Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 13 Jun 1933

Vol. 48 No. 4

Public Business. - Finance Bill, 1933—Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. As the Dáil is aware, the main purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the proposals outlined in the Budget and to confirm the taxes which have been imposed by Resolution. As these proposals have already been debated at length I do not intend to expatiate upon them. In addition to its main purpose, however, this Bill further proposes to make certain changes in the law relative to the collection of taxes. In some cases, the more numerous changes are made to meet the convenience of the taxpayer; in other cases they are made to safeguard the Revenue. I propose to explain them briefly at this stage. Each of these changes, if past experience is a guide, will be debated separately and at great length upon the Committee Stage of the Bill, so that its full implication will then be made clear. By far the greater part of the new proposals relate to the general administration of the customs law and will be found in Part II of the Bill, Sections 14 to 16; Sections 19 to 27; Sections 31, 32 and 34 inclusive. The remainder will be found in the other parts of the Bill. Sections 2 and 3, which are in Part I, relate to income tax and sur-tax, and Sections 40 and 41 relate to stamp duty, and Section 42 to the general provisions of the measure.

Section 2 proposes to grant relief in certain double taxation cases and the necessity for it arises in the following way: Persons resident in Great Britain and also resident in the Saorstát are entitled to a measure of double taxation relief under the provisions of the First Schedule of the Finance Act, 1928, the underlying intention is to relieve such persons completely of the tax of one of the countries, and the cost of such relief is borne between the two Exchequers. Owing to differences in the method of assessment of the two countries it occasionally happens that the existing legal provisions do not enable complete double taxation relief to be granted. If this occurs in the case of a wealthy Englishman it tends to operate to induce him to give up his residence in this country. The result might be that there would be serious loss to the Saorstát Exchequer in addition to a certain economic loss to the country as a whole. The section is therefore designed to give the Revenue Commissioners discretionary power to grant further relief in such cases and to see that persons whose main place of residence and main centre of life are in England are not mulcted through taxation for maintaining a residence in the Free State.

Clause 3 is consequential upon the provisions of the Public Service (Temporary Economies) Bill and is designed to enable the income tax assessment on State employees for the year 1933-34 to be adjusted by reference to the reductions imposed by the Economies Bill.

Section 14 of the Bill provides for the importation, free of duty, of trophies and cups, bowls and shields or articles of similar type which Saorstát competitors have secured in contests outside the Saorstát. I should like to make clear that this concession is restricted to a particular type of work, that is to say, trophies in the nature of cups, bowls or shields. A canteen of cutlery or a wireless set would not be covered by this concession.

Section 15 is occasioned by the operation of the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Act, 1933, under which many articles are prohibited to be imported, except under licence from the Minister for Agriculture or the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The duty on most of the articles is removed, and where such is not the case the intention is to exempt the article still dutiable and which the Minister will decide to admit under licence.

Section 16 provides for a drawback on the exportation of blended tea. It appears that an export trade is springing up in this blended tea in the Saorstát. Hitherto the blend had to be performed in bond to secure the benefit of the drawback. It is felt that this operation could be more economically carried out on private premises and this section of the Bill, with the necessary safeguards, is designed to secure that purpose.

Section 18 makes provision for charging an annual excise duty of £15 on moneylenders' licences, which it is anticipated will be taken out under the provisions of the Moneylenders Bill which is at present before the Dáil.

Section 19 grants a reduction to £5 5s. in the present licence duty imposed upon rectifiers or compounders of spirits.

Section 20 arises out of the position created by the imposition of the Emergency Duties Order 5 which provided among other things for the removal, as on and from 24th December, 1932, of the 20 per cent. ad valorem emergency duty payable on imported motor cars and parts thereof and the admission, from the same date of non-British motor cars and parts at the preferential in lieu of the full rate. As a result of this, traders found themselves with motor cars on hand which had borne the emergency duty or the full, as distinct from the preferential, duty. The position was that they could obtain a refund of the difference between the full and the preferential rate by exporting, and re-importing any cars affected but they could not obtain relief from the emergency duty because the Emergency order, imposing the duty, contained no provision for drawback on exportation. In these circumstances, the traders appealed to be relieved from the necessity of exporting cars and, also, to be refunded, without incurring trouble or expense, the amount of the emergency duty paid on unsold cars in stock. It was decided to grant the request, and Section 20 gives effect to that decision. The section also contains a provision in paragraph (3) affecting all classes of goods in respect of which licences to import, free of duty, may be issued. In many cases, licences were not issued immediately on application, because the merits of the case had to be explored. Importers, being unable to wait upon the decision, paid the duty and took delivery of their goods, and, subsequently, the issue of a licence was recommended by the Department of Industry and Commerce, or the Department of Agriculture, as the case might be. It was found that the refund and the issue of a licence was not strictly legal. Paragraph (3) of the section is intended to regularise the matter and to cover any refunds which may have been made.

Section 21 is similar in scope to Section 20. The Finance (Customs Duties) (No. 4) Act reduced or abolished the duties on certain parts of motor cars as from 24th December, 1932. Traders found, as a result, that they were carrying large stocks of parts which, as from that date, were free of duty or were, at least, admissible at a reduced rate, and they also found that the public were expecting to receive immediate advantage of the reduction in duties. It is proposed, in these cases, to make repayment on the basis of a flat rate, having regard to the rate of duty paid, that is, whether full or preferential, in respect of such parts as are proved to have been in stock and are of the nature of parts which are now free or are liable to a lower rate of duty than prior to 24th December last.

Section 22 provides for relief from conditions on payment of duty. It was found that importers who were granted a licence to import goods, free of duty, under licence, for use, which was deemed to qualify for such free licensed importation, sometimes wished to devote the goods, or portion thereof, to some other use and to pay the duty. This provision is introduced to cover such cases. Section 23 makes provision, generally, in respect of duties imposed by this and future Acts for payment of customs drawback, subject to the usual revenue safeguards. It has, for some time, been the practice to insert a drawback provision in all financial resolutions and implementing Bills. The general provision, now introduced, will facilitate administration and relieve possible cases of hardship and, in any cases in future, in which it is not desired to allow drawback, special provision will be made to exclude such cases from the operation of this new provision.

Section 24 relates to cases which arise on the re-importation of any article. The section is a general one for this and for future Acts and it is intended to make provisions known as the re-importation provisions which, hitherto, have enabled a home-made article, or an article on which duty has once been paid, to be exported and reimported without further payment, provided that no drawback has been paid on exportation. Where, as in the case of the previous section, it is not desired to apply this provision to any future cases, special powers will have to be taken for that purpose. Section 25 provides for a drawback on certain articles such as boots, shoes, personal clothing and wearing apparel, furniture and bedsteads, on which duty has been paid, and which have not been used in this country. It has been found that articles of this description have, on occasion, been sent in here in order to undergo some process of manufacture, but that hitherto such articles were brought in, either for trial purposes, in order to see whether they were suitable to undergo a further process, or, in fact, brought in to undergo such further process. It has been found that no provision existed to enable a drawback of the duty paid on them on first importation to be granted, and this, of course, has considerably hampered the equitable administration of the statute and has given rise in many cases to hardship and in some cases has created an impediment to the extension of home industries.

Section 26 is complementary to Section 25 and applies the re-importation provisions to furniture and bedsteads. Section 27, which provides for the repayment of duties on return or destruction, is intended to provide limited powers of relief in certain cases, of which the first is the case in which articles are found on importation to have been damaged in transit, or not to be in accordance with the order, the second being that in which articles are destroyed in the Free State without having been used for some such cause as having become obsolete. An instance which will illustrate the type of case proposed to be covered by the section might be the case of a firm like Messrs. Ford, of Cork, who, having been manufacturing motor cars of a certain design in the country, have accumulated a large stock of parts suitable for cars of such design, who have paid duty on such parts and who do not wish to undergo the expense or the trouble of re-exporting them in order to secure repayment of duty. If the Revenue Commissioners are satisfied that such parts are destroyed, either in the factory or in some other suitable place in the country, the drawback will be paid.

Section 31 repeals the duties on oats, oatmeal, maize, wheat meal, wheat flour and bread, which were imposed under the statutes enumerated in the schedule. These articles are now prohibited to be imported except under licence, and where a licence is issued it is desired to free the goods of duty. Duties on similar classes of goods were enforced under emergency orders and these also have been withdrawn. Section 32 gives the Revenue Commissioners power to determine the category or class to which an article belongs. The increased complexity of the customs tariff has been found from experience to lead to overlapping at many points, so that doubt sometimes arises as to the heading under which an article is liable to duty. Furthermore, cases have arisen where an article not designated as free falls accidentally within the ambit of a general dutiable class. Under this section it is proposed to give the Revenue Commissioners discretion in such cases and power to determine the heading under which the charge on the article, if any, should be raised. Section 33 gives the Revenue Commissioners power to determine the value of dutiable goods and articles. Section 34 is a penal clause, and provides for a special penalty applicable to breaches of the conditions attaching to licences, and is additional to, and not exclusive of, any other additional penalties attaching to the provisions of the customs law. This section relates to the general administration of the customs law.

Sections 40 and 41 of the Bill relates to stamp duties. Section 40 provides for the exempting from stamp duty of certain receipts given by a county registrar for money received by him in connection with the discharge of duties transferred to him from the under-sheriff by Section 54 of the Court Officers Act, 1926. As the law stands at present such receipts are liable to duty. A county registrar is obliged to pay over these fees to the Exchequer and to recoup himself in respect of sums expended by him in issuing stamped receipts by a claim on the Department of Justice. As no purpose is served by this procedure, which meant the transfer of money by one section of the Exchequer to another, the clause provides for the exemption from stamp duty of such receipts given by the county registrar for money received by him in connection with the discharge of his duties as under-sheriff.

Section 41 provides for the non-application of certain sections of the Stamp Act in certain cases, and arises in this way: Prior to the passing of last year's Finance Act the charge to corporation profits tax was confined to companies so constituted that the liability of their members was limited. This position was altered by Section 47 of last year's Act and certain unlimited companies were made liable to the charge. As these companies have, for the purpose of corporation profits tax, been placed in the same position as limited liability companies, it was considered that if they chose to take the necessary steps to reconstitute themselves as limited companies they should be relieved of the payment of companies' capital duty which such reconstitution would in the ordinary course involve. This exemption is expressly confined to unlimited companies which were in existence at the passing of last year's Finance Act, and which became liable to corporation profits tax by Section 47 of that Act.

Section 42 relates to the recovery of taxes and duties and is designed to remedy a peculiar anomaly which at present exists. Where a debtor not resident in the Saorstát possesses assets in the Saorstát and owes money to an ordinary Saorstát creditor, the latter can take proceedings against such debtor, and by leave of the court serve him outside Saorstát Eireann, either in Great Britain or elsewhere. In the case of debts due to the revenue the position is the same for countries other than Great Britain, but service in Great Britain for a debt due to the Saorstát revenue cannot be effected, even though the debtor has assets within the Saorstát. On the other hand, the British revenue authorities are not in a similar unfortunate position. They can and do arrange for a person within the Saorstát who owes money to the British revenue, and who has assets in Great Britain, to be served in the Saorstát. This section is designed to remedy this anomaly, and to enable originating summonses, with a view to recovery of sums due to the Saorstát revenue by debtors in Great Britain, to be served on such debtors in Great Britain by leave of the Saorstát High Court. These are the main provisions of the Bill which have not been already before the House. An opportunity will be given on the Committee Stage, and I am sure that it will be fully availed of, to discuss it at length. Accordingly I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more about it at this stage.

I do not propose to waste any time discussing the details on which the Minister has given so much talk, and so little information to-day, because the opportunity for that will arise later. I propose to utilise this opportunity which you, sir, foreshadowed in accepting the closure motion on the last occasion on which we discussed the Budget itself, to deal with its general application to this country. I want to accept the challenge towards me, made on the 11th May by a Minister who, by an unfortunate and regrettable illuess is not here to-day, to discuss certain things which the Minister for Industry and Commerce said:

"That is the effective way of disputing an argument. Let them put before the Dáil for examination exactly what they would do if, by some misfortune, they were transferred across to this side of the House, and became the responsible Government."

I am going to deal with what the Minister for Industry and Commerce said two or three years ago, and also the Minister for Finance, and what they promised to do if "by some misfortune they were transferred across to this side of the House and became the responsible Government." I should say that that remark was following, on the part of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, a statement which has not been sufficiently adverted to, and to which I want to return later. It is, at any rate, of sufficient importance to be repeated again. We have been told again and again that the Government promised to reduce taxation. He is speaking on the 11th May this year in relation to this Budget: "Taxation in the coming year will be one million pounds less than it was last year." That gives food for thought. Do Deputies realise that this year, according to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, we have taxation reduced by one million pounds from what it was last year? We will see how far that is accurate. Let us, at any rate, even see what the reduction is, in comparison to what we were told the present Government were going to do if by some misfortune they became a Government. I do not intend to quote all the economists. I notice that during a debate such as this they are nearly always absent. Apparently they have some fear that quotations may be used against them. There are a few things here that they might be reminded of. The then Deputy Boland visited Roscommon the 14th November, 1931, and spoke in this way:

"Fianna Fáil held that derating could be financed by economies."

There was to be no question of grabbing moneys from England. It could be financed by economies.

"Apart altogether from the case for the retention of the annuities they held that there was room for economies more than sufficient to finance derating. Fianna Fáil was the only Party likely to put the necessary economies into operation and the best way to bring about a reduction of taxation was to stand behind the Fianna Fáil Party which was likely to be the next Government."

If Deputy Boland, in his now dignified position, were here, I should like to ask him if the economies have been brought about, if they have been applied towards derating, and where are the further economies which he promised would be more than sufficient to finance derating.

The present Minister for Industry and Commerce, speaking at Athenry in December of that year, said: "Fianna Fáil had examined every item in the various Estimates to see where economies are possible, and they concluded that it is possible to maintain Governmental services at the present level and with even increased efficiency at a total annual cost of two million pounds less than the present Government has provided them for." He then continued later: "Fianna Fáil will relieve the burden of taxation, stop the five million pounds now paid annually to England voluntarily, protect the country's industries and give a chance to the farmers to make a better profit out of their work. All their social and economic evils will be solved and their political difficulties will become easier also." That Minister was always notorious for the resounding way in which he said things as if he believed them. That was a good placard to put on a Party at an election—to relieve the burden of taxation, stop the five million pounds now being drawn out of the country, protect industries, give the farmers better profits, solve the evils, social and economic, which beset the country, and make political difficulties easier. The Army was the subject of talk by more than Deputy Cooney at Grangegorman. Mr. Lemass, now Minister for Industry and Commerce, dealt with it at Navan. He said: "The National Army which now cost—in 1931—£1,750,000 per year"—I think he was a few hundred thousand pounds out—"could be maintained for a million pounds per year." He went on to say: "Of all the money that went to the Government every year, one-tenth was paid out in pensions for the greater part to young, able-bodied men." The implication is, of course, that that would be given to the country for productive work. Not content with that speech the same Minister spoke a few days later and with regard to the Army said:—

"The Irish people should take the attitude that the most that can be afforded for expenditure on that service is a million pounds a year. If they took that attitude and put into office a Government determined upon it, it would result in an immediate saving of £750,000, almost the whole of the Budgetary deficiency. If that were done there would be no necessity for cutting the wages of postmen and the salaries of teachers. It was possible to maintain the efficiency of government here, without decreasing its efficiency, by two million pounds a year less if it is decided that the taxpayers' money must be expended for the taxpayers' benefit, and not for the purpose of political patronage."

A Minister who rarely appears in this House, the then Deputy Ruttledge, was quoted in the "Western People" of the 30th January, 1932, as saying:—

"Taxation could be cut down if there was a Government that was not imbued with dishonesty and full of corruption. A real, honest national Government could have brought down taxation to the level which would be commensurate with the people's means."

If the Minister made one of his infrequent appearances here, we could ask him is that argument to be applied here; are we to draw any conclusions as to whether the present Government is imbued with dishonesty and full of corruption, or does it merit the title of a real, honest national Government that could have brought down taxation, according to the then Deputy Ruttledge, to the level commensurate with the people's means.

The President blamed all our ills on the Oath. It is difficult to see the connection between the Oath and economies, but the President saw it. Speaking at Ennis on 26th December, 1931, he said:—

"The Oath was the principal cause of the expenditure of one and a half million pounds on an Army which was maintained expressly for the purpose of keeping down a section of the people, who, being denied an opportunity of representation in the National Assembly, are thrown back on force."

Why the expenditure on the Army this year? Why the statement of the Minister for Defence, in introducing the Estimate, that he regretted more could not be expended on it, and that he saw no reasons for a hope of any reduction being made in that expenditure? Here is a further quotation from the same speech of the President at Ennis:—

"The Army is there for the purpose of keeping down Republicans, Sinn Féiners, and anybody else who did not agree with the policy of the present Government."

The Army is still there and costing as much. It is still being used for the purpose of keeping down Republicans, Sinn Féiners and people who do not agree with the policy of the present Government? He goes on to say:

"By removing the cause of dissatisfaction among the people the cost of the Army could be reduced by half a million pounds. The police, a lot of whose work was of a political character at present, could also be reduced, and another half a million pounds saved."

As we have not got the half a million pounds saving, must we conclude that the political character of much of the work of the police still goes on? Or is there any other reason to be given? A back bencher who was here until recently, but who nearly always leaves during an economic debate, Deputy O'Reilly, of Meath, said on November, 21, 1931:

"In the Dáil last week a motion was brought in to increase the cost of petrol and income tax, all that affected the lives of the people. There was not the slightest need at the present moment for increased taxation. There were numerous economies that could be made that would not be of any disadvantage to the country. These economies were sure to be made and ought to be made not so much on behalf of the Government as on behalf of the workers and consumers of the country."

Speaking at Rathmore on the same day he said:

"The country has no need for increased taxation. Numerous economies could be effected that would not be any disadvantage to the community."

That Deputy's best effort was on December 19th, 1931, at Navan. Being surprised at certain propaganda going around he countered it in this way:

"There are people in Meath who would say that Fianna Fáil means to destroy our present market, the only market which gives us a living. It is not their intention to destroy that market. It is their intention and business to develop any market that would buy from them to the fullest possible extent. That is their policy and their duty."

We can talk to him later, when he appears, about the destroyed market. Whether there is a destroyed market or not, we can ask him where are the economies that, without any disadvantage to the community, could be effected. Deputy Harris on November 21st of that year said:

"They are taxing the country to the tune of 26 million pounds a year. They planned and depended on a Budget in which the taxes for certain commodities were estimated to meet the expenses of all services. That Budget has been a disappointment and there is at present a deficiency of £1,000,000."

He gave the reason:—

"Owing to the fact that the people are getting poorer and are purchasing less of the said commodities. That is the surest sign that the country is over-taxed and needs relief."

That is not a bad effort on the part of Deputy Harris. There is some glimmering of economic sense in that statement, at any rate—that the Budget deficiency might be traced to the fact that people were getting poor and had to purchase less and that, if that were so, it was the surest sign that the country was overtaxed and needed relief.

Let us change the scene to the West, because these things were said all over the country. Deputy Cleary went to Mayo, and in that country, on December 5th, 1931, he announced his view of the then situation of the country in this way:—

"Let none of them think that this was a poor country. It was the richest country in the world as a taxpayer. No people in the world, black or white, were paying such high taxes per head of the population, but the millions collected from the people were spent in squandermania."

If Deputy Cleary deigned to attend in the House on a day like this we could ask him if he thought the country was any the richer by being bled more as the present Minister for Finance is bleeding it. The Minister for Finance had his own solution. Speaking at Baltinglass on November 28th 1931, he said:—

"The proper way to meet the deficit was by cutting down expenditure, not by the imposition of further taxation. If they had the £1,250,000 paid the ex-R.I.C. pensioners, the £1,500,000 spent on an Army which General Sean MacEoin had said was useless for any national defence, and the land annuities, there would have been no need to throw fresh burdens on any section of the community."

We have the land annuities and the police money, and the Minister could have cut that million and a half on the Army to the extent that he thought possible; and yet we have had to have increased taxation, and when that did not seem to promise any further gains for the country we have to borrow on this year's Budget.

The late Minister for Justice, Deputy Geoghegan, spoke at Coole on December 26th, 1931. He spoke twice that day. His first effort produced this:—

"This was a country from which all her industries were banished and they were left to produce food for John Bull and unless there was a visitation by God there was no reason why this country should not be prosperous. Why isn't it prosperous? Because, declared Mr. Geoghegan, with emphasis, it is carrying too heavy a load of taxation."

That was in Coole in 1931, when we had not yet got a visitation in the shape of the present Minister for Finance, and taxation was not as high as it is at the moment. The Minister for Justice then ventured into prophecy. He said:—

"A year ago Lord Rothermere and Lord Beaverbrook tried to start a movement in England to put a tax on food coming from outside England. They had a powerful Press at their command and they put up candidates at elections. But their candidates were swept aside because the English people would not let a tax be put on food. They wanted the food no matter where it came from."

That corresponded to the statement of the Minister for Industry and Commerce when he stated, just before the election in 1931, that people said that if the annuities were retained the British Government might retaliate, but that everybody knew that that was mere nonsense. Deputy Geoghegan had another way. There was a powerful campaign, according to him, by the two lords to get a tariff on foodstuffs and it failed; and the promise was that our foodstuffs would continue to pour into Britain no matter what we did; just as Deputy O'Reilly said that it was their ambition to hold the English market. Deputy Kennedy should not be left out of it, because he decided to enlighten the people of Ballinamuck in October, 1931. Speaking on that occasion, he said:—

"They tell you that you have no market but the British market. It is an extraordinary thing that Canada is sending cattle to France and every other European country as fast as they can send them and we are within two days' reach of these places and why should we not do the same?"

There are a great many controllers of various things in this country. Why not appoint Deputy Kennedy controller of our cattle export to the markets within two days' reach of us, and let us pay him on results and see how long he will hold the job? That is a series of statements by Fianna Fáil Deputies of what, in the words of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, they were going to do if they were transferred across to the Government side of the House and became the responsible Government. What have they done? The Minister for Industry and Commerce, on 11th May, said that taxation has been reduced this year by £1,000,000. I wish that statement got the publicity it deserves. The number of competitions that could have been started in the provincial Press of the country spotting the £1,000,000 reduction would have been enormous. Surely, the Minister for Finance could tell us where the Minister for Industry and Commerce found this £1,000,000 reduction in this year's Budget. It was not necessary for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to say that taxation had been reduced. He has another line on it. "This country can stand more taxation," according to that Minister. Speaking on 31st March on the Economies Bill this year, he told us that "people are coming back to this country from the United States," and the implication was that they were coming back to this prosperous country.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce went on to say:

"Emigration has stopped and unemployment is decreasing."

Further on he said:

"Every source of information open to me shows that employment is increasing and that industrial productivity is increasing.... Traders of this State have told me that in this year they have a smaller percentage of bad debts than they ever had. They have told me that their cash returns are greater this year.... It is a fact that their production and sales are increasing rapidly and that this country is probably the only country in the world faced with this situation, that a number of our social problems are due to underproduction."

Later on, he said:

"In 12 months we have done more to increase industrial equipment, to increase employment, and to increase the production of wealth in this country than our predecessors contemplated doing, much less achieved, in their ten years. There is more money in Ireland, more money circulating, and the traders will tell you that business is good. A number of the leading traders stated in the Press that the Christmas trade of three months ago was the best they had for three years."

Further on, he said:—

"Manufacturers are busier than ever they were. We have made progress in the development of industrial equipment much more rapidly than I contemplated. Take any industry you care to name, he said, and there could be shown to be an advance in activity."

He said very much the same on 11th May. May I just give this as summing up his arguments on that occasion:—

"Again, every available index shows the contrary. It may be that these indices are not reliable, that there is a difficulty about getting accurate indications in matters of that kind; but the fact that every one of them shows the contrary to be the case should, at least, suggest to Deputies to be a little cautious in their statements, a little more reserved and conservative in their assertions."

Then he took a group of industries and went through them and proved conclusively to his own satisfaction that every one of them was not merely much better than he had expected, but actually was much better than had ever been the case in the history of this country previously. Where that consideration came from, I do not know; where the proof of it was, I do not know.

The meditations of the Minister for Industry and Commerce are unfathomable. The meditations of his colleague in the Ministry of Agriculture are incomprehensible. We have got no evidence supplied by him to us upon which we can base anything. The meditations and deliberations of the Minister for Finance are, so far as this House is concerned, unnoticeable. But we have this, at any rate, from all of them—and the three of them are closely in touch with economic conditions in the country—that agricultural production, according to the Minister for Agriculture, is definitely on the increase; in no separate, single industry can it be denied that industrial activity is on the increase, according to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and, according to the Minister for Finance, the revenue continues buoyant and, because of the bank clearances and decreased unemployment, we are in the happiest position of any country in Europe. We will have to test these statements with the Budget figures. At any rate, that is the position given to us. According to the Minister for Industry and Commerce the wealth of the country is increasing, there is great productivity, and cash is in circulation. Unemployment is decreasing. It is absolutely on the run at the moment, so far as newspaper figures are concerned. The Minister for Finance is confident that the buoyancy of the revenue is going to be maintained.

We used to be promised economies to the extent of £2,000,000. We were told that we were going to have a much better situation in relation to tillage and that there would be more activity in the way of housing. We were told in an advertisement that 84,605 workers were going to be absorbed in a small group of industries and we were to have economies to the extent of £2,000,000 beyond all this without the infliction of any hardship on any class of Government servants and without the efficiency of Government services being in the slightest way impaired. We have been told in this very year, 1933, that there is increased employment, but nobody has had the effrontery to say that we have had 84,000 people placed in employment. We are told, however, that we are now busier than ever before and that, in the matter of tillage, there is increased production. Of course, the activity in housing has astonished everybody. The Minister for Industry and Commerce alone boasts that we have reduced taxation by £1,000,000 in this year. Most people are under the impression that in the two years in which Fianna Fáil have had control of our finances we have had an increase of £6,000,000 to £7,000,000, but the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who has that property which is supposed to be possessed only by gases, of filling in a given space, says that we have saved £1,000,000 this year.

Let us harp back to the promised £2,000,000 saving. Where is it? Why will the Minister for Finance not accept the invitation that I have given him so often, to repeat in this House what he said in the Seanad on the 21st July last year, when he completely threw overboard the old promise about the £2,000,000? Speaking of the dilemma in which he found himself on last year's Finance Bill he said:—

"A good deal has been said here to-day about the additional burden which we have imposed on the people. There was no alternative course to that which the Government adopted in this regard. We had an expenditure, on the one hand, which was irreducible, if we were to have regard to the commitments which our predecessors declared we were bound to honour, and, on the other, we had estimates of revenue which were very much below, and unavoidably below, because of the conditions which existed elsewhere, what they had been in the previous year. We had only two things to choose from, because the Government, from the very first, ruled out any question of reducing the old age pensions or, as I have said already, in any way interfering with the social services. ... Because of that, therefore, it had only two alternatives. So far as meeting the deficit on the Budget was concerned, it had either to tax or it had to borrow."

They had either to tax or to borrow in order to balance the Budget. The Minister passed a few well-deserved comments on concealed borrowing, and pointed out how horrid a thing it was. We shall have to remind him about that later. Again, on the 21st July, 1932, speaking in the Seanad, he said:—

"I would like to come back again to what I said at the outset that, in so far as £25,000,000 worth of the expenditure, at least, is concerned, there is no Party in the Dáil or Seanad has had the hardihood to get up and say which particular one of these services will be done without. It is an old saying, and it is a homely one and a true one, that ‘you cannot have your cake and eat it, too.' If we want old age pensions, and the Government wants old age pensions; if we want money to be spent on education, and the Government wants money to be spent on education; if we want money to be spent to develop agriculture, and the Government wants money to be spent to develop agriculture; and if we want money to develop trade and commerce in this country, we have to pay for it.

"But if you do not want these things, then I suggest that those who do not want them, and who feel we ought not to pay for them, ought to get up and tell us which one of them they do not want, because there is no other way in which expenditure in this State can be reduced so far as £25,000,000 of our total Budget of £27,000,000 is concerned."

That looks as if the Minister was still holding in reserve the £2,000,000 promised; but not a bit of it. According to the famous advertisement, Fianna Fáil would hold £1,152,000 paid to the British in respect of R.I.C. pensions, and other similar payments not required by the Treaty. Sums like that, amounting to about £2,000,000, were the only sums in respect of which they could hold out any hopes of reduction. As far as the amount of £25,000,000 out of the £27,000,000 was concerned, that was irreducible. The saving could be got only by cutting services and the Government, according to the Fianna Fáil announcement, were not going to cut services. All that has since occurred is in flat contradiction of the advertisement. We were told in that advertisement that Fianna Fáil was satisfied that economies were feasible without reducing social services and without impairing, in the slightest degree, the efficiency of the administrative machine. So it should be good-bye to the £2,000,000.

It ought to be.

It ought to be.

The Deputy ought to drop it now.

I will persist in quoting it until the Minister admits that it was not meant. When he admits that he will admit this, that he holds his present position under false pretences. That is the only reason why I insist on quoting this absurd advertisement, because it was absurd from the day it was written. Why had the Minister not the decency to say to us what he tried to get away with in the Seanad? He was in a different mood that day. He was in a dilemma and he had to apologise for the increased taxes. He was in the horrible predicament that he had to unbalance his Budget or borrow, and these two things he would not do. The alternative was to save, or impose taxes and, according to him, saving was entirely out of the question. I have read only a few extracts from five or six columns of that sort of stuff, all of which went to prove beyond doubt that there was never any possibility of getting economies to the extent of £2,000,000, or any economies except the Government determined to cut social services. I propose to quote the advertisement so much that it will never be used again in this country.

How does the Minister propose to do that?

It is not merely the Minister for Finance who ought to be warned about this; other aspirants to government ought to be made think over that, the folly and the impossibility of it, and not land themselves into promises that they can reduce taxation without showing, in a precise way, how it is going to be done, and what are the exact social services that are going to be cut in achieving it. The £2,000,000 are gone from us. We cannot get economies. Of course there was the £2,000,000 that we used to pay to England—in fact it became £3,000,000 in the end of this debate— and, in addition, the land annuities money which was not a Central Fund charge. If only we could get these then we were going to have a prosperous country. Now we have had them for two years, but we have not had economies.

We have had the money in the country for two years. We were told that it was not going to be used. The President told us on the 22nd July of last year that "We are putting these disputed payments into a fund ... ready to be paid over if a judgement were obtained against us" (by arbitration); but he had previously told us that "With two of the three million pounds involved (in the annuities dispute) the farmers can be relieved completely of the rates on their holdings." He also told us: "Another million is available for the relief of taxation, or for such other purposes as the Dáil may determine." On January the 5th of this year the President promised that if returned to power he would reduce all land annuities "by one-half." The £3,000,000, according to the President's promise, was to provide: £2,000,000 for derating, £1,000,000 for relief of taxation; £3,000,000 to England if a verdict was given against us in an arbitration court, and £1,500,000 to the annuitants by way of reductions. On that calculation the £3,000,000 became £7,500,000 and it was a good enough calculation. Economies to the extent of £2,000,000 were promised. The Minister, although he has got these moneys, is so hard set that I have now had to make the confession for him that the £2,000,000 economies never could have been achieved. We have now got to consider the other alternative the Minister had: tax, borrow or unbalance. We have not taxed very much this year. Why? The Minister supplied us with the answer during the "cuts" debate. Remember, he said in a tone of warning in this House, there is not another shilling to be got from taxation on property or taxation on incomes. If Deputy Harris were here one could ask him, according to his own logical calculations, does that mean that the people are over-taxed? It is certainly not any softness of conscience that makes the Minister hold his hands from taxing property or incomes but, as he said himself, because there is not another shilling to be got out of either source. He added the counter to it, that if there is to be more taxation remember, he said, it has got to be on the necessities of life: tobacco, sugar, tea.

That is what we are reduced to in this the second Fianna Fáil Budget: we have not the economies, we have held the money from England, and it is in circulation amongst the people of this country to the tune of about £9,000,000 in two years. We have industrial productivity tremendously increased according to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. We have increased the acreage under tillage, we have everything in relation to agriculture as well as it could be hoped for in this terribly depressed world, according to the Minister for Agriculture, and yet where are we in finance? I have referred already to the old calculation that 6d. in the income-tax used to bring in about half a million pounds. The Minister is budgetting this year, against a period that I take for comparison, for an effective 1/9 in the £ extra on income tax, and instead of getting the £1¾ millions that would have been brought in under the old calculation the Minister expects to get about £850,000. Why the reduced calculation if there is so much extra wealth in the country, if all this money is floating around and traders have more than ever before—business good, cash in circulation, industry increasing, and agriculture in as good a condition as could be hoped for. Why, in face of all that, does not the extra 1/9 in the £ on income tax bring in, as it used to under the old calculation, £1¾ millions? If the Minister considers that the estimate for revenue in the future merits the term "buoyant" why will it not support the old calculation of £1¾ millions instead of being reduced to the figure of £850,000? Why does the beer duty show a reduced estimate? Why, in fact, do all the items in Part II of the estimate of receipts for the coming year show a decline?

There are tests that can be applied to the wild statements of Ministers about the buoyant estimate of revenue for the future, of industrial productivity tremendously increased, and that there is more wealth in this country than ever before. If there is more wealth in the country then the fruits of income tax ought to be greater, and yet with this extra 1/9 in the £ the estimate of its productivity is only something in the region of £850,000—about 50 per cent. of what it used to be estimated to bring in, and, incidentally, what it used to be estimated to bring in during the period when the Minister for Finance bewailed the terrible depression there was in this country and the frightful burden of taxation that was upon it— not in the prosperous times he tells us we have to-day.

We are told that agriculture is in a healthy state. I read with intense interest every month the white sheet which the Department of Agriculture clothes itself in monthly. For the 1st May, we hear this: "State of pastures and conditions of live stock. At the end of the month all pastures showed a good covering, affording a fair amount of keep for live stock. It was reported from all districts that farmers did not dress their pasture lands with artificial manures to any-think like the extent treated for some years."

Coming to cereals we are told that it "was reported from some districts that considerable supplies of last season's oats still remain on grower's hands." Why? Have we not had grain admixture schemes, and have we not prohibited the entry of foreign feeding stuffs for animal purposes into this country, and yet, with all the advantages we have given it is reported "that considerable supplies of last season's oats still remain on growers' hands." Under the heading of "catch crops" we are told that they made good headway in most places, but that "in others they were not manured to the same extent as in former years." In the case of flax, we are told that in a certain county about one-fifth of last season's crop is still unsold; that "owing to the poor demand for last season's crop, the area sown is reported to be even smaller than that put under this crop last year, which up to then was the lowest on record." In the case of potatoes we find this: "Although this season potatoes were more extensively used than normally for feeding to all classes of live stock, large supplies still remained on hands at all farms, and the supplies available for market were generally in excess of the local demand.""From a number of districts "—still with regard to potatoes—"it was reported that the area planted was smaller than that planted last year."

On the animal side, pigs, about which we have had a Government Commission recently established, are picked out for special comment. "The number of pigs on offer showed a further decline, amounting to rather more than 5 per cent. as compared with the corresponding period of last year." There had been, it appears, for a period, better prices for pigs of the bacon type and the report goes on to say: "It was hoped that the better prices obtaining for bacon pigs would have a steadying effect on the tendency on the part of breeders to go out of production. Reports from many districts, however, indicate that there was no appreciable change in this respect during the month." For the previous month, April, the remark was with regard to pigs: "It was apparent that breeding stocks were not being maintained at their normal level."

That is the healthy condition of agriculture. Notwithstanding all the schemes to have our own cereal crops consumed at home, of last year's crop of oats there are still considerable supplies on hands. With regard to potatoes there is no export and they are fed to stock in far greater quantities than ever before. Yet there are considerable quantities still on hands. People are going out of bacon production and that is before there is any touch at all of a quota on the other side. There should be some sign that some Minister can point to to demonstrate, not merely to state but to demonstrate, that agriculture is better than it was last year, that industry is better than it was last year, that employment is on the increase and that we are right in hoping that the estimates for finance are correct when they are based upon an expectation of buoyancy in the coming year.

Even, with all these optimistic estimates of the Minister what do we find? He did increase the burden of taxation on this already overtaxed country, according to himself, by four and a quarter million pounds last year. He increased it by a trifling sum this year. Probably because the Minister for Industry and Commerce, knowing the situation, had expected three or four millions to be slapped on the country, he considers we have had taxation actually reduced this year. Even with that increase as between last year and this year, even with the extra money that is circulating in the country, we cannot balance our Budget this year. That is the long and the short of it. Some people used to complain that the currency in this country was tied to England. I wonder if they spoke their minds truly at this moment would they not consider that there is a considerable advantage in having our currency tied to England at this moment? It might be an advantage that will prove disadvantageous to this country very soon. If we had a rate of currency and a Budget unbalanced to the extent of £3,000,000, such as the Minister presented this year, would there not be a definite fall in the currency value? That is one of the signs we miss of heading towards bankruptcy, one of the signs which the English people had and a sign which, when displayed, awoke them to the full consciousness of the danger they were running into. We have not that sign but we know what is there.

We have three million pounds to find this year and we are going to find it by borrowing. Of that, £1,600,000 or thereabouts, is local loans fund money on which the Minister had certain comments and criticisms to make last year. His own standard, as laid down last year, was quite a good one, that it should only be borrowed, and when borrowed, should only be lent to local authorities at interest rates which would meet the service of the debt— the interest and the sinking fund of the borrowed money. I should like to know if that is the prospect the Minister holds out to local authorities for the use of this £1,600,000? If so, does he think there is going to be any greater use made of it than there was when we lent it to them in this way? Has he made any provision for a sinking fund in respect of this £1,600,000? For the other part of the £3,000,000 we are going to borrow on what he calls the "deferred annuities fund." That, thoroughly examined, is the most scandalous proposition ever put up by a Minister for Finance in any country. It would be far better to say that we were in an emergency, in a very definite national crisis, and that under these circumstances we have simply got to abandon ordinary good canons of finance to get this money, to face up to the populace when we are getting it, telling them what the prospects are and telling them that these are the conditions under which we are going to get this money—put it to the people that we still believe we are going to weather the storm and let them show their confidence in our capacity to weather the storm by the interest rates they will charge. To say that we have got a fund on which to borrow this money is not honest. There is no fund there.

This is a disputed point as to the fund—at least, it was a point about which there was a dispute. When first it was said in this House, and outside it, that once the demoralisation caused by Fianna Fáil has set in, no annuities would ever be collected, we were told that that was a subject matter of trial by courts, that people would be jailed for it. Then the Government began to adopt the idea, it began to be a plank in their platform, and recently we had the admission from the Leader of the Centre Party that annuities would never again be collected in this country. Yet, on the hope or on the expectation, on the mere contingency—a very slight one—that this money will come in, we are going to borrow something over one and a quarter million pounds. If we had a currency, on these two points about borrowing being explained to the people, even without explanation, on this point being merely announced to people who know what finance is, there would be a flight from this country and the Minister next year would be able to talk still further about balances at banks and found whatever hopes he could or whatever delusions he could upon these bank clearances. Quite rightly Deputy O'Neill said in this House that some, at least, of these clearances were due to the Government's activities last year. The withdrawal of moneys was not any sign of normal business activity. It was not any sign of healthy finance or healthy industry in this country, the two things the Minister referred to. This is where we get in our second year of Fianna Fáil Government.

Deputy Cooney was to solve unemployment in 12 months. That statement was made at Grangegorman, as I have always pointed out. Every Deputy in that Party is going to solve the unemployment question, going to have the country in a most healthy state, industrially and agriculturally.

If I had brought you in there, I would have saved a lot of trouble.

You would; I would have put you some questions about solving the unemployment question in 12 months. We are told by the Ministers in charge of the Departments concerned that industry and agriculture are definitely increasing. We are told by the Minister for Finance that he believes his estimates of revenue are good and sound, and that they are founded upon an expectation of buoyancy in the present yield of taxation. And all this time we are building up a new economy. We have asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce on many occasions to tell us where his new factories are. If the whole country is too big to cast his eye over, let him give one county and the new factories there are there. Let him give us any indication of the new industrial activity that there is, so that we may estimate it in numbers employed, and the wages paid to the people whom we find employed, so that we can set off against it the numbers put out of production because of the trouble with England. We have never got any decent answer to these queries of ours. We are told that the number was fluctuating so fast that returns were useless. When that argument failed any longer we were told a new directory of Irish industries was being produced, and that that would reveal everything. When we asked about the preparation made to get that volume out in good time, we were told that they had to wait for a Vote in this House for the preparation, as the volume would cost money, and the money had to be voted. Surely the Minister could risk a statement—he has risked many statements—tied down to a single county, that could be analysed and brought down to the test of facts. If we could get what he says to be true demonstrated as true for one county, then there would be much greater belief in his statements.

Will the Minister for Agriculture who often talks about his farming policy, tell us of any part of it he has put into operation himself. Will he run one of these mystery tours to his own wheat lands, and let us see what wheat he has produced himself.

It did not come up.

You came up.

It is a demonstration of wheat growing we want. Let the Minister counter these statements issued by his own Department with regard to the amount of potatoes and oats still in hands, and equate them with the old amount of either oats or potatoes fed to stock and what is now fed to stock and tell us why there is still this surplus in hands. Let the Minister for Finance throw himself up against two tests—the test of income tax and its yield, the test of the beer duty and its yield, and the test of the decreased yield shown in his White Paper from taxes generally. Then we will have some way of estimating the healthy condition that the country is in and how good the Budget is. The Minister need not answer if the answer has anything to do with depression outside, because we are supposed to be almost definitely in the stage of economic self-sufficiency. We are certainly in the stage of economic isolation. When the country is economically isolated, if it is tending towards that and hopes to get that because it is a benefit, the outside world means nothing to us. There is no repercussion on us from the outside world if we live contentedly at home, being able to consume all we produce, and not requiring to produce anything more than we require at home. We are tending towards that. We are being driven towards it by the British Government rather faster than we expected to go, we were told, but it was a good thing in the end. Let us have the demonstration of this good situation. Let us have it pointed out to us in one or two samples of the good situation. Let three Ministers not content themselves, as they have contended themselves, with merely moving estimates, which gave them a chance of expanding their policy and the progress made in their new policy, and merely sitting silent after they have formally moved the vote. The Minister for Agriculture made no exposition of his policy on his estimate. The Minister for Industry and Commerce took part in two debates, one on economies and the other on the Financial Resolutions, but gave no evidence. He merely ventured a lot of statements of opinion. The Minister for Finance was, of course, suppressed in his attempt to speak on the Financial Resolutions, but he did not make any attempt to give the House the benefit of what he then had to say when his opportunity came here.

This is the most critical measure we have to pass. It is one on which the whole economic policy of the Government could be examined and criticised. When the President decided to throw himself into the debate, instead of the Minister, he gave us nothing except politics. We got no analysis of economics, no proof from him of any better situation in the country than there was in the last nine or ten years. Anybody who lives in the country knows that there are signs everywhere of deterioration. Speaking on the Financial Resolutions, as reported in Volume 47, No. 3, Column 865, of the Official Reports, Deputy Davin indicated his point of view. He said:—

"I think we have figures upon which we are entitled to judge the situation which we all know in our hearts exists in the country. Surely the amount of money paid and the number of individuals who are in receipt of home assistance this year and those receiving home assistance in previous years at the expense of the ratepayers should be some indication as to the existing state of affairs in the country."

Then he gave figures. He said:—

"The number of persons in receipt of home assistance on 28th January, 1932, was 90,270; on 28th January, 1933—and increased since that date in my area and all over the country —it was 125,102. Surely the Deputies who talk in this way here and elsewhere, should have some regard to the realities of those figures, and should understand, in their own minds at any rate, that they represent some sort of picture of the realities of the existing position in the country."

Deputies Norton, Davin and Corish have spoken frequently in debates in this House pointing out to us where wages were steadily being lowered in the country and how employers were fast following the example given by the Government in cutting emoluments. As if that were not enough, we had Deputy Flinn announcing here, in relation to what Deputy Norton called wage-cutting activities, that in County Cavan the wage paid on minor relief schemes, based upon the agricultural labourers' rate, was 21/-. Having said that, he said that if Deputies went to County Cavan and tried to take that 21/- per week from them, the Deputies who tried to do it would be torn limb from limb apart. That is the new situation in the country. The labourer's wage has now gone to the point that, on minor relief schemes, people are offered 21/- a week under conditions which we have often explained here. That is where things have got in the matter of employment. We were told by a Government Deputy that if anyone tried to take that away from the labourers they would be torn apart. The numbers in receipt of home assistance have increased, and these are all the signs that the Minister has got to count if he is going to persist in the claim that this country is doing better than ever and that the people are more prosperous than ever.

That is the legacy you left us.

Any legacies we left are being dissipated. We left a good situation, a situation that merited the comment from an outside body that we were one of the two countries in Europe that had an improving and an improved situation at the beginning of 1932. But we are now on a different basis. We are now one of the two countries that have phenonemal increases in our unemployment and, I think, we are the higher of the two. That is what the Deputy means by a legacy. That is what I mean by pointing to the wastage of the good estates we left to the present Government. The chief difficulty and the outstanding difficulty is this: that the Deputy and his Party can continue to waste those estates yet a little while longer. You cannot get rid immediately of the good situation we left. You cannot do that. There is a resiliency in the people; there were reserves of wealth left by us which are now being looted, and, of course, the loot can go on for a little bit.

We have had considerable talk in the country as to cheap food. Food is cheap and may continue cheap for a little time longer. I have always had in mind the phrase, and I do not think it is in any sense inapplicable, that the cheap food and the sale we are enjoying at the moment is a sale of bankrupt stock or the sale of goods of people who are fast approaching bankruptcy, —people who have to sell at any price in order to get a little cash. That can go on for a little time, until we get this White Paper not alone with regard to bacon pigs but to everything else we have to sell. The tendency to go out of production will develop until we reach the point when we will not have enough supplies even for the home market. Will that not be a healthy situation? What are the people who are producing going to do then? What is to happen to those who are producing beyond the country's needs? They can go on producing but where are they to sell? They can go on, perhaps, doing what the Minister is doing, outrageously borrowing.

There are ways and ways of balancing a budget, but it is not proper finance when the national as well as the local budgets are left unbalanced as a result of Government interference. It is not a healthy sign if the budgets of the local authorities are left unbalanced by reason of the Government's activities. It is not a healthy thing when the individual budget is being left unbalanced. When that happens the position is that the individual is calling in his capital assets in order to pay off the obligations that the Government lays on him. The individual in that case is wasting his assets in a great measure and that is what is happening in the country to-day. They can go on doing that a bit longer, but the longer they do it the harder it will be to recover. It is easy for the Minister to add a little bit more loot. He can go on for this year at least. He has told us of two or three things happening at the moment and what is happening now is pointing to what is to happen later.

Last year we raided the Road Fund. This year we cannot raid it. What does that mean? That the number we put into employment on the roads last year was bigger because of that raid, but as a result of that we will have a smaller number of people employed in the years to come. This year the Minister has not raided the Road Fund. It would bear no raid. Taxes on property and income tax cannot be raised another shilling. The next taxation is to be on necessities, tea, sugar or tobacco. That is because productivity is languishing and the next year's Budget will be more difficult to balance. We Budget for an extra 1/9 in the income tax yield but even with that taxation the income tax yield is going to be less this year than last year. Beer duty has further declined. The Minister will have to do one of three things: (1) to reduce the social services, (2) to cut salaries or (3) to put a tax on necessaries. That is the evil of it. One of these will have to be done in order to preserve the national finances. The signs are there that last year's yield from taxation will not be forthcoming. The yield is not there; there is no sign of extra wealth from which we can gather extra moneys. In the last two years we looted nine million pounds. We have got to borrow three million pounds in order to present a balanced Budget this year. The warnings are there for the Minister to read them. There is no doubt they have been neglected. There is not sufficient honestly to enable the Minister to face the matter of the two million pounds economies. He confessed to it in the Seanad, but it was blurted out, not honestly admitted. Then we get into the region when we are not definitely balancing our Budget or else balancing it by taxation on the necessaries of the people.

The Minister to conclude.

General Mulcahy rose.

I understood I was to conclude.

The Minister is entitled to conclude if no other Deputy rises to speak.

I am concluding and I should like to call attention to the fact that the Ceann Comhairle announced I was to conclude.

Deputy Mulcahy.

The Minister, as Deputy McGilligan has pointed out, has intervened here to-day in the introduction of this Finance measure, the most important measure we will deal with this year, without making any reply to the criticisms on the general Budgetary position that were made to him on the question of the General Resolutions. Not alone are we here, from the point of view of this country, discussing the most important measure that will be before us but the World Conference to-day is discussing the general world position at a Conference, the most important Conference that will meet for many years to come. While we may be led into the belief here by Ministerial statements that we are now on the road to self-sufficient economy, I do not think the acceptance of that belief for the next couple of months would lead us into anything but a terribly rude awakening in this country. Because there is not the slightest doubt about it that the decisions that will be taken by the Conference in London are bound to have a tremendous effect on the possibility or otherwise of recovery for this country from the conditions into which the Ministerial policy of the last 12 months has brought it. It is all the more astounding that the Minister in introducing the measure to-day has made no answer to the criticisms that were made, of his Budgetary policy, as enshrined in his Budgetary speech, in view of the fact that a Conference is in existence and that we are represented at that Conference. Deputy McGilligan has pointed out that the reduction in taxation that the Minister for Industry and Commerce speaks about is scarcely a reduction. In view of the borrowing policy that the Minister's Budgetary statement shows he is to embark upon, on very flimsy pretexts, it is most desirable that the Minister should show explicitly where the reduction in taxation has taken place. I should like to assure him that it is only to help him and to spur him along the line of explanation that I suggest, as Deputy McGilligan has suggested, that there is no reduction in taxation such as he could base a borrowing policy upon and no reduction that would give any confidence. Last year, the Minister imposed taxation, additional to the taxation in existence up to March, 1932, which he told us would bring in £3,950,250. When we take his estimate of the yield of these same taxes and compare them with what was actually got from the taxes that were in operation before he imposed last year's taxation, we get something of a shock in regard to the tax-bearing capacity of the country.

The Minister imposed taxation last year which he told us, in respect of customs, was to bring in £1,454,000 additional. From discussions that have taken place here, the House will readily agree that it was not very easy to forecast exactly the result of the customs duties imposed last year. That £1,454,000 was made up as follows:—Difference between tea and sugar duties, £18,000; tobacco tax, increase, £350,000; new, original customs duties, £910,000; package tax, £176,000. In addition to that estimated increase in the yield of customs duty of £1,454,000, other customs duties were imposed during the year. When we compare the expectations from customs duties this year with the total customs duties received during the year ended March, 1932—before any of these additional duties were imposed—we are told to anticipate a reduction—as compared with the year 1932—of £211,000. When I pointed out to the Minister on the General Resolution that he was rather mistaken in being very confident in connection with his tobacco duty, owing to the fact that £138,000 came in on tobacco last year and that the import of tobacco had seriously diminished during the year ending March, 1932, and was still further diminishing from the beginning of the current year, he rather scoffed. But his estimated increase of £350,000 from tobacco duty is not going to come in. The income to be received from customs is £211,000 below that of the year ended March, 1932.

The Minister put on some small additional excise duties last year, but he estimates for this year that the income from excise will be £440,000 less than it was in the last year of the Cosgrave Administration. Estate duties are to be down by £244,000 as compared with those of the same year. As Deputy McGilligan pointed out, we are going to get in respect of income tax an increased yield over the year 1931-32 of £712,000. The effective rate of income tax in 1931-32 was 3/3. At present it is 5/—more than 50 per cent. above that of 1931-32. If the taxable capacity of the country were now equal to what it was in 1931-32, income tax should bring in, at the present rate, £2,304,000 or thereabouts. According to the Minister's Estimate, it will be less than one-third of that. That is the condition of affairs upon which the Minister is to embark on a large borrowing policy.

Again, as compared with the year 1931-32, there is to be a reduction of £19,000 in excess profits duty, and we are to get £41,000 less in motor vehicles duty than we got in 1931-32. No wonder that the Minister is driven to the conclusion that there are certain lines in which he cannot get any more taxation from the people. If, as Deputy McGilligan suggests, the Minister has hinted that his next line of attack will be tea, sugar and tobacco, then I suggest that no additional taxation can be got out of tea, sugar or tobacco. Speaking on a previous occasion, I pointed out that there was a reduction in the consumption of tea in this country. An unprecedented state of affairs exists in this connection in the West of Ireland. It is well known that the people of the West used very high quality tea. It was not uncommon for people there to pay 4/- or 5/- per lb. for their tea. The position now is not that these people are using cheaper tea, but that they are seeking the cheapest tea they can get. What expectation of revenue has the Minister from sugar?

There is no proposal in this Bill to tax sugar.

We are discussing on this Bill, the taxable capacity of this country, particularly when the Minister's Budget plunges out on a big borrowing scheme from which, if the Minister is looking ahead at all, there can be no turning back, except the turning back occasioned when he finds himself up against a stone wall where he can get no one to lend him money. It is suggested that further taxation cannot be got out of tea, sugar or tobacco.

On that line of argument the Deputy could take a whole list of commodities, and proceed to demonstrate that taxes could not be got out of any single item on the list next year. Sugar is taxed in this year's Budget. It is, of course, quite in order to deal with the taxable capacity of the country.

The taxable capacity of the country shows the industries that we have in the country, of which the beet industry is one, so that we can rely upon our own sugar supply. But, at the same time, if the Minister is going to rely upon additional taxes out of sugar he is not going to get any more out of it than he is going to get out of tobacco. We have to deal with the general economic situation of the country. If we are going to embark upon a borrowing policy, and if we have to rely upon terms that will be unnecessarily unjust to this country, then, again, I say it is due to the people of the country that the Minister should tell us clearly the basis upon which that borrowing is going to be made. We cannot see, when we are considering the result of the Ministry's industrial and agricultural policy here, that he can borrow very large sums of money with justice to our people at the rate he is likely to get at the present time, apart altogether from the justice to the people of borrowing at all. The one thing in this country upon which, in my opinion, the Minister could borrow is the security of the capital of the Irish farmer and the Irish farmer's capital to-day is being frittered away.

It is his produce you mean.

The Irish farmers' produce to-day is being frittered away. The Irish farmer is disposing of his stock to-day, against the advice of many who, even against their own better belief, would like to urge him to retain that stock, because they see that disposing of his stock as he is to-day, even if better times do come for him in the opening of the world's markets, then at present prices, he would find himself depleted of his stock, and without any capital that would enable him to take up his position again, in a reasonable time, and to get back into those markets before they became glutted by other people. I suggest to the Minister that if the farmers' position is satisfactory and favourable, that position should be explained from the Front Bench opposite by people who show they know something about it before even, wrong as the Minister's policy is, he can, with any justice to the people here, embark on the policy of borrowing money.

The Minister is not so foolish as to think that world prices are not going to have any effect in this country in the future. It might be thought that the tillage basis of the Minister's policy is not bringing about the results that both they and we would like to see to-day. But such results as come from it, if they are in any way favourable, must increase for our farmers the necessity they are finding for a market for their live stock and live-stock products. I should like the Minister to tell us something as to what he expects the future position of our farmers to be.

The World Conference has come together. The greatest hope that that Conference holds out is the hope that possibly by more careful manipulation of international finance there will come about greater co-operation between every one of the nations taking part in the Conference, and that through that we may get back throughout the country to, let us say, 1930 prices for primary products. If the Minister is not again, as I say, going to be unjust to our people, and is not going to throw the country deeper into the great difficulties which it inevitably will have to strive to get out of, he will explain to us in what way our farmers here, as a result of the internal policy, working through the Minister's representatives at the World Economic Conference may hope to get back to 1930 prices for their products. The Ministry are going to leave the discussion on this measure on the same lines as the industrial dream of the Minister for Industry and Commerce when the General Resolution was before the House. If they are going to leave this discussion without making full and complete explanation of their plans and hopes for the Irish farmers, of something more than was done in respect to Irish industrialists, we can only conclude that the Ministry are blind and most callous in the policy they are pursuing, without opening their mouths in this assembly, or without giving any chance to the various Parties in this assembly, to co-operate with them in any kind of reasonable way in helping to solve the difficulties that are disturbing our people and that are very clearly in front of them.

The Deputy knows very well that the destruction of the Irish farmer is not so easy. There were efforts made to destroy Irish farmers but that ceased when the Administration of which Deputy Mulcahy was a member ceased. The farmers to-day are passing from an old to a new era. They are just now in a transitory stage and if there are sufferings they are due to the sins of the past. It is letting down the great fundamental principle for which Deputy Mulcahy fought in the past—the internal development of Ireland, not alone politically but economically as well. If the Deputy had read Professor Baldwin's little school book on agriculture, published about 60 years ago—and, personally, I am sorry that it is not used in the schools at the present day——

The President is working on it.

——he would have seen that he proved that a population of 8¾ millions could be supported in Ireland on a proper agricultural basis. That means more agriculture, more tillage and more cattle. Go back some years and compare the two populations. You had here, at one time, 9,000,000 people while England had very little over 14,000,000. How did England become the market of the world?

The Deputy cannot in a debate on the Finance Bill explain how England became a great industrial nation.

I admit that. England's old policy was the policy of the great ranch and aiding certain classes at the expense of the masses. This Government has supported a policy of internal development against that. They have all the evils of the past, including the ten years of bad administration by Deputy Mulcahy and his Cabinet, to face. Even at the present day, they cannot look at it and say: "Have your chance; we have failed". We have, as it were, allowed everything foreign to dominate the internal wishes of the people. How can you be a nation if the fundamental principle, the prosperity of agriculture, does not go ahead? England does not want it to go ahead and those are things to be considered and that is why the Ministry are making a noble and determined effort to bring about that prosperity and, please God, they will have the united backing of the people as they had in the past. Please God, the time will come when England will see that it will no longer be profitable to harass and tyrannise over this nation.

I should like the Government to consider the effect produced on the country, as a whole, by the taxes imposed in this Budget. It would be a good thing if they could see whether they are not losing on the swings what they are making on the roundabouts. In discussing the effect of this Budget, it is very difficult to omit a passing reference to unemployment, housing, and the cost of production. They seem to be mixed up together, because we have, undoubtedly, in this country, a very grave problem in housing, and we wish to increase production as quickly as possible. So far as unemployment is concerned, we have a very considerable body of unemployed, and the more employment that is given the better for everybody. I should like the Government to consider whether, in putting duties on articles that are not manufactured in this country—and there does not seem to be any prospect of their being made in this country—they are not needlessly increasing the cost of production to everyone, and producing a certain affect on the employment market which is having very adverse reactions. To take as one concrete instance—I do not intend to make a Committee Stage speech on the Second Reading Stage, and I am taking this one item merely as an instance—at the present time, in this country, we have, at least, one very efficient factory for producing iron castings. It has been referred to in the Press as a gutter factory, and there is no reason why we should not call it a gutter factory when we understand that the making of gutters is one of its principal activities.

That manufactory is very efficient, but, like most people who are efficient, they have a very definite idea as to the field they will take up, and they are, in my opinion, attacking, by mass production means, a certain very limited field. What is the effect on the remainder of the gutter requirements of this country? One portion of the demand is catered for very efficiently, but the other portion they are not able to cater for. Why are they not able to cater for it? Because certain foundries in other countries hold patents and they are, naturally, able to produce smaller quantities at a very much cheaper rate. What is the effect on a person who desires to go in for fairly extensive outlay on repairs on an old building which has gutters of a type that are not produced under the present mass production methods of the existing factory? A building owner, for the sake of argument, proceeds to make inquiries as to the cost of certain gutters. He is told that, by reason of the fact that gutters are taxable when imported into this country—and this is a type of gutter which very little investigation will show is not going to be made in this country—he is invited to pay a 22½ per cent. duty on the importation of these goods. He is told, then, that by reason of some enterprising individual having looked up the meaning of the word "gutter" in a dictionary, and having found that it was a channel for taking away water, they are brought in under the emergency duty as a channel and 20 per cent. is added to the 22½ per cent. duty. That man is asked to pay 42½ per cent. on the price of gutters. The argument that a gutter is a channel will, I believe, be told to the grandchildren of people in the iron trade, and will be quoted as typical of the period through which we passed, when a gutter could be considered as "a rolled steel channel." What the effect of the stories will be on the third generation does not really matter.

What I want to bring out is the effect on a person who is asked to pay 42½ per cent. duty on goods. The person concerned knows perfectly well that he is not asked to do so in order to promote Irish industries. He has the idea that some day some sort of commonsense will drawn on the Government, and he says to himself: "I will postpone that job for some time." That is why I say that the Government is losing on the swings what they are gaining on the roundabouts. The Government is able to point to increased production in a gutter factory and say: "Everything is well; we have increased employment." But other people, who know what is going on in trade, are aware that ordinary work has fallen to an unprecedented extent. I do not think the Government are able to realise the extent to which unemployment has been created, or employment lessened, whichever way they like to put it, in ordinary everyday affairs in connection with practically all the taxes on the building trade. I could give a number of other instances, but I merely mention that as one type. I do not want the Minister to think that dozens of similar cases could not be given. I would like the Minister seriously to consider whether the country as a whole is being benefited by such a policy.

The Minister referred to Section 33 where the Revenue Commissioners are to make definitions of what is and what is not dutiable. In my opinion the Minister should give a very clear definition of what is meant by that section. Are the Revenue Commissioners to be invited to make progressive increases in taxable articles brought in, and to widen the range under the existing schedule of taxation? As an example of what can go on under the section I will mention an instance. I do not want the Minister to think that there could not be a hundred or a thousand similar instances. I do not know if any Deputies are aware of what a mangle is. In their younger days I am sure some of them turned one. I do not know how far that practice prevails at the present time. A mangle is brought in in parts, and the assembling and fitting is presumably going to give a certain amount of employment. Personally, I think a mangle is an article of furniture. Looking at bills dealing with auctions we will find that a mangle is one of the items of furniture. Presumably the wooden portions of the mangle are furniture, and liable to a duty of 50 per cent. The contention now is that while the wooden portions are furniture, a mangle is, at the same time, a machine, and liable to a duty of 20 per cent. on the iron parts. I suggest to the Minister that it is either furniture, and liable to a duty of 50 per cent. on the wooden parts, or it is a machine, and subject to 20 per cent. on the iron parts. It cannot be an article of furniture and a machine at the one time. I am only mentioning that as one case of a progressive increase in taxation that might be imposed under this section, leaving the commercial community in the position that they really do not know where they are. No one knows, if such article is imported, whether it may not be classified as something else to-morrow. The public, who do not read newspapers or listen to the Dáil debates, have got the fear that things are costing them too much, that more duties are being imposed and they decide that they had better not do anything until the article they have falls to bits. That is not good for employment, and it is not good for the revenue of the country. It is one of those undefined matters which are at the root of the present fall in all sorts of industry, outside the narrow margin of industries that have been actually called into increased production by giving them protection in the things that they manufacture.

I mention one other thing, which is of another type. The Government, in their taxation, put names on things, and then they proceed to call other things by that name. As they are the arbiters of what is taxable and what is not taxable it seems desirable that the Government should become more precise. I mention one article here— varnish. What is varnish described as? "Whether imported in the form of liquid or of paste or of powder not made with or containing spirit." Anybody who knows anything about varnish knows that that does not bring you very far as to what varnish is. It reminds me of a song that I used to hear in my younger days about "I knew he was a sailor because he wore a sailor's hat." If you take the hat off the sailor I do not know what he would be. It seems to me that varnish is something like that. The Government will have to become more precise, and describe what varnish is, because a whole lot of other paint mediums are being brought in under the heading of varnish. That leaves the mercantile community in an unsettled and uncertain state as to what is going on, and what they have to face. I should like to urge on the Government to tackle seriously the general problem of their industrial policy. I do not think anybody quarrels with the idea that a manufacturer who is prepared to make an honest effort to manufacture certain goods should get protection. That is, however, no reason why a whole host of other articles that are related to the protection that is going to be given to certain manufacturers should be taxed, and even perhaps in certain instances licences given to import those things. Nobody knows as to what moment this concession will be withdrawn, or the licences refused, or when some other cause will render a whole lot of other articles liable to duty, and enormously increase the cost to the average individual, or the cost of production whether it is to the builder or certain other people. The Government have taken far too little note of the increased cost of running businesses in this country occasioned by imposing a whole lot of taxes that I deny were put on to promote Irish industries. That is one of the most serious questions before this country at the present time. Everybody is in a state of uncertainty as to what his costs are going to be. If he bought a thing yesterday that is no reason why he could buy it at the same price to-morrow. Nobody will launch out; nobody will embark on any enterprise because of the conditions awaiting them. In ordinary affairs of commerce there a lot of enterprises undertaken on the chance of a profit resulting from them, or some form of manufacture being successful. I do not believe that the Government is aware of the effect that is being produced throughout the whole of this country by a policy which is certainly not necessary to promote Irish Industries, and is leaving the whole commercial community in a state of uncertainty, with corresponding reactions on the employment market.

I do not propose, sir, to detain the House by repeating arguments against this Finance Bill which have been admirably put by other speakers, but I do not like to let the occasion of the Second Reading pass without making it plain that the Party with which I am associated can only regard a Budget such as this with absolute consternation. It would appear from the remarks of Deputy Hales and other speakers on the Fianna Fáil Benches on previous occasions that, at any rate, a section of the Fianna Fáil Party is capable of looking at this Budget quite light-heartedly, and regard it as a choice emblem of our freedom from British tyranny. Such a view as that certainly ought not to be the view of the Minister for Finance, because last year when introducing a Budget considerably less inflated than this he quite frankly expressed his horror at the figures we were called upon to face and his confidence that we would be called upon to face them for that particular year only, because there was an emergency. I hope that that sane and healthy point of view towards swollen expenditure is something that the Minister for Finance is not going to forget all about. Whether you consider such a Budget as this from the point of view of agriculture, from the point of view of an industrialist, from the point of view of a man seeking employment, or from the point of view of the man in the street, it is equally a disaster. Deputy Mulcahy has referred to the fact that the capital of the Irish farmer is being frittered away. I wonder if there is anybody on the Fianna Fáil Benches who can seriously deny that. Perhaps they might object to the phrase "frittered away" as implying that it was their fault; but can they deny that it is melting away, and that in order to keep himself and his family alive the farmer has to use up his reserves except, in so far as, in one way or another, he may be able to get direct Government relief? It cannot be denied that the farmer as a farmer cannot keep himself and his family going except by using up his reserves. His debts are mounting up. He cannot pay off his debts and the interest goes on being added to his debts, constituting a greater embarrassment in the future than they have been in the past. The farmer has not got any money to spend in taking care of his assets. His land itself he must allow to deteriorate. His material assets have become wasting assets. Everything he has got is going downhill and he is going downhill with it. Consequently, no one who has got any knowledge of what is happening in the agricultural industry in this country can possibly think that it is in any way appropriate that we should be spending more money now than we have ever done in our history and that, not content with raising the enormous sums we are raising by taxation, we should be preparing to borrow on a very large scale.

I suppose we are getting deadened by all the strange happenings, but people do not seem to realise the monstrosity of the thing, that at a time when our fundamental industry is in a worse state than ever our Budgetary expenditure should have reached a figure beyond anything it had ever reached before. Whether you compare it with the past or whether you compare it with other countries of a similar wealth and population to our own, our present expenditure is equally indefensible. For all those who believe in the industrial future of our country, as aside from our agricultural development, and who are anxious to build up new industries in this country, such a Budget as this must be equally disheartening. It is a terribly disheartening thing for a man to feel, if he is considering starting on a new enterprise, that, if he succeeds in getting it going, an enormous proportion of anything he may earn is going to be gobbled up by the State. To my mind, no protective tariff is enough to reconcile a man to that fact and give him the courage and enterprise to risk what he has and try to give employment to his fellow-citizens. Consequently, I just want to make it plain, without going further into detail, that the Centre Party can only regard such a Budget as this with absolute consternation, and I wish to urge on the Minister for Finance, in the strongest terms, to set before himself the idea of economy and the task of reducing our expenditure to a figure that comes somewhere near being within our means.

Deputy MacDermot, I think, rightly expressed it when he said that he felt consternation at this Budget. If the same consternation has not greeted this Budget, or, at least, has not found verbal expression through the country, so far as this Budget is concerned, as was the case when the Minister had the misfortune to introduce his first Budget, then I suggest that that in itself is one of the serious aspects of the present situation —that in itself, and also the fact to which Deputy MacDermot has referred, that there are some Deputies in this House who profess to be pleased with the present Budget. That attitude in the country, and still more on the part of the members of this House—especially on the part of members of the Government—suggests a very deplorable attitude of complete irresponsibility so far as the future of this country is concerned.

When I was speaking on the Budget statement itself, I referred to the certain amount of relief that the country felt, first, by the fact that certain aspects of the Budget were not clear to the people, and, secondly, by the fact that there was nothing so bad that the country could not expect from the present Government. I think that one of the serious factors of the situation is that a Budget such as last year's, a Budget that the Minister himself tried to sweeten for the country's consumption by dividing into an abnormal and a normal Budget, that such a Budget should now become normal even so far as appearances went. In fact, as the House knows now, this Budget is far from being satisfactory even from the Minister's point of view. It is far less satisfactory even than appears at the first glance, because there is that additional sum now at the Minister's disposal—that additional sum of five and a half million pounds about which we have heard a great deal from platforms in the country and in speeches in this House—that was not at his disposal last year. The answer to that has been disposed of in certain ways, but not all of it.

I feel that, when that is taken into account, the really serious situation the country is facing is that a burden of taxation, such as was imposed on the country last year, at the very best can only be regarded as normal. When the Budget is examined, and when the real facts become clear, what has happened is not that the Budget is as light on the people as last year—in reality it is heavier especially when the number of indirect taxes is taken into account and the tariffs on our goods—but that the situation in the way of taxation that the country has to face is much more serious than it was last year. I suggest that not merely can the country not have the slight satisfaction that last year's Budget is more or less regarded as the high-water mark of expenditure; but on the contrary we have now an increasing rate of expenditure, an alarming increase of expenditure, as years go on. That five and a half million pounds is being spent and full credit is taken for it in this year's Budget, even though, technically, it is still a matter in dispute; and if this country makes up its mind to declare itself a Republic in the morning then, I fear, that the last barrier between us and an international court will be removed. I have always had grave fears of this particular issue being brought before an international court. I should be very sorry indeed, from the point of view of mere pounds, shillings and pence, to see this issue tried, for instance, before the Court of International Justice at the Hague. At present there are difficulties in the way of Great Britain citing us before that court. If the full policy of the Fianna Fáil Party is made operative, and if a Republic is declared here, then I do not see any obstacle in the way of our being cited before that court. Yet the moneys in dispute have been spent. Bad as is the policy that this Budget stands for and that the Budget of last last year stood for, still more serious are the commitments in which the Government have involved this country.

If ever there was a time when the Government should have avoided a policy of that kind, the present is the time. When we take into account the statements that were recently made from the Ministerial Benches, surely the present is the time when the policy of committing the country to further expenditure should be avoided. This is a time when, obviously, the taxable capacity of the country is diminishing. The Minister for Finance, speaking on another issue, declared that we had reached the limit of the taxable capacity of the country in certain directions—so far as income tax and property tax are concerned. Surely this is not the time to commit the country to a further policy of expenditure. The Minister seems to speak with two contradictory voices. He plays many rôles in this House, consciously or unconsciously. Speaking on the "Cuts" Bill, he urged that we had reached the limit so far as taxation in certain directions was concerned. That was a confession that, in so far as he was able, he had bled the country white. It was a definite admission that the Government could advance no further along that road. Watching their policy, we know how gaily and gladly the Government would advance along that road if they could do so. They cannot do so because they are afraid; they know that advance is impossible. The Minister recognises that an increased rate of taxation would mean, not an increased return of revenue, but probably a diminishing return of revenue.

That brings us to the boast made by the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I suppose it was a reply to the various charges made and challenges issued to the Government to fulfil their promises with regard to a reduction of two or three million pounds. The Minister pointed out that there has been a reduction in taxation. That must have come as a surprise to the country. If the people in the country did not think on it, if they accepted statements from the Government Benches without more ado, the announcement might have created some relief. I notice, however, there is no tendency to stress that saving. I wonder is the word "saving" the correct word? The Minister is very keen on the correct use of words, and I wonder if the word "saving" is the proper word to use here. What has happened is that taxation has yielded less. That is the economy. That is the way in which the great advance is being made to secure two million by economies. The Government's policy is such that the old taxation no longer yields the same sum. It has, in fact, yielded anything from one to one and a half million pounds less. That policy need only be continued further and the Government's promises of saving two or three millions will not only be fulfilled, but even surpassed. They have only to continue that policy and reduce this country to a position of complete bankruptcy, and then the yield of taxation will probably vanish altogether and the Government may save not merely two or three, but five or ten millions. That is the way in which the Government have carried out their promise of reduced taxation.

The Government's policy has so impoverished the country that the old rate of taxation is no longer capable of giving the old yield. That line of policy undoubtedly is capable of further development. Everybody who has watched the Government and the attitude of the Minister may well fear that we are in for more savings in taxation along that particular line. It is the only line on which we have seen any substantial—shall I call it advance? —made. There is definitely a growing incapacity in the country to meet the taxation demands of the Government. We have heard many speeches from the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Agriculture about the buoyant economic condition of the country. I suggest it is one of the tragedies of the present situation that three men in three key economic positions can have the callousness and cruelty to pretend to the people that agriculture is in a flourishing state, that industry is in a flourishing state and that our finances are buoyant. That is only an example of the complete callousness of the Ministry so far as the real sufferings of the country are concerned. There is suffering amongst every class of the community.

It was all very well for a Dublin Deputy to excite the humour of the House last week about the splendid times the farmers are having, and the splendid hats they can buy for their daughters. Government Deputies may well raise a certain amount of laughter about that, but it is only in keeping with the refusal on the part of the Government to recognise the situation that confronts the community. It is quite possible that in some of the towns and cities they have not yet felt the brunt of the Government's economic policy to the full extent. It is quite possible that the paralysis that is gradually getting a hold on country towns and districts has not yet crept to the bigger centres of population; but that is only a question of time. I suggest it ill befits Deputies representing Dublin constituencies to scoff at the sufferings of the country people arising out of the economic war. In no circumstances, even with full, free entry into the British market, would it have been possible for the Government or even for the Minister to justify the present squandermania policy, to quote their own words. All through, even where the biggest issues confront the country, the members of the Government as usual speak with several voices. Undoubtedly a great deal of the present unfortunate economic condition is due to the incapacity of the country to meet the heavy demands made upon it by the Government. I am not saying that even if the economic war was not there the demands would not be too heavy, and perhaps impossible, but that impossibility is greatly increased by the economic policy of the Government and the losses it has led to in our principal market.

Deputy McGilligan this evening quoted a statement made by Deputy Geoghegan to the effect that there need be no need fear of retaliation: that England could not do without our food. Right through the country the people were told that the English people were starving and could not do without Irish cattle. Was there a constituency throughout the country, particularly in the West, where that particular form of propaganda was not indulged in? It was indulged in all through the country, and yet it is only a couple of days since we heard from Deputy Geoghegan's neighbour— Deputy O'Reilly, of Meath—that the English people did not want our cattle and would not let them in. Deputy MacDermot had then to point out: "Well, that being so, are you not playing England's game"? It is quite obvious that the Government of this country and certain agricultural interests in England are working hand in hand. I want to make it clear that I do not mean to say they are in collusion, but they are achieving the same end and they are doing it to the detriment of the Irish farmer. And now, when the Irish farmer is caught with his cattle, is it surprising that more fat cattle were sent out of this country in the month of April this year than in April of last year. What else could the farmers do, despite the catastrophic fall in prices largely occasioned by the policy of the Government? The people had to get rid of their cattle at any price. The cattle were taken in on the other side at sacrifice prices so far as we are concerned. The fact that they were taken in at greatly reduced prices shows the condition to which the policy of the Government has reduced the country: it taxes, taxes beyond all limits.

I suggest that the time has come for the Government to take seriously what it tried so often to inculcate when it was on these benches: what even the Minister for Finance, in unguarded moments, stresses at the present time, namely, that there is a taxable limit to the capacity of this country. From the point of view of the revenue, leaving out of account altogether the effect it has on the economic welfare of the country—leaving out of account the effect it has on business, enterprise and industry, and on the purchasing value of the market here, and taking it even from the narrower point of view —the Government should realise, not merely in words but in practice, that a limit has been reached: that there is a limit beyond which they may not safely go even from the revenue point of view in the way of imposing taxes. If the money raised in taxation were spent in a reproductive way, then something might be said for it; but taking the policy of the Government as a whole, the policy that this Budget represents, surely the opposite is the case. The policy of the Government has been one of throttling the prosperity, the business and industry of this country. In the last 15 months increased taxation has not meant increased development in our industries, including agriculture, which is our principal industry. It has not meant increased wealth production, but the very opposite.

One might well understand it if the Government were to come forward and pretend that it is only taking from the rich classes to give to others, and that its doing so is helping to increase the productive power of this country. I suggest that beyond mere statements on their part they have done nothing to show that that is the case. Time and again, in this House and elsewhere, they have been challenged to show precisely what has been the result of their policy: to leave vague statements alone and come down to concrete proofs and show what has been achieved, so that the country will be in a position, at least, to try and strike a rough balance between the gains alleged to have been made and the damage that has undoubtedly been done; but the Government have shirked giving any information whatsoever on these points. I know they will take up the line, so far as many of the taxes the country is suffering from at the present moment, that anyhow it means the money is being kept at home: that it is not looking at the thing in a national way if you ask what can be bought from abroad and sold in this country. I suggest, if that line of policy is taken, there is absolutely nothing, except a few elemental elements such as gold and other things, that we could not produce in this country if we were prepared to pay the cost. There is nothing that we could not grow if we were prepared to leave out of account whether it was economic at world prices, or within reasonable limits of world prices to produce these articles here.

What we charge the Government with is this: they not merely have destroyed the foreign markets so far as the farmers of this country are concerned, but they have destroyed the home market as well. They have destroyed the home market for the farmer and the manufacturer. Their tariffs, whatever may be said for them in the abstract, or under normal conditions, have not got a fair chance on account of the economic war. Not merely have they not got a fair chance on account of it but, owing to it, they themselves have become a greatly increased burden on the people. We tried again and again to find out information about the purchasing power of this community. In the case of agricultural implements we tried to find out if the tariffs had led to an increase in employment and in the wages paid in the industry. No answer was given. Anybody who has been in this House for the last couple of weeks knows perfectly well the failure of the Government to answer direct questions as to how far, for instance, some of the tariffs and taxes they are putting on will not strangle important industries like the building industry and others. We have the usual bland blank general statement by the Government—no attempt to give any information or any details on which a reasonable Deputy could found any argument or any reasonable reliable conclusion whatever. If I felt that the Minister was not merely making a debating point, if I felt that he was not merely taking on himself the rôle of a defender of a cause when he said that this country had reached its taxable limits so far as certain taxes were concerned, I confess there might be some little hope that reason was going to dawn on the Government. But unfortunately we have too much experience of the Minister and of the Government to pay any attention to points that are brought forward merely for debating purposes of that kind. I fear it is not the dawn of reason on the part of the Government. If it were anything of the kind I suggest we would have a very different Budget this year after the Minister and the Government had had twelve months to consider the situation. The Minister has said that the country has reached the limit so far as taxation in certain directions is concerned.

It always had.

According to the Fianna Fáil Party, yes. I was afraid there was nothing sincere about the Minister's statement and I am afraid that the Deputy's interruption bears that out. I am glad that the Deputy now realises it. I suggest that it is not merely in income tax and in property tax that the Government has reached the limit in taxation. It has done it in other matters as well. I suggest the returns show that it has gone beyond the limit so far as the yield from certain taxes is concerned and that however much it may boast in relation to factories about which we can get no information, about the extra amount of employment it has given, it has not been able to get over the feeling abroad in the country that, as a result of its policy, wages in many industries have been lowered and the employing capacity of many employers has been diminished. I would hope that the Government if they are willing to examine their consciences,—being a little more optimistic than Deputy Moore, perhaps they have consciences occasionally to examine,—would examine them from that point of view as well.

I suggest the outlook revealed by the Budget, the outlook that confronts the whole country as a result of the Government policy, is as grave as it well could be. If the country is not now shouting in indignation against the financial measures of the Government, it is, as Deputy MacDermot suggested, because the people have become hardened as to what they may expect from this particular Government. I would ask the House and Deputies, even of the Fianna Fáil Party, to consider the outlook of the country now, and to compare the way in which they now look forward to the future and the way in which they looked forward to the future when the Government took up office. I would ask them whether there was a single menace which was threatening the country 15 months ago that is not a graver menace at the present day; whether the issues, which, when we raised them here in the House, were supposed to be phantoms of our imagination, are not now taken seriously as a matter of course almost by every person in the country. As a result of the two Budgets of the Fianna Fáil Party, as a result of 15 months of trying out the Government policy, I suggest knowing all the big issues this country faces, that it looks now a much blacker future than it did even 12 months ago.

There is no doubt that it is only from one part of the House information can be got as to what are the wounds from which this country is suffering in the economic war. We have heard about trenches and casualties but the country has yet to learn how serious the economic wounds are at the moment. It seems to me that a spirit of demoralisation has set in to this extent, that the Government are prepared to go on and on, and hung the consequences. It would seem that the economic shambles that has been produced around us is not going to be a warning or a lesson to stop even now, but that effect is being given to the Malthusian idea of letting the misery burn itself out. I wonder has the Government listened even to what its own back benchers have to say as to the state of the country, the state of the rural towns, whether they be large or small towns, or the state of the villages. We have heard that the Government had ceased to ransack the pockets of the taxpayers because the utmost farthing has been taken from them and no more taxation can be taken. The rural towns at the present moment stand in the front line trenches as well as other sections of the community. They have suffered gaping wounds. In towns in which there are 40 or 50 shops, there are only 4 or 5 doing any sort of business. Those who used to do business with them, now very often have to go in to borrow money instead of making purchases. That is the truth and those who are in touch with the situation must know that it is the truth. It is strange but it seems that when Governments take office, when they come up here and form an executive, they soon lose touch or appear to lose touch with conditions in the country. It is quite true that a lot of our towns exist on the agricultural industry alone. Even in this tragic crisis, in which I presume I shall be accused again of playing England's game, it may not be out of order just to tell a story which shows that even at the present moment some farmers are living on their sense of humour. A farmer in South Kildare named MacDonnell bought some young cattle prior to the imposition of the first tariff of 20 per cent. He wrote to me asking if I could get advice for him as regards a quick sale. I did not reply quickly enough. The tariff was put on and I was afraid to visit his area afterwards. Then on went another 20 per cent., making it 40 per cent. I met MacDonnell later on and I expected him to hurdle me out of his area. When he met me he burst out laughing and said: "I am now going to treat the whole thing as a joke. As a matter of fact, I would be lonely without these cattle. They are now pets, and every morning when I go out they come galloping across to me; they lick my hands and gaze into my eyes as if to say ‘MacDonnell, we shall never leave you'." There are a few people who take it in that way, but on the whole it is a very difficult matter for the ordinary people. Notwithstanding the range of ground covered by Deputies McGilligan, Mulcahy and O'Sullivan and the hard facts they produced, it seems that the only reply that we can get, when we speak of the frightfully serious situation existing, is that we will not give a helping hand, that we refuse to co-operate, that we will only encourage Great Britain to stiffen her attitude in regard to a settlement.

Is there any possibility of the economic war ending at all? Are there other considerations which will prevent a settlement? The country is beginning to get rather anxious in regard to the matter. Is it a question of pounds, shillings and pence, or of something bigger and greater still for this country? I am certain that every Party in the House will stand behind the Government in trying to settle the question. It is only when our trade has recovered and the people are free to trade and to earn a living that we can have a decent Budget. The Minister in his first Budget statement referred to the poor and the lowly and to the Sermon on the Mount. He stated that it would strike terror into any Minister for Finance to have to face such a Budget, but that probably during the coming year relief would be forthcoming. Notwithstanding that, this year the taxation imposed is at the same rate as the year before, with probably a slight increase. As in business, once your credit starts to slip and it becomes known that you are not making ends meet, it is very hard to get money to help you over the stile. There was never a better opportunity than during the months that have passed for getting a settlement. The loss of one's credit makes money very dear, abundant though it may be. The withdrawal of such a large number of deposits from the banks should be a warning that we are slipping down the hill. If the ordinary business life of the community is interfered with and upset and we go down the hill, we shall not be able to recover at the same rate. It will take years of hard work and years of intense concentration on the part of every individual in the State to bring our country back to a state of solvency unless we make an effort immediately to allow the country's economic blood to flow and business to be put on a paying basis.

The country towns are in a frightful state of economic decay. Practically no business is being done. The people in these towns have been amongst the principal taxpayers in the past. I do not know what they are now, or will be in the future, but they were always in the front line in the economic advance of this country or in withstanding any economic blizzard. An ordinary charitable appeal made in a country town now will act as a thermometer to register the condition of the people. It cannot be allowed to go on. The condition of the country towns will be reflected in next year's Budget. Their present condition is bad enough, but I can only say that the attempt to balance the Budget next year will be pathetic. I do not wish, and I do not think any Deputy wishes, to create such an atmosphere that if the Government go to look for money they cannot get it. We should not be accused, however, of playing England's game when we get up to state boldly and honestly what the conditions are and to state our belief that they should not be allowed to continue. The Government should not hold out impossible hopes, but should state if the hard times are going to last, if the wounds have to be borne, and if we have to take what is coming to us. Whatever side of the House we sit on, we are brave enough to take our punch in a fight.. We on this side of the House are not afraid to take what is coming. We are not afraid of our responsibility in helping the Government, if necessary, to get an honourable and dignified settlement.

We have a hard road to take sometimes and we get jagged wounds, but we have a right to see if that road can be avoided. Sometimes you can take a punch and sometimes you can give it back as well, but we as a country are not hitting back half as hard as the people are led to believe. We are told that there has been a saving of £92,000,000 of capital. There has been no such saving. Money has been chucked out of the rooms of the Executive Council and chucked around the country. Everybody knows we are not hurting England one bit except as far as her industrial manufactures are concerned and she is rapidly recovering from that. We do not know that this economic war will leave results beneficial to this country. But I want Deputies to remember that we are now living in 1933 and not in the backwoods of history. Ireland means the people of Ireland, the people who are living in it to-day. In all economic discussions it is the human factor that should enter. The people of Ireland should be considered. Being told that in the future, or some time in the far distant future, beneficial results will come to the people of the country is not much use to those of us who have to tread life's pilgrimage in this country to-day as it is.

As Deputy MacDermot said, the Budget is really one of consternation. Nobody would mind having to face consternation now if doing so was going to be worth something in the future, or if we could see the road marked before us, a road on which we could march in step. In such a case we could face even a long route march. As it is, it is nothing but fog. The more light we try to get the more impenetrable becomes the fog. Hence I have no hesitation in stating, as Deputy MacDermot has said, that this Budget will be viewed by all classes of the people with consternation because it does not help the industrialist, the farmer, the worker or the unemployed.

We have been told by several speakers that the Finance Bili is one of the most important Bills we have to debate in the course of the year. We on the Government side have been accused here of being irresponsible in regard to it. We have got lectures from the speakers who have preceded me as to the dangers of such irresponsibility. It would seem to me that those who are lecturing us might well examine their own attitude in this matter. We have just had a speech from Deputy Minch in which he spoke of the Budget being received with consternation. At the same time, his whole statement against the Budget was because of the economic war. This Budget is not to give effect to the economic war. This Budget is something quite apart from the economic war. Deputy Minch points to the situation in the country and says it is the result of the economic war. He indulges in the most lurid prophecies as to what the outcome of the economic war is to be and what the Budget is to be next year because of that situation. At the same time he tells us the Budget is received with consternation. Surely if Deputies who hold that we are irresponsible in regard to this matter are sincere, if they are not merely trying to make a case against this Budget, as I honestly confess was the impression I got from every speaker to-day, they might at least point out what are the faults of this Budget to which they particularly refer.

In this Budget there is no new taxation as compared with last year. Last year the particular increase was an increase in the income tax. Surely that particular increase cannot have such a terrible effect as to cause consternation in the country, consternation amongst Deputy MacDermot's friends, and consternation amongst Deputy Minch's friends. The impression those speeches have made in my mind is that they are the speeches of people who have merely come to a decision that they must oppose this Bill, and that in opposing it they will use very strong language, though they really cannot make any case against it. That is the inference one has to draw from what they have said on the Bill. Deputy O'Sullivan talked a lot about the danger of this irresponsibility. He talked of the evil wrought by statements that were made to the effect that England could not do without our market. He claimed that these statements had undoubtedly led to a disposition in the country to accept the economic war as something that would soon be over and as something that would bring no ill effects to this country. From that the Deputy goes on to prophecy a paralysis in the country. The Deputy talks about the paralysis that he says is inevitably coming. It seems to me very contradictory from a Deputy like Deputy O'Sullivan. We hear him threatening the country with paralysis while at the same time lecturing us on the bad effects of prophecies for which we were responsible. There is no sign whatever that the country expects paralysis. There is at least as much hope in the country to-day as we have seen in recent years. Nobody will deny that that is the case.

If Deputy Moore were at Blessington fair to-day he would not say so.

Deputy Moore is making his living away from Wicklow.

It is not so long since there was a fair at Blessington and the farmers at that fair told me that it was a very satisfactory fair. There was a briskness at the fair that they had not seen for some time and they told me they were very well satisfied with the prices. That is not a statement improvised for the occasion. It was a statement made to me last week by a number of farmers who made sales there. I am talking to quite as many people in Blessington as Deputy O'Leary talks to and I do not hear these tales of woe. As a matter of fact, I heard from a farmer here last Thursday that he got very good prices for pigs and that he was satisfied with the prices for his poultry, and, taking into account the value of the concession with regard to the annuities, he did not feel that his income was appreciably lessened as compared with what it was three or four years ago. There are many farmers throughout the country who talk about that. There are not at all so many farmers, as the speeches in this House would indicate, who are prepared to say that the country is approaching paralysis and that there is absolutely no hope for the country. If Deputies opposite were really genuine, they would instead of making these general statements give us some idea of what they would expect if the economic war were at an end. They would tell us what the real difference would be. There is not really one of them who expects that if the economic war were at an end prices would expand to any extent as a result. Not one of them really expects that. If they were of the responsible turn of mind that they pretend to be in their speeches to-day, they would give us these details and they would say how the situation is to be met. They would go into the question of what we are to do with the increasing population in the country, what we are to do with the population that formerly went to America and who now have no means of emigrating to any country—what our industrial policy should be to meet that big problem. It can hardly be denied that the Government has endeavoured to meet that problem. I think it is fair criticism to say that they have gone too fast in endeavouring to meet that problem. But if they had sat down and done nothing with regard to it, would they not have been guilty of criminal neglect? Would they not have been guilty of a very serious dereliction of duty?

When Deputy McGilligan made the statement to-day that there was no sign of extra wealth in the country, was he really speaking generally? Can anybody deny that, in the shops in Dublin, for instance, there is a vastly increased show of Irish goods? Can anybody deny that the use of Irish goods is increasing amongst all sections of the people? In that connection, if Deputies opposite would take the trouble to interview some of those who are selling goods wholesale in the country, they would not find support for the statement that the country is rapidly approaching bankruptcy. There are clothing firms in Dublin who assert that they are able to get money at the present time more easily than they were able to get it for many years past, that payment is more prompt and that they have less trouble in collecting accounts.

Name, please.

I shall give you the name outside. It would not be fair to mention the name of these people in a public debate. I am quite prepared to give the name of the firm and to give the name of the manager and the Deputy can go and challenge him about that statement.

They will get orders but no money.

Deputy Belton can also interview the manager of one of the leading firms in the wholesale clothing business in Dublin with regard to the statement that he could increase his business by 30 per cent. if he had additional capital.

Do you suggest that the country towns are better off? Dublin has an artificial prosperity.

I do not suggest that anybody is better off. How could people be better off at such a time as this? Would it not be an amazing thing if, in the present crisis, any country was better off than it had been previously? If we had found it possible to solve a problem that no other country has been able to solve, would we not have done something very phenomenal, something that would mark us out as the most remarkable people alive? But I hold that conditions are far from being as bad as they have been represented to be. I do not think that there is any real ground for these prophecies of approaching paralysis or for the attempt by Deputy Minch to represent the country as approaching a terribly dangerous situation. These prophecies do not do any good. I am not at all eager to represent the situation as a very happy one. I think it would be extraordinary if it were, but, however it happens, one does hear quite good accounts of it without searching for them. It is remarkable that, notwithstanding the bad prices prevailing in fairs and markets, one does hear good accounts of the soundness of the country—far more hopeful accounts that one used hear a few years ago. There is a great deal more hope in the country with regard to the future than there has been for a long time. That, in itself, is an asset. Deputy Minch referred to the conditions in the country towns. Surely there were always country towns that were living in semi-bankruptcy. I could mention several of them. I could mention a town which is probably the nearest town to that in which the Deputy lives —I know it better than any other place in Ireland—and there is not a shopkeeper there now who was there when I was going to school. The great bulk of these people have disappeared through bankruptcy. Is not the history of country towns a history of succeeding bankruptcies and collapses? Towns which have no industry on which to live are always in a dangerous position.

You must not have got any votes in country towns.

He did not try your methods.

Or yours.

Deputy O'Sullivan found it so difficult to make a case that he had to admit that his contention was not supported by Dublin or the larger towns. The conditions in these centres did not support his contention that there was paralysis in the country. "But," he said, "it is only a question of time until the paralysis spreads to the larger centres." That is hardly a statesmanlike utterance. Unless Deputy O'Sullivan can see further ahead than the rest of us, he cannot have much foundation for that statement. Nobody can see much sign of approaching paralysis. On the other hand, it is obvious that there is a much greater chance of employment for the average person at present than there has been for a long time past. I think that Deputy O'Sullivan will admit that if the workmen of Dublin were asked to give a decision as to the policy of the present Government and the policy of the previous Government, the signs are that they would decide in favour of the policy of the present Government as being better from the point of view of providing employment.

It seems to me that this is a rather profitless debate. The speeches appeared to me to represent more an attempt to make a case than to be spontaneous utterances. The Finance Bill is a Bill deserving of criticism. It affords an opportunity for criticism. I think that it is a pity that an occasion so important was not availed of for more constructive criticism than we have heard. This is a time when constructive criticism might be expected. It is not a time when ordinary Party observances should be adhered to. No Government, however wise, could face the situation this country is facing at the present time without deserving criticism. That situation is made more difficult by the fact that there is world depression and that there is an economic dispute with our principal customer and the country with which we trade most. The Government that has to face these two difficulties has a very big task and it would be an amazing thing if it were able to perform that task without making big mistakes. It might be expected from the Opposition that they would endeavour to help by constructive criticism. It might be expected that the Opposition would point out the genuine mistakes the Government might be making and indicate the safest road to travel in the present circumstances. There must be suggestions that would be helpful to the Government at the present time. They have a very big task—a task practically of creating a new country.

As I have already said, it may be taken for granted that, even if the economic dispute were at an end to-morrow, the condition of the farmers will never be what it was within the past ten years. In that situation, the Government have obviously to reform the system of agriculture that has prevailed. They have got to substitute some other system for the system of rearing cattle and pigs for export to the British market. At any rate they have to make agriculture less dependent upon that system if they possibly can. They have, on the other hand, to create industries as fast as it can be done. These are the two big tasks in front of them, and, in my opinion, in their short term of office they made a bold effort to meet these two tasks and have, at all events, gone upon the right road. They have, as far as I can judge, won the confidence of those who have always held the creed that Ireland should be a country not merely pastoral and agricultural, but a country which would have, at all events, such industry as would enable provision to be made in the particular manufactures required by the people.

Deputy Moore, in this important matter before the House, regrets that more constructive criticism was not forthcoming from these benches. It is a pity that Deputy Moore, and his colleagues, including the Minister who introduced this Bill, could not give us a little enlightened instruction, or criticism or forecast, of the meaning of this Bill. Deputy Moore, and Deputies like him, who make their living not out of agriculture but on the back of agriculture, can bury their heads in the sands, and say "we met a man who met a man who told him so-and-so." But we do not meet a man to tell us anything. We are living there. Deputy Moore was good enough to give me an invitation to the first public meeting he ever addressed at Baltinglass, in the constituency he now represents. If he gives me an invitation now I shall accompany him and stand on the same platform, for I am as good a man now as when I started six years ago, when I helped him in his election. If he gives me that invitation I will go to his next meeting at Baltinglass and challenge him beforehand that he will not get a dozen men to stand behind the insane, anti-Irish policy of the present Government to-day.

This Bill is a useful barometer as to the state of the country; it is a survey of the past year and a forecast of the future. Since I started studying politics seriously——

Studying politics seriously! I cannot help but laugh.

If you saw yourself as others see you you would never stop laughing. Since I started studying politics I have felt one thing more than another—it is one of the elements of nationhood—that the first step this country should have taken when it got its freedom was to establish a national currency. If we had a national currency to-day we would see whether the Government policy was right or whether we were on the right road.

Deputy McGilligan did not say that to-day.

He said the same thing in slightly different words.

I thought so.

I am not responsible for what Deputy McGilligan said and, certainly, I am not responsible for the construction that other Deputies put upon his words. If they are not able to understand plain English that is not my fault. From all sources we have the admission that national income is going down. The income of every industry in this country is going down. I would be very interested to find anybody who attempts to show that income from any industry in this country is rising. We have here an unbalanced Budget. What would that mean in any country in the world if they had their own currency arrangements? It would be a sign of national insolvency. But while we here are crying "Up the Republic" there is not a solitary proposal in this Budget to make this country as independent as other nations are of the British Commonwealth. The great Republicans opposite have not a single proposal or suggestion that we should take control of our own currency and banking. They held little meetings in back rooms and passed resolutions when the Government that was here for ten years was in power calling for a Currency Act. Now that they have the making of the laws in their hands why do they not do that themselves? The Fianna Fáil Party in June, 1927, went before the electorate and the chief plank in their platform was: "If we are returned to power we will establish a central bank for the control of note issue."

It was not the central plank. It was not the central point of our platform.

It was the chief plank on the programme on the occasion. Fianna Fáil was always very anxious to have a bit of a swing in their slogans. Thus Deputies who went on the street last night declared: "Fianna Fáil are keeping the nation on the march." I am afraid Fianna Fáil is keeping the nation on the run. If Deputy Moore shakes up his mind he will find that this was the particular plank of the platform in 1927, and if he says it was not is he not repudiating his Republicanism? Does he repudiate it? Does the Deputy say it should not be the principal plank of the Fianna Fáil platform?

I do not know enough about it.

You were then one of the intelligentsia in your Party.

I leave that to Deputy Belton.

I am glad that there is one man in the Fianna Fáil who admits he knows nothing about this matter. Now the whole condition we are reduced to at present has followed from the economic war and is the direct result of the economic war. Deputy Moore just appealed for co-operation and advice; he appealed to us on the Opposition Benches to make some suggestions. I shall make a suggestion to Deputy Moore and that is to study the cause of the economic war and to try and make himself up in it. If he throws his memory back a wee bit he will find that the last time President de Valera was in touch with the British Government—that is, publicly; I do not know what sort of underhand, sub rosa negotiations, if any, might be going on—he and Mr. Thomas had a conference. The public was informed that President de Valera, instead of putting up the claim of the land annuities, put up, amongst other things, our loss on note issue from 1922 to 1929, and also our loss consequent on Britain going off the gold standard. Deputy Moore—and I am sorry he is going—wants us to advise him and his Party as to how we could be helpful to the Government. Part of the claim, which runs to £20,000,000 or £30,000,000, put up by President de Valera on the last occasion on which he was in touch with the British Government was the currency loss—and Deputy Moore has said, publicly, that he knows nothing about currency and, therefore, he cannot appreciate how the loss in currency came about and, further, he does not understand the cause of the economic war. Deputy Moore asks us to make a suggestion so that I think it is pertinent to make the suggestion that Fianna Fáil should study their President's claim on England.

Deputy McGilligan went pretty fully over the whole field affected by the present situation and he made a very able exposure of the external policy of the Government. Government spokesmen are very dexterous and they always try to ride away upon what might be defined as the national economic policy of the Government when they are cornered on the external economic policy of the Government. It is the external economic policy of the Government that has produced the present situation and that has nullified any hope there was of the national economic policy of the Government ever succeeding. We were told by Deputies, in interruptions during previous debates, that the cause of the prolongation of this economic war was our treachery here. We were told by the Minister for Agriculture, I think, on the last day of last week, that all our criticism was dishonest and that it was only helping England. I am glad of the return of the Minister for Finance and, lest he might slip away without my giving him the invitation I gave Deputy Moore before he left, I shall tell him that I reminded Deputy Moore how I was able to convert the farmers of Wicklow to vote for him. I want to remind the Minister for Finance that, after knocking for years on the door of County Dublin constituency, he did not get in until he climbed in on my surplus. The Minister for Finance spoke on the farming position. I should be glad to accompany the Minister for Finance throughout the constituency he represents, County Dublin, at any time and I would lay any wager that he will not get half a dozen farmers there who pay their way to stand by his policy.

You said that before.

One cannot say a good thing too often. If the Minister for Finance will accept that invitation, I shall be glad to accompany him at any time.

Is the Deputy getting tired of his present company?

He should soon be ready for another change.

I suppose it is spirit the Deputy will offer the next time instead of porter?

What does that mean exactly?

The Deputy ought to know.

It has nothing to do with the Bill. Let us get down to the Bill.

We had Deputy Hales, who can get no further in relation to the economic war and its consequences than a kind of hysteria at England. Deputy Hales said, during a debate on an agricultural motion here, when he was trying to accuse the previous Government of responsibility for the economic war or of having done something that ultimately led to the economic war, that in 1922 his late brother, John Hales, and the late Michael Collins informed him that, in the financial settlement with Great Britain, there would be such financial adjustment as no money would, after that settlement, be passing in the shape of land annuities to Great Britain. I corroborate that statement from the lips of the late General Collins. If Deputy Tom Hales of to-day accepts that position and if his Party accepts that position, why did he not accept it ten or eleven years ago? What excuse has he to offer for the murder of John Hales and Michael Collins who held those views eleven years ago? What is the excuse? I do not see any, and those who accepted the leadership of John Hales and Michael Collins eleven years ago are to-day accused of having sold the country to England. If there was any grain of truth in that, who murdered the leaders and would not co-operate with them?

You had better leave murder out of it.

I cannot.

There could be plenty of murders fired across at the Deputy, too.

The Deputy had better keep off that subject.

The discussion has travelled very far and I would suggest to the Deputy that he should use more moderate language. There is no necessity to refer to these things. If the Deputy holds that certain men were murdered, he can hold that view, but he had better leave it out of this discussion.

I do not intend to proceed any further on those lines nor do I want to bring the matter in except in a subordinate way, but we have been definitely charged with treachery, with treason to our country, and that, to any man, is as serious a charge, if not more serious, than murder. If moderation is required from one side of the House, it should be requested from the other side also.

Does that imply the charge that the same even-handed justice is not given to all sides?

What does it imply?

I was asked if my remarks implied a certain thing and I answered no. In this Bill, dealing with national economics rather than with external economics, we are lending money to industry, and we are protecting industry. It is beyond my understanding to see how we can regulate the flow of money or credits to industries when we have no control over that money or over those credits. We have no central banking institution to control the distribution of money and credits of capital to industry, but we are told that, by the expedient of loaning and putting up tariffs, we are going to establish industries. If we put up a tariff to protect industries, they may keep out foreign competition, but if some other operation happens, which deprives the people of money to buy the products inside the tariff wall, how are industries going to be developed? The only policy our Government has is embodied in this Bill, to pile on tariffs to help native industries. Very good. If that stood alone I do not think that the debate here would be very prolonged. But it does not stand alone. Simultaneously with it you have the Government policy that precipitated the economic war. I say emphatically that it was precipitated by our Government.

Throughout our history when an effort was made to develop industries, the jealous eye of England watched them, and when they showed signs of developing from adolescence into manhood, they were crippled by some means or other. On this occasion, when the present Government, adopting the policy handed down to them by the late Arthur Griffith and others, set about national protection, in order to build up these industries, no doubt the jealous eye of British industrialism watched these industries, and if there was a danger of them developing, that jealous eye might be anxious for something to counter their development. Were we an independent Republic it would be an easy matter for the British Government to counter that development. Were we a twin nation with the connecting link of the Crown, as we were before, England could probably, with impunity, apply the means to crush our industries that she applied before. But to-day, we are in a different position; we are one of a number of nations, of which England is another, that comprise a Commonwealth, and if England attempted to counter our policy of developing our industries by protection, she would be attempting to do something to us that the other nations of the Commonwealth have done, and are doing, and she could not get away with it, without incurring their displeasure and hostility. In other words, she could not dare to attempt it without inviting the disruption and, perhaps, the destruction of the British Empire.

England has no excuse whatever for interfering with our industries, consequent on a protectionist policy. But the present Government gave her an excuse to interfere, and they played England's game by doing so. The present Government repudiated a settlement entered into between the Government of this country and the British Government. In order to cover up their own mis-doings they want to accuse this Party, and everyone who does not believe in them, of being guilty of the crimes that they themselves have committed.

Deputies opposite and Ministers know that certain payments under the Ultimate Financial Settlement could not be made without going before the Dáil for a Vote. They know that no payment was ever made on foot of the Ultimate Financial Settlement until July, 1927. They know that with their allies then, with the Labour Party and the National Party, if they came in and functioned as members of this House they had a majority, and could have repudiated, in the full exercise of their rights, the Ultimate Financial Settlement of July, 1927. They did not do so. The Minister for Finance knows that when the leader, President de Valera, was requested to come and take his seat in July, 1927, before the Vote was taken and to repudiate the Ultimate Financial Settlement, he did not come in. He deliberately remained out until the Vote was taken, and the document honoured by the Dáil. If the Minister has any doubt about that I have the documents here to prove it. The Fianna Fáil Party had the power then to repudiate the Ultimate Financial Settlement before it got any sanction from the Dáil, and before any payment was authorised by the Dáil. They did not come in.

Those who were inside made the payments, and they are accused of treachery. They are accused of playing England's game then. What game was played by those who deliberately remained outside, and would not come in to defeat that settlement? These are the people who played England's game then. These are the people who, at that time, never said a word or subscribed to any authorised document that the land annuities should be withheld from England. I challenge them to produce a document showing that prior to 1928 in any public utterance any responsible member of the Fianna Fáil Party ever said that the land annuities should not be paid to England. We are told that they always repudiated that right. I put it to them that they never repudiated that right until after a public meeting which was held in the Rotunda, and presided over by Dr. McCartan, at which the principal speaker was Mr. Peadar O'Donnell. Not even then was it adopted. Not for months after was it adopted as a policy until they found their strength—

On a point of order, is this relevant to the Finance Bill? However interesting in itself, it appears to me to be very considerably delaying our consideration of the Finance Bill.

I will try to co-relate it. I think that the matter should be left in your hands, sir.

Deputy MacDermot is quite entitled to draw the attention of the Chair to a matter which he thinks is irrelevant.

I will try to co-relate it. The condition of the country has been the principal subject debated on this Bill. That condition has been connected with the economic war, and the economic war and the land annuities have become practically synonymous terms. This side of the House has been accused of playing England's game, and the speaker prior to me appealed to us to give suggestions as to how to help the Government out of the present position. I think it is very pertinent to the whole matter to show how the Government got into the present position and brought the country into the present position.

Of course all speakers have been allowed to ramble and travel a bit wide with reference to the economic war and such things. Whilst the effect of the economic war may seem to be relevant, the history of what led up to the retention of the land annuities in this country is not relevant surely, nor a meeting in the Rotunda or by whom it was addressed.

Only in so far, A Leas-Chinn Comhairle, as a true history of that campaign would show clearly that there can be no grounds for accusing Deputies on this side of the House of playing any game but a national one.

They can play that on this Bill.

There is just one item which if there was nothing else, is an absolutely perfect proof that the business of this country is going down. We have had for the last two years prior to the present one a surplus from the Currency Commission of £220,000. The Minister is only budgeting for £200,000 this year, which recognises the fact that there is going to be less business in the coming year, because there will be less currency in circulation. The surplus income from the Currency Commission has only one source, profits arising out of the note issue. If the profits are down the note issue must be down, and that is an indication that the business of the country must be down in the opinion of the Minister for Finance. It has been pretty clearly shown by previous speakers that there is no reduction in taxation. If everything were normal there should be a 40 per cent. reduction in taxation and yet there would be no real reduction, because the nation's income has been reduced 40 per cent. After reducing taxation by 40 per cent. it would still be as high in terms of commodities as it was in 1932-3, even though in money denominations it was down 40 per cent. Even with a reduction of 40 per cent. in the taxation estimated for the coming year it would take as many sheep, cattle and pigs to produce that amount of money as it would have taken to produce 40 per cent. more two years ago. We make our national income out of agricultural products, and here we have the position that what we make our income out of is 40 per cent. down, but taxation is still at the same level as before our incomes were reduced 40 per cent. In effect, in real values, taxation is up 40 per cent. It has no other meaning. Local taxation is up 40 per cent. It is nominally in many cases up from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent., but even without any nominal increase in local taxation there is a real increase of 40 per cent., because of the reduction in the price of commodities consequent on the external economic policy of the Government.

Somebody, I think it was Deputy Moore, spoke about the farmers' position. Some freak of a farmer he met down in Wicklow—I cannot meet anybody like him—said that he is better off now than he was two years ago; that with the land annuities at half he is better off. I think it was Deputy McGilligan pointed out the fallacy of borrowing money on the deferred land annuities. Let us examine what a deferred land annuity is. First of all the pretence, the fallacy, is put up by the Government that we are not paying the land annuities to England. To the three Ministers who, as Deputy McGilligan rightly pointed out, control and are in charge of the economic policy of this country, that is the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and the Minister for Agriculture, this matter should be put up in a straightforward way, and let us get a straightforward answer—not the answer they can slip away with on a political platform. What is happening to the 40 per cent? It is varied a bit now. On live-stock it is graduated according to the age of the cattle. For the purpose of argument, however, it is good enough to stick to the original 40 per cent. confiscated off the value of the stuff going over. England has imposed that—to get what? To get £5,000,000 that she claims we should give her. We have to pay it whether we like it or not and, if we should not pay it, it is the Government's duty to protect us, and if they do not protect us and are able to protect us, they are failing in their duty as a Government. If we should not pay that to England—and the President said here in reply to that on one occasion that we are not collecting it but that England is collecting it —it is his duty, as head of the Government of this country, to stop England from collecting it if he is able. Anyway, in the arrangement as it exists, we are paying that £5,000,000 to England and Ministers have the audacity to come up here and say: "We will not pay the annuities any more to England," and they push out their chests on that when we are actually paying it. The only payment we are liable for is £3,000,000, but we are paying £5,000,000, including the other charges. Surely, that should complete the job; but no! The Minister for Finance and members of the Government come along and say that the farmer must pay half the annuities to the Land Commission as well as paying the whole of the annuities and the £2,000,000 besides to the British Government. Obviously that is putting a rack rent on the land.

On the strength and security of that rack rent the Minister proposes to borrow money, and he thinks that anybody outside a lunatic asylum will give it to him on that security. He knows perfectly well, and he has been told in this House by members of many Parties, or rather of more Parties than one, that in present circumstances, and if this economic war is to continue indefinitely or permanently, a penny of the land annuities will never be paid directly, because the farmers are paying more than the whole of the annuities indirectly. What is the security? It is merely and solely a piece of coercion. The Minister will borrow money on the strength of a deferred payment or a deferred debt that does not exist because that alleged debtor is discharging that debt in another way. If there were any honesty in the Government they would never have asked for a penny of the land annuities during the continuance of the economic war, for the simple reason that the farmer was paying twice the land annuities during the economic war. If the Minister gets away with borrowing money on the strength of this deferred annuity, which is in reality a rack rent on the land, then he has an excuse for his Coercion Act to follow by way of punishment and to enforce payment or sell out the unfortunate farmer who, instead of expecting relief, has to pay a land annuity three times over. This is the security we are going to get in order to raise money for a Budget that the Minister has not been able to balance.

Practically every Minister, including the Minister for Finance, promised derating. That was before he came into office. He promised it in a very eloquent speech in Monaghan on the 15th August, 1931, and President de Valera was on the platform with him. Now it cannot be done. Not only did he admit it here, but Deputy McGilligan was quick to put the proper interpretation on his admission—that he held office under false pretences. He admitted that there was to be a saving in national taxation of £2,000,000, the land annuities were to be held and nothing was to happen, but that the agricultural land of this country was to be derated entirely. That was the Minister for Finance in Monaghan, and it was the Minister for Education in Carlow. It was President de Valera in Collooney.

The Deputy must not go into the merits or demerits of derating.

I am only giving these references in support of the promise.

The alleged promise is not in this Bill.

I know; but the condition of the country is implied in this Bill and I want to draw attention to the promises and the practice, especially as I have the opportunity, of getting one of those who promised here in the dock.

The opportunity cannot be availed of, if it is not a suitable one. The question of derating cannot be debated now.

I did not catch what the Ceann Comhairle said.

That the question of derating cannot be debated on this Bill.

Can the question of the rates and the charges on agriculture in relation to the economic position of the country and the economic policy of the Minister not be debated on this Bill? These charges have become more onerous than heretofore, because the commodity value of what agriculture has to sell has been reduced 40 per cent. These charges become 40 per cent. greater and there has been no reduction in national taxation, notwithstanding the promises of the various Ministers whom I have just quoted. Instead of having the charges reduced, they have been increased. Instead of the Minister for Finance rising here, with his usual sunny smile, and saying he would hand over to agriculture an annual grant sufficient to remit all local rates on agricultural land, I have been handed a mandamus order from the Minister for Local Government and Public Health and so have nine colleagues of mine in the Dublin County Council, the very county the Minister represents and the very county in which he tells us that the farmers are all right. I have asked him to come with me anywhere in County Dublin to try to get one farmer to say he is all right. It is all very well for people in the country to say that they met a man who met somebody else, but I would like to accompany the Minister in order to meet one man who will say his policy is right.

The Minister is a bit shy in the matter of meeting people.

I think the Minister would certainly be shy to meet them on this occasion. Anyway, I issue the invitation and I hope it will be availed of. Deputy Moore asked us to play the rôle of prophets. He asked would prices expand if the economic war ended and, if so, to what extent? They will expand, but to what extent we do not know. We do know that when the economic war started and when the fight came down to real blows prices contracted very, very much. We know the extent to which prices contracted. I suppose, following the law of averages, prices would expand if the war were called off, but they would hardly expand to what they were before the war started. The tendency would be to expand, but prices would not reach their former level.

We sent a mission to Ottawa. As a youngster I remember hearing the words: "Balfour sent his mission out to Rome; but it might have stopped at home." I think the mission to Ottawa might have stopped at home, too, because we got nothing as a result of it. Other missions have been roaming about and we got nothing from them either. All the while we have been losing our grip in the English market. Other people have been digging their heels in. I have heard people arguing seriously that it does not matter if the war were stopped to-morrow or if it never had taken place, because conditions would be just as they are. They argue that England is not able to buy our stuff. The British market absorbs nearly £400,000,000 worth of imported foodstuffs every year. Yet we have people arguing that the English would not be able to buy our little exports of foodstuffs.

This is the sort of tripe that is put over on the country. The danger is that when a settlement comes, if ever, England will have found other customers that are only too willing to supply her wants and she will let us look for the markets that that captain of industry in the Fianna Fáil Party, Deputy Kennedy, told us were waiting for us in France and other countries in Europe. We can then set out to canvass Europe. Some of our Ministers canvassed Europe last year but they did not bring home many profitable orders. The British market is gone. If it is not gone for good, it is gone for a long time. The Minister for Agriculture gave us anything but an enlightening exposition of his agricultural policy the other day. It was difficult to get him to speak. The all-important matter of agriculture seems to be let drift. The only chance we have of running the country——

Discussion on agricultural matters is surely more appropriate to the Vote on Agriculture. It certainly is not appropriate to this Bill.

But, agriculture policy——

A discussion on agricultural policy is not in order on this Bill; a discussion on financial policy is.

Economic policy is not in order on this Bill?

I speak rather plainly. I said a discussion on agricultural policy is not in order on this Bill. A discussion on financial or economic policy may be in order.

I submit that there is no more important policy in this country than our agricultural policy. If the agricultural policy is to be dissociated from the economic policy, I do not know where I stand in the matter. The Minister admitted by implication that the argument I put up to him with regard to national economy was sound. The frittering away of the resources of this country on wild-goose schemes cannot be justified. I am in favour of increased tillage. The Minister said that the form of economy in which he was interested would carry more live stock. He also admitted that the wheat he was growing was a soft wheat——

I think the Deputy understood me very well when I told him that matters appropriate to Estimates may not be debated on a Finance Bill. The two questions raised by the Deputy are quite relevant to the Agricultural Vote.

I bow to your ruling, but I thought that when dealing with general national economy I could refer to a particular form of economy. We were told by previous speakers that we were less affected by world conditions and prices than other countries. If, in our present condition, we are better off than other countries that are gripped by the general depression, then without the 40 per cent. tariff we should be much better off than any country in the world. That argument hardly fits in with the claim of the Minister for Finance and other Ministers that 15 or 16 months ago they took over a bankrupt concern. Conditions have certainly not improved in the country since.

In conclusion, I will say I do not envy the Minister his job when he has to face the country with this enormous Budget. I certainly would rather have the responsibility of opposing it rather than be responsible for it. I know the economic state of the country. I am in it. I know that everywhere employment is increasing—I mean unemployment is increasing.

The Deputy was right first.

Unemployment is increasing, and there would be very little employment in the Deputy's county only for all the stones that were put out on the roads.

What does the Deputy know about Galway? He has been asking the Minister down to a fair at Baltinglass. Is he prepared to come to any fair in Galway? If he will name any fair there which he will attend I will go with him, get on a platform there, and discuss the whole question.

Mention the fair and I will be there.

Get Old Moore's Almanack and study it.

All you have to do is to mention the fair.

Deputies will have to decide that matter outside the House.

Not 24 hours ago I travelled the whole of Galway.

Galway did not profit much as a result of the Deputy's visit.

It profited to this extent —that I made the Deputy speak and mention Galway. He has mentioned it for the first time since I entered this House. Perhaps, as a result, that may do something for the people of Galway and for the Deputy. I would remind the Deputy that he has more responsibility than to come in here and sit on a back bench. The Deputy mentioned Galway, but if a person had not other sources of information he would certainly not know from anything the Deputy said that he represents Galway in this House.

We cannot all be on the Front Bench. We do not all aspire to ministerial positions. Deputy Belton may get one yet.

There is moderation in everything, but certainly no one would ever accuse the Deputy of aspiring to a seat on the Front Bench or to a ministerial position.

If Deputies would get away from personalities, procedure would be more orderly.

If Deputy Belton does that I will try to do the same.

The point I was on related to the difficulties the Minister has to face with a country bordering on bankruptcy. I am sure he is not going to shut his eyes to facts. He must see them around him every day. When the Minister comes to reply I shall be agreeably surprised if he can show that the country can bear this taxation: that it is better off than I think it is. I will be glad if he can prove that the country, so far as taxation is concerned, has not reached saturation point at the present time. I do not know any industry we have that is paying its way, or any commodity the production of which is paying. Farmers and business men are not able to pay their way except out of reserves they have. As we can see from the report of meetings of Boards of Health throughout the country, the number of people getting home assistance is increasing week after week. A previous speaker asked, what is going to be done with the young people coming of age each year? The Minister must know from information in his own Department, or in the Departments of his colleagues, that many of the young people coming of age are passing on to relief. If the present condition of affairs continues for a few more years we will have in this country men and women who have never worked and never will work.

The position is extremely serious, not only as regards the present but for the future, because of the fact that people are being deprived of the opportunity of having work made available for them. The increased taxation provided for in this Finance Bill is not going to remedy that state of affairs. As regards taxation, saturation point has long since been reached in my opinion and in that of many good judges. As Deputy McGilligan pointed out this evening the Minister for Finance, when he sat on these benches a few years ago, said that the country could not bear the taxation then imposed, stating at the same time that he knew how economies to the extent of £2,000,000 could be effected. The position is that the taxation levied at that time has been increased by many millions by the present Government. As I pointed out earlier, the commodity value has gone up 40 per cent. How is that going to be met? It means that the farmer who has to pay taxes will be obliged to sell 40 per cent. more produce to pay the amount of taxation levied on him over a year ago. We are told that we are getting protection, but that protection will regulate itself because the value of the article protected has been reduced by 40 per cent.

Take, for instance, oats. It has been tariffed. The value of oats as a food for animals has been reduced 40 per cent. because the animal fed on it will be sold at 40 per cent. less. That will regulate the level of prices at home. We cannot have an increase in the price of oats, even through protection, because ultimately we do not sell it here but in the form of beef and pork in England, and it sells there at a reduction of 40 per cent. That will have the effect of regulating the price there and in the home market. It will not regulate it to-day or to-morrow, but it will do so ultimately. There is always an ebb and flow in prices. There is a time lag. It will take some time to reach equilibrium, but that equilibrium will go and when it does, the prices of all commodities here, no matter how we use them, will be down 40 per cent. The price of labour will come down 40 per cent. That is an economic truism. These are factors which the Minister for Finance must face when imposing his present taxation.

Deputy McGilligan pointed out that the Minister for Industry and Commerce claimed that there was a reduction of £1,000,000 in taxation. I am not aware of any. The Minister himself said that, if you reduce taxation from its present level, the necessaries of life will have to be taxed. I would ask the Minister for Finance to apply himself to this point: that not only has taxation not been reduced but it has been increased 40 per cent. in commodity values, and that is what counts. It is in the prices of commodities that the Minister has the reservoir available to him to tap in order to get this 40 per cent. increase in taxation. It is out of that it must come. These are very important matters. Our general national income is down by the sum mentioned here several times.

A previous speaker asked why Deputies on this side do not suggest something to help the Government out. Our answer is that the Government will not take a suggestion from us. An obvious suggestion is: have sense, stop the economic war and let us get a price for our commodities. Even if the Minister wants the same amount of taxation, if the money values of commodities are increased, real taxation will be diminished here. Every decrease in the price of commodities that we have to offer, means a substantial increase in taxation. The Minister having increased the Budget by five or six millions since he came into power has reduced commodity values by 40 per cent. The burden that this country has to bear now is, therefore, 50 per cent. greater than it had to bear when the Government came into office. I hope the Minister will deal with that very important aspect of the matter when he comes to reply. If his colleagues were serious about getting our co-operation in settling the economic war, if they want co-operation—and they should want it and they should get it if they really put up a proposition—I would make a suggestion to the Minister. If he is serious about having the co-operation of the House on the matter of the settlement of the economic war he should tell us frankly——

The settlement of the economic war does not arise. The Minister did not in this debate make any reference to co-operation.

The previous speaker asked us for suggestions as to how it could be settled. I am replying to that Deputy, but of course if you rule me out, a Chinn Comhairle, I will pass it by. In conclusion, I would make this suggestion to the Minister, that if the request made to us is to be taken seriously, before any co-operation can be expected from us, the Government ought to inform this House and the country what is the matter in dispute and what are the points in the dispute. How is the £400,000,000 that is claimed made up? I should think that it is very relevant if we are asked for co-operation that we should be told how the £400,000,000 that is claimed of England is made up. We would want to know and to understand how that sum has been built up. I have not seen how it is built up; I have just seen a bald figure. I have never seen any explanation of the circumstances and they were never put before the House. Perhaps if the causes of the trouble were dealt with more frankly we would be nearer to co-operation. We certainly would be nearer an understanding of the matter. I have nothing but sympathy with the Minister in the big job he has to extract this money out of a country that is not paying its way at the present time. As I said in the beginning if we were in the happy position of having a currency of our own that would act as a barometer and show up the defect at once, it would show it up so clearly that the Government would have to sit up and take notice long before now. But while they can get paper money converted without having the trouble of keeping up a monetary equilibrium they can go on. Perhaps some day they may be reminded that disequilibrium in their currency has set in when their paper will not be honoured. I am afraid we are marching towards that unfortunate destination and that we are nearer to it than many Deputies realise.

This Bill will be discussed very fully, I expect, section by section, in Committee and I only intend to make a passing reference to general conditions. This Bill, like other measures which were forerunners of it, presents in the aggregate a bill to the people of the State which they will find it very difficult to meet. The Minister in defending his Budget said there were many doleful prophecies last year as to what would happen with regard to the taxation which he then imposed and he suggested that none of these doleful prophecies had been realised. I do not intend to go into all the doleful prophecies, and they were many, that were made on the introduction of the Budget last year. That was even before there was any talk of an economic war or its woeful results. Various things were pointed out to the Minister at that time. One was that the extra taxation imposed under that Budget would have the effect of adding to the number of unemployed. I think that that prophecy, a doleful prophecy if you like, and it was doleful, has been realised. The statement was made that one result of the extra taxation would be that the revenue of most of the ports of the State would be greatly reduced with a consequent increase in unemployment amongst dockers. I think that that doleful prophecy has certainly been realised. If the Minister takes the trouble to apply for the returns from any of the harbour authorities—Cork, Limerick, Waterford or Sligo—he will find that these prophecies were borne out. He will find that there was not only a great decrease in the revenue of the ports but that there was an accompanying decrease in the revenue of the shipping companies trading at these ports. Not only was there an addition to the number of unemployed dockers but there was an addition to the number of unemployed people who were formerly employed by the shipping companies. There was a consequent loss to all sections of the community at these ports.

We foretold long before the actual imposition of the tariffs as a consequence of the economic war, that last year's Budget would have disastrous effects on agriculture and it had. If the Minister consults his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, he will get all the information he wants in that particular line. He will find that the farmer's income has diminished so much that in fact he is unable to pay some of his local taxation or indeed the central taxation that has been extracted from him with, I might say, a pincers. It is being extracted with a pincers. The Minister ought to know, if anybody knows, that there were no profits from agriculture last year. That is a fact that is realised by the dumbest fool in the Free State. Still farmers are being presented with bills for income tax by the Revenue Commissioners. The farmers in their defence have put in their accounts to prove there were losses but there should be no necessity to prove there were losses. I think that the Minister at this stage, when it is apparent that every farmer is losing ought to instruct, if he has any power to instruct, the Revenue Commissioners to cease issuing demands for income tax to farmers.

Questions of administration are absolutely out of order on the Finance Bill.

All right, but I thought I was entitled to talk about income tax.

But not about administration.

The imposition of income tax—that is what I am trying to deal with. It is unfair to impose income tax at all on the farmers at present. As I said, farmers are asked to defend their profits. It is a loss in every way when you come to think of it. There is a loss on the people put at the work. There must be a big expenditure on staffs to write all the letters written to farmers demanding income tax.

That is certainly a detail of administration.

I am on the question of taxes, and I respectfully suggest that I am in order.

Discussion of administration is not in order.

I am not on administration. I am on the question of costs.

That is a matter more proper for the Estimates, and is out of order now.

In regard to income tax, and as an illustration of what I heard stated, here is an extract from a document written on behalf of the Revenue Commissioners to an ordinary farmer, and I suggest that the representative of the Labour Party at present in the House, who is going to support, and has supported, the Minister in all his impositions, should take careful note of what I am going to read——

May I point out that the Deputy, according to his own statement, is going to read a letter written by the Revenue Commissioners to an ordinary farmer? I suggest that that is certainly administration.

On behalf of the Revenue Commissioners. When the Ceann Comhairle hears me, I am sure he will say it is in order. If I am ruled out I shall stop.

Having read the letter.

If it is a letter written by or on behalf of the Revenue Commissioners to a farmer it is irrelevant to this debate.

Is it your ruling then, sir, that in this House——

My ruling is that questions which properly arise on the Estimates are not to be discussed on the Finance Bill—that is, the administration of the various Departments. The collection of income tax is certainly a matter of administration, and the method of collecting it cannot be discussed now.

This Bill——

Deals with the raising of taxation; not with administration.

Or its collection.

Or its collection.

I shall not read the letter, but this farmer, to whom this application was made, made no profit whatever. But in trying to prove that he made no profit he had to do what any ordinary business man has to do in filling in his income-tax form, state the amount of his expenses in various ways, the wages paid, etc. This farmer stated that he paid £1 12/- per week to one man—I hope the representative of the Labour Party in the House is listening to me——

He is the exception.

:—that he paid £1 5/- to another man and 14/- to a third. There are several such farmers. He was told that he should produce verification of this and, of course, he did. Then he was told that this was monstrous, that wages such as that should not be paid. The Minister does not like to hear me referring to this if he is going to interrupt again.

Surely this is administration.

Surely it is a question on this Bill.

It is a question of administration, as I have already informed the Deputy.

Would it not come in under Section 43?

The discussion of administration and of any matters that properly arise on the Estimates, are out of order in this debate.

I bow to your ruling. It is very difficult for me to speak then.

That is not the fault of the Chair.

If I mention labourers' wages I am told it is administration. Am I in order in saying—this is not administration so far as the Minister's Department and the income-tax department are concerned, but it is tantamount to administration as far as the unfortunate farmers are allowed to carry on a business by the Minister and his Department——

Surely criticism of the Minister and his Department arises on the Estimates.

I shall leave the Minister and his Department out of it. It would be very well for the country if they were left out of it for a long time.

Perhaps the Deputy will leave them out of his speech.

The suggestion made to the farmers is that we are paying too much in wages and employing too many. The Labour Party ought to mark that. The suggestion is that instead of employing men we should get women to work at 5s. and 7s. per week.

I draw attention to the fact that that is a suggestion which is alleged to have been made by a Department.

A suggestion which was made—there is no allegation about it. I hope the Labour Party, who are at least worthily represented here, will take note of that fact when they are voting for this Bill.

There is nothing in this Bill about that.

Or any other Bill which imposes a burden on the agricultural or any other section of the community. The Minister does not like references to doleful prophecies. We, in this Party, at least have been honest. We never expected the Minister to do the impossible. We did not even expect them to reduce the taxes which we put on the people. We realised that they could not be reduced very much. When Ministers were on this side of the House, and I make all allowance for what Deputies on the Government Benches felt when they were sick of opposition—when the devil was sick the devil a saint would be; but when the devil was well, the devil a saint was he—they were full of the economies that they could make. I make due allowances for election promises. I do not want to be as hard on them as Deputy McGilligan was to-day. I do not mind a potential Minister making a misstatement. Anybody might make an alleged misstatement. These promises, however, were reiterated over and over again. They were put on paper after careful consideration and one is therefore bound to take note of them. Where is the phantom £2,000,000 deduction that we were to have in taxation? We were accused here a few days ago of making irresponsible statements. I should like to know what were the irresponsible statements? Any statements I make here I shall substantiate—even the statement that the Minister prevented me from finishing. Any statement I make here or in public outside I am prepared to substantiate. If there have been irresponsible statements made they were made by Ministers and by Deputies on the Government Benches.

The Minister for Agriculture some days ago accused us of making irresponsible statements because we suggested that the farmers were losing so much. It is impossible to estimate what the farmers are losing. I tried to estimate it a short time ago in this House, and I put it at over £20,000,000. The Minister looked aghast. Deputy Corry looks aghast at me now, but I was only quoting the estimate that the Minister for Agriculture put on it. It was only an estimate and a very mild estimate and it was an estimate that might be increased. But the Minister for Agriculture himself put the loss to the farmers on cattle alone at £4 per head. I ask Deputy Corry to mark that. I only put the same estimate on the loss as the Minister for Agriculture himself put on it as regards cattle last year. That estimate was put before the additional imposition of 20 per cent. was placed on cattle. The Minister for Agriculture estimated the losses of the ordinary farmer last year when the British duty was only 20 per cent. at £4 a head.

I leave it to the intelligence of the Deputies behind the Minister to estimate the loss to the farmers when the duty on cattle is 40 per cent. I take the Minister's own estimate. It is plain to anybody that the loss to the farmers in this country really exceed £20,000,000. A greater authority than I am, in the presence of the Minister for Agriculture, estimated the loss to the community at £40,000,000 a year, and perhaps he was nearer to being accurate than I am. He was more capable of making a fair estimate. We have got to talk about the position of the farmers, we are compelled to talk about the position of the farmers in this country. We have got to reiterate the hardship of the farmers, and when I was speaking the other day about the position of the farmers a Deputy on the opposite benches—I do not know whether he represents farmers or whom he represents—interrupted me with the question: "Are there any others but farmers in this country?" Unfortunately there are and it is because there are others besides farmers in the country that I and Deputies like me, who are mainly interested in agriculture, have offered the opposition that we have offered, and will offer, to the Economies Bill, and similar Bills introduced here.

It was because there are other people in the country who, because of the farmers' losses, and the necessary help that the Minister must ask those people to give the farmer during the continuance of the present trouble and because they must perforce bear a share of our present burdens, that I speak about the position of the farmers. We opposed that Bill because we considered it was unfair and unjust and because we considered it was unfair and unjust for the farmers' representatives to ask those people to bear a share of the burden which is only meant to be temporary so as to carry the people over the economic war. If these were normal times and this was a normal Budget, and if the Government endeavoured to perform what the Ministers when in Opposition said they would perform, and insist on and endeavour to economise all round and make a reduction in the Budgets that were presented to the people, perhaps a good case could be made for the measures that the Minister has presented. A good case could be made if every individual in the country had to bear an equal sacrifice. But every individual in the country has not to bear an equal sacrifice under the Minister's legislation.

To-day I think Deputy MacDermot asked a question as to the possible reduction of the interest charged by the Agricultural Credit Corporation. I do not know what the answer was because I was not in the House, but I suggest that the Minister for Finance should consult his brother Minister, the Minister for Defence. Again, I want to say that I am making every allowance for what a Minister may state when in Opposition, but I remember just two years ago when discussing some kindred subject to this Bill, the present Minister for Defence said an easier way out of the matter would be to borrow money and that money could be got at two per cent. When we on the Government side of the House then asked him where this money could be got he replied: "What are you getting for it in the banks"? The reply, of course, was that most of us were getting nothing for it in the banks, that, as a matter of fact, we were on the other side. What his inference was I do not know. Deputy Aiken, as he then was, suggested that we should be able to borrow money at two per cent. I say, therefore, the Minister for Finance should consult the Minister for Defence. If it were possible to borrow money two years ago at two per cent. he should now be able to borrow it at one and a half per cent because of the reduction in the price of money all over the world.

There is nothing about borrowing money in this Bill.

It is difficult to talk with the Minister interrupting every minute. One of the suggestions made during the discussion on finance in general last year was that the farmer, and indeed the community generally, would get out of all this trouble by having a little patience and in lieu of the markets enjoyed in England new markets would be found for the farmers. In defence of that the Minister for Agriculture set about getting new markets. He even went to Belgium to get new markets for the farmers and then it was found——

This Bill does not mention new markets.

Really, a Chinn Comhairle, I am trying your patience, I am afraid, but our patience is sorely tried for when there should have been a discussion on this matter a few days ago, and when the Minister who ought to be responsible, should have made some statement in the House, he presented the Agricultural Estimate without any introductory remarks whatever, as to what the money was for and how it was going to be applied. These were the tactics that the Minister also adopted last year on the introduction of a similar measure, and when asked by Deputy Gorey if he was to say anything about the measure he said he had nothing to say about it.

If it is not permissible to discuss this year's Agricultural Estimate on the Finance Bill it is still more irrelevant to discuss last year's Estimate. If the Deputy cannot keep within the rules of order he had better resume his seat.

The difficulty is that when we are on the right Estimate we do not get a lead from the Minister. The Minister does not give us a lead on it.

The Deputy surely is not a parrot.

I suppose we will have to work it out at the cross-roads.

We were told that we were not any worse off as a result of the Budget and additional taxation. We were definitely told that the prices we received for our stock in England at present differ very little from what they would be if there were no interference by the Minister, or anybody else. The duty was measured at 1/- per cwt. However, we have the admission of the Minister for Agriculture himself six or eight months ago that it was £4 a head then. The thing becomes so contradictory so far as the spokesmen on the Government Benches are concerned that one does not know where one is; but the ordinary farmer knows very well where he is. He knows that this Bill and Bills like this presented to him are imposing on him a burden which he is incapable of bearing. I shall refrain from any further remarks on this at the present moment.

Hear, hear.

Deputy Kelly does not like it. Deputy Kelly is not interested in agriculture or in finance. It is rather difficult to find what Deputy Kelly is interested in, but I did intend to enlarge on the subject as far as it pertains to the country, to agriculture and incidentally, to give Labour an idea of how certain Departments of the Ministry were referring to Labour. But as I was ruled out of order I must find some other occasion to make these statements. When the Bill is in Committee we will have an opportunity of discussing it section by section and I can assure the Minister that that opportunity for discussion which he now denies will be taken full advantage of on the Committee Stage.

It is not my purpose to delay the House very long to comment on this Finance Bill but I think this occasion should not be allowed to pass without drawing the attention of the House to the condition into which the country is drifting as a result of the policy which the Government is pursuing. This Finance Bill reveals no intention on the part of the Government to relieve the burden of taxation at all. I would remind the Minister for Finance that when he introduced his Budget a year ago and said it was an emergency Budget, that it revealed heavy taxation, but that he was putting it to them that at the end of that year he would be in a position to come back to this House and produce a Budget that would be very different, a Budget that would relieve the burden of taxation, a Budget that would do more to promote a prosperous future for the country. Far from doing that, the Minister for Finance has returned to this House with a Finance Bill which imposes a far heavier burden than formerly on the people of this country. On the Agriculture Estimate, the condition of the farmers was, to a certain extent, ventilated. With reference particularly to Sections 4 and 5 of this Finance Bill, I desire to remind the Minister for Finance that his continued policy of imposing tariffs on everything that the farming community have to use is steadily piling up on the backs of the agricultural section of the population a growing burden of taxation, albeit it is indirect taxation. Their liabilities as a result of that tariff policy are becoming heavier every day. That would be bad enough in itself but when it is combined with a steady decrease in the revenues of the farm ing community, the burden is rapidly becoming unbearable.

In connection with the steady decrease in the income of the farming community, I refer to some statements made here on the Agriculture Estimate by Deputy Corry. He produced the "Farmers' Gazette," which he referred to as the Bible of agriculture, and he read thence certain extracts with a view to proving that the fall in the price of agricultural products was in no way abnormal and, indeed, not very striking. He instanced the price of pigs as being comparatively good. He did not notice that the price of pigs here is 15/- per cwt. lower than it is in Northern Ireland, nor did he advert to the fact that the reason we are getting any price here at all is that the policy of his Government resulted in the pig market of this country being completely destroyed last January and February, with the result that the pig population declined so rapidly that there is now a temporary scarcity of pigs, with consequent famine prices. His own Government, foreseeing what is going to happen next Autumn, when the pig population returns to normal, is at present feverishly devising ways and means for meeting what they anticipate will be a catastrophe and is feverishly devising ways and means of dealing with the glut of pork which, they know, is going to come on the market when there will be no foreign market available. Deputy Corry must know that as well as I do. He is probably in the confidence of the Government. He knows that the only reason that there is an economic price for pigs at present is that there is a famine and that the moment there is a return of the normal pig supply there will be a collapse.

We heard that the position of the farmer was greatly relieved by the arrival of a German buyer. Dublin thrilled with the news. The foreign markets had at last been found. I invite the attention of the House to the prices in this "foreign market.""A German buyer was again present this week. His activities were welcome, though confined largely to beef cows for which he gave from 12/- to 18/- per cwt." That is in the Dublin market. A penny per lb. for beef. That is Fianna Fáil prosperity for the agricultural community of this country. A penny per lb. for beef in the Fianna Fáil foreign markets. "For the best quality heifers he paid from 25/- to 28/." Twelve months ago they were worth from 39/- to 41/-.

I am not a farmer but I do know a little about this matter. Does the Deputy know what this particular buyer classifies as first-class heifers? I can assure the Deputy that he would not look at our prime fat cattle.

Our products, which commanded a high place in the British market for generations, are worth only a penny per lb. to the German buyer. I invite the Deputies on the Fianna Fáil benches and the apostles of Fianna Fáil prosperity to dwell upon that handsome price which they have been instrumental in providing for the farmers of this country. I do not want to overstate the case. That price is for one class of cattle. For prime heifers, the German buyers deigned to pay from 25/- to 28/- per cwt. On the same day, in Belfast, the despised and contemptible John Bull came over and paid 41/- a cwt. I suppose I am as patriotic a man as the next, but if I were selling a heifer I should prefer to get 41 British shillings to 25 German ones. I think that that is the case with most farmers, even the most patriotic farmers on the Fianna Fáil benches. In other classes of cattle, when the German buyer was paying 15/- a cwt. in the Dublin market, the despised, oppressing, brutal Saxon was paying 25/- per cwt. in the Belfast market. It might be well for Deputy Corry to remember also, when he speaks of the magnificent prosperity which the farmers are experiencing under the new dispensation, that if he goes down through the prices for agricultural production in the "Irish Trade Journal" for last year, he will find that, during the first ten months of Fianna Fáil administration, there is a fall of from 18 per cent. to 28 per cent. in the value of live stock of every description. I should remind the Deputy—I have no doubt he is as well informed on this matter as I am—that since 1932 there has been a further substantial fall.

I should like to ask the Deputy to compare the prices for the last ten months of the administration of the previous Government and say what the fall was then.

I am comparing them.

Give us the figures for the last ten months of the previous administration.

The fall between 1931 and 1932 in sheep was 34.8 per cent. That fall took place during the first ten months of Fianna Fáil administration. I do not suggest they are responsible for it. I only point out that, bad as we were at the end of 1932, we are a great deal worse now. I want the Government to realise that the resources of our people are melting away. Cattle, sheep, live stock are the capital of the farmers, very largely, in the congested areas. There is not a Deputy on the Fianna Fáil Benches, from the congested areas, but knows the economy that rules there is that the people buy their yearlings, take them to the fairs when matured, dispose of them, pay their bills, and with what they have left in hand replace the stock of young cattle again. It may be the policy of the Government to change that economy, but let them remember that if in the course of that change they dissipate the capital of the people they are going to cripple them. While the Government policy is progressing, while capital is being dispersed, we find in one Finance Bill after another, direct taxation is being piled up upon the backs of the farmers. How long can that go on? It is all very well to speak of lofty purposes and to say our aims are noble and high and the rest of it. I have no doubt they are. I have no doubt that every member of the Fianna Fáil Party wishes to do his best for the country, but their policy does not seem to be consistent with the facts that stare every man in the face who goes down to the country to visit his own land, or his own business, or who discusses these matters with his neighbours. The tragedy of the situation is that if it goes on too long it will be too late to find a remedy.

Some Deputies on the Fianna Fáil benches said to-day that even if the farmers were suffering a glorious industrial revival is taking place. Ask the Labour Party about that? Ask the Fianna Fáil Minister for Finance, who after 12 months of Fianna Fáil Government and administration, has to come to the House— and I acknowledge his courage—with a Supplementary Estimate for £350,000 to relieve urgent unemployment. It is right to be solicitous for unemployment. It is right to strain every nerve in order to relieve the burden pressing upon the shoulders of the unemployed. But it would be still more right if the Minister pursued a policy that would relieve their shoulders of the burden altogether. Facts are stubborn things and there is no use going to the country and telling the people that when we are wiping out the agricultural industry other men were being put to work. They are not being put to work. They are being put upon the dole. I do not blame the Government for doing what they can to help these men. It is their duty to do it, but they should face the fact that such help is becoming necessary, and they ought to ask themselves the question: Are we getting a sufficient price for the destruction we are bringing to the agricultural industry of this country? I know Ministers themselves think that it is too often repeated here that they promised reduction in expenditure and did not give it. But surely the Minister for Finance must realise with us that the principal part of the appeal which the Fianna Fáil programme made to the electorate of the country was the promise they made to reduce taxation and lower public expenditure. They have not done it; the Finance Bill proves that. They will have to ask themselves how long they can go on spending at the rate they are spending now. In that connection let me remind them of this:

Last October President de Valera went to London to discuss a possible settlement of the economic war and on that occasion he claimed hundreds of millions in respect of the over-taxation of this country by Great Britain since the Act of Union was passed. He rightly claimed this country had been over-taxed. I quite agree with him, but I would remind him that the taxation of this country for 100 years for the government of the 32 counties never exceeded £14,000,000, and was more usually £12,000,000. If we can claim back from Great Britain hundreds of millions of over-taxation when our taxes amounted to no more than £12,000,000 or £14,000,000 per year, what shall we claim back from Fianna Fail when our taxation amounts to £32,000,000 for Twenty-Six Counties?

The money is spent in the country.

We are consoled to hear from Deputy Mrs. Concannon that the money is spent in this country. Many people may console themselves with that happy thought, but no matter where it is spent, or how it is spent, if we spend more than we have, the time will come when this nation will have nothing to spend in this country or outside it. The Deputy has, no doubt, read recently from the lips of distinguished statesmen from all parts of the world something upon this matter. Senator Cordell Hull has given it as his opinion that the time has come when nationalism means disaster and when every sane nation should realise that the doctrine of exclusive self-sufficiency is madness, and is bound to end in disaster. This country seems to think that it can cut itself off from the rest of the world and by doing that save itself absolutely from the consequences of its own economic folly. Every nation in the world seems to have fallen into that delusion in the course of the last 15 years. Most of them have learned since. We might profit by their example but, apparently we prefer to learn by experience ourselves. How long it will take us to learn the lesson it is difficult to say. But of this I am certain, that if the decline in our agricultural industry continues at the rate it has been continuing in the last six months, and the burden of taxation continues to grow, then, economic war or no economic war, this country is going to collapse, and there is going to be universal poverty for us all. It means that our standard of living is going to be reduced intolerably low, far lower than any Government has the right to reduce the standard of living of a people. It is time the Government woke up to that and faced the situation and modelled their policy upon it. So far as I am concerned, if they will do that, I shall be happy to see them do it. If they set their hands to the restoring of our markets to our people and reducing taxation upon broad lines I will be glad to help them in any way it can be done. But they have to make their choice, and make it quickly, between a struggle back to stability, or a rapid descent to irrevocable catastrophe—unemployment for labour, and bankruptcy for our agricultural community. I hope and pray that our Government may yet see the facts and face them and realise that our people at the present time are threatened with very great calamity.

Mr. MacEntee and Mr. Corry rose.

The Minister. Does Deputy Corry wish to ask the Minister a question?

I just wanted to deal——

Mr. Haslett rose.

As no Deputy rose, I called on the Minister to conclude.

Deputy Corry was rising.

Does Deputy Corry give way?

I suggest that you should give Deputy Haslett an opportunity to speak if he wants to do so. Is there an indication that the debate is to conclude to-night?

Not that I know of.

What I wanted to know was whether there was an agreement that the debate should conclude to-night.

I do not know of any agreement.

There was no agreement, but the debate——

Deputy Haslett did not rise nor did any other Deputy.

I submit that Deputy Corry rose and that is why I did not rise.

I want to deal with a few statements made by Deputy Dillon and by Deputy Bennett to-day. I wonder what they want? We have these underground wailings and complaints, morning, noon and night here, and we would like to know exactly what they want. Do they want the British market at £5,000,000 a year? Have they the pluck to come out and say so if they do want it? I maintain that it is not worth it. I maintain that it is worth nothing at the present day. It is all right to send surplus products to that market at whatever price they will fetch in the same way as other countries dump their surplus products on us, but I asked Deputy Dillon one question here which he had not the decency to answer. I asked him to give us the reduction in prices on that British market during the last ten months of the Cumann na nGaedheal regime here, but we could not get that from him at all. He told us that prices had dropped so much. Is Deputy Dillon prepared to stand up here and deny that we got, in that British market, £1,200,000 less for our butter in 1931 than we got in 1930; that we got for our live-stock in 1930—and, mind you, we exported as many live stock in 1931 as we exported in 1930— £21,051,000——

The value of our exports in 1930 is not a matter for discussion on this Bill.

Deputy Dillon said——

I am not concerned with what Deputy Dillon said. I am ruling that the discussion on our exports in 1930 is not in order.

I am giving it as a passing reference showing that the drop in prices has nothing, or very little, to do with the present policy of the Government. The prices would have dropped in any case and they were dropping during the last four years. The price in 1931 as compared with 1930, in respect of our live stock alone, dropped by £2,700,000. In our fresh meat that we exported, we had a drop of £1,300,000——

The Deputy cannot get away with it. I have ruled that that discussion is out of order and, if he cannot return to the Bill, he will have to sit down.

Very well; I will pass from that. I give it as a reference to Deputy Dillon and suggest that he ought to look up the figures before he speaks here in future. Deputy Dillon also wailed about tariffs and made fierce complaints about the Government's policy on tariffs. Deputy Dillon does not want any tariffs—he wants everything to be imported here at world prices and, at the same time he complains of unemployment. He wants to have it both ways. The Deputy, apparently, would not dream of putting a tariff on foreign butter coming into this country. He would not dream of putting a tariff on foreign bacon——

On a point of personal explanation, I do not propose to interrupt Deputy Corry constantly for the purpose of denying what he imputes to me, but I cannot accept any of Deputy Corry's representations as being an accurate report of what I said.

Does Deputy Dillion deny that, within the last quarter of an hour, he complained of the tariff policy of the Government and the injury it was doing to the farming community? Does the Deputy deny that? Deputy Dillon would not have a tariff on foreign bacon, apparently, but that tariff on foreign bacon has given the farmers a market here worth 1,000,000 pigs per year. Neither would the Deputy have a tariff on foreign barley. That, I believe, is a very sore point with him, if we are to judge by all the complaints he has made about the admixture of meal in the last few months. I was still more surprised when I heard Deputy Kent, who comes from a barley growing constituency, complaining that hens would not lay because they got barley grown in East Cork. Deputy O'Leary made the same point last week—that hens refused to lay because they were fed on Irish oats and barley. That is the latest gem. In the past nine or ten years, during which we had this Free Trade game rampant in this country, we made appeal after appeal to the previous Ministers to put a tariff on foreign grains coming into this country and to give the farmer who was ploughing and tilling his land some opportunity and some hope, but they always turned a deaf ear to our appeals.

We were told that the great brewing industry of Messrs. Guinness would pack up and leave if there was a tariff put on foreign barley. The tariff was put on foreign barley and Guinness is there yet. I do not think he has any notion of moving. A tariff of 16/- per barrel was put on it and Guinness did not move. If those who pretend to represent the farming community here, those people who talk of their organisation through the country, used their organisation for seeing that the farmers got a proper price from the brewers and the bacon curers, the farmers would be a lot more thankful to them and they would get a lot further with their organisations. Apparently, however, a market worth 1,000,000 pigs per year is useless to the Irish farmer. He should keep his eyes across the water. Deputy Dillon was very vocal on the pig industry. He knows very well, as everybody else does, that the price of pigs goes in cycles. When pigs were 70/- and 75/- per cwt. everyone kept a sow or two or three sows, with the result that there was a glut on the market, and the price fell to 20/- or 25/- a cwt. Deputy Dillon knows that as well as I do. The Deputy admitted that when the pig population returned to normal everyone would start keeping sows, in spite of all the tariff war.

I would like to have one direct statement from the Centre Party. I would like members of that Party to have the pluck to stand up and state if they are prepared to say that the British market was worth £5,000,000 yearly to this country. That is what Cumann na nGaedheal said, and what that Party stands for. In effect, they said that the British market was worth something like £25,000,000 or £26,000,000 yearly to this country and that it was worth paying £5,000,000 for. I admit that there is no use in people saying that farmers are prosperous. They are not prosperous. To my knowledge they have not been prosperous for the last ten years. When I first entered this House I had on an average seven or eight farmers here every month looking for time to pay their annuities. When I came here in 1930 and 1931 I had every week a bagful of writs with which I went to the Land Commission to ask for time for the farmers.

Speaking as a farmer I gave up the breeding of bullocks altogether and got rid of the bull calves. I saw by the way beef was going in the English market that it would not be worth producing for that market and I got out of that line. Yet, that is the market of which Deputies opposite say—they have not the pluck to say it openly; I wish they had—"Why not settle? No matter a hang what settlement is got so long as we get back our market." I question if that market is worth £1,000,000 yearly to this country. I do not believe it is. That market, in my opinion, can only be used in future for the surplus produce of this country. It cannot be used for anything else.

Irish farmers will have to depend on the home market, and on whatever they get in the home market. The duty of the Government here will be to see that in the home market farmers will get, at least, something over the cost of production. There is no use going beyond that. The same thing is occurring in practically every other branch of industry in every country. In a debate in this House recently it was stated by Deputies that cement could be imported far cheaper than the cost of producing it here. As a matter of fact farmers within the last four years could not produce a single article at a cost that would pay them, or at a price at which the imported article could not be put on the market. I challenge Deputies to name one thing that farmers can produce and sell in this country cheaper than the same agricultural produce could be imported.

That is the position we are in and that is the position we ought to get out of. That is a reason for protecting the home market for the Irish farmers, and seeing that the overhead burdens on them are not too heavy. That is what we have to look at. I say that an overhead burden of £5,000,000 yearly was a burden that this country could not bear. It was a burden that the people decided that they would not bear, and they sent us here to remove it. We removed it, no matter a hang what others say. If any Deputy has the pluck to stand up in this House and say that the British market is worth £5,000,000 yearly to this country, I would like him to do so, especially when it is remembered that the value of that market has gone down every year since 1924, when there was no tariff.

The Deputy has spent ten minutes talking about the value of the British market. He might come now to the Bill before the House.

For the last 12 months Deputies have been talking about the value of the British market. I have heard nothing else from Deputies who spoke to-day.

The fish are not taking to-day.

Mind the bullocks. Deputies dealt with the value of the British market. Deputy Dillon's speech was on the same subject. Of course he was nicer and dealt with it in a more polite way than I did. He managed to camouflage his remarks better. Deputy Bennett dealt with it during the entire period of his speech. I would like if Deputies would have the pluck to say plainly what they want done.

We want our market. All we want is a free market.

For what? Is the Deputy prepared to pay £5,000,000 yearly for it?

The Deputy should be prepared to drop references to that market or cease speaking.

I have put the case plainly before the House. I would like some Deputy to get up, even Deputy Fagan, and say if he is prepared to pay £5,000,000 for that market.

The Deputy will sit down.

We look forward to the Budget statement and to the Finance Bill as the principal legislation of the year. The comment of many Deputies on the Budget statement was: "It might have been worse." Perhaps there was an idea that there would be a bigger volume of fresh taxation. Looking at it from the broad standpoint of the State, what we felt most of all about the Budget statement, and about this Bill, which implements it, is that there is not a further opportunity for the State to make good. For nine months prior to the Budget statement we looked forward to the time when things would resume their normal course, when the chief industry of the country would have an opportunity of reviving. The Budget and this Bill present a number of additional tariffs which, after all, are minor in their effect on production, and which, on the whole, we can say very little about. On the question of the imposition of tariffs, I think the other side of the question has been lost sight of, and that is, that when we give any industry a tariff it should be remembered that the goods should be delivered at the right price. I do not want to develop that point now, as there may be other occasions of talking about it. It is felt that when comparing the goods, quality for quality, that aspect is being lost sight of. Deputy Moore raised, I think, a very reasonable point when he asked the Deputies on the other side of the House to face the question as to what is to be done with the increased population in the State. I think that he touched the kernel of things at that point. We know that that question is a very large one to grapple with at the moment. Emigration took away a great many people from this country in years past. Whether that was good or whether it was ill we are not discussing at the moment, but the problem is present with us to-day. As Deputy Moore asked, what is to be done in the light of that increased population? I think that the Minister, as the spokesman of the Executive Council, has not addressed himself in the way he should to that particular question. Agriculture, the chief industry of our country, was responsible in 1931 for three-fourths of the value of our exports. In 1933, though the exports dropped, agricultural produce was responsible for £25,750,000 roughly, leaving only £7,179,000 for all other exports put together. As a wise Minister, I think his attitude should have been how much further can we develop the industry on which our country depends? I can see his point and the point of view of this House for many years that the more industry we can get into the country the better, but I can never see the viewpoint that agriculture must suffer as the result of the starting of new industries. One should help the other and work to that desirable end, the prosperity of the country.

What has happened during the last number of months? We have been making frantic efforts for the starting of industries. We have been starting industries at the time when the industrialist countries of the world are receding, when they are grappling with the biggest problem of unemployment that there ever was in the history of the world, and when we see, as the result of a loss of industry in the industrial countries, over 30,000,000 people are out of work. Yet we are making frantic efforts to start new industries. All honour to those who do start new industries. We all hope for their progress, and that they may succeed.

Coming back to the old maxim that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, I think our Minister should have addressed himself more to the development of the industry that was some use to us, and the industry which we can work without any subsidy. Deputy Moore said that there was no complaint throughout the country. I wish that were the experience of more than Deputy Moore. As far as I can hear, there is nothing but a wail of complaint. Deputy Corry asked the Centre Party to answer his question about the British market, and I think that is a point that I can bring in relevantly under this Bill. I do not think that the Centre Party will have any need to answer Deputy Corry, on that point, because his own Minister will answer him. I find that in this list of receipts and expenditure there is a sum of £2,450,000 for export subsidies and bounties. It shows the value which our Minister places on the British market when he provides that sum in order to make it possible for us to keep going in the British market or any other market. If I might further answer Deputy Corry's question, the British market is surely of more value to us than £5,000,000. Let us put the political aspect of this question on one side. Let us address ourselves, as we all should as Irishmen, to the economic situation as we find it. Let us ask ourselves is it better to have the British market and to get 20 shillings in the £ of the world's price, whatever that price may be? We are a very important people in the Free State but we are not able to control the world price. The world price will fall in spite of anything we may do. Would it not be far better to get 20 shillings in the £ of the world's price than only 12 shillings? The Minister, seeing that point, has provided this £2,450,000 to bridge that gulf if possible. I am not going to go into the question of whether or not that amount is a benefit, or whether we are getting the full benefit of it. This is neither the time nor the place to discuss it. It is provided to bridge the gulf between 20 shillings in the £ and 12 shillings in the £.

I should like to ask Deputy Haslett a question. The point I put was that I did not believe that this market was worth £5,000,000 a year to us, considering that the value of what we were supplying to it has fallen between 1924 and 1931 by £13,000,000. Though we sent more stuff to it in 1931 than we sent in 1924, we got £13,000,000 less for what we sent. If we take the last two normal years, there was a loss of £6,000,000 in 1931 as compared with 1930. I hold that that market is not worth anything to us.

Deputy Haslett to resume.

No one at this stage would lose the time, however he may have the ability—I possibly would not have it—to make such comparisons. We in 1933 can expect to get only 1933 prices. We cannot get 1924 prices, no matter how much we desire them, nor can we get the 1924 volume of trade no matter how much we may desire it. We must take things as they stand, and we must come back to the rough and ready way I put it; perhaps it might be put more intelligently. We must come back to the point whether we are to get 20/- in the £ or 12/- in the £. That is all that matters to our export trade. The volume of trade has decreased as well as the value of trade. As far as that goes, great efforts have been made to prove that there has been no difference in the prices here and the prices across the water. I do not propose to argue that because it would be raising a point for the sake of knocking it down. We all know there is a difference. It is not for the love of adventure that people are smuggling cattle across the Border and running the risk of losing them. It is not through love for Great Britain they are doing it. I want to suggest that, whilst we were contending over smaller points, other countries were taking that advantage. I am informed on the best of authority that in Dublin during the election we had a band of Danish newspaper men taking cognisance of the situation and studying our export trade so as to take advantage of the market about which we thought so lightly. We allowed this to go on until now they have taken our market and are supplying Britain daily with the stuff which we ought to be supplying to her. I suggest that our Minister was not alive to the situation when he allowed them to get such a start of us.

Coming back to the question of what we are to do with the increased population which we find in our country, the only thing we can do is to give them work and the chief part of this work is the work on the land. I am not at all against the idea of providing for work on the land so that we may face this national question, but what I suggest to the Minister is this: that to plough a field is not enough; to sow it is not enough—even to reap the crop is not enough. We have to concern ourselves with what to do with the produce of the land. On our export trade we live and have the increased wealth in our hands. Our Department of Agriculture has been and is doing its best to help us in this matter of production; but what we want is a market to which to send our produce. What we, as representing the agricultural people, would like to see dealt with in the chief Bill of the year is that the Minister and the Government should be alive to the situation in which we find ourselves, and that this Bill should not alone embrace a certain number of tariffs but also embrace the larger question of the making of our living and the increase of our wealth that the country has taken from the soil or in any other way we can get it. In this way, whether we agree about the cost of Government formerly or now, there is one thing with which we can all agree, and that is that the more foreign money we can get into the country the easier it will be for us to make our way, and for the people of our country to carry on their business.

The one thing which members of the Opposition Party displayed in this debate was an infinite capacity for talking nonsense. They opened with Deputy McGilligan. I think that most of us who heard it will admit that Deputy McGilligan's speech sounded like the reverie of an opium eater. It was scarcely rational, and, if I may say so, was scarcely relevant to the immediate purpose of this debate. It related to a pledge issued not in connection with the general election of this year, which I again would submit, since it was by that general election that the present composition of the House was determined, is the only election the proceedings at which could be relevant to a discussion on the present Budget, but in an advertisement issued a considerable time ago. Deputy McGilligan's speech, however, was an important speech; important, not as a serious contribution to the debate, but as a revelation of the Deputy's mental condition. It confirmed what some of us have long suspected: that Deputy McGilligan's intellectual health has been undermined by an addiction to old advertisements. He has become a mental dope fiend—a person who, as he himself admitted, is continously drugging and must continuously drug himself with dead publicity matter until now, once again, on his own admission, he cannot live without it and it comes as naturally into his speeches as tripe into an invalid's menu.

What was said by Deputy McGilligan in this Bill was said much more forcibly by Deputy Mulcahy, and with the points which he raised, and which were relevant to the Bill, I propose to deal.

There is a compliment for the Deputy!

I stated that what Deputy McGilligan said was put much more forcibly by Deputy Mulcahy— more forcibly, but with no more foundation. Where, we were asked, are the £2,000,000 economies? The £2,000,000 economies which we hoped to realise are—somewhat paradoxically, I grant—represented by the increased provisions for housing, for old age pensions, for unemployment relief, and for general social expenditure, which we find in the present Budget. These provisions represent over £2,114,000 more than was provided in the year 1931-32 by our predecessors. Deputy Dillon twits us with the fact that I stated last year that we hoped to be able to reduce taxation this year. That is so. But, after all, what is man but a creature of frustrated hopes? Our hopes, when we came into office were frustrated. Our hopes that we should be able to reduce expenditure without interfering with the social services were frustrated when we found confronting us an aggregation of callous neglect, an accumulation of social distress so great and so huge, and so importunate in its clamour for remedy that we had to forego our economies and to devote a large part of our energies and resources to providing for this relief. That is why, and that is the only reason why we have not been able to save the £2,000,000, but have had instead to spend a further £2,114,000 in dealing with a situation left to us by our predecessors—a situation which would be a disgrace to a Christian community.

Not only have we made this additional provision for the relief of distress and the provision for unemployment out of revenue without—with all respect to Deputy Dillon and Deputy MacDermot—increasing taxation; not only have we made this additional provision, but we have also arranged for an extensive house-building programme the cost of which will be, to some extent, defrayed out of borrowing. Deputy Mulcahy, and Deputy McGilligan in his more relevant moments, accused us of balancing our Budget by borrowing. Borrowing can be justifiable. Borrowing is justifiable if the borrowing is for the purpose of undertaking constructive works which will yield a return, when completed, to the community, either in money or in kind; in money, by the returns which can be secured from them to meet the obligations of sinking fund and interest; and in kind, by the improved conditions under which the people may live.

The question, therefore, arises in regard to the Budget and this Finance Bill, for what purpose do we propose to borrow? We propose first of all to borrow £256,000 to meet our obligations in respect to compensation for damage to property. So did our predecessors, year after year, borrow for the same purpose, only they borrowed millions. We propose to borrow thousands. The millions which they borrowed were, in the main, devoted to compensating for damage to property those who had upheld the British régime in this country. Of the £256,000 which we propose to borrow, £150,000 will go to the relief of those who were denied justice when the present Opposition were in the saddle, when, as the Government, they were carrying out a programme of reprisals and burned and destroyed the houses of those loyal to the Republic. If our predecessors were justified in borrowing millions, surely we are justified in borrowing £150,000 for a constructive purpose, a purpose which will put many men upon their feet, which will recoup to many farmers the losses that were inflicted upon them by our predecessors, which will recoup the whole community by the ease which it brings to many sore hearts and by the peace and comfort which it brings to many a sorry homestead.

The second purpose for which we propose to borrow is for the repayment of the Dáil Eireann External Loan. What is the position in that regard? The Dáil Eireann External Loan is an obligation of honour, a debt of honour contracted by this country as a whole, a debt of honour which we, as the representatives of the greater part of the community, are glad to shoulder, a debt of honour in regard to which our predecessors gave many pledges and undertakings, diplomatic and international. Deputy McGilligan, who talked about our borrowing, is a Deputy who, as Minister for External Affairs, gave the most explicit assurances that the moment the receivers appointed by the American Courts were discharged from their receivership, having disbursed all the funds under their control, the Government of the Irish Free State would make provision to repay to the original subscribers the balance due to them. The receivers at this moment are awaiting their discharge. That discharge may be given at any moment and we are going to honour our bond to the Irish people in America who supported and sustained us with their resources during the Black and Tan war. We are going to ask our people here to lend us the money to meet that obligation, and from what I know of the Irish people, the Irish farmer or the Irish labourer, they will be glad to put up the money for that purpose.

Including the cost of the law proceedings by the Fianna Fáil Party.

Law proceedings about which the Deputy had better be silent, because they were a condemnation of his conduct while he was in office; law proceedings in which the Deputy's Party were defeated; law proceedings which quite properly placed the responsibility on the Deputy for some part, at any rate, of the civil war.

And prevented their collaring all the swag.

What is the third purpose for which we propose to borrow? We propose to borrow for an abnormal provision which arises by reason of the Government's determination to solve the housing problem and provide decent houses for the workers in town and country. We have to make a very large provision for the Local Loans Fund. The abnormal provision under that head amounts to £1,616,000. In addition to that sum, we are providing, for the purpose of enabling local authorities to undertake public health schemes, £550,000 as a normal contribution to the Local Loans Fund. It was the custom of the people who twit us now with borrowing to defray the cost of the public services, to borrow every penny piece of that £550,000. We are not borrowing that £550,000. We are not imposing upon another generation, or upon our successors, a burden in respect of debts and obligations contracted in this way, a burden which they might find it impossible to bear unless they are prepared to reduce the social services.

This £550,000, which hitherto has been borrowed, we are providing out of abnormal revenue, out of a windfall which has come into the Treasury as a result of the surplus from last year. In addition to that, we propose to borrow £1,616,000 and we are borrowing that amount because the task of finding a solution for the housing problem which we have undertaken is a stupendous one, one which would be altogether outside the resources of this community to bear from year to year. And since the houses which will be built will be an asset which will last for generations, and out of which there will inure to succeeding generations a substantial income, we are justified in borrowing in order to create an asset, because we know that our successors will secure from that asset an income sufficient to meet the service of the loan.

What is the fourth thing for which we are borrowing? We are borrowing £85,000, which is required to complete the Barrow Drainage. I might say it is to cure the Barrow Drainage, because the Barrow Drainage is an unfortunate project which we have inherited from our predecessors.

A white elephant.

After the original £500,000 has been spent upon it we find ourselves now faced with the position that we have got to ask our people to find an additional £85,000, so that in some places, at any rate, the position might not be left worse than it was before the original expenditure was undertaken.

Censuring the Board of Works.

Our predecessors, who were told that it was going to cost £900,000 to drain the Barrow and do it in a satisfactory way, having feed an expert to provide them with a suitable scheme, decided that their judgement was better than that of the expert and cut down his proposals. They spent £500,000 draining the Barrow and they leave us with the obligation of finding an additional £85,000, so that the position will be no worse than it was before they started on it.

What has Deputy Minch to say now?

The Minister is censuring the Board of Works and he is unfair to the engineers, who are not here to defend themselves.

We are borrowing for every one of these purposes.

I say it is grossly unfair.

He always does that.

We are borrowing sums amounting to £2,950,000 for purposes which comprise either new constructive proposals or to meet commitments inherited from our predecessors. There is one other item for which we propose to borrow and which has been singled out for special condemnation: that is the £1,225,000 which we propose to borrow against the deferred annuities fund. Deputy McGilligan poured out the full vials of his wrath in his criticism of this proposal which, he said, could not be justified on any ground. Let us see. The deferred annuities fund is an Exchequer asset, the income of which is fully secured so that any commitments contracted in regard to it can be fully discharged. Why then should we not be justified in borrowing against an asset of this sort, particularly when the purpose of the borrowing is to secure that this asset will remain in this country and will inure to future generations here? This is a real asset accruing to this country out of the economic war, an asset which future generations will enjoy. We certainly are justified in borrowing, as against that asset, some part at any rate of the cost of the economic war. That is why we are borrowing this £1,225,000.

That completes our tale of borrowing. In the catalogue which I have recited there will not be found one single item that could be questioned on the soundest principles of finance. Deputies will not find us doing what our predecessors did in the years when they had responsibility for balancing the country's accounts. You will not find us taking the expenditure on the Army and saying: "Well, it is costing us £1,500,000 or £1,750,000, but, after all, the normal cost of the Army should be only £1,250,000, and, accordingly, because we are not prepared to reduce expenditure on the Army to its normal level, we propose to treat half a million as abnormal expenditure and raise that out of borrowing." You will not find us doing what our predecessors did in regard to the annual Vote for Forestry where, year after year, they took the vote for forestry, a recurring charge if ever there was one, and said: "Oh, half of that vote for Forestry is abnormal expenditure and we are going to meet it by borrowing." No. Everything which is of a recurring nature and which would properly fall to be discharged from year to year by this State is met by us out of revenue.

And by cutting salaries.

The Deputy's interruption is at any rate a condemnation of many of the things that have been said by his colleagues on the Front Bench opposite—that we have been increasing taxation—because they have not been able to show one single instance where we have increased taxation. We are quite frankly balancing our Budget in this abnormal year by reducing salaries and by reducing expenditure.

And that is economy.

That is economy. Deputy Mulcahy, possibly having these purposes for which we propose to borrow in mind, says that we shall come to a full stop because we are not in a position to borrow. Now you will notice, a Leas Chinn Comhairle, that I am dealing only with those matters which are relevant to the Bill. I do not propose to deal in detail with some of the ridiculous statements which were made here in speeches such as that delivered by Deputy Belton. The Deputy spoke for two hours. The House had to listen to a recital of his relations with this Party and of his relations with every other Party—of his responsibility for every constructive thing that was done in this country, for every daring and courageous thing done, and, of course, as we all know, for some of the most foolish things done in this country. If I were to deal with all the topics raised by this Deputy who, some time ago, saw himself described in a weekly journal to which he very often contributes—its columns are very frequently at his disposal—as "ill-bred, ill-fed and ill-read": the Deputy who, on his own admission, thinks that he is only fit to belong to a no-class Party because he got up and said that he would not belong to a class Party which, possibly, accounts for his presence on the Opposition Benches——

That is not in the Bill, anyhow.

If I were to deal with all the irrelevancies of this Deputy I should possibly keep the House very much longer than I intend to, but, as I said a moment ago, I am speaking strictly to the Bill. I come back to the point made by Deputy Mulcahy. He said that we shall have to come to a full stop because we are not in a position to borrow. What is the foundation for that statement? Deputy Mulcahy did not put before the House the reasons which led him to make it. It is a serious statement because it does reflect very adversely upon the credit worthiness of this State and this Government.

I have already reminded the House that we have a big constructive programme to undertake. We propose this year not merely to attack the housing problem seriously, not merely to provide the huge sums of money that will be necessary in order to make some advance in that direction, but we also propose to establish here many important heavy industries: a cement-making industry, for instance. Next week the Dáil will, I hope, be considering proposals which will enable us to take the preliminary steps to extend the sugar beet growing industry in this country, proposals in respect of which the capital involved may be between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000. We propose also to deal with the question of establishing a paper-making industry in this country. Deputies are aware that we import every year almost £1,000,000 worth of paper. I hope, in a short time, to introduce a Bill to give us powers to launch an industrial credit corporation which will give facilities to industrial undertakings in this country to enable them to raise capital on easy terms. These are huge commitments. They are commitments which I am sure will go a long way to help us to secure a solution of the unemployment problem.

By raising the prices of cement and of sugar to people who are less well able to pay for them than ever they were before.

I am not going to deal with that aspect of it.

But it is important.

I am merely indicating to the House the magnitude of the undertakings which are in contemplation, and asking Deputies to realise that the execution of this programme is going to necessitate the raising of a good deal of money. With that prospect in front of us, Deputy Mulcahy gets up in the House and says that we are not going to be in a condition to borrow, and Deputy McGilligan says that we have balanced our Budget by borrowing. I have shown that, so far as normal outgoings are concerned, not one penny piece has been borrowed to meet recurring expenditure. Deputy Mulcahy knows that as well as I do. Neither the Deputy nor Deputy McGilligan is a novice at this game. They have taken part in and listened to Budget debates over the last ten years, and they know the implications of the figures submitted to this House. They know that there is no foundation for the statements made that we cannot balance the Budget. But Deputy Mulcahy gets up and says we will have to come to a full stop because we cannot borrow any longer.

Last year when the Budget was under discussion they were telling us —Deputy Hogan told us—that we were going to be bankrupt before six months were out. What is the position? That we closed this financial year with the Exchequer in a stronger position that it ever was before. We find ourselves with ample resources to carry out our programme. We feel that our credit is good enough to enable us to borrow on terms for which if the last Government had looked, they would have been laughed at.

Five and a half per cent.

I am sorry Deputy Belton was not in the House when I was dealing with him. I might then have secured the additional inspiration that would have enabled me to deal with the Deputy at some further length. I shall confine myself to the point of the whole question—whether we are going to be able to borrow or not, because if there was any foundation for the assertion that we would not be able to borrow it would go far to wreck the whole industrial programme and policy of the Government. Why does Deputy Mulcahy say that we are not in a position to borrow? What is the foundation for that statement? It is an old saying that the wish is father to the thought, and Deputy Mulcahy has no other foundation than that, just as Deputy Hogan, when he told us that we should be bankrupt before six months were out, had no other foundation than that—because they wished it.

One of the back benchers, and inexperienced member of the House, a newcomer to politics, Deputy McGuire, speaking here some five or six weeks ago on the Public Services (Temporary Economies) Bill, said that the Opposition would do nothing to get the Government out of its present predicament. Deputy McGuire said that they would do nothing to help us to end the economic war. Every speech we have heard from the Opposition Benches is imbued with the same spirit—do nothing to help the people, do nothing to help the Government, do nothing to help the people of the Twenty-Six Counties to put themselves in a strong, sound economic position, so that they might be able to offer some inducement to their brethren in the Six Counties to cast in their lot with us. That is the spirit that has animated the Opposition in their speeches on this Bill. That is the spirit that animates Deputy Mulcahy when he says that we are no longer in a position to borrow. That statement has no other foundation than that—the wish is father to the thought. What is our true position? Not merely are we in a position to borrow, but we are in a better position to do so than our predecessors were.

On the deferred annuities.

Because since we came into office we have not merely balanced our Budget but we have completely extinguished the floating debt which was one of our inheritances from our predecessors.

What is that?

When we came into office the Exchequer owed £1,000,000 in bills. Look at the Exchequer to-day. We do not owe a penny of floating debt. We extinguished it. When we came into office last year one of the things which we found confronting us was that though they had been in office for ten years, ten years during which they were telling the country that the State had turned the corner, ten years during which they had been borrowing on Savings Certificates, these gentlemen who challenge us that we are dealing unsoundly and dishonestly with the finances of the State had omitted to make proper provision in respect of sinking fund and interest on the Savings Certificates they had issued. Even though they were boasting about their financial honesty, their financial probity, about the credit worthiness of the State, about the prosperity of the people, they failed to meet their proper commitments in regard to Savings Certificates. We met them. We had to find over £600,000 last year to meet the uncovered commitments of our predecessors and we found every penny piece of it out of revenue. We are finding in respect of sinking fund and interest that will accrue on Savings Certificates this year, over £400,000. We are finding it once again in the only way we can honestly find it—out of revenue. Because the people who study these matters and know these things realise that we are determined that the State shall pay its way, because these people will know that there will be no concealed commitments in regard to any moneys we borrow or any moneys we spend, people who have money to lend will be prepared to lend us that money on terms that will compare very favourably with the best on which our predecessors could ever have borrowed it.

They say we cannot borrow. Why, last year when we did want a considerable sum of money, when we did want almost £4,000,000—£1,000,000 to renew the bills left to us by our predecessors, the prodigal's legacy and £3,000,000 to help us to carry on the economic war—we were able to raise £4,000,000 from the banks and from the public—the first time a public issue of Government Bills was made in this country. We were able to raise it at about 2 per cent. The best our predecessors in office could get was 4 per cent.—more than twice that. They tell us now, the people having secured us in office, having given us an unchallengeable mandate, having entrusted us again with their confidence that we cannot borrow, that we will not be able to do a good deal better than ever they did. As I said in the beginning, the fact of the matter is that in every feature and every aspect the Exchequer is stronger, the Exchequer is sounder, than when we took office and the credit of the State stands higher.

What about the condition of the people?

The credit of the State stands higher despite the rantings of the Opposition, particularly of the Deputy who has just interrupted me, who, as I said at the beginning of my speech, displayed an infinite capacity for talking nonsense. When this debate is over, when the people study the figures and when they read the sort of stuff we have heard poured out here during the last six hours, when they listen to all these babblings about the economic war, they will decide, at any rate, that whoever is going to succeed us, it is not going to be the Opposition who are playing England's game in this crisis.

For a long time you are playing it.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 44.

  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Corkery, Daniel.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Timothy.
  • Daly, Denis.
  • Davin, William.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Doherty, Joseph.
  • Donnelly, Eamon.
  • Everett, James.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Geoghegan, James.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Kehoe, Patrick.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, William Frazer.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Clery, Mícheál.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Dowd, Patrick.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C. (Dr.)

Níl

  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Belton, Patrick.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John Aloysius.
  • Curran, Richard.
  • Daly, Patrick.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Davitt, Robert Emmet.
  • Dilon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
  • Dolan, James Nicholas.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finlay, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Keating, John.
  • MacDermot, Frank.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Morrisroe, James.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James Edward.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Connor, Batt.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Neill, Eamonn.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Redmond, Bridget Mary.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Rogers, Patrick James.
  • Thrift, William Edward.
Tellers—Tá: Deputies Little and Traynor; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Ordered: That the Committee Stage be taken on Tuesday, June 21st.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.20 p.m. until Wednesday, June 14th, at 3 p.m.
Barr
Roinn