Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 7 Nov 1947

Vol. 108 No. 11

Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1947—Second Stage (Resumed).

Deputy Norton—I am sorry that he has left the House—has described this Budget as being "politically unwise".

And Deputy MacEoin agrees with him. So Deputy MacEoin thinks that this is a politically unwise Budget.

And so does Deputy Flanagan.

If the people of this country were so foolish as to believe that everything that is physically desirable is also financially possible then this Budget would fail to attract their votes. If it were the object of this Government to remain in office by pandering to the foolishness of the most foolish in the country then the Budget is unwise. But as it is the object of this Government to endeavour to estimate the physical realities and the social necessities of the people and to explain them fairly and clearly to the people then it is a wise Budget. I make a gift to the splinter Parties of the Opposition of the votes they think they are going to get because of what they call the political unwisdom of the Government in introducing this Budget. The people of this country know—not perhaps the majority of them, but those who think on political, economic, financial, social and cultural affairs—and are keenly aware of the economic condition of the country and the economic condition of the world. They are, in my opinion, wise enough to know that it is foolish to put a twist on what the famous economist in England, the late Lord Keynes, said—"what is physically possible is financially possible"—the twist that what is physically desirable should be financially possible, and they know that the Governments of the various countries which acted upon that twist have led, and are leading, their countries into political, economic and financial chaos.

The Government here, if it merely wanted to "scrounge" votes, to remain in office, to win the three recent by-elections, could have produced a Budget which would have stood comparison with the Budget in any other country in the world that I know of. It could have added £4,750,000 to the national debt, instead of taking £4,750,000 from the cinema-goers, the pipe smokers, the people who drink, the people who pay surtax, the people who own motor cars, who buy furs and cosmetics and who pay income-tax. The Government did not do it, because we believed that it would be only fooling the people to pretend that the cure for the restriction in world supplies and under-production here is the pumping out of more money. I believe most strongly that the volume of money should fit the volume of goods available for sale. I believe there should be sufficient money at all times to enable the volume of goods available for sale to be distributed, but I believe most strongly too that, if the volume of money is in excess of that amount, it would be foolish to add to it, and criminal for a Government who knew the truth to pretend to the people that they could get out of their difficulties by adding to it. We have imposed certain rates of taxes in the various Budgets and in this Supplementary Budget, in order to collect sufficient money, without having recourse to increased bank credit or increased Government debt, to enable the existing supply of goods to be distributed in a socially wise and just way. There are Governments in other parts of the world who have similar schemes of taxation, although most of them in the past few years or during the war have not collected in taxation anything like the percentage of their expenditure that we have.

Deputy Norton accused me of being engaged in a capitalist conspiracy because I increased the tax on the workman's tobacco, cigarettes and pint of beer, and, at the same time, gave back £4,500,000 to the profiteers, as he called them, who paid excess corporation profits tax during the war. I asked Deputy Norton last week, when we were discussing the Budget Resolutions and yesterday, to explain to me if he thought it was because of a capitalist conspiracy in the British Labour Government that they increased the tax on the workman's tobacco to the point at which the price is practically twice the price here, that they added a shilling to the price of cigarettes to bring them from 2/4 to 3/4, and that they are charging such taxation as results in the bottle of stout or beer being sold at 1/- to 1/3 in England as against 8½d. here? If it is a capitalist conspiracy here, why is it not a capital conspiracy in England? Would a Labour Government here, heading some of these splinter groups, follow the Labour Government's example in England and increase the price of tobacco to nearly 4/-, the price of cigarettes to 3/4, and the bottle of beer from 8½d. to 1/1 or 1/3, or what would they do? The people at least know what we will do— we have told them. The Labour Party may sit silent here, but when they go down to the crossroads, they will not be so silent.

What fools they would be.

The country has a right to know what they are going to do, in the event of the people being so foolish as to elect them to form portion of a coalition of the splinter groups in the Dáil.

Mr. Corish

What are you getting worried about?

What will be their policy with regard to taxation? Will they follow the policy of the Labour Government in England and increase the prices of tobacco, beer and cigarettes? They have accused the Fianna Fáil Government of giving £4,500,000 to the bloated capitalists here. Will they, in some fashion or other, follow the example of the Labour Government in England who gave £325,000,000 to the bloated capitalists there by way of abolition of excess corporation profits tax? I think that that is a fair question to ask. The people should not be asked to buy a pig in a poke. Would the Labour Party, if they had a Government of the splinter groups, give £325,000,000 to the bloated capitalists?

Are you referring to Fianna Fáil and Córas na Poblachta as splinter groups? Those are the first two splinters they broke into and they will break into many more.

I was delighted to see Deputy Dillon welcoming with open arms and almost kissing the Kingstown republican who came in here the other day.

Deputy MacBride and I were at school together under Father Sweetman. Anybody from that school——

The Deputy is coming to school to you again, so far as I can see.

You will be going to school to him before long.

He learned outside the Deputy's "corruption".

Anything he knows, he learned from the Minister.

That is as far as I can see.

May I ask the Miniter to repeat what he said about corruption? Is he making a charge of corruption against Deputy Dillon or myself?

We may as well get this right. What I charged I charged to the Opposition groups.

Mr. Corish

Specify.

Including Deputy Dillon.

And including Deputy Mulcahy.

I thought the Minister was on Deputy MacBride. Do not run away.

Deputy MacBride is only the political child of Deputy Mulcahy——

On a point of order——

Perhaps the Minister will be allowed to explain.

On a point of order, are we discussing economic matters or is the Minister being invited to continue on the lines on which he has just embarked?

The Minister was replying to an interruption by Deputy Dillon. Deputies cannot expect to interrupt without getting an answer.

The Minister's discourse is broken now.

The Kingstown republican who came in here the other day——

On a point of order, is the Minister in order in taking individual Deputies and applying nicknames or sobriquets to them?

The Deputy in question has been duly elected for County Dublin.

Mr. Corish

And his name is MacBride.

Will the Minister withdraw the remark?

The Deputy who came in here the other day and who was welcomed so effusively by Deputy Dillon, the Deputy who was elected by 8,000 votes from Fine Gael——

On a point of order, in the interest of decorum in debate, is it in order for a Deputy to describe another as "the Kingstown republican?"

I do not see any insult in describing any Deputy as a republican——

I resent——

If Deputies do not want to hear the Chair, the Chair will not rule on any point of order. Deputies might observe Standing Orders. I do not know where Kingstown is. It is no insult to call a Deputy a republican, but a Deputy should be referred to as Deputy for the constituency which he represents, if he is referred to at all, and the reference should not be limited to one particular town in his constituency.

I shall explain what I mean by saying "Kingstown."

I do not know where "Kingstown" is.

Dun Laoghaire.

It is a place where the word "republic" cannot be mentioned.

If the Minister indicated a particular Deputy by a name which he ought not to have applied, is it in order for him to proceed to elaborate and explain why he used that epithet in respect of the Deputy in question?

I heard nothing unparliamentary from the Minister.

Good enough.

If the Deputy who was elected in County Dublin the other day with the votes of Fine Gael—8,000 of them—will explain to me why, in his election address to the voters of County Dublin, he did not mention the word "republic"——

On a point of order——

Perhaps you, a Chinn Comhairle, would allow me, on a point of order, to ask you to rule out, in the course of a discussion on the Finance Bill, personal references to or attacks upon members of this House. I refrained from making personal attacks on any member of this House since I came in here and I ask you to rule out personal attacks.

It is not advisable that the Minister should follow the line of what happened in the election.

I contest the statement that the member for County Dublin, recently elected, made no reflection on members of this House.

Do you not know where——

His election address contained an allegation, following Deputy Dillon and Deputy Mulcahy, of corruption against the members of this Government. I will read the address to you.

I think that the Minister had better not.

This is election stuff.

Does the Deputy recently elected for County Dublin withdraw the charges of corruption?

Let him go to Dun Laoghaire and read it.

Hear, hear.

As I said last night, the stock in trade of these splinter groups——

You refer to yourself, of course.

——which Deputy Dillon and others hope to head some time or other—Deputy Dillon at £4,000 per year and others of them somewhat cheaper —is "corruption" or "cor-ruption", as Deputy Dillon would say——

Mr. Corish

A poor imitation.

Or "coruption" as the latest Deputy for County Dublin would say. I want to say this—that the most dastardly form of corruption is an allegation of corruption against honest men.

Where are the honest men? Point them out.

Last night again, Deputy Flanagan accused the Taoiseach of corruption. He put him on the same plane as the dictator of the Union of Soviet Republics in Europe and Asia. I wish that the 11,000 or 12,000 voters in Laoighis-Offaly who elected the Deputy as their No. 1 representative and sent him into this Dáil to accuse Eamon de Valera of corruption could see him in operation here in front of foreign visitors. If Deputy Flanagan, LaoighisOffaly's No. 1 Deputy, were put on the stage in Laoighis-Offaly and behaved there as he behaves here, the theatre would be wrecked, because it would be said that he was a stage Irishman.

On a point of order, I respectfully ask you to rule out discussions of members of this House in the course of a discussion on the Finance Bill.

There is something in the point of order but, if a Deputy in the course of a debate on the Financial Bill, makes charges of corruption, the Minister is entitled to answer them. If the Deputy referred to, in the course of a discussion on this Bill, made charges of corruption——

I was here for portion of Deputy Flanagan's speech on this Bill yesterday, and I did not hear any specific charge of corruption being made by the Deputy.

May I inform the Minister that, last night, in the course of my speech, I made no charge of corruption against the Taoiseach? I ask the Minister to be good enough to quote my words.

Does the Deputy withdraw his charge of corruption against the Government? He repeated it this morning. I want to point out to the latest arrival from County Dublin that he heard only portion of my speech. I commenced at 10.30. That was too early for him.

Where are the rest of the boys?

When the members were at their tea yesterday evening, the Deputy called for a count of the House. When the House assembled at 10.30 this morning, he was not here. I want to say this, that when we go out to this general election the people are going to know where we stand. There is going to be no hugger-mugger about it. I know where Deputy Kinane stands, who was elected from Tipperary. Deputy Kinane said that he stood for a 32-County Irish-speaking Republic.

And rightly so.

On a point of order. Are we discussing financial business here or are we opening the general election campaign?

I hope the election campaign will be ruled out here between now and the election.

Could we begin this morning, Sir?

May I be permitted to pass this remark? For two days I sat here listening to election speeches. I never once interrupted—not once. I listened to the Government being accused by Deputy Flanagan of corruption. I never said a single word.

What accusation like that did I make?

You never said anything like that.

And Deputy Flanagan, during this election, will go down through the country and from every platform will again accuse the Government of corruption.

If we cut out the election campaign it will make for better order here.

It would, of course, a Chinn Comhairle.

We will meet you down there.

But, as I have been asked to withdraw this Budget because of the result of the by-elections, and as Deputy Norton has advised me that it was "politically unwise" to face a general election on the basis of it, I think I am entitled to make an odd remark, which will be merely en passant, if it does not draw interruptions, as to the reason that the Government are not going to withdraw this particular Budget even though there is a general election in the offing.

Again I invite Deputy Norton or any member of his Party to say, if by any chance the people of this country are so foolish in the next general election to elect them, what they will do in the matter of the excess corporation profits tax. Will they proceed to reimpose the excess corporation profits tax? Will they not be content to abolish it, as we did, or will they go as far as the Labour Government in England went and give £325,000,000? Will they abolish the present duties on tobacco or will they do as the Labour Government in England did, increase the price of cigarettes from 2/- to 3/4? Will they in the matter of income-tax impose the same rates on the working people as they do in England and make the £4 a week single man here pay three times as much as he is at present paying in order to bring him up to the Labour standard in England? Will they make the married man with no children, who has £350 a year here, pay eight times as much as he is paying at present in order to bring him up to the British standard of income-tax?

There was a war in England.

Will they make the married man with three children pay four times as much as he is at present paying in order to bring him up to the British standard? Will they impose a tax on the married man with three children—on £500 a year, at present paying nothing here—in order to bring him up to the British standard?

Mr. Corish

Tell us all about the old age pensioners and the agricultural labourers while you are at it.

The Minister did not interrupt in two days.

Mr. Corish

He is very impudent this morning.

The Minister did not interrupt in two days.

Will the Labour Party do something to cut down the rate per hour of bricklayers, masons, carpenters and joiners from the 2/11½ here to the 2/10½ London rate or the 2/7½ rate in Manchester, Liverpool and all the large cities and, in addition to that, step up their income-tax, step up their tobacco and step up their beer? Deputy Norton says the Budget is "politically unwise". Is it because the Labour Party think it would be "politically unwise" for them to give an answer to these questions that they remain silent? Was it because it was "politically unwise" for Deputy Norton to answer the question which I asked him last week that he remained silent about these matters when he was discussing this Budget last night?

Deputy Dockrell joined in the propaganda of both wings of the Labour Party and endeavoured to drive our people out of this country by promises of an El Dorado in England by saying, why should bricklayers, masons and building trade operatives remain here when by going to England they could get a higher standard of wage and a higher standard of income? What is the reason that Deputy Dockrell made that allegation? Is Deputy Dockrell not in touch with the building trade? Does he want to see more of our building trade operatives go over to England because of these rosy promises of an El Dorado that he, in conjunction with the Labour Party, is holding out? Does Deputy Dockrell not know that the big reason that there is not a bigger output of houses is that there is a bottle neck in skilled labourers who are getting higher rates per hour here than they are getting in England and who have lower income-tax and lower prices for the luxuries, or essentials, as some Deputies have called them, of tobacco, beer, and so on? I am prepared to admit, and have never denied, that the cost of existence in England is lower than it is here, but the cost of living is higher. You can get a few ounces of meat per week for a shilling or so on the ration card, but try to get a little bit beyond that, to get as much as the Dublin working man or tradesman eats, and how much will you pay for it? You would need to be a millionaire in order to do so.

But what does he pay for his eggs?

The egg a month, is it?

The eggs, in Dublin.

The 12 eggs a year they get in England.

I am asking what does the Dublin man pay for his eggs.

What would the Englishman pay for the Dublin man's eggs— that is the question.

What is he paying for them at the present time? What is the Englishman paying at present for the Dublin man's eggs?

He gets one egg a month.

That is no reply to the question I asked the Minister.

If he wanted to get the same supply of eggs as the Dublin man has, he would pay probably four times as much as the Dublin man.

There are a whole lot of people in the country getting no eggs at all.

That brings me to one point and I might as well follow it up— the suggestion about the tax on tourists. I think I have taxed tourists who come over here with plenty of money very severely in this Budget and in the last one. If there is anyone who has a concrete suggestion as to how we could segregate the tourists, the English millionaires, who come over here, from the Irish people who have gone over to England and return for a holiday, I am prepared to consider it. In the first Budget this year I doubled the tax on wines and in this Budget I have doubled it again. I considered other forms of taxes that would be paid largely by tourists who eat luxury meals here and I could think of no better way than to collect it by a tax on wines and spirits. If any Deputy has a better idea, let me have it and I will examine it. I do not propose to tax the ordinary Irishman who goes over to England and comes back here for a holiday. I wish to goodness they would stay at home. I would like more of them to come back, to look round and see that the allegations and propaganda by Deputy Dockrell are not true, that if they came back here—building operatives, particularly—they would get a much higher rate of wages per hour and a much higher standard of living. Quite a number of them who came back here without being taxed, these alleged tourists, came home and stayed at home. I hope there will be a lot more of that form of tourism.

The editorial youngster of the Irish Times accused the Government of being old and tired.

A skelp at Mr. Smyllie.

The sprightly editor of the Irish Times accused the Government of being old and tired. One rather wearying thing on the Government is a repetition of the essential principles of a sound economy. We have time and again told our people that we can have a higher standard of life here when we increase our production. If we do not increase our production and attempt to have a higher standard of life by going on a spending spree, we can have a higher standard for a time provided we dissipate all our capital assets. The people who have no capital assets in the world at the moment are doing all sorts of things in order to accumulate them. I would not advise our people to dissipate their capital assets at the moment, or to spend them except to the extent that is necessary to keep body and soul together and to acquire further capital assets in the form of increased machinery, better machinery, better farm equipment, better industrial equipment and raw materials.

Deputy Hughes last night said that the Government were doing nothing for production. I think his leader said that down in Carrick-on-Suir.

I had very good reason for saying it, if I did—and I am sure I did.

What induces the increased production?

Does the Minister want me to tell him?

I think the Deputy told me already. Deputy Hughes told me last night—increased price. If increased price induces production, I take it that decreased price would discourage production.

Listen to the mighty brain working.

The Minister is getting adventurous in his thoughts.

We want to know from Deputy Mulcahy does he think that if we went back to his price level to the farmers it would be an incentive to increase production.

We would be a lot better off if we could get back to those times.

Go back to the 5/- a barrel for oats instead of 40/- or 42/-; go back to the barley at 8/- or 9/- a barrel and go back to the wheat coming from America at 12/- a barrel.

What year are we in now?

We are in the El Dorado of Fine Gael — or Cumann na nGaedheal, as it was then—it went through a few shifts but it is still the same Party. Are we to offer the Irish farmer prices of that kind, to compete with wheat from the United States at 12/- a barrel, oats from Germany at 5/- a barrel and bacon from Poland at 40/- a cwt.?

There is no bacon at all now, from Poland or anywhere else.

Would that be the Fine Gael policy to increase production?

I would hate to interrupt the Minister. I want to see how his clear, continuous mind works.

We will have an opportunity from now on for the next couple of months and I ask him to go down the country and say: "Look here, boys, when we were in power that last time, you got 5/- a barrel for oats, 20/- a barrel for wheat and 8/- or 9/- a barrel for barley and we are going to ask you to increase production and we are going to give you the same prices again." I challenge Deputy Mulcahy in any election speech that he likes to make down the country to read out the list of prices for farm produce that obtained in 1931.

You have pushed Deputy Flanagan off the stage now.

The Deputy is not going to get me on to Deputy Flanagan for a moment.

You painted a picture of Deputy Flanagan on the stage a moment ago.

I am not going to deal with Deputy Flanagan. I am dealing with Deputy Mulcahy and his production.

The Minister started by pushing out his chest and roaring.

I am not going to deal with Deputy Dillon even though he tries to save Deputy Mulcahy. I am sticking to the point of production. We got a list of prices from the leaders of Fine Gael last night. We got it from Deputy Mulcahy on many occasions. He said the right thing for the Government to do was to increase production and get further production. I remember, when Deputy Mulcahy was on these benches, that we discussed at one time the production of houses. We asked him to do something about the production of houses. His reply was that very little could be done about the production of houses until the price of wages fell and the price of materials fell to a point at which houses could be let at an economic rent at the then level of wages.

And you have never yet found the quotation.

I have and I published it, and I will publish it again. Do not let Deputy Mulcahy ride away with that.

Get me the quotation.

I will get you the quotation. I heard the Deputy say it. Is the Deputy denying that he did say it? Is he denying that when he was Minister for Local Government in Fine Gael he said, in effect, that they could not do much about house building until the price of wages fell and until the price of building materials fell to a point at which houses could be let at an economic rent in relation to the then level of wages?

You want an answer to that?

Did you say that?

I have received insults and suggestions from the far side of the House that I have considered it beneath me to answer.

Silence gives consent.

I wonder would you give us production.

One of the things that the Fine Gael Government would not give was production. It would give you the production of empty factories as it did during its ten years in office. One hundred of them became crows' nests, and it would give you more grass.

That is what the world is looking for.

Deputy Hughes yesterday said that we anticipated 103,000 hectares of wheat in 1951. That was what he called Fine Gael policy. Will he tell me how many hectares of wheat were grown in 1931? If he does not I will. It was 8,000 or 9,000 hectares, so that the 103,000 hectares would be ten or 12 times that amount. To go back to the Fine Gael policy in relation to wheat would be to leave this country with not sufficient seed to grow one-tenth of the wheat annually required. We do not intend to go back to it, and even if Deputy Mulcahy should get a job under Deputy Norton or under Deputy Dillon —if he gets back at all—the people of the country would not let him go back to it, and neither would they let him go back to the 5/- a barrel for oats or the 8/- or 9/- a barrel for barley. The Fine Gael policy of production was seen in operation for a period of ten years. They accuse us of having driven a number of people out of the country to work in England. Every man that went, went against my will and my advice. During their term of office 300,000 went to America, and when they were asked why they said that they were going over to see their friends.

I presume that the Minister has done with me personally?

A question was raised by Deputy Hughes and I think by somebody else about a statement made by the British Chancellor of the Exchequer that, in the last year, there were capital movements from England to here of £10,000,000. Deputy Hughes misinterpreted what is a capital movement by thinking that what was meant was capital investments. Capital movements, in the last analysis, can only take place when goods or services are delivered. A capital investment by an Englishman here leaves a corresponding credit to some Irish person or body corporate in England. The only way capital movements can take place is if we are taking more goods as a community from England than we are sending them in return. As Deputies are aware, the visible adverse trade balance in the last 12 months has been pretty high, and as a result certain of our capital assets fell in order to pay for the goods we imported. As far as I can find out —and we have kept a very close and strict eye on capital investments by English residents here—such investments would not come to anything like one-tenth of that figure, and even the one-tenth of that figure would have to be split up again into investments made here by English citizens and Irish citizens resident for a time in England or resident in the Six Counties. Those classes combined account for three-quarters of the investments made by people outside this State during this last year.

Now, related to that matter was the question of stamp duty. There were two things that I claimed for that. One was that this 5 per cent. stamp duty was going to take some of the inflated values in property changing hands into the Exchequer, and secondly that it was going to put Irish citizens in a better competitive position to acquire land here when they were faced with bidders from England and when the Englishman would have to pay 20 per cent. more.

Deputy Dillon often declares, indeed in every speech of his I have listened to for the last week or two he repeated it, that with a Fianna Fáil Government two and two make three three-quarters or three seven-eights or three thirty-one-thirty twos.

No, in De Valera mathematics. They are not all as cute as that boy.

We will put it that way. In the Taoiseach's mathematics, two and two never make four; they always make something else. In regard to this stamp duty, Deputy Dillon went a little bit further than that, because he succeeded in proving to his own satisfaction that two plus nought make four. He proved to his own satisfaction the other night that the purchaser and the vendor were going to pay this tax.

Rubbish.

There is only one tax to be paid and both the vendor and the purchaser cannot pay it; only one can pay it. If the tax is £2, £2 will be on the stamp, not £4. Yet, Deputy Dillon, in the case of the young married couple who are anxious to get a home, said they were going to pay the stamp duty.

Because they were anxious to get a home.

In the case of the Sudeten British who come here to buy houses from people who have hung on to large estates for a long number of years under great difficulties, it is the vendor who is going to pay.

Who is anxious to sell the house.

The Deputy must not interrupt.

The purchaser in one case and the vendor in the other; the purchaser and the vendor are going to pay; two plus nought make four. It will be news for the Revenue Commissioners that the purchaser is going to pay and the vendor is going to pay. There is only one way to get houses for young married people and that is to build them. No amount of tricking around with the price of the existing houses or the stamp duties on the existing houses is going to add one house to the number. The Minister for Local Government is bringing forward a Housing Bill which will give large increases to people who are going to build houses for themselves, not to speculative builders. The man who builds a house for himself, either directly or through a utility society, will get increased grants somewhat corresponding to the grants which have been made available to local authorities in order to increase the number of houses. Everyone knows that we are short of houses. If Deputy Mulcahy's policy had been in operation until now, we would be short 140,000 more houses, because at no time did the cost of wages and materials fall to a price at which houses could be let at an economic rent to working men since 1931, when he laid down the principles upon which houses should be built. We are at least 140,000 houses better off now than we would have been had his policy continued.

I trust that the Labour Party and the trade unions will co-operate with the Government in getting an increased output of houses. After all, there was nothing wrong in the building employers in England asking their work people to agree to a system of output payment for house building. Trade unions that had steadfastly objected to piece rates being introduced into building have agreed in the last week or so to try out all sorts of schemes of incentive payments in order to increase the output per man hour. If we are to get cheaper and better houses for rich and poor in this country, we will have to try to get an increase in the output of work per man hour and per man year. I think it is not displaying too much capitalist mentality to ask trade unions here to do for the Fianna Fáil Government or any other Government that is elected what trade unions are prepared to do under the guidance of a Labour Government in England. I ask trade unionists to discuss that matter and to realise that, if there is not a fair output of work per man hour, in the last analysis the persons who will have to pay are the working people of the country. They will pay it either directly as rents or through taxation for increased subsidies in order to make up for the increased price of houses. If there is anybody fundamentally interested in getting a high output on the building site, in the factory, or on the farm, in the last analysis it is the people who work with their hands. I would ask all the splinter groups who are going to go into this election——

Back to the election again.

We have two new splinters now.

——to explain to the people why the Budget was "politically unwise".

Deputy Seán McCarthy believes that. He said it the other day.

Will the Deputy keep order and let the Minister conclude? These interruptions are out of order.

I ask them to explain why this Budget is "politically unwise". I ask them to explain why, if it is not bad economics to add further to the volume of money when goods are in short supply, what is the alternative? Are they going to go around the country sympathising with everybody who is paying taxes, with everybody who wants a higher wage, a higher salary, a higher income or a higher profit, and say: "Boys, we will give you everything?"

You said that yourselves.

"We are going to give the farmers higher prices for their produce; we are going to give the workmen higher wages; we are going to give them shorter hours; we are going to give them more subsidies for consumer goods; and we are going to give them less taxation——

"Better social services, lower taxation, bring home the emigrants, work for everybody", et cetera, et cetera.

Deputy Norton and the splinter groups are going to increase the volume of money by about £100,000,000 a year so far as I can calculate, and they are going to lower taxation. So they must be going to go to the old printing press, or to bank created credit, for the £100,000,000. All I want them to do is to explain to the people the results of that, to explain what happened in France. When they issued another few billion francs from the Central Bank, prices went up by 25 per cent. in a week. Of course they will not do that.

May I suggest to the Minister——

Deputy Dillon is trying to please the Sudeten Britishers on the Border by shouting "corruption" against the Government. His one stock-in-trade is to please the Sudeten British in County Monaghan by suggesting that this country is run by some low-down Government.

On a point of order——

That is your line of argument.

On a point of order, is it permissible in this House for a Minister to describe a section of our people in terms such as would suggest that they should be, and will be, driven out of this country as the Sudeten Germans were driven out of Czechoslovakia as soon as the Government have power to do so? I do not think it is a proper statement to make in this House. I do not believe there is any such intention but it is a monstrous thing to say.

I do not think that any such implication can be taken from the Minister's remarks. He referred, I think to the Border Irishmen——

"Sudeten" was the word.

"Sudeten" was the word and "Sudeten" is the word. The Sudeten British are the people to whom Deputy Dillon is appealing. They are the class of people to whom the latest arrival in the House from County Dublin was appealing when he did not mention the word "Republic" or the Irish language in his election address.

On a point of order. I think it is highly improper for a Minister to use the term "Sudeten" in reference to any citizens of this country who are obeying the law, paying their income-tax and doing all things necessary in the interests of the country as good citizens.

I think the Deputy is reading into the Minister's remarks a meaning which was not intended. I shall rule out any further references to the Sudeten British.

"Sudeten Irish" were the words.

"Sudeten British."

In your absence, Sir, the Ceann Comhairle already ruled that the Minister should not indulge in a discussion on the recent by-election on this Bill.

I think that was a very proper decision and I thoroughly agree with it. I hope that any personalities or any interchanges that have been impeding the progress of the Minister's speech will now cease and that Deputies will confine themselves to the subject matter of the debate and not indulge in personalities. I would suggest to Deputies who do not want to listen to the Minister that they might leave the House.

Not to the words "Sudeten Irish".

Sudeten British.

You are running for cover now.

The Deputy may be running for cover again. If I asked the people to go into a war I would be prepared to go and fight in that war myself. I would not, like the Deputy, urge that they should enter the war and then dive for the bed in Ballaghaderreen.

I would ask the Minister to confine himself to the subject matter of the debate.

The subject matter of the debate yesterday was a declaration of war against Russia by Deputy Dillon.

The Minister's statement is a carefully considered falsehood.

Will Deputy Dillon go into that war?

The Minister's statement is a carefully considered falsehood.

I would respectfully ask you, Sir, to rule personal attacks out of the discussion on this Bill.

I have appealed to all sides of the House that Deputies should confine themselves solely to the subject matter of this Bill, the Finance Bill. I must once more ask the Minister and Deputies to confine themselves to that matter alone.

In view of that ruling, I would ask you not to allow the Minister to take up and discuss the election address of some individual.

I think you might leave these matters to the Chair to decide.

Has the word "Republican" not been bastardised already in this House?

I hope that the young people who are being led into Clann na Poblachta will get a copy of the election address that was delivered by their would-be Leader to the people in Kingstown.

Read it out.

The Chair is definitely ruling out any further allusions by implications or direct speech to the recent election.

I did not introduce the matter first. They interrupted me about it and then they would not listen. I know they want to forget the election address circulated during the last by-election.

Look at the election addresses you circulated in 1932 and 1933. Fianna Fáil wants to have them forgotten.

Has the Chair ruled and will the Chair enforce its ruling on the Minister?

The Chair will certainly do so. There are to be no further allusions to the election. The Minister might conform to the suggestion of the Chair already made to confine himself to the subject matter of the debate, in concluding.

As a last word, I want to ask the splinter groups, as we are going to have an election, to explain their policy in detail to the people. The people know where we stand. We told the people straight where we stand. We could have avoided introducing this Budget if we wanted to fool the people. We told the people that if they want anything in this world they have got to pay for it.

You cannot fool all the people all the time.

Let us have order, please.

Will the Minister read a few election addresses?

If Deputies do not want to hear the Minister in silence they have my permission to leave the House.

Even though the Opposition may think this Budget a foolish one, I say the Irish people are sufficiently intelligent to understand what it really means and that it will eventually prove to have been a very wise one.

The Minister, quite justifiably, in the course of his speech, asked me for suggestions in relation to the manner in which——

I am sorry, Deputy, but I cannot allow you to continue. The debate has concluded and I must put the question.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 56; Níl, 33.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Brennan, Martin.
  • Brennan, Thomas.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick (County Dublin).
  • Butler, Bernard.
  • Carter, Thomas.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Loughman, Frank.
  • Lydon, Michael F.
  • McCann, John.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Connor, John S.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Colbert, Michael.
  • Colley, Harry.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Honor Mary.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • De Valera, Vivion.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Friel, John.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Healy, John B.
  • Kilroy, James.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Rice, Bridget M.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Mary B.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Ua Donnchadha, Dómhnall.
  • Walsh, Laurence.
  • Walsh, Richard.

Níl

  • Beirne, John.
  • Bennett, George C.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finucane, Patrick.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Kinane, Patrick.
  • MacBride, Seán.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas.
  • O'Sullivan, Martin.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Sheldon, William A.W.
  • Spring, Daniel.
Tellers: Tá: Deputies Kissane and O Briain; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share