Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Mar 1936

Vol. 20 No. 29

Public Business. - Central Fund Bill, 1936 (Certified Money Bill)—Second Stage.

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

Minister for Lands (Mr. Connolly)

I have to apologise for the absence of the Minister for Finance, who is laid up to-day, and who asked me to put this Bill before the House. If there are any points raised they can be dealt with at a later stage, if not to-day. The purpose of this measure is to give statutory authority for the issue from the Central Fund of (1) the total of the Supplementary Grants for the current financial year which were not covered by the Appropriation Act, 1935, and (2) the amount of the Vote on Account in respect of the coming financial year. It also confers on the Minister for Finance powers to borrow, issue securities, etc. In the current financial year 20 Supplementary Estimates totalling £930,879 were presented to Dáil Eireann and passed. Of this total, £5,086, representing the amount of one Supplementary Estimate (External Affairs, Vote 67), passed in the early part of the year, was included in the amount authorised to be issued from the Central Fund by the Appropriation Act, 1935. The balance of the Supplementary Estimates (£925,793) is similarly provided for now in Section 1 of the present Bill. The total of the estimated expenditure on the Supply Services for 1936-37 is £27,514,783, of which £9,850,000 has been voted on account. Section 2 of the Bill authorises the issue from the Central Fund of this latter amount. The balance will be covered by the Appropriation Act, 1936. Section 3 (1) of the Bill empowers the Minister for Finance to borrow up to £10,775,793, which is the sum of the amounts mentioned in Sections 1 and 2.

It also provides that the Bank of Ireland may advance to the Minister any sum or sums not exceeding in the whole that amount. The object of this provision is not to confer any special privileges upon the Bank of Ireland over other banks in the matter of lending to the Government but merely to put it in the same position as other banks in this respect. It would appear that the Bank of Ireland under Section 11 of the statute of the Irish Parliament (21 and 22 Geo. III, cap. 16, A.D. 1781-2), under which it was established, is liable to forfeit any moneys advanced or loaned by it to the Government unless the advance or loan is specifically authorised by Parliament. As there are no similar restrictions in the case of other banking institutions set up in later periods, the provision in the Act of 1781-2 would appear to have outlived its usefulness, but until it is repealed it will be necessary to include the enabling provision respecting the Bank of Ireland in Central Fund and Appropriation Bills if that bank is not to be precluded from lending to the Government. The remaining portions of Section 3 of the Bill are self-explanatory.

Mr. MacLoughlin

As the Minister has informed us this Bill is based on an estimated expenditure of £27,514,783, and I understand a further estimate of £370,000 awaits introduction. The Government propose, therefore, to spend on Supply Services during the coming year a sum of practically £28,000,000. This Bill is presented to us by a Government that worked themselves into a state of frenzied delirium over the extravagance of the Cosgrave Administration. It is presented to us by a Government that pledged themselves to reduce the then expenditure by at least £2,000,000 a year. It is presented by a Government that wallpapered the country with an appeal to popular cupidity by setting out the list of highly paid officials in the employment of the State. It is presented by a Government on whose path to office was carved in elephantine letters the word economy. That word is no longer heard from any self-respecting member of the Government Party. All the virtue is now not in saving but in spending. In 1931-32, when the extravagant Cosgrave Administration was squandering the people's money in a manner which gave the present Minister for Finance a prolonged bout of restless insomnia, the estimates for the Supply Services totalled £22,000,000. In three years Fianna Fáil have added to the Cosgravian standard of extravagance a sum of £6,000,000. Instead of redeeming their promise to reduce expenditure they have trebled their promised saving and piled the resulting £6,000,000 on to the Bill of 1931-32. The Minister, of course, tells us that what was wild extravagance five years ago is now rigorous economy. The significance of the words "extravagance" and "economy" changes with the Government. In the Dáil the Minister boasted that the Government were spending considerably more on certain services of a utilitarian character than their predecessors. He was almost lyrical about the provision of £1,200,000 for unemployment assistance, as against the £160,000 which his extravagant predecessor thought it necessary to provide. Evidently the Government think there is merit in creating an evil and then proceeding to apply a costly cure at the public expense. I am not impressed by doctors who essay the cure of a disease caused by their own clumsy ineptitude.

I should like to get some information from the Minister on the Estimates covered by this Bill. I hope I shall not be regarded as being impertinently or obtrusively curious if I enquire why, with all the reductions in salary, the President's office is costing £124 more than it did in President Cosgrave's time. I should like to know if this increase is occasioned by the maintenance of the hibernating apartment which the Government thoughtfully installed in the Presidential quarters when they took office. The Minister might also inform us as to how often the Cabinet sink into repose in this Government dormitory, and whether it was during an afternoon nap here that they signified their approval of the coal-cattle pact which the civil servants brought back from London. The charitable assumption is that my suggestion is correct, but I would like to have confirmation from the Minister.

The Revenue Commissioners have also got more expensive in late years. They are costing us about £100,000 more than they did in 1931. Considering that the net yield from the standard rate of income tax has fallen, I should be glad to be assured that the number of £1,000 a year men against whom the Minister used to rail at one time is not being increased. The Minister for Finance is also costing us £5,000 a year more than his predecessor. I should, as a Northerner, be the last to suggest that the Minister is not worth his weight in gold ounces — but I should be more easy in my mind if the Minister were to assure me that he is not adding any £1,000 a year train-bearers to his already numerous and imposing retinue.

I drew attention before to the item for Secret Service. Notwithstanding their abhorrence of secret agreements, the Government are setting aside £20,000 for secret service. I hope it is not treasonable to ask for some indication as to how the Government dispenses this money. The Cosgrave Government's estimate for Secret Service was £10,000, and they spent only £1,049. I understood that when Fianna Fáil attained to office espionage like extravagance would end. Instead of that, the spies have been multiplied. Perhaps the Minister would say whom we are spying upon. Since we have undertaken to protect Britain against attack, through the Saorstát, by a foreign power our spies cannot be operating against the hereditary enemy. Whom then are they spying upon, and are they paid by piecework, at trade union rates of wages, or do they enjoy a fixed salary? After all, £20,000 is a tidy sum. It is almost as much as the cost of the Seanad. Might I suggest that if the Government abolished a few of the more expensive spies they might be able to retain the Seanad? However, if we are to have a battalion of spies, I should like to think they were comfortably catered for. But I fear that the romantic ideas of the Minister may have led him to imitate the words of the story books at the taxpayer's expense. I always like to fortify my opinion on matters of national concern by ascertaining the views of persons of greater distinction. Therefore, I take leave to quote the opinion of an admitted authority on this question as expressed in May, 1930:

"I feel that the main portion of this money is spent for the loathsome purpose of corrupting our own people, and destroying that trust amongst our own citizens upon which alone the safety and security of the State can be rightly based. If the Government's declarations as to its own excellence be proved, surely the loyalty of the citizens to the State would be such that they would of their own accord communicate any knowledge they might have to the State."

The authority I have quoted is Deputy Seán MacEntee. If the Minister for Finance were present to-day I would present the opinion of Deputy MacEntee to him and ask him for his observations upon it. I should like to be told how much of the £20,000 is to be used "for the loathsome purpose of corrupting our own people." If this Secret Service expenditure is to continue, I suggest that the spies should be advertised for and appointed by the Public Appointments Commissioners so that now that some of us are going on the unemployed list, we would all get a chance of distinguishing ourselves in this remunerative Fianna Fáil industry.

I am disappointed to notice that the cost of the Gárda Síochána is up by over £200,000, as compared with the figures for 1931-32. At one time President de Valera had the idea that many of our towns and villages could be policed by a resident constable. I should like to know when we may hope for the introduction of this idyllic scheme. As I live in a Gaeltacht county, I am interested in the provision made by our Irish-Ireland Government for Irish-speaking areas. I find that the total amount being provided for Fisheries and Gaeltacht services is £127,000. The Cosgrave Government provided £232,000 for the same service, although it had no Senator Healy in its ranks. I notice that the cost of the Army is increased by about £200,000 since 1931-32. I do not suggest that the Army should be abolished—even though we are getting our officers trained by John Bull — but I do suggest that we might manage, if we do not propose to participate in the armaments race, to plod along with an Army at the same cost as that which satisfied the last extravagant Government. Again, I want to fortify myself by quotation. Just listen to what Mr. Lemass had to say at Navan on the 13th December, 1931:—

"In case that delay on Mr. Blythe's part is due to unwillingness or inability to find avenues for economy, he would suggest some, and draw his attention to the fact that we are spending £1,750,000 every year in maintaining what is called a National Army. The Irish people should take the attitude that the most that can be afforded for the expenditure on that service was a £1,000,000 a year. If they took that attitude and put into office a Government determined upon it, it would result in an immediate saving of £750,000, almost the whole of the Budgetary deficiency. If that were done there would be no necessity for cutting the wages of postmen or the salaries of teachers. It was possible to maintain the Government here without decreasing its efficiency by £2,000,000 a year less, if it was decided that the taxpayer's money must be expended for the taxpayer's benefit, and not for the purpose of political patronage."

I also find that the same eminent authority, whose views on the Secret Service I have already quoted, was responsible for an opinion on this question of the Army and kindred questions in 1929. Here is what was then thought by the present. Minister for Finance:—

"One of the failures of the present Administration has been that there has been no attempt to secure economic administration. It is an extraordinary thing that in a country such as ours, dependent entirely upon agriculture, the cost of maintaining, on an average, one member of the Civic Guard or one member of the Army is four times the average wage paid to an agricultural labourer, so that if we could dispense with the services of one Civic Guard it would enable four agricultural labourers to maintain the same standard of living as they have to subsist on to-day. Yet, the Civic Guards ‘toil not neither do they spin.' Neither they nor the Army are producers of wealth. I feel that economies could be made in these two services. I feel we could do with less mercenary soldiers and a considerably lesser number of Civic Guards."

I should like to know when we are likely to get that lesser number of Civic Guards and that lesser Army.

A Senator

When you learn to conduct yourselves.

Mr. MacLoughlin

Since the Minister for Finance put forward this view, the wages of agricultural labourers have fallen so that the salary of one Civic Guard would now probably represent the average wage of five agricultural labourers. Moreover, there were in June last, 617 fewer agricultural labourers in permanent employment than there were in the same month in 1931. There is, therefore, a much stronger case for the Minister's economies now than there was in 1929. The Minister had, however, other schemes of retrenchment in view in 1929. In this connection I shall permit him to make my case because his English is vastly superior to the English of Donegal. Here is what he said in the same speech in 1929:—

"If a resolute attempt was made to deal with expenditure in Government offices and with the wastage that goes on, at least another £1,000,000 might be saved. Mr. Blythe with a golden whip, costing the people £20,000,000——"

may I remind the House that this Bill is based on Estimates of £28,000,000 —

——"is driving our young men and women into exile and is not disposed to listen to those who are asking for a drastic reduction in the expenditure in Government Departments."

I wonder if the Minister will now be disposed to listen to me when I ask, not for a reduction of £2,000,000 on the expenditure of 1929-30, but for a return to the standard of extravagance that obtained then. I wonder if he will tell me when he proposes to make that "resolute attempt" to cut down the expenditure of Government Departments which have greater staffs now than they ever had. The staff of the Department of Finance has been increased from 106 to 131, the staff of the Revenue Commissioners from 1,987 to 2,497; the staff of the Board of Works from 295 to 356, the staff of the Civil Service Commission from 41 to 85, the staff of the Local Government Department from 255 to 403, the staff of the Department of Agriculture from 837 to 1,271, the staff of the Land Commission from 777 to 1,002, the staff of the Department of Industry and Commerce from 328 to 563, the staff of the Unemployment Insurance Department from 307 to 1,202 and our representatives abroad from 92 to 110. This is done by the Party that accused the Cosgrave Government of "increasing the number of their overpaid officials by 1,000 since 1924 although the work that the officials do had become less."

Mr. Lemass, speaking at Athenry, told the people that:

"Fianna Fáil had examined every item in the various Estimates to see where economies are possible and they concluded that it is possible to maintain governmental services at the present level and with even increased efficiency at a total annual cost of £2,000,000 less than the present Government has provided them for. The Government had got in their employment civil servants paid £1,500 and £1,700 a year who are not giving value for that money. They have kept on the pay roll of the nation men who are doing no work at all. They have utilised money got out of taxation for the purpose of political patronage. Fianna Fáil will relieve the burden of taxation and stop the £5,000,000 now paid annually to England voluntarily. They will protect the country's industries and give a chance to the farmers to make a better profit out of their work. All their social and economic evils will be solved and their political difficulties will become easier also."

We now know how these promises have been fulfilled. I could quote sermon after sermon by our present Ministers on the virtue of economy and the evils of extravagance but I do not propose to send the House to sleep by further citations.

This Bill, based on Estimates for £28,000,000, is presented by a Government which caused the heavens to tremble with their denunciations when Supply Services accounted for £22,000,000. In return for the increased expenditure of £6,000,000, we have over 140,000 receiving unemployment assistance—the highest estimate of unemployment by the Fianna Fáil leaders in 1931 being 70,000 and the registered number 30,000. We have the farmers reduced to mere subsistence and we have the number of permanently employed labourers on the land reduced as well as their wages. At the same time the price of prime necessities that the farmer and the labourer have to buy has gone up, and £1 cannot now purchase what 14/- did in 1931. All this has been accomplished with an increased expenditure of £6,000,000 a year by the Fianna Fáil Government, aided and abetted by their political allies — the eloquent advocates of a workless republic.

Mr. Jameson

Senator MacLoughlin has dealt so fully with the items of expenditure amounting to £27,000,000 that I really do not think the Bill calls for very much comment from me. I see that under the heading of the repayment of the Dáil External Loans there was a total Estimate for last year of £7,500 and for this year £6,500. I think we should be entitled to get some figures showing how the repayment of that loan has really worked out — figures as to the total amount paid, where the money has gone to and any figures that the Government can give us in regard to the winding up of payments of that kind. I see that we are still going to spend £8,000 on electrical battery development and that in two years we shall have spent £24,000. I should like the Minister to tell us whether this is going to be a recurrent expenditure or is there any hope that we shall soon get away from the necessity of having to expend these sums. From what I have heard about the scheme, if it will ever be worth anything, it is a scheme that will call for the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of pounds and not for these comparatively small sums. We have spent £24,000 in two years, and I think we should have the fullest information as to whether this battery development is a success or as to whether it is going ahead or not. If we intend to continue this yearly expenditure the Government should tell us what they have in view. Certainly we ought not to expend these sums without knowing where we are going. It seems to me to be a very considerable waste of money.

There are one or two other matters, quite outside the figures which are given to us but which are closely connected with the financial condition of the country, with which I should like to deal. Our people are called upon to meet a good deal of expenditure which is not included in any of the statements with which the Senator has been dealing. There used to be included in the Budget the sum of money which was required to raise the price of native-grown wheat. That was taken out of the Budget but it is paid by the public and the poor people who have to eat bread, exactly in the same way as it was paid before. Whether it is right that it should be paid by the poorest people in the country or not I do not know, but at any rate, if we are to consider the amount of money which the citizens are called on to pay, we ought at least to have the figures showing what wheat growing in this country is going to cost the people. Otherwise we have no gauge whatever except that we do know that every poor man who buys a loaf of bread has to contribute towards the extra price which is being paid to our farmers for the growing of wheat. The Government in placing such tremendous reliance on the growing of wheat in this country are taking a great many chances which I think we ought to remember. There is not at all the same chance involved in growing ordinary agricultural produce or in the raising of beasts. At present we are producing almost one-fourth of our total requirements in wheat and the production is supposed to be increased until it reaches one-half of our total requirements. We are told by the Minister for Agriculture that he hopes eventually the full quantity the Irish people require will be produced in the Free State.

We know that there have been quite good harvests here for about three years now, but any of us who have lived a long time in this country have seen not only one very bad harvest, but a succession of bad harvests. I would like the people of this country to consider where we would be if we had even one very bad harvest. We would have, say, one-third or one-half of the whole of the wheat supply, needed to feed our people, grown by the farmers who would be expecting a certain price which would remunerate them, and a very high price — far and away higher than the price paid by any other country in the world that I know of. Supposing that we had not been able to produce millable wheat for that quantity of people and that we were only able to produce half or a quarter of it as millable wheat, where would we be, and where would the people be who had produced it? It could not be used in the mills and what would happen to it? These are not risks that are merely shots in the air. They are risks which any of us, who have watched agriculture in this country, know that we are running, and there is ten times more danger in growing wheat in this country in view of such a contingency than in growing cattle. Sometimes the Lord does as He has been doing at times in countries like Canada and America, and sends a bad harvest. The same might happen here and we might have a couple of really bad harvests. If that were to happen, we would be faced with a bill, which, in the present financial condition of this country, I do not think we could meet at all, and it would be a final blow to our whole farming community.

These are remarks which, I should think, any sensible Government would keep in their minds. I see the Government here advertising all over the place and spending money in trying to get our farmers to grow wheat. Their advertisements are nearly as good as the advertisements of Messrs. Guinness, urging the people to drink more porter. Here they are backing up that policy by giving this high amount of money as the price of a barrel of wheat that is grown, which is all provided by the poorest class of people in this country, and they are not taking into any account what might happen if we were suddenly hit by what all of us have seen happen in other cases. I do believe that the Government would be very wise to consider seriously to what length they are going in order to try to push our agricultural community into the growing of wheat by the bribe of an immense price for their wheat, by advertisement and advocacy of every sort, and to consider what sort of vengeance would come upon them, if we had two or three years of really bad harvests. It is not only the Government that is running the risk, but the whole country, and this country should seriously consider whether it is a wise thing for the Government here to be pushing down the throats of the farmers and the people a policy of this kind, backed up by big bribes and big advertisements, in order to make them alter the course of their agricultural production.

There is another matter in regard to our building schemes which requires a little consideration. We are advocating building schemes all over the country. The Government and the various districts concerned are paying very considerable sums in the way of bounties on the building of houses. The last Government brought in that principle and I remember quite well the discussions in the Seanad when the Government were going to put on special restrictions as to the use of outside building materials and were going to compel the builders of these houses to use Irish materials to a very great extent. It was pointed out to them at the time that they were giving this money for the building of houses and at the same time were going to make the building of these houses far more expensive. Therefore, it was pointed out to them, they were absolutely wasting the money. We are ten times worse now, and if the Government of to-day allowed the builders to go on with cheaper materials and did not hamper them by putting on all these conditions, we could have cheaper houses. What, however, are the present Government doing in regard to these matters? We know that they put on a duty compelling the use of Irish cement in all the houses. I believe that they have given way now, to a certain extent, by allowing in some British cement in order to meet the economic difficulty with England. I have heard remarks made to the effect that the Irish cement going into these houses was not first-class. I am not a builder myself and I do not know if this is true, but it is worth while to enquire into it.

Mr. Johnson

There is no Irish cement at present, Senator.

Mr. Connolly

No. There is no Irish cement at present.

Mr. Jameson

None at all?

Mr. Johnson

No.

Cathaoirleach

There is Belgian cement used, Senator, but no Irish cement.

Mr. Jameson

No Irish cement used at all? Well, then, what is the reason for the duty on cement?

Mr. Johnson

Perhaps it is to help to keep down the duty on whiskey.

Mr. Jameson

Is it to raise the price of the houses, or what is it for? If there is no Irish cement used, and if we have a duty on our cement, why, then, I think that is the clearest case I have ever heard made for raising the price. I admit my ignorance in this matter, but I thought that the idea of the duty was to enable Irish cement to be produced. If none is being produced, and still there is a duty imposed, well, I need say no more.

Mr. Connolly

Might I explain to the Senator that the cement duty was to an extent a result of the economic dispute, and that practically all cement is imported under licence. The importers get their licences, and the object is to direct the source of origin of the cement. The cement trade has been run almost entirely on a licensing basis.

Mr. Jameson

Well, there is another material that is used largely in building houses. I refer to slates. The Minister, I am sure, will correct me if I am wrong, but I am told that the cost of slates has gone up by something like 100 per cent., and that what is being tried to be effected is the use of Irish slates. I am also told that these Irish slates are of a size which makes them extremely difficult to lay, and that the putting down of these slates is far more expensive than the laying of British slates, and there is a very heavy duty on the importation of slates. I think I am right in that, and at any rate I understand that the slating of houses at the present time is costing very much more, because of duties and other restrictions, than previously. Then there is the question of timber. I believe it is very doubtful how much good timber you can get in the whole of the Free State at the present time. Now we come to the latest development, and that is the duty on all iron goods used in the building of houses—window frames and so on. Hitherto they have been imported, but now they have to be made here, and a duty of 40 per cent. has been put on so as to give room for the Irish factory which is being established. We know that where a duty of that kind is put on—a duty, say, of 40 per cent.—the people of the country have to pay 5 per cent. to 7½ per cent. of the full duty. If 40 per cent. is put on, the price rises in this country by about 35 per cent. Here we have all these different materials which are going into the houses being steadily raised in price by the action of the Government, and therefore the cost of the building of the houses must be going up. The ordinary people for whom these houses are being built can only afford a certain amount for the house. If the building of the house is going to cost more for its cement, timber and iron work, as a result of these duties, then one of two things must happen: either the people who buy the houses must pay more for them or the quality of the houses must go down. My own belief is that the quality of the houses is going down. I believe so from watching the sort of materials that I see going into the walls of the different houses. The remedy here should be for the Government to have some inspection of the houses that are being built. Perhaps the Minister may tell us that they have exhaustive reports on the quality of the houses on which they pay their bounties, but at any rate all these various things I have mentioned, such as slates, cement, timber, and so on, are undoubtedly using up the money which the country is giving as a bounty for the building of houses, and it does seem to be a totally wrong policy, where the Government is trying to help building and to help to house our people, that the cost of all these things should be increased in that way. As far as building schemes are concerned, our Government should take care that nothing that they do in the way of putting on duties should at all increase the cost of the building of the houses, and that everything they do in the way of tariffs or anything else should be examined from that point of view and that nothing should be allowed to pass which is going to waste the money that the community is putting up for the building of houses for the people.

There is one other matter which I think requires attention in this country. It is brought up largely by this coal-cattle pact. I refer to the question of monopoly. Now, as far as one's study of economics is concerned in this world, there is nothing more dangerous or more deadly to the whole community than monopolies. Wherever they exist you cannot defend yourself against them. There is no use thinking that, once you have given a monopoly, any thing that is possible to be done by the people can ever check the monopolists. It is beyond the idea of the goodness of human nature to believe that people who have got a monopoly will not do their utmost to get as much as they can. Part of our bargain with Great Britain was to give them a monopoly of our coal supplies. In the past I believe it was mainly English coal which we imported here — I daresay it was quite all right — but we had the full right of bargaining with any other country and there was no compulsion to take coal from Great Britain. Now Britain has a monopoly of it and the British can put their heads together and decide what kind of coal they will send us, and I have never heard anybody saying that there is any limit to the price they may charge us for it. I do not think that we have any efficient body like a Prices Committee in this country watching the price of coal and keeping the public informed as to how they stand under the monopoly. I do not want to make any charges, but there are certain steps that ought to be taken by any Government to see that the public is protected from the consequences of a monopoly by a committee which would hold its investigations in public. I make these suggestions for the protection of ourselves, though I know that our negotiators had to make this pact giving Britain the monopoly. I think I know who the gentlemen were who negotiated the agreement, and I doubt very much if in the whole of this country we could get better negotiators.

Dr. Gogarty

In Grangegorman.

Mr. Jameson

Remember that they were in a very difficult position. We were in a hopeless position, as Senator Counihan said, of having hundreds of thousands of surplus cattle and unless we sent them over the cliff I do not know what we could do with them. That is an awful position for this country to be in — I am not saying why it occurred. In dealing with this particular monopoly we should all watch what is going on. There are other monopolies being given in this country, too, and if I am right in saying that monopolies are dangerous things from which the public always suffer severely, then, undoubtedly, this policy of monopolies is a very bad one to follow.

I think that our people should very seriously look into it to see whether they cannot bring pressure to bear on the Government to follow the sensible economic method. There is not a sound economist who has ever written on the subject who has not condemned monopolies, lock, stock and barrel, but here we are in this country, drifting into the policy with foreign countries and among ourselves and thinking that we are sailing on to prosperity. The Government must remember that every single penny made out of these industries is being taken out of Irish Free Staters' pockets. There is not a single industry being put forward by the Government that will enable us to make anything out of an export trade. We depend on a very few industries to pay for our imports, and if we go on as we are going on, the amount of our exports will not pay for those imports. We must, therefore, draw on the reserves of the country and get steadily poorer and poorer. We can see exactly what has happened in other countries. Look at Germany to-day. There they have a war state of affairs and for other reasons they have to adopt the kind of policy which we have adopted. Their reserves are gone and poverty is spreading among the people. If we go on increasing our expenditure in the way Senator MacLoughlin has described, and continue our policy of supporting industries which are totally uneconomic and a heavy burden on our people, we will only end in disaster.

Mr. O'Farrell

I propose to speak on only one aspect of the Bill before us. It is one which I think is of very great importance — the steadily increasing cost of most commodities to a degree that is bearing very heavily on the lowest of the low wage-earners and, to a certain extent, on workers who draw fairly substantial rates of wages. This steady increase is due, of course, to the operation of tariffs, quotas, embargoes and monopolies—monopolies of the type mentioned by the last Senator. Our own Trade Journal shows that there has been a very substantial increase even in food prices for the past 12 months. Comparing mid-November, 1935, with mid-November, 1934, the Journal shows that the price of flour has increased by 17.6 per cent.; bread by 13.1 per cent.; tea by 10.3 per cent.; sugar by 9.4 per cent.; and butter by 7.1 per cent. These are all vitally essential commodities in the life of every family, rich and poor, and to have such substantial increases is a very important concern to every householder in the land. In view of the dispute with Britain and the difficulty of exporting our surplus agricultural produce, everybody said "our food will be cheaper than ever before and what we lose on the one hand we will gain on the other. The workers will, in any case, have cheaper food than they ever enjoyed before." We find now that the tendency is all the other way. The only reductions which took place during the period I mentioned were in regard to eggs, 2.5 per cent.; mutton, 1.1 per cent.; and beef, 1 per cent.—in other words, negligible reductions altogether.

Then in regard to other commodities, there must be an enormous amount of profiteering going on, or else the type of manufacture is unbusiness-like and uneconomic. For instance, I have in mind certain types of clothing that are bought by people with small means, particularly in the summer time. There is a certain type of sports coat which costs 25/- in Great Britain and Northern Ireland and costs 35/- here, although it is manufactured now in the Free State. There is a certain type of flannel trousers which goes with these sports coats and it costs 16/6 in London and 21/- in the Free State although it is manufactured in Dublin now. Then we have the other differences, such as those in the prices of granulated sugar. In England it can be bought for as low as 2d. a lb.; it costs 3½d. per lb. here. The 4-lb. loaf is 10d. in Dublin and I think 11d. in Cork; it is 8½d. in England. Butter costs 1/5 a lb. here as against 10d. and 1/- in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In addition, you have here in this city probably the highest possible passenger rates that obtain in any city in these countries. I live myself within the city boundary and it costs me 5d. for a 'bus to O'Connell Bridge. In Belfast, the highest fare within the city boundary is 2d. In Belfast the price of gas is 2/8 per 1,000 cubic feet as against 4/3 in Dublin, where there has been a slight reduction in the cost.

In other lines which one might call luxury lines but which have become necessary in these times, we have similar differences. I refer to motor cars, vans and lorries. There is a certain type of light car which can be bought for £142 10s. north of the Border and in Britain. The same type is assembled here and costs £215. Fancy the difference between £142 and £215! Another car which costs £175 north of the Border or in Britain costs £265 here—£90 dearer, although it is assembled here. One would like to know where the difference in price comes in. The same difference operates in regard to lorries and 'buses. Who absorbs the difference? Is it the State, by taxation, or is it the assembler? Certainly, it is not going to the workers because the rates of wages being paid here are in many cases not trade union rates. It is either a false, uneconomic form of manufacture or somebody is profiteering, and if profiteering is going on, it is the bounden duty of the Government to see that the consumer is protected by getting the Prices Commission to be a live institution and not the mere cypher which it seems to be at present.

There are numerous household commodities that cost here anything from 20 to 50 per cent. more than elsewhere. It is surprising the number of small things that are necessary in a humble home which can be got in places like Woolworth's Stores—knives, spoons and delph and numerous utensils for household use. They are bought there because they are cheap and serviceable and within the margin that those poor people can afford. If they went to ordinary hardware places they paid a lot higher and had to do without. Now, due to the operation of sky-high tariffs prices are from 50 to 80 per cent. and even 100 per cent. dearer. It is surprising the amount of hardship increased prices inflict on people with a miserably small margin after they have purchased the essentials of life.

Building up industries is a fine and worthy thing, but, surely, industries can only exist when they have markets. Things are not manufactured for the purpose merely of giving profits to the manufacturer or employment to the people. They must be and should be manufactured at a price which the community can afford to pay. In almost every country I have read of, the growth of industries has been accompanied by a fall in prices, but here we have the absolute reverse and the more industries that are created, the more the prices go up. These things are affecting all sections of workers; those employed in the tariffed industries can, no doubt, demand higher wages because these industries can afford to pay them, but industries that are not protected by tariffs and can never expect to get the full advantage from tariffs, are not in a position to pay the higher rates of wages which the workers demand and are entitled to get if they are to pay high prices for the manufactured articles. The only thing to do is to try to protect these workers, including agricultural labourers, by seeing that these monopolies which are created are not used for the purpose of exploiting those people who cannot protect themselves.

We know that all classes of furniture are sold at terribly exorbitant prices. I would ask anybody who wants to buy a single article of furniture, and if he wishes to get something he would like and not an eye-sore, to see if he does not have to pay a price which only wealthy persons can afford. Very often too they are turned out in a very slovenly manner. Recently, I bought an article of furniture—a little cabinet. I paid what I considered an exorbitant price for it. I should say that I was assured by the person from whom I bought it that all that was done with the material here was to assemble it. I think the material came in polished and it was only cut and assembled here. Nothing could be finer than the timber work but I found that the assemblage, when I examined it at home, was of such an atrocious type that I had to send back the cabinet, get it pulled to pieces and reassembled. The salesman admitted that it was a wretched job and said that if he had known it was so bad he would not have allowed it out of the shop.

It is absolutely looked upon as unpatriotic to criticise anything manufactured here, no matter how bad and slovenly the work. I should say that the real patriotism is to criticise those things with a view to getting that efficiency to which we are entitled. Here we have to pay for most things very much higher prices than people in the neighbouring islands are paying and the least we might expect are decently finished articles, at least as good articles as from other countries which are sold more cheaply.

I cannot see that these increased prices are caused by higher wages. Mention was made before of Irish slates. I know of a slate quarry in a county mentioned by Senator MacLoughlin where the workers are paid less than £1 a week. We have had a case in Kilkenny of a certain factory where tweeds are manufactured, and where wages paid are as low as 7/- a week and where a skilled weaver with 20 years' service was paid 20/- per week. We have had this case before us at a meeting of the Labour Party. And this was the case of a firm which had a loan under the Trade Loan (Guarantee) Fund and has among its directors an outstanding patriot, an ex-Deputy and a Deputy. So that the high prices were not caused by high wages. They certainly are not caused by better workmanship, more careful finish or anything of that kind, and one would like to know where the difference between world prices and the Irish prices is going and who is really gaining by it. The consumer surely has some rights and I suggest that the Prices Commission or some such body should have enlarged powers and be made to show greater vigilance and activity on behalf of those who have to purchase the articles and on behalf of those with whom those industries were favoured so much.

Mr. Douglas

On a Bill of this kind one is tempted to deal with a large number of subjects, but I do not propose to do so. There are one or two matters to which I wanted to draw the attention of the Ministry and of the House. I should like to refer to some of the matters raised by the last speaker. There is no doubt, I think, that prices generally for most commodities here are much higher than they are on the other side of the Border and certainly in England. I do not think that can be disputed. Senator O'Farrell was not particularly fortunate in the references he made to men's clothing. As a matter of fact, he chose the one industry in clothing in which I would say there is extremely little difference in price for the same article. If I were to suggest to him where he could get flannel trousers at very much less than 16/- I might be accused of advertising, so I will not do it. I can say, from my own experience, that the making of the cheaper men's clothing has been perhaps the most successful of the industries established here. As a matter of fact, there are now so many factories in the Free State that they are cutting prices against each other and there is complaint of there being too many rather than too few. I do not think that an investigation will show anything like the difference in price that Senator O'Farrell suggests. At the same time that does not apply to a very large quantity of other clothing where the prices are high. I do not say that nobody is profiteering. I have not got the knowledge to make any such general statement, but, if there is going to be an inquiry into manufacturers' prices, I should like to see in the main industries an effort made to ascertain what additional cost the manufacturers here have to bear as compared with manufacturers in Great Britain, who are the main competitors. Before any inquiry as to a proper price can be made, you have to ascertain that. That means taking into consideration the increased cost of raw materials, higher wages which may or may not be justified, and the quantities for which orders can be obtained, which is an exceedingly important factor. I think the Minister will agree with me when I say that in furniture you can turn out 1,000 articles at a rate per article of about half the price at which you can turn out one, possibly even less than half. In the case of the textile industries, where orders are small as compared with Manchester, the prices must of necessity be higher. It is not so much that I disagree with Senator O'Farrell. Certainly it is ridiculous to say that it is unpatriotic to criticise, but criticism will have to take into consideration the fact that if you are going to build up industries here you have got to face conditions which must make the cost higher.

My quarrel with the industrial policy of the Government is that it has not been properly thought out. There is no general scheme. An outside firm comes along with a proposal and if, with some kind of plan, they can bring themselves within the Control of Manufactures Act, they are welcomed with open arms and given a tariff. Some of the methods by which they come within the Act are very ingenious, the control of the business still remaining outside the country. Where the articles they are going to produce mean some addition to the wealth of this country I think it is right, but where the labour employed is small and where they are going to produce something which is largely raw material or necessities for other manufactures and, therefore, are going to add to price increases generally, I doubt very much if it is wise. There is very grave danger that without a regular and properly thought-out scheme some of the industries which are now starting will simply add to the difficulties of existing industries and force the Government to increase the tariffs which are protecting them. We know that this has happened to a certain extent. My attention has been called to the fact that a recent flotation may affect a number of quite small Irish industries which have been going on for a considerable time. At any rate, if such industries increase the cost of what are necessities for other manufactures they certainly should be very carefully considered before they are assisted by a tariff.

There is another matter in the Estimate on which I should be glad to hear the Minister, and that is in regard to decreased bounties. There is one case in which, as far as I can see, the Government seems to have made a serious blunder from the national point of view; that is the withdrawal of the bounties payable on Irish woollen goods exported to Great Britain. I have no financial interest of any kind in the woollen industry so that I am not speaking with any direct personal interest. For the last 60 or 70 years Irish tweeds, without protection, have built up for themselves a reputation for quality in Great Britain. It is not an enormous business, but I believe it is £50,000 or £60,000 a year. Because of the economic war a 20 per cent. tariff was placed against the Irish manufacturers. The Government here, I think, quite properly in the case of this old-established industry, decided it was right to retain that export trade and they paid the full equivalent of the duty in England. As a result, the Irish tweeds maintained their trade in the British market. There were some increasing costs here that the manufacturers were able to meet. Quite recently the Government decided to take off that bounty. The result, in my opinion, will be that that export trade will simply be killed in 12 months and I do not believe that it can be got back again for at least ten years, because if Irish tweeds are left out of the tailors' pattern books in Great Britain it will take a long time and a great deal of advertising to get them back again. They are up against the competition of Scotch tweeds that are not dissimilar in many respects. I think it is a bad policy. I am told that the bounty paid to woollen manufacturers was a little less than £8,000 a year. If that be right it seems to me to be false economy and a serious mistake. I can use practically the same argument with regard to the trade between this country and Great Britain in union goods made from cotton and linen, but as I have a personal interest in this trade I do not propose to develop the argument.

There is one other small matter and that is the attitude of the Electricity Supply Board in regard to errors in meters. I have heard one or two complaints and I have come across an actual case of a company of which I have personal knowledge. It was found that their account during the December period was increased by about 10 per cent. That was at the time of year when the load was heaviest. They could not understand the increase and could not think of an explanation. Eventually they were told that if they were to have the meter tested they should make a deposit of a £1. They did this and they learned that when the meter was working at one-tenth rate it was 2.6 per cent. fast, when it was working at half rate it was 2 per cent. fast and when working at full load it was 9 per cent. fast. The £1 would, therefore, be returned but as the mean was below 2½ per cent. no refund could be made in the amount. That particular firm think they were largely on full load or fairly near it. Apart from that, it seems to be wrong even if the error only amounts to 2 per cent., that an adjustment should not be made. In business, if you made an error of 2 per cent. in sending out an invoice for goods and then wrote that, as the error was less than 2½ per cent., you could not correct it, I know what the result would be so far as the trader was concerned. I do not want to be taken as complaining of the £1 deposit. Some people would have their meters tested every week if there were not some check but, when an error has been made, an adjustment should be made. The other method is a form of red tape which only monopolies can carry out. This particular firm is not complaining that it is being treated differently from anybody else. It has been treated according to the regulations, which provide that where the mean is less than 2½ per cent., there can be no alleviation. That is a matter that should be looked into because, in ordinary business, it could not be done.

Dr. Gogarty

It is not often that we find one of the Ministers present here. They so frequently eluded and ran away from the Seanad that they decided eventually to abolish this critical body. However, their arch-economist and the self-avowed author of their present economic policy is now in attendance. It was he who rejoiced that the cattle trade, which took 100 years to build up, would not, thank God, take very long to demolish. Then he substituted the word "system" for "cattle trade". That is the fons et origo of our trouble. The country's income is being cut off and no amount of swopping coin between the inhabitants is going to make up for that mistake. They have cut off the natural resources of the country, smashed its natural advantages, killed its calves and turned it into an imaginary corn field in Canada. You might as well grow sparrows as do that. Already, this year, the winter wheat has failed.

Grattan's Parliament lasted for 17½ years. Making allowance for the difference in transport and communications, it is a miracle that this Parliament has lasted for 14 years. The last four years have brought us further into the lap of John Bull than we were in those 14 years. Recruiting is at present at its height. Thirty-six young men left Enniscorthy last week to join as stokers in the British navy—an excellent occupation. I am open to correction if I do not quote Senator Connolly correctly. He can tell us that he never said such a thing about our cattle trade but, on the 1st of April next, in spite of this coal-cattle pact and the relief it is supposed to give the cattle industry — a pact which cost us our choice of market—120,000 calves are to be slaughtered and 10/—not 10/6—given for their skins. "Skin-the-Goat" was a patriot but "Skin-the-calf" is the greatest enemy this country has ever had and he is not very far away from us. Senator Jameson warned the Government a year ago that they would leave themselves in such an impoverished condition that they would have nothing with which to bargain. President de Valera has confessed that a country's bargaining power depends on the resources behind the country. They waited to bargain until they had drained the country pale and spilt its natural wealth—a wealth which took 100 years to build up, a wealth in cattle with which there was nothing comparable in any country in the world.

I had a conversation with a cattle finisher in Carlisle. I said "Why, with empty fields in England and Scotland, do you not grow your own stock?" He said "Have you any idea of the cattle population of Ireland?" I said that the cattle numbered about 4,000,000. He said "What value would you put on them?" I said they would represent about £10 per head—not 10/—which would be £40,000,000.""Nonsense," he said, "what is the capital value of an income of £17,000,000 a year to your country? It is nearly £300,000,000."

That is a thing that, thanks be to God, will take only a little time to break down but which took 100 years to build up. It will take 100 years to put us back where we were and to give us the liberty and independence we got in the last 14 years. We have no choice now; we have to take British coal at top price and of bottom quality. We have to take British cement. There was once an Irish cement factory in existence. Then, an English company came along with promises of endless extension. They bought up the factory. No cement was made there from that day and the factory is there to-day, falling into ruin. The same thing occurred in the case of Vickers at the North Wall. Vickers came over and they now do as little or as much repair work as they think fit. These are well known methods in great businesses of freezing out competition and local enterprise. Instead of fostering enterprises which are native and germane to the country, such as our shipping on the Liffey and our cement, we are protecting the most preposterous things. All sorts of things are being protected. All sorts of aliens are coming in here and not alone is the Irish race being sapped by the price of food, which has been raised against the poor, but the breed of the Irish is being mixed with that of every anonymous Jew who is kicked out of another country, comes over here, makes some proposal to the Government and is immediately hailed as the saviour of the economic situation and a magnificent industrialist. That is the position which has come about in the last four years.

I shall not enlarge on the promises made by our politicians when they told us there were to be economies of £2,000,000. Those economies have ended in a deficit of £6,000,000. If they had said one word about the murdering or skinning of the calves, do you think there would be a single Fianna Fáil Minister in the country? If they had said one word about the young men being driven to recruit in the British Army and Navy—an excellent training and far better than being left on the dole and being demoralised at home—these Ministers would not be here. If I were a fairy godmother or a wizard, depending on the honour of the Government, I would transform the Ministers into Japanese and hope for the honourable dispatch, because they owe it to the country. Instead of that, the country is being made commit suicide through the vitiation of national sentiment. The country is being made to follow a suicidal and a ruinous policy. Even the bounties promised are not forthcoming. Certain traders in Dublin selling Irish cloth against the British tariff have to pay rates and taxes while the bounty is due them, and there are instances in Dublin where that bounty has been due for over 18 months. So much for the results of the Government's policy. The details of the Estimates have been gone into so closely that it is not necessary for me, not having a head for figures, to deal with them. I shall deal only with the general headings and with the knowledge I have derived from personal contact. This country has been largely saved from the results of the Government's policy, and the incidence of that policy has been blunted by an external and utterly extraneous thing which was a lucky thing for this State—the Irish Sweep. The endowment of the hospitals has greatly relieved outdoor relief, because many people who cannot get sufficient nutriment owing to the extra price of sugar and butter can go into the hospitals on a slight pretext and get a certain amount of treatment there, so that their hunger and inanition are not so much noticed. But the country's stamina is being sapped. If the country is underfed you cannot expect its natives to be very robust. The pity of it is that the cause is so artificial and peevish. I remember, when the President was discussing this war he was to have with England, he counted up some things on which no compromise could be made. Because the money was not due to England there could be no compromise. Senator Colonel Moore built up the case. Senator Connolly backed it, and President de Valera threw down the gauntlet in such a way that nobody could make terms with him. Then there was to be an international commission to decide—what? To make up the President's mind, or unmake up his mind, regarding the money that he said was not due. If it was a matter that could be put before a commission —international or neutral—why on earth was that money not paid until the commission would have given its decision? For a political reason the President created a complete impasse and, owing to his hopeless judgment of John Bull's psychology, we have to take any kind of slack that John Bull cares to give us and to take one-third of our cement requirements from him at a time when Belgium is dumping the cheapest cement in the world here. We also give him a monopoly of our hardware. Meantime, we are building up the most fanciful creations. We are to have factories for the production of industrial alcohol from potatoes. We are to have razor blades made in Waterford and sausages in Naas. The country, if left alone, would never have been poor. Though there are barely 3,000,000 people in the Free State, there are many thousands of these 3,000,000 hungry. If the President had the 17,000,000 which he says should, by right, be living in Ireland, imagine what the conditions in the country would be. If the country were a refrigerator and the graveyards of the past century were preserved, it could barely support 17,000,000 people.

The pity is that our opportunities were lost through certain failures of character at Ottawa. The pistol—If one may use a military or Dick Turpin term—could have been held at the head of John Bull and he could have been told: "You are buying from Denmark £40,000,000 worth of goods. They are only buying from you £10,000,000 worth." They are now buying £12,000,000 worth. What is wrong with us that we could not get that £30,000,000 worth? With a higher output of cattle, with the most successful harvest we could have, with our factories—the cheapest factories that could be run because they are run from heaven, and the seasons work for us—running at full blast, we could meet only one-tenth of the meat demand of Great Britain. It would not have been extravagant to ask to have that supply raised by 20 per cent. We could have said then: "We will buy all the hardware you can sell us, because we do not want to make Dublin ‘Black Country.' We will buy anything from you for which you are not a mere agent." There are so many things for which Great Britain is an agent that there would have been a mighty good margin for us in which to exercise fiscal autonomy. That chance was lost and the results speak for themselves. It is lamentable that, after that, we are here voting so many more thousands for secret police and so much more money for additional stretchers in the President's office that he may sleep on the telephone or something of that sort when the whole thing has one root—the monstrous policy of cutting off our natural income, frittering away the country's resources, murdering its live stock and hoping that by charging one man ten times more than his neighbour, you are going to get success or that by protecting things that do not exist here you are going to get a balanced economy. It is the sheerest lunacy, and it has been so proved by the figures. Only this country has got under some sort of spell, like the spell that fell on the men of Ulster in the days of Cuchulain when they fell into a sleep, it would not tolerate these happenings. It is a pity some of the minds did not remain permanently asleep.

Mr. Baxter

It is not a matter for rejoicing on any side of the House that the total expenditure has increased from £21,000,000 to the figures at which it stands to-day. Perhaps it is true that many of us are not as conservative-minded now as in the days when we thought that £21,000,000 or £22,000,000 were ample to run this State. I confess that I think we are not getting adequate value for the £28,000,000 expenditure required to-day. If there is one comment I would like to make on the speech of Senator MacLoughlin, which was wide in its scope, it is as to how very careful we have to be when we make election speeches. Undoubtedly it was the view of the present Government Party when in opposition, and without the experience of office, that there was extravagance and that much work could be done by a Government at a lower figure. Performance as well as experience in office perhaps are something that will be beneficial to the country as a whole. I have no doubt that if we had a change of Government those going up as opponents of the present one will not be as diffuse in their promises as to how they could cut down expenditure, or as to what they could do if they got into power. It is undoubtedly true that there might be an explanation for increased governmental expenditure that might be justifled as being beneficial to the country. I believe there is inflation that is helping certain districts owing to Government policy. While that policy has favoured a certain group of citizens, or has been beneficial to them, as against that there are other areas and large groups who are harassed and sorely pressed by the taxation which is represented in £28,000,000. Taking the people as a whole, I believe the expenditure is not justified and is not bearing fruit.

Very little has been said about agriculture, as the speakers who have been dealing with the Bill are mostly engaged in other walks of life. I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the number of officials, and the corresponding cost, have increased in the Department of Agriculture by 50 per cent. In my view it is really an appalling situation for people in rural Ireland to have inspectors, either in offices or in Government buildings up and down the country, dictating to them what steps they are to take in carrying on their business. I do not mind whether it is under the aegis of the present Government or of a succeeding administration. I believe that policy is all wrong. I realise that the Minister for Lands is not prepared to deal with some of the questions that I want to raise, but as there are Senators in the Government Party who have the agricultural point of view, it should be stated. Perhaps the present conditions will pass. Conditions are never static. If we are looking to the future we have to consider Government policy and its effects on the future. One of the latest edicts of the Department is something that came from the initiative of Senator Counihan in regard to the appointment of warble fly inspectors. I am only taking that as an instance to show how impossible the Government has become. We are creating positions for hundreds of inspectors who will have to go to farmsteads and see what farmers are doing with their cattle. That destroys initiative on the part of the farmers, by attempting to order their lives, so that there will be inspectors to instruct and to regulate their every action. That is all wrong. The outlook that determines that policy is wrong. I think farmers will agree that it is unsound. Senator Linehan and Senator MacEllin understand what a nuisance it would be if farmers were to get orders either directly from the Department of Agriculture, or passed on through local authorities, telling them to do so and so. At that stage farmers would have very little liberty left to them, and an attitude of mind would be created when they were not free to think for themselves. Is it worth that? Should there not be another line by trying to educate and to instil into the minds of our people methods that farmers would understand would be good for themselves and for the country? Instead of ordering and prosecuting farmers for things that they have not done, it would be better to try to inculcate into them a spirit of citizenship, to make them realise that it was their duty to do what was good for themselves and for the country.

In other districts there are other classes of inspectors to be found. I never like to be critical of public officials. It is, perhaps, very unfair, and a hazardous undertaking to criticise people who are acting under directions from others, and who are not free agents. I confess that I believe a number of these officials are ineffective and, in fact, are of no value to farmers, and are generally a nuisance. That is bad for agriculture, particularly in the conditions that prevail to-day, when farmers are subjected to great difficulties in the matter of marketing. It is bad when farmers in that position realise that a number of these inspectors are floating about, all well-fed and comfortable looking, while farmers themselves are facing up to responsibilities that are greater now than they have ever been. As to the general policy that is being pursued by the Government, Senator Jameson discussed at some length the wheat policy. I have always expressed the view that the wheat policy is not acceptable to the country as a whole, and never can be. I have examined the matter, and as we are supposed in this democratic State to consider numbers, I am satisfied that the number of farmers who cannot grow wheat and who never will grow it outnumber those who grow it by nearly two to one. It is not their fault that they cannot grow it. That is due to other circumstances. Pressing and, in fact, forcing that policy on people to whom it is not acceptable and who cannot put it into operation is, in my view the height of folly. The consequences of such unwisdom will be reaped later. I believe that if conditions were normal and that if we were not up against it with the British we would be a laughing stock by pursuing this policy of growing wheat.

I have never been able to figure out exactly what encouragement in the way of cash would have to be offered to farmers to get them to pursue wheat growing. In other days I heard rather an interesting story of the examination that went on when a number of people went before the Economic Committee that was set up to inquire into the possibility of growing wheat here. A classic answer was given by one person who was questioned as to the means that would have to be applied to get farmers to grow wheat. I think the question was asked by President de Valera, as to what would have to be done to get farmers to grow 300,000 acres of wheat and the answer was "get the guns at them." There was no economic war then, yet that was considered to be the impossibility of such a policy in the light of the circumstances that existed at that time. Beet is in a somewhat different category. If we were told the policy with regard to wheat growing that it was something that it would be good to carry on if it did not cost too much, and that farmers ought to adapt themselves to the times, having regard to the difficulties of the times then the position would be understandable. If it was put that way farmers would face up to it in a different frame of mind. But that is not the position, and the result is that smaller farmers are subsidising people with better land, and have to pay 15/- or 16/- per cwt. for flour which can be purchased across the border for 10/- or 11/-. Why demand such a sacrifice from these people or expect them to continue such a policy in view of the circumstances that exist?

I believe that position should be fairly and frankly faced up to by the Government. I submit that the position of people in Mayo and the condition of people in Cavan is different from the position of those in districts in which Senator Quirke lives in Tipperary, Senator Dillon in Kilkenny, or Senator Miss Browne in Wexford, and that eventually we will come to this position, that we will range on one side the people who can grow wheat or beet and in another camp the small farmers who cannot do so. If people living under depressed conditions have to make a contribution to those who are living on the better land, you are creating a dangerous attitude amongst the class that live on ten acre farms in Kerry, Clare, Leitrim and elsewhere. That is the problem to be faced up to in the future.

It is a problem that I believe ought to be faced up to as a serious problem for the future. The Government have been so extreme, in their policy of wheat growing that they have carried it far beyond the point of wisdom in my opinion. This is a matter in which it cannot be said that I am unduly narrow or prejudiced. I have been growing a certain acreage of wheat at home for many years. My people have been growing it before I was born, but I am talking of the conditions as I see them around me, the conditions of the people with whom I come in contact, and with whom I knocked round as a boy, people who are suffering to-day as a result of Government policy. The growing of beet is in a somewhat similar category. I agree of course, and I have said it already in this House, that if economic developments in this country, agriculturally and industrially, had reached a certain stage, if the problem were faced up to and if there could be such wise spending that an examination of the whole position would justify the cultivation of beet and wheat, we would be glad to encourage it. That, however, would be only justified if the people who are asked to make this contribution towards the growing of these crops were in a position in which they could get the ordinary essentials of life at a reasonable price, and have something left from which to make their contribution towards the higher cost of flour and sugar produced in other parts of Ireland.

There is no plan, as far as I see it, for these people. There is, and there will always be, a plan for the people on the larger farms, the people convenient to the capital who have got able representatives, many of them having opportunities of education that are not available to the poor man's children away back in the West, the North, or the extreme South. It is easy for the people of South Kildare, and the grain-growers in some parts of Tipperary and a few areas in the Midlands, to come together and declare that such-and-such a policy is a good policy for the country, to come along with such force and persuasiveness as to convince responsible people that it is the right thing to do. The poor people back in the West, who perhaps will be told by their leaders that it is a national policy and that it must be supported, in their loyalty to what they believe is a national policy, will sacrifice their own interests in order to see this policy carried to fruition, but that is just the point. It will not be carried to fruition if its economics are not sound. The poor people back in the West will be forced eventually to rise up and say it is not a good national policy and that they refuse to support it further. Then you will have discovered after a number of years that it was unsound from the beginning and that it was better to have taken stock before you adopted this policy.

That is the position in which I find myself to-day. I am always open to conviction on it, but I have yet to be convinced that it is a good national policy. For several years back I have been meeting farmers from other parts of Ireland at meetings of farmers' organisations. As far back as 1919, 1920 and 1921, I met men from Kildare, from Carlow, from Wexford and other places who were strong supporters of a grain-growing policy. Senator Linehan remembers meeting them too, when they came along at these farmers' organisations, making all sorts of demands from the grain-growers. In those days, we who were engaged in other types of farming were able to meet those men, to dominate them, and to say: "We have not yet reached the stage when we can give a guaranteed price to the grain-grower. The farmer engaged in other types of production has not the capacity to contribute towards that guaranteed price." Well, these men floated along with the times. Any port in a storm. They have been more successful in convincing the present Government than they were in convincing us in 1920 and 1921.

I shall diverge for a moment to address myself to certain aspects of the work of the Land Commission. As we have the Minister for Lands present, I want to put certain points before him, and I shall be interested to hear his views on them. These will take me back again to the point on which I want to conclude. I am a native of a county in which, as long as I remember, there has never been much of a problem for the Land Commission. I do not know whether there was ever any land to be divided in it. Certainly there has not been since I was born. There are, as I have often pointed out, about 19,000 holdings in the county, and of these 13,000 are of £10 valuation and under. I do not think there are more than 100 holdings with a valuation of £100 or over. I used to know practically every townland in that county, and within it there is no land for distribution. The only way the people of the county were ever able to get increased holdings was by saving enough on a 10-acre holding to go and buy a 20, a 30 or a 40-acre holding in Meath. They used to do that some years ago, but I think they have not been so enthusiastic in recent years in going to County Meath, because land has scarcely any greater value in Meath to-day than it has in Cavan.

With regard to the distribution of land by the Land Commission, I was at one time rather revolutionary in my ideas, but now I have come to the point of view that it is a policy that can be pursued much too far, very easily. I agree, of course, that if you go into some counties like Roscommon, or even into spots in Mayo and Galway, and see people living sometimes in the bogs beside large tracts of good land, and if you know the land hunger there is in their hearts, you feel that it is terribly unjust that such a condition of things should have existed, or that it should not be permitted to continue. Such a situation as that should be examined, and the right and the wise thing done, but this whole question of redistribution of land is something that can very easily be carried too far. You reach a point by breaking up all large farms at which you are going completely to alter the economy of the country as a whole. Not only are you going to alter the economy of the counties where the land is being distributed, but you must necessarily alter the agricultural economy of counties in which the small farmers live, and pursue a certain type of farming. Take a county like Cavan, in which there is a very dense population of live stock, or any other of the nine or ten counties where conditions are somewhat similar. When the problem is examined, it will be found that these counties cannot continue their present system of agricultural production once you come to the point that you are going to break up all the large farms.

Whether in Cavan, Leitrim or along the western seaboard from Donegal to Kerry, we pursued a type of farming under which we kept a certain number of cows. We reared our calves until they were yearlings, and then you reached a point when you had an overflow of that stock and you had to get rid of them. The only places to which they could go, and to which they were quite welcome in the past, were the large farms, which did not engage in that same type of production. That is, farmers in these areas did not engage in dairying such as the farmers in Cavan and other counties did, but they took the product of our dairy farms and finished them off on their farms. That system paid the farmer in Cavan with 15 to 20 acres and ensured him a reasonably decent standard of living. His cow would be worth £10 a year at the creamery, and the calf, when a year old, would be worth another £10. One can easily calculate the annual income of a farmer with four or five cows from that source. Let us suppose now that we are going to continue the policy of breaking up the land Meath, Westmeath, and elsewhere. When you bring a man from Connacht, or from other congested areas, in on these farms, the only way he can make a living is by following the same type of agricultural production as made it possible for small farmers to eke out a livelihood in the other counties. The result will be that the number of our dairy cows will be multiplied several times.

All this multiplication of dairy cows means that you are increasing the cattle population, and even if we are going indefinitely to continue the policy of killing the calves, the standard of living for these new farmers on the distributed lands, and the standard of living for the people on the ten-acre farms in Cavan, Leitrim and elsewhere must be very considerably reduced. We are going to have over-productivity in a type of agricultural commodity, the production of which up to the present has just been equal to the demand. This policy is pursued, I presume, because it is considered that the population is too dense in certain areas, and that there should be a redistribution of land and of population. Very good, but when you redistribute the land, you are going to raise new generations on these lands. The density of population will be there again after some years, and what are you going to do when there is no more land to be distributed?

My view is that the situation should be faced now. A redistribution of the land is not the solution to the problem at all. As far as the poorer land of this country is concerned, nothing has been done for the small farmer. His position has been considerably worsened. I am not going into a discussion of the economic war, but everybody accepts the fact that the position of the small farmer has been considerably worsened as the result of the economic dispute. Apart altogether from that, the small farmer has been given no help at all. You have the big man getting his ready cash from beet and wheat, but you find producers, like the people with whom I am acquainted, put into the position to-day that they have to accept depressed prices for their finished product in the world market, owing to the economic war. And the price of the raw materials of their production, such as meal and the things we have to buy, is out of all proportion to what the small farmer ought to have to pay. The policy of the Minister for Agriculture, with regard to the admixture of home grown cereals with imported grain, has been brought to the point where I have to pay 15/6 for 2 cwts. of that admixture whereas the same quantity of meal can be bought across the Border for 10/6 or 11/-. Then I cannot get as much for the finished product reared on that admixture, as the man across the Border can get. That policy is being pursued apparently in the belief that farmers like Senator Miss Browne and Senator Quirke will get a better price for their barley and oats than they have been getting heretofore.

The truth is that, as far as the figures I have been able to get would indicate, the price of barley and oats to-day — of oats certainly — is no better to the grain grower than it was in 1931 before this admixture scheme was put into operation at all. If that be so, the scheme is not justifying itself as far as the grain grower is concerned. I have never had very much sympathy with these grain growers and I have argued for years and given evidence before commissions to the effect that if the people of my county could grow grain as well as they can grow grain in other parts of the country, we would have everyone of our farms growing it and we would not have to be sending up to Kilkenny and other parts of the country to have it consumed. I believe that the people who countenance or encourage any other policy are doing something that is wrong for the country. It is no improvement for the grain growers and it is a terrible injustice to the small farmers all over the country who are the backbone of the country. Small farming in the Free State is going through a very depressing period. I believe myself that it has not been given a fair chance. In this connection, I think that the big fellow has had the best end of the stick up to the present. Some, of course, will argue that, with regard to the price of cattle, the big man has suffered. Of course, he has suffered to some extent. He suffered in the first year or so, of course, but since then he has been able to come back and he has been able to buy at the right price and has been able to make as much profit, and more, for the last two years on the cattle he bought than he ever did. Senator MacEllin knows that what I am saying is true.

Mr. Counihan

Question?

Mr. Baxter

That is the truth.

Mr. Counihan

There is not a particle of truth in it.

Mr. Baxter

Undoubtedly, the majority of the farmer producers in this country are not getting and have not been shown the consideration and the understanding of their difficulties and their problems that they were entitled to receive from a home Government. I am prepared to accept that the exigencies of the situation have compelled the Government perhaps to do things that ordinarily would not have had to be done. I would be prepared to go a long way with the Government if they were prepared to come out and say that; but when they come along arguing that what they are doing is sound national policy under any circumstances, that is something I could not accept and for which I would not stand with anybody. If the people with whom I am associated at the moment wanted to come along and so argue — and I have no doubt there are some of them who would so argue because it suits their book — I would not stand with them. I think that the ordinary citizen of the country, as a whole — the small man — is at least entitled to justice. If his voice be so weak, or if he be so poorly represented in the councils in which policy in regard to him is decided, that justice is not done to him and there is no understanding for him, there ought to be at least some people to stand up for him — and I am sure that the truth of the picture I am trying to paint will hardly be questioned — and say: "Yes, these are the facts approximately." The small farmer in this country ought not to be penalised, in addition to the penalties that are imposed upon him by the British Government through the prosecution of the economic war, by the policy of the Government here at home in its handling of the agricultural situation.

Miss Browne

I wish to deal briefly with the matter of sugar beet production. It is a matter that we have had before us very often. Senator Baxter, and perhaps others in the non-beet-growing areas, have the idea that the farmers are making more or that they are getting something at any rate out of their beet growing; that they have got into their hands a certain amount of ready cash, as Senator Baxter says. Everybody knows that the cost of the indirect tax on the people on last year's crop of beet will be about £24 an acre. I can give three examples with which I am familiar, where last year, which was a bad year and a bad crop, they realised about £55. That cost the taxpayer £72. The difference between the price of sugar in Northern Ireland at the moment and the price in the Free State is that in Northern Ireland the sugar costs 2/6, while in the Free State it costs 4/-. That is the position at the moment, and that is a very heavy tax on the people, and especially on the poor. However, this is not exactly what I wanted to bring out. What I wanted to stress is the great cost of this industry to the country, and I also want to bring out something with regard to the management of the beet factories. I am only familiar with the Carlow factory, and I want to make a protest here about the management of that factory and the treatment of the growers by the factory. In the old Carlow factory, which was run by business men on business lines, the growers were treated with perfect fairness.

Mr. MacEllin

Why did they go on strike, if that is so?

Miss Browne

Although the cost to the tax-payers was great at that time, the farmer got a remunerative price for his beet, which he does not get now. On that crop of beet he has had an actual loss. The £55 cash, out of which all his expenses — and they are very heavy expenses — must be paid, leaves him nothing; but he had as an offset to that the fact that he was entitled by his contract to 103 quarters of sugar pulp. He had to pay for the carriage, and to pay 7d. each for the bags, which are no use to anybody. What happens now, however? The loading agents went to the beet fields while the crop was growing and made a rough estimate as to what amount of beet a field should produce. The factory calculated on the amount of sugar pulp which was due to the growers on that estimate, and that was the amount of pulp which the farmers got. In this instance, I may explain, for every ton of clean washed beet, he should get 103 quarters of sugar pulp, but in this case, with which I am perfectly familiar, the amount due to the farmer was 53 cwts., and he got 41 cwts., and he did not get the sacks which he was entitled to. They were taken out of his account. When the final account was sent out at the end of the campaign no explanation of this was given. No explanation was given as to why this amount of sugar pulp was held back from this man, and there must have been a number of farmers who were too careless perhaps, or did not think they were going to be done, and neglected to look up their accounts. Businesslike men, however, did look up their accounts, and all around my area they found that that was the case. One man was 26 bags short, another was 13 short, another 15 short, and another eight short. These were all cases of men within a mile or so of my place, and of course there are certainly more. These are only instances. I wrote on their behalf to the factory and was told that that pulp should have been sent on before. I wrote to the Association and got long explanations as to the delay, but the pulp has not come yet. As a result of this, feeding stuffs have run short and these people, and most people who grow sugar beet, are growing it as a substitute for other root crops and, as a result, have no feeding stuffs. We always have said that the growing of sugar beet would not make very much difference in the amount of land tilled, because the grower would substitute beet for other root crops, such as mangolds or turnips, and that is what has happened. These instances that I have given show that there is gross mismanagement, and I want to make protest accordingly. I have not been able to find out the extent of this, except in the cases I have given, but there must be large numbers of people who have not got their due, and considering the very poor prices, and that they have nothing out of the crop except they get this pulp for feeding purposes — and even then it is doubtful if they have any profit after their expenses are paid — I think this is a very serious matter. There is only one thing to be said in favour of the growing of beet as against the growing of wheat, and that is that it does not impoverish the land, and that it gives a far greater amount of employment, but when Senator Baxter and others argue about the great benefit to the farmers in the areas where these crops can be grown, they forget that in most cases it is a question of "needs must when the devil drives," and that the people who go in for the production of sugar beet do so, as has been said, practically at the point of the bayonet — that it is a question of growing the beet or going into the county home. They know that they are ruining their land, but what can they do? They cannot do anything.

Looking over the Estimates, I regret to see that in the welter of wholesale extravagance and spending, a few pounds have been taken off such items as Forestry and the Record Office. If you look over the Paper, you will find these items. Now, this is the worst wooded country in all Europe. There are vast stretches of country here that are most depressing to travel through, where there is not a tree to be seen. It is a pity that, where so much money is being wasted — money that might as well be thrown into the Irish Sea for all the good it will do — a few pounds have to be taken off that Estimate. I think it is pitiable. Forestry is a thing which would benefit the country in every way. It would give employment, improve the climate, and do everything that is good. Then we have something like £800 taken off this very small and poor Estimate for the Record Office. One does not like to go back to the horrors of the Civil War and the revolting crimes committed then, but the most revolting crime — the crime most lasting in its injury to the country, the most disgraceful thing that has ever been done in this country, and that is a big saying — was the burning of the Record Office. It was a thing the consequence of which will be felt in time to come, and the diabolical way in which it was done makes it worse and all the more disgraceful to this country. From all the millions which we have provided we have to cut off £800 from the miserable £3,000 or £4,000 that we allow for the office. Those things show to what degree we have sunk. The other items have been gone into so thoroughly that I do not think I need take up the time of the Seanad by referring to them.

Mr. Dillon

I would like to refer to the provision made for canning in the Vote for the Department of Agriculture. Money is being provided for canning Kerry cattle in a factory at Waterford. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the conditions underlying this Vote and to ask whether the Government intend to continue that policy. As far as my opinion goes, I believe the production and sale of Kerry cattle would seem to be completely uneconomic and unprofitable under present conditions. It would seem that the policy which is being pursued in relation to Kerry cattle is as sound and as sensible as the policy of slaughtering calves. For instance, I believe it is common in parts of Kerry to get a present of, say, ten, 20 or even 50 Kerry cattle. If you got a present of them and paid freight and other expenses and tariffs going to England, I believe you would be at a loss.

Of course, the Government, on the other hand, has come to the relief of producers of Kerry cattle, and I believe that as producers they are entitled to it, but what I protest against, and what I believe is wrong, is the method used. For instance, in subsidising the purchase of Kerry cattle, it is intended that these cattle are to be used in the canning factory at Waterford and sold in the home market. Besides saving subsidies, they have the advantage of not paying the tariff into England, which is a complete differentiation against the production of other cattle. It appears to me at all events, and I have given a great deal of consideration to the matter, as I am interested in the factory in which they are being used, that it is an absolutely preposterous policy. It would be far more sensible if they tried to use this factory by getting the prohibition removed from the export of dressed meat to England. We have heard a great deal about the necessity for getting tariffs reduced, but we seem to have heard nothing about the prohibition of the dressed meat trade between here and England. When I say that, I imply that the dressed meat trade did exist and was in a very successful way of business between Waterford and Smithfield. Of late it has been absolutely prohibited under the emergency tariffs and so on.

The worst feature of it is that the Government seems to be ignorant of the potentialities of the dressed meat trade between Ireland and Smithfield. There is an absolutely unlimited trade for such cattle as could be used for that trade — the young two-year-old of a certain type. When I say that there is an absolutely unlimited trade, I mean that the competition is so small that it would seem to be unlimited. The Argentine sends over several thousands of cwts. of dressed meat to Smithfield every week, but that has no relation to the first-class dressed meat produced in Waterford or to the class of meat that is sent every day from Glasgow to London. It seems to me that the neglect of that great wealth-producing industry is almost criminal.

We have Votes in this Agricultural Estimate used for other agricultural purposes, while this very important factory in Waterford, erected by the shareholders of the Irish Co-operative, is idle for eight months of the year. The canning of Kerry cattle is only a seasonal trade, and the fact that it is only a seasonal trade means that 100 or 200 men are left idle for part of the year, whereas if they were allowed to send this meat to Smithfield a couple of hundred more men could be employed on full time.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach took the Chair.

Mr. Dillon

I think it is almost criminal that the possibilities of the dressed meat trade should be neglected. I am not putting it up to the Minister who is present, but I would be quite satisfied if the matter were left to be dealt with by the Minister for Agriculture. It arose on this Bill, and consequently I took the opportunity of mentioning it. It is a matter, to my mind, of supreme importance, and those with whom I am associated feel that every opportunity should be taken to try to press on the Government to get the prohibition removed from that trade between Ireland and England.

There is another very important matter in connection with the policy of the Government in using bounties for calf-skins. It is quite on a par with the handling of Kerry cattle in this uneconomic way in using the money of the country to buy these cattle and have them canned. I think the slaughtering of calves is a scheme which is greatly lacking in foresight, for the reason that the number of store cattle used in England within the last 12 months has increased from 23 to 54 per cent. That indicates that there is in England a scarcity of store cattle, and next year or the year after there must be a tremendous shortage. As opposed to this matter, a great deal has been said in this debate about the use of public moneys for industrial purposes.

As a contrast to what I have been saying about this canning factory in Waterford, I would mention that the boot factory in Kilkenny, close to which I live, has during the last week or so advertised its annual general meeting. It transpired that the profits on the ordinary shares for the year is 50 per cent., but they are not paying it. They intend to pay 25 per cent. Practically all these ordinary shares are held in Northampton. The debenture shares and shares bearing small interest are held locally, while the shares carrying the big money are held across the water. In contrast to that, if we were allowed to go on with this great industry in Waterford, capable of immense development, the price would be quite different, and I suggest that it deserves encouragement from the Government and consideration from this House.

Mr. MacEllin

I do not intend to prolong this debate, but I want to point out that all the pulp manufactured by the Irish Sugar Company belongs to the farmers and to the Beet Growers' Association, and that not one ounce has ever been sold or controlled by the Irish Sugar Company. Senaor Miss Browne ought to make investigations before she comes in here to make a complaint after listening to somebody down the country.

Miss Browne

My own case is one of these. That replies to the point that I made no investigations. Did Senator MacEllin make any investigations?

Mr. MacEllin

The pulp belongs to the Beet Growers' Association and the company does not deal with it.

Miss Browne

That is not an explanation and will not be accepted by anybody.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

That will do, Senator. You have already spoken.

Mr. Blythe

Senator MacLoughlin referred to the promises and claims of Ministers before they came into office about the reduction of Government expenditure. I always contended at the time that a reduction in Government expenditure was not to be looked for, though occasionally, under circumstances of particular stress, it might be possible for a Government temporarily to reduce expenditure by cutting outlay in certain directions, but the whole position was such that Government expenditure must tend to increase. Owing to the growing complexity of economic life, the need for Government activity arising from that complexity was going to mean continual increased cost. Really, that process of increased Government cost ought to go along with increased capacity to pay. If our policy was right and the Government was giving the right value for the expenditure, then, as taxation increased, the capacity to pay would increase and no hardship would result. I think, however, you could never have a sudden or rapid increase in Government expenditure without imposing hardships because new demands from the tax-gatherer would lead to maladjustment and loss and suffering that ought to be avoided.

The present Government since it came into office has not only increased expenditure very rapidly but has increased it while, as far as one can judge, the capacity to pay has decreased to a very considerable extent. As far as we can judge from the Estimates dealt with by the Bill now before us, the process of increase in expenditure is going on. When the volume of Estimates was issued it was stated by some newspapers that there was a decrease of some £800,000 in the expenditure on Supply Services, but, of course, that figure was arrived at by comparison of figures which were not comparable. The figures which are found in parallel columns with the figures for the coming year, are figures for original Estimates for 1935-36, as increased by numerous Supplementary Estimates during the year, whereas the figures for 1936-37 are purely original Estimates which are due to be increased before next year by doubtless a great many supplementaries, so that if we want to compare the figures now issued with last year's figures we must compare original Estimates with original Estimates.

If we take out of last year's original Estimates the provision of capital for the Local Loans Fund, which amounted to £1,330,000 and which was not in fact voted by the Dáil, other arrangements having been made for the Local Loans Fund, we find that the original Estimates for the coming year are up by £107,000 as compared with the Estimates for the year which is now drawing to a close. As a matter of fact, that is the most favourable comparison that can be made from the point of view of the Government. If you take things like the wheat subsidy which was provided for in the Estimates, on a technicality and was not spent, the increase is probably in the nature of £400,000. So that it is not merely that there was a great and rapid increase in cost over a period, but that that very rapid increase in cost is going on concurrently with increasing difficulties in agriculture which is the main industry and, consequently, concurrently with a constantly greater fall in the capacity to pay. The Government policy both in increasing expenditure and in pushing forward with their policy of industrialisation which, as has already been pointed out, was not a planned policy, has resulted in increasing the cost of living. The whole Government policy hangs together; their economic dispute has produced a great deal of the need for additional taxation and is responsible in the main for the failure in capacity to pay. The economic dispute also has, apparently, led to the industrial policy being pushed apace; if there had been no dispute the Government would not have thought it wise to push it so fast. In any case, taking the policy as a whole, we have this increased taxation and we have, undoubtedly, a rising cost of living, which again is going to injure the prospects of industrial development. Food prices here are very much higher, except for a few items, than they are in Great Britain or Northern Ireland. To practically all other products the same thing applies. Many trade union workers have spoken to me about it. They say that, undoubtedly, a pound does not go as far in providing for a family now as it did two or three years ago and certainly does not go as far as the same amount in Northern Ireland or England. That must lead to a big effort being made to get wages increased. The workers, whether in protected industries or otherwise, are entitled to increased wages if the things they buy for their wages become dearer. If the wages are increased, naturally in many cases the manufacturers will put up their prices. I saw a circular recently from certain furniture manufacturers intimating an increase of prices following an adjustment of wages and conditions as a result of negotiations with their workers. That would be perfectly all right if you had not the agricultural position as it is. But the farmer sells in an export market and the price he gets in the home market is really regulated by what can be got for his exportable surplus. There is no possibility of his price being increased, and as long as the economic war goes on the rising cost of commodities is going to be more severe on him. The result will be that he will buy less and there will be a reduced output in the factories.

Reducing the output of the factories tends to increase overhead costs and, consequently, prices will be increased all round. What the Government has done has been to pursue a couple of inconsistent policies. Probably it is ham-stringing all its other efforts by its failure to bring the economic war to a close. If the agricultural position is not put right, things will get speedily more difficult and once again increased expenditure will be forced on the Government. The cost of living will continue to go up, either actually or relatively to the countries adjacent, and to the countries in which we sell, and the workers will be forced to apply again for increased wages. Where they are successful in their pressure manufacturers will be forced to put up their costs and I see no possibility of either reducing Government expenditure or in any way of making the position satisfactory without the settlement that I have referred to. If that settlement took place it would immediately not only restore the purchasing power of the agricultural community, but would relieve the Government of the necessity for quite a respectable percentage of expenditure which they are now obliged to incur and by that means it would enable taxation to be reduced and it would enable the cost of various necessary commodities to be reduced and generally would relieve the situation. It would give not only immediate benefits to the farmers, but it would enable the policy of industrialisation to have a fair chance. I presume it would create an atmosphere in which there would not be the same hectic haste to start new industries, no matter what those new industries are, or what effect they will have on existing industries. Those engaged in industry complain that the Government shows no discretion in the matter of imposing tariffs, that it is quite ready to help the manufacturer who applies for a tariff and that it is quite as ready to injure him by imposing a tariff on some raw material that he finds necessary for manufacturing purposes. If more careful enquiry was made the ill-effects that are caused by this hectic haste would disappear. I think it is unnecessary to say more on that general position.

I should like to refer to one or two points of detail. I notice in the Estimates that there is a provision of £200,000 for grants in aid of the erection of primary schools. That sum is greater than what was formerly provided and I do not think it is a sum that in existing circumstances we can expect the Government to increase by way of annual grant provided by the Minister and raised by taxation. I should like that the Minister for Finance would consider whether in regard to the construction of schools it would not be desirable to provide a considerable sum which would be borrowed and which would enable much more rapid progress to be made in the necessary improvement in the school accommodation. I think it would be possible to proceed along those lines and not to burden the Budget any more heavily than it is burdened at the present time. The difference in dealing with the whole matter by means of grants out of taxation and dealing with it by means of the issue of a loan would be that the cost may continue to fall on the Exchequer for a longer period if there is a loan but that the necessary accommodation would be much more rapidly provided. I am interested in this matter of schools, especially because of a certain agitation and discussion which has been going on recently.

I do not think that the making of a big effort to provide the necessary school accommodation quickly need cause any appreciable delay in the provision of housing. In any case the provision of adequate school accommodation has a health aspect also that gives it, I think, the same claim for consideration as the provision of dwelling-houses. I feel that the question of school accommodation requires special consideration now. From the educational aspect there is no doubt that a great many of the schools in Dublin are very much overcrowded. We have had complaints about the effect of the present programme and the present policy in relation to the teaching of Irish and teaching through Irish. I am satisfied that in many Dublin schools, owing partly to lack of accommodation and possibly owing in part to the rules of the Department of Education, classes are far too big. There are a great many schools where teachers are dealing with numbers in their classes which are too big from any point of view, no matter in what language instruction might be given. An unfair burden is placed upon the teachers at the present time. In the first two years of the child's school life there is special concentration on the Irish language, so that later on in the school work the teacher may be able to give instruction through the Irish language. I know of schools where the teacher has been given a fair chance and where excellent work has been done during those two years, so that the children, without suffering any of the ill-effects that some of those who have engaged in the controversy referred to, obtained a very considerable knowledge of the Irish language, and are able at the end of the two years to use it a great deal and to express their thoughts in it with perhaps some inaccuracy, but with a good deal of fluency. They are in a position where a solid foundation has been laid for future work in and through the medium of Irish. But I do not think that any teacher, however well qualified, can do the work that is necessary in a very big class. Even if an extra teacher were provided I do not think that the work can be done in a classroom which is occupied by other classes where the teacher is subject to the noise and interruption that would necessarily arise. There may be disputes as to what would be the size of a class for the particular type of work which is now being attempted to be done in the first two years of the school child's life. I have heard teachers suggest a number something like 30. They say that with a smaller class results as good cannot be obtained, but that, on the other hand, if the class becomes larger, there cannot be individual attention or the control that is necessary to get the results. I think, from the point of view of the language policy of the State that this question of providing adequate school accommodation is vital and urgent.

I think that complaints which need not arise in regard to general policy will arise if teachers are not given the opportunities to do the work as it ought to be done. For that reason, I suggest that the Government ought to consider whether they would not adopt a new policy of financing school-building so as not to impose an undue burden on the Exchequer, and at the same time not to spin out the completion of the work for too long a period. In that connection I urge the Government to give some consideration to a resolution which was passed in the Seanad last summer suggesting that an inquiry should take place in regard to the ways in which the work being done for the Irish language in the schools might be supplemented by other methods. At present the Government is being asked from some quarters to set up an inquiry into the schools programme and into the work that is being done in the schools and the methods adopted. I think that an inquiry so narrow as that will not give the right results. If the matter is to be examined at all, it should be examined in the broadest possible way, not merely with a view to seeing whether there is too much pressure in certain directions, but also with a view to seeing whether there might not be more pressure in other directions. If looked at in the broadest possible way, I think you will find that everybody will take up a much more reasonable attitude in regard to this problem. People who may fear retrograde action and who may therefore be inclined to stick their heels in in regard to a particular matter will be more reasonable if they find that there is willingness to advance in other directions. If there is to be any inquiry, it should be more along the lines suggested in the Seanad resolution last summer than merely on one detail of the whole struggle that is being carried out.

Complaints about the policy which was adopted by the last Government, and which has been accepted and carried out by the present Government, may arise from a variety of causes. I am talking of complaints made by persons whose interest in the Irish language is genuine and undoubted. They may be due to over zeal, which causes attempts at rapid progress to be a little more than they ought to be. I daresay there are cases where teachers who are not fully competent to do so are giving instruction through the Irish language. There are many reasons why a certain amount of pressure should be applied. Teachers giving instruction through Irish have very much harder work. If the Department were completely lackadaisical progress would not be made. There is, however, always the danger, if pressure does emanate from the Department, that in occasional instances people may be allowed or persuaded to undertake the work without being fully competent. Any error like that can be easily rectified.

One of the other reasons why there may be an inclination to criticise is that people are dissatisfied with the results. They feel that we are not making as much progress as was expected. Personally, I feel that very great progress has been made. I also feel that much greater progress could be made if the work of the schools were adequately supported by various steps that can be taken and that, I think, ought to be taken outside the schools. The mistake we made originally, and which we have carried forward from the old programme of the Gaelic League, was to think too much of school-work. The school-work is vital but we were always inclined to believe that, if the schools were right, all would be right. We see now that that is so. The school work must be supplemented and supported. One direction in which we have failed up to the present is that we have not realised the importance of arranging for that support. I referred to many of these matters last summer. One is the question of reading matter in which, broadly speaking, we have made no progress. We have provided a few hundred books but, in view of the thousands that ought to be available, we have not really made any progress. Neither has any progress been made as regards periodical reading matter. Then there is the question of broadcasting. A great improvement took place during the past year. The programmes have become "live" but we have not got anything like the standard of quantity that might be required. I know that extra cost would be involved if we were to have extra programmes and additional matter in Irish, but that cost would not necessarily be very large. A great many other aspects of this scheme, none of which would be extremely costly, would be valuable in securing that the work in the schools would produce full results. If we were getting full results, the tendency to criticism that one hears would decrease and the objections that some people take to the efforts at present being made would, to a large extent, disappear.

The Minister will understand that in making these remarks I am not criticising the present Government any more than the Government of which I, myself, was a member. We entered upon all this work without being able to examine it very carefully in advance. We took the immediate step and, when we saw the results of that, we considered whether or not they were good and whether they should be supplemented or replaced. As this is the only opportunity there is in the Seanad of discussing policy, I should like to urge the Government, firstly, to consider this new method of financing school-building in order to provide more rapidly the required accommodation and, secondly, to consider whether they should not have examined by some type of commission, in a broad way, all the steps that are being taken and that should be taken to restore the Irish language with a view to making any adjustments that may be necessary and any additions that may be desirable. Any work that might arise in this connection would be relatively inexpensive and would involve only a fractional increase in the Estimates.

Donnchadh O hEaluighthe

Ba mhaith liom cupla focal a rá ar an gceist seo. As I came into the Chamber, I heard Senator Blythe speak about the school accommodation question. I happen to be fairly conversant with the situation in this regard in the city. I should not like the mistaken notion to go abroad that the powers that be are not doing their best to provide school accommodation. I should like to tell Senator Blythe that there is a new school being built in Francis Street and that the Corporation have allotted a site for a school in another city parish. There is, at the moment, a school being built in Inchicore and, as Senator Blythe and other members of the Seanad are aware, great changes are taking place in connection with school provision in respect of the housing schemes which are proceeding at the moment. In Phibsboro' area, where a big housing scheme has been finished, a spacious school has been erected. Our one complaint in regard to the Crumlin housing scheme is that we have not got a new school built there. Of course, the scheme is only in progress and I expect the authorities will provide the necessary school accommodation, so that the children will not have to travel long distances, as at present. Lest there be any mistaken notion that this problem was being neglected, I should like to point out that school accommodation is being provided as quickly as possible.

Regarding the comments made by Senator Blythe with reference to the language, I give Senator Blythe full credit for his excellent work for the advancement of the language since his early days. I got the impression from his remarks, however, that he thought some of the teachers were not fully competent. I was at the Dublin Feis and I was much struck by the excellence of the knowledge shown by the children. I have had close association with the language movement from its inception. When some of us commenced to teach Irish, we were not very competent. Oftentimes, we had to study the lesson we were going to teach while we were sitting on top of a tram. The pronunciation of all the children I came in contact with at Dublin Feis was excellent, and my belief is that very creditable work is being done in the schools. The old proverb says: "Beatha teangan í do labhairt"—the life of a language is the speaking of it. Wherever I meet children and speak in Irish to them, their eyes beam when they hear a person of my age speaking the language. All we want is to encourage the children by all means to speak the language. I may not be in as close touch with matters as Senator Blythe is but, so far as I can see, there is plenty of work being done in the schools for the language.

Mr. Honan

I did not intend to intervene in this debate at all but, as this is an educational question, I should like to give the views which have been expressed by educational authorities in the country. My idea, I think, would go much further than that of Senator Blythe or Senator Healy. This is the most important question I suppose that could come before the House. A great amount of money is being expended on the education of children, and revolutionary changes are taking place in the economic life of our country. It is the general opinion that the Government must in some way subsidise the cost of school books, because that item is a very heavy drain on the parents of large families in poorer areas. Up to 1900 the same set of books was in use year after year and might be passed down from the eldest to the youngest member of the family. The system was then changed and school books are now changed every year. These books are getting dearer and dearer and the cost is a heavy drain on the resources of families in the poorer western areas. It is considered by the education authorities that we are on the wrong lines there and that school books should be sold at the prices at which they were sold about the 'nineties. The outlook then in the primary schools of both teachers and parents was the outlook of the civil service and business offices, whereas the outlook now, with the changed agricultural policy of this country, has a definite agricultural bias. Teaching through the extended vocational schools is also being given an agricultural bias rather than a clerical bias. In the urban areas, where the operations of the Vocational Education Act are in full force, there should be a bias for industrial pursuits, such as for factory work. In order to bring about that happy position I am afraid the Government will have to consider the question of extending the school going period from 14 to 16 years. In the last two years at school the education should be of a vocational kind by competent teachers, and with an agricultural or an industrial bias. If school attendance was compulsory from October until March these pupils would be gaining theoretical knowledge of pursuits that they were about to adopt.

Many of the schools will have to be enlarged, and there the question of finance will arise. The question of providing extra teachers will have to be faced. There is no reason why the services of the present agricultural and technical instructors could not be availed of there. That is a matter for future consideration. As Senator Blythe suggested it is to be hoped that some commission will be set up to consider the question of bringing education into harmony with the present policy and outlook, which is definitely agricultural and industrial. While these two sides of our national life have advanced there must be a revolutionary advance in education if it is to go hand in hand with them. We are in the same position as regards education as we were in 40 years ago, having either a clerical outlook or that of ordinary farm workers without any technical knowledge of such work. I hope the Minister will bring the policy I have endeavoured to outline to the notice of the Government, and point out that there is a growing demand by education authorities and by parents that our education system should be brought into harmony with the advance that the country has made during the last four or five years.

Mr. Connolly

There are one or two points that I wish to deal with before I come to the main matters raised in the debate. It is because they are important that I am afraid I might overlook or forget them. I want to explain for the benefit of Senator Miss Browne and other Senators that there is no question of a decrease in forestry work. There is a decrease in the Forestry Vote, but there is a very considerable expansion of the work. What happened was that last year I sought a very considerable increase in the amount allotted for the purchase of land. This money when made available for the purchase of land and forestry is retained within the Department. As it does not go back, like other unspent money, to the Treasury, we have very considerable reserves of that money carried over from last year, with the result that the decrease is entirely due to that fund. The forestry work has been practically doubled within two or three years, and we hope still further to increase it. As will be seen from the Estimates when they appear, the amount of productive work, nursery work and plantation work done will be the largest ever since the Saorstát was established. I merely want to mention that lest misunderstanding should arise as to the actual work of forestry.

The other matter I would like to deal with is the one raised by Senator Blythe. I refer to the primary schools, and to his suggestion that considerable sums should be borrowed for that purpose. I will bring that to the attention of the Minister for Education. I may say that I have been urging upon him consistently a rapid expenditure of money on the development of the schools. As is known there are two parties to the building of schools. The State puts up a certain sum of money on condition that a certain percentage is put up by the managers, or whatever is the controlling authority in the district. I may as well be quite frank about this matter. In spite of what Senator Healy said, I am disappointed at the state of school accommodation in Dublin. I happen to pay visits occasionally to another area in the country, and I do not think the schools in the City of Dublin compare at all with the school accommodation provided in that area. It has to be remembered that in that area actually 50 per cent. of the money for building schools has to be found by the very poor element of the population. A less percentage has to be found here. Housing has spread very much around the suburbs of this city, and I want to make it clear that very definite parochial action is needed to deal with the shortage. It is not a question that the Government want to hold back the money.

The Government is anxious to have these schools built, but it requires the co-operation of the people of the parishes to be organised to get the work done. It imposes a great hardship when it is found that as a result of housing schemes relatively poor people are transferred to outlying districts where school accommodation is not available. How the children in certain areas in this city are being educated I do not know. It involves the provision of bus fares. I have one district in mind, Kimmage. There is no accommodation there for all the new development that has taken place. I do not want to go into that matter now, but I want to make it clear that, as far as the State is concerned, and as far as the cost of education is concerned, the Government are anxious to have the maximum amount of school development done, but there are two parties concerned, and we need co-operation in local areas and parishes to improve school accommodation far beyond what it is. I leave it at that. I wanted to make the position quite clear.

With regard to the question of the teaching in Irish, and the suggestion of Senator Blythe, in the main I am in agreement with what he said. I am not in a position to speak as an educationalist, but I have the ordinary layman's interest in this matter, and I think the whole question is one that can be examined and re-examined. I will make representations to the Minister for Education, but I would like to dispel the notion that Senator Blythe seems to have. He feels that a great many of the objections to the compulsory teaching of Irish would fade away when these matters are dealt with. I hope so. Personally I do not think so. The objections have their roots much deeper than any argument such as Senator Blythe makes would dispel.

To come to the main body of the criticisms that have been made, I want to be as brief as possible, and to deal with such comments as I can deal with, and to bring the others to the attention of the Ministers concerned. Such matters as I am not able to deal with can be raised on the Committee Stage or on later stages. Senator MacLoughlin made a typically interesting and amusing speech, interlarded, of course, with quite a number of typical comments. There was the usual resurrection of speeches made in the past, but as I was not named in any of those it is not for me to deal with them. I would like to deal with some of the comments made on the Bill generally, and to give a few items of the expenditure that caused an increase. The total Estimates this year are £27,514,783. Taking a comparative year, 1931-1932, there has been an increase from £21,921,573, or an increase for this year of £5,593,210.

Leaving aside the increase in the various staffs—an increase that, as Senator Blythe remarked, was almost automatic in State Departments — it is well to remember that a great deal of the expenditure is largely devoted to social services. For instance, the expenditure in the case of old age pensions, which in 1931-32 was £2,756,500, has been increased by £710,350 and is now £3,466,850. For supplementary agricultural grants there is an increase of £301,978. For the Local Government Department, which includes a number of social services, there has been an increase of £687,135. For forestry, there has been an increase of £89,851, and, as I say, that is almost entirely devoted to development work. In other words, the figure for the purchase of land is merely nominal. In the Department of Lands there has been an increase of £999,478. As most Senators know, there is no money spent throughout the country that is so productive of good results, not only in the actual purchase and division of estates but in the improvement work that the Land Commission itself carries on. The expenditure is devoted practically entirely to the labour of people in the area that is being dealt with. In unemployment assistance and insurance, there is an increased expenditure of £1,272,951, the figure in 1931-32 being £160,374. In relief schemes, there is an increase of £360,000, the figure being £140,000 in 1931-32, as against £500,000, the total figure estimated for this year. For widows' and orphans' pensions the sum allotted is £250,000 for this year.

We see, therefore, that, although there has been a considerable growth in expenditure, the big bulk of it is for social services. I may be right or I may be wrong, but I regret no money that is being spent on social services. My regret, if any, is that we are not spending another few millions in the improvement of the social conditions of our people as a whole. It is true that every new development means additional staff and additional organisation. It is also true, and might as well be admitted frankly, that many of the things we have to do to deal with problems arising out of the economic dispute, have entailed the recruitment of officials. I would point out that in any case where it was deemed that the functions of such officials were not going to be of a permanent character, the Government has made only temporary appointments, as we did not want to increase the permanent established staff of the Civil Service, any more than was necessary. In so far, however, as social services have to be maintained, and Government organisations must carry out their functions, staffs must be recruited and be available to carry out the work.

Senator Jameson raised a number of points, many of which were of a nature that had better be left aside for the present. He discussed various questions regarding housing grants, the subsidy on wheat and the cost of bread and flour, but really, when they are all analysed, they simply mean that the Senator is a dyed-in-the-wool free-trader and that we are following a policy of protection. For good or ill we are committed to a policy of protection, and I see no alternative to it. I see no means of this country getting on its feet or of being in any sense independent in the economic sphere other than by the production of the things we need within the country. These developments are costly. They are costly everywhere, and they are less costly here than in some countries. We know the efforts that have been made in sugar producing countries. Take Czecho-Slovakia. I do not know what the price of sugar now is in Czecho-Slovakia but I know it was very much higher than the price of sugar is here at the moment, and I know also that the export price was negligible as compared with that. It is a question of fundamental policy. We are definitely committed, and rightly committed in my opinion, to a policy of industrial development, balanced by a proper agricultural production, so as to make the country as self-supporting as it is possible for us, with the natural resources of the country, to make it. We may have gone fairly rapidly in some directions but in other directions we may not have gone as rapidly as I, for one, would like.

Senator Jameson also referred to the External Loan. As that is a matter that is being debated in the other House to-day and as something authoritative may be said on the subject, I prefer not to deal with the subject here. The Senator also raised the question of the Drumm battery, and asked what was being done about it. The Drumm battery is a concern which, whilst it is under the control of the Government, is working as a company. I am rather glad the Senator raised the question, and I shall bring it to the notice of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Perhaps we may get some information on it later. Senator Jameson also talked about the possibilities of bad harvests. He mentioned the fact that we have had very good harvests for the last three years. I think we all realise that and that we are thankful to God we had these good harvests. He indicated that we might not always have good harvests. I think we can accept that, that we may not always have good harvests. I do not like to suggest that the Senator mentioned it in such a way that one might infer that the wish was father to the thought. I would suggest, however, that we had bad harvests, that we had a failure of the potato crop before now, and that we had people dying in Ireland by hundreds. I remember distinctly at the London Economic Conference when certain delegates talked about the destruction of crops and the restriction of production. I said: "There would not be a God in Heaven if there was not a famine over all the world in view of the attitude of you people here." Really one thinks sometimes, in listening to the alleged economists and the alleged statesmen, that the only thing that will bring them to their senses is another visitation of that kind. I hope to God that will not hit us, but I would point out that every agriculturist takes that risk with every crop he sows, whether it be cabbage, potatoes, wheat, beet, or anything else. We can only hope for the best, and as far as possible try to make our plans fit to meet any emergency that may arise.

The Senator spoke about monopolies as if the whole country was being run on monopolies. I am as much against monopolies as anybody. I fear them. I fear foreign monopolies and I fear home monopolies. I think they are terribly dangerous but there are certain commodities which can be produced here for our limited market. That market cannot afford to absorb the production of more than one factory. If we take one commodity, namely pneumatic tyres, the present situation is that Messrs. Dunlop are running one factory for the whole country. They have a monopoly, but we could not possibly support two factories at the present time, nor does it seem reasonable to suppose that in the next ten or more years we would be able to support two factories. It is only in such things for which the market is limited, and where the market can only absorb the output of one factory, that we consider the giving of monopolies. It is not to be presumed that in the very occasional instance where a monopoly is granted that the manufacturers are given free rein. There are very definite restrictions put upon them, as regards price and profits. These are kept in mind when such agreements as have to be made with the monopolistic factory are being put through. The same thing may apply with regard to petrol, if we should refine petrol.

Other Senators, including Senator Gogarty, referred to the quality and the price of coal which we are getting from Britain, and said that it could be described as rubbish and nothing else. That is not so. The agreement specifically lays down certain conditions as to price and quality, and definitely excludes the possibility of our being exploited either by the mining company on the other side that may be selling coal to us or by the intermediary merchants here. We have, in the last pact with the British on the question of coal, very definite restrictions with regard to price and quality. There is only one alternative to a monopoly in my opinion — and I wonder would Senator Jameson, and those other Senators who objected to a monopoly, just as I object to a monopoly, where it can be prevented — accept it. That is to have State controlled production, in other words nationalised industry. It could be done and personally I am not entirely opposed to the idea of doing it. You could run it on the basis of the Electricity Supply Board, or some such basis. The main thing, if it were run in that way, would be that it should be run by a free autonomous board, nominated if you like by the Government, but having free action, as regards its ordinary commercial business. That is the only alternative I see in other industries. I think they are few and will be few, but there are, as I say, commodities such as I have mentioned that will not afford enough productivity to produce economically in more than one unit of production.

Senator O'Farrell raised various questions. He spoke of the cost of commodities and mentioned, of course, those commodities that had been protected and more or less controlled in this country, namely, flour, butter, sugar and bread. We know that separate legislation has had to be put into operation in connection with practically every one of these commodities. The wheat price is guaranteed in regard to flour, and the same applies in regard to sugar. In regard to butter, that was a very definite reason why its price should be maintained. Our butter producers simply could not go on producing if we were to go on world prices. I saw myself the anomaly in the Six Counties when a certain very prominent person there opened a depot for the sale of Australian butter. My recollection is that Australian butter was being sold retail at 7d. per lb. I heard the comments of the loyal farmers of the Six Counties and I can assure Senators that their remarks were anything but complimentary to the idea. Now, in my opinion, there are not any grounds for complaint as regards the cost of commodities unless — and this is a very big and a very important thing — the public are being exploited in an improper way. That is something which will have to be watched, because I am afraid it is the tendency of human nature, if they get the chance of taking an extra penny or an extra £ in commercial life, to take that chance. If they get the chance to do so, they will have a go at it, and certainly, whatever happens, a very close watch will have to be kept with regard to these commodities for which there is a protected market.

Transport rates were also referred to, and the gas rates. The gas rates, as we all know, are out of all comparison to what they have been in other city boroughs where the administration is in the hands of the local authorities. I understand that the Belfast rate for gas is between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. below the Dublin rate for gas, and it is interesting to note that in Belfast, the rate being so much lower, that committee actually contributes a very substantial amount indeed to the reduction of the rates and has also provident funds for its employees. However, these are matters that I do intend to bring before the Minister for Industry. Senator O'Farrell also mentioned the wages in the weaving trade. Well, I can hardly believe that weavers are working in Kilkenny for 7/- or 20/- a week, and I was rather sorry that our friend, Senator MacLoughlin, who probably knows more about that district than any of us as regards weaving, did not enlighten us.

Mr. Johnson

The Minister may take it that the wages are very low, indeed, in Kilkenny.

Mr. Connolly

Well, if specific details of that are brought up, I am sure the trade unions in the area will look after it. There is one factor that would help to explain a great many of these difficulties in regard to prices, and it is a factor that always operates in regard to prices — I have mentioned it quite frequently in this House — and that is, the limited market that we have at our disposal. That market, however, has been very considerably increased in certain commodities. Senator O'Farrell mentioned furniture. I think there is an adequate market for quite a number of large furniture factories, and from what I know there is keen and acute competition in that trade. I understand also, from people in the trade, that the work is being exceptionally well done. There is, of course, one thing that will happen, and it is bound to happen. When the manufacturers who formerly shipped goods into this country find that there is a shrinkage or a disappearance of the market here and that they are up against a certain tariff, they will try to dump in their goods or to get by somehow. I have seen some extraordinary instances of dumping into this country. By dumping, I mean sending goods in at a price which would be in no way economic at the source or in the place of origin and which would have no bearing on the price at which they would be selling the goods in their own country. Senator Douglas referred to the export bounty on the woollen trade and stated that this would hurt the woollen trade very considerably. There is, I think, something in his case. However, I am sure that the merits of that matter have been thought out by the Woollen Manufacturers' Association and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, but I shall bring it to the latter's attention. Senator Douglas also mentioned errors in the meters in the Electricity Supply Board. As the House knows, that is a self-contained body, managed there; but there again, representations might be made.

I do not know whether it is wise to refer to anything that Senator Gogarty mentioned. I have been a good many years in this House and I think that, on only one occasion, did I find the Senator making any statement that really merited either remark or attention. I do not propose to correct his misstatement or misquotation with regard to my statement on the cattle trade. That has been done so often that I do not propose to do it any more. He made one statement, however, which I venture to doubt — and I would not like to think it was true — namely, that the hospitals were being used to relieve people who were being underfed. That is a very serious statement to make, and I think it is a function that the hospitals would hardly admit. The Senator referred, of course, in his usual polite way, to the President and myself. Well, I am past worrying about that. He suggested that we should pay the money into court and then dispute afterwards. That, of course, is in line with what Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and the Senator's friend, Lord Beaverbrook, have suggested. We do not propose to do anything of the sort. Senator Gogarty, I know, has æsthetic objections to the making of Dublin into a "Black Country." As I say, I do not feel that it is worth while to refer to anything he says. We all remember the time when he himself fled from, or left, Dublin. No doubt, he expected that the whole district from Piccadilly Circus to the medical centres would all sit up and take notice when he arrived in London. However, a few weeks there disillusioned him and, short of sending an occasional article to the Beaverbrook Press and some other papers over there, in which he not only violently attacked every principle for which the Government stood — and one might forgive him that — but also made the vilest and meanest attacks on the President of the State — short of doing that, his contribution to public life in Ireland has been negligible. I think I may leave it at that.

Senator Baxter raised a number of reasonably important points and, as usual, put them forward in a reasonable way. I have already dealt with his remarks on the increase of expenditure and have tried to make it clear why this expenditure arises and in how far it is dealing with social policy. I have also tried to explain that the increase in staffs naturally follows the development of policy. I am interested, as he is, in the question of counties like Cavan, and I am equally interested in the results of our land division policy. Now, I think that, if the Senator stops to examine the policy of the Land Commission as regards land division, he will realise that there is not the basis of complaint that he has made. The Land Commission do not step in to take over and acquire lands if these lands are being properly worked and are providing a reasonable amount of employment in an agricultural way. That is fundamental. We do not want absentee holders. We take the non-residential holding when that land is either let on the 11 months' system or when it is not being used properly, and I think it will be generally agreed that that is a sound national policy. If, however, we find a genuine farmer working his land reasonably well, even if he has up to 200 or 300 acres, and if he is affording worthwhile employment in the area, that man, resident on his holding, is not interfered with. Senator Baxter also referred to the public representatives that came from Kildare, Tipperary, and these counties. I would suggest to him that the best representation, in my opinion, that we have in the House, comes from the outlying counties, and I think that all these counties, such as Galway, Mayo, Cavan itself, Donegal, and the rest, are certainly well represented by very articulate people who have very intelligent notions of what they want and are not slow to tell us about it. There is, and there always has been, a problem in the Western areas. Unfortunately, the trouble is that we have not the land where we need it most — the congested areas where the people are struggling and have been struggling all their lives to make a living on very small holdings of very poor land. in very remote areas. That problem is definitely there and we are doing our utmost to relieve that problem by the breaking up of certain lands and doing a certain amount of near-by migration as well as large-scheme migration. We have been trying large-scheme migration by bringing these people to one district and trying to make Irish-speaking districts within the plains of Meath itself. My desire, however — and I believe it is sound policy—is to migrate them, where migration is possible, to near-by areas where they will not entirely have lost contact with their own counties. It is true that we have got to face the problem ultimately — and maybe at no far-distant date, as the old Irish Party members used to say — of the reserves of land petering out and that we will not have enough to go around. What is going to happen in that case, however, I should prefer to leave to the then Minister for Lands. I have enough worries of my own. It is true that the whole question will have to be faced at some date and at no far-distant date. I suggest to Senator Baxter that when he comes to it that he has many aspects of the question to bear in mind — the whole social and economic future of the country. Is he prepared to go in for collectivisation and the distribution of the fruits of the soil to all the population? We have 250,000 to 300,000 uneconomic holdings and we have an increasing population. Formerly this country was relieved, during the previous Government's administration, to the extent of 20,000 people annually. Sometimes it went up to 25,000 and sometimes it fell to 15,000 or 16,000 but that emigration has now ceased. That is a problem not for a Party, not for me or you, but for the whole country. Reference was made to that apropos of the unemployment figures. I think it was Senator Gogarty who mentioned that there were 130,000 to 140,000 people unemployed. Reference was made by Senator Baxter himself to the fewer number of agricultural labourers on the land.

A Senator

Senator MacLoughliu.

Mr. Connolly

I would point out that there may be fewer agricultural labourers but if you count the number of new holdings, a great number of those formerly employed have become owners. The people employed on the estate are the first people considered when land is being distributed. I know that in my first year we gave land to some 6,000 allottees a big number going into new holdings. That is a considerable increase when you realise that they are put into working farms. I would like to stress the complete difference in the analysis of unemployment figures, though it is pathetic to have to refer to it at this time of the day. The figures before bear no relation to the figures which are presented now. We know that smallholders and other people receiving unemployment assistance are now included. I venture to think that there is considerably less unemployment now despite the fact that the retained population must have added about 80,000 actual workers to our population — workers who used to leave the country to go to the United States and other places. I do not know if there is anything much in any of the other remarks that have been made. I may have missed a number of things but I am sure they will be dealt with by the different Ministers concerned. Any other points may be raised on the Committee Stage or later stages of the Bill when the Minister for Finance, I hope, will be present.

Question—"That the Central Fund Bill, 1936, be read a Second Time"— put and agreed to.

Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, March 18th.