Am I at liberty now to discuss the statement made by the President of the Executive Council?
Central Fund Bill, 1932—Committee and Final Stages.
Bill put through Committee and reported without amendment.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
I think the usual procedure when a Money Bill is before the House is that Senators can make recommendations on various clauses or on the various items, and that they can discuss various specific items of the Estimates before them. I do not think that at this stage the Senator is entitled to do what he asks. Of course it is a matter for you, sir, to rule on. I think that has been the procedure in the past.
Cathaoirleach
On the Final Stage, if the Senator wishes to make some criticism, I shall allow him.
Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I am not going to detain the Seanad very long, but I would not like the Bill to pass, in view of the statements made by the head of the present Executive, without saying something to remove the impression that may be abroad that there is complete acquiescence in the point of view expressed by the President. For my part, I cannot understand why this matter has been brought on to-day. It was unnecessary for the Minister for External Affairs to have introduced this matter and to have repeated his statements. He has added nothing new to what has already received publication. I thought that this matter would have been left in abeyance until the definite concrete proposals which the new Government are to submit to the House were ready to be submitted to either House of the Oireachtas. For that reason I am not going to anticipate what the provisions of these Bills will be. There is, however, just one thing that I want to say at this stage, and that I want to place on record, and it is this: that I dissent most emphatically from the view expressed by the President that he has got a mandate from the people either to deal with the Oath or the land annuities. I state most emphatically that if there is any meaning in the English language for the word "mandate" as applied to political pronouncements of people, it means that those who seek the suffrages of the people on a certain issue receive a majority support when the result is declared. We know that the Party which now holds the reins of office were returned as a minority Party of the other House. We know that there was not a single member of that Assembly outside of that Party who received that mandate for anything else than to maintain the Treaty position unimpaired. I thoroughly agree that the people did deliver a mandate, but that mandate was one of this nature; that whatever Party was given the responsibility of office and government would have a mandate to maintain the Treaty position of this State unimpaired and unchallenged. I say there has been no mandate to tamper with the Treaty position; there has been no mandate to tear up a solemn international document, a Treaty of peace between two nations, and to tear it up in the manner which the President indicates, a manner which is flouting the other party to that document.
However, it is premature at this stage to discuss the methods by which this alleged mandate will be given effect to, or the Bill which will embody it. When it comes along, I suppose we will then be in a better position to deal with it. At this moment I simply want to sound this note of emphatic dissent and to try to make clear what, with all its bewildering complications, the voice of the people did say in that fateful election, and that was to maintain the Treaty, to maintain the basis of this State. That is the standpoint from which I hope members of the Oireachtas will approach this matter when it comes before them in definite and precise form.
I wish to support Senator Milroy and to protest against the statement of policy being made here to-day which I agree with him is quite unnecessary.
On a point of order, who asked for a statement of policy? I think it was the last speaker.
Cathaoirleach
I think you are right, Senator Foran.
It comes very bad to ask for a statement of policy and when it is made to protest against it.
My recollection of the discussion was that it was intimated to us that a statement of policy would be made. We all understood that.
Cathaoirleach
I thought it was desired.
It was intimated before Senator Milroy stood up to speak, and it was certainly my impression that the President came here to make a statement of policy. I wish to say that I agree with Senator Milroy entirely when he says that no mandate was given by the people at the late election to tamper with either the Treaty or the Constitution. None whatever. The most outrageous and outlandish and impossible promises were dangled before the people's eyes. The people in the country, and people I meet every day, expect the most extraordinary things that they are never going to see and that are impossible. The state of depression in the country helped to give a small majority to Fianna Fáil. People in debt, people suffering on account of the world depression—a depression which is far less here than in other countries—will vote for any change. They have no tradition of stability or security in the past except what they got for the last ten years under Mr. Cosgrave's Government. They are not like the English people, who when faced with a crisis will vote for security. Here they will take a leap in the dark. That is what has happened. They plunged into an abyss of darkness, and they do not know where it will land them. That is what happened. However, a very small majority was given to the Fianna Fáil Party, but that is no mandate to tamper with an international Treaty and to bring us into conflict with the country on which we are dependent. Take the farmers position. What is it? What would it be to-morrow if a tariff is put on Irish cattle? What will it be to-morrow or next day when we are cut out of the preference which the Commonwealth countries are to get? Those people are going to be taught a lesson and the sooner they get it the better.
The Labour Party went to the polls as supporters of the Treaty. If they vote against it, it means that they have betrayed the people who voted for them. I know hundreds of them. No answer has been given to Senator O'Farrell's statement whether every little gun bully is to be allowed to go around this country again to bully the people. We have had no answer to that.
Cathaoirleach
I thought an answer was given by the President.
My impression was that he said nothing had been done up to the present time.
Cathaoirleach
I think he said the law was there.
I did not understand Senator O'Farrell to say that every little gun bully was to be allowed to run about.
Was everybody who wished to be allowed to carry arms without a permit? That question was not answered.
Perhaps I might be allowed to explain. What I suggested was that certain people seemed to think that anybody who desired could carry a gun without a permit or licence. That was not my own impression only.
That is the impression all over the country. It is widespread all over the country. I shall not delay the Senate any longer. I join with Senator Milroy in his very emphatic protest against the whole procedure.
I do not propose to say much at this stage. One cannot help having a great amount of sympathy with Senator Miss Browne. She referred, however, to the question of a majority, which is my only reason for speaking. I would remind the Senate that the present Government have at least a somewhat bigger majority—I think, has the largest Party that has yet acted as a Government in the country—than the previous Government. Various terrible things, drastic and far more revolutionary things than we hope to do, have already been done with a much smaller majority than we have at the moment. I want to make that point of protest against Senator Miss Browne's statement as regards the mandate and the majority.
Before the Minister replies I want to make clear a statement I made which Senator Connolly, apparently, did not understand. He said that the Minister for Finance would be delighted when he heard that Guinness's would be selling more beer next year. I never said anything of that sort. What I said was that they had used up their reserve in England this year on account of the dwindling trade in England, and the reserves were not required, and that the tax on these reserves having been paid in the previous year, the income from that particular beer now used did not come into the Exchequer this year; but that now things would be normal. The reserves are reduced, and there would be no necessity next year for a decrease beyond what has already occurred. Perhaps the Senator will understand now.
I did understand.
That does not say that the Minister for Finance will have an income above the average. I do not want to take up time. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about the excessive tax on petrol and about the Supplementary Budget, which is abnormal, and which we hope will not occur again.
In regard to some of the statements that have been made, I should like again to emphasise that the Estimates upon which the Central Fund Bill has been based have not been prepared by the new Government, and do not represent the policy of the new Government. Though you are asked to approve of the provision of money, for instance, for the Governor-General's establishment, the House may be quite certain that the new Government do not see eye to eye with their predecessors in regard to the provision which should be made under that head. Similarly in regard to the Ministers and Parliamentary heads of Departments. The new Government will propose to depart in a radical way from the policy which was adopted and followed by their predecessors. Some part of the money which has been provided by the Dáil under this Bill goes, for instance, to meet Supplementary Estimates of expenditure, already incurred, for which the sanction of the Dáil had to be obtained during the current financial year. That is set forth in Section 1 of the Bill. As I have said, Section 2 deals merely with the provision which must be made, in accordance with the policy outlined by our predecessors, to enable us first to submit the Estimates to the Dáil, possibly in a revised way, but at all events to enable us to carry on the public services until adequate and proper provision can be made for them by the passing of the Appropriation Act and the Central Fund Act.
With regard to one or two issues raised by Senator Wilson, the first— upon which he seemed to feel most strongly—was the tax on petrol. I had not the pleasure of hearing Senator Wilson chastising my predecessor for having taxed that commodity, which I regard as essential to industry and transport. I had not the pleasure of being here to hear him chastising the former Minister, but I am quite certain that if he did chastise him he tempered his severity with paternal kindness. I trust that when hard necessity drives me to follow my predecessor's bad example Senator Wilson will extend to me the same mercy.
With regard to the question of beer and spirit duties, I am an optimist. I hope that the profits coming from the thirsty desert of prohibition may help to relieve the Exchequer of the disabilities which the increasing temperance of our people in latter years has imposed upon it. But, apart from that, I do not see how any policy which this Government might pursue is going to secure for it any greater return from the excise duties. It does not matter how much beer we sell in England. It does not bring in an additional penny piece of revenue to us. What matters to the Exchequer here is the amount of the products of our native breweries which is consumed here. As there seems to have been—and I do not bewail it—a change in the habits of our people in that regard, we shall only have to bear it with equanimity and resignation because of the greater good it has brought to the nation as a whole.
Senator O'Farrell asked me was I in a position to make any statement in regard to the Arbitration Board. I regret to say that I am not in a position to make such a statement to-day.
Since I have taken charge of my Department, many very pressing matters have been brought to my attention, and everyone will recognise that the provision of Ways and Means at this period of the year must have primary claim upon me. I hope, when we have got the Budget through, that we shall be able in this matter, as in other matters, to give effect to the pledges that we gave during the election.
Senator O'Farrell asked me for an assurance in relation to income tax. I know that much is expected from the new Government, but of all the boons and blessings which, I believe, will ensue from the change, I think there were very few who ever dreamt that we would reach the millennium of "no income tax." While I do not propose to give away any Budget secrets at the moment, I certainly would not advise any Senator to order his personal or household budget on the hypothesis that when I come to introduce the State Budget there will not be the usual provision made for income tax. There are many evils which clamour for our attention. I hope we shall be able to remove many of them, but I am not at all optimistic that we will reach the stage at which we can dispense with that very unpleasant but very productive agent of the Treasury. With regard to de-rating, again, I do not want to anticipate the Budget statement, but I must say that if any local authorities are so foolish as to anticipate Budget proposals, then they must bear responsibility for such anticipation.
I think I have dealt with all the matters raised—particularly relating to the Bill now before the House— which would fall to me properly to deal with. I do not want to trench here upon a matter which I think is outside the scope of the Bill, but which some of the Senators have raised. It has been said that we have no mandate to tamper with the Treaty position. I understood from statements made by members of the late Government and particularly by the former Minister for External Affairs that the Treaty position, as we knew it in 1922, had long ago disappeared. Emphatic pronouncements which may be made in this House by members who have not submitted themselves to the people and not asked the people for a mandate do not matter. It has been stated by Senator Milroy that the voice of the people declared that the Treaty position must be maintained. If that were so, why did not the people return the Government and the Party which made the Treaty the sole excuse for their political existence during the past ten years? I do not wish to say more except to deal with the statement made by Senator Miss Browne, that we had come into power as a result of the outrageous and impossible promises and schemes which we dangled before the people. In 1927, the Cumann na nGaedheal Party went to the country with this as their programme—the hydro-electric development of the Shannon, the reconstitution of the dairying industry of this country on a new basis and the establishment of a beet sugar factory. When they came into power, they added to that list a new project— the development of the Drumm battery. The success of that Government's practical policy is expressed by the four schemes—The Shannon Scheme, The Dairy Disposals Board, The Drumm Battery and the Beet Sugar Factory, as precious a collection of white elephants as ever drove their unfortunate owners to the verge of insolvency.
Question put and declared carried.
The Seanad adjourned at 5.10 p.m.sine die.