Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 16 Nov 1932

Vol. 16 No. 2

Private Business. - Appropriation Bill, 1932 (Certified Money Bill)—Second Stage.

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. Connolly)

In the absence of the Minister for Finance, I move the Second Reading of this Bill. Section 1 provides for the issue from the Central Fund of the balance of the Estimates for the current financial year not covered by the Central Fund Acts, 1932, with the addition of a sum of £2,000,000 voted for an Emergency Fund Grant in Aid and a sum of £140,000 voted as a Supplementary Estimate for Local Government and Public Health in connection with housing. Section 2 gives the Minister for Finance the necessary power to borrow for the purpose of meeting the demands on the Exchequer. Section 3 specifically appropriates to the various services set out in Schedule B of the Bill the total amounts granted for supply services since the passage of the Appropriation Act, 1931. Supplementary Estimates for the year 1931-32 to a total amount of £182,258 are thus included within the ambit of the appropriation. The second paragraph of this section gives the necessary authority for the utilisation of certain Departmental receipts as appropriations in aid of the specific services mentioned in the Schedule. Section 4 provides for the usual statutory declaration being made before a person can receive a payment in respect of superannuation or any other noneffective service. The Schedules set out in detail the specific services to which the sums granted by the Central Fund Acts, 1932, and by this Bill are to be appropriated. Schedule B forms the basis of the audit of appropriation accounts subsequently carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

On this Bill, Senators are, of course, at liberty to make any recommendations or to criticise any of the expenditure involved. Where this is intended, it is usual, I think, to intimate to the various Departments such criticism or queries as Senators may wish to make. I asked the various Ministers if any such intimation had been received and, up to the present, no such intimation has been received. However, any Senator is, of course, at liberty to discuss anything in the Schedule or anything he wants to raise on the Bill and, in such a case, where I would not be able to deal with them to-day, they could be dealt with on Committee Stage by the Minister responsible.

Sir John Keane

I am sorry that the Minister for Finance is not here to-day but, as the Leader of the House has suggested, it may be my fault, as I have not given any notice of the questions I intend to raise. What I want is further information with regard generally to the financial position of the country. As the House is aware, things are very much changed since the Budget was introduced, and, if we are to take last year as in any sense a guide, the late Government, although things had not changed so drastically, found it necessary to introduce a Supplementary Budget, and even the most cursory examination of the last Budget introduced shows that there have been very serious changes which would call for, at least, some explanation or some information from the Minister for Finance as to how he intends to meet those changes. It may be within the recollection of the House that the last Budget was balanced by, among other items, a sum of £910,000, which was going to flow from the forty-three increased duties imposed by the Budget. This matter was raised by Deputy McGilligan in the other House when he said that the receipts up to date had more than realised that sum. He was corrected and was told that he was taking into the published figures receipts that did not appertain at all to these forty-three items and that, instead of realising the estimate of £910,000, the probable receipts would be somewhere about £200,000, so that there, on the face of it, is a loss on estimate of £700,000. There follows further an estimated item for cuts in salaries amounting to £250,000, and I think it is within the knowledge of the House that there has been some difficulty in enforcing those cuts and that a committee of inquiry was appointed, which, I understand, does not recommend the enforcement of those cuts, so that there, again, is a substantial item which has not realised——

Mr. Dowdall

Has the Committee reported?

Sir John Keane

If the Senator has other information he can inform the House, but, anyhow, I think I am right in saying that these cuts have not been made and a considerable portion of the financial year has passed. I shall be surprised to hear that these cuts are intended to be retrospective. Then, there was a sum which it was calculated could be saved in respect of overestimation of £329,000, and it would be very interesting to hear from the Minister for Finance whether that is likely to be realised, especially in view of the increased costs of everything, due to circumstances of which we are all aware. There is a further sum which was budgeted for, representing economies on physical items, of £100,000, and there, again, we would like to know what economies have been made in that direction, especially in view of the increase in prices. Therefore, taking all these items together there is nearly 1¼ million pounds which do not seem to be forthcoming on the Budget estimate. Added to that is the fact that the Dáil recently voted a sum for emergency purposes of £2,000,000. We would like to know where that is going to come from. In view of these figures, which, I think, the House will agree are substantial, we ought to have, I think, either a revised Budget, or some statement from the Minister as to how these probable deficits are going to be met.

I was pleased to see the statement by the Minister for Finance that he did not anticipate that any further taxation would be necessary in order to bring the war or dispute—I think "war" was the word used—on the annuity question to a successful conclusion. I think it would be interesting to know what exactly is meant by that. Is the successful conclusion that we keep the annuities and, at the same time, get all the benefits of Imperial association and preference, or is it simply by keeping the annuities that we get no further taxation? Because I need scarcely remind the House that there are other forms of taxation besides direct taxation, and I think that the House will realise that we might keep the annuities but indirectly impose very grievous taxation, not only on the farmers themselves, but on all classes in the country by our action. For the moment, that is all I intend to say about our general finance, but the House will, I think, agree that a statement on the general position is overdue.

The next matter on which I want information is the Electricity Supply Board accounts. As the House is aware, the last published accounts are for the year ending April, 1930, and these accounts are now more than two years overdue. We were told that the E.S.B. was going to be run on business lines, but I would ask the House to picture any business, except a business in serious financial difficulties, that would ever have its accounts two years in arrears. We were told, I think it was last July, that the 1930-31 accounts were ready for audit and that the 1931-32 accounts would be ready for audit in September, and still nothing is known, and we may have to wait some great time longer before we have this important information. The House is well aware that a large portion of the finances of this country turns on this Electricity Supply Board and its schemes. Then, again, I would ask the Minister whether he is yet in a position to make any general statement on the question of import licences. My information is that this whole question is giving increasing anxiety daily to manufacturers, and cases are known of certain manufacturers receiving licences while others are not. It is creating great uneasiness and is thoroughly unsatisfactory. The Minister himself said that he was in favour of publication, and I think we should have some statement to the effect that publication will not be long delayed.

Mr. O'Farrell

I should like to have some information from the Minister regarding a statement recently issued from Government Buildings. This statement referred to the filling of two vacancies on the Oireachtas Reporting Staff by cheap labour. At the moment I am not concerned with the merits of the dispute which recently developed between the Journalists' Association and the Department of Finance. That can be raised in another way. But I am concerned with a question which seems to me to be an invasion of the rights of this House. The official statement issued from Government Buildings stated:

The appointments to these posts (vacancies on the Reporting Staff) were made by the Ceann Comhairle, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commissioners.

I should like to know from the Minister on what authority appointments to the joint staff of the Oireachtas, which is as much under the control of this House as it is under the control of the other House, were made by the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil, after consultation with the Minister for Finance. The original arrangement was, and, as far as I know, it still stands, that all appointments to the joint staff of either of the Houses, reporters and otherwise, should be made by the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil and the Cathaoirleach of this House. Now this procedure and this definite ruling have been departed from, and I am unable to find any authority or any statute or regulation which enabled the recent appointments to be made without consultation first with the Cathaoirleach. The matter is rendered more serious because a dispute has developed in regard to the employment of cheap labour, which tends to complicate the situation. My point in raising this is, because of the fact that it is an encroachment on the rights of this House and I think some explanation is required in connection with it.

I should like also to ask the Minister if he has any information as to when the Traffic Bill is to be introduced. The traffic laws in this State to-day are the most backward in Europe. As the House will remember, after several years had been spent by a Departmental Committee enquiring into the traffic question, a Bill was introduced in the last Parliament, and it passed the Committee Stage in the Dáil. A number of amendments were then inserted and, as a result, the then Minister for Local Government and Public Health said he would withdraw the Bill and re-introduce it, incorporating the amendments in the new Bill. That was towards the end of the last Parliament. The Bill has never been referred to since, and every day brings home more forcibly the absolute necessity of tightening up the traffic laws. Quite recently I had an experience when dealing with the case of a station master who was knocked down and killed by a motor car while in the discharge of his duties—collecting accounts. When the case was investigated, with a view to getting some compensation for the dependants of the deceased, it was found that the man who owned the motor car had no means, and that the car was not insured. Consequently there was no redress whatever for the dependants. That is not an isolated case. It is known that there are hundreds and, perhaps, thousands of cars being driven over the roads of this country without the owners being compelled to insure. Of course the same applies to public service vehicles. There is no compulsion on owners of buses to insure against third party risks. One would imagine, seeing that Parliament has been sitting since April, that some time would be afforded to a matter of such vital importance. I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that the appropriate Minister will be shortly in a position to introduce that Bill, and to have it passed with the minimum of delay.

There is another question that to me seems to have been neglected to an extent that is inexcusable, one that is rather closely related to the question of the Traffic Bill. That is in regard to transport legislation. We hear a lot of talk about creating new employment and about relieving the unemployment that exists. I am not going to say that a lot has not been done, at least, to give temporary work to men out of employment, but, just as important, and, perhaps, more so, than giving employment to workless men, is the task of keeping in employment those who are now employed. I am closely associated with an industry that is losing men by the hundred—in fact well over 1,000 in a year—the railway industry. During the last twelve months over 1,400 railway men have lost their positions. I do not know how many people have got new employment to balance that. Only yesterday in one department alone over 120 railway men got notice of dismissal. They are going to face a bitter winter without hope of other employment or without any provision whatever for their dependants. We are told that that is only a small indication of what we may expect when the usual slump which occurs after Christmas takes place. Four deputations have waited on behalf of railway employees and railway organisations on the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The first one was in May of the present year. Numerous representations have been made on behalf of the railway companies and other transport organisations. We are approaching the end of this Session, and no Bill has yet emerged. The Minister for Industry and Commerce gave very definite pledges to railway men of his intention to deal with the transport problem, and he indicated that it would be by way of public ownership of the transport services. Not only that, but he promised definitely that he would take the steps very quickly. On the 4th March, in reply to the Railway Employees Protection Association, he stated:

I can assure you the position of the Irish railways is one of the first matters which will receive attention from the new Government.

This is the middle of November and all that has happened is that a valuable advantage has been given to railway competitors, by reducing by one-third the taxation on buses. One of the effects of this is to encourage the railways to divert rail borne traffic to the roads, to the extent that they themselves have had to adopt road transport in order to compete with existing road transport organisations. We were informed that one of the reasons the concession was given to the buses was because of a promise made by the Minister for Finance to the bus companies in his constituency. Consequently he was not going to be let down, and the Government had to give the concession because of that. Is there to be any respect at all for the far more definite public pledges which the Minister for Industry and Commerce gave to the railway men in the Free State? Either the word of the Minister for Finance goes more with the Government than that of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or the Minister for Finance himself has a greater regard for his election promises than has the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I do not know which. The unfortunate position is that the promises made to the railway men have not yet been fulfilled, and the Minister has indicated that he has no intention of fulfilling them in the manner in which he gave them. I would not be concerned so much if it did not mean, because of the neglect and the failure to fulfil the promises, that thousands of railway men will be thrown on the roads and be unemployed during the coming winter.

There is one other question I should like to refer to, and that is the maintenance of public order. I was very pleased indeed to hear the very definite and vigorous statement of the President of the Executive Council when the matter was recently raised in the Dáil. One of the first essentials of prosperity and the continued existence of any nation is the maintenance of public order. If free speech is not to be allowed to opponents as well as to supporters of the Government in office, then we are very near the end of all order and all prosperity. In recent months it has become more obvious that it is quite impossible for anybody to speak except on one side, unless there is a bodyguard. I know that the Guards are doing their utmost to try to protect people from hooliganism but they did not interfere with sufficient vigour in time. One of the inevitable results— a result that will be experienced in every country—was that other irregular and private people came into existence to try to maintain the rights of free speech. There is not a bit of use condemning them unless we are prepared to place at the disposal of our citizens the protection which the State should place at their disposal to protect them from violence. There is, in every country, I believe, sufficient public spirit and sufficient men of courage to say that they are not going to submit to the rule of the hooligan, that free speech is not going to be suppressed, and that they will fight in its defence. They will organise to fight for it and heaven help the country if they have to assert force in order to establish it, because, once having succeeded in their immediate objective they are not going to stop at that. I hope the statement of the President will be implemented in an effective manner, and I hope that he will receive the co-operation of Ministers in that policy. Unfortunately some of the speeches of Ministers have not been such as to encourage the observance of fair play where matters political are concerned. A Deputy who commands considerable influence in the Government Party, Deputy Kissane, is reported in a recent speech, when referring to the right of free speech, as having said:

It is governed by certain conditions, one of which is that no Party advocating foreign domination, even in domestic matters, is entitled in any country to play on the feelings of misguided people and get away with it.

Who is to be the judge whether a person is advocating foreign domination or not? If one Party says that anything said against their policy in matters international advocates foreign domination, then the indication to the hooligan element is to smash them up by all means—by force. That policy has been adopted. Constitutional followers of the Government are becoming quite uneasy because of developments in recent weeks, and the one bright ray in what was a very dark cloud has been the recent statement of the President. I hope that it is not going to be merely a statement but is going to be acted upon. Those of us who give general support to the Government on the main question are certainly not going to support any policy which involves the smashing down by brute force of those who differ from us in politics. We believe in giving the right of free speech, because the moment that is withdrawn then all liberty becomes a sham. There is no liberty. No one wants to win a victory or to rule a country by brute force alone.

Cathaoirleach

I want to make some reference to the remarks made by Senator O'Farrell, as regards the reporting staff. It came to my notice that certain persons irregularly appointed were employed in the Dáil. I gave orders that these persons were not to be employed in this House.

Mr. MacLoughlin

One or two questions arise on this Bill to which I should like to refer. Before the election of the present Government the President stated on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party that economies in public administration amounting to £2,000,000 a year could be immediately effected. I should like to be informed of the extent to which these economies have been effected by the Government up to the present time, and of the amount of the £2,000,000 which remains to be saved at the close of the financial year. I put this question because I, myself, have failed to detect any economies, and because I have learned from an answer given to a question in the Dáil last week that in one Department alone, the Revenue Department, the following additions have been recently made:—

1 Principal clerkship

2 Assistant Principal clerkships

4 Inspectors of Taxes, Higher Grade

2 Controlling Grade Officers of Customs and Excise

6 Surveyors of Customs and Excise

4 Higher Executive Officers

2 Assistant Inspectors of Taxes

8 Junior Executive Officers

53 Officers of Customs and Excise

1 Staff Officer, Customs and Excise

5 Minor Staff Officers

76 Clerical Officers

19 Writing Assistants

2 Shorthand-Typists

12 Typists

25 Temporary Preventive men

1 Paper-keeper

2 Messengers

1 Male Cleaner

6 Female Cleaners

The cost of these additions is to be £61,000 per annum. I think that it is a peculiar way of retrenching on £2,000,000 a year to begin by spending £61,000 per annum on one Department alone. It is an idea of economy which reminds me of a story of an old couple in the North of Ireland who, in the good old days, when stout was cheap, used to treat themselves to a bottle of stout for supper every night. Then, when the war came and stout became much dearer, the old lady thought that she would economise and she got wholesale terms by buying a gallon at a time. The first evening after supper when they had both taken a drink, the old lady smacked her lips and said: "John, that's 4d. we have saved this evening.""Well, ma'am," said he, "what about having two more half-pints and saving 8d?" I think that that is the kind of economy that Fianna Fáil is practising.

I should like to be informed also if the Minister for Finance has definitely changed his views on the subject of the State schemes to which he referred on the occasion of his first speech to this House. This Bill, I understand, includes moneys which are to be devoted to the development of the Drumm Battery and for the payment of subsidies in connection with the beet sugar industry. On that occasion, the Minister said that these were white elephants. I should be considerably relieved to learn that the elephants have changed their colour during the past six months.

I was very glad to hear you, Sir, make your statement about the dispute in connection with the Reporting Staff and I wish to associate myself with the statement of Senator O'Farrell with regard to the appointments being made by the Ceann Comhairle with the assistance of the Minister for Finance. So far as I can find out and I have asked several people about it, the Ceann Comhairle had as much right to make these appointments as I or any other member of the Seanad has. The Cathaoirleach of this House is being excluded in these proceedings, and this House has been flouted. So long as this House forms part of the Oireachtas, it is the duty of all its members to stand up for its rights and privileges. There is a duty in this House to appoint a staff to carry out its work efficiently. The arrangement for a joint staff is only a matter of convenience and if the Dáil is to arrogate to itself the exclusive authority, then I think we should consider the advisability of severing that joint arrangement. When we have heard the explanation of the Minister, I consider that it would be incumbent on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to review the whole position, and that review should embrace an inquiry into the recent trouble with the Reporting Staff.

Dr. Gogarty

On an Appropriation Bill I presume that it is the privilege of the members to inquire into the reason for some of the appropriations, particularly the appropriation of the £2,000,000 to meet disbursements arising out of emergency. That emergency was brought about, as we all know, by a series of blunders and I should like to know is this £2,000,000 to be paid by the country in order that that blundering policy shall be continued? In other words, I want a statement from the Minister present of the policy of the Government. In view of the performance after the promises of the Government, I think that very few can contradict me when I say that the last election subjected our country to the greatest confidence trick that was ever played on an electorate. The wheels of industry were to be set in motion. The wheels of progress were to be made to shine with the necessary materials and it was no longer necessary to bring in anything overseas. The Minister who is present here, about ten months ago ago I think it was, informed some of the savants of Trinity College that it was obvious that in six years the whole world would be Communistic—England was going down and it was more obvious to anticipate a hypothetical bankruptcy by becoming immediately insolvent.

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. Connolly)

That statement is quite inaccurate.

Dr. Gogarty

Well, it is sufficiently a chip off the original to be nearly right.

Mr. Connolly

Perhaps the Senator would prefer the word "untrue."

Dr. Gogarty

What I want to know is this: Is it or is it not the Minister's policy to separate this country from its income arising from Great Britain? Let us have the truth, whether the statement be accurate or inaccurate. I should like to have an answer.

Mr. Connolly

I propose to deal with that in my reply.

Dr. Gogarty

The Minister prefers not to answer.

Cathaoirleach

The Minister will explain that, as he has said, in his reply later on.

Dr. Gogarty

But when he contradicted me I thought I was entitled to have an answer. Meanwhile, in order to anticipate this bankruptcy we are to bring upon ourselves a whole shower-bath of self-created hardships, and if any one asks the Government about it they become, ipso facto, traitors to their native land. If the people of this country do not readily submit to becoming paupers, they are not patriots, and they have to associate themselves with an infantile petulance which is not worthy of this nation and which is not a characteristic trait of the people. If we are not to be completely separated from the only way we have of earning at present, which leaves us more or less in an arcadian position, what does the Minister mean by a self-supporting State? Is it a State set up to support the Ministers who could not otherwise support themselves? Is it or is it not the policy to arrive at the ideal self-supporting, isolated Ireland—to shut off England? Already the dispute has cost the annuitants four times the sum. The unfortunate farmer pays Great Britain for the annuities in the 40 per cent. that has been put on his produce. He is then taxed to pay for the factories which hitherto have only produced mistakes but have not made the necessities for which the farmer is being taxed. That is twice that the farmer has paid the annuities. He now has to pay a subsidy to enable him to pay the tax. That is three times. And above all, he has to pay the Government for the Suspense Account which has us all in suspense. Is it the Minister's intention to separate this country from its livelihood?

Mr. Jameson

When I saw that the Appropriation Bill was to be up for discussion before the House, I thought that I would glance through the Budget speech of the Minister for Finance, which he delivered last May, and try to see to what extent the Appropriation Bill now before us was likely to carry out the prophecies as to the future which the Minister at that time put before us. He began by saying that the present Government would honour their obligations to the people and would pay their way. Well, when he went on through his speech he found out that the one thing upon which was based that statement, and where his margin was got from, to make this country into a satisfactory financial position, was a sum due to Great Britain, as it has been paid in the past, of some £4,799,000 per annum, and that it included the Land Annuities, the Local Loans Annuities, and the Royal Irish Constabulary pensions. He announced at that time that the policy of the Government practically was to retain that money. He said that this country could not afford to pay it and that the whole nation should support them in their non-payment of this money. He said that if this policy of the retention of these sums was to succeed, "and with the united support of the people there is every reason to believe that it will succeed, our Budgetary position next year will be an easy one." He then went on to say: "We hope next year to reap the full fruits of the Government's policy both in regard to industrial development and in regard to housing, and thereby to have secured a solution for the unemployment problem. There is every reason to expect that this hope will be fulfilled, for we have taken special steps to set free additional capital for our enterprises and to make Irish industrial enterprises more attractive to Irish manufacturers. We shall then be in the position that it will not be necessary to provide any further grant of this kind. We shall have set the wheels of industry going, broken the fallow field with the plough and provided, for those who are to-day hungry and hopeless, the opportunity of earning their bread in their own land."

It seems to me, somehow, as if, in making that statement, the Minister for Finance made the mistake that the French made when they calculated how the Germans were going to begin the war with France. They thought that the Germans would come in over French territory and they did not allow for them coming in through Belgium and attacking north of Paris, and as a result the whole of the French arrangements were made to resist an attack which never came off, and it cost them many millions of men before they were able to alter their fronts and repel the attack on the north. This speech—I have read the important parts of it—did not envisage at all any resistance on the part of Great Britain to the retention by the Free State of these annuities. Another thing to which I would like to draw the attention of the House is the fact that the Minister had no intention whatever of remitting the annuities to the farmers.

He prepared his Budget on the assumption of being able to get those annuities from the farmers. It was from the retention of these annuities, kept by the Irish Government, instead of being, as they should have been, handed over to the individuals who lent the money originally, that he got the money to create this great state of prosperity in the Free State. What has happened has been quite different to that. Great Britain did not quietly sit down and say: "Oh, well, you are keeping this £5,000,000; we are not going to fight about it," but it did say: "You have broken the Treaty, you have kept this money and, as you will not pay it, we shall proceed to collect it ourselves," and they put duties on every bit of agricultural produce which the Free State had to export. If the Minister had forecast that and had told the country plainly that it was possible there might be another side to the question, and that a very fierce economic war would be started by the retention of those annuities, I think even in May last, this country would have begun to envisage things in a different way from what it did. The farmers have been told again and again that they have got to pay these annuities and according to the Minister our prosperity depends on their paying these annuities, but the economic war, by barring out their produce from Great Britain, their only market, has made it impossible for the farmers to pay their annuities, and, therefore, the very creation of that war has destroyed the prospect of this Budget being at all successful. That is the situation before the Free State at present. It is making all of us who are anxious about the economic conditions and who are engaged in industry, whether we be farmers or traders, very seriously consider where the Free State is at the present time.

I would have thought the conditions which exist now, which are so well known throughout the country, would have obtained some notice from the Minister for Finance and that he would have come to explain that the amounts which are mentioned in this Appropriation Bill are not the amounts which will be really required, that he would have told us where these amounts were to be obtained, that he would also have given us some information in regard to the question of unemployment, that he would have told us to what extent all these new tariffs have created employment, that we would have figures as to the new people that have been engaged and the industries in which they are employed, particulars of the wages that are paid to them, and all the facts that are necessary in regard to the question of unemployment. We had no such figures. I would certainly have thought that our Labour friends would back us up in asking for the very fullest particulars in regard to these things.

A great many of us have very sad experience of how, amongst ourselves, we are not able to employ people as we were. We know of many people who have been thrown out of employment, not due to the action of Great Britain in defending herself and trying to get money due to her by other means, when our Government would not pay it, but due to the war conditions in which we are living. I see that our President goes to Geneva and he preaches peace and goodwill to the people of Europe. As far as I have heard him, he preaches hatred and war in this country.

Mr. Connolly

No, that is not so.

Mr. Jameson

Hatred certainly.

Mr. Connolly

No.

Mr. Jameson

War decidedly.

Mr. Connolly

He never did. You may interpret it that way.

Mr. Jameson

The public knows what happened and let them judge whether I am speaking facts or not. There is no question at all about this, that the British and everybody who has said anything for the British have been strongly abused in this country. It is a hard fact which I think we all know, that the people who indulge in hatred generally get the worst of it, that even the man in a boxing match who loses his temper and hates his enemies or opponents, is very apt to be put out. It is the man who keeps his temper and who treats his opponents kindly, who gets the best of it. There is one thing, at any rate, true of the world at present, and that is that every nation should try to get on with other nations and that there should be none of this attempt to bar out other nations with whom we can trade. What are we doing? Trying to put a wall all round the country. I take it for granted that Ministers are doing that absolutely in the belief that they are going to help our people. What are the results? The tariffs are making it almost impossible to carry on business in this country. They have put an immense burden of taxation that appears nowhere in costings on every business that is carried on in the Free State. The delays that occur, the impossibility of doing business in some circumstances, make our costings at least two to three per cent. more than they were ever before.

Take the case of coal. A tariff of 5/- has been put on it. We are told that we can buy from Danzig, Germany and all these places, but we have tested that coal. It has put a lot of our small harbours, into which we could formerly bring British coal, out of commission altogether. The foreign coal is sent in such quantities that it cannot be brought into these harbours and they are being put out of business altogether. The tariff has enormously increased the cost of coal in the midlands and southern parts of the country. We have to pay that extra 5/- because the foreign coal is something like 20 to 25 per cent. less efficient than English or Welsh coal. That is a genuine tax on the industries of our people. It may bring in revenue to the Government but the revenue is nothing like the cost to the people. It is exactly like taking our manufacturers and tying one of their hands when they are in competition with other manufacturers across the water. We were told that this tax of 5/- per ton was a war measure, that it was going to ruin the English and Welsh miners. It was going to make England come to her knees and agree to our terms but it did not matter twopence to England as we all know now. I heard one story of a cargo of coal that was shipped here from Danzig. I believe some of the Welsh coal owners bought up the cargo. They shipped the Danzig coal in here and shipped the Welsh coal to Danzig because it suited them. These are the sort of things you get when you have people interfering in a business like that who have not got that knowledge of every industry in the country that is necessary in matters of that kind. No Government official could possibly have that knowledge.

In addition to that the various costings and tariffs are making it very hard to carry on industries here. There are some people now unemployed who formerly got quite good salaries. Take our commercial travellers. Most of the commercial travellers in the Free State because of difficulties in the importation of goods and because of the condition in which local shopkeepers find themselves owing to the fact that their clients will not pay their debts, are practically out of business and nobody says a word about it. These were men who had comfortable incomes. They were an asset to the country. Many of them were paid by British firms and they brought in money and spent it in this country. At present numbers of them are not earning one single farthing. The same applies to our travellers across the water who are in the same difficulty. We are all in practically the same difficulty. Our whole export trade is on the brink of extinction, not only our cattle and our agricultural trade but the export trade of all our industries. At any moment if the war goes on it may be ended.

At the present moment because we did not come to an agreement at Ottawa an additional tariff of 10 per cent. is being put on our linens and other manufactures. We have to pay this ten per cent. in addition to the 20 per cent. already imposed. What does the Government do? They say, "Well, we must continue, we cannot let our industries die; if our industries went we would rapidly break up." What does the Government do? They are going to pay this extra percentage of duty by giving a bounty to the exporters. What does that mean? It means that we are going to pay the British the extra tax. It is not the people in the business who are doing that. It is the ordinary citizen of the Free State who is going to pay the British the money they demand and our Government are going to make us do it. They gave 12½ per cent. of a bounty on our agricultural exports which were subject at that time to 20 per cent. Of course, everybody knows that if you engage in an economic war with a country, that country does not want your goods and that if you give a bounty on exports to it, that country will immediately put on a countervailing tariff. When I saw the announcement that a 12½ per cent. bounty was to be paid as against a tariff of 20 per cent., I said that we would soon have a tariff of 32½ per cent. They did not put on that tariff. They went one better. They put on a 40 per cent. tariff. Did the farmer get that 12½ per cent. bounty? Not a bit of it. The English exporter got it. He bought Irish cattle cheaply and he then pocketed the 12½ per cent. because he exported them. Then the exporter sold them cheaply over there so that he roused the British farmers to get their Government to put on a 40 per cent. tariff. These are the reactions of a policy of that kind.

Where are we going to end financially if we continue this system of bounties? These bounties are being supplied out of the ordinary wealth of the people of the Free State. If we continue this war long enough, all the reserves, the securities and everything else which ordinary people in the Free State own—we have not a very great mass of them—will gradually have to be liquidated to pay the bounties. As we cannot export except at a price which does not represent the full value of what we are sending out in exports, we will not be able to pay for the imports, the things which we have to import. We must import coal. We must import petrol and a large quantity of other things. A huge quantity of clothing and other necessities for the poor people of the country which cannot be made in this country at the same cost, must be imported if our people are to be clothed. The industries that manufacture these things are not here. The Government tell us that they will have industries here but they are not here just now. The extra taxation and the revenue that are being obtained by these tariffs are being contributed by people who never have had to pay any taxation before. If the Government are able to show that they are making a lot of money out of these tariffs then they are making it out of a number of people who were never taxed before, and all these belong to the lower order and poorer people who cannot afford these things.

The Minister for Finance taxed what he called the wealthy classes up to the limit. He went as far as he could go along the English lines in taking care to get everything he could out of them. But the worst of the present arrangement is that, by this policy, the savings and the wealth of the whole of our people will eventually be dragged out of all of us because, to pay for the things that we must have, we will have to spend our savings. When that goes on long enough it will be found, eventually, that this country is unable to pay its way. That may not happen in a year. But that the policy now pursued will eventually bring us to that stage is as certain as we are sitting in this House. I do not make these remarks because of any virulence to the Government, or anyone else. But I think when we have an Appropriation Bill, with no explanation from the Minister as to how he is to meet the present situation, we are entitled to say such things as I am saying. We are entitled to hear how these difficulties are to be met. We are entitled to hear how the bounties are to be paid, and whether it is true that the Minister must have his annuities. Also, we are entitled to hear how the Minister is going to end the war and persuade the British people to let him keep the annuities without inflicting upon us injuries which will eventually destroy our industries. Tariffs and everything else like that will be perfectly useless.

I am sorry for having delayed the House but these are things that will occur to the ordinary business man. We have quarrelled with the only customer we have in the world. We have destroyed our means of selling to him. Were any business man to follow that practice he would rapidly land in the bankruptcy court. If I were to deal with my customers, for a week or two, in the way the present Government is dealing with the Free State's customers, I would not be in business for long. I believe it is true that business principles apply to nations as well as to people. If we do not act on business principles, and with sanity, and if we think we can win the war by fighting with such a power as Great Britain by any tariff or such other things, instead of seeing the absolute necessity of telling them our troubles, we are mistaken. We cannot do all this by simply sitting down at a table and altering conditions. Let us put our case certainly, not asking any favours, but putting our case before Great Britain. Our trade is worth having. There are prospects that if we do this, the whole thing can be gone into without any vestige of doubt whatever. All the British people who have anything to do with this matter have said so, and anyone who knows the British people know they are always open to compromise. We should test that compromise.

I have a great deal of Scotch blood in my veins, and I know what made the great prosperity of Scotland. It was because it has absolute freedom through Great Britain, and is part of Great Britain. If we are going on the opposite line, and if we are going to quarrel, not only with Great Britain, but with Northern Ireland where we have an extremely big trade, and where there are strained relations at the present time, we deny ourselves the benefit of every privilege that our position gives us. We are certainly adopting a policy which can be neither for the good of the people nor for the good of anyone connected with them. What are we going to gain? I think I am right in saying that some of our Ministers say the agricultural industry is dead anyway; that it is time it was gone; that the world has no room for agriculture and that the sooner the Free State is out of agriculture the better. Therefore, it is no great disaster that this kind of thing is happening at the present time to that interest. Well a little human kindness, at least, ought to have made them consider that the thing would be hard enough to bear if the world conditions gradually made it necessary, and if, year by year, we saw our agricultural interests decaying and going. Then we would have had time to adapt ourselves to the change. But to adopt measures which in a year hit the whole industry and so drive it to destruction is the unkindest act the Irish people could ever do. I do hope the commonsense of our people will bring pressure to bear on our Government, and make them see that war is no use to us and that we do not want it. Let us put an end to this matter and get things on a business footing with our best customers once again. Then let us face world conditions and we will be able to do so successfully.

Miss Browne

I just want to say one word of protest on behalf of the farming community. Only those who live amongst the agricultural community can realise the awful disaster that is going on and the terrible stark failure of the whole Government policy. It is going to be nothing else and they know it. The Government is existing, at the present time, by going round the country and trying to bluff the people. They are going round amongst the people, who already feel the full brunt of this terrible economic war, telling them that everything is going on favourably if they will only wait a little longer. That is a terrible thing to tell the people who know that their policy is a failure. Why do they not do the decent thing, even now at the eleventh hour, that is, resign and acknowledge their failure? That is the one thing they could do. They have no following whatever in the country. In my part of the country agricultural labourers are being dismissed in hundreds. The wages at present for a man with a family is 16/- a week.

Mr. Farren

It was never much more.

Miss Browne

A labourer who gets his food only gets 8/- a week at the present moment. That is the Christmas present that the Labour Party of the Oireachtas are giving to the labourers of Ireland. What is more, many of the poor farmers who try to pay that, are poorer even than the agricultural labourers themselves. I do not wish, after Senator Jameson's very able speech, to say any more.

Mr. Crosbie

I only rise to emphasise the question put by several Senators to the Minister. What will the Minister regard as a triumph in this war? What definite effect will be regarded as amounting to victory for Ireland in this matter? That is really a very important thing. Another matter is, I ask if the Government have any definite idea what they want the Free State to do? Are we to be a country that does not export or import? Are we to be a self-supporting country? A gentleman reminded me the other day that Plato said "the ideal State is one that does not export or import, for swine to live in; not for human beings." Now it is against commonsense for any country to shut itself out from the world. America, which is a world in itself, tried to do this. In America her own resources are practically able to supply every want that the civilised community requires. She has definitely attempted to try to shut up all her products from other countries, and I do not think anyone will say that, to-day, the position in America is one that we should envy.

I should like to emphasise one fact. We have to import certain things. We have no coal in this country. Whether we get that coal from England or Germany is immaterial. We have to get it from somewhere and pay for it. We can only pay by selling what we produce to somebody else. Take this question of coal: We go to Germany for coal. Now, it is an amazing fact that the best customer England has for her coal is Germany. We hope to get a good bargain by going to Germany for our coal. As Senator Jameson reminds us, we have also to import petrol for our cars. Some people believe that motor cars are a curse to Ireland. That may be quite right. I am not saying they are wrong but so long as we have motor cars we must import petrol and pay for it, and to pay for it we must sell something. All we produce in this country is agricultural produce. There is no other wealth creating portion of our community if we except one or two great firms such as Guinness, Jameson's and Jacob's and a few other very small exporting firms. But comparatively the bulk of our wealth is entirely derived from the land. Therefore every bounty we pay, and every tax we pay, must be paid in the main by those who produce wealth from our soil. The farmers, we are told to-day, are in an extremely bad way. We know the bounties do not go to the farmers. They have been very useful for the middlemen, but I do not think that it can be shown that whatever bounty is being given on the various commodities that we export ever comes to the producer.

One of the great points of the programme of the present Government was that ranches were flourishing in Ireland and were a curse to the country. The amazing thing is that the only form of cattle for which they offer a bounty is the fat bullock, the product of the ranches. Now all these seem to me to indicate that what Senator Jameson says is quite true: that the Government have not carefully and minutely examined the outlook for us, and that persistence in the present course is bound to end disastrously for the country.

Mr. Douglas

I have already on many occasions stated—I do not want to repeat it—that I believe the attempt of the present Government to revolutionise the internal business of this country and at the same time to run an economic war outside was inevitably bound to end in absolute failure and to lead to chaos. What I want to emphasise is, that while we are in this position, which many of us fear will lead steadily to chaos, it is the duty of everyone to do his bit and try to carry on. If that is going to be done, then we will have to receive frank statements from the Government as to our position. I want to emphasise one thing that was referred to by Senator Jameson: that is, that we should have from the Minister for Finance some kind of statement—not just a statement such as "Oh, we have plenty of money"—showing the present financial position, how long we can reckon on being able to pay bounties, and to meet the payments necessary to enable traders to carry on. A statement of that kind would, I think, do a good deal to help us to get over the next six or twelve months. There is a great feeling of despondency. Without discussing Party politics, it is quite obvious that if people get frightened and have a feeling of despondency, then it is going to be extremely difficult to carry on during this period.

Most of us who have the misfortune to be employers are supposed simply to be hard and to care nothing as to whom we dismiss. That simply is not true. It is one of the hardest things to be forced to reduce your staff, who have been working with you for years. Speaking for private employers, it is true to say that the majority of them do not do that unless they simply cannot help it. I know that at the present moment there are many private employers managing to keep on their staffs, hoping that from the negotiations some settlement would be made, but who are now faced with the fact that they will be obliged to reduce them in the near future.

When Senator Crosbie stated that some members of the Party opposite regarded the motor car as the curse of this country, I thought I saw one or two heads bowing assent. What exactly that nodding was meant to convey I do not quite know. Although the policy of the Government is to try to get bodies made inside the country for the curse of the country, I do not think they are going to succeed, but I do think they are going to succeed, unless some change in policy is made, in having no motor cars sold at the present time. That may be a great blessing, but it certainly will not be their policy, because their policy was to get the bodies made here, and so far as I can find out, with the exception of one outside firm which perhaps has a monopoly for a certain class of car, in that they have completely failed.

I would be very glad if the Minister for Industry and Commerce could see his way to make a frank statement with regard to the position of coal. I gathered that the Government's policy with regard to coal was as a retaliatory measure against certain British duties put on here; that their intention definitely was that it should not be a tax on the people of this country and certainly that it was introduced not to injure any industries that we have here. I would like to say that, so far as the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is concerned, he, when acting for the Minister for Industry and Commerce, as well as the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, did everything they could do as individuals to meet the difficulties of traders. I know that is the case. I have it from almost all quarters, that within the Government policy they are doing their best as individuals. But, so far as I can find out, and this is the opinion expressed by nearly every manufacturer, this duty of 5/- on coal is definitely proving to be a tax on the people of this country. If it is proving to be a tax on the people here then it is no use whatever as a retaliatory measure and ought to be withdrawn. I think I am correct in saying that some Minister of the Government stated in the Dáil that on the question of the small ports and of coal a statement would be made at an early date. The statement may have been made in my absence, but I am not aware of any Minister having made it. I think it is a matter that ought to be further looked into.

I would also like to know when the Government propose to make a detailed statement of the arrangements that have been made for a refunding of the duties on certain manufactures here. As far as I am concerned, I approve of the Government policy in the present circumstances as regards this because I think it would be ruinous to allow the manufacturers here who are depending on the English trade to go out of business. No matter what we may say, and no matter what Party we belong to, there are a number of things that we must of necessity import, and these will have to be paid for by exports. Therefore, no matter what one may think of the policy that is being pursued, it is essential that the successful industries we have at the moment should be carried on. This is now the 16th November and no detailed statement has yet been issued on this matter. I would urge on the Minister for Industry and Commerce that this detailed statement should be made to-morrow or the next day, because the difficulties are pretty considerable in the case of traders who have to carry on an export trade. Even with the refunding of the duties, these traders are going to be put to very considerable additional expense in the arrangements they have to make for the payment of the duties. They are not like an ordinary tariff which can be left to the customer to pay. The Government have made a promise to refund the duties which have to be paid to the English Customs, and therefore, I think if a detailed statement could be issued at an early date it would be of very great advantage.

Having said so much by way of criticism of the Government there is one matter which comes under this Bill of which, in the main, I approve. This Bill provides for the expenses of this State in the League of Nations. So far as internal affairs are concerned, I do not think that I have been able to approve whole-heartedly of anything the President has done since he came into office, but as members of the House know I have been very much interested in the League of Nations. I risked a prophecy about six years ago in this House, at which many of the members at the time laughed. The prophecy was this: that we would be members of the Council of the League within a reasonable time. I did not think that would come as soon as it did. In spite of our internal difficulties I think it would be no harm if the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs could see his way to give us some information either now or in the near future as to what happened at the League this year. The fact that we are suffering from extreme internal difficulties is no reason why we should not take some interest in what our representatives are doing abroad. The President's speech at the commencement of the League was one with which I, at any rate, was in complete agreement. There is one question that I would like the Minister to deal with if he sees fit to refer to the matter to-day. A great many misguided people in this country, including a number of his own Party, have stated pretty frequently in the past that our representatives when they went to Geneva were simply at the beck and call of Great Britain and were obliged to do what British Ministers told them. That of course, has never been true, but it is a statement that has been made frequently by people who know nothing about the matter. I am perfectly certain that it was not true this year any more than any other year. I think it would be quite useful if we had a statement from the Minister assuring us of what we here know perfectly well to be the case, that our representatives went there as representing an independent Parliament and were quite free in their actions.

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. Connolly)

I feel I am rather at a disadvantage in having to deal with so many points, and I doubt very much if I shall be able in any sense to cover them adequately. I would like to repeat what I said in my opening statement, that had any intimation been sent to the various Ministers acquainting them that Senators intended to raise particular points here to-day on this Bill, the Ministers would, if possible, have been present. Members of the House will understand that on the Appropriation Bill the Department of any Minister is open to attack, criticism or comment. In view of that, and so as to be adequately prepared for a debate such as can take place on the Second Reading of a Bill like this, the whole Executive Council could conceivably have to be present, accompanied by the Parliamentary Secretaries from all the Departments. What I propose to do is to go through as briefly and as rapidly as possible the various comments that have been made on matters that deal specifically with the Department of Finance and the Department of Industry and Commerce. I propose that the record of the comments made here to-day be conveyed to the respective Ministers, and that they be asked to give these matters their attention. I am not in a position to state what their line of argument will be, nor am I in a position to say definitely that they will be here. I hope to arrange that they will be here. The position is made slightly more difficult owing to the fact that I am due to leave the country to-night. That is my explanation as to why the Ministers whose Departments have been criticised are not here to reply. Had Senators intimated that they were going to raise specific points the Ministers would have been here, and would have been prepared to deal with them.

Senator Sir John Keane raised quite a variety of points, most of which dealt specifically with the Department of Finance. I propose, in the main, to leave them to the Minister for Finance to deal with. The Senator raised several points dealing with the Department of Industry and Commerce which in the last analysis has the ultimate control over the Electricity Supply Board. I am not in a position at the moment to state when the audited accounts of the Board will be presented. I remember distinctly stating in this House, I think about July last, that it was hoped the audited accounts would be ready for a certain date, but whether that date has since passed, or whether it has yet to come, I am not, from memory, able to say. I will bring the matter to the attention of the Minister concerned in the hope that immediately this material is available it will be presented to this House.

Senator Sir John Keane stated that there was a general uneasiness about the position of the Electricity Supply Board and the Shannon Scheme. I think no one will dispute that we all had uneasiness about the Shannon Scheme and the Electricity Supply Board. I understand, though I am not in intimate touch with the machinery of operation of the Electricity Supply Board at the moment, nor have I been, that the conditions there are very substantially improved and that the organisation as such is running properly. But again, I want to say that I am not in a position to make any definite statement. The Senator will have to enquire from the Minister, and I suggest to him that he should do it with his usual ruthless desire to get the truth and the facts, because I think it is an inheritance that will require careful scrutiny and close watching on the part of everybody in this State. I emphasise the fact that it is an inheritance.

Senator O'Farrell raised quite a number of points. He dealt with the problem of the Oireachtas reporting staff. Now I am not in a position to say anything about that for the simple reason that I do not know. I do not know who is responsible for any trouble that may have occurred in regard to the reporting staff, nor do I really know who is responsible for the engagement of that staff. Certain criticism of the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil has been made. I propose that attention be drawn to such criticism and I have no doubt that the Cathaoirleach and himself will be able to come to some understanding about it.

Mr. Douglas

May I point out that there was a report passed jointly by the two Houses and setting out the conditions a few years ago? I am not fully familiar with it from memory, but I know that there was a report.

Cathaoirleach

I have been discussing the matter for months and months and months, and I have not so far got to any satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. Connolly

I take it that you understand my position, sir. I am not really au fait with the position at all. I know nothing about the details.

Cathaoirleach

I quite agree.

Colonel Moore

I remember the circumstances quite well, and there is no doubt that the Cathaoirleach is quite right in what he said and that he has acted properly. There is no doubt that we had a long discussion and a good deal of fighting about this and it was decided that these matters should be dealt with by the Chairman of each House.

Cathaoirleach

We will not discuss it further for the moment.

Mr. Connolly

Senator O'Farrell raised two very important matters— the Transport Bill and the Traffic Bill. I would prefer that the Minister for Industry and Commerce would deal in detail with those when he comes to this House. I may say, however, that the Minister is pushing forward definitely the Transport Bill and that it has been receiving a very considerable amount of attention. I think the Minister is satisfied, but whether every member of the Executive is yet satisfied about that Transport Bill, or whether Senator O'Farrell will be satisfied with that Bill when it comes in, I am not in a position to say, but I feel that there is every likelihood of this Bill being introduced before the Christmas Recess.

With regard to the Traffic Bill, I would prefer to leave that over to the Department concerned. It has to be remembered with regard to the Transport Bill that one of our main difficulties was to get anything like an intelligent approach to the real difficulties of the problem by the directorates, and many of the difficulties that might have been faced, not only by this Administration but the last Administration, might have been got over and many of the problems solved, but for what I certainly think was an attitude that was neither co-operative nor businesslike. That is only an opinion. I think the Minister for Industry and Commerce will be able to satisfy Senator O'Farrell on any points he wishes to raise. Senator O'Farrell also raised the question of public order and free speech and referred to the President's statement. Not only is that the President's statement, but it is the attitude of the Government, and not only is it the attitude of the Government but I think that, in real judgment, it is the attitude of every member of the Party. We all agree that if intelligent discussion is going to guide the country, and if people are going to contribute anything to the well-being of the country, free speech must be permitted and must be insisted on and must be protected, but I want to enter this protest, here and now, that there have been speeches made throughout the country that were direct incitements to people and that were essentially provocative.

Miss Browne

By whom?

Cathaoirleach

It would be better to allow the Minister to proceed, Miss Browne.

Mr. Connolly

I think that Miss Browne does not require me to tell her by whom.

Miss Browne

I do, or, at least, I do not.

Mr. Connolly

These speeches have been of the type that the Irish people at no time would stand and, I believe, that the Irish people will not stand. It has got to be remembered that there are two sides to this problem and that the responsibility for law and order is not only on the Government side. Other people have a responsibility in this respect. This House has its responsibility in this respect, and, do not let us labour under any delusion, our people on the national issues are sensitive, and highly sensitive, and they are not inclined to be tolerant of those who deliberately attempt to thwart the whole national fight, and it is a fight. It is our responsibility to preserve order and in that we want the co-operation of all people. Senator Gogarty makes the usual flippant remarks that one expects from Senator Gogarty. He referred to the present Government's position in its election fight as putting over the greatest confidence trick in history.

Dr. Gogarty

And was it not?

Mr. Connolly

I did not interrupt except to challenge an untruth by Senator Gogarty and I want to get from Senator Gogarty the same privileges as I have accorded to him. I challenge Senator Gogarty now to point to anything in the nature of a confidence trick that was put over at the last election. I hold that we defined our policy and asked a mandate. We got that mandate and we are carrying out that mandate and we are going to carry it out, and if Senator Gogarty and those associated with him think that his finicky attacks, his flippant humour and his sinister references to individuals, to the Party or to the Government, are going to weaken us in our stand, he is making a great mistake.

Dr. Gogarty

On a point of personal explanation, there is nothing flippant in my question to the Minister. I asked was it not his determined policy to separate this country from its one means of livelihood. I do not want any nonsense about flippancy. Let him answer that or not, because the equally ambiguous President himself acknowledged in this House, on one occasion, that it would be a good thing if the Irish people were trapped into a straight statement.

Cathaoirleach

The Minister must be allowed to proceed.

Dr. Gogarty

There is no talk of flippancy in that.

Mr. Connolly

Senator Gogarty has never been met by me by anything but a straight statement. Unfortunately, he does not indulge in straight statements himself.

Dr. Gogarty

That is questionable, too.

Mr. Connolly

I propose to deal with the things he mentioned. He quoted me as having stated in Trinity College that Europe was in bankruptcy——

Dr. Gogarty

No. I did not say that.

Mr. Connolly

I have his words here exactly as he used them. He said that I stated that there was bankruptcy in Europe.

Dr. Gogarty

That it is six years ahead.

Mr. Connolly

Very good. I will withdraw that and substitute two years for six years. I have come from Geneva and I have met people from all over Europe and I say here deliberately that, with one or two exceptions in Europe, Europe is already bankrupt.

Dr. Gogarty

Why have deliberate bankruptcy here to cure it?

Mr. Connolly

I am dealing with the point he raised, and I will not go on if Senator Gogarty is going to make three or four speeches.

Dr. Gogarty

I must not be misrepresented.

Cathaoirleach

You have made your criticism, Senator. Let it stand at that.

Mr. Connolly

He wants to know why we are pursuing this policy of complete separation and why we are isolating Ireland in this fight. The decision to isolate Ireland in this fight is not ours. We have decided definitely, first of all, that we will not pay the land annuities; and secondly, that we will proceed on a programme of industrial development to supply our own needs as far as possible. If the people want a different policy, they can turn us out and put the Senator Gogartys in. Senator Gogarty may think that he will make an appeal to the country. Personally, I doubt it, but I want him to understand that every line of our policy has not only been well thought out but is entirely justified by the world position that has developed.

Dr. Gogarty

No.

Mr. Connolly

No?—very good. Let us read what the Daily Mail, that organ with which Sir John Keane and his friends have, at least, some affiliation.

Sir John Keane

On a point of personal explanation, may I ask the Minister——

Cathaoirleach

The Minister is only making a criticism.

Sir John Keane

I am definitely accused of having an affiliation with the Daily Mail. Is that in order?

Mr. Connolly

I withdraw that, and I will call it a spiritual association. The Daily Mail says:

The livestock industry is rapidly nearing a collapse which, if not stayed, will mark the final plunge to ruin of our agriculture.... It is this terrible slump in the vast livestock industry which has driven agriculture in every country to ruin. ...Agriculture is sinking now in a life and death struggle.... Fat cattle, sheep and bacon pigs are all selling on heavily losing prices, if saleable at all. At present farmers have no money with which to buy stores.... Owing to costs far outbalancing prices, the position of agriculture, from top to bottom, is deplorable, but it is this year's slump in the livestock branch of the industry that has brought it to its present desperate state.

That was the market on which we were told the fate of this country depended, and, but for our line of policy, that is the market that would continue for the next twenty years to be the market on which our prosperity was going to depend—a market which, in England which is not an agricultural country, is doomed and damned according to their own statement.

Mr. S.L. Brown

Whose statement?

Cathaoirleach

The Daily Mail.

Mr. Johnson

And the Morning Post and the Times and all the rest of them.

Mr. Connolly

Now, let us take the position with regard to the new increase of duties and what do we find? The intelligent Press in England admits that these tariffs have not been put on specifically for this Irish fight, but that the Irish fight has been made the excuse for imposing them on behalf of those who stand for a protectionist agricultural policy in England. Who will deny that? Is there anyone in the House, farmer or otherwise, who will deny it?

Miss Browne

Yes.

Mr. Connolly

They can deny it verbally but the facts are against them.

Miss Browne

No.

Mr. Connolly

I do not want to inundate the House with quotations, but if Senators will refer to the Manchester Guardian of 8th November, they will find the real reason, and I think the Manchester Guardian stands for as much truth in journalism as it is possible to get in England. We are in an economic war and we are going to fight this economic war. Why?

Dr. Gogarty

God knows!

Mr. Connolly

Senator Gogarty does not know because he never did understand any problem in this country. Senator Gogarty does not understand and is not interested.

Dr. Gogarty

Who on earth understands it?

Mr. Connolly

Senator Gogarty never has understood. He is a dilettante in politics who blows in here occasionally——

Dr. Gogarty

Might I ask the Minister to realise what the word "dilettante" means? We cannot have words used so inaccurately in this House.

Mr. Connolly

We have had various outbursts from Senator Gogarty during the last four years, and, personally, I do not know anyone who has contributed less sense to the deliberations of this Assembly than he, and I, for one, refuse to take him seriously, in any event, as a contributor to national thought. We hold that our policy is ultimately the only policy that is worth while. Whether we are going to go under in it is another matter. If the people deliberately say: "We will go on producing beef cattle for the English market," for which there is no market, that is a matter for which they will have to take responsibility, but, so long as we are the Government, and so long as we hold the reins of office, we are going on with our policy.

We are abused in the same way with regard to the land annuities. We were told that there was no justification for asking for an international tribunal and that we are bound to have an inter-Commonwealth tribunal. Professor Arthur Berriedale Keith, who is, I think, a greater authority than even Senator Gogarty on this question, admits now that we have an undoubted case for an international tribunal, and, in spite of efforts by Senator Douglas, it is quite clear that Professor Keith is right. What is the peculiar position that we find in all this? Senator Jameson referred to the mistake made in France, where millions of men were lost. That was a terrible thing for France—the contemplation of the loss of millions of lives and the contemplation of the possible loss of the whole war—but we do not hear the Senator Jamesons in France standing up and saying that it was a damned good thing that they lost millions and that they hoped Germany would win. That was the attitude of mind we were up against.

Mr. S.L. Brown

No.

Miss Browne

Nonsense.

Mr. Connolly

The only arguments that have been of any advantage to the British have been made by responsible people who hate Fianna Fáil and want to see it out of office.

Mr. Jameson

That is not true.

Mr. Connolly

I am glad to have, at least, Senator Jameson's disclaimer. The Senator talked about the President preaching peace at Geneva. The President has preached peace at Geneva, and he has preached it at home, and the recent speech made such an effect at Geneva that it directed the attention of the various countries to understand what they were doing and to face up to the human side of the problem. That is exactly what we have been trying to do. Every attitude and everything we have attempted has been done in the interests of the plain people, and will continue to be so done. We will sacrifice anything to ensure that these people get a fair deal; that they are going to be provided with employment, and if we are not able to provide them with employment, to provide them with a living. We hear criticism of the present economic fight, as if this was the only country involved in an economic struggle, as if this were the only country that had difficulties. I do not think Senators are aware of the conditions prevailing in other countries. I know, as I have come back from Geneva, and I am satisfied that Europe is in chaos. I realise that most of these countries, unless something is done about stabilising their position, unless they look internally, and see what they are going to do about feeding their people, will not be able to do it. We are trying to do that here. We had a different line of policy pursued for ten years. We had a policy of grass and beef, and to-day's position is the result of that.

Miss Browne

That is not true.

Mr. Connolly

It may not be true, but Senators got an opportunity of making their statements, and I think I am entitled to be heard. It is my opinion that the statement is not only true, and definitely true, but has been proved to be true. Various other statements which were made are more or less on the same basis. Senator Jameson is worried about the drain that is going on, and said that the economic position in the country would not stand the strain of the fight. I would like to know how the Seanad and the people of this country would contemplate facing the fight by paying five million pounds—three millions being for land annuities and two millions more that were paid for the last ten years. According to Senator Jameson, I presume we would still have to pay that money. But it is argued that we could get a good deal; that we could go to England and discuss things, as the English people are always willing to compromise, and that Scotch prosperity of to-day, mark you, is all due to the fact that they compromised and made an arrangement with England. I do not see the prosperity in Scotland that would justify us in taking the line suggested by Senator Jameson. The main argument that comes out of his remarks is the argument used here before. If England is going to be reasonable, and if her disposition is so reasonable, why was not this agreement sought and made during the last ten years? Why did not the late administration, which was in a strong position, go and say: "We are a small country, and taking three millions of land annuities is more than we can afford to pay; we want you to remit it." We do not propose to go on that basis. We argue that there is neither a moral nor a legal right for the land annuities, and while this Government is in power these land annuities will not be paid.

The question of imports and exports is a very vexed one. It is not every country that has a favourable balance of trade is well off. There are all sorts of queer anomalies creeping in when you go into the question of imports and exports. I confess I was surprised when Mr. Bruce, representing Australia, said that at one time they had imports valued at £150,000,000 and exports of £150,000,000 but the position to-day was that they had imports valued for £32,000,000 and exports valued for £40,000,000. He did not go into details but stated that, as a result, their position was better now, and they were able to pay their way. He was also able to pull through a conversion loan in London. The main thing we have got to do with regard to our whole policy is to try to protect the people of this country not only in this economic war, but in the economic chaos that is world-wide at the moment. That we propose to do.

Senator Douglas feels that the policy we are pursuing is bound to fail. It might. I do not think so. I think it has less chance of failing than the other line of policy, and that there is more hope of success, and that that success is going to be measured out in terms of human beings living with a reasonable standard of comfort. In so far as that can be achieved that is our aspiration and hope, and every effort we can make is being made in that direction. The question of motors hardly arises in connection with an Appropriation Bill unless dealt with in criticism of tariff policy. I do not know what is going to be the future of motors. I believe we will always have motors, and I believe we will build bodies. I believe we are doing so at present. I believe that will continue to be a successful industry in the future.

Senator Douglas also asked me about the League of Nations. It would take rather longer than I would like to keep the Seanad to deal with the whole question of the League of Nations. If I might offer one remark about the League of Nations it is this—and it is a purely personal impression—that there is a disinclination on the part of the super-statesman of the world to face up to the realities. The various decisions on being reviewed, in my opinion, did not take full cognizance of all the peculiar things going on in society to-day. They did not fully realise that a peculiar structure was tottering, if not already broken. Senator Gogarty referred to various remarks I made. I have made remarks in this House for four years and I want any Senator to point to any remarks I made on economic matters that have not been justified. I indicated certain things that might have been done, which might have been good now for this country, if they were done. There was no prescience about the situation. The facts were there. You had the world facing unemployment in every country; you had a shrinkage in profits and dividends, and you had an acceleration of mass production machinery which prevented human labour being employed. I am not quoting the Manchester Guardian. I am telling you the facts, and I told them before the Manchester Guardian wrote about them. These things apply to this country as they apply to every other country. They are fundamental economic facts that the people of this country refused to face, and still refuse to face. Senator Douglas asked me about the League of Nations. My fear is, that similarly there is in the League a disinclination to face up to the facts. That includes the position of credit, the position of finance, the position of industry and the relative adjustments necessary to meet the position as we know it to-day. That is all I have to say about that. There are other conferences coming on and the world is going to be forced to face the facts that the people of this country were forced to face, and that the people of other countries are forced to face now. Let us not live in a fool's paradise. Things are not as they were, and they are not going to be as they were. Properly speaking, these matters do not arise on the Appropriation Bill, but I propose to ask the different Ministers involved in the discussion—who are not here for the reasons I have stated, namely, that they did not know what particular items of expenditure would be brought forward—to give their attention to the matters raised, and to deal with them on the Committee Stage.

Dr. Gogarty

Might I remind the Minister that an answer has not been given to my question?

Mr. Connolly

I do not know what question the Senator wants answered.

Cathaoirleach

About policy.

Dr. Gogarty

I asked the Minister to tell me if it were not the avowed intention to destroy the store cattle trade of this country, merely because it succeeds in countries where it does not exist. We have been told about Geneva, where the Minister is going, but here we are left with a hungry people and our store cattle trade being destroyed. It is all facing up to the fact that that trade is being deliberately destroyed, merely because Europe is in a chaotic condition.

Mr. Connolly

I do not understand the Senator's statement. I do not propose to discuss it, because I never made such a suggestion. Senator Gogarty has not been able to express his question intelligibly.

Dr. Gogarty

Is it your policy to destroy the store cattle trade?

Cathaoirleach

There is a certain difference of opinion as to whether the Minister replied or not. I can only decide the matter when I get the official reports. I will ask the Senator, when he has read the reports, if he considers that the question has not been answered and I will allow him to raise it.

Dr. Gogarty

If you keep the report from interference I will raise it.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, November 23rd.