When the Minister for Finance concluded his Budget statement yesterday there was a marked absence of applause from the Labour and Clann na Poblachta Benches, in contradiction to the demonstration they made in the previous year, I understand.
Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 13—General (Resumed).
Question again proposed:—
That is is expedient to amend the law relating to customs and inland revenue (including excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance—(Minister for Finance.)
Applause is against the Rules of Order of the House.
That did not prevent Labour and Clann na Poblachta Deputies on the first Budget introduced by the present Minister for Finance from applauding very loudly.
It was a Fianna Fáil Budget.
It was not a Royal Navy Budget.
Harold Lloyd.
What do you think of it now?
The present Budget was a good sound Cumann na nGaedheal Budget.
That is what the Irish Press says.
We want to hear what Deputy Aiken has to say——
And it is not much.
——without comments.
We trust that even if the Labour and Clann na Poblachta Deputies were mute as mice, yesterday, they may pluck up a little bit of courage to say what they really think of this Budget. One of the characteristics of the old Cumann na nGaedheal Budgets was very evident in the Budget that was introduced by the present Minister for Finance yesterday. The dead hand of Cumann na nGaedheal has come back on the country—with the assistance of the Clann na Poblachta Party and the Labour Party. They succeeded in crushing out 1,000 factories during their time and there is no evidence from this Budget that they mean to deal with the economic, financial and social factors in this country in such a way that additional production will be got from farm and factory to enable more of our people to live at home at a higher standard of life.
It is right that when a Budget is being introduced by a Minister for Finance he should advert to the principal economic, financial and social factors and that he should give some indication as to how his budgetary proposals are meant to improve the conditions. There was no such indication given yesterday by the Minister for Finance. He did indicate that certain parts of the Fianna Fáil programme were going to proceed in the coming year, but he gave no indication that he was going to restore some of the parts of the Fianna Fáil programme, which had been cut down, in order to deal with the shortage of production about which he complained or to deal with the very greatly increased unemployment and emigration during their régime. During this last year, 1948, 13,000 people emigrated from the country. In the previous year 11,166 people had come back into the country. The Minister made no attempt to estimate the factors which caused that change and he gave no indication that he had in mind policies to right the situation or to attempt, as far as a Government can, to provide more employment and give greater opportunities to our people to remain at home. I do not claim that any Government can, over-night or in a year or in 16 months or in many years, create such conditions as will enable every person to remain at home, particularly if they have any desire to go abroad. But I think it was up to the present Minister for Finance to give some indication that he was aware of the major problems of unemployment and emigration and to show how his Budget would improve the situation.
When Fianna Fáil introduced the Budget in 1947 for £57.7 million there was a great outcry from some of the present occupants of Government Benches. They said it was ruining the country. When the present Fine Gael Ministers were speaking in elections during 1947 and the beginning of 1948 they said they would decrease Fianna Fáil expenditure by £10,000,000. Instead of decreasing Government expenditure by £10,000,000 they have increased it by £8,000,000—so they are £18,000,000 out. A lot of people were led to vote for Fine Gael and for other members of the Government Benches in the belief that this thing could be done. All over the country, on many political platforms, they denounced the extravagance of Fianna Fáil with phrases such as those quoted by Deputy Lemass yesterday and they promised that they would relieve the burden of taxation on the people. In fact, instead of decreasing the burden of taxation, as Fine Gael promised, they have increased it by £8,000,000.
The changes in taxation during these last 16 months are significant. The present Budget proposes to increase taxation on dancing and on legallyheld firearms and it proposes to reduce the taxation on income-tax, on corporation profits, on wine and on a few other little matters. Last year the Labour Party gave a warning to the Minister for Finance that they were not going to stand for the abolition of the excess corporation profits tax and they demanded that, although he did not see his way to introduce it in the Budget of May, 1948, he should in 1949 reintroduce it, and I want to know from the Minister for Finance why he did not reintroduce it, not that I would be in favour of it, but at least the Minister for Finance, speaking for the Coalition group, owes it as a duty to the people whom he misled into believing that he would reintroduce it to show and explain to them why he has not done so. The Tánaiste fulminated against the abolition of the excess corporation profits tax in a very vigorous manner. He alleged that we abolished the excess corporation profits tax because we wanted to give £3,500,000 to the "racketeers" who were Fianna Fáil friends. Is it because the Minister for Finance wants to give £3,500,000 to the Fianna Fáil "racketeers" that he has not made some effort to reimpose the excess corporation profits tax?
The "racketeers" are being watched now, you know.
If that is the explanation, well and good.
We are not very embarrassed.
The Minister for Finance did not mention a word about the excess corporation profits tax; he did not mention anything about profits; all he indicated was that last year he estimated that the receipts from income-tax were going to go up by nearly £1,000,000 on last year's rate of income-tax and that surtax and supertax were going to go up a little. The Tánaiste, during the year, made the allegation that corporation profits were too high. Indeed, he said: "I am certainly more satisfied from what I have seen and heard behind the scenes during the past ten months that a goodly number of men who had tariffs to help industrial development made a pile of money out of the tariffs imposed." He went on denouncing in the usual rotund way which is characteristic of the Tánaiste, and concluded by saying: "I think that in a wellgoverned country gentlemen of that kind ought to be the guests of the Government in power in the thickest walled jails we have". Instead of putting them into the thickest walled jails we have, income-tax and supertax have been reduced and the corporation profits tax is being reduced. Will the Minister say whether the Tánaiste had any basis for his accusation of inordinate profits being made by industrialists in this country? The Minister for Industry and Commerce did not agree with him in that statement, and I want to know whether the Minister for Finance agreed with him. Should our industrialists be put in the thickest walled jails we have and what would be the result of the imposition of excess corporation profits tax?
The re-introduction of the excess corporation profits tax was made the basis of a very strong promise by the Labour Party on January 24th, 1948. The Tánaiste said that by "returning a strong Labour Party the people would have a guarantee that excess profits would be taxed to provide money to subsidise prices and thus reduce the cost of commodities." The people returned a very much stronger Labour Party than the Tánaiste expected. As members of the Coalition they are in a position of strength if they want to exercise it. If they are not exercising their strength within the Coalition to reimpose the excess corporation profits tax, I want to know why? Why has it not been reimposed in order to subsidise prices and thus reduce the cost of commodities? Is it a fact that the Tánaiste now knows that his ranting throughout the country was nonsense? Is it a fact that he now regards his ranting about the excess corporation profits tax as a mere political stunt to win votes and that, in fact, it was not justified? At the time we tried to explain to the people that we could not have an excess corporation profits tax here, even should we desire it or even should we think it might be desirable from a social point of view, when the British Labour Party had abolished it in England, but that explanation did not satisfy the Tánaiste when he was in opposition. Does it satisfy him now, and will somebody on behalf of the Labour Party, if the Tánaiste does not think fit to intervene in this debate, explain why they are agreeable to the non-imposition of the excess corporation profits tax?
One of the good things that the country may get out of the evil of this present Government is a slight advance in political education. I want to do what I can here in this House to force the members of the Coalition to explain to the people how wrong they were in a lot of the propaganda upon which they got votes and to explain also why they have not, in many instances, fulfilled the promises upon which they persuaded the people to vote for them.
It was not only Deputy Norton who spoke about this question of excess corporation profits tax. Deputy Larkin last year gave a clear indication that he was prepared to stand for the non-reimposition of the tax last year, but this year he would expect it to be imposed. Anyone who wants to look up Deputy Larkin's speech here on the 12th May, 1948, can see for himself the strong criticism he made of the Minister for Finance and the warning he gave that he was not going to stand for it this year. I want to hear from Deputy Larkin in this debate as to why this strong Labour Party, in a position to make and unmake Governments, has not lived up to its threat or its promise —whichever you like to call it—that it would reimpose this tax and use the £3,500,000 for the reduction of the prices of commodities. The reason cannot be that there is no necessity to reduce the price of commodities. The cost of living has gone up during the Coalition régime. In fact, the taxpayers are paying a very considerable sum to public servants to compensate them for the increased cost of living. If it had not gone up, there would have been no necessity for the extra £1,000,000 or so for civil servants, Guards, and so on.
It must be admitted that there is necessity to use every means possible to reduce the cost of living. Indeed, such a reduction was made a major issue in the General Election of January, 1948. There are people sitting on Government Benches who promised that they were going to reduce it by 30 per cent. The Fine Gael Party also promised that they would reduce it. The allegation was that the Fianna Fáil Government could easily reduce the cost of living, only that they were so incompetent and so desirous of taking the last ¼d. off the poor. Instead of reducing the cost of living in these last 16 months, the Coalition have allowed it to rise. Not only have the taxpayers, who are non-public servants, to bear the increased price of bread and other commodities, but on top of it they have to pay an addition this year of £8,000,000, part of which goes to compensate public servants and others for the increased cost of living. Therefore, there is a double burden—an addition in the cost of living and additional taxation to pay for that increased cost of public servants.
I was very interested in the manner in which the Minister for Finance dealt with the stamp duties. Indeed, the offhand way in which he described what he was going to do almost made me think he himself had imposed the duty last year and that now he was going to stop some gaps that had been found in the operation of the duty during the 12 months. Some members who were here in 1947 will remember that the stamp duties were introduced, not by the present Minister for Finance but by his predecessor—myself. I proposed to the Government and got their acceptance of the increase in the stamp duties, up to 5 per cent. in the case of citizens of this country and to 25 per cent. in the case of others—in order to put a brake on inflation. We had quite a long discussion here as to the effect of that stamp duty.
I believed that it was a good tax in the then circumstances. I am still convinced that it was good in the circumstances of that time. Many members of the present Government were not so convinced and, indeed, indicated their disapproval of my suggestion in no uncertain way. The Minister for Finance did not take any trouble, in this particular Budget Statement, to justify the reimposition of the increased stamp duties under the present circumstances. We regard the increase in the stamp duty on the transfer of property as anti-inflationary taxation. This increase in the stamp duty does not go with the other inflationary steps which the Minister proposes in this Budget. The Minister made no justification for that proposal and justification for reimposing this stamp duty at the present time is called for by him. Have we an inflationary situation which necessitates putting a brake on the inflation of house and land values, or have we a deflationary situation which calls for the spending of money, whether borrowed or collected otherwise than by means of taxation?
When I introduced the stamp duty in 1947 the present Taoiseach denounced it. He said, as reported in column 1065, Volume 108 of the Official Reports:—
"I believe this tax will merely result in making house property dearer and housing for persons with limited means impossible."
Is that going to be the result of the reimposition of the stamp duty this year? Will it make "house property dearer and housing for persons with limited means impossible"? The Minister for Finance owes it to the House and to the country to explain what his view of that is. Does he agree with the Taoiseach in what he said about it when the matter came before the Dáil first? Indeed, the Taoiseach was very calm in his denunciation of the perfidy of the increase of the stamp duty in 1947. There were other members of the present Government who were not quite so calm in their denunciations as the Taoiseach. The Minister for Agriculture also objected to it and he regarded it as a "dirty fraud". Exactly what the Minister for Finance is trying to do at present he described as a "dirty fraud" when I introduced it. He also called it a "dirty, deceitful game". He also said that it was "flat-footed incompetence"; that it was "a shuffling and a cloutish way of dealing with that problem". He also described it as "a dirty wangle", and a "vicious, contemptible, mean jab at those who are defenceless". He warned up in his speech and described it in these words:—
"It is a dirty, contemptible, vicious and disedifying proposal, well worthy of the mind of the Minister for Finance who conceived it, and a disgrace on the House that adopts it; a confession before the world that there can survive here a meanness of spirit that was unknown in this country in the darkest days through which our people had to live."
Does the Minister for Finance regard it in the same way as the Minister for Agriculture regarded it in 1947? If so, why has he introduced it? Do Deputies who are supporting the Government regard the Minister's proposal as a "dirty fraud", a "dirty, deceitful game" and, if so, why do they propose to support him in inflicting it upon the country? If inflation is stopped, I think the Government might very well consider abolishing this tax and imposing some tax which would be easier to collect and which would not lead to so many legal arguments in the courts for which the people have to pay. The Minister for Finance should tell us what he thinks of the situation. Is there an inflationary situation which necessitates the reimposition of the stamp duty? I think he owes it to the country and the voters who were deceived into voting for the Coalition group in the belief that these proposals were a "dirty fraud" to explain to them that he now believes it was not a "dirty fraud."
One of the proposals in this Budget is to give a subsidy of about £16,000 to the importation of tobacco from Rhodesia by way of a preferential reduction in the customs duty on tobacco. If the Minister thinks it is necessary to encourage the importation of tobacco from Rhodesia rather than from the United States in order to save dollars, would he tell us why the Government are not making some greater effort to increase the production here of commodities like wheat, which would save very many more dollars?
He might also explain to us, if we have to go to that extremity to save dollars, what is the net product of the calculation of importing dollar maize and selling our eggs for sterling? Yesterday the Minister for Agriculture explained to Deputy Cogan why he had departed from his promise to give 3/-a dozen for eggs. He said that we were able to import maize now at a cheaper rate and, therefore, the farmers would have to stand the reduction from 3/-to 2/6 a dozen for eggs. We are selling these eggs over in Great Britain for pounds and, instead of getting 3/- a dozen for them, we are getting 2/6. A lot of these surplus eggs which we are exporting are the result of the increased quantity of dollar maize we are importing. I wish the Minister for Finance would give us the calculations he has made to see where the profit lies in that particular transaction, particularly when he is driven to the point of subsidising Rhodesian tobacco in order to avoid buying dollar tobacco.
The Minister for Finance suggested what we might do to balance our international payments. He spoke about an increase in agricultural production as being one method by which we might do that. He said that in 1948 our gross agricultural output had only gone up by .8 of £1,000,000 over 1947 although he admitted that 1947 was a disastrous year from the point of view of weather. Indeed, it was one of the most disastrous. We had a disastrous spring following a disastrous winter, which was preceded by the most disastrous harvest in the last 100 years.
The Deputy is missing out a year.
The Minister for Finance at least said that the weather in 1948 had been very much better than in 1947.
1946 was the year.
1947 was recognised by the whole of Europe for the lowest agricultural output for 100 years.
For 16 years in this country.
We nearly reached the bottom limit.
If we had got the King to live over in Phoenix Park it might have gone up. However, the Minister for Finance said in his speech yesterday that in the terms of 1938-39 prices the gross agricultural output for 1948 has been provisionally valued at £50,000,000 as compared with £53.5 million in 1938-39. He said:—
"There was a slight recovery as compared with 1947, which was a year of unfavourable weather, when the gross output figure on the same basis of valuation was £49.2 million."
£49.2 million from £50,000,000 leaves £800,000. Therefore, in the year of favourable weather, when we had a large increase in artificial manures, our gross agricultural output—that is what he is referring to—went up in the terms of 1938-39 prices by £.8 million. If our gross agricultural output only went up by £.8 million it might be possible that our net agricultural output went down because in 1948 the farmers undoubtedly purchased more fertilisers and more foreign foodstuffs of various kinds. I wish the Minister for Finance would whisper in the ear of the Minister for Agriculture and point out his view of the agricultural situation. We might then hear less boasting round the country from the Minister for Agriculture.
It would take more than whispering to resurrect the cattle industry in this country.
That is true. The Minister for Finance is finding out that it takes a lot more than unfair speeches against a Government to increase output of any kind.
You destroyed the agricultural production on the cattle side.
They are only just discovering how much damage they did do.
I will deal with that. If we are going back to the economic war——
You raised it.
I did not raise it but I am quite prepared to debate it.
So are we.
If the Deputies want a debate and it is in order we will have it; if it is out of order we will not, but running commentary is not orderly.
We all know that our agricultural output in 1948, 1947 or back to 1932 or 1924 was not as high as is necessary if we are going to provide a reasonable standard of living for our people. We all know that everything possible should be done to increase agricultural output and particularly to increase agricultural net output. It is no use to increase gross output by our buying maize and so forth from abroad and selling the eggs or poultry or beef that we produce thereby at less than we have paid for the feeding stuffs. We want to increase our net output and it will require the goodwill of the farmers and a belief in the Government policy. Bombastic speeches by the Minister for Agriculture or by the Minister for Finance are not going to improve the situation.
The Minister for Finance is this year imposing £18,000,000 of taxation more than he and his leader promised during the 1948 election. I should like to know from the Minister for Finance why this £18,000,000 is being imposed in this particular year. Surely it would be easier for him to print the notes as he used to advocate when he was here in these benches. Why did the Minister for Finance not live up to his promises and tax the people £18,000,000 less this year and print the notes, as he advocated? An explanation is due to the people whom he deceived into believing that all our ills could be cured by printing notes if there was any good purpose for which we wanted notes. The Minister for Finance, of course, may have educated himself to the point where he recognises that his propositions when he was in opposition were simply crazy. I think he should show the mental processes he went through during the course of his education to the people whom he deceived so that they might follow and undeceive themselves about his propositions, as he appears to have undeceived himself. It would be much easier for the Minister for Finance to have printed these £18,000,000 and for a number of members of his Government who undoubtedly do not like taxation. At least, they said they did not like taxation when they were on these benches.
The present Taoiseach denounced the Budget of 1947, which was £8,000,000 less than the present one by saying that
"there is no doubt that the high rate of taxation is very largely responsible for the under-production we are faced with here."
He went on, at that time, to sneer at the then Minister for Finance "in his high-powered Dodge car" running around the country. A high-powered Dodge car is not sufficient for the present Taoiseach, but that is by the way. His attitude then was that there was no doubt that taxation was too high for production, and he advocated abolishing a lot of taxation. How did the Minister for Finance, who used to advocate the printing of notes, persuade the Taoiseach to stand for an extra £8,000,000 of taxation? We would like to hear the conversation or hear the synopsis of the arguments with which the Minister for Finance persuaded the Taoiseach that taxation should be increased.
In the year 1948 the Minister for Finance issued a loan, and his excuse for the issue of that loan was that every penny of it had to be paid to meet the debts that Fianna Fáil had left. One would take from that that the State debt had been reduced by £12,000,000 in the first few months of the Coalition régime, but instead of that we find, according to the White Paper which the Minister has issued, that the State debt has gone up in this last year by a further £10,000,000. Does not the Minister know, or will he now admit to the people, that his statement that he used the £12,000,000 borrowed in the spring of 1948 in the reduction of debt was a fraudulent statement; that what he used the result of the £12,000,000 loan for was not to repay the State debt but to change one form of State debt into another? The result of this change of the State debt from one form into another, and the increased debt which he has incurred, is shown in the details of the estimate of expenditure for this year. If Deputies look at the service of public debt for 1949-50, as against 1948-49, they will find the service of public debt has gone up by almost £500,000 in this last year. What the Minister for Finance did with portion of his first loan of 1948 was to change the State debt bearing 1? per cent. interest into a State debt bearing 3 per cent. interest. That may or may not have been a good thing to do, but the receipts of the first loan certainly were not used in the reduction of State debt, as the Minister for Finance said in the Seanad on the 30th June, 1948, column 325, Volume 35.
Is that the column that contains the word "reduced"?
"Every penny of it had to be paid to meet the debts that Fianna Fáil had left." What that was meant to convey, and what it did convey, to the normal person was that the debts were being paid off. Instead of the debts being paid their form was changed and that is all.
Why do you say "reduced"?
Can I get the question answered now? Do you deny that all that happened was that you changed one form of debt into another?
I deny that I said that the debt was "reduced".
Will you admit that it was?
That is a question that is not to be answered in this way. I will deal with it. I certainly paid a lot of debts.
I hope the Minister will deal with it. What the Minister did was he converted one form of debt into another and that is all.
It is not usual to have a floating debt as against Budget deficits.
If, instead of borrowing the money, you had printed it would it have been floating? The Minister has crawled out from the flood of paper money with which he wanted to drown us.
I did not pretend to drown anyone.
Will the Minister deal with that question when replying?
Deal with what question?
First of all——
What debts did I pay? I will deal with that, and how the debts were accumulated.
Yes. The Minister, I hope, will also deal with the growling that he had when the State debt was about £12,000,000 less than it is at the present time.
Will you also give me that reference?
Some member of this Party will give it before the debate is finished. The Minister, in his present Budget, went on to growl about the present rate of taxation. He complained that the rate of taxation now is £27 per head. Well, if it is £27 per head, the Minister used to have an easy way of dealing with that. He would simply print notes.
Will you give me that reference?
I will give the Minister that reference.
Mr. de Valera
The Minister surely is not going to run away from the fact that he made these ridiculous statements.
The Minister will look for that quotation.
Mr. de Valera
What quotation? Everyone in the country knows that the Minister for Finance and all of them were talking through their hats about printing notes.
You ran away from many things in your lifetime.
It is usual to have an alleged quotation given when asked for. I want the quotation from the Deputy, and also the one from Deputy de Valera.
I will get the quotation.
I hope I will get it from Deputy de Valera instead of his faked indignation.
The Minister's faked indignation.
Mr. de Valera
At the cynical way the people were deceived. That is what is causing the indignation.
It must be annoying you. You got away with it for 16 years.
Mr. de Valera
It was very annoying to see decent people fooled in that cynical way.
For 16 years you did it.
The Minister is not going to put me off the track by faked indignation about my quoting a statement by him——
You have not quoted it yet.
——to the effect that if there was a good object for the expenditure of State money, we could print the notes. I will get for him his exact words before the debate concludes and some member on these benches will quote them.
I presume it is being withdrawn then?
Not a bit of it.
I understand that is the rule.
If the Deputy purports to quote, he should quote correctly.
I did not purport to quote his exact words. I gave the sense of them and I will produce the quotation as soon as it is physically possible for me.
It is like the reduction of debt—he was not quoting there either.
I should like to hear from the Minister why he has imposed this additional taxation on firearms. There are Ministers in his Government who think that certain sections of the community should have firearms without any taxation at all, but, in the case of other citizens who have paid taxation up to the present, if they have a .22 rifle, heretofore they got a licence for 5/-. Now he is going to charge them £1. Why is he doing that? Heretofore, a farmer could have a shotgun for killing vermin on his land for 5/-and the Minister now proposes to charge him 10/-. Doubling taxation of that type is rather steep and quadrupling it in the case of the .22 rifle is a bit steep. The Minister can see his way to reduce the tax on wines and to reduce the corporation profits tax. Why should he charge this extra £30,000 to lawabiding citizens who have paid for their firearms certificates up to the present time? He should give them a bit of a break as against the citizens who pay no taxation on firearms and carry them around with the approval of the Minister for Justice and the Minister for External Affairs.
The Minister proposes to spend the Marshall Aid Counterpart Fund here on the scheme of land drainage and improvement devised by the Minister for Agriculture. He makes the plea that the money spent by the Minister in this way will increase agricultural production. Everyone knows that, while land drainage might be a very desirable social service in the case of small farmers, portion of whose lands are flooded, swamped or covered with rushes, from an economic point of view there is not any great increase of production to be expected from the expenditure of the money. However, a corner of a field to a man with a couple of acres is a valuable increase in his property, and, in the case of small farmers in congested districts, every effort should be made to add to the productive land at their disposal.
We know, however, that from an economic point of view, from the point of view of the balancing of international payments by increasing exports or by producing here things which we formerly imported, a much quicker and surer result would be obtained by putting extra fertilisers on good land. The encouragement given to the putting of fertilisers on land which Fianna Fáil provided, the subsidy on artificial manures, has been abolished this year, and the Minister wants us to believe that agricultural production will be increased by the land improvement scheme which the Minister for Agriculture has somewhere in his bonnet but has not brought forward in concrete proposals to the Dáil yet. From a purely financial accountancy point of view, I want to know how the Minister justifies the borrowing of money in this year for that scheme, and how, indeed, he could justify the printing of money.
When the Minister was looking for a loan a few weeks ago he sent a circular around to people from whom he might expect subscriptions, and in it he talked about the danger of inflation and asked them to subscribe in order to reduce the danger of inflation. Surely, if there is a danger of inflation, the Minister is merely adding to it if he spends borrowed money for purposes which are not immediately productive. I had hoped that the Minister, in his Budget statement, would have dealt with the monetary situation, and not only would have explained to us the balance of payments, but would have given us his estimate of the situation, as to whether it was inflationary or deflationary. If inflationary pressures are to be expected it will merely be adding to these pressures to spend borrowed money, or, even if you had printed money, to spend that printed money. He proposes not only to spend borrowed money in this year for this purpose, but to spend money which we have borrowed and which we are bound by contract to repay in dollars. What hope has the Minister of procuring the dollars to repay the European Recovery Programme moneys by spending it on all sorts of drainage schemes, good, bad and indifferent? Surely it would have been better, if there is an inflationary situation which necessitates the reimposition of the stamp duty, to collect this money either through savings on present expenditure or by additional taxation.
The Fianna Fáil Government carried out a lot of land improvement. They did not talk about it as something which should be introduced in the future. We recognised that land improvement in certain cases could not be regarded, from a strict accountancy point of view, as economic and we asked the people to subscribe through taxation for land improvement and for the improvement of farm buildings. We were prepared to take the political unpopularity for that or any other necessary taxation. If the Minister is going to seek political popularity through avoiding taxation when taxation should be imposed, he is going to do a very bad day's work for this country. There is very little use in the Minister for Finance giving a greater rate of interest on moneys which he borrows if the result of that borrowing, the expenditure of these moneys, is to decrease the value of the loans which he has obtained. When the Minister is replying he might please explain for the benefit of members of the House and people through the country how he justifies the changing of the basis of finance for land improvement from taxation, as under Fianna Fáil, to borrowed money, money borrowed in this particular case from America which is due to be repaid in dollars.
It is not due to be repaid in dollars.
I am afraid the Deputy had better keep silent because he will embarrass the Minister for Finance.
The Deputy misrepresented that position once before in this House.
Deputy Sweetman had better keep quiet because he will embarrass the Minister if he says that the loans which have been borrowed from America are not due to be repaid in dollars.
I have now got the quotations that the Minister for Finance was asking for, and if somebody will suggest a subject on which I can speak until he returns I shall be glad, because I would like him to be here when I read out those quotations.
Perhaps I will go back to the ten-point programme which the Government announced as their policy when they took over office a year or so ago. Number 3 was the taxation of all unreasonable profits. I have already dealt with that particular point. Number 4 was "the introduction of a comprehensive social security insurance plan".
What is wrong with Nos. 1 and 2?
No. 1 was "Put Fianna Fáil out" and No. 2 was "Keep them out".
That is the beginning and the end of the Coalition policy.
Will Deputy Aiken read out Nos. 1 and 2?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance summarised the whole policy of the Coalition—put Fianna Fáil out and keep Fianna Fáil out. If Fianna Fáil had that approach to politics we could have stayed in office because we could have bought some of the Coalition groups a lot cheaper from the point of view of the country than they were brought by this Government. The fourth point in the Coalition programme was the introduction of a comprehensive social security insurance plan.
What are points Nos. 1 and 2?
According to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, No. 1 was to put Fianna Fáil out and No. 2 was to keep Fianna Fáil out.
The Deputy knows that the Parliamentary Secretary was merely facetious.
The comprehensive social security insurance plan—does Deputy Lehane not want me to discuss that particular point? He was as mute as a mouse yesterday; he is always as meek as a mouse, as the Minister for Agriculture says, and it looks very much as if he is going to keep as meek as a mouse all the time.
Just wait for a few minutes.
And the worm may turn.
The worms are all on the other side of the House.
When will this comprehensive social security insurance plan be introduced? Notwithstanding all the yapping there was about it for many years by all the groups in the Coalition, nothing has been done. They are now 17 or 18 months in office and there is no sign yet of the comprehensive social security insurance plan. The Tánaiste promised a White Paper in a few months. We know perfectly well that it would take six months after that for the White Paper to be studied and another six months to get legislation through, if they want to put it through. It is doubtful whether we will see it even this year.
On a point of order. Is it in order for Deputy Aiken to inform the House openly that he is proposing to discuss matters other than what is before the House pending the return of the Minister?
If it is relevant to what is being discussed.
Last year the members of the Clann na Poblachta Party and the Labour Party said they were not going to be as meek as mice any longer and they said this comprehensive social security insurance plan would have to be produced forthwith, or else. But they will continue saying "or else" every month and there will be no action taken. We will hear Deputy Lehane and others and we will see them voting for various increases and reductions in taxation, even though the Minister has not said a word about the comprehensive social security insurance plan.
For a number of years we were criticised for not doubling up social security payments of all kinds. Quite legitimately we wanted to look before we leaped, but that was not good enough for members of the then Opposition. They wanted us to leap right away. Although they are now 17 or 18 months in office, they are still not in a position even to gather themselves for a jump. I wish Deputy Lehane, if he does not want me to deal with this subject, would ask the Minister for Finance to come in.
Are you running short of words?
That is one thing Deputy Collins will never run short of.
Not when I have to listen to you.
After the war, one of the first things that the Fianna Fáil Government did was to examine the question of our social services of various kinds. We decided, after examination, to set up a special Ministry which would deal comprehensively with all the social services. For instance, instead of old age pensions being administered by the Department of Local Government and the means test being administered by the Revenue Commissioners under the Department of Finance, and unemployment assistance being operated by the Department of Industry and Commerce, and so on, all these services would be gathered together in one Department, administered by one Minister who would have the responsibility of producing for the Government's consideration a comprehensive scheme of social services. That Ministry was in operation for a year before Fianna Fáil was put out of office. That Ministry had collected all the statistics necessary and had made all the necessary calculations to enable the Minister to put a proposition before the Government.
Why has it taken all this time for the comprehensive social security insurance plan to reach this Dáil? According to the Minister for Social Welfare it has not yet gone to the Government. The White Paper, even, has not been produced. There was great criticism as I said, of Fianna Fáil for not producing it. If Fianna Fáil had remained in office a comprehensive social security insurance plan would have been produced long ago, but it has not yet seen the light of day, and the Lord knows when it will see the light of day.
The Minister for Finance, who used to ask that all sorts of State payments should be doubled, that the Guards should be double wages, and so on, seems to have been successful up to the present time in blocking any such social security plan. I have no doubt that, just as Clann na Poblachta and the Labour Party remained meek as mice regarding his failure to produce the plan up to the present time, they will do so for another year. They may give another warning to-day that if the Minister does not behave himself and have a more liberal mentality, next year they will vote against him, but if they were to remain there and there did not happen to be a general election sometime in the offing, they would continue making that threat as long as the Tánaiste would continue making promises, and that would be a long time.
I see a number of other Deputies who want to speak and, as the Minister for Finance seems not to be returning, I shall give the quotation which he asked for. The Minister or any Deputy can look at Volume 94, column 2062, of the Dáil Debates and find this quotation:—
"Banks and all sorts of houses simply create money... We print notes when people present us here with British legal tender and demand Irish legal tender instead. We print it for them, and I suggest that we should print it at least as readily— always guarding against the dangers of over-printing—when the demand comes not from people who have English money and want it changed into ours, but when there is some good purpose for which Irish money is required."
When Deputy Cowan is speaking later on and when he is advocating, as he may advocate, the printing of notes, he will be able to quote the Minister for Finance.
A very sound statement.
That if there is any good purpose for which Irish money is required, we should print it?
Certainly.
I do not know why the Minister for Finance denied that particular statement to-day and challenged me to produce it and wanted me to withdraw the statement I made. Why should he run away from what he said in the past unless there was something disgraceful about it?
There is nothing disgraceful in that.
If the present circumstances are such that it would be wrong to print money, why does he not explain that definitely to the public? He is taxing the people under the present Budget £18,000,000 more than Fine Gael promised they would tax them. They said they would reduce taxation by £10,000,000. Instead, they have increased it by £8,000,000. Why is the Minister taxing to that extent rather than printing? When the situation was very much more inflationary than it is at the present time, he said that we should print the money. He urged us to print ourselves out of all our difficulties. We had plenty of good purposes over the years for the spending of money, but we thought that, in an inflationary situation, it would be wrong to add to that inflation by either printing or over-spending borrowed money. We tried, therefore, to balance and even to overbalance our Budgets in an inflationary period.
The present Budget gives two contradictory indications as to what the Minister's view is of the present situation. He wants us, first of all, to spend borrowed money, which we have to repay in dollars, on land improvement. That would seem to indicate that he thinks there is a deflationary situation existing. If that is the case, well then, why not print the money? Why tax? If, on the other hand, he holds by his circular of a few weeks ago which he sent out when he was looking for subscriptions for the loan, he should not spend borrowed money unless it secures an immediate improvement in the economic situation and he should continue to impose stamp and other duties in order to cut down inflationary pressure.
Frankly, I think this is both a realistic and useful Budget. I have very little sympathy with sour, disillusioned and rambling Deputy Aiken. I have listened to him now for an hour and 35 minutes, to use one of his own expressions, ranting rubbish. The only thing that Fianna Fáil realises is wrong with this Budget is that it is a good Budget. In fact the Irish Press has gone to the extent of adopting a new technique; when they had nothing bad to say about the Minister for Finance they kept quiet.
What is the situation to those of us who face it realistically and practically? There is one thing which no ranting can overcome. This Government, in the coming financial year, proposes to spend over £12,500,000 on capital expenditure. That is a considerable increase from the £2.6 million that the late Minister could afford to spend in the last year in which he was in office. Deputy Aiken will not tell us honestly that he does not want the reclamation schemes of the Minister for Agriculture and that he does not want the local government drainage schemes. But he tries to damn them with faint praise. I think that is even worse than ranting. It is not national to suggest that improving the quality and heart of the land should be in any way impeded. It may well be that because of the peculiar economic outlook of Deputy Aiken he cannot realise the ultimate value or the ultimate gain to this country of reclaimed land being put into production. Fortunately, the Deputies on this side of the House, and possibly some of the more reasonable ones behind Deputy Aiken himself, realise that if we are going to invest money in anything, the soundest and safest investment we can make from a national point of view is to recapitalise the value of the land itself. Deputy Aiken talks about the increasing taxation. I do not know whether Deputy Aiken has succeeded in fooling himself by trying to fool other people. The fact remains that no matter what he may say now we realise that it was indeed providential for the taxpayer of this country that we got Deputy Aiken out in time. We are now facing a situation where the Minister for Finance, after 12 months in office, presents us with a Budget that shows more than an earnest of the promise he gave that he would increase national expenditure on productive schemes as quickly as possible.
This Budget is a welcome omen of still better things to come. Despite all the sneers and jeers of some of the oafs on the Opposition Benches, we are conscious of a duty to the people to provide them with productive employment and decent conditions of living. We are glad of this earnest of increasing capital expenditure on productive schemes, schemes which we hope will dispel for all time unemployment in the rural areas. I do not believe that we have not reached the stage where we can get down to the job of making conditions better for the people generally. I think that the Minister has succeeded in overcoming the enormous difficulties with which he was faced last year. Perhaps some of us do not realise how fully and how successfully he has overcome them.
Deputy Aiken and his colleague, Deputy Lemass, spoke about disappointment. Deputy Aiken, Deputy Lemass and the people know full well the unexpected burdens that the Minister for Finance had to carry last year owing to the crass stupidity and gross incompetence of the last Government. The debentures of Córas Iompair Éireann had to be paid. The wages of Córas Iompair Éireann had to be paid. This was the monument erected to Deputy Lemass's "brilliant" stupidity. I do not put a tooth in it. Anybody who does not accept what I say can look through the figures of expenditure for last year.
Deputy Aiken is sore because this Government has been able to give civil servants long-deferred increases in pay without any Supplementary Estimates or Budgets. There is provision now for pensioned teachers in this Budget. There is provision for the Garda Síochána. I am glad, too, that there is provision for increases to my former colleagues in the Army. These are concrete things. Deputy Aiken, following in the footsteps of Deputy Lemass, has blundered and wandered round a comprehensive social insurance scheme. The first thing this Government did was to implement their promises to the blind and the aged. A case as bad as the one Deputy Aiken has made could only be made worse by Deputy Aiken himself.
He has left one impression on me. For a long time I realised that we were a tolerant people. But I never realised as fully as I do to-day that we suffered him gladly for so long as we did. He comes in to this House unable to face facts. He is not even able successfully to distort them. He deliberately stands praying that a Minister may come back so that he can sit down and keep quiet. If that is the only contribution that Fianna Fáil can make in opposition to this Budget it is typical of what their present state is. They are completely devoid of all hope.
I welcome the relief the Minister has given to those who have been neglected for so long. The small wage earner will welcome the relief in income-tax. It may be said that the Minister could have done something else. I think this section of the community deserves the relief they are getting. I am glad the Minister saw fit to give it to them. Deputy Aiken made some half sneering references to dancing and the tax the Minister proposes to put on that. It is amusing to find Deputy Aiken now occupying the role of defender of dance halls when we remember his speeches about beer, tobacco and luxuries and what he would do with them. We remember what he tried to do with them until we had the good fortune to get rid of him and restore some sense of reasonableness from the point of view of the unfortunate consumer.
A very welcome relief has been provided in this Budget for the small cinema owner and the owner of the little mobile cinema who operates in rural areas. I think that the reliefs given are of a rational type and were it not for the fact that they are not given under the drab cowl of their long hungry shadow, I do not think that any of the Fianna Fáil Deputies would really quarrel with this Budget at all. The Budget to me is one that gives earnest hope that the day is coming when money spent in this country will be spent where it is likely to do the most good and where it is likely to do that most rapidly. I think the day of wasteful expenditure has gone and that this Budget can be welcomed by us as an earnest of an era of progressive work on behalf of the nation and not on behalf of any individual or any particular group.
The criticism of the Minister for Finance by people like Deputy Aiken because he was forced to borrow money to get rid of this extraordinary thing that could be conceived only by a man such as Deputy Aiken, this kind of floating deficit as a result of unbalanced Budgets, seems fantastic. Deputy Aiken took the precaution to move off. I am sorry he did because I was going to put a few pertinent rhetorical questions that might have tested his appreciation, if any, of normal finance. His criticism seems even more fantastic when one realises the number of commitments from previous years that were not provided for in our Budget last year at all, but were met by the Minister for Finance and met successfully during the past year to enable him to bring before the House a rational Budget for the forthcoming year. I do not know exactly what is gnawing at the vitals of Deputy Aiken when he becomes critical of the fact that we are going to use money under the European Recovery Plan to finance schemes that will benefit the actual land of the country. I do not know if Deputy Aiken was in earnest but I hope the Irish Press will have the courage to put in big black lines his statement about reclaiming land in certain parts of the country—that it was wholly uneconomic, that it might be desirable as a social service, but that he knew it was impracticable. If that is the considered outlook of an alleged responsible Deputy, it is a pathetic future to put before the water-logged and hardpressed farmers of this country.
I do not propose to follow the Deputy in his verbal meanderings in his speech of one hour and 35 minutes, but I do say that his would-be derision of a Cumann na nGaedheal Budget carries very little weight because this is a Budget under which at least it has been possible to stop, for the first time in a very large number of years, the appalling rise in taxation. In the framing of this Budget it has been possible to make available over £12,500,000 for capital expenditure. If any Deputy on the other side sits down, reads the Budget and sees the money that is to be expended on various schemes such as electricity development work, Bord na Móna and various other projects of national consequence, and if he adds to that the money that is going to be made available under the European Recovery Programme for various other schemes of the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Local Government, he will realise that this year, no matter how Deputies opposite may sneer at it, the Government will be able to make available by way of capital expenditure money that will finance these schemes, that will keep people in employment, that will confer on this country a lasting benefit, a benefit that can reproduce itself in increased production and in the increased value of the land of the country.
I hope this marks the commencement by the Minister for Finance of a series of Budgets that will provide larger sums for useful expenditure while giving as much relief in taxation year by year as is humanly possible, Budgets which will bring this country back as quickly as possible to a condition which will allow the people to spend as much of their own money as they can, instead of having a continuance of the former tendency of grabbing everybody's money into the State's coffers to be disbursed at the whim of the then one-Party Government. I hope that we are standing on the threshold of an era in which we shall see a gradual drastic reduction in taxation and that that reduction will be brought about by the increased productivity of our industries and of our land, by the increased good-will and the increased co-operation of the people with their own Government for the purposes of making this a better country in its very soil, in its institutions and in its outlook.
This Budget in many respects, except the reduction in the rate of income-tax, is an "as-you-were" Budget. Last year on this resolution the Clann na Poblachta Deputies accorded a welcome with reservations to the Minister's financial proposals. I do not think that our attitude to-day can be said to have changed greatly. Deputy Aiken tried to pursue a Fabian policy in the hope that the Minister for Finance would be present to hear his observations. I am very much tempted to emulate the Deputy in the hope that he would be present to hear mine. Unfortunately, Deputy Aiken, in his opening remarks, drove me out of the House to the Library and thus deprived me of the intellectual treat that would have been mine were I here to hear his criticisms in full. Of course poor Deputy Aiken is a year behind the times. In the first four or five sentences that dropped melodiously from his lips we heard references to the dead hand of Cumann na Gaedheal and to a Cumann na Gaedheal budget.
Later on in the course of his observations he referred to the alleged fact that the Labour Party Deputies and the Clann na Poblachta Deputies were as mute as mice—implying an unwillingness to criticise and an inability to make suggestions. I do not know whether he repeated his phrase of last year or not, that we had to jump at the crack of the whip. That was the general tenor of Deputy Aiken's contribution to this debate. It is unfortunate for Deputy Aiken that his literary tastes are so high that they prevent him from reading the Irish Press, because his colleague, Deputy Gerald Boland, speaking at Jury's Hotel on the 1st May, expressed the view, according to the Irish Press, that the Clann na Poblachta Party would smash the Government if he, the Minister for Finance, dared to disagree with Mr. MacBride; that the Clann na Poblachta Party threatened drastic action if the Minister for Lands did not adopt their forestry programme of planting 25,000 acres per annum and that the Minister has promised to toe the line. According to Deputy Aiken, in so far as this financial resolution is concerned, we are as mute as mice, and the dead hand of Cumann na Gaedheal lies all over the Budget. Deputy Aiken, before commencing to pursue this thoroughly dishonest side-wind attack on two at least of the Parties forming the inter-Party Government should have consulted his colleague, Deputy Lemass, in whose newspaper, the Irish Press, in an article which all Deputies have heard referred to before—a weekly feature which appears on Wednesdays in the Irish Press and which is written by a gentleman who thinly disguises his identity under the nom de plume of “Dáil Reporter”—on the 4th May last——
Deputy Lemass.
Some people think it is Hans Andersen. He referred on the 4th May to the proposals in the following terms:—
"A year ago the view was commonly held that the Government would not survive its second Budget."
I think six months or six weeks was the original lease of life we were given.
"This opinion was based on the assumption that Mr. McGilligan's announced intentions were to be taken seriously and that his efforts to carry them out would make conditions impossible for the smaller Coalition groups. But by discarding the Fine Gael economy programme and meeting the demands of the non-Fine Gael Ministers for increased financial allocations he has strengthened the prospects of keeping the Government in office for another year. After today's Budget the word `economy' is likely to disappear finally from the Coalition vocabulary."
For once I am in agreement with Deputy Lemass and Deputy Boland but Deputy Aiken came in here and, not with a view to offering constructive criticisms on the business before the Dáil but with a view to making a backhand attack on the Clann na Poblachta and Labour Party, trotted out the hoary old myth that we were mute as mice. I regret exceedingly that Deputy Aiken is not here to listen to the views of his colleagues, Deputies Lemass and Boland. Last year on this debate we expressed the view that last year's Budget was not the Budget that we would introduce were Clann na Poblachta in sole control of the Government. But let me be frank. Within the financial system that operates in this country, this Budget is a good Budget. Admittedly, it is, as I have already described it, an as-you-were Budget, but the allowances given in respect of income-tax must be welcomed by anybody approaching this question in a spirit other than that of purely destructive criticism, which was evidenced in the case of Deputy Aiken.
Another Deputy already referred—I would like to endorse what he said—to the fact that it is now possible, as a result of these proposals and of the passage by the Dáil of the American Loan Counterpart Fund, to spend more than five times as much money on capital development in the country to increase employment and to put an end to the awful haemorrhage of emigration.
It may be presumptuous for me to pit my opinion on a purely technical revenue question against that of the Minister, but I think that the increase of the dancing tax may not produce the results which the Minister anticipates. The Minister has had this year further to reduce the duty on wines. He had been forced to do that because, according to the law of diminishing returns, the rate of duty was such that the tax yield was decreasing. I am afraid that the Minister may find that the imposition of a tax on dancing may have a similar result. However, I am not an expert. I throw it out to the Minister for what it is worth.
The main criticism that any of us on these benches can make concerning this Budget is one which goes to the root of our whole financial system. We in the Clann na Poblachta Party, despite the sneers and the jibes of people like Deputy Aiken, believe that until such time as we cut the link with sterling and make money our servant rather than our master, it will be impossible for us to ensure the maximum development and productivity of the country. Our policy is that set out in the third Minority Report of the Banking Commission of 1938, and it ill-becomes Deputy Aiken to indulge in the sneers and the jibes which we had to listen to this evening at a report which epitomised the policy which a majority of those in his own Party at one time supported.
We welcome this Budget with reservations. It places no new imposition on the weaker section of the community. It does, as has been pointed out, implement a decision already taken by this House and gives us an opportunity of developing to a much greater extent than heretofore the natural resources of our country and of increasing its productivity. I do not believe that this is a place either for unreasoned criticism or for fulsome praise, and within the limits prescribed for him the Minister has done a satisfactory job.
I am disappointed with this Budget because, like many people outside as well as representatives in this House, I feel that some scheme or some promise of a scheme might be introduced in this Budget to show the country what is going to be done with the unemployed and when the inter-Party Government are going to make an attempt to stop emigration. This Budget is being introduced under very favourable circumstances. The present Government are not up against the problems the previous Government were up against during the greater part of their time in office; they have not to try to fight an economic war; they have not to try to work within the financial resources of the country to try to keep the people supplied with food and fuel during a world war. Conditions have improved a good deal and I anticipated that we would hear something worth while for the people of this country. It is very sad that after a year of prosperity and peace and of things settling down to normal we have, in the words of Deputy Lehane, "the same Budget; much as you were." That phrase will apply to the unemployed of the country and to the people going on the emigrant ship. Speaking of prosperity, production and the state of our country generally, it is essential and desirable that, under the favoured conditions under which this Government brings in the Budget, the Government should face up to that position. There is no use in telling us that increased production will bring increased wealth, for that statement is as old as the hills. I was expecting that the Minister for Finance would tell us what he was going to do for the rural parts of our country that are fast being depopulated, and for the manhood who are going into the emigrant ship day after day. In view of the grandiose schemes we have heard of from time to time on the platforms of the Parties making up the inter-Party Government, I for my part was looking forward to some concrete scheme on this occasion, but to my amazement the unemployed and the people of rural Ireland can still look forward to the emigrant ship. They will get no relief from the Minister for Finance or from the Parties making up the inter-Party Government. These are facts.
Listening to Deputy Collins speaking on capital expenditure, one would imagine that he had forgotten that capital expenditure will be carried on as a result of borrowing £24,000,000 last year and not from taxation. We welcome, of course, any money that can be put into capital expenditure, but it is very hard to listen to a man misrepresenting facts. As a result of the policy of a certain Minister in the inter-Party Government we are going back to the position where a number of schools in rural Ireland will be closed up. We had the experience here of the Minister for Lands making a very bad statement regarding Gaeltacht Services. We were told in history that we are the real Irish men and women that every Government was to look forward to save. Any scheme or new industry introduced by the previous Government to help those people was jeered at by the present Minister for Agriculture and the grants have been cut down by the present Minister for Lands.
The policy of the present Minister for Agriculture where rural Ireland is concerned means that many of our agricultural workers will be unemployed. Some have been unemployed already and there will be more in a year or two. "Ill fares the land.... where wealth accumulates and men decay." That is the short-sighted policy of our friends here, Clann na Poblachta, Labour and, of course, Fine Gael, and that is all they are going to give us—no definite policy, nothing but promises.
We have Irishmen anxious to invest money in Irish industry and it was the policy of Fianna Fáil as a national Party interested in the welfare of every section of our people, to encourage them. To-day you have a Minister who holds the very honoured position of Tánaiste referring to those people as rogues or such like. We were trying to get these people to invest money in Irish industry, but now they are being threatened with jails. If a responsible Minister of State can find grounds for complaint, it is his duty to see that the people concerned are put in jail, but the making of wild statements not supported by facts is most discouraging.
Some time ago, I had reason to deal with one Irish industry here. I was totally misrepresented by the Minister for Agriculture. I was concerned with that industry for the sole reason that it was another Irish industry and deserved reasonable protection. The people of Ireland want to know how they stand. They have been threatened by one Minister and grossly misrepresented by another. Any Deputy who makes a case for the people in the House here is grossly misrepresented. It is said that he has some axe to grind or that he is trying to protect vested interests. While we are on this side of the House, just as when we were on the other side, we are concerned with making the country prosperous. As far as is humanly possible, we are anxious to see that our people are employed. During the time Fianna Fáil was in office, with its much despised Minister for Finance—according to Deputy Collins—there was a vote of £3,000,000 for the relief of rates on agricultural land. Our agricultural community to-day, instead of getting an opportunity to increase production, is saddled with increased rates, as a result of the policy of the present Government in cutting down the road grants. We thought so much of the farming community that we gave £3,000,000 towards the relief of rates on agricultural land.
The same thing is given now.
I am not saying it is not given. The Government opposite is only carrying on the good policy and good example given by the Fianna Fáil Government while in office.
There is nothing wrong with us, so.
They told us they were going to do so much for the agricultural community. That was said from the housetops and at the crossroads and outside Church gates. We were told the agricultural community was an oppressed class of the people and that the standard of living was going to be raised for them. Instead of helping the farmers in County Dublin, the reduction of the road grant, along with other things, including cutting off the voucher allowances, has caused an increase in rates of over 6/-in the £.
They were increased because of the mismanagement of the Fianna Fáil Administration over the last eight years.
I am surprised that Deputy Belton should make that point.
You were not allowed even to be a county councillor by your own Party.
When you go into the point, you find that the Dublin County Council——
Was abolished by Deputy MacEntee.
——was abolished because of the mismanagement of its affairs.
It was abolished because Fianna Fáil was not in a majority there.
The Chair is troubled to know what the Dublin County Council has to do with the Budget Resolutions.
The people in County Dublin have to pay an increased rate as a result of the policy of the present Government.
Not as a result of the Budget.
As a result of the manner in which Fianna Fáil neglected County Dublin for over the past eight years.
The Deputy's Party neglected the county so much that the honourable Minister for Local Government, Deputy MacEntee now, as a result of representations made to him by the decent people of County Dublin, abolished the corrupt council which was there then.
There is some other way to discuss this. It does not come in on this Resolution.
How is the widow with the oats?
The people in County Dublin were led up the tree——
What tree?
——by the Minister for Agriculture last year. He told them to grow oats and potatoes
How is the widow?
Please, a LeasChinn Comhairle, can I get no protection at all from the gentleman opposite? I have quietly listened to him for quite a long time.
Surely the Chair will take some notice?
The agricultural community in County Dublin as well as in the remainder of Ireland were told by the Minister for Agriculture to grow potatoes and oats and, in a number of cases, they found that the oats and the potatoes were left on their hands. The Minister for Agriculture did not come to their aid. When questioned about it in the House, he always had the happy knack of misrepresenting the facts. All the national schemes introduced by Fianna Fáil were despised by that Minister as well as other Ministers and they were supported by the people who are alleged to be the leaders and the saviours of the working people of the country—the members of the Labour Party.
I thought I would see something in this Budget which would be responsible for reducing the cost of living, about which we heard so much. After 12 months of this inter-Party Government, I thought we were going to get the promised reduction of 30 per cent. in the cost of living. Instead of that, we are faced with an increase in the cost of living. The Minister for Agriculture, who misrepresented me when I tried to get reasonable protection for an Irish industry, spoke about the poor. He did not mind the poor having to pay 7/- per stone for flour or 7d. per lb. for sugar. The whole programme of these people is a totally dishonest one.
It was Deputy Lemass——
Deputy Collins should control himself.
The people down the country who sent us here expect something better than what is taking place here.
Another industry for which I should like to see a good deal more being done is the fishing industry. It is one of our national industries that could be developed in the way it is developed in other countries. I shall have an opportunity of dealing with that at much greater length on the Vote for Agriculture. As there is one representative of the Labour Party in the House, he might be able to tell us when this wonderful comprehensive social insurance plan, which I am very anxious to see introduced, is to come into operation. As a member of a national Party I am concerned with the welfare of all sections and would like to know when this plan will be introduced. Will the time ever come when some of the promises made by Government supporters will be redeemed? Under a Bill brought in here recently, some small increases were given to certain people, but the workers had to pay for that by a larger contribution. Liberal grants were given under the 1947 Housing Bill. If this Government want to do anything worth while for the people who are in receipt of moderate salaries or small wages, and are anxious to help in that regard, this Budget should have given some relief to these people and to the ratepayers generally. However, it is just a go-as-you-please Budget, something similar to that introduced last year. As to the reimposition of the tax on dances, I am very sorry that it has been decided to cripple the local dramatic societies, the local football clubs and the local social clubs in the villages by compelling them to collect tax on dances which they hold.
That is not right.
Are you not reimposing the tax on dances?
Not in the rural areas. The football clubs need not worry.
With a population of 500. It is a very small village which has not 500 people. The Government are reimposing the tax on all the little parish clubs throughout Ireland.
That is not so.
I see that we have a few of the leaders of the Clann in the House. I wonder will they tell us when they are going to implement some of their election promises.
It will not take us 16 years anyway.
We were told that they were to have a scheme under which tractors would be kept in a village and a person requiring one had only to get on to a tractor and drive it into a field and work it. Of course the Minister for Agriculture took very great care that the tractors would not be needed. He has, however, so many "yes-men" behind him that, no matter what he does in that regard, he will get a very strong backing from them. Of course the tractors are not needed now. I should also like to know when the Garda Síochána are to be paid the increase in salary. I should like to know when the teachers who were working for some of the political organisations on the hustings are going to have something done for them.
They are doing all right.
The only thing they have done is to promise them some little things. They are worthy of consideration. We gave them consideration during our time in office and the cost of living has gone up since.
You gave them seven months of a strike.
I hope that some of the promises given to these people will soon be realised. Their friends here have promised them a good deal. Even Deputy Dunne himself has made a lot of promises in his time. I have often spoken in the House before on behalf of the pensioned teachers. They are worthy of consideration.
Due to the cost of living going up so much during the last year, there are other sections of people in the State who are hard pressed. I refer to local authority pensioners who are in receipt of small pensions, ex-Army men and others. I am expecting a great deal from the present Minister for Finance and I suppose expecting I will be. To the country as a whole, to the unfortunate people who are expecting some relief in rural Ireland, to the unemployed in the various parts of our country and to our youth, it is a very depressing Budget without any encouragement at all. They will be joining the ranks of the unemployed and the emigrant ship in the coming year as they had to do during the past year.
I realise that Deputy Burke who has just spoken is an extraordinary man. Listening to him in this House I always thought that he missed his profession altogether. I understand that in his own area he is what would be termed a good attender at funerals. There is no funeral he goes to where he does not say a few words about the deceased.
That is human charity.
When we understand that we can appreciate the approach of Deputy Burke to all these problems. It is almost likely that he takes a great deal of pleasure in attending a funeral. Speaking here this evening in regard to this Budget and in regard to the inter-Party Government, he seemed to enjoy his own doleful prophecies.
It has been said that budgets are concerned not so much with the raising and the spending of money, although that is an important part, as with giving effect to the industrial, commercial, economic and social policy of the Government. Deputy Lehane this evening described the Budget as an "as-you-were" one. To some extent Deputy Lehane is right. I believed last year, and I believe this year, that it is the duty of the Minister to consolidate the position first. I believe that is what he attempted to do in his first Budget, and I believe that is what he has succeeded in doing in his second Budget. The position is consolidated when we can make advances. That is part of military tactics and I think it is part of good sound financial tactics. In such a condition of affairs as we have had over a number of years, a condition created by the Fianna Fáil Government which has to be reversed, it is necessary that there should be a period of consolidation. That period of consolidation is covered by the two Budgets produced by the present Minister.
He will be consolidating until the next election.
I was one of those people who thought that probably a general election would not be a wise thing for some little time. I am beginning to change my views. I think the sooner we have a general election the better, because the position in this House will then be changed, and changed considerably.
Quite so.
We shall have the present inter-Party Government in power with such a big majority that it will be able to put through any policy it chooses.
That will be better than the present position.
Major de Valera
The present Government can already put through any policy it chooses.
I have no doubt whatsoever about it. Right across the floor on the far side of the House Deputies are shivering in case there might be a general election so do not let us worry about it.
I should be very sorry to lose you.
I should be very sorry sorry to see Deputy Corry leave the House after all these years.
Looking at this Budget from the point of view of an indication of social policy I think it is a good indication because it does provide constructive provisions for employment; it gives constructive provisions for the rebuilding of the wealth of the country. Under this Budget there are going to be increases in pay for the Army, for the Garda and for the teachers. Last night the Minister for Education announced very substantial increases in the pensions of the teachers who have been crying out for years for such an increase.
What about the workers?
I will come to the workers. I am going to deal with this in a broad way and I am going to omit no aspect. I am going to deal with it all bit by bit. In regard to the increase in wealth of the community, schemes have been announced by the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Local Government which are going to improve the wealth of the country and are going to provide substantial employment. If those millions of pounds that the Minister for Agriculture spoke of are spent on rehabilitating the land, in making it more fertile—and that scheme is going to be put into operation on the 1st July—there will not be one unemployed man in the rural areas.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-day.