Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Jul 1933

Vol. 17 No. 3

Public Business. - Finance Bill, 1933 (Certified Money Bill)—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Sir John Keane

The Second Reading of the Finance Bill is really the only occasion on which this House has an opportunity to review broadly the financial position of the country, and the financial policy of the Government. It has always been the custom, and I hope I shall be allowed a similar indulgence on the present occasion, to cover rather a wider field, possibly, than would be permitted if we had all the financial powers and all the details of finance before us that the Dáil has. First of all, I wish to refer to the great difficulties that beset any investigation of our financial position. We have, as material, a document which is, perhaps, necessarily condensed and known as "A White Paper." It contains the "Estimates of Receipts and Expenditure." Under Article 54 of the Constitution this document should be laid on the Table before the end of the financial year. I think that has been the practice heretofore, but this year I notice that it was not laid on the Table until the 10th May, almost on the eve of the Minister's Budget speech. That is not necessarily much inconvenience to this House, but I do think all of us here and elsewhere should have as much time as possible to study the financial position which is so very complicated.

Under "Estimate of Expenditure" which appears as the second item on page 3 of the White Paper, I find in the second column the heading "Actual Expenditure 1932-33." The expenditure is set out in detail. On page 5 there is given "Total Estimate of Expenditure for 1932-33." The total of that estimate is the same as the total of the item headed "Actual Expenditure" as regards "B.— Supply Services." On the face of it, these two descriptions are in conflict. Which is correct? I am assuming that "Total Estimate of Expenditure," agreeing as it does with the heading "Actual Expenditure" is the actual expenditure. I would also ask Senators to look at Vote No. 16 in which the actual expenditure for 1932-33 on "superannuation and retired allowances" is set out at £1,653,245. I want to know from the Minister was that money actually spent? I thought that it represented some of the moneys in dispute, representing the pensions of the old R.I.C. I thought it was not paid over to the British Government, and yet on the face of the document it appears to have been spent, and it does not appear as a receipt in any other place. It does not appear to form part in any way of the budgetary items. I also notice that in the Minister's Budget speech he said that the sum of £400,000 would be necessary for special relief, and yet in the "Details of the Estimate of Expenditure" in the White Paper the sum of £150,00 only is set out.

I presume there was not time to include this higher figure, but I am sure the Minister will agree that it is desirable, if possible, to have this document, which only appears at the last moment, as up to date as possible. An aid in examining these figures is the document known as the Finance Accounts. Under the 17th and 18th Vic., these accounts are to be laid on the Table of the Parliament by the end of June. I suggest that it is very important they should be in the hands of members as soon as possible. I find that, for some years past, it has been the habit to default considerably as regards the period. I raised the question with the Minister for Finance two years ago and he told me the accounts had been laid in dummy. I find that they have been laid in dummy again this year. That is to say, that on the Table there is merely the title page. It is interesting to examine the implications of the procedure of laying in dummy, because, after all, if that is adopted as a practice by the State, why should it not also be permitted to citizens? I do not suppose that the Minister for Finance would be pleased if I proposed to pay my income tax in dummy. To extend the practice, we might have certain of these set speeches and stereotyped interjections replaced by mechanical process in the House. I do think that it is very necessary for the Government to abide by the law just as they expect citizens so to do. In this case we are very much hampered in the transition period in examining the financial position by the absence of the accounts for the last financial year.

An item which is very difficult to follow is that of local loans. The Estimate in respect of local loans has been increased this year by the large amount of £1,000,000, making £2,000,000. This is an item which is merely a sort of vote-on-account. It represents in no way the net figure. It sets out in no way the receipts in respect of loan payments coming in every year. It is merely the result of certain transactions which I cannot discover anywhere. I searched the Reports of the Local Government Department, which, incidentally, are rather belated. The latest Report for the Local Government Department is for the year 1931. The Land Commission is more prompt. Their Report for 1932 has been published. Portion of these loan transactions is set out in the Report of the Local Government Department. Other loan transactions are set out in the Report of the Public Works Department and, I believe, others are contained in the Report of the Land Commission. I suggest to the Minister that, in view of the growing magnitude of local loans, he should consider consolidating the whole of the operations in respect of these loans in one account, preferably directly under the Department of Finance. To scatter them about in the form of memoranda accounts in different Departments is very confusing and does not give anybody interested in these matters the information they have a right to expect.

I pass now to the rather bigger question which the Minister dealt with in his speech—national indebtedness. In his speech the Minister referred to our present indebtedness—about £38,000,000 gross. That does not, of course, take into account any set-off for reproductive assets. In the Finance Accounts of 1931-32—the latest accounts available—that indebtedness is shown at a standard figure of £31,000,000. I suppose that figure has not appreciably diminished since 1931-32. There is, however, a very substantial figure— £12,000,000—now to be added. That is in respect of the 4½ per cent. land bonds. Hitherto land bonds had only to be shown as a contingent liability. That position could, perhaps, be sustained inasmuch as the land bonds were financed out of the annuities. Now that half the annuities have been definitely abandoned, one half of these land bonds cease to be a contingent liability and become a direct liability. To that extent, our national indebtedness must be increased. On the basis of the figures which I have before me, our national indebtedness must stand now in the region of £43,000,000. That is adding half of the issue of land bonds up to 1932. As a matter of fact, I imagine the issue of land bonds now is somewhat greater and that we should add somewhere about £15,000,000 to our direct indebtedness.

With regard to assets, I should, like to know from the Minister whether it is the custom to examine closely the realisable value of the assets set out in the Finance Accounts—for instance, whether the Minister considers that all the local loans are good in view of the increasing burden on the local councils; whether the item of £463,000—I am now quoting from the 1931-32 Finance Accounts—in respect of creameries is good; whether this item —it may have disappeared since—of £50,000 in respect of the Industrial Trust Company is good. I should also like to know from the Minister why there is not included in these accounts an asset in respect of the equalisation account for savings certificates. There was set up some years ago a definite fund which was ear-marked for the payment of interest on savings certificates. On page 30 of the Finance Accounts details of that amount are set out. I should have thought that that was an asset and that it would have been definitely included as an asset in Account No. 26.

In referring to the relief that the State has gained by its recent action in withholding annuities and pensions, the Minister mentioned the very large and rather startling sum of £92,000,000 as the gain to the State by Government policy. I am not saying whether or not that figure is correct—whether it is the ultimate value of these annuities, which have to run for a number of years, and these pensions which, of course, are a wasting asset. From the point of view of actuarial calculation, the figure may be right, but we have to look at it from the point of view of relief to the Exchequer. Some of these moneys which have been written off from the Budgetary point of view and which have passed into the hands of the annuitants we may, I think, regard as a loss from the Exchequer point of view. I do not think that the Minister would suggest that these remissions are increasing the taxable capacity of those who benefit from them—that the farmer who now pays only half his annuities is any more fertile a source of revenue than he was before he gained these remissions. Looking at the matter from the point of view of relief to the Exchequer, this appears to be the position: revenue gains about £1,000,000 by non-payment of pensions, and about £1,500,000 by non-payment of annuities, representing a total of about £2,700,000. From that has to be deducted the annuities remitted in land bonds, because these are a dead loss to the State. Actually, the benefit to revenue of the whole transaction appears to be somewhere in the region of £2,000,000—a very different figure, when looked at in that way, from the £92,000,000 which the country is supposed to have benefited. Against that, there is certainly some loss in moral values. As regards the material set-off, I think it is within our knowledge that, whatever the direct gain may have been, the farming community has suffered by the reactions of the whole transaction. I see Senator Quirke's eye upon me and he will, no doubt, tell me that we cannot have any debate here without dragging in the economic war. So, I will leave it at that.

Mr. Quirke

That is not what brought my eye upon Senator Sir John Keane. What brought my attention to the Senator was the fact that he was trying to convince us that the attitude of the Government in reducing the annuities on agricultural land by half did not affect the farmer in any way. I suggest that whatever land Senator Sir John Keane has has gone up in value as a result of that remission. His land would be valued at a much greater price now than it would have been before that action was taken by the Government.

Sir John Keane

As the Senator has referred to me personally, may I say that I do not feel that my power to bear increased taxation has in any way increased because of the fact that I have had a small remission of my annuities. That would be the opinion of most farmers. It will be noticed that under "Miscellaneous Revenue" a large sum has been taken to credit. The Minister has said that, of that sum, nearly £3,000,000 is on account of the land annuities. Could the Minister tell us up to what date the Land Commission annuities have been handed over and whether that £3,000,000, now coming into Miscellaneous Revenue, represents the total amount to the credit of the Land Purchase Fund at the date of transfer.

I notice a curious transaction which the Minister referred to himself. Of the £3,000,000, land annuities, transferred to Miscellaneous Revenue, £1,600,000 was taken from the Guarantee Fund. That suggests that this sum of £3,000,000 was not all land annuities but was made up, to the extent of over £1,000,000 by the Guarantee Fund taking the place of unpaid annuities. Annuities were not paid. Under the law, the Guarantee Fund had to make good the default and the Guarantee Fund, as the accounts show, did pay into the Land Purchase Fund and, ultimately, into Miscellaneous Revenue £1,600,000. Can the Minister tell us the future position of this Guarantee Fund— whether he proposes to continue it under what remains of this land purchase transaction; whether it will continue in respect of the moiety of annuities to be paid in future and whether it will continue in respect of annuities in both pre-Treaty and post-Treaty categories. I would ask the Minister seriously to consider how unfair the whole position of this Guarantee Fund is in regard to local finances, how utterly unfair it is to make deductions from the Agricultural Grant on account of annuities which the local authorities have no power to collect themselves. The present position, of course, is inherited from the period when these deductions were made as a form of security by an outside power. Conditions since we obtained our own Government are totally different and a reform of the system is long overdue.

I turn now to the item of income tax. I notice that the Minister is very informative in his speech in regard to the position of income tax. He budgets for less income tax for the current year and from a reference in a speech on another Bill, I gather that he is of the opinion that we have reached the limit of the income taxpayers' capacity, that if we impose any more taxation we pass into the region of diminishing returns. In his speech on the Public Services (Temporary Economies) Bill he said there was no chance of getting any more out of income tax. That is a serious matter, affecting generally the whole elasticity and the buoyancy of our financial position. A good deal of capital has been made and a good deal of debate has centred round the question of excess profits duty and the Government have been accused of being unduly harsh in the action that they are now taking to recover excess profits that arose 15 or 16 years ago. I think the Minister might tell us to what extent pressure was relaxed in that regard by the present Government or by its predecessors. If pressure has been continuous I do not think much hardship could arise but, if for a lengthy period the matter had been allowed to lie dormant and people had been led to believe that it has been forgotten, a pre-Treaty transaction—at one period we know that people were practically told not to pay income tax—those who are now being pressed have a justifiable sense of grievance. There has in recent years been a big change in the value of money. These excess profits were made at a time when prices were high, when trade was good and it is vary hard on these people unless they have been defaulting all the time, to press them to pay all the arrears now.

I now come to the question of the Budget deficiency and balance. The deficiency, as the Minister said in his speech this year, works out at the alarming figure of £5,000,000 on a total Budget, including all items, of £35,000,000. There is a deficiency in the actual tax and non-tax revenue of £5,000,000 in about £26,000,000. I suggest that a deficiency of some 20 or 25 per cent. is a rather big item. The Minister takes 16 pages in his speech in leading up to the deficiency and he disposes of that deficiency in the short space of four pages. I must say that I had to admire the facility, the financial wizardry almost and the dexterity with which the Minister disposed of that very substantial item. Incidentally, I would ask whether that is really the whole deficit.

The Minister does not appear to have made provision for certain moneys that will be required, as far as one can see, under the new scheme for industrial credit. Now we come to the manner, a very important aspect of the problem, in which that balance is effected. We have first of all an item for over-estimation. That has been a continuous item ever since we have had our own Government. What puzzles one is why the estimation is always over. In ordinary life we sometimes estimate over and we sometimes estimate short. Always to estimate over is to suggest that there is some looseness or lack of close scrutiny in the preparation of the Estimates. I do not think that that practice of over-estimation prevails in other countries. I may be wrong, but it seems to be an entirely peculiar quality of our own. With one's knowledge of these matters, I cannot see how it can be a continuing item always, a sort of nest-egg on which successive Ministers can draw. Then there is a surplus. Of course that is naturally a proper item to help either to relieve taxation or to meet increased expenditure. Then there are the "cuts," of which we shall have sufficient at another time. There is a negligible amount of fresh taxation and there is also what I think is the somewhat anxious and dubious element of borrowing.

This borrowing is a growing practice, and I would suggest, although I do not want to be too doctrinaire about it, that it is a practice that requires to be approached with great caution. There is a great element of danger in it. It is a practice that becomes very insinuating, that holds out a great temptation to successive Ministers to lean more and more on, and that tends to weaken the austerity and the hardness that I think sound Finance Ministers should adopt. It was no doubt justified when it was begun. It was justified in abnormal times when there were heavy civil war losses, but as time has gone on it is a practice that I think should have been brought under much stricter control. I am going to suggest that perhaps the time has now come, if it is not overdue, when we should definitely force ourselves to examine it in a more critical spirit. This year there are certain elements of borrowing which perhaps nobody can question. There is borrowing for property losses and for the repayment of the Dáil Eireann Loan. Even there you might ask why have not the repayments of that Dáil Eireann Loan been provided out of some Sinking Fund? There is borrowing for the Barrow drainage, borrowing which I think in view of the practice previously observed, is legitimate. Then we come to the borrowing of £1,200,000 for bounties, half the figure we propose to pay on the bounty.

The Minister in his speech says that that borrowing is justified by certain assets that have been created. I hope the Minister will be more precise on that because personally I cannot see what free assets have been created. Does he suggest that the remission of the annuities represents an increased taxable capacity which justifies this borrowing? Does he suggest that half the annuities which are going into the Exchequer, and more than which is being spent in the Budget, represents an asset on which to borrow? Personally I think it is a very dubious item. It is an unsound element in our Budgetary finance. How are we to get to grips with this question, this annual borrowing, this serious element that comes into our Budget? It is an element that without certain justification, is dangerous on the face of it, one of which we should be very suspicious, one which tends to increase and towards which we should be very vigilant.

I would suggest to the Minister seriously to consult his officials as to the desirability of definitely dividing his Budget into two parts, that he should have a capital Budget and a revenue Budget and that he should take them at different times, in two separate, one might almost say, watertight sections. Let him introduce his capital Budget and justify the items in it and let him at another time take his revenue Budget, set it out and balance it. I do not believe, unless he does something of that kind, that he will ever allay the uneasy feeling that people have that there is an element of unsound manipulation in the balancing of our Budget. I make that suggestion to him in a helpful spirit. Let him justify our capital expenditure and the capital borrowing which it would involve, and keep that separated and in different documents in every way, from the purely recurrent revenue items. I can see no administrative difficulty except of course certain inconvenience. I know how unpleasant inconvenience in these matters can be to the administrative sections. Only however by the methods which I have indicated shall we ever be able to visualise our Budget and keep a check on this very dangerous element in finance.

In my closing remarks, I wish to refer to what, I feel, seemed—it is only a point of view—the rather undue and unwarranted optimism of the Minister towards our general financial condition at present and in the future. We have to note that on the figures before us we have a decline in the region of four millions in revenue taxation and an increase in expenditure of two millions. There is a gap there of six millions. In spite of that, the Minister seems to be quite happy, quite light-hearted and quite satisfied. We do not want him to be a doleful pessimist or to say that things are not as good as he naturally would wish them to be but in his opening speech he refers to a substantial reduction in the volume of unemployment. I do not know what figures there are to justify that statement. There may be a slight reduction in unemployment in the cities, but what about the terrible position of people who are dependent on agriculture? He refers to increased bank clearances. There have been increased bank clearances but there has been a lot of money from the sweepstakes passing through the banks in recent years which would explain a certain amount of the increase. He says that the sufferings in certain directions have been more than compensated for by the extraordinary expansion in our domestic commerce. That there are sufferings is undoubted. There has been a shrinkage in our trade of about one-third. The expansion in our domestic commerce may be capable of proof by figures but I do not think it has been felt by those living in the country. If you talk to shopkeepers or people engaged in our basic industry, they will tell you that there is a state of stagnation. There has been a fillip given by tariffs to certain industries in towns, but I do not think that the description of "an extraordinary expansion in our domestic commerce" is really warranted by the facts. It is only a straw which shows the way his mind works and I am rather concerned as to the relative values the Minister seemed to place on expenditure and revenue. He seems rather to exalt expenditure and not to have such regard to economy.

For instance, he says, in his Budget speech, that the Government will consider most sympathetically any suggestions that are made that will improve the conditions of our people and will not reject them on the narrow ground of expense. I do not feel that, from a Finance Minister, the phrase "the narrow ground of expense" quite reveals the conservative state of mind that we expect. I can understand people in the country, who are not in responsible positions, wanting money spent for everything. I may be old-fashioned, or brought up in contact with old-fashioned beliefs, but I think that the best way to save money is not to spend it and I rather lean to the old-fashioned Minister for Finance who had to be bally-ragged into giving money. Instead of that, this year, we have the Minister seeming to indicate that there will be money for everything and that on a decreasing revenue. At the same time, his state of mind is also revealed in his statement: "I have now to consider the not less important side of the account" that is, where the money is to come from. I suggest that the bias is wrong and that is why I am rather alarmed when I see all these grand schemes being put forward by a Government that came in pledged to economy and all these schemes by which the Government is going to go into business where, if the public will not subscribe, the Government will step in and will not be deterred on the narrow ground of expense, while the person that we rather look on as the guardian of the public purse appears to be quite happy and light-hearted. I know that it can be argued that efficient Governments can spend money and that the State can do things as well as individuals but I cannot see that that is borne out by experience. I feel that what the public should expect, in regard to central finance and in regard to those who have control of our financial policy, is the old-fashioned, conservative caution and we should not, even if our debt is small, which I admit it is, rather encourage the spirit that it is a good thing to borrow more and to spend more. I should rather see your borrowing determined on the elasticity and buoyancy of your revenue and where the revenue is, on the Government Estimates, declining, that is the time not to borrow but rather to shorten the purse strings and let what money is wanted be found by the people and not by the State. It is for that reason that I have dealt with this subject at rather undue length and I hope the House will forgive me.

Mr. Crosbie

I do not propose, after the very searching inquiry into the figures made by Senator Sir John Keane, to deal in detail with this measure. There is just the one fact staring out from it and it is that, in the course of 12 months, a sum varying between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000 has been lost to the State. We are, every day, getting reminders that there is an economic war on, and it is because of that economic war that this money has been lost. Fortunately for the followers of the Government, they do not seem to have felt the effect of this war. There is a Providence, apparently, that looks after them and the burden has only fallen on those who are in Opposition. We, of course, congratulate the Fianna Fáil farmers and business people who have felt none of the ill-effects of the loss of this £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, but I think they will excuse us if we deny that the economic war is a joke. It is a very grim joke for a lot of us and we have seen the effect of it in all our business.

Mr. Wilson

You are only beginning to feel it.

Mr. Crosbie

We are only beginning to feel it but we have all found it so far. They accuse us in this matter of standing with England and that is just the point that I should like to examine. The world recognises that England is a place in which there is commercial capacity. In fact we are assured that John Bull's Island is entirely composed of shopkeepers and we have faced that very formidable opponent with a Government which is known as Fianna Fáil. I do not understand Irish, I regret to say, but I am told that the translation of Fianna Fáil is "soldiers of adventure" or "soldiers of fortune."

Mr. S. Robinson

Destiny.

Mr. Milroy

Misfortune.

Mr. Crosbie

I may be quite wrong but, at all events, it seems to me that we want something more. When there is fighting to be done, soldiers are very valuable, but in an economic war, it is more essential to have hard-headed business men to fight on your side. Can anyone in this Assembly believe for a moment that English statesmen had to rely on suggestions from this side of the water as to how they would conduct their campaign? I think they have proved to the world that, in business, at all events, they are as astute as the best.

Most of us who are not on the Government side know what this has cost Ireland. I am going to spare you a recital of all that but what we should like to know now is what it has cost England. I know for a fact that it has cost us a lot but I should like to hear from the Minister a detailed account of how England has suffered in this war. Her condition, apparently, is improving. Her agriculture has got a distinct fillip because of this economic war. Her unemployment is growing less and a funny thing is that when the ships that come over to the quays of Cork laden with German coal—this I cannot vouch for, but I am told by a man in the coal trade that it is a fact—leave our port, they square away for Cardiff, or another Welsh port, and load up there with coal for Germany. I suppose that means a saving to us in freight costs.

We are told that this war would have ceased long since if we had stood behind the President in this quarrel. I should like the Minister to tell me how we could have influenced the forces against us if Ireland, with one voice, had shouted out to England: "We are all right; every step that we have taken in this warfare was a correct step," and England had no option but to surrender at discretion? There is just one more word I wish to say before I sit down. I would ask the Minister to explain to us when we have won this great contest how we are to know it? We hear that we are winning every day but we want to know what definite fact will assure us that we have triumphed and that, once and for all, we have established our superiority over England and any other country that may come along.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

I am afraid that, after Senator Sir John Keane's speech, what I propose to say is rather an anti-climax, but, while the Minister is in a kindly mood, I should like to come forward with a sound, constructive proposal for improving the condition of our people and I hope that he will carry out his policy of listening sympathetically, quite regardless of expense, as he assured us was his policy. Last year, I approached him on the question of the remission of the tax on various games and sports in this country and he said, at the time, that, owing to the national emergency, he was not able to accede to my request. I warned him of what would happen and, this year, he has met us in respect of certain games such as badminton, boxing, tennis and, finally, rowing, but he has stopped at the point where he has made sure of a safe passage across to the other side about which I warned him last year. I do not want him to stop here.

In the course of his speech in the Dáil, he told Deputies that all the games, whether he taxed them or not, played in this country were Irish games and that they were Irish games because they were played by Irishmen in this country. Yet he stopped short at rowing and he still discriminates between the Gaelic games and Rugby and Association. The Gaelic games were exempted, last year, on the ground of national culture and, as they themselves admit, they are now in a very sound financial position, but the tax on Rugby and Association still remains. The Minister said, quite rightly, that it was not only the players he was taxing but the onlookers. The discrimination, however, still goes on and I think the games are suffering to a certain extent and, what is more, I feel that it is neither fair to the onlookers nor to the players.

He said that he cannot give up this tax from which he receives £15,000. I should very much like to hear the Minister elaborate those figures. In answer to a question in the Dáil, he said that these figures could not be separated and, thereafter, we had a statement, in reply to an amendment, that actually £15,000 was produced from outdoor entertainments by those particular people who are taxed. I took the trouble to go to the Rugby Union, and of that £15,000 the Rugby Union are finding somewhere about £3,000. That means that £12,000 is found by the Association and other people, Rugby being quite the biggest game. I should like to hear that elaborated and to hear if the Minister is quite sure of his figures. Last year, we had to fight this thing right to the finish and, in actual fact, the Dáil was brought back from its holiday and, but for the Whips being put on, the tax would have been taken off by the Dáil itself. The Minister has met us half way this year and I should like to hear him say that, if it is in any way possible, he will remove what I regard as this very unjust tax next year. I do not want to press this or to waste his time or the time of the Dáil by bringing it back, as we did last year, unnecessarily, because I realise his difficulties. I do not propose to refer to why or for what reason they have been caused nor do I want to put down any unnecessary recommendation, if the Minister will give us some indication that he will deal sympathetically with my suggestion either by removing this tax altogether next year or by reducing it to a figure that will allow these clubs not only to exist but to expand as they should expand and as other games are allowed to expand in this country.

Mr. Milroy

I have been disappointed to-day because I thought Senator Colonel Moore would have risen early in this discussion to denounce the present Minister for Finance. My reason for that is that when discussing the last Bill of the present Minister's predecessor, on 15th July, 1931, Senator Colonel Moore made use of the following words:—

"As far as taxation is concerned, the great fault is that taxation is twice as high as it should be. The opportunity to remedy that, I hope, will come one of these days when the Minister hands over his job to somebody else. I hope the poor will get the benefit of the reduction to as great an extent as, if not greater, than the richer classes. But the first thing is to reduce taxation wholesale."

I want to quote the Minister for Finance of that year. Speaking in the Dáil on 6th May, 1931, in the course of his speech dealing with finances, for which the Senator denounced Mr. Blythe, he said:—

"The White Paper issued a week ago shows that the estimated amount required to maintain public services and to meet other necessary public charges during the year 1931-32 is in respect of Central Fund Services £4,442,677, and in respect to Supply Services £21,921,573, or an aggregate of £26,364,250."

These are the figures Senator Colonel Moore denounced. Speaking in the Dáil on 10th May of this year, the present Minister for Finance said:—

"We have now to consider the position in the present. For that we must turn first of all to the figures for expenditure which appear in the White Paper which has just been circulated. It will be noted from the figures given therein that the total expenditure on Central Fund and Supply Services is taken at £30,654,220, of which £4,729,269 is for Central Fund Services and £25,924,951 for Supply."

The silence of the Senator can only be explained by the fact that he is absolutely stupefied and astounded that the Minister, whom he fondly expected would reduce taxation wholesale, has done quite the opposite. I can quite understand the amazement of the Senator, and how difficult it is for him to pull himself together. Before the discussion closes I hope he will have sufficiently recovered from the shock that he has sustained to hurl some thunderbolts at the head of the Minister for Finance like those he hurled at his predecessor.

Senator Sir John Keane referred to a statement which was made by the Minister here last week and he appealed for information for which I also appeal:—

"I have already informed the Seanad that there has been provided this year £2,450,000 for export bounties and subsidies. Against this expenditure, however, certain assets have been created and on the security of these assets it has been decided to borrow £1,225,000 and to use it to defray one half of the cost of the subsidies."

It is only fair to the House that the Minister should be more precise in his disclosures. What is the nature and what is the volume of the assets upon which he proposes to borrow? I do not want to obscure that by further emphasising it, but I make the definite point that I want information and the Minister can deal with it when replying. What are those assets? What is their nature and their volume? And if they are assets can they be considered sound assets and good security in the money market for the money it is proposed to borrow? Until we know what these assets are and their nature, we will be in a quandary as to what the prospects really are of borrowing the money it is proposed to borrow. We have heard from the Minister and we have seen indications that the revenue of the State is dwindling. We are conscious of the fact that one of the reasons for that is that the sources from which revenue came had become exhausted or diminished and we come, then, to understand the alternative sources of potential revenue that have been created within the State itself. If that is so, no one will be more gratified than myself. On the question of economic and industrial development within the State, any really sincere and efficient effort has my full sympathy. The one ground on which I will refrain from offering adverse criticism of the present Government is that which may be described as the zone of their economic efforts. Unfortunately, the grounds of selection for adverse criticism independent of the zone I have referred to are so tremendous that there is really no necessity to seek for grounds of criticism of the Government in that respect. My reference to this is not intended as adverse criticism, but rather as an inquiry. In the debate on the Second Reading of the Public Service (Temporary Economies) Bill in the Dáil, the Minister for Industry and Commerce depicted in very glowing terms the industrial development that had ensued under the guidance of the present Ministry. Of course, the arguments were more or less in general terms and very little in the way of exact data was produced. He was replying to Deputy McGilligan and it is upon this point that I want to have an inquiry, and he said:—

"Deputies know quite well that the revenues earned by traders and industrialists in this year will not be reflected in the public revenues until next year."

I would like to have the opinion of the Minister if he really thinks that there are being created within this State alternative sources of revenue the fruits of which will be reflected in the Budget or the finances for next year. I would like to press this further consideration in regard to that, that I would advise the Minister not to be keen upon the effort to extract revenue from these sources in the immediate future as an alternative to sources of revenue which have been destroyed by another phase of Government policy. The building up of industrial enterprise is difficult, arduous and a serious task. If the Minister peremptorily endeavours to convert these industries into revenue-producing assets, it is quite possible that the force of financial circumstances may compel him to endeavour to extract the last fraction of taxation from them with the consequence that he may kill the goose that might eventually have laid golden eggs. Whether he considers what I have said worthy of comment or not, I hope the Minister will tell us whether or not the Minister for Industry and Commerce was unduly optimistic or simply practical when he indicated that the revenue from these sources would be reflected in next year's finances. There was one thing I missed from the Estimates this year and from the whole financial statement of the Minister. It surprised me in view of what I read in the Sunday Dispatch last Sunday, that according to an interview with Senator Comyn, that the Government are on the brink of declaring their ownership of the territorial waters within the three miles limit within the whole of this island. I should have expected that there would have been some provision or Estimate in the way of naval or sea defences in this year's finances. I hope the Minister will explain this deficiency and how it comes that a loyal, staunch and veteran supporter of his Party's policy should be misled into making such a statement if the Minister had no intention of giving effect to it.

However, I think before we decide to build a navy—I do not really think there is any present urgency about that, even though it may lead to Senator Comyn being appointed admiral of the high seas of the Free State. It is not an adequate reason for embarking on such an enterprise. I think it is more important to build up the nation. That is one reason why I take grave exception to the general aspect of Government policy: its failure to visualise and to grasp what are the essentials for building up the nation. In some of his arguments a favourite phrase used by the Minister for Finance has been that you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs and, apparently, judging by the policy of the Government they believe that you cannot make a nation without breaking the people. That is the phase that has characterised the general tendency of the activities of the Ministry.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce prophesied that with the advent of Fianna Fáil there would be lighter rates and taxes and better times generally for everyone. Can anybody say that that has emerged from the Government's policy? Can anyone say that this country and its people are one whit better off to-day, or one inch further on the road to real progressive prosperity, or one iota free than they were on the day when the people of this State gave Fianna Fáil the reins of power? Some people may say that it is premature to expect that yet, but those who are plain citizens of this State and have no political axe to grind, can only judge a policy by its results and, so far as those results have revealed anything, they have revealed a greater strain upon the finances of the nation; a greater strain on the resources of the people, and a greater degree of anxiety in every home in the land as well as a greater fear for the future in the hearts and minds of every citizen of this State.

There is just one more query that I want to address to the Minister. He said that "Section 25 of the Bill gives the Revenue Commissioners power to determine the category or class to which an article belongs." That is a very important section. In connection with it, certain articles have been imported into this country in recent times. I would like to ask the Minister if he can give me any indication as to the particular category in which they would be classified; whether as wearing apparel, souvenirs or white elephants. I refer to the tall hats worn by members of the Executive Council in Ottawa and Paris. There is just one further point on that. I would like to know if there has been any revenue derived from such importations and, if so, will it go into the Central Fund or be placed in a suspense account to be kept there until such time as Ministers learn to garb themselves as fittingly for ceremonial occasions at home as they do abroad?

Mr. Comyn

I have promised to myself this afternoon the pleasure of sitting here and listening to the various speeches that would be made on this measure. I certainly looked forward with great pleasure to the irrelevancies which I expected from my friend, but I did not expect that his imagination would roam so far as the irrelevancy of which he has been guilty in reference to myself. He purports to have given the House a quotation of mine, made from an English Sunday paper. Now, one of the things that we ought to be careful of here is this: when we quote from a book, from a paper or from a speech we ought to be accurate, because we are expected to be believed. Now, I am sorry to say that my friend, Senator Milroy, has misquoted what appeared in that Sunday paper. I do not say that he did that deliberately, but you see he wanted that it should glide in beautifully into the period of his eloquence.

Now what happened in regard to these territorial waters is this: Some time ago, in the course of a debate in this House, I did state that in my opinion all the territorial waters surrounding this country were the property of the Free State. That seemed to have come rather as a surprise to a number of people, journalists and historians. Some days ago, on the introduction of the Whip of my own Party, a historian approached me and asked me whether I would elaborate the observation that I made in reference to territorial waters. I did elaborate that argument. It is rather a simple argument and a conclusive argument. I did say that the grant of Dominion status conveyed in the Treaty——

Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator is now going away from the Bill before the House.

Mr. Comyn

When misquoted I am entitled to correct the quotation. What I did state was this: that the grant of Dominion status to this country carried with it the grant of territorial waters surrounding the country, that the right of the inhabitants of any particular part of the country, to vote themselves out had no effect upon the grant except in so far as it related to the particular territory that voted out; that the effect of any number of people in a particular part of Ireland voting themselves out did not operate as a regrant to Great Britain of the territorial waters which they had granted to us.

Now, that was a plain and simple statement of fact and I emphasised it by saying this: that a grantor cannot derogate from his grant. That is what I said substantially, and that is what is contained in the newspaper report which was made without my being aware of it, but I repudiate nothing. I wish to correct the wrong impression which might be gathered from what my friend Senator Milroy said. I do not for one moment accuse Senator Milroy of deliberately wishing to misrepresent me, but I do think it is unfair of him to say, or to pretend to infer from what appeared in any paper, that I have any responsibility for Government policy or any knowledge of Government policy.

Mr. Milroy

That astonishes me.

Mr. Comyn

The Senator referred to me as being an old and staunch supporter of Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Milroy

I thought you were.

Mr. Comyn

I am an old and staunch supporter of the unity and freedom of this country, and I have no other allegiance but that.

Mr. Jameson

I had not intended to say much on this Bill. After the very able criticism of the economic position that we had from Senator Sir John Keane, I do not think it is necessary for me to say much. This morning I got a paper dealing with the Pig Industries Tribunal "concerning immediate measures necessary for the control of the exports of bacon and live pigs from Saorstát Eireann in view of the steps being taken in Great Britain of regulating quantitatively the imports of these commodities to that country." I have been across the water lately, and that particular report struck me as pointing to what is really a very great danger here at this moment. Senator Crosbie talked about the economic war. The consequences of it were revealed to us in the Budget statement. We are spending millions in trying to keep up a trade with the other side. We are doing that by means of bounties. They give us no return. They simply increase our expenditure and all that money is utterly lost. I am not able to say whether the people who are intended to benefit from these bounties are, in fact, being benefited. At any rate these bounties are costing this country a huge sum of money for which there is no return. For that reason, there is not much use in criticising the Minister's Budget statement from the point of view of a country living on its own resources and doing business in the ordinary way. The Minister is bound to spend these moneys and the taxpayers to find them. From the point of view of the economist, it is all sheer waste. We are spending a lot and we are getting nothing. The real danger in connection with these bounties is that—there is no question whatever but this is the case—they are raising a very strong feeling against the people who are trying to export those commodities into Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

There always is, and has been as long as I remember, a very strong prejudice in every country against a country which gives bounties to force its goods into another country. The traders in the country affected and the people who produce the same goods are always trying to bring pressure on their Government to battle on their behalf and to place extra duties on the goods of the country which is giving the bounties. That is absolutely certain in regard to countries trading with one another. That prejudice is rising strongly in Great Britain and Northern Ireland against the exporters of agricultural produce for the Free State. Very strong pressure is being brought to bear upon the British Government to put taxes on various imports from this country. This practice is making them far more willing to look to all the other Dominions and, indeed, to the other countries of Europe to see if they will deal with them as we were dealing with Great Britain. We have no representation whatever. We have nobody sitting at the councils of the British authorities who are trying to regulate their taxation and their imports to see that we get quotas fixed favourably for this country. We are not making a single arrangement for trade concessions with Great Britain nor, so far as I know, with any of the other Dominions. I have already mentioned once or twice that in my own business we have been injured for the want of a concession, particularly in respect of New Zealand. The words I used then remain true to-day. I never heard of any concession given us by New Zealand or any effort to get one. Even if we get the wonderful trade that is to be created in our own country and if our manufactures develop as the Government hope they will, if we have to wait for that state of affairs to mature in order to make arrangements with the country that buys practically all our surplus products, we will find that market filled up. They will have made arrangements with every other Dominion and with all the other countries of Europe with whom they are hoping to get trade agreements. By the time we come in, I doubt if we will be able to find any place for our goods. The country and the Government should look at this matter extremely seriously. Time is going. If we wait until some change occurs which will enable us to sit down at table with our best customers and make trade arrangements with them, our trade may be gone. Others are pushing into the markets and getting quotas and arrangements made. It will be no use turning round then and saying "export." Other people will have the markets.

I have just come back from the other side and it gives one cause to pause and think when we have nobody that I know of sitting down and trying to get good trade arrangements made for this country. If I am wrong, the Minister will probably tell us. So far as I know, we have nobody negotiating for us, while the other Dominions and the other countries in Europe are negotiating. If we have that state of affairs going on for long —things are moving very rapidly—by the time we wake up, even if we make an arrangement with Great Britain and the economic war ends, it may be of no use to us. Our markets will have gone. These are matters which are far beyond any Budget, but I thought I ought to refer to them, especially when we have a notice which bluntly tells us that England is now arranging her quotas, while we have nobody to assist or help in getting decent treatment for the exports from this country.

Colonel Moore

It was said that Nelson used to put his telescope to his blind eye when he was going to fight. I think that Senator Jameson did the same thing in giving us the account he has given of the state of affairs here. He seems to suggest that this international war is entirely on our side, that we have given these bounties and other things by way of attack rather than by way of defence. Of course, some changes have been made for trade purposes. Other countries do that and so does Britain. In the main, the Senator attributes the present position to some foolish idea we have had in starting this trade war. I happened to be in London more than a year ago when the British Government introduced a Bill to enable them to penalise the trade of Ireland on account of some financial disagreement which had nothing to do with trade. In spite of the unreasonableness of it, that Bill was passed through Parliament to enable them to recoup themselves certain moneys we had not thought we owed them. I am not going into the question whether we owed them or not. That is an old tale. The fact is that we offered everything reasonable. We offered to give them an international tribunal to settle all these affairs. They would not have that for certain reasons and they imposed these penal taxes to force us to pay what we did not think we owed. They had a double purpose in that.

Shortly afterwards, they said: "If you give us some political advantages, we will take away those taxes." I am only quoting from Mr. Thomas who made these statements and has been repeating them ever since, so that there is no mistake about it. They had this double-barrelled gun against us. On the one hand, they wanted to recover certain moneys which they said were due and, on the other hand, they wanted to secure some political advantages. What were we to do under those circumstances? People like Senator Jameson have been talking for some months in this indefinite way and saying that we ought to settle the business. How are we to settle it? There are only two ways. One is to pay the money they claim, whether we owe it or not; the other is to give them certain political advantages which they are trying to get from us. They got various things from us in the last few hundred years by putting financial and military pressure upon us. They are doing the same thing now and I say we are not going to sacrifice ourselves in that way for them. We have a battle to fight as we had in 1916 and we have to fight it out. It is very disagreeable, I agree. It is not a nice thing to do but I see no remedy. If Senator Jameson would tell us how to settle the business I should be very glad. I know of no way except complete surrender to certain claims which the British have made upon us, which, we think, are not justified. We offered them a tribunal to establish whether we were right or wrong. We know we are right. Everybody on both sides has begun to admit that we were right. Even the lawyers over there have found that they were in the wrong altogether and are admitting it. People who lecture us in this way and tell us we are wrong in keeping on the war should tell us how we are going to get out of it. If they are so wise as to be able to give us an idea how to get out of it, I dare say we will take it, but certainly not by surrender.

Miss Browne

I wish to say once more what I said over and over again, that this Government embarked on a policy of dishonesty and embezzlement and that they had better make up their minds how they will deal with the chickens which are coming home to roost. It is up to them to get out of the difficulty in which they placed this country. It is not for us to point out how this dispute should be settled. We protested when this business of withholding the land annuities was proposed. We told the Government what would happen. Senator Jameson has done a very great service to the country—I am sorry there was not a bigger House here to hear him—by pointing out the imminent danger in which we are. We are on the edge of a precipice so far as this country is concerned. The Minister sits there as he sat in the Dáil last night with his pleasant smile, as remarked by a Deputy. He made in the Dáil the most callous and false statement about the state of agriculture. He must be incompetent to deal with the matter. He cannot be so blind that he does not realise that he made in the Dáil last night a thoroughly false statement as to the condition of agriculture. He made a thoroughly callous allusion to the sufferings of the farmers.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

Please let us not discuss the economic war any longer.

Miss Browne

It has been discussed by others and I suppose I am entitled to say a few words.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

I allowed the Senator to say a few words.

Miss Browne

I want only to make a formal protest. Senator Sir John Keane dealt with the Finance Bill. Senator Johnson has pointed out the very real and terrible danger in which the country is. The Government indulges in the "Rake's Progress" in the most callous way. I protest against that in the name of the people of the country. I do not think I should be here if I did not protest. I am sorry I have had to speak in this way, but things are becoming very serious. It is the business of the Government to get out of this dispute. There was an honest way of dealing with it and they neglected it. Now, let them settle the business. That is their affair. It is not our duty to tell them how to do it.

Mr. Quirke

Naturally, I was not a bit surprised at anything Senator Miss Browne said. In fact, I was agreeably surprised she said so little and dealt in such poor fashion with the economic war.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

I hope the Senator will not deal with it.

Mr. Quirke

I do not propose to go into the matter at all. It is worthy of note that the Senator never appealed to the Minister for Finance to give us back our markets. She should not have forgotten that. Like Senator Colonel Moore, I was amazed to hear Senator Jameson make the statement he did. Senator Jameson and every sensible man must know that the situation existing between Canada, South Africa, or various other countries and England is not the same as the situation which exists between this country and England. I do not want to go into the question of the economic war or the question of who started it. We know who started it or who was responsible for starting it by encouraging other people. We know who is responsible for the continuation of that conflict which none of us naturally want continued. Senator Jameson pointed out, if I understood him rightly, that his objection to the bounties on agricultural produce was that people in other countries object to the attitude of the Government in paying bounties on agricultural produce which is being exported to these countries. I could understand people in England, representatives of the British, putting up that argument and feeling a bit sore about it, but I cannot understand anybody in this country objecting, under the circumstances that at present exist, to the Government providing bounties on agricultural produce to relieve the farmers or objecting to the extent to which they are relieved.

Miss Browne

Who is paying the bounties? Not the Government.

Mr. Quirke

Senator Miss Browne claims that she represents the farmers but I have to say that she is a very poor representative. She very seldom puts up a reasonable argument in defence of the farmers.

Miss Browne

I have done it several times.

Mr. Quirke

She never seems to appreciate anything that is done or any measure that is brought before this House for the benefit of the farmers. To take any serious notice of Senator Milroy would, I suppose, be only bringing the person who took that notice to the same level as the Senator himself, but when he stands up and makes glaringly inaccurate statements it is only right that he should be corrected. Such statements may have the effect of convincing some people that at least some of them were correct, if they were not contradicted. Senator Milroy talks of the failure of the Government to build up the nation. He asks the Minister—and I am sure the Minister is well able to reply himself if he will take the trouble, but he hardly will—are the people one bit more free than they were before Fianna Fáil came into power? Senator Milroy knows perfectly well that the people are much more free than when Fianna Fáil came into power. Several measures have been introduced—

Miss Browne

May I ask what all this has got to do with the Finance Bill?

Mr. Quirke

It is a pity Miss Browne is not in the Chair. We would have great fun. Several measures have been introduced to make the people more free than they were under the last Administration and every such measure was strenuously obstructed by Senator Milroy. As I have often stated before, Senator Milroy is not sincere in his attitude. Perhaps he is here now. He generally gets behind me when I am speaking. I should like to give a little bit of history in connection with Senator Milroy which I quoted here before. I am quoting from The Nation of December 4th, 1923. Dealing with economics, Senator Milroy wrote:—

"As regards the economic aspect of policy, I have urged repeatedly in and out of the Dáil the necessity of a sound fiscal policy to be used to protect and strengthen our existing industries and for the promotion of others. On the merits of that idea I am not going to enlarge to-day. To me the need for protective tariffs in this country is a matter outside the regions of argument. I regard this as axiomatic. We have this fiscal power to do what is necessary in this respect. The question is— are we going to use them? I know there are powerful influences at work to prevent that being done and to keep this country the bond slave of British economic interests."

"I know there are powerful influences at work." If I might suggest it I would say that the most powerful influence that can be used in that respect has been used by Senator Milroy and various other Senators in this House to prevent this country from getting out of the position in which it was previously, a position in which the country was described by Senator Milroy as the bond-slave of British economic interests.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

Would the Senator come to the Bill now?

Mr. Quirke

Senator Milroy's position is quite inconsistent. His speech was all froth and no beer, like every speech he makes in this House. Before I came into this debate I met members of the Opposition in the other House and members of the Opposition in this House, and I was convinced as the result of a conversation I had with them, having read the Bill myself, that this Bill was absolutely above any reasonable criticism. I understand that certain sections criticise various items in the Bill but I think it is absolutely ridiculous for any man to attack every item in the Bill. It just goes to prove that members in the Opposition are convinced, or at least they pretend that they are convinced, that nothing good can come from a Fianna Fáil Government. I did not hear any members of the Opposition admit that there was any good in the Bill. I would ask these Senators to look at the item of £450,000 which is being provided for relief of the able-bodied unemployed. I think that is a very good provision. People talk about protecting the country against Communism. Most of the measures which have been introduced by Fianna Fáil are designed to prevent any such movements as Communism in this country. Notwithstanding that, these measures are attacked in this House and no credit is given to the Government when measures of that kind are introduced.

The peat scheme is also a very fine project. There is no necessity to go into figures but I think it is an admirable thing that the Government should take up the development of the peat industry in this country. A sum of £100,000 has been provided for roads and drainage, £50,000 for organisation and more important, perhaps still, £25,000 for the provision of fuel for the needy poor. These and several other provisions in the Bill will, I am certain, be welcomed by the people in the country or the majority of them. Naturally there will be a few die-hards here and there as there are in this House and in the other House who will never be pleased, at least in this world. Perhaps they will in the next. These people are ready to take the example they get from members of the Opposition here and in the Dáil, to criticise everything whether it is right or wrong. Their attitude is to try to make a case against Fianna Fáil or against whatever Department puts up a Bill or against the Minister who introduces it. At this late hour I do not propose to go into the various other parts of the Bill which to my mind are admirable and which make provision for schemes which are an absolute necessity if this country is to be rescued from that position in which it was, as described by Senator Milroy, under the late Administration, the bond slave of British economic interests. I believe in all the circumstances that the Bill is above reasonable criticism and I support it wholeheartedly.

Mr. S. Robinson

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Douglas

Possibly the Senator has some reason for moving the adjournment. We should like to hear it; otherwise I think we should go on for at least another half an hour.

Cathaoirleach

The Minister will probably have to make a very long statement in reply. It would suit his convenience if he were not called upon to do so to-night. We can take this as the first business, possibly, next Tuesday.

Mr. O'Hanlon

I think that we ought to hear the Minister's statement to-night.

Cathaoirleach

If the Minister is tired and is not ready, I think that Senators might agree to adjourn now.

Mr. Douglas

I agree, if that is so, but if there are other members of the House who intend to speak, I think it right that they should be heard to-night.

Mr. O'Hanlon

Is it understood that the Minister will not reply to-night?

Cathaoirleach

I think the Minister would not care to reply to-night.

Mr. Guinness

I wanted to ask the Minister a question in connection with one of the issues of land stock. Under the Land Act of 1923, 4½ per cent. bonds were issued. These bonds and the interest on them are a direct responsibility of the Irish Government. They are not in the same category as earlier bonds. I was anxious to ascertain from the Minister where the interest on these bonds is to be found. The money must be provided out of the annuities, but half the annuities has been remitted. These annuities have been reduced by 50 per cent. so that the interest would be short by that amount and provision would have to be made for the difference. Is that the item to which the Minister was referring at the bottom of column 2,295 in which he is reported as saying:—

"Among the additional services for which provision is covered is a sum of £800,000 to meet a deficiency which arises in the Land Bond Fund"?

Mr. MacEntee

That is the item.

Mr. Guinness

That refers to the 4½ per cent. Land Bonds of 1923?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Mr. Guinness

I should like to support Senator Sir John Keane's suggestion that in future Budgets or White Papers it might be possible to consolidate all the items connected with local loans. At the present time they are distributed over three or four separate accounts. They are really matters connected with the one subject and it would be very much simpler if items connected with local loans were all classified under one heading.

Mr. O'Hanlon

Might I point out that we have a considerable amount of business to transact next week and that if we adjourn consideration of the Public Services (Temporary Economies) Bill, it will add still further to next week's business? I suggest that if we adjourn now, we might meet again at 8.30. I would prefer if the Minister would wind up this debate to-night if it would be convenient. The House could sit until 7.30, or if the House does not choose to do that, we can meet later to-night, say, at 8 o'clock. If we do not meet at 8 o'clock, let us meet to-morrow but I think that, at any rate, we should dispose of the Second Reading of this Bill. We had it last week and we have it this week and we have not yet disposed of the Second Reading.

Mr. MacEntee

May I explain why I should like the Seanad to extend to me the consideration of adjourning not later than 7 p.m.? It happens that, by arrangement with all the Parties in the House, business for which I am responsible will be taken in the Dáil at 7.30 and I am rather anxious to have tea in the interval, but, apart altogether from that, I do not think I could reply in the space of half an hour. Senator Sir John Keane and a number of other Senators have raised particular points which, I think, might be elucidated and, while I would be quite prepared to begin now—it is not because I lack the material but because of the circumstance I have referred to—I think that my statement would possibly gain in value if it were either to be deferred until to-morrow, when I could make a complete statement or until such other time as the Seanad may desire.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

Would the Minister be in a position to reply at 9 p.m. or 9.30 p.m.?

Cathaoirleach

You are a late bird, Senator. All the Senators are not, perhaps, as late birds as you are.

Mr. Farren

I would suggest that, in view of the statement of the Minister, we ought to adjourn and meet on Tuesday of next week.

Cathaoirleach

That would give us another day.

Mr. Douglas

I approve of the suggestion that we should meet on Tuesday but I should like to remind the House that there is a total of 21 days during which a Money Bill can be considered and, while not suggesting for a moment that the Minister has anything of the kind in view, a little more adjournment and we will have no opportunity of making recommendations at all. It might be better to finish the Second Stage. It would not be stretching our procedure very much to allow the Minister to make a statement at the beginning of the Committee Stage in reply to the various points and let the members of the House put down recommendations. If we postpone the Second Stage until Tuesday and then leave four or five days for recommendations on Committee Stage, there would be no opportunity of dealing on the Report Stage with any points that arise. That is my only objection to adjournment. I think we should meet on Tuesday and I think we should be in a position to take the Temporary Economies Bill to which there are a good many amendments and in respect of which we shall require, I think, the whole afternoon.

Cathaoirleach

I pointed out to the Minister the fact that the 21 days were running out rather quickly and he is anxious to help in the matter.

Mr. Johnson

Is there any reason why we should not meet to-morrow morning? We could hear the Minister's statement in the morning and there are two or three minor measures that can be dealt with then. That would leave Tuesday free for the discussion of the Temporary Economies Bill.

Mr. MacEntee

That would suit me.

Mr. Douglas

I have no objection to that.

Mr. Farren

I have no objection either.

Mr. Douglas

Is it definitely understood that the Temporary Economies Bill will not be taken until Tuesday?

Cathaoirleach

Yes.

Debate adjourned.

The Seanad adjourned at 6.50 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Friday, 14th July, 1933.