Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 20 Mar 1945

Vol. 29 No. 21

Central Fund Bill, 1945 (Certified Money Bill)—Second and subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

An tAire Airgeadais (Seán T. O Ceallaigh)

Mar is eol do Sheanadóirí cheana, is dócha, tá gá leis an mBille Príomh-Chiste seo chun éifeacht dlí a thabhairt do na Rúin Mhodha agus Mheáin do rith Dáil Eireann. Is gné ghnáthach é an Bille dár gcóras airgeadais agus, dá bhrí sin, ní athraíonn foirm agus leagan amach an Bhille mórán ó bhliain go bliain.

Is é cuspóir an Bhille i mbliana ná a údarú go dtabharfaí amach as an bPríomh-Chiste:—

(i) an tsuim a dheon an Dáil chun slánuithe iomarcaidhe ar an Deontas i gcóir Oifig an Aire Airgeadais don bhliain airgeadais 1942-43;

(ii) lomlán na suimeanna, ag éirí as Meastacháin Bhreise agus Nua, a deonadh sa bhliain airgeadais seo agus nár húdaraíodh iad a thabhairt amach fán mBille Leithreasa, 1944; agus

(iii) an tsuim a dheon an Dáil sa Vota i gCuntas don bnliain airgeadais seo romhainn chun íoc as na Seirbhísí Soláthair le linn do na Meastacháin do na Seirbhísí ar leith a bheith á bplé go mion ag an Dáil.

Tugann an Bille cumhacht freisin don Aire Airgeadais airgead d'fháil ar iasacht agus pé urrúis is oiriúnach leis chuige sin a thabhairt amach.

Is é méid an Vóta i gCuntas i mbliana ná sé milliúin déag, céad agus sé mhíle nóchad punt (£16,196,000), suim atá beagán níos mó ná trian den mhéid iomlán atá uainn le haghaidh na Seirbhísí Soláthair. Mar fheicfeas Seanadóirí ó imleabhar na Meastachán, is é an t-iomlán atá uainn le haghaidh Seirbhísí Soláthair na bliana airgeadais seo romhainn ná seacht milliúin cheathrachad, céad agus sé mhíle seascad, agus trí puint tríochad (£47,166,033). Tá an tsuim seo milliún, cúig mhíle tríochad, trí chéad agus ceithre puint cheathrachad (£1,035,344), níos mó ná an t-iomlán a soláthraíodh, agus na Meastacháin Bhreise agus Nua d'áireamh, don bhliain airgeadais atá ag druidim chun deiridh anois. Bá é méid an tsoláthair sin ná sé milliúin cheathrachad, céad agus tríocha míle, sé chéad agus naoi bpuint ochtód (£46,130,689). Nuair a tugadh isteach Meastacháin na bliana airgeadais seo ar dtús ba é a méid ceithre milliúin cheathrachad, naoi gcéad agus dhá mhíle ochtód, sé chéad agus ceithre puint cheathrachad (£44,982,644). I gcomórtas leis an tsuim sin tá dhá mhilliún, céad agus trí mhíle ochtód, trí chéad agus naoi bpuint ochtód (£2,183,389) ag teastáil uainn i gcóir na bliana seo chugainn.

Is iad na fáthanna is mó atá leis an méadú so de dhá mhilliún agus dhá chéad míle punt, beagnach, ar chostas na seirbhísí poiblí ná (1) soláthar breise de mhilliún is ceathracha punt (£1,223,935) do Sholáthairtí le haghaidh cúnaimh airgid chun luach bídh agus ábhar teine a choinneáil gan ardú; (2) soláthar breise de bheagnach seacht gcéad míle punt (£681,644) do liúntais leanbhaí; (3) soláthar breise de chúig céad agus seasca míle punt (£560,000) ag éirí as méaduithe ar Bhónas (idir Bhónas costais mhaireachtála agus bónas éigeandála) a híoctar le Stát-hSheirbísigh.

The Central Fund Bill is required, as Senators are no doubt aware, to authorise the issue out of the Central Fund of grants voted by Dáil Eireann. The Bill is a routine feature of our financial system and its general form is stereotyped. The present Bill is designed to authorise the issue from the Central Fund of (1) the amount of the Excess Vote for the Office of the Minister for Finance in respect of the year 1942-43; (2) the total amount of those supplementary and additional grants for the present financial year which were not covered by the Appropriation Act of 1944; and (3) the amount of the Vote on Account to which the Dáil has agreed for the coming financial year pending detailed consideration of the Estimates for the Supply Services.

The Bill also makes the usual provision for borrowing by the Minister for Finance and for the issue by him of such securities as he thinks proper. The detailed provisions of the Bill are as follows:—

Section 1. This section authorises the issue out of the Central Fund of the sum of £14 10s. 5d. for the service of the year ended 31st March, 1943. This is the amount of the Excess Vote for the Office of the Minister for Finance passed by Dail Eireann during the current financial year.

Section 2. In the current financial year, 27 Supplementary and Additional Estimates, totalling £1,148,045, were presented to Dáil Eireann and passed. Two of these Estimates, totalling £5,800, were covered by the Appropriation Act, 1944, and, accordingly, Section 2 of the present Bill authorises the issue of the balance of £1,142,245 from the Central Fund.

Section 3. The total of the Estimates for the Supply Services for 1945-46 is £47,166,033, of which £16,196,000 has been voted on account. Section 3 of the Bill authorises the issue from the Central Fund of this latter amount. The issue of the balance will be covered by the Appropriation Bill, which will be introduced after all the Estimates have been considered by the Dáil.

Section 4. This section empowers the Minister for Finance to borrow up to £17,338,259 10s. 5d., which is the sum of the amounts mentioned in Sections 1, 2 and 3, and to issue such securities as he thinks fit for the purpose of such borrowing. It also provides that the Bank of Ireland may advance to the Minister any sum or sums not exceeding the amount he is empowered to borrow.

As I have already mentioned, the amount of the Vote on Account for the coming financial year is £16,196,000, which represents something more than one-third of the total net provision of £47,166,033 which, as Senators will have seen from their copies of the Volume of Estimates for 1945-46, is required for the Supply Services. The sum required for the Supply Services for the coming year represents an increase of £1,035,344 on the net provision of £46,130,689 for the financial year now ending. This latter sum includes, of course, all Supplementary and Additional Estimates passed during 1944-45. The original net provision for the current financial year was £44,982,644 and, as compared with this figure, the 1945-46 provision has increased by £2,183,389. This increase of almost two million two hundred thousand pounds (£2,200,000) is mainly due to the following factors:—(1) an increase of £1,223,935 in the Estimate for Supplies—Vote 68—(due mainly to increased food and fuel subsidies); (2) an increase of £681,644 in the Estimate for Children's Allowances—Vote 57 (owing to provision being made for a whole year as against only part of the current year); and (3) an increase arising from the grant of increased emergency bonus and ordinary bonus at the 110 figure, which combined account for, so far as payments to Civil Servants are concerned, £560,000 approximately.

There is also an increase of £140,574 on the Vote for Transport and Meteorological Services — No. 56. Apart from sundry small increases, the main increases here can be regarded as falling under the head of Civil Airports and might be classified under (1) staff (both personnel and bonus)— sub-heads B (1) and E (1); and (2) capital works—sub-heads B (5) and B (3). Certain staff and other charges hitherto provided under Vote 9 (Office of Public Works) and Vote 10 (Public Works and Buildings), respectively, will in 1945-46 be provided for in this Vote—sub-heads B (1), B (2) and B (5). The increased charges arise out of a continuation of our policy of airport development to which I referred last year when the Central Fund Bill, 1944, was before the Seanad.

Senators will observe that these increases are offset to some extent by fairly large reductions in other Votes. The greatest single reduction is on that of the Army—Vote 63—which shows a decrease of £420,420. Of course, Senators will understand that estimation in this case is necessarily conjectural. The usual explanatory details of this Estimate have again been omitted from the Estimates Volume as it would not be in the public interest to publish them. On the Vote for Agriculture—No. 29—there is a decrease of £282,605. This decrease is due almost entirely to a reduction of £335,361 in the provision for fertilisers subsidies—sub-head G (3)—off-set to some extent by certain increases under other sub-heads. This reduction is more apparent than real. It is not due to any reduction in the rates of subsidy. The amount provided last year proved to be in excess of requirements as the fertilisers could not be obtained. The proposed provision is based on the supplies which we anticipate may be available during this coming year. I have, however, already intimated to the Dáil that if fertilisers do come in and if we can supply to the farmers the fertilisers that we would like to supply to them, I will not hesitate to ask the Dáil to provide any additional money which may be required.

The Estimates for 1945-46 as compared with the current year's Estimates, including Supplementary Estimates, show increases on 49 Estimates and decreases on 17 Estimates. Four Estimates show no change. The Estimates for the Emergency Scientific Research Bureau and the Railway Tribunal have disappeared. The total of the increases on the various Votes amounts to £2,285,805, while the total of the decreases is £1,250,461.

I propose to comment briefly on some of the principal differences, other than those to which I have already referred, in the Votes as compared with those for 1944-45. The first noticeable one which appears is that on Vote 6— Estimate for Revenue Commissioners —which shows an increase of £106,710, due almost entirely to higher bonus and emergency bonus. On Vote 16— Superannuation and Retired Allowances—there is an increase of £54,020 due, to the extent of approximately £6,000, to the recent decision to allow the application of a bonus figure of 110 to pensions granted on retirements since 1st July, 1940, with effect as from 1st January, 1945. Vote 27—Widows' and Orphans' Pensions—shows a decrease of £200,000 due to a reduction in the State contribution to the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Fund, as a result of an actuarial report that annual statutory contributions had been greater than was necessary to maintain present rates of pensions. Vote 29—Agriculture—shows a decrease of £282,605, which I have already explained.

Vote 30—Agricultural Produce Subsidies—is down by £45,000. This reduction is due mainly to decreased provision for cold storage and other allowances.

Vote 33—Gárda Síochána—is up by £149,056. Increases in the rates of pay of the force are responsible for this.

Vote 46—Primary Education—has increased by £93,694. Vote 47—Secondary Education—shows an increase of £35,460. Vote 48—Technical Instruction—is up by £51,728.

Vote 53—Forestry—shows an increase of £93,061, due to increased provision for acquisition of land and cultural operations, combined with the falling off of Appropriations-in-Aid arising out of large sales of timber.

Vote 59—Unemployment Insurance and Unemployment Assistance—is down by £102,195, as a result of a downward trend in the numbers qualifying for unemployment assistance, together with partial deletion of provision hitherto made for certain contingencies. Vote 61—Posts and Telegraphs—has increased by £160,470. Higher bonus and emergency bonus to this Department's large staff account for practically all this increase.

Vote 63—Army—is down by £420,420. Vote 64—Army Pensions—shows an increase of £37,000. Wound and disability pensions (sub-head E) account for the bulk of this increase as a result of concessions granted under the Army Pensions Act, 1943. Increased activity in the clearing of arrears of claims has resulted in a substantial increase under sub-head J.

The estimated requirements of the various services during the coming year amount to the largest bill which this State has ever had to face. The figure of £47,166,033 is a record one. There is no doubt that the State is being asked to bear a very heavy burden. We must remember, however, that we are passing through a most difficult period, one probably as difficult as any other in the history of this country and yet, in spite of manifold difficulties, we have succeeded in maintaining most of our services, particularly our essential social services, without serious impairment, as well as in embarking on many new services. New services and expansions of existing services arising out of the emergency are responsible for the bulk of the increase over the amount required for the last Estimates prepared prior to the outbreak of war, those for 1939-40. In the circumstances, and bearing in mind the very substantial rise in the cost of materials, which has increased the Estimates for many of our normal services, I think that we have done quite well and, perhaps, better than we might have expected.

Mr. Hayes

It is the custom on the Central Fund Bill to deal with general matters of Government policy and to hold over particular matters of figures until the Appropriation Bill, that is, the Bill which comes in when the Estimates have been concluded in the Dáil. Very many matters have been discussed, and I wish to-day to touch briefly upon certain indications of Government policy in a particular direction that have been given recently. On a few Bills which we have had before us we have had occasion to discuss a certain attitude of mind on the part of Ministers; and certain principles, particularly principles involving the power of the State as against the individual. I would like to ask the Minister for Finance, who is also the Tánaiste, and, therefore, responsible for Government collective policy, whether a couple of things that have happened recently represent the mind of the Government and the settled policy of the Government on certain matters.

For example, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, speaking in this House recently on a Minerals Bill, took occasion to refer to the report of the Vocational Organisation Commission in a particular way. I have no desire to discuss in any way the merits of that particular report. However, this commission on vocational organisation was set up here by the Government and was presided over by a bishop. Even that last particular fact is not of the first importance, as the Government might have selected a doctor, a barrister or a professor, a Labour leader, a capitalist or an industrialist. In this case, a bishop was selected. The commission was composed of people varying in religion and in politics, representing labour and industry and containing particular representatives of women. These people worked for a period and they produced a report. Without any discussion on the merits of that particular report, it is certainly a very remarkable thing that it is almost the only report of which I have any memory which was unanimous. I have no desire to say that in such a case the Government must accept it. I fully realise, and have had any amount of opportunity to realise, that the Government is finally responsible for policy and must stand or fall by its own opinions, having got advice as best it can and having taken whatever steps it can to arrive at its own opinion.

It is one thing to say one does not agree with the report and another thing to attack the report and abuse it, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce did here. I am dealing with this not so much from the point of view of criticising the Minister himself but from the point of view of general public policy. For example, is it to be assumed in the future that people who are asked to give their time gratuitously to the discussion and investigation of a problem which, in the opinion of the Government of the day, is important, will find themselves treated, when they have produced their report, as if they were an opposing political Party during a general election, and will find their report characterised as slovenly or something of the kind? That seems to me to be very bad public policy, though not because it applies, as it did in this particular instance, to a report from a commission which was presided over by a bishop. No matter who the person is who presides, no matter what his status may be, if he has been thought by the Government of the day or by any Government, to be sufficiently skilled and experienced to do such a job, when he has done the job he should certainly, while not being immune from criticism, be immune from abuse and so should everybody associated with him.

In this State, which is a very young one, we must observe some conventions and principles. Even if one Government were to appoint a commission and another Government later on received the report, I think those who present the report are entitled to the same respect from the new Government as from the old. In the instances which did actually occur that principle appeared to be adopted, but Governments nowadays are interfering more and more with the lives of the citizens and are getting more and more power—power which would have seemed beyond the dreams of the greatest tyrants of old, using the word "tyrants" in the old sense of despotic monarchs. In doing their work, Governments have tended here and everywhere else to seek assistance from all kinds of people in all kinds of positions. One of the hopes of the old Sinn Féin movement which the Minister will remember was that when we got freedom we would have fewer boards. Well, we have more boards than ever, but the boards have less power. The Government that we elect ourselves has more power over us now than any British Government ever had in its own day.

The point I am really coming to is this. Governments require the assistance of all kinds of citizens of goodwill and, for my part, I have always advocated, when I have, on occasions, been asked by people, that any person, no matter what his politics may be, who has a particular type of knowledge or a particular class of experience, should, if he is asked, place that knowledge and experience at the service of the Government of the day. I have no doubt at all that that is a sound principle, but I do suggest that principle will not be observed in practice if, having done work for a period of years, those who do it are to be subjected to what I can describe only as abuse. I wonder whether the Minister has anything to say on that aspect of Government policy.

There is one other point with which I should like to deal. The Minister for Local Government also has had a difference with a person who is a bishop, and whom the Minister describes as his appointee. The Minister for Local Government has laid down a principle with which I find myself in very strong disagreement. That principle is that when any citizen, no matter what his standing, has been asked to preside over a Government-controlled body, or is to be a member of any board which is Government-controlled or quasi-Government controlled—when it is appointed by a Minister—then he must be forever silent; having accepted his appointment from a Minister, he must never express an opinion in public on the subject of his work until he has previously consulted the appointing Minister. I wonder if that applies outside the Department of Local Government—if it applies generally?

The Minister for Finance is responsible for quite a number of appointments. I think we have some such appointees in this House and they express their opinions with considerable freedom, and occasionally with considerably strength. It seems to me it would be impossible to work the State on its present lines if we were to adopt the view that a person appointed by a Minister to do an honorary job, to work in an honorary capacity, to give his time free, or even if he were not giving it completely gratis—that the person so appointed should be silent, should never have the liberty to open his lips on a matter of public importance connected with his work until he had previously consulted the Minister. It seems to me to verge on arrogance and to indicate in the mind of the Minister concerned a very wrong outlook, that those who do not agree with him, no matter what work they have done and no matter how courageously they have put forward their views, are to be smitten hip and thigh. I think that is a very bad principle, yet it seems to be the principle adopted not only by one, but by two Ministers.

I hope sincerely it is not an expression of Government policy, because if it is, it will mean that nobody will undertake to do any work for a Government, this Government or any other Government, if that policy were to be pursued, if we except a person who is merely a "yes-man," and a "yes-man" by definition is a man who is no good, whose opinions are of no value and whose work can bear no fruit. If any independent person, as in this particular instance, who has a mind of his own, is asked to do a particular job, he cannot do that job according to his conscience without incurring very severe censure.

I do not want to make any comment whatever upon the merits either of the Vocational Organisation Commission's Report or what is called the Dignan Plan, nor have I anything to say about the merits of these matters. I do not claim for a moment that because a commission, whether presided over by a bishop or not, publishes a report, that that report must be adopted by the Government. The Minister and the Government have a perfect right to disagree with it, but I think we are creating a very bad precedent, and are laying down a very bad principle, if the people who hear evidence and prepare those reports are to be subject not only to disagreement, but also to abuse. I would consider it wrong also if the Minister for Local Government were to lay down the principle that a person appointed by him as Minister to do certain work must never speak in public on a matter arising out of the work he has done without previous consultation with the Minister.

That seems to lead to an impossible situation in which the proper type of person will not be got to do that type of public work. It is entirely opposed to efficient working under modern conditions and it is opposed to the co-operation which there ought to be between citizens of goodwill and the Government. This thing works both ways and the citizen who does that kind of work should have some kind of protection and an assurance that the Government is laying down certain principles and precedents which are so good that they will be hereafter adhered to.

Mr. Foran

I am very glad that Senator Hayes has raised this matter. I was inclined to raise it myself, but Senator Hayes has made a very good start. I do not propose to go very deeply into the matter of courtesy in connection with appointments on public boards or how certain people have been treated in recent public controversies; but, as one very closely associated with one of these organisations, I want to say that Senator Hayes has expressed my attitude in an absolutely correct way. When I consented to act on this body I went there as a free agent, not to echo the opinion of the Minister for Local Government or anybody else. I went there to do the things that I thought best in the interests of the organisation. I think that was the mind and feeling of everybody associated with the National Health Insurance Society. Senator Hayes has mentioned the name of the chairman of that organisation. He recently went to a good deal of trouble. For what? To try to advise the Government to do what most other countries in the world are doing to-day —to plan for the post-war period and to establish public health services that will be suitable to that period. That has been described as an offence.

I sincerely hope that the goodwill he has initiated in that association will not be ruined because of pique on the part of the Minister or anybody else. Within the skeleton of his scheme we believe there is the nucleus of an efficient and effective public health service for this country. Our public health services at the present time are hotch-potch. Many things are done on the spur of the moment. There is no co-operation or co-ordination between the various services. The scheme he has outlined would go a long way towards co-ordinating the services.

I want to dwell on an aspect of that matter that apparently has not been realised by anybody else. The scheme outlined proposes insurance for practically everybody in the State. Am I in order in discussing this now?

An Cathaoirleach

We should not, on this occasion, discuss the details of the scheme.

Mr. Foran

I will not enter into the details of the scheme. I would just like to point out that while we are not doing anything, private organisations, private companies, big associations are all utilising this idea of a better social insurance for their employees. If things go on as they are going the casual workers, the lowly-paid workers, will be the only people in the country not covered by a comprehensive scheme of social service. Consequently, the matter is, to my mind, extremely urgent. I do not think I am any more out of order than was Senator Hayes, but if the Cathaoirleach says I am——

Mr. Baxter

He did not say so.

Mr. Hayes

Nobody said a word to the Senator.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator may proceed.

Mr. Foran

Big monopolies such as Córas Iompair Eireann have brought their employees under a very suitable and very proper social service scheme. Such a scheme operates in the Civil Service and most of the employees of public bodies throughout the country are covered by such a scheme. The big transport organisation, as I say, has such a scheme and we see great activity in private insurance companies, big offices and big factories, the employees of which are being organised on these lines. In the meantime, certain people in the National Health Insurance Society, an organisation covering over 600,000 people, think they can do the job more efficiently and more cheaply than it can be done if it is allowed to continue on present lines, and we realise the danger that, unless something is done now, it will be too late. The matter is very urgent, and for that reason the chairman and people associated with the National Health Insurance Society have got themselves into a spot of bother with the Minister. I sincerely hope that somebody will realise that the people are more important than a bishop or a Minister. A comprehensive social service scheme is urgent. I do not want to go into details, but it is said by some people that this country would become a country of stamp-lickers and so on, but there is no earthly reason why unemployment and national health insurance should not be covered by one stamp.

With regard to the point raised by Senator Hayes, I must say that, with him, I join issue with those who take up the attitude that people on these boards are only allowed to do things if the Minister approves of them. Unfortunately, as he said, there is a tendency for central government to take over all aspects of public life in the country. We have lost all confidence in the local authorities. Managers have been appointed everywhere who are subject to the will of the Minister and who must do his bidding, and the Minister has the idea that, because he has authority over the managers, he has the same power and authority over voluntary effort on the part of public-spirited people who are prepared to give advice and assistance according to their ability, free, gratis and for nothing. The Minister has appealed in the Dáil to all people of goodwill engaged in agriculture to advise the Government as to the best possible way in which to develop agriculture, and I suggest that he should hint to his colleague that that would be a good line to take in the matter of social services. If he turns his colleague's mind in that direction, he will certainly get the goodwill and support of the best people, and the country in general will benefit.

Mr. Baxter

I am sure the Minister feels that Senator Hayes and Senator Foran have given him enough to think about in the particular matter they have raised——

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Not at all.

Mr. Baxter

——or at least enough to reply to, without my pursuing the matter any further. The Minister has presented the House with the biggest bill we have ever been called on to meet since the State was brought into existence. The Minister is a very amiable and agreeable sort of person.

Mr. Hayes

At times.

Mr. Baxter

Generally, to be fair. He is probably the best person for the position of Minister for Finance at the moment. He seems to be able to wheedle more out of the taxpayers and to do it with a smile than anybody else up to the present; but I want to suggest to him that we must be coming very near the border-line in relation to the demands which he is making on the people. I have to advert to this aspect of our taxation problem every time the Minister comes here, because I cannot help thinking that a declining population and, so far as figures go, a declining output, have to make a larger contribution this year than they have ever been asked to make before. The Minister can, of course, tell me that a considerable amount of the revenue he is collecting goes back to people with lower incomes and enables them to bear their share of this tax burden, but we cannot continue a policy of that kind for ever. We are burning the candle at both ends, and while I recognise that the Minister has to find the revenue to maintain national services—and there is no burking that issue for him or anyone occupying his position—cognisance must be taken of the fact that our production is not rising, although there is a rising national expenditure, and that our population is not rising either, so that with fewer people and lower production we are taking a greater amount.

The Minister for Agriculture gave us figures last week. I do not propose to deal with them now, because I realise that they are not in the Minister's possession and that it is not his problem to examine these figures here, but I suggest that the policy pursued by the Government all during the war is one which has meant a much lower population to-day than we should have had if Government policy had been directed into proper channels, into the proper kind of national activity. I do not know if we are to continue to bleed, and if more people are to be permitted to go out of the country or not; I do not know at what point this bleeding will be stopped; but it will be fatal for us if a more vigorous approach is not made to the reorganisation of our resources and national effort in order to try to conserve here the goods we have, both from the point of view of human physical energy and ability and the development of the things we have.

The Minister in the other House made reference to one or two matters on which I should like to hear from him a further expression of opinion, because, in my opinion, they form the foundation on which Government policy here must be based if it is to be really sound. Senator Foran referred to the fact that the Minister had invited farming opinion to put its services and ability at the disposal of the Government. It seems to me that, of the many problems that are going to face this country and the world, the greatest will be that of the production of food. The shortage of food which the world is going to encounter will, I think, be in the nature of something that it probably has never experienced before. I do not know whether we are going to be able to maintain our food output or not. The physical volume of production in agriculture in this country fell last year below that of the previous year's output, while that of the previous year was lower than that of the year before. If the Minister and his Department examine the matter they will find that, from the point of view of results, our efforts in the matter of food production are declining year after year.

The truth is that there are many factors responsible for that. Peculiarly enough, we have here lumped together, food production and fuel production. Perhaps, in a way it is right to do that, since each represents the output of the rural community. Where I quarrel most vigorously with Government policy is this: that if the output of both commodities were treated as a single output and taken as one of the main products by which our total production is measured, it should be considerably greater than it is or was last year, and our effort ought to be to increase that output year after year. Take fuel alone. Everybody knows the conditions which the country had to face with regard to a shortage of fuel. We know the kind of fuel with which the people were supplied. We have the amazing situation that, under the permit of the Government, thousands and thousands of men have been permitted to leave the country since the war began, all of them competent to make a considerable contribution to the national effort to provide us with our own fuel. Members of the House know of hundreds of men who, to their own knowledge, were permitted to leave the country.

May I, for a moment, discuss one peculiar effect of this "going away" in relation to Government policy, and especially in relation to the policy of the Department of Finance? I do not know what answer the Minister will make when replying. He will probably talk of the dangers of inflation and of the inability of himself, as Minister for Finance, or the Government, to do anything more than has been done in the matter of providing employment for our people here. I want to put one aspect of this "going away" before the House which, I think, will present very considerable dangers for us in the future if our agricultural production is going to continue to fall as it is, and has been falling. We all know that of the hundreds of thousands of our young people who were permitted to cross over to England— they have been going there since 1939 —thousands and thousands of them might have, and could have, stayed at home. I believe they ought to have been kept at home to produce the commodities which the country so badly needs.

Part of the argument used for allowing them to go was that we could not find the money to employ them and keep them here. Anyhow, you had boys from all over the West and South, from Donegal to Kerry, trooping off to Britain because there was not the money to pay them to produce the turf that we required. They went to England and, without having given any service whatever to their own country, sent money over here. The amount they sent was very large. It has slipped my memory, but I am sure the Minister will be able to give it. I think the total figure ran into some millions.

Mr. Madden

£20,000,000.

Mr. Baxter

Senator Sir John Keane says £20,000,000.

Sir John Keane

Not me, please.

Mr. Baxter

I am sorry; I should have said Senator Madden. I admit, of course, that this large sum of money was distributed amongst a number of families, but my point is that when those people were placed in possession of that money they were able to go into the shops, the trading concerns, to the turf vendors, to the banks and to the rest and make a claim on portion of the goods produced in this country. They were able to pay for them, and we accepted that as entitling them to have a claim on the goods which the people who stayed at home produced. The implications of a policy of that kind need to be examined very seriously. I am not going to discuss it any further, except to stress my point of view that I think it was a very unwise and shortsighted policy for the Government to adopt, especially when one realises the importance of manpower to a nation's very existence. In view of that, I think it was very unwise for the Government to permit so many people, whose services were required here to produce the things which our own people were in need of, to leave the country. Beyond saying that it was the least wise action that a Government could conceivably take, I will not make any further comment on it.

It must be clear to everybody that the end is not yet. Every time that I have spoken in this House I have stressed the point that the problems which face us now are as great as ever they were, and that the difficulties which we are going to encounter in providing enough food for ourselves, and perhaps a bit to exchange with other people's, are going to be greater than they are to-day if our production continues to fall as it has been falling, and if increasing sums of English money are going to continue to come in here to inflate prices on those who have stayed in the country. We know that sufficient goods are not being produced here against the currency that is in circulation. I put it to the House that the Minister and the Government as a whole must take full responsibility for a situation of that sort.

The Minister, in the other House, invited thoughtful farmers, no matter what Party they belonged to, to come together and give the value of their advice to the Government on matters relating to agriculture. I hope that he will develop that point later. I am quite satisfied that we have a number of patriotic people who are so concerned about the country's future that they do not mind what Government is in power so long as the country is well governed. They are not people of a narrow Party spirit, and if the advice which they are prepared to put at anybody's disposal is worthy of consideration and can be found of value, they are quite prepared to give it. What I am anxious to hear from the Minister is, how that advice is going to be implemented later? It is of fundamental importance to know if action will be taken to give effect to the suggestions made. I assert that our agricultural production effort is falling. It is quite clear, from what we have been reading in the newspapers within the last week or so, that America is going to be faced with the problem as to whether she will be able to continue to supply her own people with the quantity of meat which they have been accustomed to get. Anybody studying the figures that are available of cattle stocks in the world must be impressed by the difficulties confronting the world. It is some years since I tried to get the Taoiseach to discuss that matter in the House, but I think Senators, including members of the Taoiseach's Party, will recollect that I could not get him very far either to discuss the problem or to consider it. The problem exists for us as well as for the rest of the world. We can visualise the difficulties that will present themselves as more and more people are killed and as more and more countries which, under totalitarian authority were able to till their fields, are upset and confused and are confronted with conditions amounting practically to anarchy. In such circumstances, we would be blind and stupid if we did not take notice of the trend of things and did not insist on increased agricultural production. If we do not make every effort to direct all the energy we can to increase agricultural production, we shall have to take the responsibility for the consequences.

I was delighted at the statement made by the Minister as regards agricultural policy and I should be very anxious that the Minister would take some positive step to have it implemented, because I am quite convinced that there is no room for two or three agricultural policies in this country. There can be only one sound policy. There will be very little disagreement among good farmers, no matter from where they come, as to the right thing to do. The major thing is to secure maximum output. We must consider how that can be achieved. There may be differences of opinion as to that, but men who had thought clearly about it will, if they are brought together, have no difficulty, especially if they are practical farmers who work their own machinery and milk their own cows. If the Minister's idea can be implemented, giving a line of policy, such people could help us through the difficulties which we will encounter. I urge the Minister to expand that matter when he is concluding.

In the administration of his Department, however, the Minister must take greater cognisance than there is any indication that he has taken up to the present, of the necessity for greater scientific endeavour on behalf of agriculture. I interested myself in trying to discover what other nations have been doing. In this regard the Minister may know the sort of answer to give; he gave it before, but that does not satisfy me. I will give him a very concrete illustration of the kind of thing I want done. I think the Minister is niggardly and penurious in the matter of providing agriculture with the scientific arm that it requires if it is to do the kind of thing that he and people like him expect of it. When the war is over, a number of countries that have had to develop agriculture to an extent undreamed of will have made great and various discoveries relative to their climatic conditions and their peculiar soils which may not apply to our particular climatic and soil conditions. During all these years we will not have one single constructive effort to show. I am speaking as far as my own experience goes of what we have achieved here. There is nobody in the country more anxious than I am to know what our scientists are doing. The difficulty is that we have not got scientists because the Minister or his Department are not prepared to pay them. In a case like this it may be a matter of choice as to whether you will drop one thing in order to maintain another. It must be remembered, in that connection, that if we are to increase the productivity of the soil, if we are to secure greater efficiency on the part of our farming community, if we are to produce better animals, better crops, roots and grain, it can only be done by the aid of science. That has not been forthcoming up to the present.

I will illustrate the kind of thing I have in mind in order to make it sufficiently definite and specific so that the Minister will not be able to ignore it. Take the problem of grain growing in this country. For those living on the east coast or on the lighter soils, in parts of Carlow, south Kildare and, perhaps, some of Waterford. Wexford and Louth—a good deal of Leinster— tillage does not present any considerable difficulty. Unfortunately the problem of tillage for the whole country has been viewed from the point of view of the eastern farmer. Indeed, the whole problem of agricultural production has been approached from that standpoint with, in my opinion, rather unfortunate, I might almost say, to a certain extent, disastrous results. Senator McEllin may speak after me. I waited to see if he would get up before me. I am speaking for his part of the country as well as my own and I hope he will see that. There has been and there is a reluctance on the part of a considerable number of farmers in this country to engage in tillage farming. Cattle raising and another type of farming appeal more to them. The trouble is that that is the mentality of the eastern counties. Nobody has ever bothered to discover why that is so. If the Minister for Finance or some of his colleagues were put on a reaper and binder and made to work through south Meath, through parts of my constituency, through south and west Meath and across to the counties of Connaught, and were asked to save the corn that was so flat on the ground that one could not get a knife between it and the soil, they would not be surprised at the attitude of the farmers to the problem of tillage. That has been the condition, so far as my experience goes, one year after another.

What is the Minister for Finance doing and what are the scientists that we ought to have doing to help us in that situation? They are doing nothing at all. As I say, the scientists do not exist. Small as this island is, there is considerable difference in soil and in rainfall in the various counties. In regard to the production of grain —the Minister may correct me if I am wrong; I do not want to make the situation appear worse than it is—we have one specialist at the Albert College, Glasnevin, engaged in the production of cereals. That means one in the whole country. If the Minister were to put some of his people to study what they have been doing in Canada, what they have been doing all over the Continent of Europe, not excluding Russia, we would be made realise how terribly negligent we have been. We have one cerealist at the Albert College, where the rainfall is about 24 inches. In these climatic conditions, on a soil as perfect as can be found in the country, that man is trying to provide a grain which will grow and stand on soils entirely different—heavy, close texture soils, in areas where the rainfall is 40 inches. It just does not make sense. Our grain crops will not stand, because they are bred in soil, and under climatic conditions, entirely unfavourable to them. That is why we have the attitude towards tillage and the production of grain crops, on the part of a considerable number of our farmers which, unfortunately, those at the head have not yet bothered to understand. Undoubtedly, we want the people at Glasnevin carrying out that work, but there ought to be a staff at every agricultural college in the country engaged on the same work. I believe that down in Ballyhaise, where there is a farm of nearly 1,000 acres, you should have people attempting to cultivate grains and roots under soil and climatic conditions that would more closely approximate to those generally experienced throughout the country. I have raised this matter in a very definite and specific way, because I have got into a condition almost of despair about our neglect in regard to this question. I do not see a hope of increasing production in agriculture unless there is a scientific effort on a far greater scale than has been attempted up to the present.

The Minister made some reference to his sympathetic attitude towards a policy of increased exports and of increasing our trade with Britain. I know it is a very difficult time to begin to make plans or suggestions for the future, but it is quite conceivable that, to a much greater extent than ever before, the island of Britain and the island of Ireland will be compelled by world conditions, difficulties of production and problems of exchange to deal with each other to a far greater extent than ever before. That aspect of our policy, in my opinion, requires close examination and a vigilance that will enable us to meet the situation when it arises. Why do I say that? I do not think the Minister ever wanted to live in splendid isolation. He has seen as much of the world, or more of it, than most of us. Whatever any of his colleagues may have felt about it, I am sure he felt no desire to be excluded from the good things of the earth. We hope that when some sort of order is restored in the world—it may not be peace—we shall have an opportunity of enjoying the things, especially the consumer goods, which have not been available to us for a considerable time. We cannot produce these things for ourselves. We can only obtain these commodities— and I think this fact will be brought home more forcibly to us in future than ever before—by being able to provide ourselves with some medium which we can exchange for them.

We have all read the opinions of various economists who discuss Britain's future. Many of these apparently have come to the conclusion that Britain can only maintain in future the standard of living she enjoyed pre-war by increased production and by an export trade of some 50 per cent. more than she enjoyed previously. I have not read the opinion of even one Briton yet who was optimistic enough to believe that that could be achieved. With the developments that have taken place in many of the countries with which Britain traded in the past—developments during the war on lines of production that had never been conceived until the war came along—it is highly probable that the difficulties with which Britain is confronted in obtaining access to these markets may be so great that she may not be able to surmount them. She may have to look in a direction that at the moment is not very obvious to her. It may very well be that in addition to producing a greater quantity of food off her own land, much greater than she ever attempted to produce before the war, she may have to come to us for a much bigger share than she bought from us in the past. Instead of going to the United States, Canada and the Argentine she may have to come to us.

I wonder how far are we contemplating a development like that? Clearly we shall have to purchase very many commodities from her. We shall want capital goods of every kind for further development here and it will be important to be able to get these capital goods next door. There is no person with whom you can do business more advantageously than your neighbour if he is prepared to give you fairly decent terms. I suggest to the Minister, having regard to the opinions which he expressed in regard to trade relations with Great Britain, that that is an aspect of Government policy, especially in so far as it is related to agriculture, which ought to get very favourable consideration from the kind of people who, he thinks, should be brought together from amongst the farming community, to give the benefit of their advice to the Government. I suggest that the sooner action is taken to bring a group of people like that together the better it will be.

I know that the Minister is confronted by a problem in providing the means to carry on the national services, which are of such dimensions as to make it very difficult for him to undertake any additional liabilities but, quite definitely, unless the Department of Finance is prepared to face up to the problem of providing agriculture with much more scientific knowledge than it has been provided with up to the present, there is no use in the world in talking about Irish farmers making progress. We are held up at every turn, mainly because there are all sorts of problems arising around us in regard to soils, crops of every kind, and even in regard to animals upon which we cannot get any expert advice. That is not the sort of position in which Irish farmers ought to find themselves. I would not stand up in this House to make a statement like that if it were not a fact and if I did not know it of my own personal knowledge. When we see the decline in our agricultural output, when we see all around us the dangers which threaten the world because of the shortage of food, we have to make up our mind that no matter how it is achieved, the Minister for Finance, in addition to giving farmers every conceivable help and encouragement from the point of view of ensuring an adequate supply of labour, must above all determine that a scientific knowledge of agriculture must be placed at our disposal to a degree far greater than any of which up to the present we have experience.

Mr. McEllin

While I feel that on some points I must congratulate Senator Baxter for making a genuine effort to open up the debate and to raise matters that affect the people as a whole, I do not find myself in agreement with him in the views which he expressed on some matters. His suggestion that greater attention might be devoted to development of the scientific side of agriculture, particularly in its relation to climatic conditions in this country, is one that has a good deal of merit. There is no doubt that money spent on the scientific development of our main industry would be money well spent. I do not, however, altogether agree with the Senator when he argues the merits of grain production from a purely eastern standpoint. It is a well-known fact that the county instructors of agriculture have annually carried out experiments in cereal production and other agricultural activities in every county. No doubt they forward the results of these experiments to the central authority in Glasnevin. They have achieved some remarkable results, to the benefit of Irish agriculture. An extension of that activity is, probably, desirable. Senator Baxter referred to tillage in the eastern and western counties. As regards the difficulties in the western counties, Mayo does not produce one-third of its own food requirements and has to obtain from other counties some of its necessaries. The average valuation of farms in that county is very low and the farmers are not in a position to produce wheat. That applies, more or less, to the other counties along the western seaboard. The natural deduction from that is that the country must rely, in the main, on the eastern and southeastern counties for the production of wheat and other cereals. Time will prove that that is a sound policy, because these counties are in a position to make greater use of mechanisation than some of the western counties are. We all know that mechanised farming has given good results and is likely to be further developed.

In attending to our food resources in the future, it will be necessary to give special attention to that aspect of the matter. The most that can be expected of small farmers along the western seaboard is that they will produce a sufficiency of the ordinary foods, such as potatoes. In the growing of potatoes, they are very successful—perhaps more successful than some of the eastern counties. That should be encouraged with a view to getting better economic results both for the farmers and the State. By scheduling areas for production of particular commodities in agriculture, a greater volume of output per head would be secured than was secured by the haphazard method which obtained before the war. I think that the Minister for Agriculture dealt with some of those points in his speeches in the past. That is the trend of things at present. As a result of our experience during the past four or five years, there is greater appreciation of the difficulties arising from world wars and international complications. The efforts of the people to meet the country's requirements have developed a mentality which makes opportune the appeal of the Minister for Finance for a pooling of ideas with a view to getting better proposals for the development, amongst other things, of agriculture. I do not think that the spirit which obtained before the war was helpful, but I think that very considerable results can be obtained if the spirit of to-day is availed of.

As regards other aspects of life, I think that the taxation of the past few years must be a matter of grave concern to those interested in industry and commerce, calculated, as it is, to affect the future expansion of employment in the commercial world. I do not know that I am exactly competent to go into that question in detail, but I am perfectly satisfied that the general trend of financial legislation during the past few years tends seriously to impair the confidence of the people and to discourage those who would be inclined to show most enterprise. To encourage them there should be some prospect of an easing of the responsibilities and difficulties with which they are contending, so that they can go out to expand trade and commerce with a more free hand. There I leave the matter for the time being. I have no doubt that other Senators, who have made a study of this aspect of the country's life, will deal with it.

Generally speaking, I think that the country has done remarkably well under the present administration. We could have run seriously short not alone of food—the farmers saved us in that respect—but of fuel. It was, probably, much more difficult to handle the fuel question than it was to deal with the food question. Food was being produced in every area, but fuel was being produced in only a few chosen areas. Where fuel and labour were most abundant, transport was not available to take the fuel to the areas in which it was required. In areas where there was an ample supply of labour and unlimited prospects of output, it was not possible to procure transport to bring the fuel to the centres in which it was most in demand. The result was that the possibilities of developing those poorer areas had to be damped down somewhat. I have no doubt that the lessons which the war has taught us in regard to the difficulty of procuring supplies of fuel will lead to both gas and electricity being produced in the bogs and conveyed, by pipe or wire, from the outlying areas to the centres of consumption.

We have already had various announcements as to such post-war plans or policies issued by some of the Government Departments. Consequently, while it is not for me to try to develop Government policy, or to say what the point of view of Government policy may be, as I am not in a position to know what Government policy is, I put forward the points of view as to what I have seen in operation. I have no doubt, in connection with the proposals I have already seen as to post-war planning, and with the results of our experience during the last four or five years, that the general indication would be that the present Government have devoted a very considerable amount of study and hard work to the general application of this matter, and particularly with regard to the position of our country after the war. As I have said, the Government have devoted a considerable amount of study and have done a considerable amount of work in the matter of post-war planning, particularly with regard to affording greater opportunities of employment for our people in this country and the development, in the future, of industries that would afford such opportunities for greater employment. In that connection, I must congratulate the Minister and the officials of his Department, generally, on having brought about what, in my opinion, is a remarkable improvement in the living conditions of the people of this country, and on their efforts to make these conditions good in the future.

Mr. Summerfield

A lot of ground has been covered in this debate, and it has been pointed out that certain economies have been effected, but I feel that one of the evidences of economy, as given in the Minister's statement, is, definitely, a retrograde step, and that is in connection with the Emergency Research Bureau. I wonder what has brought about this so-called economy in connection with the Emergency Research Bureau? I think that it will be generally agreed that that is a bureau that has justified, and more than justified, its existence, but it would now appear that it has not done so. I think that in this matter of industrial development in this country, the services of scientists and industrial experts are going to be more needed to deal with the problems ahead than the problems that we had to face during the past few years. I would urge on the Minister, accordingly, in spite of the advice on which he has acted up to now, to reconsider that matter and to see whether it would be possible to restore to this country the services of that body of experts and scientists who, if we do not encourage them to stay here, will go to other countries which will be far more generous to them than this country has been.

I have heard arguments made here as to the cost of social services and the burden of taxation resulting from them—arguments which seem to me to be irreconcilable. I have heard arguments—and I join with them—about the burden of taxation, but, coincident with such arguments, we have heard demands for an increase in social services. I sympathise with the Minister in that connection. How can he reconcile a demand for a decrease in taxation, for retrenchment in various directions, and then face a elamorous demand for a further extension of social services which, undoubtedly, we would all desire to see? Should we not decide at any rate, however, to mark time on our social services in our present circumstances? Perhaps they are not all they might be, but I think they will challenge comparison with anything that they have across the water. I think that if a comparison were to be made with the social services across the water, our social services would be found to be very good, and I hope to see the day when a definite and a generous code of social services will become a fixed feature of industrial costs in this country, whether in the factory or on the farm. It must be remembered, however, in that connection, that we must cut our cloth according to our measure, and I am afraid that in the future it will be hard to fix that measure. I have already said elsewhere that I fear that when this emergency is over, we shall have sent back to us from Great Britain those of our people for whom Britain has least need and whom we shall be least able to employ in the immediate post-war period: namely the unskilled workers. We shall have, for instance, people coming back here who might have become good farmers, having had some farming experience, but who, having acquired a little factory skill, will have acquired high opinions as to their factory skill or skill in industry. As a result of the small amount of skill they acquired in the factories in England, they will be of very little use on the farms and may become a charge on our social services. That is why I have very great sympathy with the Minister in the problems with which he has to deal to-day.

I did not intend to say much on the matter of taxation, but since most of the speakers who have already spoken have dealt with taxation as a tax on industry and agriculture, I think it is incumbent on me to say something about it. Of course, all industrialists deplore the present incidence of taxation on the various industries concerned, and we are hoping that at some stage the Minister will be able to devise a system of taxation which will be less disturbing so far as industrialists or farmers are concerned. In that connection, I should like to conclude my remarks on a note which, I think, should appeal to most members of the House. I think that whatever may have been the faults of the Government, recent years have proved —and this may be so in regard to other countries also—all classes of the community seek to give less and less and to demand more and more from their Governments; and the Minister for Finance would be less than human if he did not demand more and more and seek to give less than he is giving at the moment.

Mr. Douglas

I think, Sir, that it would not be out of order to refer to the matter of finance on the Central Fund Bill. I think that the reason for introducing that matter should be obvious and I do not think we ought to be so dumbfounded by the total mentioned by the Minister or that we should not be able to discuss it, in view of the fact that for the last four or five years we have been thinking and hearing of tens of millions of pounds being spent by other countries for war purposes. When the cost of a single country amounts to from £15,000,000 to £20,000,000 a day for war purposes, it probably explains why we are not horrified in finding out what the cost of running our State is for a year; particularly in view of the fact that the Minister has again and again expressed the view—a view which must not be forgotten—that there must either be further taxation, or a restriction of the various State services or developments of one kind or another. I believe that, before long, we must have a reduction of taxation or there must be restricted national development. I have not any hope of a reduction of taxation, and, therefore, you will have to have a restriction of development.

Now, to my mind, there is no use in asking this Minister, or any future Minister for Finance, to reduce taxation, unless you also agree to less expenditure. Even if we agree that expenditure should be reduced we will disagree as to how it is to be done. I suppose that, in a House of this kind, there would be a difference of opinion in any case, and I do not propose to take up the time of the House in any detail on that matter; but I should like to know whether the Minister or the Government intend to set up a committee, whether a Cabinet or a Departmental committee, to consider the lines along which the costs of government might be reduced. I do not think that they should wait until the end of the emergency or until the end of the war in Europe. I think that the time has now come for the setting up of a committee to determine this matter between now and the end of the emergency or the end of the war, whenever that may be.

I have a feeling that the Government, for various reasons, will make the emergency last for a very considerable time. I mean that in the legal and technical sense. It seems to me that a growing State is bound to spend money, just as a growing business has to spend money, but if that is to be healthy expenditure, we will have to try to find some very clear distinction between expenditure of a productive character and expenditure which is non-productive. As an illustration of what is in my mind I point to the Electricity (Supply) Bill under which considerable expenditure is proposed. I am absolutely certain that that is productive expenditure. I believe that it will yield results and increase the capacity of the State to bear taxation. As an instance of unproductive expenditure, I instance money that will be spent in preventing exports in connection with the Customs (Amendment) Bill. I am not saying that that should not be done for the purpose of preventing any exports, but obviously the expenditure is unproductive. I instance money spent on censorship, in opening people's letters or deciding what should not be published in the Press, as unproductive expenditure. I also consider that money spent by Departments in the unnecessary control of individuals is in 99 cases out of 100 unproductive. It should be possible for all Parties in a general way to be prepared to agree on whatever taxation is necessary, when such expenditure is going to strengthen the whole financial position of the country while not being prepared to have money spent on such luxuries as Government Departments trying to do almost everything for us.

While I agree with a good deal of what Senator Baxter said regarding making use of our scientists, I do not agree with him that we have not got them. We have plenty of young people. The two universities have produced students of ability whose services could be usefully employed in research, but they will not undertake that work without getting reasonable remuneration. I think it is a tragedy that we have not made more use of these young scientists. While agreeing with a good deal of what Senator Baxter said, I am not at all convinced that the Government should be paying for all research work. I think the farming industry is large enough to get together in a co-operative way to employ more of our young scientists whose salaries might be spread over large districts. I am not sure but that much better work could be done in that way than under State auspices. The same principle might be applied to industry. I am satisfied that we could get a great deal more results from research work done in that way than was got in the past. I think the Minister makes a mistake in taking 8/9 in the £ in tax from industry for certain types of research work. Industrialists working together in a co-operative way would get better results from research, than from what is done by the Government. During an emergency, the Government may have to take steps which would not be practicable for individuals to take, because it might be necessary to make use of commodities which would not be available on an economic basis, but in normal times a great deal more could be got in the way I suggest from research.

I should like some information on one matter which interests me very much. Unfortunately I have not yet received the Dáil Debates for last week and I am basing my remarks on newspaper reports which did not make the position perfectly clear. The Minister made some definite suggestions with regard to the possibility of voluntary committees of members of both Houses interested in and having practical knowledge of various problems getting together to advise the Government or to make suggestions. The Minister can correct me if I am misquoting him. It seems to me that that was an idea that might be of very considerable value, and which I should like to see further developed. I am interested in commerce and industry. If I am representing anything here—which I suppose is doubtful—I am a representative of commerce and industry. Certainly I have had some years' experience in that respect, just as other members in this House and members of the Dáil.

I would like to see a voluntary committee of members getting together to discuss and to put forward proposals which would seem to them to be for the benefit of industry. I should like it to be quite clear that if they did so, the Government would not take the same sort of attitude as that taken by the Minister for Local Government towards the Dignan report. I should like to know that it would not be resented if members of the Party supporting the Government joined such committees and expressed their views freely. I think the suggestion made by the Minister envisaged a considerable measure of freedom, recognising that it is patriotic to come together to put forward such views. Those who may compose such groups will have to be prepared to recognise without resentment that their proposals may not be adopted. If that outlook was accepted on both sides, the proposal is valuable, one which I should like to see going further. I was not sorry to hear Senator Hayes raise the point earlier in the debate, because I view with considerable concern the attitude of mind taken by the Minister for Local Government. I am not quite sure whether we should take that speech as one of a certain type which the Minister makes from time to time, and which adds very much to the interest of politics, such as his gold speech, and his white elephant speech, of which no one wants to make Party capital, by suggesting for a moment that that was Government policy. If that speech is to be regarded as an individual expression of opinion I would leave it there and not make much of it. I am surprised at the amount of discussion which has taken place about that speech outside this House amongst all classes of people, some because they thought the Bishop was not treated properly but mostly because of the principle involved. It is not for me to defend the Bishop. I am sure he is able to look after himself. What I am criticising is the attitude of mind that seemed to underline the speech of the Minister. It is not only what he said—which on serious consideration he might not maintain—that persons who accept positions at the request of the Minister are not free to give expression to their opinions; but he seems to resent the publication of proposals of which he does not approve or which may run counter to or seem to be a criticism of Government policy. I think that is completely wrong. I do not like criticising the present Minister. I do not like speaking on these matters when there is only the present Minister to reply. I honestly think that the Minister, more than any of his colleagues, gets real pleasure out of listening to views with which he disagrees——

Mr. O Ceallaigh

When I get the chance to reply.

Mr. Douglas

You took the words out of my mouth—nearly, but not quite as much pleasure as he gets in expressing views with which other people do not agree. That is a healthy point of view and we want more of it, not less. I think it would be a better thing if, instead of one Dignan scheme, we had half a dozen of them. It would be a healthier thing if we encouraged committees to put forward schemes and proposals for social services instead of meeting them as the Minister did, by saying, in effect: "There is one Irish scheme; I will not say a word about it; but I will proceed to give a lecture on an English scheme", and then explain most beautifully how people in a neighbouring country are going to be slaves under their social service scheme. We are to do without a scheme, and the Minister does not think our free people should even express their opinion on whether we should have a scheme or not if they hold appointments made by him. I see a very grave danger—I may be wrong— that you are going to get an unreasoned, un-thought-out demand for the whole Beveridge scheme in this country. I think you will get it far more unreasonably and with less thought if the Government take the attitude taken by the Minister for Local Government. The way to meet it is by reasoned explanation and reasoned criticism.

I think we have to face up to two things. One is that there is a very definite limit to what we can afford; the second is that we are not going to carry on here as though what happens in a neighbouring country has no effect on us. If you have a scheme more or less on the lines of the Beveridge scheme in operation in England, and particularly if you have it in operation in the Six Counties, any Government that thinks it can go on and say: "We will not even discuss a scheme like the Dignan scheme" is like an ostrich with its head in the sand and acting, to my mind, in a very foolish way. I think the more that whole idea can be discussed here, and the more the difficulties are faced, the healthier it will be for everyone concerned. I hope the general attitude of the Government will be totally reversed. I spoke at the beginning about the possibility of reduced expenditure. There is one way in which I think reduced expenditure may be possible——

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I would be glad to hear it.

Mr. Douglas

The Minister probably will not agree. That is by substituting voluntary co-operative effort by individuals for paid work by the State and State Departments. You cannot suddenly bring in a whole lot of individuals to take the place of a State Department; but I do say that a great deal of what we are looking to the Government to do for us, and a great deal of what the Government are doing for us—sometimes doing badly and making many of us uncomfortable if we suggest we would like to do it ourselves—could be done by voluntary effort. If it was done, it would cost much less money. It would not be perhaps quite so smooth; it would not be perhaps subject to the same discipline; but, in the long run, I think it would bring about a healthier State. There are many people with ability, but, whether they have ability or not—you only gain ability, in my opinion, in these matters by experience and by making an effort—there are a great many people who are willing to do and could do a great deal of the work which is being done by officials.

Take the Department of Supplies. I believe that much of the control exercised there could have been exercised by voluntary effort during the emergency, under the Minister, because that would be necessary to provide the necessary legal action and uniformity, and I think in many cases exercised better. I do not want to go back on the past. I am only thinking of the future. I think the measure of control which, at any rate in industry, may have to be exercised—and I hope it will be steadily and slowly reduced—could be exercised better by business groups acting under the Minister than even by the most efficient civil servants. Even if you take it on the lowest principle, that it takes a thief to catch a thief, I suggest that actual knowledge would very often be more effective in carrying out agreed regulations. In addition to that, a group representing industry, which had agreed with the Government as to what was desirable, would be far better able to see that it was carried out, provided they had the Government behind them if they failed—and they would not fail very often—and far better able to see that it was carried out effectively than the most efficient civil servants.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

Listening to the speeches that have been made by Senators in a mood by no means one of criticism, but with a desire to be informed, I have been struck by one dominant note, sometimes expressed and sometimes implied, which has underlain each of the speeches. Whatever tune was being played on the chanter, there was this note sounding on the drone. It was not so much criticism of Government policy as criticism of the Government's theory of government; because, in one way or another, Senator after Senator has indicated dissatisfaction with what I may call the closed-circle policy of the present Government; the tendency not to divulge their difficulties or their intentions; the tendency to seek advice merely from the Civil Service and the experts on the fringe of the Civil Service; the dislike of criticism from outside. As it is conceived by the present Government, it would seem that the underlying theory is that the problems and difficulties should be known only to Ministers and their civil servants: that the methods of solving those difficulties should be sought merely from civil servants; that criticism should be resented and even stifled by giving the very civil servants who have offered the advice unlimited administrative powers for carrying out the plans they have themselves suggested. I was very interested in hearing that underlying note coming from nearly every Senator who spoke, because I think I was one of the first people in this House to criticise that theory of government.

We have heard the complaint here that when commissions are set up their advice is neglected, and they are even treated with contumely. We have heard the complaint that the Research Bureau, at present naturally an advisory and investigating bureau, has been wiped out of existence. We have heard the complaint that there is no proper organisation of further research in agricultural matters. We have heard the suggestion from Senator Douglas that there should be committees of both Houses, of a voluntary nature, to try to contribute their experience and knowledge to the Government. It is the same complaint everywhere. Instead of the old-fashioned method of letting into your confidence the members of each House as to your difficulties and your proposed solutions, in a White Paper, finding out what the criticisms are and modifying your plans then, we find that cut and dried plans, which have not been discussed, are presented to the Oireachtas. When a problem is so obvious and so insistent that the public demands investigation by an outside scrutiny, a commission is set up, not so that its recommendations may be considered, but for the purpose of allaying public anxiety and then putting the report into a pigeon-hole. That seems to be the underlying idea in nearly all the speeches.

I would ask the Minister, who is perhaps, more sympathetic to such criticism than others, and who has made more approach to it than others, to make a further response and indicate that he and his Government will let the members of the Oireachtas and the people know what problems are pressing most upon them. Let him tell us that they will endeavour to get such advice and criticism as even the humblest of us may occasionally be able to afford. As Senator Douglas pointed out, it is not necessarily a question of specialised knowledge or exceptional brains, it is a matter of the product of diverse experiences. There is certainly a tendency for people bred in the Civil Service to have experience of one particular type, to look at things from one particular angle, and although their experts may be much more ex- pert than those outside, they do look on matters from a constricted angle.

Accordingly, when a commission is set up and has reported, however much the Minister may disagree with the report—and, personally, I disagree with a large number of things in the Report on the Commission on Vocational Organisation—I would ask him to put those disagreements and difficulties before the people who actually composed the commission. There could be something in the nature of a post-commission discussion between the civil servants who see the difficulties of the recommendations and the people who made those recommendations. Instead of the present more or less sealed-off system of having one plan by the Civil Service and another by a body appointed to investigate the difficulties, could we not get the two sets of minds together to see if they can fertilise each other? Otherwise, the best of each of the systems will not be utilised. In attempting to summarise what nearly everybody has apparently on the tip of his tongue, I strongly appeal to the Minister to let us know more of his difficulties, to see if he can get a contribution to their solution from outside.

At the present moment, in the case of fisheries, I know there is a voluntary committee, composed of people with very considerable knowledge and experience, investigating some of the problems of inland fisheries. I do not suppose for one moment that any conclusions they come to would be very seriously considered, but if those same conclusions happen to be come to by a member of the Civil Service, they would be regarded as of great weight. Can we not get some kind of intercommunication, without what has been the bugbear of Irish politics, the desire of the Government, perhaps from motives of prestige, to give the impression to the people that they are the only people who understand anything about anything and that locked in their minds are all the problems and all the solutions, which they produce from time to time in the form of Bills?

When a matter of purely legal difficulty arises, such as has arisen so often in connection with the Landlord and Tenant Act, does the Government, having formed its own general ideas, ever consult the Bar as a whole, or solicitors as a whole, as to the best methods of carrying out their plans? Do they ever seek help with their solutions, or do they ever pay attention to the criticisms which are made subsequently? If they have pinned themselves already to a definite plan, crystallised in the form of sections of a statute, I can quite understand that motives of prestige may enter in, and that they may be unwilling to alter those plans, no matter how good the criticism. If the suggestions of Senator Douglas and others were adopted, and if there were some method of consulting with outside bodies and experts, and with people of experience in particular subjects, so to as make an interchange or cross-fertilisation between the Civil Service and the outside person, that would be worth a trial.

The principle of neutrality may have brought this country many benefits, but it will most certainly have brought many disadvantages, mentally as well as commercially and geographically. We have been isolated, not merely in questions of the advance of science, but in our whole philosophical outlook on life. We are probably a little bit out of touch with ideas, and it is incumbent on us not merely to try to get the greatest inspiration we can from circles outside the Government but also to draw wisdom, or even that irritation which produces a beneficial counteraction, from sources entirely outside the country. On this occassion, my appeal is not based merely on my own opinions, but on what I have sensed in the speeches of all the other members. It is an appeal to the Government to lay their minds open to suggestions, and for once to modify the policy which literally and historically is associated with the expression "Sinn Fein".

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

This is an opportunity, which does not arise every day, to deal with things in general. In the first place, I would like to refer to the remarks made concerning the Commission on Vocational Organisation. I was very closely identified with the organisation which did all the spade work leading up to the appointing of that Commission and I would consider it a great disaster if, at the present stage, the report of the Commission should be made the subject of a controversy. It is desirable that the people generally should be given an opportunity of understanding what the Commission actually recommends. Were the report to be thrown into the arena at the present time, then all the work of the past four years would be wasted to a large extent.

There are some remarks in the report of the Commission with which I disagree. Indeed, I was very glad to hear the suggestion made by Senator Kingsmill Moore with regard to the possibility of a discussion of the Commission's report. There are some observations in the report which I look upon rather as a blemish. Possibly they were put in on the spur of the moment by the draftsman, but they would not stand the daylight and would certainly bear some correction. With all that, the report is extremely important and very valuable. It represents enormous industry on the part of the members of the Commission, and I think it would be a terrible pity if it did not receive careful consideration.

We have heard a good deal of talk from time to time about the censorship, and it seems to me a pity that when the Minister for Industry and Commerce found it necessary to make certain remarks regarding the report of the Commission, these remarks could not have been excluded from the Press. It would have been no harm to exclude remarks of that type. That is all I intend to say about the Report of the Commission on Vocational Organisation.

As regards the demolition of a lot of our large old residences, I think it is a pity the Government would not adopt some definite policy. They could be made use of in various ways. For example, the people's colleges in Denmark and Sweden that we hear so much about suggest one use. They could be converted into hostels for the people of the working classes, or the poorer classes. At present there is a commission considering youthful delinquency, and the remedy for that type of delinquency should begin in the home. If the people who are living in very poor surroundings, in a poor environment, could be assembled in such buildings and given an opportunity of meeting other people, an improvement might be brought about. Social workers would have an opportunity of interesting themselves in those people.

Something more or less along the lines advocated by the Irish Country-women's Association might be adopted; and a number of retreats, as it were, could be arranged, and imagine in that way a lot of the difficulties we experience, particularly in provincial towns, would disappear in a comparatively short time. I would like the Minister to devote some attention to this matter and make inquiries as to the possibility of some such policy being adopted with regard to these buildings. In other years the buildings were inhabited by people with whom the majority of the nation had no great sympathy, but yet they are part of the nation's history. In a sense they are quite different from the corresponding buildings in England. There they have a national trust for the upkeep of such buildings. One of the things necessary is some variation in the valuation procedure. If we could get some exception made in the valuation of these buildings I think the owners would make an effort to keep them in better condition; if not, perhaps there might be some little subsidy paid towards their maintenance in order that they may be used in the manner I have suggested.

Reference has been made to the research grant being abolished. I should like to make some reference to a closely allied grant, that is, the grant for the erection of vocational school buildings. There is a very tiny, increase in this grant; it is insignificant in amount, and the present position is that the whole building programme of vocational committees is practically stopped. If a committee wish to have their application considered for post-war work, the Department is obliged to tell them that there are no funds available. We cannot even make an application to have a building put on the list. Hence, when the post-war period arrives a very peculiar position will arise with regard to the erection of these buildings.

Parts 5 and 6 of the Vocational Education Act are being brought into operation very slowly. I have, perhaps, more than average experience of that type of work and I would like to assure the House that as soon as these Parts are made operative we will get something like 90 to 95 per cent. of value for the money expended as compared to a very much smaller percentage under present conditions.

As regards agriculture, I have been following the discussion regarding the re-seeding policy advocated by various eminent men both here and in England. It seems to me that there is great uncertainty in the minds of the officials guiding the Department of Agriculture as regards this policy. Some say it should be put into operation, others are against it. It is a matter on which there should be some definite decision. Is it a good or a bad policy? Without entering into the details, it seems to me that, applied in certain ways, it would make an enormous difference in productivity; but it should not be applied recklessly. It is a pity there is not a definite policy. The Department seems to be tinkering with the matter, and perhaps years will elapse before any definite policy is evolved.

I was glad to hear Senator Kingsmill Moore referring to inland fisheries. I observe that Senator Ryan is absent. I may have the innings on this occasion, but I dare say I shall have a broadside from him later on. There is a tendency among many people to look on this matter of inland fisheries as a sort of harmless amusement, and they consider it is hardly worth consideration. There is a good deal of money and of healthy sport involved, and I feel that it is a matter that requires very serious consideration. Every fisherman to whom I have spoken has expressed the view that there must be a complete reorganisation of inland fisheries before our rivers can return to the condition in which they were years ago. There is no confidence in the existing scheme of organisation. There is really very great need for reform.

There is one side of agriculture in which I am interested, and that is poultry rearing. My wife has had considerable experience of this matter and it seems to me that it is a branch that requires very thorough investigation. Disease is rampant, and we are told that the poultry industry in England is practically on the verge of collapse. The system at present is that, when you find a fowl dead, you send it to the Veterinary College and get an analysis. You are then told to see the instructress, and the next dead fowl is sent up. No definite remedy is ever given. You are simply told what happened, but not how to prevent its happening.

With regard to the cost of living, very great play is being made with the magnitude of the Estimates. We have been so accustomed to shocks for many years that when the Estimates for the coming year were presented, we took them, so to speak, lying down; but there is one aspect with which the Minister will possibly sympathise. It is that the Estimates depend on the fact that the cost of living has become abnormally high, and hence the value of money has altered so very much that £52 now is only roughly one-third of £52 in 1914. The question arises whether anything can be done to get back to a more normal value of money. If it cannot be done, let the nation generally recognise that the old pound we dreamed about in our youth is no longer a pound. The question then arises whether some other unit could be adopted in order to get rid of the mass misunderstanding which exists with regard to it.

The representatives of the manufacturing industries who are present here will probably disagree with me when I say that there is a great feeling abroad that fabulous profits are being made and that profiteering is rampant. I have been informed on fairly good authority that buildings are being extended and the wages of the workmen employed on these extensions are being charged as manufacturing costs. The purpose of that is obvious—it tends to conceal the profits. These profits might not be there but for this unfortunate corporation profits tax by means of which the Government gets 75 per cent. of the spoil. It is one of the matters which require very grave consideration, and if this question of the cost of living could be regularised, or if something could be done about it, the Budget would not be so great and the people would not be so dissatisfied.

Certain sections are doing remarkably well, but the average person at present is suffering more than he ever thought he would suffer under a national Government in trying to meet household expenses. The cost of living index at present is approximately 295. That is the cost of living index in respect of a labourer's household, and we all know that it is not a genuine cost of living at all, that it does not represent the cost of living to those above the labourer's standard, or, if you like, the subsistence level. We have black marketeers, and we see people all around us buying immense stretches of property. From where did all the money come? It was obviously dragged from the people who are suffering from the cost of living.

Reference has been made to the cost of turf and the difficulties of transport. Some years ago, I was engaged on a scheme of turf production for a parish council. I got a letter from the Turf Development Board which stated that turf ought to be produced at a cost of 14/6 per ton on the bog and that that amount with the addition of transport charges, should represent the cost of a ton of turf. At present, on the basis of these figures, turf should be produced in my town for about 25/- per ton. We did sell turf to the people at 30/- per ton, even though some development charges were involved in that price.

Another important matter with which the Minister must be concerned is the work of the two famous conferences—the Hot Springs Conference and the Bretton Woods Conference. The Hot Springs Conference, at which 44 nations were represented, agreed on a food policy. They agreed to try to standardise production, to regularise marketing and the prices of commodities. Where will we be on the English market with our exports and imports? The Bretton Woods Conference dealt with international monetary units.

Mr. Baxter

We do not want that.

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

Are we to take an outside place in relation to these matters? The cost of living, as the Minister will at once realise, is very closely related to the problems connected with our import and export trade, and incidentally the question of the link with sterling must necessarily arise. It would be interesting to have the Minister's views regarding this problem. Suppose we had not got the present link with sterling, what would be the natural rate of exchange as between, say, the Irish and the English pound? I looked upon these conferences at Hot Springs and Bretton Woods as matters which we cannot evade. We must consider the issues which arise from them. I am very sorry for having had to inflict so many problems on the Minister. He has my sympathy. To deal with them, I suppose all the members of the Government should be present, but I presume the Minister will, in turn, distribute these problems amongst them.

Pádraic O Máille

Ba mhaith liom comhgháirdeachas do dhéanamh leis an Aire as ucht go ndearna sé, mar is gnáthach leis, tús a chuid cainte i nGaeilge. Do réir mar thuigimse é, do bhain sé a lán den tsearbhas as an mbille mór do chuir sé os ár gcóir, é bheith i ndon cur síos i dteangain ár dtíre ar an airgead a bhí á fháil agus á chaitheamh ag an Rialtas.

Cheapfá, nuair bhí an Seanadóir O Mordha ag labhairt, gurbh fhearr dúinn bheith páirteach sa choghadh agus cheapas ina theannta san go raibh sé ag iarraidh sa chaint a chuir sé uaidh, droch-mheas do chaitheamh ar ghluaiseacht Sinn Féin. Im thuairimse, níor tháinig le linn seacht gcéad go leith blian aon ghluaiseacht in Eirinn a bhí chomh tábhachtach le Sinn Féin.

Marach Sinn Féin, ní bheadh muidne i ndon labhairt ar chursaí na tíre anseo, agus in áit droch-mheas do chaitheamh ar Sinn Féin, séard ba cheart do chuile Éireannach, ó thuaidh agus ó dheas, moladh a dheanamh agus buíochas do thabhairt do na daoine do chuir an ghluaiseacht sin chun cinn.

I wish to congratulate the Minister on opening his remarks here in Irish. I think that some of the bitterness was taken out of the very large bill which he had to put before us by reason of his having been able to explain in the Irish language details about the money being received and spent by the Government. I would not have intervened in this debate at all were it not for the remarks made by a Senator for whom I have the greatest respect— Senator Kingsmill Moore. One would think, listening to his speech, that it would have been better for this country to have adopted the policy of war, rapine and slaughter, than the policy of neutrality. He also stated that it would be better for us to get away from, and to forget, the policy of Sinn Féin. To my mind, the Sinn Féin generation was the greatest generation of Irishmen that we had in this country for 750 long years. Were it not for the efforts of Sinn Féin, it would not be our privilege to be here to-day speaking in an Irish Parliament——

Mr. Madden

Hear, hear.

Pádraic Ó Máille

——and conducting the affairs of at least three-quarters of our country. In that respect also some people here—I am sorry to say the fault does not lie on one side of the House more than on the other side—referred to this old nation as a new country. They referred to the Twenty-Six County portion of the country and to the efforts of Sinn Féin—that it was able to secure for the people an Irish State. It, unfortunately, is not an Irish State, and will not be until we get again that portion of the country which is being wrongfully withheld from us by an outside power. Instead of trying to decry the policy of Sinn Féin, all of us ought to be Sinn Féiners. I want the people of the North and the South to be united, and my definition of an Irishman is not confined to "race or creed or clan". I look upon everyone bred, born and reared in this country as an Irishman, provided at least that he is prepared to give his allegiance to the land of his birth. If we had the people looking at the Irish problem in that spirit we would soon have the 32 Counties under the control of this native Parliament. I do not want the belittling of any section of the people of the country. I want the people to forget past differences, because our common land is a bigger, a greater and a nobler ídeal to fight for than any petty grievance. It is what all should work for, rather than try to keep old hates and old divisions alive in the country.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

May I make an explanation with regard to what the last Senator has said? I merely referred to the fact that Sinn Fein, in its usual translation, means "Ourselves Alone", and that the Government need not rely on themselves alone but should take advice from other people. I urged that, similarly, this country should not allow its philosophical outlook to be divorced, by the nature of the war, from new ideas outside, but should consider the philosophical and social ideas which are growing up in other countries. I think that the Senator, for whom I have perhaps even greater respect than he has for me, completely misunderstood my remarks.

Mr. Madden

The people in the rural parts who elected me to this House regard the burden which the Minister for Finance is placing on them under this Bill as a colossal one. When the total of the Vote on Account was published in the newspapers some ten days ago the people in general were appalled. I am in the invidious position of being asked to say where the dividing line should be. During the 30 years that I have been a member of the local bodies, I have taken a rather humanitarian interest in their affairs. I have done my utmost to try to uplift the working classes and to provide the people with social services. I remember that six or seven years ago I had the pleasure of congratulating the Minister—he was then Minister for Local Government and Public Health —on the many measures calculated to benefit the working classes which he had introduced in the Oireachtas. I remember saying that when he passed out—I hope that will not be for many a long day—he would have left behind him an enduring monument in the gratitude of the working and poorer classes of the people for all he had done for them as Minister for Local Government.

Senators

Hear, hear.

Mr. Madden

There is no doubt about that. The consensus of opinion amongst the ratepaying community would seem to be to condemn the Minister for the imposition of this large demand on them. Senator Douglas said that he did not want to go back, but to look forward. There is an old proverb which says that: "to try back is good hunting." I remember that in 1938 the then Minister for Finance when introducing a Budget that was in the region of £30,000,000, said in the other House, that it was a very large sum, and that he was not at all complacent in having to introduce it. On that occasion the Minister used these very significant words: "I am appalled at the difficulties that may confront the finances of this country if the European conflict"—it was then in the bubbling stage—"bursts." He was unhappy at having to introduce a Budget of £30,000,000, but to-day the country is faced with a Budget of in or about £47,000,000. I desire to draw attention to two reports which were prepared by commissions and issued about 1937, and I am wondering whether they have had any influence on the mind of the Government. One report, which dealt with currency and banking, was in the possession of the Government in 1937. Members of the House are well aware that this report represented the considered opinion of every member of the commission. It was formulated with the greatest care, the statistics in it being carefully checked. The members knew that it their report was not able to bear the closest investigation they would be held up to a certain amount of individual and public criticism.

The report of the Banking Commission clearly indicated to the Government that their policy on finance as then existing and as it had existed in the preceding years would be suicidal and destructive of the economic stability of the country. There was at the same time the report of the Registrar General. His report was the most serious thing that was ever submitted to a responsible Government. That report showed definite evidence of the tragic disappearance of the agricultural community in this country. The report indicated that in 12 years 205 rural schools were closed because of the disappearance of the rural community. In ten years the number of children on the rolls of the rural schools had declined by 66,000. That is an appalling picture. What is the cause? The cause is the ever-increasing incidence of taxation on the rural community.

In Limerick, the estimate is to be considered on Saturday. Already the budget for the county shows an increase of nearly £20,000 over last year's budget. The greater part of that increase is due to social services. Consider my position. All my life I have been advocating—and I hope to continue to advocate—social services as an essential part of a Christian philosophy. It is very far from me, in these circumstances, to condemn an increase of £20,000 on the rates, part of which is represented by social services. It is axiomatic that no Government can indefinitely continue to spend money faster than the source of wealth can supply it. Agriculture is the chief source of wealth in this country. With all respect to the industrialists here, they have no hope of prosperity if the agricultural depression that is evident in the country to-day continues. I say that while appreciating all that the Government has done by way of subsidies. There is no one more ready than I am to defend all that has been done for agriculture. I have done so over and over again. We are told that nearly 60 per cent. of the people of this country live directly or indirectly out of agriculture. If the majority of that 60 per cent. are in a state of penury or want, how can any industrial revival hope to succeed?

I have said that the rates in Limerick have increased by nearly £20,000. That does not include the £12,317, to which I referred some weeks ago, which must be added to this year's budget to meet the charges in connection with the Mulkear drainage. I suggest to the Minister that there must be a dividing line. The Budget cannot be allowed to soar from £47,000,000 to £50,000,000, from £50,000,000 to £60,000,000 in face of a disappearing rural population and a state of depression in agriculture.

I come from a dairying county. Three years ago a return was submitted, by persons appointed to the county committee of agriculture, showing the position of the dairying industry over a period of three years, and comparing 1937 with 1939. In 1939 there were 14,500,000 less gallons of milk produced; there were 13,000 less dairy cows. That decrease in dairy cattle is continuing. Within the last week I had two dairy herds up for sale and, according to the Limerick Leader for last week, 500 head of dairy cattle were sold by public market, the farmer going out of dairying and adopting some other means of livelihood. That happened in one of the greatest dairying counties in the country. The eastern parts of that county are not fit for the production of crops. Twenty-five years ago some eastern county councillors asked me to buy oats and wheat and potatoes for them in the western part of the county, where the soil is more calciferous and more suitable for the successful growing of crops. I asked them why they did not grow them themselves and they told me that the soil was not suitable, that the crop might look beautiful but, if it got one shower of rain, would be crushed into the ground. Senator Baxter and Senator McEllin will remember the matter being examined before the de-rating commission that in some parts, because of the peculiar nature of the soil, the ground, after one night's rain, becomes a consolidated mass, or brick-like, utterly incapable of food production.

I refer to these matters in order to show the difficulties that operate, in addition to overhead charges, against the farming community. There is also the costly Budget of nearly £47,000,000, which increases the incidence of taxation, so that they pay twice the amount of the annuities that were being paid. Were it not for the subsidies that are being given by the Department of Agriculture, the position in our county would be deplorable, and I am sure the position in our county is analogous to the position in other parts of the country. I would ask the Minister to remember that sooner or later there must be a dividing line. The land is the source of wealth. If the land is the pivot on which revolves the whole economic prosperity of the country there must be due consideration of the difficulties confronting the agricultural community. If one takes the reports which appear periodically in the papers as a barometer indicating the capacity of the farmers to pay, one finds that in meeting their rates they are strangely slow, which is evidence of the hardship involved in trying to meet their commitments.

Sir John Keane

I was interested to find that by a totally independent approach Senator O'Reilly had arrived at the same conclusion as I had, as to the effect of taxation on the cost of living. As Senators may remember, I rather emphasised this point in the debate on the last Budget in connection with the increase of income tax and corporation profits tax. I argued then—I do not think the Minister ever openly disagreed with me—that the effect of seeing that surplus profits go to taxation is rather to encourage, in times of scarcity, traders to get the maximum they can and, of course, to raise the cost of living. That is undoubtedly so. The cost of living has reached very alarming proportions.

That level has been largely contributed to by the fact that the Government says: "Oh, it does not matter very much as we get a large proportion of these profits back in taxation." I ask myself what is the remedy and I am afraid the only remedy is in increased supply. Until you can get that large increase in supplies, and the competition arising from that very unpopular term, free enterprise, you will really never get the cost of living down. I am not going to labour the point, but I view with concern the suggestion that we should continue this system of fixed prices and that agricultural prices should be kept at a level which will unduly aggravate the high cost of living.

I desire to say a word or two in regard to the point raised by Senator Hayes about the proper conduct of people who sit at the request of the Government on public bodies. Senator Foran also dealt with the matter and he mentioned the National Health Insurance Society. I do not think it is ever possible to lay down any general rules of conduct but I do feel that if you or I were sitting on a public body, we are quite entitled, while we are not Government officials, to have independent views as to what form Government action in a particular matter should take, but these are only our personal views. I do not think we have any right to ask the Government or a Minister to comment upon them. To that extent, I feel considerable sympathy with the Government in the recent controversy on this matter. The learned prelate, I think, had every right to have his views on social reform but I do not think he had any right to call upon the Minister for Local Government to comment and give an answer to these opinions. They were merely his private opinions and, if he were entitled to an answer, I think anybody who gives expression to opinions in a private capacity on similar matters would also be entitled to call upon the Government to reply. To that extent, the Minister for Local Government has my sympathy.

There is one other matter—I feel that I run the risk of wearying the House, I bring it up so often—to which I should like to refer—namely, the question of a long term policy. In connection with the controversy about social insurance, one of the comments was that there was no long term policy. I suggest that there is no long term policy in regard to medical services. I suggest that the Government might adopt the method followed in Britain, not necessarily because it was adopted there, but I understand it is the standard practice in democratic countries. That is first of all to indicate your long term policy in the form of a White Paper, and let that be circulated, published and commented upon in the public Press. Encourage people of all sorts and conditions to write to the Press and let the Press comment upon the proposals without any restraint whatever. Then in due course let these proposals take the form of resolutions in Parliament, and let us hear in debate the views of members of all Parties. Only after all these views have been digested, and you have had this conflict of opinion—it is a slow process—let legislation be introduced. Under the present system the first we know of some very important reform is when a Bill is introduced to which the Government are already committed. Naturally, they are very loath to make any very far-reaching amendments in the Bill afterwards. I do feel that in a democracy this method of a White Paper followed by resolutions is essential if we are ever to educate our people to take an interest in legislation. If we are not going so to educate them, I take a very gloomy view of the future of popular government.

Mr. Sweetman

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

Mr. Sweetman

One of the items in this Bill, I understand, represents a sum payable to the Department of Defence for providing for the transport to Dublin of turf produced by the Turf Development Board. I want to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by this item to correct a statement I made on the Report Stage of the Minerals Company Bill. On that occasion I said that it had been alleged in court that the Turf Development Board, Ltd., had made a contract, as a result of which an individual was able, by reason of having a few lorries himself and by means of sub-contracting, to earn a net profit of £12,000 over a period of about two years. I have since been informed by a director of the Turf Development Board that it was not that board which made the contract. I understand that the Department of Defence was responsible. I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to correct my statement, so that it may appear, as corrected, on the records of the House. That does not alter the fact that there was too little supervision over the profits that were to be made, and that were made, not only in that case but all over the country, from the transport of turf. It is common knowledge that, if you can get a lorry, get the necessary permits and go into the business of transporting turf, there is plenty of money to be made from it. That is one of the reasons why turf is so dear to the people of Dublin. It is unfortunate that the Department of Finance, which is usually so very sparing in its treatment of other Departments, could not effectively ensure that this matter would be dealt with in a more businesslike way, so that sub-contracting could not be carried out at such profit to the individual and such loss to the State and the consumer.

Senator Hayes made an incidental reference to the manner in which the report of the Vocational Education Commission was treated when the Minerals Company Bill was before this House. I should like to refer very briefly to another aspect of that matter, which, I think, can properly be discussed on this Bill. During the emergency there has been a tendency for Government Departments to take unto themselves more and more power. There is a danger that Ministers, accustomed to taking powers to deal with the special circumstances of the emergency, will get into a groove which will lead to their urging the retention of those powers after the emergency.

Naturally, those working with them in their Departments will, as a result, find it more difficult to dissociate their minds from emergency conditions and direct them into more normal channels. That matter was very well dealt with by the Vocational Commission in paragraph 38 of their report, in which they pointed out very clearly that that tendency eventually led to totalitarianism and that the growth of bureaucracy in the world would have to be faced as one of the very important problems having their roots in the beginning of this century. That is one of the things that we shall have to face in the years ahead. For that reason, I think that it would be desirable that we should have a declaration by the Minister and the Government that they propose, as soon as circumstances permit, to abandon the powers necessarily given to Government Departments during the emergency and go back to normal, working methods.

Senator Sir John Keane asked the Government to deal with their long-term policy and to produce a White Paper on it. I am afraid that Senator Sir John Keane, on that aspect of the situation, is rather an optimist, because it is very difficult to produce a White Paper about a long-term policy. I do not think that, in fact, a long-term policy does exist, and I might perhaps go further and ease the situation a little bit more for the Minister by saying that, perhaps, in the circumstances of the times in which we live, it would be almost impossible for anybody to frame a long-term policy. Be that as it may, however, I do think that, after the emergency, we should be able to get back to normal conditions and that, accordingly, we should endeavour to remove, as soon as may be possible, the restrictions and the power that have been placed in the hands of the Department during the last four or five years.

Mr. Quirke

I am very glad that, to some extent, Senator Sweetman has cleared up this question of the transport of turf. I happen to be the director who spoke to Senator Sweetman on that matter, and while he pointed out to me that the real purpose of his speech was merely to ask for information, I think that if it had happened to be published in the Press —which I do not think it was—it would have conveyed a very different impression. Now, I am not suggesting for one moment that Senator Sweetman had any ulterior motive whatever in mind, but I do say that if that had happened to be published in the Press, the people reading his speech here must have come to the conclusion that things were not as satisfactory as they should be in connection with the Turf Development Board. I do not think that that matter has been made quite clear yet by the Senator. Senator Sweetman says, by way of explanation, that it is quite obvious that there is not sufficient supervision. Now, in actual fact, the contracts in connection with that particular matter were given by the Department of Defence, and arrangements for supervision were made by that Department, and as far as I know—although I am open to correction on this point—these contracts were given under sealed tender, which is the usual practice in connection with that Department. I am practically certain of that, although, as I say, I am open to correction on it. If that is so, I do not see where there was anything irregular in the matter of these contracts, and I, personally, am quite satisfied that there was nothing irregular about them or about any other contracts given out by the Department of Defence, or that the Turf Development Board had anything to do with them. Accordingly, I think that that matter is cleared up.

Senator Sweetman also spoke about the huge profits made by the hauliers of turf, and said, in effect, that anybody who could get hold of a lorry and the necessary permit could make an enormous profit on the hauling of turf. In that connection, I would say that the question of profits on the haulage of turf is regulated by supply and demand, just as in any other business.

Mr. Sweetman

On a point of order, Sir. I entirely agree with Senator Quirke, but I say that where the snag arises is on this question of obtaining a permit.

Mr. Quirke

There is no trouble whatever about getting a permit. All that the person concerned needs is the price of a lorry, and he can then go into the haulage of turf. Such people are facilitated in every way to get into that business, and if Senator Sweetman wants to get into it to-morrow, I shall give him every facility he wants; I shall even spend a day with him in order to provide him with whatever facilities he wants. Now, so far as the profits on the haulage of turf are concerned, the prices are the same whether in connection with supplies to the Shelbourne Hotel, the Gresham Hotel, or any other big users of turf in the City of Dublin, and the prices are the same as in the case of the average Army contracts. I suppose that, in some cases, a certain amount of money has been made in the way of undue profits. In some cases, undoubtedly, people have made more money than they should have made. That has been particularly true in the case of commodities which were not under our control. It is probably true also that, in some cases, people have made more money than they should have made in connection with commodities over which we had control. These, however, would be a very small number of cases. In the case of commodities over which we have no control, it is a very different thing. For instance, during the last three or four weeks, certain people had made a good deal of money out of cattle, and I think that Senator Counihan, if he were here, could bear that out.

Mr. Hayes

I thought that nobody made any money out of cattle.

Mr. Quirke

I am talking about the farmer now, and not necessarily about cattle men, such as Senator Counihan. Senator O'Reilly also spoke of turf and said that he had information that turf can be produced at 14/6 a ton. That may be so, and it is so in some cases. In the same way, Senator Counihan can tell us that you can buy two-year-old cattle at £10 a head, but if you go into the matter of cattle, you will find at the same fair or market other two-year-old beasts might cost £22 or £24. In the same way, machine-won turf can be produced at 14/6 a ton, but if Senator O'Reilly goes into that business at Moineagh Bog, hires men, pays the cost of haulage and so on, and tries to sell it at that price in Clonmel, he would soon be put out of business.

Mr. O'Reilly

We did sell it at 30/-.

Mr. Quirke

You did, and you are a long time out of business now. The fact is that we were dealing with an emergency situation in which turf had to be produced under extraordinary conditions in some areas, and the prices at which it has to be produced vary very much as between one area and another. It is not a question of whether you can produce it at 14/6, 24/6, or even 44/6, in a particular area. The particular situation with which we were faced was that turf had to be produced. Our idea was to produce it as cheaply as we could, but, cheap or not, it simply had to be produced, and if, say, in the City of Dublin, last winter or the winter before, we were short of a ton or even 1 cwt. of turf for the supply of the people here, I should like anybody to put a valuation on that last ton or last cwt. of turf that we were short of. I think that in such circumstances the value of it could be put at thousands of pounds.

What I want to say, however, is that the greatest possible credit is due, not to the directors of the Turf Development Board, but to the men who have been working this scheme throughout the country—the engineers, the camp superintendents, and all those who had to do with turf production. They took over virgin soil, a bog in County Kildare where not many years ago no human being could walk, but on which there are now first-class roads on which lorries are running. That was not done by wishful thinking. It was done by hard solid work, by men who took on their jobs as soldiers. There were no such things as hours in their programme. They went on with their job, made up their minds that there was work to be done, and did it. As far as the staff of the Turf Development Board is concerned, superintendents, engineers, clerical workers and manual workers, they did their jobs as well as any men could do them in this or any other country.

If there was all this money to be made from turf, there were numbers of wise people about and I am sure that plenty of them would be satisfied to make less profit than was made, but for the element of gambling that was in it. It was because there was an element of gambling that some more conservative people did not go into the turf business. A fleet of lorries could be mobilised. I do not know whether a lorry costs £600, £700 or £800, but a man might find himself at the end of the emergency with the lorries, or he might find them on his hands any day without tyres, and then he would want to readjust his accounts to see what he was getting out of turf on the credit or on the debit side. While I am very grateful to Senator Sweetman for clearing up this matter as far as he could, it is only right that the public should hear the two sides of the story, and let credit be given where credit is due. If there is any blame to be apportioned, as far as I am concerned I am prepared to take my share. I have a superiority complex that could be cut with a knife, as far as the production of turf is concerned. I believe that the names of everybody who had anything to do with the production of turf will go down in history, coupled with the names of the Government, that during this terrible period that we are passing through, saved this country.

Senator Summerfield was worrying about workers who will be returning from Great Britain, and how we are to handle them, seeing that they will have acquired peculiar factory ideas. I believe they can be handled, and that in the programme which is being drafted for the post-war period we will be able to include such workers.

I have yet to meet the man who has not improved as a result of experience. I do not care what the experience has been. We have men working on the bogs who came back from England. They are working everywhere through the country and they are able to hold their own with other workers. As far as I know they are quite content with their lot and, in fact, would not think of going back to England to take up the employment that is to be had there. We hear a great deal about the high wages paid in England, but employment there has its drawbacks just as some employment here has certain drawbacks. Men who are prepared to work on Irish bogs here have as good a chance of making a "stake", as they call it, as they have in England, when income-tax and everything else is deducted from earnings. In addition, they have this advantage here, that they are provided with the best food that is available in any country. Men working on Irish bogs are supplied with food which could not be bought in any hotel that I know of in Dublin, or anywhere else. I believe that workers who come back from England will fit into the scheme of things here, and will deliver the goods, by working not only for their own benefit, but for the benefit of the country.

Senator Summerfield and also Senator Douglas referred to the Emergency Research Bureau. Its very name indicates that the Emergency Research Bureau was set up to deal with an emergency situation, and those connected with it were drafted from other places into that organisation to deal with that situation. Lest anybody should think I have not the greatest possible respect for those men I wish to say that I have, as I believe they did a wonderful job for this country, by enabling us to utilise products which we did not think were within our reach, and for substituting this, that and the other thing to produce methods of cooking as well as other requirements which we did not think it was possible to provide.

Nevertheless, it was rightly called an Emergency Research Bureau. It would be completely wrong to suggest that no research is going on at present. Even within recent weeks we had a statement from the Minister for Agriculture to the effect that there was a research bureau being established in that Department. The same thing applies to other Departments. While it might be a good idea to have some sort of organisation of specialists to supervise the various research departments, I think the ideal thing is for each Department to have its own research bureau. I agree with those who say that we should not abandon the idea of research. I do not believe there is any such suggestion. At present it is only a matter of dispensing with the services of people who at best were only part-time, men who were taken from their professions, from the universities and other places where they were busy, in order to help this country in the hour of need. I believe that as they gave their services, many of them voluntarily, it is only fair that they should be relieved of that responsibility, as, in the opinion of those best qualified to judge, the time has passed when they should be held any longer. It may be that the other organisations have been set up or are being set up. In any case, I think it is quite normal that any emergency organisation of that kind should be disbanded at the present time owing to the prospect of the European war finishing.

Senator Douglas suggested that as an alternative to the Civil Service, or at least to a considerable percentage of the Civil Service, we should have some sort of voluntary organisation. Knowing Senator Douglas as I do, I believe he was quite sincere in his suggestion. If some other people made such a suggestion. I would not accept their statement as serious, because I do not believe they could be got to do anything on a voluntary basis. I believe that Senator Douglas could be and that several other Senators also could be. But it is ridiculous to think that people can be got in this year 1945 to do voluntary work of a serious nature satisfactorily. I do not think it can be done. I have always been an optimist and I hope I shall die an optimist; but I am not that much of an optimist that I believe you can mobilise any six or eight or ten people in this House and give them a job to do on a voluntary basis and expect them to do it satisfactorily. I do not think it will work. I would liken it to a threshing. In the country they ask for help at a threshing and the local people come there. It is a very good idea from the point of view of a social event. The man who is threshing and is responsible for the organisation and everything else goes over to some person and says: "Would you mind throwing up a few sheaves as So-and-so wants to get a drink?" The man approached will say: "I will be over there in a minute", and then goes and has a smoke. In that kind of business you have no control whatever. While I have plenty of fault to find with the organisation as it stands—it is not perfect, any more than any other organisation is perfect—I believe that we will have to find some alternative other than an organisation on a voluntary basis to do the work of civil servants before we will have any change. As I say, I appreciate Senator Douglas's suggestion; I believe he was quite serious and sincere about it; but I do not think it would work.

Senator Kingsmill Moore launched a sort of attack on the Government in general. I think the greatest tribute that could be paid to the Minister is that we have so few Senators here to-day to attack this Bill. The Central Fund Bill is regarded as a sort of free-for-all every year, which goes to prove that the best hurler is always on the ditch. But hurlers, good or bad, are pretty scarce here to-day, which I think indicates that, apart from what a few individuals may say by way of criticism, generally speaking the people of the country realise what has been done. They realise that the best has been done in the set of circumstances with which the Government have been faced. As some Senators have suggested, I believe that, as we have gone on, people have realised the work which has been done and the difficulties which the Government were up against from time to time. I believe that as a result of what has been done in the last four or five years, certain sections of the community have got a confidence in the Government which they had not in the past. I believe that more people recognise the efficiency and capacity of the Government to-day than they did four or five years ago.

Senator Kingsmill Moore said that the Government took up the attitude that they are the only people who understand anything about anything. I do not believe they take up such an attitude. I do not think the Minister for Finance takes up that attitude. If he did take up such an attitude, I think it would be very hard to blame him, because we have been told here year after year that this country was "going burst". Well, we have gone along and the country has not "gone burst". The Minister and his Government have gone before the people time and again in the face of all this propaganda and of all this talk, and the people have returned them again. I believe that if they went to the people to-morrow they would be sent back in a far stronger position than before. On the other hand, if the people were to judge by the statements of the Opposition and to refer to statements made by certain people, including Senator Kingsmill Moore, in the last few years, I would not blame anybody for suggesting that those who made these statements did not know anything about anything.

Senator Kingsmill Moore also said that the Government should let the people know what their pressing problems were. I cannot understand a statement of that kind. If, in the last four or five years, the Government were to tell the people what their most pressing problems were, I suppose the bulk of us would be in such a state of panic that we would be up in Grangegorman now waiting for the war to finish so as to be re-examined and get out. It is not the normal thing for any Government to do that; they would be disclosing information which it would definitely not be in the national interests to disclose. That is one of the reasons why a Government is put into power to deal with the business of the country. If any business concern were to disclose their pressing needs at any particular time, it would put their competitors in a position to deal with them, and to put them out of business in no time. In the same way, if the Government were to disclose all those pressing problems, their various opponents—I am not talking about political opponents, but about various other people in the world who are watching for statements made by this Government, and every other Government—would be put in possession of facts which they have no right to be put in possession of. If the Government were to disclose certain pressing problems of that kind, I would say that they would be guilty of a very serious offence, and that they would not be fit to hold office.

As Senator Summerfield very wisely said, people are all the time asking for more and more, but they want to pay less and less for it. On the one side, we have the suggestion that the Emergency Research Bureau should be continued, no matter what it may cost and even though the Government, in its wisdom and in possession of all the facts, has decided that it is not necessary. On the other hand, we have the suggestion that all unnecessary expense should be curtailed, and all unnecessary organisations which cost money to the State should be discontinued.

One suggestion by Senator Douglas was the discontinuance of the Censorship Department. If things like that are to be decided, who is to make the decision? Is it some one member of the House or some dozen people in Wexford or Galway, or somewhere else? What would be the result if that were so? The Government has been elected to do a certain job and it is its business to decide when a certain organisation may safely be dispensed with. I have no doubt whatever that, when the time comes when, in the opinion of the Government, censorship is no longer necessary here, that Department will be disbanded and absorbed into some other work.

It is said that all unnecessary expenditure should cease. Well, I do not like to say so, with so many officials of the Department of Finance around here, but those who have to deal with any Government Department and try to get away with any unnecessary expenditure have my sympathy. The greatest people in this world to watch expenditure are the officials of the Department of Finance. They watch every penny that is spent and, though someone gets away with it once in a while, there is, generally speaking, no such thing as unnecessary expenditure. I am sure that, if the officials see any one item which could be curtailed, even if it amounted only to £5, the matter is brought to the notice of the Minister immediately, and that unnecessary expenditure of £5 is cut out.

Another suggestion was that voluntary workers go into the Department of Supplies. That suggestion is little better than a joke. There would be a dozen letters every day from those wishing to work voluntarily there for the rest of their lives, if they could get out of their present troubles with that Department. It is hard enough to work the Department of Supplies, above all other Departments. If this suggestion were adopted, another special branch of the Civil Service would be needed to deal with the applications and make selections, so that we would not have all those guilty of offences sitting down in the Department of Supplies and administering so-called justice.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I think I could very well leave the job of replying in the hands of the Senator who has just sat down.

Mr. Sweetman

He has done the Minister out of a job.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It is hardly necessary for me to say very much. As is usual in this House, I say with respect, the debate covered a wide field. Senator Hayes and other Senators must be familiar with the precursors of the French Revolution, the encyclopædists, who sat down to gather together into a few volumes all the knowledge of the world. I would need the aid of some body of hard workers of that description, experienced and educated men, to enable me to answer fully and satisfactorily the variety of questions put to me here. While I take it as a very great compliment, I am afraid I am not able to measure up to the size of the compliment that is implied in being asked to answer all the queries put in the course of this debate.

In one respect, I was disappointed with the debate, that is, from the strictly financial point of view, the point of view of the Minister for Finance. Though it may surprise some Senators here, and indeed it is not to be wondered at that they should be surprised, I have tried, as Minister for Finance, to keep down expenditure, notwithstanding the demand that is made by this Vote on Account. In the course of the discussion to-day, a Senator mentioned the size of the Estimates' total in 1938-39. The total of the Estimates in that year, including the Supplementary Estimates brought in and passed, was £29,861,000. In the year just concluding, the total, with the Supplementary Estimates, is £46,100,000. There is an increase there of over £16,000,000 in that short period. Even since I became Minister for Finance, the annual financial demand has gone up very considerably— I will not say by leaps and bounds. I assure the House, however, that every day in every year I, as Minister for Finance, have defended the Exchequer to the best of my ability against the succeeding and consistent demands of every Minister for increased expenditure for his Department.

These demands are not all initiated by the Ministers of their own volition. They come mostly as a result of the pressure of the Dáil and Seanad. Even during the short debate here to-day, we had some Senators who were most inconsistent in their attitude. They were complaining about the size of the bill and then, in the next breath, telling us we should expend more money on this or that one subject, in which they had a special interest. The first was Senator Summerfield, who was upset about the Emergency Research Bureau. I am responsible for getting it stopped. Maybe I did wrong. I know that body gave excellent service. No body of men brought together for any particular work ever gave better service to this nation than that body, during a very trying period. They were as good a body of experts as could be got in this or any other country for that purpose; they were men collected from the universities, including the head of the State Laboratory. The two universities, including all the colleges of the National University, were asked to undertake various work at one time or another, and were represented by members of their staffs. They got some remuneration, but I say, even as Minister for Finance, that it was nothing in comparison with the service they rendered. They were excellent men and, thank God, they are there still. They are disbanded as an Emergency Research Bureau, but they are there to be called together any moment the nation requires them and they will be very happy to give their services.

Mr. Hayes

Is it intended to replace that body by any alternative body?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There is some suggestion of that kind, which the Minister for Finance is watching carefully. I hope the words of praise that I have used now in regard to those men will not be used in evidence against me. That is the attitude generally, and Senator Summerfield is no exception. He just happened to be the first one. Senator Baxter followed suit and called me a niggardly Minister for Finance. I wish that, in some respects, I could deserve the title, but I do not, if you judge by the size of the bill I am putting to the House now. He said I was niggardly and penurious.

Mr. Baxter

And I meant it, in relation to what I was discussing.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Immediately afterwards he wants us to double, treble or increase tenfold the number of scientists we have. That is his pet hobby and, therefore, any money spent in that way—on agricultural scientists, in particular—does not matter a damn. Every one of the 60 Senators has his own pet hobby. The same applies to the 138 members of the Dáil. They all have ideas, excellent in themselves, just as the subject on which Senator Baxter expanded himself—the necessity for an increased number of scientists—and the idea of another Senator with regard to the excellent Research Bureau. Nobody can say a word against these ideas. They are all good in themselves, but I have to try to hold the reins of expenditure and it is pretty difficult to do so. If I do not get the help of the Dáil and Seanad, where am I to look for help? I got no help here to-day.

Deputy Hughes told the Dáil that this was a staggering demand. I agree that it is, but there was not one suggestion as to how that staggering demand might be reduced without injury to the nation. What is one to do in that situation? Senator Douglas suggested volunteer labour in certain Departments—maybe in all Departments. That day has gone by. That is an impossibility. Even with all the goodwill in the world that Senator Douglas may have in offering that suggestion, he might get a handful of people to implement it. That day is long past. There were times in the national movement before we had a Government of our own, before we had an Administration here, when it was possible. Senator Hayes is much younger than I am, but I think he is old enough to remember when there were men, women, boys and girls working the flesh off their bones, in season and out of season, doing national work for which they asked no fee or reward. I do not think we are entitled to ask for that kind of service, now that we have a Government here, representative of the people. We are able to pay for whatever services are rendered.

Mr. Hayes

We get services from the L.S.F. and the L.D.F.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is different, and if the Senator will permit me, I will make my point. We are able to pay for the type of service that Senator Douglas has in mind—voluntary service in offices. I think he suggested administrative work. I do not think we should ask anybody to-day to do that work voluntarily. I do not think it would be well done, and if you had that kind of service in the one Department that the Senator mentioned—the Department of Supplies— I do not believe the country would have the same confidence in it. People connected with various trades and branches of commerce, coming in to take charge of the Department of Supplies in a voluntary way, would not, to my mind, have the confidence of the country. I do not think the country would have the same confidence in the running of that Department that they now have with the Department staffed by the Civil Service.

What Senator Hayes interjected is quite true. We are getting the same type of national service in the volunteer services here, the L.D.F., the L.S.F. and auxiliary services of various kinds. We are getting that in the same measure, with the same goodwill and loyalty and devotion as we got in the national movement long ago, and any tribute that can be paid to these men and women who stepped into the gap when these services were called into being and who have continued to do that work, is well deserved. No tribute is too high to pay to them. Again, I hope that will not be held against me when various things come along here for consideration, gratuities and the like. However, I do not want to take away in any sense from the wholehearted tribute I would like to pay to these voluntary services.

From the strictly financial viewpoint, I would like to get from those, whoever they are, in this or in the other House, who advocate economy, those who stress the size of the bill, those who think—and there are some, I am sure, who think—that we are not getting full value for the amount of money we are spending, more help to be a more successful economist than I have been, or as results show. The bill is an extraordinarily heavy one for this three-quarters of a country and I do not see any way of cutting it down. That is the position and, if anybody sees ways in which it can be reduced, I would be glad of his help and suggestions. I will examine every one of them with care and attention. I know I may not be successful, whatever the Department might be that I attempt to cut down and, if I succeed, as I succeeded in getting the Research Bureau as an emergency body dropped, then I will have another Senator Summerfield telling me I have done a very bad day's work in getting a particular service cut down. There is nothing new in that, Senator; I have heard it before. However, that will not stop me trying to make economies. I ask for help and I assure the House, no matter from whom it comes, I will be grateful for any suggestion of a practical kind that will be helpful to me in trying to keep expenditure within bounds, and I will give it every consideration.

I did make the suggestion in the Dáil which has been referred to by several Senators to-day, about voluntary bodies, the advisability of setting up voluntary bodies of experts. It was Senator Douglas suggested I had the Seanad in mind. I must humbly confess I had not; I had only the Dáil, but if Senators will join in, I think that would be an improvement on my suggestion. I have some little experience of parliamentary institutions in other countries. I have been in the British Parliament a few times and, probably, like everybody else here, I have read a great deal about it. In the old days I knew some of the members of the House of Commons intimately, some who went over there from Ireland.

I have known the French Parliament, the Belgian Parliament, the Italian Parliament, and two Parliaments in the continent of America pretty well. I have visited them and I knew some of their members and had discussions with them. I can certainly say for the British, French, Canadian and United States Parliaments that they had such bodies in existence, bodies set up voluntarily by the members of these Houses who were interested in a certain thing, let us say industry. They might be farmers, different kinds of farmers. Senator Quirke drew a distinction to-day in the case of one Senator here, Senator Counihan. He described him as a farmer and a cattleman. I do not know in which branch of agriculture Senator Counihan is an expert; he may be an expert in both.

Mr. Quirke

Both.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Let us take cattle. There are a good many men in the Dáil, and some in the Seanad, I presume, who have an expert knowledge of cattle, and if some matter relating to cattle arose in which they were all interested, whatever Party they might belong to, surely they could discuss the welfare of the cattle industry without reference to Party? That was what was in my mind when I suggested the setting up of a body which would meet and discuss various things and perhaps reach agreement on a certain line of policy, and then go to the Minister and say: "This is what we have decided upon." With regard to the liquor trade, I know that before the Budget I see people who are interested in that trade and they seem anxious to get a tip in advance.

Mr. Baxter

Is that a hint for the next Budget?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

No. There are a number of temperance people in the Dáil, and there may be—I am not aware of it, though—some in the Seanad.

Mr. Quirke

They lose interest during Lent.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Some in the Dáil have lost interest for Lent. If there was some legislation with regard to the liquor trade or anything else, they might come together. That is what I had in mind. It is not a governmental suggestion. It was an idea that came to me. I thought it was a good one, and I offered it to the Dáil. It is not for me to implement it in any way.

Mr. Baxter

Who does the Minister suggest should make the first effort?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Anybody who likes. The idea is thrown out, and it is not for me to implement it, but for the members of the Dáil and Seanad if they think well of it. If they do not, no harm is done. If any body of that kind comes to me, I shall be very happy to hear them. I am interested in democratic institutions, and so, I say to Senator Kingsmill Moore, are other members of the Government. Some of us have done a good deal to prove that, and for that reason I should like to see such institutions work well. I think they would work better if some system of the kind were in operation. I have thrown out the suggestion for good or ill, and there my responsibility ends, I think.

That is one of the variety of topics which was mentioned here which had not very much relation to finance, but it is none the worse for that. To have the philosophy of parliaments, of democratic institutions and of governments discussed here or in the Dáil at any time is all to the good. I see no reason at all to object to it, but I do not agree with Senator Kingsmill Moore that there is any desire on the part of the Government to take more and more control and more and more power into their hands. My experience, having been a member of the Government for 13 years, has been that, when new services are required, it is the devil of a job to get a Government Department to take it on. Nobody wants it—it is a matter of "Give it to the other fellow; let somebody else have it"—and when suggestions are made as to new services which are necessary or new Departments which ought to be set up, my experience has been—and I give it to the House honestly for what it is worth—that every time a Minister puts the proposition before the Government, there is nothing but criticism and harsh criticism to begin with, if it means taking more power into the Government's hands. One is never welcomed with a suggestion of that kind. I assure the House that that is correct. When one puts a proposition to one's own Department, as I have had to do on a few occasions, for a new service, or a new Department or sub-department, Senators would be astonished by the variety and the power behind the criticisms offered and, lastly, from my own Department, the criticism of the extra cost which we do not want to bear if we can avoid it and the extra staff required.

I should like the House to believe that there is no ambition whatever on the Government's part to take unnecessarily one scintilla of power to control the lives of any individuals or set of individuals in the community more than is absolutely necessary. I agree that there are individuals who would like it, and maybe you will find some with regard to a particular idea in the Government, but such a person does not get much welcome from his colleagues when he suggests any addition to the powers already possessed by the Government to control the lives of the people. We are controlled, regulated and bound too much in these times— far beyond what any of us, including the Government and all members of it, would wish—but anything which has been done in the direction of the control that exists during the period of the emergency more particularly has been urgently required, and that is no exaggeration.

I should like to remind Senators— I think Senator Sweetman and others referred to it—that the Government has no desire to hold on to the special powers granted to the Government by the Emergency Powers Act and that the Government must come to the Dáil and Seanad every year to get that Act renewed. The Act is from year to year, and the Government must come to the Dáil and Seanad every year to get these powers renewed, and it is for the Dáil and Seanad to give or to withhold them as they think fit. I assure the House, however, that so far as these special powers are concerned, there is no desire on the Government's part— I think I can say this without having consulted my colleagues, as I know their minds—unnecessarily to keep any solitary one of these special powers a day longer than the situation requires.

There is one other matter not strictly connected with finance to which I may refer. Senator Hayes did not seem to have much to say on finance, and astute and capable politician that he is, he sought to get away on something that would perhaps be interesting and certainly more interesting if he succeeded in getting what he wanted, that is, to embroil me with some of my colleagues.

Mr. Hayes

Nothing could have been further from my mind. I know the Minister extremely well. He can be embroiled when he likes and he can be civil when he likes.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I think I am always civil and I think this House has that experience of me.

Mr. Baxter

You can use the whip when you like, too.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

At any rate, since I became a Minister. I was not always so civil when I was in Opposition, but when I became a Minister, I thought it was up to a Minister to do his best to show a good example. I know I have had my lapses.

Mr. Hearne

Senator Hayes never had.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I have had my lapses and possibly will again with all my desire to restrain myself sometimes. Here in the Seanad, on a few occasions, I know I have said things which, if I had the opportunity to think about them, I would have said differently, and the same applies to the Dáil. I have said things as a Minister and more often when in Opposition which, if I were writing them, I would say, maybe not less effectively or maybe more effectively, but certainly more politely. With regard to the first matter that Senator Hayes raised, the expressions used by my colleagues, the Minister for Supplies, and Minister for Industry and Commerce, when speaking on some occasion——

Mr. Hayes

On the occasion of the Minerals Bill.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

——with regard to the Vocational Commission Report, it is all very well for somebody in the Seanad to stand up in debate and, as happened presumably in that case—I was not here—to throw some chunks of the Vocatiónal Commission Report at the Minister and say: "Now there is one for you—answer that." If the Minister had the opportunity of thinking carefully, as he normally would, over what answer he was to give, I am sure he would have selected different words, as I would often select different words when answering a debate if I had time to consider them calmly, away from the atmosphere of debate. If I had that opportunity, I would not have used some of the words, if I were writing them, which my colleague used.

I would not use them, and I think —I have not consulted him—he would say the same if he were writing. It is not always the easiest thing in the world, when standing up here replying to a debate, to select carefully and accurately the right word. I think Senator Hayes will admit that as readily as anybody else, even though, as Senator Hearne says, he has never had any lapses. I entirely agree with Senator Hayes that people like those who answer the call and serve on commissions should be free from abuse: that it is very bad recompense to be abused after volunteering to give public service. People who are used to giving public service do not expect gratitude.

Professor Magennis

Hear, hear.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

And, if they did expect it, they would be very foolish. There is no such thing as gratitude in public life. Some philosopher has described gratitude as the meanest of the virtues. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that I have had a long experience of public life. If God spares me until the 15th January next, I will be 40 years an elected public representative.

Senators

Hear, hear.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I was only 22½ years of age when I was first elected, and I was never defeated at an election from that day to this, at elections held in the place where I was born and reared—North Dublin. I ask Senators to pardon me mentioning these things. I do say, even after 40 years standing up in public with the experience of being criticised and hammered——

Mr. Healy

You were able for it all.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I do not know, but, as I say, with all that experience I have had my lapses. I admit it frankly. Seán Lemass is a very much younger man than I am, though he has had considerable experience of public life, and I with my long experience might have made lapses if a person threw something at me out of a report —some excerpts which hit me perhaps in a tender spot. I might have used the same words. I do say that the people on the Vocational Commission rendered excellent public service.

Senators

Hear, hear.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

They are entitled to our thanks, and to the warmest thanks of the Government for the splendid services they rendered. I am particularly interested because I have no better friend in the world than the chairman of that commission. On the other hand, there is no man whom I would regard as a better friend than Seán Lemass who has been a colleague and a friend of mine for a great many years. I would be sorry to see one of those men, whom I esteem so highly, use any word that might suggest ingratitude, or that would be hurtful, to the other, and I am sure that Seán Lemass did not intend to be hurtful or ungrateful. I agree with Senator Hayes that it would be very bad public policy if people were to get it into their minds that they were likely to be abused when taking on the responsibility of going on commissions or bodies of any kind at the invitation of the Government. They should have the feeling that, if they go on these bodies, their services will be appreciated, and that they would not be asked to go on them unless they were thought capable of rendering efficient service. They should have that idea when they are honoured at being asked to go on any of these bodies. The very last thing in the world that would be in Mr. Lemass's mind is the thought of being guilty of abusing people who had rendered such good national service.

The same thing, but not to the same extent, applies to the other matter that was referred to—that is the Minister for Local Government and his remarks about the chairman of the National Health Insurance. The two matters are not exactly on the same footing. I do not think it was even suggested here that there was any term of abuse used——

Mr. Hayes

No.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

——by the Minister for Local Government. I do not think anyone even suggested that. I would be long sorry to think there was any such suggestion—that a term which could be described as abuse was used by either Minister. I, personally, was responsible for asking the Bishop of Clonfert to be Chairman of the Management Committee of the National Health Insurance Committee. There were some members of this House that I also asked to serve on the committee. I think Senator Foran was one, Senator Mrs. Concannon was another, and an ex-Senator who, I am sorry to say, is no longer with us, also served as a member. I refer to the late Senator Dr. Rowlette, who, during his long period as a member of that committee, gave most valuable service for which I, during my time as Minister for Local Government, was most grateful.

Senators

Hear, hear!

Mr. O Ceallaigh

God rest his soul. I asked all those people to serve on that body, and I was very grateful to them when they consented to do so. I knew that if you were to search Ireland you could not get a body of people who had a higher sense of public responsibility, or who would give better service than they did. The Bishop I selected, because I knew of the very deep interest that he took in the subject. I knew that of my own personal knowledge of him. I knew that, if he agreed to go on the committee, he would give his time to the matter of national health insurance. I knew that he, more than many other people who might not have the same interest in the subject, would probably help the committee to do the work it was given to do in a way that would be more efficient and helpful to the class which the committee was there to serve.

I do not think it is right to say that the Minister for Local Government, at any time in his reference to this matter, suggested that anybody who accepted an honorary appointment should keep silent thereafter on any matter relating to the subject they were dealing with. I do not think the Minister for Local Government made that suggestion or implied it in anything that he has said. I do not think it is true to say, even as Senator Hayes has suggested, that any man accepting such an invitation must never speak in public on a matter connected with the work that he is doing for a Minister.

Mr. Hayes

Without consulting the Minister.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I do not think the Minister suggested anything of the kind in any statement that he made. The only statements on this that I have seen are those which appeared in the Press. I have no more knowledge of this than the published statements, the statement made by the Minister and the statement made by the Bishop. But what I think the Minister felt hurt about was that, first of all, the Committee of Management of the National Health Insurance Society went considerably outside their particular terms of reference, so to speak, which is national health insurance, and dealt with the much wider topic—social security. I am now talking of the committee. The committee did make investigations and, as I understand it, the chairman read a paper to the committee on social security. The committee decided that that paper should be published, and the Minister was not consulted. I think that if I were chairman I would have dealt with it in a different way.

There is no prohibition and there could not be any prohibition against the chairman or any other member or members of the Committee of Management of the National Health Insurance Society dealing with social security. There is nothing to prevent them meeting anywhere else and dealing with social security, if they are interested, as I know the Bishop is interested, in the subject. Nobody could stop them. Nobody has any right to stop them. If they are interested in speaking on a subject of that kind, why should they not? But there was a meeting of the Committee of Management of the National Health Insurance Society dealing with a subject which is outside the ambit of their particular job. Social security is a very closely connected subject, and I would suggest, with all respect to the body as a whole, that they should have dealt with it in quite a different manner and have avoided all the trouble. I should not like for a moment that anybody should think that the suggestion should be made or put on to the Minister, that he held the view that his Lordship the Bishop of Clonfert, Chairman of the Committee of Management of the National Health Insurance Society should not, whenever he pleases, if it pleases him, deal anywhere he wished with a subject such as social security, and make any suggestions he thought proper. There would be no reason for anybody to suggest that he has not all the rights of every other citizen to deal with that matter in any way he pleased.

Senator Foran suggested that he, though accepting my invitation and, afterwards, the invitation of the present Minister for Local Government to be a member of the Committee of Management of the National Health Insurance Society, is a free agent. Of course, he is. He went there voluntarily and he can leave it voluntarily and nobody can tie his hand or his tongue while he is there. He is a free man in that body as well as in any other similar body of which he is a member.

All that is irrespective of the merits of the Vocational Commission Report or the social security suggestions made by the Bishop of Clonfert. I am not making any comments on either one or the other. The Government as a whole has not yet had an opportunity of considering the Vocational Commission Report or its recommendations. The suggestions made by the Bishop of Clonfert with regard to a social security scheme for this country would have been much more helpful if the financial aspects of these had been considered at the same time. The foundation of social security is finance. All the lovely ideas in the world are of no use unless you are able to implement them financially. What is the use of considering social security apart from its financial implications? There had not been, so far as I am aware, the consideration that should have been given to the financial implications of the scheme that the Bishop put before the Committee of Management of the National Health Insurance Society.

That brings me to another matter that has been referred to by several Senators, also not very intimately related to the matter under discussion but still having some connection with it, that is, the Government's plans. Senators wanted to know the Government's plans. Senator Kingsmill Moore suggested certain practical steps that might be taken to convey a knowledge of the Government's plans to the Seanad, the Dáil and the country as a whole. I suggest to the Senator and to the House that the Government has done the very thing that he suggested. First of all—I had not thought of it until I was reminded—the Banking Commission was set up. It was a big body composed of a number of men having very special knowledge of the subject, men from Ireland and from abroad. The commission sat for a number of years. Its report was published and was widely criticised. The report itself in a variety of its recommendations criticised the Government severely, but the Government did not get vexed because it was criticised. As a matter of fact, it thanked cordially the commission for its report, criticisms and all, and it implemented many of its recommendations. I had pleasure in putting through the Dáil and the Seanad the Central Bank Bill. All its sections were not as recommended by the Banking Commission but we accepted the idea and we implemented it in our own way, if you like.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

Quite right.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

We are not going to accept any commission's report, without examination. I am sure the Senator will agree.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I agree thoroughly.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

We set up a Drainage Commission. It sat for two or three years. We got the best brains in the country—public men, county councillors, county surveyors, drainage experts—there were not many of them but whatever drainage experts we could get we put them on that body and we accepted their recommendations. We published the report which was in circulation, I think, for at least 12 months. It was frequently criticised by public bodies, county councils and other bodies that have matters connected with drainage under their control, and the Press. I think 90 per cent. of their recommendations have been already implemented by us. I had a particular interest in one aspect. The commission estimated that the cost of putting all their recommendations into operation would be about £7,000,000. Already, we have had to revise that figure and I think it has now gone up to £14,000,000, and I think by the time the job is finished— which will not be for a few years more —the figure will be far higher.

Mr. Baxter

We will all be dead.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Senator Baxter is a young hardy fellow and if he sticks to the land and the fresh air he will last long after the final plan of arterial drainage has been implemented by my friend and his fellow-Cavanman, Mr. Paddy Smith.

Mr. Baxter

The Minister is more optimistic than I am.

Mr. Sweetman

And more optimistic than the Parliamentary Secretary was.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There is nothing like being an optimist so long as it does not lead you into foolishness, and I hope it will not lead me into that. I hope I am not foolish in suggesting that the Senator will live for another 40 years or so. There is another plan that occurs to me—the building plan. We got together men from the city and county, mostly city men, experts in all branches of building, and we gave them a job of preparing a postwar plan, to do the work that a number of Senators have in mind should be done—to prepare the way to provide employment for people at home and people who may come back from England. That plan envisages an expenditure of £200,000,000 on building. That is their estimate. They did not like to frighten the Minister for Finance too much, and they put it down, as they tell us, at a modest figure.

By the time that is implemented I wonder where we shall be? We are a great country at planning all these big schemes, but where is this enormous untold expenditure to come from? A lot of it has been faced already, but in a few years, perhaps, I shall be having my toes up to the daisies, and it will be the responsibility of somebody else. I have seen these plans that have already been published, call them White Papers, Blue Papers, Green Papers, or anything you like, but the plans have been published and some of them have been implemented. There are other plans to follow, and they will see the light of day as soon as we can get them properly organised. Having talked in millions and hundred of millons about plans, I have to bear in mind again what Senator Baxter told me, that we are coming near the border-line in our demands on the public. I wonder does he believe that?

Mr. Baxter

Yes.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Then in the next breath he told us that we should have hundreds of more scientists. He said that we have no scientists in this country. The Senator was dealing with agriculture when he was speaking, and I asked the Department of Agriculture for some information on this point. If we take men who have got an agricultural science degree, are they not scientists? There are in the service of Agriculture—in the Department's service, in the service of the county committees of agriculture and in the agricultural department of University College—altogether 178 of them. Then the Senator tells us we have no scientists.

Mr. Baxter

That is only begging the question.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

We have as good scientists engaged in agriculture as any other country in the world, as even Canada, Australia or Russia which the Senator mentioned. They are as good as any in the world. In Ballyhaise, which the Senator mentioned, there is a laboratory with a good scientist doing that special work of which he spoke—investigating the soil and its properties.

Mr. Baxter

I do not want to be written down as having stated that there was no soil scientist in Ballyhaise. What I did say was that in Ballyhaise there was the same soil and climatic conditions as obtained over a large part of the country, that that was the sort of place in which you should try to breed grain and that you should distribute that grain throughout the country to be grown under the same conditions under which it was bred— not in Glasnevin.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Part of the way towards successfully breeding grain is to know the substance of the soil. If one does not know the substance of the soil, one cannot breed grain successfully. Different land will grow different types of cereals. You cannot get certain types of wheat to grow in certain types of soil. In order to have that fundamental knowledge of breeding different types of wheat—

Mr. Baxter

You must breed them in the same sort of soil in which you want them to grow.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I agree.

Mr. Baxter

That is what you are not doing.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

They have a man investigating soil conditions, a scientist in Ballyhaise.

Mr. Baxter

That has not been questioned.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I do not want to misrepresent the Senator, but I inferred from what he said that there is no one doing that in Ballyhaise. There is a soil scientist there and a laboratory.

Mr. Baxter

The Minister had better read what I did say.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I do not want to misrepresent the Senator. Does the Senator mean that to have wheat growing properly investigated, a knowledge of soil science is necessary?

Mr. Sweetman

We all agree with that.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I think Senator Baxter did not agree with it.

Mr. Sweetman

The only person I know that does not agree with it is the Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The Minister for Agriculture never said that he did not agree with it. I think I have dealt with Senator Baxter and his science. I could give the Senator further details with regard to our scientists. There are no less than 42 attached to the agricultural faculty of University College.

Mr. Baxter

How many specialists in cereal production have you in the whole Department?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

If the Senator had asked me that question, I would have tried to get that information.

Mr. Baxter

That is what I did ask. I say that Professor Caffrey is the only one you have.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Is he not the best there is?

Mr. Baxter

He is, but he is the only one you have.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The Senator wants us to have laboratories and staffs as numerous as in Canada and the United States?

Mr. Baxter

No.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The Senator mentioned the United States, Canada and Russia. What is the use of comparing us with these countries?

Mr. Baxter

I want more than one expert.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Where are we to get a Budget to compare with that of Canada, the United States or Russia? If we had as large a Budget as they have, no doubt we would have the same number. Although we may lack the numbers, we have the quality.

Mr. Baxter

On another stage, I shall have a chance of replying to the Minister.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The Senator gave us a lot of advice about what we should have done in regard to keeping people at home. The Minister for Finance was told he would not provide the money to keep them at home. I provided all the money I was asked for, but even if I were to provide £50,000,000, there would be no use in trying to keep in employment here the many thousands who left this country because there were not sufficient supplies to enable us to keep them at work. Take, for instance, workers in the building industry. What was the use of putting them out on a bog or sending them up to Senator Baxter to work on his farm? What were we to do with them? Were we not right in letting them go? I do not know what the Senator thinks we should have done with these and similar types of workers. They have been earning good wages and sending a lot of money home apparently. Would the Senator prefer that they should not send it home to their wives and families? That is the implication, that he would prefer their wives and families to be maintained here at the expense of the Government.

Mr. Baxter

No. I would rather keep these people at home and provide work for them here.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Take printers, for example. There were hundreds of them idle here at one time. Could we have sent them out to build houses anywhere in the country?

Mr. Baxter

I do not want to interrupt the Minister——

Acting Chairman (Mr. Campbell)

The Senator has already indicated that he intends to make another speech on a later stage. It would be well, therefore, if he would allow the Minister to conclude his speech without further interruption.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There is no general shortage of agricultural workers in the country. We tested that. We paid men an allowance for putting their names on the register. The Senator knows the details of that scheme. We discovered afterwards that there was no general shortage, because these men were at the disposal of the Minister for Agriculture to send them anywhere in the country they were needed. How many applications did he get? I cannot give the exact number now, but I know that he got very few. There was an isolated place here and there in which there was a shortage of labour, and we had men to meet that. I am glad to say that the farmers who employed these men to help them out during the harvest made excellent reports about them.

There are many other matters to which I should like to refer but I have probably wearied the House already. I have a large number of notes here, some of them for the information of Senator Baxter, about what we have done with regard to helping agricultural scientists. We have provided money for the Veterinary College. We have provided extra money even last year and the Senator will find from the Book of Estimates that in a variety of ways we have provided money for agriculture this year. Again, listening to Senator Baxter as to the future of agriculture and the necessity for developing it scientifically, I thought the Senator was reading my own speech on the Budget last year. I shall not tire the House here by reading it again but I am presenting a copy of it to Senator Baxter and he can see that he used my own words. I am rather inclined to think that he must have read it last night.

Mr. Baxter

I do not need to have it placed in my hands if I did.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

In case the Senator did not, I am giving it to him. He has a good memory and I daresay he remembered it.

Mr. Sweetman

It is evident that C.B. Cochrane lost a very good partner.

Mr. Hearne

The Opposition would be glad to have such a man on their side.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I was asked why the Minister for Finance would not provide money to keep these young people at home. For national and other reasons, I should be glad to provide the money necessary to keep them all at home, if I could find work for them at home. They would be all the better for being kept at home, but it could not be done.

Mr. Baxter

You did not let any turf-cutters out of the country?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Inadvertently, we may have done so, since we had Senators and T.D.s writing up and urging that they should be let out of the country, and bombarding the Minister for Industry and Commerce with requests to let them out.

Mr. Baxter

That should not persuade you to do so, if the course was not right.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The Senator now suggests that Ministers should not listen to recommendations by Senators and Deputies. Perhaps we sometimes pay too much attention to them.

Mr. Baxter

When they belong to your own Party.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I should have liked to comment on some things referred to by Senator P.J. O'Reilly. The fault may be mine, but I did not hear very well the opening half of his speech. When I am here again, if the Senator would not mind raising his voice somewhat, I shall do my best to answer him. The Senator made a reference, towards the end of his speech, to breaking the link with sterling. I do not know whether or not he suggested that we should break it.

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

I did not.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

After careful examination of the pros and cons, we shall keep or break the link with sterling as it suits our economy. We are not tied in any way; we can break the link any time we please. It is entirely for our own benefit that we have that link. As I understand the financial and economic situation, I do not think that it would suit us at the moment to break that link; I think that it would be to our disadvantage. There might be times when it would be to our advantage to break it. We have a body specially charged with the duty of watching that—the Board of the Central Bank. It is their job to advise the Minister. The Minister sees them occasionally and discusses financial and economic problems with them. He has great confidence in the advice he gets from that body. That problem is constantly under consideration. So much I should like the Senator to know.

Senator Sir John Keane spoke about a long-term policy. Senator Sweetman wisely said that it would be very difficult, in present circumstances, to make long-term plans. We are doing the best we can in the circumstances. We have published certain plans and we are working on other plans which will be published. Those plans will be as far-seeing as they can be in the circumstances. There will be opportunities to discuss them in detail.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take the Committee Stage now.

Bill passed through Committee and reported without recommendation.

Agreed to take the Report Stage now.

Bill received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be returned to the Dáil."

Mr. Baxter

I shall not say what I think about the Minister's attitude regarding the questions I raised. I do not think that it does either the Minister or the House credit. I say that frankly. I raised those matters in a serious way. I did not raise them in a fault-finding way. I did not want to hold the Minister up to odium, or to make matters disagreeable for him. I raised those matters because I believed they were serious problems. It may be that the Minister had not an opportunity of considering the case I put. He comes back, after the tea adjournment, and makes no serious attempt to answer my case. Definitely, I think that he deliberately tried to misrepresent my whole approach to those problems.

Mr. Hearne

I do not think it is in order for the Senator to say that the Minister has deliberately misrepresented him. That is a disgraceful observation, and I ask the Senator to withdraw it.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Campbell)

The Senator ought not to have used those words, and I ask him to withdraw them.

Mr. Baxter

I withdraw them unreservedly. I thought that I was quite fair in the way I put my case. I pointed to the fact that the financial demand by the Minister was the largest ever made. I pointed out that that demand was being made at a time when the population was declining, and our total production, as shown by statistics, falling. I said that we could not continue on those lines, that we were coming near the borderline. I pointed out that, if we were to be asked to bear this burden, we should be equipped to increase our production, and as a consequence increase our income. I went on to argue that the farmer ought to be enabled to do that by giving him scientific assistance which he is not at present receiving. Some of the Senators who were very quick to ask me to withdraw the remarks I made were not in the House when I was speaking, but others were, and they could have got up and replied to me.

The only comment made on my remarks was that by Senator MacEllin, and that was favourable. I pointed out that nothing was being done to provide a branch of science for our agriculture equal to the necessities. I pointed to the dearth of knowledge of a scientific nature regarding the cultivation and development of grain and I said that, in the whole State, we have only one cerealist—one man trained in the production of cereal crops. The Minister spoke about the 130 scientists we have. I am not disputing that we have county instructors and others with degrees in science. But they are administrative officers in the main, and there is a vast difference between that type of assistance and the type of assistance I had in mind. I went on to refer to science as applied to the soil and to what was being done at Ballyhaise.

I may make that point again for the benefit of people who were not in the House. I explained that we had a prejudice against tillage because we have no scientists able to give us a type of grain that will grow and stand erect on most soils of the country that we are to till. The fact that you are developing grains at the Agricultural College in Glasnevin, where the rainfall is perhaps the lowest in the country, does not prove anything. Through the country you have differing soil conditions, and if we are to do our job properly, expert cerealists should be employed at Ballyhaise and other agricultural colleges. That is what should be done.

I am convinced that what I am asking for is sound, that production on our farms cannot increase, that our incomes and, therefore, the number of people we can employ both on primary and secondary agricultural pursuits, cannot increase unless there is an increase in the application of scientific methods to soils in this country to-day. I can assure the Minister of that, and I can tell him that I am backed up by others in my contention. I am sorry if I have given offence to the Minister in anything I have said, but I only wanted to make myself clear in this matter.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Perhaps I might be permitted to say that if Senator Baxter expects me to reply on agriculture and, particularly, scientific agriculture, I am completely unable to do so. I do not know the subject and cannot argue with him upon it. Accordingly, I do not intend to debate with Senator Baxter or anybody else a subject of which, I confess, I know nothing.

Mr. Baxter

I was only asking for more expenditure on agriculture.

Question put and agreed to.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.55 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 21st March.