CIRCUIT COURT RULES. - IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE.

I move:—

Go ndeontar i gcuntas suim nách mó ná £7,438,635 chun no le haghaidh íoctha na muirearacha a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1929, i gcóir seirbhísí áirithe puiblí, eadhon:—

That a sum not exceeding £7,438,635 be granted on account for or towards defraying the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for certain public services, namely:—

£

£

1

Teaghlachas an tSeanascail

2,000

1

Governor-General's Establishment

2,000

2

An t-Oireachtas

39,000

2

Oireachtas

39,000

3

Roinn Uachtarán na hArd Chomhairle

4,000

3

Department of the President of the Executive Council

4,000

4

An tArd-Scrúdóir

6,000

4

Comptroller and AuditorGeneral

6,000

5

Oifig an Aire Airgid

25,000

5

Office of the Minister for Finance

25,000

6

Oifig na gCoimisinéirí Ioncuim

220,000

6

Office of the Revenue Commissioners

220,000

7

Pinsin tSean-Aoise

900,000

7

Old Age Pensions

900,000

8

Iasachtaí Aitiúla

Nil

8

Local Loans

Nil

9

Coimisiúin Shealadacha

3,500

9

Temporary Commissions

3,500

10

Oifig na nOibreacha Puiblí

39,000

10

Office of Public Works

39,000

11

Oibreacha agus Foirgintí Puiblí

280,000

11

Public Works and Buildings

280,000

12

Saotharlann Stáit

2,250

12

State Laboratory

2,250

13

Coimisiún na Stát-Sheirbhíse

3,500

13

Civil Service Commission

3,500

14

Cúiteamh i gCailliúna Maoine

183,000

14

Property Losses Compensation

183,000

15

Cúiteamh i nDíobhála Pearsanta

1,300

15

Personal Injuries Compensation

1,300

16

Aois-Liúntaisí agus Liúntaisí Fágála

600,000

16

Superannuation and Retired Allowances

600,000

17

Rátaí ar Mhaoin an Rialtais

44,000

17

Rates on Government Property

44,000

18

An tSeirbhís Shicréid-each

3,500

18

Secret Service

3,500

19

Coimisiún na nDleacht

700

19

Tariff Commission

700

20

Costaisí fén Acht Timpeal Toghachán, agus fé Acht na nGiúirithe

8,000

20

Expenses under the Electoral Act, and the Juries Act

8,000

21

Costaisí Ilghnéitheacha

3,615

21

Miscellaneous Expenses

3,615

22

Soláthar agus Cló-bhuala

41,000

22

Stationery and Printing

41,000

23

Measadóireacht agus Suirbhéireacht Teorann

11,371

23

Valuation and Boundary Survey

11,371

24

Suirbhéireacht an Ordonáis

15,436

24

Ordnance Survey

15,436

25

Deontas Breise Talmhaíochta

150,000

25

Supplementary Agricultural Grant

150,000

26

Muirearacha Dlí

24,000

26

Law Charges

24,000

27

Longlann Inis Sionnach

4,000

27

Haulbowline Dockyard

4,000

28

Príomh-sceoileanna agus Coláistí

39,000

28

Universities and Colleges

39,000

29

Congnamh Airgid do Bhiatas Siúicre

150,000

29

Beet Sugar Subsidy

150,000

30

Oifig an tSaor-Chíosa

1,360

30

Quit Rent Office

1,360

31

Oifig an Aire Dlí agus Cirt

9,620

31

Office of the Minister for Justice

9,620

32

Gárda Síochána

530,000

32

Gárda Síochána

530,000

33

Príosúin

40,750

33

Prisons

40,750

34

Cúirt Dúitche

16,419

34

District Court

16,419

35

Cúirt Uachtarach agus Ard-Chúirt an Bhreithiúnais

23,000

35

Supreme Court and High Court of Justice

23,000

36

Oifig Chlárathachta na Talmhan agus Oifig Chlárathachta na nDintiúirí

16,606

36

Land Registry and Registry of Deeds

16,606

37

An Chúirt Chuarda

20,111

37

Circuit Court

20,111

38

Oifig na nAnnálacha Puiblí

1,921

38

Public Record Office

1,921

39

Tabhartaisí agus Tiomanta Déireiúla

1,000

39

Charitable Donations and Bequests

1,000

40

Rialtas Aitiúil agus Sláinte Puiblí

135,000

40

Local Government and Public Health

135,000

41

Oifig an Ard-Chlárathóra

3,650

41

General Register Office

3,650

42

Gealtlann Dúndroma

4,500

42

Dundrum Asylum

4,500

43

An Coimisiún Arachais Sláinte Náisiúnta

113,000

43

National Health Insurance

113,000

44

Oispidéil agus Otharlanna

1,100

44

Hospitals and Infirmaries

1,100

45

Oifig an Aire Oideachas

58,000

45

Office of the Minister for Education

58,000

46

Bun-Oideachas

1,325,000

46

Primary Education

1,325,000

47

Meadhon-Oideachas

90,000

47

Secondary Education

90,000

48

Céard-Oideachas

10,000

48

Technical Instruction

10,000

49

Eolaíocht agus Ealadhantacht

13,000

49

Science and Art

13,000

50

Scoileanna Ceartúcháin agus Saothair

32,000

50

Reformatory and Industrial Schools

32,000

51

An Gailerí Náisiúnta

1,600

51

National Gallery

1,600

52

Talmhaíocht

156,000

52

Agriculture

156,000

53

Foraoiseacht

19,000

53

Forestry

19,000

54

Coimisiún na Talmhan

244,836

54

Land Commission

244,836

55

Roimh-íocanna le Cumainn Chreidiúna Thalnhaíochta

7,000

55

Advances to Agricultural Credit Societies

7,000

56

Tionnscal agus Tráchtáil

37,500

56

Industry and Commerce

37,500

57

Bóithre Iarainn

22,500

57

Railways

22,500

58

An Bínse Bóthair Iarainn

2,500

58

Railway Tribunal

2,500

59

Muir-Sheirbhísí

2,300

59

Marine Service

2,300

60

Arachas Díomhaointis

90,000

60

Unemployment Insurance

90,000

61

Iascach

16,000

61

Fisheries

16,000

62

Post agus Telegrafa

800,000

62

Posts and Telegraphs

800,000

63

Fóirleatha Nea-shrangach

9,000

63

Wireless Broadcasting

9,000

64

Ant-Arm

650,000

64

Army

650,000

65

Arm-Phinsin

100,000

65

Army Pensions

100,000

66

Gnóthaí Coigriche

15,500

66

External Affairs

15,500

67

Cumann na Náisiún

2,590

67

League of Nations

2,590

68

Luach saothair chun costais Bhainistí Stoc Rialtais is le Saorstát Eireann

6,500

68

Remuneration for cost of management of Government Stocks of Saorstát Eireann

6,500

69

Oifig Chlárathachta Mhaoine Tionnscail agus Tráchtála

6,600

69

Industrial and Commercial Property Registration Office

6,600

70

Aonach Tailteann

Nil.

70

Aonach Tailteann

Nil.

71

Scéimeanna Fóirithinte

Nil.

71

Relief Schemes

Nil.

An t-Iomlán

£7,438,635

Total

£7,438,635

This is the second Vote on Account which has been asked for this year. The amount now asked for to be voted by the Dáil will be sufficient to carry on the public services until the 1st December next. About 46 hours have been given to a discussion on the Estimates already this year. In previous years I think the maximum number of hours given in any year to a discussion on the Estimates was about 90. It is proposed, when we meet in the autumn, to give as nearly as possibe, say, 40 hours additional, or thereabouts, for the Estimates. I think the only other thing that I need say in connection with the present Vote on Account is this—that it has been the invariable practice that no new service should be initiated pending the passage of the Estimates in which it was provided for and that such service should not be undertaken by means of money provided by the Vote on Account. The only exception to that were services that were of a trifling character or services that were definitely of a noncontentious character. Every effort will be made to follow that rule and, so far as possible, no service that has not been definitely before the Dáil will be initiated, following the passage of this Vote of Account. As, however, the interval between the beginning of the financial year and the ending of the discussion on the Estimates will be much longer this year than usual, there might be a necessity to depart from that rule in some respects. It is hoped that it will not be necessary, but if the matter were one which we had every reason to believe would meet with the approval of the Dáil, and if it were a question of losing a year in case certain steps were not taken before certain Estimates were finally disposed of, it might be necessary to depart from the rule to some extent. I only say that in case that the necessity should arise. I have no definite reason to anticipate that any such necessity will arise. I think that the need for taking this Vote on Account is understood. The business that has been before the Dáil has been such as to make it practically impossible to complete all the Estimates before the Summer adjournment, if there is to be any Summer adjournment at all, unless we were to take a line such as we have not yet taken, that is, the passing of a substantial number of the Estimates without discussion. That is a matter that could be considered later on and, as a matter of fact, it might be a better practice if the Estimates were discussed in a somewhat different way from that in which they have been discussed. If the time that is available for a discussion of the Estimates were devoted to a certain number, the Estimates actually taken being changed each year, and if the remaining Estimates were not gone through in detail it might be more satisfactory. I say that because if the Deputies speak in large numbers on these Estimates it is impossible that 71 Estimates could be discussed in detail in the time available for them.

However, that change could come about only as a matter of agreement. It is not proposed to take any steps to bring it about this year. What we desire to do is in the Autumn as nearly as possible if it can be done, to allow a number of hours equal to what has previously been given to a discussion of the annual Estimates, allowing, of course, for the number of hours' discussion that has already taken place. I think that would be reasonably satisfactory to the House. The changes which would follow a discussion on the Estimates can very seldom be immediately effective. Sometimes they might be effective by a change in policy during the remainder of the year. But as a general rule very little change could be effected, and if the Estimates discussion is finished by the middle or end of November there will be ample time to give effect to any promises that may be made in the House on the Estimates, or to give attention to any representation that might be made in the course of framing the next year's Estimates. This would not be due at the earliest in the Department of Finance until the 1st December, and many of them would not be ordinarily received in the Department of Finance until the 1st February; I think that detailed discussion on the Estimates in the autumn will meet the requirements satisfactorily.

As I indicated last week, we intend opposing the granting of this Vote on Account. The passing of the Vote would make the discussion of the Estimates more or less a mere matter of form when we come back after the Recess. Two-thirds of the money will have been spent, and the whole purpose of discussing the Estimates in detail will be frastrated. When the Minister for Finance was introducing the Budget he indicated that he had to find about £1,149,000 in the way of fresh taxation, or at least that that sum would have to be found by devices which had not been resorted to up to that time. The position at present is worse than it was then, as is shown by the recent Exchequer return for the quarter ended June 30th. If you examine that return you will find that there has been a steady decline in receipts, despite the fact that the Minister, by contracting the period of brewers' credit, hoped that he would bring in £300,000 in the year; that by the collection of Schedule A Income Tax in one instalment he would bring in £150,000 in the year; that by the collection of income tax arrears he would bring in an extra £250,000 in the year; that by the extension of the McKenna duties he would bring in £200,000 in the year; that by the increase of the tax on sugar he would bring in £200,000; making a total of £1,100,000 in the year. Instead of an increase in the revenue as a result of these devices, we find that the revenue was less than the expenditure for the quarter by roughly £1,000,000. The Minister stated that he expected £13,889,000 from Customs and Excise in the year. All he has got for the quarter is £3,201,000, which is no less than £347,000 less than it was for the corresponding quarter in the previous year. In the corresponding quarter of the previous year he got £3,548,000, whereas this quarter he has got only £3,201,000. Again, he expected in the course of the year to get from income tax, property tax and super-tax the sum of £4,200,000. He has received for the quarter only £687,000, which is £282,000 less than he received in the corresponding quarter last year; the yield for the corresponding quarter last year was £969,000, whereas it is now only £687,000. Again, from the corporation profits tax he expected to get in the year £250,000. He has got in for the quarter only £25,000, and that is £34,000 less than he got in the corresponding quarter last year. Last year he got in £59,000, whereas this year he has got only £25,000. There is a total balance in the Exchequer of £1,349,000. It is only that sum, notwithstanding the fact that last year the entire amount of the National Loan was brought in, amounting to £6,889,000, and that during the current year no less than £295,000 has come in by way of Savings Certificates. Anybody who studies these figures and notes their implications must feel that the Minister, if he comes next year to meet anything like the same services he has to meet this year, will have to increase taxation—increase taxation in a country already taxed far beyond its capacity.

Before we vote this sum on account we ought to get some statement from the Minister as to the steps he is taking to cut down the cost of administration. Since we have come in here we have been constantly calling attention to the standard on which the Executive is operating. Instead of recognising the fact that we are a comparatively small country, and, in our present condition, not a prosperous country, the Ministry is carrying on the services on the same scale as if we were an Empire. Time and time again we have called attention to the fact that extravagant salaries are being paid in certain of the higher offices. We have pointed out that the sum of very nearly £1,000,000 over and above that which is necessary is being spent on the Army, and that the number of Civic Guards is far in excess of that which should be required. We have tried to get the Ministry to realise that we cannot afford to neglect savings of £10,000 here and £10,000 there. When we point out a saving of £10,000 in this direction or £10,000 in that direction we are waived aside with the statement that that is only a bagatelle. If we are going to waive £10,000 here and £10,000 there on every occasion that it is pointed out as being a bagatelle, we will soon find that we are talking in millions and that millions really are a bagatelle.

When the previous Vote on Account was being discussed, Deputy Ruttledge gave a very full analysis of the situation as it was then. He compared the standard here and the standards in other countries, and pointed out that we are far more heavily taxed relatively than the people in Great Britain, and that the continuation of such a burden on our people is going to lead exactly to the consequences that have followed in the last four or five years— unemployment and general depression. As I have said, when we point to £10,000 here and £10,000 there that can be saved on administration, we are told that it does not matter, that it is only a bagatelle. Time after time we have referred to the standard that is being set by maintaining the office of Governor-General, for example, with an expenditure on the establishment of about £20,000 at least over and above anything which even the Treaty would make obligatory, and that on Ministers' salaries and salaries in their Departments sums are being paid over and above that which ought to be the standard in this country.

I think we ought to give up thinking in imperial terms and think rather in terms of the simple frugality that will be necessary if we are going to make this country really prosperous, if we are going to relieve unemployment and bring back the conditions we naturally expect should obtain in this country, which has been, after all, bountifully provided by Providence with the things necessary for a happy human existence. Deputy Ruttledge also gave—and perhaps I will give later on—a comparison of the staffs in the various offices now with the staffs when the British were here. I do not think that, in any reply that was made, it was indicated that there was any special reason why these should be so extravagantly increased.

Attention was also called to the fact that you had large sums going out to able-bodied people in the way of Army pensions, and we indicated that, in our opinion, no such pensions should be paid. We have also tried to call attention to the fact that the financial settlement was detrimental to this country and urged that it should be re-opened, that the sum of money which is going across to England, for example, in payments to British funds of land annuities should be retained in the National Exchequer and used generally for national purposes, such as, for example, reproductive schemes that would give employment, and on the relief of the main industry of the country—agriculture.

It seems to us, from the way in which our criticism of the administration is waived aside, that the Ministry are completely out of touch with the country and out of touch with the actual conditions of the people. There is scarcely one of us who, every day, has not brought to his personal notice the number of people who are unemployed, the rate at which some of the best of our people are being driven out of the country and have to find a living in other countries. Then there is the condition of agriculture, for example. We are met with the same callous indifference when we bring these matters to the attention of the Ministry that the people themselves are met with when they try to make representations about the conditions to the Ministry. I think the Deputies, here, have a very serious duty with regard to the people, at the present time, and that they ought not to set their seal of approval on the conduct of the administration when they are aware that the conditions of the country cannot bear the extravagance. The policy of the Ministry ought to be to try and restore prosperity by administering the services in the most economical way possible and by trying to give employment here by keeping in existence our Irish industries. Not merely are they not assisting those industries by protecting them as they should do, but they are crushing them out of existence by taxation which would not be necessary if the services were properly administered. We believe that the most effective way to meet the present conditions would be to follow a policy of making this country as self-contained as possible industrially and economically. We have said that many times, and we believe it will need restatement until, ultimately, the full significance of it is grasped by everybody.

If the policy of providing for ourselves the things we can provide were followed, then, instead of importing into this country millions worth every year of the articles which can be produced here, instead of giving employment abroad, we would be giving that employment here at home. We had recently here the case where the application of the flour-millers for a tariff on flour was refused, although at that particular time it was quite obvious that the result of that would mean the closing down of some of our flour mills—those mills scattered throughout the country which would be invaluable to the country if the policy of producing here as far as possible all our own food material were followed. I was down a short time ago in Rathdrum, where one of those mills had closed down since the application was refused. A short time ago it was brought to my notice that there was danger of a coach-building industry disappearing, and that with it would disappear employment for a number of hands. The callous indifference, as I have said, of the Minister and his colleagues to all this seems to me to make it our duty now to refuse facilities to the Minister by passing this Vote until we have a change of policy. To rescue the country from its present position would need the constant attention, not merely of the Ministry, but of a special commission appointed for that purpose. We were here only a short time when we suggested that a council or commission—we are not particular about the name—should be set up that would examine the whole industrial situation and would see to what extent that policy of making the country self-contained could be put into practice. That, also, was put aside, and the Ministry refused to leave out of their hands, as I have said, the question of policy. The final determination of policy, of course, would lie with the Executive. The Executive would not be worse off, and the country would, certainly, be a great deal better off for having a commission, such as we have indicated, that would sit as a headquarters staff, so to speak, examining the situation, taking stock, and working out its own plans for the realisation of the ideal of producing in our own country as much as possible of our own requirements.

It is only at election time that we hear talk from the occupants of the Cumann na nGaedheal Benches about the industrial revival of Ireland that is going to take place and how unemployment is going to be ended very rapidly. We are accustomed of course, to the fact that all these promises come to nought. The only way we have of really forcing the hands of the Executive Council is to wait until we get an occasion such as this when we can say to them: "We will not vote you supply unless you change your policy."

I propose to vote against the motion, in order to register my protest against the action of the Government in so arranging the business of the House that they are now forced to adopt this very doubtful expedient of coming for the second time for a Vote on Account, a thing unheard of so far, in the history of this Oireachtas. The primary function of Deputies here is to control the expenditure of money and keep a check and constant watch on the expenses of administration, as well as to impose taxes in order to raise the money necessary for that expenditure. If that control on the part of Deputies is lost, surrendered, or taken away, they have no business coming here and they might as well stay at home. If that happened, it would, in my opinion, be an end to Parliamentary Government as we know it. I am afraid it looks as if we are coming to that or something very near it. So far as I know, there is no precedent for the motion made by the Government in any Parliament based on the same system of financial control as ours. It is generally the custom in such Parliaments to give a Vote on Account and to grant a certain small proportion of the money required for the year until such time as the estimates can be considered in detail. It is only in late years that a four months supply has been granted on a Vote on Account. We are asked to vote eight months supply to the Government without adequate opportunity being given of discussing the Estimates in detail.

We had in the last few week in this House a Constitution Bill, taking away from the people their right, as given to them by that Constitution, to intervene directly in legislation by the Initiative and the main argument—the only argument—that had any semblance of weight in it was the argument used so often from the benches opposite, to the effect that Deputies were sent here charged with certain responsibilities and that they should not throw these responsibilities on to the people again. In face of that it is strange that the Government who used that argument should come along now and prevent Deputies from discharging their primary function, that is, exercising control of expenditure and criticising administration generally. I think we should not consider this motion without giving some attention to the history of the past two years. The fact is we have had no adequate discussion on Estimates in this House for the past two years. Early last year, and a month or two before the June election, there was no discussion on Estimates. We were told that when the new Parliament would assemble there would be adequate time given for the discussion of these things. There was a hint that there would be a slackening off in the extraordinary tide of legislation which we had up to then, and that the main business during the year would be the discussion on Estimates. When we came back, we know that, owing to certain lamentable and discreditable incidents, a new situation was created and a block of Estimates was passed on the distinct understanding that in the autumn session ample opportunity would be given for discussing administration of the Government in any particular way desired. That was a distinct understanding. That was understood by those who agreed to pass the Estimates without full discussion in the very exceptional circumstances that had arisen this time twelve months but the autumn came and with it a general election, so that there was no opportunity for discussing the Estimates for last year.

When the Minister for Finance was speaking in March last on the Vote on Account he said something to the effect that he did not propose to go into matters raised on that occasion, as there would be ample opportunity during the summer to discuss the Estimates. Summer has come and almost gone, and yet the Minister comes along and asks for another Vote on Account. I think that that is treating the House in a way in which it ought not to be treated. There was an indication in the Minister's statement that in future the policy of the Government will be to restrict discussion on Estimates—at least, that is what they would like to do—and we are to get forty hours to discuss the Estimates when we come back. There is, I suppose, as much chance of that promise being given effect to as there was in regard to all the other promises, of which I spoke, when last year's Estimates were passed. It is altogether wrong on the part of the Government to come forward now and ask for this Vote, they themselves being responsible for the situation that has arisen in the arrangement of their business for the past session. The taking of Tuesday from the Parliamentary week was—I think I am right in saying—largely to suit the exigencies of the Government Party, the business men and possibly the farmers in that Party. In view, however, of the fact that the time that should have been devoted to this most important work was taken up by the Government in discussing a whole sheaf of Constitution Bills, none of which was as important as any of those Estimates. I think there can be no justification for giving a further Vote on Account to the Government, as it will mean, in effect, that from April, 1927, up to November of this year money will have been given to the Government without any real opportunity being given to the House to discuss adequately the expenditure in detail under various heads. I think it is a misuse of the power of the Executive for them to take that right to themselves and spend, in any way they think fit, this money which they are asking the House to vote them. I would ask the House not to give them this power, for I believe if we do we will be handing over a power which we have no right to surrender, and, if we do surrender, we will be declaring ourselves unfit for Parliamentary Government.

If I understand Deputy de Valera and Deputy O'Connell correctly, I take it that they intend to go into the Lobby against the granting of this Vote on Account and bring their Parties with them. That may be a display of Parliamentary tactics, but it does not seem to me to be commonsense. If the country is to be carried on, the Government must have money. I am sure that if Deputy de Valera came into power to-morrow, say, on the eve of the adjournment, the first thing he would have to do would be to ask for money on a Vote on Account, and I am sure the House would give it to him.

Unconditionally?

Mr. MURPHY

The Minister for Finance said that the policy of the Government, what you might call the Departmental policy, could be adequately discussed when the Estimates come up for final discussion. I hope that the House will recognise that, and that it will pass this money on account, so that we may get ahead with the other items on what is already an overcrowded Order Paper. In this connection, am I in order in asking the Minister if he could indicate whether it is the Government's intention to get through all the items on the Order Paper before we adjourn; if not, what items are to be left over, and, also, whether it is the intention of the Government to add anything to the Order Paper before we adjourn?

I would like to associate myself with the protest made by Deputy O'Connell against the introduction of this Vote on Account at this stage and its justification by the Minister on the ground that the business which was before the Dáil for the past month made it impossible to discuss the Estimates prior to the Summer Recess. It is perhaps well to emphasise, for the benefit of members of the Dáil who are present, that a discussion on the Estimates, a discussion upon what Deputy Murphy called the Departmental policy of the Government, a discussion upon the manner in which the people's money is being spent, has been made impossible in this Dáil because the Government thought it more important that they should patch up their Constitution, or rather tear it asunder in the least possible space of time. It is only in accordance with their policy during the last month that when they do come to this House and ask it to vote a sum of 7½ millions, they do it in the most contemptuous manner possible. The motion is proposed by the Minister without any indication whatever as to what the Government's policy is or is likely to be during the period while this money is being expended. In the discussion on the motion every member of the Executive Council except two cleared out of the House and refused to listen to the arguments concerning it. It is a good job that we have had some discussion in the Dáil during the past few weeks concerning its dignity and the respect due to the Dáil, because it is to be hoped that members of the Executive will learn something from such discussion, and learn that the contemptuous manner in which they treat the Dáil now will only breed similar contempt in the minds of other Deputies. Is it too much to hope that in the discussion on this motion the long, uncanny silence concerning the Government's policy will be broken?

I take it that it is the practice in discussions of this kind to take two or three main items of Government policy and discuss them or discuss the general trend of Government policy, particularly in relation to financial matters. Can we have any assurance if criticisms of Government policy in particular matters are made by Deputies during the course of the debate, that Ministers concerned will have the courtesy to come into the House and reply or even listen to them? They have maintained what I have called an uncanny silence for months now concerning their policy. Have they any policy? Is it just that they are groping their way from time to time waiting to deal with things as they turn up? Is it that they have to wait for the orders of some other authority before they can proceed with a legislative programme? Have they any definite programme? If they have, we are entitled to know it and criticise it. Deputy de Valera in his remarks indicated that our opposition to this Vote is not due to the fact mentioned by Deputy O'Connell that it is introduced at all, but it is due mainly to the fact that it indicates that Government expenditure in this State is proceeding at a rate far in excess of what the State can afford. We have had discussions on this matter before and we have endeavoured to point out to the Government and to other Deputies where exactly the nation is going. Our arguments have not been answered nor has any attempt been made to rectify matters. It would be no harm perhaps to remind Deputies exactly what the situation is, to remind them of the steps by which the burden of taxation has grown from small beginnings, to remind them of the manner in which the staff of each Government Department has gradually mounted up, and to remind them as well, that the resources of the country in consequence of that growth are steadily declining.

A few figures at this stage will be interesting. I propose to take as the basis of calculation the three years preceding the Great War—1911, 1912 and 1913—and to show, in so far as figures do show, what the situation in Ireland was at that period and compare it with the situation of the Free State to-day. The average total expenditure on Government services in all Ireland in the three years prior to the Great War was £11,975,000. For the three years concluding the war, 1915 to 1918, the average total expenditure was £12,700,000. For last year the total expenditure was £27,674,000 —£9 6s. 2d. per head. That increase in expenditure has been going on while, as I said, the resources of the country have been gradually declining. Taking these three years as our basis and taking 100 as the index figure to represent revenue collected from the Irish people, we find that the increased figure for last year was 376.9 —an increase of 276.9 per cent. in the total revenue collected from the Irish people. Taking 100 as the figure representing the average prevailing price for agricultural produce in those three years, we find that the index figure for last year was 131.9 per cent. Thus while the average prevailing price for our staple product has gone up from 100 to 131.9, the average revenue has gone from 100 to 376.9.

The Deputy is talking about expenditure, I think.

No, about revenue. Not merely is the rate of expenditure almost double the rate of increase in the price of agricultural produce but these prices for agricultural produce have been received on a declining trade. Taking the three years prior to the war as our basis, and 100 as the index figure representing the state of trade in that year, we find that the total exports of various types of agricultural produce, particularly live stock, have also decreased.

Taking one hundred as representing the number of sheep and lambs exported in the three years prior to the war 94.9 represents the number exported last year, 96.7 represents the number of cattle exported last year, 90.1 represents the weight of butter exported in the last year and 60.7 represents the value of the bacon and hams exported. In all the principal Departments of the agricultural industry there has been a steady decline in trade, there has been a steady fall in the value of our business in that respect and we have got to consider that in relation to the fact that the amount which is being collected from our people in taxes has more than doubled in the same period. If you think it is possible for this nation to survive that process or to endure it for any considerable length of time without going down then you are acting in this matter as you obviously acted in the matter of the Constitution Amendment Bills, taking steps with your eyes shut. I hope some of the Deputies who voted for some of the Constitution Amendment Bills, admittedly without reading them, will not vote for this Vote on Account without giving some consideration to the effects which expenditure at this rate is likely to have on the economic interests of our people. We are not getting value for the money we spend. If it could be shown to the Irish people that the rate of expenditure being doubled they will get double value in return for it then it would be justified but we are not, and not merely are we not getting double value for the money we are spending, but no attempt is being made to justify the additional expenditure.

When in a previous debate we stated it was our belief that governmental Departments were overstaffed and that a large number of civil servants were being paid salaries far in excess of the value of the work that they were doing, we were told that was only our individual belief and that as such it carried no weight. The Minister for Industry and Commerce made great play upon that argument in speaking here some time ago. He stated should we set up a Commission the terms of reference of which would be "Because Deputy Lemass believes that some civil servants are paid too much, therefore a Commission is to examine into the situation." But we are not speaking here as individuals. I am not speaking here as an individual, but on behalf of the eleven and a half thousand voters in this constituency in which the Dáil is situated who sent me here. Every other Deputy on these benches is not speaking as an individual, but on behalf of the many thousand voters who elected them. Those 400,000 voters who gave their first preference votes for the Fianna Fáil Party all believe they are not getting value for the money extracted from them in taxes. They all believe that there is wasteful expenditure in the Government services, that many of those Departments are overstaffed and that many civil servants are overpaid. When you find one-third of the registered voters of this State believing that, we think it is up to you to take steps to either prove that our belief is unfounded or put matters right, and adopt a proposition made from those benches that a Committee of this Dáil be set up to examine into these matters and report to the Dáil what they find concerning them. Of course, we know that members of the Government take a different view. At the same debate I remember the Minister for Industry and Commerce making the amazing statement that I had no more right to criticise the working of his Department than he had a right to criticise the working of my private business. That statement indicates the mentality of the members of the Government, which is of very serious import to the Irish people. Do Ministers look upon their Departments as their private property to do what they like with? Do they consider that Deputies elected to this Dáil have no right to criticise the manner in which these Departments are administered? Are we not sitting here as directors of a company would meet, representing their shareholders, to see that one hundred per cent. value is obtained for every halfpenny of the people's money spent, and when we, or a very large number acting as shareholders, believe there is wasteful expenditure in every Department and that one hundred per cent. value is not being secured for our money, is it not our duty to ensure that some investigation will take place to satisfy ourselves that some other arrangement is possible?

These are all matters we would have to have dealt with in this debate. They have been discussed here repeatedly, and I am not going to deal with them at length, but I hope we will have some attempt on the part of the Ministers to justify the increase in taxation which they have been forced to effect in this year, and to justify the inevitable increase which they will have to effect next year as well. There are several other matters which we think Ministers should avail of this opportunity to deal with. Perhaps the Minister for Local Government, if he thinks he can find time to attend this Dáil, will tell us something about the ten years' building scheme that was so much in evidence when Deputy Vincent Rice was elected to this House some months ago. Perhaps Deputy Vincent Rice will say something about it. His constituents are anxious to know something about the ten years' work they were promised when they elected him. They are be ginning to think that statements made at an election and given great publicity do not carry the same weight with the Government as an obscure sentence uttered by President Cosgrave in a obscure speech, in an obscure village in Cork, prior to the last election. In an case, we hope that either Deputy Vincent Rice or the Minister for Local Government will tell us when that ten years' work which has not been hastened and which was mentioned here when the last Vote on Account five months ago was discussed, is going to commence. The unemployed of Dublin are very anxiously waiting to hear the news.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce could, we think, usefully participate in this debate also. His record for the year is one of which no Minister could be proud. The only outstanding event in relation to his Department which has occurred during the year has been the administering of what practically amounts to a death-blow to one of the oldest-established Irish industries. Perhaps he will tell us how many flour mills have closed down since the Tariff Commission has reported. Deputy de Valera has referred to one, but others may have gone. Does the Minister know or does he care how many have gone? We would like some information on this matter also. Because these Constitution Amendment Bills had to be steam-rolled through the Dáil, the Trade Loans Guarantee Act has expired, and the Ministry, no doubt, hope they will be able to find time some time, somewhere between the remaining Constitution Amendment Bills, to pass a Continuation Act, but it is of less importance to pass a Continuation Act in relation to that than it is to patch up the Seanad so as to give Senators more power than they at present possess. We hope the Minister for Industry and Commerce will come here some time during the course of this day and take advantage of this discussion to tell us what the policy of his Department in relation to Irish industries is, what the policy of his Department even in relation to one particular industry, the flour milling industry is. We must remember that the justification given for the refusal of the protection asked by the flour millers was that it was going to increase the price of bread. Since that Tariff Commission reported we have had an illuminating discussion in this House concerning profiteering in bread.

I hope the Minister for Industry and Commerce who has rejected the recommendation of the Food Prices Tribunal, will tell us what steps he proposes to take to prevent profiteering in bread. Considering he was prepared to kill an important Irish industry to prevent a rise of a farthing in the loaf he will, no doubt, find it incumbent upon him to tell us what steps he is going to take in the case of the bakers who the Food Prices Tribunal tell us were profiteering to the extent, in some cases, of a penny in the loaf. These other industries, one of which has been already mentioned, which are in a very serious condition could also be usefully dealt with. Take the case of the coach building industry. There has been talk of one of the oldest coach building industries in this country closing down recently. The Ministry appear to look on with indifference. Certainly they do not appear to be particularly concerned about it and the prospect as to the coach building industry receiving any assistance through the medium of an additional tariff on imported motor bodies. What about paper manufacture? Is it also to go to the wall? The Ministry of Industry and Commerce will send over to England representnatives to inspect the most efficient factories so as to come back and quote them as an argument against allowing Irish industries to continue to exist, as was done in the case of the flour milling industry. Apparently, if we cannot produce one or two factories in this country as big and as efficient as the biggest and most efficient factories in England, then we are not worthy of the protection or notice of the Government.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce is, of course, also Minister for External Affairs. We must remember that the Department of External Affairs is one Department which will be advanced as a justification for the increase in expenditure in this State, as compared with the pre-war level. During a previous discussion on this matter we were told that, of course, we had new responsibilities and that, consequently, we had to spend more. We had an army, a Department of External Affairs, and the Revenue Department—an unnecessary army, a dud Department of External Affairs, and a Revenue Department which is, no doubt, necessary, even if it is inefficient. But we want to know something about the action which the Minister for External Affairs is taking, or proposes to take, to develop the export trade of this country. We have representatives at London, Washington, Geneva, Brussels and Paris. Perhaps he will tell us exactly why these centres were selected to send representatives to. Would it not be more judicious to send a representative to Berlin, for example, than to send one to Brussels?

What about sending a representative to Moscow? The Minister for Fisheries was here—I am sorry he is gone. We had a discussion on his Estimate concerning the possibility of developing the export trade in Irish fish with Russia. He, in effect, replied that he knew nothing at all about it. Since then we have had an answer given to a question concerning the possibility of developing trade with Russia to the effect that it does not yet appear that the conditions in which trade with Russia is carried on promises any substantial advantage to the Saorstát for the development of its exports. The one thing to which the Minister for Industry and Commerce was asked to give his attention was the possibility of developing the export of herrings to Russia. If my recollection is right, what he said was that in consequence of the economic conditions now prevailing in Russia the import of herrings into that country had practically ceased. Since then I have had an opportunity of examining a very illuminating handbook issued by the Russian Government. In that book it is stated that last year herrings to the value of three millions, one hundred and thirty thousand roubles were imported. Surely it should be possible for the Irish fishermen to secure some part of that trade. It was stated that it was possible to extend that trade with Russia almost indefinitely. If it is possible it is up to our Department of Fisheries, in conjunction with the Department of External Affairs, to take the necessary steps to develop relationship with Russia that would enable that trade to be developed. It is, perhaps, begging the question to put it that way, because I would like to know what possibility there is of developing Saorstát exports to any country except Great Britain when an English shipping combine has a tight grip upon the carrying trade to and from Irish ports. I wonder if the Ministry have any policy in relation to that fact. Have they thought about the advisability or possibility of developing an Irish mercantile marine? If that cannot be done, have they considered the possibility or advisability of getting the American or German shipping companies to trade from Irish ports so as to introduce the element of competition and bring down the freights that are charged? When we give a complete monopoly of our carrying trade to one British combine, what possibility is there of developing Irish exports with any other country except Great Britain? That combine will take good care that you will not.

These are matters concerning the general trend of Government policy in relation to Irish industries that we would like to have dealt with. We hope that some effort will be made by some Minister to indicate if the Government have any policy concerning them at all. It would be also illuminating to know how much of this seven and a half million pounds is going to be spent in pursuance of the vindictive campaign which is being waged from the Department of Justice against certain Republicans. How much did it cost to arrest Mr. Peadar O'Donnell fifteen times in the last month, and how much is it going to cost to arrest him another fifteen times during the next month? Can we have any indication from the Government of what exactly the Irish people are paying in order that the Government might exercise their political spite in that matter? Here is one citizen of this State, possessing the same rights as any other citizen, arrested and searched every day and never charged, never a single scrap of evidence produced against him, treated as if he were an outcast and an outlaw in his own country. Is that going to continue? If it is going to continue how much is it going to cost? Is this Dáil prepared to vote money that will be expended in that manner? The same applies to several other individuals. Those who read the newspapers will note that certain English newspapers are commencing an agitation now in favour of paying compensation to people who are tried on particular charges and found "not guilty." There have been several similar cases in this country. Deputies will remember the case of Ned O'Reilly of Tipperary who was arrested and kept twelve months in prison before he was brought to trial. When he was brought to trial he was found "not guilty" in circumstances that made the judge imply that some of the evidence produced against him was perjured evidence. Then there is the case of Seán Russell and Michael Price. They had been in jail since last January. They were tried last week and on the evidence given the jury acquitted them. Surely it is a grave injustice to take people away from their homes and their business for periods of six months at a time upon the strength of evidence which is not sufficient to convince a jury that the men are guilty. If the jury find the men not guilty after being such a long period in prison awaiting trial should there not be some provision made to compensate these men for the losses they suffered? That probably applies to cases which are not political at all. I have in mind the case of one man, a friend of mine, a Republican, now a civil servant. He was released from internment last December. After about six months he was arrested on a charge of robbery in some place in County Meath where he never was in his life. He was brought to trial on that charge. There was not one shred of evidence against him. The judge dismissed the case without letting it proceed at all. But in order to defend himself, and prevent himself being rail-roaded to prison on a false charge, that individual had to incur certain expenses in the employment of solicitors and counsel. Being a poor man drawing a salary, he has been paying back ever since in small weekly sums the amount he had to borrow then in order to meet those legal expenses. I consider it a grave injustice that men should be put to expense in that manner. I am convinced, of course, that his arrest was not due to the fact that the members of the C.I.D. believed him to be guilty, but rather that they knew him to be a Republican, and an active one. The same thing applies in the cases of the other men I have mentioned. It is not that there is any evidence in the possession of the police to arrest them or bring them to trial, but that the police wish to get some of their own back for past happenings, and they arrest these men knowing that they will be detained for three or six months before they will get an opportunity of coming before a jury to be acquitted.

Perhaps the Minister for Justice, if he condescends to come to the House and participate in the debate, will inform us what percentage of the Vote in connection with his Department will be used in furtherance of this campaign against these selected individuals. The whole attitude of the Government in respect to expenditure has been that of an individual who becomes suddenly rich. They do not appear to appreciate the value to the Irish people of the money that they are spending. They do not appear to realise what it costs the ordinary individual to pay up the shillings that constitute the millions they are spending. We have had discussions in the Dáil on this matter before. We have indicated fairly clearly that there are lines along which we consider expenditure is inevitable; that there are certain directions in which a much larger amount of money could be usefully employed. We have also indicated that it is in connection with what I may call the overhead charges of the Government that our main criticism is concerned. I know the Labour Party do not appear to be altogether in agreement with us in this matter. They appear to be under the impression that the more money you spend the more value you get automatically.

Not exactly.

You can deal with that matter later. In a vote on an amendment to a previous Vote on Account, Deputies present will remember that the thick red line of Labour joined up with Cumann na nGaedheal against us.

We will explain that, too.

You can justify it?

They held the view that it was not that too much money was being spent on the Civil Service, but in their opinion there was too little being spent. If I am giving a false impression of their attitude, Deputies present can correct me. In the case of the Fisheries Department, for example, we have had a very clear indication of what I am referring to. A certain sum of money was voted for that Department. Some was for overhead charges, salaries of officials and inspectors, and the like, and the remainder was for the development of the fisheries industry. Practically every halfpenny voted for salaries and overhead expenses was expended, but the money voted for the development of fisheries, £14,000 odd, was surrendered to the Exchequer at the end of the year, unexpended. The Minister for Fisheries had been unable to devise ways and means by which that £14,000 could be utilised for the benefit of the fisheries industry. I hope the Minister for Fisheries will inform us whether any arrangement has been come to with the Fishermen's Association for the utilisation of the £1,100 that we voted for the organisation of fishermen. Are we to take it that he has not yet fully vented his political spite in connection with certain individuals and that negotiations with that Association are, in consequence, still held up? Certainly, when we proceed to vote money on account for the Fisheries Department, amongst other Departments, we like to have questions of that kind answered.

It is, perhaps, useless to go into detail in these matters, and in any case it is probably out of order; but I would like to try to get from the Government some general indication as to where they think they are going? Are they merely like little children playing a game of blind man's buff, groping along with their arms out waiting until they fall over something and then come down? Here we have this nation in a very serious economic condition, with a large adverse trade balance, with a declining population, with continued unemployment and continued emigration. Our industries are going one by one to the wall and the only answer the Government have to make to it all is to increase the amount which they propose to collect in taxation. The only manner in which they appear to be able to deal with the situation is to double the burden on the shoulders of the people. Are they really anxious, or even trying to build up the economic strength of the country? Are they playing, as would appear to be the case, some crude game designed to so weaken this country that it will be practically at their mercy? It appears to be either through deliberate intention or merely stupidity they are doing this country more harm than any previous regime appears to have done.

We have had published in the last few weeks the first volume of the statistics secured in connection with the Census of 1926. I am sure Deputies who carefully study the figures in the first volume must have been appalled by some of the facts revealed. In several of the Twenty-six Counties that constitute this State the decline in population in the inter-censual period was much heavier than in the decade which followed the Black Famine of 1847. In several counties the loss of population during the last ten or twelve years was proceeding at a much greater rate than in the years 1850 to 1860. When we see these facts, when we realise in our ordinary everyday lives that these things are the case, we must realise also that some new direction must be given to the policy of the Government or else some new Government must be prepared to deal with the matter. I say this in order to point out exactly the fundamental error on which the Government's policy is based.

You cannot have a prosperous or self-reliant nation except you have a self-respecting nation, and the Government by their action during the last five years have so killed the self-respect of the Irish people that it is impossible to revive amongst them the spirit which means progress. If we are to build up a happy future for our people we must do so by endeavouring to restore their self-respect, and we can only do that by adopting as a national policy a self-respecting policy, a policy which will not involve the bending of the knee on every occasion that an external authority indicates its will. We must realise that we as a people have a perfect right to exist in this country and to enjoy all the resources of this country for ourselves. Until we realise that we have that right and until we proceed to assert it, until we get sufficient self-respect and self-confidence amongst ourselves to realise that in the assertion of that right we are only fulfilling our duty, then it is useless to hope for any alteration in existing conditions or any revival of prosperity. While the members of this Government continue, as at present, basing their policy upon mere expediency, then things are going to continue as they are and, if there is one reason more than another why I should like to see this motion defeated in the Dáil, it is because it would be an indication that this Dáil had at last realised that the Government are on the wrong road and that the members of the Dáil are prepared to give them notice to quit, which is what the rejection of this motion means.

As Deputy O'Connell has stated, the Labour Party are opposing this motion because we think in the first place that it is not right that any Government should be voted two-thirds of the total amount without a proper and full discussion of the Estimates. Deputy O'Connell pointed out that there has not been any discussion on the Estimates during the last two years, and the House is aware of the circumstances. We voted for the first Vote on Account this year because we realised that it was necessary to have the money to carry on, and that very often at the beginning of the financial year money would have to be voted, because the Estimates could not be fully discussed so early in the year. But there is no reason whatever that we can see why the time could not have been provided this year to have the Estimates very fully discussed and considered before it was necessary to come for this second Vote on Account. I object myself, and so do this Party very strongly, particularly as we had no statement whatever from the Minister as to what is the Government's intion regarding unemployment in this country. We had no statement as to what the Government proposes to do regarding housing grants. There are at the moment hundreds of people in this country who started building houses believing that they would be entitled to and would receive the Government grant which has been given to other people in the country when their houses were completed. There was no statement from the Government that these people would not receive that money. The result was that these people were informed when they had their houses completed that there was no further money available for a housing grant. That is what many of those people were told when they applied for the housing grant. We would like to know whether it is the intention of the Government to come to this House and to ask for further money for grants for the building of houses. We had no statement from the Government as to their intention regarding the road grants. We know that the amount of money available for roads this year as compared with last year and the year before is very, very small, and we know that unless there is a fairly substantial amount of money found to maintain the roads, that the roads which were built within the last couple of years will deteriorate very rapidly, and the money spent on them will be lost, so to speak.

There is another matter which I would like the Minister for Finance to deal with when replying. It is a matter that I am very much interested in and I would like if the Minister would explain it to the House. In the matter of old age pensions, it will be remembered that the House agreed here early this year that the shilling was to be restored, roughly, to about 65,000 old age pensioners and blind pensioners. Notwithstanding that, we find that the total Estimate for this year for old age pensions is considerably less than the total for last year. What I am anxious to know is whether the old people to whom this House gave the extra shilling or voted the extra shilling are getting that extra shilling. I want the Minister to explain how the saving has been brought about, particularly in view of the statement he made when we were discussing the motion that was moved by the Labour Party. The matter of the attitude of the Labour Party to the spending of money was mentioned by Deputy Lemass. What we have always advocated here with regard to the spending of money, and we state it here again now, is, that there is not enough money being spent upon essential social services, and we also hold that every man in this country who is working, whether he is a civil servant or not, should get a fair return for his work. We believe that if a worker gives good service to the State he should be paid for it. I suggest that you will not get good and efficient service unless you have good and efficient men, and you will not get good and efficient men unless you are willing to pay them——

£1,000 a year?

It depends. One man might be worth £2,000 to the State, when another man would be very dear at £1,000 or £500 a year. I think even Deputy de Valera will agree with that. I am not looking at this matter now from the ordinary Labour point of view; I am looking at it from the point of view of the State. I believe that very many people who are working are not being paid a sufficient wage, that they are not paid a wage sufficient to enable them to live in any sort of decent comfort. The Deputy knows that as well as I do. I also believe this that we are not going to build up the prosperity of one section of this country by pulling down everybody else. I think that what we want in this country is more production, and then we will be able to give a decent standard of living to everyone. I suggest that the vast majority of civil servants—I will not say the vast majority of civil servants, but a considerable number of civil servants —get less than £3 a week. The number of civil servants who get £1,000 a year or over is very small. There are civil servants in the Land Commission who get £2 17s. 11d. a week. I am sure the Deputy does not consider that that is very good pay for a man, for one doing clerical work, living in the city of Dublin and paying, perhaps, £1 a week or £1 10s. for a house or flat. I think we ought to face up to this question. I do say that it is not fair on the part of the Government to come here and ask this House to vote two-thirds of the total sums of the Estimates without giving the House an opportunity of going into the Estimates and examining them in detail. Surely, in view of the fact that we had two elections last year and that the two big Parties spent a considerable amount of money in advertising, the one Party telling what it cost the State for civil servants and other things, and the other Party telling what they thought it was costing. Of course, the Labour Party had neither the money nor the desire to go in for that sort of publicity. We were content to tell the people the truth from the platform.

It will be very difficult to convince them next time.

Oh, no; much easier. They have found both of you out now.

No difference between them.

I rose to ask the Minister, when replying, if he would give us some statement as to what the Government proposes to do about (1) unemployment; secondly, and this is a matter of some urgency, because the building of houses by private individuals has been held up in the country as a result of withdrawing the housing grants—the second matter on which we want information is: what are the Government going to do about the housing grant, and whether the Minister will state if it is his intention to advance any further moneys for road-making in the country.

When Deputy Morrissey lays his hand on his heart and assures us that the Labour Party were content to tell the people the truth from the platform, I cannot help remembering that I did see some rather small advertisements in the Press proclaiming the virtues of the Labour Party. When Deputy Morrissey is now rebuking both of the large Parties, I think he is doing that because he knows that his Party lacked not the will but the means to do the same thing.

Hear, hear.

That is agreed.

Deputy Davin agrees with you.

I am glad to agree with Deputy Morrissey in one matter. I want to support him in his argument with regard to the housing grant. It is a great hardship in the case of an individual who has started to build a house on the instructions of the Department of Local Government and Public Health. That individual filled up all the necessary forms. He heard nothing further from the Department of Local Government. He started to build his house on the assumption that he was going to get a building grant. Then suddenly, when the house is halfway up and in a position that the work could not be abandoned, he is informed that there is no money available. I hope the Minister for Finance will be in a position to make a statement on that in reply to Deputy Morrissey, and I hope that the reply will be favourable. Coming to the main matter of the argument, Deputy de Valera committed himself to the argument that we must save at all costs— if it is only a small thing to begin with, £10,000 here and £10,000 there, we shall be going in the right direction. I do not think I misrepresent the Deputy.

Apart from the Army and the Gárda Síochána, which I will refer to later, it will be £10,000 here and £10,000 there in perhaps ten places. £100,000 is the maximum that you can do in one year. It might be more in the following year, but in one year I do not think you will find cases where you can save more than £10,000 in a certain period, and only £5,000 in others, and in certain others £2,000, without sacrificing essential services, services which the people have got accustomed to demanding. There is, I think, some truth in Deputy de Valera's contention that we may be cutting our coat too large for our cloth, giving the people more services than we can afford. But the people will not be readily deprived of those services, and it will take a long campaign of persuasion and education, in which I hope both Parties will take part, before they will be content to sacrifice amenities that they are enjoying and that the people in Northern Ireland are enjoying. Deputy de Valera says that by saving £10,000 here and £10,000 there you are going in the right direction. What have the Government done? I shall take the period of three years from the financial year 1923-4. I think Deputies will agree with me that 1922, when we took over our own book-keeping, is not a good guide. I have not got 1927-8 with me, but there was some additional saving in that year, certainly not an increase of expenditure. I find that, excluding the Army, which was an abnormal service, particularly in 1923-4—it would strengthen my case if I included it, but I do not think it would be fair to include it—the expenditure on supply services in 1923-4 was £24,870,593. Three years later, in 1926-7, it was £21,917,622, being a saving, not of £10,000 here and £10,000 there, but of £2,952,973—a saving, I will not say, without sacrifice of services, because Deputy O'Connell would remind me of the national teachers, and Deputy Cassidy of the old age pensions, but a saving was obtained without very severe hardship on the people of £3,000,000 virtually. Yet we are told that the Government has brought the country, for lack of saving, lack of economy, to the verge of ruin. There have been, as Deputies never seem to realise, substantial remissions in taxation during the last four years.

Taking again the three years I have under review there was a very marked and substantial saving in Customs and Excise. Deputies will agree that the duties levied under Customs and Excise are the duties that press most heavily on the poor man. The duties levied under Customs and Excise in 1923/4 were £17,543,000; in 1926/7 they were £13,538,000, being a reduction of just over £4,000,000. Of course some of that is due to decreased yield—certainly in regard to wine and spirits there is a certain decreased yield—but there were also substantial remissions in taxation. The complete removal of the tea duty, the reduction of the sugar duty to less than one quarter of its previous level were substantial concessions to the people. We are told that the people are borne down by taxation and are ruined. Generally in private conversation when I talk with a man who says that he is being ruined by taxation, if I ask him what taxation he means he says "The local rates are terrible." This criminal Government in order to assist local ratepayers doubled the grant-in-aid. That was undoubtedly an increase of expenditure, but it was expenditure for the benefit of the agricultural community, for which Deputy de Valera spoke. I have only now to deal with Deputy de Valera's other remedy: disband the Army, reduce the numbers of the Gárda Síochána and stop emigration. We are to stop emigration—that is one of the burdens of which Deputy de Valera spoke. Does he think that he will stop emigration by disbanding the Army and reducing the Gárda Síochána?

Are they kept there to prevent emigration?

I am sorry to say that their pay is not good enough to prevent them from emigrating, because frequently in the papers I see the resignation of some member of the Gárda Síochána and a presentation to him because he is going to take up some career in America, because we are not able to afford to pay them on the scale that they hope to be paid.

A DEPUTY

Put all the unemployed in the Army.

There are a good many unemployed in the Army—I am perfectly prepared to admit that—and I am sorry that a great many are unemployed since they came out of the Army. You are only going to increase the process if you disband the Army and throw them on the market in a lump—you are going to help emigration.

A DEPUTY

Why not give a pension to everyone?

That is the latest idea of Fianna Fáil economy—disband the Army and give a pension to everyone.

A DEPUTY

To everyone else unemployed in the country.

That is Fianna Fáil economy. If everybody gets a pension we will have no unemployed, and very soon no taxpayers either. Then we shall find not only a deserted village, but a deserted Ireland. With regard to Deputy Morrissey's general complaint, that it is unfortunate to delay the discussion on the Estimates, I, too, am anxious that they should be fully discussed in detail, because I want to see what sort of hand my successors are going to make of it, and how many of my points will be trotted out again. I do not think, under existing conditions, with the passionate concern that all Parties are showing in this debate, if we were to discuss the Estimates for 45 or 50 hours, that we should have a very enlightening or illuminating discussion. All that can be achieved by such a discussion can be achieved if it is obtained before the Estimates for the following year are drawn up. I have been trying to reduce Estimates for four years, and I found that whereas I never succeeded in the year under discussion my remarks sometimes had some effect in the following year. The Estimates for the coming year will not be drawn up till November or December, and, therefore, a discussion in October and November will produce exactly the same results as a discussion in July and August, and it will be carried on under very much more pleasant and, I hope, more peaceful conditions.

We have, I suppose, as Deputies to this House, several duties to perform, and two of the most important would seem to me to be the making of laws and the voting of money. In the making of laws we have been engaged for the past three or four weeks.

Or in the breaking of laws.

Mr. O'REILLY

Laws are just as easily broken as they are made. It only needs another Government to be elected and I suppose we will have more of them, but with regard to money unfortunately it is different. Once you vote it and let it go there is a considerable amount of difficulty in getting it back again, so that I view our duty to-day as a very serious one. I cannot agree with Deputy Murphy in the rather light-hearted view that he takes of it. Of course he may be doing it with perhaps another object. We all know that it is necessary that money should be voted, but I fear that the constituents that I represent are not quite as agreeable as the constituents that Deputy Murphy represents. They generally ask very serious questions on those points of expenditure. They may be wrong, but they do not ask questions except when they have a certain grievance and feel that perhaps they have a duty to themselves and to others, when expenditure is crippling their industry and they find it rather difficult to make ends meet. Above all the communities in this State, the agricultural community is the one that is most heavily burdened by taxation and by expenditure in general.

The President once said here that farmers were not taxed. Of course it depends upon the particular schedule and the particular class of taxation, but expenditure in general or the money for expenditure is raised from the farmers and the agricultural community. They have to find the means of producing that money, and they are always faced with the difficulty of where they can earn that money. In good years and in bad years they are always faced with the difficulty of having to pay a certain amount of money to the State. Therefore, I feel I would not be doing my duty to my constituents if I did not say something by way of protest against the passing of a Vote of this description in the hurried manner in which it is attempted to be passed here to-day. One of the things which we were mainly sent here for was to keep a watchful eye on expenditure. After all, what an example this is to the newly-elected county councils, elected on a plea to curtail expenditure. The question of economy has been put to them, and I daresay they have pledged themselves to economise and to go carefully into the question of expenditure, and to appoint financial committees to have expenditure properly sifted and examined. What an example it is going to give the county councils if we here in a few moments are going to pass a Vote of seven and a half millions. I think it is neither dignified nor is it good example.

Examine the position of agriculture, for example, in the past 75 years and you will find it is one of continual downfall. We have had at times promises and legislation has been put forward. This present Government are in the act of adopting certain legislative reforms which no doubt may or may not benefit the country. But at the same time that industry has been rapidly decreasing and the one means of destroying that industry and the most wonderful and potent means that has been employed is the one of taxation. Years ago we heard complaints that we had little power over these matters. What will the people of the country say to-day if we allow this Vote to pass without discussion and without probing into it and asking for every detail? What will the people say now that we have what may be called a national parliament if we do not do our duty and examine this question thoroughly? This question should be examined thoroughly. There are reasons why it was not examined properly. For some political convenience or otherwise, I believe myself it was political convenience, this House commences to reform or to deform certain parts of the Constitution. Whether there was any necessity for doing that or not is another question. The necessity to me and to the party to which I belong and to practically 50 per cent. of this House does not arise. We believe we are wasting our time discussing these problems while we are now asked in a few moments to pass the most vital part of our business by voting this large sum of money perhaps in a couple of hours. I hold that is not fair and that it is not fair to the Government in power nor to the Government that may come after them. The points we make here in these debates will be certain data and guides for the Governments of the future. I do not hold that the points I make or that some others on this side make can be of any use, but I do hold there are Deputies who would make points in these discussions that would be of great benefit if they were given the time and the opportunity. Time is not wasted in this or any other Parliament on the full and complete discussion of money; how it should be spent and how it might be saved.

The Minister for Finance some time ago told us that one of the main reasons for high expenditure was the old system that we inherited some six or seven years ago. If that is the reason, or one of the reasons, then I believe immediate steps should be taken to adopt some new system. There is no use in continuing a system which we know in our heart and soul is wrong, and is leading us, perhaps, to a state of bankruptcy. It is time before we reach that point to reconsider the question, and if we find the system is unsuitable to adopt means to change it before it becomes too late. As I said, the very system we have adopted in the last 75 years has practically paralysed our main industry, and other industries were also killed out by that system. The system of taxation in this country is purely a commercial system. It is a system that is adopted by England because it is an imperial country. It does not suit our country, and never will, and it is necessary that other ways and means be found for raising money instead of those adopted at present. That system is purely and simply an imperial system. We are inclined to adopt those ceremonies that are peculiar to an imperial country. I have no objection to these ceremonies provided they belong to an imperial country. It is part and parcel of the upkeep of the State: it is what the people are accustomed to and, perhaps, which led to their success. But I hold we are not to be compared with such as those. We are simply a small, struggling, agricultural community without industries, depending on the success of agriculture to establish a few industries in, say, a given time. As long as we adopt this imperial system it stands to reason that system will eventually have the effect of killing our industries entirely. The State of Denmark is increasing roughly by 30,000 people per annum. We lose 30,000 per annum, and on this alone it is quite obvious that our system is entirely wrong. And if any part of our system is entirely wrong it is our financial system and our system of taxation. If we admit, and everybody admits it was through taxation that our industries were killed, then the point for our people is to concentrate upon this one question of expenditure.

I say it is unfair and unjust and unreasonable to the members of this House to be asked to pass en bloc for the second year without any discussion at all, an amount of money from a State that is absolutely paralysed for want of money. Agriculture in the Twenty-six Counties would need over one millions pounds credit. Each county would want a million to be properly revived. We are asked to spend here, in a moment £7,000,000. I do not believe the country will tolerate that state of affairs. It has been stated time after time on this question on finance and the expenditure of money, that it should be brought down to the lowest margin possible. I perfectly agree with the Labour Party when they say that a certain amount of money should be spent, provided that there is no objection, and I am sure we have no objection, and nobody has any objection to spending money in this country, provided it acts as a sort of subsidy to the consumer and that it does not leave this country. But we are voting money to-day from the taxpayer either in out-of-work donations or in old age pensions, and it finds its way out of the the country, simply because we have no form of protection for our industries. Only a few weeks ago one of our most powerful industries was refused a tariff which if properly developed and secured would hold in this country as much money as we are asked to spend to-day, that is the seven millions. I hold that a good share of that seven millions that we are asked to spend will come out of the pockets of the old age pensioners and workers.

Every penny of that money is sent abroad. Why, as a sensible nation, should we allow that, just because we inherited an old system, a system that did not suit us and that cannot possibly be made to suit us? I rose for the purpose of registering my protest as far as possible against such a method of voting money, and I do so with the greatest confidence because the constituents whom I represent and the people whom I meet back and forward through the country always ask that one question, "When are we to be relieved of this terrible expenditure?"

Deputy J.X. Murphy suggested that this Party was opposing the Vote on Account because we believed it to be good parliamentary tactics to do so. Deputy Lemass, on the other hand, suggested that if we thought we were right in opposing this Vote on Account on this occasion, we were wrong in supporting a similar Vote which was before the House some months ago. I wonder, when Deputy Lemass was speaking on that matter did he realise that the first Vote on Account was presented eleven days before the end of the financial year and that we were faced with a proposition of refusing to find money to carry on the services of the State after the 31st March, and that by doing so we were going to refuse to vote the money necessary to carry on social services? Nobody, not even Deputy Lemass, would, I think, suggest that it would be proper to discuss all the Estimates inside a period of eleven days or, indeed, two or three months. We could not do that, and therefore we were right in supporting that Vote on Account. We did so because we believed that we had a right to assume that the discussion on Estimates would be conducted in the ordinary way in which they had been carried on for three or four years up to last year. To-day we are asked to vote a sum of over seven millions without Deputies being given an opportunity of discussing certain Estimates for the provision of large sums of money. I want to know from the Minister whether the moneys already voted on account for certain services have been spent or what portion of them has been spent. I want to deal with two or three items. In connection with Vote 11—Public Works—there has already been voted a sum of £271,000. That Vote has not so far been discussed here. We are now asked to provide an additional sum of £280,000. In that Vote there is a considerable sum of money provided for arterial drainage and for the Owenmore and Barrow drainage scheme. I want to know if any, and how much, of that money already passed for arterial drainage purposes has been spent, how many men are employed on these schemes, and how much of the money spent since the 31st March has been paid in wages. I ask these questions because I am firmly convinced that the Government has failed to make use of the Arterial Drainage Act for which members voted in 1925 under the belief that they would make use of it.

I may mention one county in my constituency to prove what I say. I understand that in Leix the County Council three or four years ago submitted nine schemes, not one of which has been even completed so far as preliminary inspection work is concerned.

I thought that when I was voting for the Arterial Drainage Act in 1925 it would be possible to put some schemes into operation in the course of a year. Not one scheme, however, has been completed, as I say, so far as the preliminary stages are concerned. I am not prepared, therefore, to continue to agree to passing money to administer arterial drainage schemes provided for in the Vote when I know, as a matter of fact, that the moneys already voted have not been spent. I want to know the reason why this Act has failed, because, so far as I know, it has failed up to the present. Deputy de Valera was talking about excessive salaries. He has, of course, spoken on that matter on several occasions without giving the members of the House, particularly members of this Party, an opportunity of knowing where we should stop in regard to salaries. I think it was John Burns who said on one occasion that no man should be given more than £500 a year, but when he was offered £5,000 a year he took it without protest.

He was a great Labour man.

I understand that British Cabinet Ministers are paid £5,000 a year. Would Deputy de Valera say whether the £2 17s. 11d., which is paid weekly to Land Commission clerks, is an excessive salary, and that it should be reduced by 10 or 5 per cent.? I now come to another point which is one of the obstacles to the proper administration of the Arterial Drainage Act. In Vote No. 11 there is provision for a sum of £200 a year for temporary engineers engaged on arterial drainage schemes. I understand that one of the obstacles in the way of the administration of this Act is that the professional organisation catering for these engineers decline to admit that £200 a year is a proper salary for a qualified man. Does Deputy de Valera believe that that is an excessive figure, and, if so, by what percentage should that salary of £200 a year for qualified men with professional degrees be reduced? We want to see whether we can agree with Fianna Fáil or the Leader of Fianna Fáil in his attitude in regard to salaries and the extent to which they should be paid to Government officials. I come now to a Vote passed by this House, namely, that of the Land Commission, for which Deputy Roddy, as Parliamentary Secretary, is responsible. I have already drawn attention to the fact when that Vote was going through that considerable sums of money are set aside yearly over a number of years for the improvement of estates. I speak on this from information which came to my knowledge through certain reports of the Public Accounts Committee.

The Deputy is going back on the Land Commission Estimates?

Yes, I submit I am entitled to discuss that Vote.

I am only pointing out that the Land Commission Vote was fully discussed and passed.

Then why does it appear on the White Paper?

I submit, if you take up the White Paper which has been furnished to Deputies, you will find that under Item 54 we are asked to provide a further sum of £244,836.

I was pointing out that the Land Commission Vote has already been passed in Committee.

Do you rule that I am not now entitled to refer any further to the administration of the Land Commission?

No, but I think it is desirable that we should not have the same detailed discussion of the Land Commission work that we have had already in view of the fact that is has already been fully discussed in Committee.

The Parliamentary Secretary did not deal with the points in connection with this matter, which I mentioned on that occasion and I hold that I am entitled to repeat them now if necessary. On a recent occasion attention was drawn by the Public Accounts Committee to the fact that under this heading for the improvement of estates, a sum of approximately £300,000 is provided yearly, and it was pointed out that roughly only two-thirds of the amount voted by the House is being spent for the purpose for which it has been voted. I want to know now if there has been any advance on the position as compared with that which existed when the full estimate was before the House, and whether any progress has been made in speeding up the work, thereby giving very valuable and productive employment under that particular head. I do not want to be accused of voting here for another sum of £244,836, which would include an additional amount for the improvement of estates, and at the same time feel that the moneys we had voted on the 20th March had not been spent or were not likely to be spent up to the end of the month. I mention these particular matters, the failure to administer the Arterial Drainage Act, and the failure to spend money provided for the improvement of estates, because I believe if the money were spent, very valuable and useful employment would be given to men who are unfortunately out of work and who are willing to work if work were provided for them.

We have here at the bottom of the paper, Item 71, the statement, "Relief Schemes, already voted on account, £30,000." We are asked to provide nothing now. I have had an opportunity during the course of the last few months of coming into very close contact with those whom I look upon as my supporters. I had an opportunity of discussing on a recent occasion with my principal supporters the position and the condition of the people in my own constituency and I am perfectly satisfied that, far from there being any improvement in the position from the point of view of unemployment, it is much worse now than it was twelve months ago. If the Government thought that a sum of £150,000 was necessary for relief schemes for the purpose of giving employment on productive work last year, I believe that there is a far better case for the provision of money for relief schemes than there was last year. I know that in my own constituency the County Council and other local authorities believing that they would get money out of the sums voted for relief schemes in this House, actually prepared schemes, but when the schemes were presented to the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Local Government, the local authorities were choked off with the statement that all the moneys voted had been allocated for this, that and the other scheme in other counties. I suggest that if the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Local Government conduct a further examination of the files of claims which they received from local authorities last year when the Vote was passed, they will find very good reason for bringing before the House a supplementary estimate for relief schemes.

Deputy Cassidy asked the Minister for Finance whether he proposes to bring in any further proposals for relief schemes. Many of these schemes have already been prepared, but they cannot be proceeded with unless some money is voted by the House before the adjournment. I am informed that the money already provided by the local authorities in rates is practically absorbed. That would mean if it is true, that hundreds of road-workers who are to-day coming to the end of their period of employment will be out of work in the period during which this House will not be meeting. Deputy A. Byrne raised the question of the unemployment which exists in the city of Dublin on several occasions. Many Deputies were inclined to scoff at Deputy Byrne and at the way in which he brought forward his case. I am a resident of the city for twenty-four years and I can say that never have I come across so many cases of destitution as recently. The relief which Deputy Byrne has demanded from the Government is merely the least which should be provided as a barrier between destitution and starvation. I believe that Ministers, and, particularly those of them who represent Dublin City or Dublin County do not know the extent to which starvation exists in the city. If they took a walk around the city any day during the week they would see for themselves that destitution and poverty exist to an extent in which they never existed before.

Perhaps Deputy Davin would say what Deputy scoffed at Deputy Byrne.

If the Deputy reads the Official Report of the discussion on the adjournment debate the other night he will find that some of the members of the party to which he belongs were engaged in this scoffing.

That is entirely false.

I am glad that Deputy Cooney is the very person who should contradict it. Perhaps he has forgotten his own conduct in the House on that occasion. Deputy Murphy has drawn attention to the attitude——

On a point of order, I think I am justified in asking Deputy Davin for an explanation when he refers to my conduct during the discussion on that occasion.

I do not propose to give my view of Deputy Cooney's attitude on that or on any other occasion unless the Leas-Cheann Comhairle says that it is my duty to do so.

I think I am entitled to know what the Deputy means when he refers to my conduct.

Am I obliged by the Standing Orders to give an explanation of what I think about the Deputy's attitude on that or any other occasion?

If the Deputy does not wish to give the explanation asked for I cannot force him to do so.

Is the Deputy in order in making the innuendo he did? Ordinary courtesy would demand that he should give an explanation.

I suggest that the Deputy should read the Official Report of the discussion.

And I would refer you to another Official Report.

Deputy Morrissey drew attention to the attitude of the Government in refusing to provide any further grants for the carrying out of housing under the Housing Acts of 1925 and 1926. I hope the Minister will deal with the matter in his reply, because I regard it as urgent. There is another matter arising out of the Housing question to which I would like to call the attention of the Minister. Many local authorities have prepared housing schemes but are not willing to proceed with those housing schemes unless and until the Government provide loans for a longer period than 15 years, the period for which loans are being provided at present. I want to know from the Minister for Finance whether he can hold any hope that loans shall be provided on a better basis, say for a period of from 35 or 40 years. The housing policy of the Government is supposed to be held up because of some housing conference which has met during the last two or three weeks. Whatever the result of that may be and personally I hope some good results will come from it, it will undoubtedly mean at some time or another, whether that conference succeeds or fails, that if the Government is to assist local authorities in this country in carrying out housing schemes, it will have to provide them with loans for a much longer period than they are doing at present. The local authorities are entitled to have an answer on that matter, as many are willing to proceed with those schemes if the money is provided for a longer period.

I also want to know whether the Government contemplate taking steps in connection with the housing policy to purchase building materials for the local authorities. If the housing scheme which we have heard so much of during the last two or three months, and heard more three months ago is to succeed, I think it will mean the Government will have to come in and cut out the existing policy of the middleman and purchase building materials. I think they will have to take steps to find out in what way they will be able to get building materials on a large scale. I want to know if they will take action of that kind so as to assist local authorities in carrying out those schemes throughout the different parts of the country.

The House has been engaged, I think to the disgust of a great many people in this country, for the last three or four weeks in talking about the necessity of amending the Constitution and in discussing certain Constitution Amendment Bills. I suggest to the Minister for Finance that the people in the country, particularly in the rural parts, would be much more satisfied if he would amend the Arterial Drainage Act of 1925. I think the farmers and rural workmen looking for work and the people whose lands are being flooded because this drainage work was not carried out, all these would be much more satisfied if this House concentrated in amending Acts of this kind, so that the work would be done, rather than having a useless discussion such as we had here for the last four or five weeks as to the amending of the Constitution. The Minister was not in the House when I asked the particulars and figures, but I hope the Minister for Defence has passed him a note of the question. I hope before this discussion ends that he will tell us how far the arterial drainage schemes are being carried out during the present year and what part of the moneys voted have been spent and the purposes for which the money was provided, how many men were employed in these schemes, and what amount of money has been paid out in wages.

Deputy Davin is anxious to know what exactly is our attitude in regard to salaries. I would like to say that as far as I know no one on these benches has ever intimated in any way that they were prepared to recommend the cutting of salaries such as he mentioned. They never intimated that they would cut the salary of a qualified engineer earning about £4 a week, and I think Deputy Davin is well aware that we had no such intention.

I am not.

As a matter of fact if Deputy Davin was very sincere in trying to find out our attitude he would have perhaps tried to criticise our attitude in saying that salaries of £1,000 a year are too high. That is the only case where we specifically mentioned that we thought that the salaries were too high. We did not say that a man might not be worth more than £1,000 a year, but what we did say was that a man should be prepared, considering the present state of the country, to give his services to it for £1,000 a year. It is quite possible we may find if we examine the salary list of the Civil Service that others than the men who are getting £1,000 a year are paid too high. We might also find that possibly some might be paid too low. We are not in a position at present except to look at the aggregate sum and when we find that the Free State Government in salaries, leaving out the Army and the Civic Guards where everyone knows what salaries have been paid, cost £3,750,000 we say the aggregate sum is too high and that there must be room for saving on it. At the election last September we were told that an economy committee had been set up and that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was to preside over that committee. He was looked upon as a very suitable person to preside because he had been a severe critic of the previous Government. That committee had been sitting from the previous June; therefore it is now sitting for over 12 months, but we have never heard a single word. We have never got an interim report or anything else, while as every speaker here mentioned the people are in a bad way in the country; there is great unemployment and everything else, and yet that committee set up to examine into economy in the administration of the State has made no report whatever for 13 months. We find where other committees were set up for other purposes, for instance, a committee set up to inquire into the vacancy for North Dublin, or any other committee set up for political purposes, they reported quickly to this House, and the findings of the committees were very quickly put through this House, but where it is a question of trying to find economies and of giving a chance to the people of this country to live we have this long delay. The Secretary of Posts and Telegraphs was very anxious about economy over a year ago. For the past 12 months he has been falling into the ways of the Civil Service in general.

Deputy Cooper gave us what was a partial solution of unemployment in this country. His idea was that if you dismiss any man from the Army or Civic Guard you will be just throwing him amongst the ranks of the unemployed. That argument, if used the other way, would mean that if you want to relieve unemployment the best way is to take all you possibly can into the Army and Civic Guard and pay them the ordinary wage paid to the men there at present. In that way you would absorb the unemployed. The only barrier I can see to that scheme, apart from that of finding the money, is the Treaty, which says that we must not be allowed to have a larger army in proportion to the population of this country than Britain has in her own country. I remember, I think in the June election, asking a certain lady in Wexford for her vote, and she told me she would not vote for me but for another man she mentioned because he had nothing to do. Anyone in this House would not regard that as a very sound argument for voting for a Parliamentary candidate, namely, the fact that he was unemployed. Yet there was as much reason in that argument as there was in Deputy Cooper's argument that we should keep men in the Army rather than throw them out amongst the unemployed. The industry I feel that is suffering most under the present administration is the agricultural industry. I suppose it is the principal industry in the country. If we take the present condition of agriculture we have only to look at one set of figures to realise the position in which it is at present. The figures are: compared to 1914 the cost of living at present is 180 and compared to 1914 the price of produce produced by the farmer is 130.

How could any farmer reconcile those two figures? I suppose we are all a little bit familiar with the country. We know that even in 1914 the farmers in this country had nothing to spare. Perhaps the majority of them were able to live, but they were only able to live; they did not enjoy a very high standard of living. If their cost of living is 180 and they get 130 for their produce, where are they to get the 50 per cent. difference? We have heard from the Minister for Agriculture over and over again—we have read it in the Press and we have heard it from Cumann na nGaedheal platforms—that the agricultural policy of this Government is the best that ever was invented: that no fault can be found with it. It is like the old story of the doctor who did the operation. The operation was successful but the patient died. They have a splendid policy for agriculture, but they are too late. By the time the policy is properly put into force the farmers will have gone out of the country. I think it would be better policy for the agricultural community if the Minister for Agriculture, instead of coming to the Dáil with Bills about creameries, agricultural credit, and forestry and land, would go to the Executive Council and try to persuade them to reduce taxation. The Minister for Agriculture, speaking on the Agricultural Credit Bill, a few days ago, said that Deputies in this House and people elsewhere were always looking for doles for the farmers. I certainly am not guilty of looking for any doles for the farmers, because I am not so absolutely ignorant of the fundamental facts as not to see that if anything is given to the farmers by this Government it is the farmers themselves who subscribe it. If a subsidy is given to the farmers, they themselves contribute 80 per cent., because they subscribe 80 per cent. of the revenue. It is handed back to them after the expenses of collecting and handing it back are deducted. Why we should look for doles for the farmers, under these conditions, appears to me to be ridiculous. It would, as I say, be much better for the Minister for Agriculture to try to induce the Executive Council to lower taxation and to stop subsidies and grants altogether and let the farmers live on their own. In the last two or three years we have great reforms introduced in this Dáil which were meant, I suppose, to better the conditions of the farmers. We are asked to reorganise the whole creamery industry. As I heard a lecturer state the other night, we are asked by the Government to reorganise this country in order to put butter on John Bull's bread, when we should be trying to put bread under our own butter. We are trying to reorganise the creamery industry to export butter to England, while we are neglecting our main foodstuff, that is wheat.

We see other things happening around us. During last spring we saw farmers who wanted seed oats paying 20s. and 22s. a barrel for the same oats that they themselves had sold the previous autumn for 12s. a barrel. This country, which has been pronounced by the Minister for Agriculture as unsuitable for the growing of wheat, last year produced 22 cwts. per acre, while the great wheat-producing countries like Canada and Russia only produced 10 cwts. per acre. When we see those things happening around us we begin to think that perhaps we should take a rest from looking after this-re-organisa-tion of industry for export and try to look towards our imports. When we see that we have a country that can produce good wheat, why do we not try to stop some of the £7,000,000 that is being sent out of the country for wheat and flour, and while we are organising the growing of wheat why do we not try at least to see that flour does not come in here already manufactured. Certainly there are very big arguments, from the millers' point of view, for a tariff on flour, but, leaving the millers out of it and looking at it only from the agricultural point of view, we see that we would be in a little better position, at any rate to compete with imported foodstuffs at home and in foreign markets, if we had the embargo or tariff on flour. We find that last year, according to the Report of the Tariff Commission, only 75 per cent. of the amount of offals required came into this country, and, as a consequence, the price went up to an abnormal figure. We find from the Report of the Tariff Commission that if wheat only were allowed in, and if all the milling was done in this country, we would have more offals than we would require in present circumstances. As a consequence, the price of these offals would go down, and the farmer would be in a position to produce bacon, milk, poultry, eggs or anything else at a lower cost than he is producing them at present. We find that our principal competitor in the British market, Denmark, is able to procure offals from England at a cost of 5s. 11d. per cwt., while they cost us 8s. 8d. per cwt.

Were they of the same quality?

I believe so.

Mr. BYRNE

They were not.

Deputy Byrne knows more than the Tariff Commissioners knew. He should have appeared before them. The Tariff Commission, as a matter of fact, discussed the point whether they were of the same quality or not. They stated that they had no evidence to show whether they were of the same quality or not, and even if they were of a different quality, if it were the difference between white and red, it could not possibly account for the difference in price. Deputy Byrne, if he had any information to give, might have appeared before the Tariff Commission. We might give other examples on similar lines. I only wanted to give this one of oats and wheat, in order to give an indication of what the Government might do. They might well turn their attention for a while to the home market, and see if they could not do something at home instead of thinking always of exports and of the British market. I think if we first supplied our home needs, if we tried to reduce that terrible bill of £7,000,000 going out for flour, bacon and other things we might then turn our attention to our exports, and see what we could do in order to improve them and make all we could out of them. The argument is put up, of course, that we cannot expect to compete in our own market with grain that is grown on the big plains of Canada and Russia. We are told at the same time that we can compete against the big ranches of the Argentine and other places in the British market. Why should not the Argentine and Canada, with their big plains, be able to beat us in the British market for meat sooner than the plains of Russia and Canada should beat us in our own market for wheat or feeding stuffs of any sort?

In addition to those disadvantages that the Irish farmer is labouring under with regard to feeding stuffs I find that if we go again and compare the taxation of this country with other countries we find that the Irish farmer is at a very serious disadvantage. When we compare the taxation in England with this country, we find even on the basis suggested by the British Treasury, I think at the time of the Ultimate Financial Settlement, that our taxation should be somewhere about £12,000,000 instead of £24,000,000. That would mean that if we were taxed equally and fairly according to the taxation in England, we would be paying about £12,000,000 a year. Some few days ago here, Deputy Kennedy spoke of this country being in want of credit and he said that a very large amount of credit would be required to run this country. I do not remember the figure he gave, but I think it would be somewhere about £12,000.000. The Minister for Agriculture replying said it would be an intolerable burden to place another £12,000,000 on the land of Ireland. I suppose the reverse should hold. That is if our proper taxation according to the way in which England is taxed is £12,000,000 a year, and that if we place another £12,000,000 on that that there must be an intolerable burden on the State, and it must make it impossible for the Irish farmer to compete in the British markets with the farmers of the world and at the same time live comfortably or live at all.

In addition to this taxation, the farmers are in the position of sending out rents out of the country which the farmers of other countries are not doing. We are sending £3,000,000 a year out of the country in annuities to people resident in Britain and other places, and in addition to that the farmers are contributing their eighty per cent. share as they are paying 80 per cent. all round of the taxation of the country. They are paying 80 per cent. of the other sums that are going out in the shape of what is paid under the Ultimate Financial Agreement. When we come to put all these items together we can realise in a small way what are the burdens that the Irish farmer has to bear at the present time. When we realise or when we try to realise that the Irish farmer is toiling under a burden of several millions a year more than his competitors in other countries, and that in addition to that he has to pay £3 or £4 a ton more for his feeding stuffs than his competitors in other countries pay—when we realise these things and when we realise too that he finds it very hard to get credit to carry on his business, we think it is rather discouraging and rather impertinent for the Minister for Agriculture to say we are always looking for doles and looking for subsidies for the farmers. The farmer does not want doles. I think the farmer should be told plainly that the price of his freedom—such freedom as he has under this Free State Government—is that he has to pay twice as much taxation as he had in the past—than he would have to pay if he remained with Great Britain or if he remained under the Union. He should be told that although he has to bear that burden just for a year or two, that it is going to be made right, that the taxes are to be reduced and that with the proper tariff system or proper maagement that he is to have his food stuffs as cheap as other countries can get them—if he were told that he would try to live and get over those bad times. But if he has nothing to expect except what he has learned from the speeches of the Minister for Finance in introducing his Budget—and in that speech there was very little hope given that for years to come there would be a reduction in taxation—then we cannot expect any hope for the farming industry as long as the present Government remains in power.

I would be very glad if I believed that Deputy Ryan in the speech he has made believed everything he said, or that his Party believe it. I say that because the burden of his speech was that a subsidy to the farmer was costly, because he paid for that subsidy himself, and that the proper thing to do was to let the farmer alone. In general I agree with that. But the appalling thing is that Deputy Ryan was allowed to state that off those benches opposite and that there was not a single protest. Next week they will look for tariffs, doles, and so on, and you can never get anywhere by asking for doles and giving doles. I agree with the idea behind Deputy Ryan's speech. The philosophy of the speech was sound. The facts were all wrong. He knows that himself. He knows very well that when he talks about running this country on £12,000,000 a year that he is talking nonsense. If Deputy Ryan were Minister for Finance himself, or if he were President, he could not possibly run the country on £12,000,000 a year without facing certain consequences that he would not be willing to face. He knows that well. His speech was only a waste of time and a waste of the Dáil. I could quote other things which he knows to be entirely inaccurate. There is nothing so misleading as quoting inaccurate figures and drawing certain deductions. Generally speaking, the point of view behind the Deputy's speech is quite sound, but the amazing thing is that that speech should come from those benches opposite, from Deputies who have been pressing for tariffs and doles for the last six months. I agree almost entirely with the statement that most of the doles, if you like, that we give to the farmers come out of their own pockets, and that really what happens is that you are taking out of one pocket, so far as the farmer is concerned, and putting it into his other pocket. You are taking it out of his right pocket and putting it into his left pocket. And you are charging him 10 per cent. for doing so. That is all really that it comes to. That is all that subsidies and doles come to. I wish Deputies would get that into their heads.

Take the speech that the Deputy made and compare it with the debate that took place here a few days ago on the Agricultural Credit Act. Then I heard it advocated that it would be the making of the country if you could give the farmers credit at 3 per cent., or 2 per cent. or no per cent. at all and borrow that money at 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. the price that the first class States in Europe pay for it, or perhaps I should say the States in Europe whose credit is first class. That is the rate at which those States can borrow money. That was the statement made from the Fianna Fáil benches and made as well by some misguided Deputies on my own benches but they were very few. The plain statement was that we should lend the farmers money at 2 per cent., for which we would be paying ourselves 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. and put the difference between these figures in taxation on to other farmers. That was advocated here on the debate on the Agricultural Credit Act and to-day the very Party that advocated that as a solution of the whole credit situation and the whole situation of this very deep credit problem, these Deputies come up now and tell us that subsidies are no good. They tell us that subsidies consist merely of the process of taking money out of one pocket and putting it into the other pocket and charging the farmers and the taxpayers for doing that. I agree that it is a good thing to take money from some pockets and put it into other pockets at times but within limits——

What about the beet subsidy?

Mr. HOGAN

I am coming to that. I began with the Agricultural Credit Act because the debate on that Act was fresh in our memories and I agree that the policy with regard to the Agricultural Credit Act which came from the Party opposite——

Not from the Party. It may have come from individual Deputies.

Mr. HOGAN

I assume that a Deputy on the front bench opposite is speaking for the Party when he speaks in this House and I have not yet heard that there is a split in the Party. I assume that the Deputy when he is dealing with economic policy is speaking for his Party. To that extent the matter impresses itself on my memory. On the debate on the Agricultural Credit Act there was one policy advocated from the Party opposite. It was doles and subsidies.

You are quite wrong.

Mr. HOGAN

No. The worst dole of all, the worst dose of smelling salts was that we should spend £500,000 on seed wheat to be distributed amongst the farmers. That was Deputy Aiken's policy.

Wrong again.

Mr. HOGAN

Deputy Ryan and anybody who knows anything about agriculture knows that a Deputy who talks about solving the agricultural problem by collecting £500,000 from the taxpayer and handing it over to the farmers to grow wheat, knows that is a solution of our agricultural problem that is absolutely nonsensical.

I challenge the Minister to quote what I did say and to remember that he is here and that we want him to say what we said and then to answer. We do not want the Minister to put up some balloon that nobody ever put up.

Mr. HOGAN

Do you expect me to quote your exact words?

If you do not quote the exact words, at least quote the sense of what I said.

Mr. HOGAN

Deputy Aiken's policy for agriculture is outlined in his speech on the Agricultural Credit Bill. He made only one positive contribution to the debate. He made a number of negative contributions by way of attacks on the Act, the policy of the Minister, and the policy of the Agricultural Credit Corporation. That was all negative criticism. His only positive contribution was that £500,000 worth of seed wheat should be given to the farmers of the country. Is that a fair statement of what the Deputy said?

That is absolutely incorrect and untrue, and the Minister knows it.

Mr. HOGAN

Luckily, I have a friend in court. I do not want to misquote the Deputy, because I am quite certain that I am right. I will go back on what the Deputy said: "It has been altogether wrong, and although we must welcome the Bills as doing a little amongst a few people in alleviating the distress that exists, they are certainly not going to cure the evil"— I am quoting the Deputy's exact words —"or to make this country as self-contained as it should be, or even half as self-contained as it should be, in the production of foodstuffs. I believe that if half a million was spent in giving seed wheat free to the farmers, with a leaflet telling them how to grow it, more would be done than will be done by these Bills."

More will be done than by the Agricultural Credit Bill. That is quite different.

Mr. HOGAN

All right, I will accept that. That was the only positive contribution the Deputy made in the debate. What is that but a dole of the worst kind? Of course there are farmers on the opposite Benches, especially on the back Benches, and they know that you cannot decide in the spring of the year whether or not you are going to sow wheat. If you change to another crop, your whole economy is disturbed. You may have arranged, say, to sow a certain amount of oats, potatoes or mangolds. You may have altogether four or five acres of tillage. You cannot decide all at once that you will sow wheat. To do so takes years of preparation. You must have the land in proper heart and you must arrange for the other crops that you need.

Apparently the idea on the opposite Benches was that you confer a lasting benefit on the farming community if you tax the already harassed taxpayer to the tune of £500,000, purchase seed wheat and divide it all over the country. What is that? A dole, and a stupid dole. What have we had advocated but a dole? What is all this talk about giving the farmer money at 2 per cent. and having to borrow it at 5 per cent., getting the State to pay 3 per cent? Nothing but a dole.

Take the Sugar Beet Factory. I had some questions put to me why we should not establish five or six more. Who is paying for it all? The taxpayer. I would justify one as an experiment, and I agree that it is a costly experiment. It does not become Deputies to charge us with that, and why? Because they want more and more. I agree with Deputy Davin that it is the rest of the farmers in the Saorstát who are paying for the Carlow Sugar Beet Factory. I ask Deputies to allow that to sink in, and realise the fact that by taking the money out of the pockets of other farmers, it must always limit us. That is the case in regard to sugar beet factories, old age pensions, distributing wheat, and, in fact, with regard to every other aspect of Governmental administration.

I would be glad to think that the general point of view expressed by Deputy Ryan was genuinely believed in on the Benches opposite, but I doubt it. It is certainly a long step in advance. I think the very best thing that could happen in this country would be for the Opposition Party to realise once and for all that there are limits to what a State can do; that there are limits to the usefulness of subsidies and grants; that a certain minimum amount of them is necessary, but that there are limits. It would be well to realise that the old system of grants and doles means taking out of the pockets of one man and putting the money into the pockets of another. Generally speaking, the man out of whose pockets you are taking the money is the hard-working fellow, generally the hard-working farmer and not the big farmer. In the aggregate it is the small farmer who is more heavily taxed than the big farmer.

A distinction has been made between the home market and the foreign market. I say that is rather fashionable in Fianna Fáil circles at the moment. Apparently the idea is to show that the policy of this Government is to try to produce good butter for John Bull. That is absurd, and is simply trying to draw the proverbial red herring— drawing a distinction between the home and foreign market. Personally I do not care where our farmers sell their butter, eggs, bacon or beef.

I do not think the Minister should make a point of that. I do not care whether they go to England or elsewhere.

Mr. HOGAN

You did not say that. Anyway, I do not care. The whole situation can be summed up in one sentence. Let the farmers produce more and then sell where they can get the biggest price. Those are my economics in one word.

That is right.

Mr. HOGAN

Let them produce more and then sell the products where they can get the biggest prices. The duty of the State is so to regulate the industry as to enable them to get the best prices. I do claim we have done that in connection with the Dairy Produce Act, the Eggs Act, the Licensing of Bulls Act—and those Acts do not give them any doles. We do pay in connection with them a certain amount of administrative costs. That is a sort of subsidy that is justified, but it is very small. The burden is borne by the farmers themselves. All we do is to prohibit. I do suggest that our prohibitions have been valuable, and have been economic, and have cost the farmer very little. I suggest they have got the farmer the highest price that can be got in any market for the commodities which, after all, amount to 95 per cent. of his production.

Let us examine for a moment this question of the home market. We produce all the beef and all the eggs that the home market wants. When I state these things I have talked of seventy per cent. of the total agricultural production of the country. We produce all the butter our home market wants. It is true that we import about £400,000 worth of butter, but against that import we export £4,000,000 worth. That is quite a perfectly normal and sound transaction. There are good reasons, as Deputy Ryan knows, why in the month of January we should import some butter, instead of cold-storing it. It all depends on the price of the butter. The time might come when we would import none, because the price of butter in the summer might be very low and we might cold-store it. It is idle to state the position simply that in a butter-producing country we import £400,000 worth of butter. If we do, we export £4,000,000 worth. The very same considerations, but not to the same extent, apply to bacon, so that in fact so far as all these commodities are concerned we do supply the home market and have a big surplus to export.

Except bacon.

Mr. HOGAN

As to bacon, we export £4,000,000 worth and import £3,000,000 worth. As you mention bacon, just take that situation for a moment. We export X-cwts. of bacon and we receive for it £4,000,000; we import X-cwts.—the very same amount —and pay £3,000,000 for it. Is not that a perfectly reasonable, profitable business transaction? Is not that what we should be doing? What I would like to see us doing is importing not £3,000,000 worth, but £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 worth, and exporting not £4,000,000 worth, but £8,000,000.

Why import any?

Mr. HOGAN

There are good reasons for it—price conditions, quality, and so on—there are one hundred and one reasons. Deputy Moore ought to know something about business. It is a small thing makes all the difference—the market rules it. The farmer is not a fool, strange to say, no more than anyone else. He knows what is good business. He thinks it is good business to take a certain price per cwt. for his bacon and to buy bacon which he likes better for a smaller price. If you want to help the farmer, tell him to keep on doing what he knows how to do, what he is doing successfully, and to do more of it. That is the moral of the story. The farmer sells his oats at 12/- per barrel and buys seed at 22/-; that might occur. It might be worth while for him to buy a new variety at 22/- and buy imported seed, because there is a special reason why you should get imported seed in cases.

The same oats this year.

Mr. HOGAN

Nonsense. I sold my own oats and bought seeds.

I heard of one man who found his own pocket-knife that he lost in a bag of oats that he bought.

Mr. HOGAN

In other words, he sold his oats as ordinary oats and bought it back as seed?

As imported oats.

Mr. HOGAN

That might occur. Deputy Ryan knows the conditions under which an intelligent farmer buys seed oats. He has been using the same variety for three or four years and wants new, fresh seed. He knows well that it is good. The same thing applies to oats as potatoes. You want fresh seed, and are prepared to pay an extra price for the fresh seed which will last three or four years. Really these figures tell you nothing. As to wheat, I do not know why people talk so much about wheat. The Deputy was quite correct when he said that we get about half the yield that Canada gets. I was in Canada. I did not go there, as some Fianna Fáil speakers in the country said, to see whether the Irish farmer could grow wheat against Canada, but to see why he could not. It was quite obvious to me when I went there. The first thing I found was that the yield of wheat in Canada was more than half again the yield in Ireland. The next thing I found was that three men and twenty-four horses can easily till five hundred acres of wheat. Horses can be bought at about £5 each, as easily as asses here. Three men and twenty-four horses can keep tilling the same land for thirty years in wheat. The Deputy knows what it would cost to produce 500 acres of wheat here. He has to take into account that it must be a rotation crop. Five hundred acres of wheat means at least 500 acres of roots as well in rotation. In Canada the normal farm is about 620 acres. The owner and two men and twenty-four horses— that is three teams of eight—can produce every year and deliver to the elevator 500 acres of wheat in perfect condition without any moisture. That is the whole problem. Are we to compete against that? The Deputy said we can produce wheat, and that it ought to be as hard for us to compete against their cattle and the Argentine cattle as to compete against Russian and Canadian wheat. The fact is that we can compete against Canadian cattle and have beaten them out of the field. No live cattle will ever make the same impression on the market in England again. Dead meat does, but it is of a poorer quality and does not compete in the same market in England. We can do live cattle better than they can, and we can deliver fresh meat better. Why should we not do it? We have the climatic advantages and the advantage of proximity to the market. Why should we not do more of it? Why should we compete with a country with a climate like Canada, where three men and twenty-four horses can till 500 acres of wheat? We cannot do it. We can only do it by subsidy, by getting the farmers who are not growing wheat to pay the farmers who are. Does the Deputy suggest that there is any chance of competing?

Why not pay as much attention to improving the breed of wheat as of cattle? It is obvious from the return of the seed expert of your Department that if we improved the breed of wheat we could compete with any imported wheat.

Mr. HOGAN

I am not saying for a moment that we would not get wheat of almost as good quality, but can we get it at anything like the same cost? If we have to pay a higher price for it who is going to pay the difference between the commercial price and the higher price to the farmers? You cannot generalise on any agricultural question. It is a great pity farmers do not grow more wheat for their own consumption and for live-stock feeding. It would pay very well. But you simply bedevil the whole situation when you announce that your policy is that you are going to produce all the wheat required for milling in the country. I should like to see every farmer sowing an acre of wheat after potatoes, and you would have the question solved. It is an educational problem. It will not be settled by a tariff. The growing of wheat is a question of education and skill and of one hundred and one other considerations.

You will not change the whole outlook of the farmers in five years. They must produce more of the sort of thing that suits their land and the climate of the country generally. There are extraordinary variations between one farm and another even in the same parish, that may be an exaggeration, but, at any rate, in the same county. I do not know about Wexford, but take Galway; there are most extraordinary variations between the land and even the climate in different parts of Galway.

A DEPUTY

And the people.

Mr. HOGAN

Yes, and the people. I merely go into these things because I want to make the point that to generalise about agriculture, and matters like that is always wrong. Agriculture is a series of exceptions to the general rules. I am told that the Canadian farmer gets his offals from Denmark at 5/11; he gets them at 5/11 f.o.b. Liverpool from Denmark, but that the Irish farmer had to pay 8/8. I do not know if that is so or not; I cannot believe it. I do not believe that the Englishman who has offals to sell looks up a directory and says this order is for Canada, we will give it at 5/11; this other is for Thomas Murphy, we will charge him 8/8. When the English are doing business they do not care twopence about nationalism. They try and get the highest prices they can from Danes or Irishmen or Saxon.

It is in the Report.

Mr. HOGAN

If the Dane gets offals at a lower price it is perhaps due to business organisation. You cannot compare the prices at Loughrea, Enniscorthy and Dublin. Railway rates and all that kind of thing comes into it, and there is another thing. The Irish farmer is only buying perhaps a hundredweight, whereas the Danish farmer is buying one or two tons, and buying that through the co-operative society that sells wholesale, very likely. Do Deputies want me to organise the Irish farmers in co-operative societies. We have done a good deal in that direction. I think the time has come when there should be some reaction from the farmers; they have reacted and reacted very well. In any event, we cannot do all these things in a minute. It is said that the land annuities are going out of the country. If you succeed, in regard to land annuities, in getting the Irish farmer to repudiate the interest on the loan—if you succeeded in getting Thomas Murphy to repudiate the interest on the loan which was lent to him at 3½ per cent., he will be as badly off as he was before.

We are not asking that.

Mr. HOGAN

What else are you asking him? He is no fool; he knows what it means if you say that the money is not to go to England; he has a pretty shrewd suspicion that there is no reason why he should pay it. He knows what is being said. It is told quietly here and there. The day he will succeed in repudiating the loan he will be no better off. It is going to make no difference. He will be considerably worse off in this respect, that it will be very hard for him to get money or credit or anything else.

The Minister for Agriculture is a very innocent man. He never knows anything he does not want to know. He did not know what Deputy Ryan said, that if you did not take so much taxation off the farmer he would not require any doles. He did not know that.

Mr. HOGAN

That was the whole point of my speech; that I entirely agreed with the particular statements you made as quoting Deputy Ryan. That was the whole point of my speech.

I hope the Minister's speech will be reported exactly as he said it. If that is done the Minister will find out that what he said Deputy Ryan said was that he was against giving doles to farmers. The Minister conveniently forgot to quote what Dr. Ryan said which was "Do not take so much taxation from the farmer and the farmer will not require to get any doles." That is exactly what we want. Lighten the taxation on the farmer and the farmer won't require any doles from anybody. Give the farmer a fair chance. Now the whole attitude of the Minister has been as stated by President Cosgrave: "If a man does not smoke or drink or buy imported dutiable articles he pays nothing towards Ministers' salaries." That is what President Cosgrave said.

Mr. HOGAN

I do not think that is correct. That is indirect taxation.

That is the substance of what the President said. If a man does not drink, if he does not smoke and if he does not use dutiable articles he pays nothing to the costs of Ministers' salaries.

Mr. HOGAN

The President was referring obviously at that time to direct taxation.

He was referring to this. The point was made by Deputy Clery that the poor farmers down the country were paying the taxation spent in paying large salaries to Ministers and civil servants, and the President got up and said that if a man does not drink and does not smoke or use dutiable articles he does not pay anything towards the cost of Ministers' salaries.

Mr. HOGAN

But most farmers do drink and smoke.

The fact of the matter is that it is the farmers who pay 80 per cent. of the cost of the Government and they pay 80 per cent. of the cost of the salaries of Ministers and civil servants, 80 per cent. of the taxation spent on the army, and 80 per cent. of the taxation spent on the police. Our point is this: that if you cut down the taxation by the amount that it could be cut down conveniently you will relieve the farmers of a burden of taxation that is crushing them, and as a consequence they will not want any doles. The leave-farmers-alone policy of the Minister amounts to this: you are to take all you can off them and then leave them alone. He does not believe in putting much back into their pocket. He takes out of one pocket, but he does not put anything back into the other pocket. The innocent Minister quoted me, and if I had not been here he would have got away with it. He said that I stated that the whole cure for the situation would be the distribution of £500,000 worth of seed wheat. The Minister had to quote my actual words because I made him do it, and he discovered then that what I said was that better than all his little doles, better than the Agricultural Credit Bill, would have been to give them free seed wheat. I do not believe in the policy of doles. I believe that if the farmers were properly educated and were only taxed to the amount that was necessary—that is, the amount necessary for the running of Government as it should be run—the farmers would get on very well without any doles. What I objected to in the administration of the Agricultural Credit Act was that it was in keeping with the attitude of the Ministry and it was a wrong attitude towards agriculture as a whole. Their policy is to subsidise the farmers who give least employment and help least to keep Irish men and women at home in their own country. I pointed out that the only facilities for obtaining loans were given to the large farmers.

There were some hopes from Deputy Heffernan that small farmers would be facilitated some time in the future but really the only people who would get facilities to obtain loans were the large farmers, the 200-acre farmers, whom the Minister has always at the back of his mind. Nothing ever seems to strike the Minister but the production of cattle and the production of milk. That is his whole idea of agriculture. He produces milk at a time not when it would give the most employment to young people but during the summer, and his policy is to let cattle walk around for a few months of the year at a time when it will require the fewest possible people to tend them. That is the Minister's policy. That is a wrong policy if the Minister intends to get the largest possible number of people employed.

Mr. HOGAN

Do not take me as agreeing with that. I am one of the few farmers who produce milk in winter and make it pay.

I am glad to hear it. I wish you would induce other farmers to do the same. The first time that we heard the Minister advising people to grow wheat was to-day. I hope the Minister will do so again. I suppose he does not read the reports or the leaflets of his own Department.

Mr. HOGAN

Religiously.

If he read the reports on wheat experiments in 1926 I think it would do him some good.

Mr. HOGAN

I read them before they were printed. In fact I corrected them.

The Minister does not believe in putting in force the policy outlined by his own Department. His Department, even under the supervision of a Minister who does believe in wheat growing, carried out a few experiments which proved conclusively that as good wheat can be grown in this country as in any other country in the world and at a fair economic price.

Mr. HOGAN

Why are they not doing it?

Because the farmers are not getting a chance.

Mr. HOGAN

Who is stopping them?

All the taxes that are being collected in this country are taken off a few farmers who are tilling the soil and they are being given as subsidies to farmers who produce milk in the summer. That is the only agricultural policy which the Minister has. He helps farmers to produce milk in the summer but he does not help farmers to produce wheat in winter and summer or farmers to produce milk during winter and summer. If the farmers were to put his policy into effect it would reduce to the lowest possible figure the number of people working on farms. The Minister knows that it only requires a couple of people to attend to 30 cows for a few months in summer, whereas it would require a larger number in winter. In County Limerick two men could run a 60-acre farm.

Mr. HOGAN

60 acres would not carry 30 cows.

They will in Limerick.

Mr. HOGAN

No.

If the Minister goes there he will find that they will.

Deputy Aiken has little experience of farming in Limerick. How could two men milk 40 cows?

I said 30.

Say even 20. I am from Limerick and I know what it means to run a 40 acre dairy farm. I say you would not be able to run it with two men.

Do you say that one man could only milk 10 cows?

I would like the Deputy to ask him to milk more.

Will you answer my question? Do you say that a man can milk only 10 cows a day?

Yes, and it is hard work from 4 o'clock in the morning. It would require a stronger man than Deputy Aiken to do it.

When the Minister was picking a Deputy he apparently got the proper one to express his policy. If Deputy Nolan went to Louth where the farmers do work he would find them milking more than 10 cows. On a farm which is run properly and which is producing milk both in winter and summer the greatest possible capacity for employment will be three men for every man employed in County Limerick.

County Limerick is carrying all the other counties on its back.

I wish it would produce some of the wheat that is coming here from Canada.

Does Deputy Aiken suggest that a labourer should milk more than 10 cows a day?

Wait a moment. I want County Limerick to produce some of the wheat coming in from Canada.

Does the Deputy want compulsion in farming?

You can make your speech when I am finished.

I am afraid that Deputy Aiken is interrupting Deputy Nolan.

The Minister for Agriculture went to Canada and if he inquired a little more closely he would have found that the Canadian Government do all in their power to help Canadian farmers. In the last few years they have produced a new kind of wheat which ripens a fortnight earlier and which enables farmers to go 200 miles nearer the Pole. It is a big problem here. Sixty years ago this country produced all the wheat necessary to sustain a population of eight millions. To-day it produces practically no wheat. It is importing seven million pounds worth of wheat. If that were distributed over the farmers of Ireland it would make an enormous difference as regards their capacity to live in comfort. The biggest item in an agricultural policy that is necessary for this country at present is to concentrate on producing the best possible seed wheat for the farmers. That is one of the things on which the Department of Agriculture should be concentrating.

Will Deputy Aiken guarantee good climatic conditions?

No, but I guarantee, given good climatic conditions, to give you more crops on the average than those obtained in any other country. In the last five or six years, though the summers have been bad, at least 80 per cent. of the crops harvested were in good condition. In Canada, America and elsewhere they did not get more than 80 per cent. average in their harvest. If it was not rain, it was too much sun or hail or snow. Every country has to fight against its own climatic conditions. In some countries they have too much sun, but here we have too much rain. I believe that this country can produce all the wheat it requires, and if the Department of Agriculture, under an energetic Minister, set itself to work it would produce in a short time all the wheat it required.

The Minister for Agriculture has made a very interesting speech. He always succeeds in doing that. The Minister has succeeded this evening, as he always does, in answering arguments that were not made. He always, very wisely, takes it on himself to avoid arguments that are made by the Opposition and to answer arguments which they do not make. He has taken under his care the farming community of the country, but what he has really done is that he has arranged to look after the farmers who can look after themselves, and he has told the "down-and-outs," as he called them, to go to a certain place I will not mention, but a place where they would not be cold anyway, and in order to hurry them there he has put them under the charge of the Minister for Fisheries, who certainly, if he does nothing else, will not delay them on their journey on the road to the place where the Minister for Agriculture wants them to go. We are asked to pass a vote of seven and a half millions. A few months ago we were asked to do the same thing— to give to the Government seven and a half millions practically without discussion. It would not be so bad if we had not already passed a similar vote. We are asked to give this amount to the Government and their Departments to do simply as they wish with the money. We should consider what they have done with the last seven and a half millions which was voted to them. Let us take for the moment the moneys voted for the Fishery Department. You have on this Vote on Account a sum of £16,000 for Fisheries. In addition to that you have a sum of £15,600 for External Affairs, so that from the Government's point of view it is just as important and just as much money must be expended on external affairs out of the nation's purse as must be expended on fisheries. The fisheries, as we know, are neglected. The amount I would like to see expended on fisheries is not £16,000 but £60,000. I think we would all be glad if such a sum were given, because we know that the amount of £16,000 is not going to get the fisheries anywhere.

Might I point out that this amount is supplementary? The Fishery Vote has already been passed.

Very well.

The £16,000 is not supplementary?

Is it not part of the total estimate?

We passed the estimate in Committee.

We are asked to give £16,000 now for Fisheries, and I am comparing that with what you are giving to External Affairs, which as far as I can see is not going to benefit the nation in any way at present. Then you have the fisheries in charge of Fionán Lynch. I do not like to criticise him very much, but I must say that as far as the other Ministers are concerned sometimes they do make a burst. If they do not do good at times they do harm, but we can safely say about the Minister for Fisheries that while he has been in charge he has done neither good nor harm. I think that is the most charitable conclusion we can come to about it—that everybody feels he is not going to get anywhere, and that he will not make any effort to get anywhere as far as the fisheries are concerned. I know myself that the fishermen in Mayo have made appeals to him again and again for assistance. I know that the fishermen at Broadhaven Bay, who know their work and have long experience, made a proposal to the Minister to give them a boat on hire, with gear. They guaranteed to put efficient men in charge of the boat and pay the cost of running it and to return it after a certain period. The Minister would not consider that proposal. He turned it down. You have the fishermen along the coast of Mayo in a worse condition now than they were when the Minister was appointed. Not the slightest effort was made by the Minister, notwithstanding the fact that they have tried to entice him to meet them in some way and to give them assistance—not assistance so much as facilities—and at the same time they were prepared to pay for these things. When Deputies are voting on this motion they ought to consider that the Minister is one of the Executive and that he has taken up that attitude. The Minister for Fisheries has done more to kill the fishing industry than anyone else that I know of in the country. No piers or slips have been erected along the coast in cases in which proposals were made to the Minister for such work. Not in one single instance in County Mayo has he met the fishermen there. Before the County Council elections, he made a promise that a certain thing would be done in a certain area. I hope that promise will not be like the usual promises he made to other fishermen.

Deputy J.X. Murphy said that it was a rather serious matter for our party and the Labour Deputies to oppose this Vote. He said: "If you do not give this money all Government activity will be held up and no work will be done." We quite realise that very well, but if the Dáil is forced by these methods to oppose the granting of this money, the Government is in fault, because when we were discussing the Estimates the Government thought it a great deal more important to bring in a dozen Bills to amend the Constitution and to give more power to Senators and enemies of the people than it was to discuss the Estimates. Then they are in a position to tell their own back-benchers: "You cannot oppose this money. If you do all the Government work will be held up." Then the Government back-benchers will, as they usually do, sing dumb and allow the Vote to go through because of that reason. We have a sum of £100,000 for Army Pensions included in this Vote too. The machine majority on the other side are not going to object to that. Deputy Gearoid O'Sullivan—I do not like to mention it when he is not here—of course will not oppose it, because he is getting £360 a year pension. The other Deputies on the back benches will have some other axe to grind, and, of course, they will not oppose it. Anyhow they would be sticking their own party in the back if they did. Therefore, there will be no talk on this Estimate from the members on the opposite side about the £100,000 for Army Pensions. At the same time they cannot find one penny for relief schemes. Perhaps the Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies are convinced that there is no need for relief schemes. Perhaps Deputy Mongan will say that there is no need for relief schemes in Connemara, and, perhaps, the Deputies from Mayo will say there is no need for relief schemes in Mayo, or that there is no need for impressing upon the Government the necessity for a vote of £50,000 or £100,000 for the relief of unemployment in the country. You have forestry £19,000. We have a Forestry Bill passed and a whole lot of talk about how forestry is going to be started in the country, and employment given, how it is going to improve the country. Besides £100,000 for army pensions we have £19,000 for forestry, and in the whole Estimate we had not a single penny put down for the Gaeltacht, the Irish speaking areas. You heard a short time ago a long debate about the Gaeltacht. Many suggestions were made about it, and representatives of the Government Party at the time made suggestions about the Gaeltacht. The Minister for Education stated, and I am sorry to say it was not true, that an extra amount was voted for it. There is not a single penny voted for the Gaeltacht. You have the Gaeltacht areas in Mayo, Galway, Donegal and Kerry.

The Gaeltacht report was issued a couple of years ago and the Government white paper was issued a year ago, but yet a single effort has not been made by the Government to assist the Gaeltacht or to carry out the intentions of their own Commission, and we are asked to pass this Vote in order that the departments may carry on and to pass a Vote which will go further towards starving the Gaeltacht. There is no need for me to go into the requirements of the Gaeltacht. I feel the Ministers have forgotten that such a thing exists in Ireland as the Gaeltacht. I feel that the Deputies on the Government benches are not doing justice to their constituents or to their Party when they are satisfied to remain silent and are not urging on the Government to do something. I think, however, that there is very little use in asking Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies to make themselves felt in their own Party if they are content that the country is being catered for, that the best is being got out of this money and out of this taxation, if they are justified in remaining silent and allowing Deputy Cooper to tell them how taxation is being reduced. But I think if Deputies on Cumann na nGeadheal benches went down the country to their own people to a part of the Gaeltacht in Mayo, if they go to priests in that area they will find that the story they have to tell will make them wake up and make Ministers do a little more and they will not always be accepting the plausible, hypocritical statements of the Minister for Finance when he states that the country is getting on and has got round the corner while at the same time every single act of his as Finance Minister is killing the statements he makes, and at the same time killing the hope that there was amongst Irish speakers in the Gaeltacht and other people there that something would be done for those areas. We do not object to the money being voted so much as to the fact that the Government have made no attempt whatever to improve conditions or tried, by some means or schemes, to ensure that the people of the country would benefit, the ordinary people of the country who are down and out. They have made no effort, in any way, to ensure that the ordinary taxpayer and small farmers living on uneconomic holdings would benefit in any way by Government activity. They have, of course, the Committee or Commission of which the Secretary for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is in charge. I felt that when Mr. Heffernan was being appointed Secretary to Posts and Telegraphs the Committee on Economy would be a dead letter. Evidently it has been and I think the Government cannot hide it from the House. If the Committee has failed or refused to bring in a report or if the Government has instructed Mr. Heffernan not to bring in a report I think it should not be kept from the House. It was formed as a result of a debate here and if Deputy Heffernan has fallen asleep at that work it is a rather serious matter for Deputies in this House.

I think that this should be voted against. I think that members of the opposition should know the position in the country and not vote this money to the Government. They should vote this out. Even if it does hold up the work of the Departments for the time being it will force the Government to open their eyes a little to the situation that exists, and there is no Cumann na nGaedheal Deputy but knows that the country has not got around the corner in the way Ministers on the front benches talk about it. It is very little consolation to the country to see that a few days ago a great function was brought off in the Zoological Gardens, that the Minister for Finance opened up a new reptile house there. I think there would be profound joy amongst the people if, when Mr. Blythe opened the door of the reptile house, he had lined up the members of the front bench opposite and put them in instead of the reptiles. It would be a step in the right direction. We would then have made known to us a little of the mind of the Deputies opposite and the opinions of those who have remained silent here and allowed the dictators do as they like. Then they would be able to make themselves heard in this House. In filling up the reptile house with the front bench opposite, I would also include one or two of the Independents, and certainly I would put in Deputy Professor Thrift. If that were done very little harm would result, but a great deal of good would accrue. We would be able to get on in the proper spirit, and you would have the proper kind of co-operation required. Suggestions made from these benches necessary to help and build up the country would be accepted in the proper spirit by the other members opposite, and there might be a chance of getting somewhere, but as it is, I am afraid while you have the front bench filled by the gentlemen there little can be done, because they are always anxious, with their machine majority, to try and pour ridicule on suggestions that are made, and to try, as the Minister for Agriculture does, to answer arguments never made. As far as the country is concerned, it would be as well if they were all as inactive as the Minister for Fisheries. In voting against this, I think we are doing the proper thing, and I hope the Independent Deputies who pretend sometimes to be so independent in their views, will do the same thing when it comes to a division.

I presume if this Vote on Account is defeated we will have a state of national emergency declared by the Government. No doubt it would give rise to a state of national emergency from their point of view, but, from the point of view of the people in the country, I think it would give rise to a state of national rejoicing. Deputy Murphy tells us that the country must be carried on. I feel convinced that the majority of the people in the country are driven to the conclusion that a continuation of the present Government policy will inevitably wind up in ruin and bankruptcy for the whole people. We have witnessed here to-day another effort on the part of Deputies on these benches to lift the veil of secrecy in which the Government have enshrouded themselves for the past few weeks. The effort has been in vain. With the exception of a free lecture to the farmers of Ireland from the Minister for Agriculture, we have had no word of explanation from any responsible Minister here in this House. We have had no defence of their action in submitting this Vote on Account and in preventing the consideration and discussion which it deserves. Of course that is just in keeping with their conduct, particularly during the last few weeks. Those of us who have been here for the last few months are certainly not surprised.

Deputy Davin's pretence at his failure to understand the attitude of Deputy de Valera and of this party generally with regard to salaries is very illuminating. His pretence at ignorance on that matter is too obvious. He knows perfectly well what our attitude is. His effort is to infer that we are out for wholesale reductions of salaries, and, incidentally, to hit the underdog. I think our attitude in respect of that matter has been made perfectly clear in various discussions in this House. It has been made clear that so far as reductions in salaries are concerned our aim is to start at the top and where necessary—and it is necessary even in some Government Departments—to extend increases to those at the bottom. There are some Departments where employees are working at a starvation wage, while at top men in key positions in these Departments are receiving salaries far beyond their worth. It comes very ill from Deputy Davin to talk of salaries and reductions. Not long ago when an appointment was being made in this House and when we indicated on that particular matter our desire to reduce expenditure Deputy Davin opposed it strenuously. He referred to a matter which was raised here on last Thursday night by Deputy Byrne with reference to relief schemes. He accused, by innuendo, members of this party—and if I infer correctly I was the person whom he intended to charge—with jibing Deputy Byrne during that discussion. He asked me to read the Official Report. The only contribution which I made during that discussion, although it is attributed to another Deputy, was by way of interjection. When the Minister for Finance was speaking he said that money expended on relief schemes is always to some extent wasteful, in some cases it is very wasteful, and in other cases a moderate economic return is got, but, on the whole, good results are not obtained from it. I interjected: "What a tragic commentary on your highly organised capitalist system." If that is conduct unworthy of a Deputy who claims to have as much sympathy for the unemployed as ever Deputy Davin had I have nothing to apologise for.

When speaking of conduct in this House, I would remind Deputy Davin, who claims to sit here representing the toiling masses in this country, the people who have no rights but are so much referred to when occasion requires, that when the Constitution was being torn up some nights ago he was sitting in the public gallery and refused to take his share of the responsibility as a deputy in this House by voting on one side or the other.

I think that it would be well for the country if this Vote were defeated, because the Government policy has been consistent in one thing and in one thing only. It has been consistent in flagrant violation of the people's interests. When we read down the list of items comprising this Vote on Account, and when we think of the callous and indifferent manner in which it has been thrown at us, just as other Bills have been thrown at us during the past few weeks, without any explanation, one wonders what hope there is for the people and for the country which tolerates a system of government like this. If this Vote were defeated and a state of national emergency declared it might bring about a complete change in the government system of this country and, no matter what change could be brought about, it certainly could not be worse, if it could be as bad, as the present system. We have here an item of £15,500 for the Department of External Affairs. Those of us who are in touch with current events in this country and with the daily lives of the people whom we are supposed to be serving are asking ourselves what is the Department of External Affairs doing for the country. Anyone who has sufficient facilities to enable him to understand its activities knows perfectly well that instead of bringing honour and increasing the prestige of this State abroad it is doing the exact contrary. This Department is nothing but a laughing-stock, and I say it is nothing short of criminal folly to continue paying such an abnormal amount of money to maintain a Department which is based on hypocritical falsehoods and is not even free to assert any fundamental principle of national independence on the part of this State outside this or even inside this country, particularly outside it. Its main function and its activities are governed by another Department, another Department of a foreign Government. That statement has been made here before and a contradiction challenged. But the contradiction was not forthcoming. We have also included in this list of items £800,000 for Posts and Telegraphs. That Department, of course, is an essential Department. But again, if the rumours which are current in connection with the attitude of the gentleman in charge of that Department is the attitude towards this State, if the rumours are correct, then I think it is time that we should have a change there. I am given to understand that on a recent occasion there was being broadcasted some of A.M. Sullivan's songs and that this Parliamentary Secretary for Posts and Telegraphs objected to these on the grounds that they were too anti-British. I do not know if that information is correct. If not, I hope he will take an opportunity of denying it here in this House. That rumour is current, and I think it proper to mention it here.

A more hopeless confession of failure, in so far as the present system of government is concerned, cannot be made than what we have evidence of in this House. The main contribution of Deputy Cooper to this debate was that while he sympathised with these unfortunate people who were unemployed, and while he was prepared to do his share to remedy that evil, he felt that there was no hope. He could not offer any suggestion by way of relief. In connection with expenditure his contention is that if we reduce the Army expenditure for which we are asked in this vote to give £650,000 —if we reduce the Army we increase unemployment. Therefore the main purpose of the Army at the present time is to keep down unemployment. And this is the product of these great master minds who claim to have established an ideal system of government in an ideal State—the will of the people supreme. Is it the will of the people that thousands should be on the verge of starvation as they are at the present moment? Is it the will of the people that thousands should be housed under conditions that are not fit for animals to live in? We have here in this very city where this House is situated, conditions of poverty, misery and degradation which would bring the blush of shame to the savage who had never known such a thing as this modern civilisation of ours. If those Ministers would go around and mix with the common people and try and understand the terrible conditions which obtain in this city and in the majority of the cities and towns throughout the country, they would, if they had anything like a conscience left, proclaim a state of national emergency, not with a view to getting a vote on account and carrying on their State Departments, not with a view to carrying on the very lavish expenditure and imitating their British masters, but with a view to bringing food and shelter to the common people of this country. That is a more Christian duty of course, which evidently they have forgotten. This amount of £7,400,000 as I have said has been asked for by the Government in order to carry on these Departments in the same lavish manner in which they have been carried on. The most extraordinary thing is that at the very bottom of the list, Vote No. 71 for Relief Schemes the sum down is "nil." There is no amount wanted for relief schemes. That is certainly ironical to say the least of it.

The Departments must continue keymen in these Departments. These men and the Ministers must get their salaries. The Governor-General's establishment must get its £2,000 out of this Vote. But the men who have made this State possible, the men who, when danger threatened, when the enemy stood here naked and unashamed, when fighting was to be done in defence of national principles, when it was not behind closed doors in well-furnished offices that great things were done, it was the common people who counted then. Now thousands of them are starving in this country, and we have not one item here for even one thousand pounds in the shape of a vote for relief schemes for these men. And we are voting away £7,000,000. Certainly I can liken it to nothing but Nero fiddling while Rome burned, and I believe that the same fate must inevitably overtake those responsible for the continuation of this, if this policy is allowed to continue. The people have not yet lost their sense of right and justice, they have not yet lost their intelligence and they know perfectly well that by intelligent action on the part of the people who have control of the resources of the State at the present moment—by intelligent and honest action this state of poverty could be remedied and unemployment could be relieved if not abolished. It certainly could be relieved, but no attempt has been made to meet the situation, nothing but callous contempt. That is the only thing that is being dished out to these people. I sincerely hope that every one in this House who has a conscience will vote against this motion and in that way will secure that this is defeated and thereby create a crisis. Out of that crisis might come good for the people. It is clear that no good can come from those who are responsible for the present suffering of the people. We have £3,000,000 paid annually to England in land annuities. As a result of that and through its enforcement we have the hardworking farmer, the honest industrious farmer in many cases thrown out on the roadside because of his failure to pay up those arrears of land annuity.

These things which were virtues a few years ago, acting under instructions from the people who were in control of national policy, are not now virtues. As a result of those instructions the people ran into arrears. Now it is a question of paying up or getting out. Similarly with the banks. During the inflation period they actually went around asking the farmers to take money and invest it in land. They were acting, of course, in the interests of agriculture at that period. They were deeply concerned about the development of the agricultural industry, but when the deflation period set in we saw how far these banks were interested in national development. Everything which operates in this country and which controls the resources of this country is working against the people, and I hope, because of that, that a way will be found soon of putting an end to the system which permits such national degradation and suffering.

On a point of order in this motion here for the Second Vote on Account there are items embodied in connection with which the full Estimates already have been considered and passed. Is it your ruling that they should be put in here? Is this regular? You have, for instance, Vote 52 (Agriculture) which was passed in full; then you have Vote 54 (Land Commission), and then you have the Vote in connection with Posts and Telegraphs. They have all been passed and now they appear for a second time. If we succeeded on those Benches in defeating this motion, we would have the position that there would be rejected Estimates which have already been passed.

I think the position with regard to certain Votes is that a resolution was agreed to in Committee on Finance but not reported, and it is therefore necessary to take a Vote on Account for these sums here. The resolution in Committee on Finance has only a limited effect. It needs to be brought to a conclusion by being reported and— in the case of Estimates, being embodied in an Appropriation Bill—in this case being embodied in a Central Fund Bill. Certain amounts, therefore, have to be repeated in this particular Vote. The position is that the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce, with minor Votes, the Department of Local Government and Public Health, with minor Votes, and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and the Wireless Estimate, have already been debated at some length in Committee, but the resolution not having been reported, therefore it is necessary to deal with the matter again in this particular way. The discussion on the Vote on Account is mainly a discussion in Committee on Finance. This money then must be put into a Central Fund Bill on the Second Reading of which it is usual to have a debate. The main question is now before us.

I take it that the Minister for Education—this point was raised in your absence—was not correct when he said that Vote 61 was for a supplementary sum; that, in fact, we are asked to vote a second third of the total Vote for Fisheries? I take it he was incorrect, and that the £16,000 which appears here is not supplementary to the Estimate already passed in Committee?

I did not hear what the Minister for Education said and therefore I would not like to give a decision on that matter.

The position arose in this way: Deputy Carey was criticising the Minister for Fisheries when he was interrupted by the Minister for Education who stated that this £16,000 had nothing to do with the Vote and that it was a Supplementary Estimate. That was what drew my attention to the other Votes.

The position with regard to Votes already passed in Committee on Finance is that it would be unreasonable to go into a detailed consideration of matters already dealt with fully in Committee. The necessity does exist for having these sums on the paper at present.

In opposing the Vote for £7,438,635, it would be proper to show under what head or sub-head expenditure might be reduced. The fourth largest item in this list is No. 64 (Army). In connection with that Vote for £650,000 for the Army I deliberately state that that Vote could be reduced by a very large amount even without disturbing the present strength of the Army. If we leave the Army at its present strength altogether that Vote could be reduced because there is gross extravagance in certain departments of the Army. In Poor Law Service in the country you have—any Deputy who wishes to get the information will see it in Thom's Directory— one doctor to an average of every 4,000 people. In the Army you have one doctor to every 194 young men. I ask Deputies to consider that in the case of the Poor Law Service a doctor is dealing with male and female, old, young, strong and weak, and he has an average of over 4,000 people to deal with. In the Army a doctor deals with 194 able-bodied young men. In the Poor Law Service a doctor deals with people spread over a distance of 20 miles. In the Army the 194 people for whom the doctor is responsible generally live around the barrack square.

In a former debate the President said that the Army doctors had to travel long distances from one barracks to another and that they are responsible for sanitation. They are responsible for sanitation, but it would be a matter of saying that there is a plumber wanted here and a plumber wanted there, and the plumber would come.

There were answers given to certain questions of mine in this House and if Deputies refer to the Official Debates they will find that there are two large military hospitals, one at St. Bricin's and the other at the Curragh. The average number of beds occupied in the two hospitals is 189. The Curragh Hospital alone would more than accommodate every patient at present accommodated in St. Bricin's and the Curragh. The cost of the patients in St. Bricin's hospital is 11/- per day and the cost in the Curragh is 9/8. The cost in a civilian hospital is 6/-. Any member of a board of health can bear that out. Boards of health pay at the rate of £2 2s. a week, which is 6/- a day. Even if the argument is that you must maintain a military hospital, why not close down the more expensive hospitals and treat all cases in the less expensive hospital? No case can be made for keeping St. Bricin's open, because all the patients in St. Bricin's can be accommodated in the Curragh. That surely will not impair the efficiency of the Army Medical Service. In the Great War the British military were treated in civilian hospitals at a certain rate. They got as good, if not better, treatment than in the military hospitals. You have all surgical and medical work and all the specialised branches sufficiently catered for in any of the civilian hospitals in Dublin, and the Army could have their patients treated in as efficient a manner, if not more efficient a manner, in any civilian hospital in Dublin at a cost considerably less than obtains at present in a military hospital. Bad and all as St. Bricin's and the Curragh are, you have the case of another hospital at the Curragh where you have 26 beds equipped and only six occupied, or an average of six.

You have three nurses for six patients or one nurse for every two patients, at a cost of 9/7 per patient per day. I am giving these figures for the Minister to answer. In Cork you have sixteen beds occupied out of a total of 30, at a cost of 15/- per day per patient, or a rate of £5 5s. 0d. per week. You can go into any of the private homes in Dublin and get better terms than that. We are told we would impair the efficiency of the Army if we tried to reduce the cost. In Athlone there are 60 beds equipped and only 10 occupied, at a cost of 11/10 per day per patient. There is no excuse for keeping the Athlone hospital open. Athlone is only 50 miles from the Curragh. We are told that in the poor law service it is all right to have one hospital in the centre of a county as the patients can be brought by ambulance. Patients could be brought from Athlone or Dublin to the Curragh by ambulance and thus have only one hospital and save over £23,000 on the Army Medical Service. We are told that the Government cannot vote anything for relief schemes. If they only gave that £23,000 it would do some good and the efficiency of the Army would not be interfered with in the slightest. In Athlone military hospital there are three nurses for every ten patients, or one nurse to every three. There is no excuse for keeping staffs such as that, unless it is that they expect another Civil War and that they may want them for civilian patients. I submit that the number of doctors and nurses in the Army could be drastically reduced without in any way impairing efficiency and that one large central hospital is quite enough. The Curragh hospital would accommodate all the patients in military hospitals in the Saorstát and at least it should be run at the rate that obtains for civilian hospitals. There is no excuse for the rate in Cork military hospital of 15/- per day for patients, while the rate in the Infirmaries in Cork is only 6/- or 7/-. Under those circumstances, is there any excuse for the cost in St. Bricin's being double the cost in the civilian hospitals beside it?

I should welcome a statement from the Minister responsible. I suppose the Minister for Defence is responsible for the hospitals, but the Minister for Finance is responsible for paying for them. Someone should explain why they keep these establishments open at that extraordinary cost. If they cannot give some good reason for keeping them open on the present lavish scale, then they should close them and send the patients to civilian hospitals and save the taxpayers the extra money spent on them.

The Deputy gave a figure of 6/- for civilian hospitals. Was that per bed or per occupied bed?

Per occupied bed, because, as I know, all the beds are occupied in civilian hospitals.

The figures do not agree with mine. The figures which I have made out from the officially published return works out at about 9/- per day per patient.

I gave figures that any member of a board of health can verify. If a board of health sends patients to a civilian hospital in Dublin they get treatment at £2 2s. 0d. per week.

Therefore it must cost less.

On the contrary. I am speaking a bit away from my book. An ordinary working man, it may be, can go into a hospital for £2 2s. 0d. per week, but it does not follow that that is the cost to the hospital. The Deputy quoted 11/- for St. Bricin's and 9/8 for the Curragh. It does work out a little more expensively in military than in general hospitals, but very little apparently. As far as my figures go—I will not guarantee this figure, but I am talking not of what it costs a patient going to the hospital, but for the maintenance of the hospital—I think, roughly, 9/- per occupied bed will be nearer to it than 6/-. We give it at 11/- and 9/8—in Cork, I admit, it is much higher. There is, roughly, only a slight difference. We are slightly more costly than the ordinary civilian hospitals, for the reason that in civilian hospitals the surgeons and physicians attend in an unpaid way—they are not paid for their work. In our hospitals all the doctors are paid. A Deputy asked me a question some time ago about it, and I supplemented my answer by saying that it was slightly misleading because of other work that the doctors did. In making out our costings, we put the whole cost of the doctor in, while really that doctor had other functions besides those in the hospital. We put the whole cost on the hospital. In spite of that, the cost works out very little more than in the general hospitals in Dublin. I quite agree that possibly there is room for a certain reduction. We have reduced considerably—we had a much larger Army—and we are reducing; but, on the costings, I think very little fault can be found, seeing that it works out at slightly more than the general hospitals in town, that we pay for all medical attendance, whereas the general hospitals get a free medical service—not all free, but a very large amount free—and that our medical officers are not entirely confined to the work in the hospitals, but do other work in the Army. They have the work of training other people and of attending to the general hygiene.

We maintain rather more hospitals at present than should be normally necessary because we have the operation of a Disability Pension Act, which requires people to come up from various parts of the country for observation and to occupy beds occasionally, or to be present in the hospital. We are, I admit, holding at present more hospital accommodation than should be permanently necessary when the operations of the Pensions Board are completed. If the Deputy puts down a question I should be very happy to, give the respective costings of military hospitals as compared with hospitals outside, because I think that the figures he gave on the part of Army and civilian hospitals are not entirely comparable, as they are made up on a slightly different basis. I think I will be in a position to give him the costings, as we give them, and give the costings on the same lines in civilian hospitals outside, which would be very little different.

The cost I gave for civilian hospitals is the cost that obtains in the case of boards of health in the country. The Minister said that the cost is less, because medical officers have not to be paid in civilian hospitals. I want to know from the Minister if the cost in the military hospitals includes all the doctors in the Army. When he says that 9/- per head is the cost in the civilian hospitals, and that the cost in military hospitals could not be less, how is it that in the Portobello military hospital the cost works out at 7/-, whereas in Cork it is 15/-?

I admit that there are these divergencies which would require a long explanation. The Deputy asked me did the cost include all doctors in the Army. All doctors in the Army are not necessarily employed in hospitals. Therefore, there may be some doctors in the Army whose cost is not included in the hospital costs. All doctors employed in hospitals have other occupations in the Army, but in giving the Deputy the costings I included the whole cost of these medical officers and attributed the whole cost to the hospitals, although actually they were employed on other work outside.

In the Estimates the salaries of the medical officers are provided for under a special sub-head— sub-head E. Therefore, I take it, they are not included in the cost of the hospitals.

The Deputy is wrong. In our costings for the hospitals we included everything. On an arbitrary basis, the cost for wear and tear on a hospital is put at ten per cent. of the capital value of the building. That is included in the costings. We included all the cost of cleaning, cleaners and so on, and the full cost of the doctors who are employed there, even though they are also employed outside. Some time ago in reply to a Deputy I gave a statement and stated at the end that it was slightly misleading, as the doctors employed, who were charged for in these costings, were also employed on other work.

Deputy Lemass, in the course of his observations, expressed a desire to hear something said by me on the subject of housing and unemployment. I am sorry that he is not in his place here now so that he might hear what I have to say. Deputy MacEntee showed a similar anxiety a few nights ago, and I notice that Deputy Davin said that there was a great deal more talk upon the subject some months ago than there has been lately. I do not know what Deputy Davin meant. I do not think he is quite so innocent as he would like the House to suppose, as to why there is not so much talk about it now. His remark may have been one of the evidences of the fitful friendship that exists, for a day or sometimes less, between his Party and the main Opposition.

Is it not a fact that there was more talk about it some three months ago?

The Deputy knows perfectly well why there has been delay in dealing with this matter.

Would it be in order to ask Deputy Rice to give the House the benefit of this great secret between himself and Deputy Davin? We would like to know why there is delay.

I must ask the Deputy to have a little patience.

What I said had particular reference to what was said in this House and outside it about the provision of long-term loans for local authorities. Is that quite clear?

Deputy Lemass wants to know what has become of the ten years' building programme talked of some time ago. Deputies are aware that a programme was suggested in the Report of the Unemployment Committee presented to the House in February last. One suggestion was that a conference should be called together between the masters builders and the building operatives for the purpose of enabling the Government to judge of the feasibility of such a programme, and to report on the best means of reducing costs and substantially increasing the units of output. The Government did call that conference together, and it had a considerable number of meetings. Possibly Deputy Davin is not aware of that fact.

I will say no more about that conference than this: That the two Parties have not, up to the present, made an advance or put any programme before the Government. Deputy Davin knows perfectly well that is the reason why nothing has been done to put this programme in operation up to the present time. When I hear Deputies on the other side asking these questions, what is done about housing and what is done for unemployment, I would like to ask Deputies on the other side what they have done for it. Have they put forward a single constructive proposal to help the Government or the country in dealing with these matters? Deputy MacEntee wrote to the Unemployment Committee and made a suggestion, and when he received a reply that his suggestion did not come within the scope of the inquiry, his answer was to write a mean letter to the newspapers to say that the men sitting on the Committee were only wasting so much time. I have nothing to say as regards myself, but as regards the men composing that Committee I say that they were much more worthy to deal with this question than Deputy MacEntee ever could be. One of them, no longer with us, attended the meetings of that Committee constantly against the orders of the doctor and by doing so shortened his life, and I shall not trust myself to say what I feel when I think of Deputy MacEntee criticising that man. Deputy MacEntee smiles. I ask Deputy MacEntee to show what he ever did in his life in the shape of putting forward proposals to help anybody to solve any question. Deputy MacEntee can point to nothing but a record of futility as regards this matter. Deputy MacEntee, when he took one momentous decision in his life, was not able to get up in time to catch a train to put it in operation. I do not understand the criticisms from people who cannot put forward a single constructive proposal themselves.

This is not a political issue, and never was intended to be made a political issue, by any Party except the Party opposite. Deputy Lemass, who was so very anxious to hear me upon this question, sent a screed to the Committee, with his name and the name of some secretary to it, stating the official representation as to what that Committee should do. What did it suggest? This Committee was set up to investigate one question, and one question only, and see what immediate steps could be taken to relieve unemployment. What were the suggestions of the Fianna Fáil Party to that Committee? They told the Committee that they should go into the question of the abolition of the Seanad. Was that put forward seriously, because if it was it shows the complete inability of the Party opposite to appreciate what the position of such a Committee was. I say that was deliberately an advertisement for part of their political programme at the expense of the poor and the unemployed. No political Party is serving the cause of the unemployed in that way. I go further and say that a political Party which tries to use the grievance of the unemployed for their political purposes is doing nothing but harm to the unemployed, and is injuring the cause of the unemployed.

The Labour Party did everything it could to help. Deputies in the Independent Party and on the Government benches have done everything they could to help. What help was given by the Party opposite, which professed such a great deal of sympathy for the houseless poor? What have they done for them? They have been boasting for months past of the amounts of money they could raise for their purposes. They tell us that they are raising £200,000 to establish a newspaper. I suggest that if money is so free with them they could use it much better by providing, work for the unemployed, for whom they have so much sympathy, and by providing houses for the poorest of the poor. They want to know why the Government has not put this programme in force. I am in a position to answer that. What do houses built at the present time for the working classes cost? Have Deputies ever considered that? Houses built in recent years for the working classes in Dublin, with subsidies from the Government and the ratepayers amounting to £200, are still costing 15/- and 16/- a week rent to the working classes. That cost is excessive because of the cost of production.

Mr. O'CONNELL

And because of the high rate of interest.

There are many elements in it, but what I say is this: I ask Deputies do they seriously ask the Government to put in force a huge building programme on these costs and under these conditions. The trades unions and the builders have been asked to make a contribution, and have not yet agreed as to what that contribution should be. Do Deputies suggest the Government ought to put that programme in force without waiting to know what the contribution of the builders and the trades unions is to be?

Is it not a pity that Deputy Rice did not talk in that strain at the bye-election a few months ago?

I did speak in that strain.

I do not think so. Then there was ten years' work immediately for the unemployed.

I did say that. It was there subject to agreement as to reduction of costs between the builders and the building operatives. I repeat it and I say it again now. If this question is to be solved it will be solved not by manifestoes from the Fianna Fáil Party as to the abolition of the Seanad and other schemes of that kind, but it will be solved and houses will only be built which the workers can pay for when we get a substantial contribution from the ratepayers, when the building contractors and the operatives come along on the same lines, and when we get long-term loans as well. These are the things that will have to be done before such a programme can be put into force. I earnestly impress upon Deputies opposite that they will do a great deal more service for the country if they will try to help this conference to try to come to some proper determination to make some report which would justify the Government in undertaking such a programme. They would be much better occupied in doing that than in flying kites about abolishing the Seanad and re-opening the Final Financial Settlement and other matters of that kind which, in my opinion, are not matters for the consideration of a Committee such as that. I would think that the least Deputies opposite might do would be to give some earnest of their anxiety to solve such problems by taking part in the discussion on such matters, which are purely non-political questions. Every proposal put up on this side of the House which has the remotest connection with the Government, especially if the Government show any sign of putting it into operation, is at once made a political issue.

The Deputy knows it is not nonsense. I invite Deputy de Valera to explain what he meant by the manifesto which he sent to a Committee set up by this House suggesting that they should take on themselves the impertinent and absurd duty of saying whether the Seanad should be abolished or whether the Ultimate Financial Settlement should be reopened. Was that a matter which that Committee, without the authority of this House, should investigate? Does the Deputy seriously suggest that that was an honest proposal from his Party? I do not know if the Leader's name was to it, but I take it that he does not repudiate it.

I am quite sure that these were some of the items in it, and quite rightly so.

Then I ask the Deputy does he suggest that it was an honest proposal that a committee set up under the Order of this House, a committee of laymen, not even Deputies, should take up these grave political matters?

If they wanted to solve the unemployment problem, certainly.

And they should have the impertinence to discuss and report on these questions. I say it was a dishonest proposal and was an attempt to use the distress of the unemployed for political propaganda.

Can the Deputy say whether one single extra workman got employment as a result of the Committee's labours?

The Deputy has heard— and I think he is able to understand plain English—that no programme has been put into force because of the failure, up to the present, of the builders and the operatives to come to an agreement.

Did the Committee only consider unemployment in the building trade?

No; the Deputy has the report before him. I am dealing with matters which were discussed when I was present as chairman. I am not here to answer for the Government. I am here as a back-bencher, and if the Deputy wants information he can apply to the proper quarter for it.

I do not know whether the speech to which we have listened with a great deal of interest, because it was a most unusual one on a Vote of this nature, was in order. I do not know if I am in order in replying to it, but, at any rate, the Deputy was good enough to refer to a certain train and make personal reference to me.

The Deputy made personal references to me.

I do not know whether the Deputy knows what the train was, but I know, although I missed that train, that it was up to Deputy Rice, who at that time was wearing His Majesty's uniform or, at any rate appearing on recruiting platforms——

The Deputy is confusing me with some other person.

I withdraw. The Deputy did not wear His Majesty's uniform, but the Deputy appeared on recruiting platforms and was of a military age.

That is not so. I did not appear on any recruiting platform.

A DEPUTY

It is the wrong Rice.

The Deputy had not been called to the Inner Bar at that time. I regret. I withdraw that. I was always under the impression that the Deputy——

It is a pity we could not keep to what happened since last October.

It is a pity that the Deputy did not confine himself to events that happened since last October.

I agree entirely.

Whatever else any person can say against me when I was very young I hope the fact that I have given the best years of my life to the service of the cause to which I became converted in 1916, the fact that I was sentenced to death and sent to penal servitude, and the fact that I am still true to these things should, at least, prevent a Deputy who never served his country to that extent from attacking me in the mean, despicable way he has done. I will leave it at that. The Deputy challenged Deputy de Valera to show what relation the Ultimate Financial Settlement had to the housing question. I would remind the Deputy that under that financial agreement this country pays approximately five million pounds a year to England. It is said that we are short of 50,000 houses. If five million pounds represented the principal and interest on a housing loan in Ireland, how many comfortable houses, not hovels or shacks, would that money build for the working classes? This money is taken out of Irish industry, out of the product of Irish soil, and is paid over to the English Exchequer. How many houses would that money build? For how many people would it provide employment, and how many people would it keep at home? That, at any rate, was a problem to which the Committee, over which Deputy Rice presided, having been recently unemployed by his old constituents in the South City, might have devoted some attention.

The Deputy referred to the Seanad. The Seanad costs the citizens of the Twenty-six Counties £24,000 each year. That on the ordinary terms on which a loan is obtained, would provide interest and sinking fund for a loan of £300,000. How many houses would that build? I think the suggestions which were put forward by Deputy de Valera were very pertinent to the purposes of the Committee, if it seriously intended to try to fulfil the terms of reference. He tried to put before the Committee suggestions which would provide immediate employment and which could be immediately tackled by them. He discovered that the Committee did not seriously intend at any time to solve this problem. It was set up ad hoe for one purpose at that particular time—to get the Government out of the difficulty in which the general distress in the country had placed it and to provide a platform upon which Deputy Rice, having been kicked out of the South City, might be foisted on the North side. That was the sole purpose of the Committee. It fulfilled its purpose. From the time Deputy Rice was returned to the Dáil he remained silent and as a matter of fact when his colleague in the representation of the North City, raised this matter of the general distress in that particular constituency on the motion for the adjournment, he only arrived in this House at two minutes to eleven o'clock and took no part in the discussion. That showed the interest which he had in the people who are poor and starving on the North side, the people upon whose needs and misery he traded in order to be elected, betraying at once his own lack of sincerity.

To get back to the purposes of the Vote, the Minister as usual when he has a bad case and when he wants a concession from this House was most apologetic. In fact he told us that it was only his desire that the overworked Deputies should have a holiday that made him anxious that we should have this Vote on Account. He did not tell us why the regrettable necessity for this Vote arose. He did not tell us why, when the House was engaged in the consideration of these estimates, seriously engaged, and as I said before engaged in no partisan spirit but with a real desire to assist the Minister in enforcing economy upon Departments, somebody threw a nut in the wheel and the whole financial machinery was held up.

Deputy de Valera.

It was held up until ten constitutional amendments were introduceed and three of them passed through the House during the period when normally we should have been considering Departmental Estimates. That was wholly unexpected, those Deputies who were here last year want us to believe because the Government promised that next year there would be really a full opportunity for considering the estimates. I do not think that the Deputies who urged that are quite so simple as that because any Deputy who sat in this House for the past four years and who still has any regard for Government promises must never have heard of pie-crust. There has not been, I think, any pledge or promise given by that Government to this House to secure adequate discussion of matters, that has not been thrown aside and torn up as soon as the necessities of the Government programme required it. The Minister, as I said, was more or less apologetic when he proposed this Vote on Account and he has reason to be. Already his financial proposals for the year are in danger of complete collapse. He is responsible. His primary duty or function in the Government is to secure that the Government finances shall always be soundly managed. His chief and principal responsibility is to balance the Budget and to control expenditure so that it will never exceed the ability of the citizens of the State to pay. He may not be able to control revenue but we expect at least that when he is considering the question of raising money, he should try to keep in mind the folk tale of the man who killed the goose that laid the golden egg. I do not think that the Minister ever heard of that story or if he did he must have conveniently forgotten it when he was introducing his last Budget because when the Finance Bill was going through, we pointed out that the economic condition of the country was such that taxes which in other years had shown a continuously increasing yield had begun within the last three or four years to show a diminishing return.

The Minister must know that that is a very serious state of affairs. It should have been an indication to the Minister at any rate that it was time to go slow, because once the phenomenon of a diminishing return in taxation begins to manifest itself that phenomenon rapidly enlarges and increases until it becomes practically uncontrollable. It is far more serious in this particular case for the reason that the taxes which were showing a diminishing return were those on which the Minister depended for practically one-third of his tax revenue. What is the exact position? What has the return of the past three months shown? The financial year has not yet elapsed, but I think the position is a sufficiently serious one to warrant our discussing it from this point of view, that it is quite clear now, even though the Minister has imposed an extra £1,149,000 of taxation, it is almost a certainty that the Minister is not going to secure the sum for which he budgeted, and therefore, since he is not going to secure that sum, there is every probability that he will be faced with a deficit at the end of the financial year. He should consider the Estimates which have apparently been sanctioned by him, with a view to securing a reduction in the cost. I do not wish further to discuss the Finance Bill, but to point out to the Minister that this House, discharging its proper functions and keeping, as it is bound to do if it is to fulfil its obligations to the people, control of the purse, has got to consider this Vote on Account with the greatest seriousness. In his Budget statement the Minister for Finance stated that he proposed to secure an increased revenue from excise, I think, of something like £300,000. The actual fact, however, as I think Deputy de Valera has already pointed out, is that for the first quarter of the year the returns from excise duties have fallen from £1,822,000 to £1,431,000,so that already on that particular tax, instead of securing an extra £300,000, the Minister has to face a deficit of £390,000 odd in the first quarter of the year.

There is no reason why revenue should not come in this year in view of the steps the Minister has taken to expedite the collection of that particular tax. This year it should have shown a very much larger return than last year, because the Minister states that he proposes to raise that £300,000 by the expedient of curtailing the credit normally allowed to brewers. In the same way he expects to get an extra £150,000 out of the income tax. Instead of that we find that the proceeds from income tax have fallen by £282,000, so that instead of being any better here this time than last year the Minister is actually something like £600,000 worse. That is a very serious matter. If he is so far behind with his collection and the taxes at the begining of this financial year, what chance has he of balancing the Budget next year, and what chance has he of extracting from this community an extra £1,149,000. Is it not quite evident from the financial history of the last few months that the people are being taxed beyond their capacity to pay? If for no other reason than that, surely we are entitled to criticise. It is the answer I was going to make to Deputy Joseph Murphy that the taxes upon which the Minister counted, an extra £450,000 this year are very much in arrears, and have altogether failed to fulfil his anticipations. The Minister may not be able to control the revenue. I suppose the proceeds of taxation largely depend upon the prosperity of the State as a whole. It has been said here from the Government Benches, said in the country, and there is a large propaganda in the Press, that the country is economically better off this year than last year. I must say for myself I see no indication of that and with reference to a remark which Deputy Rice passed as to what I had done to provide employment I may say I have been responsible in a little way for providing a certain amount of employment from time to time. I am responsible for certain contracts and provide employment in those, but I know from people with whom I come in contact in the ordinary course of my profession they are complaining that this year is worse than last year. There is no indication at all that things are economically better than last year. I do not say that to discourage people but simply that we ought to face facts as we see them and not to be deluded by newspaper propaganda which has the political purpose of bolstering up the Government that things are better this year than last year. The tax collector furnishes a good indication and when you find this year that though taxes have increased, though credit in respect of certain things has been curtailed and the whole collection speeded up in the first quarter that the collection is behind that of last year by almost £1,000,000, then I think we can at least say this that the accounts, the reports which have been circulated as to the revival of prosperity in the country have been very much exaggerated. In view of the fact that even if they were not exaggerated the country still would not be in a position to meet the burden of taxation imposed upon them by the policy of the Government and that if they were not exaggerated the country would not be in that position then we ought seriously to consider the whole of the present system of departmental administration.

One very disappointing thing which has emerged in the course of this debate is that the people who might be expected to criticise these proposals are the people who have lamentably failed to do so. We have employers of labour in this House who normally are present and who sometimes contribute what are, on occasions, very valuable suggestions to the debate absent today. Deputy Joseph Murphy, and he spoke as he very rarely does, suggested that it was not any use dividing against this Vote on Account because, as he said, after all, the Government services have to be carried on, and we should allow it to go through without any further discussion. I think in view of the fact that, as I said, the great power which this House wields is the power of the purse, and in view of the fact that the taxes necessary for these departments will have to be collected from the people and that we owe an obligation to the people that the Vote which proposes to place at the disposal of the Executive Council the sum of seven and a half millions ought to be scrutinised very carefully, and we ought to try to reduce it if we can and to demand an explanation of the items in it which have not been explained hitherto, and if that explanation is not forthcoming to oppose the Vote and vote against it. I think that is not political tactics, but sound common sense. If we cannot control expenditure there is no possibility of the Ministry being able to control expenditure. If we cannot criticise the Estimates which come before us in the Department, if we do not demand that those responsible in this House for the Estimates will explain them before the House accepts and passes them, then I do not see why the nominal heads of those Departments, the people responsible to this House for them and the Minister for Finance responsible for the general economy of the State, cannot possibly enforce reductions in these Estimates or control the permanent officials who prepare those Estimates and to whose personal benefit in many cases it is to inflate the Estimates so that when they show an apparent saving at the end of the year they may be able to come along and say: "We were very careful of your money; we did not spend as much as we thought we would when you passed the Estimate. We did not spend as much as you gave us power to expend, and therefore we are good and faithful servants."

Are there no services in this Vote on Account that do not require an examination on our part? There is the office of the Revenue Commissioners. I think the total Vote for that particular Department is £692,000. I do not know if any person has troubled to ascertain for himself what percentage the cost of collection bears to the total revenue collected in this country. The Revenue Commissioners are those who are primarily charged with collection of the taxes and revenue. I think the cost of that service expressed as a percentage of the revenue collected is something like 3.25. In Great Britain a much greater revenue is collected at a cost of 50 per cent. below that. The cost of the revenue services in Great Britain is only something like 1.62. Surely this House is entitled to ask the Minister for Finance before it passes this Vote on Account which will allow him money on those revenue services within the present basis practically to the beginning of next year how it is that it costs so much to collect revenue here in the twenty-six counties as compared with Great Britain.

Then there is the question of the Gárda Síochána. I think before we pass these Estimates we are entitled to question the Minister for Justice, as my friend says, in absentia—he has not been in the House practically during the whole course of this debate—in regard to a service for which there has already been passed £575,000, and for which there is now required an additional sum of £530,000, making in all a total Vote up to the present date of £1,105,000. I think the Minister who is responsible for the spending of such a large sum of public money ought to be here in case some people do criticise the administration of that body. It has been criticised already by Deputy Lemass, but Deputy Lemass's criticisms, though severe enough, were not as severe as the strictures which have been passed on that force by one of the judges of the State, who, speaking from the bench, has condemned in no uncertain terms the methods which that particular force uses in order to procure evidence against prisoners who are held in its charge. We in this House have also seen how that force, which is ostensibly established for the protection of the citizens of this State, and for the maintenance of which every citizen, irrespective of his politics, has to pay, instead of existing for the protection of the State and of the citizen, has become an instrument for the persecution of such citizens as may be opposed to the present Government. I think, in view of those facts, that before passing this Vote, as Deputy Murphy wished us to do, that we are entitled to criticise it in view of the fact that no explanation or justification has been given for spending this amount of the citizens' money, when already, as the revenue returns up to date show, the citizens are unable to meet the estimated expenditure upon these services. I think, in view of that, we are entitled to oppose and vote against these Estimates. In doing that I think it ought to be remembered that it is not because of political tactics; it is because, as I said, of sound common sense. Unless the finances of this State are sound, unless the Departments are conducted in such a way as the people will be able to bear the cost of them, without restricting in any way their productive effort, there cannot be sound and good government in this country. Deputy Morrissey, in the early part of his speech, said that we did not want reductions in Governmental expenditure, that we wanted more production. There cannot be more production in this country unless the burden of the overhead charges on industry are reduced. That is a thing we have got to remember, that the amount represented by this Vote on Account has got to be earned by the ordinary citizens of this State. It is taken out of the processes of production, and any return in any effective or efficient way in production in this country, instead of extending and developing, is going to be restricted and curtailed. That is the position we are up against. That is the reason that while I believe every man should enjoy a just wage for the services he gives to the State or to his employers, nevertheless, remembering that it is the very poorest amongst us, the people who work with their hands, who earn their bread with the sweat of their brow, whether in the workshop, behind the counter or in the fields, who contribute the greater portion of the cost of these Government services, I hold that the wages and salaries paid by any Government Department should be commensurate with the wages paid to the ordinary employees in their daily avocations. That is the position I take up at any rate. I do not know how far I can speak for the Party. I do say that no person should be paid at a very much higher rate in Government offices than is paid outside by independent employers.

I believe there should be a general readjustment of the condition of employment as between employment by the State and employment in private enterprises. I would like to see the condition of those who are employed by private enterprises improved, but I do not feel that such improvement will come about until there is frank recognition on the part of those who sit in this House that the money which is paid for the Civil Service and for the public services in this country is derived, for the most part, from the labour of private individuals, workers among us, who are living just on the subsistence line. Those are the people who are bearing the greater portion of the cost of the whole of the present State organisation. Although there must be some readjustment, I would prefer that the economies which we believe we could make in the State Departments should be made in order that they might be distributed amongst those of our fellow-countrymen who are less fortunate, who have not the security of employment and the good wages and salaries which those who are in the Government services enjoy.

The Minister for Finance, on the 22nd March last, speaking on the Second Reading of the Central Fund Bill, referred to the fact that it was not his intention at that particular juncture to attempt to reply to the criticisms which had been levelled against the various Departments. He stated that later on, when the Estimates would come up for consideration, they could be replied to more fully. One would have thought, in view of that particular statement, that the Minister for Finance, as a responsible Minister in this House, would have made certain that this House had time prior to the adjournment for the summer recess for discussing the Estimates in detail and going into the various points raised in regard to them. Four months have elapsed since the Minister for Finance made that particular statement, but instead of giving this House an opportunity of discussing the Estimates in detail we find that the time of this House was taken up in discussing what I consider unnecessary Constitution amendments. We are asked here today to vote over £7,000,000 for various services. One would have thought in view of that large sum, that the Ministers on the Government Benches would have treated the whole thing with a serious outlook, but I believe, and I am speaking candidly, that the Ministers are not treating this House with the respect with which they should, and that they are not treating this Vote with the respect that they should, because we have only one Minister in attendance at the present time. In discussing this particular Vote on Account, Deputies from all parts of the House should be entitled to go into details of administration in regard to the various departments. I submit to the House, what is the good of any Deputies on the Labour Benches, the Fianna Fáil or the Independent Benches, raising these particular points, seeing that the responsible Ministers who should reply to the points raised are not in their places? I was very doubtful whether I would get up to speak or not, in view of the fact that I wanted to raise one particular matter in regard to the Department of Local Government, seeing that the Minister for Local Government is not present.

The Estimate of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health was dealt with completely in Committee before.

At the same time I understand we are now asked to vote for £135,000 on account, and therefore I consider I was justified in going into details as regards administration.

No. There is a sum for Local Government and Public Health in this Vote on Account, but the Deputy is mistaken in thinking that the Vote on Account is the right place to go into details of administration. I think that is precisely what is not in order. It is not in order to have a discussion on the Vote an Account similar to a discussion that would take place in Committee on the Estimate itself. In particular, Local Government and Public Health has already been dealt with at some length and, while it is not out of order, let me put it like this: I have no sympathy for a Deputy who wants to go into detail on Local Government and other matters that have been already dealt with. If the Deputy wants to mention a matter it should have some general bearing. In the nature of things he could not get an answer in regard to every detail.

This particular matter in regard to the Local Government Department has only recently taken place. It refers to the outlook of that Department in regard to wages. Some time ago the Minister who preceded Deputy Mulcahy sent a circular to the various county councils stating that as far as road workers' wages were concerned the county councils would not be allowed to pay more than a certain rate. The Minister fixed that rate for County Dublin at 46/6, and for Donegal and Leitrim, 26/-. I consider that it is a scandalous procedure for any Government Department to give instructions to a county council to pay their workers 26/- a week. It is a sweated rate of wage, a coolie rate of wage, and I am surprised at any Government Department attempting to fix the various county councils down to that particular rate.

My complaint against the Local Government Department is not alone in regard to that case. Some time ago, as a result of an interview between certain Deputies on the Labour Party and the Minister for Local Government, a circular was sent out to the various county councils withdrawing that stipulation about wages. The Donegal County Council, as a result, decided, at their meeting two months ago, to increase the road workers' wages from 26/- to 30/- per week. That decision was intimated to the Department of Local Government, and the Department refused to sanction the increase and notified the County Council that they were to pay 26/- to workers employed on the by-roads, while workers on the main trunk and tourist roads were to be paid 30/- a week. When the Donegal County Council got that notification from the Department they decided that, as far as all the road workers were concerned—the workers on the by-roads as well as on the trunk and tourist roads—they would get 30/- a week. The Department still refused to sanction that. I cannot understand that refusal, and I would like an explanation from the Minister as to his attitude.

This rate of wages for Donegal is the lowest in Ireland. It means that the road workers there are getting 26/- for a 50-hours' week, whereas the men doing similar work in Dublin are getting 46/6, and the men in Louth and Meath are getting 38/-. I would like to have an explanation from the Minister as to why he refused to allow the Donegal County Council to pay 30/-, the amount that the representatives of the people there decided that they are prepared to pay. I put it to any Deputy on the Government Benches "Would you like to work for 26/- a week?" You may say that that question is unnecessary, but I ask any Deputy to place himself in the position of a married man in Donegal with a wife and family to keep. That man has to get food and clothing and pay his rent out of 26/- a week. The thing is outlandish and the sooner the Government withdraw that stipulation and sanction the increase, the better from their own viewpoint. Do the Government consider that that is an adequate wage? If they do think so, let them state it and then we will know what the position is.

I will not delay the House more than a minute or so and that is to draw attention to Item 71, Relief Schemes, and ask the Minister if he can give any information as to why there is not a penny included in the Estimates on the Vote on Account for the relief of unemployment. We had during the Christmas season a Relief Grant and on the 7th of last March the last man was called for relief work under that grant. Not one man in the city of Dublin who had sent in his application since has got work and there are many thousands of unemployed who made application for relief work and who have been reported by the investigators as deserving, and sympathetic letters were sent out, and they were told that they would get their turn. But on the 7th March I made inquiries, and I found that on that date every penny for relief had been exhausted and that many hundreds and thousands were still on the list waiting for a day's work. I would be glad to know if the Minister can give any reason why opposite the item Relief Schemes here in this motion we find the word "nil." I think if the Minister had any knowledge of the conditions of unemployment in Dublin that something would be included. I raised another matter on two occasions here myself and other Deputies raised it. The Minister was debarred from replying to that matter. That is the failure of the local authorities in Dublin to put into operation Section 13 of the Poor Law Act which gives relief to deserving cases. As I mentioned before I had to appeal to country Deputies who supported me in this matter in pressing upon the Government the necessity for putting into operation in the city of Dublin the same conditions that are in the other areas. It is unfortunate that Dublin should be the only area in the Free State that is not getting the benefit of Section 13 of the Poor Law Act. I would be glad if the Minister would make some inquiries about these two matters I have mentioned.

Ba mhaith liom cúpla poinnte do chur os cómhair na Dála mar gheall ar an Vóta so. Tá an tAire ag iarraidh orainn timcheall le £7,000,000 do thabhairt do. Nuair atá an méid sin tugtha do, beidh dhá thrian den mhéid airgid atá ins na meastacháin ar fad tugtha dho. Gidh go n-abrann an tAire go mbeidh sé in ár gcumas an sgéal do phlé nuair a bheidh an chuid eile faoi dhíosbóireacht annso, ní dó liom gur fíor san ar gach slí. An comhacht is mó atá ag an Dáil seo isé comhacht é ná airgead do thabhairt no gan a thabhairt don Rialtas. Má bheirimid an méid airgid atá an tAire a iarraidh orainn do thabhairt anois, beidh cuid mhaith den chomhacht san bainte dhínn.

Má bhí gá le na meastacháin do bhreithniú cúpla mí ó shoin—mar adubhradh linn—tá gá níos géire ann anois do réir mo thuairim-se. Dubhairt an tAire go mbeadh gá le £1,000,000 sa bhreis d'fháil i mbliana ach do réir na bhfigúirí do bhí romhainn i mí na Feabhra so ghabh thart, níl aon tseans go bhfaighidh sé an méid sin anois. Mar gheall ar sin, ba chóir dhúinn an sgéal iomlán do bhreithniú. Níor mhaith liom dul isteach ins na meastacháin in a gceann agus in a gceann agus b'fhéidir nách mbeadh sé de chead agam ar chuma ar bith. B'fhéidir go bhfuil caoi éigin ceaptha ag an Rialtas chun an bhreis airgid a bhéas de dhíth orra i rith na bliana, do réir an Aire Airgid, d'fháil. Má tá, is dócha go dtabharfaidh an tAire an t-eolus san dúinn ar ball.

Tá bunadhas mí-cheart ann mar gheall ar shaidhbhreas an Stait agus an méid airgid gur féidir d'fháil gan an tobair do chur i ndisc.

Is fíor go bhfuil níos mó le fáil anois ar ainmhithe ná mar bhí agus do réir mo thuairime-se, beidh an luach níos aoirde i gcionn ráithe. Ach ní mór feabhas a bheith ar staid na bhfeirmeoirí go ceann dhá bhlian sara mbeidh siad i n-ánn a thuille cánach d'íoc. Tá a lán fiacha orra, mar is eol don Rialtas agus don Aire Talmhaíochta go h-áirithe. Tá gá le feabhas dhá bhlian sara mbeidh na feirmeoirí ar a mbonnaibh arís. Tá feirmeoirí ann a fuair paistí talmhan nuair a bhí na hestáit á roinnt agus tá siad i gcruadh-chás ar fad. Tá cuid acu a fuair airgead ar iasacht chun tithe, stáblaí agus a leithéid do thógáilt agus eallach do cheannach. Tá na daoine sin i gcruadh-chás agus tá na mílte aca san tír. Tá daoine i gContae na Gaillimhe a fuair airgead ar iasacht ar an dóigh sin agus is éigin dóibh dul go hAmerica. Ní féidir dóibh maireachtaint sa bhaile.

Dubhairt an Teachta Maol Chraoibhe nár cheart tagairt do dhéanamh don £3,000,000 atá dhá íoc le Sasana ar chíos talmhan. Dá dtiocfadh linn an t-airgead san do choimeád san tír, gan ceist Páirtí do dhéanamh de, rachadh sé do thairbhe na tíre. Is ar mo shon fhéin atáim a labhairt anois, agus ní ar son Pháirtí, agus isé mo thuairim go mb'fhuirist cáin talmhan do cheapa agus í do roinnt níos cothromúla ná mar tá faoi an scéim atá againn anois agus thiocfadh linn airgead do thabhairt do na daoine a fuair gabhaltais le déanaí chun iad do bhuanú ins na gabhaltais seo.

Dubhairt an t-Aire Talmhaíochta go raibh daoine áirithe ag dul thart ag tabhairt comhairle do na daoine os íseal agus ag ná nách mbeadh gá le cíos d'íoc ar ball. Níor chualas aon duine ag tabhairt comhairle mar sin do na daoine agus dá mba rud é gur chualas dhéinfinn é do bhréagnú mar is éigin airgead d'íoc ar an talamh a fuaireadar.

Dubhairt an Teachta Maol Chraoibhe fosta go rabhadar ag cur i n-aghaidh gach Bille a chuireann an Rialtas ós cómhair na Dála. Ach níor chuireamar in aghaidh an Agricultural Credit Bill ná a lán Billí eile, cosamhail leis an Bodies Corporate Bill, no Bille Foraoiseachta no Bille Pinsiún le haghaidh na sean-daoine. Is main linn cuidiú le Bille ar bith chun staid na tíre d'fheabhsú ach is maith an rud moill do chur ar Billí eile. Bhí na páipéirí nuachta ag rá, tamall o shoin, go raibh an iomad Bille ann, go raibh na reachta ag teacht as an Oireachtas ró thiugh agus go mba mhaith an rud moill a chur ar an inneall. Anois, nuair is mian linn an sgéal do bhreithniú agus díosbóireacht a bheith againn ar na Billí agus gach uile taobh den sgéal do sgrúdú, deir lucht na bpáipéir go bhfuil Fianna Fáil ag cur moille ar an obair. Dá ndéanfadh daoine eile fé mar atámuid-ne ag déanamh, ní bheadh aon ghearán ag na páipéirí.

Ba mhaith liom go ndéanfadh muinntir na tíre maireachtaint do réir saidhbhris na tíre. Tá breis airgid á chaitheamh ar phléisiúr, ar thithe na bpictiúirí, ar dhamhsaí, rásanna na gcon agus eile. Ba mhaith an rud dul isteach sa sgéal chun a fháil amach cá mhéid airgid atá á chaitheamh ar phléisiúr, an bhfuil an iomad airgid á chaitheamh ar rialú na tíre agus ba chóir don Rialtas sompla maith do thabhairt do mhuinntir na tíre i gcúrsaí stáit do stiúra.

In speaking to a motion of this kind one has a sort of sense of futility. One knows that one is repeating criticisms that have been made already, and that have been made without producing any results. Still one feels bound on a very important vote of this kind to meet some of the points which have been raised in the debate by other Deputies. The question of granting this vote is one which involves a matter of some £7,000,000 to be granted out of the Central Fund. The Central Fund contains a mixture of money drawn from revenue and from loans. Instead of doing the thing in a workmanlike way, and separating the two funds, keeping the loan apart for non-recurrent expenditure and expenditure that will bring in a return and using the current revenue for current expenditure the two are mixed together. The result is that the adverse balance is covered up and the difference met in a way that it should never be met.

It was Deputy Rice who said that we introduced politics into discussion on questions which should be non-political questions and purely economic problems. But the political division is there all the time. The political outlook, the policy of the Fianna Fáil Party is as divergent as possible from the policy of the Government, and that policy cuts right down into every economic question. It cuts into the housing question just as into every other question, because in the case of the housing question you have a powerful group of people who are able for one reason or another to prevent the Government from doing what would be a really democratic and natural thing.

Attention called to the fact that there was not a quorum present. House counted and 20 Deputies being found to be present,

Apparently it is more interesting to pay a visit to the reptile house than to spend one's time in this House. I suppose it is really more amusing to be present at a meeting of one kind of reptiles rather than another. A Deputy asked me of whom I am talking. I am speaking of the Minister for Finance who is now absent. I was referring to certain remarks of Deputy Rice in reference to housing. He complained that we regarded every question as a political question. But they must necessarily be political questions, because the interests supporting the Cumann na nGaedheal Party are really preventing good work from being done. I referred before to the fact that there were rings in this country keeping up the price of materials. That is one of the elements which is preventing the building of houses at a proper rate. Another is the question of credit. I should like to contrast the position in France recently with the conduct of the Government Party. In France all parties were able to come to agreement and arrive at a way in which they were able to get cheap credit to deal with the housing question. So determined was the national spirit which asserted itself there, that the question is being tackled on a very big scale by agreement between all parties. Time after time appeals have been made from these Benches to get joint action on very essential economic matters. Every approach of that sort has always been refused. In that way, we see that there is a fundamental difference of attitude between the Government Party and the Fianna Fáil Party. Deputy Davin, I think it was, said that there was no great difference between the two great Parties in the House. There is as much difference as there was between the Parties in the Irish Parliament 200 years ago. It is remarkable how similar the conduct of this House is to the conduct of the Parliament, such as it was, in those days, where you had, on the one hand, certain vested interests and other elements that stood for the British influence and the British connection in trade and everything else, with the result that the country was kept in a state of decay. You had there an institution of Parliamentary government, but the amount of freedom actually exercised is best indicated by the comments of such men as Dean Swift. It is extraordinary that remarks he made then would apply now as they did in his own time. This Vote involves the whole administration under various headings and therefore involves the whole policy of the Government. Therefore I think we are entitled to discuss on broad lines where the political attitude of mind cuts right through all the economic questions.

One matter referred to already was the stoppage of the grant for housing. That was objected to by people of various Parties. It is really extraordinary that although the Act under which these grants were made continues until October the money has been exhausted. The result of not being able to continue these grants in some way or other means that great injury will be done, first of all to the people who have leased land with the idea of building houses, because very often in the leases which they take there is a contract to build before October next. Their leases will be broken if the houses are not built. If they got the subsidy they would succeed in finishing the houses before October, but as it is they cannot do so. Then again the contractors are unable to carry out their contracts. For instance, an £800 house would mean a subsidy of £75, and it makes a very considerable difference—it just makes the difference between loss and profit probably. If the Government had taken up the Estimates at the proper time and put aside the constitutional questions until they had dealt with these economic questions, they would not be faced now with results of this sort. They would not be producing results which are affecting the daily lives of the people and those who have sufficient enterprise to build houses. It can all be attributed to the Government, because in their effort to defeat the national aspirations of the Fianna Fáil Party they have sacrificed the ordinary individual interests of men of business and enterprise.

Deputy Morrissey attacked the Fianna Fáil Party because of their attitude on the question of salaries. The attitude of the Fianna Fáil Party has been declared time after time— that they are against salaries of over £1,000 per year, not so much because of the amount of money that it would save, but because it would save some which, taken together with the saving which might be made on the Gárda Síochána and the Army, would amount to a very considerable sum. Deputy Cooper said that in actual fact it would be only a matter of saving £10,000 here and there. Even if it is, it is important from the point of view that salaries of over £1,000 per year are unnecessary in this country and really amount to a bribe. They amount to something apart from what is merited in the circumstances at present. The poverty of the country is such that it is only justifiable to pay salaries up to £1,000 for the very best work. By reducing salaries above that you get rid of that element which makes it of special interest to people to keep the condition of things as they are. It is with that outlook that the system was imposed upon us—very high salaries for very few people, beginning with the exorbitant salary of the Governor-General, and so on down the scale, so that bureaucrats at the top have a very particular interest in not allowing the kind of change in the government of the country which would assert some kind of distributive justice and get a political machine which would be responsive to the aspirations and needs of the people. We can never get away from the fact that no matter how you reduce expenditure in this country you may be able only to help the goose to lay the golden egg for England—that unless you tackle the question of annuities you are not going to get any way in helping the country forward; that these things must all be tackled at the same time; that the whole of finance is one piece, and that if the country is suffering from taxation to such an extent that it is cutting away that surplus capital which is required to build up the industries of the country, one cannot even discuss the Estimates without at least a passing reference to the money which goes out of the country, and for which we get absolutely no return. For instance, when you come to judge the taxable capacity of the people it works out this way: that there is as much going out of the pocket of the farmer at present, taking the annuities, the price he is paying for his credit, and the rates and taxes as the rack-rents which were paid in the old days.

There is another matter which one might fairly raise on this Vote concerning the Department of Defence. We recently had the experience of the crossing of the Atlantic, which has brought up the question of the importance of Ireland, and that has been referred to in the speeches of different people, showing that Ireland is going to be a very important centre in the future. We are entitled to know what is the policy of the Government on that question, whether they are going to take up a good, strong, firm Irish attitude and see that Irish flying is not going to be exploited and controlled by Imperial Airways or the British Government. We are entitled to an answer to that question. There was a rumour published as to an appointment. I do not know yet whether anyone has been appointed to the position of head of the Flying Department. But I think we are entitled to know what the policy of the Government is going to be on that question, and to press that there should be a strong national attitude, and that we should not allow ourselves either to be exploited or dominated from London.

Is the Deputy prepared to advocate an increase in the Vote for the Air Force?

I would like first of all to know what the policy on the Air Force is going to be before we can consider that matter. In conclusion, I should like to say that we oppose this Vote because we want to show in the strongest way we can that we disapprove of the policy of the Government as a whole and of their administration. The reason why their administration is so defective is because it is so much out of touch with the needs of the people, and because of those powerful groups to which I referred. Reference was recently made by Mr. Larkin to the port of Dublin, to decisions as to the port being made in the Lodges beforehand, and that nothing is done to help the port from an Irish point of view. Contrast the attitude of the Government towards the port of Dublin with its attitude towards the Dublin Corporation. They took speedy steps to put in Commissioners there to take control. What has been done up to this to get any real control from a national point of view of the port of Dublin, although they have been in office now for the last six years?

Complaints have been made of the insufficiency of the time allowed for the discussion of this Vote on Account. If the time is insufficient I think it is entirely to be attributed to the opposition of those making the complaints. I have listened for weeks and months to the opposition, and as a contribution to business I must say the thing has been very poor. The one object of the Opposition would seem to be to besmirch the Government and to lay the paint on heavily and without caring whether they use the brush above or below the belt. I believe that were the year to consist of 730 days instead of 365 the result in the long run would be the same. We have heard a great deal about economies, but we have no real indication as to where these economies can be effected. However, we hear of economies in the Civil Service and in the Army. I wonder if the Civil Service and the Army between them could have returned twenty or thirty Deputies to this House, would they criticise the Estimates in the manner they have done. I think it was Deputy Davin stated the case of an engineer working at £200 per annum, and I think he addressed his remarks particularly to Deputy de Valera to know whether he thought that was an adequate salary. These engineers are graduates of the University over which Deputy de Valera presides as Chancellor. I know he is not responsible altogether for their underpayment. There are T.D.'s representing them, and I do not think they have done much for them. However, Deputy de Valera remained immovable. He did not give any indication whether he thought what those men were getting was adequate or inadequate as salary. Again we have veterinary surgeons—men who accomplished a very great feat in this country recently and showed great capacity for their work. They are able men, and the bulk of these men, at the moment, are working on a basic and initial salary of £200 per annum.

I wonder is there anybody in this House who would call that extravagance. If the Government has been guilty of anything, I think it has been guilty of some very paltry and, I might almost say, mean economies. I have heard Deputy Cassidy quoting the case of road workers in Tirconaill who only get twenty-six shillings a week, but we have charwomen employed by the Government at thirteen shillings a week, a caretaker at twenty-five shillings a week, a draftsman, who is a man of high technical education, at three pounds a week, and an analyst at from £250 to £350 a year. Recently, I am informed, an eye specialist was appointed by the Government, and his travelling allowance was fixed at the lowest rate possible. He was allowed only third-class railway fare. If he were elected a member of the Dáil he would be allowed first-class travelling expenses, and, in my opinion, he is engaged in work as useful to the country as that of any Deputy who adorns these benches. Again, there is another economy effected by the Government with which I cannot agree, namely, penalising the unmarried. If a civil servant is married he gets £300 a year, but if he is unmarried he gets £200 a year. That, I think, is altogether unfair. Saint Paul, I believe, recommended a life of celibacy to Christian teachers. Therefore it cannot be regarded as a crime if these people remain unmarried. Moreover, the civil servant who remains unmarried does so through necessity and for the sake, perhaps, of keeping a widowed mother and a few delicate sisters or brothers. I have known such instances. These people should not be penalised for keeping their own family instead of keeping another man's daughter.

Deputy Rice has been twitted about his report on unemployment. I think he achieved a very remarkable feat in that report. I hope that the recommendations in that report will materialise. I have every belief that they will, and that the conference between employers and employees will work out a scheme soon which will bring relief to the country. Undoubtedly there is great distress in this city and in the big towns throughout Ireland, and the necessity for as little delay as possible in relieving unemployment must be borne home to the Ministers. I believe that outdoor relief is administered altogether too rigidly, and that nobody could justify the action of the Commissioners. The Commissioners will, of course, tell us that it is not outdoor relief, but employment, that these people should be getting. While unemployment is there, however, they should be a little more generous with outdoor relief, even though we had to pay more in rates. Instead of the Government being extravagant, I think that their economies in most cases are too finely drawn. It is true enough that a head of a Department has a fair salary, but that salary is merely a carrot to the underpaid people. It reminds me of the story that every male child born in America might aspire to be President of the United States, but, after all, there are not so many people who have been appointed President. I have no doubt that the Minister in his reply will give us satisfaction, and will indicate a large measure of employment for the unemployed. So far, I think, there has been enough discussion on the Estimates. I have heard no useful suggestion made, and during the discussion I have seen these benches empty and I have heard my neighbour, Deputy Allen, while one of his colleagues was speaking, call attention to that fact. I do not know if it is part of the policy of obstructing business here, but the fact was that the House had not a quorum while the Estimates were being discussed, and the chief offenders in that respect were members of the Party on whose behalf the Deputy was speaking.

DOMHNALL UA BUACHALLA

Tá a lán cainnte nar gheall ar na feirmeóirí agus an staid in a bhfuil siad fá láthair, gan rachmus gan maoin. Deirtear gur chabhruigh an Rialtas leis na feirmeoirí le reachtanna do thugadar isteach le déanai agus go háirithe leis an mBille a bhí os comhair na Dála tamall o shoin—Bille Cáirde Talmhaíochta. Shaoil na feirmeóirí go mbeadh congnamh ag teacht chúcha mar gheall ar an mBille sin. Bhí áthas agus dóchas agus misneach in a gcroidthe nuair a bhí an Bille sin os comhair an Tighe. Ach nuair a rinneadh iarracht an dlí sin do chur i bhfeidhm, do thuit an tóin as an sgéal—má bhí tóin ná ceann ann. Shaoil na feirmeóirí, mar adubhras, go mbeadh tairbhe ag teacht chúcha as. Is eol dom beirt feirmeóir a chur isteach iarrtaisí chun iasachtaí d'fháil. Fuaireadar morán ceisteanna agus do fhreagair siad agus do chuireadar iad ag triall ar an Chó-Chumann. Shaoileadar nárbh fada an mhoill a bheadh orra go dtí go mbeadh an tairgead aca. Ach ní mar síltear a bítear. Isé an freagra a fuaireadar ná gur theip orra dearg glán. Níor thuigeadar cén fá na fuair siad na h-iasachtaí. Do fhreagadar na ceisteanna do cuireadh chúcha. Thugadar gach eolus a bhí ag teastáil ón Cho-Chumann. Nuair a sgríobhadar chuig an Chó-Chumann ag fiafruighe dhíobh cén chúis ná fuaireadar an tairgead isé an freagra a fuaireadar ná nách gnáthach leo freagra do thabhairt ar cheist mar sin. Anois, níl aon dóchas i gcroidhe na ndaoine seo, ach a mhalairt. Tá éadóchas in a gcroidhe agus níl fhios aca cén rud is ceart dóibh a dhéanamh.

Isé mo thuairim ná beadh aon ghá iasacht no airgead do sholáthar i gcóir na bhfeirmeóirí dá gcosnóchadh an Rialtas iad ins na margaí sa bhaile agus dá dtabharfadh siad congnamh dóibh chun a mbarraí do dhíol sa bhaile. Ní gá, do réir mo thuairime, a bheith ag féachaint chun margaidhe na Sasanach. Ná margaí atá ag teastáil uainn, tá siad san tír seo agus níl de dhíth ar na feirmeóirí ach cuidiú chun greim d'fháil ar na margaí seo. Dá dtiocfadh linn na margaí seo do chosaint in aghaidh an fhir thall, ní bheadh aon ghá iasacht ná airgid do thabhairt do sna feirmeóirí tar éis cúpla bliain. Isé an rud is féarr is féidir leis an Rialtas do dhéanamh ar son na feirmeoirí ná an margadh sa bhaile do dhaingniú ar a son agus gan a bheith a leigint don fhear thall pé rud is maith leis do chur isteach sa tír seo, is cuma ce'cu atá sé ag teastáil uainn no ná fuil. An marga atá ag teastáil uainn tá sé san tír seo agus níl againn le déanamh ach é do chosaint agus beidh a mhalairt de sgéal ann i gcionn cúpla blian.

This debate has wandered, more or less, over the whole field of administration, and for that reason it is impossible to deal in reply with the points that have been raised. It is, I think, unfortunate that in these debates we cannot arrange beforehand to have one or two topics discussed and to confine the debate to them, and be able to discuss them more thoroughly than any topic is discussed when the debate wanders, as it has wandered this evening. There has been a good deal of talk this evening with reference to the revenue returns for the first quarter of the financial year. It is really impossible to draw conclusions from the returns for one quarter. I see the returns for shorter periods than a quarter; I see the returns for different taxes, and I am able to see that there are extraordinary fluctuations from week to week and from month to month. No particular conclusion can yet be drawn from this year's revenue returns. People talk about the shortening of brewers' credit. It is, however, too soon yet to see any effect from that.

With regard to the collection of tax under Schedule A in one instalment, that will only affect the revenue between January next and the end of the financial year. It is the same in regard to other matters. For instance, the effect of the imposition of the additional McKenna duties will not be felt until the months immediately preceding the end of the financial year. They could not have any great effect at the present time, because the purchase of buses and vehicles of that kind takes place so as to have them ready for the summer traffic. The same applies to motor car parts where additional duties are put on. Without going into detail, I just want to say to the House that it is impossible to draw any conclusions at present as to the revenue that will be collected during the financial year as a whole.

Deputies have proceeded from a discussion of the revenue prospect to urge the need for a reduction of expenditure but there were various indications that Deputies were just as ready to advocate increases in expenditure as to advocate reductions. They would argue, if we had gone at greater length into the matter, that in certain respects expenditure should be cut down and that in other respects it should be increased, that some salaries should be increased and that some salaries should be reduced, but I think that in practically all the discussions that have taken place on expenditure in this House, as a whole the House is more disposed to ask for increases in expenditure than for any reductions. Deputies will seize on some one or two items of expenditure which they dislike or which they regard as unpopular or in relation to which they think that some political propaganda is to be made, and they condemn these items of expenditure and point out that certain savings could be effected if these items were wiped out. Then as a rule they proceed to outline other things which the Government ought to do and is not doing, things which would involve perhaps three times as great a sum as any savings that could be effected by the reductions advocated. It is well in discussing expenditure that we should have some regard to the realities of the situation.

One or two Deputies on the other side appeared to argue that State expenditure having regard to the conditions of the country should only be £12,000,000. That figure was mentioned. I do not know whether Deputies meant seriously to say that expenditure should be reduced to that figure but they certainly seemed to imply it. If Deputies would look at the White Paper or at the Estimates which deal with Supply Services, they would see that one could take four heads of expenditure which would mean together an expenditure of about £12,000,000. If we took these four heads of expenditure I do not think that many Deputies would argue that great reductions could be brought about. Old Age Pensions cost roughly two and a half millions; Education costs four and a half millions; expenditure on the Post Office—of course there is revenue on the other side—is about two and a half millions and the various subsidies in the relief of rates run to about two and a half millions. There we have £12,000,000 expended under four heads, and expended, I think, under the heads in respect of which no reduction is possible and in respect of which no reduction would be advocated. Consequently, when we discuss expenditure and suggest that there is something terribly wrong because expenditure here is not as low as this theoretical £12,000,000, we are not trying really to get down to the actualities of the situation. A good deal of the talk, in fact all the talk, we hear about wasteful methods of administration is really along the same lines. I have never said, and I would not venture to say, that there is no Department in which a saving could be effected, because, as I have already indicated to the House, if you are to bring a Department down absolutely to the lowest level of expenditure, having regard to the work that has been done in six months, a certain falling off in duties since, or in a certain class of work, or something of that nature, might result in there being a possibility of a further saving in that Department.

On the other hand the change in conditions in regard to any Department might mean that some increase was necessary after the end of six months, but the general charges of extravagance in administration which are flung around have no foundation, and are entirely unjustified. If we want to reduce the cost of administration we must reduce the services carried out by the State. Circumstances might arise in which it would be necessary and best to sacrifice even desirable services. Deputies have suggested in other debates in this House, that we should spend less money on the enforcement of various regulations and laws. I do not think that that is a good line of policy. If we have laws and if we have regulations they ought to be enforced; otherwise injustice is done. You have the good citizen who tries to be law-abiding, and carries out whatever requirements exist suffering, while the citizen not having regard for his civic obligations gets off. So we go a little bit further; if we decide to spend less in enforcement then we must go further and remove some of the stipulations and regulations which exist. If we did that we would be doing something contrary to what was not only demanded in this House, but generally in the country for the last four or five years. You have had a demand all along the line for further and additional governmental intervention. That policy may have been wrong. I think myself there has been far too much clamour for government action because the Government cannot possibly deal with a great lot of services cheaply. The Minister for Defence, in talking about a military hospital, said that the Government had to pay for the doctors who served in the hospital, whereas outside hospitals got medical services free. That is the kind of thing one finds all along. The Government has to pay to the last penny, and when it undertakes a thing no voluntary service is given, and it is expected to pay wages somewhat higher than the ordinary commercial wages that are paid, and great denunciations of sweating are made against the Government if they pay merely commercial wages. I myself accept the view that the Government should, at least, pay the wages of the best employers, but that is more than the average wage. Nearly everything the Government undertakes is more expensive, and it may be that we ought to reverse the wheels and try to have less governmental intervention. I would suggest, myself, that is not consistent with the policy which Fianna Fáil advocate. It seems to me that they have really a simple faith in the possibility of producing industrial development and all that sort of thing by the passage of laws, the imposition of tariffs and State intervention. State intervention can achieve results, but if you are out to get results by much more government intervention that seems to me not at all consistent with the policy of reduced taxation. I would hope that all these matters would be debated more closely and at greater length than they have, and that they would be debated as they frequently are debated without attempts to score party points.

One of the specific steps suggested by Deputies opposite for the reduction of administration expenses is that there should be no salary paid over one thousand pounds. It seems to me that a policy like that is not a practical policy. There is no reason for one thing for taking an arbitrary figure. I am quite satisfied that you must have in your Civil Service, and you must attract, year by year, into it, a certain number of people of first-class ability. You could not have first-class ability generally down through your public service; but it seems to me if the public service is to be efficient at all you must always have in it a certain number of men of first-class ability, and in order to ensure that they will be coming through it at a future date you must, in drawing your recruits into it year by year, try to get a few people of first-class ability. The salaries paid in the Civil Service to the heads of Departments are less than would be earned outside in civil employment by men handling the same number of staffs and dealing with issues of the same amount of importance. A person in a comparatively small commercial business would between his salary and commission, payment for his services, be earning more than a head of a government department. A comparatively obscure professional man in a provincial town if he has a certain sort of popularity, popular manner and a certain amount of luck, may easily, while he is doing work of no importance compared to the work of a head of a Department, earn more than the head of a Government Department. I have had experience in the Revenue Department of inspectors of taxes, a class we were very short of, and because we are short of them we are still labouring under difficulties as to the collection of revenue. Time after time these men were taken out by commercial firms and paid salaries double those paid to them by the State. We had to let them go, although their services were badly needed. A man with £500 a year in the Revenue Department was taken out by a commercial firm and given £1,000 a year to fight the revenue, so to speak. In many cases men in commercial life, with far less responsibility than the higher civil servants, will receive more pay. There is just this about the Civil Service salary scales. There are not the wide gaps one finds in the commercial world. There is a continuous progression. It may be that there are certain people in the middle paid more than people in that sort of position outside. I think at the top they are paid less than the outside world. At the bottom I do not think they are paid any more. It may be that in the middle they are paid a little more, because the general position in the commercial world is that people are very highly paid at the top and there is a long gap going down towards the people with less responsibility. The question of promotion, the avoidance of favouritism, and a whole variety of things connected with the Civil Service seem to me to make it necessary that we do not have the big breaks you find outside. I think to attempt to have them would be costly.

Deputies have referred to the ultimate financial settlement. I think they were probably referring to the land annuities. They are not directly dealt with in the ultimate financial settlement. The Deputies have a motion down with regard to land annuities. It was put down after very great delay. It seems to me—I can draw no other conclusion from it—to indicate that the Deputies have no belief, or very little belief, in their own contention with respect to land annuities. So far as we are concerned, obviously there is nothing that would be more suitable at a juncture like the present, with the political situation as it is, than to hold on to the land annuities. That would solve budgetry problems.

If the Minister is not bluffing, would he give Government time to that motion?

I do not think there would be any time now.

Is the Minister bluffing?

Deputies had months for it. It is hard for us to take them seriously in the matter.

The Minister knows quite well the history of that motion. He knows that we attempted to get this motion considered several months ago in connection with the general agricultural depression.

I do not know anything about the history of the motion. I may say that I am quite sure if Deputies had been serious about it they would have found no difficulty in putting it down. They could have introduced a Bill to repeal certain sections of the Act of 1924.

If the Minister is not bluffing, will he give time?

Would the Deputy not interrupt? I did not interrupt the Deputy when he was speaking.

Do not be saying things like that if you do not want to be interrupted.

I do not want to discuss this question of the land annuities at length now, except just to say this, that I believe we have not the slightest shadow of right to them. The only circumstances in which we could reclaim them would be if the country were bankrupt.

If you are there much longer it will be.

If we want to discuss this thing we can discuss it. If Deputies do not want to let me make a statement, perhaps they do not want these things to be discussed. I may interrupt occasionally, but certainly I do not try to prevent Deputies speaking. I just want to say this: that I see no reason why that question when we come to it should not be discussed. I would like to discuss it seriously and not with a view to winning votes outside by making a certain effect on people. I want to have it discussed on the merits. My own belief is that we are not due the annuities; that we have not the slightest claim to them; that we have not the slightest chance of getting them, and that if we defaulted in our payment the people to whom they are owed would find means of enforcing payment and would be perfectly and thoroughly entitled to do it. I must agree with Deputy Rice to this extent: that it certainly was not a serious contribution towards helping to find the solution for unemployment for Deputies to communicate on a matter of that sort with an outside Committee set up to deal directly with immediate steps for the relief of unemployment.

May I ask the Minister did he believe in December, 1925, when the Boundary Agreement was going through this House, what he suggests now, that we had not the slightest claim to these land annuities?

Oh, yes, it was perfectly clear to everybody that existing agreements stood, except in so far as they were altered by that Agreement of 1925. It was absolutely clear to every member of the Dáil. Let me say this: that this had nothing to do with the Articles of the Treaty which dealt with the National Debt. If it had it would be quite wrong for us to have paid the money from the beginning and to have provided for the payment of it to the appropriate British Fund.

We will hear all that when the time comes for discussion of it.

It is only because Deputies were interrupting that I am going so far. I say that every member of the Dáil who voted on the Bill confirming the agreement of December, 1925, knew perfectly well that it did not affect the position that then existed.

The one big nought then was a lie. The damn good bargain was a lie.

Deputy Cooney is difficult to deal with. I just want to deal with one or two other matters of detail. Some Deputy spoke about the gap as it were occurring in connection with the housing legislation, that one Act had expired and that the Bill that is to follow is not to be introduced until the autumn. They asked something about the position of people who have already begun to build houses, on the understanding that having signed forms and had communications with the Department of Local Government, that they were to get grants. In those cases the grants must be paid. There will be a great number of cases where it is clear that the full amount on the old scale must be paid, because people have begun to build clearly under the impression and with the understanding that they would get the grant on the old scale. That must be paid. There may be a certain number of doubtful cases. These would have to be decided on the merits. Grants under the Bill that will be introduced when the Dáil re-assembles must really be on a reduced scale as compared with the present grants.

I do not want to interrupt the Minister, but may I ask where the plan has actually been approved by an engineering authority but where the house has not begun, will a case like that be dealt with?

It will be dealt with. I do not want to say just at the moment whether a house like that would get the grant on the old scale or on the scale of the new Bill. If it had been begun it would certainly be entitled to a grant on the old scale. The whole matter will be examined and steps will be taken to see that people are fairly treated in the matter. Certainly where houses have been begun, where a man had committed himself to expenditure on houses he would clearly be entitled to payment of the grant on the old scale. The new scale will be somewhat less. The provision of a sufficient number of houses for the people of the country is a great task. It is a task that cannot be completed for many years to come, and it is a task, considering the resources of the country, that every effort must be made to carry out at the cheapest rate possible, and no subsidy in excess of the amount that is necessary to enable the building programme to be gone ahead with should be paid. I recognise, so far as the local authorities are concerned, at any rate, no provisions in regard to housing will be entirely suitable and can be entirely satisfactory unless advances can be made out of the Local Loans Fund or unless, perhaps, as in the case of Dublin, the authority is able to borrow separately. A system of bank advances which have to be repaid after about 15 years means that the loans have to be far too high. I am quite satisfied if we are embarking on a big scheme of housing we must make provision for advances in the cases of those authorities which could not borrow separately or for a long term, to give them advances out of the Local Loans Fund. Deputies are aware that the greatest possible difference is made, if an authority can get a loan for, say, 35 or 40 years, as compared with being able to get a loan for 15 years. Deputy Davin asked me a number of questions with regard to arterial drainage, questions of detail which I cannot answer at the moment.

If the Deputy will put down a question he will be able to get all the facts for which he asks. But I would like to say this with regard to arterial drainage, that the results of the legislation have been disappointing. We recognise that all the best drainage, all the most economic drainage in the country had been done fifty or sixty years ago, and that nearly all the really good schemes had been carried out already, and that what remained to be carried out were schemes that were barely economic schemes, schemes that could be made economic with a moderate grant, and schemes for the carrying out of which there could be no justification whatever. Now, when we examined the schemes sent forward by the local authorities we found in general that they are much further from being economic than we had anticipated. There have been a great number of schemes examined that ought really not be carried out. The cost is beyond all reason compared with the value of estimated improvement to the land affected by the drainage. It may be that one difficulty arises from the present depressed condition of agriculture and that the valuers, if things were a bit better, would assess the improvements higher than they do at the present time. When we are dealing with this matter of assessment I want to say that a valuer who is regarded as competent is sent down, and his assessment is, perhaps, later checked by another valuer who is a competent man; when he assesses the annual value of the improvements that would be made by the drainage to be carried through, we must take these figures as being fairly accurate. We could not go ahead and force things through when an uneconomic scheme is put up to us. Deputy Davin suggested that we should concentrate on amending the Arterial Drainage Acts. We could not do anything by concentrating on that. The arrangements were discussed in this House a long time ago, which indicated that the most liberal grants are given, grants ranging up to fifty per cent. of the cost of the schemes. There are grants of thirty-three and one-third per cent. without any contribution by the local authority, and up to fifty per cent. if there is a £ for £ contribution above 33? per cent. by the local authority for every pound contributed by the central authority. I do not think it would be advisable to do anything more than that.

Deputy Morrissey asked if it were the intention to complete all the work on the Order Paper before rising. I do not think it would be possible. A number of Bills will have to be left over at whatever stage we will be able to reach, but it is necessary to complete the financial business, and there are Bills like the Agricultural Credit Bill and the Creameries Bill, possibly, which ought to go through. Some of the other Bills ought to be carried through. The Trade Loans Guarantee Bill and some other Bills ought to be carried forward a stage, but I do not think it would be possible to complete the entire work which is on the programme. There has been a suggestion that in some way the House loses control by passing a second Vote on Account. It seems to me that there is no basis for that suggestion. The Estimates in full have to be considered by the Dáil, and if the Dáil at any stage refuses to pass a particular Estimate, that is as much a vote of no confidence or a vote of censure on the Government as if that defeat were inflicted on the Government at the early stages in April. The whole Estimates have to go before the Dáil, and the control of the Dáil remains to the very end, even if only a token sum remains. If the Dáil refuses to vote for that token sum it would be a very definite vote, and more particularly then it would be a vote of lack of confidence in the Government. I cannot see at all that there is any loss of control over the money involved in a second Vote on Account.

I do not want to go again into the question of why the Constitution Bills introduced were necessary. They were really divided into two categories; one set arose from one cause, and another set of Bills from another cause. One set became necessary because of the fact that the Seanad election is due in the autumn, and if changes were to be carried out they were to be carried out before then. The other set of Bills arose because a certain situation had arisen which had to be solved in some way or another. What happened this year was exceptional. We are not to blame for the fact—I say this with great emphasis—that the Estimates were not discussed in full last year. It cannot be assumed that there will be any less effective discussion on the Estimates this year because part of the discussion is postponed for some time.

took the Chair.

Motion put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 57; Níl, 40.

  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Bourke, Séamus A.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Byrne, John Joseph.
  • Carey, Edmund.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Conlon, Martin.
  • Connolly, Michael P.
  • Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Craig, Sir James.
  • Crowley, James.
  • Doherty, Eugene.
  • Dolan, James N.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Dwyer, James.
  • Egan, Barry M.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Gorey, Denis J.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Heffernan, Michael R.
  • Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
  • Hennessy, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • Law, Hugh Alexander.
  • Leonard, Patrick.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
  • McDonogh, Martin.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Murphy, James E.
  • Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
  • Nolan, John Thomas.
  • O'Connell, Richard.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Hanlon, John F.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Tierney, Michael.
  • Vaughan, Daniel.
  • White, Vincent Joseph.
  • Wolfe, George.
  • Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Daniel.
  • Cassidy, Archie J.
  • Clancy, Patrick.
  • Clery, Michael.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Cooney, Eamon.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Davin, William.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Fahy, Frank.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Holt, Samuel.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Killane, James Joseph.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • O'Connell, Thomas J.
  • O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas.
  • Powell, Thomas P.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Dolan and Duggan; Níl: Deputies Allen and G. Boland.
Motion declared carried.
Resolution ordered to be reported.