Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Feb 1951

Vol. 124 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Motion by Minister for Finance.

Minister for Finance (Mr. McGilligan)

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £29,375,120 be granted on account for or towards defraying the Charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for certain public services, namely:—

		£			£
1	Teaghlachas an Uachtaráin	1,800	1	President's Establishment	1,800
2	Tithe an Oireachtais	64,200	2	Houses of the Oireachtas	64,200
3	Roinn an Taoisigh	7,600	3	Department of the Taoiseach	7,600
4	An Phríomh-Oifig Staidrimh	39,500	4	Central Statistics Office	39,500
5	An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste	9,980	5	Comptroller and Auditor-General	9,980
6	Oifig an Aire Airgeadais	50,400	6	Office of the Minister for Finance	50,400
7	Oifig na gCoimisinéirí Ioncaim	477,300	7	Office of the Revenue Commissioners	477,300
8	Oifig na nOibreacha Poiblí	77,000	8	Office of Public Works	77,000
9	Oibreacha agus Foirgintí Poiblí	1,050,000	9	Public Works and Buildings	1,050,000
10	Scéimeanna Fostaíochta agus Eigeandála	250,000	10	Employment and Emergency Schemes	250,000
11	Bainistí Stoc Rialtais	28,400	11	Management of Government Stocks	28,400
12	An tSaotharlann Stáit	4,700	12	State Laboratory	4,700
13	Coimisiún na Stát-Sheirbhíse	15,600	13	Civil Service Commission	15,600
14	Bord Cuartaíochta na hÉireann	25,000	14	Irish Tourist Board	25,000
15	Coimisiúin agus Fiosrúcháin Speisialta	2,400	15	Commissions and Special Inquiries	2,400
16	Aoisliúntais agus Liúntais Scoir	330,000	16	Superannuation and Retired Allowances	330,000
17	Rátaí ar Mhaoin Rialtais	80,000	17	Rates on Government Property	80,000
18	An tSeirbhís Sicréideach	2,000	18	Secret Service	2,000
19	Costais faoin Acht Toghchán agus faoi Acht na nGiúirithe	—	19	Expenses under Electoral Act and the Juries Act	—
20	Deontais Fhorlíontacha Talmhaíochta	1,100,000	20	Supplementary Agricultural Grants	1,100,000
21	Dlí-Mhuirir	38,200	21	Law Charges	38,200
22	Ollscoileanna agus Coláistí	234,000	22	Universities and Colleges	234,000
23	Costais Ilghnéitheacha	5,800	23	Miscellaneous Expenses	5,800
24	Páipéarachas agus Clódóireacht	227,000	24	Stationery and Printing	227,000
25	Luacháil agus Suirbhéireacht Teorann	17,300	25	Valuation and Boundary Survey	17,300
26	Suirbhéireacht an Ordanáis	15,920	26	Ordnance Survey	15,920
27	Talmhaíocht	4,693,850	27	Agriculture	4,693,850
28	Iascach	64,860	28	Fisheries	64,860
29	Oifig an Aire Dlí agus Cirt	22,810	29	Office of the Minister for Justice	22,810
30	An Garda Síochána	1,027,460	30	Garda Síochána	1,027,460
31	Príosúin	60,880	31	Prisons	60,880
32	An Chúirt Dúiche	24,600	32	District Court	24,600
33	An Chúirt Chuarda	34,390	33	Circuit Court	34,390
34	An Chúirt Uachtarach agus an Ard-Chúirt Bhreithiú- nais	25,800	34	Supreme Court and High Court of Justice	25,800
35	Clarlann na Talún agus Clarlann na nDintiúirí	27,690	35	Land Registry and Registry of Deeds	27,690
36	Oifig na nAnnálacha Poiblí	2,630	36	Public Record Office	2,630
37	Tabhartais agus Tiomanta Déirciúla	1,340	37	Charitable Donations and Bequests	1,340
38	Rialtas Aitiúil	2,396,000	38	Local Government	2,396,000
39	Oifig an Aire Oideachais	97,000	39	Office of the Minister for Education	97,000
40	Bun-Oideachas	2,400,000	40	Primary Education	2,400,000
41	Meán-Oideachas	235,000	41	Secondary Education	235,000
42	Ceard-Oideachas	230,000	42	Technical Instruction	230,000
43	Eolaíocht agus Ealaí	38,000	43	Science and Art	38,000
44	Scoileanna Ceartúcháin agus Scoileanna Saothair	96,000	44	Reformatory and Industrial Schools	96,000
45	Institiúid Ard-Léinn Bhaile Atha Cliath	19,000	45	Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies	19,000
46	An Dánlann Náisiúnta	2,830	46	National Gallery	2,830
47	Tailte	703,860	47	Lands	703,860
48	Foraoiseacht	362,500	48	Forestry	362,500
49	Seirbhísí na Gaeltachta	360,000	49	Gaeltacht Services	360,000
50	Tionscal agus Tráchtáil	1,037,000	50	Industry and Commerce	1,037,000
51	Seirbhísí Iompair agus Muirí	123,000	51	Transport and Marine Services	123,000
52	Seirbhísí Eitlíochta agus Metéaraíochta	174,000	52	Aviation and Meteorological Services	174,000
53	An Oifig Chlaraitheachta Maoine Tionscail agus Tráchtála	6,600	53	Industrial and Commercial Property Registration Office	6,600
54	Poist agus Telegrafa	2,328,000	54	Posts and Telegraphs	2,328,000
55	Forleathadh Neamhshreangach	68,100	55	Wireless Broadcasting	68,100
56	Cosaint	1,692,290	56	Defence	1,692,290
57	Arm-Phinsin	295,810	57	Army Pensions	295,810
58	Gnóthaí Eachtracha	125,600	58	External Affairs	125,600
59	Comhar san Eoraip	10,410	59	European Co-operation	10,410
60	Oifig an Aire Leasa Shóisialaigh	115,340	60	Office of the Minister for Social Welfare	115,340
61	Pinsin Sean-Aoise	2,413,300	61	Old Age Pensions	2,413,300
62	Liúntais Leanaí	747,300	62	Children's Allowances	747,300
63	Arachas Dífhostaíochta agus Cúnamh Dífhostaíochta	487,000	63	Unemployment Insurance and Unemployment Assistance	487,000
64	Pinsin do Bhaintreacha agus do Dhílleachtaithe	347,350	64	Widows' and Orphans' Pensions	347,350
65	Arachas Sláinte Náisiúnta	189,000	65	National Health Insurance	189,000
66	Iltseirbhísí Leasa Shóisialaigh	75,600	66	Miscellaneous Social Welfare Services	75,600
67	Sláinte	1,990,000	67	Health	1,990,000
68	Oifig an Ard-Chláraitheora	5,820	68	General Register Office	5,820
69	Gealtlann Dúndroma	13,000	69	Dundrum Asylum	13,000
70	Cúnamh Teicniúil	50,000	70	Technical Assistance	50,000
	AN TIOMLAN	£29,375,120		TOTAL	£29,375,120

This Vote on Account is a regular feature, of course, of the financial system. As Deputies are no doubt aware it is required to enable the Supply Services to be carried on until the individual Estimates have been passed and the Appropriation Act has become law. As Dáil Éireann usually completes the examination of the Estimates during the first four months of the financial year, it is the practice to provide only sufficient money in the Vote on Account to enable the public services to be carried on until the 31st July approximately. This year the amount required is £29,375,120. The items are set out on the White Paper already circulated and now reproduced on the Order Paper. One-third approximately of the total net estimate for the year is asked for in most cases. There are here and there some cases where more than one-third is required because expenditure is heaviest in the first four months of the financial year and others where it is less than one-third for the opposite reason.

Because of the early date by which the Estimates Volume had to be circulated this year it was not possible to show the effect of the Supplementary and Additional Estimates that were taken into account in arriving at the 1950-51 figures. In the remarks that follow comparisons are made with the original Estimates for 1950-51.

The total of the net Estimates for 1951-52 is £83,036,048. On the basis of the classification of the Estimates into capital services and other services, which was introduced last year, this sum may be split into £12,079,705 for capital services and £70,956,343 for other services. This, in relation to the original Estimates for 1950-51, represents a decrease of £37,225 on capital services and an increase of £4,946,040 on other services.

The total amount proposed in the Estimates for capital services shows little change from the 1950-51 provision. Within that total, however, the main shifts in emphasis may be stated briefly as follows: Increases of £650,000 for housing, including Gaeltacht housing and housing for turf workers; £484,970 for forestry, including £193,000 for reserve stocks, and £201,000 for new buildings and reconstruction works, offset by the following decreases: £755,000 for agriculture; £530,000 for grants under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, 1949; £130,000 for sanitary services works, and £104,700 for aviation and meteorological services.

Deputies will notice that provision previously made via the Transition Development Fund is now the subject of special provision in the Vote for Local Government. I would like, once again, to emphasise the fact that, for a full amount of capital outlay financed by borrowing, regard must be had not only to the capital services included in the Estimates Volume but also to direct issues from the Central Fund for advances to the Electricity Supply Board, the Local Loans Fund, etc., estimates of which appear in the White Paper of receipts and expenditure published prior to the Budget.

Turning now from the capital to the other services, which show an increase of £4,946,040, I may mention that roughly £1.8 million is in respect of provision for reserve stocks. The Estimates mainly responsible for the increase of £4.9 million are Posts and Telegraphs (£1,223,400, of which £806,600 is for reserve stocks); Defence (£1,100,160, including £159,800 for reserve stocks); Health (£618,500, including £200,000 for reserve stocks), and Industry and Commerce (£505,170).

Particulars of reserve purchases (i.e., purchases in excess of 1951-52 requirements) included in the non-capital services are as follows:—

Posts and Telegraphs	£806,600
Gaeltacht Services	228,800
Public Works and Buildings	220,500
Health	200,000
Defence	159,800
Garda Síochána	85,900
Stationery and Printing	80,000
Prisons	8,400

In 1948-49, expenditure on the Supply Services amounted to £64,638,094. Deducting from this total the expenditure on items now regarded as capital services, the expenditure on non-capital services in 1948-49 amounted to £62,709,953. The corresponding estimate for 1951-52 is £70,956,343. If, for the sake of comparability, the provision for reserve stocks included in the latter figure is deducted (£1.8 million approximately), the difference between actual expenditure on non-capital services in 1948-49 and estimated expenditure on such services excluding reserve stocks in 1951-52 is approximately £6½ million. An examination of the figures shows that the increase has occurred mainly under two headings—social services including health and education. Social and health services accounted for an expenditure of £12.5 million in 1948-49 and are estimated at £16.2 million for 1951-52—an increase of £3.7 million. The various educational services accounted for an expenditure of £7.5 million in 1948-49 and are estimated to require over £9.2 million in 1951-52— an increase of £1.7 million. Between them these two groups of services are responsible for an increase of £5.4 million. There has been an increase of £526,000 in the supplementary agricultural grant, of £144,000 in the Vote for Lands, £302,000 in the Vote for Defence, £182,000 in the External Affairs Vote and £168,000 in the provision for Civil Service pensions. For the Civil Service as a whole, including manual and industrial workers, total remuneration has increased from £9.1 million in early 1948 to about £10.7 million at present. The cost of goods purchased by Government Departments has also risen since 1948-49; the wholesale price index shows a rise of roughly 10 per cent. Savings as against these increases have been made mainly in the better administration and handling of subsidies and food.

It will be appreciated that the occasion of the Vote on Account gives a background to the Estimates for the year, isolating and emphasising by putting outside of the national accounts the further details required to present a true picture of them. That will come when the revenue side can be examined and exhibited, but a full presentation must be deferred for over two months.

There are some general remarks on the economic situation which seem to me to be relevant and appropriate. Deputies have recently got the Tables of National Income and Expenditure for 1938 and 1944-50. These were presented on 24th February, 1951.

Mr. MacEntee

They have not reached us yet.

Mr. McGilligan

They were presented to the Oireachtas on 24th February. They have been the subject of discussion in the Press. There was a certain analysis made, I think, this morning in the Press. The point that I would like to direct attention to as being the pivot of any remarks that I want to make at this time will be found in one of the tables on page 4. It will appear from that that there has been, this year, a surprisingly high deficit in the balance of payments. The trade gap in 1950 was £87,000,000. Exports paid for about 45 per cent. of the imports. With the aid of tourist income, emigrants' remittances, net income from investments and certain other invisible payments, the balance is still £30,000,000 on the wrong side. The terms of trade in 1950 turned markedly against this country. I will be giving details of that later. It is estimated that an amount of at least £8,000,000 can be associated with the turn of the terms of trade against us. National capital home investment shows an increase in 1950 over 1949 of £6.5 million. These two items between them would amount to £14.5 million of the relevant increase in connection with the £30,000,000 deficit in the balance of payment.

Some stocking up undoubtedly is being done at present, but it is not an easy matter to distinguish what has been done. It is not at all an easy matter to put a real figure on that. The best evidence before the statisticians at the moment would seem to show that it is not a very significant item in conjunction with the imports of 1950. It is quite clear in certain other tables that are in the Table of National Income and Expenditure that there has been a very definite increase in consumption, particularly in the consumption of non-essential goods in the country. Agricultural output is at pre-war level; industrial production has shown a marked increase, but notwithstanding this the total quantitative output of goods and services has not increased as much as consumption. The table in this particular volume will show that the increase in consumption is most marked in the case of goods other than goods that are described as essential. I count food, clothing, fuel, light and rent as being in the essential class. It would appear that the increase in the consumption of essential goods is put at 9 per cent., while the consumption of drink and tobacco has gone up by 16 per cent. The consumption of other goods, as the phrase is used, has probably—it would certainly mean non-essential goods— increased by 32 per cent. Taking these two tables together it would appear to be the case that the standard of consumption is being maintained by imports, such imports not being paid by current earnings or by current savings.

The details of the situation will be known to Deputies, but there are one or two I should like to stress. I said already that the lack of the balance which has figured in the 1950 accounts is partly the result of a rise in import prices and that rise is not yet matched by a corresponding increase in the return for exports. The rise in import prices is to some extent the product of devaluation. Certain delayed effects of that began to make their appearance in the early summer of 1950. But, more particularly, the rise is due to rearmament and the scarcity which that caused. Import prices in 1950 were on average 8.6 per cent. higher than in 1949. On the other hand, export prices rose by only 5.2 per cent., thus, as I said, the balance of trade turned seriously against this country in 1950 and the calculation has been made that, but for that, the trade deficit would have been £8,000,000 or so less. As a result of rearmament, imported raw materials and manufactured goods have become scarce as well as being dear. The shortages have already made their appearance, but it is expected that these will become more acute. It has, nevertheless, not been seen proper to impose any physical controls. They might prove premature or, in the long run, if imposed now, unwise. It is desirable that stocks should be laid in while they can be still got and before price increases occur.

So far as external disinvestment is accompanied by stock increases there will be cause for satisfaction rather than concern. The extent, however, to which this has taken place is not easy to ascertain and it has not, at any rate, yet explained the way any really significant fraction of the large deficit which is represented by increased provision for consumption rather than new domestic investment. It is probable that there has been a general stocking up to some extent or at least some advance purchasing. If imports continue scarcer and dearer, there will tend to be an automatic check on purchases. At the same time it is hoped that there will be an upward movement in export prices and that between these the tendency will help to redress the seriously unbalanced state of external trade.

The developments in 1950 are, of course, disquieting and it is clear that we could not for very long expand consumption at the present excessive level without inflation in the limited sense of price increases. Most of the blame can accordingly be put on external forces outside Government control. If it is argued that increased purchasing power released by any State capital expenditure aggravates the inflationary situation, it can be granted that that is a danger which certainly exists. On the other hand, the future prospects are so bleak that it might well prove to be wise and to have been wise, despite the risk and the cost involved, to push ahead as long as materials are available with housing, drainage and other improvement works. It will, I think, be accepted as better that our labour forces should be employed in works of this kind at home than that they should be emigrating to armament and other factories in England. The risk of a further decline in the purchasing power of sterling holdings is also a factor to be considered. Capital expenditure above and below the line, which amounted to £21.5 million in 1949-50 may run to the figure of £24,000,000 for 1950-51. Even if the present rate of outlay does not show a large increase, the current Budget is being kept close to current expenditure and it includes provision for redeeming in 30 years the debt incurred for voted capital services.

In the year 1950, the following favourable features of the economic situation can be remarked upon. There has been an increase in industrial output and employment. The volume of production in industries producing transportable goods in 1950 was 14 per cent., 15 per cent. and 12½ per cent. higher than in the corresponding three quarters of 1949. The numbers in nonagricultural employment have increased by over 60,000 since 1946. On that side, agricultural production is at the pre-war stage. There is, however, an incipient improvement beyond what is shown by that already achieved by agriculture. Cattle prices are at the highest points they have reached for a century. There have been substantial increases in recent years in the prices of pigs, poultry and sheep. Creamery butter production in 1950 was 42 per cent. greater than in 1947 and 7.3 per cent. higher than in 1949. All over the country there is increased mechanisation in agriculture and in the last couple of years there has been an increased use of fertilisers, all of which should tend towards greater production in the immediate future. The level of unemployment stands to-day at a lower point than it was pre-war. In the pre-war period 15 per cent. of insured persons were unemployed. The 1950 percentage was somewhere between 8 and 9 per cent.

I have already remarked on the huge surplus of imports over exports in 1950 and mentioned the difficulties presented by the turn of the terms of trade against us. The volume of exports, however, increased much more rapidly than the volume of imports. The volume of exports in 1950 was 36 per cent. higher than in 1948. The corresponding increase in the volume of imports was only 12½ per cent. I have remarked that, notwithstanding the change in volume, the value of the import excess in 1950 was actually greater than in 1948, due to the unfavourable price charges. There is, we maintain, a very high level of invisible earnings, particularly from tourist receipts. Just recently we have achieved a very desirable increase in exports to the dollar area, mainly in connection with chilled meat. It will be regarded with satisfaction that there has been an unprecedented increase in the rate of capital outlay. As one feature of that, I point to the fact that the number of new State-aided houses built in 1950 is nearly twice that built in 1949.

The disturbing feature, of course, is the deficit in the balance of payments, particularly when that is marked by the great increase in consumption here, especially when that great increase in consumption is attached to the non-essential goods. The continuance of such a situation for any period would be highly dangerous. It would jeopardise the policy, popularly, I think, approved of, to repatriate sterling assets. But repatriation of sterling assets is only of use if they are used solely or mainly for investment and development. If the development policy must be continued, that policy can only be continued without danger if the savings of the community are increased. They can be increased if people refrain from expenditure on non-essential goods. There is a tremendous margin over what was spent in 1938. There is plenty of slack to be gathered in. That is the chief lesson to be learned from the economic trend of 1950.

An Ceann Comhairle

As the Minister rightly said, the House is concerned with pay out rather than taxation on this occasion. We are dealing with expenditure, and the discussion should be of a general character and should not anticipate the Estimates on which the details of administration are discussed. The Parties generally give the Chair notice of the matters they intend to raise. On this occasion Fianna Fáil intends, I understand, to raise financial and economic policy.

Mr. Aiken

The Minister pointed out that a very small proportion of our imports is going for stocking up or for capital development. Last year and for many years past the Government set its face resolutely against taking time by the forelock. When we on this side of the House asked the Government to take such steps as might give our people reasonable security should the international situation tend to get worse we were denounced as warmongers. No later than last July the Taoiseach himself denounced our warmongering when we asked that our economic and defence policies should be adapted to the situation at the time, a situation that was apparent to most intelligent people, but which only became apparent to the Taoiseach and his Cabinet last December when he went down to Waterford and said: "In one aspect or another the spectre of war has been haunting the world since the present uneasy peace began."

For many years prior to the last war and since the war we advocated an intelligent use of all our resources to build up our production and our defence capacity. When the present Minister for Finance and his friends were denouncing the steps we took to build houses and industries here prior to the war we defended those steps; we were fortunate enough in getting a large number of our own people to use their resources while we used Government and State resources generally to build houses and erect factories, develop bogs and other natural resources. Since the war ended it has been difficult for Governments to get all the equipment we require for development. In the year 1946-47 it was in many respects more difficult to procure essentials in the way of capital and machinery than it was during the war years. During 1948 and 1949 the position improved. Machinery and building equipment arrived and were purchasable pretty freely. From the middle of 1950 onwards the situation once more worsened. I think the country has a legitimate complaint that the Government did not use the years 1948 and 1949 to make more progress in importing those things which the country requires for capital development. I think the failure on the part of the Government was largely due to the fact that the Government did not want to face the expense involved from a purely Government point of view; not only that, but there were certain difficulties which prevented the Government making the desired progress during that time. Sectional interests in the Coalition Government were pulling in opposite directions. The result was that the work was not carried out as it should have been carried out.

To-day the Minister gave some facts and figures, a large number of them taken out of a document on national income and expenditure. I have not yet received a copy of that document but I have made certain calculations for my own information in an effort to find out where the country stands in its financial affairs. Since the year 1947-48, the last year for which Fianna Fáil was responsible, Government expenditure on ordinary housekeeping —that is supplies and services, the central fund, the payment of judges' salaries, interest and sinking fund on the national debt and so on—has increased by £28,000,000 per year. According to the Minister, the national debt will have increased at the end of this financial year by £54,000,000. Our dollar debt now stands at £41,000,000. Our external assets have decreased by £60,000,000 over the years 1948, 1949 and 1950.

What have we got for that vast increase in public, expenditure? The Minister himself could claim no more last year than £6,000,000 increase in investments here. Of that £6,000,000 increase I bet that not £1,500,000 was imported; most of it was from our own labour or from our own material. So little use was made in these years of this increase in debt and this expenditure of our national resources that emigration is going up and up. In the last year of Fianna Fáil, 11,000 more people came into the country than went out of it and, in 1949, 18,000 more went out. Notwithstanding the fact that there was this big increase in emigration, the number of people signing the unemployment register last November—the latest date for which I have the figure—was 56,000. No one can claim that any progress that has been made in the last few years is worth the very big increase in our national debt, our international debt and the liquidation of our assets held abroad.

This nation must regard its external assets in the same way as a citizen regards his personal investments outside his own house, or his savings in the bank. We should spend our external assets with the same care as an individual would take in expending his personal assets. If we are going to liquidate all our external assets as quickly as we can, there will come a time when we must meet our annual commitments out of annual earnings. The Minister used to speak as if our external assets should be got rid of as quickly as possible; they were burning our pockets. I noticed this evening he spoke with slightly more discretion on that matter and advocated that, if we were going to realise our national savings abroad, we should take care to see that the fruit of that realisation was produced here in equivalent capital investment.

There is no sign that the £60,000,000 that has been realised in the last three years plus the £41,000,000 that we have borrowed from the Americans, has in any way resulted in £100,000,000 worth of new capital development. Far from it. It may be, of course, that one should not include that debt completely when computing the decrease in our external assets but there is no real provision made for repayment of that debt, that I can see, and certainly the capital services for which the Minister proposes to borrow, shown in this Book of Estimates, will not yield one penny of either interest or sinking fund towards the liquidation of the American debt—not a single penny.

The services outlined may be desirable in themselves but they are not money-earning services. The Minister will not get anything back from the housing grants or from the grants given to farmers for the improvement of their land. He will get no interest from the money which is being spent on buildings for civil servants, and so on. Therefore, the capital items which the Minister has outlined here, particularly in an inflationary situation such as he has outlined, with prices galloping up, should be met out of ordinary, normal, current income. In an inflationary situation, capital development of this kind adds to the inflation. Inflation is a general tax upon all members of the community. It was very difficult to get the normal person to take any interest, last year, when we warned that the easy method which the Minister was adopting in order to raise the finance to meet Government expenditure would do more harm than good in the long run. I pointed out last year, when the Minister first started this game, that an equivalent type of operation by the French Government resulted in a doubling of the French cost of living within 12 months. The Minister's borrowing last year for services that, in an inflationary situation, properly, should be met out of taxation, or savings, definitely helped to create the situation that we have to-day, where prices are tending to go through the roof.

It is time the Minister faced up to his responsibilities. It is very easy for him to fool a large number of the people, particularly when the claque of the Coalition gets working, and the papers that support them in the country, into the belief that we should pass on as much as possible to the future payment for everything we do. The £12,000,000 that the Minister borrowed last year, the projects outlined in the Supplies and Services Estimate, and the £12,000,000 odd which he proposes to borrow this year are for services not new in the history of this State. In the last year that we were in office we raised £3,000,000 for the same purposes by the normal method of raising Government funds for current expenditure, that was, by taxation.

The Minister said last year that as an office built for a public Department would last for a number of years, and so on, it was proper to meet the expense incurred for that by borrowing and to push the payment on to future taxpayers. If we carried that argument to its logical conclusion, not only could he borrow for buildings being erected currently, but he could borrow on all public buildings and lands erected or purchased by the State in the past, and have no taxation.

This treatment of the £12,000,000 for supply services as capital, and proper to be met by borrowing, was merely a political dodge and it is a political dodge this year, to avoid any political unpopularity and to prevent any possibility of a rift in the Government camp through lack of support of the Minister's proposals for taxation.

What has been the result of all the borrowing that the Government have done in these last few years—this extra £54,000,000? The result has been that the amount to be provided for the payment of interest and sinking fund on the national debt is estimated by the Minister this year to be £6.3 million, whereas in the last year of the Fianna Fáil Government it amounted to £3.25 million. That represents an increase of over £3,000,000 for interest and sinking fund charges alone in a period of three years.

There were many boasts made by the various members of the Coalition before they became the Government. The Minister for Industry and Commerce promised that he would put all the unemployed to work within 24 hours. But I think the greatest achievement of the Coalition Government was to double in three years the amount this State pays for interest and sinking fund; to add as much in three years as all other previous Governments did since the beginning, not only of the Republic, but of the Free State. Three million pounds may be sneered at by the Minister's friends—this adding of £3,000,000 to the sum that must be met each year by the taxpayers—but it was not thought such a very small sum in the autumn of 1947 and in the early months of 1948 when the Minister and all his friends were cantering around the country describing how crazy Fianna Fáil were and what extortioners they were to collect by means of beer duties, tobacco duties, entertainment tax and an increase in the income-tax, the sum of £4,000,000.

All that fuss was made about £4,000,000 which was collected to be spent for one year to meet a crisis situation. But the Minister calmly proposed last year—and he has continued his policy—to add £3,000,000 every three years, we take it. The rate of progress is going on and it might even be more than an average of £1,000,000 a year, because in the last year it has gone up well over £1,000,000.

Now we know that Government Deputies just laugh when we recall some of the promises they made to the people and compare them with the performance. The other day I asked as a supplementary question, would the Government consider bringing in legislation or making proposals to reduce the cost of living by 30 per cent., and the whole Labour Party and Clann na Talmhan and Fine Gael sneered and laughed; they almost broke their hearts laughing. Yet the 30 per cent. reduction promised by these people in 1948 had a great weight with the voters who were making up their minds what sort of candidates they should return to look after their interests.

The Minister may feel very happy coming forward to-day with this bill for £83,000,000, to which must be added £10,000,000 this year for Central Fund expenditure, making a total of £93,000,000, not counting what is to be spent for the Electricity Supply Board or the Post Office or any other capital development. The Minister may laugh and think he is in a very strong position out of which no criticism uttered by Fianna Fáil can shift him. That is true. The Coalition Deputies, even though they may be disgusted at their performance and bitterly disappointed that the various members of the Government made no effort to live up to their promises, must now hang together, for as soon as the people get a chance they will hang separately.

Here we have £93,000,000 a year for normal housekeeping expenditure. I will make the Minister a present of £1.8 million which he claims this year is going to be used for stocking up, although stocking up should be a normal feature of any Government Department. Indeed, I do not think I will give the Minister that £1.8 million because the Government sold more stocks that were left by Fianna Fáil than would account for the £1.8 million, so I will keep them to the figure of £93,000,000 which he is going to spend on normal housekeeping expenses this year. That amounts to £31 per head for every man, woman and child in the country.

When we were spending at the rate of £21 per head and adding each year to our real capital assets instead of adding to the dead-weight national debt, as the present Government are doing, we were denounced by the present Minister; the £21 per head was described as a "crazy burden," and "unjust extortion," and they promised the people that if they were returned as the Government the expenditure would be reduced by £10,000,000 per year, or from £21 per head to £18 per head. Instead of the £18 per head which they promised the people, they are now putting £31 per head on every man, woman and child, almost double the figure. Of course, we can do nothing about that matter beyond pointing it out. There are plenty of people who will think that the members of the Government are only being smart, being very clever, showing their capacity as slick lawyers when they can break their word to that extent. Instead of reducing Government expenditure by £10,000,000, they drove it up by £28,000,000.

So far as I can see, any increases the Government have given in social services and salaries do not compensate the recipients at all for the increase in the cost of living caused by the inflationary policy pursued by the Government. I do not believe that the people of this country are getting value for their money. Although the Government have abolished portion of the beer duty and of the tax on cigarettes, I do not believe the people are getting value for the increased taxation imposed upon them by the Government. We are paying very much more for our petrol, as a result of the increased tax. There is also a tax on white bread, sugar, tea and dancing. Even the shot-gun licence and the .22 rifle licence had to go up. There has been a big increase in the price of the postage stamp while the price of the national health insurance stamp was increased without any increase in benefit. The Government have not only broken their word to the people in regard to the reduction of taxation by £10,000,000 and have not only failed to keep their promises, but very blatantly, they kept on laughing at the idea that anybody should think that the Coalition groups should keep their promises. They did not tell the people when they were making these statements that it was a mere political game they were playing. They made all sorts of solemn oaths and promises throughout the country that they meant what they said.

I was interested in looking back on some old papers the other day because a certain very active member of the Coalition groups went into court and swore that he was in Stamullen on the 19th January, 1948, when, in fact, he was in Limerick. I looked up what he was saying in Limerick on the very same day when he swore he was in Stamullen. He prated about Fianna Fáil corruption on that day in Limerick. He spent most of his time in denouncing Fianna Fáil corruption, and he said to the people of Limerick: "Fine Gael offers integrity and honesty; they will reduce squandermania". Squandermania at that time was the amount that we were spending each year. We spent in the year 1947-48 £65,000,000 but instead of reducing the £65,000,000 to £55,000,000 they have driven it up to £93,000,000. The leader of the Fine Gael Party at that time—I understand he is still leader in some queer way—was also speaking in Limerick. I am referring to Deputy Mulcahy as he was then, the present Minister for Education. He was complaining in Limerick on this famous 19th January, 1948: "Fianna Fáil have taken more power over the people's purse by raising taxation by £17,000,000 since the end of the war". The present Government have not only continued to raise that £17,000,000, but have added £28,000,000 to it in a couple of years. Then in his own inimitable, inscrutable type of language, the leader of Fine Gael went on to say that they were fighting in Fine Gael for what he called "the strengthening of our Christian conception of human nature". That fight for "the strengthening of the Christian conception of human nature" has cost us an extra £28,000,000 of squandermania, as his colleague Deputy Collins would call it.

Now it is true that out of this £28,000,000 extra that the civil servants are getting 1.6, and that we have more civil servants at higher pay, but what are the people on the whole getting out of this expenditure because that is the final test? What services are being provided? To what extent has the position of our people been improved to sustain themselves in peace or war? There has been some slight increase in industrial development, largely because the Government could not shut down on everything that was in train in the last years of Fianna Fáil. They shut down as much as they could. The Minister for Finance boasted of the money he was going to save on the shutting down of the Atlantic air services, and of mineral development; of the saving he was going to make, a few miserable thousands, on the Irish Place Names Commission. Not only did they shut down, while spending all this increased money, on the developments I have mentioned, but they stayed turf development for almost three years. In 1947 a scheme had been approved for the building of 2,000 houses for turf workers adjacent to the bogs, but it is only in the last couple of months the Government have announced that they were going to go ahead with that particular scheme. Everybody knew that if we were going to make progress in house building, in cement road making, we wanted more cement. Fianna Fáil had plans in train for the extension of our cement factories after the war, but one of the first things the Government did was to stop that development. They kept the country on edge for a number of years. You had each district competing with the other as a site for a new cement factory.

Last year, in order to stop this number of deputations to the Government, as well as letters demanding that an additional cement factory should be put up in one place or the other, the Minister for Industry and Commerce announced that the Government had, in fact, approved of the extension of the cement factories in Drogheda and Limerick, but we found out recently that that was another untruth and that the thing did not go ahead. The Government stopped it, and that during those years when we should have been adding to our cement and other productive capacities. During those years the Government were doing nothing in the matter. In fact, some members of the Government were doing their utmost to stop any development. Not only did they draw the red pencil through a number of projects which were under active consideration or were being put into train in the last years of Fianna Fáil, but in order, I suppose, to please the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Social Welfare, they set up a definite block against industrial development. They set up this new industrial development commission or whatever it is called. It was bad enough for an industrialist to have to look to get what help he could from the public authority and to get agreement from various Government Departments as to what facilities he should get, but the position became almost impossible for him when he found that he was being driven from Billy to Jack. Not only was he being driven from Billy to Jack, but from Tom to Peter and from Peter to Harry, and to all the rest of them which have now being set up to yet new proposals for starting industry here. The setting up of the Industrial Development Authority must have stopped, and put an end to for years, when some purchases could have been made, if there was a proper realisation of our external assets, of plant and machinery for the erection of factories here which would give us reasonable security in the supply of essential goods and commodities.

Indeed, not only did the Minister for Agriculture get his way in setting up that block to the development of Irish industry, but he seems to have made converts in strange quarters in the Coalition Government. The Minister for External Affairs thinks the cure for all our ills is to set up particular industries to produce goods for export. The export of goods, as well as the export of agricultural products, is an excellent thing, but surely to goodness their first and main effort must be to produce, within our own shores, the things that we require in order to keep the life and soul in us in a time of crisis. In a time of crisis our export trade might get very short shrift, while the imports we bought with our exports might also cease, but what would not cease, and what did not cease even in the crisis of the last war, was that portion of our industrial plant that was producing for the home market, and that was converting our own raw materials. The drive during the last few years should have been the drive which was started by Fianna Fáil to develop our industries, both agriculture and town industries, and to produce out of our own resources as much as possible of the essentials of life which our people require.

Not only did we fail in industry to take advantage of the times in 1948 and 1949, but in agriculture we have definitely set our back, in the last few years, to the idea that all sensible men would have for Irish agriculture, and that is to use our agricultural resources to produce for our people a reasonable supply of the essentials of life. The exigencies of the formation of the Coalition necessitated the giving of a Ministry to Deputy Dillon, but, surely, he should have been given some other Ministry than the Ministry of Agriculture. During his three years he has succeeded in bringing down our total corn and root crops, including flax and fruit, by 546,000 acres, by over half a million acres. He has succeeded in reducing our wheat crop by 217,000 acres, our oat crop by 140,000 acres, potatoes by 33,000 acres and flax by 7,700 odd acres. These tillage crops have been reduced by 546,000 acres at a time during which, as the Taoiseach said recently in Waterford, any person with an eye in his head could see that there was no real peace. He said— what he said in Wexford has already been quoted—that,

"in one aspect or another the spectre of war has been haunting the world since the present uneasy peace began."

With that spectre haunting the world, the Coalition not only did not take advantage of their opportunities to develop our industry, but they allowed the Minister for Agriculture to reduce the area under tillage by 546,000 acres. What are we doing, and what has been the alternative to keeping that tillage acreage that we had in 1947, and of adding to its productivity?

Mr. McGilligan

Question.

Mr. Aiken

What has been the alternative?

Mr. McGilligan

I noticed the phrase: "We reduced the crops by so many acres." I think you reduced the crops by a quantity.

Mr. Aiken

We reduced the area. If the Minister wants to be precise, I will discuss any other aspect of the matter.

Mr. McGilligan

Discuss the yield.

Mr. Aiken

The Minister cannot deny that during these three years the area under tillage was reduced by 546,000 acres. One aspect of that is that, instead of the oats, wheat and potatoes which we could have produced here to feed ourselves and our families, we imported wheat at £31 per ton, and maize at £29 per ton. Indeed, the situation was so bad that we were going to Prince Edward Island for potatoes. We went to Holland first and then we went off to Prince Edward Island, and the only reason we did not get potatoes there was that the British would not give us the dollars. We also have the spectacle this year that we are getting butter from Denmark and New Zealand. If that policy goes on, we do not know where we will be importing eggs from next year when the Minister for Agriculture wrings the necks of all the hens and chickens in the country, as he is now advocating.

We will take the question that the Minister is interested in, in which I am also interested, and in which everybody must be interested—what is the yield of these crops per acre, and how best can we increase production per acre? It can be proved to the satisfaction of a normal person, if it is argued out in a reasonable way, that the Government have not used the opportunities they have had during the last three years to increase the yield per acre, the out put per acre. Let us take the drainage of lands. There was been great boasting about the £40,000,000 which was to be spent in ten years. I see that it is now down to £2.5 million of which the farmers are getting about £500,000. There was great boasting about the great capital development by the new scheme of agricultural drainage. Does the Minister for Finance remember that in their first year of office they cut out the drainage scheme? The Land Improvement Vote was cut out to save £500,000. The Minister asked what about the improvement of the output per acre. To save £500,000 in 1948-49 they abolished the expenditure under the Land Improvement Vote. Under Fianna Fáil, it was being met out of taxation. The Minister for Agriculture explained that they could not raise the money to drain the land; that if we could get Marshall Aid he would make it spin, and he is spinning it at the moment, the most of it on American machinery.

Another item in relation to the output per acre was the subsidy for fertilisers which Fianna Fáil had in the 1948-49 Estimates, which the Minister also reduced. Not only that, but there was under the agricultural Department a scheme for the widespread provision of line. We did not go as far as Clann na Poblachta and advocate that lime and fertilisers should be given free to farmers. But we did stand for doing all we could to make available all the resources the Government had to help the farmers to increase output per acre. We provided fertiliser subsidies and lime subsidies, which the present Government have cut out, and we were making available, as quickly as phosphatic and other manures could be got, the credits that were given to the farmers for the production of wheat. Over a number of years there was a credit of 2/6 per barrel given to the farmers for every barrel of wheat delivered to the mills.

What is the situation in regard to these fertiliser credits? The farmers could not cash them all in the last couple of years. The Minister for Agriculture was telling the people about the need for more fertilisers and more lime on their land. He spent a lot of State money advocating it. But between the Minister for Finance and himself they kept back the purchase of these fertilisers by refusing to cash the wheat credit vouchers.

Some members of the Coalition have become more interested in cattle than in the production of food for human beings. The natural corollary of that has been that fewer people are now employed on the land as compared with the time when there was a reasonable amount of tillage in the country. The Minister boasted this afternoon that we have the greatest number of cattle in the country since I do not know when—since the time of Brian Boru, as the Minister for Agriculture would say. That may be true. But the chickens are in danger of having their necks wrung, and all the Coalition Deputies who used to weep copious tears about the lovely little calves being slaughtered are now going to cheer when the necks of the lovely little chickens are being wrung. You would never think that they would be so hard-hearted as to see the chickens' necks wrung, but they are going to wring their necks by the million. Not only have all the Coalition Members who used to talk about the development of tillage stood idly by, as meek as mice, but they walked as tamely as trained monkeys through the division lobbies in support of that reduction of tillage. They are also outbidding the Minister for Agriculture for the support of those who want to see nothing on our lands except cattle for John Bull. Indeed, the Minister for External Affairs boasted to a representative of the Manchester Guardian of all the cattle we were producing for Britain and not only that, but boasted that we could get a better price on the Continent but that we would rather sell them to Britain.

The craziest policy that members of the Coalition agreed to was that which they adopted when the Minister for Agriculture, and whoever else accompanied him, went to London to negotiate the cattle agreement in 1948. They agreed then, for the first time, to restrict the cattle exports of this country to countries other than Great Britain to 10 per cent. of the amount sent to Great Britain. That was not the first time the British tried that on but that was definitely the first time that they succeeded. Be it remembered that they did not succeed until Clann na Poblachta, Fine Gael, Labour and Clann na Talmhan put their heads together to form a Government.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

We had nothing to sell them before.

Mr. Aiken

We did not sell our honour.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

You had no honour to sell.

Mr. Aiken

Fianna Fáil did not sell its honour and it never proposed to bring the king over to the Phoenix Park——

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

You did your best to establish a king there yourself.

Mr. Aiken

——where we could all go up and kow-tow to him.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

You did your best. You were the royal Minister for Finance.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Higgins will have an opportunity of making his own statement and he should allow Deputy Aiken now to make his statement without interruption. Deputy Aiken on the Vote on Account.

Mr. Aiken

If the Ceann Comhairle protects me, I shall come to the Vote on Account and, if he does not, I shall have to protect myself as best I can.

Mr. McQuillan

That is a slur on the Chair.

Mr. Aiken

Fine Gael took the tame Clann na Poblachta and Labour Parties for a ride to England in 1948 and they agreed there, for the first time, that in future we would not send more than 10 per cent. of our cattle to any country other than Great Britain. At the same time the British promised us 1,500,000 tons of coal per year. They also promised to pay us for our eggs. The British have fallen down on both their promises. I will deal with coal first. This year, we have suffered a virtual fuel famine because of the refusal by the British to implement their promise. With regard to meat, it was obvious for a number of years that a market could be developed in America. If we were free at the moment we could sell very much more than 10 per cent. of our total meat exports to America alone, not to talk of trade with Western Germany, Holland, Belgium and the other European countries. But we cannot do that. We cannot sell our meat to America to get dollars to purchase American coal which we must buy because of the failure on the part of the British to implement their promise in 1948. We must continue to sell our meat to Britain for pounds, and fish for the dollars. We must borrow dollars to buy coal.

Another part of that agreement dealt with eggs and egg prices. When we left office the price the farmer was getting for his eggs on the farm was 3/- per dozen. It is now 2/- per dozen. The price of maize when we left office was £17 or £18 a ton. It is now £30 a ton. Even as late as 1949 the Minister for Agriculture promised the people that they would get all the maize they wanted at £20 per ton. He promised the farmer's wife—you remember the dramatic gesture—that when she saw a chicken put its break through the shell she could say: "If you are a pullet, I know every penny I will get for every egg you lay during your profitable period as a layer", and the price dropped from 3/- a dozen to 2/- per dozen, while the price of feeding-stuffs went up from £17 or £18 a ton to £30 a tone. Not only did he make those promises in relation to eggs, but he and the Taoiseach came back from London boasting about the magnificent agreement they had made and claiming that in future the farmers would have a sure, certain and profitable market for everything they produced. We were deafened with that, not only here, but from every platform and outside every church gate around the country: for the first time since Brian Boru the farmers were to have a sure, certain and profitable market for everything they could produce. The people who are producing eggs at 2/- a dozen instead of 3/- know now how much truth there was in that, as do the people who are producing flax. Undoubtedly, the grazing farmers are well satisfied and they think Clann na Poblachta and Fine Gael are lovely boys.

I shall not discuss these matters further, since we will have other opportunities of debating the general financial policy of the Government. I think the Government should remember that during the remainder of their existence as a Government, be it long or short, they must face up to the responsibilities of their situation. They are in the saddle. Nobody can put them out of office, but they will be held responsible by history because of the lack of preparedness of our people to face the very uncertain future. Let the Cabinet learn to tell the truth. Let them tell the whole truth about our economic situation. Let them not try to dodge their responsibilities. Of what use was it for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce to come in here last December and tell us that there was no increase in the cost of living? Everybody knew that there was an increase but the Government were prepared to dodge that issue until there was such a howl here from both sides of the House that they were compelled to drop their stupid pretence. In the same debate, we were told that there was no fuel crisis. They did their utmost to create a fuel crisis because not only did the British fall down on their promises but our own Government was selling at a cut price the stocks of fuel which had been built up during the Fianna Fáil régime. All the Deputies, including the Deputies O'Higgins, were damning the coal in the Park as dirt. The Government sold it at £3 5s. a ton up to the end of last November. Then suddenly they discovered that it was not dirt. The people are now paying £9 a ton and they soon will be paying £12 a ton for it. But, of course, according to the Parliamentary Secretary and all the clique, there was no fuel crisis. No effort had been made to develop our native resources of fuel.

Then the Taoiseach was at the head of the people who were howling down anybody who asked that reasonable provision should be made for a very uncertain future, denouncing them as warmongers. He stated on many occasions that the Government's policy was "based on the hypothesis of continuing peace". He shouted that from the first day he came in here as head of the Government until only a month ago when he went down to Wexford and said that all during this time—when the Government's policy had been based on the hypothesis of peace—"it was clear to anybody that in one aspect or another, the spectre of war has been haunting the world since the present uneasy peace began." The Taoiseach has great hind sight. When the war in Korea broke out he could not deny that there was a situation that would have to be faced. Unfortunately, we cannot do anything about a change of Government. Neither can the people. I hope that the Government in this year of crisis, will act up to their responsibilities.

This is now the end of February, in the year 1951, and the Minister for Agriculture has not asked one single farmer to grow one grain of wheat. Not one advertisement, not one speech, not one word, has issued from the Minister for Agriculture asking the farmers to grow wheat to feed our people. I do not know how much money he has spent and how many million words he has spoken urging them to grow food for cattle. I do not object to his urging our farmers to grow food for cattle, but I certainly think it is the height of treachery to our people that the Minister for Agriculture should be supported in the year 1951 in his attitude of discouraging our farmers from growing wheat to feed our people. I trust that some members of the Government will live up to their responsibilities and give a kick in the appropriate place to the Minister for Agriculture in regard to his wheat policy.

This particular Book of Estimates is asking the people to face a heavy burden. It is asking not only the present taxpayers to pay £71,000,000 or so, but it is asking the present taxpayers and all future taxpayers to subscribe towards the £12,000,000 which they propose to borrow and spend. The people are entitled to get better service for the expenditure of this amount of money than they have been getting. If the members of the present Government do not pull up their socks and give better service, I hope some Deputies on the Government Benches will waken them up or, if they do not do it, that the people by their demands, public and private, upon Deputies, will force them out of their present attitude of ignoring the real situation and will make them face up to their responsibility to do something which will protect and sustain our people in peace or war.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

It was customary each year on the Vote on Account to have a review of Government policy in so far as it affects the country and a statement from the Opposition of the respects in which they differ from that policy and suggestions for the better government of the country. It was customary to have such a statement from the Opposition until the year 1948. Then we had Deputy Aiken as the main spokesman of the Opposition on the Vote on Account. I congratulate Deputy Aiken on his uniform mediocrity. This year he has in no way changed his batting average in previous years. Is Deputy Aiken's speech to-day to be taken by the people as Fianna Fáil's answer to this country's difficulties and as Fianna Fáil's policy for the better government of Ireland? If that is the position, a very poor future lies before this country should Fianna Fáil ever again be charged with the responsibility of office, because Deputy Aiken, in his speech to-day, has advanced no answer to the constructive proposals contained in the Vote on Account and the constructive proposals contained in the general policy of this Government. There was nothing but cheap sneers at people and personalities, at things of the past, and the argument which is the stock-in-trade of Deputy Aiken and every member of the front bench Opposition. They find themselves devoid of policy, bankrupt of ideas, and armed with nothing but the venomous tongue of disappointed politicians. They prattle about turf. They prattle about lack of confidence on the part of the people in this Government. The thing is easy to say, but let them realise that they are the people who occupied these benches for a longer period than the period for which any Government in Western Europe was in office. They are the people who had full and plenary opportunity to do for this country everything that the mind of man could conceive. They are the people responsible for any weakness which we suffer from to-day in our economic well-being. They are the people who are responsible for any of the difficulties which we face to-day in the event of a possible war.

Deputy Aiken's speech might have been an excellent speech if we did not know Deputy Aiken. Deputy Aiken's speech might have been a powerful speech if Deputy Aiken had not been a Minister in the Fianna Fáil Government. When we hear Deputy Aiken talking about a danger to the food supplies of Ireland, we have to scratch our heads to know on which of Deputy Aiken's cheeks his tongue may be, because Fianna Fáil made a religion of wheat but, like many people who prattle about religion, they forgot to practise it. Wheat was their doctrine, their religion, the thing they stumped this country about. We found when they left office that there was not storage space in Ireland for even a 12 months' supply of grain for our people. If they were serious about wheat, would we not have expected that in some of their 16 years they would have provided proper storage space? The fact is that no real effort was made to carry out the Fianna Fáil policy—if it ever existed.

They tried compulsion, they tried to apply the whip to the backs of the farmers, the whip that Deputy Cogan wants to see wielded again. They tried to compel our farmers to grow wheat and there was no result. We can say that the policy of this Government, as administered by our Minister for Agriculture, has had as great a success, at least, as the policy of the former Government in relation to wheat. I come from a tillage area; I represent one in the Dáil. I and every farmer Deputy in the House know well that the one trouble for those who grew wheat last harvest was the anxiety that they would not get their grain lifted away to the merchants. Every farmer who grew wheat last year knew well there was a run on the mills, that there was not sufficient storage to house the crop coming from the land, that every available bit of storage was brimful with grain and there was not storage available for another bushel. That is a fact known to the people, to the farmers. That being so, it is hard to be patient with caterwauling of Deputy Aiken when he talks about a danger of a shortage of wheat. We produced as much wheat from Irish land—and by we I mean the people——

Mr. Cogan

The farmers.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Yes, for whom you used to speak.

Mr. Cogan

And I still speak for them.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

They produced as much wheat from the land as was ever produced by all the compulsion in which Deputy Aiken delighted. Let the people test the results of that policy. If letting the farmer run his own land, sow the crops that he believes his land is capable of producing at a profit, run his land according to his own desires and wishes and giving him an attractive price and a good market—if that policy produced results as great or greater than the fear of the law which Fianna Fáil delighted in, then surely we are entitled to say it is a better policy in a free Ireland?

I, for one, would back my view of that policy at any time, in any election, before any electorate, and I have no hesitation or doubt as to the view of the ordinary man with regard to that policy. I will say to anyone, to any camp follower of Fianna Fáil, that their view to-day is still the same as it was when Deputy Smith was Minister for Agriculture. If they were ever returned to office they would practise their lack of trust in the people of Ireland just the same as they practised it before 1948. If they were ever returned as a Government they would give our farmers no chance to run their land as they wish it to be run. They would appoint the local big boss with the big stick, as Deputy Smith described it, and the farmers would have to run their land as they were told, irrespective of what their wishes might be. It is well the people realise it. It is well the people of Wicklow, Louth, Kerry and Donegal realise that the Fianna Fáil policy is just the same to-day as it was when they were removed, mercifully, by the will of the people from the cares and responsibility of office.

Let me express my view with regard to this country's ability to feed itself. We are better off to-day than we were at any time under Fianna Fáil. We have more feeding stuffs for our people to-day than we had at any time under Fianna Fáil and we are not scratching the land of Ireland as Fianna Fáil tried to make us scratch it. We are expanding our agriculture. We are increasing our people's ability to feed the bigger population in Ireland. Our population has increased. We have a bigger number of different kinds of live stock and we are not as dependent as we were under Fianna Fáil on imported feeding stuffs because in supporting this Government we do not merely prattle about things of this kind. We practise what we preach and therein lies the difference between the Fianna Fáil approach to fundamental things relating to this country and ours.

I think when next the people are asked to pass judgment on the policy of this Government and the record of its predecessors, they will have no hesitation in deciding that if the rightness of a policy is to be judged by results, then this Government has been right all along the line.

Deputy Aiken talked about many things here to-day. I would only be putting on myself an onerous burden if I tried to chase each of the red herrings that Deputy Aiken produced here. I found it hard to be patient when I heard him talking about turf. I come from a turf constituency and I have no hesitation in stating now what I said in the General Election of 1948, that the turf produced and sent to the Phoenix Park was nothing but sheer dirt. I hope Deputy Kissane got that.

Mr. Kissane

Was it from Laoighis?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I speak of the turf sent to the Phoenix Park.

Mr. Kissane

Where from?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

It was nothing but dirt, for this reason, that the conveyance of the turf produced from our bogs, to Dublin, was allowed to get into the hands of the get-rich-quick boyos who battened upon the producers and the consumers in the city. The gentlemen, who were lucky enough to get a commission or a few lorries, operated from the bank to the Phoenix Park, and being paid by weight, knew the turf paid more when it was wet; they did not care twopence as to the quality of the particular commodity they brought in their lorries and put into the dumps in the Phoenix Park. I have said this in one of the greatest turf-producing areas in Ireland, in Offaly, and I have said it to the primary producers themselves. I have no hesitation in repeating it here in the Parliament of our country. If the policy pursued in that particular period of our country's history represented a policy with regard to turf production then God preserve us, and the people who produce turf, from a similar policy in the months that lie ahead. It is a bit difficult for people living in turf areas to swallow the assertion that the gentlemen who permitted that to take place were those who dearly loved turf because no enemy of turf production could have done as much harm as those responsible for policy in that particular period did to the turf industry. Those who permitted it were very much to blame. The years from 1940 to 1947 while they had their drawbacks and difficulties for Ireland, presented an opportunity which even the practice of the teachings of Arthur Griffith could not have given to those engaged in the turf industry—the opportunity to produce and sell turf to the people in the towns and cities, not as an emergency substitute for coal but as a real Irish fuel.

It was not too much to expect in 1941 or 1942 that the turf produced in Clonsast, Tirraun, Boora and many of the other great bogs in Ireland would have been a welcome fuel in the hearths of Dublin homes. The fact that seven years later the bellman who hawked turf around the poor parts of the city did so in fear of his life, raises the question as to what sort of mismanagement caused that deplorable situation. Believe me, the people from the turf areas have not been codded or fooled. They know well where the responsibility lies. They know well that those who, with abandoned recklessness, permitted the spoliation of the turf industry for the seven years of the war, have that on their consciences and will never be forgiven by the people from the bogs of Ireland. In face of that, is it not a bit too much, when Deputy Aiken, in an unctuous speech here, suggests that this Government was to be congratulated in adopting the turf policy of Fianna Fáil? God between us and all harm, I would cease to be a member of Fine Gael if I thought that were to be the position. I would no longer support this Government or any Government that endeavoured to put into operation the policy of Fianna Fáil in relation to turf.

If I might paraphrase the statement of the Tánaiste, in announcing the plans for the new turf production scheme, he made it clear that the purpose was to produce turf, not occasionally excellent but consistently good. That that was the purpose and the aim of the new drive, marks its complete difference from what Fianna Fáil called a policy. Their attitude to turf production was just like the conduct of some megalomaniac. They did not care what damage they did. I sincerely hope that the turf produced in the next few months at Boora, Tirraun, Clonsast and on all the other great bogs of this country will be produced with the knowledge that the producers are given within a decade a second great opportunity to make turf the basic Irish fuel, and that they can avail of it by producing only the best at a fair price, quite differently from those who battened on them and on the people of Dublin, Cork and Limerick in the early days of 1940 and 1941. They should cut out middlemen and, with lorries still available, supply direct from the bogs to the markets. I think if that is done we shall find a real move made to further the interests of turf production as a permanent industry here in Ireland.

I want to say to the Tánaiste or whatever member of the Government is in charge of turf production that I sincerely hope we shall have fewer agents and sub-agents parading with tickets around the bogs, directing those who produce the turf as to where it is to be sent and putting into their own pockets a commission of a few shillings per ton on the turf produced in these bogs—turf production which these people never see. I hope we shall not find, as we saw in the past, a townsman who never got his boots soiled on a bog appointed a local agent for turf production. I hope that producers of turf in every bog in the country will band themselves into co-operative societies in an endeavour to provide their own means of transport and their own negotiating machinery so that they will be brought into direct contact with the consumer. If that is done—Deputy Briscoe seems to sneer at it—the people of County Dublin would not have to foot the bill they had to pay in relation to Grangegorman not so long ago. The board in Grangegorman, if they had any sense, would not have refused that very fair offer from the County of Offaly which was produced by a hand-won turf organisation. The opportunity is there, and I sincerely hope it will be availed of now.

I am glad that a real effort is now being made to prevent the abuses which Fianna Fáil called a policy in the days before they were booted from office, because those who live in the bogs and produce turf in the Midlands. in the South and West of this country, cannot afford another period such as that which Fianna Fáil visited upon them. Now I do not want, although I am sorely tempted by what Deputy Aiken has said, to reopen the old question as to who stopped turf production. It is now generally accepted by the people of the country that it was Deputy Lemass, with his English coal, who stopped that in October, 1947, but let what is past be past. We have to consider the future now, and I wish all speed to the new turf production programme. I hope it will be availed of by the primary producers right through the country to make turf popular this time by preventing abuses, by cutting out the middleman and by producing the best turf at a fair price. If they do that, therein will lie the difference between the "new look" and what was practised by our predecessors when they were in office.

We had the usual sort of talk from Deputy Aiken about taxation and about the imminent approach of war. I think it is true to say that, ever since the day, for the second time in his life, when Deputy de Valera found himself the Leader of the Opposition in this House, the noise and the rattle of war was just around the corner. In the spring of 1948 the catastrophe was just upon us, and no one could doubt that, certainly, by the summer of 1948, we would find war again upon the world, with ruin and desolation upon our country. That lurid picture was painted as a bit of political propaganda by the unseated mighty who found themselves dispossessed persons in Ireland. Right through the spring of 1949 and the summer of that year the same plaintive cry was wailed upon this country by the Fianna Fáil Opposition. War did not come, nor did it come in 1950, nor has it come yet. I do not say that it will not come to-morrow. I do not know.

Mr. Little

The shortages are coming.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

But my guess is as good as the guess of Deputy Little, Deputy Briscoe, Deputy Eamon de Valera or of anybody else. I should like to know this as a taxpayer and as an ordinary citizen of this country: what would I think of a Government which believed that phoney kind of propaganda three years ago and corralled into Irish barracks young men who could be producing in new factories and on the land of the country, and by building up an army and maintaining it for three years endeavoured to run the economy of the country on a war basis? I say anyone who suggested that was the right course for Ireland was not only wrong but very wrong indeed. In the last three years, this Government has realised that you do not make a country strong by parading men around in uniform. The only way to make the country strong is by using the things which the country possesses, by endeavouring to produce more and more from our land and from our factories, by increasing our economic strength so that we can best ensure, in the event of any future economic blizzard, that we are stronger than we were in the past.

I think the people of this country, if they are asked to decide, and I hope they may be, will decide that a Government which, despite the cries of panic and the caterwauling of the Opposition, consistently built up over three years our various industries by giving more employment to our people and by providing better houses for our people, as well as by increasing production from our own resources, was serving the nation better than a Government which would have blistered the country with taxation and corralled into barracks our youth who could be producing the things the country required. I think it is consoling for the country to know, in relation to the present state of Ireland, that on all points of importance to this country we are stronger now than ever we were under Fianna Fáil. Our economic strength is far greater. In industry we are employing more people and producing and exporting more goods than we did at any other time in this country's history. In agriculture we are producing more from the land and employing more on the land—I hope Deputy Cogan will take note of that— than ever before in this country's recent history. Anyone who takes any interest in these matters is aware that we have to-day far greater stocks of essential raw materials than we ever had before. Generally, from the point of view of our economic position, Ireland to-day is a far stronger country than she ever was. Even in regard to the men in the Defence Forces our people will appreciate that we are some eight times better prepared than we were when Fianna Fáil were supposed to be preparing us for war in 1939.

When we hear talk such as we heard from Deputy Aiken with regard to the danger of war and this country's position in relation to it, we must see what the facts are. If we do that, we will find that this country, under this Government, is better prepared than it was in a similar dangerous period prior to the last war. If we, a small country, are going for the rest of our career as a nation to be blighted by fear of war and to shape our economic policy on that basis, afraid to breathe for fear of a bomb, then we are going to perish as a nation.

The only way we can survive any such possible difficulties is to shape our policy in accordance with our own economic resources and to go our way as a nation so far as we can irrespective of what happens outside. But, if we are going to do everything we do with one eye on the people living at home and the other on Joe Stalin, then we are going to get nowhere. We have had far too much of this kind of sob stuff about war. War has not come and, please God, it will never come. We can at least take satisfaction from the fact that the last three years have been given to us and have been well used by the people under the direction of this Government.

I should like to refer to what Deputy Aiken said about wheat. He talked about tillage and then discussed the production of feeding stuffs at home. I should like to know from him what is wrong with this Government's policy in that connection. Is there anything wrong with producing more in the way of animal feeding stuffs at home? Is there anything wrong in increasing the number of live stock, if we can? Is there anything wrong with the late Patrick Hogan's policy, "One more cow, one more sow, and one more acre under the plough"? If there is nothing wrong with that policy, the Deputy will find that that policy is being put into operation at present. The Minister for Agriculture has stated that he is hoping the farmers will produce this year enough feeding stuffs to provide fodder for the increased live stock which we now have in this country. I want to know what is the reason for Deputy Aiken's sneers in that connection. Does he think it is a wrong policy and, if so, in what way is it wrong? When Deputy Aiken's Government were in power, they were content to have our farmers dependent on imported maize and feeding stuffs from abroad. If these feeding stuffs were not there, then they were content to have this country reduce its live stock and destroy its pig industry.

When this matter is commented upon by spokesmen for the Opposition the country is entitled to know from the Opposition in what way that policy is wrong. I do not see what possible criticism even the most optimistic Fianna Fáil propagandist can find of a policy which aims at producing more in the way of feeding stuffs from the land, thereby increasing tillage, thereby maintaining a greater live stock population and thereby maintaining greater employment on the land. Of course, Deputy Aiken says, "That is all very well, but what about wheat?" I do not know whether that is Deputy Aiken's real criticism of the agricultural policy in relation to tillage. While I think that, once the price of barley and other crops has been increased and made more attractive, a very strong case is thereby made for an increase in the price of wheat, I cannot understand why, for that reason alone, the production of animal feeding stuffs here should be sneered at in the way in which it has been sneered at by Deputy Aiken. I hope that the price of wheat will be further increased. If it were increased, it would be merely consistent with the practice and the policy of this Government to encourage farmers to produce the crop which pays them rather than the crop which does not pay. But, with that one possible criticism, that the better prices to be obtained for the production of other crops now justifies an increase in the price of wheat, I cannot see why there should be any sneers because of what the Minister for Agriculture has appealed to Irish farmers to do in the coming spring. I do not think any real importance can be attached to Deputy Aiken's complaint, a complaint we heard earlier from Deputy Cogan, that something terrible will happen to our wheat acreage simply because wheat was not mentioned in the Department of Agriculture advertisement relating to crops. In point of fact wheat was mentioned. In point of fact the appeal made was that, in addition to wheat and beet, farmers should now go in in a big way because of the enhanced prices for greater production of the crops necessary for our live stock industry. What is wrong in that?

Surely it is the ideal agricultural economy to feed our live stock from the efforts of our tillage farmers and produce as far as we can enough food for our own people. Irrespective of anything that may have happened in the past and irrespective of any complaints that may be exchanged across the floor of this House, what is wrong with that agricultural policy? That is the policy at present in operation. If there is anything wrong in it, where is the use in all these sneers from Deputy Aiken? We know that it is well-nigh impossible for Deputy Aiken to make a speech without a sneer after every comma, but I would expect a more reasonable approach to this important feature of our economic life from some members of the Opposition. Our agricultural policy must be carried out by the farmers. It cannot be carried out by Civic Guards, shopkeepers or anyone else. Now our farmers have their political affiliations and their political loyalties. Some of them even still support Fianna Fáil. The bulk of them support the inter-Party Government. Because of the persistent sneers by the Opposition at the Minister for Agriculture some deluded souls, still so bankrupt of thought as to support Fianna Fáil, may think that that agricultural policy is wrong and may refuse to put it into operation. In that way a disservice will be done to the country as a whole. If the Opposition thinks the policy is a bad one, they are quite entitled to say so; but I know that they do not regard the present policy as a bad one. They know it is a good policy. Why do they not then prevail upon their few supporters in the country to support that policy by growing more food without compulsion and without the threat of legal sanctions? I think that is the minimum the country is entitled to expect from the Opposition. If they believe a policy is harmful they are quite entitled to do all in their power to prevent its being implemented. I believe they have no fault to find with the present policy and that they should therefore do all they can to ensure support for that policy generally since the success of that policy is tied up with improving the country's economic strength to meet any future economic difficulties that may arise.

Fianna Fáil Opposition, relieved of the cares of office, have selected different targets from time to time on the Government Benches. Different Ministers have been attacked. It is the policy of the Opposition to select a particular Minister and pour upon him the concentrated venom of the Fianna Fáil Party. Possibly some temporary success may have attended their efforts but the debit side shows a heavier loss because they have only succeeded in "making" many of these men. Their principal target is the present Minister for Agriculture. I think his policy has been completely justified by results. I think it is perfectly obvious that the Fianna Fáil Party have now no alternative policy to put before the country. Everything the Government proposes is, according to them, wrong. How rarely do we hear from them what is the right course to follow. How rarely do we hear from them any constructive criticism of the difficulties which face the country. We get, as we got from Deputy Dr. Ryan in last Monday's Irish Press, only old stories about old forgotten quarrels and difficulties. They make no effort to face up to the requirements of Ireland in 1951, and when they say this Government is wrong — as they are entitled to say — they do not tell the country, as is their bounden duty, what better policy should be applied in relation to agriculture, in relation to industry generally, in relation to economic difficulties. Their only contribution is “your policy is wrong.” When will we get from them in a debate such as this a statement of their policy with regard to the ills and difficulties of this country?

As I said when I commenced my speech, this debate used to be availed of by the Opposition spokesman to state his policy and the policy of his Party to meet the country's difficulties and problems in connection with the review of Government policy. We do not get that from the present Opposition. We are driven to the conclusion that they have no constructive policy to offer the country. They talk about an election. Whenever an election takes place, the people will have a free opportunity to decide what sort of Government they want. Let Fianna Fáil make no mistake about this: they will not slide back into office by default.

Mr. McGrath

You would not care to chance it?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Pardon? They will never again be elected the Government of this country purely by default. If they think seriously of ever being the Government here, they had better put pen to paper and, if there are any wise men in the Party, such as Deputy McGrath, they had better shape out a policy because the only way that they will instil confidence in themselves or their Party in the people of this country is by putting before them a better policy than the policy being pursued by the present Government. It might have been different if Fianna Fáil were a new Party. It might have been different if they had never been in office. We know, the people know, that the leopard does not change his spots, and the boyos who blistered this country for 16 years are still the same except that they cannot put "Minister" before their names. Accordingly, they are wasting their time if they think they will ever again be the Government unless they get down to it and show us in what way we are wrong in the policy we are pursuing.

Mr. Briscoe

I once heard it said that it was better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and leave no doubt. It would have been far better for Deputy O'Higgins to have stopped speaking, say, half an hour ago. In the last half-hour, he left himself open to a lot of answers with which he will not be very pleased. The Deputy was in this House for only five minutes of Deputy Aiken's speech. He tried to put across, for the verbatim report, or probably for the purpose of newspaper reports, the idea that he had been staunchly sitting here listening to Deputy Aiken discussing the Vote on Account in relation to Government policy and Government administration and that he was now giving him the works. I am putting on record now that Deputy O'Higgins was the one member of Fine Gael who was in the House for five minutes of Deputy Aiken's speech and that there was nobody else of the Fine Gael Party on the benches opposite throughout the whole of his speech except one Minister. That is the test of the sincerity and earnestness with which some Deputies approach this particular matter at this particular moment.

Deputy O'Higgins, in the last part of his speech—I will deal with the earlier part later on—said—I do not know what we have done to deserve such a charge—that it is Fianna Fáil who have really made the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon. Surely we are not responsible for him, though that is what Deputy O'Higgins said.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

That is what I meant, too.

Mr. Briscoe

He meant it. I want to say on behalf of Fianna Fáil and every single supporter of the organisation in the country that we claim no responsibility whatever for the present Minister for Agriculture and the people opposite are entitled to him in his entirety.

Deputy O'Higgins said that he wants to hear on this Vote on Account, not our criticism of Government policy, but our policy. Here is a Deputy of some years' standing, who comes into the House on an occasion such as this and expects us, at his behest, to break all the rules of order and discuss Fianna Fáil electioneering policy. Surely the Deputy is not serious in that.

The Deputy used certain phrases in reference to Deputy Aiken. It comes very strangely from an O'Higgins to accuse anybody of possessing a venomous tongue. I leave it to the House to judge as to who in this House possesses the most venomous tongue or the more venomous tongue.

The Deputy said, correctly, that Fianna Fáil were in office for 16 years, that they were longer in office than any Government in Western Europe. He went on to say that all the difficulties we are now facing are due to their 16 years' administration. Surely he ought to know that in those 16 years there was a number of elections and that the people returned that particular Government on a number of occasions.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The people were very generous to you.

Mr. Briscoe

The Deputy said that Fianna Fáil will not slide back into office. The people will be the best judges as to who did the sliding back into Government and who were elected into Government by the people. It comes very badly from a Party that has not half the strength to form a Government, and who are in fact the Government with the support of small Parties, to talk about sliding into Government.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

We will have more seats than you have——

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think Deputy Briscoe interrupted once.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I am sorry, Sir. I do not think he did. I apologise to the Deputy.

Mr. Briscoe

I take it all with the patience that Deputy O'Higgins said he had in listening to Deputy Aiken. I listened for three-quarters of an hour to Deputy O'Higgins and I claim in his presence that of the two of us I happen to be the more patient.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I quite agree with the Deputy.

Mr. Briscoe

The Deputy is a rather trained gentleman in matters of debate, in making a case and, as a trained gentleman, he ought to have been a little bit more careful and might have kept to his brief or his notes. When he wandered from them, it made a very great difference in his statements.

Now he says their Party will not make a religion of wheat. We apparently are making it, and he seems to think that the position with regard to wheat is better to-day than it ever was under the Fianna Fáil administration. He forgets that the idea of growing wheat here, the idea of attempting to make this country as self-sufficient as possible in the growing of wheat, was one of the main items of Fianna Fáil policy. I hope the Deputy will admit, when it comes to a question of policy as regards wheat, that one of the items of our policy was wheat growing. Does the Deputy realise that we are paying the native wheat grower approximately £25 a ton for his wheat and we are importing wheat and paying £31 a ton for it? Does the Deputy think it is a good policy to deny your own people a world market price for what they produce and pay that world market price to somebody who is not within the control of this State? Is that good policy?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

When your Party was in office we were paying more for imported wheat than for what our people produced.

Mr. Briscoe

When we took over office we were importing practically all our flour.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

We were doing that when your Party was in office.

Mr. Briscoe

When we took over, this country was importing practically all of its flour and one of the things Fianna Fáil did as a first step was to see that the milling of wheat would take place in Ireland. We prohibited the importation of flour and forced the millers to produce our own flour. That was the first step towards self-sufficiency. We then went on to the growing of wheat. Subject to correction — I leave it to other members of the House, because I do not claim to be an expert on agriculture — I think that when we took over office we were not growing in excess of 50,000 acres of wheat. When we developed wheat growing as one of the essential items of our policy, we brought the production of wheat up to hundreds of thousands of acres, and it was our intention — and it still is our intention when we resume office — to increase that production. I say quite deliberately that the moment the gentlemen over there give the people of the country an opportunity to choose again, we will resume office and we will put into effect a continuation of our wheat policy. I say that, not as a boast, nor do I say it as a challenge. I merely say that I am satisfied as an ordinary, average, intelligent human being and as a member of this House with the contacts I have with different types of people, not only in the City of Dublin but throughout the country, that we will surely be resuming office.

The Deputy was talking about wheat. He has not told the House that at this moment there is a quantity of 50,000 tons of wheat on the way from Australia to this country, the freight on which alone is 160/- where previously it was 65/-. Why is that? The Deputy should tell the House, as I am, that the position of the world to-day is rather serious and we have been informed, whether officially or otherwise, that with the development in America of a policy of priorities we will be soon precluded as a country from any share in certain cereals. Already, I believe — and I say this again subject to correction — it is now known that as far as a maize supply is concerned we are cut off. The Deputy spoke about growing wheat and the growing of foodstuffs for our animals. He said: "Is it not a good thing to grow all the foodstuffs you require for your animals?" Am I to take it that maize was imported for human consumption, because if, according to the Deputy, we are growing all our animal foodstuffs, what was the purpose of bringing in maize? I have yet to be told that we are eating it — unless it is stored for an eventuality where we may have to eat it.

The Deputy used very nice phrases, but some of them can be very cutting. He talked about the prattle on this side of the House and the lack of practice.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I do not think I used that word, but perhaps I will use it another time.

Mr. Briscoe

The Deputy did use the word "prattle," but now he has forgotten he used it. There are Deputies here who can hear reasonably well and they heard it, too. I ask the Deputy to read the report of his speech and if he did not use the word "prattle" more than half a dozen times. I will give a donation to any charity he suggests. In his rambling the Deputy accused all and sundry of certain things. I do not think any other member will subscribe to his slander of the turf producers and distributors. He talked about every sod of turf being rotten and he said that everybody involved in its production or distribution was engaged in a racket.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

That is not so. The Deputy is deliberately misconstruing what I said. I ask him not to do that.

Mr. Briscoe

Then what did you say?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I said that certain middlemen battened on the producers and consumers of turf.

Mr. Briscoe

Certain producers and middlemen?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Certain middlemen.

Mr. Briscoe

Did the Deputy not include the distributors?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I said middlemen.

Mr. Briscoe

Did you not include the man who owned a lorry?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I did — that is different from the producer.

Mr. Briscoe

The Deputy talked about the unctuous speech of Deputy Aiken. He mentioned megalomania. I do not know who ultimately will be the judges of the megalomaniacs, but there will be on some occasion an opportunity of judging. The Deputy seems to think that the plan to produce turf was born in the minds of the Fianna Fáil Government in 1940. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit later.