Before reporting progress I was referring to the statement of the Minister for Finance to this House, not on the Budget as I stated, but on the Vote on Account. I want to correct that. He said that when he sat on these benches he had theories about matters concerning finance from which he had to change when he crossed the floor of the House and took over the responsibility of Ministerial office.
Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 6—General (Resumed).
Will the Deputy quote what the Minister actually said?
Certainly. I said it was in the Budget speech and to that extent I was incorrect. It was on the Vote on Account that the Minister made the particular statement which I am quoting from now, as reported in the Official Report of 11th March, Volume 110, No. 5, Column 610. The Minister stated then:
"If I have had to make any speeches over these years and have been criticised for them, it is because I am always to be classed with the money cranks, perhaps with Deputies like Deputy Cowan and Deputy Hickey. I know very well that a lot of theories people have, have to be abandoned when theory is brought up against the facts of life."
Go on.
There is a full stop there.
That is not the end of the speech.
That is not your quotation.
I am quoting from the Minister's speech. I have said that ends with a full stop. It is a definite statement of fact by the Minister:—
"I know very well that a lot of theories people have, have to be abandoned when theory is brought up against the facts of life."
One of the facts of the Minister's life is that he moved from here over to a Ministerial position and as a result of that fact many of the theories which the Minister had pronounced from here have had to be abandoned. Now, the Minister, in order to take the harm out of the withdrawal, says:—
"I am quite certain that a lot of the theories I have developed in my years of Opposition will not stand against facts, but they will be pursued, as far as I can pursue them with the help of my colleagues, so that we shall get a new view of things."
And that is said to be a withdrawal of my theory.
I do not think I am unfair to the Minister when I say——
You said that it was abandoning my theory. That is what you said.
We will compromise.
They are in abeyance.
They are in abeyance.
They are being pursued as far as I can pursue them with the help of my colleagues.
I wonder does the Minister know which of his colleagues he is going to pursue them with. I was referring to that when making the reference to the difference of opinion which exists. If Deputy Cowan likes, I shall quote him. I do not want to give a wrong interpretation of what he said. He said: "We are only a Party of ten. We are quite helpless. We can do nothing. But that is not the Budget we would bring in if we were in office."
Quite right.
Why did he not tell us the Budget that Clann na Poblachta would have brought in if they had been in office? Why not let us have the Budget the Deputy has in mind as the one which he thinks is best for the country? Why not announce it and let us discuss it here? Perhaps he would use his influence with the Minister to adopt whatever can be possibly adopted of it.
I will get a more intelligent appreciation from the electorate than I would get in this House.
The Deputy was a very long while at it and had many changes of horses before he got the electorate to understand. I heard the Deputy announcing at one time that he would give £3 a week to everybody in the State, employed or unemployed. For the unemployed, the minimum was to be £3.
No. On a matter of correction. What I did say was that I would guarantee to every worker in this country a minimum wage of £3 a week. That was in 1943.
It is very far from that.
The Deputy is in a very strong position, so strong that I suppose even he himself can appreciate it. Perhaps he can get the Minister to move from expressing the hope that there would not be any further demand for increases in wages and force him to give the £3 per week, because there is a long way to go before that is reached by some people in this State even at present.
That is the result of 16 years of maladministration by Fianna Fáil.
I do not know if the Deputy was here when Deputy MacEntee was speaking and when he read three times a phrase from the speech of the Minister for Finance on that very subject.
I could not hear what the Deputy said as one of his colleagues was interrupting.
Of course, the colleague is interrupting.
His colleague is changing his feet again.
I think the Deputy was in his seat when Deputy MacEntee read the quotation from the speech of the Minister in which the Minister stated that so much progress had been made with regard to increases in wages and improvements in social conditions that he thought, for the time being at any rate, we had gone far enough. I did not hear the Deputy get up then and there——
Deputy MacEntee said that three times to-day and once last night.
I only heard him say it three times to-day. Deputy Cowan did not get up and say that that was not far enough. He knows as well as I do that there are a great number of workers in this State who have not yet reached the minimum of £3 per week. Why not bring about a position in which they will get it?
We are starting. This is the end of the beginning.
The Deputy accepted this Budget with all its implications and he says that he is putting his own budget into abeyance until Clann na Poblachta are in office. That might be a very long time. I remember reading literature issued by Clann na Poblachta during the election period. I remember listening to speeches by some of the Deputy's fellow-candidates. They had a great many schemes about how the country should employ its people; how they were going to stop emigration; how they were going to plant millions of acres of trees. I suppose these will also have to remain in abeyance. In the meanwhile, I would draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that forestry workers have not got £3 a week.
The Minister dealt with that at Question Time to-day.
Yes, the answer to Questions Nos. 13 and 14 was: "It is under active consideration."
Not 16 years' procrastination.
You were only a baby then.
If the inter-Party Government, which to-day was accepted by Deputy Davin as the Popular Front Government, make as much progress in a number of years as Fianna Fáil made in the 16 years, everybody will be quite happy about it.
We will be terribly disappointed if we do not.
The Deputy ought to restrain himself.
He is irrepressible. It may do him a lot of good to let off steam once in a while. We are good friends outside the House.
The Chair is not concerned with that.
The members of the Labour Party, and particularly Deputy Larkin, seemed to think that the reimposition of excess profits tax would solve all the problems in regard to the distribution of wealth from the millionaires down. He gave a description of going to the Spring Show and of seeing evidence there of people of untold wealth going around. Deputy Larkin ought to know that one can see people driving motor cars around which they probably have not even paid for. The fact of seeing a person driving about in a grand sports car means nothing. The Minister for Finance knows very well the extent of the income of people in this country. The Revenue Commissioners make sure that they get every penny that is due to them, and they have a fair idea of where it can be got. The reimposition of excess profits tax is one attraction, but then there are other Deputies in the House who think that excess profits tax will come from industrialists only.
Every member of the House knows that the poor industrialist to-day suffers the most extreme examination, sometimes twice in the year with regard to the profit that he is allowed to make. These profits are cut up and down according to the percentage allowed. There are many business houses which, because of excess profits tax were not able to make provision for the new capital expenditure necessary to meet the abnormal wastage caused by putting machinery during the war years to greater output than it was really built for.
Did the Deputy say that I ought to know what the position is through the Revenue Commissioners?
No. I say that the Minister for Finance knows roughly— I will not say accurately—what the capacity of the people is to bear taxation.
Did the Deputy see what I said on this in my Budget statement?
Yes. I am not disagreeing with what the Minister said.
Can I read one sentence from it?
Certainly.
Talking about prices coming down, I say that the expectation has not been realised and that
"from the figures which I have examined it is clear that excessive profits are still being taken in a number of instances, despite all efforts of price control".
The Minister is on a different point.
I think that was Deputy Larkin's point.
The Minister is talking about general prices as between manufacturers, distributors and shops.
That statement does not exclude manufacturers.
It does not, but I am trying to come to the point that, as regards distribution and retail shops, because of the peculiar situation we have in the country the margin of profit which is accorded to retailers tends to make prices very much higher than they would be if there was a direct sale from the producer to the consumer. That is why I suggest to the Labour people that, rather than be putting their eyes in the direction of taking over private enterprise and thinking they are going to make a better job of it than the people who have created it, that under the Constitution they are at liberty to start their own co-operatives and their own retail shops. Let them work at a smaller margin of profit and they will soon be forced——
They would not get any quotas. That is the trouble.
Quotas were only introduced as a result of the war. The emergency is fast disappearing and materials are becoming more readily available. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is bothered stiff by Deputy Connolly telling him to clamp down on the importation of boots— that so many are coming in that manufacturers here have to close down. I am sure that the question of according quotas to legitimately started co-operatives would not be a difficulty. That should be the long-term view of the Labour people if that is what they mean. If Labour really means a development towards that it might be called socialism as distinct from extreme socialism or communism. My interpretation of taking over control as distinct from nationalisation and demanding the right to manage industries which are really private enterprise is quite different. Go ahead and open up shops to compete against private enterprise. The worst that can happen is that the co-operatives will have the advantage of not having to pay income-tax, at any rate to the same extent as private enterprise has to pay. But they may find that it is not so easy because to-day we have a very serious situation confronting all industry.
Take the case of the local authorities. We have there the problem of meeting the demands of labour for increased wages, together with altered conditions of employment which affect output very considerably. We on the Dublin Corporation had put before us recently a statement showing that, while wages had gone up 65 per cent. as compared with pre-war rates, the output of the very same workers had gone down 35 per cent. Add these figures together and make a comparison with the 1939 position. The cost of production has gone up not because of extravagant profits made by the contractors who contracted for these particular schemes but because of altered conditions. The cost of production goes up because the workers have to have their position met now.
Would the Deputy advocate the establishment by the Labour Party of co-operatives in his constituency?
I have no objection whatever to co-operatives. I think it would be a very good thing if workers became better acquainted with the ways of life in business and in trade by being joint owners in a co-operative. I would have no objection whatever to a co-operative in the very heart of my constituency. As a matter of fact I am trying to advocate it now. The Labour people, who have considerable funds, could very easily get going on that line and so bring some relief to the classes they represent in their being able to get a great many commodities at much cheaper prices than they are getting them now. We here in Dublin have started a consumer-to-producer market in the hope that ways will be found to bring down the cost of certain classes of produce. At present the cost of them is found to be too high under the system under which they are being sold.
There is another matter which I have been trying very hard to make the Minister understand. It is one on which there is a division of opinion outside. Some people want to know in what direction is the Government going to move? Is it going to move in the direction announced and accepted by the Deputies of the Labour Party and of Clann na Poblachta, or is it going to remain in the position it is in as enunciated by Deputy Dockrell? I think the Minister ought to make clear, at least for this financial year, what the policy is going to be.
There is another matter about which it is imperative at the moment—but very hard—to get a statement of policy on. One hears, on the one hand, a great deal of talk to the effect that the cost of living will be brought down and that, in this new trade agreement which has been so much spoken of recently, greater facilities will be given for the import into this country of manufactured goods. That, of course, would have serious adverse effects on domestic industries.
Who said that?
I say there is a lot of people who believe it.
That a lot of people were saying it?
A lot of people saying it should be done.
Who is saying it?
That is unfair.
Is that an unfair question?
It is a fair question.
Deputy O'Rourke said it was unfair.
How could the Deputy give the names of thousands of people who said it?
We do not want to hear the names of thousands of people. The names of a few will satisfy us.
I think the Minister accepted that there is a difference of opinion on the other side as to the direction the State should take.
I could not understand the distinction the Deputy was trying to make.
I read for the Minister a speech made by Deputy Larkin and another speech made by Deputy Dockrell and I asked——
You said they were not incompatible.
I did not say that.
Do you say that now?
I want the Minister to say now that they are compatible. Let the Minister make a statement of that kind and stand over it if he can.
You went on to say that your Party had followed a combination of both policies over the years.
Yes.
Therefore, they must be compatible.
I should like to have some explanation as to the divergences of opinion expressed in these two speeches. I am coming to the point now that a lot of people believe and advocate that the cost of living will be considerably reduced if there is an abolition of protection for industries and greater freedom to Britain to send in manufactured goods here.
Do you mean greater freedom than was given in 1947 because there was a certain freedom given in that year?
There is the distinction between a tariff policy Government and a Government which has not a tariff policy. That is the difference.
Have you heard anybody over here speaking against tariffs?
I heard the Minister speaking against them.
You did not.
Oh, yes, when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce.
I put on a lot of tariffs in 1924 and 1925. I started the tariff movement.
But there was a tariff commission which had to examine every application and which recommended a tariff on herring barrels.
I put on tariffs before the commission was ever set up.
But they were not adequate tariffs, tariffs of 15 per cent.
They were quite adequate.
They were not adequate to start industries here whereas under the tariffs which Fianna Fáil put on, new industries were started.
A lot of them were no good.
Very well. If the Minister says now that there is going to be a continuance of the tariff policy that satisfies me. I shall be satisfied if there is a comprehensive statement to that effect.
I am afraid it will only satisfy the Deputy until the next debate when he will be raking it up again.
If the Minister makes a categorical statement now to that effect I shall accept it.
Did you read what I said on the Vote on Account in the Seanad?
I read a statement made by the Minister in the Seanad in which he talked about loosing on the people of Dublin the turf lorries to alleviate the congestion in passenger-traffic. I did not take that in any form of seriousness.
A lot of people did.
Deputy Briscoe should be allowed to continue his speech without interruption.
The Minister is a very innocent man, so inexperienced that he does not know that questions are asked which people expect will be answered in the course of a debate. I do not anticipate that he will give very much time or consideration to my intervention but, nevertheless, I am expressing what I believe to be the position because I consider it to be my duty to do so. I heard people very much concerned about this matter. I saw it in a paper which somebody took me to task for reading—the Daily Mail. I think it was Deputy Cowan who took me to task. I saw in the Daily Mail on Tuesday of this week a forecast as to the visit of six of our Ministers to London with a view to bringing about a new trade treaty. They envisaged in that article that there would be a change of policy, an abandonment or a cancellation of the old trade treaty and that there would be included in the new trade treaty for a long period of years extra facilities for the importation into this country of manufactured goods. In any event, over a large range of items, even to giving a preference to England over other countries.
There is nobody on this side of the House who has been taught journalism by the Daily Mail.
Or nobody on this side.
Deputy Lemass.
That does not arise on the Budget.
That forecast of a short holiday by Deputy Lemass to the Daily Mail office appeared, I understand, in the Irish Times.
Well?
Deputy Lemass has not gone on that holiday. I say it is wrong.
As is the Daily Mail about our trade agreement.
People read these papers.
Some people.
People believe newspapers which sometimes report anything but the truth.
Truth in the news.
I am saying that whether we in this House recognise or not that forecasts in newspapers are sometimes unintelligent anticipation, nevertheless there are people who believe them.
That explains the success of Fianna Fáil over a long period.
It explains the delayed success of the Deputy. If the Minister will say now: "Here is our policy; we are going to see that industry will carry on even better than before; we are going to control industry and in order to meet a lot of what has been said about the cost of living, to keep down wages" we shall have a definite statement. I would suggest that the Minister might consider reintroducing the Industrial Efficiency and Prices Bill, even, if necessary, introducing the two separate parts into which it was divided, as two distinct Bills because there was envisaged in that Bill an effort to keep industries going, to try to improve the industrial outlook of the country and at the same time control prices, not only of the manufacturers but also of middle-men such as those who forced the Minister for Industry and Commerce to put an extra penny on beef.
They did not force me to put anything on coal.
What does the Minister mean by not forcing him to put anything on coal?
It is a very pertinent question.
I am quite prepared to discuss coal, and I should like to publish all the details about the importation of coal.
The Chair feels that these matters should not be introduced.
If he does not withdraw the implication of that statement I claim the privilege of the House to develop it.
Withdraw what?
The implication in the suggestion that there was something wrong in my action in bringing coal into the country during the emergency.
The Deputy was talking about middlemen and I simply interjected that there are middlemen in the coal trade.
And there are middle-men in the auctioneering business.
Not if I can help it.
If the Minister wants personalities we shall have them.
The Chair will not have them.
I am quite anxious to be on my best behaviour but if these matters are raised, we shall pursue them to the fullest extent. I have been at the receiving end for a great number of years both to suggestions and attacks. If these gentlemen are now in a position to show what has been wrong, let them show it. Side issues will get us nowhere. We can all make attacks on other people. We can all make suggestions. I could say very hurtful things to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, but I do not choose to do so.
An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.
I challenge you to say anything.
I accept no challenge.
The Deputy may not accept a challenge.
The Minister is safe in challenging me.
Perfectly safe.
He knows that I will not answer him in that way. I am anxious to find out what the new Government really means and what it intends to do. How far is it going to pull towards the left? How closely is it going to adhere to its old position and its old outlook? Unless some clear definition of policy is given the people must remain apprehensive.
I know that, irrespective of Party, every Deputy in this House means well for the country. It does not follow that, because I disagree with Deputy Larkin and Deputy Connolly in their particular ideas as to the best method of achieving the best standard of living for the people of this country, I regard them as dishonest men or as men actuated by anything but the highest motives. I suggest that the Government should accept that position as prevailing throughout this entire House.
Did you hear Deputy MacEntee speak here?
I did.
Do you think it is a good line to follow to charge people in this House with being supported by avowed communists?
He did?
Do you think that is helpful?
It is not any less helpful than the Minister himself has been in the past, and I do not think he should be the one to ask that question.
At any rate you are agreeing then that it is not helpful.
Practically everybody in this House has been guilty at some time or another of trying to make the sparks fly. I ask the House to believe that Deputy MacEntee means well.
That places too great a strain upon our credulity.
And that he speaks what he believes to be the truth.
I do not believe it.
Order.
I accept without reservation that Deputy MacEntee believed what he stated to-day to be the truth.
No. He is mischievous.
If I disagree with Deputies because of their particular approach to problems that does not mean that I believe that they are deliberately misinforming the House. It occurs in relation to industry, to agriculture, to the cost of living and to taxation generally. One Deputy wants more taxation. Another Deputy wants less taxation. One Deputy says taxation has been decreased; another Deputy says taxation has been increased.
Deputy MacEntee dealt with the abandonment of Aerlinte. I think that that is a tragedy myself. I wonder is the report I read in yesterday's evening paper of a statement made by the Minister for External Affairs an accurate and fair report of the Government's view with regard to the Marshall Aid Plan. If the statement is accurate then we are not going to get considerable quantities of goods from America under this plan. If we had the Aerlinte service in operation we would have a considerable income in dollars.
Do you believe that?
I do.
How much in dollars income, now?
Deputy O'Higgins to-day questioned——
How much income in dollars?
Deputy O'Higgins questioned to-day that any transatlantic air service paid. I interjected and said that without exception every transatlantic air service is making a profit to-day. Take the reports of K.L.M. and T.W.A. They show extravagant profits. They show profits that would make Deputy Larkin's mouth water. K.L.M. made £1,000,000 almost in the last 12 months on its transatlantic air services.
That would not make my mouth water.
I do not mean that in a personal way; I mean it from the point of view of the amount of money that would be available to get things done for the people in whom you are interested. I maintain that we would have a considerable amount of dollars coming into the Exchequer as a result of such a service. The development of the tourist trade would have meant more dollars.
Because of the air services?
Because of the air services.
And it will not come otherwise?
It will certainly not come as a result of air services. As far as the tourist traffic is concerned, I was informed that there would have been a considerable number of IrishAmericans coming to this country on the Irish air line. They would have spent valuable dollars here.
And they will not come now because the service has been abandoned?
Not to the same extent.
Their own services are not booked out.
They are booked out.
We have information to the contrary.
It is difficult for me to quote reports in the newspapers because such quotations are very rarely taken as relating to actual facts, but I read the other day that, as a result of the abandonment of Aerlinte, one of the American companies is putting on an extra plane on this particular service. They would not do that if they were not fully booked out. Time will tell.
Time will tell.
The Minister himself referred to the success of the Shannon scheme. Technically the Shannon scheme is a success. It provides current for the people and current is a very important and essential item. From the economic and commercial point of view it can never be held out to be a success. Every time the Electricity Supply Board accounts showed a deficiency, due to one cause or another beyond their control, the price went up.
The price of what?
The price of electric current.
The price of Shannon current did not go up.
The price to the consumer did go up.
The unit price is still the same as the experts said it would be. If the Pigeon House had to buy dear coal naturally that went up.
The people of this city are bound to take Electricity Supply Board current. They are not permitted to say that they will have Shannon current as distinct from Pigeon House current. Consequently they do not know how much of the current they get is Pigeon House and how much is Shannon. Their total bill does not show it.
The Electricity Supply Board accounts show it.
But the bill to the consumer does not show it and the bill to the consumer has been an increasing bill over all these years. I raised in the House here the iniquity of some people having to pay as much as 1/6 per unit on the basis of their allocation when electricity was rationed. I raised that matter from those benches over there. Despite all these criticisms, however, admittedly the Shannon Scheme is of national importance. So also could Aerlinte have developed in time into something of national importance. It was giving extremely good employment. It would have given us a group of highly technically-developed citizens who would have been a considerable asset to us both in times of peace and in times of danger. In addition to that I believe it would have helped to bring in much needed dollars. I do not know to what extent we are to take the statement made by the Minister for External Affairs as meaning what it says. I do not know to what extent that new situation is going to affect us with regard to bringing in capital items in order to improve agriculture and production generally. It does, however, seem to be somewhat in conflict with the views expressed by the Minister for Finance when introducing his Budget here. It will have some repercussions, if we are not going to participate, other than what might have been expected. If we are not going to participate to that extent, we will be cutting off what would likely be a source of supply of dollars over and above what we would be entitled to receive from the dollar pool. I think the abandonment of Aerlinte is indeed a tragedy. I feel it might have been considered over a longer period and a decision should have been arrived at only after the most careful consideration. I recollect the Minister coming here before he had fully considered the matter and saying quite openly: "If stopping Aerlinte rests with me, it will be stopped." There was no reference to whether it was going to be——
I did not say that without consideration.
The Minister was not long in office when he made that statement.
Long enough to realise that it was no good—that service—and I had the figures.
The figures are quite different to-day from what they were expected to be.
I do not know about that.
I believe the Minister will some day be sorry for his action; possibly he may be encouraged by his colleagues to reconsider the matter and do something quite different. I am wondering whether we can expect to be told in the future what has happened the international treaties which arose and whether it might not be possible to invite private enterprise to participate.
Would the Deputy put something into such a concern?
The Deputy is an entrepreneur; he makes money out of business transactions. That, of course, is a terribly wrong thing. The Government may be able to introduce legislation whereby a business man may be classed as a professional man and there will not be a stigma if he makes a profit. The doctors, dentists, solicitors and others can get their fees, but the poor business man—God help him!
That does not answer my question.
Probably we shall have an opportunity of discussing that on another occasion. Now, as to the short-wave station, that, too, is in the Budget.
It is out of the Budget.
It has not been sold as scrap yet.
Would you be interested in it if it were?
No, I am not a scrap merchant. As regards the short-wave station, I do not know whether the Minister was given advice by technical officials in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I know something about broadcasting, although I do not pose as an expert. I am, perhaps, like a Deputy in Clann na Talmhan who described himself as a radio fan. Medium wave-bands to-day are so confusing that it is, in many cases, in certain parts of this country and of other countries, almost impossible to get a continuous good reception. As regards the short waves, there is ample opportunity for new wave-lengths; there is no great interference; practically every radio set is equipped for short-wave reception, and one can get a better reception on the short waves. A great number of people in this country would listen to the short-wave station in preference to the medium wave, provided the programmes were somewhat similar.
And provided they had a wave-length.
Does Deputy Sweetman not know that one of the officials in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is the chairman this year of the international committee which allocates wave-lengths to the different nations, and does anybody think that, being chairman, he would be so weak that he would not be able to get a short-wave length for the country he represents?
Does the committee work on Fianna Fáil lines?
Deputy Briscoe is in possession, and if Deputies have not the patience to listen, they have the alternative.
This international committee is representative of all nations. Its object is to bring about harmony, to eliminate discord in connection with broadcasting. The members try to bring about an understanding whereby all stations will broadcast on the wave-lengths accorded them. The procedure is to give a wave-length to any country that applies.
The idea of building a short-wave station here was thought of many years ago, but it was postponed during the war years. During all that time if there was any danger of not getting a short-wave length our officials would have been made aware of it. I think it was a rather short-sighted policy to make that saving out of something that would probably further have increased our revenue. Radio sets and radio parts have to pay duty and the increased use of receiving sets would considerably augment the income of the State. If you cut out the means whereby people could make use of a State service of that kind, you are cutting off a big source of income.
I should like to say something about the saving on turf. There was a statement made in the House to-day by Deputy Davin. First of all, he read what appeared to be a document purporting to give some remarks made by Deputy Lemass. When he was questioned by the Chair to give the reference, the Deputy indicated that it was a note of his own of a conversation between Deputy Lemass, when he was a Minister, and his officials, in connection with the abolition of hand-won turf. Deputy Lemass has denied that. There was a statement made, and reported in the Press, by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Deputy Lemass raised the question and he denied the statement that was later made by Deputy Davin. I do not know why there should be such confusion about it.
It is quite clear that Fianna Fáil started turf development long before the war commenced. It was started almost immediately after Fianna Fáil took up office 16 years ago. I well remember the talk in this House about the wired cars going round. The late Deputy Hugo Flinn, who was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, was responsible for turf development. He was jeered and jibed at. I remember the Minister, then a Deputy, laughing at the Minister for Finance and referring to "Aiken's sacks" in which the turf was packed.
I never did. I had many a laugh at that Minister, but not for that.
The Minister did.
I am quite certain I did not.
I am sorry. It was Deputy Dillon who laughed. It was very easy for one to get confused between the two Ministers, when they were Deputies.
Their laughs were much the same.
Yes, their laughs were much the same and their charity of mind was much the same.
Charity of mind?
That is something, I believe, which Deputy Collins ought to know something about. I remember the discussion in this House, the idea behind the development of turf and how true the views of those who sponsored it turned out to be when this country was left entirely and absolutely without fuel. If in the war years and the years immediately after it we had not had this fuel to fall back on we would have had a nice state of affairs. The idea was to start the rural electrification scheme with turf as fuel. Mr. McGilligan denies that and casts a doubt upon when the scheme was discussed but I have a recollection that that scheme was envisaged a considerable time ago but that it could not be put into effect until after the emergency.
It was started after the war.
It was started before the emergency.
It was discussed in the Dáil post war or post the start of the war.
There is evidence that it was commenced, at least from the Departmental, from the Electricity Supply Board or go-ahead point of view, before the war was over.
You examine the Electricity Supply Board reports. Prior to the war you do not find that.
Before the war was over the Electricity Supply Board was given responsibility for the scheme.
The scheme was started after the war started.
The Government decided upon this scheme. They adopted it and had discussions with the Electricity Supply Board about it before the war and the Electricity Supply Board were charged with going ahead with it before the war was over. The Minister will find that if he looks up the records of the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Electricity Supply Board records.
With coal becoming more readily available and being used in preference by industries, institutions and private houses, the State would have kept turf development going and hand-won turf as well, though there might have been a change such as its being handed over from the direct control of the Department to another institution, but there was no suggestion of cutting it out completely. We will probably have discussion on that question on the Industry and Commerce Estimate. I suppose that that would be one big item on it.
In conclusion, I would like to ask the Minister to make a clear statement in his conclusion, first, that there will be no change in the tariff policy although there may be greater control in the standard of production and the standard of goods produced and that is all right. Secondly I would like him to state if there is to be a move towards the left as envisaged by Deputy Larkin and Deputy Connolly. We are going to be in a position here where we will have either to do that or more or less to take the line that existed immediately before the change of Government.
In the many days that we have discussed this Budget there has been a quite clear attempt to lead us away, and I have no doubt that the Deputies on the other side of the House were quite deliberate in their attempt to fog the issue. On the 4th May when the Minister for Finance arose in the House to introduce his Budget there was one clear inescapable fact that afternoon which was that every Deputy in the House knew that as a result of the baby that was handed to him by the previous Administration the present Minister for Finance had to find the sum of £77,000,000. Not one Deputy no matter upon what side of the House he sat felt that it was possible for the Minister for Finance to find that sum much less to find any additional sum for the provision of extra social services without increasing taxation to a very considerable degree indeed, by £2,000,000 or £3,000,000. The whole theme running through the debate on the other side of the House is, unfortunately for the Deputies on that side, that the Minister for Finance has made a good job of the very difficult task confronting him in this his first Budget. He had before him at this stage a bill for £77,000,000, a bill of such gigantic proportions that many of us who are not accustomed to dealing with finance did not know how it would be possible for him to get the money and to effect the necessary adjustments in the account without imposing considerable hardships on the people. The view which is held, not merely in the House but from one end of the country to the other, regardless of the political affiliations of the persons with whom you may be discussing the Budget, is that in introducing it the Minister for Finance has achieved success and that he has been able to meet, what is not the baby, but the grown-up child, without any additional impositions on the people except those impositions on the people who use petrol. We all know quite well that it might have been, perhaps, more spectacular in one way if, instead of taking the decision in March to reduce the tax on beer, tobacco and entertainments imposed by the Supplementary Budget, the Minister had waited to do so until this Budget. That would have looked more spectacular; it would have been a bigger gesture and it would have meant a bigger slice off the Estimate, but it was much better for the country as it was done and it must not be forgotten in discussing the Budget that by that decision made in March the Minister for Finance gave away £6,000,000.
There is not the slightest doubt in the world that if the Deputies on those benches opposite were in power they would have left it on and left the burden on the unfortunate people of the country, particularly those in the rural areas who have nothing whatsoever to look forward to but an occasional cigarette and a bottle of stout when their work on the land is finished. It is accepted that this is a good Budget under the circumstances which we have, and the Minister for Finance has not for a moment suggested that it is anything but that—a good Budget under the circumstances, the circumsances left to him by his predecessor.
There are a few things which were mentioned in the debate to which I want to refer for a moment. The whole framework of the Budget is based on certain proposals, for example on the proposal that an additional sixpence should be imposed on income-tax as the Minister's predecessor indicated last October. The Minister informed us that he was going to hold to that; actually the Minister for Finance decided to make available that sixpence in the £ in order to increase the old age pensions and alleviate the condition of the pensioners. On the first Resolution the first thing that the Deputies on the other side of the House decided was to vote against this increase in the income-tax. Unless that additional sixpence were put on the income-tax it would not be possible to give additional old age pensions, so in effect what the Fianna Fáil Deputies did was to announce that they would prefer to let off the income-taxpayer rather than the old age pensioners because the two things balance each other and you could not have one without the other.
When Deputy Lemass started to inaugurate the discussion on behalf of the Opposition he showed quite clearly that he was lacking in enthusiasm and that he had no real liking for the job which he had to face. Whether that was because he knew people outside were saying it was indeed peculiar and strange that the Leader of the Opposition and the last Minister for Finance were not in the House when the first Budget of the new Government was being introduced and knowing that put him at a disadvantage in starting, or not, I cannot tell but his first line on the evening of the Budget was that the Minister was wrong in not imposing addition, heavier taxation. Then we came to the next day and, apparently, wiser counsels in his own Party had prevailed and he changed his tune and he went away from the discussion of inflationary trends and the suggestion that there should be more taxation and came back to the suggestion that the Minister should have made greater concessions.
The Minister has made in this Budget concessions which will be welcomed. The concession by virtue of which the ration of tea will be increased, at a cost of £155,000 to the Exchequer, will be welcomed in every household. The concession that he has made in regard to pensions will be welcomed. The concession he has made in regard to small depositors in respect of the increased rate on Post Office Savings Bank deposits will be greatly welcomed by the smaller people.
There have been a couple of criticisms of certain aspects of the Budget to which I want to refer. Certain people have suggested that it was unfortunate that the Minister did not reintroduce the excess profits tax that was there while Fianna Fáil were in power. The Minister has been in power only three months and in three months, with the problems with which he had to grapple, it would be unfair to expect him to introduce a new system of excess profits taxation and I think anybody will agree that the existing system, which was imposed by Fianna Fáil, would be now entirely out of date and entirely inadequate to the circumstances. I, candidly, would like to see introduced a new form of excess profits taxation and I think that is what the Minister indicated in the last paragraph of his Budget statement, that he had in mind the consideration of a new form of excess profits taxation, one which would be based, not on standards so much as on a proper return being given to the people on the value of the capital that was employed in a particular undertaking. If there is any continuance of excess profits, I think it will be possible for the Minister to enact new legislation, not merely to repeat and reintroduce the old legislation, which would be unsatisfactory and, possibly, would not allow for additional capital development but which would mean that the excess profit, using that term in the general sense, would be caught by the State and not merely would be caught to a proportion, as it was caught under the previous Administration, but would be caught to the whole extent; that where there is a real profiteer's profit the whole of the profiteer's profit would be taken away. That would require an entirely new scheme, which it would not be possible or reasonable to expect any Minister for Finance to introduce in a mere matter of three months, when he had to take the whole budgetary position into account.
I want to make one plea to the Minister. It is in regard to the petrol situation. We are all agreed that the one essential thing that must be done is to increase production. Everything that can be done to assist that increase must be done. Unless we are able to assist and increase agricultural production we will not be able to go forward. I want to plead with the Minister to make some arrangements by virtue of which the tax on petrol will not affect those who are using petrol-driven tractors for agricultural purposes. I believe there are some 1,500 Ferguson tractors running entirely on petrol. I happen to know that there are 91 such tractors in the constituency of Kildare. In addition, I understand that there are some 750 other tractors which are run on petrol. I would urge the Minister, in the interests of increased agricultural production, to make arrangements by virtue of which, by taxing and properly taxing the people who are using motor cars for pleasure, he would be in a position to ensure that there would not be anything which might be a drag on increased agricultural production. If the cost of fuel for tractors is excessive there is always a danger that the work may be scamped. I know the difficulties that there would be in regard to the prevention of misuse, and so forth, but it ought to be possible to deal with a scheme without the necessity of the Minister abandoning his plan. I hope, therefore, the Minister will introduce some mitigating provision in that respect in the Bill.
We heard a certain amount from Deputy Briscoe in regard to various matters which had come under review by the Government since they took office. He told us at one stage that the air lines running transatlantic flights for other countries were all making a profit. I do not know where he can have got that information because every report I read of an air line shows that there are more and more losses.
The plain fact of the matter is that large countries run their air lines and subsidise their air lines for the purpose of having a reserve available to use in time of war. That is a cheaper method for them than maintaining larger air forces. That is the only reason they subsidise their air lines. It is peculiar if, as Deputy Briscoe says, some of the American air lines are putting on additional machines to the Atlantic flight that the advertisements for these American air lines indicate that they can guarantee you a passage straightaway without a waiting list. If, as Deputy Briscoe would like us to believe, business is so easily available, then there would be a waiting list to some extent.
Deputy Briscoe also wept tears in regard to factories and the outlook in regard to tariffs. The fears that have been expressed by him and others on that side of the House have been quite deliberately engineered by them for the purpose of creating uneasiness. It is well known what the policy of the present Government and the people on this side of the House will be in regard to industry. So far as every Deputy on this side of the House is concerned, he is more than anxious to ensure that our native industries are pushed ahead, pushed ahead on a sound basis, not on an unsound basis, that there will be a sound basis to meet the difficult times that may lie ahead.
The Deputy also referred to the question of the previous Government's decision on turf. I find it rather difficult to reconcile his views with one of the items I find in the Estimates. We were led to believe by his Party that they were interested in burning only turf in Government offices, for example, but I see in the Estimate an item of £45,000 for converting the heating apparatus in Government offices from turf to oil burning. If the Deputy's Party were sincere, I do not think that item would have arisen in the Estimates. The plain fact of the matter is that the decisions taken in that regard were taken by the previous Minister before this Government assumed office, and everybody knows that is the position, just as everybody knows that the position in regard to the short-wave station is that an application was made earlier this year for a wave-length and has not been granted for the simple reason that there is such congestion that it is doubtful if another wave-length can be inserted. We were going ahead quite gaily since 1945 incurring the expenditure involved.
The ordinary person in the country is perfectly satisfied with this Budget. He is perfectly satisfied that it marks the beginning of the end of the squandermania and the beginning of the course towards a sound constructive build-up of real industries, real achievements, such as the Minister for Finance referred to at one stage during this debate when he was challenged on the question of the Shannon scheme. It is such constructive work that we must get the proper foundation to start and until we do get the proper foundation we cannot start on the constructive work. The country as a whole is entirely glad that the Minister has started on the road to that construcive work with this Budget.
If the abandonment of mineral development is the constructive work about which Deputy Sweetman is so anxious, the country will not be satisfied. One matter that received least attention in the debate and which, to my mind, is one of the most important that arises from the Budget, is the abandonment of the taxes imposed in the Supplementary Budget on beer, tobacco, wines, cinemas, dog racing, amounting, roughly, to £6,000,000 a year. Under our Constitution, the fundamental law, it is laid down that the Government elected by the people alone have the right to impose taxation. They alone and this Parliament have the right to remit taxation. Something happened in this country within the last five or six months that probably never happened here in the last 25 years or that never happened in any country. I want to stress what happened prior to the general election, when the deputy-leader of a political Party met a number of merchants of this State and agreed, on certain terms, to reduce the taxation then in operation, under certain conditions. I refer to the meeting which Deputy O'Higgins, now Minister for Defence, attended, a meeting of the licensed trade, some place in the city, where he promised that if he were a Minister and his Party were returned or had any part in the future Government, they would abandon that taxation. That is the most damnable thing that ever happened in this country and I hope it will never happen again. Whether that taxation was right or wrong or whether the country agreed or did not agree with the taxation imposed in the Supplementary Budget, this House and the Government elected by the people alone had the right to determine the rate of taxation in any single direction. I say it did more damage to this country——
To Fianna Fáil.
That action of an important member, the deputy leader of a political Party, in bargaining with a commercial interest and selling out for a bag of gold and deciding beforehand without reference to Parliament what taxation should be in any single direction was very damaging.
You got the money from the big fellows.
The Deputy can talk when I am finished.
He is quite appropriate on this point. You got money from the big merchants.
I want to show how damaging it is and how damaging it will be for the future that any single group outside Parliament should determine the rate of taxation on any customs or excisable product in use in this country. I say it is bad, fundamentally wrong and damaging.
That is a new point.
It is no new point.
It is a new point for the Deputy.
It never happened before.
What about the circular?
It never happened before in this country and I hope for the sake of the country it will never happen again. The Government that are there now have full right to impose taxation, to bring proposals before the House for taxation in any direction they like. They have full and absolute right under the Constitution, the fundamental law, to abandon any tax if they have a majority of the House, but to go down the city and to sell out for a bag of gold to any commercial interest is damaging and seriously damaging and has damaged the interests of this country more than anything that happened in the last 25 years.
You are going to get a lot of talk about that circular if you go on in this way.
I want to say very definitely, whether the taxation imposed at that time on these items was right or wrong or whether the people agreed with them or not, this Parliament and the Government elected by the people alone had the right to remove them.
And did not the Government remove them?
They did not remove them. They tied their hands beforehand. Not only that. There was a demand by the very selfsame group for a refresher. The Minister knows what a refresher is. There was some money expended during the winter, and the Minister came along and gave the very same group that refresher in his Budget.
It cost them £250,000.
He gave them that refresher. There is no doubt about that. While this Parliament remains, which I hope will be forever, I trust that never again will there be a demand by a commercial interest and a sell out and a commercial interest, whoever they may be, allowed to determine what the rate of taxation should be on any commodity consumable in this country. There was talk when Ministers in other countries disclosed Budget secrets but I think nothing ever happened in any country so bad as what happened in this respect.
The Deputy should not repeat himself. He has done so half-a-dozen times.
The whole country is ashamed. I want still to stress it.
Was not Guiney's cheque a good refresher?
I hope nothing like it will ever happen again.
Maybe you would not mention it again, or would you?
There is no reason in the world why that same group should not demand in the next 12 months a further reduction in taxation on those commodities and the Minister will not be in a position to stand up to them. He must surrender all the way. This House will be brought into absolute contempt by such a policy. There is no doubt about that. I challenge the Minister to say that it has not damaged the interests of this country. I could imagine what would have happened if the Minister were over here and the previous Government had done anything like that. He would have made the welkin ring. He would have made the rafters of this House shake if anything like that had happened under the previous Government, but it never did.
The Minister abandoned taxation to the extent of £6,000,000, because there was a demand in the country for it. When he was elected Minister, the Press in the country which supported him told us what a financial wizard the Minister was. They assured the people that the Minister was capable of producing a Budget that would reduce taxation and bring down the cost of living. But some weeks before the Budget was introduced the Press which supports the Minister changed its tune. When the Minister came here with his Budget, it was obvious to everyone that there would be no excitement about it. Word had gone out, and the Gallery was almost empty. The Minister, with an apologetic air, proceeded to read his Budget statement.
He told us, in effect, that he had gone from Department to Department seeking economies here and there, small and large, in every possible way he could get them. Every economy from sixpence upwards was welcome. Every Department had to contribute. We do not know to what extent, but we do know that they were all forced to contribute, even the Department of Social Welfare under the charge of his colleague the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Norton. The very first contribution the Minister for Social Welfare made was at the expense of those who draw home assistance, and the local authorities were forced by the Minister for Social Welfare to increase the rates on the already overburdened ratepayers. He got rid of a liability of £300,000 or £400,000.
No; not even £100,000.
It was more than £100,000.
It was £86,000.
It means an increase of from 1½d. to 2½d. or 3d. in the £ on the rates in some counties to make it up this year. Next year it will cost double that, because the Minister is providing half of the amount this year. That was the first economy and it was made at the expense of the poorest section of the community. During the election campaign, the Minister and his colleagues were at great pains to tell the country that they had a plan to reduce taxation and bring down the cost of living. This Budget has neither reduced taxation nor brought about a reduction in the cost of living.
Surely it did.
Not a reduction in taxation, but an increase.
What about the £6,000,000?
There is an increase in taxation.
There is a reduction of £6,000,000.
That £6,000,000 will only benefit a very small section of the community.
A Deputy
A few boozers.
No credit is due to the Minister or to the Government for reducing taxation by £6,000,000 on nonessentials. The Minister reduced taxation on commodities which the people have full control over. They can reduce their expenditure on them or they can do without them. It is not com-pulsory on them to use them. It is compulsory on them to provide themselves and their families with food, clothing and shelter. They have no control whatever over what they must expend on these items. The people themselves have absolute control over their expenditure on these commodities. The people were fairly well catered for in the matter of these commodities. It may be interesting for the House to know—I am sure the Minister is well aware of the figures— that in the year 1939, 671,000 odd standard barrels of beer were retained for consumption in this country, and, in the year 1947, 771,000 odd standard barrels, an increase of 100,000 standard barrels.
From what is the Deputy quoting?
From papers in my hand.
I should like to know what they are.
I got the figures from the returns of the Revenue Commissioners. They are in the Library if the Deputy wants to look them up.
What returns?
You do not want to hear the figures.
On a point of order. We are entitled to know.
That is not a point of order. The Deputy is quoting figures taken from official documents and he is perfectly in order.
The Deputy will have to indicate for what period he is quoting.
Not necessarily.
I am quoting from the returns of the Revenue Commissioners. As I said, in 1939, we retained for consumption in the country 671,000 odd standard barrels of beer and, in 1947, we retained for consumption here 771,000 or 100,000 standard barrels of beer extra. In other words, in 1947 the people had provided for them and consumed 100,000 barrels of beer over 1939. I understand there are 50 gallons in a standard barrel. In 1939, the people consumed 813,000 odd proof gallons of spirits and, in 1947, 970,000 odd proof gallons, or 157,000 proof gallons extra.
Under a Fianna Fáil Administration.
There was no sign of poverty there.
What a Deputy called a few boozers
I suppose not more than one person in ten in this country would consume spirits or beer. I challenge the Minister for Finance to prove otherwise. I doubt very much if one person in ten would consume either beer or spirits.
You gave them more beer than the Minister.
Then, in 1939, 497,874 gallons of wine were consumed in this country and, in 1947, 645,000 odd gallons, an increase of 147,000 odd gallons. I want to challenge the Minister's figures. I say that his figures and the figures brought to him by those people interested in having the duty on wines reduced were not very accurate.
Has the Deputy got the 1948 figures for wines?
I am sure the Revenue Commissioners have not yet issued the returns for 1948.
They have issued them for certain months.
In 1947, 147,000 gallons of wine more than in 1939 were consumed.
The Deputy knows what happened in 1948.
They were waiting for the reduction of the duty. They knew that they had you on the run.
Is the Deputy advocating the re-imposition of the duties?
The Deputy is making his speech and is entitled to be heard.
They had you on the run. In 1939 we consumed 9,742,000 lbs. weight of tobacco; in 1947 we consumed 12,398,000 lbs. weight, an increase of 2,600,000 lbs. weight over 1939. I suggest to the House and to the Minister for Finance that there was no justification for reducing the taxation put on in the Supplementary Budget on beer, wine or tobacco. All the figures go to prove that there was an increased demand and a big increase in consumption on these taxable commodities in 1947 over 1939 and that there was no necessity for the change. The increase was going on, if anything were needed to show that there was a tendency towards inflation and that those commodities could bear well that taxation. In taking off those taxes, the Minister and his Government have said to the consumer of beer and wine: "The more you drink, the more money you will make."
What did Deputy Corry promise the people of Waterford in the by-election—that he was going to reduce the taxes immediately after the election?
Deputy Allen is not responsible for anything Deputy Corry said.
Deputy Corry made the statement.
Deputy Corry is not speaking, but Deputy Allen is.
I am talking about the reduction made by the Minister for Finance and the Fine Gael Party, with the satellites of the two Labour Parties and Clann na Poblachta plus a few Independents joined together, to abandon those taxes on beer and tobacco, cinemas and dog racing. They were abandoned to placate certain interests to whom promises had been made and who had shown consideration to those different political Parties before the General Election. That was the only reason those taxes were abandoned. Then the Minister for Finance found himself in a very difficult position and had to come in here and admit that he was not in a position to reduce taxation or to reduce the cost of living to the ordinary man in the street by one halfpenny. The cost of all commodities, food, clothing and shelter is as high, if not higher, than it was last year.
It would be a good deal higher if Fianna Fáil got in.
The reduction in the price of cinema seats and dog racing is of no advantage to the ordinary man in the street, the workingman with a wife and family. It is of no advantage to them—none of them drink beer and none of them smoke, they very seldom go to the pictures or dog racing.
They did not show that at the election.
It gave them no cheaper food and no cheaper clothing.
And no aeroplanes.
Deputy Larkin was very perturbed when Deputy Lemass suggested that Deputy Larkin had a responsibility, as the leader of the Labour Party and the representative in this House of the working-class people, in supporting this Budget. Deputies Larkin, Connolly and Cowan, and some members of Clann na Poblachta did grouse slightly and made certain slight threats to the Minister for Finance as to what they would do some time in the future if he did not mend his hand.
No threats.
Deputy Larkin seemed very much annoyed because Deputy Lemass suggested he had a responsibility to see that the Minister for Finance and the Fine Gael Party, of which he is now a member, did not damage the interests of this country. Deputy Larkin and the other small groups are now members of the Fine Gael Party. My own personal opinion —and I believe it is the opinion of this Party—is that the joining up of those small groups was the best thing from the Fianna Fáil point of view that ever happened.
Now, now, that is bringing us too far.
Nothing that happened in the last 20 years has given as much satisfaction to Fianna Fáil as seeing all these revolutionary and semirevolutionary groups joining up under the wings, not of a revolutionary group but of a very conservative group. They may grouse as they like, but they are just like the soldier in the barrack mess; he may growl about the food served to him, but when the orderly officer comes along and asks: "Any complaints?" he says: "No, sir." Deputy Larkin must toe the line, Deputy Cowan and the Minister for External Affairs must toe the line; and they must follow the Minister for Finance, Deputy McGilligan, and the Taoiseach, Deputy Costello, into the Division Lobby every time the bugle sounds.
They are all Irishmen.
They are all one now, but Fine Gael is the one—she is mistress of the situation. It is a sense of satisfaction to Fianna Fáil that there are only two political Parties for the present and I hope for a long time to come. It will give more staple government, whether it is the people on this side or on the other side who are the future Government. There is only Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, so the country for the future is assured of more staple government than it might have had with a dozen small Parties, as they were before the recent elections.
As long as we are not joined to your Party, we are all right.
The Deputy would not be taken. We have now two policies to look to, either that of Fine Gael or that of the Fianna Fáil Opposition. On the benches opposite they may say that Fine Gael is not the Government and that they have a hand in it. Fine Gael controls the Government, holding seven of the major Ministries. They gave the six minor Ministries to the six satellites. These six Ministries cannot spend on their own a single shilling without the authority of the Minister for Finance.
Or of this House.
I have a few figures here that might enlighten the back benchers of the new combination opposite, in regard to the abandoned taxes.
In 1946-47 the Minister for Finance received about £11,500,000 in customs duty on tobacco while the figure for 1938-39 was £4,500,000. I quote these figures as proof, if further proof were necessary, of the prosperity of the country in 1947, and of the wisdom and sound judgment of the previous Government in putting on the taxes they did in the Supplementary Budget. In the case of wines, the Minister for Finance in 1946-47 received £700,000, and in 1938-39 he received £183,000. These figures, I may say, are taken from the returns prepared by the Revenue Commissioners. In 1946-47 excise duties on beer amounted to £4,800,000, and the figure for 1938-39 was £3,000,000, showing an extra sum of £1,800,000. Those figures indicate that there was no reason whatever why the Minister or the Government should have abandoned those taxes. They did so purely on grounds of political expediency and for no other reason.
This sum of £6,000,000 could have gone a great distance in reducing the price of food for the workers. It could have been used in very many ways. The Minister for Agriculture promised a group of farmers from my constituency the full derating of agricultural land. The Minister for Lands, who is sitting beside the Minister for Finance, was very interested in derating a few years ago. He might now use his good offices with his colleagues in the Cabinet about derating of agricultural land if he is still as interested in it as the Minister for Agriculture is. He could have agricultural land derated fully out of those taxes which have been abandoned. I am sure Deputy Larkin would be interested in having the cost of food reduced for the workers. I was very surprised at Deputy Larkin and other people who sit beside him agreeing to the abandonment of those taxes. I am sure that Deputy Larkin, if only we knew his mind, is not in agreement or was not in agreement at the time about this, but had to swallow it.
The Deputy is repeating himself.
I do not think I am.
I am certain that you are.
There are many other directions in which that £6,000,000 could have been spent.
Will the Deputy explain what he means by political expediency?
You know that yourself.
There is no one a greater exponent of political expediency than Deputy Cowan. Political expediency, as far as he is concerned, means that he has been attached to every possible political group that has existed in the country with the exception of——
Fianna Fáil.
——the people who sit on this side.
That is a sign of common sense.
He has been travelling around for years like a football, blown by the wind in and out of a great number of political groups in this country.
That is what you mean by political expediency?
I was going to say that the Minister for Lands was a very strong advocate in this House of the division of land. He wanted an immediate solution of the congestion problem on the western seaboard. For years we heard him in Budget debates and on the Estimates for the Department for Lands tell the House——
The Deputy may not discuss the Estimates now.
I am not discussing the Estimates. I say that the Minister for Lands in Budget debates, in debates on finance and on the Estimates——
The Deputy is not to discuss the Estimates.
I do not propose to.
The Deputy is rambling from the Budget which deals with taxation and expenditure. He must deal with it.
I hold that I am dealing with taxation and expenditure. I want to suggest to the Minister for Lands that there is no provision in this Budget for the greater acquisition of land or for the solution of the congestion problem on the western sea board.
There is, in fact, more.
There is no provision other than what Fianna Fáil made when they were the Government.
And they would not spend half of it.
There is not an extra halfpenny provided in this Budget for the acquisition or division of land.
Only what you put down and it was not much.
I am sure that a big portion of that will not be spent this financial year.
Why?
Because the Minister for Finance is also getting some contribution from the Department of Lands.
Not a penny.
That is to be told. In order to balance his Budget the Minister had to resort to all kinds of tactics. He had first and foremost to rob the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Fund of £450,000. In addition, he proposes to increase the contributions payable by people to national health insurance, widows' and orphans' pensions and unemployment insurance. That will mean additional taxation for both employers and workers. Under his Budget proposals indirect taxation is being increased by £1,000,000. He is also compelling the people who use petrol to pay £1,000,000 extra under the Budget.
That is additional taxation. I am sure that will be reflected in the cost of transport and the poorer sections of the community in increased fares and otherwise will pay a fair share of it. There is not the least doubt about that.
It is proposed to give £600,000 extra in the present year to old age pensioners and to widows and orphans. That is to be given by way of increases ranging from 2/6 to 5/- in pensions but it looks as if the Minister is going to give them these increases only for two months. He is really going to make money for the Exchequer by granting that £600,000 to the old age pensioners and to the widows and orphans because he is saving £450,000 at the expense of the Widows' and Orphans' Pension Fund and he is saving £500,000 by compelling employers and workers to pay additional contributions in the form of national health stamps. He is going to make £350,000 in that way. He is really making a bit of money although, by the way, he is giving more to old age pensioners and widows and orphans. There was nothing to prevent his giving that 2/6 or 5/- extra within three weeks after the increases were announced. The Labour Party are aware of the fact that last year, a month after the Department of Social Welfare was set up, Deputy Ryan brought in a proposal to provide £2,000,000 extra for old age pensions. It came into operation within a month after the setting up of the Department. A similar method could have been adopted by the Minister for Finance this year, if he wished to provide this money. I want to point that out to Deputy Larkin and his friends.
The Minister also saved a little by sacrificing the proposal to provide £25,000 for the provision of a cinder track to promote athletics. If ever there was a mean saving, that is one and there was no necessity for it. It is a well-known fact, of course, that the Minister was not himself interested in cutting out this provision for athletics but some of his colleagues or one of his satellite groups were opposed to it and even if the Minister had approved of it, he would have to cut it out.
Would the Deputy indicate the satellite group?
The Deputy is a member of it if he wants to know.
Clann na Poblachta opposed this?
Yes, and well you know it.
I am afraid your information is very wide off the mark.
The Minister has also decided to abandon the proposal to expend £85,000 on mineral development. There are many people living in the constituency adjoining mine, in County Wicklow, who are very interested in that. I am sure the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs will tell his colleagues in the Cabinet that he cannot continue to be a member of the Cabinet any longer unless the Minister decides to restore that £85,000 provided for mineral exploration in County Wicklow. If he is doing his duty by the people who sent him here, he will certainly force the hand of the Minister for Finance to restore that £85,000. He is in a position to do it and he should not let down his old constituents.
The Minister also proposes to save about £250,000 on the Department of Education, the Board of Works, the Department of External Affairs and the Tourist Board. There is £28,500 of that £250,000 to be saved at the expense of the Department of Education by abandoning the building of some schools.
Oh, no. That has nothing to do with it.
There is the abandonment also of certain investigations which have been carried out in some cities in Spain—a matter of great importance to the future of this country.
Do you believe it?
Spanish ale.
I think there is nothing to the Government's credit in that respect. A sum of £176,000 is also being saved on the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I understand that certain development work was urgently needed in the matter of providing new circuits in different centres throughout the rural areas and that is being abandoned. I want to know from the Minister if that is true. I want to know if the provision of new circuits, urgently needed in the development of the telephone in rural areas, is being abandoned. I suggest to Deputies sitting behind the Minister that they should inquire from him whether he is proposing to save £185,000 at the expense of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs—in other words, at the expense of additional services for the rural community.
In your own county they are now getting a full service which they did not get for the previous 16 years.
The Minister also proposes to abandon the erection of the short-wave station. I have a recollection of sitting on the benches opposite during debates on the Estimates for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and of hearing Deputies who are sitting over there now, applauding the Fianna Fáil Government for making provision for the erection of the shortwave station. Why it is being abandoned now nobody can tell. There has been no explanation. It is doubtful if it is a question of saving the cost of the station. From what we can gather, it is quite possible that the revenue from the station would be greater than the cost of running it. I am sure there must have been some sort of difference in the Cabinet about that matter. The less said about the amount saved to the taxpayers in abandoning the proposal the better. It certainly does not redound to the credit of the people who sit opposite in any single way.
We have also abandoned the transatlantic air service. I happened to meet recently a man from another country who was visiting this country for a short time. He said he knew nothing about the set-up of the country but there was one thing he thought was national sabotage and that was the abandonment of the transatlantic air service. He was a businessman here from South Africa. He was no friend of mine but I met him casually. He had been here three or four months and that was one of his conclusions. He said this country had a chance of getting in on the ground floor to develop a transatlantic air service and that it was in a better position than most other countries in the world to make that, in time, an economic proposition.
Does the Deputy seriously listen to talk like that?
From a man who does not know anything about the set-up of the country.
I have no doubt that Deputy Cowan is sorry in his heart to see that project abandoned.
Not in the least.
I am sure that the people understood from him and those who stood with him prior to the election that they were interested in the development of a transatlantic air service.
According to Deputy MacEntee I would be flying in the opposite direction.
The Deputy and his Party told us that they proposed to develop all the resources of the country and that money was no object in developing those resources. They were going to plant with trees something like 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 acres per year. There is not one shilling other than what was provided in the Estimates by the Fianna Fáil Government, for the planting of an extra acre of land this year in the Minister's proposals. I wonder why Deputy Cowan and his colleagues in the Clann na Poblachta group did not force the hand of the Minister for Finance and insist on extra money being provided this year for the development of forestry.
Perhaps we will be doing it later.
It is part of the Deputy's policy which is in abeyance. As I have said, they are all one now, but the Minister for Finance is the one. He is one who counts anyway.
To balance his Budget the Minister adopted another very extraordinary proposal. A very large subsidy was provided by the previous Government in respect of wheat and wheaten flour imported into this country to enable bread to be sold at a certain price. The subsidy was increased in the Supplementary Budget and the Minister found himself in an awkward position. He could not justify increasing the price of bread and could not justify decreasing the subsidy, but he found that he could not balance his Budget and pay the full subsidy on the wheat imported this year out of the finances he proposed to raise in the Budget, and he had to resort to the expedience of borrowing £2,500,000 this year to pay for the bread which we will eat. In other words, for the first time in the history of this State, we are not going to pay for the bread we eat this year, but we are going to ask future generations, the people living in this country in future years, to pay for the bread we will eat this year.
Future generations.
It may not be generations, but we do not know. We do not know how you intend to pay back the money. You will borrow the money, anyhow, and we will eat the bread this year and, at the end of the financial year, we will owe £2,500,000 in respect of the bread we have consumed. If that is balancing the Budget, if that is good finance——
First class finance.
It is only a financial wizard, as the Minister was called by some of his friends in the Press which supports the Government, would think of it.
We have gathered, even since the Government was formed, that the Minister had ideas about breaking the link with sterling. I am sure that would gladden the hearts of some of his friends, especially in the Clann na Poblachta Party, because they believed during the election and, I am sure, still believe, though their policy in this respect has had to be put into abeyance, that this country is in financial bondage. The Minister himself was flirting with the idea at one time, but he has never yet committed himself all the way in either direction. During the emergency years, he was a strong advocate of breaking the link with sterling.
Will the Deputy help us to break it?
There is nothing to prevent you doing it. The Deputies will probably never be in the same position again as the position they are in at the moment. All they need do is to hold the pistol to the Minister's head and tell him that the link with sterling must be broken.
We might want to break the link with something else.
It only needs a short Act——
An instrument of abdication.
——to break the link with sterling.
Would you help to pass it?
This Parliament is supreme in that matter. I spent a lot of my time during the recent general election trying to convince some of the Deputy's friends that that was so, that this Parliament had absolute power to break the link with sterling, and Deputy Cowan and his friends have it in their power now to ensure that the link with sterling will be broken, provided the Government in which they have two members of their Party as Ministers, thinks it good national policy that it should be broken. I am sure Deputy Cowan is a man with big influence in that Government, and, if he thinks it good policy, he will have it done.
Does the Deputy consider it good policy?
Sin ceist eile.
Sin ceist deacair.
The Government have full power and absolute right, what is more, to do it, if they think it good policy and there is no use in going before the people during the next general election, which will be in six or nine months time, I have no doubt, and crying that you had to put that policy in abeyance while members of the Fine Gael Government but that you will carry it out if the people give you a majority. Now is your time to do it. Break the link with sterling if you think it is good policy. You have it in your absolute power to do so. There is nothing in the world to prevent you doing it. You have not got to go before the people to get it done.
Your Party talked about breaking the link with England. You were 16 years in office and never made any attempt to do so.
A lot of our time in the past 16 years was spent in trying to educate the Deputy and some of his friends——
And you did not succeed.
——about the power which rests in this Parliament. It took us quite a time to get it into their dull heads that in this House rests full sovereign authority to break the link with sterling.
Or with England.
An English hangman was a bad schoolmaster.
Even though it took us 16 years to convince the Deputies it is at any rate an achievement that we did succeed in convincing them that the power is there. We convinced them also that their interests were with the conservative Fine Gael Party, of which they now form a part.
Who spent the five years convincing the Deputy before that?
A Deputy
Deputy Cowan did.
Deputy Cowan was never afraid.
Order, please!
The Minister also in this Budget abandoned the subsidy on farmers' butter. Practically every member of the Government would try to convince the agricultural community that they were interested in its welfare. At the very first opportunity they reduce the price of farmers' butter by 9d. to 1/- per lb.
We never saw a penny of the subsidy.
There is no butter in Westmeath. I do not believe there is a farmer in Westmeath who keeps a cow. They have to buy their milk from elsewhere. There are very few dairy farmers in Westmeath, and well we know that.
I can bring you up 40 lbs. of butter out of my own dairy tomorrow if you want it.
Order, please. The Deputy should be allowed to make his speech and Deputy Fagan must not interrupt.
I am glad that there is a farmer in Westmeath who milks a cow. I thought there was not even one. The Minister for Finance and his Government decided to throw the farmers on the scrap-heap under this Budget. Fifty per cent. of the cows in this country are owned by small farmers who have a surplus of butter to sell in the months of May and June. The subsidy of £150,000 last year enabled them to get a price of 2/11 per lb. for their butter. They are selling the same butter at the present time at 2/3 a lb. and even as low as 1/10 a lb. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is interested in the small farmers of this country. I am sure there are many of them in his own constituency. I am sure that many other Deputies from various parts of the country are also interested in the farmers. I want to know how those Deputies can justify to the farmers of this country the cut in the price of their produce in the two months of the year when they have a surplus. I do not know how that can be justified.
Wait and see.
I would be interested to hear from them how they justify it.
Wait and see.
Order, please!
As I said before, the cost of living under this Budget has not been decreased by one halfpenny.
By £6,000,000.
There has been an increase in the cost of living.
A decrease of £6,000,000.
The £6,000,000 was taken off beer, tobacco, wine, champagne——
It was not taken off champagne. We are reaping a profit on champagne.
——cinema seats and cheap dog racing. You threw away that £6,000,000. You might just as well have thrown it over the quay wall for all the good it has done the country. It has done no good whatever. If the Parties opposite have any backbone or are imbued with any national outlook they would stand up to those interests with the big money bags. There was no necessity for them to sell out and degrade the country by selling out for the money bags.
It was the money bags that kept Fianna Fáil in.
Order, please!
This Budget has been a disappointing one. It is disappointing because many of the national schemes initiated by the previous Government have been abandoned. Those schemes were initiated for the betterment of the people and for no other reason.
A country is like an individual. If a man is an industrialist or a businessman he must either progress or go back. The policy of this Government is a retrograde policy; it is travelling the back road. We want to see progress in this country. I do not mind who forms the Government provided there is development and provided there is progress and provided the standard of living of the people improves. I am sure the Deputies opposite are just as genuine as I am in that respect. Possibly they believe that what they are doing is in the best interests of the country. But their hands are tied. They are tied because of political expediency. They can make no progress. The Government started off on the wrong foot when it abandoned these taxes on beer, tobacco and entertainment and still kept up the high cost of living. That was a bad policy. You did nothing to reduce the cost of living.
We did.
You did not reduce it by one single halfpenny.
By £6,000,000.
You increased it.
No, no.
You did not reduce it one single halfpenny on any essential consumable commodity.
On a point of order, I do not mind listening to the Deputy all night but since I have come into the House he has repeated these remarks at least a dozen times.
A Deputy
We will not put you in the Chair for a few years more until you have got more training.
The Chair has pulled up the Deputy for repetition already.
It is about time the Minister was called to order.
The Deputy was called to order for repetition.
Of all the consumable commodities, beer has increased by less than any single commodity since the beginning of the emergency.
You did your best to rectify that.
I challenge the Minister for Finance, when replying, to deny the truth of that statement. This has certainly been a very disappointing Budget. It has shocked even the Government supporters in the country.
It has shocked the Fianna Fáil Party, anyhow.
There is no greater proof that the Fianna Fáil Government were a good Government, a sound Government, and that they planned the development of the country on good and sound lines than the concluding remarks of the Minister in his Budget statement. Those remarks prove conclusively that the country made progress. Customs and excise returns were buoyant and the receipts from duties on spirits and wines were increasing year by year. It proves also that under Fianna Fáil—I do not know whether Deputy Larkin agrees with the Minister on this—that the wages of workers in this country had reached such a height that they could not bear any further increase. Such reliefs were given under social services that the workers of the country could not look for any further increases because of the benevolent and sound national policy of the Fianna Fáil Government.
Because of sound planning by the Fianna Fáil Government during their years of office, the finances of this country are in a sound and healthy condition. The Minister has admitted that. He found them in such a healthy condition that he was able to go to the country and ask for a substantial loan —a loan that was over-subscribed within a few hours. He found the finances of the country and of all Departments of State well managed and in good, proper condition. I have yet to hear from any Minister of the discoveries that we were told during the election campaign would be found in Government Departments. We were told that there were discoveries to be made in every Department of corruption and fraud. The Minister for Social Welfare, three days after he became a Minister, told his constituents that exposures would be made that would raise the hairs on people's heads. We are waiting patiently on this side of the House for a single exposure. It is up to the Minister and other members of the Government to apologise for the statements they made. They know quite well that what helped them into office was the campaign of slander and calumny that they carried on against the last Government. They know quite well that during the years when Fine Gael were out of office they did not help this country.
I do not see the relevancy of all that.
The proposals in the Budget statement are such as to prove beyond yea or nay that the last Government were not corrupt, that they were an honest Government, that they were a good Government and they gave good service. The sooner the people get the opportunity that they are hoping for, the better, and I challenge the Party opposite to give the people that opportunity of deciding the issue again. This Budget, as I said before, is a disappointment to them.
The Deputy certainly did say it before.
It is a Budget that the Government have no reason to be proud of. They have increased the cost of living; they have increased taxation; they have done their best to damm good national schemes that were either initiated or in operation when they came into office.
The Deputy has repeated himself, to the knowledge of the Chair, at least five or six times. If he has nothing new to say, at least he should not continue repeating his statements.
Deputy Sweetman was very interested in this Budget and he congratulated the Minister on increasing the interest on Post Office investments. I wonder if the increase in the interest on Post Office investments is in the best interests of the country. Deputy Hickey does not happen to be here now, but his one-time colleague, also a bit of a financier—Deputy Davin —is. Deputy Davin, on several occasions here, strongly advocated that interest on local loans should not be more than ½ or 1 per cent., and that local authorities should get money at that figure. He suggested that the Agricultural Credit Corporation should be provided with money at ½ or 1 per cent.
That was under a different system.
You can change the financial system that is in operation; you can break the link with sterling. I suggest that raising the interest on Post Office deposits may not be to the advantage of future developments here. The cost of housing would go up and the cost of all undertakings by local authorities, financed out of loans, would be increased. We would have reactions in many directions. We would like to know whether the Minister is trying to force the bank rate of interest up by increasing the interest on Post Office savings. If he succeeds in making money dearer, will that be in the interest of future developments in this country? I would like him to give some thought to that. It would certainly put up the cost of housing, and the workers who occupy the houses, unless the Minister makes it up out of taxation, will have to pay more in rent.
The Government have succeeded in presenting a Budget which will not encroach unduly upon the ordinary citizen. It is a poor man's Budget. In fact, the interests of the poor man have been jealously guarded by the Minister. It is easy to understand the destructive criticism of Opposition Deputies. The Minister has brought about a saving of £7,000,000 on the proposals that would have been presented to the House if the Fianna Fáil Party were still in power. During the election campaign all the Parties forming the Coalition aimed at economy and later they co-operated with the Minister in his efforts to reduce the cost of living. He was then in a position to present a Budget that indicated a substantial decrease.
I know the Fianna Fáil Party are disappointed because the Budget is a popular one amongst the people. It does not interfere with the poor man's limited pleasures. I have only to remind Deputies opposite of the Supplementary Budget which encroached upon the pleasures of the poor man. The last Government advocated the imposition of higher taxation, but the people gave a very definite answer in the recent general election. They voted for a reduction in taxation and they have got it. This Budget aims at giving the people an independent social and economic outlook. The policy of Fianna Fáil was inclined to make the population dependent on one Order after another. The aim of this Government is to make the individual realise his independence and his right to live his life in his own way.
One has only to recall the threats to the old age pensioners, the widows and orphans and others which were issued before the election that if there was a change of Government they would lose their benefits. Instead the coalition Government has succeeded in giving higher benefits to those particular people.
It would be interesting to know why the Leader of the Opposition could not be here to deliberate and debate a matter of national importance like the present Budget. Then again the Minister for Finance is also globetrotting——
The Minister for Finance is here at this moment
The ex-Minister for Finance is globe-trotting when he should be here to offer constructive criticism from the experience which he gained during his period in office. Instead he leaves the other ex-Ministers and the remaining Deputies to do their best to criticise the Budget, notwithstanding the fact that they had no immediate knowledge of the Estimates which are now put before the House by the Minister for Finance.
An ex-Minister did criticise to-day and very ably.
Would you call it criticism?
We have noticed the consternation among members of the Opposition at the fact that wines have become cheaper. Perhaps they had begun to fear that there would be a wave of insobriety in this country, but the Minister for Finance in his wisdom, in his efforts to bring down the cost of living and to impose a smaller burden on the people, has found from experience that a lowering of the duty on wines would increase their sale. Deputies opposite will agree with me that if diners and winers and those who can afford to do so, contribute duties that will enable the cost of living to be reduced and that will not operate to the detriment of the poorer classes, it is an admirable reduction. We hear the Fianna Fáil Deputies crying out in the name of the poor. They cried out in the names of the poor a score of years ago but not many years after they took office they departed from the poor man and became what was called recently a rich man's Government.
The subsidies were debated at length in the House. Subsidies are only desirable if they are used towards the enlargement of production. The subsidies that were abandoned only amounted to one penny per head per day. One must remember that though the rich man and the poor man benefited by that subsidy, in effect, only a quarter of the population, if that, would feel the benefit of that penny per head per day, while the poor man as well as the rich man contributed to the fund which enabled that subsidy to be available. That subsidy was introduced as an election weapon, but it certainly proved to be ineffective, especially when the extra duty was put on the poor man's smoke and pint and entertainment. This silly Supplementary Budget was abandoned by the Minister for Finance as soon as he possibly could after the election, and the Fianna Fáil Party will never convince the poor that he was incorrect in doing so. The cost of living could not be instantly reduced; it will take some time but I have the utmost confidence in the Minister for Finance in being the man who will succeed in doing this. We remember that the effect of the standstill wages Orders was intensified by the price increases by the last Government although there again they cried out in the name of the working man. They blamed the recent international conflict for all the evils during the last few years, but since the change of Government came about the coalition Government was the cause of it all, and the war had no part in it. The expected deficit was reduced by something like £7,000,000 and Deputies opposite complained that the Government did not succeed in reducing it by £10,000,000 as they promised, but they went a long way towards that when they reduced it by £7,000,000. Widows' allowances and the means test were modified and we find that although the Minister for Finance succeeded in reducing the Budget by approximately £7,000,000, he succeeded at the same time in increasing these benefits.
Increased social services depend on a higher standard of production and in the Budget we find that provision has been made to encourage the development of our main industry in this country, agriculture. The poultry industry has declined since 1932 and needs encouragement. Recently we had to go to Britain to ask them to come back here and assist us in developing our poultry trade, a trade which can go into production sooner than any other of the industries which we desire to put on their feet again. The live-stock industry, sheep and pigs, all the things that were the wealth of the nation have been depleted and we find that it is now necessary to encourage an increase in these things. We must make up our minds that agricultural products are the only items of which we can produce a substantial exportable surplus, and it is on this that we should concentrate because we need finances in this country in order to import goods which we cannot produce. The prospects of the poultry industry at this moment are bright, especially with the grants which are now available. We saw that Britain had to go as far away as Hungary in order to complete an agreement with regard to the purchase of eggs and poultry, and I have no doubt that in the years to come there will be a demand for them in Britain and also for every type of live stock, while there is in our own country a strong demand for pigs. Farmers and cottiers will be encouraged in the development of these two industries—poultry and pigs. The poultry population has declined by 50,000 head in the past year alone but I have confidence that in the coming years the Minister for Agriculture will succeed in restoring this industry to the place which it formerly occupied. We must remember that if the price which prevailed before the Fianna Fáil Government took office had any relation to the price now——
Or any relation to the Budget.
I wanted to bring out the position in connection with our national income and the cost of living and to point out that if the price obtaining for eggs at the present time was related to the price obtaining in 1929-30 our national income would now be increased to the extent of £25,000,000, having regard to the fact that eggs at that time were sold at something like 6d. and 7d. a dozen. Now we have an extra duty of 5d. per gallon imposed on petrol. Imports appear to be the same or somewhat similar to what they were in 1938-39 whereas the imports of petrol and hydro-carbon oils combined are four times as great as they were in that particular year. Unfortunately this 5d. duty will cause considerable hardship amongst the farming community. The petrol tractors engaged in the cultivation of the land on a very long working day use as much as 16 gallons, but on the ordinary they use anything between ten and 12 gallons. Many farmers will have to leave the tractor in the yard and bring out horses again to do the tillage. They will be unable to sell these tractors, and they have gone down considerably in value as a result of the increased duty. I would respectfully ask the Minister for Finance to consider any possible means of relieving this hardship on the farmers, as it is a tax on production. It will tend to step down production rather than encourage it and any economies which the farmers might aim at would operate unfavourably against the drive for food production.
I would ask the Minister for Finance to consider the introduction of a Supplementary Budget, not the type of one we had last autumn but one which would increase the course betting tax from 2½ per cent. to 7½ per cent. as it is in the ordinary starting price offices in this city. That would be taxing something that is not productive, instead of taxing productive effort. Petrol used for agricultural tractors should be rebated, if at all possible, in the same way as hydro-carbon oil, which is used in the same kind of article only run on a different fuel. I understand these tractors cannot be adapted to the use of kerosene and that the farmers will be left with little alternative but to economise or try to sell the tractors and I am confident they will not succeed in selling at a remunerative price.
I think there is only a tax on entry to dog racing and that there is no tax in respect of bets placed with bookmakers in these places. A young man who goes to the dogs and sports his week's wages on these races ought to be made contribute to the general welfare of the public.
As a result of the petrol duty some firms have been inclined to make a delivery charge, to be borne by their customers. These very firms were well able to bear the expense of producers and gas bags when there was a shortage of petrol in the past. The extra tax would not amount to very much and they should be asked in a very definite way to make their services more efficient and cut down the use of petrol if they want to economise. Some of these grousers were able to pay for black market petrol in the past, and even in the recent past. Now that there is a duty of 5d. per gallon, they get uneasy. Luxury motoring will be discouraged by the imposition of this extra tax and I think that was the desire of the Minister, who wanted to direct petrol into productive effort and to ensure that it would be used in a better way, especially when we consider that the petrol ration elsewhere is not so good.
Some of the Deputies opposite have suggested that bus fares may have to go up as a result of the extra duty, but I would like to point out that, calculated on last year's consumption, the 5d. would amount to, approximately only £50,000. Córas Iompair Éireann were not forced to put up their fares when they had to bear the loss of £900,000 in respect of last year's working. I am sure they will be able to carry on for one year at least with this new duty of 5d. per gallon on their fuel.
Hackney and taxi owners receive a ration of about 70 gallons per month and this duty will mean, approximately, 1/- per day extra. The more efficient use of these vehicles will enable them to get back their apparent loss of 1/- in the same way. Economy and efficient management of these vehicles will save at least 1/- per day to those owners.
In spite of the food subsidies provided by the Supplementary Budget, the cost of living rose 11 points since last autumn. The benefits envisaged by the Supplementary Budget were offset by higher duties on beer, tobacco and entertainment, which are normally consumed by the very man who was to benefit from food subsidies.
Again, we note that some cinema proprietors are suffering for the sins of many, as a result of the abolition of the rebate allowed in respect of stage shows. The Minister cannot be blamed for the fact that so many cinema owners were encouraged, since the introduction of the Supplementary Budget last autumn, to introduce these shows. We know that in some of these places a fellow with a mouth-organ was employed for three and a half or four hours before the audience came along, so that the proprietor could claim that the period during which this man performed was longer than the period of the cinema show and that, therefore, he was entitled to the rebate. The avoidance of tax was encouraged by the Supplementary Budget. We have departed from that now, and I feel sure that the Minister will find some way of relieving those who must suffer as a result of this abandonment of the rebate which was formerly available.
The Army shows a saving of something like £750,000 and also shows a reduction of 700 men. Opposition Deputies have cried out that we are leaving ourselves in danger—notwithstanding the fact that we have the assurance of the Minister for Defence that the efficiency of the Army will be maintained. I do not know what country we intend to invade with this efficient Army nor do I know what great nation we are going to stop if they intend to invade this country. I have the utmost confidence that the people in general will do all they can to defend themselves but up to the present time we are being asked to pay taxes to maintain something that is unproductive. Our young men in the past have been encouraged to join the Army but those young men would do far more for the nation if they took part in the production of food. Deputy MacEntee has described the abandonment of the transatlantic air services as sabotage. I do not think it is any sabotage to reduce the cost of living. That is our aim. Even on the score of prestige I would say that real prestige exists at home. If we want to impress any foreigners we ought to impress them by the standard of living in this country.
There have been savings on turf development. It is well known that we have sufficient fuel for some years to come. If Fianna Fáil had their way the people would be required to pay in taxes so that this turf would be produced notwithstanding the fact that it is not presently needed. I am quite sure that when the need for turf arises the people will be quite prepared to pay for it.
The short-wave radio station has been abandoned although, I understand, it was three-quarters way completed. The short-wave radio would be of considerable advantage to the Irish nation in time of difficulty or war but, during a period of peace, the expenditure of practically £1,000 per week for the maintenance of such a station would not be justified. Prestige begins at home and we will be judged by the social and economic standards existing in this country. Taxpayers are asked to contribute towards defraying losses incurred by air services under Fianna Fáil in this particular Budget. I feel sure that the Minister for Finance will not be asked to dig so heavily into the pocket of the Government, if you like to put it that way, in the future to pay losses for some class of experiment which at the outset was bound to show a loss This Aerlínte scheme that has been abandoned was instituted at a cost approximating to £2,000,000. Luckily for the Irish people they were able to sell the planes at a profit and have thus offset the losses to some extent. However, in this wild attempt to impress other nations, we have spent £500,000 on the training of technicians and pilots. That money, unfortunately, will go to the benefit of those other nations which will now avail of the services of these trained personnel. It would seem that the expenditure of this money in the first instance was not justified, considering that it could not reasonably be assumed that the services could be put on a paying basis in the near future. In a recent reply from the Minister for Industry and Commerce to a Parliamentary question he stated that the anticipated loss on that service alone would be over £150,000 during the coming year—and that was only an estimate which had been reduced from the Fianna Fáil estimate of £350,000. Our population is not large enough to ensure that those heavy planes would have a full pay-load for each run to America and back. It is well known that even our mail services from here to Britain and the Continent many times go with a very small load.
Our agricultural output shows, during the past year, a reduction of 5½ per cent. on the 1938-39 figure while, at the same time, our industrial output shows an increase of 4 per cent. during the past year as compared with that of 1938-39. It must be remembered that these industries have been established and subsidised at the expense of the main industry. Notwithstanding that fact, the main industry shows a loss in the past year and these subsidised industries show an increase of 4 per cent. in output during the same period. There is no doubt that the Minister for Finance, along with the Minister for Agriculture, must concentrate on increased production and efficiency. Hoteliers will, I believe, gladly pay the increased prices on tea, butter and sugar. Those people who can afford to go to hotels will quite willingly pay the normal price for the food available. I believe that it is a departure on the part of the Minister for Finance in favour of the poor in order to ensure that certain classes will pay the normal cost of these subsidised foods. They do not ask the poor to pay on essential goods and thereby make food cheaper for those who can afford to pay for it. The margarine subsidy has been the subject of debate by the members of the Opposition Benches. There has been no end to the debate on this matter, but it must be remembered that the margarine ration is only two ounces per week. That shows something like a penny a week loss to the individual. It should also be remembered that rich and poor were entitled to the subsidy on the margarine and, therefore, only a quarter or thereabouts of the people who could appreciate that subsidy would benefit by it. Therefore, I believe that the departure was well justified. Finally, I would like to say that a gleaming ray of hope pierces the gloom of the predicted doom, and to-morrow is another day.
As one who by my vote put these people, who are now on the far side of the House, out of office I must congratulate the Minister for having the courage to make some provision for the people for whom, since 1943, I have been fighting in an effort to improve their position. When I heard the ex-Minister, Deputy MacEntee, talking to-day about the widows and the orphans I wondered if he remembered the day he ordered me out of the House when I was fighting for their cause. There are Deputies who until the change of Government, remained silent in this House. What the Minister has said is true—the dumb have spoken. We hear them now trying to find holes in the Budget. They talk about retrenchment—but what was their retrenchment? The ex-Minister, who is away, had not the courage to stay in this House when the Budget was revealed. What was his remedy? Smoke a cigarette less; drink a bottle of stout less; and do not go to the pictures. That was the Fianna Fáil policy of economy. At the same time, they provided luxury life for some people and the luxury hotels. I was surprised to hear Deputy Allen talking in the terms he used to-day. Deputy Allen is an auctioneer, and when he puts up a house for sale he always says: "This house sold so many dozen stout and so many bottles of whiskey". I move to report progress.
Progress reported.