The Minister will be called upon at 6 o'clock and given half an hour to conclude. Vote 5 governs the other Finance Votes, and there is a long list of them.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 5—Office of the Minister for Finance.
I do not know about Vote 28—Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. I think it comes under Education but, if necessary, I will take it. I did not know that it was on my list. Vote 71—Athletics—will not be moved. I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £77,130 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1949, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Finance, including the Paymaster-General's Office.
The provision, as Deputies will see, is up by £18,480. The major portion of that increase is attributable to increases in salaries and increases in staff to a certain extent. There was a certain provision for travelling allowances. As financial business has already occupied many days, I do not propose to discuss it at this stage.
For several years past, on the Estimates for the Minister for Finance and on a number of other occasions, the present Minister for Finance debated at great length, and occasionally with some vituperation, the question of the rates of interest, interest free money, free credits and the investment of certain sums by the Department of Finance in England. Just to remind Deputies of his point of view, and also to ask him to inform us whether his point of view has changed and, if so, in what direction, I want to give a few quotations from the Minister's speeches. Deputies will remember that in recent months the Minister issued a loan at 3 per cent. On the occasion when a former Minister for Finance was proposing to issue a loan, the present Minister, in Volume 97, column 2890, said:—
"... those who were the propagandists for the Central Savings Fund had been told to stop any further propaganda... that the Government did not want cheap money and that that situation is to last. When I ask about it I am given a whole lot of medievalism about rates of interest and how much you must think of the lender as well as thinking of the borrower. But the lender in these cases was quite satisfied to get 2 per cent. and, for some reason or another, the Government decided that they would stop down on that, because they wanted to raise a 5 per cent. loan at the time."
It was untrue that we wanted to raise a loan at 5 per cent. or anything like it, but that is what the Minister then said. He went on:—
"That seems to me the most arrant nonsense, and I do not see how we could tolerate it at this stage."
Later he went on to say:—
"There is plenty of money available in the country for the financing of production, but apparently our Government the whole time decides that they would rather go to the owners of money, the people who have got a fair amount of money in peculiar ways in the last four or five years. They are going to throw open to those people loans at 4 or 5. per cent., rather than get, by a very simple change, the full use of this £23,000,000 which is invested in British funds."
Rather than get money from the Post Office Savings Bank and other places in recent months the Minister issued a public loan. Did he get any of that loan from people who got a "fair amount of money in peculiar ways" in the last few years? Was it for the purposes of giving them 3 per cent. that he issued that loan to the public?
In Volume 97, column 2890, the Minister said:—
"What bewilders me more is that we have not even got any statement from the Minister indicating that there is a proper appreciation of the fact that there are idle resources here both in men and materials and that the only thing that is required to join those is this mysterious thing we call money, and we have also plenty of that."
Would the Deputy state what that quotation refers to? Was it on this Vote?
Not at all, and he knows it.
It was on the question of the interest paid by the Minister for Finance on Government securities and the proposition that there should be interest free money.
Would the Deputy state on what Vote it was on?
I do not know.
It was on the Finance Bill or the Financial Resolutions.
Is the Minister afraid to allow me——
Not a bit.
——to discuss the rate of interest?
It is a matter of order. I have not interrupted the Deputy.
I thought you had.
It was the Chair who interrupted the Deputy.
I am asking the Minister what he did with this loan.
The Deputy began by stating that a lot of things could be discussed on this Vote. I have looked up the discussions on the Vote for the Minister for Finance as far back as 1926, and at least 80 per cent. of the matters discussed were concerned with the Civil Service bonus, Civil Service remuneration and the administration of the Civil Service. There were two occasions on which the rates of interest for housing and local loans were raised, I think by Deputy McGilligan, but the Budget may not be debated now, nor taxation.
I am not going to debate either of them. I am on the very narrow point which was discussed by the Minister for Finance on at least two occasions, as the Chair has pointed out, on the Finance Estimate, of the rate paid for Government money and I am going to confine myself to that.
I had an idea that the Deputy was proceeding to discuss what was done with the loan.
No.
All right.
Where is the reference to it?
Volume 97, column 2890.
And the Deputy does not know what it was on?
I do not. I have not a note of that. In Volume 97, column 2891, again he said :—
"They are going to throw open to those people loans at 4 or 5 per cent., rather than get, by a very simple change, the full use of this £23,000,000 which is invested in British funds"——
—in which the Minister invested another £3,750,000 the other day. Again on the question of interest, as reported in Volume 94, column 2062, the Minister advocated the printing of money with no rate of interest to anybody, the type of argument that got Deputy Davin to nominate him as Minister for Finance.
You are not quoting now?
I am going to quote :—
"Banks and all sorts of houses simply create money.... We print notes when people present us here with British legal tender and demand Irish legal tender instead. We print it for them, and I suggest that we should print it at least as readily—always guarding against the dangers of overprinting—when the demand comes, not from people who have English money and want it changed into ours, but when there is some good purpose for which Irish money is required."
Is there no good purpose for which Irish money is required at the present time?
In column 2063 the Minister said :—
"I simply wish to ask that we should recognise that, in the financing of a transport venture, if it is to be a source of advantage to the Irish community, that service be rendered to the community at as little cost as possible. One of the charges we should cut out is the charge for the loan of money."
There should be no rate of interest. What does the Minister propose to do in regard to the rate of interest from now on? Is he going to print money, as he indicated should be done when it was required for any proper purpose? If not, why not? After all, the people of this country have a right to know what is the Minister's mind on that matter. He ranted for years on the foolishness of paying a high rate of interest on money here. His colleague, the present Minister for Education, kept the Dáil here, hour after hour, condemning the Government for paying 3 per cent. for money and urged that they should get it at a much lesser charge.
The Minister, in the Seanad recently, referred to this loan for which he paid 3 per cent. interest and said he had to raise it in order to pay off his predecessor's debts. He invested £3,750,000 of it in England. I wonder at what rate of interest? The Minister and those who are associated with him in this inter-Party Government tried to persuade the people, and did, in fact, deceive quite large numbers of them, that there should be no financial difficulties, that the only financial difficulties were figments of the imagination of the Fianna Fáil Government, that all we had to do in order to blossom forth so that everybody should be prosperous, in order that the Civic Guards' pay should be doubled, that all the land in the country should be drained overnight and that all the houses we require should be built in six months, was to print this money at no rate of interest. Has the Minister changed his mind in that regard?
Why when he condemned the last Government and myself, indeed, for having Government funds invested in England, has he, instead of reducing that, increased it since he came into office? Why did he pay 3 per cent. for money to the public here and then invest it in British securities? Every Minister of the present Government who has come in here has complained that a lack of money is causing him trouble. If the Minister, instead of paying 3 per cent. interest and using some of the taxes that he is going to collect to pay that 3 per cent. interest, had continued to get funds at the rate of interest at which they were obtained during the last couple of years, he might have saved on the interest bill some hundreds of thousands of pounds, and in that way would be in a position to allow the Minister for Agriculture to go ahead with the farm building scheme and the farm improvement Vote, which are held up for want of money at the present time.
Why did the Minister issue his recent loan at 3 per cent? From whom did he get the money? Was it from the people who had made a lot of money in queer ways—the people that he used to speak of in this House during the last few years—that he got the money? Is he using some of this money which he has got from the Irish people at 3 per cent. to repay the Exchequer bills which I obtained from the banks at 1? per cent., and, if so, why did he do it? The Minister has a duty to explain to the people the truth of this matter.
During the last few years when he sat here he disturbed quite a number of people in the country. He got Deputy Davin to nominate him as Minister for Finance on the understanding that he was going to print all the money that he required to do everything at no rate of interest. Has the Minister changed his mind; and, if so, why? The Minister for Agriculture has been refused permission to go ahead with farm improvements and says: "I cannot promise that it will be done if we have not got the money". Money used to be no trouble to the Minister for Finance when he was in opposition. Is it a trouble to him at the present time, and is the rate of interest thereon a trouble to him? Will the Minister also inform us what rate of interest he is getting on our money that is invested in England, money which he raised from the Irish people on the plea that it was going to pay my debts?
There are quite a number of other matters that could be raised on this particular Estimate, but in order to restrict the debate and to give the Minister a full opportunity of dealing with that one point, I propose to conclude now by asking the Minister to answer the few simple questions that I have put to him, in order that he may undeceive the number of people that he deceived in the past few years.
I am quite surprised at the power which has been credited to Deputy Davin by Deputy Aiken. I think it is well to preface my remarks by saying that there is a misconstruction in the mind of Deputy Aiken in regard to Deputy Davin's statement. Deputy Davin gave expression to his personal gratification that the present Minister for Finance occupies that position. He did not either directly or indirectly through his Party have any hand or act in the nomination of the Minister.
He did not deny it the other day when I asked him about it.
He merely gratified his personal opinion about the Minister in that fashion.
His personal vanity.
It is a fact—and facts are very hard things to get away from and this is a fact that cannot be denied —that different sections of the inter-Party Government nominated certain Ministers. It is a statement of fact that neither the Labour Party nor any member of the Labour Party nominated the present occupant of the Ministry of Finance for that position.
Was it part of the bargain in setting up the inter-Party Government?
It is no part of this Estimate.
It is interesting.
It may be interesting, but it is not relevant to the debate.
I should like to traverse the point raised by Deputy Aiken.
Beyond saying what he has said on it, the Deputy cannot go further on that.
It would be interesting.
I want to say that this expresses our opinion of the Minister, and whether we are gratified or not as a Party, it is a mere statement of fact to say that the Minister is not a nominee of the Labour Party and that we have no obligations in regard to his Estimates or his point of view except in so far as we are members of the inter-Party Government. I am rather annoyed, I may say, that the discussion on this Estimate is to be so restricted.
It has always been so. Discussion on the Estimate is confined to administration of the office. Financial policy is raised and discussed, not on this Estimate, but on the Budget, on which it gets a very full discussion.
I accept that. We may perhaps have a chance of coming back on this and finding out how far the efforts of the Minister have been rewarded in trying to bring down the cost of living and of prices and things like that.
These questions do not arise on this Estimate.
We should like to know how the Minister hopes to bring about the 10 per cent. cut in prices that was raised at the Trade Union Congress, and to discuss other things like that. It may be possible to ask whether the Minister has any responsibility for the contraction in credits that appears to be taking place here, whether he has any responsibility for the general policy of the banks in their demands to restrict overdrafts, which, to my mind, are producing a certain amount of unemployment, particularly in the building trade.
I denied that in answer to a question. My colleague denied it yesterday, and I deny it now, for the third time.
The Minister may have some influence with the banks and may be able to get them to reverse their policy, which is certainly having disastrous effects.
I certainly have no control over them.
I know that, but it is hinted abroad, and that is why I am bringing it up, that it is due to ministerial policy. That, I think, would require a more strenuous denial than it has been given so far, because the denial does not yet seem to have reached the quarters where it would be most effective. I think it would be well if the denial were given greater pungency because of what I have stated.
There is one other item that I would like to refer to, and that is Vote 18— Secret Service. I want to ask the Minister whether he would consider this an appropriate time to follow the new start in our political affairs by deleting from the Book of Estimates this Vote for Secret Service. I do not know how it is administered. Perhaps the Minister would tell us. It may have had some force in the past.
In the unhappy conditions of that time there may have been a necessity for it, but the very words "secret service" leave a sort of stigma on an Irish Government's Estimates. It appears to me to be extremely obnoxious and I think it would be to the benefit and credit of any Irish Government if they deleted this altogether on account of the shameful association it has with our past history. I trust that this Government will not operate a secret service. There is no reason for it and the Minister might appropriate the money voted for that to a more useful and beneficial purpose.
Theastuigh uaimse tagairt a dhéanamh do Vóta 15, the Commission on Place Names. The particular point I want to raise is the suspension of the work of the Comisiún Log-Ainmneacha, the Commission on Place Names. In reply to a question, I was told by the Taoiseach, on behalf of the Minister for Finance, that the work of that commission was being suspended, but that the matter would be reviewed next year. The total amount of money set aside for the work of the commission was £5,587, an increase of £1,422 on the estimated expenditure of last year. I do not know whether the purpose of this suspension was economy or what the reason was, but I think it is a shameful thing that the work of that commission is suspended. I prefer to believe that it arose as a result of some misinterpretation of the Minister's instructions regarding economy than that it was a deliberate action on the part of the Minister.
When was the commission started?
About a year and a half ago.
We lived a long time without it, did we not?
I admit that the work should have been done years upon years ago, but tá sean-fhocal ann, is fearr go déidheannaighe nó go ró-dhéidheannaighe. When the work was started it was estimated that in five years it would be completed, that every place name, every townland name, every district name, every name available in the country, would have been traced and the Irish equivalent found. It is most important work in my view and in the view of many others besides me, and I believe that you will find support of that view on the benches behind the Minister. It is shameful that it should have been suspended under the name of economy. I think that it was an insult to the chairman of it and the members, who are distinguished and scholarly men from all parts of the country, some of whom I know personally, spent a lifetime in personal work regarding Irish place names and work associated with it such as archaeology. I think that the Minister should mend his hand and let the Commission end their work as quickly as possible without interference. I understand that an undertaking, or at least an indication, was given that the work would be completed within five years, so it is not a vote of a permanent character, and the total vote this year is £5,587.
It is no excuse for the Minister to say that it was only started a year and a half ago and that we did very well without it. We did without it and it was late in the day when the work was started, but it is work of a supreme importance from every point of view and it is simply disgraceful to suspend it. It is hopeful, at the same time, that there is a prospect of the work being renewed next year, but the pity of it all is that work which was under way was interrupted under the guise of economy. The Minister should mend his hand, let the work go ahead and allow the small sum which is in this Estimate.
As the question of rates of interest has been raised, I want to bring one specific case to the Minister's notice, the case of a citizen of this country who in 1922 borrowed £490 from the State for the erection of a house and since then has been paying £40 per year on the understanding that this £40 would be paid for 35 years. Therefore that citizen will be compelled to repay £490 in 35 years with a sum of £1,400. I think that there is something wrong somewhere when a citizen, in order to build a house to live in, has to pay back to the State £1,400 for a loan of £490. I am bringing this case especially to the Minister's notice because this money was borrowed in 1922, when rates of interest were at their highest peak, that is, I think, 7¼ per cent. I think that there are only a limited number of people who would be affected by such exceptionally high rates of interest and the Minister should do something in connection with that limited number.
I do not feel too much sympathy with the ex-Minister for Finance when he asks for a lucid statement from the Minister regarding why the State pays interest on money which is required. Throughout all the years when Deputy Aiken was Minister for Finance he failed to give any explanation in reply to this vexed question.
It paid very much less and local authorities paid less.
When was that?
Local authorities were getting loans at 2½ per cent., but you are putting it up to 3¼ per cent.
They never borrowed at 2½ per cent. It was only notional.
Perhaps this matter is outside the control of the Government. At least the Government have not attempted to take control of it and neither did the Minister's predecessors. I am in complete agreement with those who ask why it should be necessary for the State to pay interest on money which it requires. All money is issued on the security of the State. There is no other security. We may borrow from Britain, but we have the Government of Ireland as our security. It seems to be just the same as if a citizen were to pay interest on money he requires when that money is actually provided by himself. That is the actual position with regard to money generally and nobody has ever attempted to explain it. The Minister's predecessor never explained it, although he had a long period of years in which to do so. I am not going to press the Minister too severely for an explanation. He might do it and he is one man who could do it.
He went in the other direction. Instead of breaking it down he put it up.
There is one matter I would like to raise. There is a good deal of dissatisfaction in the country with regard to the restriction of bank credit. I do not know what the Minister can do about it, but, if the banks are adopting a policy which is not in the national interest, it is always possible for the State to take action, and, if necessary, to enter into competition with the banks, provided, of course, they are satisfied that the banks are acting in a manner which is not in the national interest.
With regard to Vote 15, I am not averse from the decision of the Government to abandon the committee on piped water supplies in rural Ireland. I think that problem could be solved much better by doing the actual work in a number of areas and seeing what are the real difficulties which have to be surmounted, but I should like to ask the Minister what steps it was proposed to take in lieu of having this committee in existence.
Ba mhaith liom a fhios a bheith agam cén intinn atá ag an Aire faoi fhógraíocht a dhéanamh sa teanga Ghaeilge. An dóú lá fichead de Mheitheamh, chuir "Scéala Eireann" in iúl dá léitheoirí go raibh an Rialtas le héirí as fógraí d'fhoilsiú i mBéarla agus i nGaeilge, agus thaispeánadar gurb é toradh a bheadh ar an Ordú sin ón Rialtas go n-éireofaí as an nGaeilge i gcúrsaí fógraíochta Rialtais, ach amháin i gcásanna speisialta, mar atá, fógraí i dtaobh na Gaeltachta.
An tríú lá fichead de Mheitheamh, dúirt Burcau Eolais an Rialtais nárbh fhícr ráiteas "Scéala Eireann," agus dúirt an Burcau nach ndéanfaí aon fhógraíocht sa dá theanga le chéile, gurb é an gnás a bheadh ann fógraíocht an Rialtais a dhéanamh i dteanga amháin, i nGaeilge nó i mBéarla do réir mar dob oiriúnaí i ngach cás faoi leith. Sin sampla soiléir míthuairisce ag an mBureau.
San Iris Oifigiúil an naoú lá fichead de Mheitheamh bhí fógra, i mBéarla amháin, go raibh Lefteanant Henry Good den tSeirbhís Mhuirí tar éis éirí as a phost. Roimhe sin, déantaí gach fógra i dtaobh nithe den tsórt sin—is é sin daoine a cheapadh sna Fórsaí Cosanta, daoine d'éirí astu agus daoine a dhíbhe astu—a chur i mBéarla agus i nGaeilge san Iris Oifigiúil. Nuair a ceapadh an fear seo i gcéim choimisiúnta bhí fógra i dtaobh a choimisiúnta i nGaeilge agus i mBéarla.
Ina leabhar "The President of Ireland" a scríobh Mr. Michael MacDunphy, deir sé ar leathanach ochtó agus a ceathair :—
"All commissioned officers of the Defence Forces hold their commissions from the President. The text of the commissions, the form of which is prescribed by Statute is in the Irish language."
Sin é an t-eolas atá uaim. Bhfuiltear tar éis a chinneadh éirí as an socrú, fógraíocht Rialtais a dhéanamh i dteanga amháin? Fógraíodh, i nGaeilge agus i mBéarla, ar an Iris Oifigiúil an tríú lá déag den mhí seo, go rabhthas tar éis Doiminic O Dubhghaill a cheapadh chun céime Lefteanant-Chornail sna Fórsaí Cosanta.
Ba mhaith liom freagra d'dháil ón Aire nuair a bheas sé ag labhairt arís.
Ba mhaith liom tagairt a dhéanamh do na nithe a bhí ar siúl ag an dá chainteoir a labhair romham. Tá socraithe ag an Aire gan fógraíocht a dhéanamh ach in aon teanga amháin feasta, do réir mar deirtear, sa teanga a bheidh oiriúnach don bhfógra a bheidh i gceist. Ní cheart, im thuairimsc, aon chaolú a dhéanamh ar usáid na Gaeilge sa bhfógraíocht sin agus chím gur chuir Conradh na Gaeilge suim sa cheist seo agus go bhfuil siad ag cur ina choinne. Ní fheadar cad faoi ndear é. An coigilteas sparáil airgid, atá i gceist arís? Más sparáil airgid é seo, más coigilteas é seo, agus má déantar díobháil don Ghaeilge san am chéanna, is dóigh liom nach céim ró-mhaith ar aghaidh é.
I should like to add my voice to that of Deputy Kennedy, who referred to this matter of Government advertisements, which are the responsibility of the Minister for Finance. It has come to our notice that a move is being made to curtail these Government advertisements and notices.
Is that not right?
It may be right, but not at the expense of the Irish language.
Does the Deputy want everything in Irish?
Yes, of course.
Everything?
Why should the Irish language suffer because of any move towards economy?
Would the Deputy like them in Irish only?
Yes, where it can be done in that way, where it will serve the purpose. I submit that a good many advertisements appear nowadays in connection with jobs to be filled by people who have lately left school. These people should be in a position to understand Irish, so that for that purpose Irish only would be quite sufficient.
Do you not object, in the main, to bilingual advertisements?
I do not. What I object to is putting notices in the Press in the English language, to the exclusion of Irish.
That is not happening.
Does the Minister assure me of that?
Yes.
If that is so, well and good.
Bilingual advertising is being cut down.
What does the Minister mean by that?
I am not putting them in both languages.
Then they are published in English?
Some of them, those which appeal to English speakers.
But what I understood the Minister to say was that these notices were being published bilingually.
They used to be.
Are they not, then, being published in both languages?
There may be advertisements relating to certain subjects, and, in Irish districts, these will be published in Irish only, and, in certain other districts, in English only.
I object to that procedure.
Why?
Because I look upon it as a penny wise and pound foolish business. It is setting a bad example to the people of the country. We expect young people going to school to make use of the Irish language and we expect their parents at home to give them good example and encourage them to use it, and here, in a Government Department, we ignore the Irish language in advertisements and notices.
You cannot say "ignore."
If, under the policy of the Minister, certain notices are sent to the Press, or certain advertisements put before the public, in the English language only, is that not ignoring the Irish language?
In English districts only.
I think the time has come when the Irish language should be understood in every district.
It has not come and you know it.
What is the saving on this? So far as I can see, it is a saving of only £400 or £500. Imagine doing that injury to the cause of the language for the sake of saving a few hundred pounds. I ask any Deputy if that is a wise policy or if it is calculated to encourage the use of the Irish language.
Why is the Deputy using English now?
Because I want to make myself perfectly clear to the Minister.
Very well. Apply that to advertisements.
Labharfaidh me as Gaeilge mar sin. This is a different matter. I want to protest here as strongly as I possibly can against this decision to confine advertisements and notices to the English language, even in places where the English language is spoken, where the Irish language, as the Minister said, is not spoken.
You want Irish advertisements there, too.
I submit that the Irish language is sufficiently well known all over the country to have advertisements inserted through its medium.
Apply that to speeches in the Dáil, then.
I do, as a matter of fact. On many occasions I speak in Irish and I think if other Deputies followed my example they would not be doing too badly at all as far as the Irish language is concerned.
Two or three prefatory remarks, and then you go into English.
As the Minister has provoked me into speaking English, I would like to refer to a certain remark of his here last year when he was speaking on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture. He was pointing out the advisability of making money available for credit for farmers to enable them to purchase machinery, fertilisers, and so forth, and he said that the whole thing would not cost any more than £217,000,000. According to the Minister, that was a mere bagatelle. I wonder is the Minister of the same opinion still.
The Minister has changed a lot since that time.
His decision to cut down advertisements in the Irish language will save only £400 or £500, as far as I can ascertain, and yet when he talks about agriculture he speaks in terms of £217,000,000. Of course, I agree it is a good thing to put as much money into agriculture as is possible, but here is what the Minister said :—
"£217,000,000 is not a frightening sum. If this country had been bombed during the war, £217,000,000 would have been very little in the matter of damage."
It is extraordinary the change that has come over the Minister since he went from this side of the House to the other side. We find him very tight-fisted now when he is Minister, but when he was a Deputy sitting on the opposition benches there was no end to the amount of money that he was prepared to spend. In fact, he thought so little of money that he was accustomed to refer to the money that was invested abroad as so much paper money and, in fact, he more or less upbraided the Government of the day and the Minister for Finance of the time for not doing something in the nature of doing away with those investments altogether, that paper money, as he used to call it—waste paper, I think he called it.
I do not think I did.
I, for one, if I saw the Minister prepared to spend money on agriculture, would applaud him, because I believe it would be money very wisely invested. I am not the only one in this House who believes that because I remember during the general election campaign the present Minister for Social Welfare, Mr. Norton, said that it was his policy to make credit available to the farmers, devoid of interest, and, as has been pointed out here before, the Clann na Poblachta people made much the same statement. They were prepared to put any amount of money at the disposal of the farmers. Now, when they are in office, what are they going to do in that direction?
Deputy O Briain has mentioned the Place Names Commission. I also deprecate the idea of suspending the operations of that Commission. The Commission was set up for a very specific and useful purpose—to collect the place names of the country and give their meaning. It is work of great national importance. It should not have been suspended, again for the sake of a very small sum of money. I hope the Minister will reconsider his decision in that matter and also in regard to advertisements and notices in the Irish language.
The Minister, when he was in opposition, spoke on a number of occasions about increasing superannuation for retired teachers. While I realise that the changes in the House are responsible for the conversion of the Minister to a more economical policy, I would like him to state now his views in regard to these particular people.
I do not think they are in my Vote. That is a pity.
Then I will not deal further with that matter. The supplementary agricultural grants are in the Minister's Vote, are they not?
Yes. The Deputy's Party arranged that they would finish this year.
In regard to Vote 26, I want to refer to colleges such as the Albert College, Glasnevin, which are supported by State funds and which perform a very important function in the life of this agricultural country inasmuch as they are centres where experiments are carried out to find new methods of agriculture. There is a need for the revision of the payments made to workers in the Albert College and similar colleges. There is great dissatisfaction amongst the workers at Albert College with their present rates. I would ask the Minister to examine the question of grants to these colleges. As has been stated, they are inadequate to meet the demands which are made upon them. I would ask the Minister to deal as generously as possible with the Albert College in particular so as to enable the workers there to enjoy decent wages.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and, 20 Deputies being present,
Deputies Colley and Cogan raised a point about the restriction of credit by banks, which is said to be prevalent at the moment. This matter was raised in Dáil Éireann on the 15th June of this year, in a question put by Deputy Little, who asked :—
"whether the Central Bank or the commercial banks have been advised on the question of the restriction of credit; and, if so, whether he will make a statement on the matter."
I replied in what I thought was a very precise way, but apparently no great notice was taken of it. I would repeat my reply, in the hope that it may get publicity this time. I said, in column 935 :—
"I am not aware of any advice tendered to the Central Bank on the question of the restriction of credit. In its last report the Central Bank, in dealing with the need for curbing inflation, mentioned that it was of great importance that the expansion of bank credit should not be aggravated by the granting of accommodation for speculative or other less necessary purposes, however apparently well secured. I also understand that on the ocassion of the recent issue of Exchequer Bonds the commercial banks were advised not to grant accommodation to intending subscribers as it was desired that subscriptions should be met out of savings. The commercial banks have representatives on the board of the Central Bank who are in a position to be continuously aware of the views of the board on this subject."
I do not know what more I can say, but if I may repeat the reply in changed language, I would say I have not been responsible for giving any advice, either directly or through the Central Bank, on the restriction of bank credit. I doubt very much if I have any function in that matter. I would like those who think I have any control in that way to examine the legislation and see whether or not there is any power left in a Minister in my position to operate in the way in which it is alleged I am doing. Many stories have been told to me. If any one person who has been told by a bank manager or bank agent anywhere that he is restricting credit, on instructions proceeding from me or officials of my Department, I would like to get hold of such a letter and then I can deal with the matter in a concrete way. I would challenge Deputies to get that information, if they feel it is being given.
That feeling is general abroad.
I do not care what the feeling is. I am told the bank officials are saying they are acting on instructions. I would like one person in the whole community to bring me information about a particular bank official who has said that. Then I can deal with it. I ask that any information that can be procured be transmitted to me.
However, I would point out that the banks have their own problems. They are operating in a free way and I have nothing to do with it. They have published statistics regarding their situation and a bulletin is issued by the Central Bank of Ireland. People who get certain volumes and make comparisons will see that in March, 1947, the advances inside the State were just short of £56,000,000, while in March, 1948, they had reached £85,500,000. That was a considerable extension of bank credit in that time. Elsewhere, in bank reports and other literature pertaining to this subject, one will find that bank advances are very definitely up, whereas deposits are down and the assets that are held by banks are down. The result is that banks appear to be lending more, having in the background less assets than they used to have. It may well be that they have, as a matter of policy, decided that they themselves must take certain steps; and with the wisdom of that I cannot quarrel. I do not know enough about the situation and I would not be impertinent enough to advise them on the matter at all. I am dealing with a specific point raised, that there is restriction of bank credit and that it is being attributed to the Central Bank, the impression being that the Central Bank is acting more or less on instructions from me, or that the banks have been directly advised. I have denied that before and would like to deny it again.
The Minister is making a specific statement that, as far as he is concerned and as far as the Government is concerned, there have been no such instructions? Undoubtedly, the impression has been very widespread.
I appeal to Deputies, and to the Deputy speaking, to try to get some person who has been told that at a bank counter and give me the name of the agent who said it, that I can deal with the matter through the directors.
The Minister is aware that it is widespread?
I am not. People have told me, but I have not been able to get one individual to say he was told that by a bank official. If the Deputy can get me an individual, through that individual I can get the matter cleared up exactly, to show that there are no such instructions.
Then the banks must be doing it on their own.
I am certain they are. I want it to be understood that I am not passing any criticism on them. I do not know what is in the background. There are certain figures there which would lead people to believe it was a wise policy, but it is their policy and they are responsible for it. They were responsible for making advances at certain stages and are responsible for restrictions now, if there any any. It is entirely their business.
The unfortunate thing is that it is being circulated that this is done because of the change of Government.
I can quite well understand that. That is why I imagine I will not get any bank manager introduced to me by anybody from Fianna Fáil.
That is not true, of course. I have never heard it.
I have. It is very widespread in Dublin.
Some of the detailed matters referred to had relation to the Vote for the Secret Service. That Vote has been very much collapsed this year. It is one of the Votes under which I am trying to get considerable savings and I hope it will not be very much used. Deputy Ó Briain, followed by Deputy Kissane, raised a point about the Place Names Commission. What strikes me as odd about this highly important work which is causing so much anguish to Deputies because it has been deferred for a year, is that there was not a bigger agitation about it years ago. It was late in 1946 before it was ever thought of. I suppose Deputy Kissane and Deputy Ó Briain had considerable influence in their Party, and they must have had the same views then as they have now on this matter. I cannot understand, therefore, why it was not brought forward earlier. The Deputies apparently remained dumb for 12 or 14 years.
We did not.
Possibly there is another alternative. If they were as strong in their agitation then as they appear to be now, apparently that agitation had no effect.
That is not so.
It did not bear any fruit, small and all as the fruit is, until the latter part of 1946.
That is not the point. Why suspend it now?
That is the point. I am moving from point to point. It was of such national importance that there was not great turmoil about it until 1946 when it was started. I am deferring it for a year. I think it can wait for a year. There had been a certain amount of agitation about it in the House, but no one argued about the importance of the work before this commission was set up.
It is self-evident.
It always was. Again I am back to the point that it did not produce much activity up to the end of 1946. I want to have a look at that matter. I want particularly to do this. There is something in the neighbourhood of £350,000 or £360,000 per year spent on the development of the Irish language in one way or another. I think it is fairly common ground that there has been very little good got out of that. I think it is widely accepted that one could get better results from the expenditure of half that sum. That matter is under consideration at the moment, and, in connection with that particular scheme, this place names commission will be considered. In the meantime, I am marking time and I think I am entitled to do it. It is not of real importance. In a time of plenty it is not a matter on which one would grudge spending a small amount, but in a very critical year like this, particularly in the hurried circumstances of these days, I felt that I was entitled to defer the work of that commission for a period. It may be necessary to spend some small amount—although I am not promising this—to keep it limping along until a better view can be had of it.
I was also asked about the piped water scheme which a commission had started to examine. For the time being that is being deferred. Some of the commissions under Vote 15 were almost at the end of their work and they will be allowed to complete whatever work they have on their hands, as long as it does not cost too much. A certain number of these commissions will have their work entirely stopped.
Deputy Kissane was rather interesting in this matter of Government advertisements. I wish the Deputy would make up his mind on the matter. Does it do any good to the Irish language to publish advertisements in Irish in areas where Irish is not understood, or at least is not understood by 90 per cent. of the people, or where, if it is understood, the advertisements are not looked at? Is there any real belief that that is of any good to the Irish language? I do not believe it.
Young people understand Irish.
Why would young people read advertisements about posts of some kind in particular areas?
Because they concern them.
Do I understand the Deputy, then, to argue that a young person about to leave school or, after leaving school, will read every advertisement?
If he is interested in looking for a job.
Because some young people, say around Dublin, will read advertisements, then they ought to be published in Irish as well as in English. The change I want to make is that in the purely Irish-speaking districts any advertisements issued will be issued in Irish and that in the other districts they will be issued in English. The Deputy wants me to publish all advertisements in both languages. If it is, say, an advertisement for a post, Deputy Kissane believes that the person who understands both English and Irish will benefit by having the advertisement issued in Irish.
I believe that if it were in Irish alone they would understand it.
That no Government advertisement should be published except in the Irish language? I can understand that.
I did not say that.
Why will not the Deputy come to that point?
I think most of the advertisements could be published in the Irish language alone.
I think that would be futile, that it would be mere pretence. First of all, there are not so many people who will read these notices at all.
They would not read them even in English.
Quite so. A tremendous amount of Government advertisement is wasted. I am trying to collapse it. In regard to such advertisements as have to be issued, the proper thing is to make a division and to publish them in the Irish areas in Irish and in the English areas in English. I cannot see how this is weakening the development of the Irish language. All these matters will have to be gone into when this whole question of developing the Irish language is under review. Personally, it will take a great deal of argument to convince me that any good is to be derived from the programme which the Deputy maps out.
Deputy Dunne raised a question about the labourers in the agricultural college. I doubt whether there is any authority in the Minister for Finance to regulate that matter. The Department of Agriculture may have something to say to it.
With regard to the question of investing money, I think Deputy Aiken was referring to a reply to a question in which I indicated that certain moneys had been invested in English securities. Certain moneys had to get speedy investment and there were no Irish securities available for the amount required to be invested. The moneys were, therefore, invested in English securities. They were invested in a way which is as profitable as if they had been invested in Irish securities.
As to the general matter which the Deputy spoke about, it is a matter which I should like to thresh out on some occasion on an appropriate debate. I do not propose to go into it now in any detail. It was brought in completely, entirely and deliberately as an irrelevancy. The speech to which the Deputy referred was a speech which I made in connection with what was happening during the war. I said at that time that it was quite clear that the future value of English investments was likely to be lowered and that a policy had proceeded here of piling up moneys in that type of investment. I urged at one time that there was likely to be a depreciation in the value of these holdings and that the benefit to be derived was likely to lessen. Time has proved that I was right. The capital value of these assets has declined very much. The situation is undoubtedly different now. People are taking depreciated moneys and putting them into securities that have depreciated from their own time value. That is the difference.
With regard to interest rates and cheap money and the provision of money, I would say that it is a danger at a time when the difficulty is to absorb the amount of purchasing power which is free in the hands of the community. Even if cheap money is a desirable policy generally nobody can claim it to be so in present circumstances.
The matter of the development of agriculture, to which Deputy Cogan referred, is again one of these matters which can be discussed in the light of the circumstances obtaining at the particular time. I do not think anybody, outside a lunatic asylum, will go in for flooding the country with a lot of money at the moment, even for good development, without paying attention to the danger of overprinting. I referred to that subject on other occasions and my views were quoted to-day. The speech from which my views were quoted was one in which I called attention to this danger. It is a fact. Through questions, I got it brought out to be a fact that money was printed here. It was printed here when notes were presented by people who came from the other side. The point is how can it be justified in one set of circumstances when it is an objection in others? The Deputy apparently has not found the particular answer to that, but I think I have.
They are still printing when these notes are presented.
Under the particular legislation governing this whole matter which the Deputy left me, I have no alternative. As I said in reply to an interruption to a question recently, one cannot change a situation very speedily. It is a very delicate matter and blundering in on top of it is not a thing I would like to do.
The Minister has been blundering on that question for a number of years.
I am learning by the blundering that was done ahead of me. It is very salutary. The lessons were quite good.
I am glad of that.
The blundering will show up later. The Deputy spoke about paying off the loans on debts which were left to me.
Explain the £3,750,000 invested income.
There had been certain borrowings from the Post Office Savings Bank. That had to be repaid and, naturally, there was then money on hands. Where was that to go—either to Irish securities or to English securities. As Irish securities were not available they were lodged in the other, but at a good rate of remuneration. I thought the Deputy was questioning whether or not the money was, in fact, used to pay debts. It was. The Deputy is not going to be brazen enough to suggest that no debts of that magnitude were left behind.
It was a change from one kind of borrowing to another.
You cannot keep on short-term borrowing for ever. Whether it is covered by short-term borrowings or not, the point is that the debt had to be met. The legacy of debt that I inherited had to be met. In connection with what people said to the effect that I was gathering in a lot of money in advance in order to meet debts which prospectively I saw coming, I would point out that I had a lot of debts left to me.
And you wanted these funds so as to invest the money in England.
No.
That is what happened.
That is the red herring. The Deputy left over £12,000,000 debts.
Why not say £100,000,000?
They have been left. I may start all over again. It is not as if I have had a vast amount of credits handed over to me. There can be no denying of that. If there is any denial of it I propose to produce the figures and to give the exact details. If the Deputy wants to inquire into that matter he can put down a question to me and he will be given the full facts.
It was a change from one form of debt to another, but it means that the people are paying heavy interest and that is something that the Minister, when he was a Deputy, always objected to.
I am glad to hear the Deputy admit that it was a debt. The only question now is that there was no large debt—sufficient to absorb the entire of that issue involved. The Deputy spoke about an interest rate being raised. I think it was in 1946 that Deputy Aiken, as Minister for Finance, announced that he was going to go to the public for a loan at a maximum of 2½ per cent.
If necessary.
Why did he not face the public?
Because it was not necessary.
Because he would not have got it. It was not necessary in the sense that there was plenty of debt that could have been refunded but the then Minister did not go to the public because he knew that he would not get it.
But we did. We had it.
The Deputy may talking about short-term loans; I am talking about ordinary long-term borrowing.
The Minister wants to get something at 3 per cent.
The Deputy spoke, in 1946, of an ordinary long-term loan at a maximum of 2½ per cent. Having announced that boldly, he retreated and he never faced his public for it. I say that he was wise in deciding not to go for it at the time.
Why did the Minister not print it then instead of borrowing?
It could have been done.
Well, then, why was it not done?
Because it would cause vast inflation.
That is what I want to hear. Go ahead.
The Deputy will understand my point when he considers it.
Why say that we should have done it?
No, not then. The point is that if you were printing for one purpose why should it not be done for another? My objection was that what was being done here was that we were accepting inflation that was exported to us from Great Britain and that we were making that easy by the currency situation that had been established under the particular legislation.
The Minister sees no difference in printing a note in exchange for a British note and in just printing it ad libitum.
In relation to the wealth created, no. The people added to our purchasing power by the notes they brought in. We printed the notes——
You are still doing it.
If I am it is because I am coerced by the situation which was left to me——
Why not change it?
It cannot be changed abruptly. It has to be handled carefully and delicately. Years before the situation developed we asked the predecessor of the previous Minister to beware of what we thought was a likely development. I am suffering from the fact that my predecessor neglected to take the good advice which I gave him.
You are still printing notes to exchange for British notes and you are not doing it for other things.
I cannot change the law and I would not change it at the moment because a new situation has developed.
You have swallowed a lot, British notes and all.
One of the worst things I have to swallow is the legislation the Deputy left me and the bad effects of it. Nevertheless, we have managed to survive that and we possibly will survive——
And Deputy Davin insisted on your going in there to-day.
All Deputy Davin did say was——
That you were going to print notes.
He did not. Deputy Davin felt that he was responsible in some degree for the setting up of the present Government and he mentioned various posts, including the post I occupy at the moment, and he gave reasons. He never mentioned the reason the Deputy has given.
Oh yes, he did.
Deputy Davin had other ideas which some people thought were good.
Poor Deputy Davin is going to get no free credits.
Motion—"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration"—by leave, withdrawn.
Vote put and agreed to.