Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Mar 1951

Vol. 124 No. 9

Committee on Finance. - Vote on Account, 1951-52 (Resumed).

When I moved to report progress, I was describing the despair of the people under this Government. I said they were conscious that there was no unity in the Government, that there was direction in it and there was no control.

How long, O Lord, how long!

Precisely. That is what the people are saying. They looked at this Government and saw it as a rudderless ship with a quarrelling and mutinous crew. They realised that the Taoiseach is neither captain of that crew nor its leader; that he is only, so far as influence on the policy of the Government is concerned, a mere figurehead; that the Minister for Finance is a little better than a cabin boy——

And you are the pirate.

——whose only function, in so far as it is manifested to the taxpayer, is to say: "Aye, aye, Sir", as the Minister for Social Welfare or the Minister for External Affairs or the Minister for Health treats him to a good kick in the pants whenever he ventures to remonstrate at their extravagant demands.

As I have said, the Taoiseach is a figurehead and in this Coalition Government the Minister for Finance is a cypher and the people of the country are the sufferers. Now our people are undoubtedly alarmed and apprehensive as what is going to befall them under the present Administration. They see the world in a ferment. They see the deliberate and aggressive policy which is being pursued in Eastern Europe. They know how the bonds of servitude are being tightened around the once free people of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Roumania and Bulgaria. They watch this ruthless policy of exploitation, conquest and repression and they see a free world——

Freedom to disagree in Ireland.

——a free world arming to withstand it and they wonder what is going to befall themselves and their children if by any chance the war which has broken out in Asia spreads to Europe. One may, like Deputy Cowan, gibe at that. Deputy Cowan is in this House, but he is not of it. He does not sit in this House as a democrat; he sits in this House as a man who is a believer in the system which is the very antithesis of democracy.

It has nothing to do with this Vote.

It is easy for Deputy Cowan to be satisfied with the inert and inactive policy of this Government in the face of the peril which threatens this nation. As I said, the people are wondering what is going to become of them and their children under this Government which is crippled and sick with its own internal dissensions. They will read in to-morrow's paper the piteous, bleating—no other phrase would fittingly describe the performance—of the ex-Minister for Defence as he got up in this House to-day and admitted that the present situation in regard to defensive supplies was very far from being satisfactory and was in fact causing even this hitherto indifferent Government grave anxiety. The people will recall how time and time again the Fíanna Fáil Party on these benches——

"Fianna Foul," did you say?

The record of the Deputy and his associates in regard to this matter of defence is not one that they can stand over. There are phrases about rubber ducks, contemptuous references to our Army which should make the Deputy, a son of the ex-Minister for Defence, keep silent when this question of our helplessness in face of future peril is being raised here.

The panic mongering is starting again.

I was saying that they will note and they will remember how, time and time again, the Fianna Fáil Party, in this House, strove to awaken the Government to the need to take timely and effective steps to increase and perfect our defence forces. They will remember that when we raised this issue, not merely last year, but three years ago in this House, when the Minister for Finance was pursuing that ruthless policy of ill-considered cutting down, which has left this country virtually defenceless in the midst of the world crisis that is now round us, in order that he might justify to some extent the pledges that he and his Party had given, that if they were returned to office, that they would ruthlessly cut down expenditure.

I have shown in the course of my remarks how hollow and insincere those pledges were; how the men who made them duped and betrayed the people who put their confidence in them at the 1948 Election, believing that they were sincere when they said that they would cut Government expenditure ruthlessly and that they would bring down taxation——

Surely it is not in order to quote Winston Churchill's words in this House. That is what he said about the Labour Government last week.

Deputy MacEntee, continue.

The Deputy who has challenged my right to quote Winston Churchill in this House is an adept at quoting Lenin and Stalin on political platforms in this country. However, we do not have to bother very much about Deputy Cowan. In a few short weeks I presume we shall be leaving him to the mercy of the electorate. I hope they will deal with him mercifully, not justly. I was saying that the people will remember that when we raised this issue we were described as war-mongers and scaremakers. The will recall that the only response which was evoked from the Government was that gibe of the Taoiseach's, made, I think, in July last year, that we were talking about a mythical war. I wonder will anybody say that the war in Korea is a mythical war, that the Americans who are dying there are dying mythical deaths——

And Irishmen.

Yes, and Irishmen too. Everybody knows that the possibility of war is imminent. Everybody knows that, so far as this State is concerned, the Government which it has the misfortune to have endured for the past three years has been entirely and utterly neglectful of the first responsibility of a Government which is to preserve the liberty and the freedom and the life of its people.

We shall have another chance to raise this issue in a more specific way. All I want to say is that I think a lot of the money that is being provided for the 60 or 70 services which are going to account for the £83,000,000 in the Book of Estimates would be better spent in putting this country in a position to try to maintain the peace and freedom which it has gained at such high cost. I do not believe that will be done under a Coalition Government. I do not believe that will be done under the present Government. The people do not believe it either. The one thing that is sapping the morale of the people is that they are almost without hope. There was a time when they thought that public men had some principle and that they were prepared to make sacrifices for their principles. There was a time when they thought that public men were prepared, if necessary, to go into the wilderness with these principles——

That was before the advent of Fianna Fáil.

Instead of that they see men here, men who were once the Commonwealth men, men who were going to reduce taxation, men who regarded social services as "medicine bottles", selling out or buying over—I do not know which—those other men who professed themselves to be once extreme Republicans.

They did not brief counsel to deny their principles when their comrades were dying.

Deputy Cowan should allow Deputy MacEntee to make his speech without interruption.

We will let him go on. He made one statement too many.

Only one?

I do not want to say anything about Deputy Cowan. Deputy Cowan is well known.

Say something about the Vote on Account and we will get on better.

I am prepared to speak on the Vote on Account provided I am allowed to make my speech without these unseemly interruptions.

Disagreeable!

I was saying that the people see these two wings of the Coalition, diametrically opposed to each other, yet swallowing each other's policy. Does anybody tell me that the people who voted for Clann na Poblachta voted for them in order to put the die-hard Commonwealth supporters into power?

To put you out.

Does anybody tell me that they voted for Fine Gael in order that Fine Gael might give effect to the policy of the Clann na Poblachta Party or the Labour Party? Does anybody tell me that the Labour Party, which was so vocal about the wrongs and the mistakes in the year 1947, so active in agitation up and down the country, would when they got into power and when they got control of public patronage set such a headline for the employers as was set by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in the case of the Baltinglass scandal?

That is a matter of administration and does not arise in this debate. Deputies are confined in the debate on the Vote on Account to matters of general economic and financial policy. They are the two main items. I hope the Deputy will keep to those.

General financial policy——

Baltinglass is not relevant to this.

But it is and, if I might be permitted to point out the way in which it is, in the case of Baltinglass something was done which involved the expenditure of quite a considerable sum of money.

The Deputy will not make the case of Baltinglass in that way. I have told Deputy MacEntee it does not arise. The only subjects he may discuss are general financial policy and general economic policy. The Baltinglass affair does not come under either heading. The Deputy had better pass from it now.

I understood that on the Vote on Account one was permitted to examine every aspect of the Government's policy. Whether it be confined mainly to economic policy or financial policy, the policy of the Government as a whole is involved in this Book of Estimates.

I have told the Deputy that he cannot discuss the detailed administration of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. If the Deputy wishes, he can raise that on another occasion. He cannot raise it now.

Surely, Sir——

I will not argue further with the Deputy. The Deputy will pass from the Baltinglass affair.

Surely I am entitled, I submit most respectfully to the Chair, to cite instances which exemplify the Government's policy as a whole.

The Deputy will either pass from the Baltinglass incident or resume his seat.

I must protect. I want to show that the Government has been wasteful and extravagant in its general approach to this matter and because of that wasteful and extravagant approach in matters of administration we are now facing to-day a probable expenditure during the coming financial year of £83,000,000 for the Supply Services alone. Surely I am entitled to point out the errors that have been made by the Government and the mistakes that have been made by the Government and, if one likes to put it that way, the deliberately corrupt policy of the Government in its exercise of the power of patronage which has involved the community in this heavy expenditure. I cannot do that unless I am permitted to adduce one or two instances to support the case I am making.

The Deputy will not go into detail.

Mr. de Valera

Might I submit that, as a matter of courtesy to the Government and in order to facilitate them in making preparations, we suggested that the main subject for discussion would be that of general financial policy. On this Vote on Account the policy of the Government as a whole comes up by tradition for discussion. It has never happened before that there has been a strict observance of such an arrangement.

Now, now, it has always happened.

Mr. de Valera

It has not.

Details of administration have not been discussed.

It is a matter of precedent and not of courtesy. It is a matter long established. On the Vote on Account the general economic policy and financial policy of the Government are the two main items that can be discussed. It is obvious to anybody with parliamentary experience that if we discuss details of the administration of the various Departments we shall have a duplicate debate on the Estimates all over again. I prevented Deputy MacEntee from dealing with the Baltinglass incident because it does not properly arise under either of the two main subjects for discussion, the general economic or financial policy of the Government. Deputy MacEntee may find it possible to raise that matter on another occasion. I do not know whether or not he will; it certainly does not arise on this.

I sat here pretty constantly during the last few days and not only have members of the Government discussed details of the Estimates but they have criticised expenditure by Fianna Fáil in detail over the last 16 years.

I have sat here and listened to the various Deputies on both sides. There was no discussion whatsoever on details. A Deputy might make a slip and try to discuss a detail but the Chair promptly intervened and brought him back to the main item.

Mr. de Valera

I can only speak from recollection. I remember the present Minister for Finance time and time again, when it had been agreed between both sides that a certain line would be taken, breaking that undertaking.

You always want to change the rules when they do not suit you.

Deputy MacEntee on the Vote on Account.

People sometimes want to change rules when they do not suit them in the same way as Taoiseachs have to change their Ministers when they do not suit.

The Deputy was changed fairly frequently.

And under very different circumstances.

That has nothing to do with the Vote on Account.

He was whirling.

We have had a very sorry headline or example set to employers by members of the Government in regard to their treatment of old-established employees. It is not much wonder that there is a great deal of discontent, a great deal of apathy, among the workers, when they see that the men whom they trusted to look after their interests, the men whom they elected to look after the interests of the wage-earners, can stand by and support a Government which, without cause and without reason, dismisses or passes over the claims of an old and faithful servant to preferment, when an opportunity to secure that preferment arises.

Things have been done by this Government which certainly would seem to justify and excuse the attitude of any unjust employer in this State. We do not seek to justify, extenuate or excuse injustice to the workers, but we say that some employers, who might like to take advantage of what the Government has done in relation to its employees, could very well say that they were merely following the example which had been set for them by the Government.

I have virtually concluded. I only want to say that we have had an admission from the Minister, the ex-Minister, for Defence to-day which will alarm the people. We have been told that military supplies, which we urged the Government to procure when they were procurable, are no longer available to the people of this country. The people see us facing a very dangerous future, and they are beginning to wonder whether they have not been manoeuvred into that position by the deliberate policy of some elements in the Coalition, some elements who, on the one hand, would like to see us an easy prey to influences from the East, and some, on the other hand, who, in future, just as they have in the past, would be as anxious to see us defenceless against aggression from a nearer source.

The one thing that the people are beginning to be concerned about is when they are going to get a Government which is united in principle, which is coherent and determined in action and which will be prepared to face up to its responsibilities and not endeavour to shirk them, as this Government has done continuously since it took office. Every thorny problem has been put on the long finger. Everything that cried out to be dealt with urgently has been put, as the Minister for External Affairs said, into abeyance. We cannot face the future with a Government imbued with that mentality. We want to have in this country a united Government. The country knows that the present Government is not united. We want to have in this country a Government headed by an experienced statesman. Everybody knows how mismanaged the international policy of this country has been under the present Taoiseach. The people are all hoping, as I said, for the day when the general election will come and they will know that it will be no longer necessary for them to go down on their knees and pray: "How long, O Lord, how long?" because the day of their deliverance will have come.

The Deputy is whistling to keep up his courage.

"The Minister is spending too much money altogether. These Estimates are huge"—that is the latest war-cry and theme song of our own little Deputy MacEntee and his back-benchers. What will happen to the country now is a mystery. Things have changed completely. They have changed so much that Deputy MacEntee must run from the House hell-for-leather, having insulted everyone. When we are discussing matters here, if there was less reference to the past, less war-mongering and warscares, and if there was a more businesslike manner and if we faced the future and tried to fashion it in a sensible, honourable way, we would be far better off and we might be acting up to our responsibilities on behalf of the people who sent us here.

During the debate a few Deputies from the Opposition made certain statements that perhaps are worth recalling or reviewing. Deputy Aiken referred to the difficulties in obtaining essential capital equipment and machinery during 1947. Perhaps it is true that there were such difficulties. He said that the conditions were not so bad during 1948 and 1949. May I ask the Opposition, would Fianna Fáil, who were then in power, have obtained it? If they say that they would, then the Estimates at the time would have had to show provision for the expenditure involved. No one would have objected to their trying to secure essential machinery whereby they could hope, after the war years, to try to build up a satisfactory economy. On the other hand, Deputy Aiken found it suitable to object to the present Government not getting adequate machinery and essential supplies in 1948 and 1949 because, he said, they could have been obtained at a lower price then than in 1950. Does he not know that the same complaint as they have been making for the last week was made last year on the Estimates? They said last year that the Estimates were too high. It is a case of trying to keep their loaf and eating it at the same time. In my belief, all this is a matter of propaganda, political propaganda, which will not succeed in getting anyone anywhere in the long run.

Deputy Aiken mentioned that items of capital development of a particular kind may lead to inflation. He mentioned housing grants, money provided for farmers and money provided under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. Does Deputy Aiken, who at one time held a responsible position as Minister, suggest that, before engaging in a large-scale housing programme, the matter should be carefully considered simply because, in his opinion, it might lead to inflation? Before we provide the plain people with necessary homes, are we to consider, first and foremost, the danger of inflation?

Mr. de Valera

That was not the case made.

I am referring to the remarks made by Deputy Aiken, and if the Leader of Fianna Fáil wishes to say otherwise, that is well and good. I am drawing attention to some of the statements made by members of one Party. They complained that members of Government Parties make different statements. They go to pains to show that in the Government there are various Parties. Why it is that the one Party in opposition has so many speakers who will strike out in a different line is, I believe, far more puzzling. He mentioned that in 1947 Fianna Fáil raised £3,000,000, in a somewhat different way, of course, from the way he is pointing out that money is being raised by the present Administration. He mentioned it was raised from taxation. Well, without being hard on anyone we are entitled to ask where did most of the £3,000,000 raised in 1947 go? Did it go to pay £2 5s. a week to workers in the country?

Mr. de Valera

As this has been mentioned and as my name was introduced in connection with it, I would like to say that I never suggested that £2 5s. a week should be paid to the workers.

Is this a point of order?

Deputy Desmond is giving away to Deputy de Valera.

Mr. de Valera

I say it was a deliberate misrepresentation, a deliberate, foul piece of propaganda, to say that in a general election I said the wages should be £2 5s. a week.

You did say so.

Mr. de Valera

I did not say it; that is an untruth.

It was published.

Mr. de Valera

I took a simple example in order to prove a certain thing, nothing more.

I have no desire to get into personalities. I would like to remind Deputy de Valera that actually at that time people were working for and living on £2 5s., because they had to. I am not tying my statement to any person. I did not come here to deal in personalities. Farm workers and other workers were in receipt of £2 5s.

Mr. de Valera

It was stated here last night, in my absence.

At that time, though, some of us were advocating an increase in wages. For many years there was a standstill Order which prevented an increase in wages. That may be the collective responsibility of the entire Government or the Cabinet of the day. We are entitled to draw attention to hard facts, things which cannot be contradicted. It is still questionable as to how the £3,000,000 were spent. When they were speaking about the amount in the Estimates now they forgot, of course, the amount of money spent in the past. It is quite clear that the Opposition will only mention the value of money when it suits them. At times they stand up here and talk about the cost of living and say the value of the pound has depreciated so much. At other times they do not wish to mention that because it does not suit them. They do not forget to tell us that the value of the pound is somewhat different now from what it was in pre-war days.

Deputy Aiken struck another extraordinary point. He mentioned that increases in salaries and social services were not enough considering the cost of living. Last Friday Deputy Ryan said that the increases given since 1947 in social services and to old age pensioners and the increase that is proposed now are sufficient, in his opinion, taking the cost of living as it stands. There you have two responsible people, ex-Ministers, one saying these increases are not enough and the other saying they are. We expect consistency at least in the views of ex-Ministers. How can new members, back-benchers, be expected to understand the views expressed by two men sitting together, belonging to the same Party, when they say completely different things?

With all that, I believe that the new members here have one advantage. Thanks be to God, I believe there are many members in the same position as I am. We maintain that if we are to get anywhere we will have to remind the older members that it is time for them to give up their cross-fire and their bickering.

Last night Deputy Vivion de Valera spoke for quite a long while and there were a few points in his speech that I would like to refer to. He mentioned turf. I come from an area where turf has been and can be produced and I have always advocated the desirability of using turf as a fuel. It is true to say that there are people to-day who would turn in disgust if you mentioned turf to them because of their sad experience during the emergency. We all know that if there was a racket in anything in this country there was a racket in turf, not in all cases by the producers and not by the distributors. The fact remains, however, that some people made a huge fortune out of it. I have no intention of going into these matters in detail. All I suggest is that in any future operations in turf, may God keep us from adopting the system that was in operation when we were making gangsters out of people who never thought they would amass so much wealth.

Some people made fortunes out of coal too.

Deputy Vivion de Valera made another important point when he was speaking about taxes. He mentioned that it pays the Government at the present time to have such huge returns out of taxes on drink, etc. He was pointing to the huge consumption and the advantages that the Government gain. While Deputy de Valera was pointing out that the consumption of drink was an advantage to the Government, we had a Deputy down in Cork saying it was scandalous for another Minister, the Tánaiste, to ask the workers to give 1/7 per week towards their own advancement in the future. Apparently he considered that the Tánaiste was pointing out that they should have that in drink. There again we had a glaring case of two prominent members of the Opposition, Deputy Vivion de Valera and Deputy McGrath, one saying just the reverse of the other. That is a continuation of the attitude of the Opposition.

What do you think the Tánaiste meant?

I will tell you that in Cork.

I hope you will.

When I do mention it in Cork maybe you will not be slow to pay 1/7 into it yourself. Howsoever, on with the show.

On with the show is right.

Deputy Briscoe was worth listening to. His approach was a sensible, businesslike approach to the subject. He made, what I thought, a few slips of the tongue. Deputy Briscoe said that large scale housing was not the programme of the Coalition Parties; it was the programme of Fianna Fáil. He mentioned that Fianna Fáil were more interested in social welfare. Perhaps I will admit he is right and perhaps I will have to change my views about Fianna Fáil and the interest they take in the welfare of the people.

I would ask Deputies here to realise that Fianna Fáil have become so interested in the social welfare of the people that, within a couple of hours on last Friday night, they drafted and handed out to the people a new scheme of benefits which they found themselves unable to formulate in the 16 years they were in office. There is no doubt that if they continue along that line, the people will soon realise the extent of the loss they suffered when Fianna Fáil left office. Deputy Briscoe also mentioned that the working man and his family counted first with Fianna Fáil Deputies. That is right too. Were the road workers in County Cork not first on the list—Deputy McGrath was not a councillor at that time—when Deputy MacEntee, as Minister for Local Government, sent down a big order signed by himself saying: "Give these men 2d. a day extra." Mind you, that was backed by the Government of the day but, thanks be to God, we made sure that the 2d. a day was not accepted in spite of the Christmas card sent down by Deputy MacEntee.

I remember also the struggle we had in the South when there was a Fianna Fáil Minister for Agriculture, and when we demanded an increase, a couple of shillings a week, for farm workers. In this connection, I might recall that a Deputy from Limerick pleaded that Deputies on this side of the House who were representing dairying constituencies should use their influence with the Government on behalf of that industry, but it was little influence this Deputy used when we asked the then Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Smith, for certain advantages for the farm workers. He was and he is a member of the same Party from which, Deputy Briscoe says, the working man receives first consideration. The working people cannot be fooled all the time. They were not fooled by the fact that neither a Front Bencher nor a Back Bencher of Fianna Fáil said to the farm workers when they needed support: "I will support you". They did not support them and the farm workers have not forgotten it for them.

Another Deputy spoke of the big increase in this Vote in connection with the Department of External Affairs. Naturally, as I am trying to keep within the rules of order, I have no intention of going into details on that matter, but I would say that I believe that whatever money was spent in that Department for the last three years, more was done in these three years than was ever done before by that Department. In regard to defence, Deputy MacEntee spent a considerable time deploring the condition of defence in this country and in attacking the Minister who was in charge of that Department for the last three years. The answer in connection with defence is a simple one and a brief one. When we had a defence force during the emergency years, the conditions of service and the pay given to the young men who joined the Army were not to the credit of this State. It was not a very pleasant thing to note that a lot of them crossed the Border into the Six Counties to see if they could obtain better conditions there. I am not saying for one moment that that practice should exist or should continue, but I believe that, in order to have a sufficiently strong Army, if we need it, we will have to pay the men adequately who join the Defence Forces.

In connection with the Departments of Social Welfare and Health, a Deputy on the opposite benches said that he considered that it was a waste of money to have two Ministers, to look after these Departments. Yet mention was made here last week of the fact that Fianna Fáil, when in power, realised the importance of having a separate Ministry for the Department of Social Welfare. We realised the importance of it also, and we can only say that it is the confusion in the minds of some of the Opposition Deputies that is leading them into the position that they do not actually know where they are.

As regards expenditure generally, while it is a pleasure to hear a Deputy express his view if it is constructive, honest and sincere, I wonder why Opposition Deputies do not concentrate on some particular item when they object to what they call the huge amount of money that is being provided? Why have they not been honest and sincere enough to realise that out of the money provided, housing, thanks be to God, is going to take a goodly share? Money is also being provided for rural electrification and grants are being given to farmers for the provision of water supplies for farm buildings. Money is being provided also for the land rehabilitation scheme. The Local Authorities (Works) Act cannot be forgotten, and increases have been provided for the health and social welfare services of the State.

If Deputies opposite object to the large amount of money that is being spent, will they go so far as to say that in their opinion any of these items should be cut out? There is no use in crying over spilt milk but when one realises that, in the 1930's three houses could be built for what one costs now, one gets an idea of the opportunities which were lost during the term of office of the last Government. Three families in rural Ireland could be put into decent homes for a sum which now has to be expended to provide housing for one family. Did Deputies opposite say anything about the delays in building in years before the war? It is true they built some houses, but how many people in the city of Cork are still waiting for houses? How many people in South Cork have been waiting years for houses? With that question comes another one: what Party was in power here during the years that these people were living in slums? Thanks be to God, it was not the inter-Party Government. Now, we know the position has changed, and that with a continuance of the present policy of the inter-Party Government it will be changed still further. People will get adequate shelter, and their health will be provided for in so far as it is possible to do so by means of the moneys provided in these Estimates.

The members of the Opposition have attacked this Vote on Account. Reading between the lines, what they are trying to do is to say that too many houses are being built, and that too much consideration is being given to health services and social welfare. Deputies opposite may laugh, but I challenge them, when speaking, to tell us why they left the people in the condition they did. Many a time when they were the Government they said that money was not the obstacle. If not, what was the obstacle to the doing of the things that I have mentioned? As a member of one of the Parties supporting the Government, we will do what we can to provide for the needs of the people in housing and in other matters. If we believe in the true concept of Christianity, then we cannot allow vested interests to prevent us from putting the true principles of Christianity into operation. We must see to it that we will fulfil our life's ambition, which is to serve the people we represent.

Another line taken by Opposition speakers was to try and drive a wedge between the various Parties on this side of the House. We believe, of course, that in doing that they are simply wasting their time. They have failed to realise the advantages which accrue from having various Parties co-operating in the government of the country. The views of each Party can be considered. If you have four or five Parties supporting the Government, the programme of each can contribute its share towards providing a genuine common constructive policy. In that way you can get good work done for the country. We had the experience, of course, in the past, when there was no disunity in this country, but then men became divided afterwards. When they were united they had a grand, glorious policy. They then believed in the old cry of Sinn Féin amháin. That cry was forgotten when men had been riding too long in the saddle of power. They forgot the promises which they had made in the early life of their organisation. In the early years we believed they were sincere in making promises. But, unfortunately, power can very often become a most destructive weapon, especially if the views of those who get into power are based on the philosophy of autocracy. That is what I believe happened, that autocracy gained the upper hand. If those men had continued with a genuine democratic policy, they could, I think, have done much better.

Deputy MacEntee stated that money was used by the Government for its own purposes. Surely, the Government is the property of the people. It was the people who put the Government here. If a Government is spending money for the advantage of the people, who are the owners of the Government, so to speak, then I believe that such a Government can rightly say that it is carrying out the wishes of the people. We can leave it to the people to judge whether the money is being wisely spent or not.

Fianna Fáil have attacked this Vote on Account. I would be quite satisfied if they went so far as to offer some alternative suggestion. They did not do so. Destruction was their war cry. Surely, they do not believe that, after adopting the scorched earth policy, they would be able to come back and build up the ruins of their own destruction. They have not so far made one suggestion as to how in a democratic and constitutional way we could carry on with a smaller sum of money than that asked for here. Fianna Fáil, through Deputy MacEntee, complained that one of the Parties in this Government was trying to swallow all the others. I would like to say that Deputy MacEntee, and some other members of his Party, made a valiant attempt to swallow up some of the Labour Party members, but they failed. Those Labour members who supported Deputy MacEntee's Party for some years came to realise that democracy and autocracy can never march together. We believe in the co-operation there is between the Parties supporting this Government, and that this co-operation will give the people all the services they require. May I mention, in a friendly and neighbourly manner that Deputy MacEntee complained about the Taoiseach and all the medicine bottles. All that I will say on that is that Deputy MacEntee has been handed his medicine during the last three years, and has not yet swallowed it. It is too bitter for him.

Complaint was made about the action of the Government in connection with the Price Freeze Order. I think we are justified in drawing attention to one effect of it, and that is that in parts of the country in the case of certain commodities, there was a reduction in prices. That proves that there was justification for the Order. It also proves that certain people, by their own actions, have condemned themselves in our eyes, when overnight they had to make certain reductions. Deputy Childers is entitled to laugh if he pleases.

Most prices went up.

I cannot speak of what happened in Dublin. If the Deputy would like to see some figures relating to places outside Dublin I will show them to him.

The price of eggs went down.

That is true. We remember, however, that members of the Fianna Fáil Party complained, when eggs were 3/- a dozen. Did they not say that the Minister for Agriculture was robbing the people in Dublin and in the cities? On the other hand, we had members of that Party saying throughout the country that the Minister was not giving half enough. We had the Party divided into two sections, one speaking for the cities and the other for the country. In connection with the Price Freeze Order, while I am not going to condemn anyone, I still believe that there were manufacturers and wholesalers who, while protected themselves, abused the power they had. It is common knowledge throughout the country that you had large wholesalers who had their warehouses stocked with materials of various kinds, some of which they had purchased eight, ten or 12 months ago, and on every occasion when there was an increase in prices on the world market, they were ready to jump theirs. Some of them even refused to release stocks from their warehouses until a point was reached when they could say gloatingly to themselves: "Now we have the people where we want them." If, for no other purpose, the Order was necessary to bring such people back to their senses and make them realise that this Government believes in giving a fair crack of the whip to producers and consumers. In that way, I believe the Government were justified in the action which they took.

I think it is incumbent on me at the outset to correct a false impression which has been created in the minds of Deputy Desmond, and perhaps other Government Deputies, that the Opposition is criticising the amount of the Estimates for the coming financial year for the aske of opposition alone and because we were objecting to such a huge volume of expenditure. I should like to remind the Deputy that it was not for the purpose of criticising the amount alone, but because the Minister for Finance, when he first assumed office, relieved himself of all responsibility for what he described as the excessive sum of something like £65,000,000 and promised a policy of retrenchment, so far as he could achieve it. Now the housekeeping bill has gone up to £90,000,000, with millions more for capital expenditure and some millions more which are being got through Marshall Aid.

This side of the House has no quarrel with the amount of money spent so long as it is wisely spent. It has no quarrel with the Taoiseach's oftrepeated promise to repatriate external assets as long as these assets are spent in the proper direction. As Deputy Lemass pointed out, our external assets of something over £200,000,000 were repatriated in the last 12 months to the extent of something like £30,000,000 and, as far as could be seen, there was very little to show in the way of capital goods imported for that sum. On the contrary, it was shown that they were mostly luxury goods. If that was what the Taoiseach meant by repatriation of external assets, it was nothing short of dissipation of external assets.

I should like to remind Deputy Desmond also that Fine Gael, the dominant Party in the Government, before they assumed office, promised a reduction of £10,000,000 in expenditure and in their first year of office, instead of a reduction of £10,000,000, expenditure went up by something over £10,000,000.

In your first year of office.

You must be dreaming.

The Minister cannot deny that there was a promise.

Do you mean the beer and tobacco taxes of over £7,000,000 which were taken off?

I had a little altercation with the Minister, I think on the last Vote on Account, on the same subject and the Minister asserted that he saved the taxpayers £7,000,000. At the same time, he succeeded in extracting not only that £7,000,000, but far in excess of it.

I reduced the taxes.

The Minister is an adept at sniping, but he will not put me off my track.

That is a bit of a broadside. There were £7,000,000 taken off.

The Deputy is entitled to make his own speech.

It is clear that I cut the Minister so close to the bone that he could not refrain from interrupting. The Minister said that by abolishing the taxes on beer and tobacco £7,000,000 was saved. At the same time he extracted that £7,000,000 and £10,000,000 more with it in the same financial year by way of taxation in other directions.

Tell me what they were?

I cannot lay my hands on them now.

The Deputy need not answer interruptions.

During the course of this debate, this side of the House has also been accused of destructive criticism, an accusation which has been repeated from the first day the Government came into power. Deputy Desmond accused the Opposition of being guilty of the crime which the Opposition have alleged against the Government, namely, of speaking in different voices on the same subject. It is not the duty of the Opposition as such to direct policy in the country. If one man holds a different view and expresses it in the course of the debate, he is entitled to do so. But it is a far different thing with a Government when its members individually make pronouncements week after week, one conflicting with the other, thus creating in the minds of the investing public, the manufacturing public and the producing public such a confusion that they do not know where they stand with regard to Government policy. It is a different matter altogether for Opposition members to make criticisms. But, when it comes to the Government speaking in different voices, the people do not know where they stand, and that is the position at present.

Perhaps Deputy Desmond does not know that the policy of this Party, when facing any major problem, is that the problem is discussed fully and candidly at a Party meeting, that the majority decision prevails and is presented to the public. I do not know what the position was before the Fianna Fáil Government left office, but since I came into the Party that is the position. It is a position that I stand over and endorse. It is carrying out the democratic principle when, in the Party, we can discuss our different points of view, hammer them out, and present them in a unified form, whether by way of criticism of the Government or suggestions for the better government of the country.

I also deplore the misrepresenting of statements made by the ex-Taoiseach before the last general election. Apparently, remarks were made last night with regard to a wage of £2 5s. 0d. per week. It was rather low-down propaganda, to say the least of it, that the Labour Party, before the election, should take a simple statement used for comparative purposes and ascribe a meaning to it which was never intended to be conveyed and blazen it across the front pages of newspapers in advertisement form with the heading, "A wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse." If the public fall for a device like that, they are no better than blind horses.

Coming to what might be described even by Government Deputies as constructive criticism, I should like to deal with some matters presented under different headings in this Vote on Account. Under agriculture, we find that millions of money are being provided for the importation of wheat. It is a very short-sighted policy that a Minister for Agriculture, whether through personal prejudice against a particular cereal or in an attempt to discredit a predecessor in office, should deliberately undermine the economy of the country by cutting the wheat acreage by almost 50 per cent. in the short period of three years in office. The present acreage of wheat is something over 300,000. It is nothing short of sabotage in present circumstances that the nation's own resources of wheat should be allowed to be dissipated to such an extent that, in a time of need which may come at any moment, we will be dependent on half the acreage of what we were dependent on in the last emergency. It is said, of course, that the Minister for Agriculture is prejudiced against the growing of any cereals whatever, that his whole agricultural economy is directed to raising cattle and feeding his old and valued customer with beef from the plains of Ireland.

This old and valued customer has, of course, proved to be a greater fly-by-night than any of the fly-by-nights to which the Minister has referred on so many occasions in this House over the last three years. It is suggested in the cities that that same Minister is impoverishing the urban dwellers in order to enrich the farmers. I am no expert in agricultural matters but from remarks I have heard from Deputies supporting the present Minister and from remarks I hear from small farmers throughout the country I find the same accusation is levelled against the Minister in relation to the small farmers, namely, that he is impoverishing the small farmers in order to feed the people in the cities and towns. I can speak for city dwellers and I do not believe I am making any startling pronouncement when I say that food is dearer now than it ever was during the emergency period.

What about the rabbits? They are getting more for rabbits now.

I do not know anything about Deputy O'Leary's rabbits.

He produces them out of a hat.

The Minister may be able to produce rabbits out of a hat——

If I could get the beer tax out of a hat, it would be all right.

You will get the beer tax this year.

I gave it back to the people for three years anyway.

With regard to butter, I think the action of the Minister for Agriculture is an outstanding example of the shortsighted policy of the Government. By the grace of God, we had a good year in 1949-50 and we had increased butter production. That did not apply in the following year with the result that butter production fell considerably.

The Minister for Agriculture could not, unfortunately, resist the temptation after the good year to export butter in order that he might be able to record that in one of the years of his ministry we were in the happy position of being able to export quantities of butter, such quantities as had never been exported within recent memory. That was an outstanding example of shortsighted policy, because within 12 months we had to import butter and we had to import that butter at a dearer price from that at which we exported our own butter.

You are as wrong in that as you are about production, but it does not matter.

And the Minister was wrong about the export. He was corrected.

I think I am quite correct in saying that butter was exported in one year and in the next year we had to import butter in order to replenish our depleted stocks.

May I give you one figure? Butter production was 7.3 per cent. higher in 1950 than it was in 1949.

Creamery butter?

Yes, and the farmers' butter did not make any difference. The figures are there.

If the Minister will reserve his remarks for his reply, I shall be very glad to listen to him.

I hate to hear gross errors made without correcting them.

The Minister cannot deny that butter was exported at the end of 1949 and during 1950, and that butter had to be imported at the end of 1950 and the beginning of 1951. He cannot deny the price at which the exported butter was sold was far less than the price at which the imported butter was purchased. I think that is quintessentially very bad housekeeping, to say the least of it. The Minister for Agriculture is credited with being a clever man and with being a good business man. Apparently that is so in relation to his own particular business, but the Danish Minister for Agriculture is a cleverer man still because he can sell butter, which is alleged to be inferior in quality to ours, at a higher price than our Minister for Agriculture can get for his butter abroad. The same Danish Minister for Agriculture can get 90/- per cwt. more on the Continent over and above the price our Minister can get for a product that we assert is superior.

I think it is bad policy from the economic point of view to pay £31 a ton for foreign wheat while paying our own farmers, whom we are supposed to encourage to grow wheat, £25 per ton. I think it is a bad policy economically to pay our own farmers, whom we allegedly encourage to produce beet for the manufacture of sugar, £12 per ton less than we pay for imported sugar.

I would like to deal now for a moment with the Department of Industry and Commerce. I have been talking to manufacturers throughout the country and their feeling is that the Department of Industry and Commerce is permeated with a spirit of indecision and lack a directive policy. Certainly that has been the case for the last two or three years despite the establishment of the Industrial Development Authority. The boast has been made many times by the ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce that more people are employed to-day in industry than were ever employed in the history of our State. I am not in a position to deny that and I accept the Minister's word for it but I would like to remind the Minister that that employment did not come into existence overnight or indeed within the last two or three years but is the result of the hard work and foresight of his predecessor and the Fianna Fáil Government in general in their policy of industrialisation. I do not believe the Minister will deny that. He has never denied it so far and, therefore, I take it he accepts that that is so.

That is quite wrong.

Everything I say is wrong, according to the Minister for Finance.

I do not want the Deputy to think that silence gives consent to an absurd statement like that.

I do not suggest that anything I say will meet with the approval of the Minister or his colleagues. I do assert, however, that increased employment within the State within the past two or three years would not have been possible were it not for the positive long-sighted policy of industrial expansion implemented by the Fianna Fáil Government in the 16-year period to which the Minister for Finance has so often referred. It is to the credit of the present Government that that industrial policy has been adopted and endorsed in the main, but there are some notable exceptions. The exception to which I want to refer is the abandonment, immediately on assumption of office by the present Government, of the heavy engineering industry. Anyone who had any idea of what such an industry would mean to the country realised that it was absolutely essential to have a heavy engineering industry so that we would not be dependent on outside sources for all forms of heavy machinery and equipment. I am not familiar with the details of the type of machinery that would be produced but I am informed by a reliable source that if we had such a heavy machinery industry at the moment, the shortages and the threatened shortages of implements necessary for agricultural and industrial expansion would not be so keenly felt.

About 12 months ago the ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce referred to the expansion of the cement industry. I listened to him in the House when he assured us that all the plans were laid, all the necessary moneys would be allocated, within the framework of existing factories, for considerable expansion in the output of cement. Nobody will deny that that expansion was not only desirable but extremely and urgently necessary. Nevertheless, within 12 months, I was more than surprised to read that nothing had been done, despite the positive assurance the Minister for Industry and Commerce gave in the House. Candidly, I was under the impression that this expansion had gone on at a pace in the intervening months. Now we arrive at the position when we are not able to produce more cement than we were producing prior to the advent of the present Government, a position which is greatly to the discredit of the present Government, which as far as the cement industry was concerned, when they came in, had the ball at their feet.

I am sorry to have again to refer to the unfortunate policy of centralisation of industry. I am not blaming this Government or the former Government for that but I will say that every Government that permitted the centralisation of industry in and around Dublin was guilty of almost a crime against the proper progress of this nation. Admittedly, there has been some small extension of industries in recent months and years. The number of factories stated to have been set up is about 60. I know some of them which are not in a position to employ more than four or five persons. Certainly, some of the factories within my own constituency employ only a handful of people. However, I shall not refer to the employment which is available in these factories but to the fact that most of the larger factories that are being erected at the present time are concentrated in and around Dublin.

It is abundantly clear that industrial expansion, to have any proper meaning, must take effect along the southern and western seaboard. In case of another emergency, undoubtedly, we will need all the productive capacity in industrial fields that we can command and we will certainly need easy access from outside sources to these centres of production. It is elementary that it will be more difficult to get goods to Dublin than to any other part of the country. England, as was proved in the last war, will be unable to supply us with essential raw materials. Therefore, we shall have to look to the west for most of the raw materials that we will need. It would be foolhardy to expect ships to negotiate the British Channel during war-time when there are ports such as Waterford, Cork, Limerick and Galway on the southern and western seaboard which would be far easier of access and far safer for incoming ships.

I wish to comment on the fact that the addition to the total tonnage of ships under the control of Irish Shipping, Limited, in the last few years has been scandalously low. It is a sad reflection on this Government that the tonnage added is represented by two or three colliers. Every ship of any size that we have was acquired during the emergency or was exchanged in the years immediately following the emergency and before this Government came into office. It is about time that the Government saw to it, even if they were assured that there would be no emergency, that more ships and better and bigger ships were provided.

There are ample opportunities for the development of our ports. Some harbour authorities are expending considerable sums of money on the development of ports to ensure that larger ships will be able to berth and unload there. I was not in the House to hear it last night, but I have read in to-day's papers that a charge was made by the ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce that the Fianna Fáil Government were guilty of failing to provide adequate storage space for essential commodities.

The ex-Minister?

The ex-Minister. He was then making his last speech as Minister for Industry and Commerce. Before the Fianna Fáil Government came into power, along the quays of Cork, there was a small mill known as Furlong's Mill. Anyone walking along that quay can see the enormous expansion in storage space for imported grain and home-produced grain. Silos have sprung up there almost overnight, with the result that, instead of buying all our wheat and flour from Liverpool and Birkenhead, we can produce wheat and import the little that we require— in fact, the great quantity that we require under the policy of the Minister for Agriculture—and, at least, be able to mill our own flour.

We are very far from having enough storage yet.

I do not deny that for a moment. I hope the expansion of storage space that commenced 18 years ago will be continued.

There is no improvement in storage.

The Minister can deny anything I have said when he is replying.

He does not know what is happening in the country.

There is no improvement in storage.

Reference has been made to the price of coal at the present time. I agree with my colleague that it is scandalous that people in and around Cork should be asked to pay 15/- a ton more than the people in Dublin are being asked to pay. I think it is most unfair, apart altogether from the fact that Dublin people are relatively better off financially than the Cork people.

Who said so?

Well, wages are higher generally in Dublin. I think it is unfair from a national point of view that people in one part of the country should be asked to pay a higher price for an essential commodity than people in other parts. It is high time that the Governments would ensure that all parts of the country have an equal right to whatever supplies of coal are available, and, most important of all, that they should be asked to pay the same amount for it rather than give the people in one area an undue and unfair advantage over people living in other areas. It is very significant that in the North they are asked to pay £6 2s. 0d. a ton for the best coal, while in Cork we are asked to pay £9.

Deputy Desmond referred to the apparent lack of housing facilities provided by the Fianna Fáil Government during their term of office. I do not know from what book of statistics he was reading, but he was completely awry in so far as his housing figures are concerned. He said that Fianna Fáil left nothing but slums after their 16 years in office. I remember in one part of Cork with which I am very familiar there were at one time acres of uninhabitable houses, unhealthy houses, levelled to the ground, and in their places we have to-day fine roads and avenues of new houses. There were something like 3,000 houses built in Cork during those years and it must be presumed that they house between 15,000 and 20,000 people. So far as I remember, I never saw any Minister going with bell, book and candle or blowing of trumpets to open these housing schemes. They were opened quietly and the people were allowed to enter them without ceremony or display.

I might mention for Deputy Desmond's information, and for the information of the House generally, that at the moment in Cork City there are almost 7,000 applicants out of a population of something like 100,000 people waiting for houses. I would say, allocating four people to the family, that that represents almost 30,000 people, or about one-third of the entire population of Cork, and those people are in dire need of houses.

A pretty poor effort after 16 years.

I would like to remind Government Deputies that in the three years in which they have been in power only 300 houses have been built in Cork, which is a disgraceful figure by any standard—less than 100 a year. With 7,000 people on the waiting list it will take something up to 60 years at the present rate of progress before all the people are housed. That is a sad reflection on the wonderful new housing drive we hear so much about.

So far as I can understand, the housing drive at present seems to be firing on only one position. I am not blaming the Government entirely, but all the same I say that a Government composed to a large extent of Labour Ministers could help a little more in an important matter of this sort. I would like the Labour elements in the Government to bring home to the skilled labour groups that there is no shortage of work in each and every one of these groups, that there is no danger of their security or as regards continuity of employment, that there is no fear of their employment being jeopardised by admitting more to these skilled trades than are admitted at the present time. I think this is one of the outstanding problems in regard to the housing drive. It is a matter in which Labour Ministers and Labour Deputies in particular could help more than any others.

I think the position in Cork at present is that some of the skilled trades groups will not allow any apprentices in or, if they do, they allow them in in such small numbers as to be of no material advantage to the housing drive. I think if they examine the position objectively they must realise that a wide expansion of the bottleneck into these trades is due and will in no way interfere with the continuity of their employment. The mere fact that 7,000 applicants are waiting for houses in Cork should be sufficient to convince even the most jealous members of these skilled trades—and I mean jealous in the sense that they are jealous of the right of entry into that trade—of the reasonableness of my suggestion.

A lot has been said in this debate about defence, and it is suggested with a certain amount of justification that the attitude of this Government to defence is only lukewarm. I think that attitude is possibly animated, to a large extent, by unfortunate views that are held in various directions that this country is only wasting money in spending it on defence. I think it is an open secret that during the war, as a result of the pitch to which our defence forces were brought, any nation that had designs on this country for strategic or other purposes realised that even if they could overrun the country it would be far too expensive for them to hold, in equipment and manpower. I hope sincerely if our policy in the next war, if there is to be another war, will be the same, that we will have defence forces of sufficient size to ensure that the country will be too hot for any invader.

In conclusion, as Deputy Desmond would say, I would like to comment on the general air of uneasiness that is in the country. That uneasiness is not brought about alone by the feeling of an impending international crisis, but rather by the feeling that there is in the Government a lot of inactivity, and a lack of realisation of their responsibilities in an emergency. That impression is strengthened largely by reports of recent events within the Cabinet and also by the fact that all too frequently we have those assertions both inside and outside the House of harmony within the Cabinet itself. If there is harmony within the Cabinet, why is it necessary to assert it so often? Surely, in any Cabinet in which relations are harmonious it should be unnecessary to assert it and almost shove it down the throats of the people that they are working together in one happy family in the best interests of the country?

You are trying to make the most of all the stories.

We are engaged in swallowing each other up, according to some people.

Recent changes will, no doubt, call for more assurances of harmony. Undoubtedly there is a conviction abroad——

That is only the Irish Press. Do not bother about it.

——that the best efforts of the Government are devoted to ensuring their staying in power for their full term of office.

We are not doing badly.

Not only that, but they are devoted to appeasing the minority groups by throwing them sops here and there in order to keep them quiet for the time being, and certainly for the next two years.

You are prejudiced against them.

I am stating what I have heard abroad and what I really feel myself in my heart is true.

Do you feel uneasy about the situation?

Not in the slightest. I will admit that it is a bit early in the year especially with snow falling, to have another general election and I hope that the Dáil will stick it out for another couple of months. There is one remark that I should like to make and it is this, that instead of speaking in support of Government policy, Government Deputies direct their speeches in criticism of the attitude of the Opposition and to charges of obstruction and of unfair tactics against the Opposition. I think that kind of effort from the Government Benches is not only useless but, if I may say so, damaging to their own interests. When they criticise the Opposition, it is obvious that they fear something in that Opposition, and as a result of recent events, I think they are perfectly justified in fearing the Opposition.

Permit me to pay compliment to Deputy Lynch on the speech he has just delivered. It was addressed, as you, Sir, intended this debate should be addressed, to matters of general economic and financial interest, but at least for threequarters of the speech, though he may have been all wrong——

According to the Minister for Finance.

——according to the Minister for Finance or right according to himself, whether he transgressed certain statistical lines or not, he certainly did bring his mind to bear on questions of economic importance to the country. I should like to find some points of agreement with the Opposition because there are so many obvious and startling points of disagreement with them. After all, we are all Irishmen and we should endeavour to find points of agreement rather than adopt the niggling attitude of some other Deputies of the Opposition who failed completely to understand the purport of this debate and addressed themselves to mere attempts to create an election atmosphere. Unfortunately, the splendid tenor of Deputy Lynch's speech was rather beclouded in the last quarter of an hour, when he descended into the Fianna Fáil rut of accusing members of the Government and sections of the Government of doing certain things as if these things were crimes—accusing the Government, for instance, as he did, of trying to maintain themselves in office for the next two years. What on earth does he expect the Government to do? To kick themselves out of office? Apparently he expects this Government to advertise as much as possible disagreements and disruptions within the Cabinet. Surely the whole sense of a Cabinet is to impress upon the people unity of purpose and common agreement? The way Deputy Lynch does that, in the tortuous mode of logic in which he has been reared in the ranks of Fianna Fáil, is to confess one thing in order to conceal the opposite; apparently what they have to say to the public is intended to convey something entirely different from what it appears on the surface. That is, unfortunately, too prevalent in this House. We should try to get away from it. We should try, as I said, to seek points of agreement.

There were one or two points on which I agreed with Deputy Lynch and which I would ask the Minister for Finance to consider gravely and favourably—his remarks in reference to heavy industry for instance. It is true, perfectly true, as those who studied economics and who have some experience in this matter know, that one of the principal defects in our economic system in this country is that we have a lack of heavy industry. I am not at all in consonance with the Government or any section of the Government in any action they took, for instance, in regard to Córas Iompair Éireann, which deprived us of an attempt to expand heavy industry. It may be said in justification of the Minister—it may be his line and I should like to hear him, if it is—that perhaps it was too early in that period of our economic development to devote certain capital assets and expenditure to the provision of such a heavy industry. That argument may be feasible enough, but to me it carries little weight. To my mind we have achieved such an expansion of the secondary and lighter industries, industries for the production of consumer goods and so on, that we should by now get down to the backing of the secondary and minor industries by the provision of a heavy industry of the type adumbrated in Deputy Lynch's speech. I think that should be the purpose of the Industrial Development Authority, a body which was very unjustly criticised and a body which I believe has rendered good service to the country in the short time it has been in existence. I believe they should address themselves further to that question.

The Government, if they want to know the position of heavy industry, need take only one example which would perhaps give them a great deal of disquiet did they know the exact situation. They have an opportunity now when we have this proposal of joint ownership which is suggested in regard to the Great Northern Railway. There is a railway system of vast importance to the economic welfare of this country and the engineering shops of that industry are in a lamentably out-of-date condition. I think there is no machine shop of that character in such an antiquated and old-fashioned state as the Great Northern Railway shop at Dundalk. The average age, I think, of most of the milling and other machines would be about 50 years. On the closing of this important line and its amalgamation with the other sections of our railway industry, it would behove the Government to take into consideration the re-equipment of the essentially fundamental basic heavy industry that is necessary to keep the transport system of this country in first-class condition.

I think Deputy Lynch made some remarks in regard to the development of harbours. That is a matter which should also be pursued by the Government. They have an opportunity to do so now. There are many of our harbours along the east coast. The harbour at Greenore, which has been very much neglected, has a capacity to take vessels of up to 20,000 tons. At the present time, that port is dealing with practically no traffic whatever. A harbour such as that could be wisely used in the interests of the economy of this country.

On one other point of small detail I want to express my accord with Deputy Lynch, and that is in regard to skilled tradesmen. Now, it is a sore point perhaps, and he may twit the Labour Party members on being unable in any way to affect the situation. Skilled tradesmen are generally craftsmen with long traditions behind them, and it is very difficult, even in the midst of world wars and of crises of one sort and another to get them to depart from those traditions. An illuminating instance of that occurred some time ago. I personally discussed this matter with a tradesman and, as many of us have done, assured him and his union that there was 20 years of solid work ahead in the building industry, and that there could not be any reversion to the distressful days of unemployment, such as there were previous to the development of the housing programme. That is a thing on which they harp very much. The illuminating answer I received, bearing in mind how difficult it is to try and change the tenor of those people's ways was, "What about the 21st year?" It looked so far ahead, recalling a memory of the distress they suffered during those days when unemployment in the building industry used to be so acute, and indicating that they are still dubious about opening their ranks to allow of a greater number of apprentices than they have catered for in the past. But, by so doing, they are undoubtedly holding up the housing programme in the country which could be expanded so that something could be done for the rest of the country on a par with what has been achieved so magnificently by the Corporation of Dublin.

Complaints are being made about the slowing up of this programme. In Dublin, two years ago, they built 2,000 houses, last year they built 2,300 houses, and this year they are to build 2,600 houses. That shows a stepping up of the programme. Yet, despite these facts there are long lists of people still waiting for houses in practically every town in the country. We can say that, despite labour difficulties and despite the difficulty in regard to materials, a great deal is being done in regard to that housing programme. These are matters on which I would express my agreement with Deputy Lynch, but with some other members of the Opposition Party I could find no agreement on those lines whatever. Neither did their speeches impress me, nor does the reading of their speeches indicate that they are likely to deserve well of the Irish people.

Deputy Lemass, for instance, like Deputy Briscoe does seem to think that the major part of his speech and most of his contentions should being the nature of a demand for an election. It used to be a habit with the Leader of the Opposition, when he was the Taoiseach, first to look into his heart and see what the Irish people wanted. In fact, it appears to me that Deputy Lemass is seeking to usurp the purple, and is beginning to look into—I do not know whether he has a heart or not— some part of his anatomy, because he wants an election immediately and says that the people are crying out for an election. He does not even bother to read the speeches of his own Front Bench members. From a close reading of Deputy Aiken's speeches, I can see no such desire whatever. On two occasions he has talked about the continuation of this Government in office that no one can remove. He does not indicate that there is any great desire to remove them.

Try and see.

Give us a chance.

I know that Deputy Childers and Deputy Aiken are just like Deputy Lemass. They are like two young stallions chafing at the bit to get away.

Make the old age pensions 25/-.

I think Deputy Lemass is like a famous man in history. Adolph Hitler thought it much better to have a war on hands when he was 45 than when he was 55. Deputy Lemass evidently thinks it is much better to have a return to power on his hands at 55 than to have it at 65. It appears to me that, as far as one can see, the position of Fianna Fáil has become slightly unstable, to say the least of it, since we had the declaration of the Minister for Social Welfare in regard to the new scheme. I think the new type of argument which Deputy Lemass used in his speech was to the effect that they considered this increase in the old age pensions as a bribe to certain vested elements in the Government ranks to try and bring them to book.

Raise it another 2/6.

They said £500,000 could not be afforded in 1947.

It appears to me that the Opposition programme for Social Welfare was a new low level of dishonesty as far as Fianna Fáil is concerned, because up to this, up to the declaration on the famous Friday from the Minister for Social Welfare, they had stated that their objection or criticism, as far as I could make it out, was to the effect that it was too limited in its character in so far as only one section of the community would derive any benefit, and that these members were being asked to pay rates which were a real burden to them.

Can we take it that we can all debate social welfare details on this?

If Deputies desire to hear Deputy Connolly's views they might listen.

I do not desire, in the slightest to go into details of the scheme or to transgress the rules of order laid down for this debate. What I want to show, however, is the demand for an election as instanced in the speeches of Deputy Lemass and Deputy Briscoe. I could give four different quotations from speeches of Deputy Briscoe made, of course, before this announcement from the Minister for Social Welfare in which he showed that he was chafing at the bit, too, talking about appeals from the hustings, how they were to shuttle this Government out of Office and so on.

Deputy Lemass, however, when he came to the discussion of these economic and financial questions, instead of following that, sort of lost control of himself. He started off on this criticism of the Government and this demand for an immediate election, saying that the people wanted an election, without giving us one iota of evidence and without showing a single instance of a public body or even a debating society which had passed a resolution expressing the wish that there should be an election.

Who wants an election except Fianna Fáil? Naturally enough, Fianna Fáil wants an election because they are the Opposition and they are getting older every year. Some of them will be due to retire before they get back to the ministerial benches and, naturally, they want to have an appearance on the hustings as quickly as possible. Unlike Deputy Lynch, who thinks it is dishonest of the Government to try to remain together and to keep in office, I do not think it is wrong or any crime for Fianna Fáil to ask for an election, but I think they should be more honest in the type of propaganda they use to achieve their ends.

As I was saying when I was so rudely interrupted by Deputy Allen, with a view to putting me off my course of thought, the line of argument previously advanced by Fianna Fáil, as I take it, was that the economic situation of the country could ill-afford a social welfare scheme of the nature suggested by the Minister for Social Welfare, one of the ten points which brought together the Coalition. Now, it appears that Fianna Fáil have turned a complete somersault. They are going to burden the country still further by imposing taxation and, rather than have this insurance scheme in which every man and woman who contributes will have a categorical right to certain benefits as an insured person, they are going to make it depend on the whim of the Minister.

The Deputy will have an opportunity of discussing that further on the Second Reading of the Bill. It should not be introduced here.

It was introduced several times by Deputy Briscoe and some other Deputies.

It may have been referred to, but the Deputy seems to be going into details.

In fact, I was not going into details at all. I was merely instancing it as a type of propaganda which had changed in Fianna Fáil's hands since the announcement of the Minister for Social Welfare on Friday.

However, there is something which, to my mind, is far more important than even this magnificent scheme of social welfare, and, though it may not be considered directly as a part of the financial or economic system, it is of transcendent importance. It is much greater than most of the matters discussed here to-day and will ultimately affect our economic and financial welfare in perhaps greater degree than any of the details to which we addressed ourselves in the course of this debate. It is more serious and more important than the remission of taxes by the Minister for Finance, the remission to which he several times referred in his disputation with Deputy Lynch, of £7,000,000 on beer, tobacco, amusements and nonessentials.

It is more important than the export of butter which seems to have taken a great hold on the minds of several of the Deputies. It is more important than the cost of living and that is a matter which is of very high importance, particularly to members of the Labour section of the Government. It is more important than the rising standard of living of which we have had abundant evidence produced here by the Minister for Agriculture and it is more important than his policy or lack of policy, or all his various diversities of thought. It is more important than the reduction in unemployment and the increase in employment. It is that, as a primary basis for expanding the industry of the country and for improving the social life and economic welfare of the people, this Government has been able to achieve political peace within the country since it came into office.

That, to my mind, is of far greater importance and is the highest and greatest justification of this inter-Party Government. For the first time in 30 years, we have had three years of internal peace, and that, I submit, has an important effect upon the economic and financial welfare of our people. Without that basis of internal security and peace, there is no hope of democratic expansion for this country. We were held up during the Cumann na nGaedheal régime and during the Fianna Fáil régime—during the régimes of the two previsions Administrations—by internecine warfare in this country. That, happily, has ceased to exist, and all those who participated in the inter-Party Government, no matter how much we may disagree on points of policy, on sectional points, with the Minister for Agriculture or the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and no matter how much we may disagree with the Minister for Finance in his orthodox or sometimes slightly unorthodox handling of the finances of the country, each one of us can pride himself on having participated in the erection of a governmental system which brought peace to this country.

I was one of those who openly advocated that the only way of removing Fianna Fáil from office was an alliance and co-operation between the Opposition Parties. I advocated it in Labour newspapers in this country and across the water; I was not realistic or wise enough to know that Fine Gael could be incorporated in such an inter-Party Government, thinking that it would be sufficient for the other Left Opposition groups to command sufficient support to put Fianna Fáil out of office. I remember the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, when he was merely a Deputy, approaching me when these articles of mine appeared to ask whether Fine Gael could have a place in this system of Coalition or inter-Party Government. I did not think it possible at that time—I was not wise enough to know but now that we have this Government in office and have seen it operating for three years, with all its creaking and all the criticisms that can be levelled at it—we have no pretensions whatever to perfection, any section of the Government or the Government as a whole—I can say that the Labour Party did well and very well in supplying an inter-Party arrangement such as this which has brought peace to the country.

When Deputy Lynch was speaking, I was twitted that I supported the Coalition for what I could get out of it. I still do so. I think that the Labour Party is getting a great deal out of it and more than they could possibly have got under any arrangement with Fianna Fáil. The day of inter-Party arrangements has come. I do not think that Fianna Fáil will ever come back to power as a one-Party Government. I think they will find that they will have to become reasonable enough to take assistance from some of the other sections in this House. They may have to depart from their very high-handed attitude that they and they alone have some secret that endows them with an administrative ability which no other Party in the House has. I think there would be more co-operation amongst Irishmen and amongst Parties if Fianna Fáil were to depart from that high-handed attitude, and if they tried to understand that the era of one-Party Government has passed. Things pass in this world.

Even in England.

Even in England. The Labour Party which is in power in England may appear to Deputy Allen to be composed of one Party, but he does not know its history. Does he know how many coalitions there are in the fundamental arrangement of the Labour Party in Britain?

And the Labour Party in this House.

Exactly. We have our organic roots. We do not pretend that we are all descended from one man—that we are all Norton's men, that we are "yes men".

Fellow-travellers.

We are as strongly individualistic as we can be. We are as much so as the official Labour candidate in Britain at the last by-election who was violently opposed to the military rearmament programme of the present Labour Party Government. We can have such individualistic ideas here because the Labour Party in this country ranges from the extreme Left to the extreme Right.

That is not very relevant.

It may not be very relevant, but it is portion of Deputy Allen's education.

Fellow-travellers.

Look at Deputy Childers and Deputy Aiken. They are as far removed from each other as the man in the moon.

I deny that.

So do I. Deputy Connolly will be educated at the next general election.

I am always pleased to be educated, whether in victory or in defeat. As an Irishman, I maintain that my function is to do what I have to do as well as I can for the country as a whole. This Government deserves endorsement for its economic and its financial policy, as outlined by the Minister for Finance in his speech on this Vote on Account—though it may not be such as can obtain full endorsement from the Labour Party as an orthodox body. However, we understand that, as things are, we cannot have everything we want but as much as is possible for the common good. We have to relate that to the other Parties and other sections in this Government. In so far as that has been done, the Minister, as we have shown, and as many speakers have indicated, has done as well as could be expected in the present situation.

Several Deputies have accused the Minister, in regard to the present situation, of not so ordering the economics of this country as to fit us to defend our position in the event of the outbreak of war. Deputy Aiken referred to war. He criticised very stringently the attitude of the Taoiseach in regard to the lack of preparedness, as he called it, of this Government. I think the matter is quite simple. I think that Deputy Aiken was unwittingly answered by Deputy Lynch, who stated very simply, and without going very deeply into the matter, that during the last emergency, as we called it, any of the belligerent Powers who might have had designs upon this country—while they might have felt that it was possible for them to achieve their aim of taking over this country—would have found it, to use his own phraseology, too costly to maintain their position here. That is still the position.

Deputy Major de Valera has, for a long time past, been pursuing a statistical inquiry as to the nature of our Army resources. By now, he knows exactly how many privates, captains, B.L.s, B.A.s, M.A.s, B.Sc.s, and every other professional rank, we have in the different categories of our armed forces. He must know almost how many buttons are on the trousers of every private in the Army as a result of all the questions which he has put to the Minister for Defence. Where does this get us? I am sure everybody realises perfectly well that in an armed conflict we, as a small nation of somewhat more than 3,000,000 people are less in numbers than some sections of the continental armies in the past war. The Russian Army consists of 8,000,000 or 9,000,000 men and the army under the command of General Eisenhower will be something up to 12,000,000 men. We are a very small nation and we must make use of the differences between the contending Powers to ensure and to maintain our neutrality. We must see to it that, with the least possible strain on our economy, we provide defence forces which will make it uneconomic and costly for any Power to maintain a position here against our will. I submit that any Power which might attempt to maintain a position in this country against our will, with our present preparedness, would find it too costly to continue their hold upon this country. As I see it, this Government has no intention of being run into a state of war preparedness by any criticism of the Opposition that they are not doing enough in this matter. Their attitude should be that they will hold to the policy that there is a continuing peace to the very last moment that it is possible to do so and in that way avoid having to impose an undue strain upon the economy of this country.

The Labour Party in Great Britain is forced to cut across its whole programme of raising the standard of living of the people of that country, whose welfare it undoubtedly has at heart, because it must devote vast sums to rearmament—sums which could otherwise be devoted to capital expenditure and thus tend to increase the prosperity and happiness of the people of that country. It must do that in order to defend the position that they think is necessary. But, as far as we are concerned, they have unlimited power at their command. Relatively speaking, as far as we are concerned, they have unlimited power at their command. We have no such power in our economy. We cannot stretch our economy as they can stretch their economy. Our economy is not elastic as their economy is. We are a small nation but I am perfectly certain that the nation as a whole would give a good account of itself whether it was prepared under Fianna Fáil, Cumann na nGaedheal, Fine Gael or an inter-Party Government. No matter what Party or group of Parties were in power at the momentous time that a foreign power sought to take over the territory of the Irish Republic I am perfectly assured, as I am sure every other Deputy is assured, that the Irish people would not be let down.

The Government of the day has undertaken a certain amount of stockpiling with regard to a scheme of preparedness. Deputy Briscoe doubts this very much and took the opportunity of criticising it. He said it was not real stockpiling but that the increase was accounted for merely by an increase in the price of wool materials for uniforms and so on. If Deputy Lemass, who also criticised very efficiently the lack of stockpiling, were to use some of his industrial interests and approach any bank in the country with a proposition about stockpiling in whatever industry interested him, I can assure him that he would find a choice welcome. A very obvious conclusion for anybody who is informed upon these matters is that the banks would not be so generous as they are at present to manufacturers did they not know that they had the imprimatur of the Minister for Finance and the Government as a whole. That is the way to test their seriousness.

There is no possibility of any Deputy in this House giving actual statistical information regarding stockpiling in any industry, but I am perfectly certain that the Industrial Development Authority has given thought to this matter. That is quite obvious from the fact that some important Ministers have been sent across the water to deal with the question of shortages or prospective shortages and other relative matters. It is quite obvious, therefore, that the authority has considered stockpiling and that they did not just take an excursion for the good of their health. They have thought well at the present time to survey the whole market and the possibilities of improving the situation in this country.

There are certain products such as sulphuric acid which are stockpiled by every combatant, every would-be combatant and every near combatant. It has 1,000 different uses, takes 1,000 different forms and has 1,000 derivatives that are necessary in industry after industry. Like other commodities it is bound to become scarce and the price is bound to rise. The same is true of tin and steel and other natural materials for warfare when there is a threat of war.

Naturally there should be stockpiling in this country and it would be foolish of the Government not to survey the situation. They should do their utmost to see that any section of the industrial community which was stockpiling in view of imminent scarcities and shortages were adequately supported and what they require mainly is financial support. In any case many of the shortages are of a relative or territorial type and are not absolute shortages. Goods can be obtained but the price has gone beyond the limit and has skyrocketed far above the price which obtained before this crisis took place.

It is for the industrial authority, the Minister for Finance, and those who are experienced in guiding them to strike a balance and to judge how much money should be devoted to this commodity or that commodity. They must exercise a nice discretion and must not unduly burden the country by having on hands enormous quantities of stocks in the event of a real peace in the future. If the present situation, threatening though it may appear in certain sectors of the international front, eases, we may possibly have a return to peaceful conditions for another period before an actual war breaks out in Western Europe. There is no certainty that war will break out. Nations may snarl at one another and form groups and coalitions before and behind the Curtain, but yet they may never come to armed conflict. The international situation in Europe must always be judged from the point of view of the economic situation in the United States. We must consider the problems of the American capitalists in their attempt to gain a European market and to see that it will not be closed against them as it was on the advent of Adolph Hitler. Things are in a state of flux and there is no absolute certainty regarding the outbreak of a European war, no matter how threatening the situation may be in the Far East. That situation may become more threatening in India and Pakistan and spread throughout the Asian Continent, but I cannot see why we should do more than take cognisance of the situation and prepare to an extent which is compatible with the undeveloped state of our economy. I cannot see eye to eye with the Opposition whose terms would make one imagine that they had been reading an overdose of American war literature. They seem to imagine that we are a power of the same magnificent stature as the United States, one of the Benelux powers or something akin to England itself. That is far from the fact. Our economy will stand very little strain. This Government has undoubtedly exercised a degree of caution not perhaps fully in keeping with the ideas of the Labour Party, but be that as it may, they have formed a constructive policy which suits our people as a whole. It suits the Parties in the Government and ensures the continuance of the support of the different sections forming it.

We know it suits the Deputy anyway.

Progress reported. Committee to sit again.
Top
Share