Menu
-HOME
Baile
-DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí
-DÁIL DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Dála
-SEANAD DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Seanaid
-SEARCH
Cuardach
-ABOUT THIS SITE
Faoin Suíomh Seo
-LINKS
Nascanna
Previous - Lch. Roimhe Seo Up - Suas Next - Ar Aghaidh

Dáil Éireann - Volume 27 - 22 November, 1928

APPROPRIATION BILL, 1928—SECOND STAGE.

Mr. BLYTHE: I move that the Bill be read a second time.

Mr. DE VALERA: As this is simply to give effect to the Votes that have been passed, and as we had, on all these Votes, an opportunity of expressing from our side dissent in detail to them, I do not think that any very special purpose would be served by re-repeating these arguments. In the case of the Vote for the Office of the President in particular, I dealt with the policy of the Government, as we saw it, and our objections to it. I pointed out that it was our opinion that the finances of the country were not as well managed as they should be, that in a number of directions there were expenses which this country could not afford. I gave examples, such as the expenses incurred on the Civic Guards, the Army and on the larger salaries. I think I [598] mentioned, on a preceding Vote, that I believed a substantial reduction could be made in the case of the Oireachtas itself. My belief is that 100 members here would be sufficiently representative and would do the work just as well as 150. I believe that you cannot cut down unduly if you want to have a really representative assembly, but I think at the same time that 100 members here would be sufficiently representative of the Twenty-Six Counties. Unfortunately, we cannot talk of the country as a whole. It would give a very fair representation and the saving on the estimate that could be got by that would be approximately £20,000. We would have the saving of the allowance of £360 a year each and we would have the saving also of the travelling expenses. These two items, you will find, will total about £20,000.

I urged on several occasions that the present Seanad was, from our point of view, a useless body and that the work that it does could be done otherwise. I see no reason why a special Committee, for example, of this House, could not do the work of revision if that was necessary. I believe that the Seanad as a whole could be dispensed with, but, in any case, I hold that it could be reduced effectively to one-half its present number. You would have a considerable saving, I think, if you did away with the Seanad, a saving of £24,000, without taking into account at all the special staff and the printing that goes with it.

As I say, there is very little use in going over again here these details of expenditure and pointing out the direction in which savings could be effected. We had the whole question of salaries discussed, and the reply that the Minister for Finance made was that it would be ridiculous to talk here of salaries such as they have in Belgium. I do not say that we should bind ourselves to the exact figure in Belgium. I think there ought to be some relation between the salaries that are paid in the Civil Service and the income of the ordinary individual in the State or salaries in other directions. I am certainly not convinced at present, and I doubt if I will be convinced at any time, that we are not going to get for our work brains [599] simply because we will not pay high salaries. I think the Minister for Finance said that we could expect special sacrifices at special times of stress, such as we passed through not long ago, and, in my opinion, are passing through still, but that we should not expect that normally. I hold that we are not yet in normal times. Our economic situation is not normal and the political situation is not normal. If we are going to redeem this country at all, it seems to me that sacrifices will have to be shown in high places politically, and that a good example will have to be set by people who are willing to serve the community as a whole at no greater reward than the satisfaction of the good that they are doing, and only in the way of material reward such as will enable them to devote their whole time to the work without having anxieties about their private affairs. Look around and see the condition of the country, as we did, for example, a few days ago in the case of unemployment and in the debate on pensions for widows and orphans. One evening after one of these debates I happened to be walking along Merrion Square about five or six o'clock, and there I saw little children with their hands stuck down in the bins that are put outside doors, in some cases looking for scraps of food, and in others looking for pieces of coal. You will see that thing there any evening. I saw the same thing a few evenings later. I think when we have conditions like that we are not doing our duty. If we are not prepared to take the responsibility here of representing the people and of governing them we are not doing our duty, unless we show that we are doing this work for the common good and for no private advantage, and it should be understood that we are doing that. Not merely should we do right, but we ought to take care that the people understand that we are doing right, because if they get confidence in the people who are governing them they will be prepared themselves to stand the strain and to bear the burdens that they will not be prepared to stand otherwise. We, at any rate, think that big salaries particularly should not be [600] paid on that account, and we think it is a shame to waste money in the way in which it is being wasted on the Governor-General's establishment. A straw shows how the wind blows. Even though that, from a monetary point of view, is only a sum of £28,000 every year, it indicates the whole attitude of mind of the Executive. Besides, if we approach it from the national standpoint, we know that a large section of the people anyhow, no matter how the Minister for Finance may try to explain it away, regard the Governor-General, not as a part of an Irish institution set up by the Irish people, but as something that has been imposed upon them from without. They regard the Governor-General as a representative of a foreign Power, although the Minister for Finance may hold that if we were a free Republic we would have some titular head of the State who would have nothing more than certain social functions to perform, and would not be the active executive head, as, for example, the President of the United States is. I disagree with him totally in that. I do not think at all that if we were a completely free Republic we would have, or could afford to have in our present circumstances, a person occupying an office of that particular kind, with no other duties to the State except to attend social functions.

If it is necessary to sign laws, to attest laws, there is another way of doing it besides the present system. For instance, the Ceann Comhairle or, if you have the second House, the Chairman of that House could sign. The signatures of the Ceann Comhairle and the Chairman of the Seanad, countersigned by the elected Executive head, would be a sufficient attestation of these laws. Even under the Treaty I believe that you could get rid of the office of Governor-General. If it were necessary to get laws signed it would not be difficult, for instance, to get the signing done by the Chief Justice. I know that some people will say the Chief Justice ought not to be brought into a matter of this particular kind; but the Chief Justice would be simply attesting to the fact that an Act of the Oireachtas was duly presented to him. The Governor-General at the present [601] time has no direct knowledge, and if he is acting as the agent for the Executive Council why could not the President of the Executive Council act as his own agent? If it is simply a question of getting somebody outside the two Houses of the Oireachtas to sign, it seems to me that there is no reason at all why the Chief Justice should not sign, if that is necessary. It does not bring him into the making of the law in any such way as a member of the House here is brought into it or as the Chairmen of the two Houses would be brought into it. I believe that in all these cases where it is possible to save money we ought to be meticulously careful to save it. If we do save it in this direction we will have the money to spend on necessary social services.

I did not speak on the Education Vote here. There is no doubt that a very generous proportion of its revenues is being contributed by the State at the present time for education. I think if instead of looking now for further expense in that direction we were to see that the State or the community was getting full value for the money expended it would be much more advisable. I think that is the direction in which we ought to turn our attention. I for one am not satisfied that we are getting the best out of our system. I believe it can be improved tremendously. I think that it is not usual, when speaking on a Bill like this, for one to go into details on all these estimates again.

As regards the financial management of the Government, we are not satisfied. We believe that big reductions can only be made if the national policy of the Government is changed. The national policy of the Government, so far as I have been able to understand it, since the time of the Treaty has been to force everybody who did not accept the Treaty to bow their heads to it. I put that in the phrase that they were very thorough in imposing their own will on all those who disagreed with them. The Minister for Finance, in reply, said it was the will of the people. I think we all know what elections are like. I realise that it seems to be a necessary evil, that I cannot see any better system, that I cannot see any better way for solving national differences [602] than by means of the elected representatives of the people. I cannot see any better alternative, but let those of us who may be prepared to take that stand not forget that a very strong case can be made against the whole thing.

If you are going to speak of the will of the people that, at least, implies that there should be some way of genuinely discovering what the will of the people is. How is the will of the people got when you have all sorts of misrepresentations, when you are aware that a great part of the electorate will vote on issues without ever thoroughly understanding their merits? What brought this to my mind was the statement of the Minister for Agriculture yesterday. I asked truth from the Minister, and I think I used the phrase, “real truth.” Of course it was a debating point to say that truth is truth, and that to qualify it in any way is absurd. But I had in mind when I used that phrase that sort of thing that is called half-truth, which is the most destructive form of lying. These half-truths in nine cases out of ten determine the electorate when they are voting. During the critical period when there was a big national issue to be settled, you had these half-truths scattered deliberately. You had half-truths of which a typical example is this: The second Article of the Constitution was quoted throughout the country as illustrating the fact that the Free State was sovereign, that within it the people were sovereign, that they could do as they liked, and that all authority came from them. Here is how the Article was quoted:—“All powers of government and all authority, legislative, executive and judicial in Ireland are derived from the people of Ireland.” Those who quoted stopped there. They took very good care to do so because it did not suit their purpose to read the whole of it, and to point out that it can only be exercised in accordance with the institutions that were set up by this Constitution, which itself was imposed. There are people who will say, of course, that it was not imposed.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE I think the Deputy should not go into that question on this Bill.

[603] Mr. DE VALERA: I am simply trying to show that the expenses which we are incurring on the Civic Guards and the Army, the expenses which we and the community have been incurring for some years back on these forces, are mainly due to the national policy of the Government. By showing these things and calling the attention of the House to them, I was going to indicate how it is possible, by thoroughly realising the situation, and by showing the point of view of people who do not, and will not, accept this House, to get a basis on which it is possible to get the representative institutions here accepted.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: I do not think that this is the place to deal with that particular aspect of the situation.

Mr. DE VALERA: The Minister for Agriculture yesterday was talking about truth and I was coming to the point that the people of the country who are opposed to the policy of the Executive and who are not represented here had good grounds for holding that the will of the people was not expressed and could not have been expressed and that they were grossly misled. As they have a good ground for holding that view, we ought at least to go as far as we can in taking away the particular objections which they naturally have. I do not say that if we go that far we will be able to take away all the objections, but it is our duty to go as far as it is possible to go. We know also that in these critical elections it was not merely what was stated in public that counted, but you had statements that were circulated in private. The whispering campaign started at the top and went right down along. When the Minister for Agriculture was reading this supposed statement of Deputy Aiken the fact that Deputy Aiken was called General Aiken was sneered at. He had as much right to that title as some Generals that we have in this House—just as much right.

Mr. DAVIN: Too many Generals we have.

Mr. CLERY: Too many out on pension.

[604] Mr. DE VALERA: It may be that there are too many Generals, but in any case Deputy Aiken has as much right to that title as other Generals have. If this House is going to say it is the lineal descendant of the Second Dáil he has as much right to the title as some of the other Generals. Passing away from that, I will come back to what was quoted by the Minister. I do not know if the Minister is correctly reported. Apparently the Minister did not think it worth while to mention the papers, or perhaps he thought it was better that we should not have an opportunity of checking his statements. He did not say what paper the report appeared in and he did not give us the context of the statement. Looking at the Minister's remarks as they were reported in the papers this morning, it seemed to me that Deputy Aiken was speaking of this whispering campaign that went along side by side, or perhaps it would be better to say, went along underneath the election campaign that was being carried on in the open. We all remember when we were being told that the Gurkhas were in Beggar's Bush Barracks. We remember when there was this effort being made to intimidate the people and get them to run away from the position they had occupied up to 1921. We have the same whispering: “If you do not take it, then you are going to have the British back; you are going to have the Gurkhas.”

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: The Deputy should now try to confine himself to the Appropriation Bill.

Mr. DE VALERA: It is only fair to a member of this House who is 3,000 miles away that when a particular charge like this is brought up by the Minister for Agriculture, the Minister's statements should be questioned. When it is stated here that when we are talking about truth we are only hypocrites, it is only right that an answer should be made here.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: I am prepared to give the Deputy any liberty he requires to meet any charges made against Deputy Aiken, but I think at this particular stage the [605] Deputy should confine himself to the Bill under consideration.

Mr. DE VALERA: The whole foundation of the differences between us is the foundation that rests on the questions at issue from 1921 onwards, and there is no use in hiding our heads in the sand about it. If we are to get on the right path, if we are to get into the position in which it will not be necessary to expend these huge sums of money on the Army and Civic Guards, we must try to understand what the problem is and get a solution for it. It is no use hiding our heads in the sand, because any Government that gets into power will have to face the same situation. The sooner all parties make up their minds to try and settle this question the better. We hear a lot of talk about stability and the need for it, but the moment we speak about the things that are essential to stability, we are told we are simply harping back to the past.

To finish this matter about Deputy Aiken. I know him and I know that he was not going to do what was suggested by the Minister for Agriculture, to go and pretend to the American people and tell tall yarns to fool them. That is the suggestion. I know he is incapable of it. I know the men on the other side who know him know that he is incapable of it. How does a matter of this kind get into the papers? Let us try and understand what it was— what was likely to have been the case. He will himself be able to tell when the right time comes, in all probability. In connection with the recent election in America, in the case of one of the candidates you had all these undercurrents and whisperings which were likely to affect the election just as much as any difference of policy. Deputy Aiken thought of similar campaigns here, and these suggestions that were made then are being continued. They do affect people. The private characters of individuals on different sides were the subject of propaganda of that particular type. My wife was supposed to have had to leave the country and live abroad because she could not live with me. I was supposed to be living with two or three other women. I am taking my own case because I know it.

[606] The PRESIDENT: I never heard that before.

Mr. DE VALERA: Let us get down to it. It was part of the campaign— everybody knows it was part of the campaign. We may talk as much as we like about democracy, but as long as people pander to that sort of thing, and inspire it, you are not going to have any respect here for the so-called will of the people. It went on not merely from platforms and in private, but it was spoken of from the pulpit; it came from the altar. I myself was told by a lady in Chicago that a Bishop had told her that my wife had to go over to America in order to keep me straight there because I was associating with women.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: I think the Deputy ought to realise that this is not relevant.

Mr. DE VALERA: I spoke of truth because I think that if we have a little regard for truth it will save us a great deal of trouble in this country. When this question of the will of the people is being considered, and people say that the will of the Irish people has not, as a matter of fact, been discovered in this matter and cannot be discovered, and that the present situation is the result of threats, we must remember that these people have got a basis for their view, and it ought not to be a policy simply of crushing them, because they cannot be crushed ultimately. These people stand for the things that are responsible for the movement that brought this House into existence, whether it came in for good or evil, and it is senseless to set out to crush them, because these things will triumph ultimately, and crush every attempt on the part of those who try to drive them underground. They represent the aspirations of people for freedom which have been in existence for hundreds of years and are going to remain until this country is completely free. If the Executive have a policy by which they hope to bring the country out of its present position to freedom, then let them be honest and let them take facts as they are and say: “We are not free at [607] present, and it is our intention to do everything in our power to get complete and absolute freedom for this country.” Then at least their policy will be understood.

On the Vote for External Affairs, I spoke about the attitude of the representatives of the Free State abroad. I did not ask that they should go and put our views before the American people or the people of the countries in which they reside—not by any means. What I was anxious about was this, that they should not misrepresent the situation; that they should not, for instance, say that we are free, that these institutions are our own, and that we have made them ourselves freely. The Chief Justice went over on this tour that we heard of yesterday and talked of this Constitution as being a poor thing but all their own. I have myself seen a copy of the Constitution to which his own name was attached—a copy of the Constitution that was recommended by them at the time, and we can see, as I said more than once, where the pressure came in, and where the particular Articles that would have given a certain amount of freedom here from outside interference of any kind were interfered with in Downing Street. We have only to look at the debates here to know that it is false to say that these institutions have been freely established by the Irish people or their representatives. They have not been. What was the need of the threat of war if they were freely established?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: I think all that is quite irrelevant. I have given Deputy de Valera a fairly wide scope on this whole debate, but I think what the Deputy is now dealing with is quite irrelevant.

Mr. DE VALERA: I am very sorry to be irrelevant. It bears on the whole policy of the Executive of the day. If that is out of order, well and good.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: I think it is quite irrelevant to this particular debate.

Mr. DE VALERA: I bow to your ruling on the matter. I only say that if we are, on all sides, making up our minds that we are not going to face this [608] problem or the origin of it, then we are not going to get anywhere. It has a bearing on every single thing we do. To my mind, there is only one way in which it is possible to make progress. The only way in which it can be done is to try to get all the people in the country to accept this as a fundamental thing, that they can freely elect their representatives, with no bar whatever of any kind, and that when these elected representatives come together there will be no authority over them of any kind compelling them to do this or that, and that the only compelling thing will be majority vote here.

That is the basis on which I believe, if you go honestly for it, you can bring about a situation in which the present expenditure on the Army, on the Secret Service, on a whole lot of these Votes will disappear. If you do not want to be distracted with the political problem —and you are going to be distracted with it; you may succeed for a little while in crushing it down, but it is going to rise again—so that you can devote your energies to building up the economic and the material resources of the country, then you will remove those bars which are at present preventing the only reasonable solution that we can get to our national problem from being put into effect.

When you are dealing with these fundamental things it takes you a bit away from the immediate subject at issue. I hold, however, that everything is involved in it, that any time that has been spent by Deputies in trying to understand the position and to get a will to remedy it is time well spent. Yesterday, I think it was, the Minister for Agriculture wanted to do one thing —he wanted to bring out this particular point. You can picture him as just looking over the paper to get something which was capable of being misunderstood or misrepresented. I will end by saying that he reminded me of the priompallán that Keating talks of in his introduction to his history. That is the attitude, and that attitude, as long as it is typical of representative members on the other side, is not going to mean that at any time we are going to have that basic understanding which will make it possible for us to have [609] economies on services such as the Army and the Civic Guards.

Mr. DAVIN: Every Deputy was, during the last couple of months, given a fair and reasonable opportunity of ventilating his views in regard to the financial position of the country and of giving his reasons for voting for or against certain moneys for administrative purposes. I went into the Lobby with Deputy de Valera on many of the questions which he raised here. I think it is correct to say that I went into the Lobby with him believing that the taxpayers should not be called upon to bear the cost of the upkeep of the Governor-General. I feel perfectly satisfied, as I did when I voted against the Estimate, that whoever occupies that position is not worthy of the high salary, or the large amount that has to be voted for the upkeep of that particular establishment. Deputy de Valera came along in this debate and gave as a reason for voting against the Appropriation Bill that the membership of this House should be reduced from 153 to 100. He must be well aware that that cannot be carried into effect without amending legislation, because the present membership of the House is based upon existing legislation and an amending Bill is necessary to reduce the number. When I listened to Deputy de Valera referring to many of the matters which he mentioned, I wondered whether he realised the seriousness of the task which he has agreed to undertake by becoming a member of the Economic Committee. The Deputy and two of his leading colleagues, very able members of this House, as well as other Deputies from other parties, have agreed, at the request of the President, to serve on this Committee. The terms of reference are very wide, and to me it appears to be a life-long job. I have every hope that if the members of the Committee go into the room where they are going to meet free from the party contentions of the past and the political disturbances which we hear of from time to time, something good will come out of it. If we are going, either in this House or outside the House, to encourage the discussion of these contentious political [610] questions, we are going to give a task to the members of the Economic Committee which, in my opinion, will be an impossible task. They will go in there, if they are going to consider party ties, with tied hands, and the result will be that you will have several recommendations and nothing will be done. I should like if Deputy de Valera, who speaks for a large section of the people of this country, would appeal for his own sake as a member of the Economic Committee for a political truce during the work of that Committee. I should like to see all parties in this House who assented in the setting up of that Economic Committee calling not alone for a political truce, but for a financial and industrial truce. The abnormal number of unemployed which we have in the country to-day is due to political disturbances, to financial disturbances, and to a certain extent, but not in the past two or three years, to industrial disturbances. The fact that the banks are the financiers of this country, and are continually pressing the hand of the agriculturists and industrialists, is adding to the number of unemployed. There is no question about that. Every member of this House, I am sure, regardless of party, is prepared to admit it. The general position of the country as the result of two or three civil wars, or whatever you like to call them, has added to the list of the unemployed, and if we could cease from further political contention, it would help Deputy de Valera in the task which he has now undertaken as a member of the Economic Committee.

We are asked—and this is the real question before the House—to vote for the provision of moneys which will enable the administrative Departments of State to carry on for the remainder of the financial year. I am asked to oppose the Appropriation Bill simply because it contains provision for a certain sum of money for the upkeep of the Viceregal Lodge, and to disregard the fact that 80 per cent. of the other sums which it provides are for social services. I expressed my dissent from the provision for the Governor-General's establishment in the only way I could do it—by voting at the right time against the Estimate. The members of [611] my Party and I went into the Lobby against that Estimate, but I do not see how I could go to my constituency and justify voting against the Appropriation Bill, which provides large sums of money for old age pensions, housing, drainage and social services which, if these sums were disallowed by the House, would mean that there would be several thousands added to the unemployed list. I personally could not justify action of that kind.

On the question of the Army I speak for myself and I am prepared to defend my own judgment. One of Deputy de Valera's nominees, in the June General Election of last year, publicly called upon me to justify my action in voting, as I had already voted, for certain sums for the upkeep of the Army. We had at that time, roughly—one can only speak roughly— about 60,000 unemployed. I was speaking at a meeting which all parties addressed in succession, and I stated publicly that I was prepared to wait until the number of unemployed we had were fully absorbed in useful employment before I was prepared to add another 10,000 to the number. I am not prepared to-day to add that number to the unemployed. I think it is far better from the point of view of the State to have these men in uniform, under discipline and being fed at small cost to the State, than to have some of them going about hungry, as Deputy de Valera has seen some of them go about hungry during the past day or two in Merrion Square. I would not speak on this Vote but for the fact that I look at the establishment of the Economic Committee as the most important thing in its way that has been done by this House since I became a member of it. Important Committees have been set up by this House, but it was not as fully representative of the people as this Dáil is. All parties are represented on that Committee—financiers, industrialists and politicians. In the name of the people of the country who are looking for work, let us have a political truce, an industrial truce, and a financial truce, and let us get on with the work of the Committee free from all these disturbances.

[612] Major COOPER: I should like to support Deputy Davin's very moving appeal that we should all try and act with restraint so as not to prejudice the chances of this very important Committee. I should like to say that I agree entirely with Deputy de Valera in deprecating a campaign of slander, whomsoever it may be directed against. Those are not right political methods. They are not confined entirely to one party. I am not saying this in any polemical sense. I sympathise with Deputy de Valera, because I was in the September election subjected to a considerable amount of personal attack. When Deputy de Valera deprecates the quoting by the Minister for Agriculture of a recently reported speech in the United States, I would remind him that somebody in his Party—I do not believe it was himself, and I do not think he approved of it himself—went back seventeen years to find out any mistakes that I made when I was a boy under twenty-five. These things are done by the worst elements of all parties, and it is for the better elements of all parties to discourage them.

The particular point I want to make in this debate is relevant to the Bill. We have an immensely long schedule to this Bill—the Second Schedule. I want to make the suggestion to the Minister for Finance that he should see if it is not possible to condense the Estimates by an altered grouping. At present we very often waste a considerable amount of time discussing comparatively small Votes—Votes of less than £10,000— while big Votes go through almost undiscussed. I do not want to curtail the opportunities of the Opposition in discussing the salary of the Governor-General. That raises a question of principle which certainly ought to be discussed. But there are a great many small Votes. There is the Vote, for instance, for the Quit Rent Office. That is a very small office, employing about half a dozen civil servants. Some of these civil servants work for and receive remuneration from the Department of Industry and Commerce. Is there any germane reason why they should not be included in the Vote for the Department for Industry and Commerce? Again, there is the Vote for [613] Hospitals and Charities. Might not they be included in the Estimate of the Department of Local Government and Public Health? There are other comparatively small Votes which could be easily amalgamated with some other larger Votes. If the Minister would set up a small Committee to examine the Estimates, I am sure he could reduce the number of heads and the number of Votes. That would give us a better and more businesslike discussion of the Estimates and enable us to devote time to the questions which are really important. I am not suggesting that there was any undue waste of time in the discussion of the Estimates. There was no obstruction, and undoubtedly there was absolute willingness on the part of the Opposition to discuss the matters fairly. But necessarily time gets wasted. Even the time spent in proposing the Votes from the Chair is a waste, to a certain extent. Before next year's Estimates are introduced, I think the Minister might set up a small departmental committee or perhaps examine the matter himself to see if it would not be possible to reduce the number of heads in the Estimate and the number of Votes in this schedule from 71 to something like 50. I believe it would make for briefer, better and more businesslike discussion.

Mr. M. O'REILLY: I hope I will not be accused of wasting the time of the House, but if I have one belief it is that the question of taxation is one of the most important and one of the most vital questions that we are faced with in this country. The system was introduced here about 1853. It was introduced more or less as a result of the famine. In those days the British Government lent four and a half million pounds to this country, and in order to recover it more easily, and perhaps more profitably, income tax was applied here. It is strange, when one comes to consider the whole subject, that we find that as taxation increased emigration always increased. Therefore I take it that there must be some close relationship as between emigration and unemployment, as well as loss of industry. I do not believe that there is any Deputy in this House who does not believe in his heart and soul that this question [614] of taxation is the cause of the evils we suffer from to-day. It strikes me forcibly, when I consider the system that is adopted here of collecting taxes and the system adopted in England, that we here collect more than is necessary. I do not believe that that is correct. I believe we should collect what is necessary and that only. I believe the system of collecting more and then distributing the surplus is not economic. Neither is it healthy or good for any nation, because from the day that was instituted in this country we find demoralisation set in. We find that the two systems—direct and indirect taxation—were always severe on the community, but direct taxation never so severe as the indirect. Indirect taxation always punished the poorest in the country. It went further and interfered seriously with production. Farmers who were then producing found they had to pay higher wages for no other reason than that the labourer, in order to live, had to have more money. It cost him more to buy. The result of the whole thing was that we gradually began to lose our markets. Our cost of production was too high and we were unable to sell. The result to-day, as I firmly believe, is that so far as our agricultural produce is concerned we are actually selling under the cost of production. I do not think there is any economist in this State who can refute that statement. True, we may be able to sell butter a little over the cost of production, but there is no other article that leaves this country with which we can do that. I make these few remarks in order that people may begin to prepare themselves for what is coming in the near future. We cannot continue to spend as we are spending. That is an impossibility. The more we spend the more the State collects in taxes of every description and the more unemployment we have. We will have farmers gradually collapsing. We will have small farmers turning into large ones. We will have huge combines, and that will be the finish. I do not believe it is the desire of a single individual in this country to see that state of affairs come about. If they do not want that state of affairs they have the remedy. They cannot [615] employ it now, but in the near future that remedy can be employed, and I will go further and say must be employed.

When one considers the position of the farming community, one thing strikes one forcibly. There is never any extension or development. People engaged in other lines of business and, perhaps, from other countries, remark to me: “I wonder why that land is not drained.” Another man says: “I wonder very much that so and so does not finish his cattle or his pigs.” There is a reason for it all. The margin of his profits is not sufficient and never has been. There is no institution in this country that is so well and so highly organised as the institution for collecting money. If half the brains were devoted to the other side, I am quite sure we should be successful. I make an appeal then that some of the brains that are used to devise ways and means of collecting money should be used to devise ways and means of leaving a little more in the farmer's pocket.

He does not need much; if he just gets a little more he will get confidence, and that confidence is badly needed to-day. In some years he can get some more, but until you are in a position to leave five or six millions in those people's pockets this country cannot move from where it was. I believe it was an evil demon that devised this system. This system is not peculiar to an agricultural country. There is no country in Europe comparable with this. We have 80 per cent. here of agriculture. I do not believe there is any other country in Europe that is living on that industry like we are. Scandinavia, perhaps, might be comparable, but I do not know of any other. It is, therefore, quite reasonable that we should make an effort to change what the Minister for Finance last year called the old system, and which I call that unfortunate old system. I believe it is time that we started. The sooner we start the better, and the day we start you will find prosperity will come to this country. There is no other disease that I can find. It is impossible to discover any [616] other. I believe that the farmer, the employer, and the agricultural community could distribute money much more economically than any fancy Department that we may find here. There is always loss of money from people holding it for a time here and redistributing it. Not alone is there a loss, but, at times, a good deal of corruption and a good deal of demoralisation is brought about, and no man or no community can stand straight up and face the issue—that is, living on subsidy. It has demoralised this nation from the years of the famine, and it still demoralises it. Leave whatever surplus is possible in the hands of these people, and properly, usefully, and profitably distribute it. Those are the people who can run this nation. We may do a bit here, but at best we can only do a very small portion of it. As I say, leave the money to the men that make the money; those are the men that know how to invest it to get the best possible return. It strikes me that if we took an average of the 2,900,000 people who reside here, I do not believe that they would have 4/- a head to live on after all those charges have been paid up. It certainly applies to the agricultural community. I am afraid that here in this City of Dublin and in this House we have not fully appreciated the position of these unfortunate people. Picture to yourself, in a family of five, 4/- each per week to live on!

Mr. J.J. BYRNE: In Dublin?

Mr. O'REILLY: In the country districts.

Mr. J.J. BYRNE: Say, Dublin.

Mr. O'REILLY: I do not know much about Dublin. It is my business to put the position of the country, and certainly that is the case in the country, if it is not worse. Whether I am right or wrong, I will continue to hold this opinion until the opposite is proved. The cause of that is our high taxation.

Mr. KENNEDY: The Appropriation Bill affords us an opportunity of criticising the general policy of the Ministry in administering the affairs of this State. To my mind, the Ministry are [617] not aware of the times that are. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, in criticising the Opposition here one time, said that we seemed to think that time would wait for us, but the Ministry seem to live in times that are gone. When this Dáil was set up in 1922 a certain state of things existed whereby you had inflated prices, inflated salaries, and inflated wages, and the Ministry has gone on as if we were living in those times to-day, taking no cognisance of the general drop in prices, in wages, salaries, and everything else. That seems to actuate the policy as regards rural Ireland. Take the case of the Land Commission. We find in the rural districts that the Land Commission are paying prices for land which are exorbitant, which are above market value. The result is that the men to whom they give the farms find themselves subject to annuities much above those on adjoining lands, and that coupled with high rates, after a very short period, brings about a state of things whenever the men have to give up these lands. I would sooner see no land divided at all than that the present policy of high prices paid by the Land Commission should continue.

Speaking about the Land Commission, it is extraordinary that the 1923 Act is being so slowly operated. I asked a question here of the Minister for Lands and Fisheries as regards the progress made in the vesting of estates. At the rate they are going it will take 50 or 60 years to vest estates under the 1923 Act. I think if they diverted the energy of the staff of the Land Commission to the vesting of these estates and took them from the division of land for the present they would be doing a very good day's work.

As regards the farming population, the remedies proposed by this Ministry in setting up the Agricultural Credit Corporation have not worked out very well. I think members on the opposite Benches will agree that the working of that Corporation is an absolute farce. I, personally, filled in for farmers over a hundred applications, and I know that every one of these [618] was refused except one, and every Deputy I spoke to had the same story. I have spoken to a couple of solicitors who have sent in numerous applications to the Credit Corporation, and very few of these have received any consideration whatsoever. That Corporation has been set up to do the work which the credit institutions of this country have failed to do. It has been set up with no permanency. There is no possibility of it increasing its assets; there is no possibility of its activities widening, such as the National Land Bank could have done if it was not sold to the Bank of Ireland. They have just a wee margin to carry on. I say that the Ministry fails in its duty as regards the credit institutions in this State which have privileges which no other credit institutions in any other State in Europe or anywhere else have. If they are failing in their duty they should be made do their duty or be deprived of these privileges, and the privileges should be given to a State institution which would do its duty by the majority of the people in this country, namely, the farming population. The solution of the Minister for Agriculture of the farming question seems to be summed up in the slogan “A cow, a sow, and an extra acre of land,” but to get the cow, the sow, and the extra acre of land you must have proper credit facilities, and these credit facilities, as I have said, have not been provided. Even if they were provided, I contend that that policy is not the policy directed towards the maintenance of the biggest possible population on the land in Ireland. The policy of the Minister for Agriculture seems to be the policy of the grazier. It is extraordinary that in the Midlands the Land Commission start their activities in dividing land by tackling a farm, we will say, of 150 or 200 acres, and for some reason or other they leave the estate of 1,000 acres untouched. I have one particular parish in my mind in the Midlands where there are three estates of over 600 acres apiece on which no one lives, and another estate of 400 acres on which no one lives, and where the ordinary people live on the edge of a bog, which is the only part of the parish that is populated. Yet the only farm they tackled in that parish was a [619] farm of about 80 acres, which was subject to an annuity, and they left the other estates untouched. That is the general policy for Meath and Westmeath. As I said before, the policy of the Ministry seems to be the policy of the grazier. What should actuate the Minister for Agriculture is to bring about a state of things whereby efforts should be directed towards producing foodstuffs necessary for the population of this country and not for export. The first market we should think of is the home market, and in this respect there is no attention being paid to experimenting on the cultivation of wheat. To my mind, the agricultural instructors, acting under the country councils, are doing nothing in this respect. They are only carrying out a policy of make-belief, and if the whole lot were wiped out there would be no difference in the present state of farming as carried out in the twenty-six counties.

Again, we can see no practical results from the operations of the Board of Works. We can see no practical results in drainage or anything else. The schemes they put into operation are not half or quarter done. The Board of Works, under the present Ministry, have not made any advance on the old Board of Works under the British when it was known as the Board of no Works.

Under this Appropriation Bill there is a sum set aside for the carrying out of the Electoral Act. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister for Local Government to the non-carrying out of this Act. It is left to the discretion of the rate collectors to compile the register every year. In some districts it is very badly compiled, thousands of people being left out. They seem to follow no proper system, and I think it is up to the Ministry to make some stringent rules whereby these people will have to carry out their duties under the Electoral Act in an efficient way, either by consulting the local registrar of births and deaths or some other means. That is the best means that suggests itself to me.

There is a large sum set aside for Army pensions. It would be much better if the State, instead of paying money to a pack of idlers and [620] poachers, as we know them in the Midlands, would find suitable employment for those individuals and direct the money towards recompensing them for their work. These men have become useless, but they would be an asset to the State, even if additional money were necessary to get them work which would be of some utility to the State. All I see they are good for is acting as directors for elections for Cumann na nGaedheal.

There is also a sum set aside for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. When this particular item was under discussion before the recess I drew the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the inefficient telephone service in the rural districts.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: Surely the Deputy is not going to review all the Estimates again? He started off fairly well by saying that he intended to discuss general principles. It would be well if the Deputy kept to that.

Mr. KENNEDY: I am speaking generally.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: The Deputy must not go over the Estimates again.

Mr. KENNEDY: As a matter of fact, I have singled out only a few items, and I am very near the end.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: The Deputy is doing very well.

Mr. KENNEDY: What I was going to say about the telephone service——

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: I think the Deputy ought not to say it.

Mr. KENNEDY: I understood on this Appropriation Bill that one could discuss all the items that are embodied in it.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: No.

Mr. KENNEDY: I have the Bill here and they all seem to be in it. I just want to point out that the number of learners they employ at the rural exchange offices should be got rid of and efficient officers should be put in their places.

[621] AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: The Deputy ought not to pursue that matter any further.

Mr. KENNEDY: I also wish to refer to the fact that the Government have provided no funds this year for unemployment and distress. Unemployment and distress are as evident now, if not more evident, than they were last winter. I hope that before the adjournment the Government will see their way to give a grant to relieve unemployment and distress. I hope when they give this grant they will not set out as a stipulation to any particular county council that that county council should borrow twice the amount of the grant. In the particular county that I come from we find that the county council is already in debt to an amount which exceeds the rates. I hope they will get a portion of the unemployment grant, if it should come, without any such conditions.

As I am held up from discussing other items, I will have to get back to general matters. The real indication, to my mind, as to whether a country progresses is whether its population does or does not increase. The population of the Saorstát is going down, and consequently we can only assume that we have not the prosperity that we are told we have. I maintain that our population is decreasing. Unemployment is becoming more rife and we are not on the road to prosperity as we are told we are. High taxation is a great cause of this. There is also the fact that in the form of land annuities and local loans there is a drainage from the country, and if that money was held in the country it would go to the sustenance of the people, who are badly in need of sustenance at the moment, and it would go to the capitalisation——

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: Now, this is not the place to discuss land annuities and the Deputy knows that.

Mr. KENNEDY: If I could get a better title for them I would call them by some other name. I maintain that until this Government tackles the whole question of credit—because credit is [622] the basis of all industrial effort and all agricultural effort—you will have no progress here. In setting up the Agricultural Credit Corporation the Government did not tackle the matter properly. We have only to go to the country, or be members of local councils, to know the terrible demand there is for employment of any kind. The Government has failed to tackle the unemployment question and they have made no attempt to remedy it. It seems they have no remedy.

Mr. LEMASS: I will endeavour to keep within the bounds of your ruling and to deal with matters which are of general import. We have had a suggestion thrown out here by Deputy Davin, and supported by Deputy Cooper, that there should be what Deputy Davin called a political truce in this country while the Economic Committee which has been set up is in operation. We have had similar suggestions made on various occasions in the past.

Mr. DAVIN: If the Deputy does not mind, I said a political, industrial and financial truce.

Mr. LEMASS: Let us take them, therefore, in order—political, industrial, and financial. We have had suggestions of a political truce in the past, and the interpretation which appears to have been put upon that term, “political truce,” seems to be that we should ignore realities and refuse to deal with the fundamental causes which have produced the present political situation. If the members who go to that Economic Committee are expected to pull down a shutter over their minds and refuse to state the facts as they see them, and the causes of the situation as they know them, then that Committee will be of very little use. I do not know what the Deputy means by an industrial or financial truce. I am not quite clear what he means by it, and I hope if some other member of his Party is speaking in this debate that he will elaborate on it and make it clear.

Mr. DAVIN: I explained it, if you were listening to my explanation.

[623] Mr. LEMASS: The explanation did not convey anything to my mind except that the Deputy was anxious to say something which, while meaning nothing, is likely to get black-leaded type in the morning newspapers.

Mr. DAVIN: No.

Mr. LEMASS: The definition of the word “politics” has, I think, been discussed on a great number of occasions in many county councils throughout this country, and we can get a definition, if we like, as narrow as that usually given by a county council chairman when he is ruling a resolution out of order. But if by politics we mean the business of men acting as citizens, then we will find that the essence of the problem which the Economic Committee has to face is of a political nature and is politics.

It is a good thing for the representatives of the people in the Dáil to take advantage of the occasion of a Bill of a general nature such as the Appropriation Bill to carry out a general review of the position in the country, to estimate the amount of progress which has been made, and the rate at which we are moving. There have been many occasions during the progress of this State from the date of its inception until now when, following the road taken six years ago, cross-roads were encountered. At these cross-roads there were no signposts marked “This way to prosperity in ten years” or “This way to ruin in five years.” The people had to trust to the sense of direction of those whom the majority had placed in charge. We can test the accuracy of that sense of direction by noting the circumstances in which we now find ourselves and we can satisfy ourselves whether or not we are going into a condition of affairs which is going to mean greater prosperity or otherwise.

I am not going to discuss the question as to whether the people, or the elected representatives of the people, were right or wrong in accepting the Treaty of 1921. That is a question in which neither I nor my colleagues, despite statements made to the contrary, are very keenly interested. We are very keenly interested in the question as to whether the powers which were secured on that occasion are going [624] to be used to enable this country to move forward from the position established by the Treaty. We are keenly interested in finding out for ourselves whether those who accepted that document upon certain arguments are now satisfied with these arguments. I remember when the Department of External Affairs was referred to yesterday I pointed out that a number of Deputies on the occasion of the Treaty debates asserted that they were accepting the proposals because they were going to enable this country to achieve a measure of material prosperity as well as giving us freedom to achieve freedom. I think it is the duty of those people who made these arguments and the people who accepted these arguments to satisfy themselves now as to whether these arguments were, in fact, sound and if the events which have accrued since the Treaty was accepted have justified the use which was made of them.

I do not want to deal with the question as to whether the powers conferred by the Treaty have been used, or are likely to be used, for the purpose of gaining a better status for the nation. But I do want the House to consider whether the powers conferred by this Treaty were used, or can be used, to achieve a greater degree of material prosperity for the nation. It is generally admitted, I think, that hopes which were generally held as to the result of even a measure of self-government on the general condition of the people have not been fully realised. I think it will be found that the reason for the lack of prosperity that we are now experiencing will be found in the very act of acceptance of a national status less than that to which the nation was entitled, because those who made up their minds to accept a national status less than the full national demand, by doing so reconciled their minds to ignoring the very fundamental issue, and that led, of course, to the ignoring of equally fundamental issues in the economic sphere.

It was the policy of the British Government in the past to develop what was geographically and politically known as the British Isles as a single economic unit, keeping Ireland predominantly agricultural and England [625] predominantly industrial. It was, of course, a very good policy for England, and for those who still think of these islands as a single unit it may be considered a good policy still. But we know that whatever benefits that policy conferred on England, it resulted in depopulation, emigration, unemployment and poverty here, and one of the main causes for the long fight which we put up for political freedom was that we believed that that political freedom was essential to enable this country to break out of the British economic system. By breaking out of that system I mean achieving the right to develop the proper balance in this country between industry and agriculture, to provide for the establishment here of such industry as can be established, and particularly those industries which are required to supply the needs of our people. There has, however, been repeated indications given that the present Government, having abandoned the question of national rights in the political sphere, have also ignored the question of national policy in the economic sphere. From the day on which the Fiscal Inquiry Committee was set up in 1923, down to the Banking Commission and to the Report of the Tariff Commission on the application for a tariff on flour, we have had shown to us that the idea of one economic system for these islands still prevails. We have the Government continuing that policy and legislating in accordance with it. We have them, day by day, giving it renewed force, actively through the Department of Agriculture, and passively the Department of Industry and Commerce. So far as agriculture is concerned, of course whatever the Minister can do to increase the production of agricultural products in this country he will have our support, provided, of course, that the increase is a genuine one and not merely a transference of the energies of the agricultural community from one form of production to another.

We are, as I said yesterday, very glad to see, however, that the Minister for Agriculture has got it into his head that there is a considerable danger for the nation in being dependent upon a single market for the sale of agricultural produce, and I hope that some [626] serious effort will be made to explore the possibility of providing alternative outlets for the produce of our farms. The Department of Industry and Commerce, however, which should be the spearhead in the effort to revive industrial activity here, has, instead of being an assistance, become practically a barrier to industrial progress. They have constituted themselves that barrier by the simple process of doing nothing. I ask Deputies and the Minister for Industry and Commerce to look back over the past year and to ask themselves what the Department of Industry and Commerce have done during that period. Let us judge them by their legislative activities here. I think the Minister for Industry and Commerce was responsible for the introduction of three Bills. One of them was a Bill to continue the Trade Loans Act for another year—I do not know why, because only one guarantee was given under that Act in the first quarter of the year, and none since. Why the Act was continued I cannot make out. If it was that the Minister was so busy stimulating Irish industry that he had no time to consider the question of legislating concerning it we would not criticise him. But not merely has there been inactivity in the Dáil on the part of the Department of Industry and Commerce, but there appears to have been also inactivity in the actual putting into operation of the very Act which they were responsible for introducing. We had also a Weights and Measures Bill enabling the Minister to certify as to the accuracy of petrol pumps. We had a Gas Regulation Bill to regulate, not the kind of gas we get here, but gas of an illuminating value.

Mr. McGILLIGAN: We had some gas put off here already.

Mr. LEMASS: The gas this Bill referred to was gas of some illuminating value. That, I think, represents the entire activity of the Department of Industry and Commerce for the year —the introduction of three Bills and the passage of them through the Dáil and Seanad. Having done that, having provided for the regulation of gas and gasolene, having continued the Trade Loans Act for twelve months, [627] the Minister reposes on his laurels. Is it any wonder that there is constantly being raised here the question of unemployment, or that we see day after day the growth of a feeling of despair amongst our people with respect to the possibility of an industrial revival?

We have had discussions during the year that were perhaps of some value, and that brought to light new ideas and new views concerning the economic problems that confront us. We have had no activity on behalf of the Government to examine these ideas, or to endeavour to put them into operation, if found feasible. A few weeks ago the Government introduced a Housing Bill and announced that the Bill marked the termination of their existing housing policy. The Minister for Finance in the debate on the Relief Vote told us that the Housing Bill which they promised in the autumn could not be introduced because of the failure of the efforts made to reduce the costs of building, following the report of the Unemployment Committee earlier in the year. That Unemployment Committee was set up following a discussion on unemployment here, and I think the Fianna Fáil Party almost alone in the Dáil maintained that it could not be of any use. The Minister for Finance, of course, the other day told us in his own words that nothing much came out of it. Nothing much could possibly come out of it. It was blindfolded and gagged and bound hand-and-foot and hamstrung by the interpretation which the Committee itself placed upon its Terms of Reference. Imagine a Committee on Unemployment on the first day on which it sits deciding that it is no part of its business to consider the causes of unemployment, and yet trying to find a remedy! It is no wonder they failed. It is no wonder that any efforts which resulted in the report which they produced failed also. It is a very serious thing for this House if, as a result of the failure of the Committee, the whole question of housing is to be left in suspense. The Government, I am sure, realise the urgency that exists for providing decent housing accommodation for our people. It [628] is all in favour of the active pursuit of that problem that it is in the relief of housing that we will find one of the most expeditious methods of relieving unemployment as well. The Government, however, appear to have thrown up their hands in despair because they were unable to get, as they say, any reduction in building costs as a result of the conferences which were held of those concerned in the building trade.

I wonder if the Government or the Department for Industry and Commerce, which would be the Department concerned, have considered the possibility of taking steps to reduce the cost of building along other lines which would give considerable employment at the same time. Last year, for example, we imported 164,463 cwts. of cement, at a cost of £423,089. There was, as far as I have been able to discover, not a single cwt. of cement produced in this country. I should like to ask the Minister if he will tell us what the Government has done, or may do, or will contemplate doing, to break the monopoly in cement, and to reduce the cost by that means. We have in this country all the materials for the making of cement. The reports available from the Geological Survey Department indicate that. We have the men willing to work and we undoubtedly have the market. I hope that before the debate concludes the Minister will give us some indication of what the Government are going to do about it. Or are they going to do nothing; are they merely going to adopt the attitude which was indicated by the Minister for Finance and say that nothing can be done; that the Housing Bill which they had in contemplation cannot be introduced; that the housing policy which they had in operation must be terminated and everything suspended because a certain suggestion made by an admittedly dud Committee did not prove a feasible one?

Cement, of course, is not the only building material that can be produced here, and which is at present being imported, I think, in nearly every case, through a monopoly that can charge monopoly prices. Last year, for example, as far as I can discover in the [629] trade returns, we imported 178,646 cwts. of slates, at a cost of £106,848. I am personally aware of one slate quarry in this country that has provided all the slates required for two big housing schemes in Glasgow and for housing schemes in other parts of England and which has not been able to sell a single slate to the Dublin Commissioners in respect to any of the housing schemes in Dublin.

That surely is an extraordinary state of affairs. The Minister for Industry and Commerce possibly knows the quarry to which I am referring, because it received assistance under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Act. It is now, I think, in a very strong position and has no difficulty whatever in selling its slates in any quantities outside this country, but a considerable difficulty in getting the Dublin Corporation to take any of them off their hands. That is only one slate quarry. There are many other slate quarries capable of development, and it is a type of industry which gives a very substantial amount of employment. If instead of importing slates from Wales and other parts of the world, the slates required for the houses we are building here were secured from Irish quarries, we would be taking a big step towards the solution of the housing problem. The same applies to other building materials, such as stone. Government Buildings were, I think, built out of stone brought from Mountcharles Quarry in Donegal. That quarry I visited recently. It would not be true to say that it is dead, but it is almost so. It still does a small business in engraved tombstones.

There were imported into this country last year over £38,000 worth of stone for building purposes. I notice that the buildings which are being constructed in O'Connell Street, as a result of reconstruction grants, are being constructed with stone which has been imported. Surely, the Ministry must have contemplated the possibility, in view of the fact that they were giving reconstruction grants, of putting pressure on the persons concerned to ensure that they would use Irish material? Mountcharles Quarry, [630] to which I am referring, is almost within stone-throw of the sea, and if proper arrangements were made there should be no additional cost in transporting stone from there to Dublin as compared with the cost of transporting stone from Wales across here. As far as I can make out, excluding slates, stone and cement, we spent £750,000 last year on imported building material, by far the greater portion of which could have been produced in this country. I do not say that tackling the question of the production of building materials in this country is going to solve the housing question, but it will go a long way towards solving the unemployment question, because it will mean that not merely will employment be given in the building of houses, but that employment will be given in the winning of the raw material for the building of the houses. The attitude of the Government in respect of housing is identical with its attitude in respect of the development of industry generally. In the debate upon the Estimates for the Tariff Commission the other night, the Minister for Industry and Commerce endeavoured to hide the inactivity of his Department behind such a statement as “We do not want inefficiency protected in this country.”

I think it is fair to ask the Minister to tell us what he or his Department are doing to ensure the development of efficient industries. We do not want inefficient industries protected in this country any more than he does, but we believe that when we talk about “inefficiency” we mean something very different from what he means or from what any person who has developed what may be called the “Mersey-side mentality” means. When they speak of “inefficiency” they apparently confuse the term with “size.” It is very easy to sneer at Irish industries as being inefficient merely because they are small. We cannot have industries of the same size as in England, but we can have industries which serve our need at economic prices. That is the efficiency we ask for on these benches. We will tolerate the Minister for Industry and Commerce tilting at Irish industrials for their inefficiency when he has himself done something to improve the situation [631] which now exists, and has something more to show at the end of a year's work than the introduction of three very minor Bills.

The question of taxation arises directly under this Bill, and has been already dealt with by Deputy de Valera. There are a few points that I would like to refer to, because there is, I think, a tendency on the part of Ministers and their supporters to attempt to conceal them. We have had it repeatedly asserted that the Treaty was accepted because the people of this country had the right to do wrong. We had a Minister of the Executive Council telling us the other day that the Army had to be maintained because the people had the right to do wrong also. When a Minister makes foolish statements like that we can ignore them. It becomes a different question altogether when he tells us that the Army, for which we are paying £1,800,000, is absolutely useless for defensive purposes. That statement has been made in this House by a member of the Executive Council. When we see the Government refusing to consider any schemes for the provision of pensions for widows and orphans and refusing to make any provision to deal with the hardship that will undoubtedly exist during the coming winter months amongst the unemployed on the ground that it cannot afford the additional expense, while at the same time it maintains an Army costing nearly £2,000,000 to see that the people have the right to do wrong, and maintains a Civic Guard force at a cost of £2,300,000 for the purpose of seeing that the people have no right to do wrong, we begin to realise that there is some possibility of revision and some possibility of getting money for relief and development purposes otherwise than by additional taxation. Deputy Davin thinks of the Army, not as a military machine, but as a means of providing outdoor relief to a number of able-bodied men. He said here to-day that he would not defend its reduction until all the unemployed had been employed.

Mr. DAVIN: I used the word “demobilisation.”

Mr. LEMASS: The Deputy said that [632] the Army should not be demobilised until all the unemployed had been employed, as otherwise they would be putting 10,000 men on the unemployment market. I ask Deputy Davin to consider what could be done in the way of providing employment for £1,800,000 a year. I ask him to sit down and calculate the capital figure which that annual sum represents, and to find out if it would not be possible by mere demobilisation of the Army to provide work not merely for those who are at present in the Army, but for a considerable number of those who are starving outside as well. I think he will find that any plan or scheme which he can contemplate to provide work for all those who are without it in this country to-day would not cost the figure which is represented by £1,800,000 a year. The same remark applies to the Civic Guards. I said at the beginning that one of the main causes of the lack of material prosperity and of the poverty and unemployment which exists is that the Government, when they accepted the present political status, undertook commitments which would inevitably lead to these results. We have here £2,300,000 to maintain a force whose principal activities seem to be carrying out raids for no other purpose, apparently, than that of irritating those who have not become ashamed to describe themselves as Republicans. No person who has been at any time identified with the Republican movement can feel safe in his own house, or feel sure that some evening a party of these Civic Guards will not march up and insist on searching all his private papers. The Minister for Justice, when questioned about this matter, always says the raid was for the purpose of finding arms, and no arms were found. The reports which reach us would indicate that it is very rarely a search for arms is made, and that the main activity of these Civic Guards is really the reading of the correspondence addressed to the persons whose houses they raid.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE: We had all this on the Estimate.

Mr. LEMASS: I agree, and I do not want to press the question now. But I say that if the Government would let [633] political developments take their natural course, and let those who want to see the present status changed into that of a Republic conduct whatever peaceful agitation they like towards that end, and if Civic Guards were not to be used for the purpose of maintaining a situation which they themselves think should be the right situation a very substantial reduction could be made in the cost, and that money could be utilised for the purpose of giving the relief which is required in other directions.

I hope that the Minister for Industry and Commerce will deal with the points I have made, will tell us the reason for the apparent inactivity of his Department throughout the year, will tell us if it is true that they have, in fact, been doing nothing to stimulate industrial production here. If he is going to assert, as he probably will assert in self-defence, that that is not true, I hope he will say exactly what they have done. Nothing has been done under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Act, nothing has been done in the Dáil, and nothing has been done which, as far as we can see, has produced any results in the country. Accurate statistics are, of course, not available, but those whose business takes them round the country report that it is their impression that the number of unemployed is increasing, and it does appear that the number of emigrants is increasing each year. Until we seriously tackle this problem, not as a non-political problem, but as a political problem, interpreting “politics” as the business of men acting as citizens. we will not find a real solution. If the problem is tackled, and if we do decide to break up that economic system, at the head of which stands Great Britain—to quote the words of the Banking Commission—and institute a properly-balanced economic system of our own in its stead, I have no doubt we will be able to provide work for every individual without work to-day, and, in addition, stop the rot in our affairs which we have experienced for a long time past, and set this nation moving in the opposite direction altogether.

Mr. ANTHONY: As one who has always taken an interest in the economic [634] welfare of the common people of this country, I would welcome any contribution of a constructive nature or character that would emanate from any section of this House. But I have waited for many months for anything of a constructive nature or character to come from the Benches occupied by the last speaker. Deputy Davin, in discussing this Vote, threw out a suggestion with which I feel myself in full agreement—that we should have in this country, for a period which he has not defined, but which I would suggest as six months or twelve months, a period of rest, a period of peace, a period of economic peace—that we should have a political truce, an industrial truce, and, if you like, a moratorium.

Mr. LITTLE: Now you are talking!

Mr. ANTHONY: There are banks which are exercising, at the moment, great pressure on many traders, agriculturists and shopkeepers, which, I submit, is in restraint of trade. We of the Labour Party do not indulge in vague generalities. We usually face up to the realities of any question or situation that arises in this House. I want to submit that, before we can have any broad, economic peace in this country, or economic progress, we must have some sort of a political truce or political peace in this country. We have had no indication whatsoever from the chief Opposition in this House that they are prepared to subscribe to that doctrine.

Mr. LEMASS: What does it mean?

Mr. ANTHONY: It means a cessation from talking “tommy-rot” in this House.

Mr. LEMASS: Sit down and we will have it.

Mr. ANTHONY: It has been suggested by Deputy de Valera that the number of Deputies in this House should be reduced. It might be no harm to remind Deputy de Valera and his Party that that can be done, but it can only be done by legislation. We have had contributions, in the course of this discussion, from certain members who gave us their solution of the unemployment problem. Deputy Lemass suggested that the solution of the housing problem would not mean the solution [635] of the whole unemployment problem. With that I find myself in agreement. At the same time I would like to point out that it would be a most important factor in the solution of the unemployment problem.

Turning from these vague generalities to something real, I want to say that we of the Labour Party would be able to put on the table something that would be helpful in solving the housing problem. Incidentally the building problem will help the solution of the unemployment problem. I have suggested before that if we are to have anything like economic progress or peace in this country it must be preceded by something in the nature of political peace or a political truce. (Interruptions. Now, Mr. Corry, take your vulgarities to the Cork County Council. I think the Minister for Industry and Commerce dealt with Deputy Corry yesterday in the only way in which he could be dealt with.

I want to say that whilst it is easy in this House to make professions of good faith, while it is easy to say that we have the interests of the ordinary common people of this country at heart, I would like to see those professions of faith backed up by something more practical than mere lip sympathy. I would like to see those professions of faith translated into actual fact. I will put a question which might be put possibly to people who are outside the Fianna Fáil party. How far is the Fianna Fáil party prepared to go in the direction of creating economic peace or progress which I suggest must be preceded by something in the nature of a political truce or political peace? I would suggest one or two contributions which might be made to that economic peace or progress and I say that the only answer that can be given should emanate from the Fianna Fáil Benches. How far is the chief Opposition in this House prepared to go in the direction I have indicated? Are they prepared to go back to their constituencies and to say to their constituents that so long as there is any association in this country which has for its object the overthrow of the Government, legally constituted by the people, you will have to have a [636] big army and a big police force. I am prepared to go on any political platform in the twenty-six counties, even into the enemy camp, to say what I am saying here. I know it might not suit some of those people.

Mr. CARNEY: Where is the enemy's camp?

Mr. ANTHONY: Any person who attempts by any illegal methods and by the force of arms to overthrow the Government instituted by the people or established by the people I would consider——

Mr. LEMASS: On a point of order, is not the Deputy dealing with incidents which took place in 1922, when the legally established Government was overthrown by force of arms?

Mr. ANTHONY: I am dealing with the realities of 1928, I would remind Deputy Lemass. (Interruptions.) Apparently it is not very agreeable to some people; I must be telling some home truths when I am subjected to so many interruptions. These interruptions never bother me. Like Tennyson's brook, I may go on for ever. (Interruptions.) I must ask you, A Leas-Chinn Comhairle, to keep a little order amongst those people. I submit that so long as that state of affairs obtains, so long as these things are allowed to go unchecked and unreproved by authenticated Deputies, representing various constituencies in this House, so long will you have a certain amount of political instability in the country. If those Deputies who have spoken are sincere, and I take it many of them believe they are sincere, it is up to them to create an atmosphere of peace in this country. I say it now with possibly a little greater responsibility in the matter than I had previously. You have an economic committee set up in this House. Very grave questions affecting the economic life of this country are bound to arise during the progress of the activities of that Committee, and I suggest that the prudent thing, the right thing, and the patriotic thing to do, in all the circumstances, is that some indication should come from the chief Opposition in this House [637] that they are prepared to advise their people in the country to refrain from activities, I will not say of a violent character, but of a character which might possibly disturb the very delicate economic fabric that exists in this country to-day. Again, perhaps, it might be useful to remember that there is nothing to be gained for this country, or for any other country for that matter, by the continued and continuous misrepresentation and continued and continuous unfair criticism that there is of the personnel of the Ministry or the Government or of any Deputy in this House. I do not know of any other country where we have criticism of such a kind directed against Ministers. I have my own grievances against the Government. I am in opposition to them and will continue to be, but at the same time there is such a motto as playing the game. I know it does not appeal——

Mr. LEMASS: And you are an adept.

Mr. ANTHONY: It is not very edifying to any member of this House who has any respect for himself or any respect for the traditions of this country to listen to the criticisms hurled from time to time against certain Ministers in this Government. As I have already said, if we are to have any economic progress in this country and if that idea is generally subscribed to by all parties in this House the least contribution that could be made to that expression is to give it some practical turn. I do hope, arising out of this discussion, that we will have at least some gesture from the chief Opposition in this House that they mean to act up to some of the things they said in the country, when they said they were entering the Dáil to serve the common people. We have heard that parrot-cry of the common people of the country, but, so far as I am concerned, I must say that I have not seen a particle of service by the people who proclaimed so loudly that they intended to give service to the common people of this country. Nobody has suffered more by the activities of the chief Opposition than the common people of this country. I [638] have been a witness on more than one occasion—I might say on more than two occasions—of what has occurred, owing to the activities of some of the sympathisers of the chief Opposition. I say here deliberately that more unemployment has been caused by that very party than by any other force operating in this State. The establishment that I work in was blown to smithereens by dynamite, gelignite, or something else, just to create further unemployment, but they did not succeed. We carried on, with that indomitable spirit of the Gael that some of the people with the petrol tins and the gelignite never had.

Mr. FLINN: I think the Fianna Fáil Party have reason to be grateful to Deputy Anthony in that he has removed any misapprehension which might be in the popular mind that he approved of them. I think he has done a great service, a very honest service, in relieving us in that respect. I think we would just as soon be praised by the “Cork Examiner.” Deputy Anthony—I am not going to spend much time on the small, long subject— wants constructive proposals. I did not hear any from Deputy Anthony. The difficulty has been placed before you to-night in a very excellent speech which I suggest the 90 per cent. of the Cumann na nGaedheal representatives who are not here should read—that speech delivered by Deputy O'Reilly in which he pointed out the difficulty of industry, the difficulty which production in this country has and the amount of money which is taken away from production for the maintenance of the State.

The cost which is laid upon existing productive industries at the present moment is so high that it is practically impossible for productive industry to develop to the extent of absorbing the normal increase of population. It does not lie in the laps of those who have defended every extravagant expenditure to complain of the ordinary and calculable consequences of extravagant expenditure. I have a good deal of sympathy with the plea put forward by Deputy Davin that you should not reduce such expenditure, because, to [639] some extent, there are poor relieved. To some extent it stands between the putting of an existing employed population in competition with an existing unemployed population. I think I am stating the position fairly. If it were possible for the State to employ the whole community on the basis of the present remuneration of the Civic Guards, and in the present condition of the ordinary soldier, I should be very glad indeed to see that standard of comfort attained. It is a standard of comfort which is not attained by any reasonable percentage, almost by any calculable percentage, of the primary producers of this country. The ordinary small farmer and his labourers who are producing—I do not want to put a percentage on it—a very high percentage of the total productive wealth of the country do not correspond to the lowest paid Government servant in this country, and that is a very serious proposition.

Let us take Deputy Davin's proposition. I believe Deputy Davin is sincere, and what I suggest to him is that the position which he holds, the policy which he advocates, and which his Party advocate and think to be constructive, is founded simply upon confused thinking. I am not saying that in any uncomplimentary sense. Deputy Lemass pointed out that if there was a saving of half of the cost of the combined police service, which is called the Civic Guard and the Army, there would be relieved a sum of, roughly speaking, £1,800,000. Now, that amount at the present market price of money would relieve for the recapitalising of land and for the revival of industry some £30,000,000 free of interest. If instead of giving that money free of interest it was given at an interest which industrialists and farmers would be very willing to accept, at 2½ per cent., it would relieve £60,000,000 to recapitalise agriculture and benefit constructive industry. That is what the ordinary poor person, the ordinary workman in this country, is paying for the existence of this combined force at twice the cost which is necessary. In voting for that charge, in voting to continue it, Deputies here are voting to tie up £60,000,000 which might be [640] made operative in the employment of their constituents. I believe without any hesitation whatever that that money so operative would absorb into employment not merely the demobilised sections of these forces, but a very considerable proportion of those not now in those forces and who are at present unemployed.

That is only one item in the balance sheet. Go through it, find other figures, and multiply every figure by forty, and you get the amount of money which, without any further charge upon existing productive industry, can be relieved for the purpose of creating employment and creating production which does not now exist. Farmers are hoping that over a period of six or seven years, if the Agricultural Credit Board does not break down like the Central Selling Board, they will be able to get six or seven millions of money at 6½ to 7 per cent. for the purpose of recapitalising agriculture. In the saving of half of the cost of one single service in the country you have £60,000,000 let loose at 2½ per cent., and it is the same in every other item. Deputy Anthony—and I will not take him as typical of the Labour Party——

Mr. ANTHONY: Can we take the Deputy as typical of the Fianna Fáil Party? I hope they stand over what he is saying.

Mr. FLINN: Ten years hence you will be able to answer that question.

Mr. CARNEY: If he lives long enough.

Mr. MacENTEE: Only the good die young.

Mr. FLINN: The other day Deputy Anthony, in relation to a particular Estimate, in a constituency near our own, contended that £20,000 should be spent, though no adequate explanation was given by the Ministry in regard to that expenditure. I firmly believe that the Ministry themselves do not like the expenditure, and would be very eager to reduce it, and I believe they are capable of reducing it. Let us take that particular £20,000. A quarter of the £20,000, used in a way that the President knows, and that Deputy Anthony and I know, in the harbour of [641] Cork would relieve five or six times as much money for payment in actual wages into the hands of workpeople in the harbour of Cork. It is because that money is not being used properly; it is because that money—and this is typical of a very large percentage of the Estimates—is being used in a way in which it prevents the employment of people, that I want that money transferred so that it will give productive employment in this country.

The test for all money coming from the State is this: Does the man employed at the end of the week leave behind him as a result of his employment more than he has consumed during the week of his employment? That is the test of productiveness, and any other money that is spent must simply be justified on the grounds that there are existing unrequited social evils which have to be met out of expenditure of that kind. There is no hope in the dole, and there is certainly no hope in a dole which is hidden in a housing scheme any more than anywhere else. We must get for this poor country a return in production for every penny that we take out of production.

There is an illusion among certain people in this House—and I am not confining it to any particular Bench— that the State has some money of its own; that there is some bank, some pool, from which the Government draws money. That is not so. Every penny they get has to be withdrawn from production and every penny that, being withdrawn from production, is sent out on any other mission must be tested by the fact whether or not in the sending out of it and the using of it more production is provided than is prevented by its absorption from existing industry. I am satisfied existing industry in this country cannot stand the strain, and if the Government contend—it must be their only contention —that this country can stand from industry that amount of withdrawal which is now existing, then it is up to them, up to us, and to the members on the Labour Benches, to see that that money which is withdrawn is turned back into productive work and not turned back into merely camouflaged poor and outdoor relief.

[642] Mr. DAVIN: Hear, hear! Give us the schemes.

Mr. FLINN: Yes. Six million pounds are cried out for, according to the Government, or they would not have set up a scheme for agriculture. I think it wants £30,000,000 to recapitalise agriculture. I think you are fooling with the game to pretend that you can reorientate agriculture in this country on £6,000,000 of money. I am absolutely certain you cannot begin to reorientate agriculture on £6,000,000 at 7 per cent.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE took the Chair.

Mr. FLINN: There is no difficulty in finding the subject that needs improvement. The difficulty is to find the resources with which it can be done. The resources are here, and the resources are now being absorbed in extravagant and over-lapping expenditure. It is the business of every man who seeks the interest of the ordinary working man, of the lowest paid working man, the man from the bottom up, to concentrate on seeing that every sort and kind of extravagant and over-lapping expenditure is withdrawn and is absorbed into industry.

I have been a bit dissatisfied, I must say, in listening to the discussion of the Estimates during the year, with what I would call bad segregations. I do not want to stress the point too much, but it might be considered at another time. For instance, you had the Minister for Education telling you that part of the education grants was poor relief. You had that Minister also telling you that the whole of the cost of education was not shown in these grants. You have in relation to Industry and Commerce charges put upon that Department which are purely agricultural charges. Yesterday, in relation to the Department of External Affairs, you had the suggestion that there should be appointed Ambassadors or Trade Representatives, a large part of whose costs would be purely agricultural costs, in the sense that they would be engaged in the developing of the primary industry. I am not saying this in any critical spirit, but there are no [643] means by which any ordinary Deputy, going through the Estimates and seeing all the figures which are available to the House, can tell what is the cost to the Government, and through the Government for every productive industry in the country of the creamery industry itself. We ought to be able to find that out, but it is impossible to do so. It is hidden in all sorts of different places. When the Economic Committee, the setting up of which was suggested from these Benches at a very early stage in this Session and was rejected by the House, comes to consider how it can deal with this question, it will have to go very accurately, much more accurately than our accounts do now, into the segregation of the actual costs of existing services as distinct from their visible costs.

Mr. DAVIN: I do not think it is right for the Deputy to say that the suggestion for the setting up of the Economic Committee was rejected by this House.

Mr. FLINN: It was not accepted by this House—if you like it was rejected by the Ministry. I should just like to say, in relation to the Unemployment Committee that was set up, and which undoubtedly did in large matters fail, that I do not think that was so much due to the Committee itself, though possibly it might have attempted to extend its terms of reference. The terms of reference were definitely drawn against the will of this whole section of the House in such a form that they were bound to be sterile from the beginning.

I am not satisfied that the cost of collection of taxes is as low as it might be. I have given examples of cases where the cost of collection was 100 per cent. of the tax, and that ought not to be. The invisible cost of collection is enormous—we can hardly calculate it. I have gone into the figures of one particular tax and I am perfectly satisfied that the invisible cost of collecting income tax to the community is at least twice as much as the visible cost shown in the books of the Government. That happens in relation to a great many taxes. Where they are [644] looking for a small amount of money out of an enormous number of separate sources, the cost of collection in many cases is more than the actual results to the Exchequer. Along that line I hope the Government, with, I hope, the co-operation of the community, will attempt to get reductions.

We had an extraordinary statement the other day from the Minister for Finance, that he could not even estimate the income of this country out of which he draws his taxation. I am not saying this in any very strongly controversial sense. What I am suggesting is that unless we change our methods of looking at things, so that it will be regarded as ridiculous and impossible for the Minister for Finance to estimate for a State income, drawn from an income the amount of which he cannot even estimate, all our economic conferences, all our attempts to economise, and all our attempts at reduction, are practically futile, in so far as they are influenced in any way by Government action.

An appeal has been made for some co-operation between different sections of this House in order to get a more peaceful atmosphere. If any one is going to say that we must definitely turn our backs upon the original and old and continuing purpose of this country in relation to our Government, and control of our Government, he is asking something that no one can do for him. There are permanent things in this country, and no promise, no assurance, by anybody can be effective to prevent a recrudescence, as and when the appropriate opportunity arises, of any activity that anybody chooses to use for the purpose of attaining that ideal. There is a great deal to be said, and a great deal can be done, in persuading everybody in this country that there is a time and a place for doing everything. There are times when you can do things, and there are times when you cannot do things. Our business is to build up the resources, and, above all, the resources of co-operation between ourselves, so that when the opportunity comes it can be properly used. The greatest co-operation towards political, social, industrial and economic progress in this country [645] will be when the divided forces of Irish nationalism will come together and proclaim openly a common purpose and objective. Then there can be enormous freedom, enormous liberality of difference, as to the method and as to the time. “In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity”—that is sound politics for this country; it is sound economics for this country. But the first thing in order to do that is that once again all those who do believe in this country as a separate and distinct human entity and individuality shall declare that belief, and declare that, as and when, by whatever means is necessary, they will seek to attain it. With this declaration you will have a basis of agreement, because you will have a basis of agreement to differ as to methods; because you have full agreement as to objective, and all the other talk does not carry us any further. If there are to be two definitely antagonistic objectives in this country, you cannot reconcile them. The first thing to do is to stress in that way the getting together and the common proclamation of a common purpose and objective, and then there can be infinite disagreement, if you like, and infinite co-operation in detail.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce stressed, the other night, what he called efficiency. In no controversial sense again, I am going to ask him to define what he means by efficiency. A proposition such as this: we must not build up a ring in this country and enclose within it inefficiency, is a proposition to which no man can take exception. The whole question is what we mean by inefficiency, and until we can agree or disagree as to the definition those propositi