My duty to-day is more or less a formal one, because the Central Fund Bill which the Dáil has sent to you is based upon Estimates prepared not by the new Government, but by its predecessor. I am sure that the House will understand, with sympathy, that we have not had time to examine these Estimates in detail, and that, to some extent, they do not represent the financial, economic or social policy which the new Government intends to pursue. It happens, however, that this Bill must be passed before the close of the financial year in order that those who have now been entrusted with the control of the country's destinies may be furnished with the necessary funds to enable them to maintain the public services until such time as they have had an opportunity of re-examining and re-considering the whole position for themselves. I trust with that explanation that the Seanad will see its way to pass this Bill through all its stages to-day, in accordance with the motion which is to be proposed by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, who is a member of the Seanad.
Central Fund Bill, 1932 (Certified Money Bill)—Second Stage.
I think the House will recognise at once what the Minister has said regarding the responsibility for the Estimates on which this Bill is based, and will make the necessary allowance and give the necessary facilities for passing it without delay. It is a Bill which asks for the issue of £7,800,000, which, in effect, means a sum to carry on administration for the next four months. It seems to me that during the four months there will be laid the foundations of a social economic policy probably for a very long time, and therefore it is opportune, I think, for some views to be expressed as to what that social economic policy should be and what it should avoid.
We are not merely dealing with departmental administration; we are dealing with the policy of the Government in respect to its administrative functions. I had some regret when I read in the newspapers the day after the Dáil adjourned a statement from the President regarding the policy which it was the Ministry's intention to follow. My regret was occasioned by the memory that frequently I, for one, had had to complain of the bad example set by the predecessors of the present Ministry in the same direction; that is to say, during the sittings of the Dáil Ministers would take occasion at Party meetings or through public announcements to indicate to the public their policy. I hope and trust that the example of last week is not going to be followed frequently.
A good deal of comment has appeared in the newspapers regarding some of the items of the policy outlined by the President. It seems to me a great part of the comment is entirely uncalled for, because for the most part, certainly as regards those parts which excited interest, they were all indicated in the pronouncements of the Party which has succeeded in obtaining power, during and before the election campaign. There is very little justification for expressing surprise at these pronouncements on public policy, especially in regard to those matters which have excited public interest.
I want to draw special attention to an aspect of the policy adumbrated by the President which, to my mind, is infinitely more important than the questions which seem to have created a certain amount of interest, perhaps some subdued excitement. The matters which have aroused some interest were indicated very definitely in the pre-election programme and during the election campaign of the Fianna Fáil Party. There was a formal pronouncement seeking a mandate, and all those items touching international and inter-State relations were indicated in that pronouncement, and a mandate, one must assume, was secured.
Question!
There appeared in the statement of the President a matter which was not so precisely indicated in the mandate, but which, I am delighted to find, is going to be predominantly in the minds of the Ministry in the first weeks and months of office. I refer to the paragraph dealing with unemployment, and I will quote from it:—
On the matter of unemployment, Mr. de Valera ... said that unemployment could best be got rid of by utilising home labour to produce the goods they at present imported, in that way building up their industries. This could not be done without giving the home industries adequate protection from unfair outside competition, and from industries of long standing and run on a large scale. This protection of industries was one of the first problems to which they proposed to devote themselves. The Government had got to find productive works to give immediate employment. During the recess they would consider such schemes, while also giving attention to the permanent cure by giving work to their own people in the manufacture of the goods they needed. Industries could not be created overnight, but work must be provided until the permanent solution was found.
I have for some years followed with interest and sympathy the speeches which the President made touching this question of unemployment and the right of the worker to an opportunity to earn a livelihood. He has, time and time again, stated, explicitly and implicitly, that there is a duty lying upon the State to ensure that every citizen able and willing to work should be provided with an opportunity to work so as to earn a livelihood for himself and his dependents. These statements were, no doubt, made in the course of propaganda and political agitation. But it is with great satisfaction that I find the President, in his position of responsibility, reiterating that same doctrine. I hope that he will proceed immediately to put into effect the doctrine which he has so frequently and right up to date laid down as paramount.
I have no doubt that in giving effect to the long-range policy, the policy of encouraging industries by protective tariffs, it will be found that a good many difficulties will arise, but not the same kind of difficulty that will arise in giving effect to the short-range policy, that is to say, the provision of employment for the workers pending the development of industry, which it is assumed will eventually absorb the unemployed workers. It is to this short-range policy, this immediate policy, that I think attention must be directed. The Labour Party has laid down the same doctrine for many years. The individual citizen, particularly the landless man of the towns, equally with the landless man of the country, has no other means of getting a livelihood except through securing employment at the hands of an employer and thereby earning wages. If there is no private employer prepared to take that workman's labour and pay for it, then it is incumbent upon the organised community, that is the State, to ensure that that workman shall have an opportunity to work so that he may earn a livelihood. The acceptance of that doctrine is to my mind of paramount importance and I hope that the Ministers have fully realised that the putting into effect of it will mean the raising of many obstacles and the breaking up of many pre-conceptions regarding what is right and just and proper, simply because it is part of the normal state of things in a capitalist State.
I hope that Ministers will bear in mind that, according to the best-informed economists, even pre-war, capitalist Society could not continue without a reserve army of unemployed, and in England it was frequently said that that reserve army of unemployed could not be less than five to seven per cent. I mention that because I want Ministers to realise that they are up against a very big problem, but in the solution of that problem and in the doing of justice to the workers of this State they are entering upon the most beneficent revolution that can be accomplished. I think it will be found very early that numerous obstacles will be raised, and that difficulties and fears will be indicated. I hope it is quite well understood that it is a purposeful resolve on the part of the Ministry that they are determined that the willing workman shall have employment, and, having made up their minds that that is to be the policy of this new Government, and henceforth of the State, any obstacle that is raised will be overcome and any fears that are expressed will be met with reassurance. In the doing of that the great mass of the people, agricultural and industrial, who live by their labour, will be found backing the Government in every move to give effect to that policy. Those other matters which may seem to many to be of first importance will be relegated automatically and fall naturally into their right place as subordinate to the great and most important problem of solving this unemployment question and getting rid of unnecessary poverty.
It is no doubt necessary that the same enthusiasm, the same determination, the same feeling of patriotism will have to be roused to deal with this war on poverty as would be aroused, called forth and be available if it were a war for the repulsion of an invader. I am hopeful that the spirit that is behind the President's statement on unemployment will be enforced and will be utilised in every possible way to evoke the best thoughts, the best feelings, and the best energies of the people of this State to arrive at the most rapid and effective solution of the problem, and to do it in such a way as to make the least necessary re-adjustments in the organised economy. I say the least necessary re-adjustments because some re-adjustments will undoubtedly be necessary. I think it will be found that an entirely new spirit will have to inspire those engaged in the conduct and organisation of industry and the satisfaction of human requirements.
That brings me to a particular question following these general remarks. We have read recently of certain developments in respect of the flour-milling industry. I am mentioning this as an illustration rather than dealing with the details of this problem. Some year or two ago there was a good deal of discussion in the public Press and in the Dáil regarding a new situation created by the purchase of Irish flour mills by certain English combines, or, at any rate, very wealthy corporations. Certain assurances were given at that time by the Minister in charge that he would at least see that there was not going to be a diminution of the quantity of flour milled in this country. I think the fears expressed at that time were not that there would be an unnecessary diminution of the quantity of flour milled in this country, but that there would be a limitation upon development, and that the power in respect of that milling industry would be concentrated in the hands of people who were not thinking of the national well-being in this country, but rather of the profits of large wealthy corporations in Great Britain. Quite recently there has been a further development of that intrusion of international capitalism upon the domestic economy of this country. Certain other flour mills have come within the control of the British organisation. Certain of the mills have been bought over, and others have been partially taken over, and the controlling interest has been obtained in these mills by this British flour-milling combination. To what extent Irish mills owned by Messrs. Rank and their allies have been attached to the British combination of millers I do not know, but it is true to say that it is not only a question of flour-milling, but also, to a considerable extent, the control of the wheat supply is in the hands now of that combination.
I have no doubt that it is the intention of the Ministry to examine this question from their point of view, but I want to make this plea, and it is in accord with what I said earlier, that it is not merely desirable that the control of Irish milling should be retained for the Irish millers, but that the spirit of the memorandum read to the Dáil on behalf of the Irish millers some two or three years ago should dominate any reorganisation of the Irish milling industry. That proposition on the part of the Irish millers was that they would in combination act as a public service corporation or guild; that they would be satisfied to act in direct subordination to the interests of this country; that they would accept limitation of profits; that they would accept Governmental control in regard to price; and, in general, that they would treat themselves as functionaries of State, acting in the public service and not simply and solely according to the accepted capitalistic regimé. I would urge upon the Ministry the desirability of entering upon the examination of this question of Irish flour-milling with that idea in mind, and that that should be a headline in respect to all their activities touching economic affairs.
A revolution—I say it without any hesitation—in the economic system is inherent in the proposal that every unemployed man who is willing to work shall be assured of work—that being the germ of a beneficent economic revolution—and I say it is essential that there should be a new spirit entered upon in regard to the economic services of this country. I am pretty well satisfied that if the energy, the enthusiasm, and the high purpose which are within the command of the new Ministry are directed towards the solution of these problems they will be able to overcome all obstacles, to rouse the utmost enthusiasm of the masses of the people, and that this year 1932 will be deemed to be the beginning of the rejuvenation and regeneration of this country.
I want to say a word or two in connection with the financial position of this country, due to the fact that there were two Budgets passed last year by the late Government. That was an honest action on their part, but it was very bad politics, and it has landed them on the wrong side of the fence. There was a Supplementary Budget brought in, under which an additional 4d. per gallon was put on petrol, bringing the tax up to eight-pence. I contend that, now that the cause of the decrease in the income of the country has been removed, that additional 4d. should be taken off. The decrease in the income of the State last year was to a great extent due to a decrease in the sale of Guinness's porter in England. The result was that there was a deficiency of £700,000 in excise, which is abnormal. That will not occur again. It occurred in this way. The sales of Guinness's stout being smaller, it was not necessary to carry the big stocks in Dublin on which tax had already been paid to the State. The consequence was that they reduced the stocks in hand. That was the reason why there was a deficiency of £700,000 in excise last year. That will not occur next year, because, as now arranged, the amount which they have in stock is in proportion to their sales. There may be increased sales in England, so that there may be something to be said for an increased reserve stock in Dublin. The point I want to make is that next year that position of affairs will not occur, and therefore that the extra tax put on to meet that emergency ought not to be continued.
We heard lately a good deal about the preferential treatment of road traffic as against railways. On that I want to make this observation. If the State were to put a 100 per cent. customs duty on coal some condition of equality would be brought about between the two services. When you buy 4/6 worth of petrol the State takes 2/- of that 4/6. If the State were to do the same with the coal supplied to the railways, then we would have equality of treatment. Notwithstanding what Senator O'Farrell has been saying about the bad treatment of the railways, the boot is on the other foot altogether, and progress is being stopped. £1,000,000 per year is taken for road tax, and, in addition to that, 200 per cent. of the value of the fuel is taken by the State. That is the reason why this tax should be removed as soon as possible.
Side by side with this 4d. on petrol and 6d. additional on the income tax, there was also a scheme for a reduction of the cost of certain services. I noticed recently that one Minister—I think it was the Minister for Finance— said that he would not be a party to a reduction of the social standing of the Civic Guard or of the school teachers; that he was in favour of giving old age pensioners more money, and also in favour of pensions for widows and orphans. I want to point out that the income of this State depends to a large extent on farming. This year the returns from farming are very much less than they would be in normal years. On the cattle trade alone I believe there is a loss of £3,000,000. I am wondering where all this money is to come from. There is a deficiency to be met. The social standing of the Civic Guard and of the teachers is to be maintained, and there is to be extra expenditure in connection with old age pensions. Where is it all to come from? The only way that I can see it is to be provided for is out of the land annuities. The land annuities are a God-send; the only way that I can see the money will be procured for all these services is if the land annuities can be retained. I am not against the retention of the land annuities if we can get away with it, but I am afraid when an investigation has taken place that it is not the case that we can get away with it. I am afraid we are not going to win the three millions, and if we do not get them, and if no provision is made for retrenchment, what position will we find ourselves in in a year's time? That is all I want to say on that point.
Senator Johnson spoke of war on poverty in the country. He spoke of the unemployed man in the city as well as in the country who ought to be provided for by the State. But the unemployed man in the city gets the dole.
There is no dole.
He gets the unemployed man's insurance, and the landless man in the country is paid for by those who work; he is put on the rates.
He gets what he pays for.
He gets more than he pays for. The State pays one-third of the expenditure of the unemployment fund and he gets the full rate.
He does not.
The unemployed man in the country is placed upon the rates. That is my objection to the present system. These particular poor men when idle and out of work have to get sustenance, but that sustenance ought to be provided by the State and not by the ratepayers as distinct from the taxpayers. As soon as the new Ministry can change the policy and provide that the expenditure upon these poor people should come from the State and that the provision of work for them should be made by the State, and if, as Senator Johnson says, they cannot get work, then that the State should provide sustenance instead of these things coming from the rates the better. I hope I am not creating any ill feeling on the Labour Benches.
You will hear all about it later on, and about the farmers' dole.
You cannot do what is envisaged by Senator Johnson. You are going to have an expenditure of money to provide work for the unemployed. How is that to be done? Take the town of Swords where I come from. I have lots of men coming up to me every day looking for jobs. I give them whatever work I have. How are you to employ all these men who are out of work? Are you going to start a State industry or are you going to start a State farm? Will Senator Johnson tell us what he has in mind as to how the Minister is to deal with this? Does he want these men gathered together in a huge camp at the Curragh and set to till it? Will Senator Johnson put his case as to how these men can be employed? I would be glad to see them all at work. I give the unemployed men what work I can. If these men do not get work they must get sustenance, and the State should foot the bill and not the ratepayers.
The income of the State has fallen. Everybody knows the price of the products of the land is down this year. Butter, eggs, bacon, pigs, and sheep are down in price; cattle are a little better, but on the whole the price of cattle is low and, generally, there has been a big falling off in the income of the State, which was stated by the de-rating Commission to represent £170,000,000. There will be a deficiency also in the income of the people who have money invested abroad. There will be a deficiency in the amount of money sent from America and South Africa, because things are bad in these countries. There is one bright spot. I think we will have an increase in the income from tourists and the Sweepstakes. The latter is a bumper proposition, and a good deal of money will be earned on that; but apart from these the general income will be down and will continue to be down. Take the present expenditure. You think you are going to revive industries by erecting enormous tariff walls against imports. That will no doubt mean an increase in prices and an increase in the cost of living. And how is the farmer depending upon the sale of his products to live, notwithstanding that he is asked on the one side to pay the land annuities? He is told that if he pays the land annuities he will have to pay no rates. If he pays no rates and the case in regard to the land annuities is lost, then after a few years the whole thing will have to be borrowed or paid all over again. If the case is lost then I am afraid we will be in a very bad position in a few years' time. The way to cure our present evils in my opinion is by a reduction in expenditure.
You are getting that already.
And by facing up to the facts on that. However you may play to the gallery, you are not going to make the country prosperous by high tariffs. You will find the same difficulty your predecessors found, because you all came from the one stock. You are all Sinn Féiners. Bitter experience came along, and in the course of the training and responsibility that followed they had to change their policy. We are going to have the same thing now all over again. We are going to have a ramp of tariffs and high cost of living falling back again to a reasonable position. I do not say that the end of the world is going to come because President de Valera is in power. I think he is entitled to a show. He is at the head of a Party of seventy-two, which must have several brainy men in it. We will have the result of these men's ideas, and President de Valera would not be at their head unless there was something in him. The only thing I ask is that they may go slowly and quietly and not allow themselves to be led away by Senator Johnson's ideas. Let them carry on quietly and not do anything that will upset the even flow of trade. Let them enable people in business to carry on and earn their living as they have done in the past.
While Senator Wilson was speaking and referring to various matters under consideration his speech reminded me of a book I once read, entitled "The Confessions of a Poacher." In the first place, when I heard Senator Wilson protesting against this fourpenny additional petrol tax I wondered why he did not make this speech and protest a few months ago when the tax was introduced by another Government. On that occasion, if my memory serves me right, the Senator never uttered one word of protest against this additional petrol tax.
I did, but I was a member of the Party that brought it in, and I was kept down and could not say anything.
That is quite sufficient.
Cathaoirleach
That is a confession.
Senator Wilson then went on to talk about gassy stuff known as Guinness's stout, and told the House that owing to certain circumstances the revenue from that source would be down, and that additional taxes would have to be imposed in order to meet the deficit. The Senator also referred to the enormous amount of money that what he describes as the dole is costing the country. I have repeatedly endeavoured to make clear to Senators that there is no such thing as the dole here. If a working-man pays into an unemployment insurance fund he is entitled to get payments, just the same as if Senator Wilson's motor car was burned he would go to his insurance company and get paid. The working man is in the same position. He subscribes to an insurance fund against unemployment, and when he is unemployed he is entitled to receive payments from that fund. But does the working-man always get these payments?
While Senator Wilson was speaking I was reminded of an extremely sad case that came under my notice recently, of a vanman who was employed by a well-known Dublin firm for 36 years, for over 20 of which he paid for stamps for national health insurance and unemployment insurance, and never drew one penny benefit. What usually happens to a good servant happened to him. This man, after giving the 36 best years of his life to private employers, was thrown out on the streets without one penny compensation. He drew unemployment insurance benefit for a number of weeks, and then went off benefit. He got sick and drew National Health Insurance benefits for some months. Last January he reached the age of 70 years, and was informed by his National Health Insurance Society that at that age he could get no further insurance benefit. At the Labour Exchange he was told that he could not get the unemployment benefit. I filled up a form of application for the old age pension for this man, but there is so much coordination between our State services that that poor man has been starving since January, having got no insurance benefit. So much for the "dole."
I never heard Senator Wilson protesting in this House about the amount of money that the poor working people in the tenements of Dublin have to pay towards providing the agricultural grant which farmers receive. The people in the slums in the cities and towns of Ireland have to pay taxes on every ounce of tobacco they smoke, on every pint of beer they drink, and on every bit of clothing they wear, so that the farming community may be relieved from paying the full rate that they should pay on agricultural land. We hear protests against the money that is spent out of the rates to prevent the people from starving, but we never hear a word of protest when one million of money is given as a grant-in-aid to the farmers of Ireland to prevent their having to pay the full rates on their land.
Senator Wilson sneered at the proposal of Senator Johnson when he urged the Government to put into practice the policy they have put forward, that of finding employment for the people. Senator Johnson asked the Government to do what they promised to do. He only asked them to do what humanity demands. Every man and woman born into this world has the God-given right to be allowed to earn a livelihood by just and lawful means. The Senator asked the Government to take steps immediately to put into operation the doctrine laid down by every great thinker from the Pope down. It is laid down distinctly that every man and woman has the God-given right to be allowed to earn their bread and not to starve in a land of plenty. This little country is big enough to provide employment for all our people. If some of the present-day patriots were a little more practical, and used Irish materials, they would be doing more to relieve unemployment than by prating from the housetops. That would be real patriotism. What the Government intends to do, I think, is to make the people more patriotic, and I say more power to them—to make those people who are getting their own livelihood in this country give a chance to other people to earn a livelihood here. If they are made use good, wholesome Irish materials it serves them right.
I should like to welcome the President and the Minister for Finance on their first appearance in this House. I am glad that the President found time at the first opportunity since he was appointed to attend. I would also like to express my personal approval of one of the first acts of the Government—with which I entirely and wholeheartedly agree—that is, the decision to have a member of the Cabinet a member of this House. That is a thing which many of us wanted for a long time. I think it is a very wise policy, which will add to the usefulness of this House. Senator Connolly may not perhaps regard as a matter for congratulation the fact that he is called upon to share the arduous tasks that lie before the new Ministry, but he may feel very sure that we are all unfeignedly glad to see him where he is. If this is not one of the occasions on which this House has freedom without responsibility, we have freedom to express our views generally on Government policy, and particularly the financial policy of the Government, without the responsibility of having to vote immediately afterwards. As the Minister for Finance pointed out, it would be clearly unwise and useless to attempt to criticise Government policy on the Estimates, which were not prepared to any extent by the present Government. They give us, as we have seen in the debate, an opportunity of referring to matters which seem to be of immediate urgency.
Senator Johnson referred to the policy of the new Government in certain matters. He very wisely, I think, passed over, so far as details were concerned, two items in their policy which may conceivably affect our relations with our friends on the other side of the Channel. It is not clear to my mind that this is the time when we could profitably discuss the issues directly arising out of the oath and the land annuities. The time will come when these can be profitably and wisely discussed. Senator Johnson went on to emphasise, from his point of view, the importance of dealing with unemployment. While I may not agree with all the methods that Senator Johnson would propose, I do not think anyone will dispute his main contention, that while there are men willing to work who have not got work that must of necessity be one of the most urgent problems to be dealt with by any Government.
The President has made it very clear that in what he described as the limited mandate given him by the country it was his desire to avoid undue friction with Great Britain, and that he desired to live on the friendliest possible terms with Great Britain. I am perfectly certain that he meant that, and that he is absolutely sincere in that desire. I should like to refer to one matter, and I want to make the reference in no spirit of hostility to the Government. I do not want to say anything which might make more difficult for them the adoption of the wisest manner in which they will attempt to achieve those things for which they have received a mandate from the country. There is just the danger that the manner in which the first two items—which we will call political items—on their programme are tackled may seriously affect the third question—that is, employment and trade. One of the things which I do not think there is any remedy for, and which we inevitably suffer from on occasions like this, is the number of very irresponsible Press statements which we get both on this sde of the water and on the other side—statements to the effect that it is only a matter of a week or two until we shall have very bitter relations with Great Britain. This is going to re-act very unfavourably upon us.
These statements, to my mind, do a great deal of harm. I have very definite reasons for believing that they are doing serious harm, and that if they continue to be made for any long period they may do even more serious harm. The principal reason I have risen to-day is to suggest to the President and to the Government that they should take every opportunity to avoid the suggestion which is being made, that, in attempting to deal with these two questions of the oath and the land annuities—which I am not going to discuss now on their merits at all—they propose to adopt methods which will cause serious friction with the Government of Great Britain. What may ultimately result we are notimmidiately concerned with at the moment, but I cannot help feeling that if they could see their way to give us an assurance that before any action of a definite or irrevocable nature was taken an effort would be made to bring about the desired changes by friendly conversation and in the friendliest possible manner—I am by no means convinced that some of this difficulties could not be removed in that way—if they could give us that assurance, a great deal of the uneasiness which exists in the country might be avoided. To give a concrete illustration of what I mean: A manufacturer in the Free State who produces a considerable amount of goods came to see me on Saturday. Obviously, I cannot mention names. He had estimates for a considerable extension of his factory because of the increase of his trade with England. He was proposing to make an extension which would employ a considerable numbers of additional hands, because he believed he would retain that trade. I have no doubt that it is quit possible to make arrangements with England which will be favourable to our manufacturers who are able to do business on good terms with England or any other country. I am equally satisfied that it is the intention of the Government, if possible to make such an arrangement. But because of the statements which appeared in the papers, this manufacturer is afraid to go on. Yesterday, one of the responsible men connected with a firm of which I know something told me that because of the newspaper propaganda in England some of their travellers heard people say: "We cannot give orders to the Free State because they are taking up a hostile attitude to as at present." If it were possible to do anything which would give the impression that whatever policy the Government is going to adopt they will at first try the most peaceful and friendly methods, it would go a long way towards removing the uneasiness that I have referred to. If we are going to increase employment we cannot afford to lose any of our trade. If we are going to have a period of uncertainty as to what will happen extending over six months, with threats of stupid retaliation on the other side, I do think there is grave danger you will have some increase in some directions of unemployment. If possible, that should be avoided. I mention this matter because it is of importance and one to which I think the new Government should give serious consideration.
I should like to ask the Minister a few questions. If he considers them premature, and if he has had no time to consider them, he can say so. I should like to know if the Minister is in a position to make any statement regarding the proposal to set up an Arbitration Board for the Civil Service. Doubtless, when the Minister is considering his Budget, he will be casting about for economies. Some of this will, I presume, fall upon the Civil Service. I think it would be desirable, if and when economies are being suggested, that the Board of Arbitration, of which, I think, the Minister approved during the election, should be in being, so that any grievances which may exist or any potential injustice that may be inflicted can be discussed by what Board. I should like to know also if the Minister is yet in a position to say what the attitude of the Government is towards the proposed reduction in the salaries of the National Teachers and the pay of the Gárda Síochána. To put in mildly, there is considerable unsettlement in these two important bodies of State servants. I think the sooner a definite decision on the part of the Government is taken, and a public statement made regarding these two matters, the better for these two services.
I should like also to know if there is to be any change in regard to income tax. A ripple of expectancy has been created in certain circles by one of the selections made for Parliamentary Secretaryship. Senators will remember that a few years ago a campaign was inaugurated in Cork, which spread as far north as Dublin, for the complete elimination of income tax. The leader of that campaign was the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. Are we to take it that Deputy Hugo Flinn is to be the straw which is to show the way the wind is going to blow? Doubtless, Senator Wilson and other persons like him would welcome a movement for the elimination of income tax, but I doubt if it would be welcomed generally by the country. Needless to say, it would mean the imposition of taxes on necessary commodities.
Senator Wilson made an extraordinary speech from the viewpoint of the farmer. He said: "Cut wages, cut social services, leave the workman without work, but for heaven's sake take off half the tax on petrol." That is an amazing proposition from a farmer. I do not think it represents the views of the farming community. The tax on petrol is going towards the de-rating of agricultural land.
Not the last tax.
It is helping towards it, and taxation of this kind goes towards the reduction of the rates for the upkeep of the roads. Senator Wilson says that we must have luxury transport—transport which is not required at all—to suit a man like himself who owns a lorry and a motor car. And this is to be done at the cost of the social services! Senator Johnson has dealt with the question of unemployment and the President's references thereto. Quite as important as finding employment for those who are without work is the question of keeping in employment those who are at present employed. In that connection, I would draw the President's attention to the parlous state of the railways—the biggest employers outside agriculture in the country. Representations were made on this question to the President prior to the meeting of the Dáil. He was good enough to say that he would have the matter considered by the appropriate Department. I do earnestly urge upon him to have the problem considered quickly by the Department concerned, because unless something is done, and done soon, thousands of men now at work will be thrown out of employment. These men are not even entitled to what Senator Wilson called the "dole." They are not insured. The President and his Government will be faced with the task of dealing with these men, who are not even entitled to unemployment benefit, if something is not done in the near future to remedy the position.
It can be remedied, at all events to a certain extent, by legislation. The last Government failed to do so, but I hope the present Government will tackle the question. Above all, I hope they will not listen to the appeal of Senator Wilson to take off any of the petrol tax. If that were done it would mean the final blow to the railway industry.
There is another matter I wish to refer to. I find that at least one county council has refused to strike a rate on agricultural land in the expectation that we are going to have a scheme of complete agricultural de-rating as a result of the retention of the land annuities. I would suggest to the Government that it is absolutely necessary for a statement to be issued dealing with that. Otherwise we will have the position of some counties levying no rates and others levying rates. That, of course, would lead to a state of financial chaos developing throughout the country. I think in most counties there is an expectation that retention of the land annuities will, from now onwards, mean the immediate and the complete de-rating of agricultural land. There is a strong movement developing in favour of levying no rates at all on agricultural land this year. It seems to me that is a very foolish and premature move. The silence of the Department of Local Government on the matter will, I fear, only help towards the creation of the state of mind and financial chaos to which I have referred. I would suggest to the Government that a statement should be issued immediately in regard to it.
There is one other question I would like to ask: Whether it is intended to make any change in the legislation governing the possession and the carrying of firearms, or whether it is intended to allow that legislation to lapse? I have no reason whatever to assume that the Government intend to allow that legislation to lapse, but there is developing in the minds of certain sections of the community the idea that anybody who so desires can now carry arms without a permit and without the payment of a licence. The development of a state of affairs in which everybody who so desires it can carry a six-shooter in his hip-pocket is not going to be just the sort of condition that will encourage prosperity and a general settlement in the community. I notice that quite recently the Minister for Justice made a speech in the City of Dublin in the course of which he said that all men would stand equal before the law, and that the Government were determined to govern.
I think an assurance from the President to the effect that that will apply in regard to the carrying of arms, just as in regard to all other matters, would have a reassuring and a settling effect upon the people of the country. The first essential to the giving of employment and to the development of prosperity, or even to the maintenance of what we have, is an assurance to the ordinary working man and woman, whose great aspiration is to have frugal comfort and reasonable security, that law and order is going to be maintained in that respect. I make that statement and ask for that assurance because of coming events and of the mischief that is being effected on the other side of the Channel in regard to what may happen because of any looseness in regard to the control of arms in this country. I have every sympathy with the Government in the task they have in hand. I know that they are determined to govern, but a statement from them in regard to these matters may be very welcome now in view of the fact that the other House will not be re-assembling for a month, and that very many things may happen in the interval.
I rise for the purpose of correcting a statement made by Senator O'Farrell in regard to Deputy Hugo Flinn. Deputy Flinn—he was not a Deputy at the time he started an agitation or a discussion in regard to income tax—never advocated the abolition of income tax. What he did advocate was a preferential rate of income tax on incomes derived from investments in Irish securities and in Irish productive work as against incomes derived from moneys invested outside this country. That was the genesis of the discussion which Mr. Flinn raised. I think there is a good deal to be said for giving preferential consideration to incomes which, in their operation, give employment in this country. I also wish to refer to what Senator Johnson said in regard to the flour-milling industry and to the motion dealing with that subject which was moved in the Dáil by Deputy Anthony and seconded by Deputy Hugo Flinn a year or two ago. That motion, as a matter of fact, arose out of a discussion which took place at a meeting of the Cork Industrial Development Association, a discussion that quite exhaustively canvassed the possibilities of what could be done. I had an opportunity of seeing in draft the document referred to before it was submitted to the Dáil. It seemed to me to be a very practical and a very water-tight scheme. I join with Senator Johnson in commending it to the immediate attention of the Minister responsible, with a view to his taking care that no further mills will be closed down in this country.
Senator Wilson referred to the proposal with regard to necessitous widows and children. Arising out of what he said, I just wish to make a few observations. I agree with the Senator that this is a difficult time to add anything to the cost of social services. The proposal to deal with this question is long overdue. Such a measure has long been pleaded for by people who deal with widows and children. It is nearly time that something was done to meet their needs. Senator Wilson may not be aware that the present method of providing for these children is more expensive than any proposed scheme could ever be. Year after year I have called attention here to the enormous amount of money spent on the maintenance of children in industrial schools. Very many of them are the children of necessitous widows. When the breadwinner of a family dies there is nothing, as those who deal with the poor in Dublin know, for the children except to send them to the industrial schools. For ten or more years a rate of 12s. 6d. per week has been paid for their maintenance in industrial schools. I think that under any scheme that may be introduced here 12s. 6d. a week would not be the rate for the child of a necessitous widow.
I am very glad to learn that this measure is proposed. I belong to organisations that have been pleading for such a measure for many years indeed. When the new State was set up, we who had been in the Dublin Corporation thought that we could get the money direct for the mother. Of course, we realised then, as we realise now, that the State must provide for orphans. I hope that when Senator Wilson thinks over what I have stated he will not be so disturbed as he is at present.
I would like to make a few remarks on the various points raised without in any way wishing to anticipate the statements that we hope to have both from the President of the Executive Council and the Minister for Finance. We were very much interested, as we always are, in hearing Senator Johnson's statement, in listening to the enumeration of the various points he made in regard to social policy. I think I can speak for the Government and reassure him right away that such statements as we have made during the recent campaign, and such arguments as we have been putting forward for many years in Fianna Fáil, were not meant as election propaganda; nor were they meant in any way to catch votes. They are the result of the considered opinion of the best minds in the Party and the considered judgment of the Party. We are not interested in propaganda value. We are interested in seeing that this country does get on to the basis of living up to the principles which we have consistently laid down in our programme. I for one would hope that immediately we are found to be running away from the principles of our fundamental policy the country will take the first opportunity of ejecting us from office and putting somebody else in our place.
Everybody in the Oireachtas and in the country will, I think, realise the very difficult position we are facing. Everybody will realise that in many cases we are inheriting an entirely different system to what we hope to put in force, but we would like them also to realise that with the goodwill and the co-operation of the Oireachtas and the co-operation of the people of the country there is no fundamental reason why every item of our programme and every line of our social policy cannot be carried out. It is our intention to carry out as quickly as possible, and in as full detail as possible, all the lines of policy that have been so clearly defined during the last few months and during the entire time that Fianna Fáil has been in existence. The Seanad will realise that these matters cannot be carried overnight. The machinery for operation cannot be created overnight. Many investigations will have to be made which will require a considerable amount of time and patience, but it is our definite line of action to get busy at once—we are already busy—and not lose a day until we see the social evils as well as the national evils eliminated from the body politic. We have to remember, too, that in addition to our internal problems we are going through a very peculiar phase of world economic upheaval. This superimposition on our existing evils will add to our difficulties. Here again we may have to make very radical changes on the whole basis of our economic structure to effect those changes that we feel are desirable for the community.
There is a certain idea that the Government will face up to its unemployment problem with a purely protective policy. I think that it may be taken that the tariff policy is only one line of action in our programme. There are many objections to tariffs, just as many arguments could be used in their favour, but a tariff policy alone is not going to solve the economic or social difficulties of this State. It has been said elsewhere that a purely tariff policy is a double-edged weapon, and it is so. Tariffs will be necessary and will be used, but let it not be understood that tariffs are going to be used to enable the populace to be exploited in the interest of certain greedy manufacturers and at the expense of the community purely with the idea of giving immediate employment. I think I can promise on behalf of the Ministry that every aspect of every problem will be intelligently analysed, and in so far as we have got human intelligence and a decent national outlook, these problems will be faced up to in that spirit.
Senator Johnson referred, and wisely referred I think, to what was needed to carry out our programme, namely, enthusiasm and the determination to do it. I feel we are going to get that enthusiasm. I feel we are going to get it as no Government has got it since 1918, and I believe that the enthusiasm and determination of the people are going to be a factor on which we can count. If that factor is present with us in our work we will succeed. If it is thwarted by other opposing forces, if it is not available for us, I doubt very much if we will succeed. I would point out to very many elements in this country that it is their duty, a duty which they have neglected, to encourage that spirit of enthusiasm and national outlook. We will not tolerate any thwarting of that outlook, and we will insist that the national need, both in national aspirations and national economics, will prevail against all else.
Senator Johnson referred to the flour-milling industry, and he mentioned that it had been debated and discussed in the Press and in the Dáil. I am surprised that he ignored the fact that the flour-milling business had been discussed at great length in the Seanad, and the late Minister for Industry and Commerce, in dealing with it, stated and repeated that he had his eye on the situation or that he knew what was going on. That was the most we could get from the Minister for Industry and Commerce then. We gave him the economics of the situation at the time. We gave him the figures at the time. We analysed completely in cwts. the imports of wheat and the imports of flour, and we dealt in detail with this menace, which he allowed to grow up, and with which we are now faced as an inheritance from his Department.
I would like to remind the House of one thing that was done on that occasion. I personally stressed one warning at that time to the firm of Rank. It was this: that sooner or later another Government would come into power, and that Messrs. Rank should realise that, whatever they were doing, they were doing with their eyes open, and that they would have to abide by the results if a change of Government took place. It is not for me to say at this moment what the attitude of the Minister for Industry and Commerce will be, but I want the House clearly to understand that, at the time of the discussion of the flour-milling problem, Ranks were clearly warned that it was their job, and that they were carrying out their programme at their own risk. Senator Johnson spoke of the combination that exists. I think at the time it was disclosed in the debates that the big English milling combination consisted of Messrs. Rank, Spillers and Baker, and the Co-operative Wholesale. Another very important thing stressed in that debate was that the late Minister for Industry and Commerce spoke, I will not say sneeringly, but certainly not in any sympathetic spirit, of the hopeless inefficiency of the Irish mills. I had occasion to remind him that the inefficient Irish mills had not lost so much as the English combine, which, according to the flour-milling technical paper, had lost five millions in the previous year.
On this question of efficiency we are on a matter that the Oireachtas and the people generally will have to face up to. There is the efficiency of Ford and the efficiency of the mass producing factory, that efficiency that creates so many thousand units of a product in a day and leaves so many thousands of its employees unemployed for four or six months of the year. I want the House to realise that this efficiency, this Fordisation, if I may call it so, of industry is not going to be the ideal that we in this Government are going to aim at. We hope to aim at decentralisation of industry, at widespread and far-flung industry, to give employment in the different areas in the country. I, personally, would prefer to see 300 factories consisting of units of from 40 to 50, producing at ten per cent. more cost than to see one mass production factory along the quays in Dublin.
Hear, hear.
I think that would make for a more happy and contented people—that setting up of a decentralised policy. Senator Wilson was quite interesting to me to-day. I think it would be taking an unfair advantage and lacking a sense of humour if I took him too seriously. There are certain obvious things that I could say to him with regard to his attitude on previous Bills such as this. I was interested in his analysis of the petrol position, and it was somewhat encouraging to me, notwithstanding that I am a rabid teetotaller, to hear his views about Guinness's porter. I am sure the pulse of the Minister for Finance beat one faster when he heard them. Senator Wilson appears to me to be somewhat confused in his ideas as a taxpayer and a ratepayer. I can see certain differences or certain distinctions without a difference, but it seems to me that the Senator is more anxious to operate one account in his ledger successfully irrespective of the other. That is merely a point in passing.
I was glad to hear Senator Mrs. Wyse-Power refer to the widows' and orphans' pensions. I think I am not anticipating the Minister for Finance when I state that that matter has already been considered and is under way, and that the terms of reference and so on of the Committee are being drafted at present. Senator Douglas raised certain points that I do not propose to deal with now. I think on the whole that perhaps it would be much better if these points had not been raised at this stage. The Senator referred to the possibility of Irish manufacturers or of the travellers for Irish manufacturers in England meeting with a certain hesitancy, if not a refusal, of orders in England. Well, of course that might happen. Newspaper propaganda does a lot. I might suggest for a moment that there are very many more English travellers coming to Ireland than Irish travellers going to England, and that in the sale of commodities we are somewhat on the wrong side. Such an attitude of mind as the Senator mentions as illustrating the mentality of the English buyer is the sort of thing that might have its obvious reaction in the attitude to be taken up by the Irish buyer to the English traveller. I will leave it at that. I am quite sure that the other points which have been raised will be fully dealt with by the Minister for Finance and by the President of the Executive Council himself.
Is the debate to conclude when the President and the Minister have spoken?
Cathaoirleach
I will call on the Minister to conclude at the appropriate time, and after that no Senator must speak.
Does that mean that when we have heard the Minister's or the President's statement of policy we will be precluded from speaking? The discussion has been in the air; it has been on nothing in particular; we have had everything in general, but now it appears that when these statements of policy are made we will have no opportunity of discussing or criticising them. Is that the position?
Cathaoirleach
That is undoubtedly the position. The Senator can ask anything he desires to ask now, and the Minister and the President, if they so desire, can answer him.
I think it is only right to this House that if a statement of policy is going to be made it should be made at such time as will enable the Senators listening to it to discuss it and to discuss it adequately. If such an opportunity is not now afforded, I suggest that these statements be deferred until such time as that opportunity would be available.
Cathaoirleach
I would like to point out to the Senator that we are discussing the Central Fund Bill, which is an allocation of funds for carrying on the services. So far as any portion of the debate is relevant to the expenditure of even one farthing of this money I will allow the discussion, but any question of policy which does not affect the Central Fund Bill will be ruled out of order. If there is any question arising out of anything in connection with this expenditure I will allow the Senator to ask that question, but if there are questions that do not arise under the Bill I will ask Senators to desist. On any of these questions the Ministers may answer if they so desire, but I cannot compel them. I am bound by our Standing Orders. I have informed Senators that they can ask questions and make speeches and statements now, but when I call upon the Minister to conclude the debate, the debate closes and I cannot allow it to be re-opened.
This is the Second Reading debate?
Cathaoirleach
Yes.
Are there any further stages of the Bill on which Senators will be allowed to speak?
Cathaoirleach
Certainly.
No matter what is happening on this stage of the Bill we can debate it on the other stages— there will be plenty of opportunities if we obey your ruling?
Cathaoirleach
Certainly.
I may take it that if the Ministers wind up this discussion we will have an opportunity at a later stage to discuss the matter of policy?
Cathaoirleach
I would not like to be bound by any solemn expression of opinion. Senators will be confined afterwards to the specific sections of the Bill as it stands. Senators might be able, with a little dexterity, to read into it certain views which might be adumbrated or considered.
I want to get to the question of procedure.
Cathaoirleach
I have explained the procedure. Does the Senator wish to make a speech?
No, I want to get the procedure. Are we to be deprived at this stage of speaking after the Minister?
Cathaoirleach
Senators will certainly be deprived on this stage of the Bill.
On the next stage?
Cathaoirleach
Well, perhaps we will see when that time comes.
I am very glad to have this opportunity of addressing the House. Most of the questions that have been raised by Senators have been already dealt with by Senator Connolly. Perhaps, however, I might give my own views on some of those points even though it is by way of repetition. To start with, Senator Johnson spoke of our attitude towards unemployment, and he pointed out, quite rightly, that it means in fact a revolution, a peaceful revolution. But is it not very extraordinary that the mere application of what we might call Christian principles should be regarded as a revolution? It simply means that we have been living to a large extent in a pagan society up to the present—that we have developed into what is in effect a pagan society. There is nothing new so far as we are concerned in our attitude towards unemployment or towards these social problems. One of the Senators suggested that we all sprang from the same stock—that we all sprang from Sinn Féin and from the principles that were enunciated at the first meeting of Dáil Éireann. So far as I am concerned I believed in these principles when they were enunciated. I still believe in them, and I am very happy now in believing that I have an opportunity of trying to put them into practice. How far we will be able to succeed in that is, of course, a question for the future.
I can, however, assure those who are interested in the matter that, whilst I foresee that there will be very great obstacles in our way, we will not run away from these obstacles, and that if they can be surmounted with effort and goodwill, they will be surmounted. I know that they cannot be surmounted if we have not that enthusiasm to which Senator Connolly referred, to fall back upon. I believe we have that enthusiasm amongst our people. In fact, the whole of our policy is based on confidence in the Irish people and a belief in their inherent Christianity and in their inherent sense of fair play to their brothers. There was a statement made by James Connolly, not altogether representing my view, but it is a statement that has ever been before my mind. He said that Ireland, apart from its people, was nothing. I for one, whilst I know there is a wider sense in which Ireland is used, have never dissociated the needs of the people of this country, the daily lives of our people, from Ireland as I understand it. Therefore, so far as we are concerned, we mean to keep ourselves close to the daily needs and the daily lives of our people.
Sacrifices will be demanded from those who are in the position to bear those sacrifices. I think it is only fair, if they are not prepared to bear them now, that they should realise that in the crumbling state of the present system they will be called upon to bear them in a worse way later on. We propose to anticipate the destructive character of a revolution of that sort by constructive effort now, taken in advance and with a knowledge of the full facts of the situation. We think we will be supported by our people in that. We know all this cannot be done overnight. We know how hard it will be during the period of re-adjustment to prevent suffering of another character being brought about as the result of the changes that we may have to make in order to prevent suffering in certain directions. We are aware of that, but we are going to do everything we possibly can to prevent it.
It is suggested there may be unemployment in other directions because of our efforts to end unemployment in certain directions. We have to foresee that and to do our utmost in order that it will not happen. We face the situation as, in effect, revolution. We are aware that the efforts that would be made by people deliberately facing such a situation will have to be made by us.
With regard to the question of external affairs, our attitude towards the people in a neighbouring country should be clear. I have explained it so often that I am almost afraid of its being suggested that I am protesting too much when I say that the attitude of our people towards the people in the neighbouring island is that of friendliness. We are anxious about the welfare of our own people as brothers. We are anxious about the welfare of the people in the neighbouring island, too, and the people in other countries throughout the world. Our attitude towards the people in the neighbouring island is one of good will. We do not want to have any bitterness such as has been referred to. We want to avoid any differences that can be avoided, but we have a duty towards our own people, and that duty we are going to perform. We do not want to do anything that would be regarded as of a hostile character towards the people in the neighbouring island; far from it.
Our attitude has always been this: we want to live on the friendliest terms with them. As a first step towards that we want to remove the very things that have prevented normal relations between these two countries. We have never been the aggressors as far as England is concerned—never, not once. We have been simply trying to maintain our own rights, and that is our position to-day.
With regard to the Oath, we have got a mandate from our people, and that mandate we intend to carry out. We asked our people deliberately to give it to us. During the lifetime of the former Government, we tried to make use of the Referendum in order to get that mandate, and we were prevented. I believe we would have got the mandate at that time. Now an overwhelming majority of the people want to remove the obstacle to permanent peace here.
There is nothing more precious to us than peace amongst our own people. The essential of that peace is the removal of the test which excludes from our Parliamentary assemblies a certain section of the people. This is nothing new. There are Senators facing me who know that this is nothing new so far as I am concerned. They know that at the end of the civil war, when our efforts to maintain the State that was established democratically by the votes of the people proved a failure, we were anxious to get back to stable conditions and to find the basis of stable conditions. I made proposals, which represent our policy to-day, to the effect that it should be possible for all sections of the people to send their representatives without any test where the people's representatives assemble; they should be all free to come there. I proposed that it should be accepted by them that under those conditions there should be one ruling authority, and that should be the authority of the people's representatives assembled in Parliament.
We accepted that for the whole Republican organisation at the time. I am confident that the whole Republican organisation throughout the country is going to accept that to-day. These proposals were made, and these advances were offered by me when I was quite on the other side, when I represented the Republican forces outside. I made that offer to the Government of the day, and that offer was turned down. Now we are the Government of the day, and we are prepared to make that offer again, and we believe that that offer will be accepted.
Senator O'Farrell asked whether anybody can carry a gun in his pocket to-day, and whether all the Arms Acts and so on have been abrogated. I am sure the Senator knows well that nothing of the kind has actually taken place. We have taken away abnormal law. So far, we have been living so much in abnormality that the mere getting back to normality has been regarded just the same as in the case of the attitude towards social problems. Getting back to normality has been regarded as a revolution. The mere fact of getting back to conditions which obtain in most countries has so affected our people that they think all the bonds of society have been loosed—a most ridiculous and absurd state of mind.
We have had peace here since the elections, since the new Government was formed. We have had a more solid peace than any peace that could have been got by coercion, and we are going to have that kind of peace because we know what are the sentiments of the Irish people. We have fought for a realisation of these sentiments. We know what they are, and we believe that in allowing those sentiments their natural play we will get real peace in this country, the sort of peace you could never get otherwise.
Nothing has been done so far, with the exception of the suspension of that abnormal law, that fierce coercion law. All the other laws are there. The Government has full powers, powers far and above anything they might need or have to use in order to deal with any situation that conceivably could ever arise. That is our attitude. We are depending upon the good sense, the good will, the loyalty and the patriotism of our people, both on the political side and on the economic side. If we fail, we will fail at least after having tried to deal with human nature from the right point of view.
As regards Britain, I have said that our attitude is one of friendliness. We have got a certain mandate and we propose to go on with that mandate. We are asked why do we not begin negotiations. Our position is that this is purely a domestic question. We have been told time after time that we are free in this country. What do we want our freedom for if it does not permit us to take the measures that will give us internal peace?
If representations are made to us, we are prepared to meet these representations. We feel, however, that it would be quite absurd for us, seeing that we are determined, no matter what happens, to carry out our mandate, to make representations such as have been suggested. Nothing could come of these representations. We are determined to carry out our mandate as a necessity for our internal peace. We have gone to our people and they have given us a mandate, and if there is anything like freedom in this country, that mandate will have to be respected, not merely at home, but by other countries.
As regards the land annuities, we have explained our position in that respect, too. I simply repeat what Senator Connolly has said, that our statements made during the election campaign were pledges to the people. They were not simply intended as election propaganda. They were serious statements, carefully considered, and, with God's help, we intend to act up to them.
I do not propose unduly to extend these proceedings, and, with the permission of the House, having heard the President's statement, I would ask that the Second Stage of the Bill be taken now. On the later Stages, I shall deal with the various points relating to finance, purely and simply, which have been raised by Senators.