Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Jul 1944

Vol. 28 No. 21

Finance Bill, 1944 (Certified Money Bill)—Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Minister for Finance (Mr. O Ceallaigh)

What struck me in the debate on the Finance Bill yesterday was that nobody seemed to object to the amount of the bill. Most of those who dealt with the subject under discussion—a number of speakers, I respectfully suggest, dealt with matters that had very little connection with the measure before the House—suggested that the amount of the Bill should be greater still. Most of the speakers seemed to think that we were not spending enough. There is some satisfaction for the Minister for Finance in that attitude but, from another point of view, his position is rendered somewhat more difficult by that attitude. The position of the taxpayer would be rendered more burdensome if the Minister for Finance were to give a ready ear to the many demands made here yesterday and to similar demands made elsewhere, that the Budget of this year should include considerable sums to be distributed for the benefit of different classes of the community.

I suggested in my Budget statement, and I referred to the matter again yesterday in my short statement in this House, that I regarded the sum asked for, £50,000,000, as a very large sum, as a heavy burden on the taxpayers of this State. Somebody referred yesterday to the fact that we have not a great number of wealthy people in this country. The vast bulk of our taxpayers are people in relatively modest circumstances, financially. There are hardly any millionaire taxpayers in the country and, therefore, when we have to consider increasing the rate of income-tax, or any other tax, we have to try to fit the burden to the backs of those who have to bear it. I repeat that the £50,000,000 that we ask, for what you might refer to as four-fifths of this country is, relatively speaking, a very considerable sum and a heavy burden.

I mentioned in the Dáil, when speaking on this subject—and I am sure it is within the recollection of some of the older members here—that 45 or 50 years ago tremendous howls of protest used to go up from Press and public here when the British imposed burdens of £8,000,000, £9,000,000 or £10,000,000 on the 32 Counties. It is true, of course, that the value of money has changed considerably since then. There is a very big difference between £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 for 32 Counties and £50,000,000 for Twenty-Six Counties, but that is what the Twenty-Six County taxpayers have to pay to-day. Of course, social conditions have changed. Thanks be to God they have changed considerably from what they were 45 or 50 years ago. The people, and the poorer classes in particular, live better; they are better fed, better housed and better clothed than they used to be. That is as it should be, and we hope that the improvements that we have seen in the social well-being of the workers, and the poorer classes generally, will continue.

This State is spending a considerable sum for that purpose. We did spend considerable sums before the war, but these sums have been augmented since. The last Government did their share, and this Government increased expenditure under that head considerably. We brought in a greater number of people, different classes of people. There was some criticism here yesterday with respect to some of the payments made by the Government to the poorer classes out of the taxpayers' money. As a matter of fact, there was criticism of the payments made to other classes besides the poorer classes. This Government are not alone keeping step with social developments in the world at large in regard to improving the lot of the workers and the less well-off sections of the community, but in some respects we are doing more and doing better for these classes than is done in most countries of Europe. I see no reason to apologise for that. I see no reason at all in the remarks of Senators who condemn, at any rate inferentially, the Government for what they call the policy of doles.

There are very few in this community who are happy enough to be in the absolutely free and independent position in which Senator Michael Tierney, perhaps, finds himself, or thinks he finds himself. There are very few individuals in this community, small as it is, who find themselves so completely independent, so well circumstanced, that they can live without accepting anything from the Government in any shape or form. There are very few individuals in the State to-day who find themselves so completely free and independent, so well able to stand on their own limbs, that they, in no shape or form, need accept assistance out of the public purse—very few indeed.

Therefore, people should be very careful about jibing at those who do freely accept and are glad to get assistance in one form or another for themselves or their families from the State because, as I say, there are very few classes of citizens and very few individual citizens who are not reaping some benefit in some way—even those who are well off. Not one of those who are educating their children, even in the university, is paying what is the full cost of the education of their children. Not one. They are not paying 50 per cent of it in many cases. Therefore, when persons are jeering or jibing at the State for giving out too much money I would say that people in glasshouses should not throw stones.

The cost of living was referred to frequently yesterday. Senator Hayes referred to it at length and others followed his example. It is true that the cost of living has gone up very considerably. Nobody could attempt to deny that. There is no way of avoiding it that I know of. Situated as we are, we cannot cut ourselves off from the world and live alone. We have to live and carry on our existence largely by means of goods imported and we cannot control in any sense the cost of these goods that we have to import in order to live. The increased cost of living is largely due to that fact. Senator Baxter seems to think that the agriculturist is not getting enough for his products.

Mr. Baxter

I never raised that at all.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I gathered from him that the agriculturist should be better paid for what he produces.

Mr. Baxter

I did not raise that.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Senator Baxter is satisfied, then, that the agriculturist is getting enough?

Mr. Baxter

I did not discuss that.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I took it that the burden of Senator Baxter's speech yesterday was—I hope I am not misinterpreting him—that the agriculturist should get more for his products.

Mr. Baxter

I do not want to interrupt the Minister, but the burden of my speech was that our production is falling. That is the whole thing.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I take it that, if it is, it means that the farmer is not being offered enough to produce more.

Mr. Baxter

That is not the only factor.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Then must I not draw from that that the farmer is getting enough?

Mr. Baxter

Prices are not the only factor.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The farmer is getting enough, then, for once in his life. That is, if I am not illogical. I would like to see the farmer getting more, but the farmer is getting a considerable sum for his produce, more than farmers similarly situated elsewhere are getting. Consider what it costs us to produce the wheat we require in order to live. It costs us a very considerable amount above what wheat could be produced for in other countries if we could get it imported. That is another of the reasons for the high cost of living. Very largely, we have to live out of the products of our own land, and in order to get the bread of life produced we have to pay a considerable sum to the farmer. We have to make it profitable for him to produce bread, butter, milk, eggs, beef, and so on, for us.

I would like to see the farmer getting more. I do not hesitate at all to say that. I do not think any farmer in Ireland to-day is getting rich or putting by very considerable sums out of the profits that he makes out of his land. That is a wide statement, but I do not think he is. I do say that the farmers are moderately well-off and better-off than I have known them in my lifetime. That is my experience, and any evidence I have goes to show that they are putting by a little; they are paying off their debts; they are paying off the arrears of land annuities; they are paying off their debts to the banks and they are not asking for credit from the banks or from the Agricultural Credit Corporation. That is the position as I see it as Minister for Finance.

I would again have no hesitation in saying that if there are suggestions put forward as to ways in which we can improve the position of the farmer of this country, I am all for it and am willing to help. If there is a demand for increased credit for farmers, I am prepared to consider it. I have not had any evidence since I became Minister for Finance that there is a general demand from the agriculturists of this country for greater credit facilities. When that demand is put before me I will certainly consider it and go as far as I can to help to meet it.

Senator Hayes referred to what I think is one of the grave misfortunes of this country, and that is the low marriage rate and the late marriage rate. That bad social condition, particularly amongst the agricultural community, not so much the labourers as the farmers, of not marrying at all or marrying late, has grown up here, I suppose, in the last more than half century. I have not a very wide knowledge of rural conditions but, whatever knowledge I have of rural conditions, in my recollection, that bad social state has grown up and worsened in that last half century or perhaps three-quarters of a century. How we are going to change it I do not know. It does not necessarily arise out of want of prosperity in agriculture. It is not altogether that. I know numbers of cases of very well-off farmers who have remained unmarried, where there are two or three brothers in one house or two, three and four brothers and sisters in one house, well-off, comfortable people, well able to marry. We all know, in a general way, that there are difficulties about the ownership of the farm, difficulties about dividing up the property. How we can get over that difficulty I do not know but I earnestly wish we could find some remedy for it.

The Taoiseach has been suggesting for a number of years, when this problem and other related problems were discussed at meetings of the Government, the idea of a dower house on the farm to which the old people could retire. I think Dublin Opinion had one or two suggestions on that subject, and the attention of the Taoiseach was called to criticisms of his suggestion. I do not know whether or not that would work out satisfactorily. But, undoubtedly, it is a serious problem in our national and social life for which we ought to try to find a remedy. It is a difficult problem. I do not know whether it was in the mind of Senator Hayes to suggest that this Government was responsible. But, if you take the whole of his speech and the litany of complaints he had against the Government and put that in the middle of it, I think you might take it that he meant to have a slap at the Government for being responsible for that as well as all the other ills which he said they brought on the country. I humbly suggest that this Government are not responsible for that unfortunate social blemish.

Mr. Hayes

They were going to remedy it by bringing back all the emigrants and providing work for them and getting everybody married. More and more money was to be provided. I do not want to start it all over again.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I am sure the Senator would be delighted to start it all over again. I have drawn him out now. It was intended that the Government should bear that on its back as well as all the other complaints. I think, however, that the farming community, as well as others, have given the Senator and his friends their answer to that charge which was brought against the Government, as well as the litany of other charges which was spread so widely in recent months. I hope that this Government or some Government will find some remedy for that grave social evil, if necessary by improving—though I do not think it would be a complete remedy—the position of agriculture. If that would remedy it and encourage more marriages and earlier marriages, with a consequent increase in the child population, I think the money would be well spent.

Senator Hayes and others referred to inflation and, arising out of that, Senator Hayes, in particular, referred to the harsh treatment of civil servants. Civil servants, admittedly, have been subjected to a greater cut in their wages and salaries than any other class in the community. That is regarded by them, and evidently by Senator Hayes, as harsh treatment for these officers of the State. Since I became Minister for Finance—of course; I heard it before that—I have been listening in the Dáil and, to some extent, but not to such a great extent, in the Seanad, to complaints about the cost of the Civil Service to the State.

When I appeared here in connection with any matter, some Senator, particularly of the Opposition, and sometimes from my own side as well, complained of the cost of the Civil Service. But they cannot have it both ways. They cannot complain one day of the cost of the Civil Service and the next day complain of the harsh treatment of civil servants. The civil servants have the advantage that they are secure in their positions. That applies to very few people in commerce or industry, the people who produce and give us the wherewithal to pay the salaries of the State officials. When the week, or the month, as the case may be, is ended, the civil servant knows that his cheque will be forthcoming and he and his wife and family can budget accordingly, even though in some cases I frankly admit that the payment is small, that it is not all it should be. In some small sections there are workers in the pay of the Government whose pay is, relatively speaking, low. I should like to see it improved. There have been improvements made in recent years in many of these lower-paid sections of the community, so far as State employees are concerned. But they do know that their job is there and will continue to be there and that their cheque will arrive at the due date. In addition to that, they are paid during sickness; they are paid for holidays and, when they retire, they have a pension; sometimes a small pension, but nevertheless, they have a pension to look forward to.

There is that much to be put on the other side of the balance sheet so far as civil servants are concerned. I do admit that they have had to suffer; I do not deny that at all. I do admit that we are saving, in round figures, £1,500,000 nett a year by the stabilisation of the Civil Service cost-of-living figure. We have had to save in many ways and we had to show an example to the country, because inflation does exist.

Despite what some Senators said yesterday, we have tried, and I think with some success, to stand-off inflation. We have not been completely successful. Inflation does exist to a certain extent. One way to stop it was to try to hold as fast as we could the increase in the circulation of money. Every time we increased our own workers' wages or salaries, every time we permitted an increase of workers' wages or salaries or directors' fees or in the distribution of the profits of companies, whatever we did in allowing this extra money that is floating about to go into circulation, it all tended to inflation to a certain extent when there was not increased production to balance it.

Situated as we are, with all the economic and financial close-association and connection with neighbouring countries, with the free flow of workers and moneys between the two countries, the stopping completely of inflation is, I think, an impossible task. The more we allow wages and salaries to increase, the greater the danger is all the time of inflation, the greater risk there is of further rises in the cost of living and the greater the risk is of encouraging those citizens who have the temerity to indulge in black-marketing operations.

The State, as you know, has been doing its very best to prevent the rise in the cost of living, to keep down costs, and to prevent black-marketing operations, but they have continued, and I think that despite all the State may do, and all that its intelligent and energetic officers can suggest to it in the way of improving its methods of dealing with profiteering and black-marketing, elements of the community are there all the time who are out to profit out of the situation that exists. Some considerable numbers have been caught and have been punished—some very severely punished—but the prizes to be won in the black market are evidently so handsome that some will be found all the time to take the risk and chance of not being found out. In other countries in Europe, as I am sure Senators know as well as I do, profiteers and people indulging in black-marketing operations have been imprisoned, and some have actually been shot, but still that has not stopped the profiteer and it has not stopped black-marketing operations.

Control of wages was one of the methods that we adopted; control of civil servants' wages, the stabilisation of their wages, and control of wages outside. That has not been entirely successful. We had to amend the decision that we made in the early days not to allow wages to rise above certain figures. We had to give way to the pressure and clamour when the cost of living rose, and, naturally, people were bound to complain, when they found it difficult to keep their families in the measure of comfort they were used to, when the cost of living did rise. However, so far as we had to give way—and we certainly did it with our eyes open—we were, to some extent at any rate, helping to increase further the cost of living. I think that it was in that way that Deputy Norton in the Dáil the other day used the phrase: "Feeding the dog with its own tail". That is practically what it amounts to when we permit wage increases, or when we pay to State officials emergency bonuses, and all these other increases, when there are no increased production and no increased supplies available. They all simply help to raise again the cost of living, and if we could have a really close and final analysis of the matter, I think it would be found that they do not in the end improve the position of the workers. That is all I can say to Senator Foran in regard to his complaint as to the control of wages.

Senator Foran and other Senators referred to the position of the old age pensioners. Fortunately, or unfortunately—it depends on the way you look at it—we have in this country a very big number of old people in proportion to our population. We have more than 140,000 people over 70 years of age in this country and drawing old age pensions, and the fact that there is such a large number of old age pensioners makes this problem a very difficult one to deal with.

Mr. Baxter

And that number is going to be bigger—that is, the number of old people in proportion to the rest of the population.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Yes, it is going to be bigger, and the number has been growing larger in recent years. Now, I think that the old age pensioners would not thank the Minister for Finance for an increase of 1/- in their pensions. They would not say "Thank you," if it were offered as a present. If anything were to be offered to them, I suggest that it could not be less than half a crown, and that would add over £900,000 to the sum already being paid to them. The cost of an extra half-a-crown a week for 140,000 old age pensioners would add £900,000 to the bill, and we are paying more than £3,750,000 in the way of old age pensions at the moment. So, you see that even a slight improvement, where you have such a large number of people to deal with, amounts to a huge sum. If you reckon out the cost of even 1/- a week to 140,000 people for 52 weeks of the year, you will see what it means when the Minister has to calculate the cost and then to see how he will get that money. An additional 1/- on the income-tax would bring in, roughly, the net sum of over £1,500,000, or around about that figure, perhaps. A shilling on the income-tax would mean heavy additional unemployment.

For every additional sixpence you put on income-tax it means putting a considerable number of people out of employment, and if on one side you have to think of the old age pensioners and, on the other side, of those who pay income-tax—and practically everybody now pays income-tax—you have to balance one with the other and see where the benefit for the community at large comes in. I cannot see at present any hope of improving the amount at present paid to old age pensioners. Under present conditions it is not possible to face the size of the bill. We have increased the amounts being paid to them, or to most of them, by about 2/6 per week in the food voucher scheme. They do not all get that, but a very considerable number of them—those, probably, most in need—get that amount per week in food allowances. That is an emergency arrangement and probably will not continue after the war, but that is the difficulty with regard to the consideration of anything in the nature of improving the amounts paid to old age pensioners. Suggestions have been made that we should increase old age pensions to 20/- a week. That, I think, is impossible. It is an impossible sum, under present conditions, at any rate, for any Minister to face.

Mr. Hayes

Might I ask the Minister whether any consideration has been given to raising the limit of income, which is only 16/-, which is now very low in comparison with the cost of living, so as to enable certain classes of people, such as skilled workers, to earn a little more?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is one of the first things I looked into when I became Minister for Finance. I also looked into the question of abolishing the means test. I also looked up other aspects of the matter that would tend to improve the position of old age pensioners. I am not without hope that something may be done, but a widespread improvement of the position of old age pensioners under present conditions is out of the question.

I do not know what exactly Senator Baxter means when he talks about a revolutionary change in agriculture being necessary. If there is one class in the community that detest revolutions in their industry it is agriculturists. They will not have it. I should like to see Senator Baxter going down to County Cavan and preaching revolution to the agriculturists of his own county. I should like to see what would happen. We required in the nation's interest a very big change in agriculture in recent years. Senators know what happened: the terrific struggle we had to get very large numbers of the farming community to turn over from one class of agriculture to another. We required in the nation's interest that the land of Ireland should be used to grow food for our own people. Where would we be if we had not started that almost revolutionary change years before the war came upon us?

Senators know the opposition there was—in fact, Senator Baxter should have a very particular memory of it— to measures that were essential in the national interest. I do not know what revolutionary changes Senator Baxter has in mind, but probably we shall hear from him at some future date the details of his revolutionary scheme. We have recent knowledge and experience, however, of the effort made in the nation's interest by the Government, advising the farming community to take urgent steps to produce the food that the country required, and we know that certain sections of the farming community did their damnedest to prevent that essential change coming into operation. If they had their way, it would be a case of God help us now.

Senator Baxter said that we permitted too many young men and women to emigrate. I am sorry that so many emigrated for whatever purpose they did so. Young men and young women in great numbers have left the country. Great numbers have gone into the British Army, Navy and Air Force. Would Senator Baxter or anybody else suggest that the Government ought to have closed the ports and permitted no emigration for any purpose? If we wished to do that, I think we would have had to change our political system. This country, thanks be to God, is still a free country, to a certain extent at any rate, and people can choose for themselves whether to go or to stay. In the national interest, we have had to impose certain restrictions. We have had to increase these restrictions in recent times, but so far as we could as a Government, still considering the national interest, we had to let people, young and old, choose for themselves. If we were not able to provide employment for them, at the rate of wages they were offered elsewhere, then they could choose to go —and we had to let them go, unfortunately.

There is much work remaining to be done in this country. I hope we shall have enough men and women, young and old, to help us save the harvest. That is the big problem that faces us this year. Turf production is also a big problem, and I hope that we shall have enough workers to produce the fuel, as well as the food, we require. I do not know whether the Senator suggests that, in the interests of our own food production, we should have kept these people at home; but I am sure he would not suggest that, as a democratic country with freedom of choice supposed to be allowed to our people, we should have closed the gates and allowed those people, young and old, such as they were, no choice but to remain here, to be unhappy, dissatisfied, and perhaps unable to keep their families in as comfortable circumstances as they have been, owing to the help they were able to send from abroad. It is a very difficult problem, I admit, and I again say that I was sorry to see so many leave. I would have a thousand times preferred to have seen them stay at home to work for the benefit of their own country.

I might, perhaps, go back to the point raised by Senator Hayes in regard to the Civil Service. He asked me why a limit of £500 was fixed as the ceiling above which no emergency bonus would be paid. I admit it is an arbitrary figure. The year before it was £400; this year it was made £500. I do not know what it will be next year. In order to reduce the cost to the State, we had to arrive at some figure, and £500 seemed to me a not unreasonable figure. When you fix any figure you are bound to have marginal cases, border-line cases, in which there will be hardships, but one has to get a figure somewhere. I freely admit it was an arbitrary figure.

Again, on the question of the Civil Service, the latest date for which I have figures in respect of the cost of the service is 1st January, 1943, and, including travelling and subsistence allowances and so on, the cost was £6,886,000. That is a very considerable sum, and I do not think anybody can blame the Minister for Finance for trying to keep it from going beyond that figure, although I know it has gone beyond it already, as the figure is more than a year and a half old.

Senator O'Donnell and others dealt with Sections 13 and 14, in which efforts are being made to amend the law so as to prevent evasion of the payment of excess corporation profits tax. The vast bulk of the companies in the State have not tried to evade the tax. They have paid their tax as assessed and have not tried to get out of it, but there is a number, a not inconsiderable number, of companies which have tried to evade, and have succeeded in evading, payment of this tax, and it is these companies we are now trying to get after. They have got away with a certain amount and they have the benefit of the money they have got away with. We cannot go back and get it from them. Neither the Seanad nor the Dáil likes retrospective legislation and only by such legislation could we get after them and get the money from them. Only by retrospective legislation could we be just to all the companies and treat them all alike.

In answer to the point made by Senator O'Donnell with regard to the date fixed, 31st December, 1943, we had to arrive at some date and that seemed a convenient date to fix. Most companies make up their accounts at the end of the calendar year. Many of them follow the financial year but most of them take the calendar year, and 31st December, 1943, seemed a reasonable date on that basis. If I adopted the suggestion made to me here and in the Dáil of apportionment, we would still be unjust to a great number of companies. Some of those which have evaded the tax started immediately the tax was put on in 1941; some more started in 1942; and others in 1943. There is only one way to be just to all the companies and that is to change the date from 31st December, 1943, to 1st January, 1941. That would be just as between company and company and there is no other way of treating them all alike. If I took the date 31st January, 1944, I would be unjust to many companies and I would merely be letting a number of companies get away with more. What they have got away with, they hold, and we cannot get it from them. That is the only unjust thing I see in the arrangement—it is unjust to the State. We should have got it all from them, but we are letting them keep it, but we will see so far as we can that they will not get away with more. I am sure that next year we shall have to bring in further amendments because the ingenuity of people will naturally enable them——

Mr. Sweetman

I could tell the Minister some ways of getting through it at present.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

——to find. ways of evading it. Industrialists and others——

Mr. M. Hayes

And lawyers.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The lawyers will help them. That is what they are paid for—to find out how to get through the various Acts which the Minister for Finance brings in. My job is to get after them and see that they do not get away with it. When a tax is high—and this tax is a high and heavy tax—they will try their damnedest to get out of paying it and my job is to get it from them. I am asking the House to give me these sections mainly because I want to stop evasion. I think they will stop it. Senator Sweetman says they will not, but I propose to try. If they do not, I will have to come back here again next year, but if cases are brought to my notice in which people are being hit as a result of this amendment whom we do not intend or want to hit, as I said in the Dáil, I will try to amend the law to meet them. I do not want to be unjust to any individual or section of the community.

Mr. O'Donnell

Would the Minister amplify his statement as to why it is necessary to go back to the date he mentions? Why does he argue that justice can only begin at a date and end at a date? I say that he is being unjust in rigorously standing on the date 31st December, 1943, and is catching in the net firms which never tried to evade payment and which are entirely in sympathy with his ideas.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

If we are doing injustice, I am quite prepared to consider those cases in which injustice is being done and to meet them, if I can, but, so far as I see, the only way in which to be just to all these companies which have evaded or tried to evade payment of the tax is to go back to the date on which excess corporation profits tax started to operate and get all the money which they have succeeded in keeping for themselves.

Mr. O'Donnell

Would the Minister agree, where he is satisfied a company has not tried to evade the tax and is caught by this amendment, to give favourable consideration to its case?

Mr. Hayes

Will we not have all these points on Committee Stage?

Cathaoirleach

These are really Committee points.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It would be very hard to decide the companies which have tried to evade payment of the tax. They have either got away with it or they have not, and it would be very hard for the Revenue Commissioners to decide, but if any Senator has knowledge of cases in which injustice can be demonstrated, I am quite prepared to examine them and to bring in an amendment next year—if necessary, making it retrospective, if the House will permit me— to cover them. These sections, however, I suggest to the House, are necessary, and I say that because I know that companies have got away with the goods. I quite accept that in this matter Senator O'Donnell, speaking in good faith, wishes only to advocate the cases of those who are honest citizens not trying to defraud the revenue in any way.

I need not deal any further with the point as to the farmer's prosperity and his income-tax. The matter of the farmer's income-tax as dealt with by Senator Counihan was very successfully replied to by Senator Sir John Keane, and I think I can leave Senator Counihan in the hands of Senator Sir John Keane. I was glad to hear Senator Kingsmill Moore dealing with these sections yesterday. He is an old, if I may use the word, and experienced lawyer, with, I am sure, a lot of experience in matters of this kind, and criticism from him or anybody with his knowledge and experience, I am happy to receive. Any comments, criticisms or suggestions which he or anybody like him makes will always be welcomed by me. Especially on the Second Reading of the Bill, if there were any suggestions that he could make about cases where he thought we were not wholly meeting what we desired to meet, or that we were overstepping the mark and being unjust according to his reading of the Bill, they would be very useful, because we would have an opportunity of mending our hand. As it happens, the points which the Senator did raise yesterday had not been overlooked by us. We had examined very carefully the law in relation to corporation profits tax and the other ancillary matters which he mentioned. The Act of 1920 to which he referred I need not say to him was not unknown to my advisers. They had studied it, particularly the sections to which he called attention. They had had experience of the working of those sections and of dealing with them in cases which had come before them. They found that the sections did not give them all the power which they required, and the new Section 15 which we have introduced into this Bill was necessary. That amendment of the law was necessary in order to give us the power that we require. However, as I say, I am very happy that Senator Kingsmill Moore raised the points, and I would take it as a favour that he, or anybody else in the Seanad with his knowledge and experience, should assist us in future with helpful criticisms of that kind.

I notice that Senator Sir John Keane came back to his old friend, the betting tax. I am not a lover of that any more than the Senator. I hate to see people in the betting shops. That is the truth. I am not against sport in any sense, and if a person wants to go to a race meeting and have "a bob" or two on a horse I have no objection, but as to the encouragement and temptation that are offered by the betting offices I would rather see them ended.

I would suggest to Senator Tierney that he need not protest so much about the "dole", as he called the children's allowances. The income-tax allowance to people with children was just as much of a dole. There is no difference in principle between them. The amount is different, but, in principle, the allowance from the State of £60 per child to income-tax payers is just as much a dole as is the 2/6 per week paid under the Children's Allowances Act. I do not see that any new principle at all is introduced so far as that is concerned. All sides of the House, in the Dáil and I think here so far as my knowledge goes, approved of the introduction of children's allowances, and praised the Government for having introduced the scheme. I think Senator Sweetman is wrong in denying to the Government the credit for children's allowances. I repeat what I said to Deputy Dillon in the Dáil, that the first I heard of children's allowances was from the members of the Government in the Cabinet. That was before ever it was mentioned in public. A Cabinet Committee was set up, years before the matter was mentioned in the Dáil, to consider the question of children's allowances. I mention that as a matter of truth. I give credit— if there is any credit in it—to Deputy Dillon, who, in season and out of season, kept clamouring for children's allowances. Whatever credit is due to him for that, if there is credit, he is welcome to it. I do not want to take anything from it, but, as a matter of truth, I merely mention that there was a Cabinet Committee set up to consider the matter years before it was ever referred to in the Dáil by anybody. I think the first person who mentioned it in the Dáil was the then Minister for Defence, Deputy Frank Aiken.

Mr. Sweetman

And did not the Minister for Industry and Commerce say it was a nonsensical idea and quite impossible?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I do not think that is true.

Mr. Sweetman

That is my recollection.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I do not think that is true, because he was one of the advocates, and was a member of the committee set up to draft a Children's Allowances Bill. He was one of the advocates; I was not. Perhaps for obvious reasons, I was not interested in children's allowances, and as Minister for Finance I fought against it for as long as I could.

Mrs. Concannon

I think it is right to say that a promise of children's allowances was implicit in the Constitution.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There is only one other matter with which I wish to deal, and it is a very serious matter, or might be so regarded by some at any rate. In certain circumstances I would regard it as a very serious charge. It was made last night by Senator Sweetman against the Minister for Finance— a charge of "ringing the changes.""Ringing the changes," I think Senator Sweetman will agree with me, means committing a fraud, and if I am to take the Senator seriously he suggested that I committed a fraud in the House.

Mr. Sweetman

I added "quite unintentionally".

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Here is what the Senator said:

"I am sure that, quite unintentionally, he did ring the changes in substituting one year that suited him instead of another."

Unintentionally even, the Minister was not guilty of ringing the changes. With all the charges that might have been and have been brought against me, I think anybody who has any knowledge of me—the Senator has not much—would not charge me with trying to mislead this House. I like to be as frank as possible, as frank as a man can be, and tell the things against the Government as well as those for them. I like to give credit where credit is due. If there is some charge properly made against the Government we try to meet it as best we can. I do not try to mislead the House, not intentionally certainly. The Senator did have the grace to say that, if I did it, I did it unintentionally, and I thank him for that, but I think he should not have made the charge that, even unintentionally, I would ring the changes. "Ringing the changes" to me has a very nasty connotation. My definition of it would be fraud.

Mr. Baxter

I do not think anybody took that meaning from what the Senator said.

Mr. Sweetman

Without the word "unintentionally" it might have that meaning, but with the word "unintentionally" nobody could so construe it.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Even though the Senator had the grace to put in the word "unintentionally", I think that charge should not be made against any Minister for Finance. I suggest, with all respect to the Senator—he has not been long in public life—that it should not have been made. I think it should not be said that the Minister for Finance, in explaining figures here, had even a remote intention or made even a remote attempt to mislead the House.

Mr. Sweetman

If the Minister thinks that I said that he deliberately intended to mislead the House, I wish to make it perfectly clear that I did not mean any such thing. If, by some elaboration of what I said, which at the moment I cannot understand, the Minister believes that, I wish to withdraw it.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I leave it at that completely, and I thank the Senator. But I dislike the phrase "ringing the changes." I think that the Senator can see that any Minister for Finance dealing with figures might reasonably object to that phrase.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister must be fair to me. The Minister was most positive on the last occasion—he offered to bet—that the figures were wrong. My argument last night was that if a Minister, coming here, is going to be most positive, he should be certain that his figures are right.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I am equally positive now that my figures were right. I am absolutely certain that they were right. I have the figures in front of me, and I defy anybody, even such an authority on finance as the Senator, to prove that the figures I gave were wrong.

Mr. Sweetman

I am no authority on figures, but I can read figures just as well as anybody else.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I do not know what the charge really amounts to. In March of last year I answered the cross-examination of Senator Baxter.

Mr. Baxter

It was a simple question and not a cross-examination. I was trying to get information.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There was a series of questions by Senator Baxter. I, or any other Minister standing here and answering questions on the spur of the moment, might make a slip.

Mr. Baxter

Quite.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

In such circumstances a Minister may quote a wrong figure or may make a mistake, but if a Minister discovered that he had done that he would, I am sure, take the earliest opportunity to correct it. I like, when I am asked for information, to give it as quickly as I can. It may be wrong for me to do that because I may make a mistake. I am sure that I have made many mistakes, but on this, last year, I did not make a mistake. I had the figures and I stand over them. What we were dealing with then was this: Senator Baxter asked something about moneys in connection with inflation—the amount of emigrants' remittances. I said:

"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."

That figure is taken from the Statistical Abstract.

Mr. Sweetman

And is accepted.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Well, anyway, the first figure is right on the expert's advice. Following what I said, Senator Baxter said: "It would be considerably more in 1943."

Perhaps it would be, but nobody knows that because we have not yet got the figures for 1943. It is reasonable to assume that the figure would be greater. I went on to say:

"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."

I think that is the figure that the Senator contests?

Mr. Sweetman

As being the figure to compare with the £6,800,000. That is the correct figure for 1943. The Minister was giving one figure for 1942 and another for 1943. That was my point.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I wanted to give the latest figures available. If the Senator or anybody else thinks that I wanted to ring the changes here, that is as remote as possible from me.

Mr. Sweetman

I have made that clear. If the Minister was giving the figure for 1942 in one case, he should have given the figure for 1943 in the other.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I am quite prepared to do that, but I wanted to give the latest figures, and, as far as my argument is concerned, I do not think it is going to alter the situation one bit, or alter Senators' minds in what they might draw from the figures. These figures are correct in themselves. Is that not so?

Mr. Sweetman

Certainly.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I gave the figure for 1941 in March last with regard to emigrants' remittances. If Senator Sweetman wants the figure for 1942, I will give it to him.

Mr. Sweetman

I have that.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

In that case, I cannot help the Seanad or the Senator any more.

Mr. Sweetman

If the Minister will look lower down the column he will see that he said:

"To a purchasing power of £229,000,000, £6,800,000 would not, of itself, make a big difference ..."

Surely, that implies that the two were taken from the same year. That was the point.

Mr. Baxter

I was trying to get that out.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I grant the Senator's point. I am comparing the figure for 1942 which is £6,800,000. That is the latest figure. Was it not natural that I should take the latest figure available to me? If I had the 1943 figure I would have given it, but I had not that figure. When I get that figure I will give it and compare it with the £229,000,000. I want to assure the Senator that, even in a remote way, he should not have the thought at the back of his mind that I would be wishful in any way to mislead him or any member of the Seanad with regard to this or any other figure. I do suggest that when a Minister is asked for figures, and when questions are fired at him without notice, if he gives the latest figures available to him he is acting in a reasonable way, and a charge of misrepresentation of any kind should not be made against him. If, at some later date, the Senator or any member of the House asks for the latest figures for different years, then I shall gladly and freely give them to the Seanad and to the Senator.

Mr. Sweetman

Thank you.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The Seanad can draw any conclusions they wish from that. I hope that the matter has been satisfactorily cleared up. I know that I am satisfied from what the Senator has said.

Mr. Baxter

Quite.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I do not think there is anything more I can say except that I was interested in the swan songs yesterday. I did not see much of a song about them, at least there was not much music in them as far as my ear, musical or otherwise, could detect. I do not know what the origin of swan songs is. It is lost in classical antiquity, but whatever the origin of the phrase may be, the swan songs yesterday were not very musical, though they had the advantage of harmony in one respect. They were an unmusical dirge directed against the Government. The exponents of the songs that we heard yesterday were, I think, rather doleful with regard to their political future, although I do not think they need be. I think that the singers of the swan songs yesterday, so far as I know them, are quite capable of successfully working their way back here.

Mr. Baxter

Some of them have survived many battles already.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Most of them, and if one's experience of their singing swan songs counts for anything, I think they will live to sing a song or two more. I hope when the time for singing the swan song comes it will be a little more musical at any rate to the ear of the present Minister for Finance, than what was attempted yesterday. That is all I have to say on this stage of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take Committee Stage now.