I take it that this debate is going to conclude to-day, and that the Minister for Finance desires to make another statement.
PRIVATE DEPUTIES' BUSINESS. - FINANCIAL MOTIONS.
The Dáil resumed consideration of the Financial Motions in Committee on Finance.
Debate resumed on Motion 17.
Yes, but not a very long one.
I listened carefully to the Budget statement and I must express regret that the Minister did not make it during the past twelve months. It is now the considered decision of the Executive that there can be no relief in taxation, and that this piece of island with only one industry, namely, agriculture, must continue to find a sum of £24,000,000 for the support of all the drones living on the only industry we have. I think the Executive should definitely give the people an opportunity of deciding for themselves whether they are going to continue to feed these drones. No hope is being held out to the agricultural community. Deputy O'Hanlon alluded to the sum of £600,000 for agricultural rates, but that money goes as much to the relief of rates on a mansion with 10,000 acres and supporting one dog, as to the relief of the tillage farmer. There should be differentiation between the farmer who works his land and employs labour, and the other type of farmer, namely, the rancher. I expected to see some reduction in the Civic Guard Vote, but, judging by the Estimates, the Civic Guard is going to be made a permanent institution and enlarged.
I do not see by what other means they can justify an expenditure of £1,500, and up to £4,000, for new Civic Guard barracks in country stations while at the same time, when building houses on estates which are divided, they allow only from £200 to £450 each for these houses. I do not think that they propose in any case to build a house on such lands at a higher cost than £600. They ask a farmer to live in a house the building of which has cost from £200 to £600, and they are going to pay £1,550 for a mansion for four Civic Guards, each of whom is drawing £3 10s. 0d. a week, with free lodging and a clothing allowance. There are engineers with a university degree who are employed at £3 a week in the Civil Service, with no extras. If that is the division that we are going to see, honestly speaking, the sooner we can find a very large reduction in those estimates the better. I know that in one instance where the Government propose to build a Civic Guard station, costing £1,550, there is at the present moment a Civic Guard station in the same parish. I do not think the state of the country at present justifies the building of two Civic Guard stations in one parish. The parish is presided over by a parish priest and a curate already and they look after the peace very well.
It must be a very bad parish.
No, it is not a very bad parish, but I think some influence was brought to bear in that particular area by former members. We had some allusions here to-day as to the reasons why the Civic Guards are still required. I think that the principal reason they are still required is that the Executive are looking round the country to find some means of employing them. They are not all for enforcing school attendance. They are required, one at the front door and one at the back door, of the local publichouse, enforcing new hours. That is the job at which the Civic Guards are engaged down in my area. Seven of them are also employed for the past seventeen months hunting one man, and they have not caught him yet. The seven of them are permanently employed there with, with extra lodging allowances, hunting one man. The injustice of that case is so glaring that that man has the support of the entire community in evading the Civic Guard. The action of the Civic Guards is so glaring that one was recommended for promotion for his activities and he was called up to Dublin. He went back again, and when he arrived at Limerick Junction he fired 48 shots around the station. He was afterwards conveyed to a lunatic asylum. These are the sort of individuals we have looking after the peace of the district.
Then we have a number of inspectors. When we go into the yard in the morning we have one inspector to see that we wash the cows; we have another inspector to license the bull, and a third inspector to reject him after that. That is the kind of law that is in operation down there. We also see here a sum of £1,000 for the wear and tear of the Governor-General's motor car. Deputy O'Hanlon alluded to Henry Ford, but for this allowance Henry Ford would give six motor cars to the Governor-General in the year, one for every two months. Surely, the Governor-General should drive an Irish motor car manufactured by Henry, and he could get six motor cars in the year for the amount shown here for the upkeep of one car. I happened to be out in the Art Gallery a few days ago, and I saw there some portraits, one of a distinguished member of the Cabinet, and one of a distinguished or extinguished ex-member of the Cabinet. I heard one old man saying "It is no wonder the country is queer when these are the fellows who are at the head of it." I think the Government would be well advised to remove these portraits from the public gaze as soon as possible. When we see that we are still paying a war bonus on salaries of £1,700 and £1,800 a year— such salaries are still carrying a bonus of £200 odd—and when we see that that money must be provided by imposing a tax of a farthing per lb. on the sugar of the unfortunate man who gets 27s. a week, the maximum wage laid down by the Government, surely there is something rotten in the whole system.
We have the Minister looking for new tariffs. I would like to know from him why he did not afford some assistance to the agricultural community. We import into this country foreign malt and barley. I suggest to him that he should set his eagle eye on that as a source of revenue. It would be quite feasible for him to do it, and it would afford some relief to the unfortunate farmer growing barley who cannot find a sale for it, owing to the competition of imported barley. There are also other lines to which I would direct his attention. I believe that local licensed retailers can make £1 a case more on Scotch whiskey than on Irish whiskey. I suggest to the Minister that he should turn his eagle eye on that. Scotch whiskey is also allowed in here 30 degrees under-proof, and the local retailers are prosecuted if they sell Irish whiskey 25 degrees under-proof.
Nonsense.
I do not happen to be a publican and do not understand these things, but these are matters which could be very easily cleared up, when you have this pressing taxation and when you consider where the money is going to be found. As to the Agricultural Credit Corporation alluded to by Deputy O'Hanlon, the less said about it the better, for by the time an applicant has proved what he is asked to prove and by the time he has found the securities he is asked for, he could get the money from the banks much cheaper. Money at 6 per cent. is absolutely no use at the present day to the farmer. I wonder when the Government were raising all this money in America, whether they told the people there that they were going to charge 6 per cent. for it at home. Did they tell them that we were going to pay £28,000 a year for the luxury of this gentleman whose portrait—I do not know whether it is a caricature or a portrait—is in the National Gallery. If the Minister is looking for means of revenue and wants the £200,000 that he is trying to make up by the tax on sugar, let him take this circus round the country and make a charge. Let him take it down to Cork, where we have a sense of humour, and charge the entertainments tax. I guarantee that he will get a haul. If he does not find it feasible to take this circus round and show the people where the money is going to, let him get the indication of appreciation over there to broadcast the speeches with a charge or special rate for listening-in. He would make a good haul.
I do not like to interrupt, but I have some regard for the dignity of this House and I object to Deputy Corry or anybody else saying that likening this House to a circus would be appreciated by any citizen of Cork. I think we can carry on our discussions without attempting to bring this House and its institutions into ridicule. It is not patriotic or a proper action for a Deputy of this House to seek to do such a thing. I only want to call attention to that fact because the name of Cork has been mentioned. I want to say that so far at any rate as the citizens of Cork are concerned—I speak in the interests of the city of Cork—we do not stand for likening this House to a circus.
ACTING-CHAIRMAN
I quite agree with the Deputy, the remarks made by Deputy Corry are very much to be deprecated. I think it is the duty of every Deputy here to do the very best that in him lies to maintain the dignity of this House and not act in a contrary direction. The Deputy would be well advised to withdraw his remarks.
Why? Yesterday, my friend, Deputy Cooper—who, after all. I think, has a sense of humour—said that he would rather come here than go to a racecourse; he would get more amusement out of it.
The best thing to do is to impose an entertainments tax.
I do not know whether I am quoting Deputy Cooper correctly or not.
You are perfectly right. I may qualify it by adding that when coming here I should have the company of Deputy Corry.
And I come here, with all respect, to hear Deputy Cooper.
ACTING-CHAIRMAN
That is quite another point. The question at the moment is the dignity of the House.
I think the Deputy ought to withdraw the remark. It is not really a proper remark.
I do not exactly know. From what I have seen of the majority here, I think they find a certain amount of amusement in it, and I think this amusement should be paid for. I do not know if the Dublin people have the same sense of humour as the people of Cork.
Does it really matter what the Deputy says.
It does.
The Deputy ought to leave Dublin out of it.
There is a considerable difference between amusement and a joke, and there is a big point involved in belittling an institution. I am sure the Deputy did not mean to belittle the institution of the Dáil. The Dáil is the first institution of the country.
Hear, hear.
And while there may be considerable humour and wit in it, we do not at the same time want it to be the butt for remarks outside. While the Deputy, perhaps, had no intention of being discourteous to the House or belittling it in any way, that interpretation might certainly be taken from his statement, and I think it would be in the interests of the House and the respect which is due to it that the remark should be withdrawn.
As far as the dignity of the House is concerned, it is, after all, a glorified county council.
What did the Deputy say?
ACTING-CHAIRMAN
It is composed of the elected representatives of the people of the country, and the Deputy should remember that.
Well, I withdraw if there is any objection to the remark. I just gave it as an honest suggestion to the Minister for Finance that if they did move around the country to each place they would get an entertainments tax out of it all right.
Perhaps the Deputy is not far out. I see a couple of Deputies amusing themselves with a piece of string, making the place more like a monkey-house.
ACTING-CHAIRMAN
The Deputy has withdrawn his remark.
In that case I apologise.
Is it right for any Deputy to say that this House is like a monkey-house? I think that remark also ought to be withdrawn.
I did not say it was like a monkey-house. I said Deputies tried to convert it into a monkey-house.
The statement that any Deputy in this House is converting it into a monkey-house is a statement that should not be allowed to pass any more than the statement made by Deputy Corry.
ACTING-CHAIRMAN
Inasmuch as the actual words used are liable to the construction put upon them, I am sure Deputy Gorey will withdraw also. It would be much the more satisfactory thing to do.
If the remark bears that construction, I certainly will.
We had a statement made here some short time ago that hypothetical withdrawals are not in order. Can we have a definite withdrawal of the remark that this House is being likened to a monkey-house?
ACTING-CHAIRMAN
Deputy Gorey withdraws.
Certainly.
I would also like to see in the Budget some different cases made on the duty on beer and spirits manufactured out of purely Irish barley and the duty on beer and spirits manufactured out of imported barley. That would give relief to the farmers of the country who grow barley. If the barley industry is going to be wiped out, not because of the reduction of trade but through the importation of foreign barley by the brewer, then some steps are absolutely necessary. The Minister for Finance said that protective duties on some articles now show so little revenue that it no longer pays to collect them. I am very glad that the result of the tariffs on some articles has been such as to prevent their importation here. I think that is a matter for thankfulness. Those are matters which, after all, should be carefully considered.
The Minister for Finance should definitely give some relief this year to the agricultural community. It is on the backs of the agricultural community will fall all those taxes that are clapped on and if the farmers have in addition to pay the three million pounds a year which this Government has benevolently voted to John Bull in the shape of land annuities, then I hope the farmers will first of all feed themselves before they pay anyone.
I have no desire to prolong this debate, but there are still a few questions upon which we would like some information from the Minister. There is one matter which has not been mentioned so far; that is, in regard to the loans to fishermen. I think it is not denied that either the Minister or the President made a promise that these loans would be revalued and there are many hundreds of people very anxiously waiting for those promises to be fulfilled. I think on this occasion, when all the activities of the country are being reviewed, we might have a definite statement as to whether the Government intends to do anything to revalue these loans made to fishermen. It is significant that in the estimate of assets against National Debt there is no mention of the loans to fishermen. It may be that the Minister considers them too small, but I was inclined to infer that the Minister does not think them of any use or that there is any likelihood that these loans will be repaid. That is a question on which we would like a little information from the Minister.
There are a couple of other things we would like to deal with. It appears there is a very extraordinary anomaly going to occur in connection with the commercial vehicles tax. I will just give an example as to how it will work out. Take a French chassis coming here direct. Suppose it is worth £600, the duty here will be £200, and that will bring the figure to £800. Allow £150 for a body, and that will make £950 altogether. Let the same chassis come from London—and there are some French firms that have assembling works in England. Take it that the selling price is £600, that it gets on a body in England at the same price as the Irish body, £150; that would bring the figure to £750. It will be admitted that the Imperial preference rate applies, because I think it only takes 25 per cent. of British manufacture to make the article liable to the Imperial preference duty. The duty at that rate would work out at £166. You would then have the bus and body complete at £916. With an Irish body, if the chassis were imported direct from France, it would cost £950. That does not seem to be a very effective way of encouraging Irish industry. I am nearly sure that that anomaly—it has always existed—has been pointed out to the Government. It may be that they have overlooked it, but I would like the Minister to deal with it. There may be some snag in it that I have not seen, but it occurs to me that it would be an extraordinary thing when we have actually a so-called protective duty on commercial vehicle bodies, that that duty under the new arrangement is going to act as a subsidy to British manufacture.
In connection with that duty we are a bit distrait to know why it is there is such hesitation in giving real protection to Irish coach-building. Anybody can see that no one would have a big grievance if there was really prohibition against lorry or bus bodies. Nobody can say that it is a thing in which the consumers should be allowed some choice or that they would have a big grievance if they were forced to get their goods in Ireland. I do think that a country that cannot manufacture lorry bodies does not deserve a Parliament or anything in the way of civilisation. We all know that we are capable of manufacturing bus bodies as well as any other country can manufacture them. There is not any likelihood for years of there being any urgency in this country about the manufacture of bus bodies, so that the question of dealing with orders could not arise. I submit that the Government have not given that industry fair play. They have been pressed again and again to introduce some effective tariff which would be real protection to the trade. They have been pressed from both sides of the House, from the side of the capitalists who are engaged in it, and they are pressed by the vehicle-builders, of whom there are 25 per cent. unemployed at present. It would cost only a stroke of the pen, so to speak, to give that industry genuine protection, and I submit that the House should press for an explanation as to why that protection is not given.
In connection with tariffs, there are some things that require a lot of explanation. The furniture tariff brings in £45,000. When that tariff is costed, so to speak, when we examine what it takes to collect that £45,000, I think nobody can be convinced that it is a paying tariff. First of all, you have three Revenue Commissioners themselves, who get a payment out of it. You have their staffs, who get a certain payment out of it. You have on your Customs ports men who have to be trained in valuing furniture. It must not be taken or accepted that the work of a Customs officer of that kind is routine. He has got to be able to fix a value on each article of furniture as it arrives, and to see whether the invoice price is a correct price or not. He has got to take responsibility, if he thinks the invoice price is not correct, to hold up that article and put a value on it himself. How can anyone say, then, that that £45,000 revenue on furniture pays for its collection? We would like to know, then, why it is that we are to have a tariff on furniture at all? What is wrong in saying that there should be prohibition on the importation of furniture? The President has told us that he has nothing but Irish furniture in his house. If Irish furniture is good enough for the first citizen of the State, then surely it should be good enough for anybody else. Is there any reason, then, for imposing what is tantamount to a revenue tariff on furniture, when there should be a total prohibition on the importation of furniture? If we are not able to make our own tables and chairs and lounges and desks, and so on, we are not capable of much.
In any case, I am sure that the £45,000 raised from this tariff does not pay the expense of collecting it. I would like if we would have some explanation of it. We were told by the Minister for Agriculture in the tariff debate that we were not to talk about retaliation. If there is no fear of retaliation then there is no need in a case like this of speaking of retaliation. In the case of confectionery, what is the object merely of putting on a tariff? Why not put on prohibition? There would be no grievance to any individual in this country if imports of confectionery were totally prohibited. There would be a slight loss in revenue. I would like to know from the Minister if his object in keeping on that tariff is to get revenue from it. It seems to us that the case is clearly one for total prohibition. There are many precedents for that. There is hardly a country in Europe that does not prohibit the importation into it of certain goods. There was one remark made by the Minister for Finance that struck me as very interesting indeed. He said, after talking about existing institutions, that undoubtedly if we were starting anew we would not have them as they are at present. But he said that when you come to reform them you are faced with this, that you have to give compensation for the abolition of vested interests.
We appreciate that difficulty all right, and I think that anybody who has got an eye on what is happening in other countries must feel that these vested interests are going to be a very big problem in the future for every country. We see that when Spain attempted—and not merely attempted, but actually in the matter of these vested interests did establish an oil monopoly—that it meant very serious relations with France. That was because France at the time was in possession of the oil industry of Spain, and France was not satisfied with the compensation Spain gave to her interests when she decided to get rid of them. We appreciate that difficulty, and we are wondering why the Minister for Finance is content at looking on at the growth of vested interests in one of the most important departments of the State, vested interests that are going inevitably to cause trouble and that are to be very costly to Ireland to get rid of. I refer to the vested interests in road transport. Nobody believes that that competition of the different bus services on the roads can continue indefinitely. Everybody realises that there will have to be order brought into that Department some time. If to-morrow the Government decide to do it, they will be faced with scores of vested interests there that they have allowed to grow up. Each of these vested interests will demand compensation, and the Government will be faced with a demand for compensation all along the line. It struck me as curious that while the Minister is conscious of this difficulty about vested interests, he should be content to see these vested interests grow up in the country in that Department of road transport, and probably in a number of other Departments as well.
We agree entirely with Deputy O'Hanlon that the floating of the Agricultural Credit Corporation was very badly done. Issuing a prospectus in the daily Press for, I think, one day was not a reasonable attempt to get the money needed for that big venture. Everybody knows that farmers as a rule are not much interested in prospectuses, and we think if it were decided to do the thing in that casual way it would have been very much better to save the expense of issuing a prospectus at all. As a matter of fact, there are several Deputies here who know individual farmers who would have been quite prepared to invest in the Agricultural Credit Corporation if they had realised that it was good security, if it had been brought home to them, if there had been any little propaganda in connection with it. But we all know that it was done as a very routine matter, done apparently in the belief that the farmers of Ireland were quite au fait with all the details of the Corporation, with its basis, its guarantees, and so on, and that if any of them had money to invest they would decide to do so on a mere issue of the prospectus in the daily papers. We think it was a very foolish way of bringing the details to their notice or of attempting to get money for that important venture.
One thing Deputy O'Hanlon will have to practise.. I suppose every man has his conceit. Apparently Deputy O'Hanlon's conceit is that he is a farmers' representative and the only farmers' representative in this House. He thinks that by keeping on talking against tariffs that proves him to be essentially a farmers' representative. Some of us who have given it a little attention are satisfied that that is a very erroneous way of proving that he is the farmers' friend. Looking at the big burden the country is bearing at the moment, realising from the remark of the Minister for Finance in his opening statement that all expense is ultimately borne out of production, we are not satisfied that the farmer is getting a fair chance by having to bear such a huge load. In advocating industrialism —because of course tariffs are only a means towards industrialism—we think we are doing the best service possible to the farmer, because we see no chance that farming is going to be so prosperous, within the next ten years anyhow, that it will be able to bear the big burdens that are being poured on to it, that it will be able to provide all the services that a growing civilisation demands. We feel that it would be only common justice to the farmer that the burden of carrying a big urban population on his back should be taken off, and that the towns of Ireland, instead of leading a parasitic existence, should contribute a little towards the wealth of the country; in other words, that they should be encouraged to go in for production, thereby taking some of the weight off the farmers' shoulders. Roughly, that is our philosophy of it. We have yet to be convinced, either by Deputy O'Hanlon or anyone else, that that is a wrong view.
There was a good deal of talk in the debate about the Civil Service and about the necessity for economy and that sort of thing. I think that that has been disposed of. It is not a subject that I like talking about in any case, but I think it is necessary to repeat that we have as much regard for the civil servants and are as eager to safeguard their interests as any other party. The Minister for Finance said: "They were forced upon us and there is no reason why we should defend them if they do not deserve defence." Well, if he applies the same reasoning to us, or if the Minister for Industry and Commerce applies the same reasoning. I think he would have seen that we can have no axe to grind in making any charges against civil servants or in giving the opportunity to the Minister for Industry and Commerce to force a wedge between us and the Civil Service. It is not a thing that gains us any votes; it is not a thing that gains us any popularity. It is a thing, however, on which a number of people are not satisfied that the last word has been said, and in the present desperate circumstances of the country we think that even the feeling that prevails would be a good enough excuse for allowing a really satisfactory inquiry into that source of expenditure.
When the Minister for Industry and Commerce says that all we hear is "belief of so and so," and "my feeling is so and so," he must remember that that is the origin of a number of commissions. I suppose the Government is at present congratulating itself on the result of the Harling Commission. There you had a commission established which was simply the result of feeling and believing. The Minister for Finance referred, in reply to some remarks that I made the other evening, to the commission established to inquire into delays on dutiable goods at the ports and said that he found there was no reason for these complaints at all. There was a case where the Government yielded to an assertion, a belief, if you like, and I think I could give a number of other cases. Again the Minister was altogether unfair and quite unlike himself in other speeches when he accused Deputy Lemass of giving no instance of slackness from his own observation of public departments. That would be a very invidious thing to do and a very wrong thing to do, for one in the position of Deputy Lemass who, while he might have strong grounds for suspicion, might easily be wrong in his suspicion. What he would observe in a department, while as a public representative he might be well justified in drawing attention to it, might be capable of a very satisfactory explanation. Again, generally speaking it would not be at all a satisfactory method of dealing with the matter.
I think when a number of public representatives press for an inquiry and say that they are not satisfied that the fullest economy is being practised, it should be up to the Government to accede to such demand as having some reasonable ground, especially when there are so many difficulties in the way of giving reasons for it. Personally, I agree with the Minister for Finance when he said that some civil servants are killing themselves. I know civil servants who, I believe, are working far too hard. But even if we liked to quote things said to us by civil servants whom we may meet in ordinary social life, it is just possible—I do not say it is the case—that we could quote statements that have led us to believe that this is not the general rule and that the injustice to such men is all the greater because of the slackness on the part of other civil servants. I think the fact that we recognise that these things prevail, that at all events certain civil servants are working too hard, shows all the more need for calling for a general inquiry.
Personally, I would be satisfied if I knew a little more about the method of the working of this Economy Committee. We have never been told what criteria they are adopting in their investigations. Is it the standard of the banks, or of the railways or of general commercial offices? Is it on the traditions of the Civil Service that they are going, or are they having any regard for what the country can pay for the Civil Service? Remember, it is not enough to say that men are worth so-and-so: there are plenty of enterprises in Ireland that could do with experts, that could add to their profits immensely if they were at liberty to pay for experts in their business, but they have not got the money to do it, and the man who would propose to them that they should do that sort of thing would only be wasting his time. If I am running an enterprise and somebody says: "I know a man who, if you are prepared to give him £1,500 or £2,000 a year, will do a great deal for your business," and if I cannot afford to pay £1,500 or £2,000 a year there is not much use in talking like that to me. Similarly with the Civil Service. We would like to know what criteria are being adopted by the Economy Committee and when it is likely to report. But I hope that the effort to drive a wedge between this Party and the Civil Service will not be repeated. It is a very ugly thing to happen. As Deputy Ryan pointed out, they are as much our civil servants as they are the Government's civil servants, and their honour and their reputation is just as much to us, I venture to say, as it is to the Government Party.
With regard to the rate on telegrams, I am afraid that I must repeat what Deputy O'Hanlon and other Deputies said. I believe that the increase will not help in reducing the loss that exists on telegrams, that it certainly will not help to bring about an appreciable reduction in the loss. It is more likely, I think, that it will add to the loss on telegrams, because the difference between one shilling and one and sixpence will be felt by numbers of people, and it is more than likely that a falling off in the use of telegrams will take place, which will not be compensated for either by the increased amount obtained from telegrams or by the greater use of the telephones.
There were a couple of other matters that I would have liked the Minister to deal with. For instance, a number of countries are taking action with regard to the foreign concerns operating within their territories, and are insisting that a certain number of the employees of these concerns shall be natives. There are concerns operating in the Free State whose staffs are entirely foreign, and we thought that the Minister would have dealt with things like that, that look very objectionable, and that cannot continue. When the Minister was detailing alternative taxes we would have liked to know why he did not consider a tax, for instance, of 1d. per 1b. on foreign bacon. That would, I think, bring in about £250,000, would be easy to collect, and would assuredly not mean any increase in the cost of the bacon to the poorer people. We would like to know why that was not considered as an alternative tax. My own opinion is that the Minister has not done himself nor his staff justice with this Budget. He has not given any new hope to the country, he has not done anything to relieve the torpor and depression that prevail, and while we may speculate as to the causes that have hampered him, as to why he has not left himself more free, we can only regret at all events that the effect is not going to result in any immediate benefit to the country.
I do not propose to keep the House very long. I put to myself one or two questions about the last few years, as to what would likely be the line that the leader of the Opposition, or the members of the Opposition, would take on a Budget, and I found always that the easiest line that appeared to me to be taken was to express disappointment, and the louder the leader expressed it, and the more often he expressed it, the surer it would be that he had paid very little attention to the subject-matter of the Budget. The last speech is perhaps another example of the futility of the discussion on the part of the Opposition in connection with this matter. We had a long statement to the effect that we are not to drive in a wedge between the Party opposite and the civil servants. My recollection goes back to the last two elections, to those long advertisements which appeared in the daily Press, of the salaries of the Chief Justice—I do not remember whether His Excellency's was included —and so on down along, mentioning all the four-figure salaries that there are. I can recollect all the criticisms that were uttered by these people, who now confess that they know very little, that they have nothing but a surface knowledge of the extraordinary extravagances perpetrated in this country for the last four or five years by the Government. And now it winds up in the last speech that there is very little hope in this Budget. Where does the inspiration or the hope come from? It comes from reading the British Budget. That there is a slavish admiration of the British Budget on those benches over there I am positively certain. It has grown day after day. No one expressed it, but they were all hoping that someone from some other part of the House would mention it. To take the leader as an example of the incompetence of the Opposition in this case, we find that he concerned himself with the deficit that occurred during the last four or five years. Taking 1924-25, my recollection is that he mentioned £721,000; for 1925-26, he mentioned £904,000; for the following year he mentioned £3,218,000, and his figure for 1927-28 was £3,597,000. Now, the sum total of all this amounts to about £8,400,000. Deputies, in their leisure, when they are less agitated by the discussions which have taken place here, can correct me if am wrong.
He went on then to say that the deficit in the previous year was something like £6,800,000. When we add up all these figures, what do we find? About £15,000,000.
It would be necessary to go back a little further in order to approximate closely what the National Debt of this country is. The Minister for Finance has mentioned it as somewhere about £22,000,000, excluding in the first place liabilities to the British Government, in respect of which we are paying £250,000 a year for sixty years, and the Dáil Eireann Loan. If that is all that the Deputy required, he could easily have learned it. It would not have been necessary to make a speech about it; the one almost balances the other. What is the meaning of it? That is the question. Is there value for it? Is there a reason for it? If there be a reason for it there is no necessity for having any more pother about it. There is the question of compensation; it has been announced on many occasions. There is the question of excess Army costs in respect of the years 1922-23, 1923-24, and 1924-25. I think I have mentioned the sums— £7,000,000 the first year, £10,000,000 the second year, and £3,000,000 the third. The sum total of these three is round about £20,000,000. The Army cost, which might have been estimated as the normal cost at that time, was £6,000,000—£2,000,000 per annum. That is £14,000,000. The cost in respect of compensation and other items is approximately £8,000,000. As a matter of fact, it is even more than that. So that I am sure the Deputy is now far more easy in his mind.
I am not, by any means.
The Deputy is not? Then it will take a much longer time to go into it. But if there is any point in connection with that that the Deputy would like to get further information on this is the place to get it, and I will subside if he wishes to put a question.
I was going to wait until the Minister for Finance came back to explain it, because I know that the President has a very happy knack of balancing things sometimes by reading the wrong side of the books. I was also waiting for the Minister for Finance to come along because I see from the Budget statement that he takes any arbitrary figure he wants in order to bring out the balance. He picked out, as was indicated by Deputy O'Hanlon, £500,000 from the Army and some other sum from somewhere else in order to get it out. There is a very simple way for testing whether we are balancing our Budget or not, to test at least whether the Minister's statements with regard to it are right or not. Take, for example, what the Minister said last year as to how much was to be got by borrowing, and let us take how much has been borrowed during the year and see whether the difference is to the good. If you borrow seven millions and if there are only two millions of abnormal expenditure to be covered by borrowing, then I take it that you ought to have five millions left. I do not see anything like that in the accounts.
The Deputy is really proving what I have said already; that he has not made a study of this matter, and that he knows practically nothing about it.
Pardon me. Let me make the position clear. Time after time from the benches opposite we have had the assertion made that the Budget has been balanced.
I am asserting it now.
It is for those who make that statement, as an accountant would make it, to prove that it is balanced. I said that the proofs given are not satisfactory, and I say that the statement of the Minister for Finance made some time ago, that he had balanced the Budget this year, is unsatisfactory, because anyone could balance books in that way.
The Deputy is getting into deeper water now. There was first the figure of £721,000, then the figure of £904,000, and then we have the figures of £2,000,000 and £3,000,000, and if the Deputy adds these figures he will get the total of £8,400,000. I hope that is plain to Deputy de Valera.
Will the President explain why a statement as regards the recent loan and the first loan was not issued with the Budget, so that a comparison could be shown as a check against the non-recurrent expenditure which Deputy de Valera has referred to? There is no check, or no connection whatever, between the loan and the reproductive expenditure on which the Minister for Finance is making his calculation.
Might I make the position clear? The banks have a method of presenting their accounts which anybody who deals with matters of that kind will understand does not represent the true situation. It is purposely intended to hide the true situation from the public. Our attitude to these accounts is that they are conceived in the same way. What we want is to have a detailed statement of the accounts so that we can examine them. I remember reading on one occasion a statement made by Mr. Leaf, a former Chairman, I think, of the Westminster Bank. He was speaking to the Governor of the Bank of England and said, "There is only one item in these accounts that I can understand." The other man replied: "Are you quite sure that you do understand it?" Evidently that is the intention of the Minister for Finance here in giving his Budget statement. This method of taking a sum here and of adding it to some other figure and then referring to some smaller items as included in the total arrived at is not a proper way to present accounts to this assembly.
The Deputy does not understand the method by which the Minister for Finance presents his accounts?
I can understand commonsense at any time.
Let me explain to Deputy de Valera that this is not a matter in which my desire is to score off the Deputy or any member of his Party. That is not the point. The point that I am particularly anxious to get to is that every member of the House would understand these figures. We want every member to understand them.
Very well.
There is no question of hiding anything. I would ask the Deputy to turn to the figures which the Minister for Finance gave on page 4 of the typewritten statement that he read. The first figure is £8,975,800, National Loan, 1923, and the last figure £3,021,000 Savings Certificates. These figures refer to the liability of the State. The figures there give the liability of the State, excluding the £250,000 annual payment for the next 57 years and the Dáil Eireann External Loan. These items, properly speaking, can be excluded from our consideration for the purpose of making it clear that the Budget has been balanced for the last three or four years.
This is not a question of scoring. I am utterly disinterested as regards scoring in this manner. The Deputy will see further down in that typewritten statement where the credits are. He will see the statement that, after making allowance for the assets indicated, the liabilities may be put at £13,584,000. The Minister for Finance in his statement said that this was the sum which is comparable with the sum of £12,400,000 given in last year's Budget Statement. Let us exclude altogether an examination of each individual year's liability and take this as the liabilities and assets for the moment. The only question now for us is to examine whether or not we were justified in regarding certain items as abnormal. The items that I have mentioned, such as extra Army expense, for 1922-23, 1923. 24, and 1924-25, alone amount to about £14,000,000, leaving out of account altogether the question of compensation. I hope I have made that point clear, because I am anxious to do so for the benefit of the whole country. I take it that even Deputies on the benches opposite, with all their intense political feeling on this matter, do really want the country to understand what is the actual state of affairs.
I do, for one, at any rate.
Then we are making progress.
May I put a question to the President? I presume that included in this figure of £13,584,000 are most of the items for abnormal expenditure?
Yes.
Will the President explain to the House how the expenditure upon drainage works in the year 1926-27 and possibly in the year 1925 was regarded as abnormal expenditure? The sum expended on these works is now, I understand, included in this figure of £13,584,000.
These figures give the Deputy an opportunity of saying that is abnormal expenditure. I am simply mentioning a few figures. Take the Army alone. It was £7,000,000 in 1922-23, £10,000,000 in 1923-24, and £3,000,000 in the following year. That is a total of £20,000,000. That item alone, taking it that the Army costs £2,000,000 in each of these three years, leaves a balance of £14,000,000. All we have spent is £13,000,000.
The figure of £14,000,000. I take it, is approximate, and wrong?
That is a matter to be disputed. At any rate we have taken it this way: that somewhere about 1925-26 the Minister for Finance made the statement that £2,000,000 a year might be regarded and would be regarded by him as normal Army expenditure, and anything over that abnormal. I do not think that we were wrong in doing that. At all events that was the promise. We went on that, and there is no deceit and no mystification with regard to it.
If you went on the basis of allowing £2,000,000, why are you allowing £1,500,000 now?
We have since come to the conclusion that it must be reduced to that figure. That is in my favour.
Why?
What I have explained is that our total indebtedness in respect of abnormal expenditure is £13,500,000. Let me give the Deputies another figure. If they give me credit for compensation about £8,000,000 comes of that. It will be agreed surely that is not an abnormal item. That leaves me with accounting to the Deputies for £5,500,000.
Does that £8,000,000 represent cash paid in respect of compensation?
Yes.
Will the President give us the total amount paid in respect of property compensation for the year 1925-6?
No.
Would it surprise the President to hear it amounted to only £3,600,000?
We were paying long before that. In respect of these items we started paying in 1922-3, and it is being paid every year since. Take off £1,000,000, that leaves £7,000,000, but it is more than that. My liability in respect of the Army costs is £6,500,000.
It is as easy to take off £1,000,000 as it is to add it on.
This is a matter which I regard as above party—the good credit of the State. Whoever replaces us will have to stand over these things, or we are going nowhere. I do not know whether Deputy de Valera is satisfied or not.
I cannot be satisfied with the items. I see your idea as to our total indebtedness.
Take the figures as correct.
That there is a rough balance of the Budget, and that the capital expenditure should have balanced, but I am not satisfied with the particular statement with respect to the items.
That is another question. Assuming the figures are correct, that is our case, and we are standing over them. There may be criticism of them, but I think I have made the point clear that our total indebtedness in respect of abnormal costs is £13,500,000. We are standing over that figure. I will now deal with Deputy O'Hanlon. He said we were taking £300,000 off this year which we had no right to take. It is abnormal cost; that is my answer. Assuming that is so, our indebtedness in respect of normal and abnormal items after five or six years is only £13,500,000. The Deputy made a strong case with regard to funding the Agricultural Credit Corporation as an abnormal item. I put it to him in all seriousness that we would not be justified in regarding it as anything else but an abnormal item. I It is not an annual liability. It is something in which an asset is created, assuming the Corporation is going to be a sound business proposition. If not, and we are going to regard it as a failure, then we should regard the £300,000 which the Minister regarded as abnormal, as expense to be met to-day. If I consider it advisable to invest say £300 in the Bank of Ireland at the moment I would not be entitled to include that in the expenses of the year. It is not an expense but an asset which would bring in a dividend in years to come. It is actually the same with regard to this item.
My objection to the inclusion of the Agricultural Corporation shares is that the Minister for Finance, or whoever is responsible, did not take the trouble to get that money from the public, and hence it should not appear here. If this Agricultural Credit Corporation had been properly floated there would have been no necessity for dealing with this figure.
The Deputy will remember, I think he was in the House at the time when the Bill was going through, that provision is made for, I think, £1,000,000 per annum being taken up in certificates for a number of years—I think £1,000,000 a year for the next seven years.
I do not think that the launching of the Credit Corporation, if the money cannot be found, is a very good guarantee for the people who will take the certificates.
There are two sides to that. A great many people, at any rate, say it should be started, and that they agree afterwards when the certificates are put up to take them, but that the onus ought not to be put on them to subscribe the initial capital. I would say that we have gone so far to make it an institution of that sort that in the initial stages at least it should be largely participated in by the Government. It is another matter for people who come in after a considerable period.
Am I right in saying that the Government did not intend the public to take up the £1,000,000 per annum?
No.
That is the argument.
The Deputy will remember there was some grounds for apprehension politically in the last six or eight months during that particular time. That was the time when we had to let the public know that we had no political apprehensions of any kind.
Will the President tell us the exact amount subscribed by the public?
To the Agricultural Credit Corporation?
Yes.
It is not a fair question to ask. I really do not know.
About £20,000.
You are allowing, I think, in the Budget £220,000 and £20,000, that is £240,000, and there is £60,000 slack still.
With reference to Deputy Flinn's question, the first instalment on the shares which the Government subscribed was paid in the last financial year. That is really the explanation of the difference. I would suggest to Deputy de Valera that if he will carefully examine the finance accounts for each year and the Appropriation Accounts, he will have no difficulty in discovering the items of abnormal expenditure and what was paid in respect of each of them. He will have no difficulty in seeing what amount there is of abnormal expenditure to balance the deficiency which he found between revenue and expenditure, including normal and abnormal expenditure. We could not deal with it by question and answer, but if the Deputy, having gone into these accounts and having examined them, were unable really to find the information he wanted, I would be prepared to put the departmental machinery at work and get additional information so that he could see it, but my own belief is that if he examines these accounts he will have no difficulty in seeing it. Each year the Budget was balanced, assuming that what we regarded as abnormal was really abnormal. Of course, if that is not accepted, then it may not have been balanced. We only balanced it, assuming we were correct in our own segregation of the items between normal and abnormal. I admit we have reached the stage, and I admitted it in my own Budget statement, where it has become somewhat doubtful as to whether any part of the Army charge should be treated as abnormal, and I am quite clear that this is the last year in which we should be justified in doing that.
A good deal of the ground has been covered, and it is somewhat difficult for me to fit in remarks, but Deputy de Valera talked of co-ordination, and I think he spoke in a somewhat loose way, because in any organisation you must create divisions of personnel to correspond with the divisions of work. You must have a certain division of labour, and you can only get a limited amount of saving by even bringing divisions together into one building. Take the Department of Education. There are different classes of work given out to different groups of individuals. Even conceive the whole personnel being in one huge single chamber, you would still have to have the work divided, and people would specialise in various things. I asked somebody—and I think perhaps this answer was slightly jocular—what would be the saving accomplished by bringing the Department of Education into one building? Someone said half the cost of one messenger. I do not accept that as being correct. There is convenience and saving in bringing people together, but the saving is not great where you have very distinct divisions of work to be carried out. I just mention this as an illustration. The Deputy talked of transferring the collection of land annuities to the Department of Finance. That would not save anything. All the measures that have to be taken to collect land annuities would still have to be taken, and the same people employed; there would be no saving in doing that.
If big businesses were to follow those lines, I wonder where all the modern business methods would come from.
The difference between the co-ordination the Deputy has in mind and big businesses is this: you have one factory making, perhaps, the legs of chairs and another factory making the legs of chairs, and perhaps a third factory making the legs of chairs. You do get a saving if you bring all these together and get big plant employed. As a matter of fact, if you did away with specialisation in staffs in the Civil Service, you would lose efficiency. It is recognised that you get better work and better output by specialisation. In America there is greater specialisation. A carpenter there specialises. He has not to do as many classes of work as a carpenter does here. By specialising in one class of work a better output is obtained. In the Civil Service you must have a certain amount of specialisation. You must assign work to a certain class of individuals and you must assign individuals to a certain class of work. You would gain nothing by doing away with that. You get order, continuity and all that by specialisation. I think, as the President said, without making a debating answer, the Deputy did not give as much thought to that matter as he could have given. It is always possible to make adjustments. Circumstances change. You get your machinery perfect at a certain time. Some new work is thrown upon it which upsets the balance and you find you can improve it. I have never said the machinery cannot be properly criticised. I have always admitted that improvements can be made. If to-day we succeeded in making every improvement anybody could suggest, it would not be six months until further adjustments would be required, and until it would be possible for Deputies to say that certain things ought to be done. It will always be possible for them to say that.
Might I ask the Minister a question in relation to this matter? Does he think it a fair proportion that, under present conditions, £1 should be spent in the administration of every £25 for secondary education—that £1 should be spent on what I may call "headquarters expenses" for every £25?
I could not say.
I think you will admit straight off that it is not. I have another figure here. Does the Minister consider it a due proportion that there should be a cost of £1 for the administration of every £10 for technical education? Take the case of secondary education. I think it should be largely able to administer itself— with very little staff at the top except examination staff.
The Deputy is simply throwing in a very loose statement now, and I could not attempt to answer it because I have not the expert knowledge. Probably the Deputy will have his opportunity of making his case. If he was speaking of a matter which he knows something about—which he is better qualified perhaps to speak about than a good many of the other matters which he dealt with—he could have given some particulars. He could have departed from the general statement. He did not do that. I could not deal with the matter simply by method of question and answer at the present time. There were one or two other points mentioned to which I should like to refer. A deputy asked about the expiry of the betting tax next November. The betting tax is a permanent tax and will not expire next November. What does expire next November is the Betting Act, which simply legalises cash betting. The tax will remain even if the Betting Act should disappear.
Would the Minister explain, for the information of a number of people in the country, why there is such a difference in the price of Ford cars in the Saorstát as compared with the price in Britain and the North of Ireland. There is a difference of £25 in the prices in these places. Many people would like to know why that is so.
resumed the Chair.
This matter was raised in the House several times and if the Deputy would refer to the records he would see what I then stated. Part of the difference is due to certain taxes on partially-manufactured parts which is paid on importation here. How much of the difference could be explained in that way. I do not know. It has been alleged on behalf of the Ford people in Cork that the cost of producing machines there is greater than outside. I do not know whether that is so or not. This is a very big matter and would require separate discussion. Personally I may say that I have never been satisfied that all the difference could be justified.
I asked a question as to the revaluation of the loans to fishermen and I invited the Minister, in his reply, to make a statement on the matter.
A Bill is being prepared.
Would the Minister be prepared in the near future to reconsider the question relating to taxation so far as the Ford works are concerned?
I should be prepared to allow that question to arise on the Report of Number 4 Resolution. On the Report of that resolution, I should be prepared to allow a rather wide discussion on these matters generally.
The inspectors of Messrs. Ford's establishment from Detroit have on occasions praised the efficiency of the workers engaged in the industry in Cork.
I know that.
And they have said that, so far as efficiency is concerned, they find the labour engaged has been most adaptable even to American conditions.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 84; Níl, 49.
Tá
- William P. Aird.
- Ernest Henry Alton.
- Richard Anthony.
- James Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Ernest Blythe.
- Séamus A. Bourke.
- Seán Brodrick.
- Alfred Byrne.
- John Joseph Byrne.
- Edmund Carey.
- Sir James Craig.
- James Crowley.
- John Daly.
- William Davin.
- Michael Davis.
- Peter de Loughrey.
- James N. Dolan.
- Edward Doyle.
- Peadar Seán Doyle.
- Edmund John Duggan.
- James Dwyer.
- Osmond Thos. Grattan Esmonde.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- Denis J. Gorey.
- Alexander Haslett.
- John J. Hassett.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- Michael Joseph Hennessy.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Mark Henry.
- Patrick Hogan (Galway).
- Richard Holohan.
- Michael Jordan.
- Patrick Michael Kelly.
- Myles Keogh.
- Hugh Alexander Law.
- Finian Lynch.
- Arthur Patrick Mathews.
- Martin McDonogh.
- Archie J. Cassidy.
- Patrick Clancy.
- James Coburn.
- John James Cole.
- Mrs. Margt. Collins-O'Driscoll.
- Hugh Colohan.
- Martin Conlan.
- Michael P. Connolly.
- Bryan Ricco Cooper.
- Richard Corish.
- William T. Cosgrave.
- Michael Og McFadden.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Joseph W. Mongan.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- Richard Mulcahy.
- James E. Murphy.
- Timothy Joseph Murphy.
- James Sproule Myles.
- Martin Michael Nally.
- John Thomas Nolan.
- Richard O'Connell.
- Thomas J. O'Connell.
- Bartholomew O'Connor.
- Timothy Joseph O'Donovan.
- John F. O'Hanlon.
- Daniel O'Leary.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- John J. O'Reilly.
- Gearoid O'Sullivan.
- John Marcus O'Sullivan.
- Patrick Reynolds.
- Martin Roddy.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Timothy Sheehy (West Cork).
- William Edward Thrift.
- Michael Tierney.
- Daniel Vaughan.
- John White.
- Vincent Joseph White.
- George Wolfe.
- Jasper Travers Wolfe.
Níl
- Frank Aiken.
- Denis Allen.
- Neal Blaney.
- Gerald Boland.
- Patrick Boland.
- Daniel Bourke.
- Seán Brady.
- Robert Briscoe.
- Daniel Buckley.
- Frank Carney.
- Frank Carthy.
- Michael Clery.
- James Colbert.
- Eamon Cooney.
- Dan. Corkery.
- Martin John Corry.
- Fred. Hugh Crowley.
- Tadhg Crowley.
- Thomas Derrig.
- Eamon de Valera.
- Frank Fahy.
- Hugo Flinn.
- Andrew Fogarty.
- Patrick J. Gorry.
- John Goulding.
- Seán Hayes.
- Samuel Holt.
- Stephen Jordan.
- Michael Joseph Kennedy.
- William R. Kent.
- James Joseph Killane.
- Mark Killilea.
- Seán F. Lemass.
- Patrick John Little.
- Ben, Maguire.
- Seán MacEntee.
- Séamus Moore.
- Thomas Mullins.
- Patrick Joseph O'Dowd.
- William O'Leary.
- Matthew O'Reilly.
- Thomas P. Powell.
- Patrick J. Ruttledge.
- James Ryan.
- Martin Sexton.
- Timothy Sheehy (Tipp.).
- Patrick Smith.
- John Tubridy.
- Francis C. Ward.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and Doyle. Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
Motion declared carried.
Resolutions ordered to be reported.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Report Stage ordered for Thursday.
The Dáil adjourned at 2.10 p.m. until Wednesday at 3 p.m.