Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Mar 1944

Vol. 28 No. 15

Public Business. - Central Fund Bill, 1944 ( Certified Money Bill )— Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

An tAire Airgeadais (Seán T. O Ceallaigh)

Is gné gnáthach dár gcóras airgeadais an Bille Prímh-Chiste. Bíonn gá leis chun a údarú go dtabharfaí amach as an bPrímh-Chiste airgead a dheonann Dáil Éireann. Is é cuspóir an Bhille seo ná a údarú go dtabharfaí amach (1) iomlán na suimeanna breise nua seo a deonadh sa bhliain airgeadais seo agus nár húdaruíodh a thabhairt amach fén Acht Prímh-Chiste 1944, ná fén Acht Leithreasa, 1943, agus (2) an tsuim do dheon an Dáil i gcuntas don bhliain airgeadais seo romhainn chun na Seirbhísí Soláthair a choinneáil ar bun fhaid is a bhíonn na Meastacháin á bplé ag an Dáil ina gceann agus ina gceann. Freisin, tugann an Bille comhacht don Aire Airgeadais airgead fháil ar iasacht agus urrúis ar bith is oiriúnach leis a bhunú agus a thabhairt amach chuige sin.

Sé méid an Vóta i gCuntas i mbliana ná £14,888,000, suim atá beagán níos lugha na trian den mhéid iomlán atá uainn le haghaidh na Seirbhísí Soláthair. Mar atá le feiceáil ag na Seanadóirí ó Imleabhar na Meastachán, ta £44,982,644 glan ag teastáil uainn le haghaidh na bliana seo chughainn, agus, mar sin, tá £2,978,677 sa bhreis uainn i gcompáraid leis an soláthar glan a deineadh i rith na bliana seo.

B'é an soláthar glan sin ná £42,003,9667, agus áirmhítear na Meastacháin Bhreise agus Nua sa méid sin. £40,696,211 méid Meastacháin na bliana airgeadais seo nuair a tugadh isteach ar dtúis iad agus, i gcomparáid leis an tsuim sin, tá £4,286,433 sa bhreis uainn i gcóir na bliana seo chughainn.

Siad na príomh-chúiseanna atá leis an méadú seo de £4,250,000 ar chostas na seirbhísí puiblí ná gur gá soláthar de £1,548,958 do Liúntaisí Leanbhaí, agus soláthar breise de £1,394,588 do Sholáthairtí; ar chonganta airgid chun praghas bídh agus tein-abhair a choimeád gan árdú is mó a caithfear an soláthar breise sin do Sholáthairtí. In éineacht leis sin, támuid chun £508,000 a chaitheamh ar oibreacha forbairte ag Faing agus Rinn Eanna, agus tá costas an Airm imithe in áirde £112,803. Cosnóidh an t-árdú bónuis do Stát-Sheirbhísigh, Múinteoirí agus Gárdaí tuairim is £316,200 agus na híocaíochtaí nua do dhaoine áirithe a bhfuil Pinsin Sean-Aoise, na nDall no na mBaintreacha aca, no sochar fé na hAchtanna Árachais Sláinte Náisiúnta, £365,000.

As Senators are aware, Central Fund Bills are a routine feature of our financial system, and are required to authorise the issue out of the Central Fund of grants voted by Dáil Eireann. The present Bill is designed to authorise the issue of (1) the total amount of those Supplementary and Additional Estimates for the present financial year which were not covered by the Central Fund or Appropriation Acts of 1943, and (2) the amount of the Vote on Account to which the Dáil has agreed for the coming financial year, pending detailed consideration of the Estimates for the Supply Services. The Bill also makes provision for borrowing by the Minister for Finance and for the issue by him of such securities as he thinks fit. The provisions of the Bill are stereotyped and the sections are briefly described as follows:—

With regard to Section 1, in the current financial year 34 Supplementary and Additional Estimates, totalling £1,307,756, were presented to the Dáil and passed. Two of those Estimates, totalling £282,368, were covered by the first Appropriation Act of 1943; the remaining Estimates have not yet been covered by legislation, and their total of £1,025,388 is accordingly authorised to be issued from the Central Fund under Section 1 of the present Bill.

In connection with Section 2, I may say that the total of the Estimates for the Supply Services for 1944-45 is £44,982,644, of which £14,888,000 has been voted on account by the Dáil. Section 2 of the Bill authorises the issue from the Central Fund of this latter amount. The issue of the balance will be covered by the Appropriation Bill, which will be introduced later on, when all the Estimates have been considered by the Dáil.

Section 3 empowers the Minister for Finance to borrow up to £15,913,388, which is the sum of the amounts mentioned in Sections 1 and 2, and to issue such securities as he thinks fit for the purpose of such borrowing. It also provides that the Bank of Ireland may advance to the Minister any sum or sums not exceeding the amount he is empowered to borrow; this provision is necessary because, under the Statute of the Irish Parliament dated 1781-82, under which the Bank of Ireland was established, the bank is liable to forfeit any moneys advanced or loaned by it to the Government unless the advance or loan has been specifically authorised by Parliament.

I should like now to take the opportunity of making some general remarks on the Volume of Estimates for 1944-45, copies of which have been circulated to members of the House. The total net sum required for the Supply Services for the coming financial year is £44,982,644, which represents an increase of £2,978,677 on the net provision of £42,003,967 for the current year. The latter sum includes, of course, all the Supplementary and Additional Estimates passed during 1943-44. The original net provision for the current year was £40,696,211 and, as compared with this figure, the 1944-45 provision is up by £4,286,433.

The chief causes of the £4,750,000 increase over the original Estimates for 1943-44 are the provision of more than £1,500,000 for children's allowances, which are to be initiated during the coming year under legislation that was recently before this House, and an increase of nearly £1,400,000 in the Estimate for Supplies, due mainly to greater subsidies designed to prevent increases in the price of food and fuel and thereby to check the rise in the cost of living.

We are also going to spend a great deal of money on airport development. On recent occasions when I have visited this House I have been assured that "Now is the time to spend money on airports"; and I hope, therefore, that the Seanad will be pleased to note the provision in the Vote for Public Works and Buildings of over £500,000 for development works at Foynes and Rinenanna during the coming year.

The additional emergency bonus which the Government has granted to certain civil servants, teachers and Gárdaí will cost an extra £315,000 (£316,200), and the new supplementary payments to certain recipients of old age, blind and widows' and orphans' pensions and National Health Insurance benefit £365,000. Other increases of note are £170,000 for agricultural produce subsidies, due to the higher guaranteed price for milk, £50,000 for food allowances, and £113,000 for the Army, the bill for which, at £8,620,467 stands at a new high figure.

The increases I have mentioned give a total of approximately £4,400,000, composed of £2,400,000 for defence and emergency services, £1,500,000 for children's allowances and £500,000 for airport development. The net increase for all the Supply Services is, as I have told you, less than £4,300,000; it will accordingly be clear that there is a decrease in the amount needed for the other Supply Services, taken as a whole.

I propose now to comment briefly on the principal increases and decreases, other than those to which I have already referred.

Vote 6—Office of the Revenue Commissioners—shows an increase of £31,000, due mainly to extra staff charges.

Vote 7—Old Age Pensions—shows an increase of £20,000, due to an anticipated rise in the number of pensioners.

Vote 10—Public Works and Buildings—is up by £308,540. Sub-head B (New Works, etc.) is up by £270,000, due to the projected development work at Foynes and Rinenanna.

Vote 14—Irish Tourist Board—shows an increase of £6,000, due to expansion in the Board's activities.

Vote 16—Superannuation and Retired Allowances—is up by £19,200, primarily due to an increase in the number of pensioners.

Vote 28—Emergency Scientific Research Bureau—shows a reduction of £13,600. This is accounted for mainly by the transfer of responsibility for the turf charcoal plant at Turraun to the Turf Development Board, grants to which are borne on the Vote for Supplies.

Vote 29—Agriculture—shows a reduction of £110,000 in round figures. The reduction is due mainly to a decrease of £99,745 in the provision for fertiliser subsidies (sub-head G (3)) and to the absence of any provision for subsidies on early potatoes (£24,500 was provided this year).

Vote 33—Gárda Síochána—shows an increase of £70,558. There is an increase of £65,126 on sub-head A (Salaries, Wages and Pay), mainly owing to increased emergency bonus.

Vote 41—Local Government and Public Health—is up by £231,943, due almost entirely to the new supplementary allowances to certain old age pensioners, blind pensioners and beneficiaries under the National Health Insurance Acts (sub-head J (6)).

Vote 44—National Health Insurance —is up by £125,939, just £126,000, due to the new supplementary payments to certain beneficiaries under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts, for which £135,000 is provided. There is a decrease of £11,000 under sub-head G (2) (Exchequer proportion of sickness, etc., benefits).

Vote 46—Primary Education—shows an increase of £101,254, due entirely to higher emergency bonus, which is to cost £112,000 more.

Vote 47—Secondary Education— shows an increase of £50,845. £20,000 of this addition is non-recurring and is due to the decision to pay incremental salary to secondary teachers at monthly instead of quarterly intervals; £21,000 is due to higher emergency bonus, and the balance mainly to the growth in the numbers of pupils and teachers and to increased provision for the publication of textbooks in Irish.

Vote 48—Technical Instruction— shows an increase of £23,257, which is accounted for mainly by large grants to vocational education committees to meet normal expansion of the committees' activities and the payment of emergency bonus.

Vote 49—Science and Art—shows an increase of £6,264. Staff costs (sub-head A (1)) are up by £1,697, due to higher emergency bonus. Vote 50—Reformatory and Industrial Schools—is up by £8,606, due to an abnormal growth in the number of children being committed.

Vote 52—Lands—shows a decrease of £11,694 A reduction inter alia of £23,052 in the provision required for the improvement of estates, etc. (sub-head I), is offset mainly by an increase of £12,560 in staff costs, of which £8,300 is for increased emergency bonus.

Vote 53—Forestry—shows a decrease of £7,053. Reductions of £20,000 in the amount required for the acquisition of land and of £2,800 in travelling expenses are offset mainly by a fall of £14,700 in Appropriations-in-Aid and an increase of £2,328 in the amount required for timber conversion.

Vote 54—Gaeltacht Services—shows a decrease of £11,200.

Vote 55—Industry and Commerce— shows a reduction of £67,513.

Vote 59—Unemployment Insurance and Unemployment Assistance—shows a reduction of £163,968. Decreases of £90,000 in the provision for unemployment assistance and £91,500 in that for the special register of agricultural and turf workers have been partially offset by an increase in staff charges of £17,072 (£8,500 of it due to increased emergency bonus).

Vote 61—Posts and Telegraphs— shows an increase of £115,890. This increase is due mainly to staff charges, which are up by £100,600.

Vote 64—Army Pensions—is down by £65,407. Fewer pensions are now being awarded under the Military Service Pensions Acts and, accordingly, fewer arrears of pension have to be paid, hence the fall of £81,245 under sub-head I.

Vote 71—Food Allowances—shows an increase of £51,500, attributable partly to an anticipated increase in the number of recipients of food vouchers (estimated at 90,500 for 1944-45) and partly to a rise in the value of the voucher from 2/2½ to 2/5½.

Vote 72—Damage to Property (Neutrality) Compensation—shows a decrease of £66,500. Most outstanding claims arising out of past incidents have been finally disposed of, and expenditure will be concerned mainly with reinstatement awards.

The total of the increases on the various Votes, as compared with the final provision for the current year, amounts to £3,840,010, while the total of the decreases is £861,333. The number of Votes on which there are increases is 45. There are decreases on 25, while three show no change. The Estimates for compensation bounties and alleviation of distress have disappeared. The bill which we must face for the coming year is indeed a heavy one, though it is not yet a record: in 1923-24 the total of all the Estimates came to £45,750,817. Neither is the bill one which, in all the circumstances, can be described as crushing. We are passing through a period as difficult as any in our country's history, and yet we have managed to maintain our essential services without serious impairment, as well as to embark on many new services. It would be unreasonable to expect this to be achieved at a cost at all commensurate with what might obtain in days of peace.

The total of the last Estimates Volume prepared prior to the outbreak of war, that for 1939-40, was £30,248,897. New Estimates introduced since then account this year for more than £6,300,000, and the total of the Army Estimate stands at some £7,000,000 over its average during the years immediately preceding the war. In addition, the Estimate for Local Government and Public Health includes £500,000 in respect of new emergency services, and the Estimate for Agriculture, £500,000 for subsidies on fertilisers. All these new items, which, apart from children's allowances, can be directly attributed to the emergency and the emergency alone, amount to £14,300,000, which practically bridges the gap between the total of the 1939-40 Estimate Volume and that for this year. In the circumstances, and bearing in mind the very substantial rise in the cost of materials reflected through the Estimates for many of our normal services, I think that we have done well, and that I can invite the views of the House with a clear conscience and without fear.

General Mulcahy

The size of the bill which the Minister presents to the people to-day is in itself a suggestion of the very big problem that has to be faced. Even if the Minister has to go back to 1923-24 to discover a bill of somewhat similar proportions, that still suggests that there is a problem there but not a problem that cannot be faced and put right by constructive unity among all classes and all sections of the people. When we take that problem, the general economic problem, the future problem that has to be met as regards trade, industry and general production and then when we put on top of that the problem which was posed to us the other day arising out of the American Notes, we realise how necessary it is in present circumstances that we all should understand one another, that we should all give one another credit for wanting to do the best thing we can and that when we do get co-operation, particularly co-operation of a satisfactory kind, it should not be questioned in any way. I found myself rather surprised in relation to the recent statement made in connection with the American Note and the Taoiseach's reply, to have it suggested that it was a great wonder that neither I nor any person on behalf of the Fine Gael Party made a public statement in support of the Taoiseach and his action. That was one thing that surprised me. The second thing that surprised me was that it was suggested that it was a queer time to be talking economics in the persistent way in which apparently I was said to be doing that.

I think it is very important that we should be understood on these matters. I did not consider it necessary that the various Parties should come out in public and make a declaration supporting the Taoiseach. The spirit of the last four years and our general attitude with regard to neutrality showed, I understood, that we had made the Head of the Government, as representing the whole of the Parliament and the whole of our people, our spokesman in this matter, and that both in our original declaration at the start of the emergency and when the Defence Conference was set up, we had made that perfectly clear. The simpler our attitude in this matter was left and the clearer it was made known that when the Taoiseach spoke he spoke for Parliament and the people, the better. If it has to be made clear now, there are certain things I should like to say. I still hold to the opinion that in these matters we can as a matter of economy, efficiency, safety and clearness of our attitude, afford to allow the Taoiseach to speak for Parliament and the people as a whole. I think the world knows us well enough to know that if anybody in this country says anything with which we do not agree he will hear about it very soon.

On the 25th February, at a quarter past seven, the Taoiseach sent for Dr. O'Higgins and myself. Dr. O'Higgins, Mr. McGilligan and I met him, as reported in the Press. An Taoiseach showed us the Note. He told us what had happened and we fully approved of the Taoiseach's indication that it would be impossible for us to take the action that was requested of us, with due deference to our neutrality and our desire, which we held so strongly, to keep out of the war. An Taoiseach at that particular time hoped that it might not be necessary for him to send a formal reply. We asked that if a formal reply was being sent we would be allowed to see that reply, and An Taoiseach would not agree to that. At any rate, so much were we in agreement with An Taoiseach in the matter that we were prepared to see the reply and to that extent associate ourselves with the action taken in the matter. As far as supporting the Taoiseach in his attitude on this matter is concerned we stand not behind An Taoiseach but completely in line and in unity with him. I want to say in this matter that I do not think it should be said of anybody that he was standing behind the Government. I think we might be given the credit of standing with the Government.

There were times when in the matter of standing fully and strongly for neutrality we were even a little bit in front of the Government. For instance, when the Defence Conference was suggested by us, and the Defence Conference having been set up, we urged that there should be a Local Defence Force as well as a Local Security Force. These things are mentioned to emphasise that we stand completely with the Government. There are matters in which necessarily we feel that certain things could be better, but it is very gratifying out of the present situation to have the statement made in the American Note to the effect that the American Government did not contemplate proceeding to military or other measures because of the reply that had been given. It is very gratifying to have that expressly stated. It is further gratifying that the Taoiseach in replying to the American Note was able to say that the Irish Government did not wish to comment on something that had been said in the Note, except to say that it was perhaps not known to the American Government that the feeling of the Irish people towards Britain during the war had undergone a considerable change, precisely because Britain is not attempting to violate our neutrality. That was published in the newspapers of the 11th March. When we saw the Taoiseach on February 25th everything that he had to say was an assurance to us that there was no serious danger to be faced. When these publications were made on March 11th there was very little to be added by any of us. The situation from our point of view had been completely cleared. We had got an assurance from the American Government that neither military nor other measures were contemplated as a result of our refusal to require the Axis representatives to leave. I think we were all satisfied that the same thing applied to Great Britain. Again, as far as we are concerned in this matter, those of us who gave most thought to it in the Fine Gael Party had never allowed ourselves to contemplate that either military measures or sanctions or the danger of them did threaten this country at any time, either from the British side or the American side. It was the information that we had that enabled us to strengthen the foundation upon which to face our work here during the emergency, because it enabled us to rid ourselves of certain irritations and distractions.

From time to time we have felt we different to some extent from the Government, but I think we have differed when for practicable purposes it was reasonable for us to do it. Then again there was the fact that we had no responsibility for the Forces that might have to take action in a military emergency. We do feel, however, that the situation might have been handled in such a way as not to excite all the rumours that have been excited. Everybody will agree that if it were possible to go through the present situation with a dignified calm on the part of the Government, the Parliament and the people, that fact might very well bring us through dangers we might otherwise have run into. It was disconcerting to some of us, as accepting in the public eyes some responsibility for the State, that rumours should have gone round the town on the 23rd, 24th and 25th of February and that members of the Defence Conference and responsible leaders of various Parties in the country should have no information of any kind as to whether there was anything in these rumours. The American Note was delivered on February 21st. It was a quarter past eight on February 25th that we saw An Taoiseach on the matter, and we saw him at one hour's notice. I feel that we might have been sent for earlier and I feel the Defence Conference might have discussed the matter, and particularly before the Note was sent to the United States. However, the fact is that it did not take place in the present instance. It is regrettable that the situation should have been so managed that all these rumours were current before the heads of the Parties or the members of the Defence Conference had any chance of knowing what the position was. I do not know whether they would have been a factor in preventing the rumours spreading. They might have been a factor in preventing any action being taken that might have been the result of these rumours.

What we do feel is that we are in a rather difficult position, in that since the publication of these Notes on March 11th we have had no communication from the Government and no information as to the circumstances in which the Notes were published or the implication of their publication. We take it from the fact that we had no communication from the Government after the publication of these Notes that there is nothing to be worried about. I suppose that is something to be grateful for, but I do not think it is really the way to get that complete understanding at the top that is necessary if we are going to face the future.

On the point as to why for some time past I have been concentrating on the economic side, I really consider it to be the most important side. All my contact with the Defence Conference has indicated to me that we have no business connected with the administration of any of the Forces that are on the defence side, and all my experience of the Defence Conference is such as would suggest to me that as many of us as possibly can should devote ourselves to the economic and social problems that lie so thickly around us and that are likely to grow.

The Defence Conference has not met since the first Monday in November. The meeting before that was a meeting held shortly before the Dáil dissolved for the general election. The meeting before that was held, as far as my recollection goes, about March. At the March meeting we discussed on my representation what were from my point of view very unsatisfactory aspects of the A.R.P. service in the City of Dublin, rescue services, and first-aid casualty services. The discussion on the matter was not concluded but the Defence Conference was never called again until, for a few short moments, before the Dáil dissolved. The interpretation I put on the matter was that the official authorities were not very worried that anything was likely to occur that would require the emergency services. Therefore, I felt that we could afford, as members of the Defence Conference, to wait until we were called to discuss matters that those responsible for the administration would ask us to discuss, but that outside that there was no real reason why we should ask Ministers to come and to gossip about either military or other matters.

Therefore all my experience of the Defence Conference for the last 12 months has been to suggest that, until I am asked to come and discuss matters that are considered of importance in the realm of the Defence Conference, I can afford, as one of many others, to devote myself to the consideration of other aspects of our problems and to leave the defence matters in the hands of those who, I say, have the administrative responsibility for them.

Nevertheless, that also, I think, is an unsatisfactory state of affairs because, while we may suggest, as a matter of convenience in our thinking, that we are not likely to be affected in any way by any of the military disturbances around us, there may also be something to be said for the Taoiseach's line, repeated by him in his broadcast of St. Patrick's Day, when he said that, since the war began, "I have never sought to minimise the danger it held for us"; and, at Cavan, on 27th February, when he said: "But at any moment the war may come upon us and we may be called upon to defend our rights and our freedom with our lives." There may be something in the Taoiseach keeping up that kind of line, but if there is anything in it and if, arising out of any development in the military situation here, we may find ourselves in military difficulties, then I think we ought to leave nothing undone in the meantime to keep close enough to one another to understand what is being done, to understand as early as possible what may be likely to happen to us.

We understand from a statement from our Minister at Washington, published in the Press on March 11th, that on January 24th he had to reply to what he called an accusation on the part of the United States Government that for certain matters no protest had been made to the German Government. We have never been made aware of any difficulties of that particular kind with the American Government and I think that where you have Defence Conference machinery, something ought to be done to keep the members of the Defence Conference and, therefore, the heads of the various Parties, in touch with anything that is rippling the surface in any way. We are not rumour-mongers. We hold certain responsibility. We are prepared to accept our responsibility by combining in our discussions to do everything to keep the country calm, to keep it united, and to keep it clear-minded.

There are, therefore, things that, in closer joint consultation, we could do: (1) as far as the heads of Parties are concerned, (2) as far as the public is concerned and, (3) as far as the Press is concerned, to improve the situation. We would have been spared a great deal of unnecessary scraping of people's nerves and minds through the Press if there had been conveyed to the editors of the four daily papers, at a suitable time, the information that was conveyed to the heads of the political Parties. After all, the Press is an important medium in controlling the situation and informing the people, and if the Press are writing completely in the dark about matters that are of vital importance and that are stirring the people's minds, then you may get a dangerous situation created. I suggest that in circumstances such as we had, arising out of the presentation of the American Note, the editors of the four daily papers should be in the closest personal confidence of the Taoiseach or whatever Government Minister would handle that situation, so that they might be kept as informed as the heads of political Parties of what the situation was and so that we might have their assistance in getting dignity, unity and clarity of thought and not have the country bewildered through there creeping into the Press matters of a suggestive kind or rumours that would lead people entirely along the wrong lines of thought.

As regards the future, and the necessity for considering the economic situation, you can get to Heaven from many starting points, but I think a close consideration of the economic condition and the economic possibilities of the future would help us to be calm and resolute even in our external relations. We spring to a great unity of feeling when we think of danger, when we think of a loss of our freedom, when we think of aggression of any kind. If it is the highest of our instincts that responds in such a case, we ought to be able to respond as clearly and as vigorously to a feeling of pity for a world that is in such a distracted condition—pity for so many of our people who are struggling under difficulties both with regard to their own existence at the present time and the rearing of their children. Everybody in the world is planning to have full employment at the present time, and all the economists are saying that you cannot have full employment without having trade. When we consider the position in which some of the economists anticipate world trade will be, and deduce therefrom the condition of employment in the world, we should be very patient and full of pity and of charitable thought for all peoples.

We are likely to be irritated with the Americans for sending us the kind of Note they sent us, but feelings of irritation or indignation will lead us nowhere. Unless the Americans solve the problem with which they will be confronted, it will be a difficult thing for the world, including ourselves. Their future, apparently, will depend on trade and on their ability to provide employment for their people. Arising out of that, they have, no doubt, on top of their military problems, serious political problems. It may well be that our economic wellbeing in the future will depend to a great extent on whether American democracy is strong enough and healthy enough to solve the political problem which will probably confront it.

Two of the most dominant features of the trade problem of the world are stated to be that Britain will have a trading deficit of £250,000,000 annually immediately after the war and that the United States, on the other hand, will have the problem of a credit balance. Those who have been considering the matter suggest that none of the plans for making it easy for the countries of the world to trade, in face of such problems of credit and debit balances, can succeed unless the United States be prepared to do in peace times what they have been doing during the war—that is, carry out a lend-lease policy. The policy of the United States was to try to keep out of this war. When France failed, they had to consider their future. Then they carried out the lend-lease policy by which they provided arms for the Allies. They looked forward to getting some benefit from that but they did not expect payment in money. Then they found that they could not expect payment in goods. They satisfied themselves that they should have a better world after the war, and those reviewing the situation now believe that the United States will have to carry out a lend-lease policy for peace. The United States will have to lend to other countries so that those other countries may buy from different countries. They may have to lend to countries that are backward and have not the necessary wealth but have possibilities of development, so that those countries will spend the loans they get from the United States in countries like Great Britain which have wealth-creating capacity but have nobody to buy from them. That is a very great political problem and it will test the minds not only of the leaders of the United States Republic but of the ordinary citizens in a world whose economic future will depend upon every nation solving such questions as these. It demands of us that we be calm, patient and hopeful, but that, above all, we be united in our thought and that, in so far as we are taking part in various organisations, we should work those organisations in harmony; that, so far as our Parliamentary institutions are built on such organisations, we should work Parliament in such a way that, in fundamental matters, when the Leader of the Government speaks, it will not be necessary for county councils or associations here and there to echo in their own way, and with their own trimmings, things that do not require to be said after a plain and straight statement of policy.

We support the Taoiseach, in the first place, in his expression of the determination of this country to stand for its neutrality. We support the Taoiseach, in the second place, in his expression of warm, friendly feelings for the people of the United States and, thirdly, in his reiteration of the statement that, in so far as anything can be done by our people, this country will not be used in any way that would inflict injury on Great Britain. There ought to be no reason why it would not be possible for us to maintain our neutrality, to maintain and cement our friendship with the people of the United States and to do the same between the people of Great Britain and ourselves, preventing, at the same time, our country being used in any way detrimental to Great Britain. Should it be found impossible to harmonise these three things, it would be very tragic. If there is any danger of any kind in any remote way of its being impossible to harmonise these three things, then there is every reason why we should eliminate anything that would confuse our minds or prevent our co-operating completely in every way through our parliamentary institutions so as to get a unified national mind on all the various problems with which we are likely to be faced.

Mr. Baxter

The plane on which Senator Mulcahy has put the debate seems to have had a rather frightening effect on the House. I should have hoped that some Senator on the other side would have risen to reiterate in general terms what he has so ably said. Perhaps Senators on the other side feel that there is no necessity to do so. We may say that the Central Fund Bill, with which we are dealing, embodies, generally, the fruits of Government policy. It is the oil which keeps the wheels of government revolving. It gives us the opportunity to be both critical and constructive.

On a number of occasions, I have addressed myself to a point which must strike us even more forcibly to-day than it did previously: the point that, in a situation in which the physical goods which our people themselves are able to produce are falling—they fell last year lower than the year before— the demand of the Minister for Finance has risen. He is being set a problem. I do not know whether or not he sees light, but I have addressed myself to that point on many occasions, as the Minister will remember, and I assert that we cannot continue to pursue this course. We have less production and, out of the volume of production and of the money in circulation for securing that production, a bigger slice is taken year after year to keep the machinery of government going.

In other days, that would cause very widespread alarm. Banks, the Press, and other institutions would be terribly terrified about the dangers of inflation. Indeed, we would have other dangers threatening us also, looking at it from their eyes, but these institutions, if we may speak of them in such terms, are all strangely silent to-day, and indeed, perhaps, this House itself will not be anything like as critical about the present situation as it has been on other occasions, when the demand of the Minister for Finance was much less than it is now. There, again, however, perhaps, that is in harmony with the times and represents the spirit of the age, because when we have reached that stage in the world's history where the life of man is held so cheaply, I suppose it does not harmonise with a spirit like that to be making a very great fuss about the spending of money. I dare say that even the Minister himself has grown quite callous, and I have no doubt that he will not find it half as difficult now to put down his foot on expenditure as he did on a previous occasion when, as he told us, I think, he had to put down his foot on some of the Taoiseach's proposals.

We are, undoubtedly, facing a very serious situation in this country at the moment. I have not been in consultation with my colleague, Senator Mulcahy, and I do not know whether he has been addressing himself particularly to the economic problems of to-day. Possibly, there are many people in this country who are too lazy to deal with these problems or to devote sufficient study to the remedying of these problems, but I do say that more attention will have to be given to economic problems so far as this country is concerned, and that if more people in this country gave one-tenth of their time to examining these problems, in the way in which Senator Mulcahy approached them, they would be much more light and, perhaps, these people themselves would be able to give us a lead. Unquestionably, our economic problems here are difficult— difficult in the extreme.

I have no desire to follow Senator Mulcahy's arguments, because I think he has covered the ground very ably, but he has shed light on the situation as it exists here at the moment. I do not know how far other members of the House are aware of the situation or how far they appreciate what Senator Mulcahy has put before them, but, frankly, I am very unhappy about the Senator's statement: that the machinery which we have to operate in the present crisis is not more closely knit. I am definitely perturbed to think that the Taoiseach, with his competence, with his information, and all the rest of it, which he has at his disposal, has not a better appreciation of the necessity of keeping the machinery of our State so attuned to the circumstances of our times as to make all of us feel confident that it is the best thing that we can construct. I must confess my surprise that we are in a position now which, apparently, is a rather difficult position, judging from the statements the Taoiseach himself has made. I am surprised at the attitude that has been taken in the present situation, seeing that all of us are standing together—except, of course, the few weaklings who remain in the background—and that all of us are in the front line so far as the maintenance of the peace of our State is concerned. In so far as that peace is to be achieved, I think it is more likely to be achieved through counsel and discussion rather than by the actions of one, two, or three individuals, and I suggest to the Minister that for the sake of our future and of the confidence which it is essential that the people should have in the Government in these days, if we are to have any more communications or correspondence with foreign Powers, no matter who they are, it would be better to collect what counsel or advice we can from the heads of the organised groups in this State to-day, and let us feel that whatever is said by us in the future—we do not want to go back on the past—is the wisest thing that can be said, and that all of us can feel that the best brains in the country have been collected with a view to putting things in the order in which they should be put. I think that that is absolutely essential.

Senator Mulcahy spoke truly when he said that we were in line with the Government in this matter of the maintenance of our neutrality. Some years ago, in this House, the Taoiseach made a statement on this question, which, I felt, was not as strong as it should be. I said—and my statement is on the records of the House—that one way to convince everybody of our neutral position was to make sure that we would not be driven from that position. The Taoiseach mended his hand afterwards and, as a result, we are now strengthened in our position, but there are still certain weaknesses in our position of which we ought to take stock. I have just come up from the country. I do not know what the political barometer here in the city is at the moment with regard to the restrictions on travel, but, frankly, I may say that I welcome them, and all I would say now is that I wish these restrictions had been imposed two or three years ago, because during that time we sent about 75,000 of the best of our people out of this country. These were the best workers in our country, because the people on the other side did not want people who were not able to work. If the volume of goods produced in this country in 1943 was lower than that produced in the previous year, I think we can place the responsibility for that largely on the fact that so many of the most vigorous of our people left the State; and we permitted them to go. Therefore, I think that it is going to strengthen our nation to restrict this travelling, because it will keep at home the type of people whom we want to keep at home: the people who are able to produce the food and other things which we need, and we ought to be able to pay these people for doing it.

Now, there is an aspect of the Minister's policy which, I think, demands examination at the moment. I have heard members of this House on previous occasions—I think they happen not to be present to-day—warning us about the dangers of inflation, rising costs, and so on. I should like the Minister to tell us, when he is replying, just what part the emigrants' remittances to this country have played in inflating prices here at home.

What would prices be to-day if we had not the millions of paper money which our people across the water are getting in exchange for their labour in Great Britain, and which are sent over here to us to buy a quantity of goods that is shrinking daily? That money is going into competition with the money of the people working here. Take the case of a man who had been working here at a wage of £2 or £2 10s. a week. Many of these people have been permitted to go to Great Britain, and they are now able to send home £3, £4, and sometimes £5 of paper money in the week. If they had been working here, say, at 50/- a week, they at least produced 50/- worth of goods. Now, they send five bits of paper without any goods against them. I would not mind if the Minister, or the Government, had been able to make some sort of arrangement by which those who produce goods across the water would be able to send some portion of them home for the use of our people. I understand that we have such a plan at home. Some of our industries are manufacturing goods from raw materials which have come from Great Britain, and while sending out a considerable proportion of the manufactured products, are able to retain another proportion for home needs.

I do not know whether the Minister could make an arrangement on these lines, but I suggest to him that an effort in that direction ought to be made, because I am far from satisfied that the financial policy this country is following is on the wisest lines. We have injected into our monetary system millions of British paper currency, and how the poor people in this State accept the arrangement is beyond my comprehension. They accept it because they do not understand it. I have the feeling that we should make an Order that these people should bank the money in England and leave it there until after the war so that they can have a claim on the future goods and services of Britain. Let us devise a plan of our own to make it possible for people at home, through some social organisation, to live in accordance with their means on the goods we produce without importing this extra British money at all.

I suggest that a very unfortunate and unhappy condition of things is developing here. Our farmers, no doubt, got more money last year for producing much less food than in the year before. They did not produce as much food. I do not propose to go into a discussion with the Minister on that, because it is something we might raise with his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, but the situation confronting us is that farmers got more money from lower production from the land than the year before. That is due to the fact that we are importing so many British paper notes and we are doing that only by raising the cost of living on people at home.

Senator Mulcahy repeated what had been said after the American Note: that there was not any intention of imposing hardships or disabilities on us because of our policy of neutrality. I do not know whether they should have been asked that question. If I were doing it, I would not have asked them. If I thought what I was doing was right, I would go on and do it. I suggest to the Minister that apart from the intentions of the allied nations towards us, it is quite clear, even to a casual observer, that during the coming year, and during the Second Front, the difficulties of securing supplies from across the Atlantic are going to grow every day. We know just to what extent we are dependent on imported supplies of certain essentials to do a job of work in this country.

Farming is not going to be simplified, and neither is the life of the non-farming people, if certain classes of imports are not available. That situation would require people on the land to do more than they are doing to-day. But I do not know any farmer on any side who can do any more. Most farmers are faced with problems which are far beyond them, and if there are further difficulties in their path, I do not know how they are going to be solved. I do not say that we should surrender. Even at the cost of trying to do what is impossible, we must go on, if we are going to have difficulties about food and fuel which the Taoiseach intends to speak on to-night. You cannot come up from the field or the bog without seeing what the conditions are on your own place and on everyone else's place.

If these problems become more acute we should consider what one of the Northern Ireland representatives suggested the other day should be done with us. My suggestion to An Taoiseach when he is speaking to-night, is that in our defence, he ought to issue a call to the boys and the girls who have gone to the Six Counties to come back home to help us in our struggle in the fields and the bogs. Thousands of our boys and girls are toiling in the Six Counties in factories and on farms while, I suggest, there is full and plenty of employment to be found for them at home. I suggest to An Tánaiste that if we are in danger of being short of food and fuel, it is mainly due to the fact that so many of our young people have left this State. Only the machine can give us food, provided we have the men and women to work it, and the women have shown that they, too, are able to do their part. It would not be an unfriendly act. In the last analysis, it would show how interdependent the little and the great States are.

Although I have not been able to do any spring sowing yet, I can tell Senator Walsh from Kilkenny, and other, that we may find it difficult to get our work done this year, particularly the threshing. I do not say that we should go back to flails while turf can be produced, and while boys from Clare and Cork and Kerry are in Antrim, Down, Tyrone and Fermanagh doing jobs which they could do far better at home. I suggest to the Minister that the best way out of our difficulties is to mobilise our people who have left the country so that we can exploit the resources we have, to face the difficulties that are ahead. We faced greater difficulties in the past and we had not the money to do it. We must face the position that a labourer from one of our own counties can go into Fermanagh, Tyrone or Antrim and get more money for his services there than we can give him. That is the reason he goes. He goes not for love of the work, because he has to work a great deal harder; he leaves us because there is more money for him. It is not good enough to say that we cannot find the money. We can secure our towns and cities against the necessity of importing coal next winter if my suggestions are adopted, and if the Minister makes a new approach to the use of money here.

We had a long statement from the Minister for Agriculture in the Dáil yesterday about the price of milk, and, so far as one can judge, the farmer is not going to get any higher price than that decided upon by the Government some months ago. I think that that is wrong. It is very unwise and very short-sighted.

We must be prepared to pay and in days like these when other nations are paying with lives, I do not see why we should hesitate for a moment to pay in money if we can organise the same type of management to handle it as other nations have been able to discover in this crisis. I believe that we have here, courage, resources and counsels if they are called in. We have no doubt some nonsense and some unwise comments in the present circumstances but we have enough commensense within ourselves to overcome our difficulties. We shall have, however, to show an appreciation of the fact that we have measured our difficulties to the full and that we are prepared to take the consequences of overcoming them. I am not at all satisfied that the situation that exists in the country to-day is properly appreciated by certain sections of the people. I assert that there is not a farmer from Kerry to Donegal, certainly from Kerry to the furthest extremes of my county, who, if he lost one of his workmen to-day, could replace him to-morrow. That is the situation we are in and if you people who are among the non-farming community call for the extra effort which you think the circumstances of the time demand, you should appreciate what you are asking from us. I suggest to the Minister that if our difficulties are to be solved everybody in the country will have to share in the labour involved in our efforts. I suggest that some attempt should be made to organise the people in the towns throughout the country, to make them understand that they cannot be fed or kept warm unless they are prepared to make some physical contribution to the labour involved in the provision of necessary articles of food and fuel.

On a number of occasions in this House I have given expression to views that were not too popular and which, whether true or not, were not accepted here as statements of facts. I frequently discovered a long time afterwards that the lines of policy I then suggested were found feasible and could be carried out. I suggest now that we should not wait until next year to see what everybody else will do. Even if everybody can be kind to us, even if no enemies are to confront us in the future, the steps I suggest are absolutely essential in the conditions of our time. The bill which the Minister has put before the House and the calm and undisturbed way in which he asks this large sum from the taxpayers, show that he is quite capable of going a bit further without disturbing his equanimity. I am quite satisfied that the people want us to preserve the peace and the tranquillity we have so far enjoyed and to produce as much goods out of our own resources as are necessary for our requirements. If we have to bring back the people who left the country to achieve that result, the nation generally will be the better for it.

Pádraic O Máille

Is maith an rud é go mbeadh sé iontuigthe ar fud an domhain go léir go raibh gach dream daoine sa tír ar aon taobh leis an Taoiseach agus leis an Riaghaltas san ócáid a bhí againn anseo le goirid. Tá ar ndóthain mhór le déanamh againn in Éirinn le aire a thabhairt d'ar ngnóthaí féin gan cur isteach ar chúrsaí aon tíre eile. Facthas dom go raibh fonn ar an Seanadóir Ó Maolchatha tús a thabhairt do chuid de na tíortha thar lear seachas a chéile. Bhéarfainnse de chomhairle aire a thabhairt don tsean-fhocail "mol an t-áth mar a gheobhfas tú é". Is amach anseo bhéas cruthú cé atá cáirdiúil linn agus cé nach bhfuil. Ní hiongnadh ar bith go mbeadh míshástacht agus mí-shuaimhneas in nár mease mar gheall ar Éire bheith roinnte, agus ní bheidh sos leis an mí-shuaimhneas sin go mbeidh Éire ar fad faoi aon bhrat agus faoi aon dlí amháin. Níl aimhreas ar bith go mbeidh an saol níos cruaidhe againn in Éirinn an bhliain seo ná bhí go dtí seo agus feileann sé d'aon duine atá thar lear theacht abhaile go hÉirinn más féidir leis é le beatha chur ar fáil dó féin agus dá mhuintir sa mbaile. "In aimsir na cruatan seadh bhéas do dheagh-chara ar do chúl."

Mr. Honan

I listened with considerable pleasure to Senator Mulcahy's speech. Untrained as I am in the sphere of higher politics, I thought it a highly satisfactory statement. I think I can say that all those who knew Senator Mulcahy in former years, and the fight he made for Irish freedom, did not expect anything else either from himself or his associates. It is an extremely good thing that such a statement should be made at this juncture. It is not alone desirable, but is in the best interests of the State. We may have disagreements amongst ourselves in regard to internal affairs, but in the sphere of external affairs, I think it is well that it should be known that we are prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder against anybody who wishes to curtail our liberty or our hard-won freedom.

As long as that policy predominates, we need not fear anything we have to face. Coming down to the more mundane facts of the Bill, what interested me most was the statement of the Minister about Rinenanna airport and neighbourhood. During the war its development has not progressed to the same extent as it would have under other conditions. Greater development of Rinenanna and neighbourhood will be required immediately after the war, and I want to have the Minister's mind attuned to the fact that there will be big demands made for that purpose. It is situate in County Clare. Ennis is the nearest town to Rinenanna and the wireless station. The demand for housing accommodation for those working there has made accommodation in Ennis very scarce. Those working in the wireless station come to Ennis, and the accommodation is not at all sufficient. It will take considerable sums of money to extend the boundary and to develop that part of the town leading to Rinenanna. Amenities such as water, sewerage, and housing will also have to be extended. I hope that when these demands are made the Minister will understand the necessity of providing them. We are thinking of taking steps to extend the borough boundary and extending the water supply leading to Rinenanna. As we will be making heavy demands on the Department of Local Government, and on the Minister for Finance, I am sure we will have their sympathy and consideration.

Mr. Foran

I am very glad to hear that Senator Mulcahy made an explanation of the attitude of his Party in the Dáil while this crisis was at its height. Their action in that connection was misinterpreted throughout the country according to the Senator's own statement. As his is the second largest Party one would imagine that there was an obligation upon it to make clear what its attitude was, when the crisis was before the country but they remained silent. I hope that Senator Mulcahy's belated explanation makes their attitude clear now.

General Mulcahy

Would the Senator make clear upon what date that attitude should have been made clear?

Mr. Foran

When the other Parties in the Dáil felt it to be their duty to let the world know that they stood with the Government in the attitude it took up. I want to contrast that attitude with the attitude taken by the Church of Ireland Gazette. I want to pay a compliment to that body for their timely action and for their very courageous attitude because they made it perfectly clear that they were residents and citizens of this State, and as such felt it incumbent upon them to stand behind the Government in this crisis, while, at the same time, making it clear that their attitude should be understood by people in the Six Counties. So far as the people I have the honour to represent here are concerned they made it very clear in the Dáil that they were 100 per cent. with the Government in the action it had taken. I want further to emphasise this, in case there should be any doubt as far as we are concerned. Senator Mulcahy seems to think that the matter is over and that this crisis is past. I hope we are not going to be deluded into a sense of security that the crisis is over.

If we are to pay attention to war figures, and statesmen, it has been stated on authority and by the Prime Minister of Great Britain in the House of Commons that the travel ban was the first step to complete isolation of this country. If words mean anything that means an economic war of the utmost severity. We must take notice of that and not let ourselves think that we are secure and immune from any action that may be taken. We must do everything in our power to meet any crisis that may come upon us. We do not seek to quarrel with anybody. That has been made clear. But if the screws are put on and pressure is brought to bear, then we ought not to lose any opportunity in making this country as self-sufficient as it is humanly possible to make it. The crisis is not over, in my opinion, and it would be criminal if responsible people were to delude our people into believing that because of the Notes that have passed everything is all right, and that we are secure for the future. While that is so, it is the duty of the Government and of every resident to do everything humanly possible to preserve our people against want and suffering. In normal times there is a considerable amount, more than necessary, in my opinion, of human suffering. If things get any worse the Government ought to take steps to ensure that the burden will not fall more heavily on one section of the community than another. In that connection I want to say that rationing is important and might be enforced by the Government to ensure fair distribution of our resources. If we had not rationing now, great sections of our people would have to go without the necessities of life because of the desire of certain people to amass riches at the expense of their fellowcitizens. That is one remedy that I would suggest.

Senator Baxter has told us what would happen in the event of one of his labourers dying or leaving his employment to-morrow and he says that that represents the view of the great majority of farmers. He says we should issue a call to our people in the Six Counties to return. Return to what? Return to the miserable slavish ways that we have provided for the agricultural labourers in this country? We may appeal to their patriotism but it will be very difficult to appeal to people to return to a miserable wage, that they could not live on in normal times, when in another part of the country they can earn a much higher wage. That must be borne in mind because, if we are going to issue such a call, we must issue it to a much greater number of people but we must first ensure that they are going to have a reasonable standard of living, at any rate, that they are going to be treated as reasonably as are the majority of the people in this country.

It is a pity that this discussion should be inflicted on the Seanad. I thing the Taoiseach might have been here, and perhaps he would have been here if he had had notice of the trend the discussion would take. I conclude by asking some questions on the Votes contained in the Bill before the House: Vote No. 8—Management of Government Stocks: amount required, £22,600; total estimate, £22,940. I should like to know from the Minister does that represent commission paid to stockbrokers, or what does it mean. Vote No. 12—State Laboratories; amount required: £3,500; total estimate, £10,098. I submit, Sir, that that is entirely inadequate. We should have a much greater sum allocated to State laboratories. If we are to develop anything here, we must not restrict science for want of money. As Senator Baxter has said, we have the money. Other countries have the money. This is, in my opinion, a very important matter, particularly in this country, when we should be seeking substitutes for many of the materials that we have to import.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is not done by the State Laboratory.

Mr. Foran

Who is doing it?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The Emergency Scientific Research Bureau.

Cathaoirleach

Vote 28.

Mr. Foran

I am glad the Minister has called my attention to that. Some time ago the question was raised here of submitting certain matters to the Research Bureau and we were told that there was no money for the purpose. I think it was in connection with T.B.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is medical research, under Local Government.

Mr. Foran

I am floundering. At any rate, for research and laboratory work, half enough money is not being spent in this country. We could get good value if money were spent and more attention given research. We need research more than any other people in the world. We are dependent on outside sources for fuel and so on, medicines, etc. We should be able to apply our own genius to the resources of this country and thereby produce satisfactory substitutes for materials that we may not be able to obtain.

Mr. O'Donnell

Before I deal with the matters which should be discussed on the Vote on Account, I should like to refer to the statement made by Senator Mulcahy. Although it was belated, it was very welcome, because some of us who were not mostly concerned with regard to politics were rather disturbed by the fact that the Opposition Party in this country had not, as it were, publicly expressed their blessing on the attitude adopted by the Taoiseach during the recent crisis. I am very glad that Senator Mulcahy has spoken as he has to-day. Although my vis-a-vis here, Senator Foran, as Leader of the Labour Party, was able to express approval of the attitude of the Taoiseach on behalf of the workers, I regret that the industrialists whom, to a certain extent, I represent in this House, have not yet welded themselves into a political Party and have left it to a lonely voice in the wilderness, my own, to express, on their behalf, our approval and good will towards the Taoiseach in the attitude he has adopted towards the American Note.

After all, the industrial and commercial producers in this country are, to a very great extent, the taxpayers of the country and any action which would involve this country in a crisis would be reflected very seriously in their work and in their development. Whilst we are incoherent by reason of the fact that we have not welded ourselves into a political Party, I am taking this opportunity, the first I have had, as representing that industrial and commercial community, to say, as Senator Mulcahy and Senator Foran have said, that we, too, stand completely with the Taoiseach in his attitude in this matter. I apologise to the Minister for Finance for boring him with this expression of good will but I think, as nobody else here is elected, at any rate officially, as a representative of industry, it is my duty to make that statement.

As regards the Vote on Account, I remarked that the Minister for Finance said that £14,300,000 of this total Estimate for the year was due to the emergency position and the emergency position alone. The total Estimate is, roughly, in the region of £45,000,000 to £46,000,000. In relation to our total national income, I find it very difficult to agree that expenditure on the State should be so high. Of that £46,000,000 expenditure, £10,000,000 is for social services, some of which are absolutely essential, being in the form of pensions for those who have grown old, who added to the real wealth of the nation in their time of production and who, in their old age, are entitled to any pensions we can give them.

The sum of £6,000,000 is due to other forms of pension and, of couse, children's allowances account for £2,500,000 more. These are social services and some of them are very desirable. But the continued expansion of the payments of money to the men who are unemployed is to be dedeplored rather than appreciated. Senator Baxter put it in another way and I know that the Minister for Finance will agree with me when I say that it would be better national economics if that money could be paid to these people for the production of something. Even though our total national income, inflated as it is at the moment, amounts to £160,000,000 or £180,000,000, we are paying a very large sum for running our house—about 25 per cent.

This matter of Estimates is really a question of housekeeping. It is as if Mr. O Ceallaigh had become my wife and told me that our house was going to cost £45,000,000 to run during the coming year. As his very dutiful spouse I should tell him that I proposed to divorce him completely. I think that the cost of running the State at the moment, having regard even to our inflated national income, is entirely out of proportion to what it should be. It has always been argued, particularly during general elections—unfortunately I used the argument myself—that if we got into power, we could run the country more economically than the people in power. We had that argument used when Fianna Fáil went out to preach their doctrine. We are hearing it from the Labour Party to-day. We, industrialists, are inclined to say: "A plague on all your houses because you do not know how to run a house at all." I should like to hear arguments why we should spend £45,000,000 on the running of the State. The Minister for Finance has praised himself and praised his assistants. I do not deny that he is entitled to do that but I should like him to prove how we can afford to pay this sum. What does he mean when he uses the word "afford"? Sometimes words are very loosely applied and they do not convey to my mind the things they are intended to convey.

What does the word "afford" mean in that connection? If we are expending the national income to the deterioration of men who had capacity for work and have lost it through idleness and through our failure to produce employment for them, I say our house is not well run. If we are expending money on things that are unproductive we should examine very carefully these non-productive matters and pare expenditure down to the last penny. I am not attacking social services. I am not attacking the subsidising of men's right to live. It is incumbent on the Government to see that people are fed, clothed and sheltered. But, to my mind, they are not doing it the right way. I should rather if they would say: "In order to receive, you must produce; in order to keep the house you live in and the clothes you wear you must add to the national income in some capacity." I am afraid the habit is growing of men looking to the Government for subsistence without contributing anything in return. An unemployed man has the right to whatever can be distributed to him from any source, but he has also a responsibility. The Government has not stressed the responsibility and is inclined to yield too easily to the demand which is made in such a case.

The industrial taxpayers are, I think, the second highest suppliers of the total revenue. As a matter of fact, I might say that they are the highest, because Customs and Excise receipts are a form of indirect taxation which are levied on consumers and producers. The industrial taxpayers contribute a very large proportion of the money obtained by way of corporation profits tax and super-corporation profits tax. I think that it is time to call a halt in their case as regards additional demands. Industrialists at the moment cannot afford to pay more. In deference to the Government's wishes, we are keeping in employment persons for whom we cannot find occupation. We have done that generally. Manufacturers and producers of industrial goods have in their employment many more persons than they need necessarily employ as a matter of economics. We are doing that out of our sense of the national good. We are not claiming any laurels for it, and we are not shouting from the housetops about it. It is a form of national service. I hope the Minister will take it into consideration when he is considering the methods for raising this sum of £45,000,000 in the coming year. I am told that I cannot forestall the Government in suggesting methods by which this sum of £45,000,000 could be raised. By indirect means, I have, however, revealed what is at the back of my mind.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator might wait for the Budget in that connection.

Mr. O'Donnell

I have made my point. The Minister is, I am sure, aware that there are colossal bank deposits at the moment. I need only mention that matter. I must wait for the Budget to speak officially on the methods of raising the money.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

To speak within the rules of order, not officially. There is a difference between "order" and "disorder" as there is a difference between "officially" and "unofficially".

Mr. O'Donnell

It is extraordinary that until my spouse tells me what way she has decided to obtain this money, I cannot tell her how she should raise it. There are one or two minor matters to which I should like to refer: they are mere "asides". I regret the reduction in the Vote for the Emergency Research Bureau. I do not know what the reasons for that are. In the case of the other increases and decreases, the Minister gave us the reasons. The Emergency Research Bureau can be of invaluable service to us during the war period. I should like the Minister to give that Vote his fullest blessing— unless he can advance some strong reason for its reduction.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There is no real reduction in the case of that Vote. Certain expenditure is now defrayed under another Estimate.

Mr. O'Donnell

Then I shall only plead for an increase. The Minister knows as well as I do the necessity for the work of the bureau and I shall not refer to it further. There is another small matter to which I may call attention. I am a teetotaller but on every occasion I come to this House I suffer from a very bad headache. I am satisfied that the atmosphere of the House and of the Dáil leads to this condition.

I only hope that the Board of Works may do something to improve matters in this regard, even though it may only seem to be a minor domestic matter so far as the House is concerned.

There is one other matter to which I should like to refer, and that is the question of the Restaurant. I see that a sum of money is included in the Vote for that, and I only wish to say that it appears to me that the Restaurant Committee ought to be able to do better. I do not say that they are not doing their duty, but I think there could be some improvement there. I think that a tremendous amount of improvement could be made in these matters, even though they may appear to be only small details. Again, I should like to impress on the Minister that so far as taxation from central sources here can be derived, he has practically reached the limit, and I do hope that the sum of £14,300,000, that has been reached in this Budget, due to the emergency, will not be necessary or justifiable on a future occasion.

Mr. O'Sullivan

For 22 years, except for a short gap, I have been listening to speeches in this Assembly, and I feel it my duty to say that in all that time I cannot recall any speech that was so distinguished by its statesmanlike quality, its essential patriotism and public spirit, as the speech I have heard to-day from Senator General Mulcahy. It would be out of place for me to attempt to gloss or comment on that speech unduly, and I have no intention of doing so.

If I may say so, however, speaking as an Independent, I agree with every word that the Senator said, because his speech showed a profound sense of the duty of our citizens to the State and, above all, a deep love of country. He appealed for constructive unity amongst all classes and sections of the community, and he called on us all to give to one another credit for common patriotism and honest endeavour in the present difficult circumstances. I make no apology for saying that the thought passed through my mind: What a pity it is that a man of this sensibility, and this ability to give and to take, could not share, with the head of the Government, the task of governing this country in these hazardous times. I say that because I myself was the first person to make an appeal in the public Press, at the beginning of the war, for the formation of a Government of National Union in the public interest.

In the light of what Senator Mulcahy has now said, I renew that appeal, but whether it will now fall on more attentive ears or not I cannot say. Certainly, I was very much perturbed by what I heard him say regarding the meetings of the Defence Conference. I had understood that the Defence Conference held meetings weekly or, at least, monthly. Actually according to what Senator Mulcahy has told us to-day, the Defence Conference has not met since early in November and the last meeting before that was held in March of last year, apart from a formal meeting in June. Apart from that, however, there is another matter which has been adverted to by other speakers, and that is that there was some adverse comment because it was alleged that Fine Gael had not come out openly and stood alongside of the head of the Government in his recent reply to the American Note. I think I can see the reason for that adverse comment. For a long time here I have noticed that there is a sort of totalitarian tendency, the effect of which is to expect that we should all think absolutely alike on the ordinary day-to-day matters affecting national policy, and that if we do not do that, then, somehow or other, our whole outlook as patriotic Irishmen comes under suspicion. Now, that is quite a wrong attitude.

The heavenly choir is not a unison: it is a harmony; and, similarly, a true democracy, in respect of public opinion, is not a unison, but a har-money. When, however, a vital matter affecting the safety of our whole community arises, then everybody stands firmly behind the Government, and one ought not to feel it necessary to say so. The very fact that a man gets up and says so is almost a confession that he thinks otherwise.

General Mulcahy

Hear, hear.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Whether he be an Independent or a member of the Fine Gael Party, the individual concerned ought not to be expected to make his point of view known. Our point of view ought to be taken for granted in such a matter. One may differ extremely strongly from the Government in all sorts of domestic matters, but when it comes to the one essential point of national security and national interest, then you stand behind the Government, and the less you say about it the better, and your bona fides ought to be accepted absolutely. Once that is accepted, the more you leave it to the elected Government, the better for you, the better for them, and the better for everybody. I can think of nothing worse than that after the head of the Government has spoken on a matter of this sort all of us should get up here and find it necessary, on behalf of the Labour Party, the Industrialists, Fine Gael, Independents, or anybody else, to offer comment on and, possibly, to misstate what the head of the Government, after the most serious consideration, has found it necessary to say.

Now, I shall leave that, because I hope that I have made my point of view clear on that matter once and for all.

There is a non-controversial matter about which, ill-equipped as I am, I should like to ask the Minister for Finance to reply when it comes to his time to wind up this debate. It is the question of the rising cost of living in this country. I read all that was said in last week's debate in the Dáil on this question, a copy of which we got this morning. The Minister read out certain figures that were given in the League of Nations Statistical Journal for last November, with regard to the cost of living in general, and also as regards food only, in the case of about 13 countries, I think, and he said, quite rightly, that our figure compares favourably with that of most other countries. He did not deny, however, that ours was a high figure, and, of course, it is a high figure. Now, it seemed to me that these statistics are almost valueless so far as some of these countries are concerned.

Iceland, for example, has the highest figure, with a cost of living figure, for food only, of 245, compared with the normal pre-war figure of 100. Now, Iceland is a country with only about 150,000 occupants, or rather less than that, I think. It is at present occupied by a large number of American Forces. I had the advantage of speaking to some members of these American Forces who were on leave in London last September, when I happened to be there, and there is no doubt that the Icelanders are living on the fat of the land at the present moment because there are now probably as many Americans on the island as there are regular inhabitants. Similarly, one cannot get very valuable figures from Spain. The cost of living there, according to the Minister's figure was 164 points, and for food only, 187 points. That was last November, but in that very month I attended a committee here of people who are very much concerned with the problem of refugees in Spain. The refugees were almost literally starving, and I made a very angry speech and said that it was the prime Christian responsibility of the Spaniards to look after these people and to prevent that state of affairs. I was told in reply that the majority of Spaniards in that part of Spain, Galicia, were no better off than the refugees. The cost of living might be one point or 1,000,000 points for all that it matters, if you cannot get food to eat.

Our general cost of living, as we know, is in an appalling state. Stabilisation of wages is not a remedy. In a sense, it aggravates the disease, because, while wages are stabilised, prices continue to rise, and the condition of our people, particularly those just above the poverty line, becomes thoroughly deplorable. Last week, two nuns called to my house on their periodical visit. They were two members of that noble Order which looks after the poor in their own homes. When I was questioning them about conditions, one of the things they told me was that in many of the families they visit there is now only one teacup. That teacup, which formerly cost 3d. now costs 1/- or 1/3 and people cannot buy it. If they have to pass this cup around a family of ten, the danger of infection is enormous.

I agree that the cup is a small point, but it illustrates the serious situation of our poor people in the City of Dublin nowadays. I would like to ask the Government this question: Has the Government a definite policy about this problem of stabilising prices and possibly dealing with the whole question of the cost of living? I know, for example, that butter is subsidised to the extent of about £1,000,000 per year, but even the figure at which it is subsidised puts it far beyond the reach of the ordinary poor people, and fats and margarine are not available for them, as they are in England.

I wonder whether we could not issue a loan for the purpose of keeping down the prices of some of the more essential commodities, the cost of which is continuing to rise. Plenty of money should be available, and no doubt would be available, if we issued a loan at a small rate of interest for such a purpose. I would like to know if that is practicable. I remember the time the First National Loan was issued and the enormous publicity and patriotic enthusiasm behind it. I think if we did that, it might produce enough money to help us to solve this particular problem. I hope the Minister will deal with the subject in his reply. I should like him to give statistics for certain of the more essential commodities to show what would be required to keep down prices to a level at which people with stabilised wages will be able to buy them.

Mr. Crosbie

I was surprised that Senators Foran and O'Donnell should have taken the attitude that they did as regards the standing of the Fine Gael Party in this country. No explanation was necessary at any time from the Fine Gael Party as to their attitude on the question of Irish neutrality. From the very inception of this war, their attitude has been quite clear. It is a puzzle to me at what particular time this explanation that Senator Foran was so anxious for should have been made. Obviously, it could not have been made by Senator Mulcahy, or any other member of our Party, before these Notes were published, and after these Notes were published it was then a matter that should and was much better left in the hands of the Taoiseach and the Government, and not over-commented upon by people who did not share administrative responsibility.

These situations are always delicate. When the Taoiseach speaks on such a question as neutrality he speaks as head of the Government, as head of Parliament, and as head of the people, and not as the Leader of a political Party. Comment by other people at such a time only begets comment. Neutrality is possible because it is the policy, not of any particular Party, nor the child of any Party, but because it is the policy of the Irish people and it is the Government of the people who are entrusted to safeguard it and on that point everybody in this country stands alongside them.

It does seem to me that the old sententious problem of the ill wind crops up in this war. We in this country secured our new found independence 22 years ago under, if I may say so, not the happiest of conditions. When this war started the policy of neutrality and the determination to maintain our neutrality and our independence united every section of the people. It provided a platform on which bitter opponents for years were able to meet together. The formation of voluntary defence services gave our young people an opportunity of coming and working together such as they had not got for the 20 odd years we had been in existence as an independent State. To my mind, it would be a pity not to avail ourselves of every opportunity that this state of affairs presents to us.

Like Senator O'Sullivan, I was shocked to hear from Senator Mucahy the position as regards the Council of Defence. I think this is a very opportune time for the Government and the Taoiseach to set up a committee for foreign affairs, a committee consisting of both Houses of the Oireachtas, a consultative committee. To my mind, we have in this country been too slavish in our following of British Parliamentary tradition. We have stuck more or less, in the Department of External Affairs, to the British tradition of a Minister and permanent heads of departments in the same way that the British, for many years, have had their Vansittarts and their Curzons. Now, Sir, the Vansittarts and the Curzons may have been good and very efficient, but they were not always right. Other countries have adopted other methods.

The Americans have a Parliamentary Committee for External Affairs, foreign relations, and the Swedish Government established one even before a national Government was set up in Sweden. To my mind, it would be of great assistance to us in the future if such a committee was formed here.

I have no fear of the future but I do think that external relations will certainly play a very important part in the future of this country or any other small country, in the world to be. I think that a useful purpose could be served by such a Parliamentary committee which would study foreign relations, from the political, economic and commercial angle. It would add to the strength of whomsoever happened to be our Minister for External Affairs. Such committees would see that in addition to his getting the trained diplomatic angle on external relations which the permanent Civil Service will give him, he would get the Parliamentary angle, the commercial angle and the angle of the man in the street on these matters. There has in recent years been a great tendency amongst a section of our people to criticise Parliamentary government and Parliamentary institutions, to the detriment of Parliament. We have an ill-informed public opinion, through ill-informed newspapers and leader-writers, decrying the salaries and allowances of Deputies, Senators and Ministers. I am quite convinced that the Government of this country is as interested in maintaining the integrity of Parliament as any other section of the people, but I do think that they do not make sufficient use of Parliamentary institutions. To my mind, the best answer to this ill-informed criticism that has been current of late years in this country, is to make more use of Parliament, and I would suggest that Parliamentary committees are the most satisfactory way of knitting Parliament and the Government machine together and doing away with criticism of Parliamentary institutions.

Mr. Colgan

A Senator of longstanding here informed me earlier to-day that on this debate I could raise anything. That was the expression— that I could raise anything.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

Not quite anything.

Mr. Colgan

I suppose "anything" is a pretty wide term, but seemingly many things can be raised on it. In that connection, I want to reiterate all that Senator Honan has said in connection with Senator Mulcahy's statement and to make that reiteration on behalf of Senators on these benches. The only point I should like to make is that I think his statement was about ten days too late and in my opinion the country will not thank him for making it to-day. It was something that should have been made before to-day and it would have been appreciated then. It is well to know what the man in the street has been saying in this connection. I move around among people and when this crisis was at its height I heard the opinion of the man in the street, people possibly who do not count for much in the scheme of things but, like the story of the white sheep and the black sheep, they are the most numerous in the community. They say, and have been saying, that it was fortunate we had a Government in power of the calibre of the Fianna Fáil Government at the present time and that we had a man of the calibre of the Taoiseach in a position to put the viewpoint, not alone of his political Party, but of the whole country before the world. They were satisfied that if that Government had not been in power our position might have been very different in relation to the world war. Senator O'Sullivan raised the old bogey of a national Government. Senator Crosbie did not go so far but suggested a committee to look after foreign affairs. Senator O'Sullivan also said that there was no necessity for anyone to stand behind the Government, or at least he expressed a view that as we have been standing behind the Government in this crisis, the people and the world at large should have assumed that An Taoiseach spoke for the people as a whole.

Mr. O'Sullivan

They did assume that.

Mr. Colgan

At any rate, the people who have supported the Government had this in mind, that certain statements were made by the Fine Gael Party in previous months that possibly might give the wrong impression to the outside world that we were not united on this question.

A Senator

Let us have the statements.

Mr. Hayes

That is only if these statements were translated by a member of the Labour Party.

Mr. Colgan

These statements emphasised our position in relation to the British Commonwealth of Nations. That, I suggest, called for a declaration telling the world at large that we were behind the Taoiseach in his attitude in the present crisis.

I should like to get back to a subject that should be under discussion on this Bill, and that is the Estimates. In connection with No. 7—Old Age Pensions—there is a very substantial increase in the amount provided for old age pensions for 1944-45, but I want to refer to one point. I do not know whether the Minister has any responsibility in the matter, but I should like that inspectors and civil servants who are employed to inquire into the circumstances of applicants for old age pensions would show a little more humanity, not to talk of Christian charity, in dealing with these applicants. In the majority of cases they are old people, difficult people to deal with at any time, and on occasions they are not likely to give all the information they might give, if they are in fear that they may be deprived of a certain amount of pension.

I shall give two cases that will emphasise the point I want to make. One was that of a beggarman who had no income and who was well known to be a beggarman. The case came before the advisory committee established in connection with the Dublin Corporation, and the inspector was asked how this man was deprived of his pension. The answer was that obviously he must have obtained the required amount—which I think is £39 —in begging, or else he could not have existed. There was no evidence that he received £39 in begging, but the inspector said he must have got it, or otherwise he could not have existed. The other case was that of a semi-imbecile who had an old age pension, and who used to go on messages for somebody and got twopence a day for that. Because of that, 1/- was taken off his pension. I am satisfied that no Government intended that there should be such harshness or such a rigid application of the law as I have described in these two cases.

Another matter on which I should like some information is in regard to the amount provided for Gaeltacht services. Last year the amount provided was £25,487, while this year the total Estimate is £13,789, a drop of £11,000. I should not like to think that there has been any departure from the known policy of the Government on the question of the Gaeltacht. Although on occasions I differ from An Taoiseach and An Tánaiste, I am satisfied that they have been always sincere on the question of the restoration of the language, but I should like to know what is the explanation for the drop of £11,000 on that Vote. I should also like to know in connection with item No. 70—the Institute of Advanced Studies—the Estimate for which shows an increase for £1,000, what work the Institute is doing. Is it doing work for the language or is it doing work simply for advanced studies in the English language? There was an Estimate for £200,000 for the alleviation of distress last year and there is no figure under that heading this year.

Mr. Hawkins

We have heard many references to the statement made by Senator Mulcahy, some disagreeing with it and some paying tribute to it. I feel that no man occupying the position that Senator Mulcahy does as leader of the second largest Party could have done or said anything else. He has taken the stand that has been taken by the people that he represents. Any man who claims to be a leader of a party would have no other option but to make a statement of that kind. I regret, however, that Senator Mulcahy should have availed of the occasion to put before the House matters in relation to the Defence Conference. The Senator complained that the conference met only on very rare occasions. I feel that if Senator Mulcahy, being a member of that body, felt some useful work could be performed by meetings, or that it was not meeting regularly enough, he should have availed of some other method of complaining, either by communicating with the head of the Government, the Minister for Defence or by raising the matter at the conference rather than by bringing it up here and having publicity given it when there was danger that people outside the country might read into such a statement the view that the members of the conference were not consulted.

The Senator, of course, has not said that, but we have read the misconstructions in foreign papers. To pass from that, one of our biggest problems is the production of food and fuel. I believe we are safely on the road as far as food is concerned, but I have great doubts in relation to fuel. I would like to see more active steps taken by the Government and the Departments concerned to utilise the means at our disposal for the production of fuel in the coming months. I am not satisfied that that is being done at the moment. I am not satisfied that the arrangements of the county councils are sufficient. We should rely much more on the private producers and give them more encouragement. If we did, we would have had in the first instance better turf and also have it produced more cheaply. I believe that the unemployed in the towns and cities could be utilised at that work. I am not convinced that the men living in the towns are incapable of working at turf production. The majority of these people, as Senator Baxter and other speakers pointed out, when talking of the flight from the land, are people who left the land and came to the cities. Therefore they are quite capable of carrying on this work. I feel that the Government requires to tighten up the regulations in regard to afforestation. Many of our trees and forests are being cut down. People get a permit to cut down trees on the understanding that so many trees are to be replanted. I find that in a number of areas replanting is not being done. The land is sold by the owners sometimes to the Forestry Department, thereby relieving the owners of the responsibility of replanting the trees. The owners got a good sum of money out of the Forestry Department for the land and the Department will have to plant the trees. These people should not be relieved of their responsibility. If the land is sold to the Forestry Department, the guarantee to replant the trees should be taken into account when the price is being fixed.

Liam O Buachalla

Is beag atá le rá agam ar na Meachtacháin seo cé is moite de thagairt ghenerálta a dhéanamh do phoinnte nó dhó.

Is truagh liom nach rabhas annseo go luath sa tráthnóna, mar deirtear liom go ndearna an Seanadóir O Maolchatha tagairt do chuid de na nithe a thuit amach le fíor-ghairid sa tír. B'fhacthas dó, do réir mar thuigim, go raibh gá le míniú ar chuid de na rudaí a dubhradh ag lucht Fine Gael lé gairid. Ní féidir liom a rá gur ráiteas sásúil é go dtí go mbeidh deis agam é a léigheamh. Tá mé lánchinnte dhe gur chuir cuid den chaint a rinneadh le gairid imní mhór ar mhuintir na tire—chuir sí immí mhór ar cháirde an tSeanadóra O Maolchatha, chó maith leis an gcuid eile. Más ráiteas sásúil é atá déanta ag an Seanadóir, ní bhéidh aon duíne níos sásta leis ná mé féin.

Dála na meastachán féin, níl agam le luadh ach aon phoinnte amháin— sílim go mbeidh mé i ndon a theasbáint don Aire an chaoi a bhféadfadh sé beagán airgid—beagán ar a laghad —a shábháil. D'fhéadfainn, go deimhin, mórán a rá i dtaobh na meastachán dá mbéinn sásta seasamh suas agus lochtaí d'fháil agus cáineadh a dhéanamh ar na meastacháin agus ar obair an Aire féin. Is dóigh liom nach ndéanann cuid againn annseo ár ndóthain machtnaimh ar na meastacháin, ná ní dhéanann muid dóthain iarracht ar eolas cruinn d'fháil ina dtaobh roimh ré. Is dóigh liom gur sompla maith air sin an chaint a rinne an Seanadóir Ó Colgáin ar mheastachán na Gaeltachta. Is ceist í sin a dtiubhraidh an tAire féin freagra uirthi. Má tá laghdú ann do réir na meastachán ar an méid atá in áithrid le haghaidh na Gaeltachta, tig linn bheith cinnte gurb é an fáth go bhfuil cúrsaí áithrid sa nGaeltacht feabhsuithe ar shlí nach bhfuil gá leis an oiread cabhrach agus a bhíodh.

Mícheál O h-Aodha

Conus tá scéal na Gaeltachta níos fearr iniu ná riamh?

Liam O Buachalla

Ach dála an phríomh-phoinnte ba mhian liom a luadh, isé an rud atá i gceist agam gur ceart don Aire féachaint le roinnt airgid a shábháil ar scáth roinnt den fhuagraíocht a dhéanas cuid de na Rannaí Stáit.

Tugaim fá deara go mbíonn fuagraí á gcur ar na páipéirí nuaidheachta i mBéarla amháin. Is le haghaidh daoine a bhfuil oideachas maith acu, más fíor é, na fuagraí seo. Is fuagraí iad i dtaobh scrúduithe, i dtaobh postaí sa seirbhís phoiblí agus san Arm. Is cosúil nach gceaptar go bhfuil locht ar bith ann na fuagraí seo a chur amach i mBéarla amháin, ach is lugha-de locht bhéadh ann na fuagraí bheith ann i nGaedhilge amháin. Duine ar bith atá ag iarraidh postaí den tsaghas atá i gceist ba chóir a dhóthain Gaedhilge bheith aige leis na fuagraí a léigheamh.

Is rud tábhachtach é an t-airgead a shábháil ach ba tábhachtach an tslí e na fuagraí seo bheith i nGaedhilge amháin, le cur i gcéill don phobal go bhfuil na Rannaí eagsúla Stáit i ndáiribh i dtaobh ha Gaedhilge.

Mr. Ruane

I am delighted that Senator Mulcahy made the statement that he made to-day, not that I needed any assurance from Senator Mulcahy or his colleagues as to their attitude in the matter of the neutrality of this country; but it was necessary that a statement should come at this juncture from him, because certain people, deliberately or otherwise, for the past few weeks have been trying to disseminate the idea that neutrality is the policy of one particular Party, notwithstanding the fact that the Taoiseach has definitely stated, and representatives of all shades of opinion have reiterated, that neutrality is the policy of the Irish people. Senator Mulcahy or those who stand with him would scarcely forget that, considering the big part they played in making it possible for this country to consider the question of neutrality in its Parliamentary institutions, and the work that they did in the fight that led to the establishment of our Parliamentary institutions. I do not wish to labour that particular point except to say that I think at this particular time, when the people throughout the country are engaged in the very important work of food production, public representatives and public bodies should be very careful in what they say, so that they will not create a scare that might divert the attention of the people from the essential work on which they are engaged. References have been made during this debate to the necessity for concentration on postwar problems, and that such concerntration would give the people something to think of and divert their minds from the possibilities of war or invasion or the various other menaces that threaten the country at the present time.

I wish at this stage to raise a question in regard to Vote No. 41 in connection with the Department of Local Government and Public Health. It is a matter of prior importance in this country, namely, the question of the medical inspection of school children. For the past 12 or 14 years, a system of medical inspection of school children has been operated in this country, and I suppose it is administered in other counties in the same way as in County Mayo. The idea is that there should be three inspections during the school life of the child, one inspection at the entrance of the child to school, another at the intermediate stage, and the third when the child is leaving school, and that at each inspection there should be examination of children who have been found defective at the previous inspection, until they are written off as cured as a result of the treatment recommended.

In Great Britain children are inspected in the primary schools twice yearly and the statistics go to prove that very excellent results have been achieved. Of course, that would be too high a standard to aim at in this country because, owing to the cost involved, such a scheme could certainly not be recommended to the Department of Finance at the present time but, if the medical inspection of school children is to produce the results that those who are responsible for the scheme have in mind, there should be at least one inspection every year. That, I regret to say, has not been possible in my county—and I expect that the same position arises in other counties—because the officer onerated with the particular duty of medical inspection has several other duties to perform. I am afraid that school medical inspection, which should be of prïmary importance so far as the work of the county medical officer of health is concerned, does not get the attention it should receive. In County Mayo two officers are made responsible for the medical inspection of school children. The tuberculosis medical officer in the southern part of the county has to look after the schools in that area and also to superintend the county sanatorium and visit the different tuberculosis dispensaries in the southern part of the county.

In addition to that, he has to take on the duties of medical inspection of school children. The county medical officer of health, in addition to the duty given him regarding the inspection of school children, has the following list of duties to attend to—public health administration, infectious disease control, maternity and child welfare, general public health, water supplies and sewerage, general sanitation, school meals, housing, food supplies, the welfare of the blind, inspection of midwives and A.R.P. How any man could give attention to what I hold is the most important of these services while attending to the others, I do not know, having regard, particularly, to the fact that in County Mayo there are between 360 and 370 schools to be inspected while the school-going population is between 26,000 and 27,000. For some time that question has been agitating the minds of the people in County Mayo.

A few years ago, the suggestion was made that the dispensary medical officers of the county should be linked up with the school medical inspection. It was felt that the dispensary medical officers had intimate knowledge of the conditions of health in the districts in which they were functioning, that they were in many cases present at the birth of the children they would be inspecting, had visited them in connection with the vaccination service and, in their ordinary, professional attendance at the homes of those children, would have had an opportunity of familiarising themselves with the conditions of the particular household. The county council put the matter before the doctors, through the county medical officer of health. The dispensary doctors agreed to the proposal provided the Department would sanction it and they would be remunerated for the extra work this service would entail. The matter was put before the Department and was turned down. The reasons given were that "the carrying out of school medical inspection work requires special training and experience". Moreover, it was pointed out, "the proposed scheme would not secure the co-ordination necessary in connection with the examination of children, their professional treatment and the keeping of proper records". In the circumstances and "as there did not appear to be any compensating advantages which would justify the considerable yearly additional expenditure involved", the Minister was not prepared to approve of the board's proposal.

With regard to those points, I think that, if the scheme were given a trial, matters would not turn out as forecast by the Department in their letter rejecting the scheme. The dispensary doctors should be able to carry out this work. In the beginning, there would, of course, be some discrepancies because of the different standards of different medical practitioners, but these could be adjusted after some time as a result of the supervision of the county medical officer of health. The co-ordination of arrangements for inspection and the keeping of the records in respect of the children inspected would be a matter for the county health office. All the assistant medical officer would have to do would be to fill in, as accurately as possible, particulars as to the condition of the child examined and send those on to the county health office to be dealt with there by the supervising officer, who would be the county medical officer of health. All the arrangements after the dispensary medical officer had made his examination of the school would be carried out by the county health office.

In many of those dispensary districts there are Jubilee nurses and they could assist the dispensary doctors in carrying out their duties. Where Jubilee nurses were not available, the board of health would, I am sure, allow the services of one of the nurses from the county institutions to be used during the inspections. In making this statement, it is not my intention adversely to comment on the work carried out by the county medical officer of health in north Mayo or the tuberculosis officer in south Mayo. I have been present on a few occasions during the examination carried out by those officers in the schools they visit and nobody could speak too highly of the thorough manner in which they do their work. I am afraid that all that work goes for nothing because, as I said at the outset of my remarks, they cannot visit the schools as often as they should because of the inadequate staff at their disposal. Unless something is done to give them the help to which they are legitimately entitled, this very important service is bound to suffer.

Reference was made in the letter refusing sanction from the Department of Local Government and Public Health to the extra expenditure which would be involved, which would run into, approximately, £1,000, and which, it was held, would not be justified. I hold that, at present, in so far as school inspection is concerned, the expenditure is not justified because the service, as administered, cannot achieve the results which it would achieve if the scheme got any chance. It is desirable that these young people should leave the primary schools medically fit, as they would leave them if they received the attention to which they are entitled and which they would receive, if this service was adequately provided for. For the sake of those young people, the future men and women, some steps should be taken, to implement the present school medical service, and I know of no better way to do that than to link up that service with the medical officers in the different dispensary districts, making them assistant medical inspection officers in their particular areas. I am quite satisfied that, if that experiment be tried, within a few years the results will justify it.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

Mr. T. Walsh

There are a few points I should like to raise on this Bill. The Minister for Finance has stated that taxation has increased by £14,000,000 since 1939, and yet, here to-day, we have not heard one word questioning the increase in taxation since 1939, and I suppose, therefore, that we may take it that the members of this House are perfectly satisfied with that increase in taxation. When, however, some of those people go down the country, they do not seem to take things quite so easily, or they try to disillusion the people in the country. They tell them that the burden of taxation is increasing, and in nine cases out of ten they place the responsibility for the increase in taxation on the Government. We know now, however, that they are perfectly satisfied with the increase in taxation, because not one voice has been raised here to-day in this House regarding that increase, and accordingly, so far as this House is concerned, I am sure that we may take it for granted that everybody is perfectly satisfied that there was a necessity for the increase. You have increased social services, and practically every section of the community has demanded subsidies or taxation in one shape or another. So that, at any rate, we have arrived at one definite conclusion, and that is that this House is perfectly, satisfied that there is justification for an increase of £14,000,000 in taxation, due to the emergency.

There is one point, however, about which I am not perfectly satisfied, and that is the reduction in the Vote for Agriculture. The Agricultural Vote is being reduced this year because no bounties are being paid for fertilisers, but the scarcity or absence of fertilisers is going to react seriously on agriculture, and I suggest that there was an opportunity there for the Government, the Department of Agriculture, or whoever is responsible, to show their interest in agriculture by increasing the price of wheat this year. It is a well-known fact that wheat has a detrimental effect on land, and the absence of fertilisers is going to make that detrimental effect more pronounced. If no fertilisers could be obtained and if the Government were able to save a certain sum of money by reason of that fact, why did they not devote that money to help the people who normally use fertilisers and have been using them in the past? I refer to the tillage farmers, the farmers upon whom the country is now depending, and upon whom it has depended in the past for food in the form of bread, and so on. The tillage farmers, in my opinion, are the greatest and, in fact, the only backbone that the country has when it comes to the question of the production of food. In all the tillage districts, the big tillage counties, these farmers have gone out of their way to till their land, and there was no necessity for inspectors to go into the tillage areas because, in every case that I know of, where a man had been in the tillage business or the tillage end of agriculture in the past, he is growing more to-day than he is compelled to grow. Accordingly, I think that an opportunity was afforded to the Government here to show their appreciation of the tillage farmer, and, when they knew that no fertilisers were available, I suggest that that gave them an opportunity to fix a price for wheat that would compensate the farmer for the loss he would sustain as a result of having no artificial manures.

The same thing applies to beet, although not quite in the same way. Beet manures are available, although we have been told that those who come in late with their contracts may be left without manures, but whether it be a case of wheat or beet, both of which are grown principally on the same type of land, increased production could have been secured by giving a better price for wheat. That is why I say that the Government missed an opportunity by not giving an increased price for wheat, since that would also affect the production of beet. So much for the tillage end of this question. I see that the milk producers, this year, have got £170,000 in subsidies, and I have maintained, and still maintain, that the tillage farmer is a greater asset to the country at the present time than the milk producer. If the milk producers were entitled to £170,000 by way of subsidies this year, then I say that the tillage farmer was entitled to more.

There is another matter to which I should like to refer, and that is in regard to old age pensions and the means test. At the present time, the means test is £39 5s. 0d. I do not know how long that sum has been in existence as a means test—in other words, that if a person's income passes beyond £39 5s. 0d. he is not entitled to an old age pension—but it must be remembered that since the emergency the price of any commodity which a poor person, who may be entitled to an old age pension, may have to buy, has increased very considerably. Wages have increased by way of bonuses, since the war started, and the result is that to-day you find that a person who, ten years ago, was entitled to an old age pension, is now debarred from getting that pension because of what an inspector calls an increase in his income, but no regard is had to the increase in prices of practically every commodity. Accordingly, I think the Minister should increase the means test from £39 5s. 0d. to at least £50, in order to ensure that those people who, pre-war, were entitled to an old age pension, and who are debarred from getting it to-day because of a slight increase in their incomes, will get that pension.

Another matter to which I wish to refer is the Tourist Board or Tourist Association. I see that the Tourist Board or Tourist Association are getting £15,000 this year from the Central Fund. Speaking for Kilkenny I may say that we also are providing for that board a grant of £225. I think that if a county is subscribing to the funds of that body—the people of which county are also subscribing to it as general taxpayers—that county should be recognised by the Tourist Board. We, in Kilkenny, have been recognised by the Tourist Association, to the extent that that body has told the people of Ireland that it was in our county that the great and illustrious Father Mathew was born—in Thomastown, County Kilkenny—but it seems that Tipperary also claims him.

Mr. Baxter

Do not mind what Tipperary would claim.

Mr. T. Walsh

Well, at any rate, that is the only thing that the Tourist Association have ever done for Kilkenny. They have given us a man that we should like to have, but I suppose we cannot deny the claims of Tipperary. I think, however, that they should pay more particular attention to counties such as Kilkenny. After all, we have some beauty spots in that county, although, apparently, the Tourist Association have not discovered them yet.

Another thing to which I wish to refer is this question of inspectors. We have inspectors, and it is necessary for us to have them, but many of them should go back to the kindergarten schools to learn the elements of courtesy and good manners. They rush down on unfortunate shopkeepers and tradesmen, and, in most cases, act the bully. That is not the way to do good business, or to get the information they require, and it will not encourage people to co-operate with them in carrying out the regulations which have been laid down. This criticism applies particularly to inspectors from the Department of Supplies. I have heard it on several occasions. In fact, I heard them described on one occasion as being worse than the "Tans". That is a matter of which notice should be taken.

I could not let this opportunity pass without making reference to the tributes paid to Senator Mulcahy to-day. I cannot pay the same tributes as those paid by other speakers. I have not been disillusioned, and, in my opinion, the reason for the speech was that Senator Mulcahy has seen, in the country, the reactions of the people, irrespective of Party or section, to the Note sent by An Taoiseach, and he wants to come into line, and that is why he has got up to make the speech we heard to-day.

Mrs. Concannon

Unlike Senator Walsh, I think that Senator Mulcahy made a very proper speech——

Mr. Baxter

Hear, hear.

Mrs. Concannon

——and I think everyone will agree that it was a fit and proper one. It was the first meeting of the Seanad since the exchange of Notes between our Government and two other Governments, and what more fitting occasion could Senator Mulcahy take than this to affirm the stand his Party has taken in what may be a national crisis? If the crisis is to be averted it is by the unity of all Parties——

Mr. Baxter

Hear, hear.

Mrs. Concannon

——and it is quite right that in this Seanad every Leader of a Party should affirm that unity and steadfastness. I speak as a member of a Party, a very important Party, the women of the country and I think the Tánaiste himself will agree that if the Government have not the support of the women in occasions like this it will be a poor prospect. The women have always been in the forefront of the national advance, and it is their steadfastness and influence, and the power to pass on these qualities to their sons, and to help their men to stand up to difficulties that have brought our country to its present position.

I am glad, therefore, that I can say on behalf of the women of Ireland that in whatever steps are necessary to be taken, they will be behind the Government, and that they wholly approve of the stand the Government has taken. I think there is a practical reason for mentioning women in this connection. If the crisis develops, as Senator Foran who is a realist, has pointed out, it will make it necessary for us to develop our self-reliance, especially in regard to food and fuel. Now, in the production of food, women have an important part to play. I have hardly ever spoken in this House without emphasising that we shall never have a good agricultural policy unless we have the full help, the enthusiastic help, of the women of the country. I hope that when the Taoiseach goes to Galway and other Ministers go to the country to impress on the people the importance of food production they will call the women into their councils. They have never done it up to this. I think the women of the country should have an opportunity of hearing in what way they can best serve the national needs.

That is all I have to say on the general question, but, like my colleagues, I have a particular thing to raise on the Finance Bill. The Tánaiste has told us that out of the £16,000,000 odd added to the Budget, over £14,000,000 has been made necessary by the crisis, the payment of bonuses and things like that. I regret to say that one very deserving class of the community has been overlooked in the allocation of these bonuses—I speak for the retired teachers. The Tánaiste himself, whose recollection goes back to the early days, knows that many of these retired teachers gave their best endeavours to the restoration of the Irish language. I know several of these men myself and I would like the Tánaiste to think of them. Many of them have had to stand up to the difficulties experienced by the pioneers of the language movement, and some of them had to pay the penalty of the work they did. A great many of these people are in retirement. They had small salaries and their pensions are proportionately small. I think that it would be only right that when we recognise the need for bonuses for nearly everybody—we have recognised them for old age pensioners in the rural districts—these old teachers who did giant's work in the national cause should not be forgotten.

Mr. Hayden

I wish to refer to one item in connection with this Bill, namely, old age pensions. I come from a rural area. Time and again we have appealed through the county council to the Minister for Local Government to increase old age pensions but on each occasion a deaf ear has been turned to our appeals. I should like to ask the Minister for Finance how he expects old age pensioners in rural areas to exist at the present time on 10/- a week having regard to the high cost of living. In urban areas an old age pensioner gets a food voucher——

Cathaoirleach

That is a matter, Senator, which does not pertain to this Bill. It is a matter which can be dealt with only by legislation. The Act is in operation and will have to be administered in its present form until an amending Act has been passed.

Mr. Foran

Is the Senator not entitled to draw attention on the Vote on Account to the inadequate treatment of any section of the community? I submit he is.

Cathaoirleach

The Senator may not advocate legislation on this Bill. The statement which he has made is a form of protest that does not pertain to the Bill before us.

Mr. Foran

If the Act is to be amended in the immediate future may he not refer to that?

Cathaoirleach

No, Senator, the discussion can only proceed on the basis of present legislation.

Mr. Hayden

I merely wanted to bring before the House the great injustice that prevails with regard to the treatment of old age pensioners in rural areas.

Cathaoirleach

Having said that, I think the Senator should be satisfied.

Mr. Hayden

I should like if the Minister could see his way to increase the old age pensions.

Cathaoirleach

The Minister cannot do that until the present Act has been amended.

Mr. Hayden

I know great hardship is imposed on old age pensioners in rural areas owing to the inadequate amounts they receive. They cannot get food vouchers outside the urban areas. Old age pensioners living in rural areas are suffering the same distress as those in urban areas and I appeal to the House to urge on the Minister to increase the amount of the old age pension for people in the rural areas beyond the inadequate sums they are receiving at the present time.

Mr. Hawkins

For the information of the Senator who has just spoken, may I say that a scheme such as he advocates will come into operation in rural areas on the 1st of April?

Mr. Hayden

I understand that that will mean an increase of only 2/6, and 2/6 at the present time, when we are told 1/- is worth only 7½d., is not going to relieve much distress amongst old age pensioners.

Mr. Hayes

I should like to compliment Senator Mrs. Concannon on what she has said in regard to the statement made here by Senator Mulcahy. I should like also to put this point to the House. We are now a sovereign State and we have to do our business in the way in which States do their business—that is through the Government and Parliament. We have to rely on our institutions and on recognised mouthpieces and we have to agree in this State upon certain conventions, just as other States do. One of these conventions is that the Government speaks on foreign affairs. We in this country have been accustomed all our lifetime to do business on a rather different basis, to regard ourselves as part of a movement or an organisation, and to think that the more speeches one makes, and the more emphatically one speaks, the more good one is doing. Now, Sir, those days, whether for good or evil— I think for good—are gone. We have in this country a State recognised internationally and a Government recognised nationally. Whether you like the Government or not, it is the legitimate, proper Government of this Irish State. Senator Mulcahy's point was that that Government had the right to speak, and had spoken, after consultation had taken place with representatives of other Parties and after the fullest assent and accord had been obtained from other Parties to the attitude which was to be taken by the Government.

There is no need for me to go into the fact that, as early as September, 1939, the Fine Gael Party agreed to give in one day to the Government all the legislation necessary for the purpose of putting ourselves in a position to meet the emergency. Since then it was they who suggested the setting up of the Defence Conference. They took part in the organisation both publicly and privately—the leaders on the platforms and the followers in their uniforms—of the Defence Forces. That has been fully and properly acknowledged. Anybody who, at this particular stage, takes it upon himself to make any suggestion that a man in public life, an authority in a particular political Party, is not speaking the truth when he says that his Party is in favour of neutrality—anybody who takes up that attitude is doing a very grave national disservice and is giving assistance to enemies of this country or to anybody outside the country who may be inclined to believe that there is anything else but unity in this country on the question of the preservation of the State and the neutrality of the State. I should like to put that point to anybody who thinks that a brief political advantage may be gained by making any such suggestion.

I want to make the further point that people who say that they are ready to face danger as it has been faced in the past and as it might have to be faced in the future, do not face it beforehand by exaggerating it, by broadcasting how perilous things may be and by making people's flesh creep. What struck one as the most hopeful sign in recent events was that the Dáil met after the interchange of Notes and went about its ordinary business in its ordinary way. Nothing could be more indicative of national strength as that particular happening. That was much more important than if Deputies had spent the day vying with one another in declaring allegiance to any particular type of leader or Party. I think we should be glad that we can give that indication ourselves by doing our own business in our own way and by trusting that the machinery which has been set on foot for defence purposes and for the purposes of consultation between Parties on matters of external affairs is sufficient to preserve our security. We should accept everybody's bona fides in this matter. Those who do not accept the good faith of other people and other Parties in this matter are doing a grave national disservice.

Mr. O'Donovan

I have not heard any suggestion in the House to-day of the nature which the Senator mentioned.

Mr. Baxter

It was made.

Mr. O'Donovan

I did not hear it.

Mr. Hayes

It was made.

Mr. O'Donovan

I do not want to delay the House further than to put this point. I was not impressed by Senator Mulcahy's remarks to-day because the whole force of his statement was that it was not necessary to speak and yet he spoke at length. What I disagreed with was the fact that the Senator referred to meetings of the Defence Conference which I always understood were private and should not even be mentioned in public here in the House. It struck me that that would serve no useful national purpose at all. We know the yarns that are being spread within the past few days. Even in to-day's newspapers mention is made of how events can be misconstrued and I can easily see propaganda being made of the suggestion that there were dissensions in the Defence Conference. That is in relation to the second half of the Senator's speech.

Mr. Hayes

May I say that I think when the Senator has an opportunity of reading what Senator Mulcahy said he will be convinced that Senator Mulcahy did not in his speech, or in anything that could be taken out of his speech either say or suggest that there was lack of unity in the Defence Conference?

Mr. Quirke

I did not intend to intervene in this debate but there is just one thing I would like to say, that there was a statement of Senator Mulcahy repeated by Senator O'Sullivan and now by Senator Hayes, suggesting that Senator Mulcahy or his Party were criticised on the ground that it was not in favour of neutrality. Perhaps such criticisms were made but Senator Mulcahy in his statement said:—

"I was criticised because I did not make any statement and for discussing economics during the crisis"

and the suggestion is that he was criticised by members of the Fianna Fáil Party.

Mr. Baxter

No, No.

Mr. Quirke

Then it was all right?

Mr. Hayes

It is quite all right.

Mr. Quirke

I heard no criticism by any member of the Fianna Fáil Party and if there were such criticisms I believe they came from the members of the Senator's own Party.

Mr. Baxter

No.

Mr. Quirke

I am quite satisfied that they did come from members of the Senator's own Party. I am in disagreement I must say, with most people who have spoken in this debate. I am in disagreement with Senator Foran who is generally a kindly speaker for the aggressive attitude he took up towards Senator Mulcahy, and equally in disagreement with Senator Honan and Senator Mrs. Concannon because I thought they were a little bit too complimentary. Senator Mulcahy was quite right to make that speech if he thought fit, by way of apology to people who perhaps expected that he would have done it long ago, but when anybody makes a speech others try to follow and pat him on the back and make all sorts of suggestions. Senator Baxter said that when matters of international importance are under consideration there should be discussions with the brains of the country, the leaders of all Parties. I wonder did anybody ever hear of such a suggestion? I have met all classes of people since this particular Note was written, and I did not hear one man suggest that he would change one comma of the Irish Note. If Senator Baxter thinks he could have changed a comma or improved it then he should have gone to the Taoiseach or to his Department and I am quite sure that if he could he would be called in the next time. I think that the idea of calling in a group of people is too nonsensical to waste time discussing. I believe that Senator Mulcahy was quite justified in making his statement and it should be accepted in the spirit in which it was made.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Why do you not accept it in that spirit?

Mr. Quirke

I say I do. I definitely do accept it in that spirit and I ask the House to accept it as an apology, and to let it go at that.

Mr. Baxter

What are you talking about an apology for? Why should we apologise for our neutrality?

An tAire Airgeadais (Seán T. O Ceallaigh)

Chuireas suim mhór sa díospóireacht seo, ach chuaidh sí ar líne nach raibh mé ag súil leis. Ní raibh a fhios agam go mbeadh caint faoi na rudaí móra do thuit amach le déanaighe, rudaí nach mbaineann go dlúth leis an mBille seo. Bhíos sásta agus táim lán-tsásta leis an gcaint do rinne an Seanadóir O Maolchatha. Thug sé moladh mór—agus creidim gur féidir liom a rádh gur moladh é, béidir, a bhí tuillte—don tslí ina ndearnadh an gnó tábhachtach a bhaineann leis na rudaí do thuit amach coicíos no trí seachtaine o shoin. Ní dóigh liom go mba chóir milleán do chur ar an Seanadóir ná locht d'fháil air. Bhí de cheart aige an méid a dubhairt sé a rá da mba mhian leis é, agus is dóigh liom go mba chóir don tSeanad glacadh leis mar cabhróidh sé go mór leis an tír.

There was an interesting discussion on this Bill, but that is nothing unusual in the Seanad. I always find the discussions here interesting and of value, but the discussion took a line which I did not anticipate. It developed, owing to the speech of Senator Mulcahy, on topics not usually associated with this Bill. I will put it that way. Further, I see nothing improper in a Senator dealing with that matter, important though it is, on this subject as long as the Cathaoirleach permits such discussion to take place and to go on these lines. I would have been perhaps better prepared had I got some notice that the Senator had in mind to raise the topics he did. That, however, also, I pass over. A person who is a Minister is expected to take the ball, however he gets it, coming at any angle, like a good hurler or tennis player. No matter how hard it is hit or where it comes from, he is expected to be ready at all times to meet and deal with it.

I would be quite within my right as a member of the Government in thanking Senator Mulcahy for his statement this afternoon. I think it is bound to be helpful. One thing is certain that if there is anything that has kept us out of danger and difficulties that might have come upon us during this war, it is the fact that the country showed a united front. If certain interested people could have found any fissure in the rock of unity that we demonstrated to the world as existing here, efforts might have been made to widen that fissure for certain purposes and to get us into difficulties. That, so far, thanks be to God, because of our unity, because of the knowledge around the world of that united front, has not been attempted. Therefore, even though some may think that the speech of Senator Mulcahy this afternoon was not necessary, I think it was valuable and helpful.

It never struck me, until Senator Mulcahy mentioned it this evening, that nobody on the Fine Gael side had spoken. The necessity for it did not occur to me. I do not know even now that there was a necessity for it but evidently Senator Mulcahy felt there was and that is why he spoke.

I heard no criticism on any side that the Fine Gael leaders had not spoken on the issue. I heard nothing of that kind. I heard nobody criticise their leaders because of the fact that they discussed economics during the last three or four weeks but, as the Senator found it proper and thought it necessary to make the statement, I certainly, as an individual and as a member of the Government, welcome the speech and say it is a useful and helpful contribution in this hour of crisis, because nobody can say, and I do not think Senator Mulcahy intended to suggest or did suggest, that the crisis is over. In case anybody might think that it is, I emphasise what the Taoiseach has said frequently, and I emphasise it with all the strength that is in me, that this crisis is not over and attempts may be made again to get us into trouble, to get rid of our neutrality and our unity, at any time before the end of this war and this emergency. We have to stand together and to show not alone a united but a determined front on this issue of the neutrality of our country on which, I think it is true to say, every section of our people is united. On the platform, in the Press, in the Dáil and in the Seanad, as far as I have heard or read articles on the subject, never have I witnessed such a demonstration of a united people since the days of the conscription issue in 1918. That is my feeling on the matter.

I should certainly like to pay a tribute to the Press. The Press was referred to by Senator Mulcahy this afternoon. I should like to pay a tribute to them for the way that they have stood by the country all through the war and in this particular crisis of recent date. From all parties of the Press, the Dublin dailies, the Cork dailies, the local Press, so far as I have seen, there has been nothing but declarations of unity, spokesmen of all parties backing the Government as a national Government representing all the people and all classes of the people, so far as the interests of the country are concerned, dealing with foreign powers and facing other States.

It is certainly useful, I would say, and good for the country as a whole to have such a statement as was made by Senator Mulcahy, as spokesman and Leader of his Party, declaring their full and complete approval of the Government's stand and the Taoiseach's message in this recent crisis. I do not know that it would be wise or proper to say any more. On one or two other points that were raised, incidentally, by Senator Mulcahy in regard to things that happened at the Defence Conference, of which I am not a member, and at the meetings that took place between the leaders of political Parties and the Taoiseach, may I say I was present at all those meetings; I know what took place; but I do not think I am at liberty, or that any other person is at liberty to say anything of what took place there and, as far as these conferences are concerned, I think silence with regard to every word that took place there, for the present, at any rate, is the wisest policy.

I am not a member of the Defence Conference and I am not entitled to speak for it, but I do believe it is true that Senator Mulcahy could have got a meeting of the Defence Conference called any time he wished by asking for it. If the Defence Conference did not meet, perhaps it should have met. I am not in a position to say, but if the Senator felt at any time that there was a need for it, I think he could have had a meeting held.

Mr. M. Hayes

Surely it is not for a member of the Opposition to call a meeting of the Defence Conference. I do not think Senator Mulcahy said he wanted a meeting. He merely said the absence of meetings would indicate the absence of military difficulties.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I think if he did not want a meeting he had a lot to say about the fact that a meeting was not held. I understand that it has happened that members of the conference other than members of the Government have asked for and have got meetings held. I think that the Senator could have threshed out that matter with the Defence Conference people. It is not that I object to its being raised here, but I think it would be more useful to thresh it out at a meeting of the Defence Conference which he could have called at any time he wished.

Mr. O'Donovan

It would have been far better.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

A variety of other matters was raised. Senator Baxter talked about the machinery not working properly. I think the fact that we have got through four and a half years of as difficult and dangerous times as were ever experienced in the history of our country shows that the machinery has worked satisfactorily so far. I humbly suggest that there is no foundation for the charge that the machinery of government, of the Oireachtas, has not worked. It may be true that it has not worked, perhaps, to the satisfaction of everybody, but that it has worked for the welfare and security of the State, and worked well, I do not think anybody can deny.

I liked Senator Hayes' statement and I liked his reminding us that we are now a State, that we are not any longer in the position that he and I were in as boys, in a national movement fighting against great odds, to try to get national ideas accepted and put into operation. As he properly said, we have here a State, with State machinery, set up after centuries of struggle and after untold sacrifices by generation after generation of our people. Unfortunately, we have not that State machinery set up for the whole of the country. That is the one great blot on the present state of affairs but, with God's help, that will be removed. In the course of our lifetime, we have seen wonderful things happen. We have seen a country which was treated as a slave country secure in our generation sovereign independence.

When I saw a certain visitor in the gallery, I was reminded of the beginnings of the last European War. I was then a great deal younger than I am now. At that time—30 years ago—there was a vigorous national movement in which many members of the Dáil and Seanad took an honourable part, Senator Hayes amongst them. In those days, one of the things we did was to establish a body in Dublin called the Neutrality League. A man whose name is now deservedly honoured—one of our national saints—was chairman of that League, James Connolly, and I was its secretary. All I can say of it is that it did not last long. We had a big meeting in the Antient Concert Rooms where one of the best speeches I ever listened to on Ireland's claim to freedom was made by James Connolly.

I felt very proud to be secretary of that body. Twenty-four hours afterwards, the heavy hand of the law came down upon us and our neutrality disappeared like the evening sun. Compare that with our position to-day. We declared our neutrality and were backed by a united Dáil and Seanad and by a united people. After four-and-a-half years of trial and emergency, it is there still. With God's help and the strength of a united people and a united Oireachtas, it will endure to the end of this great emergency and the machinery of State will work as well as it has done during the past four years. Directed and steered by those whom the nation has selected for responsibility during the present time of danger and struggle, it will bring us safely through.

To come down from questions of high politics to questions of hard cash, Senator Baxter asked how the millions of British money injected into our system—I think that was the phrase he used—was affecting inflation. Big as the Senator may think the amount of money coming in is—and it is big in proportion to our resources—it does not amount to anything worth speaking of so far as inflation is concerned. It does not amount to a row of pins.

Mr. Baxter

How much is it actually?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I shall give the latest reliable figures for emigrants' remittances. Those are for 1942 and they are only an estimate. I think the estimate is fairly accurate. The amount is £6,800,000.

Mr. Baxter

It would be considerably more in 1943.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That figure compares with £2,600,000 in 1941. The purchasing power of the country—including notes and coins to the value of £36,000,000, commercial bank deposits within the State of £170,000,000, and Post Office savings deposits of £23,000,000—amounts to £229,000,000.

Mr. Baxter

The Minister is not regarding deposits as money in circulation? It may represent purchasing capacity but it is not money in circulation.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The phrase I used was "purchasing power". A very big proportion of those emigrants' remittances goes into the savings bank.

Mr. Baxter

What is our total national income?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There, again, I must rely on an estimate. The last figure I saw was compiled by Professor Duncan and it was £180,000,000.

Mr. Baxter

Surely, we have a more up-to-date figure than that.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is the last figure I saw—a couple of years ago. To a purchasing power of £229,000,000, £6,800,000 would not, of itself, make a big difference in inflationary tendency. It would help to inflate, but not to any considerable extent.

Mr. Baxter

Do not ask me to accept the figure of £229,000,000 as having relation to the figure of £6,000,000.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The Senator will have another opportunity of dealing with the matter, and I shall be happy to hear any figure he produces. I am not a betting man, but I am prepared to take a bet that he will not be able to give a more reliable figure than I have given. All the moneys which come in in that way do, as the Senator said, cause an increase, to some extent, in the cost of living. To what extent it is impossible to say in relation to any particular sum of money.

Senator Walsh wants bigger prices for wheat and beet. He wants the prices subsidised because they are not at present what would be described as "economic". If we were to increase the price of wheat by 5/- a barrel, it would cost us £600,000 additional. To do the same for beet, on the basis of last year's crop, would cost us about £100,000. These are not big amounts nowadays when we are dealing with sums of £50,000,000 but, every time these items in respect of food are increased or subsidies are granted, you add to the cost of living. Every time you increase the price of wheat or beet or sugar or give a subsidy to keep down the price of bread or milk or butter, you are increasing the cost of living. What you are giving out with one hand, you are taking back with the other, and what you are really doing is adding to the machinery and piling up the cost of administration. In times like these, the production of food is a vital necessity.

Senator Baxter was quite right in emphasising the difficulties of the position with regard to food and fuel. We may not be able to get any quantity of wheat worth talking of carried across the Atlantic this year. If we do not, we shall have, as Senator Foran said, to put the policy of self-sufficiency as regards food actively into operation. We have to do that now. We cannot wait till next June or July to see if wheat will come in here, and we can only try to ensure getting a sufficient supply of food and fuel by sowing the wheat now and cutting the turf. These are things that are vital to the future safety, security and welfare of our people. It is quite true that numbers of young men and women have left the country, and, possibly, if there is freedom of movement this year, some more may leave. We have put restrictions—some people say, too drastic restrictions—on the movement of agricultural workers and turf workers.

Mr. Baxter

You do not hear many farmers say that.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Well, there are places in the country where there are more agricultural labourers than are required. There are places in the country where men are idle, because their services are not required on the farms.

Mr. Baxter

They are afraid, or too lazy, to work; that is all I can say.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I do not think so. There is another side to that question, as Senator Foran reminded us. First of all, there is the question of wages and, secondly, there is the question of whether or not we are to introduce totalitarian methods here. Is that what Senator Baxter wants?

Mr. Baxter

No.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Well, then, why ask us to clamp down the lock on the door here and prohibit anybody from leaving the country and saying: "No, you cannot go"—whether there is work here for these people or not?

Mr. Baxter

Why compel me to do the work and allow men, who could do it, to run away, and leave me without the labour that is necessary to produce food?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Well, I have been, for a moderately long time now, at any rate, fighting in public life and otherwise for liberty for this country and for personal liberty also.

Mr. Baxter

Agreed.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I still stand for that, and it is with very great reluctance that I am a party to putting shackles to anybody's freedom of movement. I hold that the ordinary agricultural labourer or the ordinary worker is as much entitled to his freedom of movement as is Senator Baxter or Seán T. O Ceallaigh.

Mr. Baxter

The farmers have no freedom.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

No class of people in this country has more freedom than the farmer. He is free to stay in bed, if he wishes to do so; he is free to go out and sow his crops or not to do so; he is free to take a holiday any time that he likes to take a holiday, and to go to the races——

A Senator

Or to the dogs.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

——or the dogs, and to leave his fields there.

Mr. Baxter

Does the Minister hear all the non-farmers in the House applauding him? He hears none of the farmers in the House applauding him.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Well, I think they are wise men to keep their mouths shut at the moment, and I think that the less they say about the matter at the moment, the better.

Mr. Baxter

It is not so easily done.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Senator Baxter wants the price of milk raised, and says that the Minister must change his attitude towards money. Well, the only attitude I ever had towards money was to try to get as much of it as I could in order to enable me to do all the things that I would love to do, and, as Minister for Finance, to carry out conscientiously the duty that, in my opinion, appertains to a Minister for Finance, and that is to be a good, conscientious guardian of the Exchequer. When I speak of being a guardian of the Exchequer, that does not mean that I have to turn down every application that comes to me, and say "No" to every demand for increased funds for the various things that are brought up, day by day, to the Ministry of Finance, in expectancy of funds being made available. I believe that, as Minister for Finance, it is my duty to examine carefully and closely the claims of every Department, when they are made annually—to go into them, not alone carefully and studiously, but meticulously with a microscope, with a view to seeing if I can save money, and save it without injury to the services of the State; and, on the other side, not alone to be generous, when money is asked for, for things which would be for the welfare of the country, but to encourage Departments to come along and ask for money for things that I think, and for which I get the support of the Government, would eventually be for the welfare of this State of ours. Accordingly, I try to bear these aspects of the matter in mind, and not to be a skinflint or a "tight-wad", to borrow an American phrase; and if it is necessary for the welfare of this country that more should be paid for milk, wheat, or beet, and if it is shown to me, and if I am backed by the Government, that this country's security or the supply of this country's food requires that additional sums must be paid, whatever these sums may be, then I think it is the duty of a Minister for Finance to get that money and to see that it is made available.

A Senator

Is that an invitation?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Well, I would fight my damnedest against unjustified claims, but if anybody comes along and can prove to me that the money asked for is necessary for the welfare of our people—and they certainly will have to prove their case before me— then they will get that money. In this connection, however, if I might be allowed to digress for a moment, it seems to me to be remarkable that there was not one member in this House to-day who said that we were asking for too much. The same holds true in the case of the Dáil, with the exception of one Deputy. No member of the Dáil, with one exception, said that we were asking for too much, and that one member in the Dáil used the old cliché, which he had evidently picked out of the newspapers, about our squandermania. Evidently, he thought he had found out something new, in the use of that phrase, which he used in his opening statement; but not one other Deputy in the Dáil, and not even one Senator here to-day, spoke against this staggering figure, and I admit that it is staggering. I do not know whether many Senators here would remember the Budgets of 30 years ago or so. Senator Magennis may remember those times, but I think that not many other Senators would remember that period. Possibly, Senator Rowlette might be old enough to remember it.

Dr. Rowlette

Oh, surely not!

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Well, at any rate, I remember the days of 1910, 1911 and 1912, when the Irish spokesmen for Ireland in the British House of Commons used to raise Cain about the shocking amount that Ireland had to pay in taxation, which then, for the whole of Ireland, was only about £9,000,000 or £10,000,000. When taxation for this country went up to, say, £12,000,000, they nearly raised the roof off the House of Commons. But now, here, we are faced with a sum of taxation amounting to something like £50,000,000, and if we get that, I think we will be doing very well; but, at least, it can be said that every 1d. of that money is being spent for the general welfare of the people of this country.

Senator O'Donnell talked about the high cost of running the house. I admit it is high, but it is not unduly high under present circumstances. Bearing in mind the millions that we have to spend for emergency purposes, it is not unduly high, and, even with all that, I am afraid it has to be admitted that there are people in the employ of the Government whose wages and conditions of labour are not a credit to the Government, and that if times were normal we, as good employers, should certainly see to it that they be treated better. I am afraid it must be admitted that with all the millions we are spending there are men and women in the employment of the Government who should be better paid and better treated. That is the way I feel, as Minister for Finance, and I only wish that the time would arrive here when we could cut out some of these millions that we are spending—it is necessary that they should be spent for the welfare of everybody, for the welfare of the country and the individuals in it—and devote a small proportion of the money, because only a small proportion would be necessary, to doing the things that I have in mind with regard to our own employees and which should be done by any good employer. I think there is not a man in this House, or in any Party, who would not applaud it if it were proposed to be done. Senator O'Donnell talked about the high cost of running the house and told us we were spending too much on non-productive items. Well, the last time I was here, he produced a list as long as my arm of non-productive things on which he wanted money spent. Is not that right, Senator?

Mr. O'Donnell

That is quite right.

Mrs. Concannon

That was the last time.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There was the Manuscripts Commission, National Archives, a Civil List——

Professor Magennis

And a Ministry of Arts.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

What are national monuments going to do for us in the way of production, Senator? Now, I am quite used to that kind of thing every day in the Dáil. The same person will get up and proclaim about the scandalous amount of taxation that this Government has imposed on the country, and the way that money is being misspent, and before he sits down, the same Deputy—it does not often happen in the Seanad, but it does happen in the Dáil—wants to know why we are not spending £500,000 more on some other service. I have no objection in the least to spending the money, if we could afford it, on the Manuscripts Commission and on National Monuments and Archives. I may be hesitant about the Civil List, because, God only knows where that would land us, but if we could get the money for these things I would be very happy.

Mr. O'Donnell

I said the Emergency Research Bureau, which is productive.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

They are getting this year something like £19,000. At the time it was set up I was asked to provide money for it and I inquired how much? I was told not more than £3,000 or £4,000, at the outside. Well, it is only two or three years in existence, and it has gone up to £19,000, and God only knows what it will be next year. However, it is an emergency service that has done excellent work. There are industrialists, and Senator O'Donnell can bear me out, whose factories would have closed down and whose workers would have been disemployed were it not for the effective help given by the experts of the Research Bureau in enabling them to provide substitutes for raw materials which are essential for the production of the goods of these industrialists.

Some members spoke about old age pensions, and suggestions were made that we should increase the pensions in a variety of ways—increase the pensions or increase the permitted amount from £39, the highest income allowance of an old age pensioner, and bring it up to £50 or £52. Now, old age pensions cost us more than £3,750,000, and that is a big item in our small revenue. We are urged to give every old age pensioner 1/- a week. But there are 140,000 old age pensioners and we would have to give 140,000 shillings 52 times a year—you can make it up for yourself what it costs. That is the difficulty at doing anything for the old age pensioners.

Down the country, in the rural areas as well as the urban areas, we have given the old age pensioners food vouchers worth 2/6 a week and, in practice, that is an increase of 25 per cent. in the pension, a considerable sum. Part of that 25 per cent. in the rural areas is paid by the Government. In the other areas it is all paid by the Government. In 1937-38, before the emergency, the cost of old age pensions was £3,420,000, and since then it has gone up by £400,000 a year because the number of old age pensioners has increased. That is a very considerable sum.

Senator Foran asked some questions about Vote No. 8—Management of Government Stocks. It is a small sum, I think, Senator—something like £22,700. That is divided among the banks for managing our stocks which are practically £80,000,000, and we are getting a magnificent service from the banks for a song.

Mr. Foran

They can call it a song.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I know that you and I would not get £22,000 for any song. Maybe the Senator would—I would not. But the banks are giving us excellent service in managing the stocks which amount to £80,000,000, and I am sure the Senator would not deny them a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.

Mr. Foran

And they get commission on top of that.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is for management of the stocks. The Senator also asked about Vote No. 12. I think what the Senator had in mind was the Research Bureau. Under Local Government Votes, there is a sum of £215,000 being spent to help to eradicate tuberculosis. That is a considerable sum and it is going up rapidly year by year.

Senator O'Sullivan mentioned the League of Nations figures I quoted in the Dáil last week, and he found some fault with the basis of these figures. Well, I am responsible for a lot, but I am not responsible for the basis on which the League of Nations calculate their figures.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I am not blaming the Minister at all. I did ask if the Government had any policy for stabilising the cost of living.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Has the Senator not heard Senator Foran on the question of the stabilisation of wages?

Mr. O'Sullivan

I am waiting to hear the Minister, Sir.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I thought that it was a subject very frequently thrashed out here, and in the Dáil, within the last three years. I did not think that anyone had any doubt as to our policy regarding stabilisation. I know that Senator Foran does not sing many songs in its praise, but we have a definite policy, and, of course, we are often told that it has not been successful. I suggest that it has, and, even though the cost of living has risen, as it has risen considerably, we can compare—even leaving out the countries about which Senator O'Sullivan has a doubt that they are comparable with ours—with many other countries. Take Switzerland where the standard of living was as good, if not better than ours, at any time—we can compare with Switzerland. I do not think it would be right to compare this country with Portugal any more than with Spain because the standard of living there is not as high as ours. The standard of living there is not comparable to our own but even though our cost of living has gone up, so also has theirs.

Senator Crosbie is anxious for a change in procedure with regard to the Dáil and the Seanad. He said that we were too slavish in following British traditions in the method of working our democratic institutions. That may be. Whether we should have a committee for foreign affairs as they have in the Senate of the United States or in the Senate and Chamber of Deputies in France is a matter that might form the subject of a useful debate some time. I have seen these committees and other committees like them work in both these countries and they seem to work satisfactorily. If it were thought feasible to introduce them here, there is no reason why that matter could not be discussed. However, when the machinery of this State was set up originally, it was not thought a proper or feasible procedure. The question of whether it would be wise to change the procedure has not been ever discussed by my colleagues as far as I know, but it might be a useful matter for discussion at any rate.

If we could find a better procedure than the present, there is no reason why we should not be free to adopt it, but I do not think that any committee on foreign affairs could have done better for the State in guiding it through the dangerous times through which we have come during the past four and a half years than the Committee—the Government—at present in charge of that matter. I do not think any body could have improved on it during these years.

Senator Colgan spoke of old age pension inspectors and referred to their harsh and rigid application of the law. That would not be my idea of how these inspectors work. I am sorry that a man like Senator Colgan, for whose word I have great respect, should think that inspectors would be harsh or cruel towards old age pensioners. I hope that is not so, but I shall make inquiries. In so far as the law allows it, I should like inspectors to treat the old and the infirm with every possible kindness and consideration.

Mr. Foran

It is very desirable to convey that to them.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I think it is hardly necessary but, if it is necessary, it will be done. Senator Colgan also asked about the provision made for Gaeltacht Services. The Senator is not present now, but I should like to inform him that there is no real reduction there. The reason that the appropriation is less than last year is that there are increased Appropriations-in-Aid. In other words, some of the Gaeltacht industries are making a profit for the first time in their lives. During the emergency they got an opportunity and they took advantage of it. They do not, therefore, require so large an appropriation as in former years. The Senator also asked why there was no appropriation for the relief of distress. The item of £100,000 to which he referred was a grant to the Red Cross, and the second item of £100,000 was a free grant to India. These grants were made for one year only; it was not intended that they should be annual grants.

Senator Hawkins spoke of the Forestry Department buying land after the lands had been cleared of timber. I should imagine that the people in charge of the Forestry Department are just as wide awake as Senator Hawkins, and I do not think they would buy a pig in a poke. I doubt if anybody would suggest that they were "goms" enough to pay more for land than the land was worth. The complaint I generally hear is that they are frightful people to deal with, having regard to the way they try to beat down the poor farmers. I should point out, first of all, that anybody who wants to cut timber during the emergency has to get a permit to do so, and he gets that permit only on condition that he will replant. I doubt very much, if the Forestry Department, on taking over lands which they have allowed to be cleared of timber, will not insist that the person responsible for clearing the lands will be responsible for replanting them.

Senator Mrs. Concannon—I am glad that she is here—raised her voice about women. I think—though it is against the sex, I say it myself—men do need to be reminded, and reminded frequently, of the vital part played, if I might use the term, in the national economy by the women of the country. Without their enthusiastic help and backing, we would never have made the national movement a success. We would have never made any movement a success. We would not have in our own time seen Government institutions set up, were it not for the sacrifices they made, directly and indirectly. Every one of us, Ministers in particular, when calling upon the citizens of the country to do their duty, should pay due tribute to the women of the country for the magnificent service they have given, not alone during the emergency but through the whole of the national struggle.

Senator Mrs. Concannon also made an appeal for pensioned teachers. I was amused when she spoke of retired teachers who helped the language movement in its pioneer days. If there were any retired teachers who helped the language movement in its pioneer days, alive and drawing pensions, I should be very much surprised. I am sorry to remind Mrs. Concannon —it is not fair to a lady—that if they were in the Gaelic movement in its pioneer days and were retired teachers then, they would be about 120 years old now and would not be interested in pensions or salaries.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take the remaining stages now.

Bill put through Committee without amendment, received for final consideration and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.