Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 May 1949

Vol. 115 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 13—General (Resumed).

Captain Cowan

When progress was reported, I was dealing with the Budget as an indication of the social policy of the Government. I made the point that this second Budget of the Minister consolidates the position and leaves the Minister and his Government in the position that they can branch out in the future from that consolidated position. It is necessary to have stability. The two Budgets introduced by the Minister have given a certain confidence to the general public. They realise that the finances of this State are in the hands of a Minister who can be trusted to see that those finances are properly expended and that there is no waste or loss in regard to them. It is important for a Government such as this, with a declared policy as this Government has in regard to unemployment, emigration, the cost of living and housing, to have that confidence of the general public. Although I could criticise the Budget severely from my own particular point of view, I believe that it was necessary to go through this process of stabilisation and consolidation before any advance could be made.

As I have already said, the Minister for Agriculture has announced a policy of land reclamation and improvement that is going to give employment to thousands of people. The Minister for Local Government, in a Bill which is before this House at the moment and which I hope will be passed into law at an early date, has given indications of another branch of development which will assist the land, provide employment and be generally beneficial to the country. The Minister for Lands, in his policy for afforestation, has also indicated a policy of employment. The Minister for Local Government has proceeded with a policy of building the houses that we need. All these matters of the improvement of the land, the development of afforestation and so forth, are bound up with the Budget which makes provision whereby those Ministers will be enabled to put their policies into operation. Any sensible approach to the Budget must be one of satisfaction that the Minister and this Government have been able to inspire public confidence and to make the necessary preparations to enable millions of money to be spent in the provision of employment, not employment that will be useless but profitable and constructive employment that is going to enrich the land and improve the wealth of the nation.

We must look at it from that point of view. Last year the Minister was conservative in his approach. This year he has adopted a conservative approach to the problems, and I think that in the long run it will be considered the wise and sensible approach. If he did not adopt that line, if there was any want of confidence in the Minister or in the Government by the public it would not be possible for these great schemes of development to take place, and if they cannot take place it will be disastrous for the nation.

The reduction of 6d. in the £ in income-tax has a certain psychological effect on the public. It shows that here is a careful controller of the public purse who has been able to reduce income-tax to the extent of 6d. in the £. I personally would have preferred that the Minister had devoted the produce of that 6d. in the £ to increased allowances. However, I realise that the reduction of 6d. in the £ in income-tax has a very valuable steadying and beneficial influence on the general public. The Minister has taken a correct psychological line in doing that.

The Leader of the Opposition told us last year at a public meeting that this Government would not survive its first Budget. It has survived its first Budget and it has survived its second Budget. If the position is consolidated, as I believe it has been, it is going to survive many more Budgets. I would have liked to have seen an effort made by the Minister to redistribute the wealth of the community. I realise that that is probably a revolutionary thing to do. At all events it is a revolutionary thing to advocate in these times. However, if the Minister were to have proceeded to do that last year or if he were to proceed to do it now he would be storing up disaster for himself and for the Government. I think it was necessary that the position of the Government should have been made certain. The general public should have that confidence in the Government that I mentioned. Not only is the general public coming to realise that this Government is here to stay but the Opposition Party has realised that the Government is here to stay and that there is nothing in the foreseeable future that is going to terminate the life of this Government and put another one into office. That is clear from the speech made by Deputy Lemass last night. Deputy Lemass came in here to listen to the Budget. He was presented by the Minister in accordance with the custom of the House with a copy of the Budget speech. But Deputy Lemass had his criticisms of the Budget ready in advance. He had them typed out and brought them into this House, and it did not matter what Budget the Minister for Finance brought in Deputy Lemass's criticism was to be the same.

Deputy Aiken spent one-and-a-half hours or one hour and 35 minutes to-day speaking on the Budget. I was not able to be here for the whole of the speech, but I heard him for an hour and 15 minutes. He said nothing at all, not one word, not one solid or constructive thing did he say during the hour-and-a-quarter that I was listening to him. Why? That is the sign that defeat and inevitable dissolution has been accepted by the Fianna Fáil Party and that in itself is an indication of the success of the financial policy which the Government have shown in the two Budgets that have been introduced by the Minister for Finance.

I have said already that not only are these great works to be set going but the Minister has been able to provide for an increase in pay this year for the Army, for an increase in pay for the Gardaí, for an increase in pay for the teachers, and for an increase, as was announced last night by the Minister for Education, in teachers' pensions.

Deputy Lemass has got a bee in his bonnet in regard to the social welfare scheme. He has been harping on it here in this House and in the columns of his own newspaper, the Irish Press, the newspaper which, by the way, does not recognise my existence.

Mr. Blowick

You are none the worse for that.

Captain Cowan

I am none the worse. It is part of the blatant dishonesty of the Party opposite. Two leaders of that Party control that newspaper which is supposed to be a national newspaper.

Mr. Derrig

Are we discussing a newspaper or the Budget?

Captain Cowan

I know you are afraid to hear it.

Mr. Derrig

I am not afraid. I object to a Deputy using the privileges of this House——

Captain Cowan

To tell the truth.

Mr. Derrig

——to deal with some institution outside the House.

Captain Cowan

I say it is an indication of the dishonesty of that particular Party when they use those methods against their political opponents—that, in the guise of a national organ giving fair reports of what happens in this House, they deliberately keep out of that newspaper Deputies with whom they do not agree.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is nothing whatever in the Budget about that.

Mr. Derrig

A lot of their own Deputies have the same complaint.

Captain Cowan

There should be something in the Budget about it. I am going to ask the Minister for Finance one of these days why public moneys should be contributed to a newspaper, an alleged national news-paper——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is administration.

Captain Cowan

However, as I say, I will deal with that again. I know, of course, that is in accordance with the political tactics of the Fianna Fáil Party, absolutely in accord with their political tactics. But Deputy Lemass, as I say, has a bee in his bonnet in regard to the scheme that Deputy Norton has promised. Every Deputy in the House knows that, since Deputy Norton became Minister for Social Welfare, he has spent every minute of his time, and the time of his officials, until now, as he has announced, his Department has completed this scheme. A scheme like that, which is going to revolutionise the whole social welfare of the country, cannot be dealt with in a week or in a month or in a couple of months. Deputy Lemass knows that well. In fact, he was a Minister for many years, and in all those years he just reached the stage of bringing in the Bill that enabled this Department to be set up. That Party was in office for 16 years.

Deputy Norton, as Minister for Social Welfare, and his officials, have worked night and day and have completed their examination of this revolutionary proposal which is going to affect the lives of almost everybody in the country. Deputy Lemass knows that the next stage is the circulation of that scheme amongst Government Departments. Deputy Lemass knows that another step will be the examination of the matter by the Department of Finance. There will be a consideration of the views of every Government Department in regard to it. When all that is done, I take it that the next step will be the presentation of that paper to the Government. Any person who was a Minister as long as Deputy Lemass was knows that if Deputy Norton had done nothing else in the period since he became a Minister he could not be any further advanced with that particular plan or scheme than he is at the moment, but, dishonestly, week after week in the columns of this unmentionable paper, he refers to the failure of Deputy Norton to produce this scheme. He had it here last night, typed and ready, no matter what sort of Budget the Minister had.

He was followed to-day by one of the ablest Finance Ministers that the world has ever known, Deputy Aiken, on the same lines. I think it is really unfair for any Deputy on this side of the House to criticise Deputy Aiken because Deputy Aiken has done more than any other Deputy to put Fianna Fáil out of office and to put this Government in. Perhaps from that point of view it would be unfair to criticise him. Deputy Aiken, although he knew, and must have known from his period as Minister for Finance, the procedure through which these things go, trotted out the same complaint, and he was followed by Deputy Burke, an appropriate combination. In regard to this particular matter, Fianna Fáil should only realise the futility of that conduct. Right through the country the ordinary person knows that you cannot bring in a revolutionary scheme such as this without ample consideration and ample examination. When Deputy Norton brings it in, as he will in the near future, what will all this criticism show? This criticism will show the insincerity and the dishonesty of the propaganda that has been used by Deputy Lemass, particularly against Deputy Norton.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The reference is the Minister for Social Welfare.

Captain Cowan

The Minister for Social Welfare. He prepared this scheme and worked on it very hard. Those who know him know how hard he does work. In that period, he introduced his measure to increase old age pensions to 17/6 per week and that measure is in operation at the moment. He brought in his measure to increase widows' pensions and that is in operation at the moment. He brought in legislation, which is law at the moment, increasing workmen's compensation payments from 37/6 to £2 10/- per week. If that Minister had done nothing but these three things in his 15 months in office, he would have done a good job, but nevertheless we had this dishonest criticism of him and of the Government with regard to these matters.

Deputy Aiken to-day talked about the Minister printing bank notes. With every word Deputy McGilligan said as a member of the Opposition when the Central Bank Bill was going through and with what he said last year in his Budget statement in this House and in the Seanad, I thoroughly agree. Deputy Aiken, when he talked to-day about printing bank notes for the purpose of balancing the Budget, was talking absolute rot. That is how it appeared to a sensible, intelligent person who knows something about these matters—I do not know how it appears to Deputy Aiken. He was talking absolute rot and nonsense. Nobody would print bank notes for the purpose of balancing the Budget. What Deputy McGilligan, as he then was, advocated was the printing of notes necessary to give employment in the building of houses or in productive work for the community, which is a different matter entirely.

I have confidence in the Minister for Finance. I know that there is no other Deputy who has the knowledge of finance that he has and no other Deputy who has the courage he has in regard to the adoption of what might appear to be a revolutionary method, and I think he is going the right way in stabilising and consolidating this position, in creating public confidence in his administration. When he has succeeded in doing that, this Government will, I hope, be able to show to Deputy Aiken and many other antediluvians in the country how things can effectively be done.

With regard to this tax on dance halls, I am not by any means a dancing man. I go to a dance now and again, but when I was younger, I probably had a greater interest in them. At the moment I take it that the youth of the country are just as they were in my time and that there are quite a number of them anxious to enjoy themselves at a dance. This question of a tax on dancers has been in the air for a long time. It was put into operation and was removed, and I think it was removed because of the difficulty of collecting the tax and the cost of its collection. I do not know what the cost of collecting this tax will be, but I know that there will be many people who will try to avoid payment of it. I know that there will be a lot of difficulties in that way.

I understand that dancing has changed a good deal since the time when dances were arranged by a few people for a social evening. It has now become a business on which the livelihoods of quite a number of people depend. There are a very large number of musicians, in Dublin particularly, whose livelihoods depend entirely on the public dance halls in Dublin and everyone will agree that these dance halls are well run, well controlled and hygienic in every way, and if this tax should harm that business, should close down any of these halls and lead to unemployment amongst musicians, it would be a bad thing. In addition to musicians, there are quite a number of other people—waitresses, attendants and so on—whose livelihoods depend on this dancing business.

The amount involved is not very big and I urge the Minister to reconsider it from the aspect that it may lead to unemployment. I understand that there is an organisation of the proprietors of these dance halls all over the country and I am quite sure they will be in touch with the Minister. I ask him to consider their representations in the light of the possible unemployment of musicians and others which this tax may cause and to endeavour so far as he can to meet these representations.

As I indicated earlier, I could, if I were not a realistic person, find many parts of this Budget statement to criticise, but I am looking at it in a broad, general way. I am looking not to the present month or the present year but to the future, and I think it is a Budget which gives great confidence for the future. I consider it a sound Budget and one which should meet in this House with the almost unanimous welcome which it has received from the public.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

I feel inclined to congratulate the Minister, not on the excellence of the Budget he has introduced, but on the amount of deception which is inherent in that Budget. The first big headline we had was the announcement of the reduction of 6d. in the £ in the income-tax rate, but, when we get down to the rural areas, we find the rates increased by even more than that amount. Deputy Cowan is possibly paying rent for his house and he will find that his rent has increased. That system is not one which will produce the results Deputy Cowan hoped for. It is a dangerous proceeding. The amount of indirect taxation —although local taxation is scarcely indirect taxation; it is merely another from of direct taxation——

Mr. Davin

Who strikes the rate?

Mr. M. O'Reilly

The county councils.

Mr. Davin

It has nothing to do with the Budget.

Mr. O'Reilly

The county councils are overloaded, the Minister having done his utmost to overload them, with the result that they refused in most cases to strike the full rate. Therefore, to my mind, this is a Budget designed to deceive the people. One would imagine from reading and listening to the statements made here that we were going to get a reduction in the cost of living. Now, rates come into the cost of living. I do not know what the modern method of calculating it may be. It may be that rates, under the present system of calculation, do not come into the cost of living, but they are there for the people and the people have to face them. Therefore, this Budget, so far as that aspect is concerned, is a complete deception.

The Minister for Finance, when he was reading his Budget statement, told us that agriculture has improved, and agricultural exports have increased. I think that is the exact statement he made. What is the use of talking like that? How could agricultural exports increase? What we have to export is beef; we may have bacon; we have eggs now. We know the result as regards eggs. It cannot be explained away by telling us we are feeding cheaper Indian corn to the hens. Take beef. The British are allowed to consume 10d. worth in the week and 2d. worth has to be tinned meat. Where could we get an increase against that? Is not that another deception?

I ask Deputies to face this position honestly and say where can we increase production. I do not know any farmer who would not increase production to-morrow morning if he got a market. The Minister for Agriculture kicked off by definitely aiming at killing production—and so he did. He left farmers with agricultural produce lying on their hands. There are thousand of tons of oats rotting and the mills are filled with Indian corn. The same applies to potatoes. What farmers will increase production in those circumstances? You can see the returns for our cattle. The beef market has faded out completely.

Mr. Donnellan

Bad prices?

Mr. M. O'Reilly

There is practically no beef market.

Mr. Sweetman

Who helped to kill it? You killed the calves and that faded it out.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

That is the old hackneyed business; there is no use in talking about that. If this thing goes on you will kill a lot more calves, because there is no market.

Mr. Sweetman

The increased price does not mean that there is no market.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

The increase in price is not much good to you. Is it not obvious that the market is not there?

Mr. Sweetman

Why is a calf worth £10 now while, when Fianna Fáil were in power, a calf was worth only 10/-?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is not under cross-examination.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

It is very important that this matter should be brought home to the people, and only the shoe pinches there Deputy Sweetman would not speak. Those are the solid facts the people have to face. We are now concerned with this American loan and the Minister for Agriculture is out to improve every farm and every field and deal with the drains and other things. When all that is done, what will we do? The Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister for Industry and Commerce did their utmost to destroy the industries we established. That was the only market we could get, the only market we were sure of. As soon as the British can get cheaper meat they will not take it from us. We have had experience of what they can do; they have not very much compunction, either economically or politically, and every one of us knows that well. The only sure market we had was the market created by our industries; yet we had the Minister for Industry and Commerce saying that every industrialist here was a semi-rogue. The Minister for Social Welfare complained about them driving around in luxurious motor-cars.

Mr. Davern

Is that wrong?

Mr. M. O'Reilly

Of course it is wrong. Have they not a perfect right to drive around in cars? Were they not giving good employment? If you had not these people where would the workers get employment? That is another snag of the Labour Party. You must induce people to invest in this country. We have millions invested abroad and why would it not come here? Does anyone suggest that people will come here after listening to the wild statements that have been made? Those Ministers soon drew in their horns and I believe the reason was that the Taoiseach was sensible enough to see the dangers ahead and the damage that was being done.

So far as I can see, we are not going to have the big market in Great Britain that so many people are talking about and that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is preparing for. I believe that as soon as cheaper stuff comes in the British will take it in preference to ours.

So far as this Budget is concerned there is not much use in trying to push down people's throats that it is an excellent Budget, that it is a production Budget. Somebody laid particular emphasis on that—that it is a production Budget, that it will give a fillip to production. How can you do that when you are taxing production at the rate at which you have taxed it? Does anybody believe that the enormous increase in local taxation is not a tax on agricultural production? I believe it is. Instead of doing that, the other thing should have been done and that is to help the farmers.

What is the position of the farmer and the farm labourer? I thought unemployment was more or less stabilised but the latest reports show that unemployment among agricultural labourers is on the increase. As soon as farmers have completed their tillage the labourers go. The Minister for Agriculture said he could prevent them doing that. Then, why are they letting them go? It is because they see no future and have no promise of a market for their produce.

They will not be deceived by the nonsense talked about regenerating this country. The only way to help the country is to create a consumption for our produce. Farmers will not produce unless they know there are some means of disposing of that production. If they see the market dwindling they will not produce. I do not believe this Budget is a production Budget; on the contrary, I believe it is a makeshift and it certainly is a deception.

Mr. Bartley

I was very interested in the remarks of Deputy Cowan. He began by poking fun at Deputy Burke. He associated Deputy Burke with funerals and he seemed to regard it as something of a good joke that Deputy Burke should say a few words over a grave at the final parting. I am sure Deputy Burke does that, as everybody does who attends a funeral, whether he is heard doing it or not. I suppose Deputy Cowan is too modest to admit the fact that he himself does it. In any event, the reference to funerals is fairly apposite on this Budget.

Mr. Sweetman

Hear, hear!

Mr. Bartley

Yes, and I will be listening for a repetition of the "hear, hear" when I have indicated what I mean. I have two choices after listening to Deputy Cowan—to accept Deputy Cowan's word or to accept the word of the Minister for Finance. Deputy Cowan's referred to the provision of social security and employment. The significant fact about the Budget is that the Minister for Finance made no reference to either and in so far as social security schemes are concerned, pointed out that we cannot have any more of them, or, if we are to have more of them, that we must have more taxation. I would like Deputy Cowan to read the Budget again and to read his own speech and to try to bridge the gap between them.

I intend to refer to the Budget only in so far as it fails to make provision for the poorer areas. A great deal of praise has been heaped on the Minister for his aid to the official classes. I do not begrudge the official classes whatever help this Budget gives them but I remember a test having been put on the question as to whether or not these official classes were treated as generously some years ago as the then Opposition thought they should have been treated. When the matter was referred to the people the Government's viewpoint was endorsed. I commend the result of that general election to Deputy Cowan's consideration. The official classes are composed of Irish citizens who are entitled to a fair meed of justice. In view of the praise that is heaped from time to time on the people who have preserved the most important national heritage, the Irish language, one would have thought that the Budget would not ignore them entirely. The Budget goes further than that and worsens the position of the people of the Gaeltacht in relation to the benefits and services which they enjoyed when Fianna Fáil left office.

On the Estimate for Gaeltacht Services, Deputy McFadden indicated that Donegal alone benefited to the extent of £100,000 per annum from one of the Gaeltacht industries, namely, tweed. Everybody in that business knows that the collapse of the industry is due solely and entirely to the trade agreement that was made last year in England. The Minister tried to deny that and in his attempt made what in my opinion was a most unfortunate statement, that the superior quality of Harris tweeds is responsible for the collapse of the English market for Irish tweeds. Can he explain to us how it was that at the particular time that the trade agreement was made with Britain, the English people quite suddenly discovered the excellence of Harris tweeds? It remained for the Minister for Lands, in charge of Gaeltacht Services to tell the world that Irish tweeds are inferior to Harris tweeds. I think, in view of the statements he made several times in concluding the debate on Gaeltacht Services, that he was anxious to tell the truth, no matter how much it was against himself and his Department.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the Deputy dealing with Estimates or with the Budget?

Mr. Bartley

If the Chair thinks that I am going into too much detail, I will cut it short but I am dealing with the failure of the Budget to remedy the hardships which have been inflicted on the poorer areas, the Gaeltacht, for the last year or so. Whatever sections of the community have been aided, for the last year or so the people of the Gaeltacht have had their livelihoods in various directions filched from them. If I am not allowed to deal with them in detail, I think I should be permitted to give a litany of them. The first thing that happened was the wiping out by one fell stroke of the turf industry. I am just as well aware as people living in towns and cities that the quality of the turf was not always of the best. It was very unfortunate for Fianna Fáil that the year before the general election took place was one of the worst turf years in living memory. I do know that the people of Dublin and other places got a quality of turf that turned them against it.

Mr. M.F. O'Higgins

They got it for four or five years before that, too.

Mr. Bartley

The last year was the worst. I know that the turf industry required rationalisation, but surely the Government might have done the job a little more easily. They might have eased the blow for these people by substituting something else for the turf industry. What did we find? Every year there is a list of special employment schemes ready for implementation when the employment period ceases and when all the people who hold certificates under the Unemployment Assistance Acts become again entitled to receive benefit these schemes of employment are put into operation. What did we find? The summer turf industry was lost and we expected that in the winter the Government would make up for that by giving extra money for employment schemes. In my area, the number of schemes was cut down to half.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. Donnellan)

That is not correct.

Mr. Bartley

Practically half.

Mr. Donnellan

"Practically," and a sum of money was sent to your county council to compensate you and there is a further £3,000,000 of a loss in this Budget in connection with the turf scheme.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary will get an opportunity if he desires to participate in the debate. Meantime, we are hearing Deputy Bartley.

Mr. Donnellan

I am trying to correct him.

Mr. Bartley

While the total provision for the whole country in respect of special employment schemes was not reduced considerably the amount provided for the congested and Gaeltacht areas, with which I am acquainted, was cut down. Right through the whole gamut of the Government's activities the underlying attitude seems to be one of hostility towards these poor areas.

Mr. Donnellan

Not at all.

Mr. Bartley

Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain to me why it was decided to reduce the number of glass-houses? That was a scheme that was proving very profitable. Why did the Government decide to reduce these without waiting to find out exactly whether or not those glass-houses were worth-while?

Mr. Donnellan

If that has not been explained to you long ago, I do not know what to say.

Mr. Bartley

Does the Parliamentary Secretary admit that they were cut and that a sum of £64,000 was saved by that cut?

Mr. Donnellan

I do not know that.

Mr. Bartley

Does he admit that only 63 were built where provision was made for 100?

Mr. Donnellan

I do not know.

Mr. Bartley

I do know. Take the provision in the Estimates over the years 1947-48, 1948-49 and 1949-50. The actual Exchequer issues for Central Fund and Supply Services was £65,000,000 odd in 1947-48. For 1948-49 it was £71,000,000, and it is estimated for 1949-50 at £73,000,000. If you go back you will find there is a gradual crescendo, as it were, reached in expenditure, taking the country as a whole. We come to the Gaeltacht now and we find there is a diminuendo. In the last financial year the actual expenditure for Gaeltacht Services was £97,000. This year it is proposed to spend only one-third of that, £30,000, on these services. In the year 1947-48 —the last year of the Fianna Fáil régime—the expenditure was £115,000. Along with that a gradual reverse is taking place in respect of the country as a whole.

How can Deputy Captain Cowan show that this increased expenditure is going into productive employment? He specifically mentions the official classes as being well treated. He has not mentioned whether the Government has provided any money for the grandiose employment schemes about which we heard so much in the past. He was silent with regard to afforestation. He was even silent with regard to drainage. He did not say a word about emigration, good, bad or indifferent. I do not know whether he is aware of the fact that the Government which he supports has cut down the grants which local authorities used to get for expenditure on roads and thereby cut down at the same time employment on road works. This year County Galway was somewhere in the region of £200,000.

Deputy Captain Cowan made great play with the 17/6 per week old age pension. Instead of all the promises that were made about making this a great country by making everybody healthy and happy and placing everybody in good circumstances, the emphasis is now on social services. With all the savings that have been made in respect of turf, roads, special employment schemes, air services, broadcasting stations and the reduction in food subsidies and so on, why was it not possible to go a little further than a paltry increase of 2/6 in the maximum for old age pensions as against the maximum under Fianna Fáil?

Mr. Davin

How do you explain that?

Mr. Bartley

I explain it in this way. Under Fianna Fáil the statutory pension was 10/- and there were two supplementary allowances of 2/6 each, making a total of 15/-. The maximum now is 17/6. Not all the old age pensioners get the full 17/6.

Mr. Little

And the means test is still there.

Mr. Davin

No.

Mr. Donnellan

12/6 plus 2/6 does not make 17/6.

Mr. Bartley

I said two supplementary allowances of 2/6 each.

Mr. Donnellan

In the rural areas?

Mr. Bartley

Yes. Does the Parliamentary Secretary deny that in the rural areas some people got 10/- plus two supplementary allowances of 2/6 each?

Mr. Donnellan

Very few got the second 2/6.

Mr. Bartley

I know a good many who did. But what is the use of trying to drag red herrings across the trail? The fact is that the possible maximum was 15/- and the possible maximum now is 17/6. There is only 2/6 in the difference. How is it that the Government cannot do better than that with all the millions it has saved?

Mr. Davin

We had to give it to Córas Iompair Eireann.

Mr. Bartley

Have you given it to Córas Iompair Eireann?

Mr. Davin

Did you not see what the chairman got?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputies should realise that the Opposition has a right to be heard.

Mr. Little

Make your charges outside this House against Mr. Reynolds and see what happens!

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Bartley.

Mr. Bartley

I suppose a great many changes have taken place in Córas Iompair Eireann. There has been a big change in personnel in recent times. I am more than surprised at the remarks I have just heard in that regard. In any event the Minister for Finance has not pretended that there is any intention of doing the things which the people who supported him expect to be done. In my constituency we have always had a certain amount of emigration. When the present Government and its protagonists were in opposition they denounced Fianna Fáil because of that emigration. Now we find that they are changing their tune. They are now saying that emigration is innate in the Irish character. Last week on the Gaeltacht Services Vote one Deputy, speaking in Irish, said that the Irishman was fond of travelling and that it would be unfair to stop him. Whatever may be said for that type of emigration where young people want to see the world, I can tell the House that there is a new type of emigration in my constituency now. The people there are beginning to sell their small holdings and emigrate to America. The entire family emigrates. That is a type of emigration we did not have heretofore. It is taking place under the Coalition. Not alone have my constituents lost many of the services which provided them in the past with a fairly reasonable standard of living and not alone have hundreds of them emigrated, but they have also lost hope and that is the worst loss of all.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

The success of this Budget can best be judged by the ill-tempered reception it has received from the Opposition Benches. Deputy Bartley had a number of comments to make and one complaint he made was in relation to the turf industry. In the course of his remarks, it became quite apparent that Deputy Bartley had not listened to the Budget statement read by the Minister yesterday and in addition was, apparently, not sufficiently interested to read the statement for himself. One of the matters dealt with at some length by the Minister was the question of the turf industry. In his statement, the Minister set out the amounts which were to be advanced to Bord na Móna in the coming year and the amounts which were advanced last year, showing an increase this year of approximately £200,000 as part of the turf development plan which is being operated.

I merely mention that to show that even that supposed grievance against this Budget has, in fact, nothing in it but I am glad that Deputy Bartley brought our minds back to the question of turf and fuel generally, because one of the problems which the Minister had to take into account in dealing with the financial position in the course of the past financial year was the extraordinary muddle created as a result of the Fianna Fáil turf and fuel policy generally. I think all Deputies will remember that on the first occasion this Dáil met Deputy Lemass was able to stand up in the Opposition Benches and tell the new Minister for Industry and Commerce that, at least, he could say going out of office that he had built up a sufficient supply of fuel in the Phoenix Park to last ten years. He omitted to mention on that occasion that not only had he allowed stocks of fuel to reach sky-scraper heights in the Phoenix Park, but that fuel was still coming in at a cost of £40,000 a week to the Irish tax-payer. It was that kind of planning indulged in by Fianna Fáil which created what I think can only be described as the turf muddle. As a result of that, the new Government were faced with the necessity of taking the decision, which should have been taken by their predecessors many months before, to stop the inflow of fuel to the Phoenix Park. Deputy Bartley was kind enough to remind us of that and it is a fact which Deputies should be very slow to forget.

Deputy Bartley also, I think involuntarily, referred to the position of Córas Iompair Eireann. For some reason Deputy Little appeared to be quite aggrieved that Córas Iompair Eireann should come into this discussion at all.

An Ceann Comhairle

I did not hear Deputy Bartley refer to it.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I said, perhaps involuntarily

An Ceann Comhairle

He was interrupted.

Mr. Davin

On a point of order, it is referred to in the Budget statement.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

It is in the Budget statement

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Davin

It is in the Budget statement.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a point of order. It is a point of information.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Perhaps I should amend my statement by saying that when Córas Iompair Eireann was referred to, while Deputy Bartley was speaking, Deputy Little was quite aggrieved that it should have been mentioned in the discussion. The fact of the matter is that the Minister again had to take serious cognisance of the Córas Iompair Eireann position and that he found it necessary to deal with that in his Budget statement. I think it might be no harm to remind Deputies of the fact that Córas Iompair Eireann was supposed to be the be-all and the end-all of Fianna Fáil public transport planning. After the election in 1944, when the Transport Bill was reintroduced into a Dáil which had a Fianna Fáil over-all majority, the country was assured through the mouths of Deputy Lemass and his colleagues that this measure was going to give the people more efficient transport and give them that much more cheaply than the previous system had provided.

The then Taoiseach, Deputy de Valera, said on that occasion that his sincere belief was that the guarantees given by the Government and contained in that Bill would never have to be met, that he did not think there was any danger of such a contingency arising. The Minister in his Budget statement had to examine the position created by the existence of Córas Iompair Eireann and the losses which it had incurred in the last couple of years bringing them to such a position that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, some little time ago in the Dáil had to speak of the company as existing under the shadow of the bailiff. They had lost in the year 1947 something in the neighbourhood of £900,000 and in the year 1948 considerably over £1,000,000. They had arrived at a stage where, although they had £500,000 worth of cheques actually written, they could not issue them because they had not the funds to meet them and the Government had, unexpectedly, to come in a very big way to their assistance financially in order to meet their bill for wages at the end of the week in which the Minister was speaking.

I refer to the Adjournment Debate on Dublin bus fares which took place in this House on the 23rd March this year and to the Minister's reply to that discussion. A number of Dublin Deputies, including myself, had approached the Minister during the day to see if anything could be done to retain the penny bus fare, at any rate for the poorer sections of the community. After having heard the Minister's case, that deputation, which consisted of Deputies of all Parties in this House, had to admit freely, one to another, that not one of them could argue against it, that no matter what our hopes or desires might be, we could not make any legitimate case to the Minister that the penny bus fare should be retained. The fact that we were put in the position of having to make that confession was due to the Córas Iompair Eireann situation which the Minister disclosed to that deputation and which he later disclosed to the Dáil that evening. The Minister, first of all, mentioned the figures I have mentioned already, that in 1947 Córas Iompair Eireann lost £900,000 and that in 1948 they lost £1,400,000 and that, early in his first year of office, he had been approached by that concern with propositions to enable them to dismiss 3,500 men from their employment. He went a lot further than that, though, and pointed out that the Government and the Minister for Finance had to provide from central funds a sum of £360,000 to meet the interest on debentures which had been guaranteed by the State and which Córas Iompair Eireann were not able to do themselves. That is one of the items which has now to be accounted for by the Minister in this Budget.

I am not sure whether it was on that occasion or on another occasion that the Minister dealt with the question of payments to the chairman, which I do not propose to go into now. They were dealt with only in order to show the extravagant mind and the extravagant mentality with which that concern was run; the fact that they had grandiose ideas that thousands or tens of thousands did not matter when they were paid out at top level; that the taking on of large schemes such as one the Minister mentioned on that occasion did not matter when the company were virtually bankrupt but that these things were guaranteed by the State in the form of debentures and, whether it was because of that encouragement or not, that the situation was created, in any event whereby all the debts incurred—totalling at the time the Minister was speaking, the 23rd March last, a sum of close on £500,000—would be met. The Minister found it necessary to state that in the Dáil because, as he said, the concern was in such a position that different companies, some of them semi-State companies, were threatening to cut off their lights, telephones and so forth. At that stage, a sum of £360,000 had to be paid by the Minister for Finance in respect of those debentures. I think it is very proper that, on the discussion of the Budget, in which the Minister found it necessary to refer to that particular situation, we should remember that one of the headaches which the Minister has to deal with is Córas Iompair Eireann. We can at least express the hope at this stage that the Government will find themselves, at a fairly early date, in a position to introduce the legislation they have foreshadowed to drastically alter the running of Córas Iompair Eireann.

Deputy Bartley may or may not have been in the House earlier to-day when the Minister for Industry and Commerce was answering a supplementary question by Deputy Derrig in regard to tweeds. I think I am correct when I say that the Minister made it quite clear in his reply that, so far from the Trade Agreement causing the collapse of the homespun tweed industry and of finishing the English market for it, there was no English market there in a legitimate way, at any rate, before the Trade Agreement. The Trade Agreement was the key which opened the door to the British market. It is not the fault of the Minister for Industry and Commerce nor of the Minister for Lands if the British buying public do not want to buy our tweeds. I think the Minister for Lands was incorrectly quoted by Deputy Bartley when he was referring to the question of whether our tweeds were inferior to Harris tweeds or not. My recollection is, and I am open to correction on this matter although I was in the House when he was speaking, that when the Minister for Lands was replying to the debate on Gaeltacht Services he stated that the Harris tweeds which were being bought in England were of a better quality than the tweeds now on hands here. He did not say that the Irish craftsman would not be able to produce a better quality tweed than the Harris tweed but that, so far as the buying public in England was concerned, they considered Harris tweed better quality and they refused to take Irish tweeds.

On that occasion the Minister for Lands dealt very fully with the efforts he and his colleagues made in order to find a market for the stock now on hands although they were unable to do so. I think it is most unfair of Deputy Bartley, if he heard the reply given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in this House to-day, to stand up within a couple of hours of that reply and reiterate the falsehoods which have been disseminated by Fianna Fáil for the last nine or ten months to the effect that the trade agreement was responsible for the collapse of that industry. I think they should have more sense than to say that kind of thing now in the face of the calm and deliberate statement made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce here to-day.

The same Deputy had a lot to say about the hostility of this Government towards the poorer areas and all that kind of thing. I believe he knows quite well that it is not true. I am certain that other Deputies in his Party, at any rate, know it is not true, and I am equally certain that very few of them would like to be reminded of the difference in outlook which has clearly manifested itself in the working of this Government as compared with the working of a Fianna Fáil Government. When this Government was formed something over a year ago, and on his last Budget statement and several times in the course of the year intervening between that statement and the statement he read yesterday, the Minister for Finance has made it quite clear that, as far as he and the Government is concerned, their policy is one of retrenchment. They did not adopt that policy for the sake of economising but for the sake of cutting out wasteful expenditure, for the sake of lopping off expenditure and waste which was not necessary, which was not productive and which was not for the good of the ordinary people. However, where money was required for schemes, whether social welfare schemes or schemes of a similar nature or productive schemes generally, money would be forthcoming. Time and again Deputies of this House and people outside it have heard the Taoiseach declare, for instance in regard to housing, that money would not stand in the way of putting up houses. In pursuance of that policy which, I assert, was an eminently sensible and sound policy, the Government did go in for economy in a certain direction. They are to-day disposing of some of the luxury hotels bought by Fianna Fáil at very great expense to the tax-payer. That is one type of luxury spending that has been or is being stopped. I see Deputy Little taking notes and I do not want to be misrepresented on this matter. I am not in any way criticising the inflow of tourists to this country——

Mr. Little

The Deputy had better not.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

——but I believe that the tourist who comes to this country can be very well catered for by private enterprise and that he would much prefer to have it done in that way. I have already mentioned Córas Iompair Eireann and the losses incurred by that company and the unexpected payments which the Government had to make during the course of the year in order to keep that company going. I do not know whether I am in order or not but the next point which comes logically to my mind when I am dealing with Fianna Fáil expenditure is the purchase by Deputy Lemass of Argentine wheat which cost the State about £2,500,000 in subsidy. I think that the repercussions of that purchase were felt in the composition of this Budget and that they had to be taken into account in the composition of this Budget. I think the Minister mentioned in the course of his Budget statement that the cost of subsidies— I am not sure whether it was the total cost or the cost in regard to flour only —was in the neighbourhood of £9,000,000. At any rate, £2,000,000 of that sum represents the purchase of 750,000 tons of Argentine wheat two days before the Fianna Fáil Government went out of office at a cost per ton of something like £50. I invite the Deputies of this House to think again, when they talk about economy and the different types of spending, of what that meant to the people of the country and to ask themselves once more could Deputy Lemass not have waited for two days to enable the decision to be taken by the incoming Government rather than by the outgoing Government. I think that the bald facts of the case are well known to the Deputies, that against the advice of everyone from whom he sought advice the ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce made that purchase, made it at a time when he knew that he was going out of office in two days' time. Everyone else knew.

Mr. Little

He stated that he did not.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Whatever else may be said against Deputy Lemass, I at any rate, am not going to be the one to accuse him of being a fool or a nitwit, and he would want to be a fool or a nitwit not to know that he was going out of office.

An Ceann Comhairle

Was that not in the debate on last year's Budget?

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

It may have been touched upon on last year's Budget. I merely want to make a confession between, as I said earlier, the mentality guiding the Government now and the mentality which guided the Fianna Fáil Government. The best that can be said about that purchase is that it was an absolute waste and a most extravagant purchase and that the person responsible for making it was advised not to. The worst that can be said about it I will not say but leave it to the imagination of the Deputies.

Deputy Bartley seemed to be worried about the question of social services and social security schemes. I think this Government has already given a very good earnest of what it proposes to do in that direction. It is a fact, and a fact which Deputies opposite cannot escape from, that within a few years of their being turned out of office they refused a very moderate motion by the present Taoiseach and the present Minister for Defence asking them to make some modification in the means test as applicable to old age pensioners and other subsistence pensioners. The estimated cost of that scheme which was recommended to them was in the neighbourhood of £500,000, and because it would cost that amount of money Fianna Fáil rejected it. This Government in a little more than a year of office has gone a long way towards alleviating the position as far as subsistence pensioners are concerned.

This Budget makes provision also for pensions for teachers and for increased pay for the Army and the Guards. In fact, I think I can sum up the position by saying, generally speaking, that everyone in the country, every section of the people, with the exception of the Fianna Fáil Party members inside this House, have welcomed the Budget and are extremely pleased that the Budget is such a good one. The reason for the Fianna Fáil disappointment is that they never believed the Minister could do it. They implicitly believed the word of their leader when he told them that the inter-Party Government would not survive its first Budget. When it did survive its first Budget, the sky not having fallen, they decided at any rate that a Coalition Government could never survive its second Budget and their half-identified "Dáil Reporter" came out yesterday with a famous heading "This Is Crisis Day For The Coalition." Deputies opposite discovered that it was not crisis day and that instead of having a crisis the Minister had introduced a Budget which was accepted as a good Budget by all sections of the people.

There is one criticism which I propose making in respect of the Budget and that is the Minister's decision to rectify the flaw in relation to stamp duties on property. Deputies are aware, of course, that the increase in the stamp duty to 5 per cent. for Irish nationals and 25 per cent. for others was brought about by the Fianna Fáil Supplementary Budget of 1947 and that for some time after the Supplementary Budget proposals becoming operative it was assumed that the 5 per cent. applied to all transfers and conveyances of property and also applied to property transferred by way of lease. Recently that interpretation was questioned and the High Court and Supreme Court decided that a flaw did exist and that it would not apply to dispositions of property by way of leases.

The Minister has decided that he is going to stop the gap that was opened there and, without giving it retrospective effect, to provide in the various financial resolutions—I think about midway down—that that position will not be allowed to exist any longer and that 5 per cent. must be paid all round. I want to say at this stage that I do not make any criticism at all of the Minister's decision to end evasions of the 25 per cent. stamp duty, but I believe the Supplementary Budget provisions, in so far as they were intended to break a situation which then existed where there was speculation in house property and a definite inflation of property prices, did their work and did it well. They succeeded in the course of time in breaking the high prices which were demanded for houses and put an end to a great deal of speculation in house property. The time has arrived now when the Minister —instead of merely stopping the gap which the Supreme Court decision breached in the Finance Act and making certain that 5 per cent. would be payable on leases—should have reconsidered this whole question, with a view to lessening the amount of stamp duty payable on all transfers or dispositions of property. The Minister has the machinery and the knowledge to enable him to decide whether this reimposition—I think we can term it a reimposition—may not defeat its ends, in so far as he wants now to collect money rather than break a situation which I believe has been broken already. He might reconsider the position with a view to reducing the stamp duty, perhaps not down to 1 per cent., but to 2 or 3 per cent. and he might get better returns by doing that. However, he has officials, machinery and knowledge which apparently have guided him in another direction.

On page 8 of the Financial Resolutions, we find that Resolution No. 11, Section 8 provides:—

"Where stamp duty was, on the 4th day of May, 1949, or a day thereafter and before the passing of the Act giving effect to this Resolution, chargeable under paragraph (3) of the heading `Lease or Tack' in the First Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1891, as amended...."

the higher rate of duty shall be paid. My reading of it—and Deputy Moran probably will agree with me—taking into account the references the Minister made to it in the course of his statement, is that between the date of the original High Court decision and the 4th of May, but exclusive of the 4th of May itself, it was possible to effect the sale of property by means of a lease, and if you did that and if it was either executed or stamped prior to the 4th of May, you were entitled to have it done at 1 per cent. If, however, it came on the 4th of May or any day afterwards, you would have to pay the 5 per cent.. This is a practical matter which affects a number of people who bought property in Dublin during the last day or two.

A number of leases were stamped in the Stamping Office of Dublin Castle on Wednesday morning. They were stamped before anyone knew of the Budget provision. It appears to me from the reading of that section that the Revenue Commissioners may now recover an additional 4 per cent. duty from these people. Certainly, if it were a case where a lease was executed on the morning of the 4th of May and stamped later that morning, even though it was before the Minister's Budget statement here, that seems to be the position, just taking the section there as it stands and without the Minister having dealt with that particular section in his statement. It would seem to be unfair that a person executing and stamping a deed on the morning of the 4th of May should be in any different position from a person who executed and stamped a deed on the 2nd or 3rd of May. He has no more knowledge of the Budget proposals on the morning of the 4th than he had on the afternoon of the 3rd. I would strongly suggest to the Minister to deal with this question, when replying, in a way which will be favourable to the Dublin solicitors and their clients who went to the trouble of stamping their deeds before the Minister stood up here at 3.30 yesterday.

Mr. Breslin

This Budget was described here this evening by a Fine Gael Deputy as a useful and realistic one, while later on a Clann na Poblachta spokesman said it was an "as you were" Budget. So far as the Gaeltacht and the congested areas are concerned, this Budget is neither one nor the other. The people of the Gaeltacht have been looking forward to an alleviation of their present position; they have had a ray of hope that, at long last, the Coalition Government was about to do something for them; but they will be sadly and sorely disappointed. It is amazing that, during his Budget speech yesterday, the Minister for Finance did not mention, even once, in passing, the twin evils of emigration and unemployment. These are the two evils that starkly confront the people of the congested areas to-day as never before. It is plain that, so far as the Coalition Government is concerned, nothing is being done and nothing will be done in this respect.

In my opinion, the Gaeltacht deserves more from any native Government. After 25 years of native Government, it is a very poor thing for a father or mother in the Gaeltacht to think that he or she is bringing up children for export. We have that one export increasing day by day in the Gaeltacht and congested areas. In Donegal especially, along with having the greatest figures of unemployment, we have had, and are having, the biggest exodus of emigrants in the history of that county. The Gaeltacht deserves more from the nation. It is an area where the people have gone through terrible times and where, in spite of landlordism and the battering-ram, they have held on to their small uneconomic holdings in that congested part of Ireland and also have preserved the national language in all its purity. Nothing definite has been promised to them and, apparently, emigration and unemployment are to continue.

As some of the Gaeltacht Deputies pointed out to the Minister for Lands in the debate on the Land Commission Vote, the economy axe so far as the Gaeltacht is concerned should be dispensed with and money should be provided to help the people of those areas to have a better life and to keep as many of them at home as possible. Our native industries have been collapsing, as Deputies opposite who have mentioned the homespun industry know. That was an industry in Donegal which kept hundreds and hundreds of our people at home and in work year after year. That industry is collapsing and the Government are doing nothing to help it out of its present difficulty.

Then we had the turf industry in Donegal which employed thousands of men. To-day we are in the unhappy position of exporting our men and importing British coal into the Gaeltacht areas. If you travel around the different little harbours in the turf area of the Gaeltacht to-day you will see English ships unloading English coal. If one goes to the Port of Derry, he will find hundreds and hundreds of men and women going across to England and Scotland to find employment which should be provided for them at home. This is not a good Budget so far as the Gaeltacht is concerned. It certainly gives no encouragement to the people of those areas. The fact that income-tax is reduced by 6d. or that the glass of wine is made cheaper does not bring any consolation to the father of a family in the congested areas.

Reference was made to the great increase given by the Coalition Government to the old age pensioners—an increase of 2/6d. So far as my area is concerned, they gave 2/6d. to the old age pensioners and, at the same time, one or two or perhaps three men in a family were thrown out of work as a result of the cessation of the turf industry and the cutting down of the road grants in the county. It is very easy to give one or two old age pensioners in the townland a few half-crowns if, at the same time, you take away pounds upon pounds that had been paid out in wages to the young men of the area in the last three or four years. As I said, we are exporting the young men and exporting our money to buy coal instead of keeping these young men employed at home.

This Budget provides a subsidy on Empire-grown tobacco. I suggest to the Minister that he should carefully consider the question of a subsidy on Gaeltacht products, on turf produced in the Gaeltacht, and on many other things which would help to make life in the Gaeltacht easier, help to keep our people at home, and help to build up a healthy Gaeltacht. Everybody will welcome the increase given to the ex-national teachers, but they are a very small percentage of the population. The Minister should have given some indication of what he was doing for the areas for which I have been speaking. The Minister also mentioned that it was necessary to secure a substantial increase in exports. Unfortunately, in the Gaeltacht we are giving him that substantial increase in an export which we would not like to see continued. If the export of young men and women from the Gaeltacht continues at the rate at which it has gone on for the last 12 months, the Gaeltacht and all that it stands for, will shortly come to an end.

Mr. Colley

Listening to Deputy Cowan to-night, one would not need to be told he was a lawyer. He exemplified the old legal adage—when you have a bad case abuse your opponent. He spent five-sixths of his speech abusing Deputies on these benches. He told us several times about our blatant dishonesty and said we were antediluvian. Apparently he is trying to preach a new creed in politics—that one is antediluvian if he does not change his coat and his opinions every other year. The Deputy's coat is of such a kaleidoscopic hue now that nobody knows where he stands. In my area during the general election he spoke of plans for the stoppage of emigration, for full employment, for a reduction in the cost of living of 30 per cent., and declared that the housing problem was not being dealt with. To-day he is quite satisfied with the progress made, although nothing whatever has been done about those matters. He told us that we had to bring about the stabilisation necessary before spreading out. But he forgot that part of the Minister for Finance's statement yesterday where he said:—

"It is very obvious that no really big saving can be secured unless a limit is set to demands for the expansion of existing and the creation of new services."

How are we going to spread out if the Minister wants to continue his saving programme? How are we going to get anything done? Listening to Deputy Cowan to-night, one must think how hypocritical he was in attempting to charge with dishonesty those of us who did not claim that any of these things could be done. He is quite satisfied when the position is worsening every hour.

This Budget is remarkable more for its omissions than for what it contains. To anybody with the real interest of the country at heart the big questions at the moment are unemployment and emigration and, after them, the cost of living. We heard all about them from those who are now on the Government Benches some years ago when there was the war aftermath and a shortage of materials which we have not to-day. We know that the election was mainly fought by certain Parties on the questions of emigration and unemployment. We had the words "full employment" dinned into our ears, in Dublin at any rate, every minute of the day and from every angle. To-day, to mention full employment to any Government supporter appears to raise up such ghosts that he runs away from you. The last thing, apparently, the Government want to do is to foster employment, much less full employment. We made an honest effort to deal with it and we know it is not by any means an easy task. Consequently we never said that to get full employment was an easy task but the Government does not seem even to try and keep the position as it was. The Minister for Finance thinks so little of it that he has not even mentioned those questions in his Budget statement. He holds out no hope in the coming year that anything is going to be done about it. Every Deputy in this House knows that unemployment is worse than it ever was. They know that people are flying from the country. We have had examples given here to-night by some of the Deputies of whole families going. It is a most grievous question.

We have had references from the other side of the House to-night to the Act that was passed by the Minister for Social Services during the year increasing old age pensions. If he finances that in the same way in order to bring about what we were told at the election were the standards that should be set in these things, he will have another increase in the cost of living and he will have so few left that he will never be able to finance it properly. The workers of Dublin know who is paying for that. They know that they are getting no increased benefits for paying an extra premium. To the people of Dublin at any rate, that talk of what was done in the matter of social services does not appeal. We have no word in this Budget about the social services plan. Deputy Cowan tried to tell us, also, how that could not be done in a week or a month. We all know that but we all know, too, that the present Tánaiste would not accept that kind of statement when he was in opposition. He did not see why there should be any delay about it. We know for a fact that when he went into office 15 months ago he had all the data prepared for him and it was only a question of taking his decisions. Yet he has not even been able to produce the White Paper that he so often promised, and neither is there any word in the Budget about it so that nothing practical is going to be done this year, if ever.

We had a few references here to-night to the statement that the Coalition Government would never survive is first Budget. Neither could it have survived its first Budget if they had done what they preached to the people, but they went back on all the tenets on which they were first elected. That is a very important point, particularly at the present time, from the democratic point of view. I am not going to forget that it could never have survived its first Budget. We did believe then that our opponents meant what they said in their promises to the people. We and the people know to-day whether they did or not. If they had kept their promises the first Budget would never have seen the light of day. If they are satisfied with that position I have nothing to say to them. It is something for themselves and something that the people will let them know about when they get the opportunity.

We were told the cost of living was going to be brought down. We were accused of having let it soar although it had been stabilised from 1943. This Government has not even succeeded in doing that. In this present Budget we are having to provide an extra £1,000,000 for civil servants as a result of the rise in the cost of living last year.

Mr. Donnellan

Do you object to that?

Mr. Moran

If it was given to the farmers of the West of Ireland it would be much more profitable.

Mr. Donnellan

I am asking whether the Deputy objects to that.

Mr. Colley

I want to refer to the question of stamp duty. I agree with Deputy O'Higgins, who has just spoken, to a very large extent. The stamp duty was put on in a time of inflation in the price of houses and in a time of jobbery in houses, with the intention of stopping that artificial increase. It succeeded perhaps too well. It has practically stopped the sale of houses. Country Deputies may not know that, in Dublin at any rate, not one person in a thousand who buys a house has the money to put down for it. They can only make a deposit and borrow the rest of it for which they are paying throughout their life. This means for the average young middle class man, who is the type that buys a house, another £100 cash to be found before he can think of buying. In these terrible times that these young people are facing, both in the increased price and in the difficulty of getting a house at all, it is not fair that they should be further faced with an infliction of finding £100 or, in the case of people about to be married, of waiting that much longer before they can go about the purchase of a house. Anyone who knows Dublin conditions knows how hard it is to put up a deposit at all. I think this stamp duty has served its purpose and that it should go back to the stage it was at, at 1 per cent.

I disagree with Deputy O'Higgins about the 2 per cent. or the 3 per cent. The increase in the stamp duty in 1947 was plainly an effort to try and deal with an inflationary situation so far as the purchase of houses was concerned, and it served its purpose. In my opinion the old charge of 1 per cent. should be restored, and the present charge should not be stabilised as the Minister is doing under the Budget. I think that my suggestion should be acted on by the Minister since a way has been found, legally, by court proceedings in favour of the old duty. Therefore, I do not think the Minister should stabilise the 5 per cent. duty.

I agree with Deputy O'Higgins as far as the 25 per cent. on non-nationals is concerned. In my opinion, it is outrageous that we should continue the 5 per cent. duty and put such a tremendous tax on our own people, particularly on those who want houses to live in. The Minister said that he was concerned about unemployment in the wine trade, and that there would be further unemployment if he did not take off some part of the existing duty on wine. I know for a fact that in the auctioneering and land agency business in Dublin men are being, and have been, thrown out of work, due to the infliction of this stamp duty and the position that it has created. I would appeal that something should be done about that. I want to ask if the reimposition of the tax on dances is going to apply to ceilidhthe. The position is not clear from the Minister's statement, and I would like to have an answer to that question.

I do not think that this Budget is at all popular. So far as Dublin is concerned, it has not created any great enthusiasm. It would be hard to think that it would when we consider that this Government got into office on the plea that they were going to reduce the enormous expenditure and cut out the extravagance of Fianna Fáil. Yet, after being 16 months in office they are budgeting for £8,000,000 more than we asked for in our last Budget. I do not think that, even amongst Government supporters, there can be any great enthusiasm for it. The 6d. in the income-tax that was put on last year is being taken off this year because there has been an increase in revenue over the year of something like £6,000,000 over and above what was budgeted for. A windfall of something like £5,000,000 has come to the Minister by reason of a reduction in the subsidies that used to be provided for flour and fuel. Yet all that the Minister is giving by way of a reduction is £433,500. I do not think there is anything to boast about in that, or that we can say we are getting a good deal from men who told us they could do so much. I am satisfied that what I am saying represents the way that the ordinary man is thinking.

I hope that, for the sake of the country, with things improving as they are, whatever Government may be in power we will soon be able to do something better for the people. In my opinion, nothing better is going to be done as long as we ignore the major problems that confront us or as long as nothing is done to increase production. As long as we ignore the fact that our people are running away, or the unemployment we have, I am afraid we will never reach the position under any Government when we can do better.

Mr. O'Leary

The speeches by the people in opposition on this Budget have surprised me because, under the Supplementary Budget that was introduced by the ex-Minister for Finance there was nothing for the old people, while we had increases in the prices of tobacco, cigarettes and the pictures. The Deputies over there did not raise their voices against those increases that were imposed. The increases were taken off when the change of Government took place. I think this Budget is not as bad as the Deputies opposite try to make out. According to the papers, more people are getting employment.

Mr. Moran

And more people are going on the emigrant ships than ever before.

Mr. O'Leary

Is it not true that, during the time of the Fianna Fáil Government, Deputy Moran and other Deputies from Mayo made special requests here on several occasions to enable the Mayo workers to go across to the other side? That is on the records of this House.

Mr. Moran

Is it on record now that they are going out in thousands?

Mr. O'Leary

They were going then.

Mr. Moran

Not half as many, I think, as are going now.

Mr. O'Leary

We had 77,000 unemployed at the time the change of Government took place. What are the figures to-day?

Mr. Moran

Eighty-five thousand.

Mr. O'Leary

What about all the schemes that had to be stopped? As other Deputies have explained, if the Government which was in charge of this country for 16 years had left it in a sound state, the Minister for Finance could have given, not this year but last year, better reliefs than he has given. But what do we find? We find that timber which cost thousands of pounds a week to bring to the Phoenix Park is now going back, some of it to my constituency, at £1 a ton. That shows a waste of money there. The turf cutting could not go on because there was no room for it in the Phoenix Park or in the dumps in the country. There is a scarcity at the moment of skilled workers, and, if skilled workers could be got, the unemployment list would be reduced. Deputy Allen knows that in our own constituency we cannot get tradesmen to build houses.

Mr. Allen

There is plenty of unemployment in your own town.

Mr. O'Leary

Take your medicine. I am speaking about trained men.

Mr. Donnellan

Bord na Móna cannot get enough men.

Mr. Moran

They have all emigrated —driven out by you.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Leary is seeking interruptions. He should address himself to the Budget.

Mr. O'Leary

I know that, when you hit them hard, they cannot take it. I am sure that there is no man in the City of Dublin who has a housekeeper who finds anything wrong with the Budget, when he gets relief to the extent of £100. The man who pays income-tax has had his income-tax reduced by 6d. in the £.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,

Mr. O'Leary

The Opposition yesterday decided not to have a vote on the Budget and that was a strange decision to me. Everything is wrong to-day, but yesterday they accepted the Budget.

Mr. Allen

They did not.

Mr. O'Leary

All the talk by the Opposition is about the last general election and the promises made at that election. We could all go back to the promises made in 1932.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government (Mr. Corish)

They have been forgotten long ago.

Mr. Donnellan

The emigrants were coming back then.

Mr. O'Leary

Fianna Fáil made an awful lot of promises to the people then, but the Budget they brought in had the effect of putting them where they are to-day. The only thing they are afraid of now is that concessions in the form of new social services will be made because that will finish them altogether. The people do not forget, in spite of the propaganda carried on by the doctors and lawyers. The ordinary man in the street knows where he is affected.

Mr. Allen

He will get cheap wine now.

Mr. O'Leary

Deputy Corry wants a higher price for milk and wants the cost of living brought down, at the same time.

Mr. Moran

And the farm labourer pays lower income-tax.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Moran has not spoken yet and he might reserve his comments until he does.

Mr. O'Leary

I must be annoying these people. I was an ordinary worker before I came into this House and I know what the workers have to suffer better than any Deputy on the other side of the House. I know that, if I were Minister for Finance, I would be able to find more money—there is another way of getting it—because I would not pay men £500 a year pension for nothing. I would take it from them.

Deputy Byrne, on the adjournment of the Dáil recently, drew attention to the position with regard to Córas Iompair Éireann and asked the Minister to tell the country the facts with regard to it. What happened? They talk about the Minister for Finance being niggardly, but he had to go to the Government and ask for £250,000 to pay the employees of Córas Iompair Éireann. These are the things we know and I am sure that the ex-Ministers are well aware of them, too.

They talk about unemployment. Why is it that there is unemployment in the rural areas to-day? Because machinery is taking the place of men and all these people who are supposed to be badly off are buying tractor ploughs, replacing the labourers with machinery, and doing not only their own farms but those of their neighbours. I suppose that will go on, because that is progress. There is a Bill at present before the House with which we would be dealing now were it not for the tragic death of the Minister who was in charge of it. To that Bill, Deputy Moran has tabled a number of amendments, although the Bill has for its purpose the provision of employment in rural areas.

Mr. Moran

Why was it not debated last week if there was urgency about it?

Mr. O'Leary

It was to come on last Tuesday.

Mr. Moran

Why was it not debated last week?

Mr. O'Leary

The Deputy knows well enough why it did not come before the House, but he is afraid it will come, because it is the first time such a Bill, a Bill for the reclamation of land throughout rural Ireland, was introduced, to provide employment for men who have been temporarily disemployed by reason of the suspension of other schemes. Deputies know that that is its purpose, but they will not admit it.

Fianna Fáil Deputies are now crying about the old age pensioners, but, as Deputy O'Higgins said, when a Bill was introduced during the term of office of Fianna Fáil as a Government to improve their position, they voted against it, on the ground that the country could not afford it, and they threw the burden of providing an extra 2/6 on the ratepayers. They told the people that the old age pensioners could never get 17/6 per week. The people who run small shows in rural Ireland and the people who attend them will have no objection to this Budget. Deputy McCann last year appealed for the remission of the tax in this regard. Are you dissatisfied now because it has been taken off?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should use the third person and not address Deputies across the floor.

Mr. O'Leary

I cannot see what Deputies have to grouse about. There is nothing wrong with the Budget. Indeed, there is relief in it—that is one thing that must be admitted. There is nothing put up against foodstuffs; there is no increase in that respect and, therefore, the country will welcome a Budget like that. When I hear Deputies opposite asking why the Coalition Government are not doing this and that I would like them not to forget that they were 16 years sitting on the Government Benches and they never spoke up on behalf of the people; they were only yes-men. On the Opposition Benches I can see ex-Ministers and teachers. There was a time when we were on that side of the House and there was an appeal made to those teachers to do something for their colleagues. They will not find anything wrong with this Budget. The Gardaí will also get something.

Mr. Moran

What about the 85,000 unemployed—what are they getting? You are a Labour Deputy and you should be interested in that aspect.

Mr. O'Leary

They are getting more than you gave them. You allowed them to go across the water to join the British forces.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair must take serious notice if Deputy Moran continues to interrupt.

Mr. O'Leary

He will get his chance to speak; we will give him plenty of time and he can say what he likes. He can contradict anything I say if he is able to do so. The teachers— and there is a number of them in the Fianna Fáil Party—know they are being well treated by this Government. They know how they were treated by Fianna Fáil. We saw the youngsters of Dublin running around the streets of the city during the seven-months' strike and Fianna Fáil Deputies were largely responsible for keeping them there. I am not ashamed to be a supporter of the Coalition Government. I went a long way to put Fianna Fáil over there and I am not sorry for it. I did whatever I could for the old age pensioners. I was put out of the House by Deputy MacEntee, when he was a Minister, for doing what I could for the poor.

The ten-point programme has been referred to. It is being put into operation. We have increased old age pensions and we have modified the means test. We have given something to the widows and orphans and the blind. Those promises have been fulfilled and we will make further concessions before this Government's time is up. That is why the Opposition are getting so worried. They realise we are all united on this side.

A statement appeared recently in the papers from the ex-Taoiseach. He wondered how the Coalition could agree on a Budget. We have agreed on two Budgets and that is what hits Fianna Fáil. An honest effort is being made to do something for downtrodden people. Some Deputies opposite are talking about the stopping of industries. We hear about people who deserted ships, who threw themselves overboard. Were they Irishmen?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This may be very interesting, but it is entirely irrelevant.

Mr. O'Leary

It may be, but Deputies on the far side were permitted to refer to these things. They talked about industries in the country and about people coming back. They are not Irishmen who come back. If you take up the Evening Mail you will see all about the people who are in jobs in the City of Dublin. They are laughing at the Irish.

Mr. Corry

And what about the wild geese?

Mr. O'Leary

We hear a lot about the wild geese, but the only wild geese I ever saw were in Dublin Opinion— Deputy de Valera and Deputy Aiken with their arms stretched out going across the Atlantic Ocean. So far as I am concerned, I have no growl to make about the Budget. We know the conditions in the country at the moment. If it were not for all the muddling in years gone by, we could relieve motor taxation. We are doing what we can and we are satisfied that the Minister is making an honest effort. Deputy Allen talked about wines. He need not worry about them because he does not drink them at all.

The cost of living has been mentioned by Fianna Fáil Deputies. They must agree that there are better prices for agricultural produce, better prices for milk, beef and beet. Who will pay for that? Will the consumer? Deputy Corry is always advocating a higher price for milk. Who will pay that? The people in the City of Dublin and in the country. The highest increases in wages for five or six years were given under this Government. I would like to hear fair and honest criticism. I would not be afraid to criticise if I thought there was anything wrong. There is every hope that next year's Budget will be more fair to the country and greater relief will be given to the taxpayer. That is what everyone wants. The small man has to pay as much in taxation as the big man.

We all want to see taxation coming down. I would like to see heavier taxes on luxuries. There could be more money got from the owners of high-powered cars—the speeding cars that are killing people on the highways. In my own county we have a big burden, the Oulart Hotel at Courttown. That involved something like £22,000. There were some five hotels taken over and the cost was thrown on the taxpayers and ratepayers and these people who purchased them put their friends in charge. That was bad business. I do not suppose we would get £5,000 for the one which cost us £22,000. Who will suffer for all that? The taxpayer will, not Fianna Fáil. The turf scheme has been commented on.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The inter-Party Government brought in this Budget and not Fianna Fáil. The Deputy must remember that.

Mr. O'Leary

They are putting their mistakes over on us. I am merely telling them the mistakes they made.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,

Mr. O'Leary

Seeing that the man with a housekeeper gets a relief, I would suggest that when the next Budget is being prepared the man who has a wife should get something similar. That is a very good idea. Probably all the young fellows will get housekeepers now and will not get married at all because they will not get an allowance in respect of a wife.

Mr. Donnellan

What would the Deputy suggest?

Mr. O'Leary

I am suggesting that a man should get an allowance for his wife. He gets children's allowances and why should he not get an allowance in respect of his wife? That could be done. I do not mean that it should be given to every individual in the State. It should be given to every man who is working for a wage. It would be only right that a man who has to face periods of unemployment, a man engaged only on seasonal work, should get an allowance in respect of his wife. It would be a great help to him, no doubt.

A great many tears have been shed in regard to unemployment. No one regrets unemployment as much as I do. I come from the unemployed. I know what it is to sign on for the dole. I know what it is to draw national health insurance. There is no one who regrets the fact that we have to have employment exchanges as much as I, as a worker, regret it. It is the duty of any Government, it was the duty of the last Government, to provide employment for every man who is willing and able to work. That problem should be tackled. There should be no opposition when it is being tackled and when schemes are introduced to help to solve that problem there should be general agreement by all Parties, instead of amendments being put down and obstacles being put in the way. We should go ahead and consider how we can provide employment for all men who are fit and able to work. Of course, there are men who will never work because they are disabled and unfit. These men are struggling to live on national health insurance. I would like to see national health insurance increased in the next Budget, if possible. People are trying to live on 22/6 and 15/- a week. Reference has been made to the cost of living. We know that the cost of living is high for people who have no means but it is the people who have means who are grousing about it. What about the people who have no means, who are living on small pensions, disabled men from the armies and navies, men disabled through their employment? Go down through rural Ireland or through the slums of Dublin and see what is the position.

It is the duty of any Government to see that there is no unemployment. We provided £7,000,000 for the Army during the emergency. If there were an emergency to-morrow, more millions would be got. Why not get it for employment? There is plenty of work to be done in rural Ireland. There is a great housing drive. The only thing that is lacking is skilled labour. If skilled labour could be encouraged to return, more money would be spent on employment. Every encouragement should be given out through the radio and the Press to skilled men to return to this country. They should be told that there is employment here in abundance for carpenters, masons and plasterers, and that there will be for the next ten to 20 years. That would encourage trained, skilled men, who left this country during the emergency years, to return. I would ask the Ministers of this Government, who are honest and sincere, to appeal to our fellow-Irishmen across the sea to return and to build up their own country and to build houses for the people. That would be work of the greatest national importance. Now is the time. Deputy Cowan referred to the fact that supplies are more plentiful now. That is agreed but the men to work the supplies are missing. Deputies from the Gaeltacht spoke of unemployment in that area. There is unemployment in all areas. Some Deputies referred to glass-houses. Some Deputies referred to the reduction made in the provision for glass-houses. There is not a great deal of employment in the tomato industry here. Deputy Burke spoke at some length about tomato-growing in County Dublin. The numbers employed in that industry are very small. I would prefer to see able-bodied men employed in the building drive. Very often I see reports in the Press of the shortage of labour in certain areas.

I have heard Deputies speak about the shortage of labour. I have heard Deputies speak about emigration and the flight from the land. Emigration will go on to the end of time. Why should a young girl be prevented from going to America, Canada or Australia? The only people who are forced to emigrate are the men who cannot find employment at home. During the emergency we all of us had experience of visiting Upper Merrion Street, looking for permits for these men. If they were agricultural labourers or turf workers permits were withheld from them. These men would not be allowed to leave the country under the Fianna Fáil régime. It is hard to contain oneself when listening to the opposition speakers. Deputy O'Higgins asked for honest criticism. We all want that. Surely honour should be given where honour is due. Why try all the time to slander the present Government? That only serves the purpose of providing big headlines for the Irish Press in the morning. The Irish Press propaganda is poisoning the people in the rural areas. We all know the nonsense that is written by the “Dáil Reporter”.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is not a word in the Budget about the Irish Press.

Mr. O'Leary

It came up to-day in the debate on several occasions. I thought I was entitled to refer to it.

Mr. Little

It did not come up on this side of the House.

Mr. O'Leary

I believe that it is damaging the country.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will have to pass from criticisms of a Press organ. They do not arise on this.

Mr. O'Leary

I am referring to it in connection with the prestige of our country because of the damaging propaganda of a certain newspaper. I do not think that that is right.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There are a lot of things that are not right which we cannot discuss here.

Mr. O'Leary

It is especially wrong because it is done by an ex-Minister and a member of this House. We on this side of the House are not disappointed with the Budget. The people have got certain reliefs. If the former Government had continued in office the country would have become as bankrupt as the bankrupt Córas Iompair Éireann. In 1944 the former Government told the people it was going to give them a transport system second to none. What do we find now?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is five years ago.

Mr. Donnellan

Nevertheless it is true.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

The results of it are contained in the Budget.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are not dealing with anything that happened five years ago.

Mr. O'Leary

We are suffering from the reactions of that policy now. That is what I am trying to show. In County Dublin we had £40,000 thrown down the drain.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must pass from that. We are not discussing Fianna Fáil administration or the alleged mistakes of Fianna Fáil.

Mr. O'Leary

But that was squandering public money.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will come to the Budget, or cease speaking.

Mr. O'Leary

We would have a magnificent Budget now only for the millions that were squandered. Up to yesterday afternoon the people were being told that taxation would go sky high and that this Budget would be the downfall of the Coalition Government. Fianna Fáil supporters were told: "Wait until the Budget comes in; Mr. McGilligan will put them all out." That is what they were hoping for but they are somewhat dismayed now. That is why they are not in the House to-night. There are only four representatives out of an opposition of 77——

Mr. M. O'Higgins

66.

Mr. O'Leary

I do not know how many it is now.

Mr. Donnellan

It is growing less every day.

Mr. O'Leary

There are only two ex-Ministers—the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and the Minister for Education—and two Deputies. That shows the interest they take in the country and in the welfare of the people. If it had been a bad Budget they would have been here cheering. This Budget shook them. The people understand the circumstances of the country now. Most of the promises made to them have been fulfilled in the 14 months this Government has been in office.

Progress reported: Committee to sit again next Tuesday.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 10th May, 1949.