This Bill has been certified by the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil as a Money Bill.
PUBLIC BUSINESS. - CENTRAL FUND BILL, 1926—SECOND STAGE.
Motion made—"That the Bill be read a second time."
CATHAOIRLEACH
The Bill before the Seanad deals with a matter that is agitating the whole country from north to south and from east to west. It is of such importance that it and other Money Bills will decide not only the fate of the Ministry but the fate of the Saorstát. It is for the Seanad to consider whether the money expended by the Government is unavoidable expenditure and whether there is any analogy between the expenditure and the taxable capacity of the country. If the expenditure is beyond the taxpayers' capacity I presume it is our duty to see how it can be reduced. These, no doubt, are very difficult questions, especially in view of the fact that only the Minister for Finance has all the details at his disposal. A question that every man has to decide in his own household is whether he is living above his means. It is well known that many families find great difficulty, when they have been accustomed to large expenditure, to reduce that expenditure. Millionaires and workingmen have the same problems before them, and they all find it difficult, no doubt, to live cheaper than they are accustomed to live. Yet it can be done. We all wonder how. We know that the very poor live under conditions that we could not even think of. Whatever happens, it is necessary for every family and every State to cut down expenses to its taxable capacity. Otherwise it would be disastrous for the country. The present Ministry has been lifted into office and is surrounded by permanent officials who are accustomed to British expenditure and to the ideas and capacities of its predecessors. It has had a few ideas of its own to graft on to these, and the result is that the expenses have grown beyond what any of us believed they could have been a few years ago.
I remember that a few years before this Ministry came into office it was believed that this country could govern itself very cheaply. Everyone who was engaged in propaganda at that time— probably the Minister for Finance as well as others—proclaimed to the world that if we could get rid of the British Government we could live very cheaply. I remember that Mr. Lloyd George, who was Prime Minister of England, raised the question at the time and asked how were they in Britain going to manage when the State next to them had an income tax of only 6d. in the £? Unfortunately, we have not arrived at that state of affairs. The taxation of this country varies from 40 to 28 or 29 millions. I am not sure of the exact figures. The taxation of the last five years, including the coming year, is about 162 millions, and a debt of 20 millions has been added meanwhile. No doubt Ministers will say that they have been met with unaccustomed and unexpected troubles, but every Ministry in the world has met with these difficulties. The difficulties we have in this country are as nothing compared to the difficulties and debts of other countries, such as France, Germany and England after the war. I do not think the troubles and difficulties that Ministers have to contend with are a sufficient explanation of the high expenditure that we have in Ireland at present. Whatever the difficulties may be, the question arises: Can the people bear the weight of taxation? Let us consider what this weight of taxation is and whether the country is being taxed beyond its capacity. We might first compare expenses now with what they were pre-war. In 1913, as far as I can remember, the taxation of the whole of Ireland came to 12 millions. When Home Rule was proposed and passed in the House of Commons it was not considered that Ireland could bear so much taxation in the first years, and the British Government proposed to pay a quarter of a million to help them through.
The "Irish Independent" newspaper contained a very useful statement prepared by Mr. Lehane. Whether it was quite accurate or not I do not know. I suppose such statements are never quite accurate; they are only approximate. In that statement the income of the country was first calculated and from it was deducted the expenses of keeping each person in the Free State. Mr. Lehane took the very low figure of £32 yearly, if I remember correctly. He deducted that amount from the income. He put against that the total rates and taxes and he showed that the rates and taxation exceeded the available income of the country by several millions, which had to be obtained somehow. These millions could only be obtained from accumulated capital which was being gradually wasted for the purpose of paying the balance. Another method of dealing with the question was brought forward by the Minister for Finance in the Dáil. While discussing the Pact the Minister was asked how the British Treasury estimated £165,000,000 which was, I think, what was proposed to be charged against the Free State, and he said that from his negotiations with them he understood the British Treasury estimated that the taxable capacity of Ireland was as 1.5 to 100, or £1 10s. for Ireland against £100 in Britain. If we are to be taxed at the same rate—comparing the taxation of Britain and the taxation of Ireland—we must remember that the taxes in Britain at the present time are 800 millions. The proportionate taxation of Ireland would be 12 millions. It is a sum in simple proportion, and if the figures are correct there can be little difficulty in making the calculation. The Minister was not quite sure whether 1.5 was correct or not and suggested that the figures might be 1.4, 1.3 or 1.6. It was to the advantage of the British Treasury to put the amount as high as possible. As the taxation of the Free State comes to something like 28 or 30 millions—I do not exactly know what sum—that would be two and a quarter times as heavy as the taxation ought to be if we were being taxed on the same basis as Britain.
Everyone knows that the people of Great Britain are shouting out that their industries are being destroyed by high taxation, and that they are the highest-taxed people in the world. That can be read in any English paper. The claim is made that English industries are being beaten by the industries of countries that are less heavily taxed. Ireland is two and a quarter times more heavily taxed than Britain, proportionately, so that if the estimate is true it seems to me quite impossible for Ireland to sustain such a rate of taxation. The effect of the over-taxation is shown by the great disproportion of 17 millions between exports and imports. The country is so crushed with taxation that it cannot maintain its exports. I want to put it to the Seanad that there is something far worse than taxation, and that is the export of money from this country. Whatever can be said about over-taxation, at all events a great deal of money dribbles back to the taxpayers through various channels. When money goes out of the country it does not come back again in the same proportion. Let us see how that is. During the discussion on the Pact in the House of Commons Mr. Baldwin, the Prime Minister, said that the rate of export of Ireland's income was one-tenth of the whole income. Whether he meant the whole income of the country or the income from taxation I cannot say. Mr. Baldwin calculated that one-tenth of the country's income was exported partly in pensions, partly for land purchase annuities and other things.
He went on to state that as far as he knew the Free State was a country that exported a greater proportion of its revenue than any other country he knew of. That means that one-tenth of the income of Ireland, if that statement is correct, is being turned out of the country each year. It is like a barrel in which the tap is turned full on; it is only a matter of time until the barrel is empty. So it is with this country; if the income of the country is exported at this rate it will be only a matter of time until all the resources of the country are exhausted. I was informed by a business man in Dublin that the country could not stand this rate of expenditure and export of income another year. Down the country one is met with the same statement everywhere. As far as I can see, it is quite impossible for this country to bear the strain of such an export of money. One man in the West told me that he knew people who could write a cheque for £5,000 a year ago and they could not write a cheque for £50 this year, if the bank pressed them to pay. On all sides one sees a depreciation in bank balances. The banks have considerably less money than they had any other year. The small farmers are crying out that they cannot pay their annuities. Everywhere the same cry is going up—there is no money.
How has the Free State Government met these complaints? As far as I understand they have not attempted to meet them by any argument. They simply met them by calling people names. The Minister for Finance says that everybody who talks about the high taxation of the country has the slave mind. He said that in the Dáil a few days ago.
The President made a somewhat similar statement. They are indignant that anybody should talk about taxation at all. The only answer they made was that somebody should get up and suggest some means of reducing taxation. They say that nobody has any right to complain of heavy taxation unless he is prepared to put forward suggestions as to how taxation can be reduced. Even in this House, the other day, one of the ablest members—I regret he is not here now— made a similar statement. Everybody knows that neither this House nor the Dáil can make Budgets. If everyone here were to propose a Budget you would have about 60 Budgets in this House and about 120 in the Dáil. The only persons who can bring forward a Budget are the Ministry. They are appointed, amongst other things, for the purpose of drawing up Budgets, and they have all the necessary figures at their disposal for that purpose. Moreover, the Ministry themselves, when it concerns them to think otherwise, are the first to claim that they have the right to do what they like and afterwards submit their decisions to the Dáil for approval. They made a Pact with Britain without consulting anybody. They came back and said: "Accept it or turn us out." It is quite possible that it is not the business of the Dáil to find other means, and that it is for them, if they do not approve of the Government's proposals, to turn out the Ministry. Still, in spite of all these challenges that have been thrown out, and which we are in no way bound to accept, there are some suggestions that might be made in this regard.
It has been stated that the greatest disease this country is suffering from is the export of money from the country and the largest item in this export, as far as I know, is the land purchase annuities which, in the Appropriation Act of 1923, amounted to some £3,000,000. In the Appropriation Account the sum was, I think, £2,900,000, so that roughly it would be about £3,000,000. I maintain that the annuities should not be sent over to Great Britain, that they should be kept in this country for the use of the people. I raised this matter in the Seanad last year and I got no proper answer. I intend to raise it again when we come to the Third Reading of this Bill. Just consider for a moment what it would mean. Suppose we did what I believe to be right in this matter. Suppose we kept this £3,000,000 in the country, what could we do? No doubt the Minister for Finance can say that we can find plenty of means to spend it. We could take 20 per cent. off the annuities, and spend 80 per cent. in relief of the rates and taxation. At any rate that money would be available for reducing taxation.
Another matter to which I wish to call attention is the Army, which I think is unduly large for the needs of the country. I think the number down in the Estimates last year was 17,000. That is quite beyond our present requirements and should be reduced. I think the defence of the country could be adequately provided for at present, considering our great financial difficulties, with an army costing not more than £1,000,000. Ministers have to consider whether they will reduce taxation or face the consequences of the indignation of the people of the country.
I do not think anything we can say here or anything you can do on this Bill is going to affect the Estimates for the present year. In the case of a Money Bill, the most we can do is to make some recommendations. I would like to have heard something that would enable us to arrive at a more correct estimate of the alleged extravagance of the Government. If the Minister had found time to subtract from the total figure the cost of the services hitherto performed in London by various Departments over there —the Treasury, War Office, etc.—for which new Departments had to be set up here, it would have been useful for comparative purposes in estimating the increased cost of government. In allocating the accountancy costs for Irish services under the British regime the amount charged annually in the White Paper to the Irish account for those services would be relatively small. It would be relatively as the whole administrative business of the British Empire was to the Irish portion. I could not get time to make a calculation, but it would have been interesting when you have people complaining of taxation to compare the cost of government pre-war with the cost to-day. Conditions are entirely different and some analogy should be brought to bear on the figures. In that way the comparisons would be more applicable. However, it is a matter for the Minister.
Certain economies have been suggested generally in detail, but with regard to the extravagance in the payment of salaries of officials, when you consider that the total expenditure is £26,000,000 or £27,000,000, if you were to make a drastic cut all-round on the salaries paid to officials, running into about £9,000,000—if you were to take off even 10 per cent., which would be a drastic cut; a more equitable amount would be five per cent.—you get a reduction only of £500,000 or £600,000 on the present expenditure. That is not going to pull the country out of the difficulty it is in at the moment. It is not going to make any appreciable difference in the industrial, commercial, or agricultural condition of the country. The Minister for Finance in some very cogent remarks he made in the Dáil said that "if there is not a general recognition that new efforts have to be made, and if there is not a general recognition that there must be co-operation and that the efforts of all classes must be given to it, I do not think we will get anywhere with regard to saving the situation generally." I would add to that, if I might, the supplementary remark that if we are to get anywhere those making the effort should be actuated by a spirit of good-will, a spirit of true patriotism and a spirit of self-sacrifice, at least to some extent, in the common weal. At the last annual meeting of the General Council of County Councils a resolution was proposed in that direction to deal with the question of unemployment generally. When you sit down to deal with the question of unemployment you necessarily cover the whole field of industrial enterprise in this country because unemployment is at the root of our present unhappy position. A resolution was forwarded asking for a Commission to be set up composed of members of county councils, business men, labour, municipal authorities and others, and the reply we received was that the Government had been at pains to exploit that whole field of inquiry, and asked us to reexamine the matter with a view to submitting a more definitely detailed programme. The view that the county council took on that was that where certain difficulties arise in the way of transacting business, or where there are certain hindrances and obstacles to increasing the transaction of business, the men who were best qualified to make suggestions to overcome them are the men who are actually engaged in the businesses concerned. If these men can be got together, keep their heads cool and meet with the determination to solve the difficulties, as far as they possibly can, in an attitude of give and take, a certain definite remedy would no doubt be evolved, at least on paper, which might solve the difficulty.
It might not always work out in practice. That is the most that in the circumstances could be done and the most practical suggestion that could be put forward to the Government. If there is nothing in it, I do not know of any other body of men who could arrive at a more likely solution, certainly no body of men who were outside the particular class of business. But the solution would not be so close or so accurate or the prospects of success would not be so great as in the case of a solution arrived at by the actual men who feel the pinch, who have experience of what the difficulties are, the difficulties between labour and capital, the difficulties of manufacturers and of other interests concerned. It was in that spirit that we put forward the resolution. The personnel of the county council was not sufficiently widespread, if I might so term it, or representative of all the business interests in the country, to set themselves up as a self-appointed commission and evolve a solution of the many problems that are confronting various business interests to-day. When we got that reply at our last meeting we saw that we were not the most competent body to do what was suggested, and we referred the resolution back to the Government for further consideration. I hope the result will be that such a commission will be appointed, because if we deal with the unemployment difficulty in some such way the whole problem is solved.
During a discussion in the Dáil as to roads, and transport generally, the Minister for Industry and Commerce said that he did not pin very much faith to co-ordination in the matter of transport. In that the Minister does not seem to agree with Sir Walter Nugent who presided at the first meeting of the railways since amalgamation. Here is what Sir Walter said: "In the development of the country the railways must continue to play an important part. An efficient and cheap system of transport is absolutely necessary, and that can only be brought about by the reasonable understanding with labour already referred to and by the introduction of regulations which will enable the roads, waterways and railways to be made the best possible use of, and worked as component parts of one big comprehensive transport scheme." I think the remark was elicited from the Minister more with regard to the passenger service than with regard to the transport of goods. One can see exactly how a comprehensive and co-ordinated system of transport would help the country. In the first place it would redress the present system whereby transport is along parallel lines and where in many places rail and road services overlap. It would have the effect of putting into its proper place and getting the greatest possible use out of each particular unit composing the whole service. I can see a time when the railways, looking round for a way out of their present unfortunate position, will evolve some method of co-ordination, when they will have at various points distributing and collecting centres from which will radiate motor services, acting as collecting and distributing mediums.
These centres would, of course, be very busy, and each employee would have his work cut out and would be kept working a full day. But owing to the present system, in view of the high pressure system in other parts of the world, particularly in America, I cannot see how any railway is to pay unless the system is changed. Take, for instance, Kilmacow railway station, where half a dozen trains pass in a day. A porter there is paid more than a porter at Clapham Junction, where a train passes every few minutes. I do not say that the man at Kilmacow should be paid less. I do not care what a man is paid provided there is sufficient output. That is the whole crux of the thing, and I think that is appreciated in America, even by Labour leaders, that whilst high wages are paid, there must also be a consideration with regard to output.
Here is the position arrived at by Labour in America: "Any organisation of Labour which has for its policy the restriction of output or the raising of wages without regard to output, aims a direct blow at the prosperity of industry and therefore of the workers themselves. Our aim should be to raise wages. We cannot do this unless we provide appliances for increasing Labour's productivity." They also say: "The productive capacity of Labour can be increased without limit, depending upon the progress made in time and trouble-saving appliances," and: "It is better that Labour should be rewarded by wages bearing some relation to output, the amount of the wages earned by any one man being in no way limited." They have got past the practice and the rules they observe in these countries. They do not care what a man earns provided the output is there. Why? Because the output pays his wages; he is making money not only for himself but for his employer. If we could arrive at some point near that some of our worst difficulties would be very near a solution. Although the Minister for Industry and Commerce may not believe in it, co-ordination of transport would, I think, act as a very great stimulus to the agricultural industry. We recently had potatoes in the northern counties of the Free State rotting in the pits, with the farmers asking people to take them away for nothing. At the same time, in the southern counties potatoes were making a fair price. Owing to the want of co-ordination in transport it would not pay anybody to take these potatoes for nothing, or for a penny a stone and bring them to where they are badly needed. People would be glad to get them at 3d., 4d., or 5d. a stone, as the prices in the southern counties have been 7d., 8d. and 9d. Another way in which co-ordination might help agriculture in an indirect way would be through the distribution of fattening foods and of the people's food generally, and offset the importation of fattening foods by the better transport of barley. A good deal of barley goes over the water now. In the fattening centres they would be very glad to get barley. Barley goes a long way in the process of fattening stock. We have large areas particularly adapted for growing barley but they are far away from the fattening centres, and farmers do not know what to do with the rest of their barley after the malting barley is sold. If they send it by rail or otherwise, the freights eat up the profits. If you had a co-ordinated system of transport it would be a very easy matter for the barley farmer to grow it at a profit.
I will wind up by referring to two of our principal industries, references that are pertinent to the matter that we have under discussion. One is with regard to the woollen industry. Speaking to managers of woollen mills within the past few weeks—and this is a matter that was referred to very specially at the annual meeting of the General Council of County Councils— I was told that they are quite prepared to give a guarantee that if certain protective tariffs are put up there will be no increase in the price of their goods, and they would guarantee that in a very little time they would lower prices. Why? Because the overhead charges would be distributed over a wider area. They are running with full overhead charges to-day at fifty per cent. less than their capacity, some of them at thirty per cent. less, with the major portion of the mills idle, while the overhead charges are rigid and remain there all the time. You can quite understand that if an industry is being worked at its full output the overhead charges bear a far less proportion to the resulting profit.
To-day we are importing woollen goods to the value of £1,400,000. That was for the year 1925. In the same year we imported men's overcoats to the value of £266,000, men's and boys' suits over half a million pounds, and women's and girls' costumes, £941,000. That is £3,140,000 worth of goods that we imported last year, whilst our mills were practically idle. That represents about £1 per head of the population, from the infant in arms to the father and mother, or an average of about £5 per family, for woollens alone. That is rather a striking state of things when we consider that the lowest class shoddy is imported at 1s. 6d. per yard. The lowest priced material made in the woollen mills here is about 2s. 6d. a yard, but it is at least 100 per cent. better in wearing quality. What astonished me most was this, that the wholesale price of a suit of men's clothes of the worst class of shoddy—I say nothing about the retail price—is about 28/-, and the wholesale price for the lowest grade Irish cloth is only 33/-. The difference between them is due to the fact that the Irish cloth is all wool. It may be made from the finer or the coarser part of the fleece, but it is all wool. Shoddy, as we all know, is wool mixed with cotton, if not all cotton.
The woollen manufacturers are prepared to give a guarantee that the prices—let them be standardised if you will—will not be increased, but that the tendency will be downwards. They say that if they can get a tax of 20 or 25 per cent. on piece goods they will be prepared to compete with the imported article and save the industry. Piece goods, for some unexplained reason, were classified when the tax was put on imported finished suits of clothes, as raw materials. They are not raw materials. No further manufacturing process has to be applied to them when they come in. They are a finished article, but, singularly, they were exempted from the tax. The importation of piece goods is undermining the woollen industry. I throw out that proposition by the owners of the woollen mills for the consideration of the Minister.
The other matter to which I desire to refer affects the agricultural industry. If we are to help individually and collectively the whole country to pull through, we have to eat and wear more of our own products. In the first place, we have to produce more of what we eat and more of what we wear, and, in the next place, we have to eat more and to wear more of what we produce. We want to be more self-contained as a nation and to use everything that is possible for this country to grow economically. This country has certain advantages of soil and climate and, to that extent, it can do some things more economically than another country. Certainly, in the matter of producing our own food and clothing, our country is eminently suited. We were, at one time, able to do that. We fed ourselves largely on home produce. We fed ourselves in the old days very largely, and we made our own boots and produced Irish homespuns which were very cheap. To-day all those very institutions and establishments that produced the food and clothing for the people are practically standing idle. They are white elephants all over the land. Our woollen mills and our flour mills are largely idle. But they have to-day the same potentiality as in the old days.
The trouble to-day is that the people will not adapt themselves to using home-grown food and wearing homegrown material. They want what they consider a superior article. Taste has been changing wholesale in the matter of the food that is used in this country. Then in the matter also of wearing material the people are not satisfied with the coarser brands and the unfinished brands of Irish clothing. Also, they are not satisfied with the price. I know that the owners of the woollen mills are quite prepared to meet the Government in this matter.
What are we doing just now with regard to wheat? Last year our imports of wheat were £3,652,679, wheaten flour £3,175,185, corn offals £225,033; that is, in all, £6,852,897, or very nearly £7,000,000 worth of wheat imports last year. What are we doing towards supplying our own needs in the way of bread? Last year we grew 25,000 acres of wheat. As a matter of fact we would need 400,000 acres to supply our own requirements in the way of wheat. It is said that the people would not eat bread made from Irish wheat. That is a fallacy. The people will eat it. The trouble is that the bakers will not bake it. The baker finds that with foreign flour and a little admixture of Irish wheaten flour he has a cheaper and a better mixture for himself. He finds that 280 lbs. of foreign flour will bear ten gallons of water. Now Irish wheaten flour will not bear so much water. It is the same practically with Irish whiskey. Some whiskeys are better for the publican than other whiskeys. They put more water in some whiskey than in other whiskeys. As far as the flour is concerned, the resultant bread made from that mixture of foreign flour and a small mixture of Irish flour is practically the same as that from the Irish-grown wheat. There is no difference except that the one loaf is smaller than the other, and the grain is slightly closer. However, a slight admixture of bran would remedy that. But those people then say that the taste of the Irish people is in the direction of white bread. We have got to overcome all those wretched, ignorant prejudices, particularly where it is a case of helping our own country. If the Irish people do not see these things in their proper light the outlook for the future is hopeless. We will not get anywhere. Little bits of economies here and there. little sops to unemployment here and there will not remedy the situation. These things will be only tinkering and trifling with the whole problem and make for no solid progress. They do not begin to lay a foundation or even to enter upon the road that will lead to prosperity for this country.
The Irish woollen millers say that they have made the fame of Irish cloth all over the world, that they have no adulteration in the material and they are loth to part from that. They say that unless very considerable force is brought to bear on them they will not depart from the standard at which Irish woollen goods have hitherto been kept. As a matter of fact, they say that they have got to stick to this standard because they cannot enter into competition in the making of shoddy material as against the massed production in England. They are not in a position to compete on these terms. Therefore, they say that they wish to uphold the prestige of the Irish woollen goods and to uphold the high name they have made for these, and further they say, properly, that in the interests of the community, which is getting a better wearing article, the Government ought to help them to hold on to that high standard. I hope I have not inflicted myself unduly on the Seanad, but I thought I would stress these matters as they are pertinent to the Bill and also as they are vital to the future prosperity and progress of this country.
I quite agree with Senator Kenny as to the manner in which the money may be raised. I agree with him also that the weight of taxation would not be onerous if the trade of the country were good. I have no objection to the manner in which Senator Colonel Moore opened up this question. But I cannot help thinking that up to a few months ago every member of the Dáil and most of the members of the Seanad, including myself, nearly every member of every local board in the country, and anybody of any influence, were bombarding the Department of Finance for money for everything. I remember that on one or two occasions when I said to the Minister or his advisers that they were very hardhearted and that I had a good case which ought to get some consideration, they said, and said truly: "We are the only people who are standing here between those who want money and the taxpayers." In fact, I found for the past few years the only people who had any regard for economy in the country were the Department of Finance—the people who are being abused high up and low down now. Suddenly some journalistic gentlemen took it into their heads that it would be a good and cheap stunt to come out on an economy campaign. It reminded me of the illustrated postcards in the time when tariff reform was first taken up. "When father turns we all turn." We have this campaign for economy. As far as I can see everybody is in favour of economy, everybody is in favour of lighter taxation, but I can see clearly, that in the position in which it finds itself the Government is as economical as it reasonably can be. A great deal of the expenditure which they have incurred, and are incurring, is expenditure sanctioned by the Dáil and Seanad. They have to pay pensions in accordance with the Treaty. We had, unfortunately, to meet a tremendously big bill for compensation. They have spent, and I say it to their credit, a large amount of money on housing. I hope they will continue to spend in that direction. And while all that is onerous, I would ask the members of the Seanad to bear in mind that all this expenditure is practically internal expenditure, and that while the money comes from the taxpayer and from the ratepayer it is all being retained in the country. I would ask Senator Colonel Moore to consider that in the years 1919-20 the amount of money taken out of this country in taxation approximated very closely to £50,000,000. Trade was good and the country did not feel it.
Now he has given us some figures for the purpose of comparison, and he said that the British Treasury alleged that the rate of contribution of this country for the war—and I should say that it would be fairly comparable to the amount of taxation in comparison with the general taxation of England—is one and a half per cent. Supposing that is so. Those of us who remember the discussions with regard to the two Commissions which were set up to determine the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland under the various Home Rule Bills that were discussed, know that the British Treasury officials stated that our contribution should be one twenty-first, which would be approximately, on the present basis of taxation in England, £40,000,000 from this country.
But that is 40 years ago!
Yes; but we have proceeded, pari passu, with England in expenditure, and, by reason of our financial system being the same, costs were practically the same in this country as in England. The appreciation of money here was comparable to the appreciation of money there, and whatever evils or virtues there are in the gold standard, we suffered from them as they suffered from them; so that if conditions changed in England, they changed relatively also with us, and in a comparable manner. I assume that the British contention that our contribution should be about one twenty-first of their revenue would mean about £40,000,000 as our contribution to their expenditure at the present time, and our contention during these financial relations discussions was that our contribution should be only one thirty-third of the British expenditure, which would bring our taxation to about £26,000,000. The estimate of our Minister for Finance is but a few millions more than that, but then we must take into consideration the amount of work that has been done in the way of houses and roads that have been provided by the State, and also compensation. I think his estimate is very near what we contended should be our proper expenditure at the time. We have had it contended—and I think it is almost contemptible, and I am sorry to hear it re-echoed even in the qualified form by Senator Colonel Moore—that we cannot afford to pay our men on the British standard. If anybody is going to put a responsible official to do a responsible work and trying at the same time, to get a cheap man for the job, he is doing what is very bad economy. I am sorry to say that particular point is only characteristic of the whole campaign of exaggeration, almost amounting to misrepresentation, in this economy campaign. I repeat what I have said, that for some years past the only people who have been looking after economy in this country are the Minister for Finance and the officials of his Department.
I remember when I was a boy meeting an elderly man going to vote for the County Council in Acton, and I said to him: "You know nothing about County Council affairs, really?""No," he said, "I know nothing whatever; I do not know one man there more than another, but there is one man who is going to spend money and I am going to vote for him." I said "why," and he said, "because he has everyone against him," and he added a little later, "he must be a man of conviction."
Now I rise to ask for more consideration for those men of conviction who think that the vote on the estimates for Irish education is completely inadequate. I am not sure that I should have raised the question except for the very surprising speech made by Senator Sir John Keane in the last debate, when he said that whatever was spent upon making the Irish schools sanitary for the children should be taken by economies out of the present votes for Irish schools. We have all great respect for Senator Sir John Keane as a financial expert. I can only suppose he made that statement because he had never given any attention whatever to the question. I have gone to quite obvious sources to get the latest information. I have gone to the Encyclopedia Britannica and one or two other obvious sources, and I want to draw attention to the fact that in Ireland we spend on education only £1 6s. 0d. per head of the population; in Scotland they spend about £2 10s. 0d. per head of the population. That is to say, they spend £11,000,000 as against our four-and-a-half millions, having a population about one-third greater than ours. In England they spend about £2 10s. per head of the population on education. In the North of Ireland they lately increased their parliamentary grant for education, while they have also added to it by rates, and therefore they are spending more on education than we are. It is impossible, at the moment, to find the exact figure. Let us turn now to other small countries which we are accustomed to compare with ourselves and see how they deal with education. Denmark is spending about £2 15s. 0d. per head on education. Norway is spending about the same, £2 15s. 0d. per head, on education. I do not know what endowments, apart from parliamentary expenditure, Denmark and Norway have, but I think I can safely say that England and Scotland have far greater endowments for education than this country and that there is a further increase from this source in the amount of money spent on education in England and Scotland.
President Cosgrave said on the 11th June last year he was quite aware of the fact that there would have to be an increased grant for Irish education. I am not therefore in any way criticising the Government. I am sure that they know these figures and are anxious adequately to finance Irish education, but I think it is important this House should know these figures. I do not think the President's proposed method of dealing with the question is the most desirable. He spoke of an increase in the Estimates. I think that will lead, especially at this time of depression, to the sum voted being entirely inadequate to make the schools even tolerably sanitary, and I think the right method is through a national loan. The whole sum ought not to fall upon this generation. The repayment of it should be distributed over several generations; but when you have put the schools right you require money to keep them right. Inspectors of schools have pointed out in reports that managers have no funds to keep the schools clean and in repair and some other method will have to be found obviously.
I see by the "Irish Times" this morning that the Executive of the Irish National Teachers' Association has put down a resolution for its coming conference in favour of local committees, and of a rate to keep the schools in repair, and to keep them in a sanitary condition. The "Irish Times" article draws special attention to the fact that these bodies will be representative of the parents and that it is essential to have representatives of the parents if the schools are to be kept in a condition approximating in comfort and health to the homes in which the children live. The "Irish Times" article was very vigorous and very thoughtful, and I should think it should help to remove a good deal of the opposition to the local committees that is exhibited at present by certain managers belonging to the Church of Ireland. I think the Teachers' Association will have to use their utmost vigour to rouse public opinion if the Government is to do what they consider right in this matter. It will be said: Can we afford to make the schools sanitary considering how poor we are? I can only use the words of the Australian Minister for Education when questioned in the same way; he said: "It is precisely because we are poor that we must spend money on our schools."
I doubt if any nation can become prosperous unless it has national faith, and one very important part of national faith is faith in its resources, faith both in the richness of its soil and the richness of its intellect, and I am convinced that as much wealth can come from the intellect of Ireland as will come from the soil and that the one will repay cultivation as much as the other.
In view of the malevolent and hypocritical campaign of the Press about economy, I am very loath to criticise the Government. I call it hypocritical because in this campaign for economy the alternative is suppressed. The alternative would be whether we are to have any Civil Service, any army of our own, any country of our own to administer. Senator Yeats has shown that other countries similarly circumstanced to our own spend over twice as much on education as we do. I have looked about, in connection with this campaign, and examined it if possible to see if there is any leakage of national expenditure, anything that is recurrent expenditure, and the only thing I see as recurrent expenditure which bids well to be an annual leakage, is the remedy for dealing with the congested districts. The method of remedying the poverty and misery of these districts has not been altogether a success, and for this reason, that it is an endless tax on revenue. Relief has to be given in the West of Ireland. There the most capable of the community, men who had made good, so to speak, on their farms, are taken and sent over to farms in Meath and Westmeath or on to the eastern coast. These men are only admitted locally after the landless men in the district are accommodated, so that you have a terminus for landless men for which you are doing something at one end, and you have men swept in and qualified for relief at the other end of the journey. Behind all this is the endless proposition of the landless men. The country's revenue is therefore attempting to provide land for everyone without remembering that if the money is not limited, the acreage in the country is. How is the Government to deal with that? They cannot refuse, in the face of the misery in the West of Ireland, misery, by the way, which is greatly exaggerated, to relieve these men by an expenditure of the public funds. You cannot close congested districts on the plea that they are insanitary or on the plea that human life raised on these farms is not a credit to the nation. But when we think of the promise of cheap energy that is before us, then we may reasonably look forward to the years to come, and we may ask what is this energy to be applied to?
Therefore, I think a scheme for afforesting the congested districts would get over the alternative, which is eviction. There is a certain amount of afforestation done in the country, but only about one and a quarter or one and a half of the country's surface is under forestry.
Finland lives on its forests. Every country that wants to provide a subject for cheap energy turns on its forests. The question is, of course, one of expense, but if one could picture a Black Forest in the West of Ireland you would get a condition which existed in pre-historic and even in early historic times, and disappeared because of the falling temperature. There were great forests here that were not all destroyed by the British or even locally, but by the changed European temperature. If trees suitable were planted it is probable that the temperature of the whole country would improve.
If you take the Connemara hills and plant them the people living there will be put in the position of foresters and not of congests. As I say, it is probably a matter the Government is busy upon, because I always found, unfortunately, that whenever I had anything like an inspiration it was two or three years old. It is only the obvious things the Government does not tackle. There is another danger in the relief of the congests. The congest stands to become a national hero or national ideal. The man that is swept by the pressure of events to the very edge of the country is looked upon as the father of the country. If we are not descended from the congested districts we are supposed to be bad citizens. If one says a word about the language or lingo these people speak he is supposed not to be a patriot, like myself. The only use I have got for these people is to set them up as national totems, make them heraldic subjects, and forget about them like Hengist and Horsa, who did not interfere practically with English progress, but to put these men into the fertile parts of Meath is to deprive this country of its reservoir for its stock. The grazier is a man who can carry stock and not have the country denuded——
You would imagine they are Red Indians you are talking about.
They are green. If you divide Meath which, in the ordinary course of evolution, has got into large farms, and accommodate ten locals for every congest in the West of Ireland, a condition of affairs will arise that will not be very economically advantageous to the country. Anyone can see that at once. The only other subject I wish to discuss, and as it has been covered before by other people, I will not for long keep the attention of the House, is the question of schools. I am more interested in the school buildings than in the curriculum, for the reason that we are not allowed to discuss that, and what we are asked is to provide a vote for education and not to say what the children ought to be taught. A discussion on that is debarred, and that is apparently the fault of the system. It is not open to the Oireachtas to discuss the syllabus of the schools. I was criticised by the Minister for Education for exaggerating the condition of the schools in Dublin, and the easiest counter to make to that is: Is there a single school in Dublin equal to a Carnegie Library? A Carnegie Library is generally built with the aid of an external grant, and it is done in an economic way. If we had nothing better, it would be no harm to model our schools on these libraries.
I do not want to enter into the realms of high finance, but I would like to say a few words with reference to the speeches to which we have listened. It appears to me that when this Bill comes before the House we are at liberty to criticise anything and everybody under it. When dealing with this question Senator Kenny referred to several matters of importance. He dealt at length with the question of the railways, and if one is to judge of his knowledge of the railway system by the statements he made with regard to a railway porter at a wayside station in Ireland being paid the same wages as a railway porter at Clapham Junction I am afraid he does not know a great deal about the railways. It is not correct to say that a railway porter at a wayside station in Ireland is paid anything like the wages paid to a railway porter at Clapham Junction. The Senator went on to talk about the question of output, and the want of understanding between Capital and Labour. He referred to the system in America whereby industrialists get a huge output from their workers, and he mentioned that the employers there do not object to paying high wages. The Senator, however, is altogether forgetting the fact that the industrialists in America, and in other large industrial countries, when engaged in any particular form of industry are not working on obsolete systems and methods. It is a notorious fact that the unfortunate people who are driven out of this country, owing to being unable to get employment here, when they go to these industrial countries are equal to the best workers there. If they got the same opportunity at home there is no reason why they would not perform the same amount of work.
What is wrong with the industrial system in this country is that the industrialists are trying to carry on industry on obsolete and antiquated methods. They will not adopt modern methods so as to be able to get the proper output. Within the last few years we had an instance of one of the great industrial firms across the water, owing to the heavy income tax which they desired to evade, coming here and setting up factories in Dublin. The managers of these factories will tell you they are absolutely satisfied with the output they get from the Irish workers. The workers in these factories are paid more wages and are working under more humane conditions than is the case in other factories. These factories which have been started are ideal, and the conditions generally with regard to them are not to be compared to those prevailing in the antiquated factories run by the Irish people. I am loath to decry our own people, but at the same time when one is dealing with these important questions one must face the realities of the situation. The burden of Senator Kenny's speech was that the way to save the country was to put a tax on everything. He dealt with woollens, and he told us of the number of overcoats, and of men's and boys' suits and women's costumes that come into the country. He told us that the imposition of a tariff would improve the woollen industry. I venture to say that the Senator knows as much about that subject as he does about the railways. As everyone knows, the Minister for Finance in last year's Budget proposed that there should be a tax of 15 per cent. on ready-made clothing coming into this country. As a matter of fact Irish woollens go across to the other side of the water, are manufactured there, and sent back here as ready-made goods. That is a notorious fact.
I had several interviews with manufacturers. They are able, no doubt, to manufacture the finest woollens, and are able to compete with other people, but the circumstances in this country at the moment with regard to the importation of ready-made clothing of all kinds is that the people who are manufacturing the ready-made clothing here will not manufacture to suit the tastes of the people. They want to compel people to wear what they manufacture. They are making no effort to manufacture for what there is a demand. I have no doubt the materials they manufacture are better than the imported shoddy, but if the people want a certain article they are paying the piper and are entitled to call the tune. The manufacture should be in accordance with the requirements of the people.
They cannot compete in shoddy.
I certainly would be long sorry to advise people to wear shoddy. Since I started on my own wearing anything I have been an ardent supporter of Irish manufacture, and I have never worn anything else but Irish manufactured articles. I am prepared to stand a fair test, and to show that everything I am wearing at the moment was manufactured in this country. At the same time I think the business people here must consider and cater for the requirements of the people, and must adopt modern business methods. On the question of the imposition of tariffs, which seems to be the cure-all for everything, in my opinion if the demand for tariffs is granted it will mean putting a premium on inefficiency. I am not hidebound with regard to being a free trader or a tariff reformer. I am open to conviction. I will vote for and support whatever I believe to be best for the country, but I have the idea that the imposition of tariffs will not be the solution that its advocates claim for it. Instead of the imposition of these tariffs I would very humbly suggest that the State should consider the advisability of advancing to the people engaged in industry at a low rate of interest sufficient money to enable them to equip their factories with modern, up-to-date machinery. That might be better than the imposition of tariffs. As a matter of fact, the effect of the import duties on ready-made clothing and boots is that the poorer classes who buy this particular class of goods have enriched our Exchequer by paying the increased tariffs in addition to paying the extra amount put on by the shopkeeper in proportion to his outlay.
They have had to pay additional money without getting any corresponding benefit. It is a notorious fact that children's boots are not manufactured in this country, so that when one considers the vast quantity of boots and shoes purchased by people for their children it must be admitted that there has been heavy taxation of the poor people owing to the additional cost of boots and shoes. Senator Dowdall delivered a very interesting and a very sensible speech, and as I am criticising others I suppose I may say a few words about what he said. I agree with him that to a large extent the demand for economy is hypocrisy, particularly the source from which it comes. When one considers for a moment one will see that if every person in the community was getting the same increased price for their products as the people who are behind the economy stunt, then the Minister would be budgeting for nearly 100 millions and not for 30 millions, seeing that the people who are behind the economy stunt are getting four times the price for their commodity that they got some years ago. If the civil servants and everyone else got an increase pro rata to the increase those behind the economy stunt are getting the Minister would be asking for 100 millions. There has been talk about the good things the Ministry has done for housing and other things, and it was stated that the money spent was being retained in the country. I think I will prove that the money is not being retained in the country. I agree with what Senator Dowdall said, that the Government has done a good deal for housing. I have been all my life working in the interests of housing the people. I am sorry to say that in the housing schemes encouraged by the Government the money has not been retained in the country. The bulk of the money to provide materials has been sent to other countries. I am satisfied to have inquiry made into that statement. The materials used in these houses come from other countries to the detriment of material that is available in this country. I hope I have not inflicted myself too long on the Seanad, but under the circumstances I could not refrain from commenting on this very large question of finance and budgeting.
I think it is my duty to say a few words on the aspect that appeals to me. I quite agree with Senators who say that what the Government is doing with regard to expenditure is necessary considering the conditions of the country. I do not say that officials and others are grossly overpaid. I do not quite share the cry of economy, but seeing how the country is situated, after looking at the Estimates, I think two or three items might have been dealt with by loan rather than by immediate taxation. I refer particularly to the amount required for Public Works and Buildings, £1,300,000, and £2,100,000 for Property Losses. These are nonrecurrent charges and I think they are matters in connection with which the Minister for Finance might with advantage have properly looked for a loan and left the burden to be faced by a future generation. It is very hard for the Minister to budget for a reduction when you have a cry for further expenditure on education. About four and a half millions is being spent, or £4 10s. 0d. per family of the population, on education. Until we have set our house in reasonable order it will be very difficult to expect that a larger sum than that could be spent. I suggest we should try and redress the adverse balance of trade. That adverse balance seems to be about 18 or 19 millions, and it can only be reduced by exporting more goods. Looking through the imports, as far as I can judge, they amount to 60 millions for the Saorstát. Assuming a population of one million families, that means that we import £60 per family, or roughly 23/- per week.
Senator Farren suggested that our industries should be put into a greater state of efficiency so that a large proportion of the imports might be produced at home. That is a suggestion that the Minister should consider. These imports are paid for largely by exports. The invisible imports we do not know the value of, but we can deal with the visible exports. The visible exports come to about £40,000,000, and I have taken some little trouble to try and find out who is paying or who is producing the commodity that is paying for the imports. I find that, excluding agricultural produce, which accounts for about 32 millions, biscuits, porter, beer, and spirits are the only commodities worthy of consideration as regards exports. The export of these articles combined in 1925 amounted to about £6,467,000. I am glad to say that fish represented £622,000. That makes £7,000,000. Linen goods, cotton goods and other textiles came to about three-quarters of a million. To my mind, the sole means of paying for our exports comes from despised agriculture. Agricultural methods, we are told, must be improved. I would suggest that industrial methods should be also improved. I think Senator Farren struck the right note when he suggested that money might with advantage be lent to industries to enable them to set their houses in order and to purchase machinery which will enable them to compete with goods that are imported.
I do not wish to go into the question of tariffs. Tariffs are dangerous tools to play with. The Minister for Finance has tried tariffs, and I am quite sure he is investigating the results. To my mind the result of the tariff on boots is extraordinary. The tariff was put on during 1925, and the first year it was in operation we imported more boots than the previous year, and I think they cost a good deal less. I am not aware if the tariff was taken into account on the imports or not. I take it that it was added afterwards. The object of the boot tariff cannot apparently have matured, because one of its great objects was that boots should be made in this country to meet requirements here. Apparently, instead of producing the quantity of boots required, we had to import more boots in 1925 than in 1924. That is very interesting for the economist. I think the Government is going in the right direction. They seem to have managed the departments well and they are spending largely on primary, secondary and other forms of education. This year they intend to give a large amount of money to the Department of Industry and Commerce for the benefit of people who ought to be an advantage to the community. £400,000 is going to be spent by the Department of Industry and Commerce and I hope we shall see the results of that expenditure in two or three years time. That is nearly as large a sum as is being spent on the great agricultural industry which for some time to come must be the backbone of the finances of this country.
I have not much more to say except to suggest that many of the critics of the Government, many of them quietly in their shops should ask themselves what are they doing to assist the country to get out of the rut? Shopkeeping is apparently largely the business of this country, where people sit down and extract from the pockets of the consumers profits which seem to be enormous and which. I think, are beyond the capacity of the producer, who is the farmer, the labourer and the small industrialist. Unless industries are set up that the Department of Industry and Commerce in its wisdom will be able to help, and except some of the people who are now engaged in the unremunerative employment of selling goods be turned into channels which will advance the products of the country, I am afraid we will not be able to place the country in the position it ought to be in. I do not wish to strike a note of pessimism. Pessimism is destructive of faith and hope. I am not a pessimist; I have faith, and I believe the Government in budgeting for education, for the great agricultural industry, and for industry and commerce, are going on the right lines. If they succeed as they ought to, in reversing the adverse trade balance, they will be following a system of finance which is the only one this country should pursue.
I do not think the Minister for Finance will have very much difficulty in replying to this debate, because, with the exception of Senator Colonel Moore, the speakers who have addressed this House have asked him to spend more money. The Minister for Finance is the natural guardian or the official guardian of the taxpayer. He is the only person to whom taxpayers can really look for protection in the matter of expenditure. I imagine if the Minister for Finance were to unbosom himself as I am sure he could, he would tell us many a story of people who have been to see him, who made long speeches and who invariably wanted him to spend more money. Various suggestions have been made to-day for the expenditure of more money. One Senator wishes to re-afforest the West —a most admirable proceeding provided you get trees to grow. Another Senator made a very eloquent plea on behalf of increased expenditure in education. I agree with that Senator. I do not think we could spend money better than in educating people and in fitting them to take their proper position in the world. Other Senators made other proposals. We are all forgetting, apparently, in these debates that the country so far as we know seems to think it is paying too much money, that its household affairs are carried on in a too expensive way. I am not sure that there is not some basis for that feeling. However, these matters of retrenchment are not matters that can be dealt with in a day or a year. You must have a retrenchment policy and you must carry it out over a series of years. You cannot expect very immediate results in the matter of public economy, and on the other hand it is not economy to withhold necessary expenditure. It is no economy in public expenditure to withhold schemes of real genuine necessity for national development. I think from what I have seen of our Minister for Finance that he discharges his duty in a very conscientious way, so I would not press him to do impossibilities.
I was very much interested in the speech of Senator Farren. I think it was one of the most interesting contributions made to this debate. He made a suggestion, I think a very practical suggestion, speaking on behalf of Labour, for an improvement in the matter of our industrial output. Of course anything Labour puts forward should be very carefully attended to. We have seen in this country a number of conflicts between Capital and Labour. The country cannot get on without both Capital and Labour, and they must be brought to work together in harmony and in friendship. Any suggestion made by the Labour representatives deserves very serious consideration. Any practical method which could be proposed whereby friendship, good work and an increased output could be brought about, so far as Labour and Capital are represented in this country, is worthy of very serious and continuous thought. I do not quite understand what the Senator meant when he told us that in our housing schemes most of the money was being sent out of the country. Unfortunately, so far as I know, apart from labour and wages, most of the things we employ for building in this country are imported. We import iron, slates, tiles, timber, a very essential thing in reconstruction. I would be very glad if anybody could suggest how we might develop native materials in reconstruction, but I am afraid there will be a considerable difficulty on that head. On the whole we have had an interesting debate. I do not intend to prolong it. I dare say the Minister for Finance, when he rises, will answer the points made by the various speakers that preceded me.
Senator Kenny referred to a certain discussion which took place recently in the Dáil, and as he, quite unwittingly, I am sure, rather misrepresented me, I feel that I should make an explanation. He has referred to co-ordination, and his remarks would, I think, leave people under the impression that I had simply laughed at the word "co-ordination" and had turned down the whole idea. Then the Senator went on to quote from a recent speech of the Chairman of the Great Southern Railways on the matter. Might I be permitted to quote from my own speech on Friday last on this matter?
"Whatever form of co-ordination is necessary, and I believe it is necessary, in one form or another, is being looked into at the moment, and whatever can be done by the Departments as they are at present, will be done."
I simply mentioned that to show that I was speaking only against those people who thoughtlessly say "co-ordination" and believe, having said that word, that they have finished the whole problem. I pointed out the difficulty that there might be in co-ordination between the railway companies and the odd thousands of hackney motor drivers there are in the country, and said that there might be co-ordination and some grouping, some compulsion with regard to these people. If there are any specific details that would help, the Department would be glad to have them, but what has been said so far is merely a waving about of the word "co-ordination" and an impression thereafter that once you have said that, and add on a Ministry of Transport, you have the whole question solved. It strikes me that when the Senator misquoted me he was quoting from the columns of a certain Dublin newspaper, and if that is so I am not surprised that he should misrepresent me.
I merely referred to co-ordination in the matter of passenger traffic, to co-ordination on the railways in that sense, the transport of heavier goods and freights of that description. I did not intentionally misquote the Minister. As to the source referred to, I am not aware of it at all, because I rarely read it.
I am quite sure the Senator did not intentionally misrepresent me. In reference to the newspaper mentioned, I might only say that it had been very appropriately suggested that it might scrap its editorial page and add another magazine page on the ground that the camera at least cannot lie. If it was from that newspaper the Senator quoted, we know where the error lies. If it was not and if the Senator thinks I made a reference to passenger traffic I am afraid that I must turn that down. I did refer to the whole transport problem. I said that you could deal with the passenger traffic as one item. I think there is a certain type of co-ordination to be got as between different agencies. Sir Walter Nugent made a very good contribution to the general problem in so far as it affects the railways, but when he went on to suggest a certain type of co-ordination, I am pretty certain he had something in his mind. I personally would hold that it is in such an amalgamated body as we have at present, the Great Southern Railways, that there is the greatest possibility of co-ordination. There has to be some agency to start the matter. It may be a Government department or an outside agency.
One other Senator referred to the trade balance and spoke of an adverse trade balance of between seventeen and eighteen millions. I was disposed to argue that but the Senator, speaking later, corrected himself and said that that referred only to the visible items. I stress that because again a recent article has been compiled by people who are skilled in these matters, who put their best efforts into it, and the result seems to show that the trade balance is not such a very heavy thing. It reduces the adverse trade balance by six millions. That article, put together by specialists and which went into some detail, was passed over by a newspaper in this country with the remark that they did not care about invisible items. When one considers the hash they made of the visible items, one is not disposed to quarrel with their judgment not to proceed to deal with invisible items. The same Senator made a suggestion that instead of tariffs—and the contribution of this House in so far as it touched upon tariffs has been extremely interesting and will have to be considered—there should be some provision by way of giving money at low rates of interest to industrial concerns for the purpose of providing them with up-to-date machinery and easing the financial burden which the installation of such machinery would impose on them. That has been actually done already. The machinery of the Trade Loans Act is for that purpose and has been availed of by a considerable number of people; not the number we expected, perhaps, but I do not know what circumstances may be connected with that.
Senator Farren and other Senators have referred to the campaign, as it is called—if such an ill-regulated thing can be called a campaign—for economy, and Senator Farren has made a few caustic remarks. I think a matter that must be taken into consideration when one proceeds to judge the sincerity of these criticisms is how far they have reduced their own expenses and how far any of the newspapers, in their desire to aid the Government to reduce expenditure in this country, have brought down their own charges for Government advertising even to commercial rates. That is one thing that would bear investigation. Senator Farren referred to the fact that one of these papers is carrying on at four times the price it was in 1914. I was shown a series of interesting comparisons made by a friend of mine on that matter. He said that if you consider the number of "Independents" of pre-war price which could have been purchased for the price now charged, and divide them into certain strips, you could have gone one and a half times round the world, but the thought of the world entirely surrounded with copies of the "Irish Independent" was so horrible that he looked about for another comparison and he got it in this way: If the amount of money, which he called profiteering, was piled up in the building of a pyramid with a certain base it would amount to more than twice the size of the Nelson Pillar, the removal of which they object to, for purely national reasons, when the question is raised. Or, he said, as an alternative, the amount of money that has been brought to a certain establishment by reason of the fact that the Pillar is where it is. I am not sure if there is any point in that or not. People who are looking at this economy campaign can contribute at least one very obvious explanation. The campaign started after the Seanad election. Were a certain person here rejoicing in the title of "Senator" that campaign might not have been so hot, might not have been so furious. One of those papers in 1916 referred to the surgeon's knife. Maybe this surgeon's knife is at it again. We will have to find out what is the cause of it. We will have to discover whether this clinic that is being conducted into the affairs of the State is not more likely to end in a post-mortem instead of being merely a clinic, and there will have to be some consideration as to whether that post-mortem would not work more to the disadvantage of the particular surgeon and his knife than it would to the people against whom it is directed.
There have been all sorts of suggestions with regard to economy. One that has been pressed home with the fullest vehemence is one that I feel has been definitely turned down here. That is the suggestion that you should really seek for less efficiency in your Civil Service by employing underpaid men. If that suggestion had been put forward from this House I would certainly have had a certain amount of despair with regard to the future of the country. That is irrespective of the argument that can be put up on this as to whether, in fact, there would be any saving by this slap-dash 10 per cent. reduction, which would add at once to our Pensions Bill.
Will the Minister apply these principles to the wages of the men employed on the Shannon Scheme?
There is the question of the relation between the pay for certain types of work. We have the paper that is running this campaign making an attempt to divide the Civil Service by saying that the lowly-paid people deserve their bonuses but that the people who draw bonuses on large salaries are not doing sufficient work for them. I do not want my remarks to be misinterpreted. I do not mean to suggest anything with regard to the lower grades of the Civil Service. I have not had much contact with them and cannot speak of them. I do not profess to be in a position to judge accurately and completely the output of civil servants, because I have not had great experience of the matter. But I can say that after my experience for two years of the civil servants at the top of the tree and with whom I have been in contact, there is no body of men who have pulled their weight better than these particular individuals who are now being so grossly maligned. I have seen men who, if they wanted to take advantage of the ordinary regulations with regard to hours and vacations, would have left departments of the Government in chaos over certain periods, but they have not attempted, they have not desired, to act according to the strict rules. They have given very willing service indeed, and their only return is that there should be a campaign of the most bitter, malevolent and, I say, malicious type urged against them by people who have no knowledge of the conditions under which they work. I hold that it is a campaign that is simply due to the personal spleen and spite of these two individuals, and that one of these individuals might have been very much eased if this country had seen fit to vote him into a position in this House.
There is an old saying that "when certain persons fall out honest men come into their own." At one time this newspaper could see nothing wrong in the Government. Now they are in the ring, as it were, in the paper, and some of us people are likely to come into our own. When the old age pensions were being reduced the Government was all right, a splendid Government, an intelligent Government. When the unemployment benefit was being reduced it was a magnificent Government. When the Shannon scheme was introduced and the wages were put on a starvation level, a glorious Government. Now, for some reason or other, this newspaper, or newspapers, find it convenient to attack this Government that they lauded so much. We on these benches have nothing to thank the Government for. To our people, at any rate, they have never been even kind; to the other side they have been generous. They say that Ministers and certain highly-placed Government officials are getting too much money. I do not want to offer any apology for them, but I would like to know if this paper is interested in a very big drapery establishment in Dublin. I would suggest that the manager of that establishment has at least twice the salary of the President or any Minister, and I know that his job is no more onerous nor responsible than that of anyone in the Government. In certain departments of that shop the buyers have salaries in excess of some of the principal civil servants. We know that these officials have considerable ability; I will not go the length of saying great ability, though they may have that. But at any rate I would say that they had a great deal more ability than the heads of this firm's departments. After all, ability is a marketable commodity, and if the State does not pay these people in proportion to their ability private employers will, and they have.
Suggestions have been made as to how the State could be improved. I venture to suggest that the real cause of the stagnation and depression is due to the middle and the shopkeeping classes. I say that their development has been altogether out of proportion to any other class of the community. I remember when it was no unusual thing in Dublin to see shopkeepers living over their shops and their children attending the national schools, very little better off than the average working man. What is the position of these people to-day? They have suburban residences to maintain, with retinues of servants. They must have a motor car, and their children have governesses and attend secondary schools, some of them being sent to the Continent. These are the people who are complaining about high taxes. My suggestion to the Minister for Finance is to press on with the Food Prices Commission and let the working classes get some benefit out of the wages they receive. Again referring to this newspaper, we see in the "Daily Mail" that England has recently adopted the C.O.D. system, but this newspaper has adopted these letters in theory. I suggest to the Government that they carry on, ignore that kind of criticism and try to do something to assist the great volume of unemployed, try to restore the old age pensions to what they ought to be. With Senator Yeats and Senator Gogarty I am in thorough agreement about the bad state of education. Any increase under that head would be thoroughly appreciated by people in the Labour movement.
It is extremely difficult to say what the taxable capacity of any country is and, in fact, the taxation that it can bear will depend very largely on the use to which the money is put. There are limits beyond which a country cannot be taxed, but the limits within which a country can reasonably be taxed are wide, and they depend really on the use to which the money is put. We have, as Senators have said, the snow-ball leading article replacing the snow-ball resolution of the defunct rural district councils. I am glad that the snow-ball leading article has not apparently affected anybody in this House and that the discussion to-day has been a very sensible and a very practical one. It is not possible to restore the country economically, to effect any great improvement, by any reduction in Government expenditure that is practicable. If we take seven items, the Revenue Commissioners— you must have a revenue service if you want any national income at all—the old age pensions, superannuation, police, the various grants to local authorities in relief of rates, education, and the Post Office, you have an expenditure of £15,000,000, and I do not think that any reduction is practicable there. If you reduce the grants to local authorities you increase the local rates. The police have a great many duties in addition to police service. I do not think economies are to be effected there. Education does not admit of economy and, as a matter of fact, the expenditure on education is bound to go up somewhat. The mere passage of the Compulsory Attendance Bill, which is at present before this House, will cause increases.
There have been decreases in the Post Office and there will be some additional decreases, but in general these are seven items that do not admit of decreases. You have fifteen millions there, and you have no provision in that sum for public buildings, for the Oireachtas, for the Comptroller and Auditor-General, for the Civil Service Commission, for rates on Government buildings, for the Department of Agriculture, for the beet subsidy, for the courts, for the jails, for the Land Commission and for the Department of Local Government, including housing. That will indicate to anybody that while savings can be effected and while we have tried steadily in the last couple of years, during which we have had peace, to reduce expenditure and to effect economies in every direction, a great reduction in expenditure is simply a proposition that is not practicable. Anybody who suggests that the country would be greatly benefited by economies that can be effected is diverting the eyes of the people from what they should be turned to.
The country is not suffering from over-taxation really, but from underproduction. Of course, the country is over-taxed. I said in the Dáil, and I do not want to say it here cynically, that every country is over-taxed. There is no country which would not be relieved and where certain benefits would not accrue from reduced taxation, provided that that reduction came through economy. But it does not follow that there will be any benefit if the relief comes from the cutting out of good services. I do not believe that any relief would be experienced in this country if we cut down educational facilities. We would relieve the taxpayer immediately but the country generally would suffer. That, I think, represents the position exactly, and we will only go ahead when it is recognised on every side. Those trying to fasten the minds of the people on a reduction of Government expenditure are preventing the people from turning to the question of how business can be better carried on and better organised. There has been a great deal of talk about civil servants' salaries. Last year we gave a reduction in taxation in the Budget amounting to about £1,200,000. The reduction in sugar duty alone was £1,100,000. There were other reductions as well. That reduction in taxation was equivalent to 20 per cent. of the whole cost of the Civil Service. I do not know that it has made a great trade boom. Even if we could give a similar reduction this year, if we could effect a reduction in the cost of the Civil Service of a similar amount this year it would not make a trade boom. It would undoubtedly be very useful and agreeable to the people. We have heard talk about the higher civil servants. I made a calculation the other day in regard to the salaries of the civil servants who have over £500 a year inclusive. That is all salaries of £330 a year and bonus. These civil servants include very many professional people, solicitors, doctors and chemists. If we take 20 per cent. off all these salaries we would effect a saving of £180,000 a year, equivalent to one-fifth of a penny per lb. in the sugar tax.
That again I point to as an illustration of the fruitlessness and folly of the belief that there are economies to be effected in the national expenditure that are going to improve the economic position of the country. Greater efforts and different efforts are necessary. Those efforts must be along the lines of getting better business and greater production. All that can be done. I have said that I believe so far as we are concerned the Government has a duty, and I believe it has done its duty. I need not detail matters that I referred to at great length in the Dáil. But I indicated how salaries for practically all new entrants to the Civil Service have been revised. The salaries for civil servants and the judges have been revised and reduced compared with the scale in existence when we took over. We have done all that we could do in that respect, or at least all that we could be expected to do in the time.
These are matters of detail and they are receiving continual attention. They will continue to have that attention, and further economies no doubt can be effected. But they will be neutralised, from the point of view of total expenditure, if the demand for new services that seems to exist amongst all classes continues. We have persistent and continuous demands. I know myself that I have continually to say "no" to these demands. I continually have proposals that seem good enough in themselves and that are influentially backed and strongly pressed, and they have to be refused. But no Minister and no Government can entirely withstand the demand for new services and for increased Governmental activity. If they refuse one thing they are bound some time later to adopt another. If there is not a new attitude in the country I say it would be better if the people who are conducting the rather silly campaign about economy would turn their attention to the question of services and would point out to the people that if they want relief in taxes they must be prepared not to demand at every turn new services.
The Minister for Lands and Agriculture told me a story some time ago after a by-election down in the country. He had spoken about various things on the platform, and afterwards he came down and stood on the street, and a man came up to him and said: "What are you going to do about the wood-pigeons?" The Minister for Lands and Agriculture said: "What about them?" and the man said: "They are eating my cabbages." He was under the impression that the Government ought go out and shoot the pigeons for him. That attitude is very widespread. That is one of the things that has to be cured. If there is any benefit in having control of our own affairs it should be that we are able to face up to the facts and not try to pass the blame to others. Let all sides and all sections try to do their best. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has referred to the point of trade loans for the equipment of factories. Perhaps the procedure is not as simple and expeditious as it might be under the Act and perhaps something more may require to be done to meet the problem. The problem of the congested districts is an extremely difficult one. There is no doubt but the doles and relief works are demoralising and do not improve the situation. That is a matter that has had a great deal of attention. Relief in certain places will be given to some extent by the land policy of the Government. I had hopes that the tariff policy which we have started upon would give relief in some other respects, that somewhere adjacent to those districts you might have factories and industries started by which employment would be provided for numbers of people. I recognise that this question of tariffs is an extremely delicate one. It undoubtedly does mean a burden upon the country. I think that it cannot be denied that every tariff will tend to raise the cost of living.
In the case of, say, tobacco, that did not happen. We had certain exceptional circumstances and we had a big combine coming in and putting up at once adequate plant to meet the demand. But in the ordinary way you have an increase in the cost of living. Take the boot tax: there is no doubt in my mind at all that the boots in the case of the ordinary person are 15 or 16 per cent. more than they would be if there had been no tariff. On the other hand I certainly believe that in six or seven years' time we will have a very well established boot industry here which will be a permanent asset to the country and a new source of wealth. I have no reason to doubt that when our factories have grown fairly big and when they have a substantial number of trained workers that the industry will be able to stand on its feet and to require no further taxation, and the burden on the people may be removed. Meanwhile we are paying. The country is poor and it is a question of how much we can pay at the present time. That is a matter to which the Government may give great attention.
Senator Kenny referred at some length to the question of woollen piece goods. The situation is not different from that of last year. If we want to put a tariff of 15 per cent. on woollen goods we must raise the tariff to about 25 per cent. or so, on certain classes of apparel. Whether the ordinary ready-mades worn by the workers can be put up to another ten per cent. without producing economic results that we do not desire is a matter for very serious consideration. Tariffs at any rate are not a panacea. But we have used them to some extent. We believe that we can get good results from them, but we believe that what can be done with them in a particular number of years is limited. As a matter of fact, if we went too far with tariffs we would have diminishing returns, because the first tariff that you put on gives you greater results than the second, and the second gives you greater results than the third. Each tariff raises the general cost of living and makes the subsequent tariff less effective, just as the second tariff by raising further the cost of living makes the first less effective. There is undoubtedly a law of diminishing returns which should make us go slowly.
I think it was Senator Bennett said that certain items of the Estimates ought be borrowed for and not treated as a recurrent expenditure. It is our intention to borrow for them. When it comes to the introduction of the Budget I will present an analysis of expenditure showing that certain items, such as Senator Bennett referred to, local loans and compensation charges, ought to be borrowed for. We are quite aware that it is necessary to reduce the actual amount raised in taxation to the amount that is required for recurrent expenditure. We will do everything we can in that respect to lighten the burden on the taxpayer. But it is not our intention to borrow for the recurrent expenditure. We have no intention of looking for any temporary popularity by embarking on a course of financial policy that would be difficult to draw back from and that would ultimately land the country in great and serious difficulties.
Question—"That the Bill be read a Second Time"—put and agreed to.
I move:—
"That the Standing Orders be suspended for the purpose of enabling the remaining Stages of the Central Fund Bill, 1926, to be taken to-day, Tuesday, 30th March, 1926."
I second.
I want to say that I wish to oppose this motion. These Bills are thrust on us at the last moment and we are asked to pass them through without any consideration. This is a matter in which the whole interests of the country are concerned and everybody is interested in it. It is a scandal and a shame that we should be forced to go through the whole of this Bill in one day. I think Senator Sir Edward Bigger takes on himself a great responsibility in trying to help the Government to force this through the Seanad without consideration.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I think there is a great deal to be said for the principle that lies at the back of Senator Colonel Moore's objection to this motion. I have myself on more occasions than one complained particularly in regard to Bills of this character, which give to this House one of the few opportunities it has of legitimately criticising the financial policy of the Government. Therefore I always thought that a Bill of this sort is one that could be most usefully used for the purpose of impartial and fair criticism. At the same time we are up against this possibility that the Bill is here now and all we can do is what has been done very properly by Senator Colonel Moore to call attention to the unfairness of the position in which the Seanad has been placed. That has happened not only now but on former occasions. I know it must come at the very end of the session before the adjournment, but there is no reason why the Bill should not have come to us a week before the Dáil and Seanad are going to rise. I am sure the Minister for Finance will report this complaint to his colleagues.
I regret very much that the Bill was not earlier before the Seanad. I was making an effort myself so that it would be with the Seanad at least last Friday. Unfortunately, this year the debate in the Dáil was of unprecedented length. I recognise that the Seanad should have received the Bill a week or certainly six days before the adjournment. The matter is not entirely within the control of Ministers.
Could we not continue the debate to-morrow?
May I say that Senator Colonel Moore has entirely expressed my sentiments in this matter. I think in a question of such importance as the finances of the country, and this being one of the few opportunities that we have of discussing the Bill, that we ought to be given a reasonable time for discussing it. I hope that this mistake will not occur again, and that if we agree to let this Bill through now and suspend our Standing Orders that next year and in future years we shall not have to rush this matter through as we are rushing it now. Might I ask the Seanad to agree to this resolution, and to suspend the Standing Orders if only in recognition of the speech which the Minister for Finance has just delivered. I listened very attentively to his speech, and I think everybody recognises the honesty of purpose that lay behind it and how anxious he is to give effect to the ideas that are in the minds of many of us. I think, in the circumstances, having made our protest, we might allow the motion to pass now. I am thoroughly agreed with the protest made by Colonel Moore.
Question—"That the Standing Orders be suspended"—put and agreed to.
The Seanad went into Committee.
As the Standing Orders have been suspended, I would ask for some latitude in the case of any Senator who may wish to speak on the Committee Stage.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I shall put each clause separately. As this is a Money Bill, Senators cannot move amendments, but they can speak in support of any recommendations that they may like to make. On the question of the clause, does Senator Dowdall wish to make any remark?
Yes, I should like to refer to the effect of some of the duties imposed by previous finance measures. In any manufacture it is impossible to expect an immediate result showing the effects of the advantages derived from tariffs. The machinery of production and distribution have to be put into working order first. Senator Farren says that boots and shoes for women and children have yielded revenue to the Government which has come out of the pockets of the people who have to pay for those boots and shoes. That may have been so, during the first year the tax was imposed, but it is not so at present, and I do not think that it is so for the past year. Factories for the production of men's boots were in existence before the introduction of the tax, but factories for the production of women's and children's boots were not. They have since been established and reports show that they are now working satisfactorily.
CATHAOIRLEACH
If you are not attacking any particular clause of the Bill I think it would be more in accordance with order if you reserved your observations until we come to the final stage of the Bill.
I should like to move a recommendation.
CATHAOIRLEACH
In reference to what item?
I have not got a list of items with me here, but I understand that there is a recommendation to send money out of the country under the clause dealing with land purchase annuities, I am not sure, but I think so.
The land purchase annuities are paid into the Land Purchase Fund and do not come into the Exchequer Fund at all.
That is quite true, but it is on the question of the export of money from this country that I wish to speak.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I think it would be better if you followed Senator Dowdall and spoke on the Fifth Stage.
Bill passed through Committee without discussion and was received for final consideration.
Seanad went out of Committee.
Question—"That the Bill be considered on Report"—put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I wish to say, in reference to the remarks that fell from Senator Farren, children's boots and shoes are now made largely in the Free State so that while the duty falls upon boots and shoes imported still, for those who desire to help the home industry those boots and shoes are now available. I was in communication, when the duty was imposed on ready-made clothing, with a firm in Cork, and I learned that the output of the factory had increased by 264 per cent. and that 658 extra additional hands were employed. Boot production has gone up last year as against the year before. I would like further to refer to a point made by Senator Farren with regard to the money derived from taxation leaving the country. I refer to the money spent internally on roads, on houses and on compensation and on pensions. I think that nine-tenths of the compensation pensions and of the money on road expenditure is retained in the country. I think the Senator will agree with me that half the cost of the construction of houses approximately represented by labour is retained in the country, and the same may be said of the materials from which the houses are built. I would like to know if the Minister for Industry and Commerce has seen a pamphlet published by some newspaper which deals with the adverse trade balance. A mere recital of so many millions for imports and exports is misleading, without considering other charges and amounts by which these figures must be adjusted. To merely take the figures and say at the present there is something like £18,000,000 adverse balance, is to produce an effect that is misleading and depressing to the people of this country. I may refer for a moment to the fact that if trade were good taxation is not onerous. Trade is bad at present, and I would ask Colonel Moore to remember that, as he gave a rather lugubrious account of the small farmers who are so hard hit. Trade is bad because capital is not very liquid and plentiful and because the banks are more stringent in their conditions and, I think properly, when they are dealing with some of the people to whom Colonel Moore referred. No one will advance money on security unless he feels that in the event of repayment not being made that security will be available. The banks are reluctant to advance money to farmers at the present time, because if they have to realise the security there is no free market for it. There is a conspiracy to prevent anybody competing for that farm if it is the security, and a man who cannot pay or the man who will not pay is allowed to ride off with the bank's money in his pocket. I referred to that not as any reflection upon farmers but because it is making monetary credit facilities more difficult to obtain, and that is responsible for the depression and if that depression did not exist conditions would be more encouraging and better and taxes would not be so heavily felt as at present.
Senator Dowdall criticised what I said that the Commission set up some 40 years ago had laid down that Ireland's taxable capacity was about one-twenty-first towards the expenditure that then prevailed. That matter was much disputed at the time, and indeed the Committee did not report that. Many of the members of the Financial Commission, especially the Irish representatives, believed that the proportion ought to be much less. I pass away now from that question as to what happened 40 years ago and I come to what happened in the last year or two. The authorities were the same more or less, and the authority that said one thing 40 years ago say different now. Senator Dowdall also said that very little money went out of the country. There he throws over the statement of the Prime Minister of England who said that we are exporting something like one-tenth of our capital. One of the greatest causes of our taxation is the point that I am going to raise, which is the question of land purchase annuities. Perhaps I had better confine myself to that altogether. In the Appropriation Act of 1923 the sum of £3,133,577 was provided for repayment to the British Government in respect of annuities under the Land Purchase Act. Whether that is the annual sum is uncertain, because it was stated in the Appropriation Accounts of the same year that £2,922,847 was the amount, and I cannot see what is the exact amount, but it is two and a half or three millions. This money is paid over to the British Government every year. Some of it, no doubt, returns to the Free State, because the British Government pays the interest on the amount of the sales, but that ought to come in any case, but certainly much of it is not returned. I want to explain explicitly that the land purchase annuities due under the Act of 1923 belong to the Free State Treasury and not to Great Britain. The earlier history of this matter is known to most of us. It arose out of the purchase of lands by the tenant farmers of Ireland and the various Land Purchase Acts passed before and after the Wyndham Act of 1903—sums payable on account of interest and principal of the loan made by the Treasury of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. I note in passing that part of the principal has been repaid by the tenant farmers, but I am not dealing with that now. Until the year 1920 these payments were paid to the Treasury of the United Kingdom, but in that year an Act was passed known in Ireland as the "Partition Act" by the British Parliament. Remember that not a single Irish member from North or South voted for this Bill; nevertheless we suffer a great national injury from some of its clauses, and, therefore, if there are any clauses in our favour we ought to profit by them. The question will arise whether this Act is in force now in Ireland, and I will come to that later and say only that it is in force. The twenty-sixth clause of this Bill states: "Purchase annuities payable in respect of land situated in Southern and Northern Ireland respectively shall be collected by the Governments of Southern and Northern Ireland and the amount so collected shall be paid into their respective Treasuries."
The next clause provides for the interest of the land purchase debt:—
"In each year a sum, equal to the amount payable in that year in respect of purchase annuities, shall be paid into the Land Purchase Fund out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom."
In other words, the two Irish Parliaments keep the purchase annuities, and are relieved of the payment of interest on the capital loan. No doubt the British Ministers did not anticipate that a generous Government such as the present one would consider it possible, once the British had left Ireland, to be able to collect these annuities, and that they would wash them out as an unrecoverable asset. They did not know the present Ministers. The Parliament of Northern Ireland retains these annuities, and the Free State sends them over to the British Treasury. I feel confident that this is wrong, and the best legal authority I could find is of that opinion also. The Constitution lays down that:—
"Subject to the Constitution, and to the extent to which they are not inconsistent therewith, the laws in force in the Irish Free State at the time of the coming into operation of this Constitution, shall continue to be of full force and effect, until the same or any of them shall have been repealed or amended by the Oireachtas."
Then arises the question as to whether or not that law has been repealed. It certainly has not been repealed. In that respect Mr. Justice Meredith in February two years ago gave judgment in a case which included reference to the Partition Act of 1920. He said that:
"The Constitution of the Irish Free State must be recognised by the Courts as an original source of jurisdiction that since April 1st, 1922, the repeal by the British Parliament of an Act extending to the Irish Free State, including the partial repeal of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, or the Partition Act could not affect the question as to whether or not the Act continued to be in force in the Irish Free State, and accordingly, that such (if any) of the provisions of that Act as are not inconsistent with the Constitution of the Irish Free State, were adopted into the code of laws of the Irish Free State under Clause 73 of the Constitution."
That seems to dispose of the question as to whether this particular clause of the Act of 1920, except in so far as it has been repealed or is contrary to the Constitution, is in force in the Free State at present. The Act has not been repealed by the Oireachtas, and the clauses quoted are clearly not contrary to the Constitution. The question was raised by me during the discussion on the Appropriation Bill last year. I had previously informed the Minister for Finance of the points I intended to raise in order that he might come prepared with any answers he wished to give. Last year I raised this question on the Appropriation Bill, and made a statement similar to what I am now making. The Minister for Finance was not here then, and the President answered for him. The President then, in answer, said that
(1) "The Act of 1920 had not been accepted by the Irish people and was non-operative."
He does not agree with Judge Meredith, but till that decision is reversed it is law. He said that:
(2) "Whenever it was put in force it was to suit the convenience of one party or the other."
That is a novel and Cosgraveian way to interpret the law, and in any case this clause suits the convenience of Ireland.
(3) "The people of Ireland had not accepted it, except some of the machinery."
That does not seem to be law either; the Irish people had to accept the partition part whether they liked it or not, and Judge Feetham based his decision on the Act of 1920.
(4) "That no one could say what part of Ireland is southern, in so far as a political division is concerned."
Unfortunately the President has made this sufficiently clear by the London Pact.
(5) "The Act is unrecognised except in such provisions as are specially mentioned in the Treaty."
Again he is contradicted by Judge Meredith.
(6) "That if it were recognised the Free State would have to pay £10,000,000 a year to the British Treasury as laid down in the Act."
That would be contrary to the Constitution unless sanctioned by a special Act.
(7) "Judge Meredith's decision referred only to a specific case (pensions)."
That is not correct. I have read the decision, and it refers to the whole Act in so far as it is not unconstitutional or repealed.
(8) "The Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922, provided that Orders in Council might be made for the giving effect to Clause 17 of the Agreement for a Treaty. Under these powers the transfer of Functions Order, 1922, was made, Clause 4 of which provided that purchase annuities should be paid into the Land Purchase Fund."
With regard to that, the Free State Agreement Act was an English and not an Irish Act, and was strictly limited to the time the British Government was handing over the various services to the Irish Government. It was laid down that this arrangement shall not continue beyond the expiration of twelve months from the 6th December, 1921. Therefore, on the 6th December, 1922, this Provisional Order became out of date, and the twenty-sixth section of the Government of Ireland Act became effective, awarding the Land Purchase Annuities to Southern Ireland. It is strange that the President should have said that the Provisional Order continued in force till the Land Act of 1923 was passed by the Oireachtas. The Order lapsed on 6th December, 1922, and the Land Act was not passed till 3rd of August, 1923, nine months later. The Appropriation Act of 1923 was passed about the same time as the Land Act. Every single one of the President's statements was grossly incorrect.
On a point of order, have we got a quorum?
CATHAOIRLEACH
It would be very inconvenient if the House had to arise for want of a quorum.
There is a large number of Senators in the room outside.
It is a very extraordinary thing that Senators should stay outside during a discussion on an important matter like this.
CATHAOIRLEACH
It is an important matter, of course, that in discussing a Bill of this kind we should have a quorum. I think, Senator Colonel Moore, you are bringing your observations to a close. I understand you had an answer to all this before and were not satisfied with it.
If I had a sufficient answer the last time that would be the end of it.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I am afraid you will not get any better answer this time.
Then so much the stronger is my case. The Land Act of 1923 laid down:—
"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Provisional Government (Transfer of Functions) Order, 1922, all sums collected after the 31st March, 1923, in respect of purchase annuities, in repayment or advances made in Saorstát Eireann in pursuance of purchase agreements, under the Land Act of 1891, etc., other than this Act shall ... be paid into a purchase annuities fund, under the control of the Minister for Finance, and there shall be paid out thereof by the Minister for Finance to the appropriate authority for the credit of the Land Purchase account, an amount equivalent to the purchase annuities accruing due in respect of the aforesaid advances."
The very order quoted as his authority by the President is overruled by the Land Act of 1923. The "appropriate authority" is not defined or explained in the Act, nor is the British Treasury mentioned. The appropriate authority cannot, therefore, be applied to any person or authority outside the Free State, because it would be clearly unconstitutional to send large sums of Irish money abroad without the clearly laid down authority of Dáil Eireann. There was such authority, no doubt, in the Appropriation Act of 1923, but that was wrong, and in any case applied only to that particular year. I doubt if any member of the Dáil understood its purport or history at that time. It does not seem to have been discussed. Of course, there may have been a secret agreement between the two Governments, but that cannot be binding till the Dáil has confirmed it. The President was asked to place on the table of the Dáil, but has not done so, an agreement of this sort. I maintain that this large sum should be kept in Ireland for the benefit of the people, and so stop, to a great extent, the outflow of money which is ruining the country.
Finally, I wish to say to the Minister that before long it is going to be a burning question and every tenant purchaser is going to ask if this money should be sent to Britain. I would be glad if the Minister would give some sufficient reason for sending nearly 3 millions of money to England every year.
CATHAOIRLEACH
You are asking the Minister to decide between the President and Mr. Justice Meredith. I know the Minister long enough to think that he would be slow about doing that.
I may say that this money is under the control of the Minister for Finance. He is responsible for it. That is stated in a clause of the Land Act.
CATHAOIRLEACH
If any Minister is appropriating money in any direction that seems contrary to the law, the persons aggrieved have their remedy. We cannot interfere.
The Senator's brother would be the first to suffer if the annuities were stopped.
I understand that I am legally bound to pay, and I believe that I am morally bound to pay. It provides for interest on the land stock, and if I were doing wrong or if the Act of 1923 passed by the Oireachtas were wrong I would hear about it from the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
I wrote a letter to the Public Accounts Committee on this subject. At the time they were dealing only with the Accounts of 1923, and they referred me to the Accountant-General. The Accountant-General replied that his authority was the Appropriation Act of 1923. I think the Minister has a right to show if this money ought to be sent.
It has been decided by the Oireachtas. That is the answer to the argument, unless the Senator introduces a Bill amending the Act of 1923.
Question put and agreed to.