. The Minister, explaining to his listeners, said, when they could not get the coal they thought they should get, the only currency really in which they could trade with those three countries was coal. Éire and Denmark and Sweden, liberally providing England with certain prime foodstuffs, necessaries of life, would have to be paid in coal. In the face of what amounted to an offer on the other side, our Minister for Industry and Commerce came in here in a turf debate and said the trouble was we could not get coal from England and it was no good talking about it and he referred to some casual meeting he had had with the Minister of Fuel when he was in England before Christmas.

It is since Christmas that that speech was made; it is since Christmas that that offer by the Minister has been held out on the other side and, apparently, no one here is alert enough to take it up and probe it home and see what can be got. Instead of that, we are going to send out goods and get sterling assets and when we will get payment on these, the Ministry do not know. They probably have not even investigated it; they are probably afraid to investigate it; they probably know by way of forecast what the answer is likely to be, and it is not one that they would like to have to state to the House. Therefore, they better dawdle along with seeming incompetence, not facing the problem, not seeking answers, because they feel the answers they would get would be so unwholesome that they could not reveal them to the House.

In England there is a problem. We are exporting men, our live population; we are piling up sterling assets on the other side at a time when that country is very sorely grieved over its commitments to America and when America has undoubtedly put a financial screw on that country and told Britain she must reduce the claim on her from countries such as this. England must get that loan and there is no doubt that England will not quibble, in taking the loan, over the conditions imposed. We are interested in those conditions. Have we made our views felt? Have we sent any statement of our views? Are the English apprised of our attitude towards this loan as opposed to the American attitude? We are the people who lent the money, not the Americans, and it is our views should have influence and not what those who rule these things in America choose to put as conditions upon England.

In the meantime, the drift goes on. We are still sending out goods. We are not getting back what we require, but what Britain decides to send us. We are still exporting our population and living in the false security that some day we will get some payment on our holdings, but it will be at a much depreciated rate and we may be fobbed off with goods that are not the goods we actually require, but yet it will be something that we will have to take for want of something better. In the meantime, we run along the old lines as before. We are going to keep the low level of this community screwed down as tightly as possible. Apparently we are going to use business and commercial firms, industries in this country, to gather in taxes, and then the Government are going to make a parade of distributing taxation in aid of people brought to the point of desperation by their own economic policy. And then they look for votes, bought votes, for this miserable subvention of people whose plight is really to be laid at the door of the Government and is their chief responsibility.

Some evenings ago the present Minister raised in this House a bogey in connection with the motion put down in regard to old age pensions. The motion, if it were passed, would cost the State, according to him, £12,000,000, and that, of course, was something intolerable. I asked the Minister had he any idea of what his predecessor said with regard to the monetary increase in the national income. The volume we have had to-day says very much what the ex-Minister for Finance said in the summer of last year. The national income rose from £154,000,000 in 1938 to £252,000,000 in 1944. Again, the book makes the same acid commentary on that as the ex-Minister for Finance did. "Do not pride yourselves on that, gentlemen; it is a mere monetary phenomenon. Actually, production is down and, as far as the native consumption of goods is concerned, that is very much down. We are not producing as much as we used and the people here, lessened in numbers as they are, are not even consuming as much as they did."

But the cost of all has gone up and, because prices have risen, the national income, measured by prices, now represents a 66 per cent. increase. When the Minister was trying to frighten us with the tale of the £12,000,000 that the increased old age pensions would cost, we reminded him there were ten times £12,000,000 of an increase made in the income of the country, even measured in money, and it was because there was so much money in the country, because there was that 66 per cent. increase, that the old age pensioners' miserable 10/- now did not bring them anything like what it used to; its value had been reduced and, if there is an additional £100,000,000 added to the income of the country, what has it been distributed on? Why have the old age pensioners not got their share?

The same bogey, but just less frightening, has now been used with regard to one body of the community very much in the public eye at the moment, the national teachers. Everybody has recognised the plight the national teachers are in. I think every well-known dignitary of every Church that this country boasts has said his say in favour of the teachers. Nearly every important body has backed their claim and all the free votes of this House have, without exception, been cast on a couple of occasions for them —all the free votes. There is only one group against them. The Government are definitely against them and the herd has to huddle in behind the Government. The Government's attitude was expressed yesterday as far as the teachers are concerned. What they offer the teachers, they say, would mean a cost of £1,250,000 and would raise the expenditure on the teachers to £4,500,000. That is to say, the teachers at present cost £3,250,000 and what is offered would mean an extra £1,250,000.

An extra £1,250,000 on £3,250,000 is very far short of the decrease in the purchasing power of what these teachers get. If they got the extra £1,250,000 they are not as well off in terms of what the money will buy as they were in 1938. And what is £1,250,000? The whole national income is up by £100,000,000 and, because it is up by that amount, and because that amount of money is in circulation in the country, the value of the £1 in any man's hand has gone down. Teachers are no longer being paid in pounds. Neither are any other workers. They are being paid in half sovereigns in relation to the pound that they used to get. They are not even being paid so much. I just take that as the nearest figure. The Minister need not think he frightens anyone, except those who simply must follow him, by any of these threats, that if you give in to the teachers you increase the cost to the State by £1,250,000. If you only give £1,250,000 the teachers are still not getting what they should get. They are not getting any advance on their condition in 1938. They are not even being made as well off in relation to purchasing power as they were in 1938. If the teachers strike, and even if they should fail to win in the strike, remember that just like the farm labourers, there is a far far better land across the water, with far far better wages and easier conditions than they would ever get at home. I do not know what angle of the community other than those that Deputy Giles called racketeers and profiteers— a small group who are disgracing Irish industry—except that group, I do not know what group there is of whom the same remarks could not be made as those I made about the teachers and farm labourers. I doubt if there is any class in the community that could not better themselves by joining the squad outside Merrion Square, and taking off for the other side. What is this country going to be after a bit? In England they are deliberately aiming at what they call a policy of full employment. It is accepted in principle as being a good aim. It is acceptable as being no longer an ideal, but something within the region of practical politics.

In any event, men have vowed that they are going to put it through, and will see that it is put through as far as human resources can do it. All that we content ourselves with is saying: "It cannot be done." The Minister for Local Government in his wisdom said it to himself, and has proved it to his own satisfaction. Listening at a public meeting during the last week to two eminent men, one an accountant and the other a banker, one said that in England they had a despairing policy and that in any event it was impossible. On going away from the meeting, I picked up an English newspaper which stated that full employment, in the sense in which the term is commonly understood, is inevitable and inescapable in England. Anybody can read the signs of the times if attention is paid only to the next decade.

There is no doubt that full employment is something that England cannot avoid. The great trouble in England at the moment is that she has not enough of a labour force to produce all the goods they want, first of all for export, to give them the imports they want to maintain their standard of living, and secondly, to give them the things they want to consume at home. They are appealing to women not to go out of industry, and to young men not to go back to their occupations or amusements but to keep on at work. Men who are ageing, who have gone beyond the border line, are appealed to to come back and to keep working. The new move is to occupy prisoners of war at work in England— to get Polish, German, Italian and other emigrants to work for them on the abundance of work they have. They have swept this country of 300,000 people in the last five years, and will sweep another 250,000 in time if we do not watch out. We are satisfied here that full employment is a dream and a myth. It is a reality on the other side. As that newspaper said, full employment is inevitable and inescapable for many years to come. Do we want to find ourselves a country with a lot of young children and of aged people? If so we can maintain the complacency that the Government has, and let the situation develop. We can go on aiding these new-found friends of ours by lending them our moneys, and not bothering to ask when they will pay us back, or what rate of interest they will pay while these moneys are funded with them. Why not ask how it is invested on the other side, and whether we cannot be allowed a share of the proceeds of the investment? We are content to let this country waste in men and resources, and then, from the impoverished community we ask them to accept gladly the position that it will not be any worse after this £47,750,000.

I have searched through the items to find something new that would enable me to say that the Government at last has turned a bit of a new leaf, that they are thinking a little bit ahead, that they have even discovered, in a country so close to England, that there is a new policy; that people outside England have the same new policy; that it might be a good thing for us, at least, to investigate and to study their reactions to their problems, to see if we could not have a better reaction than merely toddling the same weary path, and in the same old ways exemplified by these Estimates. They do not seem to have an appreciation that there is a problem or of how to find an answer. It is the same old business. All this money for relief—money for old age pensions cut down this year by £25,000 —money for unemployment assistance, money for what are called social services, that is to say, the aids that would prevent the complete degradation of the people from showing too much, the hiding of the rags and the sores on the body, but nothing that aids production.

Until we get a completely new facing up to the problem we will get this same Book of Estimates presented to us year after year, and we will find ourselves with a dwindling population and dissipated resources. The happy position we are in according to the Minister for Justice in a recent debate is that we have stabilised crime. When I asked at what point I was told that it was 100 per cent. worse than in 1938 but that we had stabilised it. Everybody knows disease is on the increase. We have a grand programme ahead for the expenditure of about £90,000,000 and, as far as I could see, there is to be an enormous new road programme, for what I do not know. People are finding it easy enough to get out of the country. That seems to be the most useful road at present. We are to have £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 for roads, money for new health institutions, another £20,000,000 for public assistance institutions as well as £10,000,000 for Rineanna. What it may be I do not know. It is a small matter. There is to be rural electrification for people whom the Minister for Agriculture is glad to get rid of from the land.

Mr. O'Donnell

And no water.

Mr. McGilligan

Twenty-three millions for rural electrification and a big bill for drainage. The Parliamentary Secretary, who is in control, when asked about it became frightened. Of the £7,000,000 for drainage, only £250,000 is to be spent yearly, as the £7,000,000 is to be staggered over 25 years. But, it is the nearest approach to production and it is going to be staggered out over 25 years. The roads will probably be built quickly and any new houses that are required at Rineanna will probably be prefabricated and put up, as they were before, in three months; the new public health and public assistance institutions will, at least grow up as quickly as Córas Iompair Éireann's bus station here in Dublin. Where is the production in that? Where is there a shilling for the farmers? Where is there anything that is going to make any extra production accrue to these people out of the resources that we have? What money is being put into development? I have been told often, when I have spoken here on certain money topics, to beware of inflation, that the great bogey of inflation may rear its ugly head, and we are all asked to bend ourselves before it. The briefest definition of inflation is that used on the other side—when you have too much money chasing too little goods. If this £90,000,000 that I have spoken of for roads, health institutions and public assistance matters, is spent, is not it all inflationary? It is certainly not going to produce any goods and, if we do send even a tenth of the £90,000,000 circulating per year for 10 years through the country it is £9,000,000 more of purchasing power chasing the small amount of goods that we have in the country, an amount of goods the production of which has lowered since the war started. That is what is called real inflation. That is the Government's policy, in so far as they have any—public works and buildings, reliefs, unemployment assistance grants, and then all these things that are by way of priming the pumps, while the country lies almost entirely undeveloped.

The three reports contained in the Agricultural Report that has recently been published, at least agreed on this, that there was improvement demanded in production agriculturally in this country, and that there was great room and chance for it. Where they differed was as to the methods. Here and there they differed as to what production ought to be aimed at, but that production could be achieved and that production should be achieved, had their agreement. A phrase that is common to most of these people who have written from time to time about the state of agriculture in the country is that there has been no development for over 60 years. At least, they put it in this way, that, although there was an "up" there was also a "down", and although production in agriculture rose at one stage in this country since the 1900's, it went down prior to 1938 and, if you took production at 1938 and scaled it back over 40 years to the start of the century, there was next to nothing in the way of improvement.

A criticism that has been put to me with regard to the Agricultural Report is that it only aims at putting this country back into the production of the 1900's and that that is no good for this country, because we are in competition with countries like New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the Argentine, all of which have vastly increased their production since 1900 and, that if we simply go back—although it would be an improvement—to the production in the 1900's, we are still lagging far behind the production of our competitors and they are all striving to get into the market at whose loss we at one time rejoiced. We are now clinging fast to it and trying to scramble back and to scramble back against the competition of these others. They are in the mood to oust us and, as I say, they have progressed while we have an enormous amount of slack to take in. But it is something to be glad of that it is there because at the moment, the problem of production is not so difficult here as if we had ourselves geared up to a point of production in the period before the war. But, production, and increased production, we must have and particularly in agricultural products, or else this country cannot bear the £60,000,000 Estimate and Central Fund expenditure.

I have yet to hear any Minister talk seriously about agricultural production. I have yet to hear any Minister show any signs that he has seen that there is a dearth of production in this country, that it is required and can be got and that we have resources, both in men and money, that could be harnessed to that task of production and that that harnessing has not been achieved. I have yet to discover any speech of any Minister, and particularly of the Minister for Agriculture, indicating that he has given an hour's thought to this, that he realises how serious the problem is and has bent his effort to any improvement of the conditions. The Minister is still on record as having told the country, in speeches that he made in Cork and Dublin, that we could not compete with our outside competitors. Every time I hear that phrase I ask myself: Why will not he go on to tell us the reason? Why cannot we compete? Over and over again, New Zealand is taken as the point of comparison, and I want to take New Zealand as a point of comparison and then get some Minister to explain to me what has always frustrated me when I come to think of the comparison. New Zealand and ourselves may be compared, certainly not to our disadvantage, as far as population is concerned. New Zealand is said to have the highest standards in the world—wage standards as well as what are called social standards. New Zealand has somewhat the same type of production as we have. New Zealand pays bigger wages than are current in this country. New Zealand has to market her exportable goods in the market in which we have to sell ours. New Zealand has to send her stuff thousands of miles. We have to send them a relatively short distance.

Mr. O'Donnell

And she has virgin soil, which we have not.

Mr. McGilligan

New Zealand owes money all round the world; at least, she did prior to 1938, while we were owed money by the whole world. With all those handicaps weighing her down, in opposition to our amazing advantages—according to the Minister for Agriculture, if we accepted the prices on the British market which New Zealand takes, we would be bankrupt— New Zealand can produce and send across this immense distance and sell, apparently, at a profit, whereas we, according to the Minister for Agriculture, would sell at a loss. Why is that? While doing that, as I said, New Zealand is able to maintain standards of living incomparably superior to ours. I am not speaking now of these aids to the indigent. I am speaking of real moneys paid to people for work— wages. They have a high wage policy in opposition to what we have and we are always told, when we come to the comparison with them: "Ah, well, New Zealand can do that; we simply cannot." I want to ask the Minister for Agriculture, who should have studied this matter, to tell us why. Some Deputy has said they have virgin soil and we have not. Can our soil be improved? Have we made any investment of either private or public money in our farms? What is the investment per acre in New Zealand? How are the lands maintained in New Zealand? How are the lands despoiled here? Would it not be a great thing if we could get New Zealand to adopt our financial policy and, instead of keeping her money at home, to agree to send it to England and if we could only get the New Zealand economists and financiers to teach us to keep our money at home and to let New Zealand provide the foreign funds that we used to provide? Maybe it might make a difference if we did get a New Zealand economist here who did find that there were vast sums being raked out of agriculture in this country, but not by the producer, and who said it was a Government obligation to attend to where those earnings were diverted and to see that they did not get abroad or, at least, to see if they did that some new money was created here to make up for the lack of what was being sent abroad and that that money was invested in our farms here.

New Zealand, of course, has a cheap money policy and had it for ten years before the idea ever struck any Minister for Finance here and, on foot of their cheap money policy, they not merely bridge the gap, the lag that there is between the time when the farmer is out of his money in New Zealand and when he gets it in when the harvest is sold, but they build houses and they build them at a cheap rate; they harness up their inadequate money resources—gauged by our standards—both to production and to the amenities of house-building and, both in production and house-building, they far surpass this country. Why can that, judged by our standards, poor country, with nothing like our advantages vis-a-vis the English market, beat us in the race for the English market and why can they produce and live at prices which the British are able to pay them but which, according to our Minister for Agriculture, would bankrupt us if we were fools enough to accept them? I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 15th March, 1946.