Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 29 Mar 1950

Vol. 37 No. 14

Central Fund Bill, 1950 (Certified Money Bill)—Second Stage.

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

The form of this measure is as usual and allows for the issue of a certain amount of money to cover certain Supplementary Estimates not already covered by legislation and— this is the main object of the legislation—to cover the amount of money to be granted to make good what is taken as one-third of the Estimates for the year as a Vote on Account to carry the services up to about the end of July, while the Estimates are being discussed in detail in the other House.

This year, there is a special clause, Section 4, dealing with the American Grant Counterpart Special Account. Senators will remember that previously there was in one of the finance pieces of legislation a section to establish a special fund or account. This time we are making this new establishment in respect of this special account and this, in fact, corresponds with the section in previous legislation which was to allow for the receipt of certain moneys which were derived from the sale of goods purchased with dollars which came through Marshall Aid. Senators will notice this year that a change is being made with regard to a part of the fund which we are getting through the benevolence of the American nation. Up to this year any moneys which we got we received by way of loan, and arrangements had to be made with regard to the use of the moneys derived from the sale of goods financed by dollars in the United States. Recently, we have been given a certain amount of money, no longer on loan but as a grant. Moneys which come on grant from Marshall Aid funds are subject to different conditions and circumstances from those relating to moneys which come by way of loan, and it was clear that a new account had to be opened corresponding to the old one. These two accounts have to be kept, to a certain degree, separate. The conditions attached are not very onerous, but it is necessary to have the two accounts in separate forms. We are setting up here a special account for such moneys as we have received, or may hereafter receive, through American aid by way of gift and not by way of loan.

The main purpose of the legislation is to envelop the moneys voted on account to meet such part of the public services as one-third of these moneys will carry on until about the end of July. The Book of Estimates on its face carries a distinction in the types of these moneys which are being asked this year. Provision is made, for the first time, in the Book of Estimates as between capital services and other services. With regard to the "other services", there are increases in quite a number of Votes, but the important ones are those to which I draw attention immediately. My comparison is as between the Book of Estimates now and the Book of Estimates without supplementaries about the same time last year. The Health Vote shows an increase of something over £1,250,000; the Vote for Primary Education is up by £1,070,000; the chief Vote for Agriculture is up by £393,000; the Vote for Posts and Telegraphs is up by £371,000; the Vote for Public Works and Buildings shows an increase of £280,000; the Vote for the Department of Defence is up by £271,000; Supplementary Agricultural Grants show an increase of £238,000; Old Age Pensions and National Health Insurance between them are up by something short of £250,000; the Department of External Affairs shows an increase of £151,000; the Garda Síochá na Vote shows an increase of £105,000, and the Vote for the Department of Local Government is up by £60,000. These increases are a little short of £4,500,000. There are other additions, of course— I am neglecting for the moment any increase less than £50,000 over last year.

With regard to some of these Estimates, a word or two may be valuable. The Health Estimate shows the largest increase over last year, an increase of the very heavy amount of £1,269,000, and this is due to the fact that additional grants have been made for health authorities, including grants under the mother and child service. This is one of the Votes, and the way in which it was run is one of the matters, that make the process of budgeting very difficult for any presentday Finance Minister. I will refer to these in connection with certain other Votes which show increases which are somewhat out of the control of the central authority. The Vote for Primary Education, which is up by £1,070,000, is up because of the increases given to teachers in respect of pay and pensions. The Agricultural Vote shows an increase of £393,000, due to increased provision for subsidies. The increased provision for subsidies is, in the main, in respect of butter. The increase of £371,000 in the Posts and Telegraphs Vote is something of a fiction because, although there is an increase and although it is by way of outlay on engineering materials, conveyance of mails and telephone capital repayments, the revenue to be derived from the Post Office, partly due to this increased expenditure, will also show an increase. Whether it will meet the £371,000 is something in respect of which we shall have to wait and see, but that increase is not so alarming as some of the others because it is met by increased revenue derived from the Post Office itself.

The Public Works and Buildings Vote increase of £280,000 is due principally to an increase in new works. Last year's Vote for Public Works and Buildings is considerably increased but a great deal of the increase is one which I am neglecting in taking that figure of £280,000, because a considerable amount of the increase is such that I am entitled to regard it as capital services. The increase in the Vote this year was rather surprising. For years it has been the practice to devote a fair amount of money to a particular sub-head of the Vote for new buildings and new institutions and then to make an arbitrary deduction in respect of buildings that would probably not be completed during the year. Very heavy deductions have been made from year to year in the gross total arrived at in connection with that Vote. Supplies were difficult for many years and although the provision for voting money was there, it was found that it was never expected that anything more than a fraction of the money would be spent. Supplies became easier last year. There is a tremendous arrear with regard to public buildings, more particularly with regard to school buildings. As supplies got easier, the Board of Works became faster at work and so in fact outran the moneys voted for them last year and two Supplementary Estimates had to be taken. The £280,000 I am referring to now is an increase in new works not regarded as capital services. Such works as are regarded as capital services and are both numerous and costly are to be found in the segregated items in the Book of Estimates.

The increase in the Department of Defence is due to increased pay and the Garda Síochána Vote increase is also due to increased pay. The increase in old age pensions and national health insurance has a double reason— one is that a larger number of people are coming on the pension list and, secondly, there is increased expenditure on the benefits. The increase in respect of External Affairs is due to expansion of staff and offices and the Local Government increase is due to an increase in housing loan charges to local authorities.

I want to refer to the Votes for the Departments of Health and Agriculture; and to the Supplementary Agricultural Grants, which are up by £238,000. These, with others, make the task of budgeting on an annual basis extremely difficult, because some of them are not at all under the control of the central authority. For instance, Supplementary Agricultural Grants show in the coming year a rise of £238,000 over last year, due to the fact that local rates are expected to go up and as they do so the demand made upon the Central Fund rises, and there is no way out, as legislation stands at present. The same result arises on the Vote for Agriculture, that it to say, in respect of the increases in subsidies. So far as flour and bread and sugar are concerned, there is some degree of control in the hands of the central authority, since one can make arrangements centrally as to the amount of wheat to be imported or the amount of sugar to be bought, but the subsidy on butter depends on the amount of milk produced and turned into butter. If that goes up, the amount demanded from the Central Fund goes up; if it falls, the amount is correspondingly reduced. Senators will notice that the increase this year is £339,000. It may go higher, if something is not done about it.

Similarly, with regard to grants to health authorities, the provision under the Act of 1946 or 1947 is that local authorities may incur certain expenditure and pass on the bill as to 50 per cent. to the central authority. This makes the matter of annual budgeting very difficult from the point of view of the State, much more difficult than it was in olden times. It may be that some change will have to be made with regard to these and other matters, so as to bring them more definitely under the control of those who, in the end, have to find the greater part of the money.

An innovation has occurred with regard to the presentation of the Estimates, mainly in regard to classification. This year, a distinction is being drawn between capital services and other services. I spoke in a somewhat detached way before in regard to this development, which I had foreseen as likely to occur, and the Taoiseach very definitely spoke on one or two occasions, particularly in his speech to the Institute of Bankers in November, 1949, when he referred to the desirability of indicating clearly to the public, by means of a distinction between the annual revenue budget and the capital budget, the Government's policy of capital investment for productive and social purposes. That was not entirely breaking new ground, however, as since 1922/23 it has been the practice when Budget day arrives to make a certain deduction to show that there are in the Supply Estimates certain items of a capital nature. These were taken rather arbitrarily and some deduction made from the money to be found from the taxpayer. You had the gross estimates presented with the addition of the other services and from that there was made a deduction of the amount said to be chargeable against current revenue.

The amount of money of a capital nature to be spent has increased enormously over the last couple of years. It was thought it would be not clarifying the issue, but rather befogging the issue before the public, to follow the old procedure. That was all right when a sum of £600,000 or £1,000,000 fell to be subtracted from the annual Budget; but when we reckoned as capital services some of the services which were put into the Book of Estimates last year, we found the capital services last year were in the region of £7,750,000 and that they had been in the region of £2,000,000 in our first year, and were running at £1,250,000 or so in the year before that, and it was clear that the segregation now done would have to be done. It was decided, therefore, in preparing the Estimates this year, to indicate quite clearly to the public what was happening. That machinery is, first, on the cover of the Book itself, where you have a division between capital and other services. In each of the Votes in respect of which any capital deduction is made, at Part 2 of each Vote reference is made to the amount of the deduction and the sub-heads which indicate the individual items are given.

For the purpose of reference, it was decided to put immediately inside the cover a two-page statement, a note regarding capital services, which Senators will find there. The statement itself says:

"In view of the considerable expansion in expenditure of a capital nature provided for out of voted moneys, it has been decided——"

And then reference is made to what I have referred to:

"to draw special attention to capital items by means of a note appended to Part 2 of each Estimate in which they occur. For convenience of reference a summary of these capital services is given below."

I want to stress what follows:—

"For a full account of capital outlay financed by borrowing, regard must of course be had not only to the capital services included in this volume—

That is, the segregation of items totalling £12,130,000—

"—but also to the direct issues from the Central Fund, for advances to the Electricity Supply Board, the Local Loans Fund, etc."

Senators will be familiar with the White Paper which is published each year and which gives an estimate of the Receipts and Expenditure, and they will remember that there is what is called the "under the line" services. I am quoting now from last year's issue of the document, the Estimate of Receipts and Expenditure for the year ending 31st March, 1950. Capital and Other Issues are segregated in last year's account under the headings of Telephone Capital Account, Electricity Supply Board, Tourist Traffic, Local Loans, National Stud, Turf Development, Transport and certain others. The amount of money which will appear in the corresponding pamphlet to be issued on the eve of the Budget this year has, of course, to be added to this £12,113,000 for which provision is made, these items being taken from the Book of Estimates. The amount of money for capital investment is added to the £12,000,000 or whatever the sum may be—and it cannot be less than £16,000,000 or £17,000,000 in the year ahead—as sums which will be spent by way of capital development also under the heading of Telephones, Electricity Supply Board, etc. I have said that in previous years the habit was at Budget time to make a deduction for these capital items. Generally speaking, the deduction made in previous years had reference to such things as the acquisition of land for airports and constructional works in respect of airports. There were from time to time deducted as capital items in various years advances as grants for harbours or, say, in respect of mineral development. From time to time, there have been deductions in respect of fisheries, for the provision of boats and gear, and small sums have been taken for forestry. Under all of these headings money will be found in this Capital Services portion in the Book of Estimates this year. The big items are under the heading of either housing and buildings, agricultural development or the Local Authorities (Works) Act.

Probably what made us more speedy in segregating these items and in coming to a conclusion this year, were the two items, the Land Rehabilitation Project and the Works Act. Senators will remember that last year for the first time there was foreshadowed considerable expenditure under the Land Rehabilitation Project which quite clearly is a project of a capital nature. No one will ever consider that that was money properly to be put on the backs of the taxpayer and levied off the taxpayer from year to year. It was the same with the Local Authorities (Works) Act. When it was going through, it was indicated that the moneys to be expended would be found from the Counterpart Fund in respect of American moneys or by some other type of borrowing. These two sums as estimated for the coming year are: the Land Project, £3,100,000 and grants to local authorities under the Works Act, £1,750,000, making a total of £4,850,000 between the two. The big expenditure will be in respect of housing and buildings. On page two of this note, under the heading of Local Government is, apart from the grants to local authorities under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, a sum of £1,635,000 described as grants under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts and the Housing (Amendment) Acts; and also a small sum of £50,000 for grants to local authorities under the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1948. To that must be added, associated with Vote 49, Gaeltacht Services, grants under the Housing (Gaeltacht) Acts, the sum of £40,000. I want to join with that the two items associated with Vote 10, which are under the inapt heading of Employment and Emergency Schemes, £56,000 and £184,000. They are taken from this Vote for Employment and Emergency Schemes and one is described as Urban Employment Schemes and the other as Rural Employment Schemes and both have reference only to Sanitary Service Works. In so far as they are associated with that—and they will be associated with that and that only—they are then part, so to speak, of the housing programme. It has been the practice for many years past that when a local authority decided to engage in expenditure of this central service type in association with housing, they did not raise the money in a single year but funded it and got it paid or raised over a number of years. We are adopting, as from the side of the Central Fund, the same practice.

Vote No. 10, the two items in No. 8 and the item in Gaeltacht Services can all be related to the development of the housing programme.

In addition, there is Vote 9—Public Works and Buildings. There is a variety of headings there. Two are in relation to building proper but building not of the real housing type. There is A—Purchase of Sites and Buildings, £100,000; and B—New Works, etc. (new buildings and works of reconstruction), £800,000. That £800,000 is not the full amount of the Estimate for new works and buildings to be found in the Office of Public Works Estimate this year. It is such part of it as is, in our mind, properly to be looked on as a capital service. The concrete application of that is this: there is a tremendous arrear, not merely of ordinary houses but of school buildings. I have been advised by the Department of Education that there are quite a number of buildings still ranking as schools which were never built. as schools but were built for other purposes. I am told that certain places were built as stables. I know one that was built as a church. Some are as old as the year 1816. There are quite a number of buildings which are in a very derelict condition. There are a very big number indeed which can be saved by a quite expensive process of repair or something amounting to reconstruction. If these buildings were to be taken in hand at the slow pace at which progress has been made up to date it would be, not merely a quarter of a century, but something approaching a generation and a half before any improvement would be made in the conditions.

There is, I think, general acceptance of the view that school buildings are buildings that should not be delayed. They may have to take their place in an order of priority in certain circumstances which will not allow them to get first place. Human habitation will probably get preference even over school buildings but the school-building programme is an urgent one and the expense associated with it came clearly before the minds of the present Government this year when, supplies becoming easier, it was found that the pressure that came from managers and the Department of Education with regard to the completion of school buildings was such that we had to take two Supplementary Estimates for the Board of Works this year, not all, but almost all, in respect of school buildings. The £800,000 is not all school buildings but by far the greater part of it is school buildings, and it is intended, if we can get supplies and if there are no evil effects of the expenditure of these moneys by way of capital services, to go ahead with the programme so that the school-building position will be very definitely improved with much greater speed than was expected.

The rest of the items located under Vote 9, Public Works and Buildings, are of the nature of drainage. There are surveys for arterial drainage, construction works for arterial drainage and purchase of engineering plant and machinery. One is as big as £231,000 and another is £395,000. There are two small items, one connected with the River Fergus, a special drainage matter, and surveys for arterial drainage that I have already mentioned.

The other matters that are in this summary of capital services are ones that Senators can see for themselves. I am calling attention to the important ones but under agriculture, as well as the land reclamation scheme, there are two other items—improvement of poultry and egg production and the farm buildings scheme. I do not think there will be many people to query whether these are properly capital services or not.

There is Vote 28—Fisheries. There again the sub-heads, I think, justify themselves—repayable advances for boats and gear and also for general development.

I have dealt with Local Government and, so far as housing is appropriate to Gaeltacht Services, I have dealt with that also.

Under Vote 50—Industry and Commerce—there are advances to the Mineral Development Company. It is a small sum and a sum that is not likely to be repeated. This year we have taken out a sum of £250,000 in respect of grants for harbours, for permanent improvements to these harbours.

I think the only thing I have not mentioned in this list is the matter of forestry. While there have been many and diverse opinions current in the country as to the rate at which progress might be made or is capable of being made in respect of forestry, I do not think there is any but the one opinion as to the necessity for making such progress as is possible, and speedy progress, in the better afforestation of the country.

There is the important sum of £2,000,000 in respect of the last item— the Transition Development Fund. That is a fund established under the Finance Act, 1946, by borrowing at that time a sum of £5,000,000. I think it was to provide moneys which were to be paid to State and local authorities in order to ease the burden of the increased costs attached mainly to housing but also to such other works as they might finance. As the name shows, it was intended to be transitional.

When it was announced first it was said that it was likely to be called upon only for a period of two years. That was extended for a further year and I extended it and it now lasts until the end of this financial year. No draw can be made upon this sum of £2,000,000 until such time as the legislation re-establishing the particular way is brought in. That will be taken in conjunction with the ordinary financial measures for the year.

It is hoped that no great provision in any other year will be required. The particular work financed out of this fund involves that commitments have to be made ahead of the year in which the expenditure is likely to fall. When the matter was examined quite recently it was discovered that, while there was only about £1,500,000 in the fund, the commitments that had been made would run to the sum of £3,500,000. Therefore, the sum of £2,000,000 is to bring the fund up to the full amount of the commitments already engaged but I hope that a new procedure will be adopted with regard to expenditure of that type for the future.

Lest there be any mistake about it, what I have put in the Estimates does not end the whole matter with regard to these capital sums. When budgeting, provision has to be made, of course, for the repayment of such capital sums as are involved in these below the line services. A similar provision, but on a much more extensive scale, will have to be made. This year's Budget will start it but the sum will grow as the years go on and as these capital services develop and as the money expended upon them increases. Provision will have to be made to take from the taxpayer year by year such sums of money as will amortise over a particular period the borrowings that have been incurred or will be incurred in future. The object, therefore, is to see that no permanent addition to the national debt will be involved. There will be an addition over such periods. Supposing we decided to amortise in 20 or 25 years, there will be an addition being repaid to the national debt over that period but it is hoped to have that repaid by the provision that will be made over, say, a period of whatever the number of years is.

What we attempt to achieve by identification of these capital services and the charging of the outlay involved to borrowing is a more equitable distribution, over time, of the burden of housing, of land reclamation and of other works of lasting benefit to the community. What we are doing with regard to housing is trying to catch up on the terrific arrear that we found left because of the impact of two wars and of the indifferent attempts to catch up on these arrears that were made in the in between period.

The procedure we are adopting—and I want this remarked upon—ought to ensure that financial considerations will not impede the undertaking and the rapid completion of those works which we regard as of urgent national importance. I have to make a reservation about that which I will speak of in a moment.

In the other House, when this was debated, there was not much criticism, certainly no damaging criticism, of our segregation of these items. Certain people complained that some few items were not properly placed but there was not very much criticism along those lines. The general pity was that this had not been thought of before and by other people. But, there has not been very much real criticism of the particular matter that has been separated out.

There may be difficulty in regard to getting the moneys that are required. There will not be much difficulty in the beginning because it is proposed to finance this by borrowing from the American Loan Counterpart Fund and certain other funds that are at my disposal and, eventually, there will have to be an approach to the public looking for further subscriptions to further national loans. It is expected that the money will be secured. It certainly can be secured right away but that is only the first step. It is the provision that will have to be secured from the public that, naturally, will be the main way in which this will be financed.

I want to finance these capital works at home and hope in that way to promote the best development of whatever we have in the way of resources, both of manpower and money. In that way we may remedy the defects that have been consequent on under-investment in this country in the past.

I have said earlier that I had to make one reservation with regard to all this. I may as well make it now as in reply. It cannot be said that we have left the period in which inflation is to be feared. Some people would argue that the danger of inflationary pressure causing a burst is not so serious this year as last year or the year before. There may be varying views about that but there is still danger to be feared in that way. It can be said indeed that in the last couple of years we have taken a risk with regard to the expenditure of money, particularly for capital purposes, in this country, but the risk that has been taken has had no untoward results so far and it is proposed to risk still further on the basis that these moneys will be well spent and also on the ground that we are getting more goods produced so that, even though there may be more money in circulation in the next year or so, there ought to be more goods to sustain the drive that more money causes. However this is a matter that has to be very carefully watched and while I am very keen, with my colleagues, on having as many capital services as possible brought to completion as early as possible, I think at the same time that it is hardly likely that all the moneys here provided for can be spent within the next 12 months. I doubt if it is physically possible. There will be difficulties with regard to labour and difficulties of all sorts. I have, however, arranged with certain of my colleagues that we are going to establish an order of priority for these schemes so that if, because of inflation becoming more of a menace than it is at the moment, some projects have to be curtailed we will have that done along a line of thought and progress of our own so that there will be no scurry to stop something because we have to stop spending generally. The inflationary danger has no doubt to be very carefully watched and the way we intend to do that is by putting these matters in a particular order of development. It may well be that we will have to test out the expenditure of certain moneys to see the reaction and have the signs read before we loosen further moneys.

All going well and with no further menace of inflation, we put forward that these are necessary works and can properly be financed in the way we have set out. They are capital services and we will have to meet the cost, very heavy costs mounting from year to year, for the service of the debt incurred for these things. We hope, however, that the national income will show greater increases in years to come as it has shown an increase in recent years and by raising the national productivity we hope that there will be a better return from such taxes as are at present imposed or even from such lesser taxes as it may be found possible to-have for the community. We hope to get public thought and concentration on this development and to get the public alive to the danger of spending more money in the ordinary way. It will also be a task of some difficulty hereafter to make the public, particularly the saving and lending public, so well aware of what is on and so confident of the outcome that they will freely give us of their savings so that we will be able to finance this from the savings of the people, current savings as far as we can get them, and by drawing as may be wise and prudent from the accumulated savings of years past.

The annual presentation of the Central Fund Bill affords to the members of this House one of the very few opportunities of giving expression to their views on Government policy in general. What the Minister has outlined for us this evening is nothing new. As far as I can see there is no new undertaking and no change, except of course that there must be keen disappointment in the minds of people who accepted statements which were made from time to time that it was necessary only to bring about a change of Government in order to reduce the cost of Government taxation in general and the burden on the taxpayers. The Minister in presenting his Bill has put quite candidly to us that there have been increases in almost every Department, increases which were not due to any new activity of that Department but to increases of staff and other things arising out of the present cost of living. He has put to us that the total demand on the people in the coming year both for capital expenditure and what has been termed "other services" will be about £95 million.

The Bill he has outlined in the Book of Estimates is no less than over £66,000,000. That, in itself, must demand the particular attention of Senators. They must consider whether it will be possible either now or in the future to make a serious reduction in the demand for such services. We had a noticeable increase for two Departments in particular, the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of the Minister for External Affairs. There may be good reasons, but as far as one can see they have not undertaken any very serious obligation or activity that were not undertaken by the previous occupiers of those posts.

To give the public a clearer indication of the difference between sums required for general services and for capital expenditure is probably a good idea but it is not something new. This is not the first occasion on which works of general development were undertaken and I think the Minister and the House will agree with that. The Minister stated that these demands were necessary to catch up on the years before the war and since because of the indifferent attempt which was formerly made to catch up. Recently, I am afraid, an attempt has been made both from the political end and, I am sorry to say, from the departmental end to some extent to create in the public mind the idea that it was only on the 18th Februray, 1948, that a Government in this State woke up to the necessity of social services and the development of industry and agriculture. That is not the case. We on this side of the House have always been in the forefront in the development of social services. I think that the Minister will admit that his Party went out of office in 1931 sooner than increase the old age pension and that the Fianna Fáil Government, who, it is suggested, made an indifferent attempt to catch up on the works arising out of the war, introduced widows' and orphans' pensions, children's allowances, holidays with pay and a general improvement in workers' conditions all round.

It is also suggested that only within the last two years has an attempt been made to deal with public health and provide sanatoria and hospitals. That is not so. In the ten years prior to the war when it was possible to erect such buildings no less than 13 county hospitals were built, 17 district hospitals, eight fever hospitals and extensions to 17 hospitals and nurses' homes, while plans were prepared for all the works now in progress. The bill for public health, which is increased by something over £1,000,000 to which the Minister referred, arises out of an Act passed by the previous Government. I think it would be well when directing our attention to matters of this kind not to go on the assumption that we are starting a new State or a new nation and that no attempt was made in the past to do anything. The sums provided for the treatment of tuberculosis were mentioned as well as the advances made to hospitals in general. We find that in the short period of three years £5,000,000 was given by the previous Government to voluntary hospitals and £8,000,000 between voluntary hospitals and local authority hospitals. When we acknowledge these facts I think we will be starting on a proper basis to consider what is before us.

The Minister made a case both here and in the Dáil that the moneys essential to provide housing for our people would not be expected to be taken out of direct taxation from year to year. With that one might agree to an extent and to an extent only. With regard to housing the Book of Estimates in regard to certain sub-heads says that "the following shall be regarded as capital expenditure and should properly be met from borrowing." That is, sub-head L (3) and (6) and K. We may also examine the sub-heads relating to free grants for persons or public utility societies erecting houses for their own use. The State thinks it a wise policy to make a free grant to persons or an organisation for the erection of houses to be occupied by the person or members of the organisation and that such grants should be met out of taxation. I do agree that where the State makes provision for the assistance of local authorities to build houses for letting it is quite proper that such money should be provided out of borrowing, and it is quite correct that they should come under the heading "capital expenditure". I suggest that provision should only be made for borrowing in so far as it relates to assistance given to local authorities.

This raises a point which I have brought to the Minister's notice on, I think, at least two occasions in the past. The Minister will remember that when he introduced his first Budget in the Dáil and increased the rate of interest on local authority loans from 2½ to 3¼ per cent. he undertook to make arrangements whereby that increase would not apply to housing. On various occasions I asked him to give us some idea of what the nature of the provision would be. Since then, as far as I am aware, neither the Minister for Local Government nor the local authorities know of any such arrangement. What really has happened? Not alone has the rate of interest been increased but the amount of money made available to local authorities out of the Transition Fund was previously added to a grant provided in every Housing Act since 1932, under which two-thirds or £350 should be paid to local authorities on each house erected for the working classes. When the war ended, and in order to encourage local authorities to proceed as soon as possible with the erection of houses, and to let them at reasonable rents, the then Minister for Local Government introduced this Transition Fund, out of which money was to be made available and something, in the neighbourhood of £400 per house, was provided to supplement the grants provided for in the original Acts.

The position, then, was that something in the nature of 60 or 65 per cent. of the total cost of the house was provided for by State grants. The president position is that, as a result of the codification, if you like, of the original grant, the amount coming from the Transition Fund is reduced to something in the nature of 48 per cent. of the cost of the house.

I wish it was. I would not have to spend so much money if it was so.

The other question which occurs in relation to the provision of money for houses is one which no Government has met. We have, as the Minister knows, a peculiar situation in this country whereby the local authorities liable to undertake the erection and provision of houses for the working classes, are compelled to carry out the schemes with certain assistance given from the Central Fund. In many cases, although the grant was already sanctioned from the Local Loans Fund, the local authorities find themselves in the position that in order to undertake the work or, to continue the work if already undertaken, they must borrow from the local banks at the prevailing rate of interest, and that is higher than the Local Loans Fund rate. There is also the question, as we have seen in recent months, of both the Dublin and Cork Corporations seeking money for housing. Neither of these corporations is entitled to borrow from the Local Loans Fund but must seek money elsewhere. We have seen, as far as Dublin Corporation was concerned, that the attempt to provide money for this urgent and national problem of housing has not been as successful as it should be. On the first occasion, the Dublin Corporation were refused assistance, one might say. Then the assistance was granted in a very restricted way, and for a very short period of years. We now know, from what we see in the public Press, that the sum of money made available is only for a very short time. The position in which these corporations find themselves is that of having to raise another loan for housing in general. The usual period for a housing loan is 35 years, but, in the case of the Dublin Corporation, the banks have made it available for a period of only 15 years. We are going to have this situation that in order to pay off the loan in 15 years, the Dublin Corporation will have to raise a further loan to pay off the former loan. Everybody, no matter from what side of the House he speaks, is anxious that housing should proceed as rapidly as possible. They did not become anxious to-day or yesterday. In ten years, we had 140,000 houses erected and over £40,000,000 spent by local authorities, not taking into account what was spent from moneys provided out of the Central Fund. To my mind, some new organisation will have to be set up.

In the past, we had a Housing Board. On one occasion, I suggested here that that was not sufficient and that we should have a larger body to tackle the problem, such as they have in the United States of America and in Canada—Federal Housing Boards— which would be in a position to undertake the provision of capital and the organisation and co-ordination of the various crafts essential to a proper continuation of housing. We have seen much ado in late months about "Ireland is Building", but I think even the most enthusiastic of us will have to admit that the progress which we wish to see is not being made, and will not be made under the present conditions—first, when the local authorities find themselves placed in the extraordinary position that they do not really know what assistance they are getting from the Central Fund and also placed in the position that apart from that handicap, they must undertake the taking out of the ratepayers' pockets of a certain sum of money to subsidise the lettings of these houses at what is termed an economic rent. The whole question of housing is one that should have careful consideration from this House. Perhaps it is a subject which it would be well worth while devoting a full day to considering if any good would come from it.

I would like to have some explanation from the Minister as to what arrangements are being made or are about to be made to carry out the undertakings given by him to the Dáil and to this House, and, I think, to the public in general, in relation to this question of assistance for housing. When we go on to the question of capital services, we find in Vote 9 provision for public works. Here it is proposed that money should be borrowed for the carrying out of arterial drainage. On this question, we had a great deal of blowing of trumpets and wild hopes being expressed while the trumpets were blowing that the arterial drainage of the country would be undertaken as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Some things have been done, but we find that a sum of £231,000 is being provided for arterial drainage works in this measure.

From this side of the House we have more than once pointed out, when the land rehabilitation scheme project was going through, that progress could not be made until such time as the arterial drainage works were carried out in the various drainage districts. I think that, whatever little progress has been made in the carrying out of the land rehabilitation scheme, our warnings have been proven to be well founded. In particular, we are anxious about the drainage being carried out in the West of Ireland. I regret there is no provision in this Estimate for the important drainage works of the Corrib, and we would like to put before the Minister the proposal that he should provide increased moneys and that he would give this important work sympathetic consideration. In No. 10—Employment and Emergency Schemes—the Minister has given an explanation to some extent in relation to two sub-heads, the urban employment schemes and the rural employment schemes. He suggested now that it is proposed in future that both schemes will be related to housing projects in general. Are we to take it that no money will be available in future for works of the nature formerly carried out under the urban and rural employment schemes?

Does the Senator not see that the provision for rural employment is £290,000, of which the sanitary services, taken as capital services, are only £184,000?

The money will be available?

Yes, but I hope that in future it will not be regarded as an emergency employment scheme but will be proper work of a constructive nature. Otherwise, it will not be done.

Hear, hear!

Senator Baxter is always very free with a "hear, hear."

Not always.

I should be very disappointed to learn from Senator Baxter that such was the practice in what we regard as the industrious County of Cavan. The majority of works under schemes of this nature are being carried out in districts such as ours and I have never yet known any work to be carried out merely for the sake, as the Minister said in the Dáil, of digging a hole and filling it up again. Works of a very important nature of every kind have been carried out under these schemes. If there are cases in which that is not so, it is not the fault of the representatives. One could lay the blame in that respect at the doors of the engineers employed by the local authorities or those in the Department of Local Government who sanctioned such works.

We come then to the Vote for Agriculture, and I have only one fault to find with that. It is that no provision is made for what was one of the most useful schemes operated by the Department, the farms improvements scheme. The Minister will probably suggest that works carried out under that scheme in the past can now be carried out under the land rehabilitation scheme. That is not correct. Farmers throughout the country and every farmers' representative who has knowledge of the works carried out under the scheme will agree that it was one of the most useful schemes operated by the Department, and if the reason for making no provision for it this year is to encourage people who might not be so anxious to avail of the land rehabilitation scheme to do so, I feel that it not the proper approach.

I have already mentioned housing as one of the matters to which the Minister should give careful attention in order that we may get into a position to proceed much faster with housing work than we are.

Coming now to the Votes which show decreases, we find that, despite all the importance attached by many people who, I am glad to say, have been newly converted to the importance of tourism, the Vote for this service shows a decrease this year of some £10,000. I do not know what activities the Tourist Board are engaged in at present, but we have been warned, encouraged and advised by each and every person who came here in connection with European recovery or Marshall Aid, that, if we wish to increase our dollar earnings, the tourist trade is the only way in which we can do it. Many of these people have come here and have given many types of advice, but it is safe to say that each and every one gave that advice. The Tourist Board was set up for that purpose and this year we find that the amount of money made available for that board's activities is reduced.

During the year, we saw that a delegation was sent to America to study tourism, to study the needs of the American people, to find out what they required, and to come back and tell us. I do not know what it was intended to do then, nor do I know exactly what they were sent for. I do not know the personnel of the delegation, beyond what I saw in the papers, and I do not want to be taken as making any personal reference to any individual; but amongst the delegation was an architect, if there were not two architects, and the question that came to my mind was what they were being sent for. To come back and tell us how to plan hotels suitable for the reception of American tourists? Who were to build the hotels?

Córas Iompair Éireann.

Was it the Tourist Board, having made such a profit out of the hotels they sold, or was the Minister going to make available to the board, as was the original intention, moneys which might be lent to persons anxious to develop their existing hotels or to build new hotels? Senator Baxter has intervened again and has raised another question in my mind. I mentioned this time last year the sale of Ballinahinch Castle and I should like now to go a step further. There is provision in the Estimates for a sum of money for forestry purposes. Here was a holding of land on which it was possible to undertake a very large afforestation scheme in the possession of a semi-Government board and, one might say, in the possession of the Government, because the Tourist Board was set up by the Government. That estate and hotel were sold, or, as I would call it, given away. The giving away of the buildings, furnishings and all that went with the hotel included the estate, and it is an extraordinary thing that the State in a short time will find itself in the position of purchasing the same estate back again, but not at the same price.

Provision is also made in the Estimates for the expenses of the Valuation and Boundary Survey and in that connection I want to raise a point which is of some concern to the area in which I am mainly interested at present. On the last occasion, Senators Concannon, Ó Buachalla and myself drew attention to the increase in valuations in Galway City. I do not suggest that increase was made by request or authorisation of the Minister. I suggest that provision should be made in the Financial Resolutions this year that Galway be treated in the same way as Waterford, in relation to this increase. It would be most unfair if those charged with income-tax should find that the ordinary basis of four-fifths of the valuation is taken into consideration on the new valuation rather than on the old valuation. I mention this so that the Minister may give it sympathetic consideration when introducing the Financial Resolutions.

We are all agreed, particularly on this side of the House, that everything possible should be done to develop our resources, to build up industries, provide employment and make the country self-sufficient as far as possible. From our experience in the past as a Government Party, we know that the undertaking of works of that kind, placing taxation on the people, raising the necessary money and sometimes imposing priorities on materials essential to carry out these works, are not very popular but they are essential if progress is to be made. We are told that this capital expenditure in the nature of £36,000,000 will increase production and help to meet the additional taxation as a result of raising this particular money. We hope that will be the result, but we have seen a peculiar situation recently. An appeal was made by the Minister for Agriculture for increased production and farmers were advised to increase the quantities of oats and potatoes. They did so, but found to a great extent that the promised market was not there. The Minister has mentioned the problem of increased butter production at the present time. We find the Minister for Agriculture at his wits end to find a market for that increase in butter production. While our people at home are rationed, we have such an ample supply that the ration could be withdrawn and butter put freely on the market. Despite that, we have an admission that it cannot be done. There is no question of not having the butter. The ration could be withdrawn in the morning and people let buy butter freely.

Mr. Hayes

Without subsidy?

Senator Hayes has answered a question. The reason it is not a free commodity is that it is subsidised. We are searching the four ends of the earth for a market for it.

We are not. I would not like to send heavily subsidised butter to the four ends of the earth.

I have a higher regard for the quality of Irish butter than the Minister. I believe it would reach the four ends of the earth.

So it would, but I do not want it to carry the subsidy.

If the Minister is not prepared to subsidise it to send it to the ends of the earth, will he not subsidise it to sell it to the Irish people?

Provided it is sold at a proper price.

At the moment, we are sending a certain quantity of butter to Germany. The price I am not aware of.

It was given yesterday.

Is it as a result of the conditions laid down by the European Recovery Council, that where a nation participating in the European Recovery Fund has a surplus the surplus must be made available to other nations?

Not subsidised.

If the butter being made available at present to Germany under this plan is subsidised——

It is a free market?

It is not a free market, either.

I hope not. It does not carry anything like the subsidy that it carries at home.

I would go so far as to say safely that it does carry a subsidy.

How much?

Although you have already said you do not know the price it is being sold at?

I know that the present price of butter to the rationed consumer is 2/8 a pound, that the price to other persons, those engaged in catering and so on, is 3/6 a pound. Either the Minister is making a profit on the butter being sold to the catering establishments and hotels at 3/6, or that is the economic price. If we are not getting that price for the butter we are sending to Germany, then we are subsidising it.

Then you do not know what the price is?

How are you able to say it is carrying a subsidy?

I would safely say that it is.

You mean you are guessing.

The Minister is the man who will be called upon to provide the money and he should be in a position to say. I know full well that the Minister, having the difficulty of finding the money for subsidies, will be a bit wary in encouraging the abolition of rationing of any subsidised commodity. I suggest it would be much better to let the commodities now rationed and subsidised, such as tea, sugar, bread and butter, go on a free market.

Without any subsidy?

Churchill says the same.

The Senator should be allowed to make his speech.

If the Senator persists in interrupting, he is only prolonging the agony for himself, as he is encouraging me to put the position to him. From what I gather, we are never again to have those commodities off the ration, never again in this State will a person be free to buy bread, butter, tea and sugar off the ration.

One can buy unrationed tea and sugar at the moment.

It is said that those off the ration commodities are purchased only by persons who can afford to pay high prices. I put it that that is not correct, that the persons who can afford to pay the price, that is, the wealthy class, have no need to purchase such items. It is the working class, whose almost daily food for the three meals of the day is bread, tea, butter, sugar, who purchase the greater quantities of such commodities off the ration and pay the additional price. Therefore, the cost-of-living index is not a true indication of the present cost of living for such persons.

I would go so far as to suggest that, if the Minister is not prepared to make the commodities available to the full extent, it would be much better that rationing should be completely withdrawn, even if the subsidies had to be reduced to an extent. It would be much better for the people as a whole, the Minister would lose no revenue and the taxpayer would not have to pay anything extra.

I want again to express the disappointment that must be felt by all, particularly those who accepted the promises that were made at the last election, that the cost of government has not been reduced. The cost of every service has increased. The Minister will probably say that that is because of increases given to civil servants and such persons. That borrows another question: why were they given? If the cost of living had not gone up, why were the increases given?

That borrows an answer—and what is it?

And what is it? The second reason why the Minister is not prepared to take all the commodities that are subsidised off the ration is that it would give the people a clearer indication of what it is, because at the present time only 50 per cent. of the food they purchase is taken into consideration.

There is no change in the way the compilation is made.

I am not suggesting that there is.

None at all, except that your people made a change in your time.

The Minister will admit that the commodities I refer to are not taken into consideration.

What commodities?

Unrationed tea, sugar and flour

If the enumerators find them in the shop, they are.

They are taken into consideration as far as they are at the rationed price, that is all.

No. So far as the enumerators find them being sold and they constitute part of the working-man's budget, they are taken into consideration. In any case, we did not ask that things be taken off. Your people did. Your people distorted the cost-of-living index by an Order.

What about the black market tea, which was sold at double the price, a couple of years ago?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Hawkins is in possession and should be allowed to proceed.

If Senator Ryan wants a discussion on the black market, I will bring the Minister's mind back to a discussion that took place here on the last occasion that a Bill of this nature was before the House. I am offering it again to the Minister and Senator Ryan that the clearest indication that the majority of the persons engaged in the black market during the war were persons who were supporters of the Party who are now supporting the Government is to be found in the fact that the very first action of the present Government was to withdraw all the impediments placed on such persons by the previous Government. The Minister on that occasion took it up and suggested that he would have an examination carried out. I would like to hear from the Minister to-night the result of his examination.

With names?

Senator Hawkins gave no general consideration at all to this Bill or to the problems that the Bill raises. The Minister was not only courageous in dealing with our financial problems and economic problems after this fashion but he was also quite frank. He adopted no subterfuge and no concealment. He went to considerable pains in introducing the Bill here to indicate the total sum which is involved and to leave Senators, and the public through the Senators, under no illusion whatever as to the exact amount of money that is to be found. He also made it quite clear that borrowing—a word which is used so glibly by people as if you can borrow and never repay—means that the taxpayer will have to repay capital and interest over a period of years and that the only hope, therefore, for this particular scheme to work satisfactorily is that there will be higher production and a rise in the national income.

I would like, though, to put myself in agreement with Senator Hawkins on one point, that is, that we should regard each Party and each Minister as doing his best according to his own lights and in his own circumstances. Unfortunately, Senator Hawkins, having enunciated that beautiful and entirely desirable theorem, proceeded at once to depart from it by making all kinds of accusations against the present Minister. However, his first point, as far as I recollect, was that the Taoiseach's Estimate is up by £320. He wanted to know what new duty the Taoiseach was performing. Out of £66,000,000 the Taoiseach's Estimate is up by £320 and, when you take into consideration the increase to civil servants, which surely accounts for the whole £320, we might have had that particular item left out altogether.

Senator Hawkins himself made it quite clear that he understood that the cause of a great part of the increase. namely, the increase given to civil servants and to teachers, was the cost-of-living figure left by the Government which Senator Hawkins supported. I am stating that now by way of fact, not by way of criticism to depart from the principle with which I am in agreement.

This is an opportunity which I availed of before to deal with certain points about education and I would like to deal with a particular point on this Bill this year. We are in a position where the struggle for existence is going to be harder and the Minister, in the Central Fund Bill, and in the form of the Estimates, recognises the need for equipping our people in every respect to meet the problems that are around us to-day and that will get more difficult, perhaps, to-morrow. We need, for example, to equip farmers, to give them capital, to give the land itself more food so that it can produce more for us, to guarantee prices, to give them electricity, to give them modern methods, to give them, above all, education because, before you can adopt modern methods, you must have a change in outlook. There will be considerable scientific development needed in this country and considerable training of scientists. When one speaks of long-term investment for the good of the country, one of the things one must invest money in is education and particularly university education because upon university education, as was acknowledged in 1947, when we were discussing the matter with the Minister's predecessor, depends the whole structure, the provision of teachers, the equipment of secondary teachers, vocational teachers and professors in training colleges, equipment of scientists and so on.

The provision which is made for one of the institutions with which I happen to be particularly acquainted, University College, Dublin, is at present extraordinarily bad and hampers the progress not only of the College but ultimately of the country. University College, Dublin, is the biggest such institution in this State and I think in this country. It was never properly housed and never adequately endowed. The first war with an increase in the number of students made the proposals for building entirely inadequate and made building extremely dear. The buildings were unsuitable for the number of students going into them and when buildings were constructed since then nothing but haphazard and insufficient expedients were put forward from time to time which did not allow the college to develop in a proper way.

There has been a great growth in the numbers and at present there are two urgent problems which can only be dealt with by the Government, that is, the need for buildings and the need for a grant for the ordinary running of the college. Before I deal with building which I dealt with before— and I do not want to deal with it in detail—I should like to say that the increased expenses of a place like University College, Dublin, have been enormous since 1939. There has been an increase in rates, an increase in wages, an increase in materials, an increase in heating, an increase in lighting and an increase in every form of maintenance apart altogether from an increase in the price of, say, scientific equipment. University College, Dublin, took over the Veterinary College at a loss to itself. It has had a certain increase in income but that increase in income is far below the increase in costs.

In Great Britain the principle for which I am pleading here has been adopted. Grants to universities have gone up from something over £2,000,000 to £13,000,000 and they are devoting £50,000,000 to building and equipment. It has been stated frequently by the responsible Minister that the one thing on which they cannot afford to economise is the equipment and endowment of universities.

In this country, in the case of the National University and most particularly University College, Dublin, our income is derived entirely from two sources, students' fees and the Government. In Great Britain there are other sources. There are a considerable amount of private donations, donations by local industrialists to the smaller universities in particular, and there is a tradition of benevolence to the universities on the part of people of wealth. That tradition, unfortunately, does not exist here. I should like to give this figure. The expenditure for students, even if the College gets what it is looking for, would only be £85 per student. In Britain in 1920 it was £80; in 1933 it was £121; in 1946-47 it was £185 per student and it has increased since then, so what is being asked for here is very small in comparison with what is being done in Great Britain.

We did receive an increased grant of 50 per cent. in 1947. Speaking on the other side of the House at that time on this very Bill in March, 1947, I thanked the then Minister for Finance for his attitude in the negotiations which led to that increase and for the increase itself. That increase was entirely for the purpose of relieving the staff who were without an increase in income from 1926 to 1947. The increase left out of consideration equipment, buildings and a pensions fund. Since then, in 1949-50, University College, Dublin, got £7,000 for the adaptation of premises and £23,000 for scientific equipment. That accounts for the bulk decrease of £30,000 in the Vote this year for the universities and colleges. As well as that increase of 50 per cent. from the Government in the annual grants, fees were substantially raised but nothing was done about buildings or the pensions fund. The Minister at that time indicated his belief that buildings were important and necessary and it is to be said that it would not have been possible in 1946 or early in 1947 to make arrangements for buildings in the nature of things. This is what the previous Minister for Finance, Mr. Aiken, speaking on the Central Fund Bill in the Seanad on the 20th March, 1947 (Col. 1738) said on this whole matter:—

"If we want to improve our farms we will want agricultural technicians and they can only be turned out from the universities and the agricultural colleges. The same applies to the other types of technicians that a modern community requires in order to have a reasonable standard of life. The Government, in spite of the fact that it had to get the money from the people, felt that if this nation was to make progress in the future the people would have to make the sacrifice that goes with providing for improved university education."

Speaking of buildings, the Minister said:

"The way the Government feel about it is that we cannot afford not to spend the money."

Part of what the Minister promised at that moment has been given, that is, the grant for equipment, but no decision has been reached on the question of buildings. That decision for University College, Dublin, is one of very great importance because it is growing in such a way that the present buildings are quite inadequate. It needs a decision as to whether the present building will be developed or whether it is going to a new site and that is entirely a matter for Government decision.

I would like to say one word on the question of the importance of universities. The training of teachers depends entirely on the existence of the universities. Secondary teachers must have a university degree. Training colleges for teachers, even if primary teachers are not sent to the university, must be staffed by people with a university training. Practically the whole of the higher Civil Service and the whole of the diplomatic service depends on the universities. Every form of agricultural and industrial research and what is called applied research depends entirely on them. As the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the previous Government admitted quite freely, where research is applied to particular objectives and to particular ends it depends on the existence of universities endowed for the prosecution of pure scientific research. There is no such thing as applied research unless a person is trained already in pure research.

University education has a visible and tangible importance, but as well as that it has extremely important effects on the nation's life which are not so clearly defined, and which I will have to leave for the moment.

The last Government approached the universities in 1947 in the way I described with the proper spirit, and they were in the circumstances of that time generous. It is very disappointing that there is no provision in the present Estimates for further grants to the universities, particularly to University College, Dublin, which is the biggest, which is in the greatest need and which has the history of the worst treatment. In spite of the many calls on their resources in England they are giving increases in the university grants and the universities there have many sources of income. If we are embarking on a course of capital expenditure with a view to enabling the national income to rise and with a view to getting the very highest possible production from the country in every shape and form, not only in agriculture but in industry, we cannot neglect the development of our universities. The provision of suitable buildings and adequate grants for our universities is a cardinal and capital feature of any scheme for the development of the country, and I am sure that the Minister, who is very conversant with the matter himself, recognises that. A beginning was made in 1947 and certain other things remain to be done. I hope that I am pushing an open door in asking that they should be done and that some hope may be given to people who are struggling to do their very best in a very important part of the nation's work in circumstances which are extremely difficult.

Ba mhaith liom a rá i dtosach gur thaithnigh liom go raibh an tAire i bhfad níos réasúnaí inniu ag cur an Bhille seo os ár gcomhair ná mar a bhí sé sna blianta atá caite agus a leitheid céanna de Bhille dhá chur os ár gcomhair aige. Ag an am chéanna ní miste liom a rá, mar atá ráite ag an Seanadóir Hawkins, mar atá ráite ag a lán sa Dáil agus mar atá ráite ag a lán agus go láidir ar fud na tíre, go bhfuil diomú orm chomh fada is a bhaineas leis an mbille airgid atá an tAire ar tí a éileamh orainn i gcóir cúrsaí rialtais sa mbliain atá le teacht.

Ní thaithníonn liom a bheith ag meabhrú don Aire cuid de na geallúintí a rinneadh sna blianta atá caite aige féin, ag a chomh-Airí agus ag a lucht leanúna. Dúradar go raibh a fhios acu cén chaoi a bhféadfaí na cánta ar an tír a laghdú. Dúradar go raibh a fhios acu go bhféadfaí costas beatha nó costas maireachtála a laghdú agus ní hé amháin é a laghdú ach go bhféadfaí é a laghdú go mór. Cuid acu chuireadar figiúir ar an laghdú nuair a dúradar go bhféadfaí é a laghdú do réir deich is fiche faoin gcéad. Ar tharla an laghdú sin maidir le cánta nó maidir leis an gcostas beatha? Rinne an tAire leithscéal inniu faoi cén fáth nár tharla an laghdú ar na cánta. Tá faitíos orm gur leithscéal é nach mbeidh muintir na tíre sásta glacadh leis.

Maidir leis an gcostas beatha is dócha gurb é an méid is mó is feídir a rá a rinne an tAire gur choinnigh sé an costas sin ó bheith ag ardú. Shilfeá air agus shilfeá ar chaint daoine eile nach bhfuil mórán cuise casaoide againn faoin dóigh a bhfuil scéal costas mhaireachtála sa tír. Mar adúirt an Seanadóir O hAicín, caithfidh go bhfuil rud éigin bun os cionn nuair atá na ceard-chumainn ag éileamh an oiread agus atá siad d'ardú ar a bpáigh. Caithfidh gur thug an tAire faoi deara ag cruinniú de lucht ceardchumann i gCorcaigh an lá cheana gur chuir an rúnaí casaoid isteach mar gheall air chomh dona agus atá an scéal ag na hoibrithe maidir leis an gcostas beatha céanna. Ba mhaith liom a fháil amach ón Aire céard atá déanta go díreach ag an Rialtas leis an gcostas beatha sin a tharraingt anuas. Tá rudaí ag titim amach ar fud an domhain a údaraíos laghdú ar chostas nithe áirithe. Níl aon bhaint ag an Rialtas leo agus is é an rud ba mhaith liom féin a fháil amach céard tá déanta agus céard tá beartaithe le theacht suas leis an mí-ádh sin agus cén uair ar dóigh leis an Aire go n-éireoidh leis teacht suas leis an mí-ádh céanna.

Caithfidh an tAire an méid seo a admháil: nach é amháin go bhfuil sé ar tí bille i bhfad níos troime ná mar bhí go dtí seo éileamh ar mhuintir na hEireann ach nach bhfuil an bille sin nochtaithe go hiomlán. Féadfaidh an tAire a rá nach bhfuil sé féin ciontach le cuid de na harduithe atá ag teacht ar dhaoine cheana féin, ach is fíor é seo de bharr na n-athruithe ar luacháil tithe sa tír go mbeidh breis cánach ioncaim le híoc ag daoine agus is fíor freisin de bharr na n-athruithe céanna ar an luacháil sin go mbeidh breis rátaí le híoc ag na daoine agus go leor den ardú sin ar rátaí beidh sé ann de bhrí gur éirigh leis an Aire cuid de "responsibility" an Rialtais féin d'aistriú ón Rialtas go dtí na bardais nó go dtí na coistí Rialtais áitiúil. Ní hé amháin go bhfuil an bille seo trom agus ní hé amháin go mbeidh muirir iompair sa bhreis ar an tír mar léiríodh ag cuid de na cainteoirí sa Dáil, ach beidh muirir thairis sin le hiompar ag na daoine nach bhfuil trácht air sna meastacháin nó sa gcaint a rinneadh go dti seo sa Dáil.

Tá poinntí a mba mhaith liom go mbeadh cuid mhaith ama agam le cur síos orthu ach nach mian liom sin a dhéanamh. Ní mian liom anois é, ach b'fhéidir roinnt ceisteanna a chur ar an Aire le súil go mbeimid i ndon ar ball nuair a thiocfas an Bille Airgeadais os ár gcomhair í a phlé go mion agus go hiomlán. Beidh teacht ar ais againn ar na pointí sin, ach ba mhaith liom anois cuid de na cinn is tábhachtaí, dar liom, a lua.

Sa gcéad dul síos, tá imní orm mar gheall ar an méid atá sna Meastacháin le haghaidh cosanta na tíre. Tá a fhios againn an polasaí a bhí ann le cúpla bliain: an tAirm agus na Fórsaí Cosanta a laghdú roinnt. Is dóigh liom, agus an chaoi a bhfuil an saol ag breathnú, an chosúlacht atá ar an saol, nach ceart dúinn a bheith sásta le scéal na bhFórsaí Cosanta mar atá siad. Ní thaithníonn liom ach an oiread le daoine ar bith eile go mbeimid ag éileamh breis airgid ar mhuintir na tíre le híoc as seirbhís den tsórt sin.

Caithfidh muid a bheith réasúnach chomh fada is bhaineas leis na Fórsaí Cosanta. Is árachas é, go bhfuaireamar an-shochar as le linn na práinne atá caite. Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil aon duine réasúnach sa tír nach n-admhódh mura mbeadh an tArm sin a bheith ann, chomh dílis agus chomh dúthrachtach agus a bhí, nach sáródh muid a lán den mhí-ádh a tharla do thíortha eile. Ní féidir linn a rá go stopfadh arm níos láidre, níos éifeachtaí ná bhí againn sna blianta atá caite, mí-ádh a theacht ar an tír má tharlaíonn cogadh mór ar ball, ach ar a laghad ba eheart dúinn a thaispeáint go n-aithníonn muid an dainséar. Ba cheart dúinn ár n-aigne a dhéanamh suas, chomh fada is tá ar ár gcumas, go ndéanfadh muid ár ndícheall an mí-ádh sin a sheachaint, trí bheith ullamh do pé ar bith a thuitfeas amach insan am atá le theacht.

Maidir le leas sóisialach, an rud a bhfuil spéis againn go léir ann, go háithe sinne a shíl muid ón lucht oibre agus a thuigeas chomh mór agus is gá seirbhís den tsórt sin, ba mhaith liom go bhfuigheadh muid miniú éigin ar cén fáth nach bhfuil réiteach déanta ina chóir sin sna Meastacháin atá os ár geomhair. Bhfuil sé le tuiseint go mbeidh éileamh speisialta le teacht os ár gcomhair? Déarfaidh an tAire liom go mba ceart dom a bheith réasúnta tuiscionach mé féin agus a admháil go gcaithfidh sé bheith amhlaidh, go gcaithfidh Bille teacht os ár gcomhair agus an t-airgead riachtanach a éileamh. Tá sin ceart go leor. Tugann an pointe le taispeáint nach léiríonn na Meastacháin an scéal go hiomlán, nach léirionn siad an bille a bheas le híoc ag an tír le haghaidh na mblianta seo chugainn. D'fhéadfaí an rud céanna a rá faoi go leor eile ranna agus rannóga a bhfuil tuairisc orthu sna Meastacháin.

Ag teacht go dtí scéal an airgid. Fuair mé méid áirithe sásaimh as cuid den díospóireacht a bhí sa Dáil, agus go háirithe an méid adúirt an tAire féin, gurb é féin atá le creidsint nuair a bheas aon rud le rá maidir le polasaí airgeadais. Níl aon aimhreas nach raibh sé in am rud éigin mar sin a rá. Níl mé a rá go bhfuil léargas an-chruinn againn ar aigne an Aire féin mor gheall ar an scéal, ach do dhuine ar bith a bhfuil spéis aige i gcúrsaí airgeadais nó i gcúrsaí geilleagair, is mór an sásamh dó gur féidir leis cainteanna ó dhaoine áirithe a chur ina dhiaidh agus aire faoi leith a thabhairt do chaint duine eile, go háirithe an tAire Airgeadais.

Maidir le scéal seo an airgid, ba mhaith liom go gcuirfeadh an tAire níos mó eolais os ár gcomhair ina thaobh ná mar atá curtha aige go dtí seo. Níl aon mhaith a rá go bhfuil sé an-deacair na rudaí seo a dhéanamh. Níl aon mhaith a rá go gcaithfimid fanúint go gcasfaidh an diabhal orainn go socrómaid céard a dhéanfas muid. Ní hé sin an bealach ceart le gnóithí rialtais a dhéanamh. Caithfidh, faoin am seo, go bhfuil a aigne déanta suas ag an Aire agus ag an Rialtas, faoi céard a theastódh uathu d'íoc sna blianta atá le theacht, agus cén chaoi a ndéanfar é, chomh fada is bhaineas sé le hairgead. Tá sé ceart go leor ag an Aire a rá: "Ní stopfaidh airgead muid sna na hoibreacha seo atá beartaithe." Níl sé sin sásúil, agus ba mhaith liom go n-inseodh an tAire níos cruinne ná mar atá déanta go dtí seo céard díreach atá ar intinn aige. Mar shompla, maidir leis an gcaint seo ar an maoin seo atá súncálta thar sáile a thabhairt abhaile, cé mhéid de ar dóigh leis an Aire is gá dúinn a thabhairt abhaile? Cén riocht ina dtabharfar abhaile é? Bhfuil deacrachtaí ann ar é a thabhairt abhaile? Má tá, céard iad na deacrachtaí? An iad na bancanna atá dhá chose? An é polasaí nó comhairle an Bhainnc Cheannais atá dhá cosc? Céard iad na coinníollacha atá riachtanach le go dtabharfaí abhaile é? Cé mhéid den airgead atá riachtanach le caitheamh ar na scéimeanna móra rachmais atá beartaithe ag an Aire sa bhaile agus cén chaoi a bhfuighe sé an chuid sin den airgead?

Luaigh an tAire sa Dáil, agus é ag tagairt don iasacht atá braith aige a iarraidh, go gcuirfear an iasacht sin ar an margadh chomh luath agus a shocrós rudaí síos—"as soon as things settle down." Céard iad na rudaí atá le socrú síos?

The money markets.

Díreach. Is cuimhin liom uair éigin anseo a rinne mé tagairt don iasacht deiridh a chuir an tAire ar an margadh agus an t-am sin chuir mé ceist ar an Aire arbh fhíor é nach bfhuair sé an t-airgead ar fad. An t-am sin do léim duine de na Seanadóirí orm ionann is dá mbeinn tar éis rud éigin as bealach a rá, go raibh mé ag iarraidh sáitheadh míchneasta a thabhairt don Aire nó don Rialtas. An rud a bhí ar intinn agam an uair sin, nach raibh an ráta a thairg an tAire sáthach ard. Tá a fhios againn go bhfuil cuid mhór airgid sa tír. Tá a fhios againn go bhfuil cuid mhór airgid ag daoine sna bancanna ar, abair, 1%. Facthas dom, agus feicthear dom fós, gur aisteach an rud é go bhfágann daoine a gcuid airgid ar 1% an t-am a d'fhéadfaidís, mar d'fhéadfaidís faoin iasacht deiridh, 3¼% a fháil. Cén fáth atá leis sin? Teánn sé diom é sin a thuiscint.

B'fhéidir gur thug an tAire leide dhúinn inniu ar céard atá ar intinn aige i dtaobh na ceiste sin nuair adúirt sé go gcaithfimid iarracht a dhéanamh a chur ina luí ar na daoine a bhfuil airgead acu teacht amach agus an t-airgead sin a chur ar fáil ag an Rialtas. Do bheadh dhá rud riachtanach lena aghaidh sin—an chéad rud, muinín a bheith acu as an Rialtas. B'fhéidir nach é díreach muinín a bheith acu as an Rialtas ach muinín a bheith acu as an Stát. An dara rud—go mbeadh an Ráta úis a tairgfí dóibh níos sásúla ná mar a tairgeadh dóibh roimhe seo.

B'fhéidir go bhfuil eolas ag an Aire ar rudaí áirithe atá le titim amach ar an margadh airgid a fhágfas an scéal níos sásúla dó ná mar a bheadh sé i láthair na huaire. Sílim gur ceist í a mba cheart don Aire, má tá ar a chumas é dhéanamh, an t-eolas a thabhairt dúinn uirthi.

Deir an tAire "margadh an airgid." Céard iad na nithe maidir le margadh an airgid atá le suaimhniú ionas go bhfuighidh an tAire an t-airgead atá ag teastáil uaidh ó mhuintir na hÉireann, le cur leis an méid a thiubhraidh sé anall abhaile, ionas go bhféadfaimis dul ar aghaidh leis na scéimeanna móra atá luaite aige?

Ba mhaith liom a fháil amach, agus is dóigh liom gurb é an tAire Airgeadais an duine is údarásaí le hinnsint duinn, céard iad na húsáidí atá le déanamh den airgead seo an bhliain seo.

Tá caint déanta ag an Aire ar bhreis táirge—"increased production." Céard iad na tionscail go speisialta a bhfuil tuairim ag an Aire go bhféadfaí an "production" iontu a mhéadú agus a mhéadú cuid mhaith? Chuimhneodh duine ar thalmhaíocht. Táimid go léir ar aon intinn go bhféadfaí "production" na talmhaíochta d'fheabhsú agus é d'fheabhsú cuid mhór. Táimid ag súil go n-éireoidh go maith leis na scéimeanna atá beartaithe le n-aghaidh sin. Ní miste má dhéanaim tagairt don tionscal sin ar feadh nóiméid. Ní rud nua é go mbíonn spéis dá chur ag an Rialtas i gcúrsaí talmhaíochta. Bhí abairt fonóideach amháin ag an Aire, an tagairt a rinne sé d'obair an Rialtais deiridh maidir le tithe do chur ar fáil. Cén bhaint atá aige seo le scéal na talmhaíochta? —an bhaint seo: nuair déantar tagairt do scéal na talmhíochta nó do scéal na dtithe, ba cheart cuimhniú ar na deacrachtaí a bhí le sárú ag an Rialtas a bhí ann i rith na cúig bhliana déag atá caite. Cuimhneofar air seo—nuair tháinig Rialtas Fianna Fáil isteach bhí feilméaraí na hÉireann briste mar gheall ar an smál a bhí ar an margadh agus mar gheall ar pholasaí an Rialtais a bhí ann roimhe sin. Is é an chéad rud a bhí le déanamh ag an Rialtas nua, iad do shábháil ar bhriseadh amach is amach. B'éigin dóibh an tír d'ullmhú ionas go bhféadfaí dul ar aghaidh le scéimeanna móra den tsaghas atá os ár gcomhair na laetheanta seo. Bhí deacrachta móra le sárú an uair sin, deacrachta a bhain leis an "Constitution," deacrachta poilitíochta, deacrachta maidir le airgead, deacrachta airgeadais. Rinne siad an obair. Shábháil siad na feilméaraí agus thug siad a leithéide de shaol ar aghaidh go bhféadfaimis, ní amháin dul ar aghaidh le scéimeanna móra mar iad sin ar thrácht an tAire inniu orthu, ach go bhféadfaí an tír a shábháil chomh maith agus a sábháladh í le linn blianta dorcha an chogaidh atá caite.

Tá a fhios ag an Aire, chomh maith agus atá a fhios agamsa' gur cuireadh coimisiún speisialta ar bun le cúrsaí na talmhaíochta a scrúdú, le moltaí a dhéanamh ar cén chaoi a bhféadfaí an tionscal d'fheabhsú. Tá na tuairiscí interim le fáil ar obair an choimisiúin sin. Ní féidir le aon duine a rá i dtaca leis na scéimeanna atáimid a phlé na laetheanta seo, nach tábhachtach agus nach indéanta iad na moltaí agus na tairiscintí a rinne an coimisiún sin. Dob éigin an coimisiún sin a ligean ar lár. Bhí cúis an-mhór leis—bhris an cogadh mór amach i 1939. Thuigfeadh duine ar bith go mba dícéillí é coimisiún a bheith ag teacht le chéile le linn blianta an chogaidh. Ní bheadh a fhios ag duine ó lá go lá céard a bhí le titim amach. Níor thúisce cosúlacht éigin ar an saol go dtiocfadh suaimhneas agus síocháin go réasúnta luath ná cuireadh coimisiún speisialta eile ar bun le fiosrú a dhéanamh ar scéal na talmhaíochta agus le moltaí a dhéanamh ar an mbealach a d'fhéadfaí tionscal na talmhaíochta d'fheabhsú. Ní féidir a rá nár ceapadh pleanannaí chomh maith agus ab fhéidir pleanannaí a cheapadh san am. Bhí mise agus bhí gach duine a bhfuil spéis aige sa tionscal sin ag guí go dtiocfadh an lá go mbeadh síocháin ann íonas go mbeadh fáil againn ar na riachtanais le go bhféadfaí moltaí an choimisiúin a chur i gcrích. Beidh cuimhneamh ar rudaí áirithe, ar an magadh a rinneadh sa Seanad nuair a bhí Acht na nEanlaithe, “The Poultry Bill,” os ár gcomhair. Ní raibh ansin ach cuid de na moltaí a bhí i gceist leis na pleanannaí a chur chun críche. An rud atá mé a rá ní rud nua é, go gcuirfí síos ar thionscal na talmhaíochta agus go gceapfaí scéimeanna leis an tionscal a fheabhsú. Admhaím go bhfuil seans ag an Aire inniu nach raibh ag an Rialtas atá imithe amach leis na moltaí sin a chur i bhfeidhm. Tá súil agam gur féidir an tionscal sin a fheabhsú. Céard a tharlós de bharr an tionscal a fheabhsú? Cé mhéad daoine sa mbreis is féidir a chur ag obair le talmhaíocht de bharr feabhsuithe an tionscail faoi na scéimeanna atá beartaithe againn? A n-éireoidh linn céad míle duine sa mbreis a chur ag saothrú ar an tionscal sin. Tá muid ag cainnt ar dhaoine a choinneáil faoin tuaith. Má chuireann muid 100,000 duine— agus is mór an méid é—ag obair faoin tuaith, níl scéal na tuaithe socraithe; níl scéal na tuaithe ach ag tosaí. A lán de na daoine a tiúrfar ar ais pósfaidh siad agus beidh clann acu. Beidh ar na daoine óga sin obair a fháil agus an bhfuighidh siad í ar thalmhaíocht? An dóigh leis an Aire go bhfuighidh? Mura bhfuighidh, cá bhfuighidh siad í? Céard iad na tionscail bhreise atá súil ag an Aire a cuirfear ar bun? Cé mhéad rachmais a bheas ag teastáil ina gcóir agus cén toradh a bheas orthu dar leis?

Rinne an Seanadóir Ó hAodha tagairt anois beag do thábhacht an oideachais maidir le leathnú agus foirbhiú tionscal na tíre agus rinne sé tagairt speisialta d'oideachas ollscoile. Bhí an ceart aige, ach is dóigh liom thar oideachas ar bith eile sa tír go bhfuil ceard-oideachas nó gairm-oideachas ar na riachtanais is mó atá ann nó a bheas ann má táimid le breis táirgeachta a fháil as talmhaíocht nó tionscal ar bith eile. £18,000 atá geallta ag an Rialtas do riachtanais na gceard-scoil. Is beag é. Smaoiníodh an tAire ar an bhfigiúir a thug sé maidir le tógáil agus deisiú na scol náisiúnta, £800,000, £800,000 le haghaidh na scoltacha náisiúnta, agus cé mhéad scoil nua a cuirfear ar fáil? Má bhíonn £5,000 an scoil orthu— agus beidh sé deacair iad a fháil faoina bhun sin—beidh siad níos daoire ná sin—tabharfaidh sé 160 scoil nua dhúinn. Tá a fhios agam go bhfuil géar-ghá le scoltacha náisiúnta. Dúirt mé uair amháin san Teach seo go mb'fhiú dhúinn an púdar a bhí fágtha againn tar éis an chogaidh a úsáid leis na sean-scoltacha náisiúnta a bhí gan mhaith a phléascadh san aer agus ansin chaithfeadh muid scoltacha nua a thógáil. Ag an am chéanna sílim gur míthíobhas, faillí agus faillí mhór dhúinn gan áird faoi leith a thabhairt ar obair na gceardscoil. Tá a fhios ag an Aire an t-éileamh atá ar na scoltacha seo sna bailte móra agus faoin tuaith agus an saghas daoine' atá ag éileamh na scol sin agus caithfidh sé a admháil gur daoine iad a thuigeas a ngnótha agus a thuigeas riachtanais na tíre chomh fada is a bhaineas le oideachas. Eolas teicniciúil, ní féidir luach a chur air. Is é sin, is dóigh liom, an fáth is mó go raibh brón orm gur stop an tAire Tionscail agus Tráchtála, le údarás an Aire Airgeadais, a lán de na scéimeanna a bhí beartaithe ag an Rialtas deiridh maidir le tionscaíl a chur ar bun. Smaoiníodh muid ar innealltóirí a thuigfeadh gach rud a bhaineas le inneall eitealláin. Dá mbeadh a leitheidí d'innealtóirí dar gcuid féin againn, dá mbeadh eolas teicniciúil go láidir agus go fairsing imeasc muintir na tire seo, c chuirfeadh luach air?

Cé déarfadh cén tairbhe a bheadh air? Bhí an tAire ag iarraidh luach a chur ar chuid de na rudaí atá beartaithe aige, ach rud amháin ar deacair agus gur rí-dheacair a rá cé mhéad is fiú é oideachas nó oiliúint teicniciúil den tsórt sin.

Ba mhaith liom ar an ócáid seo a fhiafraí den Aire cén plean atá ceaptha ag an Rialtas le haghaidh tionscal nua. Ná ceapadh aon duine gur scéim nó plean é an Bille aisteach seo atá ar bun sa Dáil faoi údarás tionscal. Ní scéim nó plean é. Bolscóid atá ann mar a gheobhfas muintir na tíre amach má téitear ar aghaidh leis. Ba mhaith liom a iarraidh ar an Aire cuntas a thabhairt dúinn a bheadh níos iomláine ná mar atá faighte againn faoi alt 4 den Bhille.

Ba mhaith liom go mbeadh a fhios againn ar cé mhéad díreach atá faighte againn trí iasachtaí ó Rialtas Mheiriceá agus cé mhéad atá faighte againn i riocht deontas. Ní amháin é sin, ach ba mhaith liom go n-innseodh sé dhúinn cé mhéad atá caite agus céard air atá an t-airgead sin caite? Anuraidh, dúirt mé nach mbeinn an-dian ar an Aire mar gheall ar cheisteanna áirithe a réiteach, ach sílim, tar éis an dá bhliain atá caite, go mba chóir go mbeadh an tAire i ndon léargas réasúnach a thabhairt dúinn ar céard é an sochar is dóigh leis a thiocfas de bharr an t-airgead sin a chaitheamh. Ba chóir go mbeadh sé i ndon léargas réasúnach a thabhairt dúinn anois faoi cén chaoi a mbeimid ábalta na hiasachtaí sin a íoc ar ais arís.

Is maith liom go ndúirt an tAire go n-admhaíonn sé na deacrachtaí maidir le fostaíocht daoine, maidir le "inflation," san am atá le theacht. Is maith liom go n-admhaíonn sé go bhfuil gá le treoir ann agus le "indicators" geilleagracha. Bheadh sé go maith dá gcuirtí iad ar fáil ach níl a fhios agam an mbeidh siad an-tábhachtach. Níl a fhios agam an mbeidh mórán cabhrach le fáil astu. An fáth go bhfuil mé in amhras air go gcuimhním ar chomh cúramach agus bhí Rialtas Mheiriceá ar feadh blianta go gcuirfí a leitheidí de "indicators" ar fáil agus ina dhiaidh sin gur theip air pholasaí an Rialtais a bhí ceaptha agus bunaithe ar na "indicators" sin na deacrachtaí a bhí ag cailliúint ar an tír a réiteach. Mura mbeadh sásamh eile le fáil as an méid adúirt an tAire, tá an sásamh seo le fáil as go dtuigeann sé sa deire na deacrachta móra a d'fhéadfadh a bheith sa mbealach agus chomh cúramach agus nach foláir dúinn a bheith maidir le ceapadh ár gcuid scéimeanna agus caitheamh ár gcuid airgid orthu.

Anoís, pointe nó dhó a bhaineas le cúrsaí áitiúla nó cúrsaí ginearálta. Tugaim faoi deara ar na Meastacháin go bhfuil an deontas le haghaidh téacs-leabhra Gaeilge a chur ar fáil laghdaithe. Ná tógadh an tAire orm má phléim an scéal leis ó thaobh pearsanta. Tá ormsa—agus go deimhin is pléisiúr é—mo chuid léachtaí a thabhairt i nGaeilge. Tá an-chuid mac léinn ag freastal ar na léachtaí Gaeilge. Níor mhiste, má abraim leis an Aire idir an dara agus an tríú bliain nach bhfuil slí sa seomra i gcóir an méid atá ag freastal ar na cúrsaí Gaeilge. Rinne mé iarracht le blianta téacs-leabhra Gaeilge a chur ar fáil a bheadh feiliúnach do na mic léinn óga san ollscoil agus do mhic léinn sna meánscoileanna. Nílim ag rá go ndeama mé mo chuid oibre go maith ach ar a laghad is téacs-leabhra iad, nó is ábhar téacs-leabhra iad is mian liom a rá. Ar aon chor, cheap lucht na Roinne Oideachais go mbeidís feiliúnach don chuspóir a chuir mé romham. Cuid de na profaí ar cheann de na leabhra sin, tá siad ceartaithe agam le níl a fhios agam cé mhéad bliain, agus níl aon chosúlacht, ar na téacs-leabhra sin nó ábhra téacs-leabhra eile a chuir mé isteach go dtí an Gúm a theacht amach. Is deacair don Aire a thuigsint chomh mór agus is taisme nó "handicap" é sin ar dhaoine atá ag tabhairt léachtaí i nGaeilge nó ag iarraidh na léachtí sin a thabhairt i nGaeilge. Iarraim anois ar an Aire, agus achainím go speisialta air, breathnú isteach i scéal na dtéacsleabhra seo agus cuimhniú nach ceist airgid atá ann ach ceist i bhfad i bhfad níos doimhne, i bhfad i bhfad níos tábhachtaí ó thaobh na náisiúntachta agus ó thaobh sábhála na Gaeilge.

Níor mhiste má abraim freisin go bhfuil diomú orm nach bhfuil aon réiteach, chomh fada agus is féidir liom a fheiceál, déanta le go gcuirfí cabhair atá de dhith go géar ar fáil le haghaidh. Comhairle Chuan na Gaillimhe. B'fhéidir go bhfuil mír éigin sna Meastacháin go bhféadfaí an chabhair sin a chur ar fáil ach tuigfidh an tAire deacracht Chuan na Gaillimhe agus tá súil agam, má tá faillí déanta ar an taobh sin den tír maidir le polasaí an Rialtais an dá bhlian atá caite, go bhféachfar chuige go gcuirfear stop leis agus go gcuirfear tús le polasaí nua i dtaobh na tíre sin, agus go ndéanfar rud éigin do réir mar atá á iarraidh ag muintir Chuan na Gaillimhe.

Maidir leis an nGaeltacht, ní thaithníonn liom an neamh-shuim a thugaim faoi deara i scéal na tuaithe sin. Níl a fhios agam an dtuigeann an tAire an scrios a tháinig ar an tuaith sin de bharr stop a chur le scéim na móna. An scéim nua seo, scéim na móna meaisín, tá deireadh curtha leis freisin. Is féidir leis an Aire a rá: "Níl ach 450 duine dá mbriseadh mar gheall air agus is féidir dóibh obair a fháil in áiteacha eile." Tá roinnt den fhírinne annsin, ach ní hé díreach an méid daoine atá i gceist, agus i gConamara, tá sé trom go leor, ach an briseadh dóchais, an briseadh spiride atá ag teacht ar na daoine de bharr a leitheid sin. Iarraim ar an Aire maidir le scéim ar bith—foraoiseacht, móin, portaigh, tionscail bhreagán, tionscail na cuartaéochta, fiodoíreacht nó tithe gloine— cuimhniú ar a leitheid sin mar riachtanas le haghaidh na tuaithe sin, Gaeltacht na tíre ó Thir Chonaill síos go dtí Ciarraighe. Ní thaithníonn liom an fhaillí atá á dhéanamh i gceist na ndaoine sin agus iarraim ar an Aire cúram speisialta a thabhairt do riachtanais na ndaoine seo.

Níl tada eile le rá agam. Tá a fhios agam go gcaithfimid an Bille seo a thabhairt don Aire chun na Seirbhísí Poiblí a choinneáil ar aghaidh mar ba chóir. A lán de na rudaí go mba mhaith liom a phlé anois, pléifidh mé iad an chéad uair eile agus pléifidh mé go mion agus go hiomlán ansin iad.

The first thing I would like to do is to congratulate the Minister on the introduction of the Estimates, which are marked by courage and imagination. One reads in the newspapers daily of programmes of public investment, which have been undertaken in countries which did not succeed in retaining their neutrality, countries which by any ordinary criterion of national income are poorer than ours. Therefore, I think we are entitled to initiate a programme of capital investment inside the limit of our resources.

At the same time a programme of that kind must be selective and must be productive. It must avoid waste and extravagance. It must avoid useless projects and, as far as possible, it must avoid permanent additions to the national debt. A programme of capital investment under the aegis of the present Minister, which will have these benefits, while avoiding those difficulties is, I think, likely to be expected from his past record. I do not think it was sufficiently emphasised, and it may be too frequently forgotten by the younger generation, that the single greatest project of capital investment which took place in this country since the Treaty was, almost undoubtedly, due to the imagination and courage of the present Minister for Finance, namely, the development of the Shannon hydro-electric scheme.

When the Vote on Account was being passed through the Dáil Deputy de Valera, the leader of the Opposition, according to column 2234 of the Dáil Debates on March 22nd said:—

"So far as the policy of developing our resources and the policy of using money for productive purposes are concerned, there will be no difficulty. But the country at the moment is being badly served, because those who should criticise it from the point of view of conviction as regards principles are silent."

Further down he said:—

"For instance, I have no doubt that the members of the Banking Commission, had they been members of the Government, would in many cases have differed from our view about a certain expansion. We took the step and we believed we were right. We never pretended that there was not another view which had to be very carefully taken into account. The trouble is that that particular aspect of the matter is not going to be put forward in this House with the force and sincerity with which it could be put forward by those who believe fundamentally in it, and they are sitting on the benches opposite. If we are to judge by the past, they were either blatantly dishonest about those things or they are now sitting as meek as mice."

As one of the people who might be accused of having criticised extensive capital development, in the difficult situation that the Banking Commission found itself in in 1938, I should like to say publicly that, neither blatantly dishonest nor as meek as a mouse, I address myself to this problem with the same detachment and independence whatever Government or Party happens to be in power.

The problems involved in a discussion on capital investment in the Estimates and in the Vote on Account range over the whole field of economic and financial policy. I think it is quite easy to extract certain allied problems which were not entirely extracted in the debate in the Dáil, and which are not strictly relevant to the motion before the House. One question is that of the relation between our currency and sterling. That matter was debated here in the devaluation debate, at which the Minister was present, and, although no subject could be of greater importance to the country I suggest that this is not an occasion on which it might be suitably debated. Whatever our relations with sterling, and whatever type of currency system is adopted, the problem of capital investment, and the problem of allocation of expenditure between current taxation and borrowing would remain very much the same. I simply mention that all-important question to excuse myself from discussing it further on this occasion.

Another question which was dragged into the debate in the Dáil, and, only remotely connected with it is the question of the amount of accommodation provided by Irish banks for their private customers. Questions were raised regarding credit control and whether the banking system provides adequate credits for agricultural and industrial development. These are important questions which would well merit independent consideration on another occasion. I think an examination of the volume of credit available for private borrowers, the price at which credit is available, the rates of interest and the direction in which credit is extended are all subjects of public importance, but I do not think they should be relevant to this debate on Estimates, where we are concerned not with the private financing of individuals by banks but with the problem of Government finances.

Finally I suggest another problem, which has been very much discussed in this connection but which is only partially relevant, to the extent that I may feel bound to refer to it later on. At the same time it should not form part of the main discussion on the Vote on Account. It is the extent to which Irish banks should be asked to substitute Irish for British Government securities at the present time. That is a very important matter to which I will refer shortly. But, at the same time, I suggest that this is scarcely the occasion on which to raise that problem. These are three closely allied problems which have been discussed in the other House in connection with this Vote but which I, for one, propose to omit from this discussion, not because I do not think they are important, but because they are not relevant.

They include the link with sterling, the policy of the banks towards their customers, and the substitution of Irish Government securities for British Government securities by the banks.

The next point I should like to make is that the Opposition Party has not raised any objection to the amount of the total Estimate. That was made very clear in a speech by Deputy Lemass. In the Dáil Debates, col. 2289, he said:

"I want to put that point of view before the House because I do not want to be taken in favour of a reduction of Government expenditure merely to keep down the total cost and without regard to other consequences."

In fact, the Government expenditure will be greater than appears in the Book of Estimates because of the inevitability of Supplementary Estimates in the course of the year. Therefore, I think we may assume in the discussion that the total proposed by this Vote and in the Book of Estimates does not meet with adverse criticism by the Opposition in this House. The real question which has to be discussed, and which occupied a major part of the Minister's introductory remarks, was the allocation of the expenditure between sums to be raised by taxation and sums to be raised by borrowing. I might say in connection with what the Minister has already said that this division between the two is nothing new. It is inevitable in the nature of things, and the only difference this year is that instead of having left it to be made in the Budget speech it is made on the Estimates. It must be made some time or other, and the very same problem that arises with regard to definition of the line which arises in this debate would equally arise if the division was made in the Budget.

The real practical difficulty, on which there is room for a genuine difference of opinion, is just where to draw the line. Everybody knows that there is a temptation in one's own private affairs when dealing with finances to try to put as much as one can to capital account. That is a natural temptation. We all try to comfort ourselves with the idea that certain things we buy for the house should be charged to capital account and not to revenue. I have no doubt that if I were Minister for Finance the same psychology would apply in public as in private affairs. There would be a very strong temptation to postpone the evil day. It is only human nature to meet from borrowing what should be met by current revenue in the case of the nation as in the case of an individual. Current revenue in every case means a reduction of expenditure in some other direction. Therefore, the real question in the debate is whether the Minister has fairly and rightly drawn the line. I think he met that objection. He disarmed it by his introductory speech. He was aware of the objection which had to be met. It had been made elsewhere and, I must say, on the whole, although no doubt criticism could be directed to particular lines of demarkation, the boundary between legitimate and illegitimate capital expenditure has been fairly drawn. The explanation made by the Minister cleared up doubts about certain items in the Estimates whose capital nature was not self-evident, for example, certain expenditure ancillary to the programme of borrowing for housing.

Readers of economic text books, especially those written during the thirties under the influence of the late Lord Keynes, are very familiar with the argument in favour of deficit financing, the argument in favour of unbalancing the Budget in times of depression in order to bring about full employment and increase production, in order to reflate the economic system which is in a deflated condition. No single contribution to economic theory received more general acceptance in the 'thirties than that a country suffering from unemployment of labour and capital is not only entitled but bound, in order to maintain full employment, to extend credit by public investment where it is not available under private enterprise. That gave rise to the fashion of deficit financing, which, like so many other economic devices, has been taken out of the environment in which it was appropriate and has been carried over in certain countries into an environment in which it is inappropriate. There has been no suggestion of that kind in the other House or here, so far as I know. The Minister has not suggested it.

We are now not living in a period where inflation is required. If anything, it is disinflation—no one must use the word "deflation" in these circumstances. Therefore, deficit financing would be entirely inappropriate and no question of that kind arises. The Minister is not seeking to justify his programme of capital expenditure by any reference to reflating conditions which require stimulation through public expenditure, so we can rule that particular argument for borrowing out of the way in this debate.

Another excuse, I should say, for borrowing, if you agree with the criticisms contained in the Banking Commission Report, was resorted to in the early days of the Irish Free State. I think it is only fair to say that while the country was, perhaps, sowing its wild oats, certain financial practices were employed—practices which have since been corrected—which confused abnormal or non-recurrent expenditure with capital expenditure. Every year, apart from the State, in one's own private household, there are items of expenditure which may be classed as non-recurrent, but there is no reason for treating them as capital expenditure. A particular item may properly be classed as non-recurrent this year, but you can be sure of it that next year there will be some other non-recurrent item to replace it. We are all aware that some of the practices which prevailed after the Treaty were due to a situation that was precariously balanced financially, but now every effort should be made to avoid the confusion of non-recurrent expenditure with capital expenditure. I am glad that this confusion does not appear in the present Estimates, and I think that we can proceed to consider them in an atmosphere which is free from the confusion of abnormal and non-recurrent expenditure with true capital expenditure. That does not arise any more.

The Banking Commission Report has been freely quoted both by people who admired it and by people who did not admire it at the time and by some who admire it now much more than they did when it was first presented. It has been quoted equally by friends and by enemies, in a fashion which I do not think is entirely relevant. It may be useful to attempt to clarify the important lines of thought in the Banking Commission Report in relation to the whole question of public debt and the purposes for which public debt in this country may be properly incurred, as well as in the border line cases, which are really the debatable issues this evening, and the question whether the dis-utility of public debt is outweighed by certain social, or perhaps, political considerations in its favour.

On the one hand there is the type of public expenditure which requires issues of grants from the Central Fund for Post Office telephones and for Shannon electricity. These are thoroughly self-liquidating liabilities and nobody could argue that public debt should not be created for these purposes. The only question that might properly arise in a discussion of these items is whether they might not more properly be left to private enterprise. But in the case of the Post Office and the Shannon scheme, that matter has already been decided, and when the decision has been taken that they should be developed by the State, or by a public corporation established by the State, the provision of adequate capital for them cannot be criticised even by those who believe in the rigid standards of old-fashioned finance. The real question is that, if too much is spent on these things, it may reduce the amount available for expenditure in other directions. We are on the question of the consequences that may arise from the expenditure of an undue amount of capital items. There is also the point that it is unlikely that the total amount asked for in the year will actually be the same as that specified in the Estimates. There is an important fact in the Minister's speech that these Estimates probably represent an over-estimate rather than an under-estimate, and that, therefore, the total actual demand for capital expenditure will be less than the total shown by the Book of Estimates and that probably advances from the Central Fund will be for purposes that are thoroughly self-liquidating.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Will the Senator move the adjournment?

I move the adjournment.

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

When we adjourned at 6 o'clock I was trying to interpret the Report of the Banking Commission on the propriety or otherwise of schemes for public investment by borrowing. Some schemes are met by advances from the Central Fund "under the line", which do not come into the Estimates this evening at all. The other schemes, and those which are very much in the Estimates and form the subject of a great deal of debate in the Dáil and here, are so-called productive schemes, not self-liquidating in a sense, but investments which do not provide the income and sinking fund to repay the interest on the money for the scheme. But they will ultimately raise the national income and taxable capacity and it is suggested that in the long run the additional income derived from the capital investment will provide sums for payment of the interest and amortization of the debt incurred.

The principal objects of borrowing outlined in this year's Estimates are of this kind and the Minister has been at pains in his introductory speech to argue that these are correctly classified. I think most people will agree that, by and large, they are. The reclamation of land, the improvement of agriculture, land drainage and forestry, are amongst the main schemes of this kind, and I do not think that anybody will deny that, if these schemes are efficiently carried out from the technical point of view, they will increase productivity and so are justified, on the strictest interpretation of capital investment.

One matter about which some of us may have had a little misgiving until we heard the Minister speak, is the adequacy of the sinking funds for the redemption of the loans for these schemes. The Minister has made it as clear as it could be made that he proposes not only to be severe but to be almost hyper-severe in regard to repaying these loans, because he has announced his intention of providing sinking funds related to the amount of the capital investment which will be met year by year by annual taxation providing for the repayment of national debt in order to prevent the national debt as a whole being permanently increased. That is one of the misgivings which, possibly, some of us might have had.

The other misgiving is of a minor kind and is a matter which it will be nearly impossible for Senators to argue. It is that, moved by that psychology to which I have already referred as so common, some of these schemes of capital expenditure may possibly embrace certain services which should be more properly charged to revenue. For example, not merely is the capital investment included in the sum put for borrowing, but certain services of officials, who will probably be there anyway, are included in that sum because they are going to be engaged on the operation of these schemes. I do not know to what extent that criticism is valid in relation to any particular scheme, but the criticism was made in the Dáil and, in so far as it is true, I make that criticism, to which the Minister cannot object to having his attention directed.

The third class of capital expenditure is possibly of a more questionable kind. The justification for it is not so self-evident. That is not to say that it cannot be justified. That is, capital expenditure not in respect of self liquidating assets, such as the Shannon scheme or the telephones, not in respect of an addition to national income such as land reclamation or drainage, but an addition to the capital expenditure, which we might call, of an amenity or a social kind. I suppose the greatest example of that is the housing of the working classes. I know that, indirectly, of course, housing is productive. Almost every investment that can be made can be said to be productive, using "production" in a broad enough sense; but, using it in the sense that I have been using it this evening in relation to land reclamation and drainage, I do not think the housing of the working classes in the country can be regarded as, strictly speaking, productive. Therefore, we come to a class of schemes where there is need for greater justification.

In the case of housing in this country, I think we must all agree that the shortage of housing accommodation and the social problems involved by that shortage make it an imperative necessity for investment, and that the policy of the Government must be directed towards meeting that necessary capital investment, but meeting it, of course, in the cheapest possible way from the point of view of debt.

Assuming, for a moment, that housing to a certain extent is going to be engaged on, I may suggest certain considerations which are relevant to keeping down the cost. The first, of course, is the rate of interest that has to be paid on housing loans. That is so obvious that I shall do no more than mention it. There is another cost which is quite as important as the rate of interest, but which is less freely debated in public discussion because it is not entirely popular to draw attention to it, that is, the high cost of building from the technical point of view. In a debate in this Chamber a year ago, Senator Hearne, who speaks with first-hand knowledge, gave us some very striking figures of the relation between the labour time involved in the erection of certain physical quantities of houses and other structures. I suggest that, in so far as these rises in regard to the costs of production are the result of trade union restriction of one sort or another, the trade unions should be appealed to to do something to lower the cost of houses for their own brothers in industry and members of the working classes, including themselves. Another question we must ask is to what extent the costs of raw materials are kept up by unwise protective tariffs, monopolies, rings and cartels of one sort or another. I take it that these are the sort of subjects that will be discussed by the new Industrial Development Authority. I hope so, as these are more important than the smaller questions such as the rate of interest in keeping the cost of houses up.

Another thing which is of great importance from the point of view of the taxpayers is differential rents. It seems to me to be quite absurd that people who would be able to pay rents for houses out of adequate incomes should receive subsidised houses. The relation of rent to ability to pay and of subsidy to the need for subsidy are matters, I think, which need more consideration than they have received up to the present.

Sinking funds are another thing that must be adequate. They must be severely operated because nothing is easier in the world than for a Minister for Finance to relieve a current Budget by making raids on sinking funds. Not only must there be provision for adequate sinking funds but when the future comes, sinking funds must not be raided in order to tide the country over a difficult period. Sinking funds are very important although they may involve additional taxation.

The housing programme must be operated in such a way as will not discourage private builders. State housing must be confined to sectors where the needs of the people cannot be met by free competition on the part of speculative builders.

With all these provisos, capital expenditure on housing from borrowing is a matter which the Government and the country must face. The question is, how much housing will take place and how will the burden on future taxpayers be reduced to the minimum? What we are discussing is capital expenditure, and I should like to repeat the distinction which was drawn by the Banking Commission between self-liquidating assets, non-self-liquidating assets and amenities or social assets, which, although productive in the long run, lead to deadweight debt for a shorter or a longer period.

While we are all agreed that borrowing should take place, our next big problem is the way in which borrowing should take place. The Minister has informed us—and this is a matter on which I, for one, would welcome more exact information and I am asking the question to elicit more exact information on what precisely is involved—of borrowing from the Counterpart Fund. What will it involve exactly on the date when the Counterpart Fund must be repaid? This is a new form of borrowing and the Minister should explain where the burden of that borrowing will ultimately lie.

As I understand it, the Counterpart Fund is deposited in the Central Bank and the Minister is entitled to draw on that deposit just as any of us would be entitled to draw on a deposit in the bank and the Central Bank is not entitled to refuse that borrowing. What arrangement has been made for the repayment of that deposit in the future? These are matters on which some information would be most desirable because this is a new financial operation and very few of us, I think, are familiar with the technical nature of the actual operation itself.

The Minister stated that he hoped also to raise moneys from other funds in his hands. Possibly he might wish to enlarge on that and indicate to the Seanad what other funds he has in mind.

Finally, he will have resort to public borrowing. On this question of public borrowing, it is only fair to say in explanation that in the debate in the Dáil a number of Deputies seemed to take for granted without any further proof that all borrowing is inflationary. That is not so. Some types of borrowing are inflationary and some types of borrowing are not. I do not think that at any stage of the Vote on Account in the Dáil or here to-day the Minister suggested any form of borrowing which seemed to be of an inflationary kind. There was no question of money-market borrowing from the banks on securities such as Treasury bills or raising money by Exchequer bills. These are matters that have not been entered into during the discussion. Borrowing of that kind would be inflationary but no borrowing of that kind has been in question. What I should like to know is does this borrowing simply absorb existing savings or will it involve the creation of new money? If it involves the creation of new money, if it is a question of the creation of new money which is not taken from somewhere, it is inflationary; but to say that expenditure out of borrowing is inflationary and that expenditure out of taxation is not may be true, but it is not universally true and it is not self-evident. High taxation, which would drive people to live on capital may be more inflationary than borrowing from savings. The Minister has shown himself to be quite alive to the dangers of inflation, but from my point of view that danger does not arise from the simple operation of borrowing by itself.

When we come to the question of borrowing new money, immediately we are into the third problem which I described earlier as not being strictly relevant to the question which is before us, that is, the Irish banks accommodating the Irish Government on a long term. There is no question of money-market borrowing from the banks, but there has been a considerable amount of discussion in the Dáil and in the country on the question of whether the Irish banks are providing enough longterm capital to the Irish Government for capital development. That is a problem of such magnitude that it cannot be approached or solved in a hurry. I can see a situation arising where the problem would need to be examined, but certainly the way to approach it is not by forcing the banks to exchange foreign securities for Irish Government securities. The Irish banks are in a peculiarly difficult position to the extent that their deposits are very largely savings deposits, and although in normal times the fact that their deposits are very largely savings deposits reduces their necessity for day-to-day liquidity, in abnormal times, in periods of anything like a lack of confidence in currency or of an attack on the integrity or liquidity of the banking system, their possession of large idle deposits makes our banks peculiarly susceptible to large movements of funds. Being savings banks, they have to provide for a different type of liquidity from the English banks, which are mainly concerned with holding money market assets which can be easily converted into cash. While they are not liable to sudden runs on them, the Irish banks are liable to a movement of deposits across the Border and anything in the nature of a threat to their independence, or a reduction in confidence might lead to a serious reduction of their deposits.

That is a danger to be guarded against, a real danger which the banks are aware of, which the Government is aware of and which, I think, it is only right that the Seanad should be aware of. It may be relevant to blame the psychology of the Irish depositor. It may be relevant to say that the ordinary Irish depositor has not got sufficient sense of responsibility towards investment in his own country. But that psychology is as it is, and, so long as the Irish depositor is as timid and as cautious as he is to-day, I think it would be dangerous to effect anything like a large-scale distribution of the Government securities in the banks —to change from a liquid and saleable type of Government security to a type of security the market for which is smaller and less liquid.

It must be remembered in this connection, a factor which is sometimes overlooked, that a large number of depositors in the Irish banks are in Northern Ireland and, in the case of certain banks, in Great Britain, and that anything at all in the nature of an emphasis, a greater emphasis on the difference in banking practice in the Twenty-Six County area and the rest of the banking area would simply be extending the area of Partition into the financial field. That is a subject which is not to be embarked on without the fullest consideration and the most mature reflection. That being so, we are driven to this—the new money must be borrowed not from the banks but from the public. If the public are to find the new money the Government must offer attractive terms.

The Minister, I have no doubt, has learned the lesson of the recent loans which were not as attractive as he had hoped. The fact of the matter is that the days of cheap money are over. Whether we like it or not, that particular spree has come to an end, that particular debauch of inflation is over. Cheap money is a thing of the past and no Government here or elsewhere can borrow to-day, except on such terms as will attract the bona fide investor and it may even have to attract him out of existing securities which he may have to sell in order to buy the new loans.

That brings me to another point which has been very much discussed in this debate. The latest report of the Central Bank has drawn attention to the fact that the current demands for capital in this country for public and private investment have been outrunning the supply of new current savings. It is quite likely that this capital programme which the Minister envisages—£12,000,000 in the Book of Estimates together with the large sums which will be advanced under the line—may constitute such a demand for capital in the country that the current new savings may prove unequal to meet it. With the Government demand together with that of private capitalists and private companies looking for additional sources, not to say anything of the ordinary private investor trying to use his savings to enlarge his shop and so on—the general demand for long-period capital may exceed the available supply. There are two ways, of course, of remedying that. One we have ruled out already, inflation. The Minister has ruled that out; he is not prepared to add to the normal supply of capital by inflationary borrowing from the banks and it is as well to have that clear. That particular avenue, that particular solution, is not open to us and it can be ruled out. The only other way in which fresh capital can be met from new investment is that to the extent to which it is not met out of new savings existing securities will have to be liquidated; and I gather from something the Minister said in his speech that he envisages the possibility, without undue alarm, of a certain amount of external securities being sold in order that these new Irish Government loans may be subscribed to. That brings us to perhaps the most controversial part of this whole discussion: the degree to which external assets can be and should be safely repatriated. If external assets were repatriated in the way I have suggested, that individual owners of external assets should be attracted by the superior terms offered by the Irish Government to swop their existing securities for Irish Government loans, the operation would be a perfectly legitimate one from every point of view.

The private investor is entitled to change his securities about in such a way as to give what he considers to be the best return. Nobody will suggest for a moment that the Irish investor who sells shares in an English company or English gilt-edged securities to buy one of the new Government loans is doing anything which, from any criterion of behaviour, he is not entitled to do. Therefore, it is important in this discussion to try to get this repatriation of assets into its correct perspective.

There have been two schools of thought in relation to it. One is the school which is all for repatriating at a pace and on a scale which is physically and financially impossible and the other the school which says that in no conceivable circumstances whatever can the repatriation of external assets be anything but an unmixed evil. It seems to me that the truth lies somewhere between these two extremes. The problem is to find where the truth lies and to regard this very controversial matter in its correct perspective. Again, I come back to the Banking Commission. Possibly the central warning of the Banking Commission Report was that the then dissipation of external assets must be brought to an end, that equilibrium must be restored in the balance of payments. The urgency of that operation was postponed by the outbreak of war and during the war there was an unwanted, unwelcome and inevitable accumulation of sterling assets here which, viewed in relation to the events happening in the outside world, was a symptom of poverty rather than wealth. The fact is that they did accumulate, although they have been deteriorating in purchasing power and value. The balance of payments in 1949, so far as we have been given figures, is practically in equilibrium. The adverse balance of 1947 was greatly reduced in 1948 and still further reduced in 1949 and, if the existing trends continue, will disappear in 1950. The increasing output of agriculture, based to some extent on the Minister's policy which we have already discussed, should in the long run build up exports and, therefore, I think that the appearance of the current balance of payments in 1950 is entirely different from what it was in 1938.

It is practically in equilibrium and therefore I think that we could contemplate without too much alarm, without too much trepidation, a small shift of external assets as part of the general policy of internal investment. If we do this with our eyes open, if we decide as part of a national policy that some of our assets would be better invested at home than abroad, provided we do not bring about a serious disequilibrium in the balance of payments, we are doing nothing very unwise, very risky or very wrong. If repatriation was to create self-liquidating assets, I do not think anybody would particularly cavil, and if it was for productive assets I do not think that people would complain very much either, provided we could be satisfied that the yield on the internal investment was at least equal to the yield on the assets invested externally.

The real problem we are up against here is the amenity investment, the housing investment, the investment which is going to bring some sort of dividend of an intangible kind. I cannot help feeling that, in view of the urgency of the housing situation in Dublin, a small repatriation of external assets is a lesser evil than leaving the housing problem not adequately met. Apart from the increased comfort, the increased standard of living which the people would get from improved housing accommodation, there would be a yield in increased health. If we had better housing, we would have to spend less on hospitals, and there would be less tuberculosis and diseases of one sort or another. There is another intangible consequence not to be despised in the present world, a social contentment, because I have no doubt at all that the bad housing conditions in Dublin are a very favourable breeding-ground of undesirable types of revolutionary ideas.

Therefore, I cannot help feeling that, from the point of view of the Government, a serious attack on the housing problem is a matter of great importance even if it should involve reasonable repatriation of external assets. It is an investment of primary importance. People who object to investment in amenities should remember that at the present time private householders are doing a great deal that would not be considered prudent 20 years ago. They are exchanging a certain amount of securities for more tangible assets and these assets might be what I would describe as not necessarily adding to the letting value of houses. From the point of view of the householders' enjoyment, the letting value is not the only test of value. Certain social improvements, especially housing and things of that kind, might be a very much better national investment than external assets.

Assuming that we are creating borrowing, and assuming that certain purposes would involve borrowing, and assuming that external sales should provide the capital, there is a great deal to be said, if we are going to do it, for doing it sooner than later. This is an inflationary world. The value of sterling is falling. There is no reason to believe that that will not continue. We are living in an inflationary world and the movement of prices is tending upwards. The reason they are not higher is because they are kept down by every form of artificial control.

I want to end on a note that was struck very well by Senator Hayes. If a private householder decides to invest his savings, everybody would agree that it would be a good investment if he invested in education as that is something that cannot be taxed away. Is it not missing the point when the greatest capital wealth of the country is not assisted in building up the nation in agriculture and scientific technique? We are living in an age of technology. No country will advance that has not invested in technical knowledge. The most progressive countries in Europe, countries without great national resources, have invested large sums of money in education which led to economic progress. One good example is Switzerland.

As to the University Vote, I shall not discuss it now as I think it would be out of order; but, as part of the policy of national investment, professional expertise, scientific and technical knowledge are as much capital as land reclamation, forestry or drainage. I do not want to repeat what Senator Hayes said, but the Minister knows that the Irish universities are not in a position at the present time to take their share in the progress and building up of the country. I hope the Minister will continue his act of faith in the future.

After the masterly survey of the economic situation by Senator G. O'Brien I think it would be presumptuous to continue on that line so I will confine myself to a few general statements. We are all agreed, whether we look upon the amount asked for as for current expenditure or for capital expenditure, that combined they make an appalling sum, a total that no man in his senses a few years ago would imagine could be introduced and successfully passed in an Irish Parliament. We must have some sympathy with the Minister for Finance for the time being. If this debate does nothing more than to bring home to the Minister and to people outside, that money borrowed must be ultimately repaid, that just as we agree that we are expanding our national debt, so we must agree that the additional national burden must be paid and that the only way it can be paid is by work.

Is not this Government, like any other Government in danger of being pushed along the line? I wonder if I would be accused of being a heretic if I suggested that when faced with claims that are uneconomic, it should say "thus far and no further". We know of individual Ministers, as well as of Government who were forced to do things that should not be done and that the country could not afford, but they go on doing them in the name of that awful thing called political expediency. Should it not be time now for us to try to cut the national cloth according to the national measure? The Minister is confronted with the need of finding the money. That is going to bring home to us the unpalatable truth that is familiar to us in business as well as in national matters that credit is a very delicate thing, and you cannot play around with it, despite your nationalisation. You cannot play around with Government interference in business and encourage the maximum investments in private enterprises and Government funds if you endanger credit. You will not get it. You can have a pukka unadulterated nationalisation, but if you interfere with credit, you will find that you are interfering to a grave degree with the expansion of private enterprise.

I want to say, with great deliberation, that this is the only country which calls itself a democracy and in which the successful businessman is pilloried on the ground that it is a crime to make money. It is a crime to make money in this State, mar dheadh, because we have a certain degree of protection for some industries. I have lived in other countries where they have a greater degree of protection than we have got, but the business is there with all its export outlets that cover the world, built up without Government interference of the kind that we consider necessary, and apparently still consider necessary, where the men at the head of the businesses who started off, without 1/- to jingle, are multi-millionaires in their respective countries because of the money they made themselves in sheltered and protected industries.

They are not subjected to vile calumnies or to these anonymous letters in the pages of every newspaper. Why? It has become a national week-end pastime here to attack and villify the people who compose the bulk of the fabric of this State. Let us look at the problem ahead of us in a realistic manner. You are not going to get maximum speculative industry or enterprise until there is something done to remove the apparent stigma which has been placed on native industry— that terrible stigma which it has become popular to place on any native of the country who dares to be successful.

In this Bill before the House the Minister presents us with the national accounts in a new and hitherto unknown form. He has segregated national expenditure, from non-recurrent expenditure, a very desirable thing, and he is to be complimented on it. It is good and sound business to segregate these branches of expenditure, but let us not fool ourselves. It does not diminish the burden which eventually falls on the taxpayer by as much as one pound. In the aggregate, the taxpayer has to pay the same as if the capital expenditure were merged in all the national expenditures of the country.

We have noticed in recent years that the tendency has been more and more to agitate about the cost of living, but you find that those who agitate most are demanding more and more services from the State. I submit that that statement cannot be controverted. Those who agitate most are, in the main, people who have given up hope of providing these things for themselves, and they come along expecting the State to do everything for them. I ask the Minister for Finance whether he does not agree that the State is always being urged to regard itself as the universal provider. This tendency to rely more and more on the State is having a calamitous effect on the national morale. I am old enough— and young enough, I hope, too—to remember when the average person in this State would be ashamed to accept from the State many of the things he is demanding from the State now, and at that time you had a better and healthier type of community than you have now.

There are just two things in the itemised expenditure that, I think, call for some comment. It is all very well to go in for unnecessary and somewhat lavish expenditure, if there is something, as it is vulgarly put, "in the kitty". I will take two items that strike me most in the accounts. You have a fairly considerable increase in the cost of public works. But you have not to go beyond the walls of this House to see an ornate scheme, a costly scheme in the course of erection in the grounds of Leinster House. And, in the shadow of that much-discussed building—a building of historic memories, the Custom House, of which we are all proud, whatever the shadow cast on it by the neighbouring new building may be—you have, in the grounds itself, a scheme in progress in respect of which the Minister might give us some idea of the estimated expenditure. If you have not seen it, look at it. I do not know what this scheme is costing but it must be a definitely heavy item. If you are getting to a point when national taxation is reaching astronomical heights, you have to ask yourself whether we can afford to indulge in these luxuries of costly marble appurtenances to public buildings which were formerly surrounded by broad green grass, which has a certain meaning in this country, and did not belittle the dignity of the building behind it.

The only other item to which I would like to call attention is the apparently heavy cost of wireless broadcasting. If I am reading the item aright, the cost of wireless broadcasting is £5,000 per week and, according to the Estimates, we are asked to provide an additional £750 per week. Now, I have got as much national pride and national background as most members of this House, but I am putting to this House whether your own mind could imagine that we are getting anything like a return for that colossal expenditure. That is what it is. I take it that what we are asked to pay for is the net amount after receipts from commercial broadcasting have been taken into consideration. If you think we are getting value for £5,000 a week you may be easily pleased.

I am a fairly constant listener to the programmes from our native stations, but what is the experience of the average listener? You tune in Radio Éireann and you get colliery bands from England playing on gramophone records and not always playing harmoniously. We have got grand bands in this country. I am not suggesting that we should isolate ourselves from the beauties and dignities of the work of musicians from other countries, but it puzzles me why Radio Éireann should devote such a great proportion of its time to records of music from practically unknown bands across the water. I have often asked myself whether that money could not be spent at home on our own bands or on the provision of Irish entertainers. We could get a good many of them and encourage a great many more for that amount of money. I am calling attention to this because I regard it as a shocking thing—certainly it is a shocking thing to me that we should spend so much money every week on broadcasting.

Senator, the receipts are £228,000, as against £247,000 expenditure, which is about £20,000 of a difference.

It is a big difference from one point of view.

I hope the Senator does not read his own balance sheet that way.

I do read my balance sheets and I hope that the Minister reads his.

Would the Senator refer me to the luxury marble that is near the Custom House?

I did not go inside the garden.

It is the Custom House memorial he is talking about.

There is not much luxury or marble there.

There is also what is in front of Leinster House—on which national money is being expended. At a time when you have to watch the items of expenditure, is it necessary to incur this expenditure, which could be deferred until the national finances are in a happier state than they are in?

I confess I find difficulty in following exactly what Senator Summerfield wished the Minister to do. I do not know whether he is for or against the Estimates, and I leave it to somebody else to make that clear. In regard to the statement as presented to us, we must feel that the Minister is presenting the Oireachtas and the country with a constructive programme, which stimulates thought and demands the sort of analysis from each of us that we had in the contribution of Senator Professor O'Brien this evening. One would like to compliment the Senator on the very remarkable statement he has made. I am tempted to chase certain points in it, but will not do so, as there are other aspects of Government policy to which I wish to address myself. From the Opposition, we had Senator Hawkins and Senator Ó Buachalla. I thought their criticism weak in defeat, and if they tried to be destructive they were not very effective. I got the impression that their whole effort was futile and that we should not waste any time on their contributions.

Senator Hawkins talked about the delay in getting on with arterial drainage, he talked about the land rehabilitation scheme, emergency employment schemes, farm improvement schemes and the sale of tourist hotels; and then the subsidy on butter. If we have not made more progress under the present Government with arterial drainage, the fault lies in the inactivity of those who were in Government for 15 years and who left behind them so much to be done. If they were doing their job they would have had the surveys made and then we could go out with the machinery that the present Government was able to buy to get on with the job. The farm improvement scheme, as far as it went, was all right, but it was a peddling little scheme, a conception of small minds who could not look out on the country as a whole and who made no real approach to the reorganisation of our rural life.

Senator Ó Buachalla deplored the fact that the Agricultural Commission, of which he was a member and of which I also was a member, ceased to function. If he throws his mind back, he will recall that he was amongst the group which decided or assented to the view that the commission had no function to fulfil at the time by continuing its labours. I was amongst the minority who expressed the other point of view and believed that the problems of agriculture, here and in the world as a whole, demanded intimate study and that they should be reported upon, so that when the emergency would have passed we could proceed along well-defined lines of agricultural reorganisation. It is to the credit of the present Government that they are proceeding along those lines, making a positive and far-reaching effort to reorganise our economic life, both rural and industrial.

I especially want to compliment the Government on having tilted the scales so as to bring about a better balance between urban and rural life. That is all-important. In days gone by we had people with a conception like that of President Person in the Argentine, saying we must industrialise the country no matter at what cost to rural life.

The whole emphasis was on building up the vigour and supremacy of the industrial and urban communities, even at considerable expense to the rural community. That did not seem to matter to those governing the country for 15 years. Now the scales have been tilted slightly the other way, bringing about a proper balance, and the country has a much better chance of making progress. We all know, no matter where we live, that urban and city life is the death of civilisations, that the vigour of any country is determined by the vigour of its rural life. No one will assent more readily to that than the successful people who know what life is in our industrial communities. That was a much-needed reform and its results will be far reaching to the country's benefit.

Senator Hawkins deplored the fact that taxation has gone higher and has grown steeply in recent years. The rates have not been raised, but the income to the Exchequer is greater. Why? Because good Government has brought about such an improvement in the income of every person in the State that they have much more to spend on the commodities that are taxed and on the amusements they enjoy, and the Exchequer benefits as a result. I think that is to the credit of the Government. The standard of living to-day is much higher than it was before the advent of the present Government to office. We must recognise that and compliment them on it. It is difficult to expect the Opposition to see any light in the eye of the other person at all. The attitude generally is to decry what has been attempted. The decision of the Minister to segregate capital expenditure from other services is a wise one. I do not know what Senator Summerfield's point of view is about investment in the land of this country, but we have heard Senator Professor O'Brien, whom we recognise as an authority on it.

We have heard Senator Professor O'Brien, whom I think we recognise as an authority. If there was not any other authority for this decision, those of us who come up from the country every week see the justification for what the Government are doing. I have no hesitation in saying that there are more rushes on the fields of Ireland than there are in any other country in Western Europe, size for size, and that more rushes have grown on those fields during the régime of Fianna Fáil. Certainly, there were more when they were going out of office than there were when they came in. Some would prefer to see the rushes grow rather than that the Minister for Agriculture would succeed in planting clovers on those fields. It may not be very complimentary to our patriotism to speak like that, but that is the impression one gets from the criticisms of Government policy that we read and listen to.

The truth is that the country as a whole is feeling a rejuvenation which it very badly needed. We are starting out on this very great adventure. Millions of money will be put into the land. I have heard Senators on both sides speak in the past of capital investment in Denmark and other European countries. Anyone who knows the layout of the land in those countries and their productivity will realise how much is being returned for the capital investment. We have had a continued decline of productivity over a great many years. The lowest point was reached in 1947. I agree that that was a very unfortunate season, that, because of climatic conditions, yields were further depressed. There were other factors. The Government's policy is an attempt to alter that. It is a vigorous and intelligent policy, very well directed and already it is bearing fruit. Our live stock have increased in the last couple of years. In 1948, 205,000 live stock were added.

There are over 4,000,000 head of cattle in the country now. I suggest, and I challenge contradiction, that because of the Government's policy every beast is worth, at a minimum, £5 more than it was worth the day before they came into office and before they made the last agreement with Britain. That is a minimum. In some cases it is as much as £10. Taking 4,000,000 as the number of live stock, it means that the value of our live stock has increased by £20,000,000. That is the truth. I do not know what Senator O'Reilly has interjected.

I did not intend to interrupt the Senator. Somebody said it was devaluation. I said that was the real answer. It is proof that I was, at any rate, listening to Senator Baxter.

Why cannot the Opposition embrace the land rehabilitation scheme and support it in the belief that it will rejuvenate the land? I have heard criticisms of it. I know that it is being criticised by the Opposition, that they are doing what they can in a great many districts to discourage people from embracing it.

Can the Senator name the districts?

Yes; I will name my own district. I state a fact. Evidence has been adduced in the other House. I have heard of meetings which were organised at which a prominent supporter of the Opposition in the district said that the scheme was of no value. There were more rushes on his farm than in any other farm in the country. That is what is going on, and it is really very unfortunate, because the capital value of the land will be immensely improved and its productivity increased as a result of this scheme. Everybody ought to contribute by trying to make our farmers realise that our farm land is in a backward, dilapidated condition, needing considerable improvement and extensive investment of capital. Our ability to bear taxation in future, to increase productivity, to raise living standards will be determined by our readiness to accept the assistance which the Government is making available and by using this capital to the best advantage.

I know, of course, that all along there was this conservative attitude on the part of Fianna Fáil with regard to investment in the land. On many occasions, from the other side of the House, I raised this issue. I was aware that our farmland was very considerably under-capitalised. I knew quite well that it was beyond the competence of individual farmers, and beyond their credit-worthiness to secure the capital, to rehabilitate their farms. I pleaded with two, perhaps three, Ministers for Finance of the Fianna Fáil Government that something should be done. From every one of them the same statements came. They all had the same approach.

Deputy MacEntee, when he was Minister for Finance, on an occasion when I was urging the necessity for credit for the purpose of restocking, made this statement—Volume 74 of the Official Debates, columns 1890-91:—

"But so far as encouraging any small farmer with limited capital or with no capital, to launch out now into livestock, or anything like that, is concerned, I certainly, looking at the world as a whole and the position which at the moment is developing, do not think that such a thing should be encouraged by providing him with cheap money at this moment.

It would be much better for the farmer to work away within his limited resources until there is a definite change for the better, and world prices for agriculture tend to rise."

That was the approach of Deputy MacEntee in his day. That was the attitude of Fianna Fáil with regard to investment in agriculture.

That whole scene has changed and shifted now because other men are in control and in so far as the Minister for Finance is contributing to this change in policy he is to be congratulated. There is criticism—and it is very difficult to know what its meaning or purpose is—regarding the food subsidies that are being paid at present. I was not able clearly to understand what Senator Hawkins's point was in the discussion on the butter subsidy to-day. I do not know what his attitude was on subsidising the export of butter to Britain and I do not know what the attitude of the Opposition Press was on that either. I saw that, in reply to a question by one of their Deputies in the other House, Deputy Lynch, the Taoiseach said that the Vote for the Agricultural Produce Subsidies was the only Vote other than the Vote for the Department of Industry and Commerce from which food subsidies were paid in 1947-48 and 1948-49. The payments from that Vote amounted to £264,000 in 1947-48 and £294,000 in 1948-49. I do not know whether that was something they wanted to decry or to encourage, but I have gone to the trouble of trying to elucidate the figures for bounties paid in the days of the Fianna Fáil régime in this country to enable the British to buy cheap food from us. It would be very healthy for them at present to look back at these figures and see what they were responsible for doing. I got the figures from 1933 to 1938 and in that period the British, or at least our Irish farmers, were paid £15,591,000 in bountíes on food we exported to Britain. I can give the figures year by year if they want them, but they need not talk about subsidising exports to Britain as far as it was done or as far as it may be necessary to do it in the future by this Government. Let them look back at their own past and they will find considerable difficulty in finding an argument when they hold up for criticism proposals to export butter to Britain and subsidise it when we think of the fat cattle, pigs, sheep, butter and bacon that were exported in their time and the taxation they imposed in order to make that possible.

We may be up against the problem of subsidising exports from this country to Britain or any other country. I would like to hear the attitude of the Opposition on this question and to hear whether they have changed their point of view from what it was when they were in power themselves. I think that it is vital to our future. Why do we export at all? I do not think anybody wants to send anything out of the country merely for the pleasure of sending goods out. They are sent for the purpose of exchange so that we may be able to buy the things we need ourselves. We are not subsidising the export of cattle to-day; the price is standing on its own. The arrangements which the present Government made are wholly satisfactory to the live stock industry and I would like especially to compliment the Government and the Minister for Agriculture on that section of the agreement by which the prices of our cattle were hitched to the prices which British farmers receive for their cattle which they sell to the Ministry of Food. I think that that in itself is the most vital and important section in the whole agreement. For instance, last week or the week before the National Farmers' Union of Britain in their consultation with the Ministry of Food and the Minister for Agriculture succeeded in getting an advance of 2/- per live cwt. on the price of fat cattle. Automatically, because of this very valuable agreement which Mr. Dillon and his colleagues made, that advance comes to us and I think that is something on which the Government should be complimented. It was far seeing and is of very great value to us.

There are commodities which we import which are essential to our existence. In the main they are only secured by exchanging for agricultural products. Thus we get tea, steel and other commodities which are not available to us here. Our industrial and urban communities sell nothing abroad if we except our breweries and distilleries We pay for our imports by our earnings abroad and the earnings of our investments, but in the main by our agricultural exports. Is it to be argued that because the community as a whole require certain commodities which are not available here payment for these commodities is to be specifically the responsibility of the dairy farmers? If the dairy farmers' produce fetches a price on the foreign market below the level of the cost of production are they to suffer the disadvantage because the community as a whole require certain imports for which they are unable to pay by any productive effort of their own? In my judgement, we are a community thrown together. Our land makes it possible to provide certain products for export. If some of these products must be sold abroad at a price which is not satisfactory to the original producer do not expect the producer to continue to export these commodities. He will go out of production and, therefore, the exchange which the sale of his produce would provide is no longer available to the community. The community must ask itself if it is going to do without the commodities which that produce purchased in the past or, if not, what will it offer to the farmer in order to provide these imports. When you come up against a situation like that I think the community as a whole can justifiably be called upon to make a contribution which will keep producers at work providing the commodities which are necessary for exchange. If we do that we are not the only people in the world doing it. The Canadian Government at present exports bacon to Britain at a price lower than that paid to the Canadian farmers. The Canadian Government entered into an agreement with the producers to pay a certain price, but when they came to bargain with the British Minister of Food they could not get the price which they had guaranteed to their own producers and the Federal Exchequer has to make a contribution to keep the price up to the level which the Government promised to the farmers. We shall have increased difficulties, I fear, in selling agricultural products in the future.

We may as well face the fact. Taking the case of the Canadians again, there were years during the war when the Canadian Government sold 600,000,000 lbs. of bacon. Under the latest agreement they were able to get the British Government to agree to purchase only 60,000,000 lbs. of bacon from them, and the annual productivity of the Canadian farmers is somewhere in the region of 900,000,000 lbs. of bacon. What they are to do with the balance of their product is beyond them. That is a problem which is growing and which we will have to face here. It will, perhaps, be longer before we face it in regard to meat and cattle products, but certainly in the matter of pigs, with the pig population in most European countries growing, we are going to see greatly increased supplies of bacon, as well as of butter, on the market. It may be agreeable to the Opposition to be very critical of Government policy, which determines that in order to encourage productivity here and provide us with foreign exchange, the producers here should be helped, but I personally see no alter native.

If we are honest, if the Senators on the other side are honest about increasing productivity, they will have to face up to that or we are going to see a decline in productivity. That will not be good for the investment of capital in our land rehabilitation scheme and many of our other schemes because the level of productivity and prosperity in the rural area is going to reflect itself in every town and city. If you keep farm incomes right, if you keep such a balance in rural life as will enable wages to be paid and spending capacity to be maintained, the standard of living and opportunities for employment in our towns will be maintained as well. I congratulate the Government on being able to strike such a balance to-day as makes the agricultural community feel that at last they are being given as much consideration as the people in the towns, which makes for a much happier spirit in the country than we have known for a great many years.

I have been a member of the House for two years and I am sorry to see that Senator Baxter spoils a good case by his apparent antipathy to what he calls the Opposition. He sees a Fianna Fáil bogey man in everything and while he is critical of the critics of the Government he is very critical of the Opposition himself. I suggest that we are all anxious to do what we consider is best for the country, and, if we do not always see eye to eye with Senator Baxter, he ought to give us the credit of having an honest opinion on those matters on which we differ from him.

I am critical of the provision in respect of subsidies, in so far as a subsidy is given on butter while butter is rationed. Our first consideration ought to be our own people, and, while on the subject of rationing, I want to protest, as I did before, against the differential in price which amounts to something like class legislation, in respect of tea and sugar. This was pooh-poohed before, but the fact remains that the poorer sections of the community are compelled to go short of tea and sugar because they cannot afford the high price, while people with money can always get as much tea and sugar as they want. No explanation can disabuse my mind of the belief that the poorer people are simply being told that they cannot get the tea and sugar they want because they are not able to pay the higher price.

Senator Baxter spoke about the efforts of the previous Government to industrialise the country to the beglect of the rural areas. If Senator Baxter is not as old as I am, he is nearly as old——

A bit older.

——and he lived in the time of Arthur Griffith. That great teacher always maintained that what we needed in this country was a strong industrial arm as well as a strong agricultural arm. Prior to the machine age, there were rural industries all over the country. The machines destroyed them, and the fact that the previous Government encouraged industrialisation in certain areas could not have, and, I believe, did not have, any serious effect on the rural population. We must face the fact that, without an industrial arm, there would not be sufficient employment for the people on the land. We see that position down in Connemara. A man has a wife and nine children, six of them being boys. Only one of the boys could succeed to the farm. The rest of them went of America. At that time they could go there. Now they are going to Britain. It was to arrest that trend, that departure of our population, that the Fianna Fáil Government set out on their industrial campaign, in which I think, they succeeded to a certain extent.

As I said here the other day, we all forget that we went through five or six years of a war period. Senator Baxter talks about the rushes in the field, but nothing could be done for the land of the country during those war years, and we are lucky to have it even in the condition it is in. The Senator also said—a statement which I contest—that the present Government increased wages. They did nothing of the kind, and I am talking as an industrial worker. In February or March, 1948, an agreement was made between the unions and the Federated Union of Employers that increases of wages would not go beyond 11/- per week, and at that period the cost of living was somewhat as it is now. The index figure is, I think, the same, though womenfolk will tell you that certain commodities which are not included in that figure have gone up—for instance, bus fares, which must be taken into consideration in relation to working-class people of Dublin, many of whom live in the new housing schemes on the outskirts of the city.

Senator O'Brien mentioned housing and I want to congratulate him on his speech. He started by telling us that he did not think it was relevant to the discussion, but he got away with it in regard to many things which I think were not relevant. When I first became a member of this House, I was told that anything could be raised on this Bill, but, when I put that to the Cathaoirleach, he said: "Not altogether anything, but many things." I do not think it fair to suggest that all the blame for the cost of housing is to be attributed to the so-called restrictive practices of the trade unions. I am opposed, and have always been opposed, to the principle of the right of succession from father to son in the trade union movement. The thing is bad in principle and cannot be defended on moral grounds, but we must remember that there is another side to the story.

There was a time when these men could not get their boys to a trade, and, up to the time of the suppression of the guilds in 1840, no Catholic boy could go into a trade. If anyone reads the evidence before the commission set up to inquire into that position, he will find that they all stated definitely that that was their policy, that no Catholic boy could go to a craft. Now we have swung the other way. The unions in their endeavour to get justice and right had to fight all along the line. What happened—and I do not blame the employers—when the trades were free was that an employer had a good customer whom he could not afford to offend and that customer had a boy or some protegé whom he wished to put to serve his apprenticeship. The unions were forced into the position in which they are and if they had any guarantee of a fair crack of the whip in the matter of getting their boys in to serve their apprenticeships, I believe that something could be done to ease the position. However, we can discuss that on a motion which is at present on the Order Paper.

Housing is one of the most serious matters which this or any other Government has to face at present. The people are not staying in rural Ireland. They are flocking to the cities. There was a housing problem in Dublin 30 years ago and I believe it is almost as great to-day as it was then. No matter how many houses you build, you will have a housing problem, because you have the rural population coming in. They are coming in because the countryside is not attractive enough for them to stay there.

The most depressed people in wages are the agricultural labourers. It seems to be a point of Government policy that if they are employing men in a rural area and they have anything to say with regard to the wages to be paid, the wages must not be much higher than the wages of this depressed class, the agricultural labourer, because it would take men off the farms. Why should the agricultural labourer be the worst paid worker in this agricultural country? That is a thing I could never understand. I know nothing about agriculture, as I was born and reared in the City of Dublin; but it always struck me as strange that these men, with such a high degree of skill, should be the lowliest paid of all the people in the country. They were workers without whom agriculture could not survive—the agriculture that we are told is the most important industry of the country, yet here are these men who gave of their best to build the greatest asset we have, the finest types that can be found in any country, kept by Governments and everybody else at the lowest minimum, so far as wages are concerned.

I come now to the question of housing in the cities. The corporations are doing their best, and so are the borough councils, and the county councils. I want to pay a tribute to the Dublin Corporation for their efforts, and incidentally, to add something to the information Senator Baxter has by saying this: The Dublin Corporation was the only borough council in these islands that kept up building continuously all through the emergency, despite all the shortages of raw materials and other things. Admittedly their activities were somewhat limited, but the fact remains that they were building all the time and there is no use in Senator Baxter or anyone else criticising the previous. Government for not doing this or that.

Let us agree that this Government or the last Government did and do what they could and will do what they can. There is no use in trying to score cheap points in debate. That kind of thing gets us nowhere. This is our country and we are all out to make the best of it and to do what we can for it. If we disagree let us give credit to each other for being honest in our disagreements. This question of housing is a serious one. There are thousands in the City of Dublin looking for houses, boys and girls getting married, and there is no accommodation for them, no matter how hard they try to get it. There are working class families who want accommodation but when they go looking for it they find that they must have a certain number in family and must be living in a small room in a large tenement house. They must be the father and mother of four children. But what about the situation of boys and girls getting married and of the thousands who have not large families or who have no families at all? What is to become of these? In the main, they are working-class families who cannot afford to pay big rents, who cannot afford to pay £300 or £400 down as a deposit on a house built by a speculative builder, people who cannot pay a loan back. These are the people who, I suggest, deserve the sympathy of this House. They are people with large families, and people, with comparatively small families, and those with no families at all, who seem to be nobody's children and who get no consideration. Their position is an impossible one. I did not get much support on the last occasion when I suggested that the Government should declare the provision of houses to be a national emergency, and should be prepared to raise money and give it to the various councils throughout the country interest free to give them an opportunity of building houses a lot cheaper than they can be built at the present time.

On this question of the working classes, you had these advertisements, which were published, inviting them to come back. I do not say a word against inviting building workers to come home, but my information is that there are now more building workers working in the City of Dublin than ever before. There are people coming in almost every day, half-baked tradesmen, getting union cards, and building houses, and still what do they say? They say: "What does the future hold for us? What security have we in the future? Can we be secure for anything beyond five years?" We are told that there is plenty of building, but is there is plenty of money? Will there be money to finance all these schemes, all the housing projects, all the various sanatoria and the rest? That is the problem and, mind you, every workman is always living and working in dread of dismissal. That is a natural feeling, particularly in the building trade. The man is working to-day, and he does not know if he will be working next week. Security is a very important thing with every worker, but particularly so with the building worker. Criticism has been levelled against these people because they are getting high wages. They can command high wages because they are in demand themselves, but they do not know what the future will have in store for them. I do not know if the Minister can give an indication what would happen if the restrictive practices were removed, and if the trades were opened to allow more boys to come in and if the Government and the building employers were to facilitate further workers. Is there any assurance that there is a building programme that can be continued for the next 20 years? We may have the materials and the workers, but will we have the money? That is a big problem. There is no use in telling us that everything in the garden will be lovely. It is a genuine view held among the workers in the building trades that there is no security, despite all the propaganda and all the advertisements. The average worker can see nothing in the future at the end of four, five or six years. He cannot be sure that he will not be as badly off as he was before.

Senator Summerfield mentioned the broadcasting service and I would like to mention it, but not to criticise it in the way he did. I suggest that we might get better programmes from Radio Éireann if we paid better salaries. I know some of the people employed who spend their day rehearsing and playing at night. They are working for as low as £7 a week. That is not the worst feature of it, but they must give an assurance that they will take no other engagement. They are limited to the payment of £7 a week, and I can tell you that an ordinary tradesman in the City of Dublin gets considerably more than that. These men are professional men, and when Radio Éireann will pay as low as £7 a week you cannot expect a good programme. When men are hamstrung in that fashion they will leave Radio Eireann severely alone as quickly as ever they can.

This is the last point, and I have made it consistently year after year. It is the question of the conditions of sub-post offices. I think it is an outrage, particularly in the City of Dublin, that the general public should have to put up with the present conditions in the sub-post offices. The business of the sub-post office has increased out of all proportion to what it was originally expected it would be. The sale of stamps and the taking in of parcels has become a minor side. You have old age pensions, widows' pensions and things like that tacked on to the ordinary sub-post office. As a result, the general public have not room for ordinary business. When the position is examined it will be appreciated that it is rather undignified that a branch of the General Post Office, that magnificent building in O'Connell Street, should be stuck in a little huckster's shop in a back street without sufficient room for the facilities to be given. I understand that the wages or salaries paid to the assistants in these post offices is such that if those people were members of a trade union and working in an ordinary industrial establishment there would certainly be cause for some industrial unrest.

If we knew that the National Army was ill-equipped and losing many of its men and officers to foreign armies, would we not be gravely alarmed and would we not hurry to put things right? What I want to urge this evening is that the universities are the professional army of the nation's scientific and cultural efforts; yet it seems that we are in danger of neglecting their efficiency without a single qualm. As Senator Hayes and Senator O'Brien emphasised, the plain fact is that the universities of our country are badly equipped for modern needs and they are growing more and more so every year, for reasons quite beyond their control.

Let me give you a practical example of this. I have had reason within the last year to visit seven universities in neighbouring countries. I found that in every one of those universities rapid developments were going on—buildings were going up, staff was being increased. These universities were in France, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. When I come home, I find a very grave contrast. The fact is that many of these universities—they are not great universities like Oxford, Cambridge, Paris or Rome, but small provincial ones—have better libraries, residences, lecture rooms, than are provided in the Republic of Ireland, or else they will have them very soon.

Senator Hayes has told us of the huge grants that these universities, even the small ones, are getting from their Governments. In comparison, the Irish grants are pitiful. Senator Colgan has just referred to employees of Radio Éireann who do not receive more than £7 a week. There are employees of the Irish universities— or certainly of one Irish university— who are not receiving £7 a week. The state of affairs is simply this, that almost every university within a thousand miles of this country has enormous advantages over us. When I say us, I do not mean the students and professors of the universities alone: I mean the whole nation. The benefits conferred by our universities are by no means restricted to the 9,000 or 10,000 undergraduates and professors.

Let me remind you of some of the great benefits that our country at large receives from our universities. Senator Hayes has spoken of the importance of scientific research. We all agree about that. If we do, we cannot do without the best possible equipment. Senator O'Brien has emphasised the value of technological methods in general, in economics and in technical subjects. I want to emphasise three other things. Think of the professions. Our professions are almost entirely dependent on university training—the Church, the law, the medicine, largely depend on that for their best men. Businessmen in recent times have been glad to accept university graduates for their administrative and other employments, and the universities are very glad of that. I think many businessmen would agree that business has been improved by that infusion of university blood. Or again, think of something rather more intangible, what we call the humanities—literature and history and subjects of that kind. Do you realise that the honour of Ireland is closely bound up with the kind of historians and the kind of writers and the kind of critics we produce? If we have bad historians or bad writers or bad critics, the prestige of our country will inevitably suffer throughout the world.

Again, take something less tangible, though I think I can convince you that it does matter. There is something that one can acquire at the university —and I hope you will forgive me and not think I am taking any airs of superiority if I mention it. All the people in the university do not get it but some do—it is a certain intellectual maturity, that is, a maturity based on a true understanding of the past and the present, and a clear vision of the future. Am I talking too vaguely? Let me recount an experience I had a few years ago in an Irish university. One hard-headed student from Northern Ireland, a student of literature, became rather turbulent and asked me could I find any practical value from the study of literature at all. I argued with him a good deal. At last I thrust home one argument that convinced him. I said: "Do you realise that a song like the Marseillaise was more valuable to the French people than many battleships and big battalions, that many a poem, many a stirring pamphlet, has raised a nation in a way no technology, no science, no administrative method, will ever rouse them?" That hard-headed Northerner was convinced.

I went on to refer to various Irishmen who have shown the power of that intellectual maturity which, our Universities, amongst other organisations, can provide. Think of some of the university men of Ireland—Dean Swift, Edmund Burke, Grattan, Wolfe Tone, Robert Emmet, Isaac Butt, Thomas Davis, Patrick Pearse. One could add many more university men. One could even quote many members of the present Government and of the previous Government, if one wished to enlarge the list. I think they would agree, in confidence perhaps, that they do owe a maturity of mind, a stability of thought, to their university training that they probably would not have received elsewhere.

I do not want to appear to depreciate what has been called the university of life. I do not want to suggest for a moment that a man who lives wisely and sensibly in ordinary life cannot be as mature and as intelligent a man as any university person but I do think that, in the university, men have a special chance of getting a wider vision, higher ideals and maturer minds.

It is a slow and costly process. Those of you who have to deal with the land will understand what I mean. If you want to produce good crops for 300 years, or whatever it may be, you must take care of your land, you must take time, you must go slow. The best products in life, which are the products of growth, are inevitably the result of leaving things alone for a while, of going slow. That is what the university has to do to a certain extent. It allows young men and women, at a certain important time in their life, to be let alone in a suitable environment, where their minds can develop and mature. I appeal to every farmer in this House and any man who has to do with the land, to agree with me that that process of slow growth is the ultimate basis of all that is best in our life.

I say this is costly in time and costly in money. Many people say, why waste these three or four years in that kind of environment when they could be earning wages elsewhere? Is it worth it? That is the question. Does the Minister think it is worth it? Does this House think it is worth it? I can only say once again that Irish independence and the quality of Irish prestige in theology, in literature and science are largely dependent on this costly and lengthy process.

To return to the Estimates, if you glance through them you will find there is no increase for university education at all. There are many increases for other cultural and educational activities, activities ranging from primary education to the Department of External Affairs. One welcomes these increases heartily but one wonders why the universities alone are not helped more. I am quite certain, for example, that in comparison with the excellent work of the Department of External Affairs, our universities, by sending out good graduates, by sending good delegates to university conferences, will do quite as much, perhaps in a less spectacular way, but I am quite certain in a more solid way, for Ireland's prestige than any synthetic cultural effort of that kind. I would appeal with the greatest emphasis to the Minister for a more generous allowance for this work of supreme national importance. A country that neglects its universities is a country that neglects its own mind.

I am sure most Senators will agree with and approve of the manner in which the Estimates have been presented this year. The idea of dividing the Estimates is a good one. It is not right that capital expenditure should come from ordinary tax revenue. I do see, however, one snag in the present proposal. In my opinion, the interest charges will be very heavy on the ordinary taxpayer. If the £12,000,000 proposed to be spent on capital services are raised by borrowing, I presume the rate of interest will be somewhere in the region of 4½ or 5 per cent. That amount, spread over a number of years, will mean that ultimately the taxpayer will have to pay more.

I do not claim to have an intimate knowledge of high finance, but in my foolish way I have often wondered if this important matter of national development could not be met by the creation of a dual currency. Would it not be possible to create a second currency for internal development without interfering in any way with the link with sterling? The Minister, whom I regard as a wizard of finance, will probably use very devastating arguments against that proposal, and I am, of course, open to conviction, but if there are not very substantial reasons why it could not be done I would suggest that the matter is worthy of consideration.

This country is very much underdeveloped. That is not due to any Government that has been in office since the inception of the State. To bring the country to a proper state of development would require an immense amount of money. Whether that money is secured by ordinary revenue or by borrowing it will ultimately create a very heavy burden on the people.

Much of the proposed capital expenditure will be devoted to housing. Housing is a matter which is causing grave concern throughout the country to-day, not so much housing as housing costs. There is a terrible discrepancy in the tenders being made to various local authorities for the erection of houses. It is not obvious, to me, at any rate, why an ordinary private individual can get a five-room house erected for about £600 while a local authority must pay £1,000 or £1,100 for the same size house. In view of the fact that our housing programme over the next few years will be very heavy, the Government should investigate this question of housing costs. It appears to me that somebody must be making huge profits. I do not at all accept the view sometimes put forward that the costs are due to high wages because I know that private contractors building for private citizens pay the local rate of wages fixed by trade unions. Nevertheless, they can build those houses at a figure considerably less than the figure at which they would be built by contractors for a local authority. It is also questionable, where houses are built for private individuals, whether the tenant ultimately gets the benefit of the housing grant being made available by the Government. I would suggest that the closest investigation should be made in connection with those two matters.

Much has been said inside and outside the Oireachtas about agricultural subsidies, and, to my mind, there is much muddled thinking in this matter. It would appear to some people that subsidies are being paid to the agricultural community or to the producer. In my view, subsidies are not made available for the purpose of increasing the price to the producer but for the purpose of reducing the price to the consumer and, therefore, they are not producers' subsidies, but consumers' subsidies.

I agree with Senator Baxter that any money spent on increasing agricultural production is a very wise investment and I might say that the whole question of taxation is one that may be very easily misunderstood and misrepresented. High taxation, to my mind, is not in itself an evil, in fact, it may be an index of prosperity in the country. Provided that the taxation bears a relation to national income, there is no injustice in high taxation. I do not think that any man would disagree with the idea of paying higher income-tax this year than last, provided that his income was greater this year than it was last year.

I would like to refer before I forget it to the point raised by Senator Colgan regarding agricultural wages. He put the poser: why is it that agricultural labourers are the most depressed employees in this country? I think that the answer is very obvious: because the employers' profits are the lowest of any employers in the country and, therefore, they cannot pay a decent wage to the workers, although, I think, it will be generally conceded that in the last few years the position of agricultural workers has been considerably improved. I do not think that any farmer-employer would disagree with that as long as his own position had also improved, and I think that the general feeling of the agricultural community is that they would like a still higher wage for agricultural workers, provided that their income increased proportionately.

I would like, as other speakers have done, to congratulate Senator Professor O'Brien on his contribution this evening. It is always a pleasure to listen to him, but I think he excelled himself this evening. There is one point, however, which Senator O'Brien made which I think may be open to question. He says rightly that education is one of the best investments in this country.

I agree when he specifies scientific and technical education because, to my mind, they will increase the productive power of the citizens. But unfortunately in this country education has not always resulted in that. It is a common thing to find a number of people going to the university and going in for higher education in order to find an easy job. We have no trouble at all in getting boys to go forward for agricultural scholarships and take them provided they are guaranteed a job under one of the various county committees of agriculture when they qualify. A very wise decision was made this year by the Department of Agriculture. They have dispensed with the written examination and confined themselves solely to the oral examination and the ordinary leaving certificate from the primary school will be accepted as sufficient evidence of qualification. I believe that that will result in young men who have left school five or six years ago going forward for an agricultural scholarship and having spent two or three years in an agricultural school he will return to his farm and be a good example in the district. If the other idea of a high literary standard had been adhered to he would pursue his studies with a view to making it his livelihood. That would be a great mistake and it has been a great mistake in the past.

It would be a very bad thing nationally to concentrate entirely on the material side of life. In the present time it might be even dangerous as materialism is a thing that could be carried too far. At the same time I feel that there are too many non-producers in the country in proportion to the number of producers. You must get a great increase in the number of producers before you can carry the burden of the non-producers. If education had not resulted in the way I have indicated I would thoroughly agree that education is the finest investment we could have. But as long as it results in producing citizens of the non-productive type who merely pursue education for the purpose of getting a position in the future I do not think it is nationally good.

Those are a few points I wished to make and I would like to say in conclusion that it would give me great pleasure if this question of dual currency were considered and investigated by men competent to do so because it would relieve the people of heavy bank charges that will certainly be a heavy burden on them. I agree with what Senator Summerfield said about demands on the people in regard to the question of local estimates. People complain when the rates are high. When the rates estimates are being considered people always complain of the high rates but in between the two estimates meetings you will find the very same people demanding social services and other services and they never consider that they must be paid for at some time. In the same way various sections of the community demand this, that and the other but when the Budget is presented they protest that the burden is too high.

I was grieved to hear Senator Baxter say that some people were making political capital of the land reclamation project and making adverse comment on it. I think it is a very foolish thing for the Fianna Fáil Party to embark upon if they have done so. Every farmer in this country knows, irrespective of politics, that the land reclamation project is one of the finest schemes ever brought into existence in this country. I am happy to say, however, and glad of the opportunity of putting on record that in my county the chairman of the county committee of agriculture is a Fianna Fáil Deputy and he said at a meeting that the land reclamation project was an excellent scheme. I hope that his remarks and his attitude will be emulated by other members of the Fianna Fáil Party if they have been misguided enough to believe that any farmer will believe them when they try to decry the land reclamation project.

The main question before us is whether we agree with this new development, this new line of policy, as the Minister has called it, in the matter of preparing our national finances and presenting them to the taxpayer. I think it is a very sensible policy, a policy which has always existed in business, that is, the principle by which we separate our day to day expenses from our capital expenditure. The ground has been pretty well covered not only here but in the other House, and I do not propose to say very much, but there are one or two matters on which I should like some information. The first thing we must ask ourselves, on looking at this figure of capital expenditure, is whether the amount is justified. We must ask ourselves if we are able to afford it, and what it is going to cost us. We must also ask—I do not know whether it has been stated or not— what we are committed to each year and, consequently, whether we can afford the £12,000,000.

I think we all agree that the purposes for which this expenditure is set down are highly commendable. There are always two questions to be posed in business. Plenty of things are desirable, but the questions we have to answer are whether they are possible and whether we can afford them. I should like to hear an answer to these two questions. I have gone very carefully over the debates in the other House, and from the objections I have heard from the Opposition and the answers given on the other side, I am convinced that the items which have been allocated to capital expenditure in this case have been properly allocated. These items—agriculture, housing and afforestation—cannot be questioned; they are undoubtedly desirable and will undoubtedly give, some of them, short term results, and others, long term productive results. They are therefore justified under the headings under which they have been placed.

In view of what has happened, it is interesting to remark that, when this Government came into power, they attacked much of the proposed capital expenditure of the previous Government. The retort was then made that the Government was apparently in favour of economy for economy's sake, but I think the action of the Government in this instance shows that that was not true, that they really did object to what was being done on the grounds which they gave and that it was not merely economy for economy's sake. In a choice between economy for economy's sake and spending for spending's sake, it is quite obvious that we must have economy. The Government having gone into the whole question, have now come out with a programme of spending and they can no longer be accused of being afraid to spend and invest. It is for us now to decide whether the withdrawals they made a few years ago were justified in the light of the items with which they have replaced them. I think they are.

I do not suggest that some of the things being done a few years ago for prestige purposes are not desirable and I think that, in time, we may be able to afford them also, but it is like the case of the man who is fairly well off and who, before setting about educating and feeding his children, decided to buy mink coats for his wife. It may be a rather exaggerated analogy, but that is the principle of the thing. The first thing a man must do is consolidate his home life before embarking on prestige projects. That is what this Government has wisely done. It has got back to essentials and is building up agriculture and the industrial life of the country, doing all the things which will produce the money to enable us to afford the more showy things later on.

There is one matter in respect of which I should like to see some money invested now, although it may seem to some people to be rather of the nature of these other prestige items I have mentioned. I refer to cultural matters. I feel that we ought to pay more attention to our cultural institutions. The case for the universities has been made here, but I should like to draw attention to our museums and art galleries and cultural societies. These are being starved at present. We have a marvellous museum here and a very fine art gallery. We have some very good museums all over the country, but a particularly fine museum in Dublin. That museum is in a state of decay—there is no other word for it. It is under-staffed and has been so for a very long time. The tragedy of it is that we are not only not getting good men to come here, but we are losing the good men we had, with the result that, in some sections of the museum continuity has been lost.

We had fine men in the past in certain sections of that museum. Some have retired and some have died, but nobody has been put in to follow them in that institution, and their great knowledge and experience have not been passed on. That is a national tragedy, and, before it goes any further, something should be done in the matter.

I do not propose to stress the advantages of our museums and the galleries, but I say they not only have a spiritual value, but, putting it on its lowest plane, they have a great material value. Anybody who has travelled abroad will have noted the way people who know nothing at all about art or culture, flock to the museums with guide books and study the publications of these museums as part of their tour. From a purely commercial point of view, they have a great attraction and in the case of a very large percentage of the Americans who come to this country—I think I would be borne out in this by the Tourist Association—the first question they ask is: "Where is your art gallery and where are your museums?" I am sorry to say that whenever I am asked that question, I rather-timidly tell them that the museum is in Kildare Street, half hoping they will never get there.

I see one danger in this new system of segregating capital expenditure. I am afraid that in the future Governments may be tempted to embark on capital expenditure which is excessive and which we cannot afford, because the payments are deferred. One of the curses of ordinary life is the hire purchase system and many people believe that it is a very evil system for individuals because it leads them into expenditure which they are unable to afford and because it inclines them to take more on their shoulders than they realise because the payments are spread over a period of years. That is a danger to be guarded against in relation to the national as well as to the private budget.

I have sympathy with Senator Summerfield's statement that careful consideration should be given to all our new spending schemes. Every Government nowadays seem to boast of how much they spend—what they did for so and so and what they gave others. The fact is they are not giving it; it is we Senators and all the taxpayers who are giving it. Very often the men who shout loudest about "what we did" make practically no contribution at all in taxation. They are very often living merely on their salary from the Oireachtas. It is very easy to spend money but very difficult to make money, and very often even more difficult to invest money profitably.

Another point that struck me when reading the debates in the other House was the irresponsible statements made by people there in order to score political points. We must allow for a reasonable amount of political point scoring in political life, but, in relation to the finances of the nation, one must be very careful. We are all interested in the financial stability of the country. The Finance Minister for the time being, whatever Party he belongs to, has the onerous task of carrying the nation safely through its economic life, and anything said that will make it more difficult for him to perform that function is very dangerous, and, in my opinion, very wrong. It also makes it very difficult for the Minister to secure investments in national loans and a national loan is truly a national loan in the sense that we are all concerned in it, no matter to what side of the House we belong.

Last year on the Budget, I congratulated the Minister on the reduction of 6d. in the income-tax and I predicted—I knew it would happen— that the reduction of income-tax would not result in any lesser amount of taxation being collected. In fact, I would have been very surprised if a smaller amount was collected. But I see that the Minister in the Dáil the other day informed us that as much money has been collected as a result of taking it off as was collected while the 6d. was in operation. I believe that is the direct result of taking off the 6d.—that it is not a fluke. I am glad to see that the Minister made a very good remark relative to that when he said this was a developing policy instead of a restricting system. I hope that the lessons learned will be taken to heart and that these principles will be extended in the future. I am absolutely certain that by relieving the business community of excessive taxation and by giving more reliefs for depreciation and the replacement of machinery to enable manufacturers to keep up to date the same result will be found to occur and that actually, more taxation will be collected while more money will be left in industry to enable it to develop. It has been said here that the yield of taxation is a sign of the prosperity of the country. The yield of our taxation has been high and that demonstrates that the Minister can get his revenue by imposing a lower rate of taxation.

I am 100 per cent. in agreement with Senator McGuire in reference to what he said about irresponsible statements, particularly those made in the other House. I think it is not necessary for me to say, or to remind anybody, of the many irresponsible statements made in the other House. They have got plenty of publicity, and I think that 99 per cent. of the irresponsible statements were made by the group of people who now form the Government Party. If anyone wants to go into these irresponsible statements I will be quite pleased to read some of them.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We will not have a discussion on that, Senator.

It is an irresponsible and an irrelevant statement—irresponsible and irrelevant.

It is not possible for Senator Hayes to rule here as to what would be an irrelevant statement in the other House. We are discussing the matter in this House, and even Senator Hayes, with a copy of the debates before him, no doubt, could not take it upon himself to reprimand the Chairman of the other House on the question whether the statements admitted in debate there were relevant or not. Irresponsible statements have been made, and they have done considerable damage to this Parliament —to both Houses of this Parliament and they have helped to undermine the authority of Government in this country. I can see people getting up to protest. I can see people getting a bit uneasy, but I am not going into what Senator Baxter thought—I am leaving it there.

I am not concerned.

I think Senator Baxter said: "Thank God something is, at last being done for agriculture". All I can say in reply to that is that we did not have to wait until to-day to find out that something had been done for agriculture——

Like killing the calves.

Unfortunately when things were being done in a big way for agriculture we had Senator Baxter making his usual type of speech, telling us what mistakes we were making and what disasters were around the corner. Senator Baxter told us all the disasters that would occur if we had more land tilled.

Quote that statement of mine, please.

In my own good time, yes.

I deny it.

I would like to remind Senator Baxter that in the last year of Fianna Fáil Administration £4,000,000 was devoted to agriculture, and that was in the last year before the country was, as we have been told, liberated from Fianna Fáil. But when the country was liberated from Fine Gael we found that the sum of £70,000 was devoted to the same purpose. Senator Baxter is supposed to be the farmers' representative here, despite what Senator Counihan might say. But no matter what Senator Counihan might say, Senator Baxter will continue to pose as the champion of agriculture here. Senator Baxter opposed each move made under the Fianna Fáil Government to uplift agriculture, on one excuse or another. He knows now that were it not for the steps taken by the Fianna Fáil Government this country would be in slavery during the war. We know the attitude of the present Minister for Agriculture, but members of the present Government and their supporters continue to suggest that disaster would have befallen us if they had not come to the rescue.

Senator Finan tells us, by way of some wonderful surprise, that the chairman of his county committee of agriculture, a Fianna Fáil representative, said the land rehabilitation scheme was a good one. Even Senator McGee said "hear, hear" when he heard that. One would think that no supporter of Fianna Fáil ever said anything of the kind about it except a member of Senator Finan's committee of agriculture.

All I said was that you slaughtered the calves.

I would like Senator Finan to remember that any criticism of that scheme came from the other side of the House and not from ours. We are not attacking the scheme. I believe that if it is availed of by the farmers in the poor areas it can be made to work most effectively and satisfactorily, and the only grievance I can find is that the farmers in the good lands were not similarly encouraged to go into further production and were not given assistance equivalent to that offered to the farmers on the poor land. I am not going to be so foolish as to say that should be done at once, but I say that these people have a grievance. I cannot understand Senator Finan coming along here and producing almost as a miracle the announcement that one of the Fianna Fáil representatives on his county committee of agriculture said it was a good scheme.

It is a miracle.

I do not think so, but it is a miracle when Senator Baxter comes out to advocate improvements for the farmers of this country, because he has consistently opposed them over a number of years. Everyone knows that it was he Senator McGuire spoke about when he criticised the use of irresponsible statements. Senator Finan referred to the Minister for Finance as "a wizard of finance". I saw a smile on the Minister's face at that—we do not often see that smile. I am inclined to agree with him. It is an extraordinary thing that none of the evils we heard so much of during the election campaign have occurred. Being an auctioneer, I can appreciate the fact that a lot of people crowd around the ring in an auction and go bidding one against the other and that somebody will be tempted to bid higher for something. His wife or one of his friends afterwards will say to him: "Why did you bid so high?" and he will say: "I was a little bit excited."

It is not quite fair even for people on this side to criticise the Government so much. I believe the other Parties lost their heads during the election. They bid, not against us but against one another, to see what they could do to get themselves a few extra votes as against those who finally joined up with them to form the Coalition.

I have here statements by the members of Parties forming the present Government, and, honestly, it would amaze one to read them. We find, now that they have come together and have sat in council and gone back on the statements they made during the election, that notwithstanding all the talk we heard about extravagance, imprudence in spending money, bribery and corruption, here they are and not an effort has been made to cut down that expenditure. We find Deputy James Dillon, in one speech, which I will quote, if necessary——

The Minister for Agriculture is not here to answer any statement.

No, but Senator McGee is here.

Yes, and will answer it in due time.

God help him if he has to answer all the statements made by the Minister for Agriculture. The widow's son would become bogged. The fact is that the Minister said he believed considerable money was being spent on the Irish language which could be saved. The Minister has been pulling his weight in the Government and has got away with a lot that I am sure the rest of the Government do not agree with, but nothing has been done about that. Do not misunderstand me. I do not believe there is any room to save any money in looking after the Irish language. In fact, more money should be spent. I am 100 per cent. in favour of saving the Irish language and developing the Gaelic spirit. If we are to have that development, it seems we will have to get it against the wishes of a lot of the people who form the Parties comprising the Government Party here to-day.

In the same way, we found a lot of talk about tourism when it was being developed under the previous Government; from what the various Parties said you would imagine money was being shovelled out as if by drunken sailors. Notwithstanding that, we find to-day the Vote for tourism is being reduced by only a very small sum. If all this were wrong, why was not something done about it.

We find statements made by another Minister that we had too many Ministries, that the Department of Lands and Agriculture could be combined.

Who said that, and where?

The Department of Posts and Telegraphs should be combined with another Department, it was said. Instead of cutting the number down, it has been increased. They have appointed Ministers here and there who were not appointed under the previous Government. Senator Baxter insists on my giving the quotation. I will stand here and give quotations as long as he wants them. This is it:—

"Ministries must be reduced rather than increased. These new Ministries are extravagant and unreasonable. Health and social services should be combined; the Ministry of Lands should be taken with Agriculture; and the Ministry of Posts and Telegraphs is an unwarrantable development. Whether the Army could not be in a common Department with the police is something which should be examined."

That was Deputy T.J. O'Higgins at Moneygall on the 8th March, 1947.

That is a long way from the Central Fund Bill.

Not a very long way. If there is any function we have on the Central Fund Bill it is to point out where money could be saved and to ask why it was not saved where they alleged it could have been saved. I do not for a moment suggest that the Army and the Guards should be combined, but the fact is that that was said in 1947 by what would be deemed a responsible Minister of the present Government. If he thought that then, why has it not been put into effect? It gives weight to Senator McGuire's comment a few minutes ago about irresponsible statements. Much has been said about various things, but we find, after all the talk and smoke screens of the general election have disappeared, the various Parties have come together and there is not very much they can do to improve what has been done in the past. If there is something they can do, why have they not done it?

I am quite satisfied that our representatives in foreign countries are as good as those of any other country in the same countries. They have been doing their job magnificently and on that account the status of this country has increased. It is difficult to understand, having regard to recent developments here, why our representative in England has not been raised to the status of Minister. Perhaps the explanation is a very simple one. I would like to know why it has not been done. The same remark applies to other things. We heard criticisms of the Fianna Fáil Government, but when the various wizards of other Parties came together they were not able to do anything different. The fact of the matter is that many of the schemes for which the present Government are claiming credit are schemes which had been in the machine before Fine Gael came into power.

It would be much better if in our discussions here and in the other House we could eliminate irresponsible statements. At least here, where politics are not so rampant as in the other House, we should take the attitude of being honest with ourselves and with one another. We should do as Senator McGuire says, and eliminate the possibility of any man making use of his position here to make irresponsible statements to further his own tuppenceha'penny ideas on politics. Our purpose principally is to examine Bills as they come before us, to put forward suggestions and to be of service to the country. In doing that we will be doing far better than by coming out in this year of Our Lord, 1950 and saying, as Senator Baxter has said: "Thank God, something is being done at last for agriculture." The Senator has been stopping us from doing anything for agriculture as long as it was possible for him to do so in the strongest language he could use.

Some short time ago, when Senator Baxter was speaking, he seemed to think I interjected. Actually, I did not. Senator Baxter was stating that cattle would be £5 a head dearer now than they were a couple of years ago and was alleging that the reason for that was the present very good Government and the present very good Minister for Agriculture. Apparently, Senator Loughman said the real reason was the devaluation of the pound. What I actually said was that that, of course, is the real reason. I spoke in rather a loud whisper and Senator Baxter thought I interjected. It is not my practice to interrupt people when they are speaking, and I am sure Senator Baxter will accept that.

Even if I did interrupt Senator Baxter, there were many statements made by him on which it would be hard not to feel like interrupting him. He had not been on his feet more than a couple of minutes when he made statements about more rushes growing here during the period of office of the previous Government than in any country in Europe, and tried to make it appear that the rushes had ceased to grow now. I am referring to this because he alleged—as has been alleged previously by other people who should know better, and he should know better—that certain people who were supporters of Fianna Fáil and members of the Fianna Fáil Party were deliberately trying to sabotage the Irish nation, trying to sabotage the schemes that have been launched out of the taxpayers' money.

That is the alibi.

I am referring to the farm improvements scheme. Senator Baxter deliberately made that allegation. I believe Senator Baxter knew that it is untrue. Unless people want to make themselves appear ridiculous and irresponsible, if they have any regard for what people think, they should not make statements like that. I would say to Senator Baxter that, if he wants people to take him seriously, he will have to stop making such statements. If he would even go to the trouble of examining them, he would know it is untrue.

Does the Senator seriously suggest that people would take Senator Baxter seriously, if he did that?

As I did not want interruptions from Senator Baxter, I do not want interruptions from Senator Quirke. Because the Minister for Agriculture caused a scene in the Dáil on this point, Senator Baxter, in his humble little way, was trying to put the same thing across here. The conclusion I come to is that, by repeating this lie often enough, it is intended that some people will begin to think there is something in it and that the result will be that supporters of Fianna Fáil will not in fact apply for the services under the land project and, in that way, it is hoped that the scheme will not be applicable to about 50 per cent. of the farming community. I suggest that, in order to counteract that, every member on this side of the House, who owns land, should show the good example and apply and prove beyond yea or nay that the statement made by Senator Baxter is a lie.

I want to repudiate the charge that my statement is a lie. I want to repudiate that.

Can you substantiate it?

Yes, I can.

Senator Finan stated that the chairman of the Roscommon County Council, who happens to be a Deputy of the "Fianna Fáil Party, said at his local committee of agriculture that he thought the scheme was a good one and that the people should take advantage of it. Senators who heard Senator Finan speak will have been impressed by the honesty of his approach to these matters, and will appreciate that there was not that element of political propaganda and political venom in what he said. It is a tragedy that the good effect on one's mind and the educational value of the many fine statements such as those we have listened to from Senator Stanford and Senator O'Brien can be destroyed by the sort of statement made by Senator Baxter. It is a pity, because there were many valuable statements made from that side of the House. If that sort of thing is to continue, the only way it can be combated is by every member of the Fianna Fáil Party who possesses land immediately applying to the Minister for Agriculture under this scheme and setting the good example, so that every supporter of Fianna Fáil will do the same.

I want to tell Senator Baxter that I believe it is a good scheme in so far as it appears on paper. I have not seen it applied in practice yet, and the amount of practical application that Senator Baxter has seen is also very small. This scheme has been discussed for two years, but it is only getting into working order. I regard it as a good scheme. It is the same as the old farm improvements scheme, with the addition of lime and phosphates.

Nonsense.

That is my opinion. I say that quite honestly. I took some notes of what Senator Baxter said. I hope I am not misquoting him but I understood him to say in reference to the farm improvements scheme, that it was a piddling little scheme, the product of small minds.

It cost a lot of money.

I want to tell the House and Senator Baxter how that scheme originated. For ten years a Party was in power with which Senator Baxter was associated. For those ten years nothing in the nature of the farm improvements scheme was carried out. Fianna Fáil came into power in 1932. When they had been a couple of years in power a position developed where no public works could be done in any electoral division except on the basis of the number of people in receipt of unemployment assistance. In areas where people were thrifty and ensured that they were employed through their own efforts, no public works could be done. A man who, in my opinion, had not a small mind but who had a much bigger mind than most people and certainly a much bigger mind than Senator Baxter, Father Confrey of Clune, God rest him, went to great trouble to indicate to the then Minister for Agriculture, Dr. Ryan, how the farm improvements scheme should be carried out. It took that great man about two years to convince the Minister and his Department how the scheme should work.

It did not produce much improvement in Leitrim or around Carrigallen.

After two years the Department decided to launch it. It is because the late Father Confrey was the first man to outline the farm improvements scheme, of which the present scheme is a development, that I object very strongly to the terms used by Senator Baxter in referring to it as a piddling little scheme, the product of small minds. That scheme was put into operation without any of the window-dressing or political blackmail, without any of the methods now employed to prevent one section of the farming community, 50 per cent., from taking advantage of it. The farm improvements scheme was applied without regard to political affiliations.

There was more money spent on that scheme, even though it was not as extensive a scheme and even though no lime or phosphates were included, than has been actually spent so far in any year under the land project. I am not referring to what is estimated to be spent, but to actual expenditure. It is actual expenditure that appeals to me.

There are still a lot of rushes around Carrigallen.

It is having in mind the great man who created it that I object so much to hear a man abusing the privilege of Parliament to say it was a piddling little scheme, the product of small minds. I must pay tribute to the man I knew well. I hope that in future Senator Baxter will not abuse efforts like these to the extent that he has done to score what appears to me a little political advantage.

I hope he will not, because there are many people who do not do that. Many people who have spoken on this measure this evening would not do that, and I am sure that his own Minister felt very uncomfortable when he was speaking. The Minister would not do it. I have heard him speak on many occasions and I have never heard him make statements like that. The actual words, as far as I could know, were that many people on this side of the House would prefer to see rushes growing than clover. The Minister for Agriculture made a similar reference some time ago and that is why I feel so sore about it. If that sort of misrepresentation goes on it will be an unhealthy state of affairs, and I would appeal to people to stop it.

Debate adjourned.
The Seanad adjourned at 10.5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, March 30th, 1950.
Barr
Roinn