Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Friday, 12 Mar 1948

Vol. 34 No. 25

Central Fund Bill, 1948 ( Certified Money Bill ) Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

This is an annual feature of the financial system which allows statutory effect to be given to the form of account which grants a Supply under the Ways and Means resolutions which make provision for making good the Supply. This is the form which these measures always follow and Senators, no doubt, are very familiar with the form itself.

The Central Fund Bill is based, in the main, on the Book of Estimates, representing the Government's view of what the expenditure on the Public Services should be in a particular year. The Book of Estimates this year bears on its face the amazing total of £70,520,477 odd. When this book was issued, I caused to be circulated with it a note to say that I took no responsibility for it, in respect of the various amounts, the total amount set out in the volume itself or for the form in which it appeared. Possibly that note was not required, as the public must have known, but I wanted to make it clear beyond any doubt that the Government of which I am a member had no responsibility for making up these Estimates and that we had no time in which to make up our minds as to which items we would back and which we would discard amongst the multitudinous items in it.

Comment has been raised elsewhere that I might have changed parts of the Estimates. That is not a mere matter of the difficulties of the volume being in the press. The volume was in the press and in my first week in office I saw a preliminary "pull" of certain parts I had asked to have shown to me. It was not a question of printing, but of having time for a group of people collectively to make up their minds which of these services it was desired to maintain on the scale shown in the book and on which Estimates it was desirable to make an adjustment. There was not time for attention to that.

With regard to the present Government's attitude regarding the expenditure during the year of public money, that will be dealt with at the time of the Budget, which will be introduced about the beginning of May. Until then I cannot give any details as to the amount of money I shall require from the public. But I would like to ease the public mind by saying that it will be my endeavour to lessen this sum as much as possible. I hope throughout the next three or four years to have, as the years go on, many economies effected with a view to lightening the burden put upon the public through the cost of government and with a view to bringing down the cost of living for the people as a whole. Later there may have to be additional finance for development purposes. I put that in a class by itself. If we look for money for that purpose it could not be money which would remunerate out of the annual Budget. A great deal of such money would, if Dáil Eireann and this House approve of the particular expenditure for which it might have to be made, have to be obtained by means of some sort of loan. That, however, is a matter for subsequent consideration. I can offer to the Seanad no particular advice on that at the moment. In pursuing economies, economies will be pursued with a considerable amount of energy entailing a search over a very wide field. The only expenditure I would consider satisfactory is such as would be remunerative in itself or such as is socially desirable. Those are the two limits I give myself. On the second I would translate to myself the question of deciding within what limits we can cut and retrench as much as possible. We have had 16 years in which progress has been all the other way. I want five years in which to make progress in what I consider to be a healthier direction. That is the only indication I can give to the Seanad at the moment as to my views.

I welcome very cordially the Minister's statement. If I might touch upon a personal note, I would like to congratulate the Minister on occupying the position he does to-day. We are old protagonists in the field and I hope that he shall find me, perhaps, more sober in my outlook than when we met in former days. I have always had a very deep sense of appreciation and recollection of his courtesy on every occasion—his courtesy in debate and his willingness to meet all arguments fairly.

I do not intend to touch upon questions of detail. I wish to refer only to one specific matter and one general question. The question is one upon which I am sure the Minister can give no reply to-day, but I would like him to consider in particular the general attitude of Parliament towards Government-sponsored companies. We must all recognise that Government-sponsored companies, even at a most conservative estimate, will in future play a certain part in public life. Therefore it is very important that certain general principles should be laid down with regard to the public and Parliamentary control. When Senator, now Deputy Sweetman and I raised this matter on a motion some short time ago the then Minister said that there was not time in which to deal with the principles relating to this subject. His attitude was that the job had to be done and it was being done well. I leave that to the House now in the light of certain disclosures made by the Minister in another place yesterday. I question whether in all respects the job is being well done. I would ask the Minister to see whether it is not possible to establish certain principles governing Parliamentary control over these companies.

In the first instance, there is a form of report made by these companies. I have no doubt that they are under a statutory obligation to give annual report. But much will depend upon the form of the report. It may be so condensed and exiguous as to be wholly uninformative or it may be technically informative, placing both the good and the bad prominently before the public. I hope that the Minister will adopt the principle that these reports should be fully informative, revealing both the good and the bad.

I hope, too, that the Minister will examine the form of accountancy and the method of accountancy in relation to those undertakings. In the form of accounts a good deal of information can be given outside of the annual report itself. If the accounts are full and frank they are self-revealing to anybody accustomed to commercial matters. I take one specific point arising out of what the Minister said yesterday—the losses on these luxury hotels. In ordinary circumstances, I wonder would those losses have been revealed if either the Government or the Tourist Board did not wish to reveal them. I think the public has a right to demand that those losses should be revealed and it should not be possible for the form of accountancy to be so condensed as to prevent matters of that kind coming to light. In connection with accountancy, too, there is the question of cost accountancy as an instrument of control. I know that cost accountancy only applies in cases where the units of production are fairly straightforward and fairly simple, but there are certain cases, such as turf production or electricity generation, where cost control would be a useful instrument for giving information to those who wish for information. I need hardly tell the Minister that cost accountancy is a technical branch of accountancy. If cost accountancy is to be expressed in its most revealing form it must to a certain extent be undertaken by trained personnel who have made a speciality of the matter. While the accountant and auditor-general may be quite satisfactory for ordinary straightforward financial accountancy he is not, generally speaking, quite so satisfactory for the more intricate and technical form of accountancy required by these companies.

Then there is the question of Parliamentary responsibility. Parliament should have a definite opportunity, other than by motion, of discussing the report and accounts of Government-sponsored companies. It should be possible in the case of the larger ones to have a specific resolution in Parliament adopting the report and accounts in the same way as the shareholders do in ordinary commercial undertakings. Let us cast our minds back for a moment to the rather old-fashioned principles of Parliamentary control. My recollection goes back to the days when you were not even allowed to make any change in the headings of Estimates; you had to keep rigidly to the headings and everything had to be approved by Parliament. Millions have been voted in capital sums to these companies and very little is known as to how that money has been spent or the results it has produced. This is a virgin field in which the Minister, if he wished to do so, might make a reputation for himself and for his Government. He could lay down certain principles and he might see fit to appoint a small body to examine and report on what they consider the best methods to secure adequate control by Parliament over companies of the kind I have mentioned. It need not necessarily be a long inquiry. It should be possible for a few people to report adequately on the matter within a period of three months.

There is one specific matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister, namely, the duties on wireless sets. I know that the matter has been brought up before, but the position to-day is that there are the most swingeing duties on wireless sets which are imported into this country. The object of these duties is to help to create and to build up a home industry. We were told—I think by the Minister's predecessor, but certainly by one of the leading companies concerned—that the principle governing the production of wireless sets in this country is that a set of a similar kind and character shall be available as cheaply at home as outside the country. When you come to characterise you may say that it might be possible to make a semi-luxury set of £20 as cheaply as a similar set made elsewhere and imported, but, there again, it is very difficult for the public to assess the similarity of different sets. I would bring the actual facts to the attention of the Minister. The cheapest set one can get in this country is in the region of £18. I notice that a set is advertised in Great Britain for £9 9s. Od. I do not know its qualities, but I am told that, as a set, it is quite adequate. If that set is imported now it will have to bear not even a 50 per cent. duty, which would bring it to £13 10s. 0d., but a minimum of £7 10s. 0d., thus bringing this £9 9s. 0d. set somewhere up in the region of the cheapest set assembled in this country. A wireless set has gone beyond what may be termed a luxury article. The poor man, and especially the man living in a country district, should have his wireless set at as reasonable a price as possible. A duty of 50 per cent. preferential, 75 per cent. non-preferential, with a minimum of £7 10s. 0d., is far more than is necessary to protect an industry which, I am told, employs only somewhere in the region of 300 people. The matter requires to be examined. I do not expect the Minister to give me any reply to-day, but I would ask him to consider this matter. It is an abuse of the whole tariff system and it is to the detriment of the poorer sections of the community. I should like to make some further points, but I feel that it would not be fair to the Minister, before he has had time to consider the matter to ask him now to do any more than I have suggested.

Maidir leis an mBille, mar Bhille, níl móran is féidir a rá ina thaobh. Leanann an Bille nós a leithéidí de Bhillí sna blianta atá caite. Tá sé riachtanach go bhfaighidh an Rialtas údarás airgead d'fháil agus airgead a chaitheamh chun na Seirbhísí Poiblí atá ar bun a choimeád ar siúl. Ba mhaith linn rud éicint a chloisteáil i dtaobh polasaí an Rialtais nua. Níl cúis chasaoide againn ar an taobh seo den tSeanad faoin mBille, nó má tá údar easaontais ann, ní éiríonn sé as an mBille, ach mar gheall ar chuid de na habairtí atá ráite le goirid ag cuid de na hAirí sa Rialtas nua, agus mar gheall ar chuid de na rudaí atá déanta acu. Sé an chéad rud atá riachtanach, go gcuirfeadh sé iniúl don phobal céard é polasaí an Rialtais nua. Níl aon mhaith a bheith ag caint; níl sa tir anois ach an dá pháirtí. Mura ndearna an toghchán aon rud eile, ghlan sé an t-aer sa mhéid sin. Ar an dtaobh amháin tá páirtí Fianna Fáil, agus ar an dtaobh eile tá páirtí nach bhfuil na daoine cinnte cén t-ainm is ceart a bhaisteadh orthu. Tá na páirtithe beaga ar lár ar chuma ar bith; tá an dream eile ar lorg ainm, agus dá luaithe a gheobhaidh siad é, is amhlaidh is feárr é. Sé an príomh rud atá ag teastáil ná go bhfhaigheadh muid léargas cinnte cruinn ar céard é polasaí an Rialtais nua. Níl aon aondacht eatorru i dtaobh a gcuspóirí, nó má tá, níor nochtaíodh dúinn cé na cuspóirí iad. Tá sé fógartha ag an Aire é fhéin agus ag an brainse den Rialtas a mbaineann sé leis, go bhfuil rún cinnte acu laghdú a dhéanamh sna cánacha. Tá muidne ar aon intinn leis sin, má tá sé indéanta, agus más é leas na tíre é.

Dúradh i rith an toghcháin—chuala mé fear ceannais an pháirtí á fhógairt go cruinn go laghdófaí na cánacha deich milliún punt inaghaidh na bliana. D'fhógair cuid eile go bhfhéadfadh siad cánacha na tíre do laghdu níos mó ná train, nó tríocha faoin gcéad. Is ionann tríocha faoin gcéad agus £18,000,000 go £20,000,000. Is cinnte, má tá sé sin indéanta, go mbeidh muid an-bhuíoch agus an-tsásta, ach ar an dtaobh eile den scéal, tá sé fógartha ag cuid eile den Rialtas go dteastaíonn breis seirbhísí poiblí sóisialacha nua uathu. Ag déanamh scrúdú ar an méid atá ráite acu agus an méid atá beartaithe acu, is léir nach bhfuil an méid atá siad ag iarraidhe indéanta ar nios lú ná idir £50,000,000 go dtí £60,000,000. Sin ceist atá le réiteach—cén chaoi is féidir cánacha na tíre a laghdú ó £10,000,000 go dtí £20,000,000 i n-aghaidh na bliana, agus, san am gceanna, seirbhísí sóisialacha nua a chur ar fáil ar chostas nach mbeadh níos lú ná £50,000,000 nó £60,000,000 sa bhliain sa bhreis.

Ní chreidim féin go bhfuil aois na miorúilt thart agus tá mé i n-amhras, dá chliste atá an tAire, gur b'shin míorúilt nach bhfeicfidh muid uaidh. Déarfaidh sé, b'fhéidir, go bhfuil an chuid sin dá pholasaí, cánacha a laghdú agus seirbhísí sóisialacha a sholáthar, fágtha ar leathtaoibh,—nó, mar adeirtear, "left in abeyance."

Pé ar bith caoi é, tá sé le tuiscint gur éirigh cuid de na daoine atá sa Rialtas nua as cuid den pholasaí a bhí ceaptha acu. Ba cheart go n-innseofaí dúinn go cruinn cé d'éirigh as an polasaí agus céard iad na pointí a d'éirigh siad as, munar éirigh siad as an bpolasaí go h-iomlán. Meabhraíonn sé sin dom go mba cheart dom a rá ó mo thaobh fhéin agus ó thaobh na Seanadóirí ar an dtaobh seo go bhfuil muid ag súil go n-eireoidh go maith leis an iasacht nua atá á éileamh. Nuair a bhí an t-Aire ag fógairt go raibh sé ag brath ar an iasacht sin a chur ar an margadh, mhol sé a fheabhas atá bail ar chúrsaí airgeadais agus ar chúrsaí creidmheasa na tíre seo. Is maith liom go raibh sé de chneastacht, d'fhearúlacht agus de mhisneach aige an méid sin a rá. Ag an am gcéanna, níl fhios agam ar thuig sé nach bheadfadh sé moladh ní b'fheárr a thabhairt don Rialtas a bhí ann roimhe. Is aisteach agus is ríaisteach an rud é gur fhógair an t-Aire céanna a fheabhas atá an rath ar chúrsaí géilleagair, ar chúrsaí creidmheasa agus ar chúrsaí airgeadais na tíre, tar éis chomh minic is a bhí sé fein ag fógairt, sa Dáil agus taobh amuigh dhé, go raibh an tír briste, nó mura raibh sé briste, go raibh sé ar bhealach a briste. Tá an iasacht á héileamh agus tá fhios ag na daoine a fheabhas í an bhail atá ar an tir agus ní dóigh liom gur gá aon imní a bheith ar an Aire. Gheobhaidh sé an t-airgead agus iarraim ar na daoine muinín a bheith acu as agus an t-airgead a chur ar fáil dó.

Ba mhaith liom tagairt a dhéanamh do rud amháin. Baineann sé go speisialta leis an meid adúirt an tAire i dtaobh costas maireachtála d'isliú sa tír. Tá sé fógartha, le linn an toghcháin go háirithe—agus ní ag daoine gan údarás, ach ag daoine atá anois ina nAiri—go bhfhéadfaí an costas maireachtála sa tír a laghdú 30 faoin gcéad. Tá súil agam gur féidir é sin a dhéanamh, ach ba mhaith liom go gcuirfeadh an tAire i n-iúl dúinn a luaithe is féidir is cé'n chaoi is féidir leis é sin a thabhairt chun críche. Níl aon mhath ag an Aire an leithscéal a dhéanamh go raibh na Meastacháin ullamh agus á gclóbhualadh aige nuair a tháinig sé isteach mar Aire. Sin leithscéal atá fíor, fíor-bhacach.

Lig an tAire féin lena ais, thar aon Aire eile, ar feadh na mblianta, go mba údar é ar chúrsaí airgeadais. Chuir sé i gcéill, de réir a chuid cainte sa Dáil agus taobh amuigh de, go raibh eolas ar leith aige ar chúrsaí airgeadais agus go raibh staidéar speisialta á dhéanamh aige are chúrsaí géilleagair, gur thuig sé na cúiseanna ba chiontach leis an ardú sa gcostas maireachtála agus gur thuig sé cen chaoi a bhfhéadfaí an costas sin a laghdú. Bhí na Meastacháin ar fáil aige gach bliain. Bhí an Dáil ann le ceist a chur ar an Aire Tionscail agus Tráchtála agus ar an Aire Airgeadais i dtaobh a bpolasaí.

Tá dúil aige, más fíor dó féin, agus creidim é, san abhar atá i gceist. Níor tháinig sé isteach ar an obair agus é dall ar phrionsapail na Roinne nó ar phrionsabail an pholasaí ba mhaith leis a léiriú agus a chur i ngníomh, agus é ina Aire. Ag an am chéanna, má iarrann sé spás idir seo agus mí na Bealtaine le go ndéanfadh sé mionscrúdú ar mhion-nithe a bhaineas le cúrsaí Meastachán agus cúrsaí airgeadais, tá mise agus tá an mhuintir ar an taobh seo lán-tsásta é sin a thabhairt dó. Ní theastaíonn uaim ach go ndéanfar an rud is fearr ar mhaithe leis an tír. Má tá seisean ábalta, nó aon duine dá chomh-Airí, an costas maireachtála a laghdú 30 faoin gcéad, beidh muid ar fad búioch beannachtach. Cinnte tá luachanna áirithe ag tuitim. Beidh cruithneacht, de bharr obair an tsean-Rialtais, níos saoire ná mar a bhí go dtí seo. Beidh muid ag fáil guail níos saoire ná mar bhí se le fáil go dtí seo. Níl aon aimhreas nach é run an Aire tionnscal na móna do lagú an oiread is atá sé ar a chumas. Breathnaíonn sé ar an tionscal seo mar tionscal "exotic"——

Bheadh sé sin an-amaideach ar fad.

An-amaideach.

Ní dhéarfhadh an t-Aire é sin.

Deirtear nach gá bacaint le tionscal na móna de bhrí go mbeidh muid ábalta gual a thabhairt isteach níos saoire. Is cinnte go bhfuil rudaí áirithe ag tuitim cheana féin agus ní beag an tionchur a bheas aige sin ar ísliú an chostais mhaireachtála. Cinnte beidh muid ag súil le hisliú sa gcostas maireachtála agus beidh muid ag súil go gcomhlíonfaidh an t-Aire agus a chomh-Airí an geallúint a thug siad le linn an toghcháin go laghdófaí an costas maireachtála 30 faoin gcéad. Is féidir cinnte na cánacha a laghdú. Níl aon aimhreas ná go bhféadfadh duine ar bith breathnú ar na Meastacháin agus a rá cén chaoi a bhféadfaí na cánacha a laghdú. Thug an t-Aire léargas dhúinn cheana féin ar cén chaoi a laghdódh sé na cáinte sin. D'ionsaigh an t-Aire Talmhaíochta scéim na dtithe gloine i gConamara. Is maith liom gur chuala sé cén chaoi ar bhreathnaigh muintir na hEireann ar an tuairim agus ar an rún a bhí aige i dtaobh na scéime seo agus is maith liom go raibh sé de chiall aige áird a thabhairt, i dtaobh na scéime sin, ar bhreith na ndaoine agus gur shluig sé na focla a chuala sé.

Tionnscal "exotic" adeir sé. Sabhálfaidh sé £60,000 ar mhuintir na Gaeltachta, ar mhuintir Chonamara. Cinnte, d'fhéadhfadh sé é sin a dhéanamh, ach is aisteach an rud é nuair a thóg an t-Aire agus an Rialtas ina gceann, go laghdófaí na cánacha, gurb iad an dream is boichte, an dream is mó a dteastaíonn cabhair ón Stát nó on bpobal coitianta uathu, gurb iad sin na daoine a phioc sé amach le hionsaí agus an méid a bhí ag dul dóibh a bhaint díobh.

Maidir le scéal na móna, iarraim ar an Aire athscrúdú a dhéanamh ar an rúd atá beartaithe aige, agus go gcuimhneodh sé ar a thábhachtaí atá an tionscal seo do mhuintir Chonamara agus do na céadta muirín atá ag braith ar an ioncam ón tionscal sin, go gcuimhneodh sé ar an iarracht atá déanta le muintir Chonamara a choinnéail sa mbaile, le go bhfhuighidís saorthú cneasta ann, go bhfhuighidís deis oibre agus deis mhaireachtála ar chaighdéan réasúnta agus go bhfheadfadh siad fánacht sa mbaile.

"Exotic industries!" An inseoidh aon duine sa Seanad seo céard é an "criterion" a bheidh aige nó an socrú chun a fháil amach an tionnscal "exotic" nó "indigenous" é. Tá mé anois ag tabhairt fuagra do mhuintir na tíre, do lucht oibre na tíre go speisialta, a bheith san áirdeall, agus do lucht na gceard-chumann a bheith ag faire ar imeachtaí an Rialtais nua. Ni fhéadfaí aon cheann de na tionscail a bunaíodh anseo a bhunú gan cabhair ón gComhulucht Cairde Tionnscal. Fuair siad an cúnamh le seans d'fháil préamhú agus neartú, rud nach bhfhéadfadh siad a dhéanamh gan an chabhair réasúnta sin.

Más fíor an méid atá ráite ag an Aire agus ag a chomh-Airí, ag Sir Seán Ó Catháin agus a leithéidí i dtaobh na dtionnscal atá bunaithe sa tír, ní mór do lucht oibre na tíre a bheith san áirdeall nach ligfear ar ceal iad, nó má ligtear, nach leigfidh siad iad ar ceal. Ní mór dóibh seasamh leis an dream a chuir ar a gcumas saorthú maith a fháil sa mbaile. Tá tuairim againn faoi aigne an Aire i dtaobh saorthú a chur ar fáil do na daoine. D'fhuagair sé i bhfad o shoin nach é cuspóir an Rialtais saorthú a chur ar fáil do dhaoine. Tá mé ar aon intinn leis nach é an Rialtas is ceart a chuirfeadh deis saorthuithe ar fáil, más feidir a mhalairt a dhéanamh. Ní hionann an saola atá ann anois agus an saol a bhí ann deich mbliana ó soin, agus ní hionann é agus an saol a bhí ann roimh 1914. Ní hionann an aigne atá muintir na linne seo agus a bhí ag na daoine san am a caitheadh. Tá tuairimí eile againn ar chúrsaí sóisialacha agus geilleagair. Má chítear ó phrionsapail na saor-thrádala nach féidir leis a chuspóirí a chur ar fáil, annsin is ceart go dtiocfhadh an Stát isteach agus go gcuideodh sé le tionnscail a bhunú don phobal agus deis saorthuithe a chur ar fáil.

Ba mhaith liom níos mó a rá. Ba mhaith liom dul trí leabhar na Meastachán ach ní dóigh liom gurb é seo an t-am ceart é sin a dhéanamh. D'iarr an tAire spás le go bhfhéadfadh sé na ceisteanna seo a phlé. Tá mé an-tsásta é sin a thabhairt dó. Tá súil agam nuair a thiocfas mí na Bealtaine nó roimhe sin, más feidir, go n-inseoidh sé dúinn céard tá sé ag dul a dhéanamh i dtaobh oideachais saor don phobal agus méan-oideachais saor don phobal fré chéile. Tá sé ráite ag cuid de na hAiri go bhfuil sé de rún acu é sin a dhéanamh, más féidir é. Más féidir é sin a dhéanamh, beidh muid ar fad lán-tsásta. Tá súil agam go n-inseodih sé dhuinn céard tá i na aigne aige i dtaobh stát-únaeracht a dhéanamh ar na bancanna trádála. Tá sé fuagraithe ag cuid dá chairde gur b'shin cuid dá bpolasaí, tá sé fuagraithe céard a déanfar i dtaobh Banc Ceannais na hEireann agus Banc Shasana agus céard a déangar maidir leis an gceangal idir an punt Eireannach agus an punt Sasanach. Tá a fhios ag an Aire go bhfhuil chúig bhealach ar fáil do mhuintir na h-Eireann i dtaobh a gcuid airgid. Tig leo ligint don phunt Éireannach a leibhéal féin a fháil—pé ar bith ciall atá leis sin; tig leo an punt Eireannach a cheangal leis an bpunt Sasanach mar atá déanta cheana; tig leo é a cheangal le hairgead éigin eile—pé ar bith ciall atá leis sin, agus an bhail atá ar chúrsaí trádála na tíre; tig leo an punt Éireannach a dhí-mheas i gco i gcomórtas leis an bpunt Sasanach; agus tig leo formheas a dhéanamh ar an bpunt Eireannach leis an bpunt Sasanach. Sin cúig bhealach as ag muintir na hEireann. Nuair a bheas am ag an Aire, tá súil agam go ndeanfaidh sé scrúdú mion géar ar gach ceann acu sin, agus go socródh sé a aigne ar chéard ba cheart dúinn a dhéanamh agus céard é an rún a bheas aige maidir le gach ceann acu. Tá a lán nithe eile ann, gur biad na nithe prionsapálta iad, shílfeá, ag a chomhAirí tamall gearr ó shoin. Ba mhaith liom míniú a chloisteáil ar charárd tá siad ag dul a dhéanamh futhu. Má tá éirithe ag na daoine sin as a gcuid prionsabal, ba mhaith liom míniú a chloisteáil ar cheard iad na prionsabail ar éirigh siad astu, agus cén fáth ar éirigh siad astu.

Labhair Sir Seán Ó Catháin anseo— agus is aisteach an rud é go bhfhuil Bane na h-Eireann taobh thiar dhuinn faoi láthair—agus ba mhaith liom tagairt a dhéanamh do rud amháin a dúirt sé. Tá sé ag teacht isteach anseo comh fada agus is cuimhin liom ag cainnt ar chuntaisiocht, agus mionscrúdú á dheanamh ar imeachta na gcomhlucht poiblí atá ar bun faoi chúram an Stáit. Ní dóigh liom go bhfhuil mórán brí sa méid atá á rá ag an Seanadóir. Tá mion-tuairisg foillsithe le blianta atá chomh mion sin nach bhféadfaidís a bheith níos cruinne mara mbeirfeadh siad ar an scrogall ar Sir Seán Ó Catháin agus go dtiubhrfadh siad isteach i n-a n-oifig é chun prionsabail na cuntaisíochta a mhúineadh dhó. Tá sé sin déanta ag na comhluchta sin. Sé an rud, is dóigh liom, atá ag déanamh buartha don Seanadóir Sir Seán Ó Catháin agus do chuid de na Seanadóirí ar an taobh eile, ná na daoine atá mar stiúrthóirí ar na comhluchta sin. Ba cheart go mbeadh sé de mhisneach agus d'fhearúlacht acu a rá gur b'shin é an lucht atá acu orthu. Cinnte, bheadh cuid aca fabharach don Rialtas; ba mhaith liom a chreidiúint go mbeidís ar fad fabharach do; níor mhaith liom aon duine a chur i bhfeighil aon obair tábhachtach ach duine go mbeiadh cinnte gur chreid sé san obair a bhí idir lámha aige, agus go mbeiadh muinín agam go dtiubhrfadh sé iomlán a sheirbhíse don chomhlucht sin. B'aisteach an rud é sagart a chur i bhfeighil paráiste nach raibh an creideamh aige. Is dócha gur mhaith leo daoine a chur i bhfeighil nach mbeadh muinín acu go ndéanfadh siad an obair.

Ní h-aon comhmórtas le sagart é sin.

Thairis sin, ní dóigh liom go bhfuil aon rud eile agam le rá. Léar-mheas ginearálta ar prionsabail áirithe a bhí me ág iarraidh a dhéanamh. Níor cheart dúinn—agus níor mhaith leis an Aire é—dul isteach go mion i bpointí beaga; beidh deis eile againn le cúnamh Dé. D'iarrfainn ar an Aire bheith cinnte idir seo agus mí na Bealtaine socrú a dhéanamh i dtaobh polasaí agus gan a bheith ag léimrigh ó thuairim go tuairim mar atá deanta aige go dtí seo.

Maidir le scéal na móna, iarraim cuimhneamh ar na daoine atá i gceist agus ar chuspóirí an tionscail i gConamara agus cuimhneamh maidir leis an nGaeltacht nach aon chabhair é tionscal amháin a bhriseadh agus ceann eile a chur ina áit. Ní dhéanfaidh sé sin cúis do chonamara. Séard a fheastaíoseann ó na daoine go mbeadh deis saothruithe acu o cheann ceann na bliana, go mbeidh an oiread tionscal éagsúla ar bun sa tuath agus is féidir. Ní ceart duinn bheith ag smaoineamh ar thionscal éanlaithe clóis a chur isteach in áit tionscal na móna.

Ní ceart dúinn bheith ag smaoineamh ar thionscal na dtigthe gloine do chur in áit tionscail éanlaith clóis. Bí cinnte dhe, má cuirtear ar fáil an oiread tionscal éagsúla agus is féidir, go mbeidh deis saothruithe réasunta ag na daoine ó cheann ceann na bliana. Má bhreathraíonn an tAire ar an scéal sa mbealach sin, sílim go dtiocfaidh sé ar a mhalairt de thuairim i dtaobh an tionscail sin go h-áirithe.

It is always considered fitting on a Finance Bill to deal with a large number of subjects, but I propose raising only one question to-day, principally because I do not think that very much can be achieved by way of discussion now. I have a strong suspicion that when the Minister comes back in May with his Finance Bill he will find that it will get a good deal of criticism, and I hope helpful criticism from all sides of the House. The main burden of Senator O Buachalla's song was how we are going to reconcile differences of opinion. We should all like to know that. I have often wondered how the previous Government, many of whose supporters are personal friends of mine, reconciled their differences of opinion. The principal change I can see at the present time is that such differences are going to be reconciled to a very large extent by way of public discussion and not in private. The feeling I have is that when people elect a Parliament, it is the business of that Parliament to do its utmost to carry on the affairs of State and to enact legislation, which it feels is, in the main, in accord with what people want. How are you going to reconcile differences? You are going to reconcile them in the only way in which they should be reconciled— through free discussion and, then, through the application of common sense with a reasonable amount of compromise. No Government, whether a one-Party Government or an inter-Party Government, can really govern efficiently except on that basis. Everyone knows perfectly well that the efficient carrying on of the State's business involves a certain element of compromise. For my part, I am not a bit afraid of it provided there is free discussion. I would personally hope—and I would be very much surprised if the Minister does not agree with me—that policies will develop within the next few years influenced to a very much greater extent than they have been for a very long time by free discussion in both Houses.

Senator Ó Buachalla is under the impression that the Minister for Agriculture has gone back on something that he said. Now I read that statement in one of the morning newspapers and I was under the impression that he had not gone back. I am not so sure that it is correct to say that he did but, even suppose that he did, I can see nothing infra dig. in the Minister's, after consultation, further consideration and in respect to public opinion, changing his policy. The idea which we have had too long that a man should be ashamed to say: “After consideration I have changed my policy,” as though it were something he should be ashamed of is, I think, bad. I think that honesty will make every one of us admit that we have to change our minds sometimes. Why should we not? If a man has been in public life over a number of years, and his only boast is that he has never changed his mind, it means that he has made no progress. It means that he has not been amenable to public opinion and that he has not gained anything by experience. I know I have changed my mind on many occasions and I have never had to regret it. I do not, of course, suggest that a man should compromise on fundamental principles and nobody expects that men should stay in office by agreeing to do something which is contrary to their principles, but that is a matter which only rarely occurs.

I was glad Senator Sir John Keane raised the question of public companies. I adverted in this House on several occasions—and the late Minister for Industry and Commerce said the idea was worth consideration but that consideration never led to anything—to the fact that I felt that public companies lack something which takes place at the annual meeting of any ordinary company. If the accounts are satisfactory, and if there is general confidence in them, very few people attend the annual meeting but where there is dissatisfaction the shareholders attend and ask questions at the meeting and it is possible to elicit information which would not otherwise be obtained. If public companies are operated in a manner in which there is no particular Minister responsible for them, it is not possible, at any rate in accordance with our present plan, to ask for that detailed information in the Oireachtas. The suggestion I make is that there should be a number of Parliamentary committees set up, composed of men and women of experience from both Houses, to whom the directors of the public companies would present their reports. It might be that the companies would be divided into certain classes and that the same company would act for one or two companies. That would not prevent public discussion, it would probably encourage it and it would provide some method by which the directors of these companies would be amenable to a body of persons and it would give a certain amount of public control which is not there at the present moment.

I do not at all agree with Senator Ó Buachalla when he thinks that a person on a public board must be in agreement with the Government of the day. Unless I misunderstood him, he said that. It seems to me that a man placed on a board of a public company should be there for one reason, and one reason only, and that is that he would act as an efficient director, doing work which he believes is of value. That should not have anything to do with his political affiliations.

I do not think that Senator Douglas is quite fair to me but I shall let him go.

I think the Senator did not say that.

What did he say?

If I attribute anything to Senator Ó Buachalla which is wrong. I withdraw and apologise but the views to which I have referred have been expressed by other people. I am only stating my own opinion and I do not want to speak on the matter at any great length. I think this question of public companies is of importance.

There is just one other matter. Senator Ó Buachalla is concerned with the future of our industries. So am I. I think the position of many of our industries is going to be difficult. One fact of great importance is that very few of our industries are able to export. Some of them only engage in an export trade. Britain is the only country to which there is a reasonable chance of exporting their products and I understand that import licences for the last month are not obtainable. This is a serious problem and I would not support an inter-Party Government if I thought they would not take a sympathetic and commonsense view of the position of our industries. I hope their attitude will be determined by a desire to leave them the maximum amount of freedom. So far as I am concerned, I think that our industries need not fear public discussion and a knowledge of their problems. To acquire that knowledge of their problems, does not mean that we should have to discuss in detail the private affairs of these companies but I think it would be better if the public knew of the problems facing industries and companies in general. I think only then will these industries get that sympathetic consideration to which they are entitled.

I do not think, strange as it may seem, that tariffs are going to solve the problem at the moment. Conditions have so changed for many of our industries that it would not help them to have a tariff. A tariff is not very much good if you have not got adequate materials to supply your customers at home. A tariff in that case would only mean that you are increasing prices for consumers without improving the prospects of the industry. I would urge on the new Government that they should go in for considerably more consideration of these matters than has been given, certainly in the last few years, by the old Government and that when tariffs or other protective measures are applied, they should see that there is a proper examination at an early date—not before the tariff is applied because I think that would be impracticable—but as soon as possible after, and that all the firms and industries concerned should be brought together in confidence and a proper examination made so that any mistakes will not be continued for any length of time. I recognise that such an examination should take place beforehand if possible. In some cases it should, but in other cases, particularly where it is a question of a tariff or some restriction on imports, the prior publicity afforded by such an examination would defeat the purpose of the tariff. There is a way out of all these things. I would certainly hope that we would get general co-operation in regard to industry all round. I do hope that the question of the position of industry in the next few years, which must be difficult owing to world conditions, will not be a matter of Party politics, a matter of trying to gain points for various Parties, because we want votes.

There are many other matters to which I should like to refer but I shall conclude with these few remarks to indicate my general attitude. I hope it will be recognised by the Government, and that the idea will be fostered by the Government in every way they can, that we have got into a position in which there is much freer discussion, with contributions from all sections and the feeling that when you make your contribution here, there is a chance that it will be considered without regard to how it will affect Government policy. We have had too much of the habit of making speeches from a purely critical angle—I have made some myself—feeling that what we said would not make the slightest difference anyhow. That will not make for good government. I hope that this kind of gibe that the Minister has changed his mind after criticism will disappear from public life and that public opinion will have a very large effect in the formation of Government policy.

I am not surprised that the Minister felt called upon to apologise to the House in putting before it a demand for the huge sum provided for in this Bill. The difficulties which confront the Minister cover a very wide field. It is only when the representatives of the different provinces give their views that commonsense can prevail. If one is critical or mentions some hardship suffered in the past, that does not mean that he wants to throw dirt on those implicated. It rather means that we should look for alleviation of any grievances that may have arisen. I should like to speak in the plainest English. Galway has not done too badly at all. I am glad to see a director of its beet factory here. I understand that that factory is 20,000 acres of beet short of its requirements. There is not a public representative from the east coast who did not warn the Government at the time that that would happen and that the people in that area were willing to do the needful, but they would not listen to us. Hence it is that a Government formed of every class and of different Parties— not formed behind a ditch but in the open—is something that everyone appreciates.

Four or five counties around my district are willing and anxious to provide all the beet which they possibly can. They are limited, of course, by the cost of transportation to the nearest factory, which is distant from them. Before the Minister continues the tariffs which are in operation, I would ask him to examine the products of those factories which are being sold to the farmers. Why should factories here not be just as capable of producing as good an article as there is in the world? Why should not they make as good a plough as anyone else? Is there not a market even for an Irish-made tractor?

During the last ten or 15 years an inferiority complex has been sought to be placed on every agriculturist and farmer. We are only secondary. Time and again we have tried to import, with cash that was not borrowed from any Government but by privately—owned means, tractors for the benefit of the community and we were told in the Department of Agriculture that the Department of Finance and the Department of Industry and Commerce must have preference for the import sometimes of nylon stockings or oranges or cosmetics to be stuck in the windows of non-nationals. I hope the Minister will see that that policy is not pursued in the future, as it was in the past.

There was an example in this House last night of independent thought. If ever we are to be independent, it will be by careful thought of men who are anxious to thrive and prosper. There was an example of that independent thought last night in the speech of Senator O'Callaghan in welcoming the statement of the Minister for Agriculture, who might be called an opponent of his. In 95 per cent. of cases men who put money into agriculture are only looking for an honest day's pay. There are not in agriculture any of the new rich or of the upstarts who have flourished for the last 15 years. These men left the agriculturists to go begging. They surrounded themselves by all kinds of luxuries.

Why are we to-day short of eggs and butter which are produced by the mothers and daughters of Ireland? The Minister will have an anxious time trying to deal with all these problems. The effects of the civil war and the economic war will have to be removed and the agricultural community put back to where they were in 1918, when the spirit of the people was strong enough to beat conscription. A friend of mine in the Statistic Department told me not long ago that the majority of the applicants for permits to leave the country were girls from the Gaeltacht. They were all native speakers but they knew the two languages. Their applications for a permit were signed in the English language. When they were asked why they did that they said: "Because we think we will do better by supporting the English language; there is no living for us here."

We can all grow wheat but it would be well for the Minister to recognise the different position that exists here from that which exists 60 or 70 miles away. A fortnight ago I was in Kells and a gentleman asked me what was this Government going to do to help in the production of wheat, were they not going to do something else? He said he had bought two tons of slag at £12 15s. Od. per ton. His brother had phoned him that slag costs only £4 7s. 6d. per ton in Newry. That is what we are in competition with. One thing this Government should do is to remove the inferiority complex produced by the economic war. There is room for the employment of thousands and thousands of people more in the agricultural industry. It is only nationals who go in for agriculture. The rest of the crowd will run businesses in Dublin and live in beautiful homes along the Dublin coast, or in Merrion Square.

The Minister has a very difficult task before him in trying to make economies. To my mind one field of economy that should be explored without delay is education. There is, for instance, the Institute for Advanced Studies. Does the Minister intend to allow that to wangle its way along without any necessity for it and to be reserved for those who can get into it? The previous Government would not pay the teachers in the rural schools properly so that they could live in a manner which would make them content. Universities are all very well in their way, but they are luxuries. I wonder who looks after the universities and who sees to the hours that are kept or the services that are rendered there or the ability of those appointed to positions? There is sometimes incompetence in other fields of administration, just as they gave judgeships to people who, in my opinion, had not the capacity to fill the position.

Mr. Hawkins

I do not think that remark should be allowed to pass, that the judges of this country are men who are not capable of filling the position.

It is not a comment that should be made. The judiciary should not be attacked.

I did not say any such thing. I said there were some judges, just as there are some people in the universities. I am warning the Minister to look up these things. If they are right, nobody will be better pleased than I am, but if they are wrong, they should go by the board. I make no charge whatever. The Dublin judges are a credit to the State.

Surely the Senator is not entitled to attack some judges. Is not that as bad as attacking all the judges? They are not here to defend themselves?

I did not attack any judge.

You said some of the judges.

What he attacked was the method of appointment.

No, he made it much more definite. The suggestion was that some of the judges are not fit to be judges. I think that is a horrible suggestion to make in this House.

Is it the Senator's contention that it is objectionable to say that judges are appointed on political grounds? Has not that been well known for over 100 years in this country?

Senator McGee might now be permitted to continue his speech.

I think that statement ought to be withdrawn.

I want to warn the Minister—it is the first time that he has been here—that all is not as lovely in the garden as it might be. There were judges appointed in the past and I do not believe that they rendered good service to the State.

Mr. Hawkins

I protest and ask that the Senator be compelled to withdraw that statement.

Surely the Senator is entitled to express an opinion.

I want to warn the Minister that he will find criticism awaiting him from this side of the House as well as from other sides if he does not walk a wary path.

Apart from anything else, it is bad taste to attack a man who is not in a position to defend himself.

I think I am as good a judge of taste as anybody else. I am not attacking any man. I am protecting my people and will continue to do so to the best of my ability.

The Senator should obey the ruling of the Chair.

Is there the suggestion that the Senator should be muzzled?

That would be a slightly difficult thing to do. I was not muzzled in the days of Nazidom and will not be now. With regard to tourism, I quite admit that the State cannot afford to run shows that are non-productive and non-profitable. Nevertheless, there are remote places in the country which, if they are to be developed, will need sympathetic consideration. I am altogether opposed to the State entering into competition with private citizens and placing hardships whatever on them. I would say that there has been some improvement in hotels generally. That is something that should be encouraged. There are many beauty spots, too, that might be developed, if that can be done at a reasonable cost. The Minister will find difficulties in his path there. We have transport difficulties. As I have said, I would not be in favour of the State entering into competition with citizens who are seeking to make a livelihood out of the hotel business. There are beauty spots that perhaps might be developed if the cost was not too high. I think it would be a mistake to rush and abolish what has been done in connection with tourism without due inquiry.

I think that a ceiling should be fixed so far as rates on land are concerned. The position is being reached when those of us who are members of public boards may have to come to the Minister and ask for help to meet the deficiencies arising in the case of local administration. The fact that the State calls for the spending of so much money is creating an almost impossible situation. The position will become so bad that the farmer will not have the means to employ labour. That will cause discontent and certainly will not bring happiness or prosperity to the State.

Could we have some indication as to whether there will be an adjournment for lunch?

I understand the arrangement is that the House will adjourn from one to two.

I understand an arrangement was come to outside the House that we would sit on in the expectation that the business ordered would be concluded at about 2.30. I do not think there was any formal decision come to, but I understand that arrangement was considered from both sides of the House.

I understood the arrangement was that the House would adjourn from one to two, and I have not been made aware of any change in that arrangement.

Mr. Hawkins

It is rather difficult to speak on this Bill, first of all because of the Minister's refusal to accept full responsibility for, as he says, the huge demands that are being made on the people. Many requests have been made not only in this but in the other House for retrenchment and for the cutting of this and that service. When the new Taoiseach was elected, we were promised that we would have a full statement on Government policy in a fortnight's time. It is four weeks ago now since we were told that. We are still waiting for that statement on Government policy. In the absence of it, it is rather difficult to speak on this Bill.

Senator McGee started off by making an attack on Irish industrialists. With many people that seems to be a popular thing to-day. I think it is not fair or justifiable. Many of those industrialists put their money into the building up of industries which not only gave good employment to our people but provided us with many of the necessaries of life during the emergency, with commodities and goods which could not have been procured from outside the country at that time. It may be true, of course, that all those industries were not as perfect as one would like them to be. At the same time, it is not fair, I think, that a responsible Senator should use the privileges of this House to attack people who have rendered good service to the nation.

We all know that many years before we secured our freedom, some of our people attempted to set up Irish industries. From patriotic motives they put all their savings into industry because, being believers in the gospel of Sinn Féin first put before the people by Arthur Griffith, they wanted to see Ireland provided with an industrial arm. People who claim to be republicans, to be following in the footsteps of Arthur Griffith and to be prepared to put into practice the policy for which he worked throughout his life, are now looked upon by some as people to be despised. I think we should show our appreciation of those who invested their money in Irish industry instead of in foreign countries. They should get every encouragement. They are providing employment for our people at home. They are rendering a great service to the nation.

Senator McGee made another charge. I think it was an unfounded one. He said that in the past, and particularly during the emergency, privileges were given for the importation of such luxury articles as nylon stockings as against agricultural machinery.

May I interrupt the Senator for a moment? The arrangement that was come to, as I understood it, was that the House was to adjourn from 1 to 2 o'clock. I have since been informed that there is some proposal to prolong the present sitting until 2.30. Is that so?

The suggestion was made from the Front Bench opposite that there was a chance of concluding the business by 2.30, and that people could get their lunch even though the House remained in session. The only person who should be considered is the Minister, but I understand he is prepared to sit on if there is a reasonable chance of concluding by that hour. I am not able to predict myself if that is likely. I do not know if Senator Hawkins thinks so. Senator Ó Buachalla thought that we should sit on until 2.30 and have no adjournment.

Mr. Hawkins

If there is a reasonable chance of finishing at that hour.

I think there is a reasonable chance myself.

Would it not be well to ascertain how many Senators there are who may desire to speak? It is all very well for Senator Ó Buachalla to be in favour of sitting on. He has spoken already. For those who desire to speak, the proposal may not seem to be so reasonable.

It has to be remembered that a number of Senators have left the House under the impression that there would be an adjournment between 1 and 2 o'clock. It would be unfair to them, I think, if the House was to continue to sit on, with the intention of concluding at 2.30 p.m.

Business suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Hawkins

If Senator McGee is anxious to know what the establishment of industries did for this country, he should consult some members of his Party in the Inter-Party Government. If he consults members of the Labour Party and if they consult their records as to the increase in trade union organisation, membership and the numbers of people who got employment in our industries, it will convince him that, instead of disparaging the good work those people have done, they are agreed that a great national service has been rendered by the people who were prepared to put their money into industry here rather than into foreign investments.

Senator McGee also referred to some unknown discernment in the various Departments and some underhand work against the agricultural industries. He stated that such luxuries—if one might call them luxuries—as nylon stockings would be allowed space in our shipping and foreign currency to purchase them, in preference to agricultural machinery. Senator McGee is an importer himself of agricultural machinery.

He is not.

Mr. Hawkins

There is no man in this House who ought to know as much about the circumstances surrounding the importation of such commodities. The Ministers who have assumed office, each and every one of them, as we have seen in the public Press, have paid tribute to their predecessors for the very energetic steps that have been taken by them at all times to get into this country as much machinery and other commodities as are available in the world markets.

Senator McGee also accused the outgoing Government of being responsible for the very serious reduction in our poultry and egg production. There is no man who assumes to know as much in this House as Senator McGee does about the agricultural position as it was during the emergency. There is no man who knows as well—or should, if he were not blinded by political prejudice—that this reduction was brought about by the lack of foodstuffs, by the impossibility of importing foodstuffs, rather than by any Government policy. Senator McGee also criticised the late Government's interest and activities in promoting and developing our tourist industry. The Senator has prided himself here as being a member of his county council. Every local authority in Ireland has for many years past, before the Fianna Fáil Government set up the Tourist Board, made annual contributions so that the necessary publicity might be undertaken to develop this tourist industry. If those people since the tourist organisation was first established thought it was in the interest of the Irish nation that this particular branch of our industries should be established, why should he come here now and criticise what has been done in that direction? We know that last year the tourist industry meant some £17,000,000 to us. If that £17,000,000 was not got in that way through tourists, it would have to be got in by exports of other kinds.

I do not wish to follow up too seriously all the statements made by Senator McGee, but I do question one remark he made. In passing, I would like to say that we on this side of the House and I am sure the majority of members on the other side of the House wish to dissociate ourselves in every way from that statement. The statement was—as there may be some Senators present now who were not present then, I mention it—that there were members appointed to the Irish Bar as judges who were not capable of cleaning out a hen house. We have members appointed from this House and from the other House, very capable and honourable men, and I think it was a remark that should not come from such a responsible person as Senator McGee.

The Senator also remarked that Galway did well and in referring to Galway he addressed his remarks to the Tuam Beet Factory. Galway has done well in the past in many directions. Galway has contributed its share in the fight for Irish freedom. It has contributed its share in what Senator McGee and other members of his Party are always very anxious to refer to here, in the winning of the economic war. It has contributed its share in returning the greatest number of Fianna Fáil representatives in the country. It is only natural, I suppose, that because of these achievements, it should be specially singled out, not alone by Senator McGee but by some of the Ministers themselves, for very special consideration—not consideration of a kind that the people of Galway or of the Gaeltacht would expect. The axe must first fall on such counties. The axe has already fallen. It has been wielded by the Minister for Agriculture. He has, as has been pointed out, raised it somewhat under pressure. It has fallen in another direction.

When the emergency started and our fuel supplies were cut, a very serious position faced the Government. Possibly this may be our last occasion to meet here and I would like to refer briefly to what has been accomplished and to pay a special tribute to those people who supplied fuel to us during the emergency years. I wish particularly to pay a tribute to the late Mr. Hugo Flinn for the very capable manner in which he organised what was at that time one of our greatest essentials—that is, fuel. Mr. Hugo Flinn went forward with no organisation. For many years the Opposition were criticising the efforts made to develop our peat industry. We were told we were throwing money into the bog-hole and that never would peat become a satisfactory fuel. But the wisdom of the Fianna Fáil policy was very soon understood. When outside fuel supplies were cut off we had to ask a man with the organising ability of Mr. Hugo Flinn to take up what was a tremendous job. He set up the organisation and our fuel supply was assured. I would also like to pay a tribute to our county surveyors. They did a marvellous organisation job, a job with which they were not familiar. They provided the people with fuel.

Now the axe is falling. It is a crime now to cut turf with the slean. No longer must those men who gave the people of Dublin and of other cities their fuel supplies engage in those activities. They must be thrown on the unemployment heap. But there is a concession. A concession has been granted which the people who now form the Government had always opposed. It is a concession which a certain Deputy who accompanied a deputation to the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Industry and Commerce—I am not too sure which— about this time last year, condemned. That concession is that the people of the Gaeltacht may now receive unemployment assistance if sufficient provision is not already made for them. We are prepared to raise the valuation from £2 to £4.

At a parish council meeting in Clifden, at which the Deputy who led the deputation was present, these people in receipt of unemployment assistance were described as shirkers. Unemployment assistance was described as degrading. Now, when we are prepared to deprive the people of the Gaeltacht of what was to them their most important means of existence, we are making provision so that they may go on the dole. One must be grateful, I suppose, even for such small concessions in those times.

We heard the Minister make the statement that no longer will there be any attempt to develop industries in the Gaeltacht. For many years we have heard the cry that the population of the Gaeltacht is declining. There is only one way to keep the people there. We have not enough land, if we were to divide every estate into 25-acre holdings, to give those people what we might claim to be just sufficient for their existence. If we are to face the position in the Gaeltacht, there is only one way to do it and that is to establish industries there. Fianna Fáil set out to do that. It may be called an experiment, but it was something that deserved more sympathetic consideration from the new Government.

I would like the Minister to tell us the Government's policy in relation to these areas. Are the factories recently established there to promote Gaeltacht industries to be closed down? Will there be an honest effort made to develop the industries established there within recent years? Will there be an effort to extend these factories in what must be regarded as the most important part of the nation, the Irish-speaking districts? We have heard much resentment of and contempt for the Irish language from members of the House.

Resentment and contempt?

Mr. Hawkins

Senator McGee referred to it to-day.

He is not many members —he is only one.

Mr. Hawkins

One is in a very difficult position at the moment to know how many or how few members are here, there or anywhere. However, that does not enter into the question. I expect the Minister will give us an assurance that there will be no further interference with and no further anxiety created in relation to these industries; that there will be an all-out effort made to expand our Gaeltacht industries.

I urge the Minister to use his influence to have introduced as early as possible a new Gaeltacht Housing Bill. Before the election there was introduced a comprehensive Local Government Housing Bill, but that is not sufficient to deal with the Gaeltacht areas. Grants in all districts outside the Gaeltacht have been increased. I suggest that side by side with that Housing Bill there should be a similar Bill introduced providing increased grants for the Gaeltacht areas.

We have heard many statements made about economy and where there should be retrenchments. It is difficult to speak here without knowing what Government policy is. Where is the economy to start? If the Government are sincere about starting on a proper economy they should have set a good example. Instead of appointing additional Ministers—which, I suppose, under the peculiar circumstances of the make-up, could not be avoided, because when an agreement is come to that something must be done for something, there must be something given—they should, if possible, have decreased the number. At least one of these Ministerial posts was necessary because of the introduction of the Public Health Bill, but I would say that the second was most unnecessary and that appointment was not appreciated by the people.

Speaking last night, the Minister for Industry and Commerce referred to our social services and it seems to me that this is one of the places in which he is anxious to carry out economy and retrenchment. There were claims put forward by various Parties in the election that not alone were they to implement what they referred to as the Dignan plan, but there was competition as to who could improve on it and who could give the best social service. The Minister last night—I hope I am correct in saying it—said he would like to have this whole question examined, that he was not in agreement with this expenditure on social services; that he has a different policy altogether and a different idea as to how it should be brought about. Possibly he has the idea that it should be unnecessary to have any social services.

Surely, the Minister for Industry and Commerce did not address himself to that subject at all.

Mr. Hawkins

Since we started the debate here to-day——

It was the Minister for Finance.

Of course, and that is another story. I asked a question.

I said nothing about social services.

Mr. Hawkins

I have found myself in a great difficulty here in the last two days in trying to discover what exact position Senator Duffy presumes to occupy.

Simply a curious inquirer?

Mr. Hawkins

He seems to adopt the position of what one might describe as the "devil's advocate." Any Senator who speaks, Senator Duffy immediately rises either to speak on behalf of the Minister or to interpret what has been said.

Yes, in order to keep the records straight—that is all I am interested in.

Mr. Hawkins

There are many records and I hope that when the records of recent events come to be written they will be straight.

That is a task for the historian, not for us.

Mr. Hawkins

We had a statement from the Minister and we had it in the words of the Taoiseach, as it is accepted in all Parliamentary institutions, that responsibility was a collective one and policy must be Government policy. Having read the many statements made in the last few days by the various Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries one must be at least a little bit chary of accepting them. One Minister, according to the Press report to-day, has said that there is going to be no reduction along a certain line while another Minister has said that there must be a big reduction along the same line, without having any idea of the particular items about which he was speaking. That, however, is beside the point.

We were told that we had certain recent reductions made. The Government, of course, honoured one of their promises that the taxes imposed under the recent Supplementary Budget would be removed and, accordingly, we had the tax on beer and cigarettes removed. Side by side with that reduction we have deprived 20,000 of our workers of the way or means of procuring those commodities because of recent governmental decisions. Is that going to continue? There is grave uneasiness in the country at the present time and I would strongly urge upon the Minister and the Government that they should immediately give the people an outline of their policy in order to allay the present unrest and discontent. There is unrest in the Army. Possibly that has been allayed to some extent by the statement made by the Minister for Defence here yesterday. But it is difficult to reconcile his statement with the statements made by the Minister for Finance last night in the Dáil.

It is rumoured—I hope that the rumour is unfounded—that it is proposed to abolish the Gaeltacht scholarships which were introduced last year. These are all matters in which the people are vitally interested. We should have some clear, unequivocal statement now as to where retrenchment and economies are going to be made. It may not be possible for the Minister at this stage to give us all the information but he should at least inform us on the most important points as soon as possible.

The Minister stated at the outset that this was a huge bill. It is a huge bill. Why is it huge? It is huge because of the amount that has to be spent on social services. If the policy of the Government is going to be one of reducing those social services, are the members of the various Parties that make up the Government agreeable to these reductions? There is no use in saying that the Estimates provide for such-and-such an amount while, at the same time, refusing to accept responsibility for the Estimates. We suffer under the handicap of not knowing exactly whether this Book of Estimates is going to be the Estimates for the coming year or not. I would appeal to the Minister to study the many diversified statements that have been made by him and his colleagues during the past few weeks and I would ask him to give some assurance to the people that there is not going to be economy at the expense of efficiency; that there is not going to be economy at the expense of the workers in particular. I think the Labour Party have thrust upon them the greatest onus of responsibility in that direction and the most serious obligation.

Last night, speaking on the Defence Bill, I made reference to the possibility of war coming in the not too distant future. We were told by the Minister last night that it is not a good thing to talk like that. We were told it is not a good thing to remind our people of the dangers that lie ahead. We were told that we should rather bury our heads in the sand and wait and see and, when it does come, do the best we can then.

The Minister did not say that.

Mr. Hawkins

That is what his statement amounts to.

Only with people of your level of intelligence.

Mr. Hawkins

Surely, we should appreciate the dangers at our door. We have had experience of recent events. Whether we remain neutral or not in the next war we shall have to rely on our own resources. We shall have to rely on our own fuel resources to provide firing for our people in our cities and our towns. Now, with one stroke of the pen, we cast away from us all the work that has been done up to the present. Some Senators may say that our own fuel resources do not provide the best material. That is true. It is true because—and this is something Senator Baxter must appreciate because he is, after all, a practical man—our bogs were not developed. We are at a certain stage of development now, and last year we produced a good quality turf. Now, when we are on the eve of really important development, the whole scheme is cast into the melting-pot. We are going to put our reliance for the future on imported fuel. That is a foolish, unwise and ungrateful action on the part of the Government.

That action is not being taken by the Government.

Mr. Hawkins

I am relieved to hear that. I think the country as a whole should get that assurance. We have a duty to the people. We have set up a big organisation and many of the people engaged in that organisation, particularly the engineers, have served this nation well during the emergency. I think they are worthy of consideration not alone for themselves but for the future of the country as a whole. This national work went on with increasing momentum during the emergency.

I think we should have some clear statement as to Government policy as early as possible. We on this side of the House are prepared to co-operate in every way and to accept all the responsibilities of Opposition. Where the national interest demands it, we are prepared to co-operate with any Government in power. In return for that co-operation we want a full, frank and honest statement of policy from the Government. If criticism is necessary we shall criticise. If help is needed we shall give that help. A clear definition of policy will serve the Government and the nation as a whole.

I think it is a grave pity that at a time when democracy has its back to the wall any member of a responsible Assembly, such as Senator James T. McGee, a Senator of this House, should use this occasion of a debate on the Central Fund to attack one of the most important activities that make up our national existence. I describe his attack on industry as both vicious and unwarranted. I will go further and say that it was a most ungrateful attack. Fortunately, I do not accept, and I think the community will not accept, Senator James T. McGee as a responsible mouthpiece for the farmers of this country. If he were we would have reason to feel deeply perturbed because of the nature of his remarks. I can speak for organised industry in this country and I say that our industrialists have no quarrel with our farmers. Why should they? Most of our industrialists are either the sons of farmers or are married to farmers' daughters. They are part and parcel of the agricultural community of the State.

At a time like this, when we have so many urgent and pressing problems to deal with, Senator McGee goes out of his way to make the charge which I have already described. I wish I had enough adjectives at my command to describe it as I would like to describe it. He forgets that were it not for the development of Irish industries he and every other person in this State would not have had a shoe to his foot nor a shirt to his back during the war years. It is easy to forget that now when our shops are flooded with the dumped produce of our neighbouring industrial country. He referred to tractors and to ploughs. If, during the past seven years, Senator McGee had to wait for them to come in from countries to which, evidently, he has a greater loyalty than he has to his own country his land would have been untilled and barren for want of implements to deal with it. I fear that I cannot speak too strongly on this matter. It is not the first time that men, purporting to speak for farmers, have gone out of their way to attack the industrial activity which is part and parcel of our national fabric. Why? In the name of God why? The men in this country who are engaged in industry are as good Irishmen as any other section of the community. They invested their money at a very speculative time. If it is true that some of them made money, is it a crime to do so? Is the successful farmer a cock-shot to be shot at because he succeeds at his farming activities? I want to kill one of the things Senator McGee said to-day and I hope that his urging on the present inter-Party Government will fall on deaf ears. He reintroduced that old pernicious slogan, "As good and as cheap". All right. Before the war we could have in our city bookstalls missals, imported from abroad, to sell at fourpence each. What do our trade union friends say of the conditions in the countries from which those missals came? A complete missal could be sent to this country from abroad with carriage, freight, insurance, and distributors' profits paid, ultimately to reach the buyer at fourpence.

I have handled in the council chamber of the Federation of Irish Manufacturers complete sets of silk pyjamas imported from abroad at 5/- a set. Our own native manufacturers could not buy the material for that sum. I hate to speak like this but when Senator McGee takes advantage of this Assembly, with all the publicity that attends our Seanad meetings, to make statements which have no foundation in fact, and which are in my opinion malicious, someone has to give the facts and to point out to the community the real state of affairs. Were it not for Senator McGee's speech I would have preferred on this occasion to devote my remarks to the pressing problems that a discussion on the Central Fund Bill brings to our minds.

I join with Senator Hawkins in saying that in so far as our new Government is going to introduce measures for the good of the community it deserves the support of all thinking men. The Government is confronted with immense problems. Had there been no change of Government those problems would have been there. We have to-day an administrative machine which is costing the community roughly £76,000,000. If you take our population for the Twenty-Six Counties as being roughly 3,000,000 taxation works out at over 10/- per head per week for every man, woman and child-pauper, adolescent, or anything else you like. That is a burden which ought to make us shudder and ask ourselves how it can be reduced.

Recently some of the Supplementary Budget taxes were removed. When these Supplementary Budget taxes were being debated in this House I asked the then Minister for Finance whether he could promise that when the need for these new taxes no longer existed we could hope that all the supplementary taxes would be removed. Of course, he gave me a typically political reply. However, as far as any politician in his position could go, it was an assurance that when the conditions which necessitated the new taxes no longer existed the taxes would go too. What in fact has happened? We have had a partial removal of the Supplementary Budget taxes. One of the taxes that remains is a crushing, and I am going to describe it as an unwarranted, burden on the community as a whole. I refer to the horse-power taxes on motor vehicles. On the Supplementary Budget the tax on motor vehicles was increased. Since the new Government has seen fit to remove some of what I might call the taxes with a more popular appeal, they should go the whole hog and scrap the Supplementary Budget taxes altogether. To me, at any rate, and to a whole lot of other people it would have been a greater proof of their earnestness than to do the thing piecemeal and to leave one of the most oppressive of these supplementary taxes still in being. I am not without hope that our new Minister for Finance, who will agree with me that since every motor vehicle, apart from its road tax, pays a terrific tax per mile on the petrol it consumes, he might, in his wisdom, decide that it would be in the interests of the community—I want to stress that I am not speaking entirely selfishly in this matter—to remove the increased tax. Road transport is a very essential feature of Irish community life, probably even to a greater degree than in our neighbouring country, Great Britain, or other countries. I feel that the Minister would bring down on his head paeans of praise from very many more people than he could estimate if he would agree to my suggestion that the increased tax on motor vehicles should finish, just as he has already caused the other supplementary taxes to finish. I could go into a lengthy speech on other features of this debate on the Central Fund Bill but I will make way for other speakers.

Apparently the Bill before us does not mean very much in regard to this debate. So far as I can see, the purpose of the Bill is to enable the Minister for Finance to borrow £26,000,000. There are no penalties in the Bill, no rebates, no taxation, and I imagine that the purpose of the discussion is related not to the Bill but what it forecasts, and that is the item, referred to a few moments ago by Senator Hawkins, this £76,000,000 which, according to the Book of Estimates, will be required in the next financial year to meet the requirements of the Supply Services. Tagged on to that, there will be a demand for another £6,000,000 for Central Fund Services and, on top of that —because we cannot ignore the obligations which legislation imposes on the community irrespective of their description—there will be a demand by the local authorities for £9,000,000 in the next financial year. So that what we are doing to-day is, considering whether 3,000,000 of the Irish people, in their present depressed condition, can afford to surrender £91,000,000 of their money to the central and local authorities for spending by them rather than spending by the individuals who produced this wealth. That is simply the proposition.

Senator Hawkins will probably remember that I have insisted that that is the issue, irrespective of the Minister occupying the seat at this table. Senator Hawkins, of course, changes his tune with the change of Ministers. I have heard him defend most outrageous proposals in this House, outrageous from every angle—financial, economic and national. For instance, he talked a few moments ago about the danger of war and about our facing up to it. Senator Hawkins refused to face up to it a few months ago when the previous Minister for Industry and Commerce permitted foreign ship-owners to hoist an Irish flag by the mere registration of that foreign ship at an Irish port. I then drew attention to the effect of what the late Minister was doing, which permitted foreign ship-owners in the event of war to evade our neutrality laws by flying an Irish flag on a foreign ship in a war zone. I got no support from Senator Hawkins.

Mr. Hawkins

On a point of explanation, I think I should be permitted to point out that the Minister made it clear on that occasion that this was due to the present Act in relation to this matter and that he did agree that it required amendment. I think it is only fair to the then Minister that that should be stated.

The records will show that the opposite happened. The records will show that I had down an amendment to ensure that nobody could register a ship at an Irish port unless they observed the same law which relates to registration in Britain. The Minister and his Party resisted that amendment and it was defeated.

Mr. Hawkins

Surely Senator Duffy will agree that a mere motion is not sufficient for that purpose? There would have to be an amendment of the Act, not a motion of the House.

I beg your pardon. I proposed amendments to the Irish Shipping Bill which was before the House in October. I was defeated in my efforts to get these amendments inserted in the Bill by Senator Hawkins and his colleagues. I should prefer that we should remain where we were and be real about it. Let us forget there has been a change of Government.

Do not go so much into the joys and sorrows of these things.

I want Senator Hawkins, who is a capable observer and who in this House has been able to see the other man's point of view on many occasions, to face up to the fact, that he must adhere to the line he took last year on these immediate issues rather than to invent new ones because there has been a change of Government. I stand where I stood last year and the year before. If I consider the Minister for Finance is doing something which in my opinion—that is all I have got, my opinion—is wrong, I shall say so. That does not mean, of course, that I am necessarily right and the Minister is wrong. I never insisted on that. But I have insisted that certain things which were being done by certain Ministers were wrong and, by a strange coincidence, some of the things which I advocated and which were resisted violently by the Minister were subsequently adopted and passed into law, as the wisest dispensation of the Government that Senator Hawkins supported.

One of the things we have got to bear in mind in relation to this Bill is that the Estimates as they are printed form the basis of the budgetary proposals which have to come before us in May. One of the things we have got to face is that between the central Government and the local authorities, one-third of the national income will be absorbed in public expenditure. In this connection I should like to say that I listened last night in Dáil Eireann to the closing speech of the Minister for Finance in the debate on the Vote on Account and I enjoyed thoroughly the manner in which he debunked some of the antediluvian notions which prevailed in certain quarters of that House during the debate and gave us an assurance that he thought of national finances in a totally different manner from that of other speakers. If there was any doubt in my mind as to whether those with whom I am associated should have supported the present Government, the Minister removed it. He made a speech which I can acclaim and which I think everybody concerned with me could acclaim and stand over, even at the chapel gate. I think he has approached this subject from a completely new angle that will carry him very far. It will carry him to the extent of insisting, as the warring nations had to insist for six years of the European war, that it is not monetary symbols that count as wealth but that it is the development of our national resources, the development of the materials we have, to produce a livelihood for ourselves, that matters. I have no doubt that if our resources are developed, if our people are kept at home, if the enthusiasm which a plan of full employment should arouse is fully developed, we will then discover that this country can be rich, not probably in the sense that Senator Summerfield would hope for, but in the sense in which the common man visualises wealth.

I was sorry that Senator Summerfield seemed to lose his balance at the last meeting of the present Seanad, in discussing the matter which was raised by Senator McGee. I think there was a lot to be said for the point of view of Senator McGee, although I would not subscribe entirely to everything that he urged. He must not assume that when Senator McGee or somebody like myself makes an attack on the unscrupulous exploitation of the Irish public by certain industrialists we are attacking Irish industry. We are not. We are desirous that there should be Irish industry. A number of us believe that Arthur Griffith was right when he insisted on the importance of the industrial arm of our economy. But I do not think that Arthur Griffith ever suggested that there should be in that belief an article of faith that, unless industrialists made £40,000,000 in excess profits tax, there was something wrong with the economy. That is what we are afraid of.

I know it to be true that people have gone into a stable, lime-washed it, and started a factory and were able to buy two new motor cars in six months' time. Some of these people have a motor car for every member of the family. In fact, infants are not now carried in perambulators but in motor cars, Chryslers imported from America at a cost of £1,000. That is the sign of wealth that I think Senator Summerfield and Senator Hawkins have been advocating here. I resent that and I think it is foolish for Senator Hawkins or Senator Summerfield to advocate that line of argument. It is going to ruin them eventually. The public are awake to the fact that, not thousands, but millions are being made by a small group of people who call themselves Irish patriots because they have started some factory or other by which they can make large profits.

Mr. Hawkins

On a point of explanation. I think I made it quite clear in my statement that that was not my belief and that I would not give one moment's support to such people. The Senator knows that well.

It is not merely Senator McGee and myself who are critics of this exploitation. A very well-known conservative gentleman in this city was invited to a function some 18 months or two years ago promoted by a group of manufacturers in Dublin in a leading hotel. He was asked to make a speech. Some of us have some idea of what an after-dinner speech might be like. He got up and said that he did not know exactly what to tell the industrialists in this after-dinner speech but that on his way down he met a friend who knew a great deal of what was going on. He said to that friend: "In the event of being asked to speak at this function, what will I tell the industrialists?" and the friend said: "Tell them Dick Turpin is only trotting after them." That was not the explosion of Senator McGee. It was a statement made at a meeting of industrialists by a leading Dublin conservative. Senator Hawkins will probably allege now that he has gone Red. Anybody who does not believe in 5 per cent. is Red.

I suggest that the Minister should consider what is to be done with the poorer districts in the country, in the Gaeltacht along the western seaboard, which were talked about last night, because there is the seat of our industrial and economic weakness and a constant drain on the productivity of the community. Those areas are unable to provide a reasonable standard of living for the people. I make the suggestion because, I suppose, there is not much use in asking other people what they would do and asking Ministers to tell us what plans they have unless we indicate what we ourselves would like done. What I should like done is this. I should like to see scrapped all those separate organisations dealing with drainage in the Board of Works, forestry in the Land Commission, relief schemes and rural development somewhere else. I want all these scrapped and to have established in their place a national development commission or board which would take over all these functions, because they are all interrelated, although, owing to Civil Service methods, they are regarded here as being something separate, as various things that must be kept apart. When people talk, as they do talk, about the multiplicity of Government inspectors, that is what they have in mind. All these separate, unrelated Departments have their own officials, their own inspectors, their own accounting officers, their own principal officers, and all the hierarchy which goes to make up the Civil Service.

I am not sure that there is a right relationship between the armed men and the civilian personnel in the Army. I suggest that we might get economy there without reducing the number of the armed forces by one person. I have been looking at the figures since last night and I found that we are asked to vote £4,904,000 for the Army. But the total cost of the Army pay is only £1,250,000. The rest, therefore, is going in other directions—equipment, if you like, and military stores—but there is a very substantial sum for civilian personnel. I could not give the figures last night in relation to Great Britain and ourselves but I have them now. For every 100 men in our armed forces there are 21.8 civilians on the Army Vote. In Great Britain, the corresponding figure is 7.4, roughly one-third of our figure. The same is true of other Departments, but I do not want to go into that now I want to urge that here is a method by which we can get economy and efficiency combined. All these services I refer to, which are all interrelated— drainage, afforestation, Gaeltacht rehabilitation, land reclamation—should be run together, not by four or five Government Departments administered under Civil Service regulations, but by a board run on much the same lines as the Electricity Supply Board, which, notwithstanding all the criticism there is of public boards and Government administration, is, I think, an excellent organisation. I think there is not a citizen who would not willingly pay tribute, not merely to the efficiency, but to the courtesy of the Electricity Supply Board.

I can see some similar organisation taking over this huge service so that we can hope at last that we have lifted the question of the Gaeltacht and of rural habilitation so far as it affects the poorer areas out of the realms of politics altogether, and handed it over to a board that would be adequately financed to get on with this work and which, in a short time, would pay a great dividend for any money invested for that purpose.

I mentioned a moment ago what seemed to me to be extravagant expenditure in the case of Army civilian personnel. I want to refer to one other Department—the Department of Agriculture. It was under discussion last night. In fact, it is very difficult to discuss anything in relation to our finances or economy into which that Department does not enter. The Estimate for that Department amounts to £2,963,000. The staff of the Department—believe it or not—reads like a telephone number—1,845. If those 1,845 people were let loose on the Gaeltacht they should be able to drain it, make roads everywhere and plant it with trees in the course of a few years. Of course, you cannot do that because you have there seven separate divisions, each one competing for the public eye and for the money voted by the Oireachtas. That is not all. You have a number of subsidiary sections in the Department which are self-contained—running creameries and running everything without any responsibility to anybody except whoever is the establishment officer.

I think you will find the same story running through the whole service. I want to suggest to the Minister for Finance that he should appoint a small body composed of three, four or five competent people—and the operative word is "competent"—to survey the whole departmental organisation for the purpose of reducing not merely the number of Ministers but the number of Departments—they have been increased by four since 1932—and reducing the dangers of overlapping and of conflict within a Department. I discussed this with a civil servant of considerable experience recently. He told me that he is perfectly satisfied that, if there was a proper reorganisation of the service, one-third of the total expenditure now incurred under Civil Service organisation would be saved to the State. He said that everybody in the service under £600 a year was dissatisfied, was badly paid and not willing to give good service. His proposal was that one-third of the saving should go in the way of increments to the lower-paid civil servants, the remaining two thirds to be saved to the taxpayers, which would mean a saving of 22 per cent. of £9,000,000. That sum would pay for the remission of the new emergency taxation levied last October. If Senator Hawkins is not merely bandying words and trying to make Ministers jittery he ought to get down to this problem and see where the savings can be made.

Mr. Hawkins

I am content to leave it in your hands.

So that I have no competitor. I am very glad that at last we are given the opportunity of saying whether we are in favour or against economies on such things as air services and tourism, if I my use that loathsome word, and certain other services which have been established over the last ten years or so. I think the expenditure on some of these services has been unwise, it has been colossal and it has been profitless.

I want to draw attention to one of the most important organisations in the State—Córas Iompair Eireann. Here is a most alarming experiment in a new type of company. There is nothing like it in the world. It is called a State concern, but it is owned by private shareholders. The strange thing is that it is a few hundred shareholders with only a couple of million pounds who own this whole concern. We know, of course, that they can do nothing except elect directors and draw fees. The Minister appointed the chairman, who himself is a quorum of the board. He can reject any decisions of his colleagues and do what he likes. With an income of almost £9,000,000 in 1947 the company shows a new loss of almost £1,000,000. The thing is fantastic.

I am afraid that some of those people regard concerns like Córas Iompair Eireann not as a public concern or as something promoted in the interests of the people but as a private enterprise, as their own personal perquisite to do what they like with it. In confirmation of what I say, may I read from a Dublin newspaper of a couple of weeks ago a report of proceedings in the Dublin Circuit Court. The report states that "Córas Iompair Eireann presented a claim for £97 10s. 9d. against a taxi owner named Patrick J. Leonard. The claim," the report states, "arose out of damage done to a Córas Iompair Eireann staff car by the alleged negligence of the taxi owner. The driver of the staff car, in his evidence before the court, stated that he was driving a Córas Iompair Eireann staff car, which was a Chrysler saloon, and has as passengers Mrs. A. P. Reynolds, wife of the chairman of the company, with her three daughters and a woman friend." I deny that the chairman of Córas Iompair Eireann is entitled to send his wife and family out in a staff car. We are paying him £5,000 a year, or it may be £6,000 or £7,000, with salary and expenses, to run this concern. He does not think that he is running it for the public. He thinks it is his own concern, and he sends a car provided for the officials of the company to take his wife and family around. That is the mentality which prevails in a lot of these concerns. That is the mentality that I want to destroy, and if it is not destroyed it will destroy this Minister and the Government.

And the country.

If the Government is destroyed so is the country. If we had not the change of Government the country was doomed now. I want the Minister to have an investigation into the manner in which these concerns are being run. I want him to do more than that. I want him to submit, as soon as may be, a White Paper showing what exactly is the economic set up at the moment, what are our resources, what are our prospects and what are we likely to experience during the next two or three years.

Eighteen months ago, the previous Government published a most excellent statement on National Income and Expenditure. I had the pleasure of welcoming that excellent statement here and I believe many members of this House made great use of it. We were assured at the time by the then Minister that it was to be an annual publication, but there has been no subsequent issue. I do not know why; it may be that there is not staff enough or that the Department is saving expense. This House ought to give some encouragement to the Minister to spend money on work of that kind, as it is magnificent work which helps public representatives and teachers in universities, secondary schools and even in national schools. It helps the politician to know what is going on, what he can do and what the country thinks he should do to assist. In Britain there is a welter of inquiry and consequent information of that kind and I think we should follow that line. I want members of this House and of the Dáil, of county councils and parish councils, when they get up to discuss matters of national concern, to do so with informed minds, having got the facts. Then we would not have people saying that we should have £20,000,000 here or there, or that 20,000 people lost their jobs in turf schemes, as Senator Hawkins said, which is utterly ridiculous. Unless we provide authoritative statements, anyone is entitled to make wild statements of that kind.

Mr. Hawkins

Could the Senator give the correct number?

No. I am pleading for information of that kind and I need it as much as anyone else. I would appreciate it as much as anyone else, even though the information may not entirely correspond with my views as to how things are running. I realise that the Minister has had very little time to examine his Department, which is a very important one. It is a Department I dislike intensely. Unfortunately, one must have a Department of Finance and a Minister for Finance, but I distinguish between the Minister and the Department. I would like to feel that the Minister was the sworn enemy of the Department and went into the Department every day with the resolve to kick up a row. I think Dean Swift said on one occasion that he only felt happy if he knew a bank manager was hanging outside College Green every morning. I think that the Minister should only feel happy each night if an official of the Department of Finance had been left hanging before he left the office every night.

It would mean great promotion in the Civil Service.

I do not wish to be unreasonable with this or any other Minister. I want to give him time to survey the field, and I urge upon him to give us two documents before we come to discuss the Finance Bill—the most up-to-date figures in relation to national income, and an economic survey, so that at least we would have an opportunity of knowing what we are talking about when we discuss the Finance Bill, whether we are practical in our viewpoints or not.

I would like to join with Senator Sir John Keane in welcoming our new Minister. It was interesting to hear Senator Keane talk about the other days when there were conflicts many years ago. Probably he was alluding to the days of the introduction of the Shannon Scheme Bill. That period of our history was a bright era indeed, made much brighter by the remarkable ability, courage and foresight of Deputy McGilligan. It is almost providential that he is coming to the Department of Finance in these very difficult days. The Book of Estimates fired at us shortly after his arrival makes us wonder what would have happened if the country had not made up its mind to have a change of Government. Now we have got a change and we have Deputy McGilligan's fine brain in charge of the Department of Finance. He will need all the support and intelligent work of the whole people of the country, if this country is to be pulled around.

There are tremendous problems facing us. Some of them have been surveyed here from different angles. I have been looking at the problem from the same angle for a number of years and I consider that the great difficulty confronting us and the Minister is the low level of productivity. Our output from which this £80,000,000 must be collected has fallen. That is something which may be disputed, but no matter how vehement those who argue with me on that point are, there is ample evidence wherever you turn in the country that the national output has been falling steadily year by year. Our live-stock population was never so low, but above all else the human population was never so low. Nothing matters if there is a continuance of the decline in the human population that we have been experiencing over recent years.

Senator Hawkins has addressed himself to the problems of the Gaeltacht. There is no part of the country where the population has declined to the same extent as in the Gaeltacht. There has been a steady decline during the last seven years of the Government which has gone out of office.

That is not so.

The Senator will have time now to produce statistics and re-examine them as I have and disprove my statements. It is a fact. Whatever Senators on the other side of the House may say, anything they have produced yet out of their hat has done nothing to stem that decline. It is a problem for their successors, but it is their problem and our problem—the nation's problem—and it must be faced. The Minister has indicated that, when spending money, his outlook is that he must get a return from the point of view of development and the balance must be spent in a way which he regards as socially desirable. We have not unlimited money to spend, but we have been spending as if we had. This book with its £70,000,000 indicates that that is the mentality which has been in possession here for a number of years.

It is welcome news to the country generally that there is going to be a fresh attitude. The more you take from the common people by way of taxation, the less the people will have to put into their personal activities to increase the productivity of the nation. While Senator Hawkins was addressing himself to the situation which he alleges will be created by Government policy on turf production, it seemed to me that what the Minister and his colleagues must do is try and rationalise the man and woman-power we have to do the things most essential to be done. The real problem is to find the men and women to do the jobs that are there.

I do not know what the experience of other members of the House may be, but from my own experience and the experience of people with whom I make contact, there is hardly a young girl to be got to give service in thousands of homes where they are required. They have fled the country and are silent about the fact. That is an appalling situation. Nowhere are they fewer in number than in the Gaeltacht, for which Senator Hawkins has been speaking. Yesterday I was speaking to a representative in the other House from that part of the country. He said he cannot find a young girl in the district, they are all gone away. Why? It cannot be laid at the door of the present Government that they produced the policy which brought that situation about.

When we talk about what we should do in the bogs, fields and factories we must consider what numbers of people there are in the country to do anything, and we must attract them into the type of service that will be of most value and that will be able to produce the most for the nation. With regard to what Senator Hawkins said about turf production, he knows it does not represent the facts. I think he is a member of the Galway County Council —I do not know. I am a member of the Cavan County Council and I know that before the change of Government we had a circular from the Minister for Local Government thanking the council and its staff for their efforts in providing fuel during the emergency years; thanking us for a job well done and terminating our activities.

Mr. Hawkins

That is correct. A circular was sent out to each county council terminating the county council activities and handing over those activities to Bord na Móna.

The circular terminated the activities of the county council and its staff but there was nothing about handing the bogs over to Bord na Móna. There was no suggestion of handing over to Bord na Móna the bogs in my county. There is no purpose served by that sort of exaggeration; no purpose served by Senators making wild statements and exaggerated claims about the faults of the people in power, actually before they have warmed their seats. If they had kept them warm as long as their predecessors, it might be a different story.

There was no attack on the present Government. This was done before they came into office. The work on the bogs was taken from the county councils and handed to Bord na Móna.

The Minister indicated yesterday evening the position with regard to fuel supplies. I know what weather turf will stand, just as well as Senator Hawkins. I know what happens turf after a year or two. Are we to stack up turf for four or five years ahead? I suggest we will be merely stacking up turf mould, and we have enough of that in the country. Is that what Senator Hawkins wants the nation's money to be spent on, when there are dozens of other ways in which it could be spent more usefully? There are other ways in which our people could be employed.

In recent years the Government allowed people to run riot into any sort of activity. Take our transport system to-day. We must have more public transport per head of the population than any other country in the world. We have more people employed in transport and more pieces of mechanism to utilise for transport purposes than most countries in Europe, and we have far less to transport than most. I hope the Minister will investigate the cost of many of these organisations and of the machines that are on the road to-day and see to what extent the cost of transport can be reduced so that when the people want machines for transport purposes they can get them at a much cheaper rate than they are to-day.

In regard to our transport system, we have too many people waiting to do something and getting very little to do, not having goods to transport because there are not enough people to produce the goods. All that needs to be changed. One needs to go back to the country and see what is happening there to appreciate all this. I do not know what numbers we have employed on the railways or running buses or lorries, but I am quite satisfied there is too high a proportion of our population employed in services of various kinds that are of really little importance from the point of view of wealth production. There are many things that require a drastic overhauling.

I do not want to enter into a discussion on agricultural policy, but unless the agricultural output is increased and a higher value is put on it, we cannot progress. One has to regret the fact that the output per man and woman in this country is far too low. All of us, no matter what Party we belong to and no matter in what type of avocation we may be employed, must realise that if we are to attain a decent standard of living we shall have to work harder and produce more. The people in Britain have been responding to such calls for years and if they come out of the difficulties in which they were landed it will be because they were prepared to rise to the occasion. The Government that has gone out of office here never seemed to think of anything like that at all.

Our agricultural output has been falling. The last Government pursued a policy whereby a man who was of little value was often able to draw a higher wage or a better salary than a person who would be ten times as good. This country must get into its head that it will have to stand for efficiency and, whatever money it may have to spend, that money must be diverted into channels that will give the best return. The Minister who now has charge of our finances has a clear mind, courage and incisiveness and I trust his influence on the various Government Departments will have a beneficial effect on the country generally.

People talk about social services. Others say it is rather a condemnation of national policy to make claims for a great many of our social services. If people were employed in productive effort and got definite incomes for their labour they would not be half as much concerned about making provision for other sections of the community by having the social services. We shall have other opportunities to discuss Ministerial policy and finance.

There was nothing said here to-day very critical of what the Minister is doing. I know there has been criticism of what the Minister for Agriculture said with regard to new tomato houses in the Gaeltacht. I know a little about tomato houses. The growing of tomatoes is not by any means an inexpert operation. Its success requires the highly-developed instinct of a person educated in that particular type of culture. If I were to engage in such an enterprise I would first make a few cautious experiments over a certain period before I would launch out into the expenditure of considerable sums of money on something which might prove to be a wholly profitless endeavour. I heard someone speak yesterday in this House of silos that were erected in Kerry and which had never been used. If you build a silo and throw a bit of a roof across it and knock down a bit of the wall you can use it as a pigsty or a fowlhouse. You could not use a glasshouse in Connemara for poultry or pigs if the growing of tomatoes in Connemara proved to be a profitless adventure.

I refuse to believe that the Government in power to-day are not as deeply concerned with the fate of the people in the West as they are with the fate of the people in the East. I certainly am desirous that the people in the West should be enabled to stay in the West and live in the West and not be compelled to migrate to the East of Ireland or emigrate to Britain. That is what has happened in the past. If we are going to achieve something in order to keep those people at home we shall have to apply ourselves to the problem before us with better and broader minds, better and broader minds than have revealed themselves up to the present.

My only recommendation to the House is that I shall be very brief. Certain reports have gone out in relation to turf. The reports have varied and I am rather wondering who exactly constitutes the Government. Is it the editors of the daily papers or is it the actual members of the Government itself? In the first instance, we had a report in the morning paper that the Army was to be disbanded. That caused considerable alarm in the minds of those men who have adopted the Army as their profession. The statement on turf production was certainly most alarming. I am sure that we are all glad of the interjection made by the Minister here to-day denying the accuracy of these statements. Any step in that direction would have very grave consequences.

I am one who comes from a turf area in County Clare. During the period when not a single ton of coal was procurable in the country the workers in West Clare supplied the City of Limerick and down as far as Waterford with hand-won turf. The men who drove the turf lorries worked 16 hours a day to supply dense areas of population with fuel when any other kind of fuel was unobtainable. Those men worked at all hours of the day and night, running their lorries on bad tyres for the most part. They were often stuck on the roadside trying to repair mechanical defects. They worked under the greatest possible difficulties and they did their job remarkably well.

I think it would be a great pity if anything were now done to nullify all that development. Some of these men spent their entire savings in buying lorries for the coming seasons. If they are to be deprived of that work their position will be very serious. Most of them will be bankrupt. They cannot get a permit to use their vehicles for ordinary commercial purposes. They can only get a permit for the haulage of turf. I am sure that no Minister with the experience of the present Minister for Finance would ever think of putting these men into the pre-oarious position I have mentioned by reducing turf production.

Senator McGee made some reference to egg and fowl production. The facilities are there provided the people are willing to use them. In my own county in the small peninsula from Kilrush to Carrigaholt there is a thriving poultry industry. Some seven years ago it was worth only a couple of hundred a year. It was developed and last year the export of eggs and poultry brought in the enormous sum of £150,000. The industry is mainly maintained by small farmers with two or three cows who could not make a living otherwise. I merely wish to convey that the people are willing to work and they are willing to make use of the facilities at their disposal. It is only the lazy ones who will go hungry. There is a method of living for all who wish to employ it. I am sure the policy of the Government will be a progressive one rather than a retrogressive one. I am sure they will do everything in their power to foster these industries.

I want to call particular attention to one specific item in this Estimate, namely, the sum of £775,100 provided for Army pensions. It strikes me that there should be some way of finalising this particular item in the Estimates. Perhaps the present Minister would consider the possibility of raising a loan at a low rate of interest so that that item might be wiped out completely. I heard Senator Sir John Keane state on one occasion that he could guarantee considerable sums of money at a low rate of interest. My recollection is that he mentioned something in the region of 1¾ to 2 per cent. If some plan could be devised by the present Minister of raising such a loan for the purpose I have mentioned a not inconsiderable reduction could be made in the annual Estimates. I do not suggest penalising in the slightest degree any person at present holding an Army pension. I do know, however, of certain cases—some are friends of my own —where comparatively young men are in receipt of pensions of something like £100 per year. These men are in perfect physical condition and it has always struck me that the granting of pensions to them is an anomalous condition in our civilised society. I feel, too, that these pensions are something in the nature of a servile bond. The recipients of them owe a certain servile allegiance, as it were, to the Government of the day. If these pensions could be wiped out people would in time forget that such a class existed. As long as these pensions continue the recipients of them will feel that they must be servile in their attitude to the Government of the day.

Perhaps I do not express myself in the most favourable terms but I trust the House will understand what my aim is and, understanding it, sympathise with it. I would like all people to have complete independence and to feel that they could exercise their own judgment at all times without fear of any Nemesis overtaking them. I would suggest, then, to the Minister the desirability of seeing whether it would be possible to remove finally this particular item from the Estimates.

I wish to say a few words on the question of turf, to which reference has been so frequently made. I have had very considerable experience of endeavouring to purchase turf at reasonable terms, and I have found that we were largely held up to ransom by people who were in a position to supply the turf. Charges were made which I consider were exorbitant. If a person is resident in a turf-producing area, naturally he will look upon the matter in a light different from that of the person who has to buy the turf. The person who has to buy the turf feels that he should be and that he is entitled to get it at the most reasonable price possible. Senators will be astonished to hear that I know for a fact that turf has been sold in my county at a rate which amounted to £9 a ton. Was that due to transport charges? No. The distances to which the turf had to be transferred in many instances were only a couple of miles.

On one occasion accounts came from a certain official which it was my duty to check and, considering that the charges were rather exorbitant, I returned the accounts and was informed that in a turf area there is no price control. Only in Dublin and in the other non-turf areas could turf be obtained at a fixed price. The extraordinary position was that people in Dublin, who were perhaps 100 miles from a bog, were getting turf cheaper than people living, say, only half a mile from a bog. I also found that there was great need for devising some standard measure that would govern the sale of turf. It is a very difficult problem but there should be some solution. Our committee want to put up a proposal that turf going into a town should pass through some station where the quality would be sorted and the turf graded generally so that the poor people of the town would be saved from the exploitation that has frequently been practised on them. I have great sympathy with the people in the turf-producing areas. I know that for many generations, even centuries, they have had to work hard and that they have supplied turf at reasonable terms to the people in the towns. On the other hand, when there was a scarcity of fuel there was a definite attempt at exploitation. Hence, any steps the Minister may take to see that fair play is done both to the people who produce the turf and to those who are obliged to purchase it will be welcomed. He will be doing good work for the country and I feel sure that he will look into the matter.

Reference has also been made to the Gaeltacht. I have some little knowledge of the district of Lettermore in Connemara which is about 30 or 40 miles outside the City of Galway. I have had maids in my house from that area occasionally. I have been down there and I have some sympathy with the residents. Those Senators who come from near that area—Senators O'Dea and Liam O Buachalla—will know that there is nothing to cover the bare rocks there. I was speaking to the parish priest or to the deputy for the parish priest in that area and I know his anxiety. The population is continually increasing but the resources are not; in fact, it is the other way about. I often wonder why some drastic change has not been made in the economy because, as things are, that area is a drag on the nation. I have wondered if even the removal of people from these areas in which they are quite incapable of supporting themselves would not be a desirable thing. My idea would be not to remove them over immense distances to places where the psychology of the people has been developed for perhaps more than 100 years but to remove them to another part of, say, the County of Galway. Transplanting people who have been brought up under conditions which exist in a certain quarter and dumping them in places such as County Meath has led to difficulties and the system will continue to lead to difficulties. Such people, as a rule, do not seem to fall into the pattern and, as a result, considerable animosity is generated which it will take centuries to get over. I often think that something should be done about that particularly poor part of the country and similar parts of County Donegal so as to avoid the awful need for subsidising the people there to make up for the absence of the natural resources which would enable them to support themselves in these areas.

With reference to the Army Estimate, there are some points which I should like to make and, although it is not a good subject on which to face the hustings, as it were, in my opinion it should, nevertheless, receive attention. A very large sum of money is involved and we should endeavour to find out if anything can be done to reduce the sum without causing any hardship whatsoever. I often think that a young fellow who is in good physical health, and so forth, would prefer to be provided with a capital sum of money to buy a farm or to set up a business rather than receive an annual sum. If that were done on a considerable scale then the number of those pensioners would be reduced and we might hope that, in a short time, it would be completely eliminated. The record also would disappear and I think that the matter would be to everybody's benefit.

I hope to be very brief in dealing with some of the numerous matters that have been dealt with during this debate. Senator Douglas made a statement with which I entirely agree, namely, that where we have an industry which has not either the raw material or the ability to turn out the quantity required by the country, no tariffs should be given for the produce of that industry. I agree with that and I do not think for a moment that any Government would ever dream of putting on tariffs on goods coming into a country when only a portion of such goods are manufactured in the country.

The policy of the Fianna Fáil Government was that if people attempted to start an industry and went to the Department, no matter what their politics were, they were received with open arms and given the figures of the amount of the goods of the particular type in which they were interested that were coming into the country. They were asked if they could manufacture the total quantity, turn out the goods as efficiently and as cheaply as those coming into the country, and they were told that if they could do so they would be given a quota and a tariff. If they could not manufacture the total amount but, say, a half or a quarter, then they were told that the Department would take action accordingly. That was a great encouragement to industry and, as a result, industries did spring up. I hope that that policy will be continued because, if it is not, industries will cease to be started in this country. It is well known that one Minister of the present Government is totally opposed to quotas and tariffs. This country is a small country and very few classes of goods can be manufactured as a paying proposition here, because the market is too small. It is a dumping ground as we know for England. England sends in goods at certain times of the year, if she is allowed to do so, at a very small price. The system is simply that they make up their profits at the end of November and they do not mind what they get for the goods left over. It is all profit and they send them out at a ridiculously small price. In that way, they have been able always to kill industries in this country. That should not be allowed because, if it exists, you will have very few factories established in this country. I know a man in the West of Ireland who was willing from time to time to put his hand in his pocket and provide money to establish factories. He told me a few days ago that he would never again put money into a new industry here. That is an attitude which I hope will not be adopted by very many people. I hope that fears, as to the policy of the present Government, will not deter others as they apparently would deter him, from establishing new industries in this country.

We want to provide employment. Some of our people are coming back from England and the labour market will be in a bad way owing to the stoppage of turf production and other matters of that kind. I am afraid that very much employment will be needed then and a special effort should be made to give that employment. If anything should operate against the establishment of industries here, it would be a very bad development. It is a very bad thing to have sneers at manufacturers coming from any member of this House. Factories have always been controlled; their products and the profits they make have been controlled. They have been allowed to make only a certain amount of profit in the year and to make no more than a certain profit per article. They get this profit only if they turn out goods of as good a quality, or very nearly as good a quality, as can be produced elsewhere. Senator Summerfield objected to the use of the words "as good and as cheaply". He is right, of course, to a great extent. The method by which industries have been controlled in recent years has been the subject of very strong criticism from the manufacturers' association as evidenced by recent reports in the newspapers. There have been many complaints that the late Government kept a close eye upon the manufacturers and the manufacturers resented very much their inspections and their strictures. They thought they were being unfairly dealt with.

Senator Douglas told us that we have people with different ideas members of the present Government. You have not alone people with different ideas but people with different policies. You have certain people saying that social services should be increased to an extent that would cost £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 and, at the same time, other members and Ministers say that they will reduce taxation by £10,000,000 or £12,000,000, while others say, still further, that they will reduce it by one-third. How are they to agree? That is one of the difficulties I see. There is also a certain amount of fear that the Government has started in the wrong way by increasing the number of Ministries. The general opinion is that the work of one Ministry could be done in about one and a half hours a day—that is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. A new Ministry has been created for that purpose.

A new Minister has been created. Heretofore the two Ministries were under one man.

They were two separate Departments.

In the same way you have a Department of Health and a Department of Social Services. They are certainly very much intertwined and it will be very difficult for the two Ministers to carry out their functions without overlapping. Surely the Minister for Health would be the proper Minister to administer social services?

Why were two separate Departments created?

They were run by the same man and that saved a certain amount of money.

Oh, no. I opposed this thing very bitterly when the Ministries were being established because I pointed out that the fact that one Minister was to have two separate Departments would add £20,000 to the cost of administration.

It did not.

It did, of course.

It did not. The new system means that additional expenses will be incurred in different ways, not alone expenses of the Ministry itself, but travelling expenses incurred in supervising the work that has to be done. People are raising questions as to why these Ministries are created. The answer seems to be obvious but I do not want to go into that matter. There will be other matters dealt with when the Finance Bill comes up for consideration and when I shall not be here. I do not like to take up the time of the House in repeating things that have been said already, but I feel that the questions raised by Senator Ó Buachalla are important matters for consideration.

Several speakers on the other side of the House, since we assembled here yesterday, have challenged different Ministers present as to the non-fulfilment of certain promises made during the recent general election. It has to be admitted, anyhow, that one of the promises was pretty quickly fulfilled. I think that these challenges come very badly from the supporters of a Party who secured administrative power as a result of a policy of promises that were not even half fulfilled in 16 years. I am quite satisfied that in less than one-fourth of that time the promises made by different speakers appealing for support for members of the present Government during the recent general election will be fulfilled. The electorate showed by a majority that they expect they will be fulfilled. The electorate believes that economy and retrenchment can be effected. Anyone going through the country, who has to familiarise himself with the details of local administration, can see even along the highways evidence of extravagance, that more skilful supervision could eliminate.

Personally, I am not so much interested in economy as in wise spending. I believe that any money which can be applied to useful work would be productive of results that would lead to less demand for increased social services. The minds of many of us go back to the time when many people, even some destitute, were opposed to accepting home assistance. At that time the pride of the people was far more pronounced than it now is, when quite a large number of people are out for something for nothing. In the times I refer to it was not unusual to have requests from young people in popular movements as to what they could do. I am sorry to say that for a number of years now—I would not like to specify the number—the request usually has been: "What can I get?"

If the money that, in the opinion of many people, is being spent on services that were never productive and were never intended to be could be devoted to improving the fertility of the land, bringing into operation immediately the provisions of the Arterial Drainage Act, securing extra accommodation in sanatoria for people who are on the look out for beds, it would be reproductive. I know that at present there are many large establishments in the country for sale, too roomy for private use, which could be acquired by the public health authorities and which would be ideally suited for the provision of beds for patients who are at present on the waiting list.

A certain amount of fear has been expressed as to the possibility of disbanding the Army. While I do not take second place to any one in my admiration for our Army, I feel that the present personnel is too much for this country, more than the country needs or can afford. I feel also that the responsibility that some people think we should assume for defending 2,200 miles of coastline by a Navy is one which this country cannot afford. It is all right to appeal to sentiment and the pride that you may experience in seeing our Navy sailing on the seas, flying the Tricolour. But, as so many other essential things are required in the meantime, we may have to deny ourselves that pleasure for some time. The money, and it is a big sum, which is spent on the maintenance of that service could be more usefully applied to other services which would produce good and in many cases immediate results.

When people alleged that there was extravagance and mismanagement in the recent past, it was not without good reason that they did so. Perhaps some people allow their imaginations to get the better of their commonsense. We cannot, however, forget what occurred in Santry, where a very considerable amount of public money was spent on certain work and more money had to be spent in undoing that work. It was found that those who set about establishing a sanatorium in that area did not look sufficiently ahead and, of course, the taxpayers and ratepayers had to pay for the lack of foresight on the part of those responsible.

In so far as the administration of certain services at present is concerned, I hold that there is much to be desired. Take, for instance, the facilities provided for housing. The officials in the Custom House are always ready and willing to co-operate with applicants for grants to which they are entitled and to facilitate the payment of the grants as they are earned. I am sorry to have to state, however, that I know people who had qualified for grants being deprived of them for a very considerable time because of the delay in inspection. I also know of one particular case, in a district to which the provision of town planning applied, of a person who had made arrangements almost 12 months ago to build a house on a site he had acquired. He had secured the building materials and complied with all the regulations. Yet he had to wait for almost 12 months before an officer came to inspect the site. Afterwards some slight adjustments had to be made in the plan originally supplied and a fee of 12 guineas was demanded for a supplied specification. Instances of that kind do very much to impair the very considerable benefits provided for the people. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister for Finance to that matter. Of course, it has not to do with his particular Department, but this may be the only opportunity I will have of directing attention to what I consider a very serious defect.

As I said, money spent on certain services at present could be more usefully applied to other services, and I am quite satisfied that, as soon as the present Administration gets into its stride and finds out what the position is, it will be so applied. They are not magicians who can be expected to produce the rabbits out of the hat immediately. They are entitled to a reasonable time and I think that the people are prepared to give them that time.

There is no Minister whose outlook and activities enter so intimately and so urgently into the homes of the people as the Minister for Finance. Therefore, I think, the women of the country must be interested in his work and on their behalf I should like to wish him God speed. He has the task of national housekeeping and it is a very difficult one. We all know that it requires a great deal of courage and a great deal of thought and prudence. We know the Minister is a man of great ability and personality I was very glad when I read in the papers that he had been designated by the Taoiseach as Minister for Finance. We had been a little frightened by the prognostications as to who the Minister for Finance would be which, like the fat boy in Dickens, made our flesh creep. It was a relief, therefore, to find that a County Derry man was to be appointed Minister for Finance. I come from County Derry myself and I know the capabilities of the people there.

It may seem strange after welcoming the Minister for Finance that the first thing I should ask him is to depart a little from strict financial principles. Senator Ruane and I seldom get up to speak on a Money Bill without pleading for the old pensioned teachers. I think that, even if strict finance will not allow their claims to be met and their pensions to be raised, the Minister should do something for our old teachers and not leave them in the position of dire poverty in which they are at present. I think the national credit demands that.

I should also like to tell the Minister in a maternal kind of way that he might not be in a hurry about doing things. It is very risky to make decisions affecting the lives of people without taking time to consider all the implications. I think the Minister must have been impressed by what Senator Honan said as to what might follow from the dropping of certain schemes in which people have invested their money and which give good prospects of employment. If we want a good country there are two problems to be considered. We must have proper employment for the men and proper training for the women. This is not the time to develop these two aspects, but I think we could have a very good country if we had proper employment for the men, and that we could dispense with a good many social services if we had the women properly trained to run their homes and, in the case of the agricultural industry, to help their husbands to make farming a success.

As a people there are two things that we need especially, the habit of hard work and the habit of thrift. The importance of both was emphasised during the debate. We have been losing these things and they are a real asset. It is the practice of these virtues that will provide us with real riches. It may be said that these are all platitudes. They may be because they are such real truths. I welcome the Minister to his post and wish him every success.

A good deal has been said about the management of what I think have been erroneously described as public companies but which can be more accurately described as Government-sponsored companies. I should like to join with Senator Sir John Keane, Senator Douglas and other Senators in pleading with the Minister that not only should the affairs of these Government—sponsored companies be closely investigated, but that some machinery should be devised whereby there will be an annual discussion on their affairs. By their affairs I mean getting to know more about them than the profits they make. I should like to know something about their running and their costings generally. For a number of years I have been keenly interested in air development. I have unsuccessfully endeavoured to discover something about that particular side of our air adventure in the Aer Lingus Company. We can all pay this tribute to the company that so far as its mechanical devices and aerial navigation are concerned, its record is a first-class one. Its financial record, unluckily, is not the same.

It has often struck me that the number of people involved in putting a passenger on board an aircraft is extraordinarily high. If one is travelling from Dublin to Rome by train and steamer one can walk into a travel agency in Dublin or in his local town and purchase a ticket from a single individual. On the other hand, if one goes into the offices of Aer Lingus to get a return ticket to London he will find that it takes at least three individuals to make a reservation for him. I do not say that my figures are accurate, but it has been reckoned out by some of us who are interested in this that it takes at least 20 people to put a passenger on board any aircraft. Surely there could be some remedy there. Looking at the losses of Aer Lingus, we must remember that this country is not alone in having Government—sponsored air companies. They have them in Great Britain and there also the workings in recent years have shown losses. An English friend expressed the opinion to me that the losses incurred on the workings of these companies, as distinct from the small profits that were made in pre-war years by the private enterprise companies, were accounted for by the fact that in Great Britain these companies were the play things of the politicians. I am afraid that, as far as our Government-sponsored companies during the last 15 years are concerned, a great part of the losses incurred can be laid at the same door —that the personnel were the playthings of the Party politicians of the day, and that the directorate and the personnel were drawn not so much for their ability in that particular direction as for the fact that they were put in as political nominees.

If I might make a suggestion on what I consider the rather groundless fears that have been expressed over a change in turf policy, it would be this —that regarding the personnel engaged at present in the winning of turf which is no longer necessary, employment could be found for them on drainage work. It is not so many years ago since we passed through the Oireachtas a very comprehensive Drainage Bill. It is about time the Government now set to and started to put that Act into operation.

As regards the people who were engaged in the haulage of turf and on whose behalf Senator Honan expressed fears, surely there is the possibility of allowing those lorry owners to enter the field of ordinary transport haulage? Should the Transport Act preclude them from entering the field of ordinary transport haulage, it ought not to be outside the wit of the Oireachtas to amend that Act in order to enable them to enter into this trade. It would be a very good thing if they were allowed to enter into competition with Córas Iompair. Competition is the life of trade and if Córas Iompair were up against reasonable competition, they might be forced to pull their socks up and to forget about public relations officers and other grandiose gentlemen whose sole object is to prevent the public from finding out about the working of those companies, and get down to carrying the goods of the people of this country efficiently and at a reasonable cost.

Ní mór an mhoill a chuirfidh mise oraibh. Ba mhaith liom, dá mbeadh lán-mheastachán os comhair an Tí i gcóir caiteachais na bliana, tagairt a dhéanamh do thrí nó cheithre gnéthe den riarachán poiblí a bhaineann le leas agus úsáid na Gaeilge. Ach níl anseo ach figiúirí maola gan aon mhioneolas ag gabháil leo ar conas atá beartaithe airgead a chaitheamh, ná eolas ar bith againn ar cad iad na hathruithe atá beartaithe ag an Rialtas nua a chur ar na figiúirí sin sna mion-ghnéithe a bhaineann le gach vóta. In uireasbha an eolais sin, is deacair aon léirmheas a dhéanamh, nó aon tuairim a chaitheamh, agus dá bhrí sin caithfidh mé bheith sásta le beagán a rá i leith scéil na Gaeilge féin agus an bhaint atá ag Riarachán Poiblí le leas na teangan. Tá tagtha, le cúpla mí nó trí, imní mhór agus eagla ar a lán daoine i dtaobh aigne an Rialtais, nó aigne daoine a bhí ag beartú bheith ina Rialtas, maidir leis an teanga náisiúnta. Níl an Rialtas againn ach cúpla seachtain nó trí, agus san méid sin aimsire is rí-bheag ar fad na ráitisí uathu ar cad é an dunghaois atá acu maidir leis an teanga. An rud nó dhó a rinneadh, ni habhar misnigh do lucht na Gaeilge iad.

Níl fonn ormsa argóintí a bhunú ar amhraistí, ná cúisiú a dhéanamh ar an eagla atá ann agus, gan fianaise chinnte ar cad é an bunús agus an chúis atá leis an eagla sin, níl le déanamh agam ach a rá—san athrú atá tagtha agus sa toradh a thiocfaidh nó atá beartaithe a theacht ar gnéithe Rialtais i leith na Gaeilge, go bhfuil súil agam gur eagla gan cúis atá ar chuid de na daoine. Tá súil agam nach é amháin go gcoimeádfar greim ar na rudaí atá buailte againn ar son na teangan ach go raghfar ar aghaidh chun ionaid eile a bhuaichaint di.

Maidir indiu, leis an bpost, fuaireas páipéar ó Sheanadóir ag iarraidh orm guth a thabhairt dó. San téacs a bhí annsin i nGaeilge, dúairt sé gur suarach an toradh atá tagtha ar na bearta agus an dícheall mór atá déanta againn, agus go gcaithfimíd gabháil le bóithre eile agus slite eile chun toradh níos feárr a bhaint amach. Is maith liom gur chuir sé sa tslí sin é, mar nílim féin sásta leis an toradh, ach a oiread leis féin, ach táim ar an aigne chinnte go bhfuil toradh agus toradh rí-thábhachtach ar chuid den obair sin. Teastaíonn uainn cur leis sin.

Tá súil agam—agus tá a fhíos agam go bhfuil an aigne chéanna ag lucht na Gaedhilge, agus tá súil agam go bhfuil an aigne chéadna ag an Seanadóir a chuir é sin san bpáipéar chugham agus fós ag an Rialtas nua atá tagtha—nach é an bóthar a gheofar an bóthar ar gcúl arís ón ionad atá buaite againn, bothar an tréigeana agus an ath-Ghalldachais, ach gur athghluaiseacht chun éifeachta nua agus toradh cinnte atá beartuithe ag an Rialtas i leith an teangan.

Tá roinnt eagla—agus fátha beaga leis—ar a lán daoine. Béidir, na daoine adúirt na cainteanna, nach raibh údarás acu, béidir gur ar a son féin amháin a bhíodar ag caint, ar son aigne a bhí acu agus gur soiléir ar chuid acu nach ar mhaithe leis an Gaeilge a bhíodar ag caint. Nílim ag cur an ní sin i leith an Rialtais, ná ag cúisiú an Rialtais gan fianaise, ach tá imní ar a lán daoine go bhfuiltear ar barraoid cúlchéim nó lagú, nó isliú fuinnimh a theacht i ngnó na Gaeilge feasta.

Nílimse cinnte go bhfuil san fíor in aon chor agus deirim le mo thoil annseo ná fuilim cinnte agus nach áil liom a leithéid sin a chreidiúint. Act níor mhiste a rá anseo, ar an ocáid deireannach seo againn, go bhfuil aigne cairde na Gaeilge buartha, agus go mbeifear ag faire, agus go dtomhaisfear, gach leid, gach gníomh, gach rialú, gach beart a dhéanfas an Rialtas nua i leith na Gaeilge, chun leasa nó aimhleasa na teangan. Ba mhaith liom a chur os comhair an Rialtais a bheith níos mó ná aireach, a bheith go práinneach, dícheallach, ag seachaint aon gnímh, aon chainte, aon ráitis, a thabharfadh drochmhisneach do na daoine gurb áil leo an Ghaeilge. Ná bíodh sé de dhearmad ná d'fhaillí aon rud a dhéanamh go gceapfaí gur chéim ar gcúl é nó lagú díchill é.

Ní bhfagaidh aon Rialtas aon bhaíocas gur fuí dhóibh a gcáil a chur i ngeall leis, ó aon dream sa tír seo atá náimhdeach don Gaeilge nó don náisiúntas. Is cuma cé acu dhéanfaidís olc na Gaeilge dá dtoil nó trí fhaillí nó laige misnigh, nó uireasba díchill. Tómhaisfear cáil an Rialtais ar ball ar a seasamh dá gcuspóirí náisiúnta. An dream go raibh áthas agus maoímh á dhéanamh acu le roinnt seachtainí, toisc, dar leo, go raibh spiorad an náisiúntais ag lagú agus sean-chuspóiri, gur mhair cuid againn dá réir le fada, tréigthe.

Nílimse ag cúisiú an Rialtais mar níl promhadh fós ar an Rialtas seo, ach tá mé ag cur in iúl dóibh nach ar chúrsaí eacnamaíochta amháin atá mórchuid de mhuintir na tíre ag machnamh faoi láthair, nach cúrsaí eacnamaíochta amháin fé ndeara an imní atá orthu ach an mórtas agus an éirí in airde atá ar naimhde na hÉireann go bhfuil tagtha le mí in Éirinn lagú agus tréigint ar chuspóirí náisiúnta. Tá mé ag tabhairt mo thuairimse do Aire Airgeadais, agus ní hé mo thuairimse amhain é agus ní uaim fhéin amháin é. Ba mhaith liom go luafaí go poiblí anseo go bhfhuil misneach ar naimhde naísiúntais na tíre seo agus go bhfhuil inní agus roinnt den mhí-mhisneach ar chairde na tíre. Bíodh an Rialtas aireach mar sin agus ná fágaidís caoi ann ar aon mhí-thuiscint ná ar aon dóchas baoth a bheith ag naimhde na tíre seo. Ná glacadh an Rialtas a gcuspóirí sin, ach bídís seasmhach don náisiúntas agus do na cuspóirí sin, mar níl Éire marbh agus níl cuspóirí ár saoil marbh ach oiread.

I would like to repay the courtesy given to me in this House by an equal courtesy by attending to all the things said, but that would be too tiring, and I hope I shall be pardoned if I attend to the major matters which were discussed. May I say, at the outset, that it is an astonishing thing to come into the House and find that fears are expressed that the new Government were going (a) to disband the Army, (b) to destroy Irish industry, (c) to create unemployment, (d) to wipe out all turf-cutting in the country, and, finally, to weaken everything done for the Irish language. I begin to wonder how we got 750,000 votes against all these fears. And that is what we did get. Apparently, the people who are on the other side and who were promoting agriculture, saving industries, getting turf-cutting going, preserving the Irish language and strengthening it, just failed to get the votes that would have made them a Government. In this House, apparently, there is still a certain amount of playing politics and exaggerating fears because, surely, political advantage will be made out of fears. I do not believe that anyone in this House really believes that these fears are reasonable or that they are justified.

Senator Sir John Keane referred to certain public companies. On that, he can rest assured that the new Government has a mind very like his own. I do not know at the moment what will be done about public companies of the Government-sponsored type. I have a proposal myself, but I do not regard it as going the whole way towards dealing with this matter. My proposal is to bring in the Department of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on top of these 25 companies which can be regarded as Government sponsored. It is quite clear that the light of day must be let in on the transactions of these bodies. First of all, it is necessary because it will do these companies themselves good and, secondly, it is necessary from the point of view of the people of the State who have been made support them.

One example occurs to me. I spoke last night in Dáil Éireann of the amazing situation which met us three weeks ago when we began to consider the fuel position. I found that after the very bad winter of 1946 and early in 1947 there was scarcely anything in the way of provision made for fuel for the people of this city. Compare that with the situation which presented itself in February, 1948. There was an amazing transformation. Of timber alone there is sufficient for a five years' supply. Without cutting any more there is enough turf to carry the country through until the spring of 1950 and there must be at least 500,000 tons of African or American coal.

Supposing the stocks of fuel were under the public eye even to the limited extent that stocks of butter are under the public eye, there is no doubt that public attention would have been called to this megalomania that there was about fuel and there would have been an earlier stop put to the piling up of all this stuff, most of which will be useless. However, if it is to be got rid of from the park, it will be at the public expense, even if it means hauling it back to those parts of the bog areas from which the stuff originally came.

At any rate, these Government-sponsored companies will have to be inquired into. The public must know the objectives of the different companies and there must be some attempt to get efficiency. How it is all going to be done I am not now quite clear. There can be some light thrown upon it by having an investigation by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. He will have to be helped by the Committee of Public Accounts. I am not sure that this will be sufficient.

A thought has occurred to me, arising out of an investigation I had to make at one time in connection with the Electricity Supply Board when it was established. I might for the moment elevate that as an analogy as to what procedure might be adopted with regard to these companies and indicate it as one road. On the occasion I have referred to I asked the public to give me quite an amount of public moneys behind that scheme and I offered by way of return the greatest amount of publicity that could be given to the scheme year after year. Every year the board had to produce accounts and the Minister who was made responsible for this board was given the right and the duty of putting in an outside accountant or auditor to deal with the accounts. The Minister could ask the auditor whatever questions might appear reasonable in the circumstances. Eventually, the Minister had to be responsible for whatever the board presented in the nature of accounts and whatever the auditor had sought or failed to see.

There was also this situation, that a day on demand was to be given each year for a discussion on the accounts of that body. There has not been a day ever required for such a debate, but that was because the board conducted its operations in an efficient way and the accounts clearly demonstrate the efficient way in which that board acts. When that was being considered, the Swedish example was given to me, and this will assure Senator Sir John Keane and others who are interested in this particular aspect as possibly a way in which to meet this matter. The situation in Sweden with regard to the corresponding authority to the board here is a board known as the Waterfalls Board. The situation in Sweden is that the person who corresponds to the chairman of the Electricity Supply Board presents himself to the Committee of the Parliament on one day each year. The accounts were prepared a good period ahead and there was a certain amount of time in which further information might be gathered. But the chairman of the board appeared at a public sitting with representatives of the newspapers present and with the Deputies who form something corresponding to our Committee of Public Accounts empowered to ask such questions as any member of the public who was entitled to be present liked to suggest for the consideration of the Waterfalls Board directors. Officials of the board could also be present and they could be questioned and the whole thing was open to public examination.

I would like to proceed along some such lines as those, but I still see a difficulty. I do not know who will be properly acquainted with the affairs of these bodies to make him a good cross-examiner of the officials who present themselves for examination. But some effort can be made and I have no doubt some plan can be worked out. The objective is clear. We want to get these people brought before the public; we want to have their accounts examined and we want to have them made responsible to the public and preserve Parliamentary control over their activities. In that way we shall have the light of day shed on those people and I think it will be good for them as well as giving the public some information about what is happening.

Senator Douglas spoke here of a matter which within the past three weeks has been the subject of a great deal of gibing. When people have nothing very serious to talk about they can gibe. What I am referring to is the difference of opinion that, it is suggested, exists between the various groups who have combined at the moment to form a Government. There are not many differences of opinion. I found a vast field of agreement. I have found nothing fundamentally distinct in the views of the people who sit with me although they do not all belong to my own Party. We are going to have a new situation here now. We are going to have a situation in which opinion will be canvassed openly and in which governmental decision and governmental opinion may have to be taken in the full light of day. That is not a very big change from what used to happen heretofore. I do not believe anybody here accepts the myth that has been promulgated that every person who belongs to the Fianna Fáil Party, immediately he associated himself with it, found himself with the same views as every other member of that Party. That is a nonsensical attitude. Party views were found on occasions to be contradictory in certain matters. These differences were reconciled in the Committee Room; as soon as that was done policy was brought out as if it were 100 per cent. firm. Of course it was not. People hung on because they knew that if they did not agree they would be flung aside and, without the Party behind them, their chances of re-election were not so good.

We propose to have our differences of opinion shown to the public. We propose to reconcile those differences of opinion in public. That may not do any great harm; it may, in fact, lead to a much healthier public opinion. I do not think there can be any weakness in that method of Government. I do not say that that is going to happen very often. I would like to have more opportunities for free voting in the two Parliamentary authorities than have hitherto existed. If we do that we shall have a better power to reason because we shall get back to the old clash of mind on mind and, if we get that, we are likely to have a much better policy instead of having a situation where one or two strong-minded individuals lay down the law for a lot of followers, who walk into the Division Lobby to support a policy while contending that they do so at the expense of their consciences.

A number of people have raised the matter of industries here. I would like to say something to this body in that connection. There has been far too much politics in connection with industrial development in this country. It is time that that political influence was cut out. I have no objection to people in industry having political affiliations or even showing the strength of that affiliation by the strength of their subscription and by parading themselves as having such political affiliations and being content to dig deeply into their pockets to support their political party. People are entitled to do that. The industrialist does not lose his right to freedom of choice in political Parties just because he is an industrialist. It is a peculiar argument to advance that one Party is in favour of industry and another Party is not. We have had two changes of Government. No matter what fears may have existed up to this it should now be clear that those fears were groundless.

When I was in office in 1924 and 1925 I started the imposition of tariffs upon articles imported into this country. Subsequently we set up the Tariff Commission. While I was engaged in operating tariffs in this country I tried at the same time to preserve the consuming public from the imposition of too heavy tariffs and our scheme, though it was a rough and ready one, worked well in practice. We recognised that every tariff we put on was likely to or did impose some increase in the cost of living to the consuming public and every time we put one on we made some calculation as to the likely cost of it and we always remitted taxation to the same extent. We took something like tea or sugar and reckoned the cost of what the tariff on boots and shoes would mean in the family circle and threw off as much in the taxation on tea and sugar as would equate it in our minds. As a result of that we were able to promote industries in this country thereby giving employment and we did not decrease the value of the £. When we left off the £ was running at a value of about 25/- in comparison with what it had previously been.

We did one thing that was supposed to be a failure. We did not allow a few people to grab all the money. The higher the tariff the better the chance of grabbing money. We tried to stop that. We gave people an incentive through the profits they could make. We did not hold out to them the temptation of excess profits. We are in the region now of excess profits and have been for many years back. Until industrialists get back to the view that profits are a good thing but excess profits bad we shall not have a healthy condition in industry. For some years back industrialists have represented themselves as being afraid of a change of Government because, as a result of that change, there might be a change of industrial policy.

Supposing there had been two Parties of almost equal strength, such as the old Liberals and Conservatives in England, and that alternatively one Party swung in and another swung out; that you had a tariff group and, opposed to that, a free trade group, I can imagine then industrialists being justified in saying: "While the tariff group last we have to make our profit and recoup to ourselves our capital expenditure." That never was the situation here and I think it was an unfair use that industrialists made of the benefits they got under two Governments here that they tried to recoup their capital commitments over a very short period of years. I do not say they all did that, but a certain number of them did.

The situation ought now to be clear. I was in favour of moderate tariffs in my time. I was succeeded by people who had whole-hog tariffs and who gave the manufacturers the chance to make good. There is now a new situation in which it is quite clear tariffs are not going to be disturbed. This is the time, if ever there was a time, when manufacturers could say to themselves that they have now an easy mind and that they know that tariffs are going to continue. We have, therefore, a situation in which we can look forward to security in regard to industry and industrialists need not seek to recoup themselves their capital commitments over a limited period of years, as they tried to do previously. Industrialists can now give the consumer a chance.

I would like to make an appeal to industrialists at this time. We are facing a very serious situation. The country requires a vast amount of money to enable it to be restocked as far as its main industry is concerned. I refer to agriculture. Agriculture will require a great deal of money. That money can be raised if things go well. We have also a public who are afflicted by a cost of living.

On the other side appeals are being made to those engaged in industry and business to come together and plan deliberately to break prices and bring them down for the benefit of the consumer. Will our industrialists and businessmen listen to a similar appeal? I think they should. I think we can put it to them that since 1924 at least they have been given by two Governments—and they are now promised it by a third—a continuance of all the benefits they have enjoyed. I think they should now come to the assistance of a sorely tried public to see what they can do to bring prices down. If they do not do that of their own volition there are ways of breaking prices. That, however, would be harsh and might lead to other reactions which might not be healthy. I would rather have the method of appeal that has been used on the other side. On the other side the people who have been appealed to have been taxed severely during the war. They had standards laid down for them on a pre-war basis. Anything they made over and above those standards was taken from them 100 per cent. In this country we were not quite so ruthless. We had the same idea of a standard year but we did not take in taxation the full 100 per cent. of what was made over and above that. Industrialists were allowed to take 25 per cent. while 75 per cent. was paid over to the State. The 25 per cent. was a relaxation but it was, at the same time, an incentive to make higher and higher profits and from that angle it was intrinsically bad.

Now our industrialists and business people in comparison with their English counterparts have the advantage that they were allowed to take certain things during he war. Excess profits could be taken from them and there is every moral justification to take those moneys from them because at the beginning of the war it was laid down by my predecessor, now President of this country, that he would allow nobody to make money out of the exigencies of war. If there are moneys piled up it is possible to get them.

I do not wish to embark on any campaign on going back to 1939 and examining accounts, as was done in the days of arrears of income-tax, but I think we should expect some response from our industrialists and business people at this time when we are so hard-pressed and they should now permit to filter back to the public something of what they got over those years, and let us get prices down, decrease the cost of living and enable people to get some better approach to the old standard of living they had prior to 1939. I think it was Senator O'Dea who said that industrialists felt there had been too strict a Government eye on the affairs of business over the past five or six years. I agree and I disagree with that statement. If the Senator has in mind inspectors butting in on the affairs of private business he is right, because I do not think any good was done by having these inspectors around and cluttering up business. Just as the Minister for Agriculture made a promise that when those inspectors would meet the farmers they would stand outside the fences, I will appeal to my colleague in office, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to arrange that his inspectors will stand outside in the streets. I will, however, have a little inspection by tax collectors. I am sure the last Minister for Finance was a quieter individual in that respect. Again, however, that is not going to happen immediately. If I can get, as I hope I will get, a willing response to an appeal to industrialists and business people to do something on their own then we can cut out the rather harsh inspection of the tax gatherer.

Two or three Senators have referred to tourism. Senator McGee made a plea for it and Senator Hawkins said it was worth £17,000,000 to this country last year. There are many views on this question of tourism. I have expressed views that are not the ones that are usually held. I do not think that, as it is run at the moment, it is a healthy business. I think it adds very much to the inflationary pressures that are here. I do not think it is the best way of doing business even from the point of view of those who get the benefit of the better foodstuffs here. I think if we had to export these foodstuffs to England, where they would come under the control of a rationing authority who would ration them, we would be doing greater justice to the English. However, that is their affair, not ours. Let us examine the view that tourism is a valuable matter. I question anybody who says to me that the proposed development of the Tourist Board or, say, of Aer Lingus or Aer Linte has anything or very much to do with tourism. Tourists came here before we had any Tourist Board and before we had any air services. The amount of, say, tourists' dollars available to this country is significant but not terribly significant. But how much of those are coming in because we have either air terminal development or a Tourist Board? I think it is only a very small fraction indeed of what we get. My anxiety about the Tourist Board is that there is something short of £1,500,000 of public money behind it. About £220,000 of that sum is for five hotels which are operated by the Tourist Board. It is not possible to get any exact calculation on how the Tourist Board is managing the public funds which it has, other than such public funds as are in the five hotels, but judging by their activities the Tourist Board is not a good development.

It is an amazing thing that in the two years in which tourists were pouring into this country and during which, as I said last night, nearly every boarding-house keeper in Dublin and throughout the country was making money, the Tourist Board, with public money and operating five hotels—and, incidentally, in one instance charging the highest price in all Ireland—could not meet their ordinary trade expenses and the managing expenses of Fáilte Teoranta. When I say that that undertaking lost money it is only judging the activities in a particular plane. When I say that they have lost money I would point out that they have not been asked to repay one halfpenny of the £220,000 of the State money they have, and that they have not been able to pay a single point of percentage of interest on the money they have. Yet there they are with five hotels and £220,000 of public money. Marvellous as the last couple of seasons have been, this undertaking could not make money when others could. There seems to be something very wrong, something very unhealthy and bad about that and I want it to be inquired into at once. It was said last night, and the comment might be made here too, that the tourist expenditure might not be very big but I would point out that there are capital moneys in the background. Apart from that, I cannot see how any business man in this country could be urged or stimulated to any type of good effort if he were to see around him the activities of that company—and some of the other Government companies were not much better. If he took his example from those companies he must have seen that there was a good deal of lack of thought in Government service—and business people were inclined to take advantage of that. Generally speaking the activities of that body, so far as they had any influence, were demoralising in their effect on the whole of the business and it is time that that situation was cleared up.

Turf of course, has been very much talked of here. One small point was made by Senator Honan, I think, as regards hauliers. Senator Crosbie also referred to the matter. The obvious way is to give these men hauliers' plates and to let them run in competition with Córas Iompair Éireann. Of course there will be a howl from the people who established Córas Iompair Éireann because it would seem to them that any competition is bad for that company. I do not accept that point of view. One more or less can hear the directors moaning and bewailing and saying that they have lost nearly £1,000,000 already and what will their losses be if we put lorries into competition with them. But I wonder if they would be stirred to better effort. I have not the eye of the management of Córas Iompair Éireann but, even to my own business-like eye, for that matter, I can see day after day a whole lot of potential fares hanging around the bus stops in the city—penny, penny-halfpenny, twopenny, and three-penny fares. The buses appear to be making money whereas the railways are not. There are multitudinous potential fares in the City of Dublin and we are told that there are buses in the Córas Iompair Éireann depôts but yet they are not out in the city collecting these fares. If four or five hauliers were allowed to go into combination and to transform their lorries into some form of rough and ready ramshackle bus conveyances—not like the green-painted Córas Iompair Éireann vehicles—they might make money and show Córas Iompair Éireann now to make money.

There is a similar matter in connection with turf. I do not know what they expect me to do about it. There was employment for any number of people in this country before the great turf drive came on. Has it wholly disappeared? I do know that one of the previous Minister for Agriculture. Dr. Ryan, was in his time responsible for the shifting of about 40,000 people from the land, and I know from the statistical returns that, between 1941 and 1946, 36,000 people have left the land. I do not regard that as being fairly normal. I think some of those 76,000 people will eventually be restored to work on the land. I understand that there are many parts of this country in which there is work of an agricultural type to be done but that there is not enough labour. That is one side of the problem. The other side is this. What is supposed to be the minimum target that anyone has to aim at with regard to turf production? There was a time when the highest figure, I think, was 600,000 tons of turf cut at one time. The average would not have been anything like that, call it 400,000. What am I to do? There is a vast area in the Park which is overcrowded with fuel of different types. Remember what I said before of the situation—five years' supply of logs; enough turf, if another sod was not cut, to get us through until the spring of 1950, and 500,000 tons of American coal which was brought in here in 60 liberty ships at great expense to the community. It is laying out in the Park. Even while it was lying there, during my first week in office I found that logs were pouring into the city at the rate of 10,000 tons a week and at a cost of something like £4 or £4 5s. per ton. We had to pay eventually £40,000 per week on that stuff coming in. If there were no dumps in the Park, what was brought in in one week would have been sufficient to cover six weeks' consumption in the city. All that was pouring in, while you had the depôts in the Park chock-full of three types of fuel. It would have been intolerable if that were allowed to continue one hour longer after we had taken office.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce, however, has been persuaded to provide for 200,000 tons of turf to be cut this year. Mind you, we do not require that turf. I am speaking now of hand-won turf. The Minister has said in a public interview that it will have to lie on the bogs for some time. He cannot go on bringing it to the dumps for storage. In fact he will seriously have to consider whether it will not be necessary to ask the hauliers to take back some of the stuff already landed there. He will have to stack the 200,000 tons to be cut this year out on the bogs and along the roadsides near the bogs. It will be left there without much protection, because we could not involve ourselves in the expense necessitated in providing protection for it. It may be pilfered but, in any event, we have got to cut it because there is an unemployment problem in the background that no one can face with equanimity. That is the shocking situation in which we have been landed.

If there had been any public notice given, or if there had been any chart kept which should have shown the amount of stuff of three different types which was accumulating there, there would have been some public warning and the thing could have been scotched earlier. Instead of that, there has been an accumulation of this useless stuff and people have been led to believe that they could get further employment on work of that kind were it not for out ruthless cuts. We are going to ease that situation but I do not think anybody who is sane would ask us to go on subsidising these logs and subsidising turf in the way to which people have got accustomed in the last few years. I think it was one of the prophecies in Macbeth that Macbeth was to be secure "until Great Birnam wood to high Dunsinane hill shall come". Well, we have all the woods of the West brought up to the Park. They are lying there and it will take years to get rid of them.

And there will be a considerable amount of deterioration meanwhile.

There will be tremendous deterioration, not alone of timber but of turf and coal. It is going to rest there in the dump, a great public wastage but that is not my doing. I am going to try, not to make a saving, but to cut the losses as much as I can. I should be commended for stopping further subsidies that would add to the huge problem of getting rid of the stuff which faces the Minister for Industry and Commerce in that matter. I hope that employment will be found for the people who were previously occupied in this work. There is agricultural work to be done. There is work on the roads which has not been attended to for years because men have been taken off the roads by the county councils and sent to work on the bogs. There is also the matter of drainage. I do not like to consider that too seriously for the moment because it involves great public expense and I am anxious to curtail expenditure for the time being.

Another matter raised was the question of social services. I have had quite a different view from a number of people on that matter but I do not want to obtrude that view on Senators at the moment. I have been asked how two separate groups can combine, one claiming a reduction of taxation and the other claiming an increase in social services, or as one Senator put it in a new way, that some people want an increase in taxation while others want a reduction in taxation and an increase in social services. I want to reduce taxation but I also want to increase expenditure on developments where necessary. I want a reduction in costs because I want to get money for development purposes. I do not think the two things are incompatible at all. I come back to the social services and to the question I was asked: what about the dilemma created by people who want to reduce taxation and to increase social services? These things are incompatible only if social services are financed out of taxation.

Remember what we were told two days ago in Dáil Éireann. We were told by an ex-Minister for Finance that the Government had plans ready for a whole new comprehensive scheme of social welfare. Later Dr. Ryan, the late Minister for Social Welfare, told us that the first statement was an exaggeration and that all that they made was a series of actuarial calculations. They had the statistical data prepared but they had not come to any decision as to the scheme that would be put into operation or as to where the money was to be found but it did emerge from the debate that they were thinking in terms of insurance and contributions. That is a healthy development. That means that you could possibly overload these social services, so to speak from the taxpayer, on to the workingman.

People may say that that is not very good for the workingman. It may not be but it will have the effect of clearly revealing to him, a situation that is now clouded from him, because I believe these social services are being paid for by the workingman at present by what he pays out of his wages in taxes on various commodities. I could never understand the philosophy that thinks it is good business to charge a man some extra sum on boots, shoes and stockings for his wife and family so that eventually part of the money can be given back to him in the way of children's allowances, having added to it in the meantime the administrative expenses of collecting these moneys in taxes and the further administrative expenses of paying a civil servant to dole him out his children's allowances. If a man got better wages you could give him all these things, and he would be a free and independent person trained up in the way in which the human person should be trained.

I feel that this question of social services will have to be the subject of special debate by itself at some future time. At the moment, administered in the way they are, they are a charity and the people who get them have a feeling of dependence on the community. If the whole matter were examined, it would be found that, although paying indirectly themselves for these services, they do get that feeling of dependence, that that feeling was deliberately engendered in their minds and that this matter of exploiting social services was a well thought out political scheme. It has been said—the quotation comes from Lenin in Russia —that if the Government could control the books of the proletariat they could control their votes. We had the same feeling here, that the people responsible for the social services would be able to control the suffrages of the majority. There was politics in the social services but there was not a great deal of help for the people who were dependent on them.

Senator Duffy has made some laudatory references to the comments I made last night about finance but he neglected to give part of what I said last night. I did say that I happened to have a different view of finance from what some other people had but I also expressed the opinion, with some reservation, that I had views which were possibly the result of a great deal of theorising and some study, and that I was a little bit doubtful as to how these views and theories, when they were applied to the hard facts of the situation that I have in front of me, would work out. However, the Senator can be assured that these theories will be put through until I find that they break down or are broken down by the impact of hard facts.

The Senator wants information and I shall give some information. There was a booklet on national income and expenditure produced a couple of years ago. There will be a new addition to that, but I am afraid I cannot promise it soon. I doubt if it will come this year at all. I understand that certain civil servants in different Departments are engaged upon preparing what might be regarded as the other matter that the Senator referred to, an economic review rather than a national income matter. That particular conspectus is being done in considerable detail in a number of Departments. It may be possible, although I can make no promise, to get, say, chapters of that issued from time to time. I feel it would be of public benefit and in the interests of many members of the Government that the public should be enlightened on the various matters that help to form policy. So far as the new edition of the national income and expenditure leaflet is concerned, I understand that that will not be ready for about another year.

Could the Minister say now whether we will have some information in the White Paper regarding foreign exchanges and the possibility of buying abroad, before the Budget is introduced?

That is another matter, which I can take note of and see about. Senator Ó Buachalla wanted to know—and this is a dangerous matter—what about the relationship of the Irish pound and the English pound. A colleague of mine, the Minister for External Affairs, expressed views during the election and, on being brought to the point of decision by an editorial in an Irish paper, he replied that he had certain views on that, but that the views he had were causing a certain amount of timidity, and that he knew this particular matter would have to be very carefully examined by any number of people before a definite decision could be taken upon it. He has been gibed at because that part of his policy, it is said, has been put in abeyance. I think that the Minister acted very wisely in that matter.

If I came here to-morrow with some piece of legislation breaking the link with sterling, as it is called, and proposing a completely new Irish currency entirely divorced from that relationship with sterling, I am sure the first demand that would be made would be to have the matter postponed until we got some inquiries made. Why should a man be criticised for being cautious about a matter like that? I do not know why there should be such timidity about the matter, but I know that, there being timidity, the public confidence could be shaken over a thing like that. Therefore, it has to be cautiously approached. Those who want to keep the link with sterling must realise that the onus is on them to prove that that situation is the proper one, because such a situation does not exist between any other two countries in the world. No other two countries have it. Therefore, I put it on that broad base, that those who stand for the maintenance of the present situation must realise that the onus is on them to show that the continuance of that is the proper thing.

Then there is an onus put upon them in another way. The Banking Commission considered that many years ago and the report is very cautious. They stated that, in the then circumstances, they considered it was desirable to maintain a particular situation. The circumstances have changed very, very much since. There have been very different courses pursued by the two economies—the economy in England and the economy here. If the Commission could only report that in the circumstances as they were about 1936 it was right to maintain a particular situation, then certainly we are thrown back on an inquiry. Now that the circumstances have changed, would the Banking Commission likely report for the maintenance of the old conditions? However, these are just comments.

With regard to that I want to say that I hope to get certain inquiries made. Any inquiries that will be made will have such an effect on the public that I think they ought to be conducted quite openly. I do not see why the people should be afraid of having an inquiry of the kind made if you want to get the right situation revealed. It may be that it will prove right to have the English £ and the Irish £ so completely one as they are at present. Let us then have the argument for it, let the public be advised of it. It may be that there would be a national advantage in having separation. Then, again, let the public be advised of it. Let us know what are the circumstances in which it would be right and the arguments for and against. Let the arguments be disclosed and the public, without any great timidity, might be led to take a step which they are terribly afraid of taking at the moment because they regard it as a leap in the dark. I do not see why the matter should not be talked about, why it should not be inquired into. I do not see why there should be any shake given to public confidence because the Minister for External Affairs, or even a person like myself, thinks that there is something to be talked of and to be inquired into in regard to that matter. I would go a great deal further if I was not afraid of shaking public confidence. This matter has to be approached gradually, and I hope it will be approached gradually.

With regard to general finance matters, Senator Duffy's reference to a new outlook in regard to finance brings this comment to my mind. I can look forward, I think, with some confidence to five Budgets. I come in here at a time when I shall have a Budget in my hands almost immediately and when, in the ordinary course of events, I should have four others. I think it would not be a bad thing to have the five Budgets considered as a series, not entirely disconnected as to speak of the one year as being divorced from another, but having the finances considered over a limited period of five years. That is a point of view which I shall try to make more clear in debates later in this House. I shall try to make some progress along those lines.

I should like to make that point of view even clearer at this point. I do think that the State is landed into unnecessary difficulties because it is tied to making ends meet inside 12 months. I do not see why it should not be allowed to go outside that period and, say, iron out the finances for two, three, four or five years following. If I see myself in these five years ahead facing two years of difficulty and depression and three years in which things might be easier, I think I might arrive more speedily at the three easy years if I eased things in the two difficult years by relying on the future to ease the situation. That is the mood that is on me and it is one which I shall try to work out.

I have to thank Senators for what they have said in connection with my appearance here and the way I have been received. I want to say this with regard to the new Government after the comments which have been made about it. Going around the country and the city here for the last three weeks I feel that there is a great feeling in the air as of liberation. People are breathing more easily. People are beginning to feel that there were things they should have known in the past and that information on these matters was kept from them. They have now got promises and they have seen some achievement and are getting information given to them. I think they are beginning to realise at last that they were unnecessarily perturbed at the development of the situation and that they had accepted as something inevitable a continuance of a Governmental situation which they did not wholly relish. Even some people who voted for the continuance of the last Government are moving much more freely about their daily avocations, talking much more freely and thinking of better times ahead under the present system of group Government than they were at the end of 1947. We are going to try to make things more liberal and the matter that Senator Douglas talked about will tend to play a great part. We will have a great deal more freedom of discussion even if people are critical in their support. We will give the people an incentive to support and criticise us and will be more attentive to their views than the last Government were to the views of their supporters. In that way we hope to get willing support and not just a promise of support from people who do not wholly understand the situation and, so far as they do not understand it, do not approve of what they are being asked to do. In the meantime I ask people to understand what they are to do and, when they do understand it, to support us in the full knowledge of what they are doing.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed: That the remaining Stages of the Bill be taken to-day.
Bill passed through Committee, received for final consideration and ordered to be returned to the Dáil without recommendation.
Top
Share