Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Jul 1952

Vol. 40 No. 26

Appropriation Bill 1952 (Certified Money Bill) — Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

This measure is an annual feature and is in the usual standardised form. It proposes to do three things. First, it authorises the issue from the Central Fund of the balance of the amount—including certain supplementary amounts granted for the Supplies Services, 1952-53, after deduction of the amount already authorised— for the Central Fund Bill of this year. Secondly, it authorises the Minister for Finance to borrow up to the limit of the issue provided for. Thirdly, it appropriates to the several Supplies Services sums granted by the Dáil since the Appropriation Act of 1951.

As the Bill is in the usual form, I assume the Seanad will not require any detailed explanation of the several sections in it.

Professor Hayes

This Bill is one of the two opportunities the Seanad gets of discussing the finances of the country. On this particular occasion, as indeed on other occasions, the Appropriation Bill comes to us very late. It must be law by to-morrow, and a motion is down in the name of the Leader of the House asking us to say that it is a matter of urgency to have it signed. Indeed, it is a matter of urgency to have it signed to-morrow. I suggest to the Minister again that it is very difficult and rather unfair for us to be confronted on almost the last day of July with a Bill of this kind, after the Dáil has adjourned for the summer Recess, and when it is very difficult to get up any real enthusiasm for a serious debate. This year the Budget was earlier than ever before, nearly a month earlier, yet we get the Appropriation Bill later than ever. I do not know if that could be remedied. There are two things which could be done. One, which would be a very drastic change, and which would do great good to the business of the other House, would be to change the financial year from April-March, and make it run from January to December like the ordinary year. The other method, if I may have the temerity to make the suggestion here, is that the Dáil might come to the conclusion that it should discuss the Estimates on some agreed plan which would survive Governments and be a regular institution. If it did that, we might be able to get this Bill rather earlier, and so give it more valuable consideration.

With regard to the Appropriation Bill itself, even on the reduced value of the £ the amount of money now being spent by the State is enormous. It must be remembered that this high State spending is now combined with rising unemployment, with high prices, naturally enough with high taxes, with certain credit restriction by the banks owing to the general financial position and with a recession of trade. As far as the Government is concerned, the Government speaks on this matter with two voices. The Minister for Finance asks us to save, although what he is leaving us to save from is hard to know; but the Minister for Industry and Commerce advises us for the good of trade and industry to spend. His colleague, the Minister for Finance for whom he is, of course, responsible is preventing us from saving anything. It is very difficult to know how anyone can save in the present situation.

There are, of course, advantages, advantages flowing to a great extent from the policy of the Government which preceded the present one. The adverse balance of trade is decreasing. Our exports of live stock and live-stock products are up for the first six months of 1952 not only in money value but also in volume. There are several circumstances in our favour, but this enormous bill combines high taxation, high prices and actually more borrowing than the previous Government indulged in. It must be remembered also that higher prices, induced to a considerable extent by Government policy, mean a demand for higher wages and therefore still higher prices. It means unrest and strikes, some of which we have at this particular moment. The higher prices also result from Government action. As you increase social services, you increase the cost of all health services provided by both local and the central authorities.

The Appropriation Bill here provides for certain sums for social services. It must be remembered that by the removal of subsidies there has been a transfer of taxation—that which previously provided subsidies now provides increased social services to meet the increased prices caused by the withdrawal of subsidies. That is to say, the needy, the ill and the unemployed get increases, but the needy, the unemployed and the sick get less advantage out of the increased social services than they did out of the prices of subsidised food.

It must be remembered also—and I think that all the people in public life should unitedly take steps to tell all those whom it concerns, and it concerns everybody—that the cost of increased services which this Bill represents comes out of the pockets of people at work and of wage earners. Formerly there were landowners and rich people, but there are no such people now to provide the sum of money which the Minister is asking for in the Bill, a sum of money totalling over £100,000,000, except the ordinary wage earner. There may be a certain amount of juggling done and a great deal of talking, but whatever amount of juggling there is and whatever speeches are made, the truth of the whole matter is that those who work, those who produce, are called upon in the end to foot the bill, either by direct or indirect taxation.

There is some evidence that, enormous as this Bill is and enormous as the burden of taxation is, the Minister is not going to get the money to pay the amount involved in this particular piece of legislation. I think he budgeted for something like £7,000,000 extra in the year from customs, which would be about £600,000 per month. As far as I can read the figures, up to the 12th of this month, the amount extra that he received from customs is £1,200,000 for three and a half months since 1st April. He is not receiving very much more than half what he calculated upon receiving. In other words, what has been frequently remarked by economists proves, in practice, to be true here, namely, that the law of diminishing returns is operating; the higher you make the taxes, after a certain point, you get, instead of more money into the Exchequer, less.

That is very much the case with regard to customs since 1st April. It is also, I think, the case with excise. The Minister expected to get £300,000 a month. In three and a half months he got only £350,000, which is only at the rate of £100,000 a month. It should be remembered that, in that period, April, May and June, the price of food had not gone up. It did not go up until the first week of this month. Purchasing power will now be smaller, and it is therefore to be expected that the product of taxation will be smaller too.

The truth is that we have surely reached the limit in Government spending and that, when the Minister asks us to save, the obvious answer is that unless saving begins with Government expenditure, nobody else has any margin upon which to save.

Most certainly, the most downtrodden and least looked after class in the community, the white collar worker, is put into the position that he certainly can save nothing. He has to live from hand to mouth. His position is daily growing very much worse. It was among that class that great saving was previously effected and they are the very class hardest hit by present-day conditions and present Government policy and they themselves cannot now save at all.

It is difficult to save and to invest in Government loans and to do the things that are necessary to provide for this expenditure and to provide also for development of agriculture, industry and social services, considering the very high level of taxation, the high level of prices and the uncertainty as to the value of one's savings, not only in ten years' time, but even next year.

There are very real problems shown in this particular measure. After 30 years of self-Government, for a population of something less than 3,000,000 people, we are spending £100,000,000 and, as I say, there seems to me to be no place where saving can be effected except in Government expenditure. Even with that immense expenditure, it has to be remembered that a great many problems have not been solved. We have not solved the problem of keeping our people on the land and still less have we solved the problem of keeping our people at home. I can remember the Sinn Féin days when we all promised that it could be done and that it would be done. I now have to admit, 30 years after self-Government was established, that it has not been done. When you consider the amount of money being spent by Government, you have to remember also that we have a small population, that we still have emigration, not the thing that is usual in many European countries—the flight from the land to towns belonging to the particular State; our position is that the people are flying from our land to the cities of another State.

We have our older age groups steadily increasing older. We have the most extraordinary figure of a marriage rate. We have the oldest marriage age in the world, as far as we know statistics. The number of our producers is decreasing and, although we have had a very intensive industrial drive, the net result of that industrial drive is that the increased number of industrial workers is off-set by the decrease in the number of agricultural workers.

When one is asked to pass a measure which involves public expenditure of £100,000,000 which, by the way, is not the whole bill either, the situation that we are in is one almost as bad, perhaps just as bad, as external war because one is always hoping for the end of a war, but the situation that we find ourselves in does not seem to be one which could be easily ended in any appreciable time.

It has always struck me, looking at our economic and financial problems as typified in this particular measure, that a solution needs unity and co-operation, needs co-operative effort, needs everybody to think as to what he can do and to see that it is done. But, at the same time, the present Minister for Finance in all his speeches in the other House, in this House and in the country gives the impression of being more interested in blackening his opponents than in solving any problems either economic or financial. He is much more concerned, much more emphatic, much clearer, much more vigorous in explaining how wrong everybody is except himself than in telling us what particular measures could be taken or should be taken to solve our economic and financial problems.

This is a very small country of 3,000,000 people. If we had the whole country united we would have only 4,000,000 people and, by the same token, our economic and financial problems, perhaps, would not be any the less grievous than they are at the present moment. On a great many issues, a great many spiritual issues and national issues, there is more unity in this country than in any other country in the world. The things which divide other Parliaments, matters of religion, matters of education, spiritual matters, what are called in the modern jargon, ideologies, do not divide us at all.

The Minister and the Minister's Party persist in refusing co-operation with anybody. To co-operate with the Minister you must do so on one set of conditions: you must adopt his policy, his present policy, his past policy and whatever his future policy may be. You must adopt it all, hook, line and sinker, before you can co-operate with him. It seems to me that there are a great many red lights that show themselves in our path that indicate that the high hopes that were once held of what could be accomplished in this country by a native Government and by a native Parliament, hopes which people like the Minister and myself held out, have proved to be very difficult of achievement.

The difficulties are not all of our own making, but some of them undoubtedly are of our own making, and a great many of them are remediable by action among ourselves. It may very well be that, if the political fight as at present conducted goes on, there will be political victors, but I do suggest that Ireland will certainly be the loser unless we can come to some conclusion which will enable us to pool our intelligence and our energies to solve those problems which have heretofore eluded us.

Mr. Baxter

No doubt, it is the Minister's concern to-day to get this Bill through this House as quickly and as quietly as he can. He has been through the wars and, although, presumably, he can claim to have withstood many of the shocks and the attacks that were levelled against him, he must still be considerably concerned about the dimension of the Bill before the House, about the problems facing him in his position as Minister for Finance, and the difficulties confronting him in the coming year. Every member of the Seanad and, indeed, every public man, should do his duty and do his best to help the Minister in his task to bring light and guidance, if that be possible, and to make his contribution in as constructive a fashion as he can. The problem of how the money, which the Minister is raising under the Budget legislation, has to be spent, is a matter with which we must all concern ourselves.

Some of us cannot feel very happy that the manner in which taxation is being distributed will bring the best results. Senator Hayes has already alluded to the dimensions of this Bill and to the capacity of our people, year after year, to hand over a larger share of their total income to be spent by the State without being given sufficient evidence that the community as a whole have a plan laid out for them which will enable them to raise their own incomes to such a level as will put them in a position to bear the increasing burden laid upon them.

My difference with the Minister to-day lies in the fact that the scheme which he has planned out for the expenditure of this money will not bring to the State the fruits which we desire, because the money is not really being as wisely spent as it might be. I take it that it is the aim of us all to plan our national economy along lines that will enable us to bring all our people more comfort and a higher standard of well-being. We appear to differ as to the manner of examining and producing a policy so that these objects can be attained. Year after year, in this House, when I come to examine the Minister for Finance's proposals, I am at variance with the policy enunciated by him. I regret to say that there is no more evidence of enlightenment to-day than we had from the Minister and his colleagues at any period during the 16 or 17 years during which they formed the Government of this State. As I say, it should be the aim of all to raise the standards of our people as a whole. However, that cannot be done without raising the level of national income. What is there in this Appropriation Bill to which we can point as the medium being employed by the Government to achieve that end?

As we know, the agricultural industry forms the basis of our economy. What is being done under these proposals to raise the productivity of agriculture, to increase the quantity of goods coming from our soil so that a greater amount will be available both for consumption at home and for sale abroad, thus making life better for everybody? In discussing any proposals brought by the Minister to this Assembly, I always feel that he has never yet attempted to give adequate consideration to his responsibility, as Minister for Finance, to the agricultural industry. Now, this responsibility will force itself on him to a greater extent than ever before, whether he likes it or not. The agricultural industry is the concern of Chancellors of the Exchequer in other countries.

We have evidence that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Great Britain is concerning himself with the prospects of agriculture in that country to a much greater extent than previously. Agriculture is vital for the life of Britain, but it is much more vital for the life of this country; all we have got to sell abroad must come from our soil, and agricultural production must give us the surplus to which we look to provide the exchange for purchases abroad. What is being done under this legislation of the Minister's to ensure that the national income will be increased and that the moneys with which the Minister is being provided, and which he will distribute under this legislation, will be spent in the most profitable way for the country as a whole?

In his Budget statement, the Minister himself drew attention to this fact that the conditions in the agricultural industry were static. What is he doing to cheer us up? What is he doing to make us more efficient? In other words, what is he doing to make it possible for the farmers to produce a greater quantity of goods this year and in the years ahead than they have been doing in the past—a period of which he spoke so gloomily in the other House on his Budget statement?

As I said already, agriculture is an industry with which Chancellors of the Exchequer in other countries are concerning themselves at the present time. The British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. R.A. Butler, at Chelmsford on 25th July, 1952, emphasised the responsibility that rested on the British farmer and said:—

"We must aim to reduce our dependence on imported feeding stuffs by increasing our yield of coarse grains and improving the quality of our grass.

It speaks highly of our past husbandry that the yield per acre last year was higher for all grains than in 1950 and was well above the previous ten-year average. It shows that we are learning more about grassland management and are making more and better silage.

But we have certainly not gone as far as we can and must in raising farming productivity. The short-term nature of our balance of payments is reason enough. But the longer-term prospect offers no less powerful an inducement to the farmer. Increased world food consumption shows that we shall continue to depend heavily on what can be grown at home.

But we want not only more production, but more efficient production, so that our expanded agriculture will not weigh heavily on the national economy, lowering our standard of living and our power to compete abroad. Our national future will depend on an agriculture that is not only expanded but efficient from end to end."

I feel that our Minister for Finance could profitably repeat that statement; also every one of his colleagues. I suggest that, in the Bill before us to-day, there are none of the inducements held out to the Irish farmers which the British Chancellor of the exchequer is holding out to British farmers. The instruments available in Britain to British farmers are not provided for our farmers, though the same reasons for increasing agricultural production prevail in both countries. The same demand is upon us with regard to our balance of payments. In fact, our whole position hangs on the capacity of our agricultural industry to improve in every respect. What are we doing, through the Minister's legislation to-day, to reach that end? Here you have the sort of thing which is being done in Britain under the British Ministry of Agriculture. I quote from a speech made on the occasion of the opening of Northumberland's £80,000 County Farm Institute at Kirkley Hall on Saturday. The Minister of Agriculture said:—

"Britain could boast of fine farms and progressive farmers to compare with any in the world, but there are still in our midst—and we must face it—too many examples of the below-average farmer on the below-average farm.

It was the Government's aim, Sir Thomas Dugdale stressed, first, to bring these below-average farmers up to the level of the average.

Then we must try to bring the level of the average up to the level of the better and the level of the better to the level of the best."

An Cathaoirleach

Might I remind the Senator that it is usual to give the references when quoting.

Mr. Baxter

I am quoting from a report in the Farmers Weekly dated the 18th July, 1952. The previous quotation I made was from the Farmers Weekly of the 25th July, 1952. What I want to say to the Minister for Finance is that we all have the same objective. We want to make the conditions of all our people better and we want to increase our productivity in field and factory. We want to provide more goods, better services and we want to have plenty for all. But there are many things that we have got to provide before that aim can be reached. We are not attempting to do that here. Anyone who is sufficiently interested to read what other countries are doing to-day in the field of agriculture to increase productivity and who makes a comparison with the conditions here can only stand amazed that so much has been accomplished by the farmers having regard to the disabilities under which we labour.

In the plans of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer provision has been made this year for a subsidy on fertilisers to the farmers of Britain to the extent of 30 per cent., on their phosphatic manures and to the extent of £3. 3s., per ton on nitrogenous manures. The contribution which that has made to the fertility of British farm land to-day is truly immense and the results which have accrued to the British farmers and the British consuming public are equally immense. We are not attempting to do anything like that. We have apparently set our face against it. Perhaps, that has its origin in our ignorance as to what the land of the country requires if it is to do for the country what it is potentially capable of doing. There you have an illustration from the British Ministry of Agriculture of what they are doing. They are opening an £80,000 County Farm Institute.

When did we open any agricultural institute or when did we do anything that added even one room to any of the institutes for agricultural education? We have recently, it is true, done something at Johnstown Castle. I would suggest that my late colleague, Jim Hughes, was the inspiration behind this.

Mr. MacEntee

Not at all—Dr. Ryan.

Mr. Baxter

Not a word was said in public in regard to soil science until he introduced the subject and debated it year after year in Dáil Éireann. It took a very long time to get anything done about it. Anyway, we have done it now. It is an advance—a definite advance, but it came very late. Have a look round at the other agricultural institutes in this country. Pay them a visit, as I have done, and see what they are like. They are the same to-day as they were 40 years ago, when they were first established. There is not a place for one more student in those colleges to-day any more than was the case 40 years ago. I submit that situation is the result not of the attitude of the Ministry of Agriculture but of the Department of Finance. It is the Department of Finance that is responsible. Where the Minister for Finance holds such an obscurantist view in regard to agriculture no real progress can be made, and unless the people are made to realise that fact a Minister for Finance in 40 years to come will be standing up here and repeating what the present Minister for Finance stated in Leinster House, when he was introducing his Budget this year—that the conditions in agriculture were static, and that no improvement could be recorded practically for 50 years. Whether or not he said 50 years does not matter. That is the real position. The whole general picture in regard to agriculture is not any better than it was when this State was established. Anybody who looks at the statistics of 50 years ago in relation to live stock and the area under tillage, will find proof of what I say.

Our people are naturally intelligent, but it is not enough to have a type of brain which will absorb knowledge if the opportunity for absorbing that knowledge is not provided. The knowledge must be provided. It is truly astonishing the many thousands of farmers who have no facilities made available to them to improve their knowledge as to what their soils require.

We require in this country to-day a very great extension of our agricultural education and our propaganda services. I am quite satisfied that any practical person on the other side of the House will admit that is true, but we are doing nothing about it. It is no use saying to the farmers: "You are not progressing", when the same means are not placed at their disposal that are available to other farmers in other countries to progress. The truth is that the British people to-day are aiming at increased productivity from their land by 1956 of 60 per cent. above pre-war. Ours to-day is probably just about pre-war. Theirs is up to 44 per cent. above pre-war. For goodness' sake, will the people ask themselves the question why that is so? Let us try to get to the bottom of the matter. We can do on the land of Ireland what they are doing on the land of England. We should aim at increased production both for ourselves and for export. By doing this we will be providing opportunities for the people such as they never before enjoyed.

My complaint is that the Minister for Finance will not face the responsibilities which are ours in this country. The populace accept the policy of the Minister for Finance. That is why I am unhappy that the plan which the Minister provides for us is not going to provide us with what the nation requires. Increased agricultural production can only be assured when the means to increase production are provided.

I talked at length about the great investment land is on the Finance Bill and I made comparisons between our land and that of Britain. I am not going over that again. I would suggest to the Minister that the Government must seriously tackle the problem of agricultural education. The facilities available in our establishments for agricultural education to-day are not anything like adequate enough for our needs. Members on both sides of this House are members of county committees of agriculture. There is in every county an organisation with a county agricultural instructor or two. My estimate is that not at the end of 100 years would our present staffs, under the committees of agriculture, be able to touch every farmer in the county. What does it matter to us what things were like then?

These are all the teachers we have as far as agriculture is concerned. There is no real research being done in regard to agriculture. We are just tinkering with the problem and spending practically no money on it. There is no provision worth while for it in the vast sum in this Bill of the Minister.

The problems confronting agriculture in this country and in the world are immense. They are of immense significance for the peace of the world, but for us they are of immense significance from the point of view of our prosperity and general living standards. We cannot make progress without spending money on research. We hear an awful lot in the medical world of the use and benefits which these antibiotics have brought to man. Could anyone give an approximate estimate of the hundreds of millions spent on research in order to make these aids and benefits available to the human race? Will somebody look through this Bill and see how much is being made available for research to discover the scientific problems as the root of our failure in agriculture? There is very little, and when somebody like myself has the hardihood to say these things I suppose he will be attacked all round. There is no answer to these points. The truth is that nothing really is being done, and we ought not to make that an excuse for our present backwardness.

There are one or two other points to which I should like to draw attention. One might say a great deal about people emigrating and the sadness of it. One might say something also about the numbers of our people who have gone to Great Britain and the contribution they make through our invisible income towards the living standards of the people here. One might suggest that it might be profitable for us to make some provision in our budgetary policy to help our people in Great Britain in ways in which I believe they could be helped if a little careful study were given to the situation.

I should like some information from the Minister on another point. There has been a great deal of talk about our borrowings from America and the liabilities which have to be borne as a consequence. I have been alluding to the instruments which agriculture requires to enable it to do its job more efficiently and more fruitfully. I should like the Minister to tell us what was the justification for lending to the Agricultural Credit Corporation considerable sums, somewhere in the region of £600,000 recently, probably at such a figure as made it necessary for the corporation to charge 6 per cent. to the farmers and lending that money, I presume, from the Counterpart Fund on which I understand no interest is to be paid. Is the Minister out to utilise those funds in such a way as to make a profit for the Exchequer to the detriment of agriculture? Is not the same being done in regard to local loans? Are our local authorities not borrowing this money at a considerably higher price than we will have to pay for it when the repayment has to be made?

Handicaps like these on our efforts, whether productive or for improving the amenities of our people in rural areas, are something which must be seriously condemned. I do not understand how it is possible for the Minister to deplore the lack of progress in agriculture and at the same time, when the responsibility is upon him to provide instruments that will enable us to get greater production, only to give us the instruments at such a price as will discourage us from using them or make us use them with such frugality that the end cannot be achieved.

I agree with Senator Hayes. While there may be differences—sometimes they are merely personal differences— as to our methods, if we are serious and honest there can be no real differences about the objectives which our people have to reach. Is it not time therefore that we studied seriously the methods which we are employing and, if we discover that we shall not achieve our ends that way, discard them and adopt something new? In a world that is moving forward our people cannot hold their own by sitting down. There are many things about our way of life which are delightful, but we have many scars on our economy which must be healed; we have contradictions, and we have difficulties to overcome which we must face.

I feel very strongly that every Minister, no matter who he is, must call on our people to work harder. Whatever other faults Ministers may have, most of them, and the Minister for Finance is not excluded, work very hard. It is their responsibility to urge on our people that we cannot increase the goods within our own community by sitting down, that every man, and every woman also where there is an obligation on her to serve, must be prepared to work harder so that their labour will yield more. There are too many people expecting too much for the service they are giving. Politically, it is not easy to say that that is the approach of many of our people to life, but it is the fact.

There are numbers of people in this community who expect payment for eight or nine hours' work when the fruits of their labour could be produced in four hours. That is what makes things dear. That is the attitude of mind towards work which makes the conditions more unsatisfactory for our people as a whole than they need be. We have to urge on our people that harder work will compensate all of us. If the national income is to be increased, Government policy through the Ministry of Finance must provide the means that are not available from any other source. They have also got the responsibility when national income is increased of seeing that there is an equitable distribution of it, that it is related to the services which people give.

I have stressed some of the points as to which I feel strongly the Minister is not doing what I consider is the best thing to be done. There are many other aspects of Government policy, especially in regard to the agricultural industry, that I should like to discuss, but not just now. I know the time in which this Bill has to be put through is short. That is not satisfactory. This House is not responsible for that, but the truth remains that a much more frank approach must be made to the problems of the country, in the economic and social sense, than has been made up to the present if they are to be resolved.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

Is beag rud go dtí seo a thug oiread deise dhúinn caint a dhéanamh faoi chúrsaí talmhaíochta agus feirmeoireachta. Ba chóir go mbeimid ar aon aigne fúthu. Is é mo thuairim go bhfuil sé an-thábhachtach go dtabharfadh an tAire Airgeadais agus an Rialtas níos mó aire do na cúrsaí sin ná d'aon chúrsa eile. Ach nuair adeirim é sin tuigtear dom ag an am céanna nach furasta an slí is fearr agus is fusa d'fháil é sin a dhéanamh. Bíonn na daoine ag caint ar cionas is fearr feabhas a chur ar an scéal. Nuair a bhí mé ag éisteacht leis an mbeirt a tháinig romham sa díospóireacht seo, do buaileadh isteach im aigne ná raibh an bheirt acu ar aon aigne faoin mBille atá ós ár gcomhair. Dúirt duine acu go raibh an Bille rómhór, agus go dtuitfeadh sé ró-throm ar na daoine. Ansin do fuair sé locht ar an mBille faoin méid iasachtaí airgid atá le fáil faoi. Ag an am céanna, dúirt an Seanadóir eile ná rabhamar ag caitheamh sáith airgid ar aon chor, go mba chóir dúinne a thuilleadh airgid a chaitheamh ar fheirmeoireacht agus ar thalmhaíocht, chun toradh níos fearr a bhaint as obair na bhfeirmeoirí. Ní fheadar cé acu den dá phointe sin ar chóir dúinn glacadh leis. Ní féidir aon rud mór a dhéanamh gan airgead. Sin bun-rud go háirithe. Ní h-aon mhaith do dhaoine a rá go mba chóir seo ná é siúd a dhéanamh, mura bhfuilid sásta seasamh taobh thiar de pé Aire Airgeadais atá ann i láthair na huaire, chun é sin a dhéanamh. Ba mhaith liom anois cúpla focal a rá as Béarla.

The two Senators who preceded me were inclined to find fault with the short time left at our disposal to discuss this Appropriation Bill, but then I was glad to observe that they proceeded to point out that this House had no control over the circumstances. Senator Hayes suggested that it would be a good idea if some system were established by which debates on the various Estimates for Government Departments could be so arranged as to have the business of the Dáil brought to a conclusion at a certain time. I, who have had some experience of the proceedings of the Dáil in my time, would wholeheartedly support that idea, but it is one thing to advocate it and another thing to get agreement on it. Of course, it requires the agreement and co-operation of whatever Opposition is there to carry out such a plan. Therefore, all we can do here to-day is to utilise the time at our disposal to the best possible advantage.

It seems to me that this debate could be carried out over a very wide field and, as Senator Hayes has said, many things that were discussed on the Vote on Account and on the Finance Bill could also be discussed in connection with this Bill. I do not think it would be altogether right to do that. I do not like too much repetition in these debates and I, for one, do not propose to follow on that line. Senator Hayes seemed to find fault with the amount of money that has to be appropriated under this Bill. At the same time, the speaker who followed him, Senator Baxter, found fault with the Minister and the Government for not spending enough. He spoke about agricultural education, about spending more on fertilisers, on improving the land and the condition of the soil, and on increasing production. Well, these are things that cannot, and could not, be done without spending a lot of money. Unfortunately, we find ourselves now in the position that if we do spend money on these things, it has to be found either out of taxation or by borrowing at home, or both. We have not now the Marshall Aid Fund at our disposal for the purpose which Senator Baxter had in mind. Indeed, I must say here again, as I said before on a certain occasion here, that when we first heard of this Marshall Aid, many of us were given the impression that this money was to be spent on the very things that Senator Baxter mentioned in the House to-day—that it was to be spent on agricultural education, soil testing, and the fertilisation of the land with a view to increasing production. We were told that, as a matter of fact, when Marshall Aid was being discussed in the other House, and many of us, as I have said, took it for granted that the money was to be spent in that way. I am afraid that that did not happen, that our expectations in that regard were not justified or fulfilled. We must now, as I said, fall back on the ordinary methods of budgeting and appropriation to meet the needs of our time.

Senator Hayes referred to the Minister's proposal to borrow. In fact, he said that the Minister was going to borrow more money now than had been borrowed during the whole of the previous period. The fact of the matter is that no money has been borrowed yet. All that has been done by the Minister is to get the necessary authority to borrow money. I, for one, would not be in favour of excessive borrowing, but at the same time I know that the needs of the country require and justify a certain amount of borrowing for the next few years, especially if we are to proceed with our economic plans, with the development of the country, the building of houses and so on. In my view, the question of borrowing is not as important as the purpose to which the money borrowed is applied. What would make the people sit up and take notice is if they saw that money was being borrowed excessively and was not being applied in a constructive way to the development of the country's resources and to the improvement of the national position generally. The fact of the matter, however, is that the present Minister and his Government, even though they have been in office for well over 12 months, have not borrowed one penny, so that I think the complaint we heard from Senator Hayes has no foundation.

I was interested to hear Senator Baxter refer to soil testing and matters like that in connection with agricultural education, and generally, to the work that is being carried on at Johnstown Castle. We are all very glad, of course, of the success that has been achieved in that regard, but at the same time we all know, too, that all that was done by the previous Minister for Agriculture, Dr. Ryan. While saying that, I do not want in any way to derogate from the advocacy of the late Deputy James Hughes——

Mr. Baxter

Hear, hear!

Mr. Kissane

——because I often listened to him myself when speaking on that matter. The important thing, however, to bear in mind is who did actually start the school of education there, and in that regard I think there is a tribute due to a former Minister' for Agriculture, Dr. Ryan. With regard to agriculture generally, we may be pardoned, I think, for devoting a considerable amount of time to agriculture, since it is the basic industry of the country. There can be no doubt but that a lot of money is being spent on agriculture. If you take the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture itself, and the Estimate for the Department of Lands, the work of which is closely related to agriculture, you will find that the two together account for a good portion of the national bill. Now, as I have said, it is not enough for a Senator to tell us that a lot of money is being appropriated under this Bill. It is not enough either for a Senator to stand up here and say that he has to find fault with the way in which that money is being appropriated. We should be told, if the bill is too large, how it should be reduced. That surely would be the constructive way of doing it: to tell us in what field of activity we should proceed to reduce our expenditure. If a Senator tells us that he is finding fault with the way in which money is being appropriated, then we would like to know what are the alternative ways in which the money should be appropriated and spent. We would like to hear that. For a Senator to say that the bill is too large and that he does not agree with the way in which the money is being appropriated and spent is just to make a facile statement. It is of no use unless we have an indication from these people as to what they would do themselves if the responsibility were theirs.

Mr. Baxter

I think I told you that.

Mr. Kissane

I have not heard it.

Mr. Baxter

I certainly told the Minister what I would do if I had responsibility.

Mr. Kissane

I heard the Senator talk about getting people to work harder. That is a grand thing to say. I suppose we should all work harder.

Mr. Baxter

It is hard to get some people to do it.

Mr. Kissane

Hard work of itself does not always produce the desired effect. You also want a little bit of planning. That is very important. There is the saying that "a man's eye is better than his work". I think that the people of the country are not doing too badly. As regards agriculture, I think that the farmers are not doing too badly either. In my opinion, the farmers of the country have never been as well off as they are at the present time, and if conditions for them continue as they are, they will have no cause for complaint, and I can assure the House that they will be quite satisfied.

Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil aon rud eile le rá agam ar an ócáid seo mar ná teastaíonn uaim an díospóireacht a leathnú ró-mhór agus tá fhios agam nach mór an t-am atá ann go dtí go mbeidh an Bille seo ina Acht, nó gur cheart dó bheith. Tá cúrsaí na tíre á riaradh go maith agus go ciallmhar faoi láthair agus is dóigh liom an fhaid a bheidh an scéal mar sin ná beidh aon chúis ghearáin againn. Maidir leis an méid airgid atá le cur i leith seirbhísí an Stáit, ní ró-mhór liom é. Is í an cheist is tábhachtaí an bhfuil an t-airgead á chaitheamh sa tslí cheart. Is é mo thuairim go bhfuil, mar is é an dul atá ar pholasaí an Aire agus an Ríaltais ná a iarraidh ar na daoine saibhre, na daoine go bhfuil maoin an tsaoil acu, teacht i gcabhair beagán ar na daoine ná fuil chomh maith san as.

Professor Johnston

It is perhaps appropriate that it should fall to my lot to express appreciation to the Government for making a substantial addition to the revenues of Trinity College under Vote 22. I came to this House, originally, as a representative of the university. I am now a member of the House in another capacity. I think that fact alone is evidence of this, that service to the university is regarded in the highest quarters as service to the nation. What I have to say will be related to my view that Trinity College is an integral part of the historic Irish nation. First of all, I would like to say that the Government, in making this additional grant to our revenues, were interpreting the wishes of the nation as a whole, and I might say the nation on both sides of the Border. There can never, therefore, be any controversy about the propriety of making this grant either now or at any subsequent time.

It must be recognised as a fact that our college is, historically, an integral part of the Irish national community. I should like to illustrate that thesis by referring to one or two episodes that occurred within my own memory. In 1912 the Home Rule Bill was before Parliament. The late Lord Glenavy, then Sir James Campbell, one of the representatives of the university in the House of Commons, introduced an amendment to the Home Rule Bill which would have had the effect of excluding Trinity College from the jurisdiction of the proposed Home Rule Parliament. A meeting of the fellows and professors of that time was held— some of whom, I am glad to say, are still with us. At that meeting, they repudiated the whole policy underlying that proposed partition of the university from the Irish nation. Sir James Campbell had to drop that amendment like the proverbial hot potato. In other words, the college elected to remain part and parcel of the Irish nation, whatever the future might hold in store.

Another episode comes to my mind in that connection. Sir Edward Carson, the leader of the Ulster movement, was for many years a representative of Dublin University in the House of Commons. Dr. Mahaffy was provost of the college from 1914 or 1915 to 1919. He had a poor view of Sir Edward Carson as a politician when Carson finally associated himself with the policy of Partition. I remember Mahaffy saying to me in 1918, when Carson had the grace to retire from representation of Dublin University and to seek a new constituency in Belfast for the election of that year, after he had tarnished his name with the abominable policy of Partition: "Ha, he did well to give up representing Dublin University and to go and represent a Belfast slum in the British House of Commons." Therefore, in 1912, in an hour of national crisis, our college reacted as an integral part of the Irish nation. It is very appropriate that, in an hour of financial crisis in the affairs of the college, the nation, as our kindly mother, should react generously and come to the rescue of the college which has been the kindly mother of so many distinguished Irish patriots, statesmen and national leaders. A word or two about one or two of those leaders in the past will, I think, be quite relevant. The one I have in mind especially is Bishop Berkeley. Next year we shall commemorate the bicentenary of his death. Bishop Berkeley made one of the most original and brilliant contributions to economic thinking and to the study of Irish national economics that has ever proceeded from the pen of any writer. In his edition of the Querist, Mr. Hone says on page 14 of the introduction:—

"It is a paradox of Berkeley that he combines a mild and benevolent Unionism, ‘what is for the good of one must be for the good of all', with a theory of Irish economic wellbeing which is wholly agreeable to modern nationalist sentiment. John Mitchel, Irish rebel of 1848, while complaining of some of the ‘slavish' queries, declared that the good Protestant Bishop had in him the root of a truly ‘Irish political economy'; and Arthur Grffith, the founder of Sinn Féin, almost found in the Querist a breviary.”

Therefore, the philosophy of the Querist has inspired, right down to the present day, a succession of thinkers and leaders who are concerned with the welfare of the Irish national economy. Anybody who reads the Querist must be struck with the extraordinary relevance and, one might almost say, topicality of many of the queries and problems. I should like to illustrate that statement and I should like to relate each of the queries which I shall read out to one or two of the Votes, though not necessarily by number. In the first instance, I should like to quote a query on page 60 which, I think, might be taken as the text of any rhetorical exercise with reference to our national problems:—

"Whether there be any country in Christendom more capable of improvement than Ireland?"

On page 36 there is another query on a somewhat different aspect which is, nevertheless, well worth quoting:—

"Whether, if drunkenness be a necessary evil, men may not as well get drunk with the growth of their own country?"

In other words, drink Guinness or Jameson if you must drink. However, that is by the way.

A query that seems to me to be entirely appropriate to the Vote for the Department of Industry and Commerce is query No. 105 on page 34. It is as follows:—

"Whether, as our exports are lessened, we ought not to lessen our imports?"

Is that not very topical and very much up to date? Another query, No. 144, on page 39, might be related to the Vote for the Department of Agriculture:—

"Whether there be any other nation possessed of so much good land, and so many able hands to work it, which yet is beholden for bread to foreign countries?"

Query No. 201 on page 45 is entirely appropriate to the Vote for the Department of Education. It is as follows:—

"Whether a wise State hath any interest nearer heart than the education of youth?"

Query No. 248 on page 50 might be borne in mind by the Minister the next time he establishes a banking commission. Bishop Berkeley was an outright advocate of a nationalised system of banking—a thing which has not yet been achieved in any of the countries with which we are familiar and which is very much a matter of controversy. I am not expressing any opinion about it, one way or another; it is interesting, nevertheless, to note that, over 200 years ago, Bishop Berkeley was advocating the national ownership of a national banking system.

"Whether, by a national bank, be not properly understood a bank, not only established by public authority as the Bank of England, but a bank in the hands of the public, wherein there are no shares: whereof the public alone is proprietor, and reaps all the benefit?"

Another query, No. 308, occurs on page 56. It too, might be of interest to the Minister for Finance:—

"Whether interest be not apt to bias judgment? and whether traders only are to be consulted about trade, or bankers about money?"

Query No. 348 on page 59 might be regarded as appropriate to the Vote for the Department of Education.

"Whether one, whose end is to make his countrymen think, may not gain his end, even though they should not think as he doth?"

I have often had that experience myself in the course of my public life in relation to views which I expressed and which were, no doubt, irritating to many people. They led to a certain cerebral activity on the part of the public, though not always of a kind of which I would approve. Nevertheless, I was glad that I made them sit up and use their brains. Query No. 104 on page 97 might be related to employment schemes:—

"Whether there can be a worse sign than that people should quit their country for a livelihood? Though men often leave their country for health, or pleasure, or riches, yet to leave it merely for a livelihood, whether this be not exceeding bad and sheweth some peculiar mismanagement?"

In regard to the emigration problem, which we still have, we have an interesting query, No. 247, on page 113:—

"Whether the industry of our people employed in foreign lands, while our own are left uncultivated, be not a great loss to the country."

Then he goes on:—

"Whether it would not be much better for us, if, instead of sending our men abroad we could draw men from the neighbouring countries to cultivate our own?"

Here is an interesting query, No. 252, which is quite topical in some ways:—

"Whether we had not, some years since, a manufacture of hats at Athlone, and of earthenware at Arklow, and what became of those manufactures?"

I would be glad to inform the shade of Bishop Berkeley that we have a manufacture of hats at Galway which is not so far from Athlone, and at Arklow the earthenware manufacture has been revived successfully in the last few years. On page 114, No. 258, there is something which might interest Senator O'Dwyer.

"Whether it be not wonderful that with such pastures, and so many black cattle, we do not find ourselves in cheese?"

We are now finding ourselves in cheese to a greater extent than we did for many years and I applaud the development in that regard, but there I think the principal problem is not so much to develop the manufacture of cheese as to develop the habit of eating cheese. Irish people are one of the least cheese-eating peoples in these islands. The British consume from 8 to 10 lbs. of cheese per head in the year, if I remember rightly, whereas our consumption which used to be only 1 lb. per head per year has risen only to 2 lb. per head per year. It is desirable that we should develop the cheese-eating habit to a much greater extent than anything we have done so far.

These queries, I hope, are quite relevant and topical. There are just one or two more remarks I would like to make before I sit down, because I must say I find that this extremely hot weather has a damping effect on my eloquence and I think other Senators probably feel the same way about it.

With reference to statistics, I have on recent occasions drawn attention to the statistics of the number of in-calf heifers on the 1st June in each year and to the serious decline in the number of such heifers, a decline from a figure of about 120,000 in the year to some 80,000 on the 1st June in the last year or two of those figures. I have a difficulty about this whole matter of in-calf heifer statistics. There are, as you know, about 1,200,000 cows in the country as a whole, and merely to replace the existing number of our cows on the assumption that the average cow has only about four lactations—and there I speak subject to correction—would require at least 300,000 heifers in the year for herd replacements only. It seems to follow that there must be a great many heifers in-calf at other times of the year that do not appear on the record as in-calf on the 1st June. In fact, the only heifers likely to be recorded are the heifers which are in-calf with a view to calving between October and December. As we know the Irish farmer is all too much disposed to have most of his cows—not all of them—calving in the spring of the year and comparatively few calving from September to December. I suspect that for every heifer calving between September and December there are probably two heifers calving somewhere between January and March. Therefore, the statistical record does not really take into account the heifers that are not in-calf after 1st June though they would probably be in-calf in the following September and probably calve in the following spring. I think it would be an improvement in the record if the same publicity were given to the figures for heifers in-calf on the 1st January each year that we are in the habit of giving for the figures of cattle population, and so on, on the 1st June each year. I make that suggestion to the Minister in the hope that he will pass it on to the department of statistics. I dare say the record exists but I do not think the January figures are adequately publicised.

To get a proper sense of the total number of heifers that are being put in-calf, you want to know, not only the number in-calf on 1st June, but also the number in-calf on 1st January. Then you would be able to draw some conclusion as to the extent to which we are keeping up and increasing our population of cows.

I have much sympathy with a great deal of what Senator Baxter said but I cannot help feeling that he seems to over-emphasise the responsibility of government with regard to the failure of agriculture to increase production, and not to emphasise sufficiently the responsibility of the individual owners of land, of whom there are some 300,000 in the country. After all, in a country that believes in private property and private enterprise, and accepts the economic policy of Sinn Féin, it is primarily a matter for the individual to increase production and only in a secondary and derivative sense a matter for the responsibility of government. At the same time, I think the Senator made a pood point when he emphasised the absence of adequate provision for higher agricultural education.

I am surprised that no one made any reference to the recent meeting of the International Society for Soil Science that took place under the auspices of our Department of Agriculture. It had a number of successful meetings in University College, Dublin, and is now probably touring the country observing various experiments and so on. I had the privilege of attending one or two of those meetings and I was enormously impressed by the extent to which science is able in many countries to make important contributions to some of the most vital problems of agriculture, the solution of which positively contributes to the growth of agricultural production. Although we deserve credit for having invited that international body to hold their sessions here, we have fallen behind in comparison with other countries in the provision we have made and should be making for the higher study of the various scientific aspects of agricultural production. With those few remarks I now make way for some other Senator.

Mr. Summerfield

The few speakers we have already heard have covered such a wide range of matters, some relevant and some, I suggest, not quite relevant, to this huge Appropriation Bill, that I am going to take an entirely unorthodox line myself. I think we must accept that this Appropriation Bill, huge as it is, is a regrettable necessity and unless some of us can suggest in a constructive way definite means by which the size of the Bill itself can be reduced, there is not much object in going into those details. We have got to accept the fact that it is now the accumulated results of the demands that we have all, to a greater or lesser degree, encouraged in recent years, that the State should do more and more of those things that in the past we were proud to try to do for ourselves. Does not the Bill demonstrate, too, that we can do all those things, or most of them, cheaper for ourselves than the State can do them? I wonder if we could get to know the exact figures of the people who to-day are not in production in any capacity in the State but who have to live out of work by those who do in some way produce either agricultural or industrial goods.

I think there are symptoms of moral decadence in what is happening to-day. Fifteen, 20 and 30 years ago people would have been ashamed to look to the State for the things they now demand from the State almost as of right. I think the Minister for Finance in any Government is to be pitied in that he finds himself confronted with the necessity of finding moneys for these services which in his heart he knows could and should be provided by the individual at less cost to himself and with, I suggest, greater moral gain to the community.

To-day we are faced with a situation which I am afraid will not yield the Minister the amount that he is looking for in this Appropriation Bill. I do not want to speak pessimistically. I have a fairly close and intimate contact with industrial matters. Already some reference has been made to figures which indicate that the revenue so far received from certain directions will not yield the amount for which the Minister is seeking. I wonder will I be challenged if I say that we are facing to-day an altogether unnecessary stoppage of trade? The artificial stagnation brought about by certain speeches should be removed in the interests of the nation without any further delay.

I know that there are men with money to spend but they are not spending it because of the uncertainty of things. There is the extraordinary position of dear money and scarce money. Those in business know how embarrassing it is to have to use money at 6 per cent. Farcically enough, the industrialist who is using money at 6 per cent. is being met with all sorts of criticism because the cost of the article he produces is not as low as some people think it should be. These are realities.

We have a lot of idle money in the country to-day and idle money earns nothing and produces nothing. When money produces nothing the State gets no revenue. We want from the Minister two things. They are not inconsistent. One speaker to-day said that the Minister and the Government are speaking with two voices. The Minister for Finance is urging the people to save and the Minister for Industry and Commerce is urging the people to spend. I think these two advices can be linked up.

When people who have money spend it, that money begins to earn money and it is out of the surplus earnings the Minister for Finance will get the savings which will make this Appropriation Bill a success. With a due sense of deliberation, I say that business to-day is in a state of stagnation. It can be revived almost overnight if public confidence is restored and those people who are able to spend are encouraged to do so and, in the ultimate, save and make this Appropriation Bill the success we all hope it will be.

Mr. Douglas

I agree with 90 per cent. of what Senator Summerfield has said. Senator Kissane referred to borrowing. He stated he was opposed to excessive borrowing and pointed out with some pride that the Minister, since returning to power, has not borrowed. I think there is danger there of a misunderstanding.

The Minister has just announced that there will be a loan. It is of vital importance from the point of view of every Party and of every section of the community that that loan should be a success. Its success will help to reestablish confidence. It will help to check the recession and the stagnation to which Senator Summerfield refers. I think that nothing should be said by anybody that might in any way suggest that it is not possible to have that loan subscribed.

I am quite certain, and obviously Senator Summerfield agrees with me, that the money is there and can be raised for the ultimate benefit of everybody. If we cannot save and if we cannot borrow we cannot continue the capital programme. All Parties are agreed, except on minor details, as to the desirability of that programme. From any point of view it seems to me that it is of vital importance that borrowing should be a success.

Senator Hayes said that here we have no serious differences on ideologies. I think that is substantially correct. Yet, the fact remains that although the vast majority of the people would be extremely offended and hurt if they were accused of being Socialists they are, nevertheless, attracted because of competition between the various Parties more and more towards State services and State control, expecting more and more from the State. If that is not moving in the direction of Socialism, I do not know what it is.

I do not want to go back 200 years, as Senator Johnston did, to Bishop Berkeley except to say that I did not know that the good Bishop had some socialistic tendencies though I imagine he would have been offended had he been accused of being a Socialist when he advocated State ownership of banking. That is not unlike the position to-day. The reason I mention that is because I believe that the huge bill with which we are now confronted will never be reduced so long as the Parties vie with each other for the sole purpose of promising more and more from the State and asking for less and less to be done by the people themselves, either as individuals or co-operatively. Unless we can agree to check that in some way or other we will have larger and larger bills, more and more taxation and less and less for the individual to spend.

A few months ago I was speaking to a Minister in the present Government and in the course of conversation he made a very shrewd remark. He said that the hardest thing for any individual to do is to reduce voluntarily his standard of living. That is quite true. One may have to do it because one cannot help it. It is extremely difficult to do it voluntarily. When one applies that to the State, one has to go a considerable distance before the State finds itself in the position that it has to reduce voluntarily. I suggest the time has come when the principal Parties should get together to the extent of accepting the position that our taxation has reached its highest possible level unless we can prove increased wealth and, if there is to be increased expenditure, other than capital expenditure which can be done from savings, in one direction or another that expenditure can only be met by doing without something else.

The position to-day is that both in business and in the homes of our people there has to be an involuntary reduction in the standard of living. In business people have to face the fact that that is all the income there is and if a business man wants to spend more in one direction he has to save in another direction. There is not very much difference in the position of the State except that it is so much easier for Party propaganda to advocate increased expenditure than it is to advocate any kind of economy.

It may seem inconsistent on my part now to advocate an expenditure of about £10,000. I referred to this matter on the Finance Bill and was told, no doubt correctly, that it would be more suitable to raise it in connection with the Appropriation Bill. In 1921, the British Government, under pressure to make certain economies, introduced what was known as a "super-cut" under which there was a percentage reduction in bonuses payable to civil servants whose remuneration then exceeded a specified figure. The persons most affected were those who are generally called higher civil servants. There was considerable criticism of the action at the time, and, from what I have read of the circumstances, it seems to me that this super-cut was unfair and unjust and imposed without proper and adequate consideration.

We are not, however, responsible for, or immediately concerned with, what the British Government did in 1921. That is to a large extent only of historic interest. We are, however, concerned with the fact that in Ireland the salaries and bonus of civil servants from 1921 to 1951 were affected adversely by the super-cut and that the pensions and lump sum payments payable to retired civil servants were consequently reduced. The Association of Higher Civil Servants endeavoured for a long time to have the super-cut abolished, and if any members of the House are interested in the details, I suggest they should read the memorandum prepared by that association in 1946.

I am not now concerned so much with the merits or otherwise of the super-cut, because the Irish Government apparently decided that it was inequitable, and, in a circular issued by the Department of Finance in June, 1951, it was abolished as from January 15th, 1951.

I think the abolition was approved by both Governments. This affected only civil servants in office on January 15th, 1951, and it had the effect of increasing not only their salaries but the bonus and lump sum payable when they retired. A civil servant whose remuneration was reduced by the super-cut and who retired before January, 1951, had his pension and lump sum calculated by reference to his salary, as reduced by the super-cut. Having regard to the circumstances, it seems to me only fair and just that these retired civil servants should have their pensions increased from January, 1951, by an amount equal to the sum which they lost because of the super-cut which has now been abolished. I do not suggest that they should receive an additional lump sum but do feel that it is not unreasonable to ask that their pensions should be adjusted.

I understand that there are approximately 240 persons whose pensions would be increased and that the estimated cost is £11,500 in the first year. The youngest of the retired civil servants, I am informed, is 67 and the majority of them are over 70, so that the annual cost would obviously gradually diminish, and of course the cost to the State, even in the first year, would be less than £11,500, as income-tax would be payable on the increases. Probably £8,000 would be the net cost.

The majority of the retired higher civil servants who would receive increased pensions are men who played a very important part in the building up of this State. Most, if not all, could have stayed in the British Civil Service, but they were loyal to this country and preferred to work in Ireland. We are rightly proud of our Civil Service and successive Governments have paid tribute to its loyalty and efficiency. We do not always, however, realise how much of this efficiency is due to the skill and hard work of these men who helped to build up the Civil Service in the early days of the State. In those days, it often meant very hard work and very long hours. If my memory serves me right, the present Taoiseach, soon after he first came into power, paid a tribute to the loyalty of the Civil Service to his Government as well as to his predecessors. I need not develop this any further because I know that every member of the Oireachtas of all Parties who was a member 25 or 30 years ago will agree with what I say.

When this matter was raised in the Dáil by Deputy Costello, the Minister for Finance made what I took to be a sympathetic reply, in which he showed very definitely that he, too, appreciated the work done by the higher civil servants who have now retired and whose pensions were reduced as a result of the super-cut. The Minister's main objection to the proposal that these pensions should be adjusted, if I understood it correctly, was that he believed that those penalised by the super-cut should not have their pensions adjusted, unless there was a general scheme for increased pensions for all State servants who retired when salaries were on a lower scale than at present. This, he said, would cost millions of pounds, and was more than we could possibly afford at present. I want to make it perfectly clear that I agree with the Minister that, at present, we cannot afford the taxation which would be necessary in order to grant increases in pensions to all retired State servants because of increases in pay granted for the same service after these pensioners had retired.

The Minister's contention appears to be that, if he restores the 240 Civil Service pensioners whose pensions are reduced by the continuing operation of the super-cut, he must also grant increases to pensioners of the teachers, civic guards and others in respect of increases granted to these services after such pensioners had retired. It does not seem to me that there is any clear analogy between the two types of case. In the one case, a reduction in remuneration which was improperly imposed on the civil servants in question continues to be reflected in their pensions; in the other case, there is no such reduction operating. It has been recognised, I think, for a long time in the public service that a pensioner is not entitled to claim an increase in remuneration simply because salaries have been increased after the date on which he retired. What I suggest is that the reduction in Civil Service pensions, due to the continuing in operation of the super-cut, should be restored.

The Irish Government, which had stabilised the bonus from 1940 to 1945, recognised the need for revising the pensions of men who retired during that period, and, by the Superannuation Act, 1947, restored the pensions, subject to a certain maximum, to the amounts at which they would have stood if there had been no reduction consequent on the stabilisation of the bonus.

It seems to me that the same principle should now apply following the abolition of the super-cut. As a matter of fact, as we all know, there have been substantial increases in the salaries of higher civil servants, apart from the adjustments made in consequence of the abolition of the super-cut.

I am not suggesting that the pensions of these people who retired before January, 1951, should be adjusted in respect of the increases in salaries which have taken place. I only ask that the pensions should be adjusted in respect of the losses they sustained because of the super-cut.

In order to make quite clear to the House the exact nature of the proposals I am asking the Government to consider, I propose to quote briefly the effect in two cases.

First, I will take the case of a principal clerk at a maximum salary of £800, who retired in 1945. His full cost-of-living bonus would have been £594, but because of the super-cut his pension was calculated on a bonus of £475. He therefore had his pension reduced by £60. The consolidated salary now payable to the holder of the same post has since been increased by £215, apart from the increase due to the abolition of the super-cut. It is not suggested for a moment that there should be any increase in his pension in respect of that £215 increase in salary; the suggestion is only that there should be an increase to the extent of £60, which represents the amount he lost because of the super-cut.

Another case to illustrate the point is that of a secretary of a Department who retired in the same year. His salary was £1,200 plus bonus. His full bonus at retirement would have been £829, but because of the super-cut it was reduced to £497. He therefore had a loss of pension of £166 per annum. The full salary now payable to the holder of the same post has been increased by £295, apart from the increase due to the abolition of the super-cut. I am not suggesting that the pension should be increased in respect of this £295. My suggestion only is that the £166 which was lost because of the super-cut might be added to his present pension.

It seems to me that if it was right to abolish the super-cut in respect of civil servants still in office it is equally right that it should be abolished in respect of the 240 retired civil servants who have suffered from it. I sympathise with the Minister's position. He gave a sympathetic reply and I know that if he felt he could do it, he would like to do it. I would ask him and the Government to reconsider the position and see if I am not right in claiming that there was a clear difference between this question and increasing the salaries of civil servants. Sometimes second thoughts are best.

Mr. Quirke

When Senator Hayes was speaking he was full of complaints that the Bill was brought in at this particular time, that it was too late, that insufficient time was given for a discussion on it as it had to be law before to-morrow. It is hardly necessary for me to remind the House—it is certainly not necessary for me to remind Senator Hayes because nobody knows it better than he does—that the reason the Bill appeared only to-day in this House was the deliberate opposition of Senator Hayes' own Party and their dwindling number of friends in the other House. He says that something might be done next year to prevent a recurrence of this. The only thing that might be done is that Senator Hayes, or in his absence his second in command, Senator Douglas, should give an undertaking that the tactics of the Opposition in the Dáil will by that time be changed and that they will switch over and face the situation seriously in a constructive rather than a destructive manner. We heard a lot of talk about the various things which should be done for the welfare of the country, but one thing which would benefit the country and benefit it greatly would be that the Opposition in the Dáil should get down to constructive criticism rather than talk for the sake of talking.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator has no control over the Dáil or over the Seanad.

Mr. Quirke

I found that out earlier in the day.

Senator Hayes accused the Minister of spending his time in the Dáil blackening his predecessors. I know that the Minister is an expert in colours and if he were to paint his predecessors in the Dáil he would choose some other colour besides black, some colour that would show, that would change them, because if they are not blackened after their history in office, I do not know what would blacken them any more. It is not necessary for me to add any black to people who are already blackened, so I will pass on to Senator Baxter and deal with matters under the heading of green.

Senator Baxter suggests that the present Government are doing nothing for the agricultural community. He waves his hands and asks what we have done. He asks what one thing we have done for the agricultural industry. He asks whether anybody can name one thing towards extending the investigation of agricultural matters. He then proceeded to tell us what was done by the previous Government, completely ignoring the fact that, with regard to soil investigation, the institution at Johnstown Castle was not set up by the previous Government, but by the Fianna Fáil Government when they were previously in office. The entire credit for Johnstown Castle should, in my opinion, go to Deputy Dr. Ryan. He is the man who started that institution and, as a result of his efforts, considerable work has been done. I took the trouble of going down there myself, and, therefore, I am in a position to know what is happening and to talk on the subject. It is a pity that some of the people who stand up to criticise Fianna Fáil Governments, past, present and to come, would not take the necessary steps to visit the places they propose talking about so as to know what they are talking about, instead of standing up to waste the time of this and the other House making foolish statements which have no relation to the facts.

He goes on to tell us what was done by the previous Government and suggests that nothing whatever was done by the present Government either since they came into office recently or in their previous period of office. He talks about manures completely ignoring the fact that the lime scheme was in existence when the Coalition Government went into office. The lime scheme was already there and all the preparations were made when Deputy Dillon came into power in the Department of Agriculture, but for no reason other than that it was a Fianna Fáil scheme he deliberately set out to kill it. He succeeded in knocking it out temporarily if you like, but I take it— I have not inside secrets—as a result of Dr. Miller's attitude sufficient pressure was brought to bear on Deputy Dillon to make him bring the scheme to life again. Now that it has been brought to life again against his wishes and the wishes of the previous Government, Senator Baxter and others like him try to claim credit for that scheme.

The same applies to the land reclamation scheme. That scheme was already in operation under Fianna Fáil but in case Fianna Fáil might get any credit they decided that they must change its name. There must be an attempt to fool the people, so that they may not realise it is the scheme that was already in operation. The people are not such fools as the Coalition think. The further back you go in the country districts and the higher you go in the mountains, the more intelligent the people are. In the last couple of by-elections——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator is getting far away from the Appropriation Bill. By-elections have nothing to do with it.

Mr. Quirke

Moneys have been spent and are about to be spent on schemes of this kind. However, to finish my sentence, the people of the backward districts are far more intelligent than the people they thought could fool them.

I hope the expenditure on agriculture will be continued and will be justified and that, instead of a few thousand tons of lime being provided here and there, something like 500,000 tons will be distributed amongst the farmers for use where it is badly needed.

Senator Baxter asks for more productivity from the land and says people must work harder. I would like to know what he means. What was his attitude when we were trying to get the people to work harder and produce more? He holds up examples on the basis of what has been done in other countries. He showed one side of the picture—the results. He did not tell us the drastic steps that had to be taken to get those results. Had he done so, and had he advocated similar steps here as were taken by people with their backs to the wall, he would find few people to agree with him. He certainly would not suggest it as a political programme for his own Party.

I am 100 per cent. in favour of increasing agricultural and industrial production, so that everything we possibly can produce would be produced here. The previous Government, however, put several industries out of production altogether. I am thinking of one which is under considerable fire at present. Without taking sides in the matter, I might say there is a big movement towards making provision for dealing with the horse industry, for the surplus or scrap horses. Many people were not aware that we had a factory here—established at very considerable expense; it cost something like £60,000 to build—and the first thing that Deputy Dillon did—this great man who saved Ireland, as we are expected to believe, but very few people believe it—was to close down that factory. It was fit to deal with about 100 horses a day, but it was closed down without any examination into the possibilities of using it in some other way in the future. Certain people say it was closed down because I was chairman of the company running it, Chappies (Ireland) Limited, and it was another way of getting £500 a year out of my pocket. There may have been other reasons. I am sure there was at least one other reason, but he is not in the House, though he is represented here fairly well. That factory was closed down. To try to justify what he was doing, Deputy Dillon in the Dáil, like the boy whistling when passing by the graveyard, said that this industry was in the hands of a bunch of chancers, who had now left the country, and the factory had passed over to honest men. I do not know that it has had a very serious effect on me to be described as a chancer by Deputy Dillon. I have not left the country, but that is not his fault or that of those associated with him in the previous Government I am in the country still, and I will stay here in spite of him. Possibly something could be done regarding this industry. I understand all the arguments against it and do not propose to take sides. I believe the question is worth examining, since apart from the horses being shipped out, the surplus horses that could not be shipped—lame or disabled horses—could be manufactured here and their by-products used for the benefit of the agricultural industry.

On the question of agricultural research, the Coalition were not the first people to think of that. It has gone on here for a considerable number of years and great progress was made. Agriculture, as an industry, however, was in reverse until Fianna Fáil came to power—then the industry took on a new life.

On the question of credit for agriculture generally, I believe that the backbone of the industry is the milch cow. Deputy Dillon was complaining that he found it very difficult to find £5,000,000 in an afternoon. In the same afternoon, or the previous forenoon, he decided to reduce the price of milk to 1/- per gallon. That was his contribution, and I take it that Deputy Baxter was his adviser in that respect. Deputy Baxter is one man who goes around and has gone around for a number of years with a chip on his shoulder. The Agricultural Credit Corporation——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Would the Senator say how he can relate this to the Bill before the House—what Senator Baxter was or is, except a Senator?

Mr. Quirke

It is in connection with the advancing of free money to the Agricultural Credit Corporation, which the Minister was charged with by Senator Baxter when he was speaking. Senator Baxter said that the sum of £600,000, I think, was made available to the Agricultural Credit Corporation by the Minister for Finance, that the money was free money, that it was costing the Government nothing and that the farmers were being charged, I think, 6½ per cent. for that money. If the Minister knows where there is any free money going, he should not have kept it to himself for so long. I am not aware that the Minister is able to provide free money for any purpose.

A lot of complaints were made here. We had Senator Hayes and Senator Baxter complaining about the expenditure on social services. I know that wild statements were made in the last couple of months as to what could be done about social services, and I do not mind congratulating the Minister and his Government on what they have found it possible to do in very difficult circumstances. They have gone out of their way to meet the poorer sections of the people and do everything possible for them. It was significant that no speaker suggested any way in which money could be saved. Neither did anyone suggest that any social service should be cut down. I would like to make some suggestions as to where money could be made or saved, one particular way being through the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, though I do not propose to go into the various items of that Department which are covered in the Bill.

I merely wish to say that in the last three or four years there has been a trend in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to change over from horse transport to motor transport. I believe that that is a serious mistake, a disastrous alteration. It is creating a situation where hundreds of horses have been disemployed and therefore thrown on the market to be manufactured into artificial manure or exported for meat. Many people may not realise that up to three or four years ago contracts were handed out in various towns for the delivery of the local mails. In most towns the contracts were given to individuals who kept three, four, five, six or more horses for that purpose. The same thing applied in Dublin. In the not too far distant past that policy has been changed and motor transport is taking over in country districts. Arguments have been made in the past on the question of comparatively long distances—which I call short distances. We have now got to the stage where if you drive a horse five miles people think you are a wonderful man for going such a long distance by horse and car. I remember driving horses 60 miles and there was no great difference between the time you would get to your destination by that method and the time you would get there in a bad motor car. If the motor car broke down a couple of times, the horse would pass it.

There is no use in my advocating a return to the horse as an alternative to the motor car but I do say that as far as short haulage is concerned, such as the haulage of mails in Dublin, it can be done more efficiently and more cheaply by horse. I want to impress that on the Minister. I have gone into the figures and I know that it will cost the Department of Posts and Telegraphs less to have mails delivered by horse transport than by motor transport.

I press that point strongly, because at present the bulk of the mails in Dublin is being delivered by horse transport but there is a move on foot now and I want the Minister to take particular notice of my suggestion so that in a matter of weeks he might go into the matter to see if it would be possible to keep the few remaining horses in employment in the City of Dublin. Horses are used for similar work in the streets of London, Paris and New York but we seem to have got to the stage where what is good enough for other countries is not good enough for us, although we breed the horses and sell them to other countries.

The same applies to the Department of Defence. Money is being spent on motor cycles, motor cars and motor lorries. I understand that the motor agents, some of whom are not too far distant from me now, do not get a chance of selling a motor car there, so they will be on the side of the horses. It is a crazy policy for this country to have a motor cycle escort for the President or visiting ambassadors. If we are serious about putting our horses in the shop window, sending them abroad to compete at military jumping competitions, publishing books at considerable expense to advertise the horse industry, we should start at home by providing the various escorts from horses bred in the country rather than from imported machinery which is fed on imported petrol as against horses which could be fed on the products of Irish farms.

My remarks about military escorts would be supported by about 90 per cent. of the people of the City of Dublin and the country generally. It is said that you can prove anything with figures. I doubt very much if anyone could prove with figures that it would cost the country more to keep horses than to continue to provide motor cycles. Motor cycles must be driven around, burning up petrol. If we had 100, 200, 300 or even 500 horses in McKee Barracks or any other barracks near the City of Dublin or Cork, I refuse to believe that the country would be any worse off. In fact, I think it would be better off at the end of the year than it would be by a continuation of the present policy.

I would like to congratulate the Minister very sincerely on the efforts he has made in such a short time in making some very satisfactory trade agreement so far as this country is concerned. It must be a pleasure to everybody here to know that to-day you can buy "Sweet Afton" cigarettes in Paris. That is about the first time in history that that has happened. I hope it will be followed by still further exports, and that in future Irish commodities will be available to us in any country we may go to on business or pleasure.

In my opinion, there is one matter that has been sadly neglected in this country—it is one subject that I know something about—the production and export of whiskey. Some years ago I had a very great interest in the whiskey business. I made it my business to find out all about the distilling and manufacture of whiskey. That is when I was interested in Locke's Distillery at Kilbeggan. At that time, if the deal had gone through, it was proposed to manufacture patent whiskey there. Because of all the campaign of slander that was taken part in at that particular time and because of all the publicity that was given to Locke's Distillery and because the people who owned it——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator can develop his point without giving us a résumé of the Locke's Distillery affair.

Mr. Quirke

I wanted to point out the reasons why the development of patent whiskey was not carried out. The plans were there for the carrying out of the manufacture of patent whiskey and, if they had been carried out at that time, we could have exported, not thousands of pounds worth, but at least £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 worth of whiskey in the meantime. I would ask the Minister to go seriously into that matter. If he needs any figures, I still have all the files. I know exactly what the programme would be, what machinery will be necessary, and I would be delighted to furnish that information to the Minister to help him to develop what could be an extraordinary market for Irish whiskey. We all know we are handicapped to some extent by propaganda of other countries, but the fact is that patent whiskey, without being called "Scotch", is being sold under that particular label in America from coast to coast. If that is being done, why cannot we produce patent whiskey and call it "Irish patent whiskey" or some other name? We could call it "Kilbeggan" and put it in stone jars, and it would probably sell a bit better, because a good deal of money would be spent in publicising it.

Senator Summerfield said that the principal cause of the increased costs of production of various commodities was the fact that money was not available at less than 6 per cent. I am not such a fool as not to know that the production of articles is governed to some extent by the price of money but I do not think that the fact that money is available only at 6 per cent. would justify the increase in price of certain commodities. I remember making a statement in the past dealing with agriculture, that the difference between 4 and 6 per cent. on the average loan would mean only the price of a lamb. The price of a lamb has increased but still the ratio would not have changed drastically. The thing that is wrong is, not the percentage that is being charged for money, but the difficulty of getting money at any rate of interest. I believe that under the Minister's policy that situation will change in the very near future. I would go so far as to say that it has changed already and, if the money has not got to the bank counters, at the risk of being accused of being optimistic, I say that the day cannot be far distant because, since the Minister and his Party have taken over the Government, anybody who has taken an interest in figures, or anybody who has been briefed by people who are taking an interest in figures and who were trained under Fianna Fáil to take an interest in figures, will find that during the three months under observation at the present time imports have decreased very considerably and exports to various countries, including England, have increased enormously, as a result of that change in the situation, as a result of the fact that we have ceased importing elephants and things of that kind which were unnecessary. We are now importing what is required and exporting only what we do not require here and what we are producing definitely for export purposes. As a result of that, in the not too distant future, money will be available for the various industries which have been neglected, not because of the policy of the present Government but because of the drastic state in which the present Minister for Finance found his Department when he took over office a short time ago.

Mr. O'Donnell

It is very difficult to get back to this Bill, having listened to Senator Quirke's eloquence in defence of certain policies. Let me preface my remarks by saying that I was very disappointed with the manner in which this Bill was introduced by the Minister. After all, this Bill presents to us our national housekeeping, and I understand the Minister's duty would be to explain to the members of the Seanad, both to those who know and to those who do not know, why he is asking for our approbation of the amount of money sought under this Bill. He might have explained to us, to some extent, why certain Votes have increased and why certain Votes had decreased. Instead, he said: "There is the position, boys. I want so much money. You have already got all the details, so let us have a few words about it."

I have a great deal of personal sympathy for the Minister in his attitude towards us. I know he has gone through crucifixions of various types in the other House during a discussion on this Bill. I still think that the method of the presentation of the Bill reinforces the sort of public appreciation that exists at the present time of this House. Senators have seen articles in the Press referring to the fact that the Seanad is being treated in a rather off-hand manner. I am sorry to say that to-day the Minister has given these people an opportunity to reinforce that point of view. I would have thought that the Minister would have given a lengthy explanation on a matter of such extreme importance as our national housekeeping. I presume that, at the end of this discussion, he will give, in a résumé, an analysis of the reasons why so much money is being asked and of the reasons for the spending of it. I do not propose to go into details as to why this or that Vote should be reduced, nor do I think anybody here would be competent enough to do so. I am taking it that the Minister and his advisers have come to the conclusion that, in order to run the State as it is at present being run, they need the money. I am not criticising the amount of money asked by the Minister, but I would like to draw attention to the figures for 1950—the latest available to me—which show that our total production in agricultural and industrial goods was to the value of about £344,000,000 and that 33? per cent. of that is now required for Central Fund expenditure of one kind or another. I agree with the Minister that a great deal of this Central Fund expenditure will go back to the Exchequer to some extent and that it only means a transfer of money from one group of individuals to the other.

My objection is not so much to the amount of money transferred out of the common production pool, but to the fact that State production in itself is not economic, and that every penny and every pound taken from the hands of private enterprise is a national disservice. This would apply no matter what Party was in Government. I would ask if they were wise in taking so much money out of the common pool and applying it through State direction. I have discussed here whether State production or State monopoly, in one form or another, is the ideal goal to be sought. When I was a member of the Fianna Fáil Party in the early years, I recollect that that Party believed, above all, in private enterprise. Fianna Fáil has since expressed their belief in private enterprise and so, I believe, has Fine Gael. I believe that the amount of money allocated to State expenditure, of one kind or another, is so large as to be, to my mind, unnecessary. In my view, some proportion of our national income expended through State sources could be better expended by private enterprise.

Perhaps the Minister, Senator Quirke, or any Senators who may speak when I have concluded, may say: "Give us your solution. What way are we to devise so that this expenditure will go through private enterprise?" I would say that a Select Committee, composed of members of both Houses, should be set up to look into this matter. I do not think that national expenditure should be a Party political matter; it is a matter which concerns everybody, irrespective of his Party. The reasons for the expenditure of money from the Central Fund for administrative purposes should be discussed on a friendly basis. This matter of creating blacks and whites in politics is rather tiring.

I repeat again that the Minister should explain to us the reasons why he finds himself in the position at the moment of needing £101,000,000—an amount which he maintains is necessary.

I deplore the fact that the expenditure is so high. Whether the Minister will agree with me or not, I maintain that a proportion of that expenditure would be better employed by private enterprise. I do not demand that the Minister agrees with me on that. However, in another capacity, at any rate, he would probably agree with me that it is not desirable to finance expenditure by taking money out of private sources and using it for public expenditure. I think it was Senator Baxter who said that even £101,000,000 would not be sufficient, and that there would be further expenditure. This amount works out at the rate of £33 from every man, woman and child in this country —a per capita charge that seems to me to be particularly high. I do not deplore it in so far as it will be re-expended in this country; the people who will get the most of this money will re-expend it here, and consequently the nation will not suffer from the general Exchequer point of view. But I believe that this money could be spent in a much better fashion. That is the point I am questioning. If it were put in the hands of private enterprise it would give a better result in the long run. In other words, I am asking: is the State costing us too much? Is it worth £101,000,000? Are we getting service from the State for this amount? These are sane questions; there is no bias about them; there is no Party attitude about them.

In my view, our duty here is to examine objectively, and not from a political Party point of view, questions that come before us. I have always stressed the fact that this Seanad is a vocational institution. It is more by accident than anything else that one sits at one side of the House rather than at the other. Even though I sit behind Senator Baxter and Senator Hayes, I do not always agree with what they say. I would probably agree much more with some of Senator Hartnett's pronouncements than with the pronouncements of anybody sitting on this side of the House. I deplore any development of political lines of thought in this Assembly on a matter of such importance as the Bill now before us. I hope and trust that vocationalism in the Seanad will be developed. I would say that of all meassures that come before the Seanad for discussion the Appropriation Bill is the one that should be discussed with the greatest sense of responsibility. If it were discussed along the proper lines great assistance would be given to the Minister.

This is the annual housekeeping meeting of our House, and because it is that, I regret the Minister did not enlarge, to a very great extent, on his remarks to-day. I am not blaming him for that. I can understand the physical pain he must have suffered in witnessing the accouchement of this Bill in the other House, so to speak, but that does not mean he should come along with the child and say: "Here is the baby. Do what you like with it." Although the Seanad has no powers, except to make recommendations on a Money Bill, I suggest it is also a revisionary body. The atmosphere of the Seanad differs from that of the other House. Because of these things, I think that the Minister might have given the House more consideration in regard to the length of his remarks in introducing the Bill. Had he done so, we might have been able to give him more assistance. On the other hand, it may be, taking the long view, that no matter what we say will not avail, and that if we make recommendations they will not be accepted. In those circumstances, I do not know whether I am justified in speaking at all or not. I myself am becoming rather of the opinion of certain newspapers—that the Seanad is nothing more than a talking-shop.

This meeting of the Seanad should be the most important meeting of the year. It is a meeting at which we should discuss what we ought to save and spend during the present year, but the matter was treated in a very cursory manner by the Minister in his introductory remarks. I had hoped that the Minister would have set the lead in initiating a discussion upon the general economic position without the Seanad discussing Party politics.

We are going through a period of recession in trade generally. I understand that the farmers are going to get good results from their soil and their crops. Agricultural prices are good, and I am glad that in this respect Providence has added to the wealth of the nation. It must be remembered, however, that a recession in trade and industry has set in. Indeed, it has been with us for some considerable time. It is very undesirable that unemployment should grow to any extent in this country. We get unemployment figures presented to us from time to time which are not true. I am not saying that this is the fault of the present Government or against any other Government or its statisticians. I am not saying that the figures are necessarily falsified, but they do not include what I might call part-time workers. In some of the factories with which I am associated some of the workers are only engaged full-time for three days a week, but they do not report for unemployment to the unemployment exchange.

I do not know how this situation in regard to the recession in trade can be solved. It may be that many business firms have laid in sufficient stocks to carry them through the years of plenty. That might be one of the causes of the recession in trade. The unemployment problem is a serious one. Some unemployment is being experienced now, and more unemployment is in the offing. That is the sort of problem with which we should deal without closing our eyes. It is a problem that ought to be dealt with from a non-Party point of view. This question of trade recession is a matter which might be suitably discussed on this Appropriation Bill.

It is quite obvious that taxation will not yield the sum desired by the Minister for Finance and his officials. In that respect, I hope the appeal made by the Tánaiste for support for a new national loan this year will be hearkened to. I would like to congratulate the Tánaiste on his conversion to the idea that what has been euphemistically termed "external investments" by certain people in this country can be enticed home either through loans or otherwise. I hope the Tánaiste will be successful in his appeal for the repatriation of these external investments.

I remember, when speaking on another occasion in this House, that an associate of his was rather cynically inclined to speak of those people who advocated a return of these investments as "crackpots", a term upon which he himself is an authority. The Tánaiste has now advocated the return of these investments. I heartily support him in his plea, and I sincerely hope that the national loan will be successful and that it will help the Minister for Finance in his difficulties.

At the same time, I deplore that the sums of money in respect of two of the most beneficial Votes have been reduced. I refer to Vote 48, Forestry, and Vote 49, Gaeltacht Services. These two Votes affect sections of our people who are most worthy of support. It may be said by the Minister that the Gaeltacht Services Vote has been affected by the fact that £250,000 has been devoted to services within Gaeltacht areas under the Undeveloped Areas Act, and that, consequently, a certain amount of work hitherto done through Gaeltacht Services will be done under that Act. Any of us who supported the idealistic approach to forestry development and the promotion of Gaeltacht Services must deprecate the reduction of the amounts under those heads not so much for what they are, but for what they represent. It seems to me, to say the least, that it was unwise politics to reduce these amounts. I would ask the Minister, when replying, to give us the reason why the amounts in respect of those Votes were reduced. No section of our community has exclusive rights to a national outlook, and I am sure that An Seabhach and Senator Pádraig Aghas are just as much-worried about this matter as I am. I do not think this should be looked upon as a Party matter, and I am sorry that any Government should reduce these Votes.

Senator Summerfield referred to the fact that part of the trade recession was due to increased costs, high bank charges and interest costs. I think he is quite correct when he says that some of the recession is due to these causes, but that is not the whole of the story. It is obvious that a policy affecting the whole sterling area has been carried out here, either willingly or otherwise. Nobody who studies economics would say that the circumstances which obtain here do not obtain elsewhere. It would be a very ugly thing for anybody to suggest, as has been suggested, that the Minister for Finance accepted any external pressure in effecting this policy. Nevertheless, it is a peculiar fact that where the same line of policy as is being pursued by the Minister for Finance in regard to financial matters is pursued elsewhere you have the same type of business recession.

We ought to sit down disinterestedly and do what we can to solve our difficulties. Possibly in the very near future we will have further devaluation of the £. This is the sort of matter on which certain people will accuse one of being a crackpot if he talks about it. But we do not mind being styled crackpots if we draw attention to these matters. I make no apology for continuing on the same line in regard to this matter.

As Senator Summerfield said, it is all tied up with higher bank charges and general financial policy. We have the unfortunate habit in this country of blaming the joint stock banks for all our troubles. I am a strange advocate for them, but I think it is time that we should admit that the joint stock banks are only commercial institutions carrying out their ordinary trade in the commodity they have to deal with, which is the issue and withdrawal of money and credit. If any criticism is to be made in regard to the control of credit and finance, it is not our joint stock banks that should be criticised. It is all a consequence of the Central Bank Act which we in this Legislature failed to implement as it should be implemented.

I should like to support Senator Quirke in two things. I should like to support him in his advocacy of the retention of the horse wherever possible. We have both followed horses in one sense, and I am entirely in agreement with him that anything that can be done should be done to develop the horse industry.

I agree with him wholeheartedly in his plea for the resurrection of the rural distilleries. One of the greatest tragedies in this country is the fact that rural distilleries were allowed to go out of business during the last 20 or 30 years. It is a shocking thing to go down to Bandon and other parts of the country and see what were once thriving industries producing good whiskey falling into ruin and that we should be dependent entirely for our whiskey production on two or three monopolies within the State. I hope Senator Quirke will succeed in getting the distilleries of the country re-established and so far as I can help him, not by consumption, but otherwise, I will be glad to be allied with him.

I should like to supplement the plea of Senator Douglas relating to those civil servants who were unjustly treated, I would say, as a result of the super-cut. You may come back on me and say, "Here you are on the one hand asking for a reduction in taxation and on the other hand you are asking for some increase which would necessarily be a cause of further expenditure." The amount is very small. The Minister knows the whole case already. These men gave great national service when we wanted somebody to build up the Civil Service. The great majority of them are old men now. I understand the youngest is 67, and there are only 240 of them. There seems to be a case of hardship which arose out of circumstances over which we have no control. There seems to be a case of injustice which should not be perpetrated. I should like to add my plea to Senator Douglas' that the matter should be reconsidered, that we should show some appreciation for these men in their declining days, and that out of sheer justice we should recompense them for their sufferings during the past few years.

Finally, I ask the Minister when replying to tell us—I am sure he will tell us—that this bill represents the lowest cost of running this State, that where any increase has been made in the expenditure between this year and last year it was justifiable. He might also tell us what reduction in State expenditure we can look forward to. There are sections of State expenditure which I should like to criticise, but I would rather do it outside this House where the people concerned will have an opportunity of replying to me. I do not believe in attacking people because I have privileges here. There are, however, certain types of administration upon which money will be spent, and which I think are not giving the best results, but I would rather deal with that outside this House. I think it is the Minister's duty, however, to justify asking us for a sum of £101,000,000. Any Minister for Finance, no matter what Government he belongs to, must justify his actions, and not merely make a presentation of the case to us by saying: "Here you are, boys, here is the cost of running the State. A sum of £101,000,000 is necessary and I want it. Tell us what you think about it." I appreciate his forensic powers. his powers of oratory and his caustic northern wit, and because of that I should like him to answer these questions when he is replying.

Mr. Hartnett

I desire only to make a brief intervention in this debate. Senator O'Donnell accused the Minister of having treated the Seanad with discourtesy. I did not hear the Minister's opening speech. Accordingly, I do not know what justification there is for the Senator's charge. But, if the Minister anticipated that he would be asked questions of the type which Senator O'Donnell asked him at the conclusion of his speech, that he is required to reply whether this is the lowest bill which could be brought before the Oireachtas, then I think there is some justification for any discourtesy shown by the Minister, if it were shown. It must be exasperating for any Minister for Finance to come to this House and hear Senators, some of them intelligent Senators like Senator Douglas, suggesting that this bill is too high, suggesting that the Minister should be able to reduce it, suggesting that the Minister should be able to effect certain economies, suggesting that the only reason these economies were not made was because it would not be politically expedient to make them. When a Senator like Senator Douglas makes a statement like that, I think the Seanad expects him to go further and say that he will recommend to the Minister that the old age pensions be reduced, that the widows' and orphans' pensions be reduced, that the blind pensions be reduced, that a saving be effected in public assistance or in any of the other social services. It should be easy to do that. But I do not think that the Senators are justified in suggesting in a vague and airy way that economies could be made without specifying even one such economy which they suggest should be made. They could have taken any particular Department. They could have taken the Department of Health and suggested that too much was being spent upon health services. No Senator has gone so far as to do that.

On the other hand, there is the opposite side of the picture. The Senator might reasonably have suggested, perhaps, that not enough was being expended on the health services. I think it will be agreed that the health services are the most important and the most indispensable of all the services which the Government provide for the people. In the light of the White Paper issued yesterday by the Government, which sets out their plans for improving and extending our health services, I feel sure that every Senator, certainly every democratically-minded Senator, no matter where his Party allegiance lies, will offer the Government the most sincere congratulation and the most sincere gratitude for the proposals which they have submitted. I think they are bound to say that they will provide a first-class, up-to-date and efficient medical service.

I particularly welcome the decision of the Government to establish a non-means test medical service for all women in respect of motherhood and for children up to the age of six weeks. That will be money extremely well spent. It represents a tremendous advance. This Government, both in the past, when they were in office, and at the present time, have been responsible for many excellent social measures.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

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