CIRCUIT COURT RULES. - IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. – Dáil Éireann (6th Dáil) – Tuesday, 10 Jul 1928

MINISTER for FINANCE (Mr. Blythe)

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.

Mr. DE VALERA

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."

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

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.

Mr. J.X. MURPHY

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.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

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?

Mr. LEMASS

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.

Mr. BLYTHE

The Deputy is talking about expenditure, I think.

Mr. LEMASS

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.

Mr. DAVIN

Not exactly.

Mr. LEMASS

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.

Mr. DAVIN

We will explain that, too.

Mr. MacENTEE

You can justify it?

Mr. DAVIN

Yes.

Mr. LEMASS

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.

Mr. MORRISSEY

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——

Mr. DE VALERA

£1,000 a year?

Mr. MORRISSEY

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.

Mr. CLERY

It will be very difficult to convince them next time.

Mr. MORRISSEY

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

Mr. DAVIN

No difference between them.

Mr. MORRISSEY

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.

Mr. M. O'REILLY

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.

Mr. DAVIN

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?"

Mr DAVIN

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.

Mr. MOORE

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

Mr. DAVIN

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.

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

Mr. COONEY

And I would refer you to another Official Report.

Mr. DAVIN

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.

Dr. RYAN

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.

Mr. DAVIN

I am not.

Dr. RYAN

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.

Mr. J.J. BYRNE

Were they of the same quality?

Dr. RYAN

I believe so.

Mr. BYRNE

They were not.

Dr. RYAN

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.

MINISTER for AGRICULTURE (Mr. P. Hogan)

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——

Mr. DAVIN

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——

Mr. MOORE

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.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Tuesday, 10 Jul 1928