Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 29 Mar 1949

Vol. 114 No. 12

Committee on Finance. - Vote on Account—Debate Resumed.

In my long association with my native City of Limerick I have never known unemployment to increase to such an enormous extent as it has increased during the past year. It is a menace to the members of the Government who stated, when soliciting the votes of the people, that if elected they would cure unemployment in 24 hours. A number of citizens in Limerick have told me that their trade has decreased very considerably during the past 12 months. Increases in valuations, up to 300 per cent., and increased rates have placed a burden on the people that is unbearable.

The housing problem in Limerick City is as large in proportion to the population there as it is in Dublin City. The ambitious housing programme of the Limerick Corporation cannot, I fear, be carried out if the Minister will not increase the housing subsidy by 100 per cent. The Minister recently met the Mayor, the City Manager and Deputies representing Limerick City, and the City Manager put up an undisputed case for an increase of 100 per cent. in the subsidy.

I hope the Minister for Industry and Commerce will consider a pension scheme for Electricity Supply Board employees equal to the local authorities' scheme. He must be aware that they are paying 5/10d. towards a miserable 30/- pension.

I also appeal to the Minister for Social Welfare to consider invalids and cripples from the point of view of a pension in his comprehensive scheme. There are not so many of them to be considered and they should not always be regarded as a burden on the rates.

This lengthy debate has been very revealing in so far as those of us who are new to the House have had an opportunity of learning the minds of Deputies who, heretofore, were noted for their remarkable secrecy in the matter of their convictions, political and economic. I was a very interested listener the other evening during the discussion on this Vote when my colleague, Deputy Burke of the Fianna Fáil Party, was pontificating at considerable length upon the misdeeds of the present Government. There was one point which he might very well have left alone because of the range of this Vote. thought that a Deputy of his sensitivity would have had more sense than to raise the question of housing in County Dublin. He spoke of the lack of housing progress, as he put it, under the present Government. Deputy Burke is not, of course, a member of the local authority. He is, therefore, merely on the fringe of activities so far as housing is concerned. He could not be expected to be as conversant with the problem as are those of us who carry the responsibilities of the local authority upon our shoulders. During ten long, dreary years only 14 labourers' cottages were built in County Dublin. It is estimated at the present moment that by the middle of next April there will be 1,000 labourers' cottages under construction in County Dublin. It would appear to me that Deputy Burke had very little information in his possession when he spoke about housing. He was certainly not conversant with the facts.

I am one who is not given either temperamentally or otherwise to the denial of the rights of criticism. I reserve to myself very strongly the right to criticise any measure with which I disagree whether it be carried through by this Government or by anybody else. With regard to the problem of housing I say emphatically that the policy of the present Government is as good a policy as could be implemented by any Government holding office at the present time. The housing programme is being pushed with the utmost rigour by the Minister for Local Government. Since his advent to office housing has taken on an urgency and an importance that it never previously had. It has been tackled with an energy noticeably absent in bygone years. Now, there is undoubtedly a tremendous problem still outstanding but those of us who are concerned with the removal of this dreadful social evil of bad housing can at last see some semblance of hope for the many thousands of our people who are now living in condemned dwelling-houses and in single rooms; we can see some future for the newly-weds and for the large and small families throughout my constituency at any rate. Because of the policy pursued by the present Minister for Local Government there is hope for them in the very near future. It is quite true that even to-day there are cases of families whose living conditions are a scandal to all right-thinking men. But that is nothing new and it cannot be attributed to the advent of this particular Government. It is something which has been part and parcel of the social system of this country for very many years. It is something which time alone will eradicate. I believe that the policy of the present Government will undoubtedly break the back of the problem within two or three years. I believe that at the end of that period we shall be within sight of the finish of the housing problem. That in itself will be a tremendous step forward.

Deputy Burke made some remarkably contradictory statements on this question of housing. In one breath he referred to the alleged slow progress in relation to the provision of houses for the workers; in the next breath he deplored the fact that people are no longer permitted to build six and sevenroomed houses—in other words, they are no longer permitted to build luxury dwellings. Deputy Burke cannot have it both ways. Any Government which has to determine the situation must determine it by doing the greatest good for the greatest number. The corollary to that is that they will permit a small group to benefit while the majority suffer. It has been the policy of this Government to restrict as far as it could luxury building. I regard that as very creditable on the part of the Government. It was a matter of comment by the people that, while there was no building activity on the part of local authorities during the years immediately following the war and while it was impossible to get a house built for the workers, luxury houses were being erected and that there were ample supplies available for them. In the same way ample supplies of building materials were available for cinemas. All that has been stopped. All the forces of the Department concerned are now thrown into the production of houses for the working classes, houses for the people who really matter. Apparently, Deputy Burke deplores the fact that luxury building has stopped.

Much has been said about the policy of the present Government in connection with turf. Last year when the hand-won turf scheme finished there was a tremendous barrage of propaganda by the Fianna Fáil Party through the medium of their Party organ, the Irish Press, against the Government and everybody associated with it because of the cessation of the hand-won turf scheme.

I think everybody realises now, irrespective of whether he admits it or not, that the hand-won turf scheme was an uneconomic proposition. I believe, however, that there is a future for turf in this country. I strongly adhere to the conviction that we can have much more employment than we have at the present time on the winning of turf by machinery. I believe that the policy recently announced by the Government in relation to turf production will be of benefit. I would make the point, however, that if we are going to build industries of permanent value to the nation we must build them on the basis of fair and decent treatment for the operatives in those industries. Men living in the turf camps and working on the bogs under the aegis of Bord na Móna at present have much to be dissatisfied with. They never at any time got a fair deal in the matter of wages. It has been their unhappy experience to have gone through considerable hardships, during the reign of the Fianna Fáil Government, in order to establish the elementary right to which every worker in this country should be admitted and which now at the moment is admitted—the right to claim a fair wage for a fair day's work. I would strongly emphasise the point that no industry is going to be of value to us unless we lay down the cardinal and primary principle that we must pay an adequate wage to the men who carry that industry on their shoulder— the workers on the bogs, in the turf industry to be specific.

Much the same can be said in regard to forestry workers. The whole history of Government policy in relation to forestry workers, both under the administration of the Fianna Fáil Government and of its predecessor indicates that it has not been a commendable policy. These are matters to which I intend to refer at greater detail whenever an opportunity presents itself during the debate on the Estimates.

I have very strong views on the question of the Government's policy in relation to compulsory tillage. I believe firmly that it is not a policy which is beneficial to the nation. I believe we do require compulsory tillage and, lest I might be misunderstood, I believe also that the bulk of Opposition Deputies are against compulsory tillage, however much they may be trying to exploit the present situation to their own benefit.

It is a wonder they enforced it in that case.

Very many Deputies of the Opposition marched into the lobby to vote for things with which they were dissatisfied.

Do not judge others by yourself.

Put down a motion and we shall see what way they will vote.

I have been observing the general attitude of members of the Opposition on various matters in various debates and I am firmly convinced that is so. Whatever they say, they have one voice for the debates in this House and they have an entirely different voice when they express their own secret thoughts.

You can only judge them by their actions.

It is just as well one does not always judge the Opposition by their actions. They were responsible for some actions in the past when they were on this side of the House which were not very creditable. In this matter I want to repeat—as I say I shall deal more fully with it at a later stage— that I do not believe we can achieve that bigger cultivation of land in this country that we want, that we require for safety and in order to create employment on the land, on a purely voluntary basis. I wish it were so, but I cannot subscribe to the idea that it is so.

I had also occasion during the year to criticise Government policy in relation to the tomato situation, with which my colleague Deputy Burke dealt so ably the other evening. Deputy Burke in this matter was a little bit astray in some of the points which he made. I have made representations in this House and otherwise, to the Minister for Agriculture in relation to the importation of tomatoes and in relation to his policy in that matter. I consider that there is a case to be made for protection for the Irish grower but I do not think that case is helped at all by exaggerations of the situation which are obviously untrue and quite easily contradicted, as for instance, the statement that was made that the policy of the Minister for Agriculture in allowing in Dutch tomatoes resulted in 50 or 60 tons of tomatoes going to rot in the Rush area of County Dublin last year.

I happened to be in the Rush area over the week-end and people there thought it was the best joke they ever heard for several years. I can assure the Deputy that if that statement were true—I am equally in touch with these men as the Opposition Deputies are— I would be aware of it. I took the trouble to inquire and I found that that was not so. That kind of statement can only do damage to what I regard as a very good case. Deputy Burke also said that the importation of these tomatoes affected the employment of 800 to 1,000 men in the County Dublin. I should like to know where they are. I represent the trade union organising these workers and we reckon we have 99 per cent. of them organised, but we have not got 300 altogether.

The rest of them have gone to England.

The rest of them were never there, except in Deputy Burke's imagination.

Everything is all right with the tomatoes.

I am pointing out that, so far as the growing of tomatoes is concerned, there is a definite case to be made for protection. I have made that case inside and outside this House but that case is not helped by irresponsible statements which can easily be proved to be wrong.

Is the Deputy answering what Deputy Burke said on the Adjournment Debate the other night, or in this debate?

I am relating my remarks to Deputy Burke's general statements in the debate.

In the debate?

On the Adjournment.

I think in any event, this matter is one which involves Government policy in relation to the protection of Irish industries.

I just asked the Deputy was he replying to what Deputy Burke said on the Adjournment and he said no, but to the debate. I do not think it is a matter of wide policy and I think they might fight it out somewhere else.

It is very probable.

He is supporting what Deputy Burke said on the Adjournment Debate.

I have sufficient sins on my soul without its being said that I am supporting Deputy Burke. These are matters which, as I say, can be raised possibly with greater effect at a later stage during the consideration of the Estimates. The question of unemployment is one in which I have a very deep interest and which I have studied for a considerable number of years. Statements have been made that, as a result of the policy of the present Government, as the result of cutting the road grants, there is unemployment in the country. Any Deputy who makes such a statement must obviously know that it is not correct. When he makes that statement, he is talking with his tongue in his cheek. Any unemployment which exists at present is unemployment belonging to the financial year 1948-49. The cutting of the road grants affects the financial year 1949-50, which we have not started upon yet. Therefore, the statements which are being made by Fianna Fáil Deputies to distort the present situation to suit their own political purpose are not alone discreditable, but in many cases are downright dishonest.

Many Opposition Deputies are members of local authorities. If they are fearful of unemployment so far as road work is concerned, I suggest that they should do what other local authorities have done, what the Dublin County Council has done—ensure that sufficient money is provided from the rates to supplement the grants and thus ensure that there will not be any reduction in employment.

You forget about the 10,000 rural workers.

You have only just discovered them.

I know more about them than you ever did.

A great many Deputies on the Opposition Benches have suddenly developed into champions of labour, and many are now championing the cause of labour who never did so before.

There is no one talking about it but yourself.

It behoves every local authority to do everything possible to see that unemployment is reduced to a minimum. I have held the view for a long time that road work in itself is not the most productive type of employment. In this country, which is predominantly agricultural and in which the bulk of our people get their living from the land, any Government should devote itself primarily to the improvement of the land. Whatever the Opposition may say about the Minister for Agriculture, and however much I may disagree with him on many points, I do think that the plan to improve the land is fundamentally a sound idea, is a good plan, and is one which should be given every encouragement by all Parties in this House. Once it is put into motion and got going properly, it cannot but have a beneficial effect on the livelihood of the entire nation. Workers in towns and cities and in industries belong to the superstructure of our civilisation which is built upon the land and upon the rural areas. We must, therefore, improve the land at all costs, and in that particular matter the Minister for Agriculture's scheme will, I believe, be of tremendous benefit and value. These are the few points to which I wish to refer on this Vote and, as I say, I shall elaborate them at a later stage during the debate on the Estimates.

The Deputy who has just sat down opened his speech by making a reference to the housing position in County Dublin. It was, like many of Deputy Dunne's statements, a statement which was calculated to deceive people who are ignorant of the true state of affairs which prevailed in that county in the early part of the ten years to which he has referred. He told the House that in ten years only 14 houses had been built in County Dublin. Of those ten years, there were four, three at any rate, when the chairmanship of the Dublin County Council was held by a member of the Fine Gael Party. then in Opposition, the late Deputy Belton. Of those ten years there were four in which there was a Fine Gael majority on the council.

Who was Minister?

The neophyte asks who was Minister. The Minister was a member of the Fianna Fáil Government of the day. The Fianna Fáil Government of the day was a Government the Ministers of which had some regard for the rights of the local authorities, for the powers of the local authorities. They were not like the present Minister—I shall deal with this more fully when his Estimate is before the House—who sends down his ukase to the members and to the officers of the local authorities telling them what they are to do, despite their position under the law. That was not the attitude which the Fianna Fáil Ministers took up. Perhaps they were foolish in giving some of these Fine Gael county councils so much rope. I, at any rate, when I became Minister for Local Government thought that we had been a little bit too tolerant with the Fine Gael obstructionist element on the Dublin County Council, under whom, as Deputy Dunne, told the House, only 14 houses were built in the county in the four years during which they were in office. They were abolished by me in 1942 for shameful neglect of their duty. Not only did they refuse to build houses but they even refused to collect the rates, and the ratepayers of County Dublin well know how the consequences of this ill-judged reluctance or refusal on the part of the members of the local authority to do their plain duty to the ratepayers reacted upon them and upon the employees of the Dublin County Council.

When the council was abolished in 1942, the war was at its height and no building could be undertaken. When the commissioner took office, however, the first instruction that I gave him was to make a general survey of the housing needs of the county, something which had not been done under the Fine Gael majority, and to prepare co-ordinated plans for dealing with the problem. If, as Deputy Dunne has told the House, truthfully, there will be over 1,000 houses in the course of construction in County Dublin next year, this is not due to anything that has been done by the present Minister for Local Government, but is due to the steps which were taken by the successive commissioners at my instructions, first of all to acquire the land and that is a long and tedious process as you know; secondly, to prepare the plans; thirdly, to put these plans out to contract and to secure the tenders for them. There is not a single house that has been built in County Dublin to-day, or will be built in County Dublin during the next five years, that has not been planned under the Fianna Fáil Government and for which, in most cases, tenders had already been received under the Fianna Fáil Government. Yet the Deputy has the hardihood to boast that in one year his Minister has secured 20 sites whereas his predecessors secured a 1,000.

I do not suggest anything of the kind.

It was not about Deputy Dunne and the housing position in County Dublin, however, that I rose to speak. I wish to address myself to the Vote on Account and to the policy which is enshrined in the Book of Estimates which was submitted to the Dáil a few days ago. Last year when the Estimates reached our hands they contained a prefatory note disclaiming responsibility for them and assuring the public that it was the wicked Fianna Fáil Government that had done it. There is no need to proclaim who is responsible for the present year's issue. Everyline betrays the dominant characteristic in its somewhat mixed and equivocal paternity. It is quite clear from the study of these Estimates that old hide-bound reactionary Fine Gael is again in the ascendency in this country. That is manifested in the volume as a whole in every Estimate in it and in every item of every Estimate.

Considerable reductions have been made in the financial provision for certain services. They have been made in conformity with a policy of political expediency which is shocking in its disregard of any national interest. Certain other reductions which we might have expected bearing in mind the platform upon which certain Parties fought the general election campaign of last year do not appear in the book. That fact is no less shocking because these reductions were definitely promised by members of the Coalition. I propose by way of illustration to retell just one of them. To refresh my memory I will look at this leaflet:

"Fianna Fáil have made you pay through the nose for your pint. Do you realise that the rise in price is the Government's method of compelling you to finance increased salaries, judges, Ministers and T.D.s?"

Here is another leaflet which appeals equally to the intelligent electorate:

"In 1947 when everyone was suffering hardship Ministers' salaries were increased by £10 a week."

That quotation is from the election address which was issued by the present Minister for Health. Here is one which was issued by the present Minister for External Affairs. I turn to the back and I see precisely the same statement made in exactly the same words:

"This year when everyone was suffering hardship Ministers' salaries were increased by £10 a week."

That is the issue which was raised throughout the country by the Clann na Poblachta Party. It was the issue which was raised also by the candidates of the Labour Party and by the candidates of Clann na Talmhan. Those three Parties between them now constitute the majority of the Coalition, and are in a position to give effect to these pledges which by implication at any rate they gave to the electorate when they were appearing on the hustings last year.

The Deputy has mentioned all Parties. Will he give a quotation from the Labour Party leaflets?

I have limited time and I do not think that the Labour Party is worth dealing with.

Do not misrepresent them then.

I take it that despite all the things we heard from the members of the Labour Party in this House and outside it that the Labour Party now stand for high salaries.

I do not think that it is necessary, however, that Deputy Connolly should tell us that. I know that the Chairman of the Labour Party in the Seanad is going to enjoy a very high salary in a very short time, almost as high as a Minister. As I was saying this was the campaign which was conducted up and down the country without any restraint of tongue or without any scruple of decency against the members of the Fianna Fáil Administration. What have these hot gospellers of frugal living—the Minister for External Affairs, the Minister for Health, the Tánaiste, the Minister for Social Welfare—he is faring very well socially, I am told—and the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to say about the campaign now? I have gone through the whole of this volume and I see that each and all of these gentlemen are recommending to the Dáil that they should be paid the salary of £2,125 per annum, precisely the same as I was paid and other members of Fianna Fáil were paid when in office. No more and no less.

The cost of living is higher.

I do not wish it to be taken that I believe in low salaries for public servants. I do not.

Watch your pension.

How much is your father's pension?

That is a personal question.

I was asked how much was mine.

On a point of explanation I have no desire at all to find out what Deputy MacEntee's pension is. I merely advised him to watch it.

I hope I shall watch it as well as the other members of the O'Higgins family watch their perquisites. I do not want it to be taken that I am any believer in paying inadequate remuneration to the holders of public posts. Any country which has adopted that policy has had good cause and has been taught by experience to regret it and the people of the country have been taught to regret it also. I am not criticising these Ministers because of the fact that they have become converted to the view that the salaries now attaching to Ministerial office are not more than is sufficient to enable the occupant of that office to discharge his public and Departmental duties with dignity and without undue worry to himself. If he is doing his job when he is in office all his attention should be devoted to public affairs and he should have no time to devote to his private interests. That was the policy and the attitude which the members of Fianna Fáil adopted. I only hope that all our successors are conforming to the precedent and the doctrine which we laid down.

Your predecessors laid that down.

This, however, is a matter which is perhaps not of very great significance beyond the fact that I hope that once and for all we have removed from the arena of public controversy in this country this question of Ministerial salaries. If I twit these gentlemen opposite because their performance has not been equal to their promises, it is not because I should like to see them giving effect to their promises, because I think that those promises were ill-judged and ill-advised. I hope that now that they have accepted the salaries prescribed by law, this question of Ministerial remuneration will no longer be bandied about from public platform to public platform in the mean way in which this was done during the three or four years that preceded the last general election.

If it is in order to refer to the last general election, will it be in order for Deputies on this side of the House to refer to the time when Deputy de Valera complained that no man was worth more than £1,000 a year?

The Deputy asks is it in order to go back as far as the last general election. Half the speeches in the House have referred to Fianna Fáil policy of ten years ago.

May I say, in reply to the question put by Deputy O'Higgins, that there was at least this difference between the Fianna Fáil Government of 1932 and some members of the Coalition Government to-day, that we said that we would reduce salaries in 1932, and we did reduce them.

And raised them subsequently.

We raised them after two general elections. During the General Election, 1937, we indicated to the people that, if we were returned to power, we would accept and ask the Dáil to provide us with the statutory salary. In 1932 we voluntarily accepted a reduction from £1,700 to £1,000. Now let us have no more of what we promised in 1932 from Deputy O'Higgins.

However, let me get back to the general policy enshrined in this Book of Estimates. A great to-do has been made in certain papers about the reduction represented by this volume of Estimates as compared with the amount which was asked for in the Estimates for 1948-49. Last year the total Estimates, as printed and circulated, amounted to £70,520,000. This year, as the House will see from the cover of the book, the amount asked for is £65,406,000, or a decrease of £5,114,000. Government spokesmen have been boasting of this reduction and have been telling the public that it is something which is very creditable to the new Government. That is the line which has been taken up in the Press, and that is the line which has been taken up in this House and elsewhere by those who apologise for the Coalition. But let us see how this reduction has been secured. It has been secured, first of all, by weakening the defences of the State; secondly, by crabbing national development; thirdly, by reducing the provision for certain social services; fourthly, by cutting the provision which Fianna Fáil made for establising the cost of living; fifthly, by suppressing the supplementary and uncovenanted benefits which Fianna Fáil provided for beneficiaries under the national health insurance, unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance schemes; sixthly, by drastically curtailing the provision which Fianna Fáil had made for civil aviation and development; seventhly, by depleting the Garda Síochána to a point at which the State will not have an adequate police force to enforce law and order and protect life and property; eightly, it has been secured by abolishing, or restricting, many services which Fianna Fáil had instituted several years ago for the benefit of the farming community, and for which provision was made in last year's Book of Estimates; ninthly, it has been secured by penalising the Gaeltacht and the congested districts; and tenthly, by omitting, perhaps because it was not necessary, to make provision for the relief of world distress.

These are the ways in which this reduction in the Estimates has been secured. Let any Deputy in this House ask himself, is there a single one of these things which has been done in the Book of Estimates which he would do of his own volition if he had any regard for the public interest or the welfare or safety of the public or the State?

Deputy Burke has made all these points already.

I am permitted, I hope, to make them again, because I do know that it requires a good deal of repetition to convince Deputy Cowan of many things. It took, for instance, a great deal of repetition to convince Deputy Cowan in the year 1938——

——that it was worth while to defend the ports and to make proper provision for the defence of this country. The Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party are following the policy which they have long formulated—for over the ten years to which Deputy Dunne referred. If it was in order for Deputy Dunne to discuss the performance of the Dublin County Council in relation to housing for ten years, surely I am justified in reminding the House that Fine Gael and the Labour Party, in regard to national defence in the year 1949, are pursuing precisely the same policy as they advocated in this House and in the country in the year 1938: that is to say, they told us then, as they are telling us to-day, that "it is not worth spending Irish money in order to defend Irish liberty".

However, since the Chair is doubtful as to the propriety of referring to what Deputy Norton said when he was not Tánaiste but Deputy Norton, or what Deputy Dr. O'Higgins said when he was not Minister for Defence but a leading member of the Opposition in regard to the problem of national defence, I do not propose to dilate on it. I propose, instead, to take some items in the Estimates and to remind members of the House, or perhaps to inform members of the House who have not had the opportunity of studying this comprehensive volume in detail, what exactly they are being asked to do if they vote for this Vote on Account and thereby approve of the general policy of the Government.

Perhaps it is too late to hope that my action in drawing attention to this fact will be effective, because, while the book undoubtedly represents the mentality of Fine Gael, we must not forget that I am told the estimates as a whole were submitted to a meeting of the Coalition at which all Parties were present, and that it was in general approved by them, so that every member of the Coalition, whether he is a member of the Labour Party or a member of Clann na Poblachta or Clann na Talmhan or Fine Gael or even an Independent like the Lord Mayor of Cork, has responsibility for what it is proposed to do here in relation to national services.

There is no truth in the suggestion.

I read it in the Irish Independent. Perhaps, therefore, it is not true. Let me see what it is proposed to do. Clann na Poblachta is one of the Parties that went before the electorate with a very comprehensive programme. Here is the Clann na Poblachta policy as set out in a speech by Mr. Seán MacBride at Carlow, and one of the things Clann na Poblachta proposed to do was to utilise our natural resources to the fullest extent possible.

Let us see how they now propose to deal with mineral development. In the year 1947-48 Fianna Fáil provided for mineral development under four subheads—sub-heads N (1) to N (4). They proposed to provide for mineral exploration and development the sum of £160,155. This year the Coalition, supported by Clann na Poblachta, is reducing that provision by no less than £70,000. So, for mineral exploration there is provided this year £70,000 less than was provided in 1947-48 by Fianna Fáil. That is all in line with the policy laid down by the Minister for Finance when introducing his Budget last year, but there was such a hullabaloo kicked up in Wicklow and other parts of the country that there was an apparent conversion on the part of the Minister for Finance and it was broadcast all through the country that, thanks to the pressure which Clann na Poblachta and the National Labour Party had brought to bear on the Coalition, the policy of Fianna Fáil with regard to mineral development was being reverted to and that things were going to go ahead. I will put down a question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce which will elicit the fact that practically nothing has been spent on mineral exploration and development during the past 12 months.

You will never split the crowd here.

The Gaeltacht is supposed to be the principal concern of Clann na Poblachta. If we turn to Vote 54 we will see there a considerable number of provisions under various sub-heads of D which have been drastically cut. We will find, for instance, that the provision for machines and plant has been cut, that the provision for materials has been cut, that the provision for the toy industry has been cut, that provision for spinning has been cut, that the provision for homespuns has been cut, that the provision for the leaden models industry has been cut and that, in fact, the total provision which was made for rural industries has been cut from the sum of £304,365 which Fianna Fáil would have asked the Dáil to provide last year, to £209,275. In fact, it has been cut by virtually one-third.

The importance of these rural industries lies in the fact that most of them are cottage industries and all of them are carried on mainly by hand labour in these congested areas where there is no living to be won from the soil and where, if industries of this sort are not provided, the unfortunate people have no remedy except to emigrate, no way of escape from starvation except through the emigrant ship. The members of Clann na Poblachta and of the Labour Party are always crying out against the evils of the present social system, and yet they are going to vote to endorse the policy which is written into this Book of Estimates in Vote 54.

Take some of the other services— National Health Insurance, for instance. There, under that heading in Vote 54, the amount to be provided for benefits, expenses of administration and supplementary Grants-in-Aid is reduced by £358,000 from the £740,000 which Fianna Fáil would have provided last year. We will be told we have a new Social Insurance Act in operation. That is true, but under Fianna Fáil these supplementary benefits were being provided at the general expense of the Exchequer and the beneficiaries under the various schemes to which they apply had not to pay for them. They are getting approximately the same as they got last year at this moment, but they are paying for them to the tune of 6d. a week or 26/- a year, which is being collected from every worker, plus a corresponding contribution from his employer.

Clann na Poblachta were going to develop our turf industries. If they turn to Vote 55 they will see that not only is the provision for mineral development to be cut down severely, but under O (1) they will see that the provision of £60,000, which we wanted to make for experiments and research in truf utilisation has been cut to £20,000. That means that £40,000 less will be provided for experiments and research in turf utilisation and turf working.

Then, again, we have declared a bold and striking policy in relation to external affairs. We have decided that, come what may, we are going to join no pact and we are going to maintain a position of splendid isolation. That is the declaration which we have made to the world in the present state of international strain.

Does not your leader agree with that?

If my leader agreed to it there is one thing he would do. He would ask the people to provide themselves with the means to maintain that policy. He would not become a braggart before the world and a miserable pauper when it comes to providing himself with the arms, the equipment and the ment to maintain whatever position he would take up. If he took up a position in international affairs there is no sacrifice that he would not ask this country to make in order to maintain that position. He would at least make certain that if ever he was called upon to maintain that position and defend it in arms, Ireland's honour would be safe. What are we doing now? We are making brave statements, but we have reduced the provision which we make for the defence of this country by no less than £800,000 under this Vote. We have denuded the Army of men, stripped it of men, reduced it to such a position that when we had a St. Patrick's Day celebration a week or two ago we had cooks and supernumeraries of one sort or another parading as if they were expendable troops. And we are in this position because of cuts in the provision for defence which the Minister is making with the support of the Labour Party and Clann na Poblachta. I do not bother about Clann na Talmhan, because they were never national in any event.

They would not bother with you—that is why.

Turn now to the miscellaneous social welfare schemes and we find the same story told. Last year we were providing grants for the supply of fuel to necessitous families to the extent of £90,000. This year the appropriation has been cut to £84,000. It is a minor reduction, amounting to £6,000, but do not forget that in the City of Dublin the figures for unemployment have increased considerably compared with last year, and throughout the country the number of persons on the unemployment register has gone up by thousands and would go up still further if it were not for the fact that once again the emigrant ship has come into operation, and while the list of emigrant passengers is swelling, the number of persons on the unemployment register has been correspondingly reduced.

Then, again, one of the things which the Minister for External Affairs told us he would do in 1947 was to provide subsidies so as to reduce the cost of living. He said that subsidies should be provided 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 accompanied by rigid control of prices. Now, we are being told by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the other members of the Coalition Government that it is quite impossible for them to give effect to the admonishments they addressed to us to keep prices down despite all that was happening in the world outside. We know, therefore, that so far as this Coalition Government is concerned there is going to be no drastic reduction in prices. Nor, as this Book of Estimates shows, is there going to be any attempt made to give effect to the pledge which the Leader of the Clann na Poblachta Party gave to his followers in 1947 that if he were in power—and he is in power now—there would be an increase in the subsidies sufficient to bring about a reduction of at least 30 per cent. on the existing cost of all food. How is that being given effect to? So far from subsidies being provided to secure a reduction of 30 per cent. in the cost of living, if the Deputies will turn once more to Vote 55 and look at sub-head J they will see there that, whereas we provided £12,676,000 for food subsidies in the year 1948-49, that provision has now been cut by £3,617,000 in the present year and only £9,150,000 is being provided.

What justification is there for cutting the provision which was made for food subsidies? Having regard to the policy upon which the Parties on the Government benches appealed to the electorate—and Clann na Poblachta was not the only Party that wanted to subsidise food; the Labour Party wanted to do it, too, and some members of even the Fine Gael Party also advocated it —what justification is there for the reduction now? It may be that there is a general fall in the price of certain imported foodstuffs. But, if there is, do you not think that, having regard to the stress which was laid on the increased cost of living during the general election last year, that you ought to use that £3,160,000 to reduce the cost of essential foodstuffs still further? Then at least you would be doing something to fulfil your pledges to the electorate. But you are certainly not fulfilling them when, so far from maintaining the subsidies at the figure at which they stood last year, you are taking steps to drastically reduce them. Do not forget, you members of the Clann na Poblachta Party and the Labour Party, that your statements on this matter are on record and when you vote to-night—as I have no doubt you will vote—you are voting in order to nullify your own pledges, to forswear your own words and swallow them and to give effect to the policy of the reactionary wing of Fine Gael.

I think it would be no harm now if I were to summarise what I have been saying by giving you a few figures. In regard to agriculture and in relation to the provision which was made for the assistance of farmers, these Estimates represent a net reduction of £367,000 odd; for social insurance and assistance there is in this Book of Estimates a reduction of £666,000 on the figure provided last year; on ameliorative services—and these include food subsidies and Gaeltacht services— there is a reduction of £4,712,000; on national development, including hand-won turf schemes but excluding airports and civil aviation, there is a reduction of £1,649,000; on national defence there is a reduction of £859,000; on police and general protective services there is a reduction of £53,000, making all-told on these services a reduction of £8,309,000, in addition to which we must add the fact that £575,000, which was provided last year for the relief of European distress, is not included.

On civil aviation and development there is a reduction in the provision made for them of £611,000. I do not want to impinge upon the debate which will properly take place on the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Meteorological and Aviation Services, but I do want to say that I am perfectly certain that there is still room to improve the accommodation and facilities provided for the safe handling of passengers and planes at both Shannon and Collinstown Airports to the extent of £300,000 That £300,000 could be advantageously spent there. We have been hearing a good deal about the £40,000,000 scheme to provide alternative employment, but there is one form of employment which could be readily given and could be availed of by the people in Limerick and Dublin who have been thrown out of work by Coalition policy and which, if it were given, would considerably increase the economic potentialities of this country. But the provision for that is being cut because Clann na Poblachta, which promised to develop all our resources, and the Labour Party, which had a somewhat similar programme, are now backing the Coalition.

Does the Deputy suggest that Collinstown is unsafe?

I have no time to bother with gnats.

On a point of order, I understood the Deputy to suggest that Collinstown and Shannon were unsafe.

He never said any such thing.

That is not a point of order.

All-told, the reductions in the Services which I have retailed to the House account for £9,495,000; let us say £9,500,000. That is a reduction of £9,500,000 manifested in this volume of Estimates. But here is the interesting point. While the items which I have enumerated amount to £9,500,000, the reduction in the figures printed on the back of the volume of Estimates is not £9,500,000 but only £5,114,000. Now, where has this other £4,500,000 gone? We are told, of course, that there is going to be an increased provision for old age pensions. That is true. But if there is going to be increased provision for old age pensions let us not forget the fact that under the various contributory insurance schemes £1,000,000 will be collected in additional contributions.

Similarly, £192,000 more is being provided in respect of the supplementary grant for the relief of rates on agricultural land, but, if it is being provided, it is being provided by the Minister willy-nilly because it was the Fianna Fáil Government that passed the Act under which it is being provided—at least, they passed the original Act. Again, widows' and orphans' pensions purport to show an increase in the volume of Estimates, but that is one of the most dishonest tricks that has ever been attempted to be perpetrated on the House. If last year's Estimates volume is compared with this year's volume, we find that in Vote 27, under the Fianna Fáil Estimates, there was to be provided last year, under sub-head A, by way of payment to Pensions Investment Account a sum of £450,000. That is the sum which the then Minister provided because it was necessary, under the statute, to replenish the Pensions Investment Account to that extent to meet the obligation for widows' and orphans' pensions during the current year. There was as well a payment of £510,000 to the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Fund, making in all a total of £960,000. That was the provision which Fianna Fáil was making last year. This year, in the Book of Estimates, the total amount which is to be provided under Vote 27 is £1,058,000, or, roughly, £98,000 more than was provided last year. Yet the Estimate itself is presented in such a way as to lead the ignorant to believe that the increased amount to be provided is no less than £547,990. Of course, one is not surprised that Fine Gael should fake the books. I had some experience when I succeeded them as Minister for Finance. I know how they faked the books during the previous Administration. I am not surprised that they should be doing the same thing again.

Then the health grants to local authorities have gone up. Once again it has been done, because in the year 1947 the Fianna Fáil Government asked the Oireachtas to pass the Health Services (Financial Provisions Act), 1947.

Fifteen years after you came into office. You took a very long time about it.

It is a great pity we had not a young man like you here then.

It is certainly.

I do not know what grudge Providence had against the Irish people when it did not send you on earth a little earlier.

We sent you over there and we will keep you over there.

Since we are talking about doing things in a hurry, why has the Minister for Health not been in a hurry to give effect to this precious leaflet of his? After all, in 1948 the electors of my constituency were told by the Minister for Health that in 1947, when everyone was suffering hardship, Ministers' salaries were increased by £10 per week. I am glad to see that the Minister had no compunction in sticking to that increase.

He is not sticking to that increase.

Oh, I forgot. The Minister is paying a rake-off to his political associates.

That is not the only thing you have forgotten.

He sent you over there anyhow.

However, as I was saying, when we tot up this bill, we still find that £4,500,000 is not accounted for. We are being told that we have an economical Government in contradistinction to the spendthrift administration which preceded it, but that £4,500,000 is not fully accounted for by the increases in the provision for the significant services to which I have referred.

Old age pensions.

Only £1,300,000 additional is provided for old age pensions. A large part of the £4,500,000 is to go in paying for the increased cost of administration under this Government. Your Minister is borrowing but his borrowing gallop has had a stop put to it. It is going in wasteful and extravagant administration and it is going in buying support wherever support is purchasable.

Let me, however, remind the House that this Book of Estimates, totalling £65,460,000, does not tell the whole story. There is no provision in this Book for the pledge which the Minister for Justice gave to Deputy Alfred Byrne that as, from the 1st April next, the rates of pay of the Garda Síochána are going to be increased.

Are you afraid that they will get it?

Where is the increased provision for the increases in teachers salaries that Clann na Poblachta promised them they were going to get in 1948? Where is the provision for the comprehensive social security scheme about which the Tánaiste is so voluble and about which the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance are so deprecatory? Where is one penny provided for the £40,000,000 reclamation scheme with which the Labour Deputies and the Deputies of both Clanns are lulling their uneasy infuriated followers into quietude. There is nothing in this Book of Estimates for any one of these schemes—for the scheme of social insurance which is to cost £27,000,000, or for the Minister of Agriculture's grandiose schemes of £40,000,000 one week and £50,000,000 the next. There is nothing in this Book of Estimates for the Garda or for the teachers.

These things are all going to be provided we are told, and the question I am putting to the House and the country now is: when these items mature, what will be the size of the bill and how will the Government meet it? One thing is quite certain—it cannot borrow. Its recent experience with the Exchequer Bond Issue has put that matter beyond doubt. We ought, therefore to ask ourselves whether we are not heading for a deliberate devaluation of the currency. After all, Clann na Poblachta had two main political objectives at the last election. One was the repeal of the External Relations Act. That has gone. The other was to break the link with sterling. Even more recently the Minister for External Affairs has been harping back to that again. The Minister for External Affairs admittedly is not very sound about the "link", but we can say the same thing for the present Minister for Finance. I do think we can, in view of what he said, as reported in column 2392, Volume 94, of the Seanad Debates: The Banking Commission, he said, considered the question of breaking the link with sterling, and he went on to say:—

"They stated that in the then circumstances it was considered desirable to maintain the particular situation. The circumstances have changed very much since. There have been very different courses pursued by the two economies, the economy in England and the economy here. If the commission could only report that in the circumstances as they were about 1936 it was right to maintain a partiticular situation, then certainly we are thrown back on an inquiry. Now that the circumstances have changed, would the Banking Commission likely report"—suggesting a great deal of doubt in the mind of the Minister—"for the maintenance of the old conditions?"

Then, later in the course of his speech he said this, which I think is very significant:—

"I do not see why the matter should not be talked about, why it should not be inquired into. I do not see why there should be any shake given to public confidence because the Minister for External Affairs or even a person like myself thinks there is something to be talked of and to be inquired into in regard to that matter. I would go a great deal further if I was not afraid of shaking public confidence. This matter has to be approached gradually, and I hope it will be approached gradually."

What had to be approached gradually?

Breaking the link with sterling.

Precisely. Why? In order that we might devalue our currency——

——and give to the Minister for External Affairs and the members of Clann na Poblachta an opportunity of beguiling the innocent public into the belief that they had fulfilled their undertaking to reduce the cost of living. Mind you, one of the main advantages of the link with sterling is that it prevents any Government from playing about arbitrarily with the value of the currency. One of the reasons why you gentlemen who believe in the collectivist economy, want to get rid of it, is because you think it will give you a clear hand to achieve the object which you have in view.

God save the King.

Let me in conclusion remind the House of what this Government has done during the past year. This State is declared by the Constitution to be a "sovereign, independent, democratic State". It is fast becoming a plutocratic State, a State in which the wealthy enjoy all the privileges that money can buy. It is a State in which we have now one class of bread for the very rich and another for the middle classes and the worker and the poor.

What is the Deputy reading from?

It is a State in which there are unlimited quantities of butter for the rich, of sugar for the rich, of tea for the rich, and meagre rations of all these foodstuffs for the rest of us. It is a State in which one can buy fuel dirt cheap if you are rich enough to buy it in five or ten ton lots and in which you can scarcely procure it at famine prices if you happen to be a worker. It is a State whose Government by deliberate action reduces the price of the rich man's champagne, while it increases the social services tax collected from the worker and the employer. It is a State in which the Government provide cream for the rich. It is a State with a Government which, in order to cheapen labour, has deliberately created unemployment. That is the sort of State we are living in to-day under the Coalition Government. That is the record of the Coalition Government and that is the record upon which the people of this country will find them guilty and condemn them the moment they get the chance.

The last speaker would, I think, stand condemned in this House only that I think most people would be inclined to excuse him for the hysteria he so often develops. Just think of the mischief he tried to pack into the last three or four sentences. He apparently thinks that credit will be shaken by any reference to the £ sterling. Therefore he distorts what I said in the Seanad last year.

I read what the Minister stated.

He also feels that this Government has got too much confidence from the people and therefore he has to refer to borrowing. His first effort at borrowing was in 1933 when he looked to the people to give him £6,000,000 and they gave him £2,500,000 or less.

When the spokesmen of Fine Gael asked the people to refrain from subscribing.

That taught him such a lesson that in the other four loans his Government went for they never went without calling for the aid of the banks and getting the loan underwritten. With that record, the man who had been Minister for Finance setting out on that disastrous course would have been better advised to keep silent.

I shall have an opportunity to deal with you later.

He talks about the pound sterling. It happened that I brought in here a series of old quotations. There is an article in the Sunday Independent called “Looking at the Old Family Albums,” dated 23rd February, 1947, and my eye caught the headline, “MacEntee, Explorer.” Here is part of the quotation the Sunday Independent gives from a speech of Deputy MacEntee:

"I think it was the President (Mr. Cosgrave) said that we were anchored to the pound sterling, and now the pound is a millstone round the necks of the people and is dragging them down to the bottom of the sea. The financial and economic position of the country would be much better if we had an independent currency instead of being tied to the sinking pound."

I do not know whether it was because the Deputy was younger, or that he had more sense in 1932. It may be that he is now resuming the sort of prudence that people sometimes get in their old age, but of which the Deputy has given no great sign so far.

It is a pity that Deputies belonging to a Party that boasts of being always of the same mind and thought on everything could not have made up their minds what angle to attack the Vote from before they came into the House. The first effort of the Irish Press in this matter was that the Estimates had been slashed. The second view was that the economies which were supposed to be in the Estimates were all a fake. Deputy MacEntee went through the same course to-night. First of all, he alleged great slashing, and then went on to make a case that the slashing had in some way or another achieved £4,000,000 which he could not find. He apparently does not see that it is possible to increase expenditure on certain desirable objects and cut out expenditure on things that are fantastically extravagant. It was the extravagant fantasies which we sent out to kill. We did some last year; we are dealing with a few more this year. It is not easy to hunt all these things down in a short period, but we have stopped their gallop on certain things; at least the country was well advised to stop their gallop by putting in people who had, on the one hand a mind towards retrenchment where retrenchment was required and, on the other hand, a mind towards spending where spending was going to develop.

It has been a hard and difficult task to cut in on some of the Fianna Fáil things. They had not yet made up their minds what their expenditure would be if they had been allowed by the people to continue for another year. The sum is simple enough. On the face of the Estimates, there was an amount of £70,500,000. The Central Fund services were another £7,000,000. They would have been budgeting for £77,500,000 without anything extra for old age pensioners or for civil servants or for employees of the local authorities on the health side and yet they complain that I am getting from the people some £70,000,000 this way. They would have looked for an additional £7,500,000. If they had given the old age pensions, the extra tea and the emoluments to the civil servants which they were pledged to give they would have looked for an extra £9,500,000 or £10,000,000. I do not look for that sum, and yet I think that the sum I am looking for is very heavy indeed.

Referring to the opening remarks made by Deputy Aiken as to whether I had or had not been able to economise this year, I have. I should like to submit an account much more cut down than the present one. So far as it has not gone lower I confess to a partial failure. We have dropped some things. Amongst them is the matter that has been so fiercely debated by Deputy Lemass to-night. I do not think that it is conceivable that ever again there will be a purchase of wheat made so improvidently as the 75,000 tons of Argentine wheat which Deputy Lemass purchased two days before he left office in February, 1948. That purchase alone put a blister on this community, as I said when speaking on the Budget last year, of £2,435,000. In fact, it cost us a bit more in my calculation of that purchase—about £2,585,000. That was the dearest, the most improvident, reckless and inefficient piece of buying that was ever done by anyone given Governmental responsibility in this country. It was done in spite of all the advice that he had. Up to that purchase no other had been made except through the medium of a regular body known as Grain Importers. Grain Importers, through the late Mr. Hallinan, told him that this purchase should not be made. The letter came on the Monday morning of the week in which he made the purchase. He made the purchase on the Tuesday. Grain Importers, and in particular Mr. Hallinan, were the only people that the then Minister had to advise him on this matter. They advised dead against. They told him that Mr. Rank, who was the buyer for the British, had advised against. They told him that the communication of the British Imported Cereals Board had advised against it.

Mr. de Valera

They did not have the responsibility to see that we had bread.

They were the only people to whom he could look for advice in that direction.

Mr. de Valera

The Minister knows that if there was a failure in that and if he was in these benches he would not have excused the Minister because people advised him wrongly.

On the 16th February the late Mr. Hallinan wrote that:—

"The winter wheat crop in the United States of America is in excellent shape, and there has been very little, if any, winter kill and, therefore, it seems that we would be quite safe to rely upon getting most of our supplies from the United States of America for July, August and September at prices that compare very favourably with the Argentine."

Mr. de Valera

It did not turn out so.

"To sum up, as I understand it from the Cereals Import people in London, there is plenty of wheat in the world."

Twenty-four hours was all that Deputy Lemass had to wait. There was plenty of wheat going to be bought up by the 19th February.

Mr. de Valera

It was not there. Look at the figures.

I have the entire figures here in front of me. There was a carry forward until the month of May as they stood. Everybody knows that months before June had dawned it was recognised that there was record crop and a record carry-over in the United States. The advice which the then Minister had always accepted up to date was that from Grain Importers, fortified by whatever Mr. Rank or the Cereals Board might say. On this occasion every single one was against.

Mr. de Valera

And the Minister applied his own mind to the matter after hearing these things. He had the responsibility.

His responsibility was ended in 24 hours. He knew it that night. His responsibility was ended and he bought for no other purpose than to make things difficult for his successors.

Mr. de Valera

That is not true.

It is the only reason I can find after reading that file.

Mr. de Valera

It is an absolute falsehood.

This matter has been examined actually recently through the committee that the Attorney-General is presiding over. The late Mr. Hallinan gave evidence to the Attorney-General's committee and backed then all that he had said in that letter and gave figures to show that his view was no hasty one but was a sound one.

He only bought 2,000 tons of wheat from America.

That is another type of economy which I would not stand for. You only bought 2,000 tons when the 75,000 tons had already been bought.

You finished up with lower stocks. Two thousand tons was all we bought.

Deputy Lemass was responsible for putting many a blister on the backs of the people in this country.

Mr. de Valera

He saved this country during the war.

On his own statement made on the 18th February in this House he left us with a ten year supply of firewood in the Park, as much turf at the present rate of disposal to last for the winter of 1949, and 500,000 tons of coal, the most difficult thing to dispose of that this country has ever had. Before we are through with that decayed stuff in the Park this country will have lost £3,500,000. It is a bit in line with the Argentine purchase which cost us about £2,600,000 by way of subsidy. £3,500,000 is going down the drain because of that fuel piled up in the Park.

Mr. de Valera

There would have been a different cry if you had not had food.

Again it shows the type of folly that passed for economic consideration at that time.

Mr. de Valera

It saved this country.

Oats were fixed at such a price and, in relation to those oats, oatmeal was fixed at such a price that nobody could make oatmeal and sell it. The Department of Industry and Commerce, therefore, having driven oatmeal as a manufacturing product, proceeded to buy and import 9,000 tons of oatmeal from the United States of America and Australia and a certain smaller tonnage of wheat offals. The oatmeal, if fresh at any time, was distasteful to Irish palates. It was not all fresh. The wheat offals were found to be full of weevils, I suppose in an effort to help Deputy Smith with the live stock of the country. We had to sell them eventually to the manufacturers of compound food for animals at a loss of about £125,000—a small matter, of course, to people who have £3,500,000 in the Park of decaying fuel and almost £2,600,000 extra subsidy because of the bad purchase of Argentine wheat.

And the £5,000,000 which the present Government was sending across to England for the land annuities.

I might say they were the weevils that men leave after them. To that extent £550,000 is hardly worth talking about.

We got over a Tourist Board which had gone into the hotel business and we are trying to get rid of the hotels now. One famous purchase was made which Deputy Lemass not merely recommended but forced on his colleague, Deputy Aiken, the purchase of a particular hotel. The Minister was so satisfied that his purchase was of a profit-earning character that he convinced his colleague, Deputy Aiken, that that was so. £11,000 was paid for the hotel. Later an investigation was made cautiously enough—though that might have occurred to themselves—as to when the premises was last used as a hotel, who owned it at the moment of purchase, when those owners acquired the premises and what they had paid for it and it was discovered that the most recent purchase made before the Government stepped in was for the sum of £500. The Government was asked £11,000 and paid £11,000, while the purchase price was £500. That was not the full amount, however, because there was a debt of something less than £3,500 when it was taken. The hotel passed hands previously at something under £400.

In what year?

In 1942, and it had lain there until 1947 when the Tourist Board, backed by two Ministers, decided to buy it for £12,000. In the meantime an investigation was made into the hotel, and the Tourist Board, putting a proposition into the mouths of two Ministers, said that as much money had to be spent on the hotel was was asked for it, £12,000. The fact of the matter is that the hotel was stripped, its fittings were all taken out and the plumbing gone, there was nothing there but a shell of a building. £12,000 was put up and eventually £32,000 was asked, not for furnishing, but for the reconstruction of this place. Right through this, the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Lemass, puts up to Deputy Aiken that it was going to be a profitable concern. It never had been very much of a profitable concern in its history and it certainly had not been from about 1938. About this time the board were having their activities in another direction inquired into and they got a fair amount of money for what they called the development of seaside resorts and they did develop a few pitching and putting greens in seaside resorts. £300,000 of the people's money went for that purpose and when they were queried about these matters in May, 1947, they decided to call an end to their optimism. They wrote to the Department of Industry and Commerce a letter in which they suggested that it might be possible to regard all their capital expenditure as coming temporarily within the category of "advances otherwise authorised". That phrase hides the fact that they did not want their expenditure to be regarded as being of a profit-earning character. Note the times. In mid-May they asked the Department of Industry and Commerce to forget all they had said about the profit-earning character of the various works they were developing in seaside resorts, but in the same month they were writing through Deputy Lemass to Deputy Aiken telling him that the hotel was of a profit-earning character, so although they had withdrawn their optimism with regard to developing localities, as far as hotels were concerned they were cock-a-hoop.

We propose getting rid of that hotel and of as many others as we can and end that particular development which never should have been entered upon by any Government through any board of that type. We will certainly lose money but we were losing money. I have said this before and there is no need for me to repeat it at any great length. At that time for two years every boarding-house in the country was able to make money. The tourists were coming in such swarms and with such an amount of money that it was scarcely possible to find a poor type of inefficiently-run boarding-house that did not make money. Yet the Tourist Board, presented with five or six properties, failed to make money. They showed a profit on two things, the sale of cigarettes and the takings of the various bars, but there was a loss of that profit when it came to room accommodation and all over that period in which it was almost impossible to be in the hotel or boarding-house business without touching gold they succeeded in showing a loss.

It would have been ifra dig. for them to make money.

When the public purse was opened so wide for these people as it was and under such peculiar circumstances.

Another lame duck which was handed over to us was the famous Córas Iompair Éireann which is referred to so often. An attempt was made here to represent to the House that Córas Iompair Éireann did not really make the demands my colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce has spoken of. I was at these meetings when the directors appeared before us. They did demand three things. They wanted leave to close all the branch lines in the country and they estimated the resultant unemployment to be 1,000 people but that was only an estimate. They wanted leave to cut back on maintenance to such an extent as to discharge 2,000 men. They wanted leave to raise fares all over both the rail and bus system and they wanted further to be allowed to raise freights over all the system but only if the Government would decide narrowly to restrict private hauliers. They really had four demands: the closing of the branch lines; putting back maintenance; a rise in fares and a rise in freights accompanied by a narrow restriction of private haulage. Deputy Lemass said that they were not being put up in the same scheme but were being put up as alternatives. The answer to him is this: The company forecast a loss of £1,500,000 and they claimed that roughly each of these proposals would save £1,500,000. How can we believe that they only wanted one proposal bringing in £500,000 when they were faced with a loss of £1,500,000? They wanted them all. They wanted to be allowed to dismiss 3,500 men. They wanted to be allowed to close the branch lines, to raise fares and, if we could restrict private haulage for them, they wanted to raise freights as well. At the same time they were going on with these amazing schemes which they described as capital development. That amazing contraption near Store Street was to cost £500,000 but was more recently priced at £750,000. They were going to remake one of the stations here at a cost of £1,000,000. Sir James Milne reported that if the company were in a good healthy position and making money they might do the job for £100,000. They wanted to spend £900,000 more.

Comment has been made to the effect that wages have been raised all over the railway and on the costs side. Deputy Lemass skated around that point, trying to save himself by saying that the wages must be proper when they were given by the Labour Court and by the Labour Wages Board. Why should the men not ask for an increased wage? They knew of these fantastic schemes that were going on. It was the talk of Kingsbridge and of the shops. They knew the money that was being spent fantastically and fruitlessly around the whole place. They themselves had sarcastic comments to pass about the new bus station or stations and about the remaking of the railway station that was to cost so much, and quite an amount of other capital developments. They knew that the staff was incomplete as far as the top level was concerned—a matter which Sir James Milne reported on. They were quite well aware of the fantastic emoluments that were given at the top level. It was more than human nature could expect that they would withstand making an appeal for increased wages when they saw the extravagance around them. Deputy Lemass thought fit to sneer that people put on an industrial development authority were to get a fee of £2,000. He had given the chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann £2,500 and he knew that the board of Córas Iompair Éireann had given him another £4,000. The Deputy knew that the Chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann had worked himself £33,000 compensation—£17,000 of it he took in cash and £10,000 of it we have had to pay him to get rid of him, nearly £26,000 either pension or arrears of pension.

And four times £6,500—another £26,000 in four years. That is about £52,000 or £53,000 gone to that individual—and something of that was known around Kingsbridge. In these circumstances, people pretend to be amazed that the working staff would ask for an increased wage.

And he would seek £3,500.

That was part of the proposal which we refused to carry out. That was the situation developing around this organisation which, it was represented to this House a few years ago, was going to produce the most efficient transport machine this country ever had, and which was going to give a perfect service at reduced fares. We now see what it has come to, but add that to the Argentine wheat, to the fuel dumps in the Park, to the weevilled oatmeal, to the Tourist Board, and you get some impression of what one man was responsible for— although he got his share of that under the guise of collective responsibility with all the other imaginative people he had around him.

Would the Minister repeat the total amount paid to the Chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann?

£6,500 by way of salary and £33,000 pension. £16,500 taken as cash. The rest was to go on a decreasing scale but eventually it has cost £10,500 to buy him out.

Does Professor Johnston know that?

Was it for that we had the midnight ride to the Park?

It was well worth it.

I admitted recently that I thought the public would be thoroughly frightened and shocked when they heard the full story—and they have not heard it yet. But they have heard this amazing part of it, namely, that the chief men in that organisation could not face anybody to whom they owed money since November of 1948. Imagine the main transport concern of this country, with a virtual monopoly, having a safe which contained £500,000 worth of cheques written but not issued because there was no money with which to meet the cheques if they were issued. That is represented as part of the efficiency of the Government that we have replaced.

There is one thing, however, that I certainly only heard of at a very late stage in the last Government's career. That was a gigantic scheme for the better housing, if you please, of this Parliament and of the civil servants attached to the Government. The mania started early but it did not fade with the years. In 1933 the last Government set up a committee consisting of the then Minister for Local Government and Public Health, now the President, the then Minister for Finance, Deputy MacEntee; the then Minister for Defence, Deputy Aiken, and the late Mr. Flinn, to consider a plan for the housing of this Parliament—as if we were not comfortable enough—and of the civil servants attached to the Government. A report was produced by that body in January, 1934. It was decided to have a comprehensive plan for these new Government Buildings. The suggestion was made that an area in the City of Dublin should be scheduled and that legislative action should be taken to prevent undue inflation of site values inside the scheduled area. Those who know Dublin might be attentive to this. The scheduled area, as recommended, was the whole portion of the district bounded by Merrion Street, Lower Baggot Street, the Canal and Fenian Street. In other words, you turn right from Government Buildings and go up towards the turn left towards Baggot Street, go along Baggot Street to the Canal, turn left along the Canal passing Mount Street Bridge until you turn left where Sir Patrick Dun's Hospital is and go along Fenian Street until the corner of Westland Row and left again to Government Buildings. That area was to be scheduled——

Wiped out.

——wiped out, and a new Government Buildings with civil servants' offices to be put there.

It would be a royal Republic then.

It meant the wiping out of two hospitals, I think a couple of churches, a variety of professional men's houses, a convent——

They should have taken the Grangegorman site.

That did not end the suggestion. It went through four separate memoranda and eventually they reached an A, B, C, D scheme. When you had the whole picture it meant the whole of the scheme I have talked of. They priced the A scheme— which was less than a quarter of the whole £3,000,000 as long as you left out furnishing, equipping of the buildings and certain costs that would arise in connection with the clearance.

Eventually the whole matter was referred to a further committee which was told to consider the whole proposal as covered by A, B, C and D. They considered it, and it ran into the year 1945, in which year the then Minister for Finance approached Deputy Mulcahy, as Leader of Fine Gael, to ask him whether we, as the Opposition Party, would approve of the scheme. We threw it back at them, whereupon the Government thought better of it or —perhaps that is the wrong phrase— they thought a second time about it. In the second plan, they left Merrion Square, Merrion Street and all that area and betook themselves to the Park. The new proposal, so far as I can gather, was that a road was to be driven up behind where the present road is along Conyngham Road and a big acreage of the Park was to be taken over and that was to be made an island on which to plant the new Parliament House and the Government buildings and offices. It was a good, ambitious plan and it had its accompaniments. They were that people would naturally object to certain of the amenities of the people's park being taken from them, so they would have to be provided for elsewhere—and the "elsewhere" was a costly thought. Let Deputies think of themselves standing at Kingsbridge, with their backs to the mouth of the Liffey, and think of the buildings right and left of them as they look down towards Chapelizod. Those properties to the right and left from Kingsbridge to Chapelizod were to be cleared. It meant the disappearance of Cahill's, the Lucan Dairies and a host of places along that bank, but the people would have had a pleasant riverside walk. I think Deputy Aiken made his contribution to the plan by saying that, if that did not protect the people's amenities far enough, they should have, not a compulsory scheme but a compulsory control scheme of the amenities of the Liffey valley to Lucan and finally to Leixlip.

Do you object?

I was about to ask if the Fianna Fáil back benchers thought I was telling the truth about that, but Deputy Aiken agrees.

You are not telling the whole truth.

There may be additions. There were minor schemes, I must admit. There was the Dublin Castle scheme, which was to cost £2,000,000.

And which you are going on with.

No, we are not.

You have it in the Book of Estimates.

We have not. There is one small bit of it, and that is a bit which I was late to stop, unfortunately. There was a proposal to have a new National Library which would have meant the disappearance, so far as I remember, of the Fitzwilliam Tennis Club and a builder's yard beside it and all that stretch of territory that goes out to the canal bank. That was all to have been expropriated for a new storehouse for books attached to the National Library.

Can the Minister say how many unopened boxes of books are in the National Library for want of space?

I do not know, but I certainly would not think of taking over the grounds of the Fitzwilliam Tennis Club and a builder's yard for the purpose. Talking of books reminds me that I have been told that I am showing my hand in cutting down certain subventions to the Irish language. Various calculations have been made about how much has been cut, but nobody has mentioned that there is an increase in one Vote with regard to folklore which, I understand, is regarded by those interested as quite a valuable addition to the study of Irish. There is a certain cutting, not very much, with regard to grants made to papers published in Irish. There are three papers in the main and the calculation has been made that the subsidy to one of them is 1/- per copy. It is sold at 2d. but the State is paying 1/-per copy. On the second, the subsidy is 1/9 per copy and, on the third, ? per copy. If you take it from the angle of readers—we have to make an estimate of readers—apparently it is not possible—I am not to blame for this— to find as many as 3,500 readers of these three Irish publications who will pay the 2d., or who will pay another 1d. or so to keep them going.

In addition to that, there is a series of publications got out by An Gúm. Deputy Lynch is interested in books. He might get some to take away with him even this evening. An effort was made to place some of these Irish publications published through An Gúm. There are at the moment in the cellars or storage presses of the Stationery Office nearly 250,000 volumes and efforts have been made from time to time to get rid of them. The first effort took the form of offering parcels of them to the Fior-Ghaeltacht. These were free sets of books valued at about £2 6/- or something short of it. They were put up in parcels and sent to the Fior-Ghaeltacht to be presented free to the schools in the Gaeltacht area. The plan was tried, and, after many months' trial the Department of Education reported that the arrangement had proved a complete flop. None of the schools wanted the books.

I need not go through the lengthy tale of misery connected with them, but at least five efforts were made to get rid of these books, and, in the end, when it came to a matter of value, the criterion the Stationery Office or the Department of Education applied to these books in connection with any tender they might receive was whether the tender exceeded the value of the books as waste paper or not. If it did, they would accept anything over and above the value as waste paper, and, if they could not get as much as that, the waste-paper merchant was always there. But some sort of sentiment still hung around them and there are still 239,000 of these volumes cluttering up whatever storage accommodation there is in the Stationery Office. Deputy Lynch is annoyed about the books in the National Library, or around those premises, unopened. If he will take these books and distribute them through the Gaeltacht, we will give him storage space for some of the other books about which he is anxious.

I was referring to library space.

I understand that they are in boxes which can be given to the people. We have also five industrial alcohol factories on our hands. There is a novel called Eight Republics in Search of a Future. These are five factories in search of an industry. If I can get a good industry for them, they will be used for it. There is good machinery in the factories and they are good buildings, but what are they doing? They are producing a particular essence, and, if we spill that essence into the ground and do not make the petrol distributors take it, we could reduce the price of petrol immediately by between 1½d. and 2d. per gallon by just wasting the stuff. If we could get the place destroyed, on the money we would not have to spend on them, we could give his present wages to every employee in the place for the rest of his life. Yet these factories are being kept working and the Government that started them was not content to start one as an experiment but had to launch into five at more or less the same time.

I was looking back over the debates to revive my memory of this project when it was first mooted. In 1934, Deputy MacEntee and Deputy Lemass were both in charge and they banked their credit in those days on this, that they could produce industrial alcohol at about 1/9 to 1/10 per gallon, and they certainly said that they did not anticipate it could go beyond 2/-. It never, of course, came near 2/-. And at the moment it is costing 6/- to produce, and at 6/-, it is completely and wholly uneconomic. The five factories cost, I think, about £300,000—between factories and machinery, £312,000—and they are going there, producing a particular type of spirit which is no good to anybody and without which we could make life cheaper for motorists.

Deputy Moylan criticised me for stating that he had started the system of spoils. I read here on the 25th May last a letter which my colleague, Deputy Murphy, read out in the Dáil many years before in which Deputy Moylan put himself on record. Various people had to go before a particular board for appointments, the appointee having in the first instance to be certified as competent and suitable for the position by the interview board. He said:

"I believe Miss Gilligan will fulfill that condition. From the list certified as competent, I shall appoint the person best suited to the position from a political point of view."

I put that as a clear-cut example of the spoils system.

The same as you are doing now.

There is the spoils system. The Irish Press had an article recently commenting on that and saying they did not like this and did not approve the spoils system. It should not be worked by Ministers and they said, more or less, in Fianna Fáil's time there would be no such thing. I was reminded that Deputy Moylan not merely told Miss Gilligan he would appoint the person best suited to the position from a political viewpoint but, on one occasion, when a certain number of people were up before him for putting into certain order, he had the bad luck to appoint to an office a person who had not applied for the job and that had to be pointed out to him.

If anybody cares to see the documentation, I will provide it for them. That was, of course, going a bit too far because the word had not passed out as to what was on. In particular, the Irish Press political commentary, by “Dáil Reporter”, is very strong that those who support the present Government and who are lawyers should not, no matter what their professional qualifications, apparently, be given briefs on State cases. That is made a point of principle. That should not be done. There is an interesting file which shows that the first Attorney-General under Fianna Fáil put up a proposal that a colleague of his, who was also a T.D., later to become a judge, should be appointed to the office that in England they know as Solicitor-General. We do not know any such office here but we can always manufacture a salary for it and the salary was apportioned at the rate of £500, in addition to which that member of the Bar, who was a Deputy supporting Fianna Fáil, was to be allowed to take fees in private cases. Of course, he was entitled to that. But he was also to be entitled to take fees in State cases and, being as near to the Attorney-General as he was in those days, it was only to be expected that some fees would go his way. In the first year he succeeded in having the sum of £1,574 paid to him out of State cases. One adds to that the £500 and then adds on the Deputy's salary. He was also doing private practice. In part of the second year he drew £1,262 in State fees. That is hardly the idealism that is in this article.

I remember the time when there was a discussion in this House over the dismissal of the late General O'Duffy and Deputy de Valera was asked whether his successor had any virtue that General O'Duffy had not and he said, yes, he had one and that was that he was not chief of police for ten years under the previous Administration. If that was not the application of a spoils system or, rather, the application of a revengeful system, I do not know what it was. Later, when it came to the disappearance of the Secretary of the Department of Local Government there were lectures given by many people who are now in the Opposition Benches about political affiliations and how a Minister must have political reliance and political confidence in the man whom he had beside him as secretary. Would the Opposition like that particular plan put into operation now? I do not think they would. I do not think we intend to have anything to do with that sort of plan, but that was what was preached as correct policy in those days.

How many have you removed now, Minister?

I can look at a list of counsel briefed on behalf of the State and I look back on those who were receiving briefs from the State in 1931 and 1932, and then I move over to those who were being briefed in 1933. I have not yet found that there was an order in the book by the Attorney-General, but the change is such that the order might as well be there: Do not appoint anybody to hold a prosecuting brief if he held one under the previous Administration. I invite Deputies to ask me who were the people who were getting briefs in 1946 and 1947, and who are getting briefs now, and see whether the change has been so drastic and so complete as it was in 1931-32 as opposed to 1933. We know what the spoils system was, worked against us. It is a bad system and should not be applied.

And you are applying it now.

Deputy Burke must cease interrupting.

The Deputy has challenged me twice. In connection with that, whom will the Deputy say?

He cannot say. He is mute in ignorance.

The Minister knows the answer.

Will the Deputy give me one person?

Give a single name.

Three or four now.

I am just a wee bit more charitable than the Minister. I do not want to give the names in this House.

Throw charity to the winds for one night. Come on with the name.

We will give you free licence.

I think the Deputy has been given his chance. I would like to examine anybody who is annoying the Deputy as any bit of political victimisation.

I will not mention any names.

The most serious matters that have been raised in this debate have been the general questions of emigration and unemployment. In that connection I see an editorial in the Irish Press of the 28th of this month calling attention to a phrase used by Deputy Keane in the House in this debate. He had talked about people who emigrated, not through force of circumstances but because they were by tradition wild geese and were trying to better themselves. The editorial pours scorn on that idea and says that it is a waste of time having an Emigration Commission because there is the tradition of emigration. We have the habit of emigrating and the Irish Press say, scornfully:—

"The tradition has been established and everybody knows how tenacious tradition can be. People will leave their homes, their friends and relations even if they have no need to. They are wild geese and they must spread their grey wings on every tide."

I felt when I read that that the person who wrote it must have been reading what Deputy Childers said.

And what the Minister said, that he was not responsible for the unemployed in this country.

If the Deputy does not cease interrupting, another course must be taken.

Deputy Childers remembers when he talked about the people of this country being an adventurous people and how there was a tradition of emigration and how difficult it was to stop.

Two Parties said they would end it overnight. I never did.

The Deputy did not. Most of his colleagues did. They were going to stop emigration and unemployment in next to no time.

That is right.

That is the attitude they had here before they became a Government.

Deputy Lemass told us in 1928 that he believed:

"Ireland can be made a self-contained unit, providing all the necessities of living in adequate quantities for the people residing in the Island at the moment and probably for a much larger number."

He told us in 1930 that "the outstanding fact concerning unemployment in this country is that it need not exist at all". Later, in the same debate when I challenged him, and when he seemed to be getting into a mood of gradualness with regard to it, he retorted:

"You could find an immediate solution for unemployment tomorrow."

Deputy de Valera told the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis:—

"The more I consider the position the more convinced I become that the problem of unemployment in Ireland is quite capable of solution, and the more certain I feel that it is a crime against the unemployed and against the nation to leave it unsolved."

Of course, he did learn a bit after that, because he told us in a more recent debate that

"this emigration was not a thing that could be stopped easily and that the Fianna Fáil Party had done its best"

—they were in about 12 years at that time—and "he had to confess that they had failed." He pleaded in this House that if Deputies had any remedy that they could suggest to him in connection with the development of agriculture he thought that was the keynote of the whole thing. He said he would readily accept their advice, and if it seemed good to him he would work it. At the end of their days in December, 1947, the late Government, faced with the thought that the gates of America would soon be opening and that the system of permits with regard to passage to England could not be maintained, decided that they might consider the appointment of a commission with wide terms of reference to examine population influences and a number of other factors of which emigration was one.

We are jeered at because we established a commission on emigration. In December, 1947, the former Government could think of establishing a commission to deal with emigration, amongst other things. Might I point out to Deputies what this Government has done in connection with emigration?

It has sent 40,000 out of the country.

It is a pity it did not send you.

It has given the people a better incentive to work in this country than ever before. Wages have been increased. In the State services there have been increases and we have reduced taxation that was pressing hard on people in connection with tobacco and beer to the extent of over £5,000,000. These, surely, are incentives to keep people in occupation here by increasing whatever pleasure they get in their lives through having a bit more money to spend.

It was said that we stopped the turf schemes, aviation development and a variety of things are alleged against us. I sometimes, I suppose, see things possibly from a different angle from other people because of technical matters pressing in upon my Department. I am very often gravely concerned with the amount of money that is being spent and rushed through the country, sometimes through Government agencies. If I take what is called below the line expenditure, and look at what was spent in 1947-48, I find that on such matters as Telephone Capital Acts, Electricity Supply Acts, Local Loans Fund Acts, Turf Development and other matters there was a sum of £5,500,000 spent that way, £1,000,000 of which was on air navigation and transport. As the greater part of that was for the purchase of machines it did not count much from the employment that was given, but at any rate £4,500,000 was spent on what should have been productive employment in 1947-49. In the financial year 1948-49 these items accounted for £9,000,000 and in the year that we are facing they are likely to amount to £13,750,000. That must be reflected in occupation. Certainly, if there is unemployment or emigration in the country it cannot be put down to any skimping of money because the sum of money which the previous Government spent has been almost doubled in the financial year we are just finishing, and will be increased by £9,250,000 in next year.

That cannot go on. These sums of money may not be spent at that rate. It will not be possible to get money to spend, and in any event that type of development may have to take second place to other development. That is the reason why this Government as a group have decided to go in for a land development programme. We would prefer to see money spent on the land, to be put into a position where it may become more productive, rather than put money into roads where it can never become productive. The roads may make a greater amenity, but money so spent will not lead, except indirectly to greater production. We are going to have a plan with regard to land development. We are bound to have such a plan. We have accepted a loan of money from the American Government which is to aid production here. We have promised to get more production, but production will not come of itself. We have decided to aid the people in certain areas and hope to show them that, if they do get a certain amount of money to spend on the land, they will reap the advantage in the way of better production. We hope, too, to reap advantage by an increase in the national wealth. We want to inaugurate that plan one of these days, and about the time it is being inaugurated I want to make this suggestion to the Deputies over there. In the past, when the Shannon was developed, everybody in Dáil Éireann accepted it. It was approved unanimously. The Deputies opposite were not then in Dáil Éireann. They disagreed with it. It was thought to be too big a scheme, and that it was involving the national credit too much. It may well be that, in four or five years' time, people looking back on the land reclamation scheme planned with the same type of imagination and with every encouragement and preparation, will see that there was a good chance of the same good results coming from it for the country. Beware that you do not make the mistake a second time that you made over the Shannon.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 56

  • Beirne, John.
  • Belton, John.
  • Blowick, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Joseph P.
  • Browne, Noel C.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Collins, Seán.
  • Commons, Bernard.
  • Connolly, Roderick J.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Cowan, Peadar.
  • Crotty, Patrick J.
  • Davin, William.
  • Desmond, Daniel.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Dunne, Seán.
  • Esmonde, Sir John L.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finucane, Patrick.
  • Fitzpatrick, Michael.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Halliden, Patrick J.
  • Hogan, Patrick.
  • Hughes, Joseph.
  • Keane, Seán.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kinane, Patrick.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • Larkin, James.
  • Lehane, Con.
  • Lehane, Patrick D.
  • MacBride, Seán.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • McQuillan, John.
  • Madden, David J.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Gorman, Patrick J.
  • O'Higgins, Michael J.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Sullivan, Martin.
  • Palmer, Patrick W.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Redmond, Bridget M.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Roddy, Joseph.
  • Rooney, Eamonn.
  • Sheehan, Michael.
  • Sheldon, William A.W.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.
  • Timoney, John J.
  • Tully, John.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal T.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Brennan, Thomas.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Friel, John.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, James.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lahiffe, Robert.
  • Lydon, Michael F.
  • Lynch, John.
  • McCann, John.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Butler, Bernard.
  • Carter, Thomas.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Colley, Harry.
  • Collins, James J.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Honor Mary.
  • Davern, Michael J.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • De Valera, Vivion.
  • McGrath, Patrick.
  • Maguire, Patrick J.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • Rice, Bridget M
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Walsh, Richard.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Sweetman and Keyes; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.
Question declared carried.
Vote reported and agreed to.
Top
Share