It was customary to supply the Ceann Comhairle with a list of the matters of general interest to be discussed on this Vote. I have got no notice from any Party. I suppose "old times have changed, old manners gone". However, Deputies will realise that this is not an opportunity for discussing details of Estimates. It is for general matters of expenditure and administration over 12 months. Neither is this an opportunity for discussing taxation. The Votes may not be itemised; so details of administration do not arise.
Committee on Finance. - Vote on Account, 1949-50.
The Dáil, according to Order, went into Committee on Finance to consider a Vote on Account for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950.
May I ask if there is any reason for departing from the practice of the House?
So far as we are concerned, intimation as to the matters which the Opposition wish to discuss was conveyed to the Government Whips.
This morning.
Which is longer notice than we got when we were the Government.
And when we did get notice it was never kept.
The intentions were good.
It was never kept in my time. We were too honest. You talked all over the place, and you will all get lashed now.
So long as you are going to distribute the punishment, it is all right.
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £22,937,830 be granted on account for or towards defraying the Charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950, for certain public services, namely:—
|
£ |
||
|
1 |
President's Establishment |
1,800 |
|
2 |
Houses of the Oireachtas |
60,300 |
|
3 |
Department of the Taoiseach |
7,200 |
|
4 |
Comptroller and Auditor-General |
9,940 |
|
5 |
Office of the Minister for Finance |
48,200 |
|
6 |
Office of the Revenue Commissioners |
460,000 |
|
7 |
Old Age Pensions |
2,317,600 |
|
8 |
Management of Government Stocks |
21,950 |
|
9 |
Office of Public Works |
67,000 |
|
10 |
Public Works and Buildings |
604,000 |
|
11 |
Employment and Emergency Schemes |
400,000 |
|
12 |
State Laboratory |
4,400 |
|
13 |
Civil Services Commission |
14,600 |
|
14 |
Irish Tourist Board |
10,000 |
|
15 |
Commissions and Special Inquiries |
2,300 |
|
16 |
Superannuation and Retired Allowances |
300,000 |
|
17 |
Rates on Government Property |
75,000 |
|
18 |
Secret Service |
2,000 |
|
19 |
Expenses under the Electoral Act and the Juries Act |
Nil |
|
20 |
Miscellaneous Expenses |
5,000 |
|
21 |
Stationery and Printing |
111,500 |
|
22 |
Valuation and Boundary Survey |
15,980 |
|
23 |
Ordnance Survey |
15,960 |
|
24 |
Supplementary Agricultural Grants |
900,000 |
|
25 |
Law Charges |
31,500 |
|
26 |
Universities and Colleges |
151,000 |
|
27 |
Widows' and Orphans' Pensions |
352,600 |
|
28 |
Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies |
18,000 |
|
29 |
Agriculture |
2,946,500 |
|
30 |
Agricultural Produce Subsidies |
766,000 |
|
31 |
Fisheries |
75,950 |
|
32 |
Office of the Minister for Justice |
23,150 |
|
33 |
Garda Síochána |
958,750 |
|
34 |
Prisons |
60,270 |
|
35 |
District Court |
23,520 |
|
36 |
Circuit Court |
30,950 |
|
37 |
Supreme Court and High Court of Justice |
25,000 |
|
38 |
Land Registry and Registry of Deeds |
25,450 |
|
39 |
Public Record Office |
2,520 |
|
40 |
Charitable Donations and Bequests |
1,390 |
|
41 |
Local Government |
640,000 |
|
42 |
General Register Office |
5,910 |
|
43 |
Dundrum Asylum |
12,000 |
|
44 |
National Health Insurance |
151,400 |
|
45 |
Office of the Minister for Education |
94,000 |
|
46 |
Primary Education |
2,000,000 |
|
47 |
Secondary Education |
180,000 |
|
48 |
Technical Instruction |
200,000 |
|
49 |
Science and Art |
36,000 |
|
50 |
Reformatory and Industrial Schools |
85,000 |
|
51 |
National Gallery |
5,000 |
|
52 |
Lands |
677,400 |
|
53 |
Forestry |
138,000 |
|
54 |
Gaeltacht Services |
80,000 |
|
55 |
Industry and Commerce |
1,137,000 |
|
56 |
Aviation and Meteorological Services |
534,000 |
|
57 |
Children's Allowances |
733,300 |
|
58 |
Transport and Marine Services |
87,530 |
|
59 |
Unemployment Insurance and Unemployment Assistance |
505,000 |
|
60 |
Industrial and Commercial Property Registration Office |
6,000 |
|
61 |
Posts and Telegraphs |
1,751,170 |
|
62 |
Wireless Broadcasting |
68,000 |
|
63 |
Defence |
1,235,300 |
|
64 |
Army Pensions |
282,850 |
|
65 |
External Affairs |
69,000 |
|
66 |
Office of the Minister for Social Welfare |
139,000 |
|
67 |
Miscellaneous Social Welfare Services |
80,000 |
|
68 |
Health |
1,050,000 |
|
69 |
Damage to Property (Neutrality) Compensation |
3,200 |
|
70 |
Personal Injuries (Civilians) Compensation |
890 |
|
71 |
Organisation for European Economic Co-Operation |
3,600 |
|
TOTAL |
£22,937,830 |
Deputies will understand that this Vote on Account is required to enable the Supply Services to be carried on while the individual Estimates are being discussed in the detail in which they are discussed in this House. These discussions generally occupy the greater part of the early months of the financial year and are followed by the enactment of the Appropriation Act. The practice, therefore, has been to provide enough, by way of this Vote on Account, to carry on the Supply Services up to about the end of July.
The items that make up the £22,937,830 are set out in the White Paper. In most cases, in respect of each Vote, approximately one-third of the total net estimate for the year is required. There are changes here and there. It is expected there will be a bigger draw in the earlier months, so that here and there perhaps more than one-third may be required, but if any point arises where more than one-third is requested, I will be glad to reply.
The total net sum required for the Supply Services is £65,406,570. That is a decrease of £6,394,728 on the provision of £71,801,298 for the current year. That last sum includes all the additional and Supplementary Estimates that were passed during 1948-49. Probably it will be easier for Deputies to follow if I make a comparison as between the figure on the face of the Book of Estimates, the £65,406,570 that I have already mentioned, and the £70,070,477 which appeared on the face of the Book of Estimates for 1948-49. The decrease between these is £5,113,907.
As regards the individual Estimates, 38 show increases amounting to £3,720,305. There are 31 Estimates which show decreases amounting to £9,384,346. Two Estimates show no change. Four services mentioned in the book last year have not any provision made for them this year. These include Athletics, Repayment of Trade Loan Advances, Alleviation of Distress in Europe, and Repayments to the Contingency Fund. These four amounted to £730,687 in 1948-49. There were increases in the pay of civil servants granted in the current financial year and these increases are spread over all the Estimates carrying provision for staff changes. I took a Supplementary Estimate for part of these towards the end of the year. These will mean an increased expenditure of approximately £700,000 in the financial year we are entering. Provision has been made for them and, as I have indicated, the increases are spread over all the different items through the book.
There are certain increases of a substantial type in some Votes. They are indicated in detail in the Estimates Volume. I will instance some of these increases:—Public Works and Buildings, £250,000; Supplementary Agricultural Grants, £192,000; Widows' and Orphans' Pensions, £548,000; Fisheries, £87,000; Primary Education, £108,000; Lands, £107,000; Posts and Telegraphs, £327,000; Health, £330,000, and Old Age Pensions, £1,327,000.
There are decreases in certain Votes. The most important are:—Aviation and Meteorological Services, £551,000; Unemployment Insurance and Unemployment Assistance, £121,000; National Health Insurance, £358,000; Defence, £859,000; Miscellaneous Social Welfare Services, £146,000. There are two decreases of importance. One is in respect of Agriculture, £449,730, and Industry and Commerce, £6,584,956. With regard to these two, I want to point out that since the Book of Estimates was prepared the Government decided that responsibility for the flour and wheaten meal subsidies should be transferred from the Minister for Industry and Commerce to the Minister for Agriculture. Revised Estimates for these services have been prepared and I hope to have the reprints circulated this afternoon.
The only change involved is that the large sum of £6,871,000 is transferred from sub-head J. of Vote 55 to a new sub-head, sub-head 00 on Vote 29. The aggregate of the Estimates Volume remains as it was. The change has been made in the White Paper; in other words, the White Paper, referring to the Vote on Account, is as if the transfer which I have mentioned had taken place. It is only a shift from one Vote to another.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I would like to refer to one other matter. As Deputies are aware, the Vote on Account, when passed, is translated into statutory form by the Central Fund Bill. That has been in a stereotyped form for many years-It is proposed this year to introduce a fresh clause, a clause of special type, to meet particular circumstances. The Central Fund Act has ordinarily been an Act of three clauses referring to the moneys that are voted by the passage of the Vote on Account and to the other Votes in relation to certain Supplementary Estimates which have been passed.
This year the Bill will contain a section providing for the establishment of a special fund, to be known as the American Loan Counterpart Fund. That is required for this reason. In last year's Appropriation Act (No. 13 of 1948) a special sub-section was inserted—sub-section (4) of Section 2. That reads in this way:—
"The proceeds of any money borrowed from the Government of the United States of America or any agency thereof shall be placed to the credit of an account of the Minister for Finance with the Central Bank of Ireland."
That is the only statutory provision there is with regard to any moneys that come to hand through the sale of goods which are purchased with American dollars that come in our favour under the Marshall Aid Plan.
Money was simply paid into the Central Bank under that statutory provision and it would remain there. It is not proposed to let it remain there. I will be authorised under the new clause, and it is proposed to transfer that money to a fund which is described as the American Loan Counterpart Fund or, shortly, the fund. The moneys in that fund, at my discretion, will be open for investment in Irish or British securities. They are capable of being invested in Irish Government securities or any other securities in which it is thought fit to invest them. I am not pretending to give the whole clause at the moment—it will be circulated—but it simply means that we are tying on to the Appropriation Act the moneys that may be taken at my discretion from that account and put into this fund. The accounts of the fund will always be kept in the books of the Central Bank of Ireland.
Sub-section (5) of the new Section 4 which it is proposed to have in the Central Fund Act will read in this way:—
"The Minister for Finance may from time to time, as he thinks fit, invest money for the time being to the credit of the fund in any manner in which moneys of the Post Office Savings Bank are for the time being authorised by law to be invested and may realise any such investment."
That phrase has been selected because it has been the subject of discussion for many years as to how moneys under the control of the Government may be invested. It comes to this, that such moneys may be invested in stocks, funds or securities of the Government of Ireland; securities guaranteed as to principal and interest by the Government of this country; or trustee stock or securities of an Irish local authority, or stocks, funds, or securities of the Government of the United Kingdom. The Central Fund Bill will only take power to do that. There will be a section ordaining that an account of the funds shall be prepared in respect of each financial year by order of the Comptroller and Auditor-General and laid before each House of the Oireachtas. The scheme, therefore, is that these moneys, which may be described as European Recovery Programme moneys, will, first of all, go into the account of the Central Bank and will then be transferred by me to this fund; from that fund they may again be invested at my discretion in certain approved objects or securities. It will be clear, I think, that the investments I may make have to be in things already authorised by law. It is laid down that such pieces of legislation, or Estimates, or a list of such investments of these moneys will have to be stated in new Estimates or new pieces of legislation. I want to take power now to do that so that the moneys may not be tied up in the Central Bank. I shall have that clause circulated very shortly.
The intention is to put the House wise as to this new or novel clause in order to give timely notice to the House. It might be more appropriate if that particular matter were discussed on the Central Fund Bill rather than now. I think the House would agree to that.
I am thinking of the time factor. We have to get this through.
Is the Minister anxious to have it discussed now?
Whatever suits the convenience of the House.
I do not want a duplicate discussion.
It can be discussed on the Central Fund Bill.
That particular clause in reference to European Recovery Programme will come up on the Central Fund Bill then.
It being agreed that the Central Fund Bill is to leave this House on Thursday.
Mr. Boland
Why did you not debate it last week if you wanted that?
We offered to bring the House here last week.
Mr. Boland
We had not got the Estimates.
We had the Estimates. The Estimates were circulated last Monday.
Mr. Boland
Monday week.
They were circulated in time for a debate last week had the House wished to meet.
Mr. de Valera
There is no agreement.
It was decided not to sit last week because of St. Patrick's Day.
Mr. Boland
It did not sit because we had not the Book of Estimates. We did not get them until Monday week. We had not the Estimates in time to examine them.
The Book of Estimates was produced at the usual time.
I do not think we will get agreement across the floor of the House in this fashion.
Mr. Boland
It does not look like it.
I notice a complete absence of any apology in the speech made by the Minister for Finance as to the size of the sum for which he is asking for public services this year. On the cover of the Book of Estimates a sum of £65,406,570 is shown. That should seem an enormous sum of money to the present Minister for Finance and the other Fine Gael Deputies who, at the general election last year, promised that they would reduce expenditure by £10,000,000. That was a reduction on the sum which the Fianna Fáil Administration asked the House to vote. In the year 1946-47—the last year of the Fianna Fáil Administration—the Book of Estimates contained on the cover a sum of £52,092,000 odd. Owing to the crisis in the autumn of 1947, bringing with it a big increase in the costs of certain foodstuffs, a supplementary budget was introduced and provision was made in that to add to the amount of money spent on Supply Services in order that the prices of foodstuffs and essential commodities might be kept down. But the total amount spent in the year 1947-48 was £58,918,000. When Fine Gael were promising the electorate that they would reduce the cost of government by £10,000,000 they had one of two figures definitely in their minds. So had the people. They had the sum of £52,000,000, shown on the cover of the Book of Estimates in the spring of 1947, or they had the sum of £58,000,000, which was the ultimate rate of expenditure over the year. Had Fine Gael lived up to their promise—a promise upon which they got votes from a large section of the people—the sum appearing on the cover of this Book of Estimates should have been either £42,000,000 or £48,000,000 at the most, instead of £65,400,000, as is shown here.
There was no excuse offered in the Minister's opening remarks as to why the level of expenditure is, in fact, £7,000,000 more instead of being £10,000,000 less than the Fianna Fáil level. Deputies on the Government side of the House, and particularly the Clann na Talmhan Party, may laugh and sneer at the people because they were gulled by these promises.
We were thinking of the £22,000,000 that was going to be brought down to £10,000,000.
Last year there was supposed to be a decrease of £10,000,000. Instead we have an increase of £7,000,000.
Just as in 1932.
There is an increase of £7,000,000 although it is estimated that it will require £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 less this year for food and fuel subsidies. The Minister had not the decency to apologise for the size of his bill in his opening remarks. I trust that he will make apology in his concluding remarks, or some other member of his Party—for instance, the ex-Leader of the Fine Gael Party, who was the prime mover in promising this reduction, and who now occupies the position of Minister for Education in the present Government. I trust that he will make some apology to the people for deceiving them to the extent of £17,000,000. It is a reasonably large sum of money; instead of a reduction of £10,000,000 we get an increase of £7,000,000. That increase comes in a year when one of the principal items in the cost of the Fianna Fáil Administration, the subsidisation of foodstuffs, is no longer being carried out as it was.
There is a touch of the new arithmetic about this. It is not known in the primary schools.
Will the Minister explain why the Book of Estimates shows on the cover a sum of £65,400,000 odd instead of being £10,000,000 less than £58,000,000, which was the sum spent in the year 1947-48? Instead of being a sum of £48,000,000, it is shown here as a sum of £65,000,000. Some apology is due to the people who voted for the present Minister for Education. Some apology is due to those who followed his lead. He was then the Leader of the Fine Gael Party.
That was the Commonwealth Party.
Not the Communist Party.
And the Communist Party.
The Communist Party on your side of the House. Look at Deputy Boland.
Mr. Boland
Do not draw me on that subject or someone may get hurt.
I should like if, before this debate is over, somebody on behalf of the Coalition Government would tell the people what their policy is to be for this next year, if they still remain the Government. In certain respects, the Coalition Government has behaved, not as a Government, but with the same sense of irresponsibility as that upon which they acted when they were in Opposition. Although their performance has fallen very short of their promises to the people, they are still promising. Take, for instance, the Minister for Agriculture. He used to talk when in opposition about the reclamation of land. The Fianna Fáil Administration had provided a sum of £500,000 or so for land improvement and £250,000 for farm buildings improvement. During the last year that money has not been spent. It was a mere £750,000 but it was not spent; it was saved and this year the Minister for Agriculture has the impudence to suggest to the people that if they are left to carry on the Government for the next ten years, they are going to spend £50,000,000 on land improvement. He failed to spend £750,000 last year but he has promised to spend £50,000,000 in the next ten years. It looks very like as if the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Finance—I suppose the Minister for Finance has approved of this statement in regard to the spending of £50,000,000 over ten years—regard this in the same light as they regarded their election promises. They do not mean to carry it out but it will serve in order to string the Deputies behind them along for another while, until they decide to have a general election.
Has the Government any intention, even the slightest intention, to spend £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 in this financial year on farm improvements? It is not in the Book of Estimates but it has been announced as Government policy. There is a great deal of spending on £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, if the Government want to see that some profit accrues to the community. It took the Fianna Fáil Government, with the best will in the world, some time to get the farm improvement expenditure up until it reached the sum of £500,000. Quite a number of inspectors had to be appointed and to be trained in order that the funds voted by the Dáil would be properly spent. The Minister for Agriculture now says that he cannot make a start all over the country with this £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 scheme, but he is going to start in certain counties. Suppose that he did start, that he succeeded in getting 50,000 men at work on farm improvement work, that he could "screw" this £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 out of the Minister for Finance, he could employ 50,000 men for 12 months at less than £2 a week. Last year the Minister denounced as iniquitous the suggestion that anybody should pay less than £4 a week, but the Minister is now going to pay less than £2 a week if he succeeds in getting this money.
He will make it £2 10s. 0d.
I can quite realise that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance sneers at the whole business. He was one of the Deputies who were very loud-voiced about what was going to be done with drainage until he got control and then he told the people that he could not get any further than Fianna Fáil had gone——
He did not say that. Have sense.
——either in regard to the Brosna river or the Glyde and Dee, although a year before we left office, plans for the Glyde and Dee had almost reached the point of being sent to the county council for approval. I can quite understand the Parliamentary Secretary's sneer at the plan of the Minister for Agriculture to give £2 a week to 50,000 men on drainage.
I can also understand the anxiety of the late Minister for Finance about it.
Cafferky will deal with you.
And Dr. Ward will deal with you.
It will not be long until he is sitting in your place.
One of the main points made by all sections of the Coalition Government during the by-elections at the end of 1947 and during the general election of February 1948, was that the Fianna Fáil Government by deliberate intent were driving people out of the country, that, by deliberate intent, they were depriving people of reasonable employment here and were packing them over to Britain or wherever these people wished to fly. There were many people throughout the country who believed some part of the allegations made by the various groups in the Coalition. It was vain for the Fianna Fáil Party to explain to these people who were misled by the Coalition groups that we had done our utmost in the 30's, that we had succeeded before the war in getting an additional 10,000 or 12,000 a year into industrial employment and that the war had put a stop to development. It was said that if we really wanted we could have stopped emigration and that we could have built up an El Dorado in this country. The fact was, that after the war, the Fianna Fáil programme had got into its swing again. When materials became available again, a start was made with house-building, the building of further factories and generally with capital development within the country.
The result was that in the last year of the Fianna Fáil Administration there was immigration instead of emigration. According to the figures recently published by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, there occurred in 1947, the last full year of the Fianna Fáil Administration, a net immigration of 11,166.
For various reasons.
I can quite understand Deputy O'Leary sneering at the return of 11,000 people to the country. Eleven thousand, one hundred and sixty-six more people came back into this country than left it in the last year of the Fianna Fáil Administration. In 1948, however, the year in which the miracle-workers took over, more people left the country than came into it— 12,953 persons. The Deputies of the Coalition Benches may sneer and laugh at that. It is no concern of theirs. They got the votes from the people who believed that they had a programme and a policy for curing emigration. We remember that, at the last general election, there was one group in this House that not only talked about emigration and the treachery of Fianna Fáil in regard to the question and put advertisements into the papers, but who actually got a film made on the question and circulated it within the country. There are two representatives sitting opposite to me at the moment who will remember that particular film.
It was a good film.
As Deputy Cowan, who was one of the members of that Party says, it was a good film for their purpose. It did succeed in getting nine of the 90 Clann na Poblachta candidates returned. I doubt whether the nine out of the 90 would have been returned if it had not been for that film and the idea that Clann na Poblachta were going to out-Fianna Fáil Fianna Fáil in regard to development. Their story was that Fianna Fáil had started off fairly well in economic development, that they had done their utmost to develop the country and to stand for the national rights but they were getting old and it was necessary in the post-war phase to put in the young men of Clann na Poblachta who would ginger up Fianna Fáil to get ahead with national development and the provision of reasonable employment for the young people in the country. That was the story. It was supported by advertisement, by speech, by leaflet and, as Deputy Cowan admits, by film. What has Clann na Poblachta to say to-day in regard to emigration? Are they still going to support a Government which has turned an immigration of 11,000 odd into a net emigration of nearly 13,000? Are those worms ever going to turn?
What is the alternative?
Are you looking for one now? I am glad to hear that. It will not be long before we are back.
The Party, whose Deputy Leader now asks what alternative they have, persuaded the people that they had an alternative. That is why this nine out of the 90 candidates were returned; that is why Fianna Fáil was voted from the Government benches to the Opposition. Before this debate is over to-day I should like to hear what alternative Clann na Poblachta has to the present situation. Are they ever going to stand in this House and in the Coalition Government circles for the policy which they put before the people? I will take one little instance. In concluding a vote on the Electricity Bill the other day the Minister for Industry and Commerce said, in an off-hand sort of fashion, that they were going to spend £3,000,000 on the erection of a coal-electric station here in Dublin. I believe that is a scandal. In fact, not to mince words, it is a damned outrage that in this year, the year following the emigration of 13,000 people, any Government should propose to build a coal-electric station in Dublin rather than plan to erect turf-fired electric stations on the bogs. That is no new proposition, but the men who made that proposition had to wait until Fianna Fáil was defeated in the Dáil to get away with it. How have they got away with it? It was possible for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to make that proposition because he knew he could rely on the votes of Clann na Poblachta and these other Deputies who, for a number of years, complained very bitterly about emigration, particularly from the rural areas. He knew he could also get the support in this House of Deputies who said that if the people returned them they would see to it that there would be a turf-fired electric station on every large bog in the country. What have they done? There is one turf-fired station which is now being put up and is to be seen from all over the countryside near Clonsast. If the Coalition Government lasts long enough I expect that that turf-fired electric station will be opened by the Minister for Industry and Commerce attended by the Clann na Poblachta Deputies, and it will be claimed that here is another monument to the Coalition Government. The people of Clonsast know that the planning for that station was started four or five years ago and that it had to wait till the war was over and materials became available before it could be built, that it was actually in process of building for 18 months before Fianna Fáil left office. That, I know, will not prevent Clann na Poblachta from saying: "Here is what we meant when we asked for your support during the general election."
I want to ask Clann na Poblachta now, when emigration from the rural districts is rife, whether they intend to support Fine Gael in erecting a £3,000,000 coal-fired electric station in Dublin, rather than three more turf-fired electric stations down the country. That is a question which I think they should answer before the debate concludes. Are they going to be always as meek as mice, as the Minister for Agriculture says the Labour Deputies are? Are they going to be even meeker than the Labour nice? Is there no step which Fine Gael may take which Clann na Poblachta are prepared to say no to? If there was one point in the Clann na Poblachta talk that I, personally, thoroughly approved of, it was the idea that they were going to stand behind Fianna Fáil, if they got into the Dáil, in the development of our natural resources, and particularly our turf resources. I thought that we would at least have their support in that matter against Deputy Dillon, who is now Minister for Agriculture, but the Minister for Agriculture, for a whole year, got his way with regard to turf development and it was only when Fine Gael was in a hole, when they had to buy a few Labour votes in the Dáil on the Road Fund debate, that the Minister for Agriculture finally surrendered and allowed the Coalition to proceed with the Fianna Fáil second development programme for machine-won turf, which was approved of several months before Fianna Fáil left office. In the next election, will Clann na Poblachta have nothing to boast of except what was done by Fianna Fáil?
Can you not worry about yourself?
That is what he is doing.
All I am worried about— the gentlemen of Clann na Poblachta may rest assured—is to indicate to the people who voted for Clann na Poblachta that they have let them down up to this date, and have not got the courage to stand up to the Minister for Agriculture on any question. They failed to get their way with the Minister for Agriculture in the matter of the blocking of the turf scheme until a critical vote in the Dáil persuaded the Minister for Agriculture that, even though he had said he would not be got dead on a bog, he had better change his mind. It seems to me that from now until the date of the next general election, Clann na Poblachta are going to make promises about what they will do at "Tibb's Eve in the morning," but are going to do nothing here in the House or within the Coalition circle. Not only did they let the Minister away for a year until he changed his mind for political reasons in regard to turf development, but they support him in every possible way in his particular policy of reducing employment on the land and sending more people abroad. The Minister has made no secret of the fact that he wants 20 out of every 21 to leave the farms of this country and go outside. The Minister does not feel embarrassed by the emigration of 13,000 people who went out last year. He is proud of it, and he does not have to pretend that he thinks they are postulants. Indeed, it was only the other day that he commended emigration to all adventurous spirits in the country.
And none of you left.
Deputy Fitzpatrick not only sneers at this matter of emigration but he has supported the Minister for Agriculture in a policy for the past 12 months which is going to result in very much increased emigration during the next 12 months. He supported him in increasing rates on land; he supported him in the reduction of the road grants which is going to throw roadmen out of employment; and he supported him last spring when he discouraged farmers from growing wheat. He supports him at this moment, although the alternative crop, oats, which the farmers were encouraged to grow by the Minister for Agriculture is unsaleable in many parts of the country.
Everyone in the country who takes an interest in it knows that the combination of circumstances surrounding the farmers, contributed to largely by the Minister for Agriculture, with the support of Clann na Poblachta and the Labour meek as mice men, is going to result in a very big increase in unemployment in the rural areas and inevitably will add to the numbers leaving the country. Agricultural prices have not been increased since the Minister took over, except perhaps in one case, beef; but while agricultural prices have not been increased—there were certain decreases to which I will refer later— the things the farmers bought went up in price and their outgoings in rates and in wages increased greatly. There can be only one result, and it is already happening all over the country—agricultural labourers are being let go. The farmers do not want to let them go, but they cannot see their way to pay them. They do not know exactly where the Government is going in the matter of agricultural development and they have almost given up in despair of some of the progressive speaking groups which form the Coalition ever living up to what they said when speaking to the people.
One question which I want to refer to before I forget it and which, like the turf and the coal fired electric station which is proposed in Dublin, is indicative of the trend of Coalition policy, is the trend regarding Irish of the Government, which is supported by men who criticised us for not doing enough in support of the people in the Gaeltacht or to encourage the spread of the Irish language. Let anybody who is interested in the Gaeltacht or in the development of the language look at the Book of Estimates and a certain trend is apparent in it, even if one has only time to glance through it, as I have only had time to do up to this moment. The grant for Gaeltacht services has been reduced by £20,000 in the Gaeltacht Services Vote. The grant for glass houses in the Gaeltacht has been reduced by £63,000. The Irish Place Names Commission has been reduced to ineffectiveness by a reduction of the grant by the sum of £4,650. Grants for publications in Irish have been reduced by £3,550, while the grant for Comhdháil na Náisiúnta na Gaeilge has been reduced by £4,000. Other minor savings have been made at the expense of the people in the Gaeltacht or of organisations which have as their object the promotion of the Irish language.
There may be something to be said for the reduction of one or other of these particular grants. I do not want, however, to discuss that at this stage, as we will discuss in detail when we meet them in the Estimates whether any of these reductions were advisable. A trend is noticeable to anybody who is interested in the development of the economic conditions of our people in the Gaeltacht or in the spread of the Irish language. It is noticeable that the schemes to keep people in the Gaeltacht that the Coalition Minister for Agriculture could cut down were cut down, and that the cutting of other expenditure on the development of the Irish language was dictated by the Minister for Finance or by some other member of the Government who had the same mentality as the speaker from one of the Coalition groups who talked during the last election of the teaching of Irish in the schools as "mental murder". There are one or two Deputies, however, on the opposite benches who, I think, have an affection in their hearts for the Irish language and who would like to see the people in the Gaeltacht preserved as an Irish-speaking community and to see the spread of the Irish language as the vernacular of our people. I would ask them to cease being meeker than mice with regard to the question and say to the Minister for Finance and the other members of the Coalition Government: "If you do not want to spend money on Gaeltacht glass houses, if you want to reduce the Comhdháil Náisiúnta grant by £4,000, for heaven's sake do something at any rate to keep the people in the Gaeltacht. If you do not like the Fianna Fáil schemes, produce other schemes. If you do not like the Fianna Fáil grants for Irish publications, produce some other scheme."
When the Minister for Agriculture came back here last summer with the trade agreement which had been made in Britain, he made a very weighty pronouncement which caused a lot of farmers throughout the country to throw up their hats and say "here is prosperity at last. Long may Dillon live". "The Trade Agreement," he said, "provides for the farmers of this country a sure and certain market at remunerative prices for every conceivable product the land of Ireland can produce." He said that on the 5th August, 1948, Volume 112, column 2252. But alas, the happiness of the farmers was very shortlived. They very soon found that there were not going to be remunerative prices for every conceivable crop the land could produce, that in fact there were going to be no prices at all for certain commodities for which the Minister for Agriculture himself personally guaranteed there would be remunerative prices and an absolutely sure market. "A sure and certain market," he said, "at remunerative prices for every conceivable product". They very quickly found out that that did not apply to oats. This was said on August 5th and before many weeks were out farmers came along and asked for the sure and certain market at good prices which was definitely promised in relation to oats by the Minister for Agriculture in the previous spring and his reply was "I will guarantee you no price, up or down, good or bad, remunerative or otherwise." A few deputations came along to him and after a while things got hot—the Dáil was going to meet—so the Minister for Agriculture skipped over to tell the Americans how to run their country. His great solution for world economic difficulties was to pump water from wet countries to arid regions. He left behind a deputy in the Department of Agriculture who, when Fianna Fáil put down a motion, was persuaded by certain others of the Coalition Government that he had better surrender a little bit because a by-election was coming in Donegal and the Deputy Minister promised that he was going to give 28/- a barrel for oats or 2/- a stone.
The by-election, however, passed off and the Minister for Agriculture came back from America and oats became a glut on the market. You can buy them in many places to-day, not at the fixed price of 28/- a barrel which the Government promised only a couple of months ago that they would fetch, but at less than 20/- in some places. There is a number of farmer Deputies or people who claim to speak on behalf of farmers and they are as meek as the Labour mice in regard to that question. Not only have they not opened their mouths in regard to oats, but they failed to make any representation, so far as we can see, to the Minister for Agriculture in regard to flax.
I do not want to go into the question of flax in any great detail. We know that the Minister for Agriculture was offered a price of 31/3 per stone for 4,000 tons by the Northern spinners, and later was offered 32/- for 2,000 tons. He failed to make a bargain with the Northern spinners in that regard. The farmers themselves had to take over the negotiations and they did very much worse than the Minister for Agriculture could have done at the 4,000 ton mark or the 2,000 ton mark. The principal excuse which the Minister for Agriculture gave for that was that both of the offers he got from the Northern spinners were grossly and insultingly inadequate. He said that it would be treating our people on one side of the Border as "poor peasants" if they did not get, not alone the price the Northern spinners would give them, but also the subsidy that the Northern Government were giving to the Six-County farmers. He said it was insulting for the Northern spinners to offer about the same price to our farmers—that they would be "poor peasants" unless, in addition to that, they got the subsidy which is given to the Six-County farmers, not by the spinners but by the Government.
Then the Minister, after making that pronouncement, went to Donegal and announced that the price of eggs was coming down from 3/- to 2/6 a dozen. The egg question was one on which the Minister changed his mind. The former Minister for Agriculture negotiated an agreement about the price of eggs in London in the autumn of 1947, and secured an arrangement whereby the farmers here receive 3/- a dozen for eggs instead of an average of about 4/-, which the British farmers were getting. The first reaction of Deputy Dillon, as he then was, was to denounce this agreement. Indeed, he made it one of the principal points in his election campaign in County Monaghan that it was outrageous that the Government here should take from the British Government a sum for the encouragement of egg production over and above the normal price that was given for the eggs themselves. He apologised for that, however, when he succeeded in becoming Minister for Agriculture a couple of months afterwards and, on his Estimate last year, he congratulated Deputy Smith, the former Minister, on the egg agreement. He did not say then that it was treating our farmers as "poor peasants" if they produced eggs at 3/a dozen on one side of the Border while the farmers across the Border were getting 4/-. Indeed, he still encourages farmers to produce eggs, even though they are only going to get 2/6 a dozen, 6d. less, while the British and Six-County farmers are to get more than they got last year.
How can the Minister for Agriculture say that it is treating our farmers as "poor peasants" if they do not get the price for growing flax that the Six-County growers get both from the Government and the spinners, and that t is not treating them as "poor peasants" if they only get 2/6 a dozen for eggs while the Six-County farmers are getting 4/- or 4/6, or whatever extra they will get? It is no wonder the people in the country do not know where they are. If there were somebody in the Coalition who got the votes of the farmers last year and who was determined to be a man instead of a mouse, they might know. It is only because those Deputies in the Coalition who got the farmers' votes last year are mice of even a meeker breed than the Labour Deputies, that the Minister for Agriculture can get away with that sort of nonsense.
I believe that one reason why the Minister for Agriculture does not like flax is that it gives employment to too many men per acre. It is the most arduous of all the crops. More man-hours per acre must be put into it than into any other crop. I believe the man-hours per acre that must be put into it are four or five times greater than in the case of wheat, oats, barley, potatoes or even beet. If the people continued to grow flax, or if the crop was extended, the Minister for Agriculture could not get 20 out of every 21 out of the country because they could get a job of work at home.
The Minister, however, is quite satisfied as long as he can get a price for beef across the water. He does not want to get even a better price for beef from the Continent than he can get in England. In that he has the support of the Minister for External Affairs, who, in an interview late last year with the Manchester Guardian, said that we would not send all our bullocks to the Continent even though we could get a better price, because we wanted to keep them for John Bull. For that particular statement I am sure Deputy Fitzpatrick and Deputy Cowan patted him on the back.
I am afraid you are out of touch.
If we are going to discourage farmers from growing oats, as they have been discouraged by the treatment meted out to them last year, if we are going to discourage farmers from growing flax, if we are going to give very little encouragement to the growing of wheat, there is going to be grave unemployment on the land, and the small farmers' sons, the medium farmers' sons and the agricultural labourers will have no option but to leave the country and get work elsewhere.
Side by side with the discouragement of the type of agricultural production that would keep men on the land, that requires many man-hours to produce, you have the discouragement of industrial development.
There is very little encouragement to a number of industrial workers in the town of Dundalk to stay on, if they have not a reasonable chance of getting a fair number of months in the year at the production of boots. It is known that in these last few months there has been very grievous unemployment in boot factories. There have been other cases. We know the few cases that got into the papers, but there are many others which have not got into the papers where industrial employment has been gravely reduced. The Minister for Agriculture seems to have got his way in that regard, too. The Minister for Agriculture has never made any secret that he regards industrial production here as a racket, that no one would put two stitches in a boot or put two threads together in a clothing factory unless he was a racketeer. For years he has been denouncing industrialists of all kinds as racketeers, and it looks as if he has got his way in the Coalition Government and that the Labour Party, Clann na Poblachta and others interested in industrial development are going to remain as meek as mice.
The Deputy should get a few mouse traps, to settle all these difficulties.
Unfortunately, the people did not persuade the right mice to go into the traps at this last election, but they are going to do it the next time. The Minister for Education is here now. When he was the Leader of Fine Gael, he made certain pronouncements that seem to have been departed from very much since the Coalition was formed and I would like him to give certain information in that regard.
The mice got at them, I suppose.
It is unfortunate for the Minister for Education that the mice did not eat up all the newspapers in the country. I was looking back the other day and I saw a cutting from one of them, a paper in which he made a world-shaking pronouncement, after V.E. Day, as it was called, that in the next war he was going to be an ally of Britain. Not only did the mice not eat that particular paper, but there was another paper, the Independent, reporting a speech at the Fine Gael Árd-Fheis in that autumn. In it he said that he stood for a “definite military agreement with Britain”.
Would the Deputy quote the words now?
We will get the words— a "definite military agreement with Britain", that was the heading.
What harm is there in giving the words?
I am giving the exact words—he stood for a "definite military agreement with Britain".
Like the one you had during the last war
Those words do not sound like my idiom.
They may have taken some of the effective verbs out of the Minister's sentence. All I am interested in, in this particular case, is this aspect of the Minister's speech. It is at variance with what the Minister for External Affairs says now. The people do not know very well where they stand in regard to the Coalition Government in this regard. The Minister for Education has kept absolutely mum on the matter. I see he is going to take some notes now and has made up his mind to take part in this debate. I hope that, when he does, he will explain his own and the Government's attitude on this.
The Deputy is flattering himself.
The Taoiseach, over in Canada last year—I am not going to allude to his promise to give aid to Canada if she should be attacked by a Communist State—made a certain statement that he was "speaking to them in the midst of the menacing crisis of the present day". We have seen in the papers in recent weeks that a number of nations feel the circumstances so menacing that they are prepared to throw away traditional attitudes and join in the North Atlantic Pact. We have also seen that the American Army and Air Force has been increased and we know that in England, notwithstanding the grave shortage of manpower, the stations on a Saturday night look like wartime. I have seen that even Mr. Herbert Morrison, a Minister in the British Cabinet who has no immediate responsibility for agriculture, is coming out and appealing to the farmers in Britain to grow more wheat. The Taoiseach himself admitted over in Canada that the situation was menacing. In spite of all that, what is the Government doing to enable this country to survive the menacing situation? We can debate the Defence Estimate when it comes, but one of the further reductions this year is a saving on warlike stores. If the situation is menacing, certainly the Government does not propose to take any grave steps to raise any amount of money to meet the situation and buy warlike stores while they can.
The Minister for Agriculture, instead of asking the people to grow wheat, encouraging them to grow oats, barley, potatoes and other crops, is talking a lot about the production of grass and the production of strains of cows that will give an increased milk supply five years hence. I have nothing against the growing of grass in the proper place in this country. I believe the farmers should have improved many years ago —as some of them did—the strains of grass seeds they sowed, and improved the cultivation of grass crops by liming and by harrowing and by applying phosphatic manures, and so on. Is the Government's agricultural policy to meet a menacing situation to be that we are to start in and improve grass seeds or to act now so as to improve grass ten years hence? If this menacing situation develops, what the people will want is, not grass ten years hence, but wheat, perhaps next year.
And being paid for it.
They are not being paid any more than Fianna Fáil offered them.
They are paid a bit more for wheat and barley.
They are not being paid a single penny more than the price Fianna Fáil announced in 1947 for the 1948 crop.
For barley?
They are offered a certain price for a limited amount of barley. I am going to give some of the Fianna Fáil Deputies, before they speak, an advertisement that was issued by the Minister for Agriculture in regard to barley and wheat a couple of weeks ago. He clearly pointed out that he was guaranteeing no price for other than malting barley and that the farmer who had not a contract with Messrs. Guinness or some other industrial user had no guarantee of any price for barley, good or bad.
You would not let them get the market price when it could be got.
If the situation is so very menacing that the Taoiseach thinks it is right to speak about it in Canada, surely we should do our utmost to get from our own land the things that would sustain us in such a situation or in a peaceful situation. We cannot go far wrong if we attempt to produce from our own resources the things that would sustain life either in peace or war but we will go very far wrong if we turn our agricultural energy to the production of a single crop of beef for Britain to the neglect of the cereal and other crops that would feed our people in all circumstances, and we certainly will make a very grave mistake if we deliberately render ourselves further dependent upon British coal for the production of electricity.
Every effort is being made in recent years to extend the use of electricity in all forms of production. It is a key factor in production. It is becoming more and more an absolutely vital element in the life of the community. Depending upon that source of power for turning the wheels of industry, are we to leave ourselves more and more dependent upon foreigners for the wherewithal to produce that power? Many wars have been fought over fuel. A fuel called oil was the cause of great wars and many troubles even between allies in recent years. Countries were prepared to fight wars in order to get possession of that source of power, which was particularly suited to their economy. Indeed, certain allies in the last war almost fell out, and did fall out verbally, about the control of certain sources of oil. Have we nothing to learn from the attitude of Governments in regard to sources of power? Surely, at this time of life, we should not leave ourselves dependent upon foreigners for the wherewithal to turn the wheels of industry or to put light in our houses.
It will take some time to develop water resources. It will take some years to extend the power lines to distribute electric power to most of the farms but there must be some men in the Coalition who are prepared to say to the Fine Gael Government: "We will not stand for increasing our dependence upon Britain for coal." It is not a very big thing to ask them to make the sacrifice of saying: "If the Government does not meet our wishes in this regard, we will at least do what Deputy Dunne did." Deputy Dunne was able to get his particular way, and if there are men in the Coalition who want to see our turf developed instead of increasing our dependence upon British coal, it can be done and I would appeal to them, for God's sake, to do it.
It is a pity the Deputy did not have those sentiments when he let coal into this country in 1947.
There are certain gentlemen in Fine Gael——
Do not forget, Deputy Aiken.
There are certain gentlemen in Fine Gael, lawyers, who are pretty smart alecks, and they will try to impress the nationally-minded people in the Coalition by slick arguments of that kind. It takes about five years to develop a deep bog for the production of machine-won turf.
It only takes three hours for British coal to come over here.
It takes five years to develop a sure source of fuel and, if we do not develop our own supplies of fuel, we will be dependent upon foreigners in the next crisis and we will get none, either in three hours, as Deputy O'Higgins says, or in three decades if the war continues for that time.
What did we do during the last war?
I can quite understand the Fine Gael Deputies being rather uneasy about this subject and wanting to laugh it off. During the last war we were reduced from 3,000,000 tons of coal, which was our normal importation, to 500,000 tons of slack with about 40 per cent. ash in it. Our railway transport was paralysed; our industrial production was jeopardised and greatly reduced and the comfort of our people was very vitally reduced. It may be all right for gentlemen like the Minister for Agriculture, who has the mentality of an inland shopkeeper, who knows that he will always get enough, to stand for increasing our dependence on British coal but it is not good enough for the people who persuaded the voters to vote for them in the last election on the understanding that they would develop our industrial resources, that they would develop our bogs, and that Fianna Fáil was not getting on quickly enough with the job. The Minister for Agriculture can, with a certain degree of logic, take up by the attitude that has been taken up by the Fine Gael Deputy who said we can get coal in three hours.
What I said was that within three hours you let it in in September, 1947. You cannot get away from that.
The coal in 1939 did not prevent the railway services being reduced in 1945 to one service a week in many cases. I can understand that Deputy O'Higgins wants to get over British coal and that he wants us to be dependent upon it. His particular clan wanted us to have the British King over here. If they were so fond of everything British that they wanted to take the British King over here and dump him in the Phoenix Park why not British coal also?
Send him to Kilmainham.
A Deputy
Like the Statue of Queen Victoria.
The Deputy is entitled to speak without interruption.
He has not been very interesting recently.
If Deputy Fitzpatrick is bored by the fact that he is associated with a clan that wants to bring the British King over here and keep him in the Park it is all right with me. I do not mind his being bored. However, it is a matter of general public interest that he is so associated.
Perhaps the Deputy would deal now with the present.
I do not care a hang about what they were prepared to do in the past. I am more concerned about the fact that, in spite of all that was said during the last general election, his outlook is the Fine Gael outlook— no development of turf; we can get British coal in three hours. That is the Fine Gael outlook and the Clann na Poblachta Party, in spite of what they said to the people, are as meek as mice in regard to that policy.
I challenge the Deputy to make that speech in Clonsast Bog.
What does "My dear Sir Basil" think about this?
What I want to know is what my dear Captain Cowan thinks about it? Does the honourable and gallant gentleman stand for depending upon getting British coal in three hours any time we want it?
No, I do not.
Does Captain Cowan not realise that the country upon which we are dependent in the next war for essential supplies will endeavour to write our policy? If he does not know it the majority of the people of this country know it and what disgusts them is that they do not know from day to day where the Coalition is leading them and what is going to be their attitude.
Are you talking about yourselves?
They knew where you were leading them.
A Deputy
Dundalk guns.
There are certain gentlemen who mouth a certain policy about their attitude in the next war but they are doing their damnedest to establish conditions in which we cannot sustain our policy.
A Deputy
I am afraid you are.
They want to leave us dependent upon foreigners not only for wheat but for all sources of power. If we are foolish enough to do that well then the Lord help us. It looks very much to me as if Fine Gael has made up its mind to have an election this year.
You may be perfectly assured that you need not bother about an election this year.
He is afraid.
There are certain indications that I will explain. I do not mind the assurance of the Minister for Education. The Taoiseach has the say so in this matter. But there are certain indications that would seem to me as if the Fine Gael people have in their minds that they are going to have a run for it later on. They have refused to undertake certain expenses at the present time but they are making very great promises for next year. They have in this particular Book of Estimates written down a number of Estimates below any reasonable estimate of expenditure in the coming year under certain of the sub-heads and it looks as if they are setting their cards to have a running jump for the country. In that situation Fine Gael will be all right.
How will you be fixed?
They have, for the most part, taken up an attitude and got away with it with the meek-as-mice people who follow them—the same type of attitude they had when they were in Government here for a long time.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister for Social Welfare, the Tánaiste, went to Drogheda and talked for a long time about the necessity of developing social services and of the great things he was going to do, the Minister for Finance, at some meeting in Dublin, denounced social services right, left and centre. He had no use for them. He wanted to use them as medicine and keep them in the cupboard. Not so the Minister for Social Welfare. The Minister for Finance had also a great objection to the nationalisation of services. He objects to the nationalisation of services and yet he is the Minister for Finance in a Government that has recently announced that they are going to nationalise the railway services.
That was decided in 1944.
They are going to nationalise the railways. Is the Minister for Finance going to get his way in that regard or is the Minister for Industry and Commerce going to get his? We would like somebody, on behalf of the Government, to tell us authoritatively whether the Government, in fact, mean to go ahead with the nationalisation of the railways and, if so, what was the rhyme or reason for the speech made by the Minister for Finance the other day. There are many other points on which the Ministers contradict each other. There are a number of them who have the outlook and who expressed it during the last general election, the Fianna Fáil outlook, that we should go ahead and get houses built. There are some other members of the Coalition who have the outlook that the Minister for Education had when he was Minister for Local Government, namely, that the proper thing to do is to build no houses until the costs of materials and wages fall to such a level that the houses can be built and let at an economic rent. The present Minister for Education gravely announced that in 1931 when he was Minister for Local Government.
As a matter of fact, the Fine Gael people seem to be doing very well. They have actually tainted the Minister for Local Government, who is a Labour representative in this House. The other day the Minister for Local Government made a speech, in regard to the ill-effects of increasing the house subsidy, which reminded me very much of the words of the present Minister for Education when he was Minister for Local Government. Who is going to get their way in the Coalition in regard to such a vital matter as the building of houses? The people knew where Fianna Fáil stood.
They certainly did.
A Deputy
They knew where Fianna Fáil sat.
They knew that we rejected the philosophy of the present Minister for Education when he was Minister for Local Government. They knew that we introduced the 1933 Housing Bill to give all sorts of subsidies for the building of houses. They knew that we did, in fact, succeed in getting a vast number of houses built up to the outbreak of the war. They knew that we passed the 1946 Housing Act in which house subsidies were brought up to date and increased to meet the increased post-war costs. But they have seen, since the Coalition took over, a Minister for Local Government with the same attitude as the Minister for Education had in 1931 regarding house building—they have seen him in control of house building materials.
Now, you can give lip service to the building of houses and at the same time take administrative steps to deny the people access either to grants or materials. There are a lot of people throughout the country who think that is being done, and that a saving has been made on expenditure on houses by the white tape, the red tape or the green tape that was applied in the Department of Industry and Commerce. I believe myself that a lot more could be done about the building of houses. I would ask people like Deputy Cowan whom I heard talk at the last general election, on my way back from County Louth, about how quickly Clann na Poblachta would build houses. I would ask his assistance in spurring on the Minister for Local Government to do the necessary work. Deputy Cowan, seeing that he has now got a little bit of free leg, might carry on that good work. It would probably be more important, in the present situation, if certain other gentlemen in Clann na Poblachta would live up to their promises. We hope that they will, and that, over whatever period of time the Coalition remains in office, they will increase the number of houses available for the people.
The Government are now almost 14 months in office. Therefore, I think it is up to them to give the people, in a debate of this kind, a detailed economic and financial policy for the future. If our people are to make progress, they must know what support and assistance they are going to get from the Government. If they are to make progress they must, at least, be assured that the Government are not going to throw handicaps in their way. They do not ask, for instance, that the Clann na Poblachta policy of free manures for everybody be put into operation. They do not ask them to go that far, but, at least, they ask that they should not cut down the subsidy for fertilisers by £500,000 as they are doing in this Book of Estimates. They do not ask them, as I say, for free manures for everybody, but they do ask, at least, that as much money as was spent by the miserable Fianna Fáil misers would be spent on a reduction in the price of fertilisers in the coming financial year.
The people are looking, as I say, to be protected from the ill-effects of the policy of the Minister for Agriculture by certain Deputies here who appealed throughout the country for support from the farming community. Even if the Labour Deputies are meek as mice and the Clann na Poblachta Party have become meeker than mice, there is no reason why Clann na Talmhan should follow suit. After all, a few people belonging to the Clann na Talmhan Party down the country, have got the courage of their convictions. They went along to see the Minister for Agriculture the other day in Limerick. I am quite prepared to admit that he did not give them a very good hearing, but they did talk up to him. He dismissed them from his presence by the contemptuous phrase that theirs was "silly-billy talk", and he could afford to do it because he knew that they were not going to influence his actions in any way. He was perfectly secure in the Dáil with, not only the Labour mice, but the Clann na Poblachta mice, and he knew that even the Clann na Talmhan mice would never rebel. He could give them what price he liked for milk and eggs, and he could fail to make any agreement about the flax; he knew that even despite that, the Clann na Talmhan mice were going to follow on.
A Deputy
What about the Fianna Fáil rats?
As I say, the Minister for Agriculture could dismiss people down the country by telling them to go away and not be moidering him with their "silly-billy" talk, but the Clann na Talmhan Deputies, if they made up their minds, could make the Minister for Agriculture listen. After all, a few votes one way or the other and a threat by the Clann na Talmhan people that they would withdraw support from the Government on any particular vote, would make the Minister for Agriculture toe the line.
You are there to stay.
We will stay here as long as it is a right and honourable thing to do, and we make a present to the Coalition Parties of the fruit of office. They are perfectly entitled to have it, and they can stick to it as the Deputy, who has just interrupted, sticks to his cheque, even though at the last general election he went around telling the people that he was going to give it back.
There is nothing in this Vote on Account about cheques.
Deputy Commons made that an issue at the last general election, and in this Book of Estimates we are providing more money than we need do because Deputy Commons did not live up to his promises in regard to his cheques.
The Deputy knows that is not relevant.
The Deputy should not mention promises.
The Minister for Lands slipped in along with Deputy Commons the last time, but the Minister may be perfectly certain that Deputy Commons is playing his cards so that it is the Minister who is going to go out at the next election. I want to inform the Minister that he should ask help from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, so that he will be able to defend himself because of Deputy Commons' attacks on his failure to do anything for Mayo in the Department of Lands.
What did you do when you were Minister for Lands?
There is another game going on and the Minister for Lands had better watch out. These Clann na Poblachta people talk very big on certain occasions. I know gentlemen who, having succeeded in getting into the Dáil, are as meek as mice here, but outside they are really very ferocious.
Oh, dear!
They have guns.
They are mice with teeth, and they have actually threatened to use them on the Minister for Lands.
On a point of order, what are we discussing at the moment?
Deputy Aiken knows perfectly well that what he is speaking on is not relevant to the Vote before the House.
Would it be in order to call Deputy Aiken an ass?
Deputy Aiken.
An intelligent remark.
I withdraw it.
Deputy Commons knows his oats and keeps his cheques. I was referring to the Minister for Lands. One of the Votes in the Book of Estimates for which he has responsibility is that for the Department of Forestry.
There were in the last general election, and in other elections before it, many big schemes put before the people for the development of forestry. Everybody who is interested in national development wants to see more trees planted.
Why did you not plant them?
When the Fianna Fáil administration took office they found there were something like 3,000 acres of trees being planted. They increased that area just before the war to 9,000 or 10,000 acres a year. That did not satisfy Fianna Fáil, but it was all we could do at that time. The war came and the inability to get protective netting reduced the number of acres we were anxious to plant. We hoped that with the passing of the supply difficulty there would be a big increase in our forest acreage. What do we find this year, the year after 13,000 people left the country to seek employment? We find the Department of Lands spending only £20,000 more on forestry.
It is all very well for the Minister for Lands to sneer, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of people voted for other Parties so as to put Fianna Fáil out and to get 50,000 acres planted each year. We did not plant as many acres as we would like to plant, not because we did not want to do it, but because we could not. The people put us out and put other Parties in because they believed a big scheme of afforestation was possible. The Clann na Poblachta and the Clann na Talmhan Parties, during the election, planted millions of acres with their mouths, but when it comes to providing the money to plant trees this year what do we find? They are providing a miserable £20,000 more than was provided last year and they can relate that in this way, that this is only one-third of what the Gaeltacht glasshouse scheme has been reduced by.
The voters voted for the Government Parties on the understanding that they would plant more trees than Fianna Fáil. If they are really sincere in that programme, why do not the Deputies who were so elected press the Minister for Lands to spend more money on tree planting? In the year before the war we planted almost 10,000 acres with trees.
That figure was never even approached.
We planted between 9,000 and 10,000 acres in 1937-38. We can get the exact figure quite easily.
I will give you the exact figure any time you put down a question.
There is no need to put down a question; we can give the figures to the Minister. If Clann na Poblachta Deputies ever wake up, or cease being as meek as mice, they will get these figures and they can say to their Government: "If Fianna Fáil, that reactionary, conservative and miserly Government, could plant over 9,000 acres a year, what are you doing with only 3,000 acres in one year—why do you not plant the 50,000 acres that were promised?" We hope there will be evidence, before this debate ends, that some of the Coalition groups will use their power over the Government in the same way as Deputy Dunne did. Deputy Dunne got a promise of a sum for the relief of rates for the Kulaks in County Dublin.
The "poor peasants" in Tipperary and elsewhere are as well entitled to a bit of dough as the Kulaks in County Dublin. If the Deputies who came here to represent the farmers would use their power in the same way as Deputy Dunne did, we might be able to stave off some of the disasters that will naturally follow the appointment of Deputy Dillon as Minister for Agriculture. There is no reason why Fine Gael and Deputy Dillon should get their way all the time. Deputy Dunne proved it can be otherwise. The gentlemen who made such great promises should do something, and they can do it if they will cease being as meek as mice.
It is very chivalrous of the Deputies on the Government Benches to give the Opposition so much of the time that might properly be accorded themselves. Apparently they do not consider the arguments put forward by Deputy Aiken as having very much weight. Perhaps I will be able to add a little to what the Deputy has said and I hope I will be able to induce some of the Deputies opposite to give us their opinions upon the state of the country and the policies they believe in and that they were so vocal about last year. Of course, these financial questions are rather dry. Unfortunately, figures make very little appeal to most of us and they can be used to prove, as the saying goes, a great many things. In this Book of Estimates the Government is looking for some £65.4 million. In that connection it is no harm to refer to the position that obtained last year.
Last year the Book of Estimates represented an expenditure of £70,500,000. The Minister for Finance, Deputy McGilligan, came before the Dáil and announced that he was going to make economies; he said that a great deal of the expenditure provided for in that book at that time would not in fact be undertaken. I think I am correct in saying that, taking into account the economies definitely mentioned by him in his Budget statement and those that took place during the financial year following, there was a total of about £6,750,000. If you take £6,750,000 from £70,500,000 you get an expenditure of something less than £64,000,000. That is the actual amount of money which the Minister for Finance stated then he was going to provide for Supply Services. In order to provide the necessary moneys to enable that expenditure to be undertaken he informed us that the tax revenue, which he estimated would bring in £58.9 million, would have to be increased in respect of certain commodities; an extra £450,000 upon beer, an extra £900,000 on motor vehicle duties, £250,000 upon wines and something extra upon entertainments, the whole bringing the actual expenditure which the Minister expected, I think, to £61,500,000. That was the amount he expected to receive in revenue. The amount that he expected to spend amounted to something less than £64,000,000. Instead of spending £64,000,000, according to the latest figures up to the 12th March of this year, it is some £8,000,000 less than that, or a sum of £56,000,000 instead of £64,000,000. There has been a saving of £7.3 million on the Supply Services. Therefore, instead of spending £64,000,000 upon these services we spent £7,250,000 less than that. That naturally means a considerable relief to the Minister for Finance. If he were working in circumstances of depression when revenue is not buoyant and money is not coming in he might congratulate himself on having effected these reductions. If he were working under circumstances over which he had no control he might congratulate himself upon these reductions or by the savings effected through his not having permitted certain expenditure to take place. In any case, as against an expenditure of £56,000,000 we find that the Minister has actually collected £68.6 million and not £62,000,000, as estimated. In other words, far from the Minister's estimates in regard to revenue being in any way optimistic they have been proved to be exceptionally conservative.
While, on the one hand, he is in the position that he has saved £8,000,000 provided for in the Book of Estimates he has, on the other hand, received into the coffers of the State £6.6 million more than he estimated in revenue. It would seem, therefore, that so far as finance is concerned it is scarcely necessary for us to have recourse to the methods which some of the Parties on the Government side of the House declared were necessary. The Labour Party and the Clann na Poblachta Party said that the entire credit of the State ought to be placed at the disposal of the Government and that the Government ought to carry out productive work; they held that there should be full employment; they said there was ample work to be done—productive work of national importance; they said that large scale national schemes should be commenced and, if necessary, the entire credit of the State should be hypothecated to that end. Emigration and unemployment were pointed to as being grave and serious evils—which, indeed, they were. The former Government were denounced because they were not taking sufficient measures to deal with unemployment and emigration. It was conveniently forgotten that the year 1947 was one of the most difficult in living memory. When I hear Deputy O'Higgins interrupting Deputy Aiken with regard to the coal that the Government then brought into this country my advice to him is to go and read his father's speeches, the present Minister for Defence, together with the speeches of the present Minister for Industry and Commerce made in the spring of 1947 and see there what they had to say about the fuel situation at that time. We have no apologies to offer to the Irish people for any steps we took to provide supplies of fuel or food during the year 1947. The economic situation was very serious; there was a regular blizzard raging over the economic world; agricultural production had gone down all over Europe. In America President Truman in the months of November and December, 1947, warned the United States of America and all those countries which would be influenced by the trend of events there that, on the one hand, the United States was threatened with a serious and terrible inflation and, on the other hand, with a serious and equally terrible depression which would result from that inflation. Above all, we had Communist outbreaks in Europe which made it doubtful whether the control of affairs in the Western States with old Christian heritages, such as France and Italy, was going to remain in the hands of those who upheld Christian civilisation or to pass, like some of the eastern countries had passed, under the control of those behind the Iron Curtain.
Does everybody not know what the situation was in 1947? Nobody would have been surprised if war had developed then. Nobody can say even now that war is not likely to supervene later on. With the outlook then existing, with the depression, the unemployment, the crisis in fuel supplies, the disruption in the economic life of Europe, which had been progressing favourably towards recovery in 1946, disaster might easily have occurred in the situation which you then had in Germany, France and Italy.
Is the situation any better now?
I am making my speech and the Deputy will have an opportunity of making his. I want to emphasise the fact that as against an expenditure of £64,000,000, which we were told last year the Dáil had to provide, we have had an expenditure of only £56,000,000. In so far as the reduction of taxation by millions— £10,000,000 was one of the figures mentioned—spoken of throughout the length and breadth of the country, is concerned, far from a reduction, instead of an anticipated tax revenue of £62,000,000, we have, with another fortnight of the year to go, a tax revenue of £69,000,000. If Deputies want to pretend that there has been some improvement in the situation and that that indicates a stronger and a better national financial position, I say if it does, it is due to circumstances over which neither the present Government nor the Opposition could have control—the increased amount of supplies in the world, the fact that the recovery, which was taking place in 1946 and which was held up until the end of 1947, had an opportunity of getting under way in 1948, and that goods, which had become more plentiful and begun to make their appearance in shops and wholesale places in 1947, were there to a much greater extent in 1948 so that, as everybody knows, we had approached a position in which it was no longer a seller's market incommerce but a buyer's market. The buyer was in the position that he had no longer to ask the shopkeeper for goods which he felt were under the counter; they were now upon the shelves and, being on the shelves, the demand eased off, just as the supply improved because people felt that the goods were there, and that the situation would improve.
It was unnecessary, therefore, for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to go out before last Christmas, in his campaign to try and reduce prices at all costs, to ask the public not to buy. The fact was, that the public were steadying up. Over in the United States there was a fall in prices of primary products as we are seeing in connection with wheat. Under the wheat agreement of last year and this year in particular, the price shows a considerable reduction although it has been the policy of the United States to try to maintain the price of basic commodities at such a figure as will preserve prosperity amongst their farming community and thus provide them with a stable home market for their products. The Marshall Plan, of course, has also eased the situation because of the surplus products which the United States has made available since it geared up the rate of production and the volume of employment there. It has been able to dispose of this surplus to the people of Europe, including ourselves. We have been very glad to avail of American generosity and to accept these goods, even on loan terms.
In 1947, before the full force of this blizzard had struck the world and held up recovery until 1948, the Book of Estimates issued two years ago provided for an expenditure of £64,184,000 on Supply Services. The actual expenditure according to the table at the beginning of the Book of Estimates, which Deputies have in their possession, shows that although the amount, which it was thought would be necessary was £64,000,000, in actual fact the expenditure was £58.9 millions, as against an expenditure of £56,000,000 up to the present date of this financial year. The actual amount collected was about £64,000,000, while this year the amount which the Minister seeks in the Book of Estimates is £65,000,000. The reductions that have been accomplished show clearly that these economies are due largely to an improvement in world conditions—food subsidies, for example. The provision for these is down by £3,600,000.
The cost of living, owing to the blizzard of 1947, rose sharply, having been comparatively stable for three or four years before, and showed signs of involving us in serious industrial and economic troubles. We found it necessary to provide subsidies which we certainly hoped would be of a temporary character and would pass away after the blizzard which had occasioned them. Nobody wants a policy of food subsidies to be continued if it can be got rid of but such a policy can be justified if it serves the purpose of preserving peace in industry. If subsidies mean that you are going to avoid constant trouble and repeated demands for all-round increases in wages, which in turn will have to be passed on to the consumer who, in turn in his capacity as wage or salary earner must again try to secure compensation for himself, they will obviate that inflationary spiral that all responsible Governments want to avoid at all costs.
As a result of the improvement in the fuel situation, another £1,000,000 which appeared originally in the Estimates last year for fuel had been eliminated. There was also a county council turf scheme which had involved an expenditure of £1,500,000. So that in these three items alone last year the Minister saved £6,134,000 and on minerals and turf, on which he is saving £60,000 and £40,000 respectively this year, he is able to point to the fact that he has a reduction of over £6,000,000. That £6,000,000 was, however, in great part already accounted for in the £6,750,000 that he took credit for in his list of economics in his Budget statement. Some of the other items—£75,000 agriculture subsidies: £229,000 fertilisers subsidy; provision for glasshouses, £64,000; provision for compulsory tillage, £103,000—mean an extra £450,000 on agriculture added to the £6,750,000 which I have referred to of reductions in the main on food, fuel and turf production. With regard, of course, to some of the items in the Book of Estimates last year we are not in a position yet to say to what extent the money provided has been expended. I see, for example, under the heading of fishery, provision of £90,000 was made for compensation for cod fishermen whose way of livelihood might have been abolished under the 1939 Fishery Act which came into operation early last year. So far as I know, none of that money has been spent. In the same way of the £350,000 that was provided for the farm improvements scheme only £190,000, according to a reply given in this House a week ago, has actually been expended.
I am quite sure, if one were to go through the list of all the different sub-heads representing schemes either in agriculture or in any of the other departments which would benefit the country and provide employment and help to stem this dreadful tide of emigration, one would find that for one reason or another what are termed economies have been effected under a number of them. I believe the Minister for External Affairs is stated to have given a view recently that a Government or statesmen with vision and imagination could deal with the emigration problem in a very short time. I think the figure of 24 hours was actually mentioned. I have not got the extract by me; I only go by what I have been told.
It would be better to quote the extract rather than rely on your memory.
The Minister has opportunities of showing what he can do. He is now in a more effective position than he was in before the general election of last year to show us how emigration and unemployment and so forth are going to be dealt with and effectively cured. It would be a pity not to remind the Minister, since he is here, of his attitude regarding food subsidies. According to the Minister in 1947:—
"Clann na Poblachta would provide subsidies on all food production on a sufficient scale to enable the producer to provide for himself and the agricultural worker whom he employs an adequate family wage, having regard to the present cost of living and modern requirements. The subsidies provided would be sufficient to bring about a reduction of at least 30 per cent. on the existing cost of all food produced and consumed here and should be accompained by a strict control of prices."
In that connection I am sure the Minister has seen the figures for the cost-of-living index during the past year. According to the official index number of the cost of living the figure for November, 1947, was 97 and for November, 1948, 99. Food had increased from 96 to 97 over that period; clothing had increased from 100 to 103; fuel and light had decreased from 101 to 100. In that connection, when we remember the promises that were made to control prices the Fianna Fáil Government was apparently the creature of big business. It was in alliance with the profiteers. According to some of the present Ministers it was allowing the most scandalous profiteering to go on. Those gentlemen were so dishonest—and I am afraid that epithet can still be properly applied to them— that they conveniently hid from the Irish public the fact that the circumstances of 1947 to which I have already referred were quite unusual. A blizzard struck this country and many other countries. The Minister for External Affairs went down the country talking about agricultural production having gone down and suggesting that the people who were leaving the country would be kept in employment on the land if there were a proper Government and proper administration. In the picture which they had produced over in London and which they circulated to the Irish picturegoing public they showed a rusty old plough lying idle. I hope they are satisfied with the ploughing policy they now support and that is in operation under the present Minister for Agriculture——
It is better than ever.
——and with the reports they are getting of unemployment and the dismissal of their hands by farmers who feel that they have no guarantee of security under the present policy and that it would be uneconomical of them to maintain their labourers, much as they would like to do so. We had the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste announcing to the people in the most deliberate and emphatic manner possible—they said it even after they came into office and they put it as one of the first of the ten points in their programme—that their first duty was to reduce the cost of living. From his new position on the Government Benches, the Taoiseach announced that the Government would devote its whole energies to reducing the cost of living, but in spite of the advantages they had, in this year of recovery of 1948 compared with one of the worst years in the memory of people now living, what are they able to show? The most they can claim is a trifling reduction. In respect of certain headings, the most they can show is a trifling reduction. But what about the increases in services? What about the increases in wages and how they have affected all the items which do not appear in the cost-of-living index at all?
Are you objecting to wage increases?
I am making my speech. I made it before the Deputy was here and I hope to make it after he has left. The Taoiseach announced in the most deliberate and emphatic way that the whole energies of the Government would be devoted to solving the question of the cost of living. That was the Fine Gael programme put before the people. Strict control of prices was the Labour programme. Where is the control of prices now? Nobody spoke with greater eloquence or more bitterly about this question of prices in this House during the post-war period than the present Minister for Finance. Perhaps some of the others did not understand—they thought it was good politics, that any stick was good enough to beat a Government that was in office for a comparatively long period of years and they took the easiest one— but the Minister for Finance is not in that position. Now, according to a report in the newspapers a few days ago, what does the Minister for Finance, one of the leading spokesmen of a Party which put before the people the control of prices, say about control of prices?
"He did not think it would be possible to have a real system of price control."
I always thought the Minister for Finance was a cynic. I found it very difficult to believe that he believed for one moment any of the things he said when he spoke from these benches about emigration, unemployment, the cost of living and the wrongs of people who were being given insufficient increases in their salaries and remuneration. He was talking with his tongue in his cheek. He did not believe a word of it. Perhaps, in the evening of his life, he has attained to greater responsibility and he comes forward to tell specialists in accounting, men who know all about prices, profits, profiteering and so on, that there is no way in which you can have a real system of price control. I wonder how the people who were induced to vote for the Parties who promised price control, who promised that profiteering would be dealt with and who promised that, come what may, the cost of living would come down, think about the Minister for Finance and his belief that there can be no real system of price control, or what they think of the Taoiseach's recent pronouncement that there was a slight decrease in the cost of living? Let the housewives of this country voice their opinions and they will soon make clear to the Taoiseach that, so far as they are concerned, there has not been even a slight decrease in the cost of living. The cost of living is just where it was and in the case of food, clothing and many other necessaries, in certain important items, at any rate, there have actually been increases.
According to the figures given recently in reply to Parliamentary Questions, 40,000 travel permits were issued by the Minister for External Affairs last year. That is a very interesting figure for those who, like Clann na Poblachta, might be expected to be interested in the western counties, the Irish-speaking areas, because the largest increases that have taken place in the past 12 months have taken place unfortunately in the Irish-speaking counties, the counties where Clann na Poblachta told the Irish people that they had a resurgent policy that would appeal to young Ireland, that would bring this country away from the drift and the doldrums in which it was resting under the old decrepit gentlemen who were charged at that time with the conduct of national affairs. It was to be taken in hands by a body of active, energetic, intelligent and enthusiastic young Irishmen who had their plans ready to deal with emigration.
What is the position in County Kerry? Males to the number of 1,100 got travel permits in that county in 1947, and, in 1948, 1,955 got travel permits, an increase of 76 per cent. In Donegal, the figures are 1,273 in 1947 and 1,991 in 1948, an increase of 56 per cent. For Galway, the figures are 1,420 in 1947 and 2,386 in 1948, an increase of 66 per cent. For Mayo, the figures are 1,779 in 1947 and 2,621 in 1948, an increase of almost 50 per cent. Other counties with whose general condition we do not associate emigration have moved up. Limerick had 579 travel permits in 1947, as compared with 1,370 in 1948. Clare has moved up from 280 to 675; Leitrim from 217 to 465; and Cavan from 167 to 349. When it is remembered that these people come from the class that would normally be marrying and rearing young families in this country, the true significance of these figures will be properly appreciated.
The numbers of girls who left these counties have not increased to any similar degree. There have been small increases in certain cases and some decreases, but they are very serious. The girls who applied for travel permits from Kerry in 1948 numbered 1,420; Donegal, 1,030; Galway, 1,444 and Mayo, 1,809. Taken in conjunction with the emigration of the young male population, does that mean that in fact these areas on which we depend to a large extent for the maintenance of the native-speaking Irish population are going to be depopulated? If it is the position in a Kerry school that there are only two teachers now where there were six teachers 30 years ago, what is the position going to be in ten or 15 years' time? It is well known that a large number of these emigrants who go from Kerry do not return. In other countries emigrants return even in the evening of their days but it is a well established fact that a very large proportion of our young emigrants do not return and of course particularly so in the case of those who go to America and a great part of that Kerry emigration is to America. Is it not quite evident that you will not have any youthful population or any young children coming along to fill the schools or even keep them partially occupied in these Irish-speaking districts? Not only in the Irish-speaking districts but in other areas wherever you have a community living in an out of the way place, the people feel that they have not modern amenities which they think they may have if they emigrate. Even though their conditions at home might be described as reasonably comfortable when they feel they can improve their standards of remuneration and their general standard of living they are attracted—if it is in Kerry—by America, by American letters, American visitors, American cheques and Americans paying their passage money to go.
I regret that is the position, but it is for those who now have the responsibility to stop that emigration as they promised. Some of them, like the Tánaiste, spoke of the cessation of emigration now as an excuse in dealing with unemployment. He suggested that a large proportion of the people on unemployment assistance—I think he mentioned 20 or 25 per cent.—come from these counties. Is it that these counties are not counties that elect Labour Deputies as a rule, is it because some cannot be described as industrial populations, is it because they are poor and could be regarded very often as the Cinderella areas of the country, the perpetually depressed areas, that the Tánaiste tries to get out of his responsibilities by trying to minimise the unemployment problem and by telling us that numbers from those areas form a considerable proportion of the total numbers? According to his speech on column 881 of the Dáil debates of the 3rd March, he said that 20,000 of the unemployed assistance applicants come from Kerry, Mayo, Galway and Donegal. In spite of the fact that you have this tremendous drain of emigration running into many thousands, you still have the fact that thousands more are still there, people who for one reason or another cannot get away, and they are on unemployment assistance. That is the situation which this virile and vigorous Government of vision and ideas representing young Ireland resurgent is faced with.
Deputy Aiken referred to the fact that in this Government we have not one policy but two policies. One policy is put before the people, the policy of nationalisation, nationalisation not alone of transport but of flour milling and of other industries. That is the official policy of the Irish Labour Party. Are we to assume that it is because the Irish Trade Union Congress came out and demanded nationalisation of the railways the Government took that stand? If not, what is the explanation of the Minister for Finance's extraordinary statement recently that he is against nationalisation? The price of electricity, he says, was bound to go up and the price of transport is going up. Bus fares and tram fares are to be raised in the City of Dublin and I wonder how that will effect the cost of living or will the statisticians try to prove that there is some compensation elsewhere which means more than a corresponding decrease? "The price of electricity was bound to go up." Why was the cost of electricity bound to go up? Is it because wages have gone up? Is it because legislation improving the conditions of employment of employees of the Electricity Supply Board is going through this House? Is it because certain increases have been given by the Electricity Supply Board or is it because the Electricity Supply Board as an organisation is inefficient? Of course, the Minister would not say that. He simply says that the directors themselves were not entirely satisfied about the position. Why does the Minister not ask them to improve the position? Why does he treat us to all these conundrums, all these extraordinary statements which are more like the statements of an undergraduate at a college debating society than of the Minister who is more responsible for the nation's economic affairs than any other?
"The price of electricity is bound to go up. I would object to nationalisation of services, for as long as people knew that the public purse was behind them there was a tendency to extravagance." And I say "Hear, hear" to the Minister. "There was not the test of insolvency in the background." Then further down when the Minister is denying that he has been in any way responsible for the curtailment of credit he does not give us the advantage of his opinion as Minister for Finance charged with the financial policy of the State. As to what he thinks of this policy of credit restriction he simply denies that he had at any time directed the banks to restrict further credit for the purchase of houses. He had for a year been looking for a concrete case of a man who had been told by his bank manager that he could not have an overdraft to buy a house because the Government would not allow it. He had no power to direct banks in that way and he was not even entitled to give the banks advice in the matter.
But the Minister has not given these experts whom he was addressing the benefit of his opinion or even an indication of his views as to whether curtailment of credit is a good policy, as to whether it should be carried to the extent of preventing houses being built, of throwing men out of employment, and of tying up contractors, who are mostly hard-working men, and preventing them from going ahead with their business—perhaps tying a millstone around their necks. The Minister has not told us what he thinks of that. He goes on to say:—
"This country, almost alone of the civilised countries of the world, had left control of credit with the banks."
Then we have this rather extraordinary statement, having regard to what has gone before:—
"That was something he would like to change, but it would need to be very carefully considered and not done hurriedly."
The Minister is not prepared to give his opinion about the restriction of credit being carried on by the banks at the present time. He is opposed to nationalisation. Electricity charges must go up; bus fares must go up; but apparently he thinks that steps ought to be taken to see that the control of credit is taken from the banks.
It cannot be that the Minister for Finance has swallowed the Labour bait completely. The Minister may not have meant what he said. I am a charitable man but, when he talks about the control of credit, I would remind him and the Labour Party, which stands for nationalisation, and perhaps Clann na Poblachta, so that they may understand the full implications of the nationalisation of the banks or the control of credit, or whatever you may call it, which has been carried out in other countries, of what was said in regard to this matter by a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Snowden:—
"The Labour Party seems to be obsessed by the idea that the banks can create an unlimited amount of credit. This idea arises from ignorance of the structure of credit and the true function of banking. Sound credit can only be issued against real assets and the banks can only advance loans out of their depositors' money, and they can only do that out of portion of the deposits because the greater part must be kept in a liquid or easily realisable form. The amount of credit must always be limited by the amount of free money.
The Government is the only authority that can create money out of nothing. They did it during the war with the disastrous consequences from which we are still suffering. The Government can, if it be so inclined, print any amount of paper money without any collateral backing. Germany did this after the war, with the result that currency became entirely valueless. If the banks were nationalised, they would have to be managed as they are now if their solvency was to be maintained."
Then we come to the gem of the Minister's statement dealing with the social services. It is one of the boasts of the Tánaiste that he has been able to provide a large additional sum of money for social services. We have already called attention in this House to the fact that, against the total expenditure which he claims of £2,500,000, there are very important set-offs on account of the abolition of the cash vouchers in connection with the different social services. If Deputies will look at the different Votes dealing with the expenditure under the social services, they will see that there are important set-offs. For example, under national health insurance there is a saving by reason of the abolition of these cash allowances amounting to £475,000; under the unemployment insurance there is a saving of £80,000; under unemployment assistance there is a saving of £172,000; under Vote 67, Miscellaneous Social Services, there is a saving of £65,000 on allowances in cash and £88,000 on allowances in kind; on the Old Age Pensions Vote, by reason of the termination of these cash supplements, there is a saving of £165,000, making, as far as I can calculate, a total of savings on the Votes I have mentioned of £1,045,000. The Minister, of course, also takes credit under the Windows' and Orphans' Pensions Vote for a reduction of £502,000, representing the economy he has made by reason of his refusal to continue the practice of the former Minister of paying roughly £500,000 a year into the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Fund.
The total amount spent on old age pensions in 1948-49 was £5,626,000. The total amount provided for in the present year is £6,953,000, representing an increase of £1? million. But, as I have said, when you take the set-offs, because of a reduction in cash supplements amounting to over £1,000,000, not to speak of the £500,000 saving on the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Fund, you can see that the Minister for Finance can congratulate himself that so far, at any rate, social security, if it can be so termed, is only in its initial stages. It is not costing the State very much. But the Tánaiste has promised us that we are to have a real scheme of social security. Anything that has been done within the past year is only by way of preliminary. Every year he hopes to introduce a new measure that will improve and eventually perfect the structure of social security; because, be it remembered, that when the Tánaiste is speaking of social security as Leader of the Labour Party he is not thinking of a few millions one way or the other but of a great goal in front of him.
In his election address before the general election he was not afraid or ashamed, as the saying is, to tell us that his object was the abolition of poverty. Of course the abolition of poverty will not be brought about in any reasonable time by an expenditure of £1,333,000 on the old age pensioners and off-setting against that a saving on cash supplements of more than £1,000,000 and a further saving of £500,000 which should go into the actuarial fund of the widows' and orphans' pensions. You are not going to progress very far in that way and perhaps the Tánaiste had that in view when he so emphatically told this House that he was then working upon a comprehensive scheme of social security. We were told last year, when queries were put from this side of the House about a social security plan, that it was only there in embryo; the former Minister for Social Welfare had not carried it far enough to enable it to be described as a plan. But I venture to say it will be acknowledged that he had laid the framework of the scheme. He had made a good deal of investigation. The main lines upon which he intended to proceed were laid down.
Now, more than a year after the former Minister laid down his seals of office and the Tánaiste, with these wonderful ideas of social security allied to the abolition of poverty, has been placed in charge of that responsible Department where he can have full scope for his energies to show what a vigorous, modern statesman with an up-to-date and progressive social policy can accomplish, he has told us that he is working on this comprehensive scheme. The White Paper that had been promised last year has not yet seen the light, but perhaps by the time there is a general election in the offing it will become known definitely to the public and will be advertised as one of the great things which the new Government, if returned again to office, hopes to implement.
That would be following one of your tricks.
The Minister for Finance, however, has his ideas about it. While the Tánaiste tells us that every year he must have a bigger and better bill for social services and a comprehensive scheme with the idea of the abolition of poverty finally somewhere or other in the offing, the Minister for Finance tells the Accountants' Association he wished that he could get the opinion expressed, at meetings at which social services were acclaimed as being something good, that they were not anything of the sort, that social services were necessary for those who had been unable in early life to save for their upkeep later but for the bulk of the community they were not anything to be clamoured for. If the Minister adheres to that point of view, we can say that it is in line with his former utterances, with his statement on the Budget of last year, with his arguments given in this House on previous occasions, that the social services are a badge of inferiority, of slavery, of serfdom, of charity, that you had to go back to the days of the ancient Roman Empire to find anything resembling the position you will have if you extend the social services, presumably beyond the degree which he thinks proper, having regard to our circumstances here. He argued that the people depending on those services would be as the serfs in the ancient Roman Empire. On another occasion, he told us that it would mean the servile State, where everybody has to live in fear and trembling, where his wherewithal and subsistence is depending completely on these social services.
The Taoiseach claimed recently that inflation was the enemy and that steps must be taken to prevent an inflationary situation arising. I have referred to the cost of living and the failure of the Taoiseach to implement his solemn promises and guarantees to the electorate in that regard. I see in a newspaper report, where the chairman of a well-known chain of Dublin grocery stores states that it is quite preposterous to talk of a reduction in the cost of living so long as wages continue to increase. The gentleman is careful to explain that he is not opposed to wage increases: he thinks employees ought to be treated properly. His point is that, so long as you have these increases, with the very slight margin of profit that grocers, for example, work upon—and he is the manager of one of the best capitalised, best financed and best organised establishments in Dublin, I suppose—he cannot see how the ordinary grocer could possibly carry on. If there is danger of inflation and if you are going to put all these additional moneys into circulation by way of increased remuneration, while there is any shortage of goods you are going to have increased prices, so long as the demand is there. Perhaps it was for that reason that the Minister for Industry and Commerce was warning purchasers not to buy.
We all know that the opposite to inflation is also very serious, that when the curtailment of credit comes about and when there is unemployment in factory and workshop, there is unemployment on the land very soon after, because the people have not the money to purchase the produce supplied by the agriculturist. Then you have depression. If we had not these extraordinary circumstances in the world at present and factors like the Marshall Plan, is it not quite possible that Europe would be in a very depressed state already? Every week, every month, every day, be the period short or long, economists, statesmen, financial experts do not know what is going to happen. They have to look at America. If the price of primary products remains stable there, then the world situation will probably continue to be stable; but let the price of wheat or of wool or of rubber, or the price of primary products, decline seriously and that will mean a slowing up all along the line, which will make itself felt over the whole economic field, not alone in the United States but here as well.
I think that the Deputy who spoke before me from this bench was quite right in calling the attention of the House to the fact that we must provide against a period of depression, which may very well ensue when the market is saturated and when it becomes definitely and finally a complete buyer's market. It is for the Government then to see that they operate the schemes that we left there and which it is only necessary for them to put into operation for the development, if they are in earnest, of our own natural resources. That will go some way to keeping our young people employed in the rural as well as the urban areas, and it will do something to stem emigration. Above all, whether we are faced—I hope we shall not be—with another blizzard, another depression, or whether we are faced with a crisis of a different character, we will feel glad then that, in the time at our disposal and with the advantages of more settled conditions, we got in the necessary equipment and machinery, the necessary technical advice and, if necessary, the technical men, to enable us to make ourselves more self-supporting and more independent of outside sources of supply than we were during the last war.
Deputy Aiken, as one who had intimate knowledge from the inside of the difficulties of that situation, knows that, in spite of the fact that we got off comparatively lightly in this country, it must have been a nightmare for any Minister charged with supplies or with employment or with economic questions, not to know from day to day whether the railways of the country could run, or whether the factories of the country, which were producing the absolute necessities of life which we could not get elsewhere, would have to close down.
We should not allow that situation to recur if we can possibly help it but can it be helped when we have a Government with such contradictory and conflicting opinions as I have referred to, a Government that has shown that it has so little confidence in the business community that it seems to be almost one of the chief duties of one of the Ministers at any rate to go about lecturing businessmen about their business, telling them that their business may be taken over? That is a nice preface and a nice introduction to the setting up of an industrial authority, upon which a satellite of that Minister has found a place, to tell the businessmen of this country that, if they are not more efficient, if they do not improve their methods, they may be taken over—aye, I suppose, and nationalised, if the Minister should say so and if he can get the Minister for Finance again to swallow the bait.
The opinion of the businessmen of this country was well expressed in the report of the Council of Cork Incorporated Chamber of Commerce when they were dealing with the position in 1948. According to the Irish Times report they stated, “The year provided the usual record of needless strikes, rising prices, exhaustive emigration and decreasing production.” Certain targets are laid down for agricultural production—I suppose we shall be dealing with them on another occasion—in the report for the Council of European Economic Co-operation which the Minister for External Affairs has circulated. Very little is said about industrial production. Surely it is time that the Government, with the advantages that they have under Marshall Aid, with supplies of goods freely available, with the Irish people anxious and ready to invest their money in national undertakings, with loans available, if necessary, in other countries for the purchase of essential materials, should go full steam ahead and give us some of this full employment on these national productive schemes that we heard about.
When one has regard to the position which obtained in 1947, it cannot be said that industrial production has improved very considerably having regard to the general improvement in conditions and in the availability of supplies since that date. If there is no question of finance, if the credit of the country is hypothecated to worthy schemes of production, to employment and the prevention of emigration and if matters have been taken in hand by vigorous and live administration, it is extraordinary that we cannot show greater results than have been shown up to the present.
The volume of production attained in the final quarter of 1947 was reduced in the first quarter of 1948. There was an increase in the second quarter, and in the third quarter there was a recession until it reached a figure of 130 as against 128 in November. I have not got the final figures. They are not yet available in the Trade Journal but, up to September at any rate, there had been no worth-while improvement over the general level of industrial production. I quite admit that there may have been improvement in certain branches or in certain items and there may be good reasons for the failure to improve but, at any rate, in a year which seemed to have had considerable advantages and which in Great Britain has been described in the Economic Survey which has been published recently over there as a year of definite achievement, where an export target of 50 per cent. above the 1938 level has been reached, it is ridiculous for us to pretend, if we seriously mean to increase exports and to deal with the problem of the balance of payments, that any improvement in the volume of production has been worth-while.
Lord Beveridge said on one occasion that it is not the earnings that matter; it is the productivity that you get for the money that you pay that matters. Of course, that it so. Organisations are going before the Labour Court, I understand, for the third time in recent years looking for increases. I have no doubt they have excellent cases, but it is really a pity that we are not able to see what the results are in the way of increased production. The President of the Irish Transport Workers' Union has recently recommended some scheme whereby wage differences would be smoothed out and harmony and a regular scheme of conciliation introduced into industry, cognisance being taken, at the same time, of the great problem of increasing production and the workers doing their share if the employers do theirs. That is a very welcome approach, a very understanding approach and we can all be appreciative of any efforts that are made to bring that idea into practical effect. But the Cork businessmen do not have the feelings that some of our friends on the opposite side of the House would try to make us believe about the new Government because, after the sentence which I have read where they refer to needless strikes, rising prices, exhaustive emigration and decreasing production, they went on to say:
"Our economic position gives cause for serious reflection and alarm. The advent of a new Government has brought little change so far in this precarious position."
It had existed before.
I never claimed that any of these evils did not exist before. What I object to is the dishonest arguments of people like the Deputy who pretend that they were wilfully neglected, that they were even brought into being or exaggerated by the previous Administration. What else was the meaning of the lying statement that people were being driven out of this country, made by the Minister for External Affairs, made, I am sure, by the Tánaiste, certainly made by the Minister for Local Government? They were not being driven out.
They were encouraged out by the Irish Press.
As everybody knows and as your new Commission on Emigration will tell you, the position is that even if you are comparatively prosperous, even if you are comparatively comfortable in this country, if you think you are going to improve your position, and you are a free agent, by going to London, Glasgow, Boston, New York or Johannesburg you are going to go and who is going to stop you?
They will not have tickets round their necks as they used to have.
What will they not have round their necks?
Labels.
It is a pity the Deputy has not a label round his neck. I hope he will have one at the next general election.
A Deputy
Is that for the Irish Press?
It is. I wish to read a further quotation in regard to Marshall Aid:—
"On the question of Marshall Aid, the report states that it does not appear to be realised generally that whatever we receive from the United States must be paid for. The chronic and heavy deficit in the Irish balance of payments with the United States precludes any easy assumption that this country is likely, as a consequence of the loan given under the Marshall Plan, to be in a position within a measurable period to find dollars to cover the service of the loan."
The "Truth in the News."
That quotation has been taken from the Irish Times. I know that the Deputy does not like the Irish Times recently. What is being done to encourage exports, or what policy has the Government in view to encourage foreign trade? What have been the results of these pacts we have heard so much about? They have all had the same disappointing conclusion, for those who expected much from them, as the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement. We were told by the Minister for External Affairs that a new era had been entered into in regard to this country's place in international trade affairs but we have heard very little about the practical results. No doubt we shall hear about them in the coming months, if they are there to be told of. But the point is that, as the Cork businessmen said, whatever we borrow under the Marshall Plan must be paid back some time either in dollars or goods. With the United States in the strongest position it has ever yet been in, having reached a peak of prosperity never before known in history, what steps have we taken to develop tourist traffic with the United States? What steps have we taken to sell our goods to the United States? What steps have we taken to establish contact with the businessmen of the United States? Even if we have only those of our own kith and kin in the United States they are a very considerable body and they are probably more important and wealthier and more economically sufficient than ever before. I dare say that they have a more important position to-day than ever before and that they are all anxious to help this country if they are given an opportunity to buy our products or to come and visit us. When I think of all the tommy-rot that was spoken by the gentlemen on the opposite benches when they were in opposition about the tourist trade and about luxury hotels! They were no more luxury hotels than many other hotels. Not one was specially built for that purpose. They were all buildings which were taken over as, for instance, Ballinahinch.
Was it not better that one of the chief fishing rivers in this country should be run by an Irish national institution than that it should be sold to some Englishman or continental sportsman? Do those people want these people to come in here and run our hotels? I remember reading that in the City of Venice there were 11,000 hotel bedrooms. I venture to say that we have only a proportion of that number in this whole country. Go to your new director of the Tourist Association and ask him how many thousand Americans he will be able to accommodate next fall if they come. I am sure you will be surprised at the smallness of the number. In Switzerland the idea is to take visitors for a short period, a fortnight or so, but with the tremendous hotel accommodation and thousands of rooms they can take these visitors for whatever they can spend within the fortnight and then let them go and take a fresh contingent. It is nothing to be scoffing at. I am sure that the present Minister for Industry and Commerce was surprised when he found that the revenue from the Irish tourist trade brought us in a net income of £28,000,000 in 1947.
It was better last year.
It was probably better last year, no thanks to the Deputy. It was no thanks to those on the opposite side of the House who, when they were in opposition, said it was a shame to have visitors coming into this country and eating our food. Was it not common-sense, ordinary intelligence, to sell our food to these people in a way that would bring the maximum return and the maximum amount of employment to the country rather than sell it in the way the present Minister for Agriculture is trying to sell it—and not very successfully when it is going down at the North Wall on its four feet? The report goes on to say that a considerable increase in our agricultural output and a guaranteed price with a reasonable profit for our producers are necessary. "The various surveys made of our needs under the Marshall Plan have stressed the inadequate capital investment which has long characterised our agriculture. They have shown clearly the archaic system under which it works. It would appear that since 1921 we have been looking to the stars and ignoring the plough." As I said earlier, the plough seems to be fated, under the present Minister for Agriculture, to find a resting-place in the National Museum. When our grandchildren and future generations come along and when the tractors and other mechanical equipment are ploughing up these millions of acres of reclaimed land they will ask, on seeing the plough: "What was that implement used for?" The answer will be: "Oh, that was the plough that was in use before the Minister for Agriculture started his scheme in 1948."
It was worth waiting for that speech by Deputy Derrig. It illustrates the complete poverty of constructive thought in the Fianna Fáil Party. We have heard from him an alternation between wild screaming, very hoarse shouting, and very violent criticism of the last 12 months. I am certain, however, that no Deputy who listened to him could discern in anything he said any constructive proposal so far as this country might be concerned. I should like to start by referring to a matter which was dealt with by Deputy Derrig. He followed Deputy Aiken who spent three-quarters of an hour buffooning in this Dáil.
That word is not Parliamentary.
I withdraw the word. Deputy Aiken spent three-quarters of an hour speaking in this debate and endeavouring, in a very laboured manner, to pit one Party supporting the Government against another. One of his points was that we in the Fine Gael Party were endeavouring to bring British coal into this country and to maintain its supply here and that we were doing that at the expense of turf production and he asked, by reason of that, why the members of the Labour Party and of the Clann na Poblachta Party are not very vocal in stopping us. Deputy Derrig, on the other hand, went right through the wild year of 1947 and asked if they were not great lads who bought in coal and who kept coal in this country. What is the explanation of that inconsistency? If Deputy Derrig takes credit for the fact that in 1947 the Fianna Fáil Government brought coal into this country and kept it coming in, and if he says that the international situation is menacing—that there is going to be a war at any moment— why does Deputy Aiken criticise the Government for maintaining coal supplies here? What is the explanation of that particular inconsistency? The only explanation, it seems to me, is that the Party opposite are concerned with only one thing, namely, to criticise this Government with as many voices and from as many angles as is possible. It does not matter about consistency or about constructive proposals—they just criticise them. Deputy Aiken, as I say, criticised the Government for bringing the coal in; Deputy Derring, apparently, criticises them for not doing so. That is what we get from Fianna Fáil in 1949. But the people outside, when they have regard not only to these Estimates but to the record of the Government in the last 12 months and to the proposals for taxation envisaged in these Estimates, will not, I suggest, be much concerned with what either Deputy Derrig or Deputy Aiken may say, but will remember that, in the last 12 months, there has been a considerable saving of the people's money. I know it is very easy for the Deputies opposite to make use of the phrase "the Economy axe", but, nevertheless, this will be conceded that, in the last 12 months, the sum of £6,500,000, which was the revenue expected from the emergency taxation imposed in the autumn of 1947, has been lifted off the backs of the people of this country.
At whose expense ?
I notice that Deputy Killilea asks: "At whose expense"? The £6,500,000 was to be collected on the ordinary luxuries of the working man. That is undoubtedly where it was to come from—on his bottle of stout, his packet of cigarettes and his 1/4 cinema seat.
And you gave him 2/9 cigarettes instead.
He has been relieved from having to pay that particular sum in taxation. He no longer has to foot that particular bill. That is the first thing that stands to the credit of this Government in this particular year—the saving of that sum in taxation, and not in the case of the better-off people but of the ordinary people. That is point number one. The people will realise that had Deputy Killilea's Party been in office during the past 12 months they would have had to pay that sum of £6,500,000 by way of increased prices for cigarettes, the bottle of stout and on cinema seats, but I ask Deputies to think of what they would have lost. The first particular loss the people would have felt if Fianna Fáil were still in office would be £2,500,000 less for social services. These would still be at the level they were at this time last year.
In addition, there would be an increased demand on the taxpayers while less would be given to them in return. I think the people outside will appreciate that. If Fianna Fáil were still in power, the ordinary worker going into a public house and paying an extra sum for his bottle of stout or packet of cigarettes would soon realise that all the money that was being collected from him each day was being utilised to speed a grand transatlantic airline service across the waters to America, or to keep going some of the other items of expenditure which were so dear to the heart of Deputy Killilea and the Party opposite. I have no doubt that the people appreciate the change that has taken place, and realise that, while less money is being demanded from them now, they are getting a better return for what is being spent.
But, there is considerably more to be said on behalf of the Government in respect of their first year in office. I do not want to go into this matter in any detail, but I do want to say that these Estimates give an assurance to the people that the money collected in taxation is going to be spent in such a a manner as to give a real return for it. Wasteful expenditure has been cut out. I am very glad to see we are finished with it. At the same time, the Estimates show that, where money is needed for productive purposes, more and more money will be spent on such purposes. That is a change in this country, and a change for the better.
Deputy Derrig talked about the lack of an industrial programme for the future. He mentioned that, now that Marshall Aid is becoming available and that things apparently are becoming easier, this Government should have some tremendous industrial plan and programme for the future. Now, Deputy Derrig is a member of the Party of which Deputy Lemass is apparently the Deputy Leader, and he cannot expect the people to forget the contribution that Deputy Lemass made to our planning for the future when he spoke at Fermoy within the last two weeks. This Government is planning for the future. It is planning to increase production, to enable our land and our industries not only to produce more but to employ more. The Government with that aim in view is thankful to accept any help that the New World may extend to the Old World, but the Government's task in that respect was certainly not facilitated when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition described the Government case for Marshall Aid as a dishonest and misleading document. I found it hard to be patient when listening to the speech that we had from Deputy Derrig since, while he deplored the lack of a plan and the lack of a policy, he continues to be a member of a Party in which Deputy Lemass holds a high position without in any way remonstrating with Deputy Lemass for the views he expressed on this particular matter and for his attempt in recent weeks to destroy our hopes in the matter of getting Marshall Aid.
I know that the people outside, the ordinary people, regard that speech by Deputy Lemass, since it has not been repudiated by his leader or any member of his Party, as representing Fianna Fáil policy. We may then take it that Fianna Fáil policy is to carry opposition to this Government outside this country, to carry opposition to the Government to the extent even of damaging the country. I hope that that belief, which is held not only by supporters of the Government, but also by many Fianna Fáil supporters, is not well founded and that either in this debate or soon we may get a formal repudiation by the Leader of the Opposition of every word uttered by Deputy Lemass in that particular speech. If we do not, we will realise we have a new type of Parliamentary opposition that reckons not the consequences of their opposition in terms of damage to this country; an opposition which will do anything to injure the country and which will stick at nothing in order to embarrass the Government.
I think the ordinary people realise very clearly what is going on. They realise that the opposition expressed in this House by Deputies Lemass, Aiken and Derrig, and their speeches outside the House, are merely the clamourings of a number of people who have lost their jobs and are trying to get them back, people who are not concerned about the methods they employ in so doing. In that connection I am certain that the recent antics of the Opposition have forfeited for them for all time the support of the people.
The Government's plans for the future envisage a big drive for increased production on the land and in the factories. The farmers who used to vote for Deputy Killilea, for instance, the small farmers in the west, are, I am sure, watching him and trusting that when he next makes a speech outside a churchyard he will say: "I was not supporting Deputy Lemass when he was trying to stop Dillon's reclamation scheme." I hope when Deputy Killilea next meets his constituents he will have some apology to make for his continued membership of Fianna Fáil.
I listened with interest to another matter dealt with by Deputy Derrig. He worked himself into a white heat of indignation because of emigration from Kerry, Mayo and other counties, particularly within the past 12 months. One would imagine that Deputy Derrig was speaking for the first time in this House and as the newest of all the new Deputies, that he was never a member of the last Government and was never associated previously with Fianna Fáil. Unfortunately for him, there are people who can remember the view expressed by his Party in those great glad days of 1931, which Deputy Killilea will probably remember, when under a Fianna Fáil Government they would have to send ships all over the world to bring back Irishmen, as there would not be enough at home to take over all the jobs that would be provided. That was at one time the view of Fianna Fáil, but the people know that during the past 16 years, as a result of Fianna Fáil administration, a new form of emigration was set up—emigration to England. That particular trend became evident because of Fianna Fáil's lack of attention to this problem.
Such emigration as we have had in this country during the past 12 months was due directly to the policy which Deputy Derrig helped to put into force in this country. There is no one on these benches who will even attempt to be complacent about emigration. There are none of us who will be happy until emigration ceases. I am sure that particular view is held by most Deputies in this House. It seems to me to be very unreasonable for a former Minister like Deputy Derrig to talk as if emigration started in February, 1948. The miracle is that by reason of the policy of Deputy Derrig's Government more people did not leave this country.
Deputy Derrig spoke about the cost of living. He suggested that this Government have not fulfilled their assurances about the cost of living. I would like to remind him that this Government, in their first four weeks of office, reduced the cost of living of the ordinary people to the extent of £6,500,000. The Government brought about a reduction in the price of the simple luxuries of the people. That is something you cannot get away from.
By how much did you lower the cost of living?
Deputy Derrig was anxious to confine his remarks to the particular commodities dealt with in the cost-of-living index. In talking about the cost of living no Deputy, least of all an Opposition Deputy, should confine his remarks in that respect to the particular commodities that go to make up that particular index. There are other things which go to make up the cost of living for the ordinary man and woman. One of the things is undoubtedly the simple pleasures and luxuries which they enjoy.
In the first four weeks of our Government that particular aspect of the cost of living of the ordinary man and woman was considerably reduced. In the months that followed certain positive steps were taken by the Government which resulted in a further decrease in the cost of living. Had Fianna Fáil remained in power I am convinced that a further tenure of office by that Party would have resulted in a still further increase in the cost of living. Considerably increased money was put into circulation by the present Government for the benefit of those in need of social services. Wage increases were granted during the first 12 months, not merely to the lower paid employees but also to the civil servants.
Including 10/- a week to the farm labourer.
The Minister for Agriculture reminds me that there was a substantial increase in the wages of the farm labourer. Despite all that, we find that even the limited cost-of-living index referred to by Deputy Derrig has fallen during the last 12 months. I regard that as an amazing achievement. Scarcely had I taken my seat in this House before I heard Deputy MacEntee, Deputy Lemass and other former Ministers telling this Government that they could not carry through their policy of increasing social services and, at the same time, reducing taxation. Time and time again that particular challenge was thrown down by the Opposition in February, 1948. These Estimates show that the impossible, in Fianna Fáil language, has been accomplished.
Hear, hear!
Increased social services have been brought into operation in the last 12 months. Taxation has been reduced. The cost of living has been reduced. Most fair minded Deputies and the majority of the people outside would, I think, give the Government a clap on the back for the work they have accomplished in the last 12 months.
Most of us who are used to listening to the last speaker would not be surprised at any type of speech he would make or at anything he would say or try to uphold because he is after all recognised as being one of the key men of the present Government, whose principal task it is to try to keep together all the Parties that help to form this makeshift Government. We have heard a good deal about the so-called considerable saving and the £6,500,000.
And another £6,000,000 this year.
Deputy O'Higgins has talked about the £6,500,000 that was saved last year. We have heard about the cheaper "smokes"; we have heard about the cheaper stout and the cheaper cinema seats. I wonder if the ordinary man in the street were consulted about the cheaper "smokes" would he agree that he has had his year's smoking—the year's smoking that he would have had even at the increased price which Fianna Fáil put on cigarettes. Is Deputy O'Higgins a smoker? Does he not know that one could not get a cigarette in this country for more than one week out of four in any month in the last 12 months?
Do not talk nonsense.
Does he not know that one of his own Ministers told this House that he did not know why the cigarettes were disappearing, although he knew they were disappearing?
Combustion is the answer.
That is the sort of tripe we get from Deputy O'Higgins. Let us come down now to examine this question of the saving of £6,500,000. Deputy O'Higgins wanted to know what type of speeches I make when I go around the country. It is not exactly what I say when I go around the country that counts; what is important is the position one finds in the different areas one visits. Are the people better off to-day than they were before the present Government took office?
Hear, hear !
Is there more money in circulation ? Is there less emigration? Are there more people in employment? "Hear, hear" the Minister for Agriculture says. Has the Minister heard the figures given to us quite recently regarding emigration? Does he know that emigration is higher now than it has been for many years ?
Not for the ten years from 1936.
Does the Minister know the number who are registered in the unemployment exchanges to-day? Does he know that they are greater now than they were before? It is "Hear, hear" from the Minister and from the yes-men who sit behind him.
What about the number who are employed?
They are the people who sit there and help the Government to have thousands of young men in this country thrown out of employment by the reduction in the road grants in this particular year.
What was the figure for last year ?
The people I blame for that are the people in the Labour Party—the yes-men behind the Minister and the people in the Clann na Talmhan Party.
And Clann na Poblachta.
Clann na Poblachta are a thing of the past. They were the greatest weed that ever grew up and the best thing to do with them is to let them disappear.
They gave you a bit of trouble down in Galway.
None in the world. I had the honour of heading the poll in North Galway and wiping them out. I had the honour of making them lose their deposits.
Now the thread of his discourse is lost.
This is not relevant and it is undesirable.
I cannot help it if there are continual interruptions. When we talk about reductions we must ask ourselves who were the people who were hit hardest by the reductions brought about by the present Government and by a Minister for Finance whose outlook is very well known to many of us. His outlook on unemployment appears on the records of this House and he is reminded time and time again of the statements he made in the past. But no matter what statements he makes now he will have the Fine Gael yes-men behind him together with the other yes-men who help to form the present Government. The reduction of the £6,500,000 last year fell, as far as I can understand, mainly upon the agricultural community which the Clann na Talmhan Party claims to represent. We had a provision last year in the Estimates for the improvement of farm buildings.
What about houses?
If Deputy Rooney wants to make a speech he can make it. There is plenty of time. As I have said, money was provided for the improvement of farm buildings. There is no Deputy sitting on the opposite side who does not know, just as well as Deputies on this side, that that is one of the schemes on which money should have been expended, even at an earlier time than last year, if money could be provided for such schemes. That scheme, as well as the scheme under which money was being provided for silos, for the erection of gate pillars——
Do not pillars for gates come under the farm improvements scheme ?
I am talking generally about farm improvements, I am talking of all the things you dropped.
They were all separate, somehow.
I am talking of the things you dropped.
The farm improvements scheme was not dropped.
Was the scheme whereby the erection of silos——
And pigsties.
The Deputy is now getting down to details, whereas the debate is confined to general policy. If the Deputy would link up these details with general policy, he would be in order.
I am endeavouring to connect these details with general policy. Even under the Farm Improvements Scheme, the money that was being provided by the people's Government for the erection of silos and gatepillars was stopped. All these schemes were dropped.
You are quite wrong.
I know a number of people who made application for grants and they have not got a shilling yet, although their applications have been in for over 12 months. It is from that end that I criticise the policy of the Government, as well, of course, from the point of view of the men who are thrown out of employment by the closing down of the turf schemes. I was amazed recently to hear a member of Clann na Talmhan refer to the turf provided during the emergency as the "muck dumped in Dublin" but "the muck dumped in Dublin" was the means of providing fire for the people of Dublin when no other fuel was available. I do not know why the heat should have left it when the present Government came into office. The turf apparently decided to give no more heat when the present Government took office. When we complained to the present Minister for Agriculture that certain farmers in the country were stuck with a surplus of oats his answer was: "Oh, well, thatch it." He did not say that he would provide money for poison to try to keep the rats away and now we have arrived at the stage when the oats must be threshed or must the farmers thatch it again and keep it for another year?
Unless you are too lazy to feed it.
There is also the question of the surplus potatoes still on our hands. When I asked the Minister a supplementary question here recently in connection with the disposal of ware potatoes, he simply told us: "Oh, well, get a couple more sows and a couple more cows and feed them to them." I tried to point out to the Minister that it was not easy for the small farmer with ten or 12 acres of land, who had taken con-acre year by year, perhaps to the extent of eight or nine acres, and who grew potatoes on portion of it and oats on the rest of it, to dispose of his surplus produce in that way. He took the con-acre for the purpose, in the first case, of producing seed potatoes and then he had to get a market for his ware potatoes. He could not keep four or five sows and five or six cows because he had not the accommodation for them and it is no harm that the Minister should realise that. What is going to be done to relieve him of the produce that is now left on his hands?
Could he not keep a couple of pigs?
Does the Minister think that he has not been doing that up to the present? Is the Minister for Agriculture so far removed from realities that he does not know that these farmers generally kept a couple of pigs? In the vast majority of cases the small type of farmer also kept a sow and a couple of cows but he has no accommodation for keeping any additional stock.
I thought the Deputy said a moment ago that they did not keep pigs.
I did not, but I say that they have a surplus of potatoes on their hands now, even though they have been keeping pigs.
I sold 50,000 tons of potatoes.
You sold 50,000 which we now understand are going to be handed over to the alcohol factories.
A Deputy
You were paid for them.
I do not mind that; we find that he sold them to the alcohol factories, but the type of farmer to whom I am referring will not benefit by that. He never benefited by anything the present Minister did, nor is he going to benefit from anything the Minister proposes to do in the future.
That is a surprising thing for the Deputy to say.
There is nothing surprising about this particular Minister. I listened to the Minister telling the women of this country what they should do to produce poultry, but when the agreement made by the previous Minister expired, and when the present Minister started to make a muddle of the egg business, we find that the price of eggs dropped by 6d. a dozen, or 10d. a score.
The Deputy is quite mistaken. My predecessor's agreement would not have elapsed for another 12 months and eggs would have fallen to 20/- under his agreement.
The Minister can make his own speech later on. I can tell the Minister that I go around the country and I hear comments on these things. The Minister's fairy tales are not going to get him out of the difficulty in which he finds himself at the moment. He has made a complete mess of agriculture and he is putting his foot deeper into the mess day after day. He is unfortunately pulling the country deeper with him into the mess and he is making no effort to try to get out of it. I was not deceived by the Minister's policy because I know the type of individual he is. I know he is out for the production of grass and that he is trying to get this country back into grass. I know there are hundreds of small farmers who, until he came into office were able to make some sort of livelihood by taking con-acre but now, of course, when con-acre is no longer available, the only thing facing them is to take the boat in the near future and to follow the rest of the boys who have had to look for employment outside the country.
One thing the Minister might have kept his fingers off was the question of artificial manures. Again, I find that the subsidies have been taken away. Does the Minister think that he is going to help the production of more food in that way?
We brought down the price of "super".
Do you mean to tell me that the price has been lowered?
It is cheaper than it was.
By how much?
6d. a cwt.
I hope you are proved to be right, but up to the present, anyhow, it is not sold at that price in any of the shops I know.
Does the Deputy know that the sugar company is selling it at that price?
I know the sugar company but the sugar company are not able to supply all the people in the country.
The Deputy ought to know they have a good deal. I hope the Deputy is spreading the good news.
I will spread the good news and will do everything I possibly can but not in the same way the Minister tried to kill the particular industry he is now trying to boost. I am glad he realises that the sugar industry is a valuable one. I wish he would make some little effort to try and encourage the farmers to produce a little more beet.
We are not doing so badly.
No, you are not.
Production has risen in the past year and is rising.
One of the things that local authorities were faced with all over the country this year was the fact that they had been handling peat schemes. A number of people were thrown out of employment and preference was supposed to be given to those displaced bog workers in any other schemes that would be starting up. What did we find? When it came to the question of experienced gangers being appointed by the Board of Works the essential qualifications required were not to be a displaced bog worker or a displaced county council worker or even, at a later stage when the Land Commission workers were thrown out of employment, to be an experienced Land Commission ganger. You had to be a member of a certain political organisation.
That is a matter which can arise on the Estimate proper but it does not arise on the Vote on Account.
I think it is part of administration. If it is not, I am certainly mistaken.
There is no detail of the Estimates on this Vote. There are details on the Estimate to deal with that matter. The Deputy can raise that on the proper Estimate.
I do not intend to detain the House any longer. The few things I wanted to say I have got off my chest. I only hope and trust that those Parties who have been supporting the Fine Gael Government since it took office will try and realise that the country is not as prosperous as they think it is. If they travel the country they will find that out. If they travel in the cities they will find out from any persons in business at this particular moment that money is not in circulation. Figures, of course, are there to show that unemployment is greater than it has been for a very long time and that the emigrant ships that were to be got out of the country are still coming and are getting a good load as quickly as they can. If it was not for the barriers in the way of people getting out to other countries they would be emigrating more numerously than at the moment. We remember that everyone of those Parties across there had a way of solving unemployment overnight. Any solitary Party who would have the guts to stand up and say to the Government: "If you are not prepared to do something to help us in the promises we made to the people, in this one problem anyhow, we will have to leave you," it would make the smiling, grinning Minister for Agriculture and the rest of the smiling, grinning Ministers who sit along those Front Benches wake up and realise that this country is not as happy and prosperous as they imagine. It is not the fault of the Ministers not to know that the country is not going on so well. It is the fault of the people sitting at the back just acting as henchmen and yes-men, who are not prepared to state facts as they see them from day to day.
This Estimate shows that the policy of squandermania which seemed to progress every year in the recent times when Fianna Fáil was in office has been arrested. One of the first things which the Minister for Finance did when he came into office was to take steps which would ensure a reduction of £6,500,000 in taxation for the needy classes of Irish people. Now we find him putting forward a Book of Estimates showing an Estimate of another £6,000,000 less. In other words, in less than 14 months the Minister for Finance has succeeded in reducing taxation by almost £12,500,000. The prophecy of gloom and doom for Ireland which we heard so much about before the Government came into office has not been fulfilled. If anybody wants to know whether the Government policy is successful or not ask the people. I believe that, taken all over, the Government policy has been a progressive one and not a negative one as has been suggested by speakers opposite. The most important thing the Government has done in its short period of office is to put agriculture on its feet. The main industry of this country certainly deteriorated year after year while the Fianna Fáil Party was in office. They set their faces against agriculture from the very day they went into office; firstly, by declaring or putting into effect the disastrous economic was which, in cash, cost us something like £400,000,000.
I am not going to allow the Deputy to go back.
I want to say that we, as a Government, have adopted a different attitude towards agriculture in the past year from that shown towards agiculture by the previous Government. The main industry is now finding its rightful place at the head of all other industries and getting the best possible attention which our Government could give it, realising that prosperity in rural Ireland will give general prosperity to the community. The farmers themselves are good judges of a favourable Government and there are very few farmers to-day, besides those who might complain about their misfortune as far as cash for oats and potatoes is concerned, who cannot say that their position has improved and that the income being derived from the land has increased.
That is right with regard to oats.
The oats position has definitely directly been caused by Fianna Fáil policy. The position was that the farmers found it was not worth their while to grow oats. Then they found the land of the country not capable of producing a decent crop of wheat, and when a scarcity price was available for oats in that particular year, naturally most farmers concluded that it would pay them better to grow oats than wheat. The result was that they did grow oats instead of wheat and we then had a greater quantity of oats than in any year during the past 16 years.
Coal seemed to worry Deputy Aiken to a great extent, but he was very glad to take British coal when the Coal-Cattle Pact was concluded, at a time when his Government were not favourably disposed towards our greatest customer, the British market, about which they have so often laughed. The live-stock population, when the Coalition Government came into office, was found to be the lowest in recorded history. The population was never as low in the last 100 years, which showed that the live-stock population was being killed by Fianna Fáil policy. We find the opposite now—a scarcity and a ready demand for all young calves, the products of our dairies. We do not find the farmers inclined to discard their calves now rather than to feed them and there is a ready market for them at a good price. This, together with the ordinary cash which comes from milk production, adds to the revenue which the farmer can calculate in relation to each cow in the herd.
An indication of the progress which has come about in the dairying industry during the past year is the increase in the number of milk producers. No matter what is said, no man will go into a business to suffer a loss. If he sees that he will make a profit from a business, he will go into that business, and when we find a greater number of registered milk producers in 1948 than in any previous year, it is quite obvious that the farmers are going into the dairying business.
The Limerick farmers certainly seemed to be pleased during the week.
The wheat price will also encourage our farmers to produce cereals without compulsion. They see a guaranteed market and a higher price for Irish wheat than ever before. I believe that the highest price should have been made available to them when the element of compulsion existed. Again the Minister has attempted to get a good price for malting barley, for the greatest possible amount of malting barley, notwithstanding that the world market price of barley is falling sharply. That is the direct opposite of the policy of the former Government who nailed down barley prices to ensure that Messrs. Guinness could reap a good profit.
It was the Beet Growers' Association which fixed that price. Is the Deputy asleep?
Maybe I am asleep, but I was wide awake when barley prices were nailed down and Messrs. Guinness were travelling to the four corners, of the earth paying 89/- a barrel for barley when the Irish farmers were not allowed to get any more than 40/-.
It was the Beet Growers' Association fixed it.
It does not matter who fixed it. The farmers could not get the price.
Was it the Beet Growers' Association tied them down to the bad price in years gone by?
Why did the Deputy let the Beet Growers' Association do that? It was Fianna Fáil policy, because they could have interfered to ensure that the farmers got a fair crack of the whip at a time when Messrs. Guinness had to go outside for barley, when our farmers had plenty of barley to offer and were ready to take a good price, if they got it. The Minister has also encouraged pig production by his policy. Before he came into office, the pig population was almost non-existent and in fact, at Christmas, 1947, the best the Fianna Fáil Government could do was to allow 40 per cent. of the 1939 quota, whereas the present Minister succeeded in giving the people 96 per cent. of the 1939 quota last Christmas.
In what way and by what means? What did he do in order to bring that about?
By the policy he pursued.
A policy will not produce a pig.
Is this a catechism class?
In addition, the ordinary man who had to do without his rasher while the late Government held office is now able to go into the shops and buy bacon, and there is no doubt that there would not be a pig left if we had not had a Coalition Government and a new Minister. The poultry industry to which Deputy Killilea has referred was in such a bad way that the previous Minister had to go to London to beg a loan of £1,350,000 in order to develop the industry, the loan to be spread over a period of three years.
That is not the way your Minister put it.
It was found that the industry was getting on its feet so rapidly when the present Minister came into office that the British Minister of Food had to come over here to express his concern that he was subsidising Irish egg production to the extent of 6d. per dozen and that the grant of £1,350,000 which he expected to last for three years would last only 12 months or two years. The result was that the Minister for Agriculture succeeded in concluding a better agreement with the British Minister of Food than heretofore existed. Deputy Killilea, if he has the confidence of the former Minister, will know that, when 31st January next year would have been reached, the British Ministry of Food would have paid 1/8 per dozen for Irish eggs. The present Minister went across and, realising that a quantity of eggs would be produced here next year which would cause prices to fall considerably, concluded a new agreement which ensured that, as from 31st January next, the producers would get 2/6 per dozen. In other words, he has ensured that the Irish producers will get——
As from when ?
As from 31st January next.
Not from to-day ?
Deputy Rooney is in possession.
I am giving the Deputy facts which, if he does not stop reading the Irish Press, he will never know.
On a point of order. Is there any Minister here who can tell me whether the price of eggs has dropped by 10d. per score or 6d. per dozen since yesterday ?
There are three Ministers who can tell you to keep order.
Does the Deputy suggest that that is a point of order ?
It is a point of truth anyway.
No matter what the price of eggs is at the present time, it has not been reduced by Ministerial Order and people are entitled to get any price they like for eggs.
When the Coalition Government came into office we found that the soil of Ireland had deteriorated and the Minister has very wisely arranged to put into effect a reclamation policy that will ensure that the fertility of the soil will be considerably increased. I am not going to blame the late Government for the state the soil was in as a result of the war years, but I must say that as a result of the attitude they adopted before that towards agriculture and the industry in general the state of the land was as it was found.
When we came into office we also found a glasshouse scheme about which there is so much talk. That glasshouse scheme was intended to give a monopoly to Irish producers.
I did not think we were discussing the policy of the previous Government.
I was not discussing policy at all.
The Deputy was discussing policy five years old.
I am discussing glasshouses.
Suppose you discuss the last 12 months' policy.
Am I not entitled to discuss glasshouses?
The Deputy could discuss expenditure for 12 months.
A Deputy
Give him a chance.
Am I entitled to discuss policy for the last 12 months?
All right.
We found that the fishing industry had got very little attention and that inshore fishermen seemed to be at the mercy of a protected monopoly. Many of our inshore fishermen had very bad boats which certainly had not been replaced in a number of years to enable them to compete with the trawlers.
As a good guide to the Deputy and to other Deputies matters which are relative to the Estimates should be discussed now. The condition of the boats is a matter which does not arise on the Estimates.
Another example of the difficulties which agriculture found itself in was that in 1948 there were 10,000 registered tractors in Ireland whereas the compulsory tillage campaign had to be faced with 1,000 tractors. Considering the amount of work they were required compulsorily to do, it could not be contended that they were properly equipped to meet the task. They certainly lost a wonderful opportunity to recover the losses they suffered in previous years.
Deputy Killilea complained that the farm buildings scheme did not go ahead, but he will agree that the housing position in Ireland is very bad and that if we were to give concrete and building materials for the purpose of erecting gate piers and other things on farms naturally those materials would not be available for the the urgent provision of houses. Luxury building was also stopped and instead the erection of subsidy houses and houses by local authorities was encouraged. It cannot be contended that the housing policy is not going full steam ahead. In County Dublin at the present time 11,000 houses are in the course of erection, whereas only 7,000 houses were erected in the past eight years. That shows that the Government is providing for the needs of the people as far as County Dublin is concerned. Rural dwellers at the present time are living in houses erected from sods and tarbarrels and anything that will shelter them and it cannot be said that that is a Christian state of affairs.
The health programme as pursued by the Minister for Health has ensured the provision of an extra 1,000 beds for tuberculosis sufferers besides making a certain allowance to them to obviate the financial worries with which they are usually confronted.
Turf, coal and timber are stacked up there in the Park at the present time and the Government is blamed because they did not continue to bring fuel into the Park. Deputy Lemass boasted that there were 10 years' supplies of fuel in the Park on the 18th February last year, and surely it is not expected that we should continue giving employment for the purpose of bringing these fuels into the Park when in fact we cannot encourage the people of Dublin to burn them after the experience they had and after the quantities of wet and inferior turf they were required to burn during the emergency years. It must be agreed that they are entitled to get whatever class of fuel they most require provided that the purchase of it is in the national interests.
Why were Deputies opposite complaining about emigration and the fact that emigration exists? The figures for emigration in 1947 were not very great, but let us look at the average figures for the years 1936-1946. We find that they were 18,000 per annum, whilst now all the noise is about 12,000 emigrants for 1948. We cannot stop people from emigrating if they so desire. It will be argued that we ought to bring up the standard of living in this country to a level that will discourage emigration, but even if we do bring the standard up to that level we still cannot stop people from emigrating if they desire to do so and if they are prompted by the spirit of adventure to travel elsewhere. A small number of missionaries were included in that emigration figure for 1948 which were greater than in 1947 owing to the fact that they had difficulty in travelling to other countries then which they did not encounter in 1948 as world conditions had improved.
We hear Opposition Deputies speaking about unemployment, but I would like to remind them that looking back at that great year of peace, 1938, which we take as an example of a year of peace and happiness, we find that there were 108,000 people on the unemployment register so that I cannot see, if the number has not reached that figure now, why it could be contended that things are worse in 1949 than they were in 1938. The people themselves are good judges and I feel that they know that conditions are better this year than they were in 1938. There is a good future for industry and our Minister for Industry and Commerce has certainly encouraged industrialists to go ahead with their plans and proceed with the arrangements they have made. There was an attempt made to create a certain amount of uncertainty amongst them as to the future, but the Minister has shown that he is prepared to support every industry worthy of support. The industrial employment figures for 1948 are greater than for the previous year, which shows that the encouragement which has been extended to industries has brought people into employment. There are more factories in the course of erection at present than in any year for the last 12 years. That is a good omen for Irish industry.
I think it was Deputy Derrig who complained about the Dublin bus fares going up. Every Deputy knows that the transport system has been showing a loss of £1,000,000 a year in recent times. I should like to remind the Dublin people that they voted solidly for the 1944 Bill which has brought about this state of affairs. If they are not satisfied with conditions as they are, they must remember that they, by their votes, brought about the present condition of affairs so far as transport is concerned as that matter was made an election issue in 1944.
Aviation seems to have been stabilised to a considerable extent by the wise and careful policy of the Minister and the revenue figures seem to justify the encouragement of aviation in this country. The transatlantic service was abandoned last year. That has been proved to have been a very wise move on the part of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, as the people who were expected to provide the money for the purpose of running the Constellations which would be used would have to do so in the form of a tax on cigarettes, beer and cinemas.
The cost of living seems to be giving Opposition Deputies a certain amount of trouble. But when it is considered that there is a slight reduction in the cost-of-living figure, notwithstanding the fact that wages have been increased twice in the past 12 months, it must be agreed that the Government have succeeded in pegging down the cost of living while at the same time relieving the position by permitting rises in the wage levels of classes who needed that little extra to enable them to meet the cost of living.
The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has provided a great number of telephones during the last year, more telephones than were installed in any one year before. That shows that the people are beginning to avail of this service to a greater extent. The Minister's speedy provision of the service is bringing valuable revenue to the State. It will enable the Post Office to pay a better standard of wages to its officials as well as giving a better service to the public. I am satisfied that Government policy as displayed during the past 12 months is a progressive one and we shall be glad to be guided in our efforts to improve conditions for the people by the helpful criticism and co-operation of Opposition Deputies.
I knew that members of the Government and of the Parties supporting them were beautiful but, as it was so difficult to get them to take part in the debate until Deputy O'Higgins spoke. I thought they were dumb also. When Deputy Rooney spoke, I began to revert to my original opinion. Listening to the debate this evening, it seemed to me that Deputy Rooney had installed himself as the official interrupter, the comic turn. I began to wonder whether he was the official jester of the Government or whether each Party has a jester with cap and bells. It is surprising that when Deputies sitting beside each other make speeches they do not try to correlate what they say. Deputy O'Higgins admitted that the cost of living has not gone down; Deputy Rooney suggested that it has. Deputy O'Higgins, however, suggested that the cost-of-living index figure was not a sufficient indication of what the actual cost of living is. and that is true. I wonder how the increase in rates has affected the cost of living?
I should like to ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce a question which he might answer. I shall try to keep within the limits of order but. if I were to pursue the Government speakers down the various lines they have travelled, I am afraid I would be out of order. However, I want to ask the Minister a question about something that I cannot find in the Estimates. The Minister for Industry and Commerce recently made a statement that there were many people in this country who were afraid to voice their religious or political opinions while Fianna Fáil were in power. Now, of course, they have freedom of speech and freedom of opinion also. Is there in any portion of the Estimates provision made for money which will keep the peace and allow these people to continue to hold their opinions? Deputy O'Higgins talked about the vile criticism of the Government, carried on by Fianna Fáil. It seems to me that he should be quite flattered, for imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. If ever there was vile criticism of any Government in any Parliament, it was surely here when Fine Gael were on these benches. Not merely the back benchers but every Minister of the present Government, used the vilest expressions of criticism against the Fianna Fáil Government that could be utilised by anyone.
The Minister for Agriculture, who was here a moment ago, used to insist that the Fianna Fáil Government were the most corrupt Government in the world and he was well supported in that statement by the present Minister for Finance. When the Minister for Finance was answering any question in regard to that corruption of Fianna Fáil, I was the corrupt person, as when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, I appointed a man as manager of a labour exchange—and Deputy McGilligan made that the chief point of the Fianna Fáil régime of corruption. There are many things I could say about appointments since the present Government came into power, but I will not. I am not the type of man that likes to hurt anybody and I will not say anything about some of the men who were appointed, though I could damn well say it.
What I am concerned with principally in this debate—in which we have been warned very strictly about keeping within the limits of order—is, assuming that collective responsibility still obtains, whether I would get some information from the Minister for Finance in regard to forestry. I have not been able to get it from the Minister for Lands. I am tremendously interested in forestry and I believe in the value of it. I believe that the Fianna Fáil policy was not sufficiently strong towards forestry, although if we got as far as the 10,000 acres we would have been better than we were. The Minister for External Affairs and his Party wanted 1,000,000 acres in five years; Clann na Talmhan wanted 60,000 acres every year; and apparently the Government policy is 25,000 acres every year. I wish that they could produce it; I hope they can produce it and any help I can give to them to produce it I will give it to them. I pointed out in a debate on forestry that the great difficulty was to get suitable land. Deputies may not be aware of forestry developments in this country or they may not have been sufficiently interested or taken sufficient care to inform themselves in the matter. In 1933-34, Fianna Fáil spent on land as much money as was spent in any average year from 1922 onwards on the whole of forestry.
On a point of order, a Chinn Chomhairle, I wanted to speak about 1932 also.
I am not discussing foreign policy.
I agree with Deputy Rooney.
Sorry, Sir; shall I say on one occasion in one year?
The Deputy will have an opportunity on the Estimates to deal with forestry in detail.
Well, in this year £25,000 is allocated to the purchase of land for forestry, as against four and a half times that much in 1935-36. The amount allocated for the whole of the work in 1949 is £454,370, while last year it was £427,115. Now, £25,000 of last year's Estimate remained unspent. There was £20,000 last year for the purchase of land and only £8,000 was spent.
£8,000 was voted.
Look up the Estimate for 1948.
The Deputy was talking about last year.
Well, in relation to this year, £25,000 is in this year's Book. Eight thousand pounds for last year is in this year's Book, but £20,000 was voted. The result was that only about 3,500 acres of land was purchased this year and in the case of all the land that was purchased this year, the purchase was initiated while Fianna Fáil was in office. We have no information as to what possibility there is of getting land next year. There is no possibility of putting the 25,000 acre programme into operation with the amount that is allocated for the purchase of land this year. I would like the Minister to allocate a further sum for the purpose of trying to plant what is now called unplantable land. I believe that forestry is a vital adjunct to agriculture and that there is no good in carrying out arterial drainage work unless it is combined with forestry. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance realised that when Clann na Talmhan had the idea of growing 60,000 acres per annum of forestry.
Another thing I cannot discover in the Book of Estimates is the provision for payment of this Industrial Authority that is being set up. I presume that provision has been made and I would like to know from the Minister exactly what this body is going to do. Is it going to go into industry itself, is it going to direct industrialists into the channels of work needed, is it going to provide plans? What exactly is its function? Are we to understand that, somewhere in the Estimates, is included also a sum for the payment of the five commissions on agriculture recommended by Mr. Holmes?
Somebody said during the debate that the Tánaiste, speaking very loudly before he became Minister, said that it was his purpose to abolish poverty, to perfect the sorry scheme of things by way of legislation. When the Minister is replying, I would like him to relate his speech, in which he deprecated the idea of a too great insistence on social services, with the Tánaiste's speech on the same subject. Has it been definitely settled that we are to reclaim, drain and rehabilitate four million acres of land? Is any money provided in the Estimates for this purpose? If we are to employ 50,000 labourers per annum on this reclamation scheme, what are the wages to be paid? At an expenditure of £5,000,000 per annum, one can pay £2 per week to 50,000 labourers. It would be interesting to the Labour Party particularly to know what they are to be paid. I think that particular scheme is all bluff and one of the wildest schemes ever designed by any madman and that the Minister for Finance knows it and will put his foot down when the time comes.
Now that the Deputy has sat down, may I say it is not in the Estimates?
Deputy Moylan in his opening remarks on this Vote referred to the former criticism by members of the Government when they were on the Opposition Benches. He suggested that imitation was the sincerest form of flattery. For a considerable time I have noticed that the members of the Government Parties are in another respect imitating the members of this Party when they were the Government Party and that is in their blind loyalty to their Party. They stand by their Party, right or wrong. Personally, I do not object to that because there is such a thing as Party loyalty.
I want to remind the members of the Government Parties that they were very voluble on occasion in referring to the members of the former Government Party as merely a pack of yes-men. Yes-men, or loyal members of a Party —I do not care what they are called— are entitled—in fact it is their duty— to stand by and support the Government which they are behind and there again is another example of imitation being the sincerest form of flattery. The more we change the more we are the same. That applies to a very large extent to the general operation of the Government and the Parties supporting them.
There are many aspects of this Vote on Account which could be discussed. I do not intend to discuss very many of them but there are a couple of points in the Vote which appear to me to be rather extraordinary. In Vote 10 I notice an item, 226—Cenotaph re-Vote. There £11,000 is being voted out of a total sum of £13,000, apparently for the erection of a cenotaph on Leinster Lawn to commemorate the memory of Michael Collins and Arthur Griffith.
Does the Deputy consider that is a general question of policy?
I consider that it arises out of this Vote on Account and that I am entitled to refer to it.
It is more an item for discussion on the Estimates.
But it does indicate policy, Sir, when there is another item in contrast with that.
That is exactly what I want to refer to. I am not objecting to this re-Vote. I am merely making the point that £11,000 is earmarked in this Estimate while a Vote for £23,000 which was earmarked for a Garden of Remembrance, a Garden of Remembrance which you, Sir, will remember was to be established on Parnell Square—a spot that was made sacred by the presence in the years before 1916 of the leaders of the Irish Volunteers and the men of the Dublin Brigade who blazed the trail in Easter Week appears as a token Vote of £10 which means, in effect, that no action is going to be taken in respect to the Garden of Remembrance which would commemorate the memory of the men who led the Insurrection of Easter Week. At the same time, there is a re-Vote of £11,000 for the cenotaph to commemorate the memory of two individuals.
There are a number of items in this Vote on Account to which it would be possible to refer. However, I am more interested in the position which is developing in respect of the defence of this country rather than to many of the other points which are included in this Vote on Account. The sum for the defence services is cut by something like £800,000. I am not going to fall into the error of suggesting that that £800,000 odd is being taken out of this year's Estimate, because last year Army expenditure was reduced by, I think, £744,282. That saving was, we were told, brought about by reducing the purchases of warlike stores and also by deferring the training of the Army reserves.
Everybody who is interested in the affairs of this State will, I am sure, feel perturbed in regard to the policy of the present Government in respect of the Defence Forces of this State. The strength of the Army on the 1st January, 1948, was 8,531, all ranks. In the course of the discussion on the Defence Estimate I made a reference to the fact that in my opinion the strength of the Army had deteriorated to a figure which was probably the lowest on record. I may say that while I have to accept the Minister's figures when he gives them to me, I was more than astonished, many months after the 1st January, when the Defence Estimate was being discussed, when he informed me that the strength of the Defence Forces was 8,000 odd. For some months previous to the 1st January I was well aware of the fact that there was a general exodus from the Army of something like 200 or 250 men per month, and that recruitment at that time was not only going full steam ahead but that a great recruiting campaign had been established and was in operation. Recruits were coming in and in that way the strength of the Army was more or less being maintained. When the exodus would have been stopped the general inflow, we hoped, would have brought the Defence Forces in time up to the figures which the Government had authorised the Minister for Defence to bring the Army to. In view of that exodus which was going on, I repeat that I was more than astonished to find that in accordance with the figures which the Minister gave this House the strength of the Army was still, to all intents and purposes, the same. As I say, I have to accept the Minister's figures but there was a parade on last St. Patrick's Day of some sections of the Defence Forces and it was plainly apparent to the public that were it not for the presence of the Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil that parade would not have been possible at all. I have heard comments from many sources, comments which were coloured with deep regret, on the fact that the Defence Forces had deteriorated to the state that it was only possible to carry out a ceremony, such as the St. Patrick's Day parade demanded, by reason of the presence of the voluntary forces of this State.
There is another aspect of the question which struck me as peculiar, namely, that the Taoiseach, on a rather historic occasion, made a suggestion that this nation would, in certain circumstances, be prepared to go to the aid of Canada. Yet, only the other day, I saw in the public press that the Defence Estimate in respect to the Canadian Defence Forces had been increased by 50 per cent. That is a rather significant state of affairs—that while our Army is disappearing and while our Defence Estimates are decreasing, the people to whose aid we were to go in certain circumstances are increasing their Estimate by 50 per cent. I can well imagine what the Canadians would say about that state of affairs if by any chance they should find that the situation in respect to our Defence Forces is, in fact, what it is. The Minister for Defence, when he was over on this side of the House, was one of the most vitriolic attackers of Government policy, especially in respect to defence. He was like a nagging wife in his continuous demand for a defence policy and while I, on many occasions, told him what our policy was—it was a simple policy; to have an Army of a certain strength upon which we could build a greater Army in times of stress or danger—he, nevertheless, carried out his campaign of calumny against myself and against the Defence Forces.
I remember that when one of the Ministers in the North of Ireland made an attack on the Defence Forces down here the Minister for Defence made a spirited defence of them. But what surprised me very much was the fact that Mr. Warnock's attack on the Defence Forces of this State was made possible only by the criticism of the Minister for Defence himself when he was a member of the Opposition. Mr. Warnock, the Northern Ireland Minister of Home Affairs, was stated to have said that as far as war is concerned, Éire's two or three motorboats, her two or three antique aircraft, her insignificant, ill-equipped and ill-trained Army would have no effect on western military strength. It was to that statement that the Minister for Defence made what I would describe as a spirited defence of the Defence Forces. In his reply he said: "Our Army, Navy and Air Force may be small, but to refer to our Defence Forces as being `ill-equipped and illtrained', is an example of prejudiced offensiveness without foundation. Our equipment is the best that Britain can supply. Our training syllabus and courses are similar to those elsewhere, and the thoroughness of our training, the competence of our instructors and the efficiency of our troops have received the very highest commendations from servicemen from those countries which can properly claim to be experienced and competent to judge." At least, the Minister for Defence was justified in making that defence of the Defence Forces against the attack by Mr. Warnock.
The only astonishing thing about that is that if any person who is interested desires to go over the debates on the Defence Estimates which took place in this House he will see there that criticism of a very similar type emanated from the present Minister for Defence when he was a member of the Opposition Party. Many Deputies will recollect how he described the small naval service which we established, and had at our disposal, as being "rubber ducks." How then can we blame Mr. Warnock or any person who wishes, similarly, to criticise our Defence Forces or our equipment, when a member of this House used language of a similar type?
The present Minister for Finance on one occasion suggested that I was talking about using that naval service for the purpose of defending the shores of this country. Of course, I never said such a thing. The main purpose of the naval service during the last emergency was to patrol our coast as far as it lay within the power of that service to ensure that the coast, or portions of the coast that might be suitable, would not be utilised by the naval services of any of the belligerents. That was the only purpose that the naval service had, apart from helping, as far as lay within its power, to protect our fishing industry.
If we are to have a defence policy in this State, the time is surely now. We had a very fine Defence Force during the emergency. It is my considered opinion that the presence of that strong Defence Force ensured not only the neutrality of this country but also the safety of our people. I would not like to see any future Government being compelled to face the situation which the last Government had to face at the beginning of that emergency. Indeed, were it not for the presence during that period of the large number of volunteers, established by Deputy Aiken when he was Minister for Defence, the training and the equipping of that great emergency force would have been much more difficult than it turned out to be, even in those years.
We had a great recruiting campaign, as most Deputies will remember. The Leaders of all Parties in the House assisted in the establishment of that great force. Men were recruited into it who had no idea, or at least a very elementary idea, of the requirements of a soldier, and so it was necessary for the military authorities to begin right from the beginning and turn these raw levies into the highly trained soldiers which they eventually became. But it took a period of more than two years to bring that efficiency about. I do not want to see any other Government faced with the same terrible responsibility, because I can hardly imagine that any future Government will be given the amount of time that, luckily, we were given during that period.
I think that if we are to have anything in the nature of a Defence Force, now is the time for the Government to take its courage in its hands and set about establishing a force upon which a great emergency force can, in a very short time, be built. Every person knows that the cost of a Defence Force, the cost of an Army, is the premium which a nation has to pay for its security. Unfortunately, an Army has always been looked up and is regarded as being a non-productive unit, and perhaps it is because it is a non-productive unit that it is not regarded in the same responsible way as other Departments are. Any expense in respect of the Army and Defence Force is frowned upon and is taboo; it gets very little encouragement from the Department of Finance. But the Government is the controlling body; it is the Executive Authority, and if the Government policy is to ensure that the premium, to which I have referred, must be paid, then it will be paid, and it was paid during that great emergency.
I have a clear recollection of the views expressed here by members of the then Opposition Party in respect of expenditure on State forces. The general trend was that anyhow we could not defend ourselves; if we were invaded we could do very little about it. We were told there was little we could do when we had not a navy of our own; we would have to depend on the nation that had a great navy. That should not be the policy of a people desiring to be free and to exercise the liberty so hardly won by men of this race over generations. Now is the time to establish the nucleus of an army on which future Defence Forces can be built. We are living in rather precarious times. None of us can say when the present uneasy peace may be broken. If by any chance the present situation should blow up, we will be relying upon the loyalty and patriotism of the people of this nation to respond again in the same magnificent manner as they responded in 1939. But however magnificent that response may be, they can only be regarded as raw levies and, as such, they will be of little value for a considerable period. The position then will arise that we cannot provide the necessary protection for ourselves and the situation is created automatically where one or other of the belligerents will come in to give us the protection we are unable to give ourselves.
There was a word bandied about this House recently as regards criticism which came from these benches. On numerous occasions members of the Government Party shouted "sabotage" across the floor in response to genuine criticism levelled at some form of Government policy. The denuding of the armed forces of this nation is going dangerously near to sabotaging the hard-won liberty which we hold. That is not a situation that should be allowed to develop. It should be brought to an end immediately by reestablishing the very modest policy which the last Government was endeavouring to operate—the formation of an Army of 12,500 men. It was never suggested that 12,500 men could in any respect be regarded as capable of defending the rights and liberties of this nation; but they would be the nucleus upon which could be built forces which could eventually be depended upon to defend this country.
I am pretty certain that so far as England is concerned she would not be anxious to invade this country if we could afford protection for ourselves and the vital protection so necessary to herself. Naturally, it would be vital to England that this country should not be occupied by a hostile force. If such were to happen, the very existence of England would be jeopardised. I have no doubt that in the recent emergency the question of invading this country was carefully considered and if they were satisfied that we were in a position to defend this country against invasion by some foreign power, that would be a safeguard from invasion at least by England. If any such attempt were made by some foreign power, then naturally we would be at war and probably we would become an ally of the British Empire and we would at least be in a position to defend this nation with our own forces. That in itself would ensure the saving of a vast amount of money to the British Empire and it would involve us in the expense which would arise in giving ourselves protection.
I see another item in the Vote on Account. It is also a token Vote for the Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúl, for the erection of halls. It appears to me to mean that the Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúl, the old L.D.F., will not get the halls for which the last administration was to make provision.
The Estimates will come on later and items of that nature are then discussed. The House confines itself to general policy on the Vote on Account.
I am merely regarding it as an item which more or less defines Government policy. What it suggests to me is that Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúl will be left without the halls which are so vitally necessary if they are to carry on the training and the preparation in order to become effective in respect of their own profession.
There was only £10 in the Vote last year for this.
That is so.
We are just not spending as much.
There is an answer to that, of course.
What is it?
The answer is that we had secured Governmental authority for the expenditure of a certain sum of money.
Oh, no.
Allow me—but the fact was that the building materials were not available and would not be available and, because they were not available and would not be available, the token sum of £10 was put in.
There was no estimate for the work.
I am going to presume that the situation in respect of building materials has eased just as the situation has eased in other phases of life. I know, for instance, that to-day the cost of wheat has gone down considerably. I think it is now at the lowest figure it has ever reached since the outbreak of war. If that is so then that is another trend favourable to the present Government. In 1947 the price of wheat had actually reached the highest figure it ever reached during our period of office.
In fact, one purchase went terribly high.
£52 per ton.
I would like to make an appeal to the Government because it is to the Government that an appeal on this Vote can be made. I would appeal to the Government to recruit an army sufficient to enable the policy of defence to be given its proper place. I would appeal to the Government to maintain a small marine service to patrol our territorial waters; not a force to go into conflict with other navies, as was suggested by Deputies on the Government Benches, but merely to patrol our waters in order to imbue interested countries with the idea that we are in earnest, so far as it is possible for us to be in earnest, in respect of protecting our own liberties and ensuring that our territory will not be made available to any foreign power. The coast-watching service which we had during the emergency did a very valuable and very useful work. It was able to give early information of the presence of hostile seacraft in the vicinity of our coast; on many occasions we received information of the presence of submarines and so forth.
The L.D.F. was always on its toes watching out for the presence of aircraft. These are small matters to which consideration should be given and to which men's minds should turn. We would like to see the continuation of fixed artillery posts around our coast. These would be an indication that we were sincere in the protection of our own freedom and the ensuring of our country not being used as a means or basis of attack upon any other country. It is doubtful at the present time if we have even sufficient troops to protect our airfields. There are other vital points that would require protection apart from our airfields. It is because of the reduced state of our Army at the moment that I make this appeal in respect of the establishment of a strong nucleus around which we can build a future army so that the defence authorities will not find themselves faced again with a situation similar to that which existed in 1939-40.
I take it it is in order on this Vote to review briefly the achievements and the work done by this Government in just over 12 months of office. I have listened to some of the speeches made by the Opposition to-day. One thing that must strike anyone who listened to the Opposition Deputies in the course of the last general election is the extraordinary change of ground that has taken place. During the course of the general election, which led to the defeat of the Fianna Fáil Government and the foundation of the inter-Party Government, all of us remember that the electorate were solemnly warned by the Leader of Fianna Fáil that if they had the audacity to turn Fianna Fáil out of office this country was doomed and that the country would be doomed before the inter-Party Government met its first Budget. We had similar speeches from the leading members of the Opposition Party.
Old age pensioners and others were warned, either directly from the platform or through a campaign of whispering propaganda, that if Fianna Fáil were turned out of office old age pensions would be stopped, widows' and orphans' pensions would be stopped and the blind pensions would be stopped. At every cross-roads meeting and on every fair day every time a Fianna Fáil spokesman opened his mouth the farming community were told that they were getting good prices because Fianna Fáil were in office. We had Fianna Fáil propagandists telling us that if Fianna Fáil were turned out of office the people would go hungry and cold. Even to-day we had Deputy Derrig endeavouring to defend the actions of the Fianna Fáil Government in the year 1947 in relation to fuel and coal.
You wanted to buy a coal mine.
I shall deal with coal in a few minutes.
Listen to him. It is always educational.
A coal mine in Wales
I would like to give Deputy MacEntee a preview of some of the matters with which I propose to deal. I have a number of his favourite clippings here in front of me. We had Deputy Derrig to-day making a belated apology for Fianna Fáil policy in relation to fuel in the year 1947. We had him indulging in the most extraordinary verbal contortions in an effort to convince himself, if not anybody else, that any reduction in taxation which had taken place was due more to accident than to any deliberate effort on the part of this Government.
That particular argument struck me as being very sharply to be contrasted with the line of propaganda pursued by Deputies opposite for practically 12 months and pursued in a very brazen way by their Party organ the Irish Press. I think everyone in the country now has heard the phrase, “the McGilligan axe”. There was an effort made by Deputies opposite to convince the people of this country that this Government was out for economy purely for the sake of economy, that it was going to lash all round it, to cause unemployment with one thing or another, merely because it wanted to save money. Deputy Derrig admitted this afternoon that money has been saved. I wonder would Deputy MacEntee, before he speaks, read Deputy Derrig's speech? I think if he does, he will find that either Deputy Derrig is on the wrong line to-day or else the whole of the Fianna Fáil Party have been on the wrong line for a considerable time past, because the whole argument put up to-day was that anything in the nature of savings or economies effected by this Government was to be attributed to a particular turn of events—the lowering of prices, greater freedom for purchasers, the fact that there was a buyer's market rather than a seller's market—and that whatever happened the Minister for Finance was not to get any credit for any economies effected.
Of course the reason for that change of ground is perfectly obvious. Deputies opposite have for 12 months been endeavouring to convince themselves, and to convince the people, that this Government was falling down on the job and that in so far as they had promised to reduce taxation, and to cut wasteful expenditure they were not doing that. The fact of course is—and it is reflected in the Book of Estimates —that the Government has reduced taxation and that it has managed to reduce taxation despite the fact that before it was a full month in office, it had to eliminate the penal taxes imposed by the Fianna Fáil Government in the Supplementary Budget on beer, tobacco and cinema seats, making the people a present on close to £6,000,000 which Fianna Fáil were endeavouring to levy from them. We were criticised at the time the Government took the decision to remit those taxes. Deputy Lemass and a number of other Deputies on the opposite benches criticised the Government for doing so. We were told that if the Government handed back that money to the people, or if they refrained from levying it on the people, we would again be faced with gloom and despair. No less than I think a month ago, we had Deputy MacEntee bursting into print in the columns of the Evening Mail to tell the citizens of Dublin that the inter-Party Government were all wrong, that they had sold themselves to the publicans——
So they did.
——and that if Deputy MacEntee and the Fianna Fáil Government were ever returned to power, the people of this country must look forward to having these taxes reimposed.
That was not said.
That was not said but if it was not said, it is inherent in the Fianna Fáil attitude, if they are any way honest about it. I should like to take this opportunity now, with the author sitting opposite me, to ask Deputy MacEntee if Fianna Fáil were returned to power would they reimpose the taxes on beer, tobacco and entertainments? That is a fair question.
He will not answer.
The Deputy can hold his breath to cool his porridge.
That is a perfectly fair question. The particular Deputy to whom I have been referring has been very open in his pronouncements, in his condemnation of the action of this Government in removing these taxes. The only conclusion that can be drawn from that is that he disapproves of the Government's action in that connection. We are all aware, of course, that Deputy MacEntee is himself an ex-Minister for Finance. In fact, he is a Deputy who has moved in and out through various Government Departments with amazing rapidity. At one time, at any rate, he occupied the Ministry of Finance. I do not know whether it would be correct to assume from that that he knows something about finance. However, I am prepared to assume that he does and I think it is only right that when a public man, a man who has held Ministerial office for 16 years, who has, as I say, been in and out of different Ministerial Departments, adopts a particular line of policy like that, and when he criticises the action of his successors in relation to a matter which affected the people of this country no matter how they live, no matter what walk of life they came from, I think it is perfectly fair to ask him what he would do if he had the chance again. Does his condemnation of the action of this Government mean that Fianna Fáil would reimpose these taxes or would impose even heavier taxation, but as a minimum would reimpose the taxes on beer, tobacco and cinema seats? I doubt if I can get an answer to that extent from Deputy MacEntee or any of the Deputies opposite. A fair conclusion to be drawn, the conclusion that I intend to draw and the conclusion that the ordinary people of this country will draw from the particular type of propaganda that we have been meeting in that respect, is that they would.
When this Government came into office just a year ago they were faced with a great number of problems. I pointed out in this House before, and I want to take this opportunity to point it out again, that amongst the most grievous of these problems were those which existed in the Department of Industry and Commerce, that many of the obstacles which were put in the way of this Government and many of the muddles which they had to clear up, were born under the administration of Deputy Lemass. I wonder if the people of this country even yet appreciate the magnitude of the problems which confronted this Government and which they have solved to a great extent—some of them, at any rate, and others with which they are grappling at the moment. A topical subject at present is the question of Córas Iompair Éireann. In 1943 and 1944 the legislation which set up Córas Iompair Éireann was passed. It was passed in this House. It was endorsed by the country on the foot of promises made by the Minister of Fianna Fáil Government who was responsible for it, Deputy Lemass. One of the inducements held out to this House and to the people of the country as to why Córas Iompair Éireann should be set up was that it was was going to provide efficient and cheap transport for the country. That was the big item in its favour. This Government had hardly been installed when it became quite apparent that far from getting cheap transport under Córas Iompair Éireann the transport charges were going to be increased.
I have a clear recollection, although I cannot quote him just at the moment, of Deputy Lemass standing up in this House and arguing as to why the transport charges should be increased. I think the figures of the Córas Iompair Éireann losses in 1947 were approximately £1,000,000 and in the year 1948 they were about £1,400,000. That was under a system of transport set up in this country by Fianna Fáil, and proclaimed in advance by them as the total sum of the Fianna Fáil transport policy—all the ideas which they had on transport policy—which was to give the people cheap and efficient transport. Córas Iompair Éireann is one of the Fianna Fáil muddles which it left to this Government to solve. I think it is only fair to the present Minister for Industry and Commerce that it should be made quite manifest to the people that any increases in transport charges which are now taking place are due to the fact that Fianna Fáil muddled their transport policy and the transport of this country.
Deputy Derrig, as I mentioned earlier, dealt at some length with the fuel situation. Fuel is another word that Fianna Fáil should be very slow about mentioning. We in Dublin saw the two extremes of Fianna Fáil fuel policy. I do not know that "policy" is the correct term to describe what happened with regard to fuel under Fianna Fáil. Certainly one winter, which happened to be the harshest and severest winter that the people of this city had for a great number of years, we found that we could not get fuel for love or money anywhere in the City of Dublin. Fianna Fáil had made no provision at all to see that the fires of the Dublin citizens were kept burning. When the horse had gone Deputy MacEntee and his colleagues used all their weight to close the stable door.
Was that not when the Deputy wanted to buy a coal mine in Wales?
A Deputy
It would have been better in Phoenix Park.
I think, as a matter of fact, Deputy MacEntee is getting a little bit confused. That does not surprise me. I do not think it surprises anyone.
If it was not the Deputy it was another distinguished member of the Party.
Deputy MacEntee may try as hard as he likes but he is not going to get me off fuel for the next few minutes. In the year 1947 when the people of the country as a whole were left shivering without any adequate fuel supply I think I am correct in saying that we not only had a Minister for Industry and Commerce but we had a Minister for Supplies as well, a Minister whose duty it was to see that the people of this country were adequately supplied with at least the necessaries of life. Any of us who can remember that winter will agree that fuel should have been one of the primary interests of the Government at the time. However, when that winter came there was no fuel of any description to be burned in Dublin and it was not an uncommon thing to hear of people burning portions of their furniture in order to keep warm. The following year when the damage was done Fianna Fáil woke up. They remembered that there had been some fuss about the fuel situation and that perhaps they had better do something about it. They did something about it to such an extent that when the Government was changed a year ago Deputy Lemass was able to stand up in the benches opposite and tell the new Minister for Industry and Commerce that he now had ten years' supply of fuel in the Phoenix Park. In other words, inside a short year, with the lesson of the year before in front of them, Fianna Fáil went to the very opposite extreme and from absolute want we got more than plenty not only for a year, two years or three years, which might, I think, have been an adequate reserve for any city, but we got a supply of fuel piled up to skyscraper heights in the Phoenix Park sufficient to last for ten years. Despite the fact that that amount of fuel was in the Phoenix Park, when this Government took over office, the fuel was still pouring into the Phoenix Park at a cost of, I think, £40,000 a week to the taxpayers of this country. If that was not an example of the grossest waste and extravagance I could not think of what the terms waste and extravagance mean. We had the turf going in, we had wood going in and we had the extravagant purchase of coal from America and Africa. The fuel situation which existed when this Government took over can more than correctly be described as a muddle. It was another of the legacies which Fianna Fáil left the new Government to deal with.
I should like to mention, also, for the purpose of reminding Deputies of the situation created by Fianna Fáil and the difficulties which were left to the new administration to solve, the question of wheat purchases. I wonder whether the people of this country even yet appreciate the significance of the brilliant purchase made by Deputy Lemass two days before he went out of office. I think most of us, in this House at any rate, are now aware of the salient features of that particular purchase. Remember that the Government changed on the 18th February, 1948. It was only a week before that even every half-wit in the country knew that the Government was going to change. They knew that Fianna Fáil were going out of office.
Mr. Boland
The election was not over at that time.
No one knew that better than the Fianna Fáil Ministers — Deputies Lemass and Boland.
You had not yet bought Deputy Everett.
Progress reported. Committee to sit again.