Before the debate was adjourned, I was trying to extract some information from the Opposition Parties as to what their policy was and I think I would be wise to rely, to a large extent at any rate, on the Labour Party, because the Labour Party has the balance of power. I was rather interested in Deputy Davin's statements here, which, I take it, if they ever become a Government, will represent the policy of the Coalition Government. He had a desperate horror that a Mr. Butler, who belongs to the British Government, had dominated, and, in fact, constructed this Budget. Later on, he was doubtful about that and said that it was the banks did it. He will have to amend his statement a little and tell us exactly whether it was the banks or Mr. Butler. Another very interesting part of their policy was announced by Deputy Mac Fheórais who seems to have developed a violent horror about ladies in mink coats. I take it they may be prepared for a heavy tax on mink coats.
Finance Bill, 1952—Second Stage (Resumed).
When one sees £1,500 worth of mink coat in a window, one begins to think.
There is some sense in the view of Deputy Mac Fheórais. We had also statements about people driving in high-powered cars. There is nothing wrong in that, either, nor do I think it would be fair to hammer a big tax on people who attend race meetings, because as long as I can remember—I do not go to many now—the best sportsmen we had were people belonging to the Labour Party. I hope that argument will also be amended and that they will not tax people going to race meetings.
Not many Labour people go to race meetings.
Ask Deputy Norton how often he goes.
It would be very unfair to impose such a tax. We have, therefore, an idea of what the policy of the Coalition Party is at the moment, but to get their real policy, we shall have to wait until they are elected. If they are returned in a majority, they will proceed to tell the people what their policy is. From a political point of view, that is a very sensible arrangement—persuade the people to elect you and leave it then to the people elected to state what the policy is.
I want to say a few words as to what was the general cause of this disruption. Deputy McGilligan noticed during his period—early in 1951—that agricultural production had fallen so low that we were unable to pay for what we bought. To many who, through propaganda and other means, believed agriculture was booming that seemed a big shock. Quite a lot of people who were not connected with agriculture believed that. I and every one of us heard members of the Labour Party saying that the farmers drove in motor cars and that they were extremely prosperous. At the same time, on the figures returned, it was shown that the output of agriculture had seriously dropped as against the output of agricultural production in Britain, which had rapidly increased. Therefore, we were unable to pay for what we purchased and that was due almost entirely to the failure of the agricultural policy that was pursued by what was known as the Coalition Government. If the Coalition Government were returned to power I would advise the Labour Party to take a bigger share in agricultural policy. They then might be able to amend matters. I am not going to delay the House much longer. I think that agricultural policy is one of the principal items.
It was really the failure of the late Government to encourage dairying that caused the immense drop in cows in-calf and in heifers in-calf. That fact will put us to a lot of trouble now because we will not have the stock. Live stock, upon which we depend most, have decreased in numbers. It will be the business of the present Government and the Minister for Finance to see that live stock is in creased. It is no use telling the people that imports have not to be paid for. They must be paid for by exports. There is no use saying that we will have private people's money, foreign money, or what are known as foreign assets. We have a few million pounds in post office savings and a couple of million pounds left by the banks, but there is no use saying that we can pay our debts with those.
Every effort should be made by all political Parties to see that production is increased. It is no use trying to deceive the people that somebody will invent a new monetary system. I have been a long time listening to that kind of talk and I have seen nothing come of it yet. If we are sensible we should drop that.
We never tried it.
Let us try it in the meantime but suppose we did not agree with it I wonder where would it lead us to? To a large extent the system of savings, which is the capitalistic system, has been abused. These foreign assets are entirely our savings and if we spent those the loss would be very serious.
Clann na Poblachta, I think, were very keen about bringing back these foreign assets. If they preach that policy during any election or during the forthcoming by-election I hope they will tell us how it is going to be done and how they are going to commandeer private people's property.
Oh, now, Deputy.
That is what it amounts to. "Repatriation" is the word used in regard to the redemption of foreign assets. I could not put any other construction on the word "repatriation" except compulsion. The people who invested that money abroad invested it voluntarily. They got a better investment there than anywhere else. It was the best possible investment that they could make. If those assets are brought back—there are only £125,000,000 left—I would like to know how that money is going to be invested here.
What about the land?
If the money were invested would we be without the interest that accrues on that — interest which helped, to a large extent, to pay whatever balance of trade we had. I think that talk like that is fairly foolish without telling the people how it is going to be done.
That type of talk is no use having regard to the education which the people got here on modern finance, balance of trade, etc., during the last six or seven months. They are all well up to-day and the Opposition should know that there is no chance of fooling them again.
It is rather extraordinary that the Minister for Finance undertakes a task for which he is not suited because, when he starts quibbling or trying to put over a case that he knows is not correct, he blunders and blunders badly.
Speaking on this Bill last Tuesday the Minister stated, as reported in the Irish Press, that the Taoiseach and the inter-Party Government went to the President and advised him to dissolve the Dáil because the then Government could not debate the Budget and could not meet the Dáil on that Budget. Now just picture what he tries to portray, that the Taoiseach said to the members of the House: “Boys——”
"That is wrong," is what he said.
Could he not have prefaced it by saying: "Boys, gentlemen or pals" or something like that? Let me tell the story as you would like to tell it and you can tell it afterwards as you would like me to tell it. He said we could not stand this and we were faced with the responsibility of having on our hands £26,000,000 and £6,000,000 of the Marshall Aid moneys unspent and we were in such a position that we were not able to spend it, that we were afraid to spend it, that we were in such a condition that we had not the courage to spend it and that the only thing we could do was to get out and leave it to the Minister for Finance in a Fianna Fáil Government to undertake the task. One never heard such a story before and when the Minister, as a responsible Minister, attempts to get that over here—I presume he intends to put it over at the cross-roads—he has a very poor estimation of the public's intelligence or that of the Deputies in this House.
When the Dáil was dissolved, we had a balanced Budget. We had £26,000,000 of Marshall Aid untouched. We had all this at the time he says we ran away.
But he has rifled that; it is gone.
I have to get to that yet.
And he will not tell us where.
The Minister asserts the reason the Dáil was dissolved was that we realised we had bankrupt the country.
Precisely.
He does not give any credit to Deputy Dr. Browne or his pals Deputies Cogan or Cowan although he damned me to try to put them under lock and key. He has adopted them to his heart so much that they are now long-lost pals.
That is an even more disgraceful statement than you have ever made in your life before. I never once approached the Deputy when he was Minister for Justice either to take action against any person or to confer a favour on any person.
I did not say any such thing. The Minister and his colleagues challenged me as Minister for Justice across the floor of the House on various occasions regarding the steps I was taking to suppress the gallant Captain's army.
That is not what the Deputy said previously.
It does not arise on the Finance Bill.
I know it does not, nor do the interruptions the Minister makes. I am dealing with the Minister's assertion in this House that we had the Dáil dissolved because we were in financial difficulties, our difficulties being that we had in our hands, to spend in the interest of the State, £26,000,000 Marshall loan and £6,000,000 Marshall grant. Of course, it was absolutely incorrect and as fantastic a story as ever the Minister for Finance, either as Deputy or as Minister, tried to put over on the House or on the country. We know that in 12 months the Government has spent the £26,000,000 but they charge us with creating an unbalanced trade situation. When you ask them, however, in what way our trading was wrong they are vague, not particular. Looking at the trade returns as published, even this month, you find that the present Administration is importing the identical consumer goods imported by the previous Government. Why, if that is wrong? Why, if this is the Government's plan to stop it? Where is the operation order to carry that plan out? Apparently there is no intention whatever to do it. The Minister tells us in his Second Reading speech that every proposal of the Dáil was considered and rejected for what he described as sound practical reasons—quoting from the same day's Irish Press.
Is it not a wonder that he did not tell us some of the things he examined and some of the reasons for rejecting them? What were the proposals worthy of consideration? What were the proposals he rejected for sound practical reasons? The balance of payments is still against us. Our adverse trade balance for February was £9,653,611. As far as has been indicated that trend still continues. The things purchased are maize, oranges, raisins, sultanas, unrefined sugar, and so on. As we have a good deal of foodstuffs in the country, such as potatoes that cannot be sold, if the Government had restricted even some of these purchases we would have to admit that they meant what they said but, instead, they are going gallantly on. The net result is that they expect to reduce the adverse balance by making the people unable to purchase goods outside. By the Budget, by taxation, by reducing the purchasing power of the people they will reduce these imports.
It is a significant fact that during the three seasons we were in office the agricultural yield per acre was higher than at any time in the last 15 years. As much was produced from less acres as was produced when you had a fantastic number of acres giving very low production. The reason is that there was better husbandry and more fertilisers. Farmers could handle the smaller acreage, and the method of allowing the farmer to proceed as he thought best was bound to give the better results.
The Government expect to get revenue but I am beginning to doubt that it is possible for the Minister to get the amount he has budgeted for because of the recession in trade all over the country. It is widespread in every phase of business activity. The draper, the merchant, the grocer and the chemist, all, I am reliably informed, find that there is a very heavy recession and the takings have fallen considerably in every business house all over the country. If that is so, the Minister will not secure the amount he has budgeted for. On the other hand, he budgets for at least £10,000,000 more than he requires—I am perfectly satisfied on that score. Estimates are included for sums which, it is clear, he will not spend. Of course, the Tánaiste did clearly admit that there could be an error of 5 or 10 per cent. in the calculation.
Five per cent. of £138,000,000 is a very substantial sum and 10 per cent. a much greater sum, but assuming that it was the lesser figure, that even gives you a very high sum for overestimation. Looking through the Army Vote—I am not going to deal with that except in passing; whatever I have to say on it I will say on the Vote itself— I note that the sum allotted or asked for for warlike stores is more than can possibly be expended in the year, and when you examine it you will see that last year, although the money was spent, we have not got the material yet. We have made a payment in advance, and we are hoping that we will get it. I know the difficulties and I appreciate the fact that every effort must be made to get the most modern and best equipment that we can get. I do appeal to the Government to make sure that they do not waste our money upon obsolete or second-hand material for the defence of our country. Whatever we get, they should see that it is the very best and the most modern.
Again, I feel that, instead of expanding the standing Army, if we gave greater incentive to the F.C.A. we could extend and develop that force and make it a very effective force in case of an emergency. I am satisfied that £100,000 or £200,000 spent upon them or if a further grant were made to them, that it would do much to keep them on a firmer basis and ensure that they would be ready if required. It may be argued that there is a large number of them ineffective. I do not accept that view. As long as they are in the country or as long as they are on the roll, and that they turn up even occasionally on parade, they are still effective. In the old Volunteer days we did have a very great paper strength, and if the headquarters officer came down on inspection, it is true that he might not find a very great number on parade. But when the testing-time came every person on the list was available for active service and did give whatever service was required. I feel that the F.C.A. would also be capable of lending to the nation the same service as their predecessors in the Volunteer days did.
In regard to the restriction of credit the Government disclaims all responsibility. I cannot accept that because no banking system is going to restrict credit contrary to the wishes of the Government of the country. If they are restricting credit contrary to the wishes of the Government then I assert that the responsibility is on the Government to see to it that that system or that principle of theirs is changed and that credit is made available. I do not want to go over the ground that I covered here on the Budget debate, but I do assert that, where the Government did want and does want a certain type of work done by farmers or business people, the banks did stop and restricted credit to undo the essential work that the Government wants the country to do. That is sabotaging the Government plan of more production. If the Government admits that then they are passing over the Government of the country to this set of people who have no responsibility to the nation.
As I say, the restriction of credit in every section of the community is very serious, and the result is that unemployment is bound to increase. Hardship of various types will be imposed upon our people, and when you consider that that is being done without any necessity, it is heartbreaking. The Government that does it has a lot to answer for both in this world and in the next. Let us hope that when they face the electorate, they will meet their deserts in this world, thus avoiding, perhaps, what is to come to them in the next.
Again, the charge was made that the financial situation was bad when they came in. Everybody realises that in the Budget speech by Mr. McGilligan in 1951 he estimated for a positive amount of money, and set out what he required it for. His estimate was exceeded by a considerable amount; at the same time the present Minister for Finance says that his Budget was not filled.
I said it was not an honest Budget and I repeat that.
It was a much more honest Budget than this one of yours, and that would not be saying much if that was all it was. It was an honest Budget, because it clearly sets out in detail what payments were catered for and what was the taxation required to meet them.
That is precisely what it did not do.
I say that it did so, and there is nothing the Minister can say that would alter the facts as recorded in the Dáil report of that Budget speech.
That is a denial of the printed word.
There is no point in the Minister interrupting, because interruptions of that kind are of no value. I assert that the Budget situation was quite clear and that a much greater sum than Mr. McGilligan estimated for came into the Treasury from revenue. It is true that Supplementary Estimates brought in by his successors amounting to £11,000,000 were something that he did not cater for, but some of it was allowed for. Even then, when you consider that a good deal of the £11,000,000 was capital expenditure that should not have been borne out of current revenue, you can see the way the Minister and the Government attempted to discredit and to twist the Budget statement and estimates of his predecessor and then used the parliamentary word, which I hope it is, "dishonest".
Anybody knowing either Deputy McGilligan or Deputy Costello would know that, when a person uses the word "dishonest" about either of them, it is only vulgar abuse and that it cannot in any way be attached to either of them. They are both men of integrity and of ability. When they say that the facts are so and so, it can be taken that they are the facts, and any attempt at imputing dishonesty to them is like a previous statement by the same Minister about a very prominent and respected person in this country when he referred to him in a most derogatory way which he had to regret afterwards.
And I do regret that very much.
I am not mentioning that, but I would ask the Minister that, in future, he should try to avoid these things and having to withdraw them when it is too late and when the harm is done. While you do do something by withdrawing it, the spoken word can never be recalled and it is very hard to overtake the word once it is uttered.
I do not think that there is any point in speaking at length on this matter, except to assert that the policy of the inter-Party Government brought peace and order to the country. There was financial stability and increased employment every week during which we held office. Every month since we went out of office the reverse has been the position. However, if that appeals to the people of the country and to the Fianna Fáil supporters, they are entitled to have it, but I feel that they are foolish and unwise for their own sake and for the sake of the country.
I heard a very learned friend of mine, who was a Fianna Fáil Deputy, saying on one occasion that, in his opinion the advantages outweighed the disadvantages, but that the people should make up their minds as to whether they accepted that view or not; if they accepted the view that the advantages outweighed the disadvantages they should vote Fianna Fáil; if they did not accept that view they should vote against Fianna Fáil. I appeal to the people now to examine the position in that particular light. If they do so, there can be no doubt whatever but that they will see that the policy of the inter-Party Government was of such advantage to the people and to the country as a whole —the country which we all love—that they must reverse the position by ejecting the present Government from office at the first opportunity. I suggest to the Minister and to the Government that, before they proceed any further with this Bill, they should submit the matter to the electorate, so that we can get a decision once and for all. If the Government continues along the lines it is taking at present, hardship will be imposed on the people, for which they have not voted, and to which they have not given their consent. I assert that the present Government have not a moral right to do that. Although they have the legal right, I say to them that it is not fair to their own back benchers to put them in the position of coming in here and having to defend something which they know in their hearts to be wrong, and something which, if they got half a chance, they would reject in the morning.
Tá cúpla focal le rá agam ar an gceist seo—ceist an airgeadais. When a Minister or a Deputy is man enough and courageous enough to express regret on three public occasions for what he considered a wrong statement by him, I feel it should be accepted by all Deputies in the House. We will all have to face judgment some day, and if it is as severe as that which was exhibited on the Fine Gael Benches, I am afraid we will have a very poor chance of salvation.
Might I say a few words on this. I accept the Minister's withdrawal. My only complaint was, and I still complain about it, that the withdrawal was not in a day or two afterwards but years afterwards when the harm was done. I am only asking the Minister not to do it again.
The man who came at the eleventh hour was paid as much as the man who came at the first.
We know that.
Deputy MacEoin has been speaking about what Deputy McGilligan estimated for receipts in his Budget, but he did not tell us what were the estimates for expenditure which Deputy McGilligan put into the Book of Estimates and did not provide for. That is the vital test in this whole matter. When the Fianna Fáil Government took office it had to introduce Supplementary Estimates amounting to £11,000,000. Deputy MacEoin talked about capital expenditure. Over £3,000,000 of the £11,000,000 provided by Supplementary Estimates was the provision for increases in the pay of the Gardaí, the Civil Service, the Army and so forth. That was not capital expenditure, and not one penny of it was provided for in the dishonest Budget —the election Budget—which Deputy McGilligan, as Minister for Finance introduced in this House. It is all right talking about the integrity of Deputies as individuals, but Deputies of all Parties can come in here with lawyers' minds and lawyers' briefs under their arms to make the lawyers' case. We want, in this matter of finance, the honest approach and the national approach. We have too many lawyers' Governments in Europe since the last war, to the grief of Europe, composed of men without any conscience—men who threw away the financial and political independence of their countries which find themselves behind the Iron Curtain to-day.
Deputy MacEoin talks about the production per statute acre, or per acre of the land under the Coalition Government, and he contrasts it with the same production in the war years. However, during the war years we were facing all kinds of odds; we had neither fertilisers nor, in many cases, sufficient seed, yet we carried on and supplied the food to our people. During the Coalition régime after the war the figures did not increase.
Let me pause here to deal with this aspect of figures which has been brought up again and again and questioned in the Budget debate. When I came into this House 25 years ago, Mr. W. T. Cosgrave was then Taoiseach. Again and again I heard from the Fine Gael Benches the boast, and the rightful boast, about the Statistics Department that the State had set up. When Mr. Hooper died, a glowing tribute was paid to him in the Dáil. In fact, there have been tributes paid again and again while the Fine Gael Party held office to the statistical department. When Deputy Costello, as Taoiseach, took over he, again and again, paid tribute to its accuracy and minute work. Now, however, overnight the credentials of these men are being questioned.
The facts and the figures given by the Revenue Commissioners and by the Department of Finance are questioned by an ex-Minister. If everything is suspect and everything is questioned in this State, what is going to happen? I am not trotting up Communism here but dealing with a fact. There is a major State behind the Iron Curtain to-day, which had a number of people who were always questioning one another, and they got rid of one another by a process of liquidation. Is that the sort of doubt we are going to create here? What progress are we going to make if we are to question the probity and the integrity of men to whom we have been paying tribute for 25 years? It is a very poor argument indeed if we have to depart from all these things.
There has been a lot of talk about the balance of payments and our external assets and there has been play made with figures. Deputy O'Higgins, Senior, talked as if nobody had a right to deal with figures but the members of the Fine Gael Party. He spoke as if they, and they alone, are the only people who can talk about these matters. Any man with practical experience of a county council or urban council knows that two and two make four and not five, that two from three leaves one and not two, and that we are living in a world of realities.
We know that there has been excessive borrowing for three years, much more than there had been for the previous 26 years. These people said they had to borrow for the civil war for which they blamed us. The economic war had to be fought during our time. We had to put through our neutrality, and yet these gay spenders in a period of three years spent more than was spent during the whole of the previous 26 years. Where will this lead to? There are practical businessmen and farmers on the Opposition Benches. If they applied these principles in the running of their business or farms, where would they get to? Is everything to be bought and put on the slate in the running of a farm or a business? Is credit to be run up until the happy day of bankruptcy arrives? It is a good principle to pay as you go and limit your indebtedness to your creditors. That is also a good principle for the running of a state.
They speak glibly about the unemployment that will be created as a result of this Budget and about the burden on the man who has to live on "bread and spread". Deputy McGilligan was very vocal on that question and talked about the spectacular rise in the cost of living. In 1947 agricultural wages were £2 10s. per week and at that time there was a cost-of-living base arrived at of 100. With this increase in the price of food it is in the vicinity now of 125 and the agricultural wage is £3 12s. 6d. I am not saying whether that wage is sufficient or not, but under the Agricultural-Wages Board they have overtaken the rise in the cost of living. We heard Deputy Corish talking about the increase in the individual cost of living. It has been proved that the only commodities that increased are the rationed goods—the rationed tea, the rationed sugar, etc., and the increases amount to 1/6 per head per week. Under the Social Welfare (Insurance) Bill now going through the House the man who heretofore got a flat rate of 22/6 national health benefit now gets 24/- if he is a single man. A married man with a wife gets 36/-, and if he has one child he gets 43/-. The man with two, three or four children gets 50/-. Supplementary to this there is the increased family allowance. A man with two children receives £2 3s.; the man with three children £2 12s. 6d., the man with four children £3 0s. 6d., and so on.
The same principle applies to the unemployment insurance benefit. Where heretofore a man got 22/6 he now receives 24/-; if he is a married man he gets 36/-, and if he has one child 43/-. A man with two, three or four children gets 50/-. These sums are supplemented up to £3 4s. 6d. for a man with a wife and five children and there is an increase of 4/- for each additional child. All this sorrow which is expressed about the terrible burden on the backs of those least able to bear it is so much nonsense. They are being provided for in this Social Welfare Bill.
I heard a lot from the Fine Gael Benches about increased production. That comes from the Party who, when they got into office, put every big farmer in the Midlands out of production. Their Minister for Agriculture discouraged tillage. Recently, when the Westmeath County Council brought road wages up to 80/- a week a writer in the Meath Chronicle asked the question: How many statute acres of good Meath land under intense cultivation would yield an income of £4 a week for the 52 weeks of the year; that is an income of £208, allowing for annuities and rates and labour costs, etc., and he calculated it would be 20 acres. There has been a dispute about that. It has been argued that 20 statute acres of good land will not give a yield under intense cultivation of £208 a year. Supposing that land was devoted to the feeding of cattle, what chance would there be there? The more land you devote to cattle feeding the more acres you want. I am not charging the inter-Party Government with this. It is a national problem. But the more you drift into the production of cattle the more you crush out the man who is frugal and happy on a small farm, and the more he is inclined to go into the town and enjoy the amenities there, the cheap, well-ventilated house with sanitary arrangements, and give up the small farm. The small farm is then absorbed by the big rancher and more and more land goes into the production of grass.
We have to ask ourselves how long is this to continue? If we have approximately 380,000 farms and 80 per cent. of them have a valuation of £35 or under, how long will the farmers continue on these farms? How long will they carry on the fight if they are not encouraged to go in for tillage, if they are not encouraged to produce wheat and beet and the things that count? The majority of our population are living on the land, they rear the biggest families, and we want to keep them there. Here we have a problem that Fine Gael will not solve. Fine Gael close their eyes to that problem. The cattle trade and the big ranchers are the be-all and end-all of Fine Gael policy.
They had a function in Mullingar recently and some lads went to it because cards were being played. They listened attentively to an intense criticism of the Budget and said there was a lot in it. They came out laughing, however, when one gentleman said: "If you keep Fianna Fáil there you will have compulsory tillage one of these days." They said they would swallow the Budget and a lot more along with it sooner than have the ranching policy to which Deputy MacEoin referred when he stated that the land produced more per acre under the inter-Party Government than it did under Fianna Fáil, because these gentlemen with the big farms never carried out their tillage regulations. They outraged God and man. They ploughed up their acres but put no seed in. They said that their fields were not fit to produce wheat and beet and they let the small fellow do it. This Budget is designed to help out the small man. It comes to the relief of the small man I am referring to. Our policy is to help out our tillage in every way and we have no hesitation in recommending it.
Deputy General MacEoin referred to the restriction of credit. I wonder what is this restriction of credit. He also talked about certain shopkeepers whom he knew who could not sell goods. I know shopkeepers all over the country who have the same labels and the same price tags on clothes they have to sell as they had a year ago despite the fact that there has been a drop from 7/- a lb. to 2/3 a lb. in the price of wool. It is well known that a Donegal man who saw a suit of clothes in the window of a shop in Derry before Christmas at £12 could go in and buy it now for £5. If there is no buying here the drapers and other people ought to take a lesson from the North and reduce the price and then there will be buying. It is not for the want of money but for the purpose of not letting the profiteers away with it that there is a buyers' strike, and "Hear, hear!" to the buyers' strike.
As I said earlier, we were told not to refer to high finance nor to international finance. Deputy Morrissey told one of our speakers that international finance was above us all. Any Deputy who is a member of a county council is aware that there have been big increases in rates. The rate collector is not met with a smile. He realises that one of the reasons for the high rates is the fact that the councils have gone ahead for a number of years past with an intensive housing programme and that where that programme was slow during the war it has been speeded up. In one county the housing rate was increased by as much, I think, as 2/4 in the £. Anybody who is a member of a county council knows high finance and international finance and all sorts of finance when he is up against that sort of thing.
When the ordinary man in the street reads about the Budget and notes that when we went out of office a little over £4,000,000 redeemed the State debt, whereas now after an interval of three years it takes over £10,000,000 to do the same job, all the eloquence of Deputy S. Collins will not take away from that fact, and we will see to it that it is brought to the attention of the people of the country. The Irish people are not fools. The population of this country consists of only 3,000,000, and whereas formerly it took £1 3s. 4d. per head to pay the sinking fund on the debt it now takes well over £3 per head to meet that bill.
Deputy General MacEoin spoke about overestimation and over-budgeting. What have we been listening to for the past few days except expressions of regret that there is not enough for land rehabilitation—that it has been cut down—that there is not enough for forestry or for operations under the Local Authorities (Works) Act? With reference to the last item I think it is time there was some restriction on the spending of the hard-earned money of the people of this country on certain projects under that Act. I know of drains not the breadth of this seat here on big ranchers' farms. Men were employed clearing these drains although for six months out of the year these drains would not have a drop of water in them. These drains were cleaned out and that work was done as a present from the State. It was a scandal the way that money was spent in the Midlands.
We heard a lot of talk about repatriating our external assets. Deputy Collins mentioned that we have about £400,000,000 external assets. I ask some inter-Party speaker who may follow me in this debate to tell me the total of our external assets and whether, in fact, we have £400,000,000. Will they tell us how the sum is made up? Will they accept my statement that it is made up of corporations' investments abroad and individual investments abroad?
No.
Will they tell us what they propose to do with that money? Certainly they did nothing with it during the time they were in office. Deputy MacBride has wonderful ideas about finance. When I began my political career, I read Douglas and all those people who write about finance. I was enamoured of it all and enthusiastic about it. After some years I asked a friend how it was that we could not put their theories into effect. One answer which he gave me was this. Take a man in any State who is earning a particular wage which provides him with a certain standard of living and take another man in another State who is earning the same wage which provides the same standard of living for him, and if the man in one State lays 300 bricks a day and the man in the other State lays 100 bricks a day, then all the Douglas theories in the world will not solve the problem. That is what we are up against. We have a policy of laissez faire. Personally, I should prefer to see half the men of the State on social welfare even on a much greater scale or on a living wage and the other half working and giving a return for their work, because I think that the State would be much better off. That is a personal opinion. I do not subscribe to the policy of paying a man to remove a stone from one corner of a room to another or for removing a stone from one end of a yard to another. It would be far better to give that man a pension and to let real constructive work be done.
That speech is a bit too strong for me.
The Deputy does not like any reference to work.
I would not be trucking with second-hand furniture like the Minister.
Certainly when the House is in session it is not a place where charity applies. One statement that struck me in Deputy McGilligan's speech was his assertion that when you cancel certain debts there is less employment in the State. I cannot see that. When you increase production of sugar beet, butter, wheat or feeding-stuffs at home, you have an automatic increase in employment all round. Therefore, when you give an incentive to farmers to produce all these commodities, you create local industries and local employment. Without being aggressive in this matter, I might recall that in 1945, 1946 and 1947, when machinery became available, a number of farmers' sons in my locality acquired tractors, mowing machines and threshing machines. Living in a small town and being brought up in a centre of small business, I saw many a shilling being turned while that work was going on, but the turn of the shillings has been less since such activity decreased in the small towns. That raises a problem to which Deputies should set their minds. It is all very well for me in my constituency to see Mullingar, Athlone and Longford increasing in population with every census, their amenities improving, and their housing, their water supplies, their secondary and vocational schools getting better, but at the same time it is a matter for regret that the population of the whole countryside is decreasing, and the sound of the plough and the whirring of the tractor can no longer be heard in many districts.
I say, therefore, in connection with this whole problem, that we should budget first of all to maintain stability and not to destroy the basic value of our currency. In our own time, we saw the wholesale issues of notes and marks all over Germany to such an extent that at one period one would have to bring a cartload of marks to get a loaf of bread. I remember that in the interim period, France stabilised the franc, and France went ahead. The franc had a real base, but then the powers of reaction, the saboteurs, got busy, and you had a whole succession of governments in France. You had a succession of all sorts of increases in wages and salaries for everybody. You had a race for these increases between civil servants, gendarmes and everybody else, but the position of the ordinary people in rural France and in the cities of France steadily deteriorated. I am speaking with personal knowledge because I have been there several times, not for a day or a week-end, but for extended visits, during the European war and since, and I can say even though they may have extended social services, the general standard of living in France has decreased, despite their social services. That has come about owing to the debasing of the currency.
Does any citizen think that by paying our debts and by being credit-worthy we are going to pull this country down as is being alleged by the Opposition? That is the charge which has been made against the Minister and the Fianna Fáil Party, that because they are trying to make the pound buy a pound's worth, they are leading this country in a wrong direction. I contend, and I believe that any of my constituents will agree with me, that if we take measures now to safeguard the Irish pound, to make it respected abroad in Switzerland and elsewhere—two years ago you would get more for an Irish pound there than you would get for a British pound——
You will get only 7/-now.
That is in relation to its 1939 purchasing power. You can apply that to all currencies, even to the almighty dollar. I do not want to see the standard of living of our people being dragged down and the people's savings being dissipated——
Do not be creating an unhealthy fear amongst the people by making statements like that.
What about the sensationalism we had from certain political correspondents?
I certainly agree with Deputy Cowan in regard to the sensationalism because I think the News of the World could not compete with the same political correspondents. However, they are getting tired of it now.
It is nice to attack somebody who cannot reply.
Deputy Dunne is well able to reply. Deputy McGilligan— and I shall talk about this whether it pleases Deputy Hickey or not——
I don't mind what you say.
Deputy McGilligan held up the Socialist Government in England as a model to follow. He said that that Government enacted legislation under which they went into the banks, found out who were depositors there and charged everybody taxation on their deposits. He indicated that he would do likewise. I hope the Conservative elements who always supported him up to this will take full note of that. Mind you, no matter who stands for that, I, as an individual Deputy, do not stand for it. I do not stand for interfering with anybody's savings. It would be a poor day for this country when you discourage savings. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Who is the goose and who is the gander?
When the inter-Party Government floated their loans we supported them wholeheartedly and told the people to subscribe.
Does the Deputy remember the scandalous advertisement with the three golden balls saying that the country was being put in pawn? There was no suggestion then of supporting the loans. It was a scandalous suggestion.
The Parliamentary Secretary.
There were many Fianna Fáil supporters who subscribed to that loan.
Against the advertisement.
Following the advice of responsible Deputies in this House and the encouragement of responsible Deputies throughout the country.
It would not be the first time they took one line in front and another behind.
I was speaking about our external assets, and I asked Fine Gael speakers to give us an indication of the amount of these external assets held by the State and the amount held by individuals and corporations. I move the adjournment of the debate.