Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 27 Apr 1928

Vol. 23 No. 6

FINANCIAL MOTION.

The Dáil, according to Order, resumed consideration of the Financial motion.

Debate resumed on motion No. 17 (General):

That it is expedient to amend the law relating to customs and inland revenue (including excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance.

MINISTER for INDUSTRY and COMMERCE (Mr. McGilligan)

On the adjournment last night I was dealing with certain remarks which Deputy Lemass had made apropos of the Budget. Inevitably there was dragged in, as we must expect always in any speech from Deputy Lemass, a complaint as to the inadequacy of the tariff on boots. The tariff on boots can be raised as soon as the boot manufacturers have come to the conclusion that the tariff is inadequate and can make a case that the raising of it will prevent the importation of boots or, better still, will lead to the manufacture of more boots in this country. If the Minister for Finance wanted revenue and was careless of how he got it, the doubling of the boot tariff would be a very easy way of getting extra revenue. Undoubtedly extra revenue would come in from the raising of the boot tariff, but the raising of the tariff at this moment would be opposed by the boot manufacturers. When people speak of the failure of that tariff, they might go a little bit deeper and somewhat more below the surface than Deputy Lemass has gone, merely with the complaint that the amount of the tariff is inadequate. If the tariff were doubled or trebled, it would mean very little advance, say, in the next twelve months in the number of boots manufactured here, for one simple reason. that there are not sufficient skilled hands to be employed in the business at the moment. It is a slow process getting people trained. It is a difficulty that the boot manufacturers have come to realise, and it is one of the points that make the boot manufacturers reluctant to press for any increase in the tariff at present. If we wanted revenue, and were careless as to the tax it was going to put on the people, it would have been very easy to get the revenue this year by doubling the tax. It would only have meant that pretty nearly the same quantity of boots that came in last year would come in this year, and that the revenue would show a very big increase from that tariff. It would be got from the people who have to buy boots brought in from outside, and who would have to buy boots from outside in the main, simply for the reason that there is not immediately any possibility of an expansion in the boot trade to meet such a demand as there would be if the tax were doubled. The best test of whether or not the tariff is inadequate is the reluctance of the boot manufacturers to make any application to the Tariff Commission for the reconsideration of the amount of that tariff.

Deputy MacEntee in his speech, which was very nearly being dragged from his attache case too late to be delivered to this House, committed himself only to three points. He made an analysis of what he called the public debt of this country, and of the moneys that have to leave the country, and committed himself to the statement that it varied from 85 to 90 per cent. of the full total that in fact was drained and that went outside. He was challenged as to one item, as to whether or not he could place the number of holders of land stock who were in fact living in this country, and failed to give any answer, but just a simple calculation, that because money at one point seems to leave the country it inevitably is spent outside the country and never returns. He piled up what he called the national debt of the country by talking of the capitalisation of certain items upon which interest charges are now being borne and seems to be under the misapprehension that there is no provision made in this year's Budget, or in the whole financial arrangement upon which it is founded, either for payment of the £250,000 to England, or for the meeting of the £134,000 for certain charges with regard to land annuities, apparently not having read the Estimate which has been passed by this House for the Land Commission and not having understood what were the calculations with regard to the payment of interest upon which the whole Budget was based. We get the Land Commission annuities talked of as if they were part of the public debt of the country.

If the Deputy has a case in that respect, why not go still further and consider the money invested in Guinness's in this country? There are payments of interest made. A large number of these payments go outside the country, and that is money that departs from the country. It is not part of the public debt, and nobody ever considered it as such. If land annuities are put in that category, why not put in the moneys paid by way of return to stockholders who hold shares in Guinness's, or any concern in the country which has outside money invested in it, and where the payments by way of interest leave the country? Why should they not be put on the same footing as the Deputy put land annuities? Why should they not be counted in as part of the public debt? If you count them in, we are not going to get merely a change in the amount of the public debt in this country, but a tremendous change in the amount of the public debt in every country.

Mr. LEMASS

To whom are the Land Commission annuities paid?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

To stockholders, eventually.

Mr. LEMASS

Are they paid by the Free State Government to the stockholders?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The Deputy will be able to deal with that, as I believe we are to have a discussion on the land annuities.

Mr. LEMASS

If you cannot answer, say so.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Apparently, there is so much mystification about where the money goes, that the sooner we have a discussion on the matter the better. One wonders why that very large item has not taken precedence of many of the trivialities about which Deputies from that side of the House have talked. There are plenty of opportunities provided. They could have put down a motion with regard to that item.

Mr. G. BOLAND

The psychological moment has not arrived.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It could have been discussed as far as this House is concerned, but we have had no motion.

Mr. KENNEDY

There was a motion and it was ruled out.

The CEANN COMHAIRLE

indicated dissent.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

A motion put down by Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party? Deputy MacEntee has made one contribution by way of suggestion as to the reduction of the burdens which press upon this country. He made a comparison with regard to the police, and said that in England there were so many police to every ten thousand of the population, and that in Scotland there were so many police to every ten thousand of the population, and that here we had a huge figure of 23 police to every ten thousand of the population. I wonder would Deputy Flinn, who is so inclined to give lessons to people on Finance, when talking to people whom he wants to put capital into this country and when he wants to impress upon them how suitably capital might be lodged in this country viewed from the three tests that it should get a return and that it should have security and be easily convertible, direct the possible investor's attention to the particular fact that Deputy MacEntee has drawn attention to—that there are in this country 23 police to every ten thousand inhabitants? And would Deputy Flinn explain what he thinks might be the reason for that, and, again, would he explain what the security for the money lodged in this country, in order to establish industries, would be where such a situation existed as that 23 police were necessary for every ten thousand of the population? And going beneath the surface and not merely contenting himself with the statement that there were ten or twelve or thirteen police to every ten thousand of the population in England or Scotland and 23 to every ten thousand of the population here, would not any ordinary investor who wished to come here from England or Scotland say to him, "What is the necessity for that?" Is it not that in England and Scotland the civil population do help the police, and that here Deputy MacEntee and Deputy Flinn belong to a Party who hold that help to and association with the police bring about odium upon people so that they are not going to help the police and that the civil population cannot be counted on as being behind the police?

Let him trace the recent history of the country and see if he can give an explanation of why that is so. Let him find out exactly why the Civic Guards cannot be reduced in numbers. Let Deputy Flinn argue to any investor that he is a member of a Party which has stated that its particular object, or its particular objective, at any rate, eventually was that it was going to recoup itself for certain ventures and that it had recouped itself in the past for particular ventures, in one single day, when over £100,000 was taken from banks. Let Deputy Flinn go on and ask the investor would he have such confidence in the Party to which Deputy Flinn belongs that he would believe his money would be readily convertible if put into Irish industry. When the investor talks about the amounts invested and asks as to the communication and accessibility of particular places in which the possible industry is to be founded, let Deputy Flinn take that would-be investor and industrialist to Cork and say: "Here is your site and location, and you have easy access to Dublin and to the rest of the country." Let him bring him along to a particular bridge that forms the link between the South and the rest of the country and say to him: "This is the main artery upon which your transport depends." Again, let him get back into more recent history. After Deputy Flinn has talked to him about his Party and his Party's future, and about recouping itself for a particular adventure and what happened previously—let him say to that particular investor that upon that particular slender bridge depends your getting your goods to the rest of the country——

Mr. LEMASS

Do not forget the petrol tins; the last argument.

Mr. AIKEN

On a point of order, I draw attention to the fact that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, by asking questions of some supposed investor, is going back over the history of the last five years, and that being so, we are going to ask some questions after he has finished.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

We have been told by Deputy de Valera that if there was a proper national outlook or some phrase like that——

Mr. DE VALERA

And it has a special bearing upon your question.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It has a special bearing upon the question. He suggested we could save £800,000 from the Army and reduce the cost of the Civic Guard by half a million. I ask people why has the Civic Guard to be kept so high in number? Deputy Davin answered the question yesterday or insinuated what the answer was.

Mr. G. BOLAND

To keep 8,000 men off the unemployed market—that is what I understood him to say, a sort of out-door relief.

Mr. DAVIN

You were not listening at that rate.

Mr. G. BOLAND

I was listening to more than that, but that was his principal point.

Mr. CORRY

Would the Minister explain how it is that he pays £1,600 for each Civic Guard station built in the country, and that the amount allowed for a farm-house and buildings on divided estates is from £200 to £400?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

That is a matter for the Estimates. Perhaps we could discuss this matter in regard to our present attitude without going back to Mallow Bridge, which seems to me to bring it back too far.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

People are very anxious to reduce certain forces in this country. Their whole anxiety is to cut the Army down and to get the Civic Guard reduced. If there is definite co-operation and a fairly definite feeling, irrespective of what the past may have shown, if there is a definite feeling with regard to the future as to how the country is going to be run, with regard to the attitude to be taken in respect of majority government and matters of that kind, then undoubtedly the Civic Guard can be reduced, but it is not going to be reduced as long as people who are in prominent positions in a certain party can give a lead and really set a standard towards demoralisation among the ordinary civil population. There are certain people who can be blamed—I am not speaking in regard to the past but in regard to the future—for the Civic Guard having to be retained at a certain strength so long as a certain attitude of mind remains and is fostered in this country. Deputy de Valera thinks that it is very hard to get a clear picture of the financial situation from what the Minister has said and he incidentally thinks that the Budget statement ought to contain a full statement as to local taxation, so that people would get a true picture of the burden which the ordinary citizen has to shoulder. We are not budgeting for local taxation. Provision is being made here for charges that fall on the central Government and if people want to get a true picture of the situation there are ways and means of getting figures with regard to local taxation. Deputy de Valera talks about the Budget not being balanced and says it has not been for a number of years. We get certain total figures and the Deputy expresses a certain belief. It is belief which sways the Fianna Fáil Party, not argument, conviction but no argument, no figures, no reasons adduced by which we can test the belief and the statement that the Budget has not been balanced by a figure of £721,000, of £357,000, and of £97,000 last year.

Mr. DE VALERA

I said that these were the Budget deficits and that after examining them closely to see what was normal and what was abnormal expenditure it was not possible to get the balance.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The Deputy is not able to get the balance.

Mr. DE VALERA

The Budget has not been balanced.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It has.

Mr. DE VALERA

It is for the Minister for Finance to prove that.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The Minister for Finance will have to prove it. That is the sort of idiotic things that are said here.

Mr. DE VALERA

He has made a definite statement and it is up to him to show that the Budget has been balanced.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The Deputy has definitely said that the Budget is not balanced and it is not up to him to give any proof of that.

Mr. BOLAND

Is the Minister to be allowed to use the word "idiotic" in reference to a Deputy? Is that a Parliamentary remark?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

No. I do not want the Minister to use it, even by implication.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It was not made explicitly with regard to statements made here, and I withdraw it even in regard to implication or any explicit allusion made here. We are simply told that the Budget has not been balanced. There are a great many people who set themselves up as purists in the matter of finance and who agitate themselves about Budget periods. The business men in this State, who at any rate have some appreciation of finance and what sound finance is, have sent deputations to the Minister for Finance year after year and on pretty well every occasion urged him to do what he did do—namely, pick out and segregate normal from abnormal items, and to see that certain things were going to be met out of ordinary revenue and that other things were going to be funded. There are people who examined these figures and who stated to the public by means of letters to the Press what their analysis of the financial situation in the country year after year has been. They have published figures on which they have been able to be examined and on which they found a certain reputation. These people, putting their cards on the table, have come to the Minister for Finance year after year representing some of the biggest financial interests in the country and asking for certain things, which really required no asking for, because the Minister was ready to do them on his own. There was, at any rate, that agreement of various minds that there was a suitable thing to be done for this country. We need not particularise in regard to this country, as it is suitable for any country that abnormal items should be segregated from normal ones. I could understand people saying that a particular item or items should not be regarded as abnormal and that some arguments could be founded on figures given, but a mere statement that Deputy de Valera finds it difficult to understand that the Budget has been balanced is thrown at this House——

Mr. DE VALERA

It was giving the Minister an opportunity of disproving the statement if he were able.

The PRESIDENT

He has done so every year.

Mr. DE VALERA

No. It is not even in this Budget statement.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

That is a matter for argument.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

We can leave it at that. I am not going to take on the task of contradicting a statement thrown out in a careless way, without even a prima facie case established. That is not the way in which business ought to be conducted in this House. The whole foundation of the system of government in this country is that people are sent here in a representative capacity to follow certain policies.

Mr. DE VALERA

Perhaps the Minister would deal with the matter instead of giving us a lecture.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I am afraid I am falling into the bad habit of lecturing which has come from the other side.

Mr. DE VALERA

I think you are.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The Deputy got to certain points of detail. He gave us as a guarantee his word and his belief that certain reductions could be effected. It is a very meagre sort of guarantee we have from the Deputy. It is not one upon which anybody could proceed to act. We got statements about the Army and the Civic Guard with which I have dealt. Then we got the statement that there could be a saving, I think of half a million, by a reorganisation of the Civil Service and, having stated that, the Deputy believed that the point was established when he simply said, in regard to the Education Department, that there were three branches and that each of them was organised on the lines of four separate divisions. Then we had the inevitable thing which we must expect from Deputy de Valera. After making a few statements he proceeded to say: "Surely reorganisation would bring about economy." Apparently, the Education Department is one which the Deputy has studied with some detail. He has gone into it and has means of knowing something about it, but we should have heard from him where reorganisation was possible Instead of simply saying that there are three branches in that Department with four divisions in each, he should have taken each section, primary, secondary, and technical and shown how re-organisation could be effected. There could be various kinds of reorganisations, but he should have shown which kind would lead to certain work being done at the lowest cost. Was that done? No. He finished with that simple statement. In Deputy de Valera's mind, and I think it is shared by every national school teacher, there is too much inspection. I wonder do they speak from the same point of view? Inspection should be cut down. Inspection can be abolished if this House likes to substitute another system.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

May I say, on behalf of the teachers, that we do not think there is too much inspection? Our objection is to the particular kind of inspection. The teachers want more of the right kind of inspection, as a matter of fact.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Then they are different from Deputy de Valera.

Mr. DE VALERA

I think there is waste in it.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Deputy de Valera believes that there is waste in the system—this is what I again may call a meagre guarantee. He believes that there is too much inspection.

Mr. AIKEN

Surely the Minister for Industry and Commerce does not want an Estimate speech when the Budget is being debated? It is on the Estimates that this matter of showing how economies can be effected will arise. This little thing of throwing up a balloon and playing with it for an hour or an hour and a half is no good.

Mrs. COLLINS-O'DRISCOLL

Just as Deputy de Valera did.

Mr. AIKEN

Let the Minister deal with the big issues raised on the Budget statement.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I was asked why I was keeping silent on this debate. I explained that there was very little to answer. Deputy Lemass seemed to insist that there should be a speech from this side. I took notes of everything that Deputy de Valera said, and I have notes under 28 paragraphs. I agree now that my speech might as well not have been delivered or Deputy de Valera's might not have been delivered, but since one was delivered it seems to be demanded that there should be an answer. I thought I might as well just show up how ineffective the comments were that had been passed in this House. Deputy de Valera does not often break the silence of this House.

Mr. AIKEN

You are showing up yourself.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That will be for the House to judge. That will be my reputation against Deputy de Valera's, but I take the occasion of showing myself up much more frequently than Deputy de Valera does.

Mr. G. BOLAND

You gave us a few good openings to-day.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

All right. On an important item like a Budget statement, when the leader of the second political Party in the country has made a certain statement, surely we are entitled to analyse it.

The PRESIDENT

Oh, no!

Mr. LEMASS

Do not forget the petrol can.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I agree that Deputy de Valera had not much to say on economies. He could not point to very much economy and he indicated why. "Because we have not access to Departments, we do not know the working of them, we are only speaking from a surface knowledge." That is what is called criticism of the Budget. When the leader of the second largest political Party in the State breaks a silence of many months and concentrates upon this particular thing, he takes away any good in any statement he makes by saying, "Remember, in these things we speak only from surface knowledge."

Mr. DE VALERA

Because I only wanted to make an honest statement.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I do not question the honesty of it, but I question whether there is any effective criticism to be answered when we are only to answer that statement—speaking only with a surface knowledge of Departments. The Deputy says that he believes that the Department of Education is over-organised, that it is divided into water-tight compartments run on a particular line, and that he believes that economies can be effected by amalgamation. The Deputy does know something about the system of education. The Deputy has had experience of it. That can be taken as a test case. If the Deputy can make his case on that one point, it would certainly lead people to have much more belief with regard to his statements about other Departments—if he takes the one thing in which he has experience, analyses it, and shows that there is a waste of even £5,000, but that has not been done.

Mr. DE VALERA

I was indicating matters in which even the man in the street can show there is a waste in administration.

Mr. CARNEY

The Minister is like Willie dear. What he doesn't like he doesn't hear.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The man in the street can see a waste in administration and Deputy de Valera who comes in here as the leader of a party has no more information and cannot make a better case than the man in the street.

Mr. DE VALERA

I was speaking to the man in the street.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The man in the street has no information. If the matter had been couched in this way, if in the matter of the Civil Service Deputy Lemass had thought of a debate couched in a definite way, one could have dealt definitely with it. If Deputy Lemass, without making any statement of belief, said that a number of these servants were unnecessary or incapable then surely there would be some case for the Government seeing that the Service does not grow to abnormal proportions. That would be something to answer but Deputy Lemass has just stated that a half a million can be saved on the reorganisation of this service without giving any proof of that. Deputy de Valera does not say that an examination might reveal that economies could be made. He is simply satisfied with a statement that economies can be made. He speaks of a figure of half a million to be saved by the reorganisation of the Civil Service and having put up that profound statement leaves it for other people here to answer and to show that half a million cannot be saved. We are told that £4,000 or £5,000 might be saved on the Department of the President. That at any rate, was a small Department that could have been tackled even on the Budget statement, but we got no information as to how that £4,000 or £5,000 economy might be effected.

Mr. DE VALERA

The Estimates are coming.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I hope that there will be much more information given when the Estimates are under discussion. We are then simply told that we should proceed to cut down charges by way of taxation on the people because we are to believe from the Deputy's statement that when the Estimates come along his Party are going to show economies of £800,000 on the Army, £500,000 on the Police, half a million in the re-organisation of the Civil Service and £4,000 on the Department of the President.

Mr. AIKEN

Because the people cannot afford such luxuries. That is the reason why they should be cut down.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Deputy Aiken cannot apparently recognise two different types of argument. To say that economies can be effected and to say, as Deputy de Valera says, that there is wasteful expenditure, is one thing. To say that there is expenditure, no matter how useful, which is a luxury expenditure, in the position in which this State finds itself, is a totally different thing. We have not that argument put up except in one case, and that was with regard to the case of the Governor-General. For the rest it has been said that there has been wasteful expenditure and we are apparently asked to provide taxation, less than what the Minister wants, to reduce it by a certain amount in the belief and in the hope that when we come to the Estimates Deputies on the other side will be able to show the reduction of which they have spoken. I am not sure if the Deputy suggested a tax on patent medicines. Deputy Lemass did afterwards. Again we had the sort of comment that is getting far too common in this House, that because a Deputy thinks he knows one or two types of patent medicines that are harmful to the people, the health of the community would be benefited by prohibiting patent medicines generally.

I wonder would he have the backing of the medical profession for that statement? Would he have the backing of the medical profession for the statement, as he put it, that it was really the duty of the Minister for Local Government to see that patent medicines did not come into the country? Would he get the backing of the medical profession? Has he inquired on that point from the medical profession or from members of it? Has he a statement that it would be for the benefit of the health of the community if patent medicines, as such, were prohibited from entering the country?

Deputy de Valera is very anxious about the Department of External Affairs. He is particularly anxious about the position of our representatives in Washington. He draws the conclusion that because the Department of External Affairs, as he has himself said, has been handed over to the Department of Trade and Commerce, that was an indication that the future representatives abroad were only going to be of the trade type. The Department of External Affairs has not been handed over to the Department of Industry and Commerce. There is a separate Department of External Affairs, and it is a Department which is going to expand, and it is going to expand more definitely on the external affairs side proper than on the trade representative side. If the representatives who are appointed abroad in future meet with the same success that the present Minister at Washington has met with, then I shall have no hesitation year after year in asking the Dáil for big sums of money for the Department.

I can quite realise Deputy de Valera's annoyance over the appointment of the Ambassador at Washington. The people in America have had certain points put to them for many years past. The people in America have not had the eye-opening that the people in Ireland got recently, when they saw what a dazzlingly conspicuous failure Deputy de Valera can be when he came into a place where he could be argued against and where all the theories which he had been promulgating for years past could be dissipated when he would be faced by concrete arguments.

Mr. G. BOLAND

By the Downing Street statesmen.

Mr. CARNEY

Did you see the very big drop that Big Bill Thompson got?

Mr. BOLAND

Ye finished Big Bill Thompson all right.

The PRESIDENT

Would it not be well to exclude from our criticisms citizens of other countries whom the Deputy probably will never see or know anything about?

Mr. CARNEY

I hope I will not meet some of them.

The PRESIDENT

That is not good taste at all, and it shows very bad feeling.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I think it would be much better to let the Minister for Industry and Commerce proceed.

Mr. CARNEY

The President was too well brought up to pass any of these remarks.

The PRESIDENT

The Deputy will approve of me, I know, after a while.

Mr. CORRY

After another lecture.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Deputy de Valera has been definitely shown up to the people of this country.

Mr. DE VALERA

Do not be trying to develop the superiority complex, please.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I am not.

Mr. DE VALERA

That is what you are trying to do.

Mr. G. BOLAND

And he is a hopeless failure.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That is a height of pharasaical arrogance and conceit of which I will willingly concede the Deputy a monopoly.

Mr. BOLAND

You will never be fit to wipe his boots.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The superiority complex has been particularly damaged since a particular gentleman came into this House. The superiority complex has been damaged in America.

Mr. FAHY

What has this to do with the matter under debate?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

This superiority complex is very definitely damaged by reason of the appointment of a particular man to an Embassy and the fact that there is an Embassy in Washington, apart altogether from any individual who is in it, and the way that Embassy has been carried on has been an enlightenment to the American people.

Mr. LEMASS

It has.

Mr. G. BOLAND

And to the whole world.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Yes, and to the whole world; and Deputies de Valera and Boland apparently believe that the Embassy at Washington is an appanage of the British Ambassador.

Mr. G. BOLAND

Is this in order?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

That statement was made very definitely, and Deputy Boland must realise that the Minister is entitled to give his views about it. There was a point of order raised. The Minister is in order. On a previous occasion I mentioned to Deputies that I hoped when a Deputy on this side of the House was imitating a particular procedure adopted by a Deputy on my right, that he would be listened to in silence. I think he ought to be.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The statement was made that the Embassy at Washington was an appanage of the British Government. Why did not Deputy de Valera give us one single instance in the whole history of the Embassy at Washington in which it could be shown that there was an Irish point of view that was not adopted; in which it could be shown if there was a time or an incident or an event in which the Ambassador at Washington was coerced by anybody not under the control of this State? Could Deputy de Valera give any incident or any series of incidents to show that the Ambassador has acted otherwise than on instructions received from home, and when instructions from home went out that those were based purely on what the people of this country thought, and what the people of this country desired? Before charges are flung about in this casual manner we should have some evidence produced instead of merely having Deputy de Valera, because he is hurt in his monumental vanity, coming home here and proceeding to insult the hard work of a very able representative abroad, simply because that representative is really dissipating a certain amount of the stories which Deputy de Valera and his people had, with some success until recently, attempted to spread in America.

One can imagine Deputy de Valera is angry and annoyed, but one would have thought that the anger and annoyance would not have shown itself, and would not be revealed here in the form of a childish display of temper, without some evidence being given in support of a very grave statement made against a representative of this State— that he was merely an appanage of the British Empire in Washington. There was not one item of evidence given. Deputies are merely astonished at being asked for evidence. That is what I call the superiority complex. Certain people imagine they can say things: Deputy Lemass is convinced of one thing; Deputy de Valera believes another thing. Deputy de Valera states, I suppose from looking into his own heart, that the whole world knows that the Ambassador is only an appanage.

Mr. LEMASS

Did you see his credentials?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I did, and if the Deputy wants to know how they are signed, past or future, that matter can be dealt with in detail whenever that particular man's salary is under consideration.

Mr. AIKEN

Then why do you want Deputy de Valera to detail matters?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

If that statement is made on the Budget statement the evidence should be given when the statement is first made. If the statement is to be made at all, and the evidence has to be given on the Department of External Affairs Vote, the statement should have been held over until then.

Mr. DE VALERA

Did you make any statements about evidence like that when you were bringing in the Treason Act?

The PRESIDENT

We had it in writing.

Mr. DE VALERA

You have it your own way where proof is supposed to be required.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The Deputy apparently thinks it is not a fair thing to be asked to give evidence for a statement even if it is rather defamatory to certain officers, certain individuals of this State, and defamatory in the long run to the State itself. But Deputy de Valera rises superior in his vanity to all these considerations; he believes, he thinks, he is of opinion, that a certain man is doing wrong. That statement can be made, and there is going to be no evidence given or no evidence produced. There is nothing upon which anybody can be led to believe that that statement was made with any evidence behind it, that the statement was, in other words, an honest one. There are reasons known to everybody why Deputy de Valera should be annoyed with the mere establishment of the office at Washington. But we should not have that sort of statement made about that Embassy at Washington or about any other office or appointment made here unless we get some item of evidence to support that particular type of statement made. Deputy Flinn lectured us in his usual way on finance yesterday. But he prefaced it with what I would like to characterise as a very unworthy comment. He opened up with a statement that the alignment of a certain individual who belongs to the Cumann na nGaedheal Party had been widely advertised through the country and that there was going to be a division in the future between the sort of natives like Deputy Flinn, the Irish natives, and the Cromwellians, the Neo-Cromwellians, and the Seonin-Cromwellians. That all in relation to a Deputy who came into this House very much a stranger to the people who sat in the Dáil when the first Dáil was formed.

Mr. CLERY

Was not the Minister also a stranger to the first Dáil? Where was the Minister when the first Dáil was formed?

A DEPUTY

He was doing his part in Derry.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

It does not make any difference who were strangers.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That Deputy has, at any rate, by his open actions in this House, and by his speeches on very many occasions, gained from the House respect and admiration. Those positive statements cannot yet be made about Deputy Flinn in the short space we have had an opportunity of knowing him.

Mr. LITTLE

Speak for yourself.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I speak for more than myself.

Mr. LITTLE

Not for this House.

Mr. G. BOLAND

Speak for the majority.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I would like to take a free vote on that question without any question of party.

Mr. GOREY

Hear, hear.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

If there are going to be comments as between individuals, I think they are things to be deprecated, but when Deputy Flinn comes into this House and, with that superiority which always marks him, proceeds to deal here with a man like Deputy Cooper, he must be answered, and I answer him by saying that we are all aware here that Deputy Cooper has shown himself as possessed of certain qualities that have gained for him definite respect and admiration in this House, and that positively cannot be said yet for Deputy Flinn. I want to apologise to Deputy Cooper for being forced into an odious comparison that is rendered more odious by the fact that it is with Deputy Flinn.

Mr. CARNEY

I would like to make a few observations on some of the speeches that have been made on this particular subject. As Deputy Lemass remarked, we have listened for the last few years to much talk about the upward curves and about the turning of corners. As Deputy Lemass remarked, the curve has been flattened out, but the corners evidently still remain, and in the statement made by the Minister for Finance, it was perfectly obvious that the Minister now has turned the corner and found himself in a cul-de-sac. He is in a blind alley, with the bog under his feet, and he does not know how to get out of it again. In Ireland the various members of the Government made the same statement repeatedly—that this country had turned the corner, and I remember reading that Deputy Esmonde across in England made the same statement, that we had turned the corner. Of course, the President, not to be beaten, went across to America, after, I suppose, eating a few American apples to get the proper blas, and he told the American people that we had turned the corner.

Mr. T. SHEEHY

Hear, hear.

Mr. CARNEY

The Minister for Industry and Commerce was talking about what the American people thought of us. And I wondered, after all this talk about corners, what the American people did think of us. I can picture the American people thinking that we, or rather that the Government of the Free State, was a sort of futurist painting, that one would not know whether it was a sunset or a fried egg. Again I can picture them thinking that it was something like a geometrical proposition, like the fifth proposition of the first book of Euclid, known as the "Pons Asinorum."

Deputy Gorey came along yesterday with the usual Edison-Bell records. He wanted to know could the Fianna Fáil Party give any specific case where there could be reductions made in the cost of Government. He must have been coming along like Rip Van Winkle because, extraordinary to relate, Deputy Davin rose in his might afterwards, and pointed out that Deputy de Valera had actually given specific cases where expenditure might be reduced. Deputy Davin pointed that Deputy de Valera had said that there might be a reduction of £800,000 in the Army. Evidently the only objection that Deputy Davin had to a reduction in the Army was that he was afraid there might be 4,000, 5,000 or 6,000 men thrown on the labour market. Now I do not see Deputy Davin getting very excited over the people throughout the country who are going away week after week, people who have no jobs. He did not say that the Government should subsidise those people by giving them £1, £2, or £3 a week in order to remain in the country. To show what depth there actually is in Deputy Davin, let me take the figures as given for the Army. At a flat rate for 12,000 men, and that I understand is the number in the Free State Army, £3 per week for each of them would cost the country in a year £1,872,000. That is as near the amount expended on the Army as to amount to no matter. That means that the Free State is actually expending £3 per week per man for every man in the Free State Army. Supposing we were to reduce the Army by 6,000 we should take those 6,000 men out of the Army and that £3 a week that is being paid to them, and we should put them into some employment that would be productive and that would give work in the future to somebody else. We could take £1 a week off the £3 a week and not alone could be employ these 6,000, but 3,000 men in addition. We could employ 9,000 men in forestry, in drainage and in maintaining the boreen to Deputy Jasper Wolfe's backdoor or even we could put them making shamrock shovels.

Can Deputy Davin explain to me by what argument he can convince 3,000 workers of this country that they are far better off starving than they would be if they were earning £2 per week in productive work? Supposing I was to walk around the highways and byeways of the country and I was to gather along 3,000 out of the 90,000 unemployed and say to them that Deputy Davin is afraid to take these men out of the Army because he is afraid if he does so, they will be thrown on the labour market but if we take 6,000 men out of the Army, 3,000 men can get £2 a week each in productive work. By what argument would Deputy Davin convince these 3,000 men that they are far better off starving? Again Deputy Davin referred to the Party on these benches and he spoke of our attitude towards the Land Commission.

He said we wanted a speeding up, and that if we wanted a speeding up it would cost more money, because there would have to be an addition to the staff. Let us examine Deputy Davin's logic. In another portion of his speech he spoke of the railways and the buses. I hold no brief for either the railways or the buses. I am merely taking the argument he used to use against him. He told us that in consequence of the bus traffic there were 3,000 unemployed on the railways, whereas only 1,000 men are employed on the buses. Now we have to take it for granted that people are not going to fall on a man's neck and kill the fatted calf merely because he owns a bus. They will travel by bus because they are getting value for their money. We will suppose that. The buses must be more efficient in some way if they are able to do all that damage to the railways. With efficiency we are able, from that argument of the Deputy, to reduce 3,000 men to 1,000; where formerly there were 3,000 there are now only 1,000, merely because there is a more efficient service. Where, then, does the Deputy's argument come in, that if we are going to make the Land Commission more efficient it would require a bigger staff? That is the sort of dope we have been listening to for a long time.

Mr. HENNESSY

More mathematics.

Mr. CARNEY

I am not a mathematician, but you do not want to be an Einstein to follow these things. We have been fed up with this dope since we came into the Dáil—"Will Fianna Fáil tell us this, and will Fianna Fáil tell us that?" When we give facts, when we quote specific cases where there might be a reduction of expenditure, when we put concrete proposals forward, the whole thing falls on deaf ears, and then, when we are finished talking, someone bobs up with the usual cry: "Can you not give us some specific case whereby we may reduce expenditure?" From the amount of constructive ability shown by the Government they might as well be dead from the neck up, and, if they cannot do better in the future than they have done in the past, they should fold their tents, like the Arabs, and silently steal away.

Dr. RYAN

I had an idea when I saw the Minister for Industry and Commerce getting up to speak that there was not very much argument on the part of the Government for their Budget, and that they wanted a little abuse to enter into the debate. Certainly the Minister succeeded in entering into the debate in as abusive a spirit as possible. The Minister asked what right had we to say anything about the civil servants of this country, and he went on to give an example to Deputy Lemass. He said if he were to go to Deputy Lemass' business place and say that some economies could be effected, that some members of the staff were slacking, that something would have to be done, probably Deputy Lemass would not be satisfied. I cannot see any analogy between the two cases. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has no right whatever to interfere in the private business of Deputy Lemass. That is Deputy Lemass' own business, and he is paying for it or losing on it, as the case may be, but to try to give the impression that the Ministry and the Party behind them own the Civil Service of this country is going a bit too far. We hold that we are here on behalf of the people and that we have a right to criticise the Civil Service if, as is generally believed, the numbers are too high and that a number of them are overpaid. It cannot be held by any Minister in any country that he owns the Civil Service and that nobody else has any right to criticise the actions of civil servants. We come here more or less in the capacity of directors of a company on behalf of the shareholders, and if the people of the country, who are the shareholders, say that the burden is pressing too heavily on them for the running of this country, it is our business to come here and try to relieve that burden. If we do not do that we are not representing the people as they want us to represent them. If we come along and say that we believe that the Civil Service is an undue burden on the country, that the numbers are too many and the salaries too high, I think we are within our right in voicing these opinions if, as they have, the people have given us the mandate to come here to try to cut down the expenses of running the Government.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce went on to deal with the question of land annuities and tried to draw a parallel between land annuities and shares in, say, Guinness's brewery. There was never any question that, say, the shares in Guinness's brewery should be interfered with in any way between the two Governments but there was a question, again and again, between the two Governments with regard to land annuities, which is a very different question and one that we have the right to deal with and discuss if we are in order in doing so. But to deal with a matter like the shares in Guinness's leaving this country and going to English shareholders is none of our business, as long as the law remains as it is with regard to companies. The Minister for Industry and Commerce knows well that in the 1920 Act land annuities were mentioned and the fact—I do not want to go into the question now—that they were mentioned in an Act which concerned the Government of this country should be sufficient justification at any rate to differentiate these payments from other payments, such as shares in private or public companies. To try to shelve the argument about land annuities by saying that we should also go on to deal with shares in companies such as Guinness's is silly.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce went on to say that Deputy de Valera spoke of not balancing the National Budget, and that he gave no figures and no proof. My recollection is that Deputy de Valera did give figures. I do not see how the proof could be given unless he were to take these Finance Accounts of Saorstát Eireann for instance, read out the figures of normal income on the one side and normal expenditure on the other side, ask Deputies to tot them up for themselves, and then they would see that the Budget was not balanced. If any Deputy was to do that, if he took the Finance Accounts for 1926-27, pages 4 and 5, added up the normal receipts on one side and the normal expenditure on the other side, he would see that the Budget was not balanced to the extent of £1,731,000. What proof does the Minister for Industry and Commerce want? Does he want Deputy de Valera to give the figure by which the Budget was not balanced? Does the Minister want him, at the same time, to put down figures on one side and another, and have a copy sent across to the Minister for Industry and Commerce? I do not see what else he could do. Deputy de Valera could not give further proof than that.

The Minister went on to speak of patent medicines and asked if Deputy Lemass had the support of the medical profession in his plea for a tax on patent medicines. I am not sure what way the medical profession stands generally on this question but I know that some years ago a British Medical Association—I am not sure what body, but some authoritative body of the medical men in England—went to the trouble of having various patent medicines analysed, having the analysis published, and having various varieties of patent medicines condemned, as far as they possibly could do so. Personally I have been asked by a member of the Pharmaceutical Society in this country to try to have this question raised in this House at an appropriate time. That is all I can say for the medical profession, as I am not a very prominent member of the profession myself, and I do not want to give any opinion.

With regard to the Budget, there was one item in which I thought I was going to be interested, but it did not turn out as I expected, and that was with regard to the Corporation Profits Tax on foreign companies. I thought the Minister was going to try by some means to get companies to register in this country, as far as possible.

There is one item that I might mention on which I have got some information, and that is with regard to the stamps which are used on insurance policies. I find in these Finance Accounts to which I have already referred that the amount received by the Exchequer for stamps used on insurance policies in this country for that year was only £2,400. As far as I know from figures supplied from other sources, that would represent only about 8 or 9 per cent. of the total amount of insurance business done in this country. So that you have the position of big companies in England taking the money out of this country for investment abroad and in British securities, and in other ways helping foreign countries; but in addition to that you have them getting their policies stamped in London, Glasgow, or wherever their headquarters may be, and sending them back not bearing the Free State stamp, and the Free State Exchequer is a loser to that extent. The only other matter in the Budget in which I was interested in particular was with regard to this tax on imported motors and motor parts, but the Minister for Finance, I think, undertook to reconsider the tax on motor tractors, and we shall await that reconsideration.

Mr. BECKETT

I was surprised and disappointed last night at the statement made by Deputy Lemass with reference to the Irish Glass Bottle Company, which is in the constituency which both of us have the honour to represent—Dublin South City. I would suggest to the House that half truths are very much worse than the other thing which, under the rules of Order, we are not allowed to give an emphatic name to in this House. Deputy Lemass, if I am quoting him correctly, said that they asked £12,500 for an asset that cost them £5,000. That is not even a half truth. The facts are that the Irish Glass Bottle Company took over the interests of the Ringsend Bottle Company for £5,000 cash—there the truth ceases—and £7,826 in shares, a total consideration of £12,826. Further than that, it is within my personal knowledge that they had immediately to incur a serious capital outlay in order to get the factory started. So that the figures, which I am sure Deputy Lemass took in good faith, are about as far from the mark as it would be possible for a person to put them.

Mr. LEMASS

On a point of correction, in the first place I am surprised that Deputy Beckett does not know the extent of his own constituency. The fact is that this is not situated in the constituency which both of us have the honour to represent. Secondly, the price asked for the factory—£12,500— did not include any of the fittings that were purchased by the new company.

Mr. BECKETT

I am glad to be corrected, but I am still of the same opinion. The Irish Glass Bottle Company is on the opposite side of the road from the works in which I have worked for over thirty years. Perhaps the House will allow that I should know where the Irish Glass Bottle Company is.

Mr. LEMASS

I was talking of the Ringsend factory.

Mr. BECKETT

I am talking of the Irish Glass Bottle Company. If I did not make myself clear I will again go through what I have said. Deputy Lemass made an attack in this House on the action of the Irish Glass Bottle Company, which is in the constituency we both represent. Am I still right? It does not matter very much, because I know that I am right. The assets involved in the Ringsend Bottle Company, not the Irishtown Bottle Company, to which Deputy Lemass referred, but of which I never heard before, are considerably over £20,000, so that his figures are a long way out. Deputy Lemass proceeded to discuss the question of unemployment amongst the bottle-makers, which every Deputy deplores, but in his discussion he wandered into fields of employment in which the bottle-makers in either the Irish Glass Bottle Company or the Ringsend Bottle Company never worked. He started off by mentioning ink bottles. I have over twenty-five years' knowledge, some of them of fairly intimate knowledge, of this trade, and I never in that time saw an ink bottle made in either of these factories, nor are they ever likely to be made. Never in my time was an ink bottle made by a bottle-maker. I can take Deputy Lemass, and any other Deputy who is interested in the matter, through the history of the bottle trade.

Mr. LEMASS

I would like to point out to Deputy Beckett that I had an opportunity of visiting the factory within the last six months.

Mr. BECKETT

I am aware of that.

Mr. LEMASS

And I saw ink bottles which they made the day before I visited the factory.

Mr. BECKETT

Burst-off ink bottles made in the factory?

Mr. LEMASS

A number of cheap ink bottles made in the Ringsend factory.

Mr. BECKETT

Burst-off ink bottles, as known in the trade, are made by hand. That is as different from the other trade as my business is different from bottle-making. A bottle-maker never made the burst-off ink bottle which has been discussed, and that is the bottle that is understood when people in the trade are discussing ink bottles. Unfortunately, I am not able to answer at the moment the point that Deputy Lemass makes, but I propose to take the opportunity this afternoon of seeing the ink bottle. I take it that it was made by the Irish Glass Bottle Company or by the Ringsend factory.

Mr. LEMASS

They are the one company now. I was referring to the factory at Ringsend.

Mr. BECKETT

About ten or fifteen years ago a crib bottle manufactory existed in Ringsend, but as far as I know there have been no crib bottles made in Ringsend for the last fifteen years. Ringsend was the only place where such small bottles could possibly be manufactured economically. The crib bottle trade is easily distinguished from the ordinary bottle trade by the fact that, in the case of the ordinary bottle trade, the bottles are made from a large continuous glass furnace which is heated from the top. The crib bottle, on the other hand, is made from a pot externally heated, and the machinery required does not involve an enormous capital outlay. Deputy Lemass saw both classes of bottles in the Ringsend factory and the factory of the Irish Glass Bottle Company. Subsequently, the crib bottle trade was run in Church Street, Dublin, but it has not been in existence for many years. Deputy Lemass brought before the House a proclamation addressed to all whom it might concern, which was issued by three alleged Scotchmen named Fulham, Bohm and Hughes. I do not know whether my mouth was open when I heard those names, but I was amazed when I heard three Scotchmen bearing those names quoted in this House as being reliable in this matter.

It is very unfortunate that a document of that sort which, to my mind, to say the least of it, was very doubtful, if not somewhat fishy, should be brought before the House at a time when the subject of it is to be discussed between the receivers of these two companies and the men involved, including Hughes, Fulham and Bohm, to-morrow morning at 12 o'clock. I do not see what good could possibly come of introducing such a subject here. As regards the nationality of these three gentlemen, who, I understand, come from Galloway, in Scotland, I can assure the Deputy that in at least one case he was very far from the mark and was mistaken as to the reliability of the information likely to come from that source. These gentlemen have made certain statements. They were brought over to work a phosphorous machine for the manufacture of bottles to be used in the mineral water trade.

They made a large quantity of bottles on that machine. Might I ask Deputy Lemass, if he has any further interest in the matter, to discover what became of those bottles that these men were paid wages for making? I think he will find, if he makes as careful an investigation as I did, that not one of the bottles they made has ever been sold or was saleable.

An attack was made in this proclamation on a gentleman for whom I have very great respect. He is a man who works very hard. Notwithstanding the fact that he only got to bed at 4 o'clock this morning, I saw him at a very early hour to-day, and put some of these facts before him for the purpose of getting information for the House. This gentleman asked the directors to arrange to get over experts to work this machine and, unfortunately as far as the directors are concerned, the effort resulted in the getting of these three gentlemen. This gentleman has been attacked, and is defending himself before the receivers to-morrow. It is a matter that is within my own personal knowledge that this man works day and night for the good of the industry in Ringsend. I wish to give a direct negative, I will not use a stronger term, to the statement that he is a person who would take action such as that suggested in the proclamation read by Deputy Lemass to the House. He has done everything for industries in Ringsend district.

Mr. LEMASS

On a point of explanation, the purport of my remarks was to show that there were taking place in the factory and between the receivers and the glass bottle makers incidents of such a nature as to arouse suspicion in everyone's mind as to whether or not the best interests of the industry in Ireland were being served by either party. Before a remission of the duty was given, there should have been a full investigation of the whole circumstances by a competent body. Again, may I dispute with Deputy Beckett the location of the factory. Either on my own behalf, or on behalf of other people, I have been engaged in nine or ten contested elections in that constituency, and I can say that neither factory is in my constituency. They are both in the County Dublin.

Mr. O'HANLON

The debate which we have just listened to on this Budget and the criticisms on it that have been offered from all sides of the House, prove how difficult this Budget is to criticise. Before I enter on any criticism of this Budget I desire to refer to some remarks made by Deputy Lemass last evening in the course of a rather long and barren speech in which he did not throw much light on the Budget. In the course of his speech, he had a tilt at the Independent members, and said that the only Independent member in the House was Deputy Gorey and that all the others were elected under false pretences. I am not very long a member of the House. I have been here only since last June. If my recollection serves me, between June and August last, members who are now in the House were holding forth on Burgh Quay against the Oath. They were elected to absent themselves from this House and, without consulting their constituents, they misrepresented their constituents by coming in here.

Mr. LEMASS

Our constituents gave a very decided verdict on our action.

Mr. O'HANLON

Quite so, but I think Deputy Lemass ought to be the last person to refer to people being elected under false representation.

Mr. LEMASS

Did you vote against the Government yet?

Dr. HENNESSY

He has too much sense.

Mr. O'HANLON

Perhaps Deputy Lemass is under the impression that because a Deputy goes to the country as an Independent candidate that when elected he is bound to vote against the Government under all circumstances?

Mr. LEMASS

No.

Mr. O'HANLON

That is a fair conclusion from your argument. I have voted against the Government, and I also voted against a change of Government on a particular occasion. Perhaps that is what Deputy Lemass has in mind. Coming to the Budget, I think the Budget, to say the least of it, shows a lack of imagination on the part of the Minister, and in some respects a lack of proper appreciation of the economic conditions of the country. It has really no outstanding features. We have the McKenna duties on commercial motors and tyres. I have no great knowledge of the motor business, except that since the Budget was introduced my information is that the duties on commercial chasses will not yield very much revenue, as the country has at present in stock a sufficient number of chasses to meet the requirements for about twelve months. I do not know whether or not that is due to intelligent anticipation on the part of the motor trade, but I believe it is a fact. The total amount, that is £200,000, may not be yielded in this case. The Minister says that the tax on telegrams is one that will not hurt anybody. He has definitely stated that telegrams are only sent by the racing fraternity or by those who send congratulatory messages. I do not agree with that, but I think there have not been many one and sixpences spent on telegrams to the Minister congratulating him on his Budget. This extra sixpence on telegrams will hit a section of the community who are of great help to the agricultural industry. Nearly all business in the buying line in markets and fairs in Ireland is conducted by wire. Representatives of firms, buyers at fairs and markets, are advised by wire what to do and they advise their principals by wire of what they have done. Anyone who knows anything, and I think some Ministers do not know much, about the way business is conducted in rural Ireland knows that telegrams enter largely into the transactions at fairs and markets. If this additional impost is put on there is no doubt that the extra sixpence, insignificant as it may appear, will be paid by the farmers from whom produce will be purchased.

With regard to sugar, I am sorry the Minister did not discover a better method for finding that £200,000—in fact it is £150,000—for the purpose of meeting the increase in the old age pensions than by putting an extra charge on sugar. I believe had he searched he might have found a better way. His excuse for putting £200,000 extra on such an important food as sugar is to my mind a very flimsy one. It is put on simply and solely because there is 1d. on it at present, and his argument is that it will cost just the same to collect the 1¼d. as the 1d. If I were asked to decide between putting the tax on sugar or of giving the increase in the old age pension, I would vote for the tax, as I think the extra shilling in the old age pension is more beneficial to the people generally. Having regard to the manner in which the Minister has cribbed and scraped to balance his Budget, I think he could have cribbed and scraped by other methods to get this £200,000 without putting a tax on sugar. As an instance of the way in which the Minister strained himself to get his Budget to balance, we have first of all a reduction of credits to the brewers. That is supposed to yield £300,000. I do not know whether that is good finance or not, but I do not think it is, for it means taking something from next year in order to make this year's Budget balance.

Mr. FLINN

Hear, hear.

Mr. O'HANLON

Deputy Flinn says "Hear, hear," and let me say I admired one statement by Deputy Flinn, and that is that in budgeting we should keep a generation in mind, and not merely cheesepare to cover the exigencies of this year and leave next year to take care of itself. The reduction of credit to brewers may seem a small thing. I am not in touch with the brewing industry, but to my mind the effect of this reduction of credits will, in the case of the smaller brewers, necessitate practically 33 per cent. extra capital. That extra capital will have to be provided by brewers if their credit is to be curtailed to two instead of three months. It means we are cribbing a little bit out of next year's Budget in order to balance this year's Budget. Arrears of income tax are supposed to yield £250,000. That is a problematical figure, and it may or may not be realised. Coming to reliefs, we have a relief in taxation of £9,000 as regards racing. We hear a lot about that £9,000, how the racecourses will benefit by the remission of the tax, and how horse-breeding is supposed to be encouraged as a consequence. I do not think that anyone with commonsense could, by any flight of imagination, suppose that this £9,000 is going to be of any benefit to horse-racing. It is purely a remitted tax, because if not remitted it would go down to vanishing point, and there would be no return from it next year. I think it was Deputy Shaw who pointed out that the remission of the £9,000 is not going to help in the direction of encouraging horse-breeding. Deputy Beckett made a long speech on the subject of bottles. I know nothing about bottles, but I do know something about the contents of some of them. On medicine bottles it would appear that the tax is going to be remitted by £12,000. That is due to the fact that we rushed into tariffs, tariffs that we knew nothing about, tariffs that the Government knew nothing about, as is admitted. We put a tariff on all glass bottles, and we found that the people whom we wanted to benefit by the tariff asked us to take it off, as they were not making these bottles, and that they would never be able to make them.

The same applies to a great many other tariffs already put on. I suppose, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce has told us, if we double or treble the tariff on boots we still will not be able to produce any more boots in the country, as we have not the experts and the skilled hands necessary. I will go further and say that whether it is that we have not the skilled hands, or that we cannot compete with outsiders, the boot tax to my mind has only inflicted a hardship on the purchasing public and has been of no benefit to the boot industry and to employment in this State.

There is another phase of the Budget which I do not like, and that is, that after taking some of the money that is not due until next year to make up this year's Budget, by curtailing the credit of brewers and by other methods, we resort to borrowing. The Minister's argument with regard to the sums to be borrowed is rather thin, to say the least of it. I cannot understand why it is good finance to borrow £300,000, as portion of the estimated Army expenditure, and say that that is a legitimate way to deal with the Budget, and that we must raise the remaining £1,500,000. If it is sound finance to borrow £300,000 in anticipation of the fact that the Army in the future is only going to cost £1,500,000, it should be also good finance to borrow £800,000 for the purpose and wipe out the sugar tax. That could be done just as easily.

There are other items in connection with which we are supposed to borrow that I will deal with later, but one of the things we are to borrow for is to pay for the shares that the Government have subscribed for the Agricultural Credit Corporation. That, to my mind, is the most extraordinary admission that the Minister for Finance can make—that the State has to go to a bank or somewhere else to borrow the money to subscribe for the shares that are supposed to give credit to agriculture. The Minister has stated that we must be careful in our criticism of Budget statements, that we must be careful in everything we say, because we are not financing our own domestic affairs, that we have gone outside to get money from the stranger, so to speak. We have got money in America for our loan. Hence we must be exceedingly careful in dealing with our Budget and the items in it. What greater reflection could be cast upon the State than the fact that we cannot raise £300,000 to finance the credit of the farmers, who constitute 80 per cent. of the community; that we have to admit failure on that head, that we have to bring that item into our Budget and say that we have to borrow from the banks who have already subscribed—who have been coerced I may say to subscribe— £200,000 for the same purpose? To my mind that shows that the country is not properly financed. It shows, as this Budget disclosed, that the principal industry in the country is not alone forgotten in the Budget, but in every debate which takes place here.

What must be the effect of this borrowing of £225,000 for agricultural credit? What is the history of it? The Agricultural Credit Act was passed about this time last year. It was passed before the June election, and should have been in operation before the September election. It was used in the June election, I will say, as a bait to get votes. The agricultural community were told of the benefits that were to come from this. They were told about it again during the September election. The Corporation was to be registered in September. It was formally registered, but a penny has not gone to the farmers from it yet.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan)

There has.

Mr. O'HANLON

How much?

Mr. HOGAN

I could not tell you.

Mr. O'HANLON

The fact is that there is no money to finance it. Why? I solemnly declare that that Act was passed in order to be a failure— deliberately arranged to be a failure. Why do I say that? First of all, we have the fact that it is nearly twelve months on the Statute Book. Secondly, we have the fact that there have been two general elections since the Act was passed. We have the extraordinary delay in putting it into force—indecent delay, stupid delay, perhaps deliberate delay, showing that the agricultural community are not worth consideration. But we have a still more extraordinary thing. The banks have reserved to them under this Act £200,000 worth of shares, which it was optional for them to subscribe for or otherwise. If they did not subscribe, the Government had to come in and subscribe the full £500,000 capital. On top of that, this was a gilt-edged security in which not alone the capital but the interest was guaranteed to the shareholders by the Government. The banks took their complement of shares— £200,000 worth. The remaining £300,000 was to be subscribed by the public.

I have some little experience of the position of the people who have been hungering for this money and who have been waiting for this money for the last twelve months. I believe there is not a Deputy who has been in touch with his constituents who has not had hundreds of such people inquiring from him when they would get any money from the Credit Corporation. I do not know, I do not know if anybody knows, how they are to go about getting loans from the Corporation. I am speaking of individual farmers. I am not in a position to give them information and I do not think any other Deputy is. Why is that? There has not been a public statement or announcement made to indicate to the farmers how they are to apply, where they are to apply, or what likelihood there is of their getting any money when they do apply. How was this Corporation floated? It was floated as the result of one advertisement in three daily papers. Of the provincial papers, which are the organs of the agricultural community, not one got the publication of the announcement that this Corporation was being floated. No attempt was made to get sixpence from the small investor that the Minister for Finance has told us has been the backbone of the National Loan, the small investor that the Minister told us has put £200,000 more into the Post Office this year than last year, and has put £600,000 more into Savings Certificates, which is evidence to the Minister that there is money with the small investor, that there is a certain section, perhaps connected with agriculture, which may have been thrifty and kept its money when the times were good and prices were high, and still has a few shillings to invest. That section of the community was never asked to put sixpence in the Credit Corporation, was never appealed to in any way.

What is the result of the flotation of that Corporation? I heard it stated that only £20,000 was subscribed by the public. According to the Budget statement there seems to have been £70,000, because £230,000 is to be provided for by loan. Whatever the amount, the flotation was a failure. I want to ask the Minister this question: Was that failure deliberate? Was it the means of getting out of a position in which they had promised this loan and did not want to make good their promise and decided to let the flotation be a failure? Was it because it was stupidly launched to the public, and that for want of knowledge as to how to deal with a matter of this kind the flotation, so far as the general public are concerned, was a failure? This country is not in as prosperous a condition as we would like to see it. There may be a tendency upwards, and there is every indication of it. But when the Government put on the market a giltedged security, guaranteed by the State as to capital and guaranteed for five per cent. interest, they ought to have taken proper steps to see that the thrifty, up and down the country, should have got an opportunity of subscribing to this loan. Such a thing has not happened. I wonder, again, whether this Credit Corporation has been designed to be a success or a failure. If it is designed to be a success, the Government has blundered badly; if it is designed to be a failure, it has succeeded admirably.

Deputy Lemass referred to the fact that some of the Independent Deputies did not wait to hear his speech. Speaking for myself, I can say that I attended every meeting of the Dáil since I was elected, and, speaking for myself again, I say that I am heartily sick of sitting here and listening to Deputies on both sides of the House discussing from which hand the blood was dripping more freely, rather than considering the question that the farmers in this country have hardly got enough to buy stock for their land. They had been promised something supposed to be bread which has turned out to be stone. I emphasise that fact because I feel the farmers and agriculturists have been sadly neglected. Perhaps I may have painted a picture a little exaggerated for the purpose of making Ministers, and the Opposition as well, realise that there are other people in this country besides bottle-makers and bead manufacturers, and that the farmers are the people who require the first consideration of the State. This Budget will certainly not bring any hope to the farmers. While the Budget has been an absolute failure for them, I hope some attempt will be made by the Government to put the Agricultural Credit Corporation on such a footing that it will be a help to agriculture.

There is hardly a debate on any economic question, or, indeed, on any other question that arises in this House in which three names are not mentioned. I do not want to make little of industry, in any way, but I want to point out what are the dominant ideas in the minds of the Government and the Opposition—I put them both in the same boat—with regard to who are the important people economically to the State. I am going to mention some names here, and no doubt I shall be told I should mention them with bated breath—Guinness's Jacob's, Ford's. They are the most important people in the State, more important than the farmers, who are 80 per cent. of the community. Every bit of legislation is viewed from the angle of how it will affect Guinness's, Jacob's, or Ford's. What is to be the effect on the breweries of the Budget proposals? If I take Guinness's first, it is because Guinness's is a big concern. They juggle with millions. The effect of the curtailment of credit to breweries, generally, is not going to hit Guinness's very hard. But what about the effect on the smaller breweries? Does it not place them in an awkward position?

The small struggling competitive breweries may find it very difficult to find 33 per cent. extra capital to finance this reduction in credit. Jacob's and all these other industries are important, but I do not like to see them set up as paramount to, and more important than, the farmers of the country. Jacob's actually figure in a resolution as to varnish. I would like to know what is the value of the spirit in the varnish that has caused special exemption to be made for Jacob's. Is it of such great consequence that the great firm of Jacob's could not stand the strain? On the other hand, if they get special exemption is similar exemption to be given to other people who use this special kind of varnish? Then we come to Ford. Here it is a case of "Hush." We are told to say nothing about him. But Ford seems to think so much about this country that he did not even include it in his itinerary. His every attitude is from the showman point of view and he is getting the cheapest advertisement in the world, all over the world. But, apparently, in the eyes of some people Ford is of so much importance to this country that we are not to mention his name, good, bad or indifferent. I wonder, touching upon that point, is there anything in this Budget that we have not seen, or is it the Budget, for the year, or is it going to be heel-tapped later on? I am strongly of opinion that this colourless Budget is only the beginning of the finding of the revenue for the year. Something may happen, I do not know whether Cork Deputies are in the know or not, but something may happen in Cork in the near future.

Mr. ANTHONY

I want to say that there is always something happening in Cork.

Mr. FLINN

He is advertising Ford for us.

Mr. O'HANLON

As I say, something may happen in Cork, and possibly that is the reason for the "Hush" system about Ford. But other things may happen. There is a very significant sentence in the Minister's statement which leads me to believe—I may be over-suspicious—that something else is going to occur. The Minister mentioned, in his Budget speech, that he was rather disappointed that he got no help from the Tariff Commission in the matter of anything that they could recommend to bring in revenue.

That statement, taken on its own, might lead one to believe that we were done with tariffs for this year. I wonder are we? I do not think we are.

Mr. BLYTHE

You never can tell.

Mr. O'HANLON

What I object to is that, while we may have a cobbledup Budget brought in in April, we are going to have other questions brought up according as they are reported on by the Tariff Commissioners, and we are going to have new tariffs in May, June, July, August and September, at times when they will upset trade and when the introduction of such tariffs between one Budget and another would be a very disturbing element. The Minister, I think, mentioned something about liquor duties which may have some effect on revenue up to the present and possibly he will reap the reward of that later when he has cleared the air and when there is another tariff. I object very strongly to tariffs being introduced outside the Budget period. I am against tariffs on principle, but I am more against them because I think the principle of introducing them between one Budget and another is unsound. It has a bad effect on trade, and I believe that those industries which have already been investigated by the Tariff Commission, and which are hoping either to get tariffs or not to get them, as the case may be, are cutting down their pay roll as much as they can. That has been done in years gone by, and last year we had a certain industry closed down, and when it closed down the Tariff Commission put on a tariff. I refer to the margarine industry. In industries in which tariffs are introduced, the pay roll is cut down, employment is reduced, so that such tariffs have a very disturbing effect on industry generally. I have nothing further to add, except to express the hope that in the year to come, now that we have started another new financial year, we are finished with the question of who started the war, and whether there are more murderers on one side of the House than the other. I am sick of that kind of thing. I want to know which party is going to start the peace, and when proper consideration is going to be given to the unfortunate agricultural community, because amid all the talk of war and murder, the agricultural community is left without a friend here.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

I regret I was not in the House this morning when the President was arranging the time for business to-day. I understand that he said that he was prepared to give the few minutes necessary to get the Rent Restrictions Bill through Committee. I would be glad to know if we could get it through to-day. It is an agreed measure, and would only take a few minutes if time was given to it by agreement.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I take it there is no objection. It is a question whether time will be given now or at the end of this debate. If there is agreement perhaps we could take it now.

Progress ordered to be reported.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Progress reported.