Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Jun 1940

Vol. 24 No. 21

Public Business. - Finance Bill, 1940—Second Stage (Resumed).

Sir John Keane

What strikes me, Sir, in listening to this debate is the lack of any constructive criticism. Everybody must appreciate the difficulties; what I would ask people to do is to place themselves in the position of a responsible government and to try to appreciate the difficulties that face them. When I say that, I do not suggest that something should not be done. I do think that there are certain things that should be done. I support very strongly the plea for a National Government, thus getting the best brains to come together on this problem. The people I blame most for what I, advisedly, call inertia in this matter are the Government supporters. I do not like argument by comparison but I think we all admit that the pressure that brought about changes in Great Britain is due to the Government supporters who did not fail to criticise that Government and bring them to account for any shortcomings they saw.

I do not know what arise at any Party meetings but I cannot help feeling that if we had a resolute and independent Party behind the Government, they would before now have asked that political differences should cease and that the crisis should be met by the united efforts of the best brains we could find. I do not think I need pursue that matter any further. Even now it is not too late to ask that something should be done, something more than merely going on public platforms and showing unity on the hustings and co-operation in the council chamber. At the present moment I think we will all agree that matters of security are paramount to all others. I must confess that in this regard I am not happy. In so far as our neutrality in any way embarrasses or places obstacles in the way of full preparation for security, I say our neutrality is a source of danger and a disservice to the country. I would ask the Government to apply that test in every case. Is our security suffering, are our military operations suffering from any considerations of pure constitutional neutrality or sovereign status or academic considerations of that kind? I feel it is so. Though I appreciate the arguments in favour of neutrality, I also see clearly its dangers at the present time. It would be most unfortunate if things do not go as we wish them to go and we have to admit later on that our neutrality in any way embarrassed our military security. I could say more and put that into more positive language, but I do not think it would be wise to do so at present. Whatever some of us may feel—a minority I admit—as to the spirituality of the cause, I think there are some who would give their lives, even if it were of no avail, merely on the spiritual issues. I remember Lord Halifax saying in public that he would rather be dead than live under Nazi rule. I think a few of us feel that way, but not many. But, judging it on the pure basis of material self-interest and expediency, I very much doubt if we are pursuing the wisest course at the present moment. We have only to look at the fate of countries who tried to save themselves by neutrality to see how little it has availed them. Would they not have been probably saved if they had not sought protection in fictions of that kind?

Turning to economic matters, I listened with interest, but not with approval, perhaps because I know more about what is going on than he does, to Senator MacDermot suggesting that the Government were complacent on these questions of finance and economic protection. I could not accept that view. I, personally, have had rather close dealings with the Government of late in this matter, and I think they and the banks alike are fully alive to the dangers and difficulties of the situation. I think we may say that they have done all they reasonably can do, within the limitations that exist, to protect the values in currency and matters of that kind. Inevitably our currency is linked to that of a belligerent country and there is no escape from that at the present time. For that reason, our material interests, our mutual interests, are closely interlocked. There is no blinking the fact that, if Great Britain is to go down in this struggle, we must inevitably suffer with her. I do not think we would have been any better if we had adopted the suggestions which we heard in the past of alternative markets. If we had markets in neutral countries and in Germany that would not be of any help to us. I am afraid, therefore, that there is no use in recrimination. The only thing to do is to look to the future and to face it with courage and resolution. There is no method of juggling with values or currencies that is going to save us at the present time. Our material interests and our trade are closely bound up, and have been all down the years, with Great Britain, for good or bad, and they cannot be disentangled now.

I should also like to say—Senator MacDermot referred to the matter— that the bankers are also awake to the reality and gravity of the situation. I notice that Senator Counihan trotted out his well-worn plea for a moratorium on rates and annuities. I wonder how he would look at it if he was placed in the position of having to get revenue for the Government of the country. We could not possibly single out one class of the community and say that they should have a moratorium on certain payments without upsetting the whole basis on which the country is run and the whole of the revenue system.

There is one matter more, perhaps a little bit prosaic at the present time, which I should like to ask the Minister to consider again, and that is all the clogging effect of our tariff policy. It has now reached most complicated dimensions, and nobody but an expert could unravel all the interlocking of these duties. Although we have almost got used to it, and hardened to it, I suggest to the Minister that it has a terribly clogging effect on business, on our whole economy, and I might say on the spiritual life of the country. Is the Government prepared even at the present time to consider the matter, owing to the difficulty of getting raw materials, and with prices soaring, because there will be great difficulty in getting supplies delivered to home manufacturers? Can we not at this crisis have a certain amount of flexibility, or are we to remain at the mercy of industries that were never efficient, and which are not able to serve the community?

Looking at the question more closely, would the Minister examine, as a purely administrative question, customs delays? I often heard of these delays, but I had a personal experience the other day. I do not like taking up the time of the House with a personal experience at the present time, but it may be of interest to mention that I bought a heating boiler. Heating boilers are not subject to duty, but attached to this boiler was a flue brush that cost 3/3, and for six days it was held up because part of the flue brush was made of wood. It may be said that that was an unique experience, or that it was due to an accident. It was not. Every day manufacturers who have machinery have such experience, but they do not want to have an investigation. That is one of the worst features of these tariff entanglements. No one wants to get into the bad graces of the officials. If the matter goes to the Minister it may get some experienced officer, with whom the manufacturer may have to deal every day, into trouble. That is why we do not hear more of these matters.

Would it be possible for the Minister to have an inquiry by practical business men into the question of customs delays, because it can be said that in many cases the delays could be reduced and the adjustment of duty could take place afterwards? In some cases the amounts concerned are, I believe, insignificant, but because of some regulation, or some statute, or something which aims at 100 per cent. watertight control every one is held up. No business firm could work on that system. If business people dealing with customers were to adopt all the punctillio and red tape that the Government puts into the administration of the customs duties they would not get any business. But the Government has a monopoly, and if people do not like the position they must lump it and suffer. It does not meet the situation to say: "Let us know about the case." It does not pay to make complaints. It is much better to remain quiet and be on good terms with the officials. I do not blame the officials. They are tied by rigid regulations, which are reinforced by statute, and the whole thing is so rigid that all that happens is that the cost is passed on to the public, who suffer.

It almost makes me ask: Were we put into the world to be held up in this way, or was it to make life free and to endeavour to get along without even a fraction of irritation? It is in that spirit that I ask the Government to examine the question, to see if these regulations could not be made more elastic in the interests of those who are the Government's masters, the public. It seems hardly worth while referring to now. Since I became a member of this House I have been steadily protesting at the way that this doctrine of self-sufficiency has been preached. It has now reached such dimensions that we are used to it. It is going on and on until we hardly realise the burdens we are bearing, or how ordinary consumers are suffering in inconveniences of all kinds, and the increased prices that have to be paid for ordinary articles. The Government complains that the prices level is embarrassing their whole fiscal system, but they themselves are very largely to blame for the reckless manner in which they have gone on with their tariff policy, a policy that was reckless at any time, but that is doubly bad now that all raw materials are so restricted. I might end on a philosophical note by saying that I almost think this horrible war would be worth while, if it swept away entanglements and barriers all over Europe and the damnable doctrine of self-sufficiency, which has largely contributed to the war, and which, if not swept away, will make our lives miserable in the years to come.

Professor Tierney

I had no intention of taking part in the debate, and normally my acquaintance with matters of finance is so slight, that I do not know whether any contribution I could make to a debate on the Finance Bill would be of any value. As I listened to the course of the debate, I felt more and more that I would not be doing my duty as a member of this House, and as a citizen of Ireland, if I did not join my voice with those Senators who tried to bring home to the Government the seriousness of the situation in which we find ourselves, and the necessity for taking the most drastic steps in their power to meet it. One feels sometimes that one is torn between two difficulties. One doubts whether anything said can have any effect. On the other hand, one is afraid to rise and speak in case too much is said, or in case it might add to the difficulties of those who have on their shoulders the terrible responsibility of guiding this State through the situation that confronts it. At the same time I could not help feeling, as I listened to many of the speeches, that even yet very few of us are alive to the realities of the situation, or are alive to the necessity of going much further than we have gone, in organising the country, and taking serious steps to meet that situation. Listening to Senators talking amiably about educational problems, and telling us that in the modern world there was such a violent thirst for higher education that our economy and our whole social system had to be subordinated to it, I am afraid my reading of the modern world does not quite fit in with that amiable diagnosis. It seems to me, on the contrary, that the modern world is at present going further and further away from all interest in education, and that we are almost at the point where the dominant power in Europe is the power represented by the leader who said that when he hears of culture, he reaches for a gun.

We are faced at the present time with two dangers—one military and the other economic. One of the things that induced me to rise now was the feeling that no one in this House knows whether by this time next week any of us will be in a position to come here and make a speech, or express our opinions or sentiments about the position of the country. The danger that threatens us may be on us at any hour and, even if, under the providence of God, we escape the military danger, we are going to be faced in no long time with an economic situation, in the face of which the difference between the doctrines of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael is going to be the merest trifle.

In order to meet those situations, what have we done? We have simply called together a few politicians and set up a conference to meet, I understand, once a week to discuss matters of defence. We have had a few speeches on the wireless and a few public meetings. That is all we have done. I say—I give it as my own deliberate opinion with the feeling that it may be the last chance any of us will have to give an opinion on matters vital to people of the country—it is the duty of the Government at this frightfully critical hour in our history to call together every Irishman who is capable of giving service to Ireland and use the services of that Irishman as they can best be used. When I say that, I mean that it is the paramount duty of the present Government in this crisis to yield place to a national Government. Whatever chance there is of escaping from this crisis that threatens us depends upon that. If any of us here thinks that we are going to surmount the frightful trials which may come upon us within less than a week by means of weekly defence conferences, then all I can say is that he is not fit to be in a public assembly. We must wake up—if it is not too late already— to a realisation of the fact that we cannot defend this country on a limited liability basis and that we cannot face the economic problems that are going to confront us on a limited liability basis. If this war comes to Ireland, everything in Ireland is going to be at stake. Our lives, the lives of our wives and children and the lives of our sisters and brothers are going to be thrown into this war and God knows what will come out of it for this country.

I do not want to enter into the question of our neutrality. To me, that question seems to be almost as academic at the present moment as the question of education. It is not a question of neutrality. It is a question of whether we are going to be able to put up any defence against an enemy that may attack our shores any hour from now on. What I rose to say was simply this—that anyone who believes we can do that on the basis of limited liability and without forming a Government which will speak and act immediately and decisively for the whole people of Ireland is deluding himself— and any person in a responsible position at this moment who takes that view and refuses to take the necessary steps to form that national Government is betraying the people. The consequence of that failure will be written large on the future history of this country for many a long year. I do not want to enter more fully into a discussion of these matters. I merely want to say, with all the emphasis I can put upon it, that, in my belief, the time has gone by for forming a national Government, for transcending all these trifling differences between one Party and another and for getting together all the best men in all the Parties and making sure that the holders of our different Ministries will be the best men who can be got anywhere to hold them. The responsibility for doing that rests primarily on the shoulders of the people now in power. Whether the European War does reach our shores or not, we are going to be faced with an economic situation which will require the most revolutionary action on our part if our people are to be saved from numberless privations and, perhaps, even from starvation. Can anyone seriously maintain that we are going to face these problems and solve them by the lackadaisical methods we are adopting at the present moment— by means of a few wireless talks and a few meetings? It is childish to suggest that there is any hope for this country in that way.

I suggest to the members of the Fianna Fáil Party that these sentiments are not merely my sentiments but the sentiments of everybody, of the common people up and down the country, whether Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Labour. There are thousands of men in the Fianna Fáil branches who would welcome the institution of a national Government, who would welcome the coming together of a body of men who could speak for the whole people of the country in face of a situation calling for more revolutionary and more drastic action than was called for even between 1916 and 1921. The things that will have to be done, whether this crisis comes in a military form or not, will be so revolutionary that the doctrines of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael will have no relation to them.

The men who will have to take these decisions and face these crises must have the whole weight of the people behind them. You may put forward all sorts of academic arguments which have a certain temporary relevance to this question of a national Government. Senator Hayes talked about taking the bus to Rathmines and taking the bus to Drumcondra. That sort of argument was all very well six or eight months ago but, whether or not the people who are now at the head of these two Parties like the prospect, a national Government we must have if we are going to survive as a people. It is questionable enough whether, even with a national Government, whether even with all the resources we can bring together, whether even with all the strength and determination we can muster, we shall be able to survive this crisis.

I suggest that the recruiting drive that we have had, and which is still going on, would have been ten times more successful if it had been begun with an appropriate gesture on the part of the people on top, if the people on top had come together at first and said: "The situation is so serious that we are prepared to sink all our Party differences and get together not merely by way of defence conferences once a week but for all purposes arising out of this crisis now upon Ireland and we call upon our people to join us in the same spirit as we have got together." If that had been done at the beginning, we should have got a far better response to this recruiting drive than we have had. I do not want to say any more. If we can get a national Government in the shortest possible space of time, if we can get the leaders of our political Parties to come together, pool all their resources and devote all their attention to this problem and to the frightful crisis which is practically upon us, there may be some hope that this country will get through, but if there is one thing more certain than another, it is that we cannot surmount this crisis, that we cannot face the difficulties that are going to come upon us almost immediately on the basis of collaboration now and again—of meetings once a week and of the continuance of Party government. We must have a national Government if we are to stand up to the crisis that is coming upon us. We may get through if we have a national Government. If we have not, it defies the wit of man to see how this country can survive.

Peadar Mac Fhionnlaoich

Níl ach cúpla poinnte go mba mhaith liom tagairt do dhéanamh dóibh. Ceann acu an neodracht seo ar a bhfuil Seanadóirí ag cur síos. Chuala mé a lán cainnte ar an abhar seo anocht ach ní hionann an neodracht atá in intinn cuid de na daoine anseo agus an neodracht atá im' intinn-se. Bhí an Seanadóir O Catháin measardha láidir agus soléir san méid adubhairt sé ar an gceist seo. Sé an rud atá uaidh ná an tír a bheith neamh-neodrach. Chuaidh an Seanadóir Baicstear níos fuide ná sin. Mhol seisean dúinn có-oibriú le muinntir na Sé gContae. Tuigmíd uilig go bhfuil muinntir na Sé gContae san chogadh seo. Má théighmíd ar chóchomhairle leo, ní bhéimíd neodrach; beimíd páirteach san chogadh. Níl aon chiall i gcainnt mar sin. Sin é an fáth go gcuirim in úil do na Seanadóirí seo go bhfuil furmhór na ndaoine sa tír seo neodrach i ndáiríribh. Cogadh idir dhá Ghall—mar adeirtear san tairngireacht—iseadh an cogadh seo agus ní bhaineann sé linn muna gcuireann dream acu isteach orainn. Má dheinean siad sin, beidh orainn troid ina n-aghaidh agus, muna ndeineann siad, is cuma linn ciacu aca a chuirfeas smacht ar an taoibh eile.

Maidir leis an Chó-Riaghaltas seo, tá sórt chó-oibriú idir a lán daoine sa tír fá láthair agus tá eagla orm nach féidir é do dhéanamh níos dlúithe ná mar atá sé. Do nocht an Seanadóir O hAodha dhúinn an deacracht a bhíos ann nuair a thagann baill de chúpla Páirtí le chéile agus gan an dearcadh céanna acu. Dá mbeadh trí no ceithre Páirtí ag obair le chéile bheadh an deacracht sin i bhfad níos mó ná mar atá sé fá láthair—dream amháin i réim agus dreamanna eile ag cuidiú leis.

Chualamar a lán seafóide mar gheall ar na daoine is fearr sa tír—na daoine is géire intinn agus is mó ciall—a bheith sa Riaghaltas agus ag stiúrú na hoibre. Tá sin maith go leor ach cá bhfuil na daoine a chinnfidh cia hiad is tuigsionnaighe agus is ciallmhaire? Dá mbeadh guthán ann idir an tír seo agus Dia thiocfadh linn ceist do chur Air agus breithiúnas d'fháil. Ach 'fhaid is nach bhfuil an gléas sin againn is éigin dúinn bheith sásta le breithiúnas na ndaoine gcoitianta. Bhí níos mó céille san chomhairle a thug an Seanadóir O Tighearnaigh dhúinn ach, do réir mo thuairime, tá na daoine is fearr againn cheana. Tá an tuairim sin ag á lá ndaoine eile chó maith. Ní féidir breithiúnas d'fháil go mbeimís uilig sásta leis. Ar an abhar san, ní dóich liom gur ceart dul ar aghaidh leis an atharú seo agus Riaghaltas eile do chur isteach agus an phráinn ina bhfuilimíd maidir leis an obair atá idir lamhaibh againn fá láthair. Sílim go bhfuil an Riaghaltas ag déanamh na hoibre go maith. Tá siad ag ullamhú chó gasta agus is féidir leo agus isé an rud is ceart do dhaoine a dhéanamh ná cuidiú leo. B'fhéidir, le cuidiú Dé, nach mbeadh aon ghá leis an imshníomh agus nach mbeadh aon troid againn ach, má bhíonn, ní féidir linn ach ar ndícheall do dhéanamh.

Mr. McEllin

I have listened to Senator Tierney on the subject of a national Government and, while I have no objection personally to what form of government we have here, I really cannot agree with the Senator's faith in what a national Government can do. It is absolutely impossible to think that a national Government, one composed of all Parties, is going to cure everything, going to be the be-all and end-all of our ills in this country. I would far rather like to think in quite the reverse direction, for the time being, anyhow—that is, to go in for a certain form of decentralisation, placing more responsibility on parish committees. If you had parish committees, composed of all sections of the community, working together in the different districts, pooling their ideas, taking a census of everything they have and keeping in close co-operation with the powers that be, it would be ever so much more effective. Such committees would see to it that we will have ample supplies of the articles we will require in a crisis.

We have had plenty of examples in other countries in relation to the formation of Governments; we have seen national Governments, coalition and other types of government established, with all sorts of fantastic names, quite beside us even, and I do not see that they have improved the situation by one iota. That is not the basis of success. The basis of success in this and in other countries lies through the co-ordination of every section of the community. We have had Ministers of this State telling us most emphatically, and stressing as strongly as they could —and even the Church has brought it home to the people—that we are in imminent danger. The members of the Government cannot do any more than that. Surely you cannot expect a Minister to go down to consult with the people in every parish?

Mr. Crosbie

Why not—is not that what he is paid for?

Mr. McEllin

He has a lot more to do here, and, if there is any sense of civic responsibility in the people, they will take the Minister's words seriously and prepare to organise themselves. If they do not do that, they will be lost. That is the basis of success. There are a lot of us talking here and, if we put our backs into the work more sincerely than we have been doing, if we make every effort to get the people to register, we will be doing valuable national work. It would be much more important than talking here about creating a Government from amongst the various Parties in Dublin. The basis of success lies in getting all the people together. That is how we fought in the past and it will be the basis of our future success.

We have had a good deal of talk this evening about all the difficulties we have to face and whether recruiting will or will not be successful. Reference has been made to the serious economic situation that is likely to occur here and warnings have been given to the Government. Surely, Senators do not imagine that Ministers are not closely in touch with existing circumstances and have far more vision in relation to future possibilities? The Government have studied this matter for themselves, not alone for days and weeks, but over the last two years— certainly since the beginning of the war. One very definite example is their vigorous policy in relation to the Army and the scheme for A.R.P. What was the policy of some of the Opposition during the time the Government were active in this connection? They even objected to an experiment with the lighting in our city here; they objected to air-raid shelters and called the whole thing pure extravagance. Who showed greater lack of foresight in relation to the difficulties that we are likely to face than the people who are now criticising Ministers?

Professor Tierney

I still call A.R.P. an extravagance; it was a complete waste of money from beginning to end.

Mr. Crosbie

Why did they not buy guns instead?

Mr. McEllin

I sincerely hope Senator Tierney's prophecy is true and that A.R.P. will never be required. If they are, I know who will be very grateful for them and who might be the first to run for them. Maybe Senator Tierney will not be the last.

Mr. M. Hayes

A great spirit of co-operation!

Mr. McEllin

Let us quit this sort of hypocrisy. We have listened to more hypocrisy from the Opposition Benches all the evening than one could imagine possible. They have been talking about neglect on the Government's part. It is nothing short of brazen hypocrisy, coming from people who have been blackguarding the Government on their policy of self-sufficiency. We had a statement from Senator Sir John Keane this evening and not alone did he criticise the shortcomings of the Government's tariff policy, but he went on to say that our self-sufficiency policy affected us spiritually.

Sir John Keane

So it does.

Mr. McEllin

I came up on the train this morning with two Fine Gael Deputies and they never realised so much until to-day the advantage of the self-sufficiency policy. We have our full supplies of sugar and of flour. Our mills are working at full pressure. We depend on no outsider for any of our flour to-day. Five or six years ago we had not one-third of our requirements. These are all the results of foresight, of thought for the future, providing for all requirements against possible difficulties which countries have to face. Now that we are likely to get advantage from that, we will take all these advantages and, without shedding a tear, we will start off a fresh campaign. We hear the cry now: "Give us a national Government. That will cure all our ills. That will keep out the invader. That will prevent economic collapse if our chief market goes from us." God help us if that is all we have to depend on to keep us from that disaster, because disaster it will mean. I am not going to repeat myself, but I do say that the success of the future defence of our country, the proper distribution of our food, depend upon the co-operation of the people in the parishes.

There was some discussion this evening of this question of the value of the £. There was some very dangerous talk here this evening. I am not too sure that if it were published in full in the daily papers, it would not create a very serious situation in the country. I think that it would re-act very seriously on the people just now. I am quite satisfied that owing to long tongues there is a certain amount of uneasiness already in the country about securities, investments, the value of the £, and so on. The Government have shown a very substantial and sound policy of which Sir John Keane, with his intimate knowledge of the banking situation, has told us this evening. At least the £ in this country has shown steadiness and is capable of buying almost as much to-day in this country of the ordinary necessities of life as it did some months ago. We have no evidence whatsoever of inflation. That, from my point of view, seems to be very sound. When you come to realise some of these facts, what is the need for all this anxiety about the £ or about sterling? My outlook on life is that the essence of security for our currency and for our future is our power of production. That is a greater problem than anything else in life at the moment. We can not alone maintain our production but considerably increase it. I do not mean production of bullocks, but I mean the ordinary necessaries of life, because I think there is very little future for grass lands if things develop in the way they seem to be developing.

In this hour of extreme difficulty, after all the propaganda of the Government about extending our wheatlands, it is a sad commentary in the terrible crisis that exists in Europe, that we have only 40 or 50 per cent. of our own wheat requirements grown in the country when we should have 100 per cent. and a little over to give to the other fellow if he were badly off. However, there is no use in recriminations or in looking back. I would much prefer to look to the future, to forget the past, to forget the differences that we had. We had a fine example of the co-operation of all Parties last Sunday and the public showed their appreciation in turning up. We have all the evidence that recruiting is going well and all the evidence of a good future here if co-operation is intensified. I have not the slightest doubt that it will be intensified by the people who count in the Opposition Parties anyhow. If it is a failure, it will not be their fault. According to all the physical signs we have and according to their speeches, they are not very much interested in who is the Government and who is not the Government.

Before I conclude, there is a point I would like to put to the Minister. In order to do so I have to look back a number of years, to the old days in this country. I am more or less reverting to the parish committees indirectly. In the old days in this country when we were making our fight against the common enemy of the time the people made national voluntary contributions to aid the people in their struggle at that particular time. While the great bulk of the people were mostly poor they gave as much as they could. I would like to see that spirit extended to-day. I would like to see the Minister putting up some form of organisation, appealing to the people for national subscriptions for the defence of the country. One of the main reasons why I appeal to him to do that is because it is quite a common remark amongst the small farming community in regard to registration that they have always done the fighting, that the poor people are always doing the fighting for this country. That is substantially true. I think that it would be a great gesture, which would indicate their sincerity and their full support, if the people who can afford it were to give liberally, voluntarily, to the national defence of this country. If the Minister were to seriously consider that, I believe he would be successful because I believe there is a movement in favour of it. The fact that people who are substantially well-off are giving subscriptions will stop the talk that the poor man is always fighting for Ireland and it will show co-operation. In any case it will show that if a man is not young enough to fight he is willing enough to give a subscription to national defence and it would be setting a good example to the ordinary people in the country. I would strongly advise the Minister to start such a scheme. I believe he would be surprised at the response he would get. I believe, for example, that the members of the Irish Federation of Industries, which is a great national body, would play their part and would give substantial voluntary subscriptions.

It would help us over a very difficult period and possibly help to relieve taxation in the future. If you are willing to do that, I, who am not well off, will make a personal contribution of £100 as an initial payment. I hope that anything I have said will not in any way upset the spirit of co-operation and unity that is existing. Senator Tierney was quite right when he said that we were in a serious position and that we should all pull together and forget the past. Let us not talk of putting blame on anyone. The Government is doing its duty with a full sense of its responsibility. I have reason to believe that many people, the members of the Defence Conference and others, are in close touch with the situation and I am satisfied that, if there is the proper spirit, we shall come through this period very successfully.

Mr. McCabe

I feel that the one admirable aspect of the whole situation is the unity that exists between all Parties, and I hope that nobody inside or outside this House will try to create any ill-feeling or give the public to understand that that spirit of unity is not sincere. If Ministers would attend meetings in the principal towns in each county—they could take with them any other members they wish, such as the members of the Defence Conference— it would, to my mind, give great encouragement to the youth of the country and to the public generally. There is a feeling down the country, and especially amongst the youth, that the crisis is not as serious as we suggest it is, and unless you have public meetings in the towns of the different counties, you will not get them to believe that they should be up and doing and giving their support to the country. The older people are prepared to give, and are giving, of their best in order to encourage the younger people, and that is the important thing on which we should concentrate.

A good deal has been said about the economic position now and in the future, and I am happy to be able to give some little information to the Minister about a certain position in my county. One Senator referred this evening to the Land Commission, and said that it would not be much loss if it were scrapped because it was not doing very much good, while involving a considerable amount of expense. We are being asked by the Government and by the clergy to provide more turf, and I know an area in my county where there are 300 acres of bog land in the hands of the Land Commission, but the farmers and labourers around it are not allowed to cut one sod of turf. They are prepared to pay a reasonable rent, but they are not allowed to cut the turf, and so to prepare for the shortage there will be of coal for perhaps years to come. The Government should see that every available rood of bog is made available to the people in the present crisis and should give them the opportunity of having a fire in the winter months and a chance of paying labour for carrying out the work.

I hope and trust that everyone will co-operate and stand shoulder to shoulder in this crisis in our country's history. A certain number of us did so at the time of the proposed passing of the Conscription Act, and we succeeded in our efforts. There was unity then, and I see no reason why we should not have unity now when we are facing a more serious crisis. I have no doubt that the people will accept their share of responsibility and stand loyally together in defence of the country.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It is always a pleasure to come here and it is sometimes instructive, as well. It was quite an education, I might say, to be here this evening to hear the variety of subjects discussed and the different aspects of one or two particular subjects which were developed, not at too great length. I was not exactly prepared for a discussion of the kind to which I listened to-day. I am more accustomed to the procedure in the Dáil which is of a more restricted character. When one is debating a Bill or a motion in the Dáil, one keeps moderately well within the ambit of the Bill or motion. The procedure in the Seanad, with all respect, Sir, is of a more liberal character, and subjects of a varied nature can be raised, and are raised, and, of course, it adds to the interest of the debate. I would not have any serious objection to following a number of the Senators who spoke in developing a number of important topics which were adumbrated, if not developed at great length by them. But, generally speaking, I should like a little more notice.

I was struck by the remarks of Senator Tierney, in particular. As I said earlier, I listened to several very interesting speeches, mainly from the other side of the House, though there were some from this side, too. Senator Tierney's contribution, however, struck me more forcibly on account of the evident strong feeling with which he spoke. Others may have felt as strongly, but they did not impress themselves on me to the same extent. It seemed to me, at any rate, that he is of opinion that the Government has not realised and does not realise the seriousness of the situation with which we are faced or may be faced in the near future. I think I can say to him and to the House in general that the Government is fully conscious and fully aware of the situation—of the European situation and the world situation—and of our intimate relationship to it and to what might come out of it. It has been under discussion at meeting after meeting of the Government for many months—both at frequent and long meetings—and there is no aspect of the question raised here to-day which has not been thought of, discussed and canvassed in some measure at those meetings of the Government.

Speaking personally, I am quite happy to have been here and to have listened to the points which have been raised about the seriousness of the war situation all round us and how we may be affected by it. It is certain that, whether there is any invasion of this country or not, we are bound to be affected in some measure. In fact, we have been affected already indirectly. The question for us all—for everyone in the country, for those in the Dáil and those here, and for the Government—is how far we are likely to be affected, how far we are likely to be injured in our material or spiritual interests, how far those interests are likely to be jeopardised, and whether our system of life—cultural, economic, social and financial—is likely to be brought into jeopardy. I believe every thinking man and woman in the country has been canvassing those problems, at home, in the office, and in the workshop, for many months. I repeat—with all the seriousness and emphasis I can use—that no aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Government. I do not say that everything has been foreseen. Even with the variety of points of view, the variety of talent and the variety of experience we have got here and in the Dáil, I doubt if we could forecast the things which might arise out of this war and the ways in which we may be involved.

It would be foolish to say that the Government has thought of everything —they have not. Peoples on the Continent who were more deeply involved and for whom it was a matter of life and death—with Governments, Executives, Parliaments and Councils— believed they had made all provision and that they had thought out all the ways in which they might, against their will, be brought into the conflict. We know, from recent history, that those peoples did not think of everything and were not able to foresee all the ways in which their national interests might be attacked and placed in jeopardy. In saying that all aspects of the matter have been under discussion, I do not say that we have found a solution for them all or that we could find a solution for any particular problem which might be put forward by Senator MacDermot, Senator Baxter or Senator Lynch, or which they may have put forward to us to-day; but I do say that this whole problem is fully in our minds and that plans of one kind or another have been prepared so far as we can do it.

The Government is a human body with human limitations and human frailties. It has worked hard to make preparations for the troubles which are certain to come upon us in certain eventualities. Some Senators have spoken in favour of a new form of government. Some call it a national Government, some call it a coalition Government, others have other names for it. I do not believe that any form of government which has been mentioned could have made better provision than we have made. If it were established now, it could not take more active or better steps to safeguard the interests of this country than those which have been taken by the present Government.

Mrs. Concannon

Hear, hear!

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I believe it is true, though, admittedly, it is an ex-parte view, that a change of Government now—a change to a Government drawn from all the Parties—would not work as efficiently or with the same harmony and, I would suggest, it would not work with the same full confidence of the people. This Government has the interests of the country at heart. We believe in our people and in our country. If we thought, individually or collectively, that there was anything more we could do, even to the extent of handing the Government over to others, we should not hesitate for one moment about doing so, if we thought it would be in the best interests of the country.

Mr. MacDermot

I am afraid it is in the nature of every Government to think that any alternative Government would be inferior.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I am not saying it would be inferior.

Mr. MacDermot

At any rate, no improvement.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I am not saying this is a Government of all the talents. I would not claim that, and would have no right to claim that. I would say it is a Government of commonsense, wise and experienced after a long period of training in public life and responsibility in national affairs. I believe that no coalition Government formed now from all the Parties would be more effective to do the nation's work at this moment. I believe that the present Government has the confidence of the people. I gather that some Senators think there would be a greater measure of confidence in a Government formed from representatives of all Parties. Might you not shake the great measure of confidence you already have? That is something worth thinking about.

Mr. MacDermot

I was thinking much more of sheer executive ability than of confidence. It seems to me to be a truism that you get a much higher average of executive ability from a Government composed of men from all Parties.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I am thinking of the members of the Government as I know them, purely now on the question of executive ability, and whether or not I am competent to express an opinion—I am perhaps as competent as most people—I think you will get as much executive ability amongst the members of the present Government as from any body the Dáil or the Seanad, or the two Houses acting together, are likely to throw up.

Mr. Healy

But you are losing the services of Senator MacDermot.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I know he would do his part as well as any member of the Seanad. I do not want to get down to personalities at all. I do believe that you have a Government that will do what Senator Tierney asks for, when he says that you want a Government that will act immediately and decisively. We have that body and I, at any rate, feel no hesitation in saying that I believe they would deal effectively and decisively, and with the confidence of the people behind them, with any emergency that might arise out of this war. There are some people—I do not say that Senator Tierney is one of them—who mistake bustle for business. There are people of that type who are not satisfied unless they see members of the Government trotting round to parish councils, to recruiting meetings and other meetings. These people perhaps are not satisfied unless they see Ministers' names in the papers every day in the week. They think that that is active work and that the Government is doing something. It is very useful and very necessary to have, from time to time, speeches and publicity and visits to the country but if work has to be done, if you want effective executive work in administration, it is not on the platforms in the country you will get it, although I must admit you need platform work to stir up enthusiasm.

On the question of the success of the recruiting drive—again I address myself to Senator Tierney—I say that it has been most successful and the difficulty that I fear now is that there will be a slackening off in enthusiasm because the Army, I believe, unless changes are made—and I hear that some people have urged that the necessary changes should be made—and unless a bigger staff is available, will not be able to take into the cadre of the Army as quickly as desirable all the men who have offered themselves.

Mr. MacDermot

That is happening now.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is what is happening now but I believe steps are being taken to remedy that situation. Thousands of men have offered themselves. On last Thursday alone, 15,000 men had offered themselves. I asked how many were to be taken on at once and I was told that they could not take at the present time more than 5,000 men. I asked then what would happen the 10,000 men who were kept waiting and I pointed out that their ardour would cool if they were kept waiting for a week or a month longer. I understand that steps are being taken to remedy that situation now. There is no doubt in the world that the recruiting campaign has been successful.

One other matter raised—again Senator Tierney referred to it, at any rate, inferentially; other Senators also dealt with it—was the question of our defence here and our relationship towards the Powers at war. I believe firmly that the foundation of our defence here is neutrality, and I think something about which all of us should be very happy is that in present circumstances we are free to be neutral and to make that choice ourselves. We all have our own views. I know I have my views and sympathies—pretty strong views and pretty strong sympathies. I do not think it right or proper to give expression to them here. I think the Government was wise in deciding on neutrality. The Dáil and the Seanad, who have not objected, were wise and the country was wise in approving of the declaration of neutrality made on behalf of the country by the Taoiseach. It was the wisest possible policy in the circumstances for this State to adopt. Any other policy would have had possibly, even amongst ourselves here, without waiting for any invader, disastrous results, if I am not using too strong a word.

Professor Johnston

That is what they thought in Norway.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I do not know what may have happened in any other country. Every country is sui generis and our conditions here are peculiar to ourselves. I am not going to contend that neutrality may keep us completely out of the war. God only knows what is going to happen. All the great Powers will do what suits themselves, whether we are neutral or not and no matter what we say. They look to their interests first and to their interests alone. In centuries past, we fought for every land in Europe, for every land almost the world over, at different times. It is high time we looked after ourselves for a little while. At any rate, there was one argument mentioned here to-day that enforces the necessity for our neutrality and that is the fact that we are not complete masters in our own home. We have got to bear in mind that we have a big problem here in the partition of the country, that that has its bearing on the world situation and how we may be affected by it. Senator Lynch and other Senators, having that aspect of the matter in mind, talked about the necessity of thinking of the defence of the 32 Counties of this country. I would ask them to bear in mind what I have said already, that no aspect of the matters raised here in regard to our defence and our position vis-a-vis the belligerents, vis-a-vis the European and the world situation as it now exists, has been ignored. There is no aspect of it that has not been discussed, canvassed or thought of, including the aspect referred to by Senator Lynch.

There is one aspect of all this question that I have to think of, particularly as Minister for Finance. Perhaps more than any other member of the Government it is my responsibility, the responsibility of the purse. I am not letting anybody into Cabinet secrets when I say that since I became Minister I have fought rings round, fought myself, metaphorically speaking, black and blue, trying to prevent the allocation of money that was going to go up in smoke. It was not until the events of recent times forced in upon me the conclusion that, if we were going to be involved, and if it were necessary for us to call on the manhood and the womanhood of this country to defend us, as seemed likely, well, then, the locks would have to be taken off the Exchequer, and we would have, within reason, and I always maintain, or try to maintain, expenditure within reason—to let as much money be spent for our defences as could, with justice and reason, be demanded by the circumstances. I hate to think of hard-earned money, the hard-earned money of our taxpayers, having to go in that way; not that I object to one penny being spent in the defence of the independence of this country. After all, if men, young and old, are offering their lives, risking their lives, and being asked to do so for the defence of the country, I think that the least that any of us, who, perhaps, are not going to be in the firing line, might do is to pay up and look pleasant. However, notwithstanding that, it certainly was not with any but grudging feelings that I passed the heavy demands that are made these days for expenditure on defensive services.

I think it was Senator Hayes, when speaking to-day, who said that we had not in this Finance Bill to-day all the expenditure and all the demands that might be made before the financial year is out. He is quite right. I do not know how far we may be called upon to add to the expenditure. I hope it will not be heavy, and I always hope for the best, but you can imagine, with regard to the personnel that has been accepted into the Army already, what will be the cost of feeding, housing, clothing, and equipping, militarily or otherwise, the additional men who have been accepted. Most of that cost was not provided for in the Budget of this year.

It is true, as Senator Douglas said, that taxation is high. It is high. We are not a rich country, but we are not an impoverished country, thanks be to God. I admit that taxation is high, and I certainly am not the one to deny it. I like telling everybody and getting everybody to realise that it is high, and getting people to feel, and particularly members of the Dáil and Seanad, who ask for additional expenditure, that taxation is high. I said in the Dáil, and I think I may repeat it here, that everyone of us has our hobby. One man wants more money for education, and another man wants less to be spent on education and more on some other service.

I think it was Senator The McGillycuddy to-day who wanted less to be spent on education. Perhaps he wanted it to be taken off education and spent on the Army, or perhaps he wanted it to be spent for some other purpose besides that. The fact remains that we all have our hobbies. Some of us want more money to be spent on agriculture, some want more money to be spent on forestry, and others want it to be spent in other ways. But some of those who speak loudest—certainly, in the Dáil—in denunciation of the heavy expenditure in certain directions, are the first people to make demands for additional expenditure in other directions. Our taxation, undoubtedly, is heavy, and there is no denying the fact that it is additionally heavy as a result of the additional expenditure that is required owing to the present emergency. Senator Hayes, and I think Senator Douglas also, said that even before the emergency the expenditure was very high here in comparison with our resources; that it was too high, and that the Government ought to have spent less and ought to have let the taxpayer off with a lighter burden. Well, there were many things, when this Government came in, that required urgent and immediate attention. One Senator referred here to-day to housing. We have spent very big sums on housing and I, personally, was responsible for a lot of that expenditure. I think, however, that it was justified, and if I were still Minister for Local Government and Public Health I would be still bombarding the Minister for Finance for additional expenditure in the same direction.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I hope the Minister for Finance would do his job and refuse it.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Well, that was what I did when I was Minister for Local Government.

Mr. Fitzgerald

As a kind of vote of censure on the then Minister for Finance.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I admit that I have to look at the other side of it now. I was not so interested in the finance end of it then, but even now, as Minister for Finance, I can say this much: that I have not turned down any demands for grants or loans for housing since I became Minister for Finance. Of course, it is true that, the cost of building being so high now, there is not anything like the same number of houses being put up as was the case before the war.

As to what will happen to us economically and what our position will be if certain eventualities happen to Great Britain—if Great Britain is blockaded, surrounded, and her ports so held and so interfered with that we cannot export to her or import raw materials—well, such a situation would create very serious problems, indeed, and the effect on our economic structure would be felt in every home in the country. We have not felt the effects of the war very much so far; we have not had to tighten our belts—certainly not arising directly out of the war. Our supplies of raw materials here, such as coal, have been maintained. Somebody mentioned other raw materials, and it is true that some industries have had to moderate production, but generally speaking our supplies have been well maintained. Of course, with regard to the main staple foodstuffs, we have an ample supply here, as several Senators reminded us. There is a great deal of food grown in this country, and we could not starve, but even in the case of the foodstuffs that we have to get from outside I think we have a supply that will carry us over a long period in most of the big things that matter. For instance, when I was coming into the Seanad to-day, somebody asked me about our supplies of tea. I happened to meet the Minister for Supplies during the interregnum and I asked him how were our stocks of tea. The Minister told me that nobody need have any fear with regard to tea, and that we have ample supplies.

I do not think I need say any more to the House. These grave problems that may arise here as a result of the war, and the effects they may have on Ireland and so on, have not been lost sight of. They are being considered, and I hope that satisfactory solutions of them may be found.

With regard to the question of charities, I think Senators Hayes and Fitzgerald are under a misapprehension. If a man wants to give £50 a year to a charity, nobody—and certainly not the Government—will discourage him. I would be the last in the world—and I am speaking as Minister for Finance—to discourage anybody from giving, and giving generously, to charity. If a person wants to subscribe £50 a year, why should he ask the taxpayer to pay an additional £25 a year— to pay that out of your pocket and mine when he will get the credit for it?

Mr. Fitzgerald

I say that the taxpayer does not.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

He does. A person covenants to pay a subscription to any charity you like. He selects the charity. He covenants to pay a certain sum. Let us say that he has been in the habit of paying £50 a year. Someone comes to him and gives him this idea about the covenant. He says to him: "You will lose nothing by it. We will get the £50 from you if you sign the covenant, and, in addition, we will get £25 back from the Revenue." If he signs a covenant for £75, he pays £50 and gives a certificate that he has paid £75, including the income-tax. The charity gets the income-tax from the Revenue Commissioners, but it is the taxpayer who pays; and, nevertheless, the taxpayer who pays this £25 has no right to say how that money is going to be spent. That is what we are trying to remedy. We are not discouraging charity. I hope that no word of mine will ever discourage anybody from being generous towards charitable objects. The certificate is given to the charity. The charity sends that certificate to the Revenue Commissioners, who pay back that £25 to the charity.

Mr. M. Hayes

The position is that an encouragement, previously given, is being discontinued. It is a discontinuance really.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It is a discontinuance of a legal loophole that was there. The reason why it is being discontinued is because I am satisfied that people ought not to use this in the way that they have begun to use it. In the last three years they have been using it to an extent that is out of all proportion to what used to happen before. If this was allowed to develop, instead of costing us £13,000, the sum involved would be £50,000 in a short time, and that money would have gone in a way that I do not think the Act ever intended it should go.

Mr. M. Hayes

That is a new point. Is it an increasing amount?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Yes. In the last three years it has gone up nearly threefold. Certain people discovered a way of getting money by making these covenants. It was never intended, I believe, that the type of covenant that has been made in the last couple of years by certain bodies should be used to get money in that way out of the taxpayer.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I know a great number of people who give largely to charity, and it never struck them that the money they gave affected their income-tax. They simply paid the money. The Minister says that this practice has gone up threefold. Might not that be due to the fact that a number of people have awakened to the fact that in distributing charity they have certain rights?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It does not affect their income-tax at all unless they sign the covenant. When they do that the charity then gets the income-tax back.

Mr. Fitzgerald

The Minister says that this has gone up threefold. A man may have been paying income-tax but not in respect of charity given under a covenant. Someone comes along to him and says that if he were to do this under a covenant he would get a rebate. That is not the sort of thing one would call bilking the Government. This, as the Minister has said, may have gone up threefold, and quite rightly, for the reason that people who were previously paying income-tax that they were not bound to pay if they fulfilled certain conditions, are now fulfilling these conditions.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I would not like to use the phrase "bilking the Government," but at any rate it is an inequitable thing. I am satisfied that if the Senator were to examine the facts, he, or other Senators, would not allow it to continue.

Mr. MacDermot

I suppose the Minister has no idea when he will be introducing his Supplementary Budget?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

No, I hope that day may not arise.

Mr. M. Hayes

I hope that we will be all here to see the Supplementary Budget.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed: That the remaining stages of the Bill be taken now.