I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. I assume that, in view of the shortness of time and the familiarity of most Deputies with the purposes of the Bill, it will not be necessary for me to say more than that it does three things: (1) authorises the issue from the Central Fund of the balance of the amount granted for Supply Services for 1952-53, that is to say, the full amount of these services, less the sum already authorised by the Central Fund Act, 1952; (2) authorises the Minister for Finance to borrow up to the limit of the issue provided for by the Bill; and (3) appropriates to the several Supply Services the sums granted by the Dáil since the Appropriation Act, 1951.
Committee on Finance. - Appropriation Bill, 1952—All Stages.
Leave granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to apply a certain sum out of the Central Fund to the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, to appropriate to the proper supply services and purposes the sums granted by the Central Fund Act, 1952, and this Act, and to make certain provision in relation to borrowing. — (Minister for Finance.)
Can the Minister say if a definite date has yet been decided on for the loan?
No, a definite date has not yet been fixed, but it will be offered and taken up, we hope, in the autumn.
In view of the arrangement come to with reference to the financial proceedings of the Dáil and the necessity for the passing of this Bill at the earliest possible moment, I do not propose to enter into any detailed discussions of the financial or economic matters that might otherwise be raised on this measure.
The understanding was that the time from now until 11 p.m., with the condition that the Minister should have a suitable time to reply, would be devoted to the Second Reading of this Bill.
I am only making my own position clear, that I personally do not propose to go into any discussion of these matters. Nothing I say or have indicated will in any way curtail the eloquence of Deputies from now until 12 midnight.
Or the Minister.
Or the Minister. I am merely expressing my own point of view and indicating my intention of postponing the very numerous matters which I otherwise would have dealt with on this Bill until the autumn.
There is one point of importance to which I want to refer. It is merely a matter of detail but it is a matter of some little importance and justice to a group of Civil Service pensioners. I merely wish to take this opportunity of referring to the injustice which is being suffered by certain retired civil servants who were superannuated before 15th January, 1951, and whose pensions are still drastically reduced by the operation of what is known as the super-cut. The Minister is fully aware, and Deputies may have had their attention drawn to the fact, that this super-cut, which, I think, was imposed by the British Government originally in 1921, remained in operation in reference to the salaries of higher civil servants for a considerable number of years. One-third of the cut was restored in 1948.
The super-cut has been entirely eliminated from all salaries of civil servants to whose salaries it was applicable as from 15th January of this year. The net result is that these civil servants who have been in the service of the State since 15th January this year, and on whose salaries the super-cut operated, have had that benefit restored to them but unfortunately these people whose salaries were subject to the super-cut from 1922 until they retired have not had their pensions adjusted as I respectfully suggest to the Minister they ought to have been and should now be, in accordance with the decision made by both the previous and the present Government in reference to the super-cut.
There are only about 240 persons who will be affected by what I am advocating to the Minister. These civil servants who are suffering most severely are those who elected to serve this country in 1922 and who did not take the compensation they could have taken under Article X of the Treaty. I think I will find general agreement amongst all Parties and all Ministers who have had to come in contact with them when I say that they gave invaluable service to this State and community. They gave very devoted service, without bothering about overtime or whether or not they had to work by day or by night, to build up here for this State and the service of the people an efficient Civil Service. I should like to pay a tribute here — and I am sure the Minister for Finance will be in complete agreement with me — to the invaluable service given to the Irish community and to successive Irish Governments by the experienced higher civil servants who have served various Governments since 1922. They were paid salaries which to some people may seem big, but, to my mind, they were grossly underpaid all the time. No money would really repay the services they gave to this State, or the expert advice which they put at the disposal of various Ministers of successive Governments. About 240 of those people are now on pension and during the period of their active lives, when they gave such invaluable service, they were subject to this injustice of the super-cut.
The present Government, by adopting the decision of the previous Government to do away entirely with it, have recognised the injustice being done to these men. The super-cut was originally imposed as a piece of political expediency by the British Government in the face of a storm about economies in the Civil Service. Of these 240 people, the youngest of them is in his 67th year and the majority are probably well advanced in their 70's. The cost to the Exchequer of remedying this injustice in the very first and heaviest year would not exceed £11,000, and when income-tax deductions are taken into account, the cost of remedying it would not exceed an annual sum of £9,000, a sum which would diminish year by year and eventually disappear altogether.
I do not wish to occupy the attention of the House any longer in discussing this matter or matters of this kind. I have been asked to raise the matter in the Dáil and I do so with a sincere conviction that the injustice ought to be remedied, and, at this final stage of the financial proceedings for this session, I ask the Minister sympathetically to consider the injustice being suffered by these men, to remember the services they gave in critical periods and the expert advice so willingly given by them to the members of every Government here since 1922. The cost is very small but the injustice is very great. The demand, I think, is reasonable and I would ask the Minister to accede to it if at all possible.
I assume that the passing of the Appropriation Bills means the implementation of the national and economic policy — in so far as there is any national and economic policy — of the Fianna Fáil Party in co-operation with that nameless group which is so ably led and driven by Senator Hartnett and Deputy Cowan.
You can presume that we have a policy.
I would seriously suggest to my half-political brother, Deputy Davern, that this Parliament is supposed to be the free and unfettered Parliament of the Twenty-Six Counties. There is a common belief among the ordinary people, who do not know everything, that we, or the Government at any rate, are free to do anything they want to do for the improvement of the country and the advantage of individual citizens. It is to be regretted that that is not so. We have failed in the past to solve problems which are awaiting solution, many of them since the State was established and this Parliament first met. Like, I suppose, other Deputies and the Minister himself, I received some time ago an extraordinary document from a member of this House dealing with the position as he saw it and giving his proposals for the solution of these many and pressing problems. The document states:—
"Marriages and births are dangerously low and the flower of our manhood and womanhood has been forced to emigrate to a foreign land to find the work and wages denied to them at home.
In contrast to this deplorable state of affairs we have a small minority living in luxury, controlling the whole financial and industrial mechanism of the State and enslaving the great majority of decent, honest, hardworking men and women by virtue of their financial power and the despotic economic domination they are permitted to exercise over their fellow citizens. The State is being run by and in the interests of this small privileged and unprincipled minority whilst the common people are forcibly kept on and below the level of starvation."
He elaborates but I will not quote further because Deputies who have read this extraordinary document and have good memories do not require to have it repeated. Some of it, however, is so revolutionary that it is no harm to place it on the records of the House. For the benefit of the House and particularly for this Deputy's colleagues who would like their memories refreshed, I will tell you some of his proposals. The document states:—
"With a deep sense of responsibility, a clear vision of the future and taking inspiration and guidance from the teachings of our patriot leaders— Tone, Emmet, Lalor, Davitt, Connolly, Pearse and Mellowes—we have decided"
—this is from an individual Deputy of this House—
"to form an organisation which we name the `Vanguard' for the express purpose of creating the situation that will end capitalism in Ireland, establish a socialist republic for all Ireland and undo the British conquest in all its phases, political, cultural and economic."
Did you get that in virtue of your membership?
I will not go into the whole lot.
Go into it.
Mr. O'Higgins
The Minister is thinking of the Red Nuncio.
I am thinking of how much of that document was stolen for the Clann na Poblachta programme.
These proposals relate to the Appropriation Bill—State control of the monetary system and the use of all the resources of the nation in the interests of the people. There are much more revolutionary proposals in the document than those I have read out and I would be very pleased if the Minister and the House would authorise the laying on the Table of the House for the information of members this extraordinary and revolutionary document. This document is from no other person than Deputy Peadar Cowan, 86 Malahide Road, Dublin.
Mr. O'Higgins
The Red Nuncio.
It may be a little flabbergasting that this document is over the name of Deputy Peadar Cowan who claims to be the boss of the Government, who says that they can do nothing without his authority and support — or rather the authority and support of his more influential colleague, Senator Hartnett. I could not dream of supporting some of the outrageous proposals in that document but I do sincerely support and have advocated for a long time — even when I was a colleague of Deputy Cowan's — that the monetary machine of the State should be brought under the control of Parliament and the authority of the Government. From my long experience I say that until we get more control over the powers which control money the Government, even with the help of Deputy Cowan and his colleagues, cannot carry out their national and economic policy.
What is the date of that pamphlet?
I am glad that the Deputy asked me that question. He had not a date on it. If the Deputy suspects the accuracy of my answer to his question I will hand him the document.
I would ask the Minister for Finance, who is now so closely associated and so friendly with the man he despised a short time ago, to get the authority of the Government to have this document placed on the Table of this House.
The Deputy never read that while Deputy Cowan was supporting the inter-Party Government.
Mr. O'Higgins
The kettle calling the pot black.
He did not read the passage which Deputy MacBride cribbed from it for Clann na Poblachta.
Mr. O'Higgins
He read some of the present Fianna Fáil Party policy.
I would ask the Minister to treat these matters a little more seriously now that he knows the importance and influence of their author. Is it not a fact — I ask sensible and patriotic Deputies on all sides of the House — that the Government of the day, like the previous Government, have been held up in the operation of their economic and financial policy because there is outside this House and its control a small group of practically unknown citizens, not experts in matters of finance, who fix the price of money and who, because of that power, can obstruct the policy of the Government? That is true of the Government of to-day and if this situation is allowed to continue it will be true of the Government of to-morrow.
I do not claim that my Party, the small group with which I am associated, has power to make the necessary change. The Taoiseach admitted in this House that the change could be made overnight if all Parties agreed to it and if it was urgently necessary to put that policy into operation.
I would like to see this matter discussed in a free and unfettered way, even if it is necessary to have a secret session. One can say here under cover, advocating that kind of policy, something that might be harmful to the country, apart from being harmful to the Government. Neither I nor my colleagues want to go on that line. This is one of the most urgent matters — in view of the financial position — that members could be called on to discuss and decide if necessary by a free vote. The position we are in to-day, as a result of the budgetary policy of the Government—which is contained in this Appropriation Bill in its final form— cannot be repaired in full by any action this House may take, unless we get the co-operation of the people who control our monetary machine. Does the Minister not admit that, as a result of the increased loan charges brought about as a result of the Budget, there will be an increase in the number of unemployed persons? Does he not admit, or does he continue to deny, that the same applies to the restriction of credit? Does he deny that the restriction of credit and the increase in loan charges contained in the Budget are brought about as a result of the influence and power of people not responsible to this House?
Has the Deputy referred to the loan charges increased by the last Government?
I am referring to the present Budget, for the information of the Deputy, though I do not think that is necessary, as it is a provocative question. I believe he knows as well as I do that the increase in interest rates, to be paid in future by farmers in his constituency who must seek loans from the Agricultural Credit Corporation, is influenced by outside bodies. The Agricultural Credit Corporation was set up as a State-established, non-profit-making institution and there is no ground on which that institution — and I do not believe it would have happened but for the influence of outside bodies —should, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, increase the interest rates as from the date they came into operation in Great Britain.
Every member of this group, and everybody on every side of the House, agrees with the Minister for Agriculture in calling for an increase in agricultural production. Does everyone not know, however, that as a result of the restriction of credit, the farmers who badly need loans will get nothing from the joint stock banks in future — or, if they do, it will be on foot of gilt-edged securities and at the increased rates of interest? Those rates cannot be justified and certainly should not be put into operation at a time when we are asking the farmers to increase agricultural production as a national necessity. Does anyone think that the Minister for Finance of this Fianna Fáil-Cowan Government would have increased the interest charges on agricultural loans— or local loans, if they are to be increased — were it not for the influence and operations of this outside body— which is not responsible to this House? Is there any other country in the world, operating a democratic system of government, where that kind of thing would be tolerated? I may be wrong and the Minister may say I am foolish, but while God and the people allow us to come here to do what the people desire to have done, we cannot do it until we get a monetary machine under the control of this Parliament and of the Government elected here.
I am glad that Deputy Cowan, my colleague of past years, has now come into the House and I am certain he will support me in making this demand. I am asking the Government to give grave consideration to this proposal, in view of the gravity of the international financial position. I understood that Deputy Cogan advocated this policy in a much stronger way than I have been doing in the past. If it is the same Deputy Cogan that was a member of Carlow County Council, he supported Séamus Lennon, an old friend of mine and of many Deputies, on this matter, from the floor of the chamber at a meeting of Carlow County Council.
Deputy Flanagan has not made many converts in Fine Gael so far on monetary reform.
He let them down.
Is it not quite clear to Deputy Davern — though he dare not admit it, or he would be fired from the seat he occupies — that this whole Budget make-up follows British financial policy? The Minister for Finance does not mind repudiating the speeches he made a year ago; he does not see any necessity to explain them or apologise for them. During the last election, he spoke in Rathmines on a certain date in May and gave a positive assurance that if a Fianna Fáil Government were returned to office they would not interfere with or reduce the subsidies. Was he not responsible himself for the advertisement in the daily papers on the 29th May, the day previous to polling day, when that assurance was given in print, at considerable cost to the Fianna Fáil organisation? Can he explain those things now? If it is not because Mr. Butler has carried out the same policy in Great Britain, will be explain the reason for following British policy and reducing the small subsidies previously paid by his own Government? They were introduced by a Fianna Fáil Government in the past. What is the explanation for the interference with them and the drastic reduction in them, with the consequences of that reduction to the homes of the poor people in this land since they came into operation at the beginning of July? Is there any explanation, even now, from the Minister for Finance? I do not ask him to apologise, but I ask if he can give any explanation.
Speaking from public platforms in the country the Minister, I believe, made some outrageous statements and that he gave some queer explanations when he was speaking with his back to the O'Connell Monument in Limerick; but he cannot deny that these statements have been repudiated, without any reasonable or sensible explanation up to the present.
Deputy Davin has a load of promises to answer for.
I do not expect myself to be treated as seriously as a Minister of a Government. Is not that an honest answer?
It is candid, anyway.
It is a serious thing for an ex-Minister, a double ex-Minister, to go to his constituency on the eve of the poll and commit himself and his colleagues, ex-Ministers, including Deputy de Valera, the Taoiseach of the present Government, to pledges of this kind, and come in here later when he gets a seat on the Front Bench, refusing even to explain why he reversed the public pledges and promises given only such a short time before. I know perfectly well that Deputy Davern finds it extremely difficult to explain the Minister's attitude and the reversal of the Minister's policy in his own constituency and that is why he has been addressing so few meetings since the Budget was introduced. This Budget also contains many other breaches of promise. If any Government in the world could be found guilty of breaking promises, this Government could be found guilty of that by any jury of decent Irish men and women on seven or eight occasions.
Dr. Ryan, Minister for Social Welfare, when the Norton social security scheme was going through this House in March last year, on the day after it was passed in spite of his opposition, went into print and told the people, especially the wage-earners and employers who would be concerned, that he would provide a better and cheaper social security scheme for the wage-earners. He went on the public platforms with Deputy McGrath and Deputy Davern and all the other innocent Deputies who sit behind the present Minister and repeated those pledges. This Budget makes provision for another broken promise because he said they would provide a better and cheaper social security scheme than what he called the Norton scheme and that there would be no increased contributions demanded from the workers who would get the benefit of his so-called better social security scheme. He dropped the death benefits provided in the Norton scheme; he dropped the retirement benefits and modified the maternity benefits provided for in the Norton scheme. Notwithstanding that, he comes along and, through the agency of this Appropriation Bill, is going to take from the pockets of the wage-earners and employers another £750,000 by way of increased contributions and he is going to pay for the remainder of his modified social security scheme by increased taxes on tobacco, beer, cigarettes and every other essential commodity, whether you call it luxury or necessity.
You took £500,000 in 1948 and gave no benefit.
Deputy MacEntee, the Minister for Finance, was seriously disturbed in the early part of May last year by what he referred to as unfounded rumours that had been circulated in his constituency and all over the country that if Fianna Fáil were returned to office they would reimpose the taxes on beer, cigarettes and cinema seats that were taken off to the tune of £6,000,000 by the inter-Party Government. You made that public promise, you gave that public pledge in Rathmines in your own constituency and Deputy Seán Lemass, the eloquent and able Tánaiste and Minister for Industry and Commerce, was sent to Cork City to repeat that pledge and promise. Not alone have you, through the agency of this Appropriation Bill, reimposed the taxes that were taken off by the inter-Party Government but you have doubled the tax that we took off in the early part of 1948.
I suggest that the Deputy use the third person.
Would it be in order for me to inform Deputy Davin that the Appropriation Bill does not impose taxes? It merely provides for the Supply Services.
Mr. O'Higgins
Out of taxation.
Can the Deputy tell me in what other way the services can be provided?
Mr. O'Higgins
It is appropriate to discuss taxation.
This Appropriation Bill, through this broken promise of the Minister for Finance or, if you like to put it the other and more charitable way, through his failure to carry out promises, proposes to penalise the poorest of the poor by a drastic reduction in the subsidies, which increases the cost of every one of the necessaries of life and, at the very same time as they are doing that, they are remitting taxation to some of the wealthiest shareholders of tobacco factories, including, of course, some of the Irish tobacco manufacturing concerns. That is something that many supporters of the Government cannot understand or explain.
Can the Minister, even at this stage of his career, explain why he has done that? He goes down the country and tries to fool the innocent people into the belief that this remission in taxation, so far as it is given to the tobacco manufacturers, is due to the recommendation that was submitted to the Minister's predecessor by the Prices Advisory Body. The Prices Advisory Body is by virtue of its title an advisory body, and it submitted many recommendations to the Minister's predecessor which were rejected for policy and other good reasons. The Minister should not get away in that way. He will not be allowed to get away with it.
Was it rejected or shelved?
The brilliant and distinguished Deputy who supported everything put forward by the inter-Party Government up to the night before the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture was put before this House, voted for all these things while he was sitting on that side of the House when the inter-Party Government were in office, and he is not going to try crossexamination tactics on me. I am not going to be diverted by cross-examination. The Deputy supported the inter-Party Government and, if he likes, all its works and pomps, during the whole period of its existence and, if I were in his position, I would support the Government he is now supporting in silence rather than by being vocal.
Is not there strong Labour representation on the Prices Advisory Body?
The Prices Advisory Body, as the Deputy well knows, is presided over by a Supreme Court judge, whose deputy is a senior officer of the Civil Service, but it has not all the powers of a judicial body.
Who appointed it?
Mr. O'Higgins
Who did not change the appointment?
The Deputy will have his chance later on. When applications are received from manufacturers for increased prices they are sent to the Minister for Industry and Commerce or, perhaps, in some cases, in the case of milk, to the Department of Agriculture. They are referred back for investigation and report to the Prices Advisory Body. Every Deputy who knows anything about the machinery of government knows that they are only an advisory body and that the Minister has the power to accept or reject their recommendations. The Minister for Finance, of course, wants to deceive the people into believing that it is the Prices Advisory Body who have the first and last word in connection with this matter. That is not so and he knows it better than I do.
The only thing that I know is that there was no representative of the agricultural producer put on the body.
If the Deputy is asking me for my support, I will certainly give it to him whole-heartedly.
Why did not you do it when it was worth something, when you had power?
The Deputy was not vocal at the time. He did not make his demand. I want to tell Deputy Lehane, if he claims to speak for the farming community, that I believe that section of the community should be given representation on an advisory body of that type.
They were not. That is my complaint.
That is not my fault.
It is your fault.
Order! Deputy Davin is entitled to speak without interruption.
He must accept his responsibilities.
Interruptions will not impose it on him.
The Minister is on the eve of his three months' holidays. I am not saying that he will get three months' holiday free from hard work. He works hard but finds himself in very bad company. His advisers are bad. He has got off the rails and is on the wrong road and this whole Budget make-up proves that he has left the rails and the straight road and has gone to the laneway and I do not know where he will turn if he ever gets to the top of the laneway. In fairness to the people, first of all in fairness to every Deputy, he should give us a little more information about that famous interview he had with Mr. Butler when he went to Downing Street in mid-March of last year. He was accompanied by Deputy Lemass, the Tánaiste and Minister for Industry and Commerce, and the expert advisers of the Departments of Industry and Commerce and Finance. At the end of what was supposed to be a very friendly talk lasting three or four hours, with a luncheon thrown in at the end, and there is nothing wrong with that, he came back and issued a statement which no one can understand. Are we to accept it that this Appropriation Bill contains some of the agreements or understandings that were arrived at when he had that famous interview with Mr. Butler and other British Ministers in March last year? Otherwise, I cannot understand why this Budget in so many respects follows the Budget that was introduced by Mr. Butler in the middle of March of this year. In any case, the people, his own supporters and the supporters of other Parties are entitled to more information from the Minister as to what transpired when he went to London on that occasion.
The people of Waterford and Donegal, at any rate, approved of it.
I would also like to ask the Minister to what extent he and his colleagues are responsible for the working of O.E.E.C. or for the recommendations and decisions in regard to restriction of credit and other matters taken by O.E.E.C.? An inspired paragraph appeared in the financial section of a British daily paper — it is all the information I have on the subject, but I am entitled to more — which says that seven big men were appointed by O.E.E.C. to inquire into the grave financial position and to give their opinions and decisions. I will quote that inspired article if necessary, and one of its decisions or recommendations was a further drastic credit restriction. If great restrictions of credit will be followed as a result of decisions taken by expert advisers from Threadneedle Street——
Why does Deputy Davin read English papers at all?
I must insist that Deputy Davin is allowed speak without interruption.
——I want to know to what extent, if any, we will be affected by drastic decisions or recommendations of that kind. We are associated with this European organisation. Deputies of this House have passed a Vote to meet the expenses incurred by our association with it and to cover the attendance at many of its meetings by the Minister for External Affairs and by other Ministers. Seeing that this Appropriation Bill makes provision for our connection with O.E.E.C., I wish to know to what extent we will be committed in the three months facing us, or for the remainder of the financial year, as a result of decisions taken by that organisation.
I hope I will not be regarded as provocative or unfair if I say something on this matter. Following the publication of the inspired statement to which I referred in a reputable British daily paper, a statement was made in the House of Commons a few days ago to the effect that during the months of May and June this year there was a restriction of credit of £92,000,000 more than in the months of May and June of last year, and that there is also to be a further and more drastic restriction of credit. I suggest that we will be affected seriously by these instructions or decisions.
Is the Deputy quite certain that he understands that? Would the Deputy not read the quotation?
It is well known to the Minister that the majority of our joint stock banks have their headquarters in Great Britain, that the Bank of Ireland, which is the bank used mainly by the Government, is merely the Bank of England's agent in this country, and that its whole policy over a long period of years has been one of the most friendly association. I do not know why the Minister should be wailing, even when he speaks at social functions, about the financial position of this country. He has been going off that rail to a certain extent recently, and I hope Deputy Captain Cowan can take credit for that change of front. He has been saying in cities, towns and rural areas that the country is on the verge of bankruptcy. Did any Minister ever suggest anything more silly? I never heard of a business man or of anybody else being declared bankrupt according to the law of this country if he could prove, to the satisfaction of the bankruptcy court, or to the satisfaction of whoever happened to be trying his case, that his assets were greater than his liabilities? Of course, the Minister's policy is to cut the consumption of the people and to get them to save more.
On a point of order. The Deputy is ascribing to me statements which I neither made on one occasion nor repeatedly.
The Minister has repeatedly made the statement that this country is on the verge of bankruptcy.
I have not.
Is it not time that somebody quoted one of those statements in the House? Not even one attempt has been made to quote them here.
If the Minister denies making these statements, Deputies should not continue repeating them. Once Ministers or Deputies say they have repudiated a statement, it should not be repeated.
Did the Minister not say, with his back to the O'Connell Monument ment in Limerick, that the people would be eating carrion crows before Christmas if this Budget was not passed and that it was possible the £ would be worth only 1/- at Shannon Airport?
I do not know any statement that would be as laughable.
Does the Minister deny that?
Most emphatically. Only Deputy Davin would be guilty of making such a ridiculous statement.
It was the Minister who made it.
The Minister will not deny that this Appropriation Bill, which is the last word in implementing his national and economic policy, is framed for the purpose of cutting the consumption of the ordinary people. He encourages them to save more, to eat less, to spend less on clothing, on luxuries and on amusements, and to allow the banks, over whom this House has no control, to invest their savings in the Bank of England. In other words, if there are savings as the result of this Budget, they are to be used for the purpose of building up bigger deposits in the Bank of England. This would enable the British Government, which is on the verge of bankruptey, according to its own leaders, to use our people's savings to carry out a policy of rearmament. Is that an unfair representation of the policy enshrined in this Appropriation Bill? I do not want to be unfair to the Minister, but I think he should be a little bit more explanatory now that he is getting the last word on the last day of this session.
There has been considerable unemployment since the introduction of the Budget on the 2nd April last. I do not pay serious attention, at this time of the year, to the figures supplied weekly to Deputies recording the number of persons employed and unemployed on, for instance, the week ending the 10th of July as compared with the number employed or unemployed during the corresponding week of last year. We are all aware that a big section of the workers are affected by the operation of the Employment Period Order. The figures given to Deputies, therefore, at this time of the year are not a fair representation of the employment position. However, other figures are available, such as emigration figures, shipping figures and figures published by the Central Statistics Office, and these prove that emigration and unemployment are increasing either as a direct or as an indirect result of the Budget.
There is another matter I am now going to mention, but I am not going to delay the House unnecessarily with regard to it, because I feel that my remarks or suggestions will fall on deaf ears. Last year, as an ordinary elector in my own area, I received a request from the Fianna Fáil candidates there who were seeking election, including my colleague and friend, Deputy Seán Brady, to give them three first preference votes.
Many reasons were given as to why I should do so. Deputy Brady, who was elected, and the other candidates who were going forward with him at the time, promised, among a number of other things, "energetically to deal with the cost of living and make price control effective." That is another broken promise on the admission of the Tánaiste in this House the other day. The Tánaiste, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, was introducing his departmental Vote and he amazed me when he suggested that there was a good case for the removal of price control. There was no further need for price control. That is a public pledge given to the electors of the area where I reside by Deputy Brady and those other candidates who sought election with him about 13 months ago. Is not that another brazen breach of a promise publicly given to the electors of this country? They would make price control effective. How was it made effective? It was made effective, for somebody other than the ordinary consumer, by reducing by 75 per cent. the subsidies provided to stabilise the cost of essential commodities.
If the Minister is an honest and honourable man he will have to give some explanation of this particular pledge associated and coupled with the other pledges that were so solemnly— and as I thought sincerely—given yet brazenly broken without any explanation up to the present time.
I put a motion down in connection with Vote 1, President's Establishment. I want to take this opportunity of explaining, if I am in order—the President's Establishment is mentioned in the Appropriation Bill —the reason I put down that motion. I certainly did not want to pass any reflection on the present holder of the office. On the contrary, I think that President O'Kelly deserves the thanks and the congratulation of the House and of the people for agreeing to continue to hold the office of President for another term.
Hear, hear!
My object in putting down the motion to refer back the Estimate was to direct the attention of the House, the Government and the Opposition to the squandermania which affects both the Government and the Opposition. I thought it would be a very useful thing to indicate to the country, if we are inclined towards economies, that we would start with the Head of the State. I suppose that is as far as I may go on that point at the moment.
With regard to Vote 2, Houses of the Oireachtas are mentioned in the Appropriation Bill, I think it is about time that the House did something to prevent these scenes. The House should do something to deal with accusations taking away the character of Deputies. If a person is elected to Dáil Éireann, he is elected to do a certain business in respect of the people who sent him here. Their private lives should not be investigated in this House and lies or libels should not be used by Deputies in this House against their opponents. It is quite easy to take away a person's character but it is very difficult for that person to get rid of the tar or the tarnish imposed on him by a statement made in this House under the privilege of this House. In my opinion, both sides of the House are equally guilty. I think that if we are voting money for the Houses of the Oireachtas and Appropriations-in-Aid we should establish some machinery whereby, when a person comes into the House and takes away the character of another Deputy or if he says something that has nothing to do with the Deputy's business as a representative of the people in this House, he should be called on at least to give some reason, statement or excuse as to why he took away that particular Deputy's character.
I do not believe there is anybody in the country or in this House against whom some little thing may not be thrown some time. If the privilege of this House is given to Deputies it should be used with respect. If it is not used with respect, then that privilege should be removed.
Deputies
Hear, hear!
There is an Appropriation-in-Aid in respect of agriculture. I do not believe that the Minister for Agriculture has dealt definitely with the situation that has occurred in regard to the pig trade. I do not want to go into details in this respect since I do not know how far I am entitled to go into detail on the Appropriation Bill. I again want to appeal to the Minister to open the Border for the export of store pigs or otherwise there will be no pigs and bacon in this country. I want to appeal to the Minister to do something in regard to next season's market for oats.
In regard to Vote 52, the Minister for Finance is putting down Appropriations-in-Aid which, to my mind, are quite unsatisfactory. Aer Lingus has made a certain profit but it has not offered service in the interests of the welfare of this country. Aer Lingus has been a per baby and has sucked money from the Exchequer. Aer Rianta has got over £3,000,000 in capital expenditure. The annual expenditure in the Vote is over £500,000. The people are asked to pay that £500,000. At the same time, the insular Dublin-minded mentality—even if it is Dublin-minded and not influenced from other sources—is preventing the recognition of an established airport in Cork.
With regard to Vote 58, we are floating round the world and looking here, there and everywhere. We are dealing with things miles away from us but if we looked at the difficulties within our own shores, I think we would be much better employed. These are a few matters I wanted to refer to on this Appropriation Bill, and I would ask the Minister to take these points into consideration.
I propose to be very brief, but I have felt that as this was the last occasion which the House would have to consider the economic position of the country before the Recess until October it was necessary to draw attention of the House to a certain number of factors that affect the present situation. I may say that I was very surprised to find that on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill, coming as it does more or less in the form of an Adjournment debate, neither the Minister for Finance nor any member of the Government made any declaration of policy, made any review of the economic position as it now is. We heard a great many speeches since last October concerning the serious economic position of the country. The Minister for Finance denied a few minutes ago that he had stated that the country was on the verge of bankruptcy. He may be technically right——
On a point of order. Has not the Minister already denied that he used the expression?
The Deputy did not say that the Minister actually said it.
He may be technically right and he may not have used these actual words, but I think nobody in this House nor in the country would for one moment accept that the Minister had not hinted at an economic and financial position which was akin to bankruptcy. He started off by making a speech, if I am not mistaken, at a Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis last August in which he said that the safety of the currency was in danger. I am not purporting to quote his exact words, but that was the effect of the speech made by the Minister for Finance and the speeches made by some of his less responsible colleagues in the course of the last few months.
In view of that, it does seem rather surprising that we have had no indication from the Minister for Finance to-day or from any other member of the Government as to the present economic position of the country.
Personally, I have taken the view that the economic position of the country was as strong as that of any other country in Europe and, possibly, considerably stronger, that we were wealthier than most other countries in Europe and were less endangered by the international economic trends that prevail at the moment than any other country in Europe, provided we had sufficient courage to meet the situation, provided we desisted from the pursuit of the disastrous policy of exporting our money and our people out of the country, provided we were permitted to utilise our money in the country to develop our resources. That, I think, is a view shared possibly by at least one member of the Government, but it certainly is not the view of the Minister for Finance.
As a result of the deflationary policy which is being pursued we now have 10,000 more people unemployed that at this time last year. We have an ever-increasing flow of emigration, and in many businesses there is complete chaos as a result of the deflationary policy which is being pursued. These are grave matters and I think the House is entitled to a clear-cut statement of policy from the Government before the House adjourns.
Last October or November, the leader of the Labour Party introduced a motion dealing with unemployment, dealing with the economic position as he then saw it. That motion was debated for a day or two and then, to everybody's astonishment, the Tánaiste came in and accepted the motion and undertook that steps would be taken to minimise the then rising unemployment. What steps have been taken to minimise unemployment in the country? Has there been one single step taken by the Government to minimise unemployment, to minimise emigration? The unemployment figures show that no effective steps have been taken. On the contrary, we are now facing a more serious unemployment position than we were even last autumn.
Not only have no steps been taken to minimise unemployment but, by their own deliberate acts, the Government are creating more unemployment. The cut in the Vote for Forestry, the reduction in the area to be planted this year, will create more unemployment. The cut in the Vote for Gaeltacht Services, to which so much lipservice is given, will also create more unemployment. It is common knowledge that wholesale dismissals are about to be put into force in Córas Iompair Éireann. The country will find it very difficult to believe that this is being done without the approval of the Government. If there is redundancy in Córas Iompair Éireann——
But the Deputy knows the law.
——it can be dealt with over a period of years without at this particular moment adding to the already vast unemployment in the country.
You appointed the board.
There would be more patience with and more tolerance of the policy which is being pursued by the Government and the Minister in particular if it could be said that they were pursuing this policy without appreciation of the consequences. But that cannot be said because the object of the policy which is being implemented was fully set out for them in the report of the Central Bank, which was discussed at length in this House. In that report—I think these are words which should never be forgotten in this House and should never be forgotten to the Central Bank—it was pointed out that public works could be reduced in order to remedy the unusually favourable condition of employment. In other words, the purpose of this policy is to create unemployment and the purpose of creating unemployment is to reduce consumption so that we may conserve and build up vast reserves of wasting sterling assets, vast masses of paper notes that will probably in a few years' time purchase nothing.
I ask Deputies on the Government side of the House to read coldly and objectively the report of the Central Bank, and to examine it, first of all, from the point of view of determining whether they agree with the objectives set out in that report. Do they agree that there is an unusually favourable condition of employment in this country? Do they agree that the economic policy of this State should be subordinated to the amassing or safekeeping of vast sums of money to be invested in England, vast sums of money that should be utilised for the development of this country? Do they agree with that policy?
Having done that, I would ask Deputies to examine the advice tendered by the Central Bank and to compare it with the policy pursued by the present Minister for Finance. Step by step, every proposal in that report has been implemented. The Central Bank advised the curtailment of credit. That has been done. The Central Bank advised the removal of subsidies so that consumption would be reduced. That has been done. The Central Bank advised the imposition of additional taxes, preferably of an indirect nature. That has been done. Now we are beginning to feel the results. By the time this House meets in October the country will be fully alive to the results of the implementation of that policy.
I think that Deputies who are members of the Fianna Fáil Party should really pull themselves up and examine this question away from Party prejudices and away from the heat of debate. If they would only, during the next couple of months, take stock of the position, they would realise that the policy which they are supporting at the moment is a policy which is diametrically opposed to the policy for which Fianna Fáil originally stood. I do not think that Deputies who are members of the Fianna Fáil Party should allow themselves to be cajoled, or may I say "codded," by arguments that that policy was a necessary policy. It was not a necessary policy. No policy which produces unemployment, no policy which is intended to preserve the pattern whereby we export capital out of the country, is a necessary policy.
Another matter, which is somewhat related to this question, to which I should like to refer is the question of the increase in the bank rate. We have a Price Control Tribunal and we have a general outcry when the price of any commodity goes up. That is natural. Probably the greater the degree of control, the more any manufacturer or any trader is subjected to a careful inquisition before he is entitled to raise the price of his goods, the more likelihood there is that he will be kept in check. Has it ever occurred to Deputies that it is very extraordinary that the banks should be allowed to increase the amount they charge for lending money without being subjected to any form of investigation or inquiry? The bank rate has been increased substantially. We are inclined to think of the bank rate as if it were some mysterious phenomenon, not realising what it means. The increase in the bank rate means an increase in the charges to local authorities for a loan. It means an increase in the amount of money which the Government has to pay for loans. It means an increase in charges to every firm, to every manufacturer, to every farmer and every businessman in the country.
Was there any good reason why these charges should be suddenly increased? Did the cost of running the banks go up? Were the bank clerks given added pay suddenly? Had the profits of the banks fallen to such an extent that it was necessary that they should have a higher rate of interest? Did the banks find themselves unable to pay the director's fees? Why has the bank rate been increased? Why should a small group of people, most of whom have little or no interest in this country, be entitled to determine that they are entitled to a higher rate of profits than before. I know that you can put up a good many arguments why an increase in the bank rate in England should be automatically followed by an increase in the bank rate here, but surely some steps should be taken to prevent that——
Would the Deputy disclose his secret to the House?
The only reason why it could not be done is to prevent the flow of capital from here to England but in many countries the flow of capital has been checked. There is no particular reason that makes it more difficult for us to keep control of our monetary system than for any other country in the world.
Would the Deputy be good enough to say it in plain words?
It is to prevent the outflow of capital that the bank rate here is kept at the same rate as prevails in most countries. That is the policy of a country whose economy is completely subservient to that of another country. This country cannot, so long as economic and financial policy is determined, not by the needs of the country, not by the needs of our own economy but by the needs of the economy of another country, adequately control its financial system. This is not a question of being anti-British or proIrish. It is a question of bad business. Obviously the needs of a big industrial country are entirely different from the economic requirements of small, undeveloped agricultural countries such as ours. It is lunacy for us automatically to pursue the same economic and financial policy as Britain and until we have the courage to stand on our own legs and to pursue our own policy, we shall have to face economic crises whenever Britain has one. We shall have unemployment and emigration. As I have said, the members of the Fianna Fáil Party should be the first people to understand that. If they just think of what happened before, if they do not allow themselves to be led by Central Bank officials and by the officials of the Department of Finance——
Would the Deputy say what action he took to counteract the devaluation of the £ in 1949?
You could take no steps to counteract the devaluation of the £. My only regret is that so much of our money is invested in England that we can do nothing in that regard. While that money is invested in England, there is no step we can take to counteract devaluation. That is why, when the Minister talks about "saving the £", he is talking utter nonsense and he should know it.
The Minister proposes to float a loan some time in the near future. I hope that he will have support for that loan but I think that he really did not go the right way about it by the tone he adopted in his speeches in the course of the past few months. I cannot conceive any worse way to secure the confidence of investors than to decry the solvency of your own security. However, let me say this, that I think the Minister was completely wrong and that this is one of the most solvent countries in Europe. I hope that the Minister will not hesitate to admit his mistake by defending the solvency and the credit-worthiness of this country.
I know that many things are said at election times, and I do not want to rehash many of the speeches that were made in the course of the recent by-elections. There was one statement made by the Taoiseach which, I think, should be contradicted. He may have been wrongly reported, but the statement is one which, I think, is damaging to the credit of the country and would be damaging to the Minister for Finance in floating his loan. The Taoiseach, speaking in Limerick, said that our sterling assets had dwindled to £125,000,000. That figure, of course, is completely wrong. The Minister for Finance had to issue a paper subsequently trying to cover up that, but he did not deal with this particular point. The total holdings of the sterling assets of this country amount to between £400,000,000 and £500,000,000.
When did the Deputy make that calculation and what is the foundation for that statement?
The Deputy has made that calculation several times.
What is the foundation for the statement?
If the Minister would kindly take the trouble to re-read letters which the Deputy wrote in reply to him, published in the newspapers, he will find the details of the calculation.
I assume that the Deputy is referring to the answers I gave him.
The Minister answered many questions in regard to sterling assets. The one question which the Minister has not answered is the total estimate of gross sterling assets. The Minister plays around with what he calls net figures. The net figures, in all cases, are arrived at by a deduction of the normal holdings of every firm not registered in the country. I gather that sums amounting to between £20,000,000 and £30,000,000 are deducted for the firm of Messrs. Guinness, for instance, because it happens to be registered in England and, therefore, the firm of Messrs. Guinness, instead of being looked upon as an asset is looked upon as being a liability in the Minister's financial list. In the same way, the liquid assets of a number of our banks are treated as a liability instead of being treated as an asset. If I am not correct in that statement it should be very easy for the Minister for Finance and the Department of Finance to publish the gross figures and the net figures side by side and to explain how they reached the net figures. That they have steadfastly refused to do. I think it would be desirable, if the Minister wishes his loan to succeed, to make it quite clear that the figure of £125,000,000 given by the Taoiseach is not a correct figure.
I think, too, as this is an adjournment debate, that some indication should be given, in the course of what is an economic review, of the progress that is being made in the discussions with the trade union movement concerning an increase in wages. We have had a number of strikes which have been damaging to the country. Some effort should be made to avoid conflicts, concerning wages, reaching strike point. I think that possibly a more energetic approach to that question could have been taken. One strike, in particular, has been dragging on for over a year. I think it now involves a very small number of men and a very small amount of money, but it is costing the State and the people concerned considerable sums of money. That is the strike of electricians in Córas Iompair Éireann. I understand that a lot of Córas Iompair Éireann material has been severely damaged, that a lot of it has been left lying up, with the result that Córas Iompair Éireann has not been earning what it could be earning by reason of the strike. I think that more active steps should be taken to try and bring it to an end. I think this is an appropriate time to raise that, and that it is a matter which the Government should take in hands.
Before I conclude, I should like to re-echo portion of some of the remarks that were made by Deputy Lehane who rather adroitly brought in incidents that have occurred in this House recently. I think the time has come when members of this House should realise that incidents such as we have had in recent months are damaging not merely to themselves and not merely to the House, but to the country as well, and that they do not serve any useful purpose. I know it is very hard to resist the temptation of joining in cross fire and in interruptions in the House. I know that very often people's tempers get up, and that they say things that they probably should not say. I think we should take steps to remedy that position. I think that the only way we can remedy it properly is by investing the Ceann Comhairle, the Chair, with much wider powers than he has at the moment.
Set up a new dictatorship.
I would have complete confidence that the Ceann Comhairle, elected by the House, would not at any time abuse his powers. I think the risk of abuse of his powers is so slight as to be negligible and would far outweigh the disadvantage of allowing the kind of conduct which has been taking place in the House. I think that if a Deputy found that, when he transgressed the rules of order and of good conduct, he would be deprived of a week's or a month's allowance, he would be much more careful before transgressing the rules of the House again. I know it would not suit Deputy Cowan, who revels in the gutter, but I think that is the only way in which we can obtain——
Has the Chair heard that observation?
I was about to point out to Deputy MacBride that the remark which he has made should not be made, and that it is unparliamentary.
All right.
Deputy MacBride mentioned that he was referring to some remarks I made. The remarks that I made were with the object of trying to get this House out of the gutter.
I am not criticising Deputy Lehane's remarks. I am supporting them.
You made an allegation which you were compelled to withdraw.
The only contribution I wish to make to remedy that position is to invest the Chair with much wider powers than he has at the moment: that it should not be sufficient for a member to withdraw but that there should be more lasting and definite punishment, if I may put it that way.
They used to shoot people they did not like long ago.
I will leave that to Deputy Cowan who likes raising armies. Deputy Cowan would not like to be held down by any kind of rules of order. He likes to suit his own requirements. However, I do not think it is worth wasting time in discussing Deputy Cowan. I hope that to-day, before the Dáil rises, the Minister will deal with the economic position— particularly with the unemployment situation and the steps which the Government propose to take to deal with the increased unemployment which is taking place and which is bound to continue if the present policy continues.
We are about to adjourn for the Summer Recess, and I think it is right that we should take serious note of the country's position. I feel very strongly that the time has come when an end should be put for ever to what is known as character assassination in this House. I have no doubt whatever that the greatest offenders in this respect are the members of the legal profession—men who, in the courts, have acquired the art of efficiently and effectively smearing the character of a witness even before the vigilant attention of the judge can be drawn to the attack. That technique has been exercised in this House by some members of the legal profession over a considerable period but particularly in the past few years. Many Deputies have been the victims of that smear campaign. It is absolutely essential that effective measures be adopted to prevent that vile and malicious practice from continuing in this House. I am quite sure that there is a strong public opinion now not only in this House but outside this House in favour of such corrective measures. A Deputy may strike as hard as he can at the political record or the political outlook of another Deputy. When he goes further than that and makes an attack on the character of a Deputy in relation to his own private life or in relation to his business or profession it is altogether a different matter. I think a number of Deputies on both sides of the House feel very strongly about this matter. If we deal with it in the proper way we can remedy it.
I understand that Deputy MacBride has joined the Labour Party. His new political leader, Deputy Davin, advances in age but not in wisdom or in a sense of responsibility. His speech to-night in this debate was typical of his utterly and completely irresponsible attitude towards national, economic and financial matters. If he does not advance in responsibility he does not decline to any extent in political cunning. He dwelt at considerable length to-night on monetary reform. He is aware that there is a monetary reform organisation in his constituency.
There was.
It is still there but it has been betrayed by its representative in this House and it has repudiated that representative. Deputy Davin is seeking to put himself at the head of that association and to be its representative in this House.
Where does Deputy MacBride come in?
It will be admitted that the present economic position of all European countries is very serious. Most of us have been forced to read British newspapers for the past few days as a result of the printers' strike in this city. In these British newspapers we read of the grave economic position of Great Britain. We read of the deep alarm which is felt in regard to the unfavourable state of that nation's balance of payments. We read the same comments and statements in regard to most of the European nations. Therefore, if any responsible person in this House says that this country is in a grave economic position I think he is saying only what everybody in this country knows to be true. It is a fact that must be faced and overcome by practical measures because it is a danger to our progress.
Deputy MacBride has challenged Deputies on the Government side of the House as to the measures being taken to improve this country's economic position. He does not seem to realise that practically all legislation since the 13th June, 1951, has been directed towards the development of industry, agriculture, tourism and other activities with the object of improving our economic position, of keeping as much capital as we can in this country and of bringing back as much as we can of our investments abroad and using them for the development of this country. Surely the Deputies on the Opposition side of the House have not failed to notice the development that has been taking place in the past year.
The most important task of the Government and of everybody who wants this nation to progress is to expand the agricultural industry. Nobody can deny that there is ample room for expansion. As a result of the deliberate policy of the inter-Party Government, 500,000 acres of land went out of tillage on the pretext that we could import from the ends of the earth unlimited supplies of foodstuffs for our live stock. If these 500,000 acres were put under tillage they would yield us additional food for our population and feeding-stuffs for our live stock as well as providing considerable additional employment. I appeal to the Government to keep this matter in mind during the next three months. One of the reasons why Deputy MacEntee is now Minister for Finance is that——
——there is 2d. a lb. on the butter.
——the inter-Party Government trampled upon a progressive agricultural policy and upon agricultural effort. Within the next two months oats will be offered for sale on the market. We must remember that the action of the inter-Party Government in regard to oats contributed in a large measure to their subsequent removal from office. I trust that the present Government will take serious note of the position of those farmers who have increased the acreage under tillage and sought to produce a foodstuff for our live stock in the form of roots. I would like to say in reply to Deputy MacBride that there is no use in talking about capital investment. There is no use in talking about the Central Bank Report. There is no use in bandying these phrases about. The only way to keep our money in this country and to make it productive in this country, the only way to give employment in this country, to give a decent reward to those who are engaged in production is——
Mr. O'Higgins
To put Fianna Fáil out of office.
——to assist them in every way to earn a livelihood. The man who ploughs a field and grows a crop is entitled to a decent reward for his work. It is not by means of empty phrases such as Deputy MacBride and other Opposition Deputies are in the habit of using that you can improve the economic condition of the country. The man who ploughs his land and grows a crop is doing something practical to provide employment here, to provide home-produced wealth here. The same is true of an organisation like Bord na Móna which is engaged in producing fuel. The same is true of the production of native coal and all other commodities. It was in regard to that particular matter that I felt a little anxious when the Minister for Industry and Commerce pointed out that imports of anthracite coal, which is produced here, are considerable while we are finding it difficult at the moment to obtain a market for our home produced anthracite. There again is a matter which needs the vigilant attention of the Government. Whatever we engage in producing whether it be food or fuel, or whether it be manufactured goods, that production ought to be sustained by ensuring, as far as it is possible for the Government to ensure, a market within this State.
There was a good deal said here to-night about rates of interest. We all know that as a small nation with limited resources, with some of our banks owned and controlled outside our country, with all of them to a certain extent under external control or pressure of some sort or another, it is extremely difficult to strike a rate of interest for our nation independent of that prevailing in those countries with which we have such a close financial and commercial contact.
We take our orders there.
There is no question of taking orders.
We get them from Mr. Butler.
The present Government, the previous Government or any Government since the establishment of this State cannot be held responsible for the fact that this nation is closely interlocked commercially and financially with Great Britain and with other nations. We export a very large amount of our total produce to Great Britain, and we import a very considerable quantity of our requirements from Great Britain and from those other nations which control the financial system of the world. It is not possible in a world such as we live in to adopt the ideals of monetary reform which Deputy Davin has so enthusiastically expounded. If the whole world were under one political system there would, of course, be no difficulty in the political authority of that federation, if you like, having complete control of the issue of credit and currency, but in the world in which we live we have to accept facts as they are.
Nevertheless, accepting all those facts, I have often wondered is there not something we could do to provide loans for specific purposes at a cheaper rate than the ordinary rates of interest. I have read and heard a good deal about loans in other nations, loans in which the advancing of a certain amount of money is linked up with the provision of technical and other assistance. I have often wondered if that matter could not be considered here particularly in regard to certain aspects of agriculture. If there is some particular branch that requires development I think that money should be advanced at a very nominal rate of interest and with the advance of money technical and other assistance should be provided. Thus you would have the provision of financial assistance linked up with the provision of technical advice.
That might be particularly true with regard to the short-term loan, and I have often wondered whether it might be possible to finance such a scheme not by borrowing but out of ordinary revenue. We hear a good deal of discussion on the fact that a Government cannot lend money at less than they have to borrow at. If they have to borrow money at a high rate of interest, they have to charge a high rate for it, but in the case certainly of short-term loans money can be advanced out of ordinary revenue, and that of course does not carry any interest. That may sound a revolutionary proposal. It may sound like taxation in excess of what is required for current expenditure in order to provide money for short-term loans for the country.
Why did the Deputy support an increase by the Agricultural Credit Corporation of from 4 to 6½ per cent. in regard to the granting of loans to farmers?
He did not.
I did not support the increase. The increase was due, as I pointed out, to the fact that the finances of the Agricultural Credit Corporation are based on the borrowing of money at current rates of interest and the lending of that money at 1 per cent. more.
The Minister for Finance had to sanction it.
I had no control over the current rates of interest at which the Agricultural Credit Corporation had to borrow its money.
But it is the Minister for Finance that sanctioned it.
No.
I am afraid the Deputy does not understand finance. I do not claim to be as completely ignorant as Deputy Blowick.
The Minister sanctioned the increase.
Deputy Cogan should be allowed to speak without interruption.
Deputy Blowick appears to think that the Agricultural Credit Corporation can borrow money at any rate of interest they like independently of current banking rates.
That is very lame.
If they could do that they could borrow all the money they could and they would then be in a position to lend it at a lower rate of interest. We are, however, living in a realistic world and not in a cloudcuckoo-land. The only way to make progress in this world is by facing realities resolutely, as resolutely as did the people in Mayo recently when they discarded Deputy Blowick's airy fantasies, accepted plain, blunt facts and acted accordingly. Deputy Blowick must realise the kind of propaganda he is trying to disseminate by way of interruption. It is the kind of propaganda that was proclaimed from the house-tops by him and his colleagues in the constituency of North Mayo within the past few weeks, and it was completely repudiated there by the hard-headed people of that area.
Did they repudiate it in Limerick?
Some Deputies would have us believe that the Minister for Finance is not painting a sufficiently rosy picture of the nation's economic position. I would ask those Deputies to read the speech delivered by Deputy McGilligan recently. He did not paint a very rosy picture of our present economic position. In the course of the last month he proclaimed that our country was sinking down into virtual bankruptcy, that unemployment would increase, that trade would continue to decline and that the country was, in fact, going to the dogs. That was his contribution. He was not very helpful but I do not think anybody now places any reliance in Deputy McGilligan's pronouncements. While approving of strict control to prevent anything in the way of profiteering in either the manufacture or distribution of goods and while supporting the idea of a prices advisory tribunal I think that body should be made more representative of the farming community and more sympathetic to that section of our people. Deputy Lehane very properly voiced his opinion that the present Prices Advisory Body is somewhat hostile to the farming community particularly when an application comes before them for an increase in the price of agricultural commodities. I think the Minister should take steps to ensure that agriculture is represented on that body.
The Minister has a close association with the Office of the Commissioner for Valuation. That is the office that deals with the valuation of property. I urge upon him the necessity for restricting and controlling to some extent the activities of that body. When farm buildings are improved in an effort to expand agricultural production there should be no increase in valuation as a result of that improvement. We should make every effort now to ensure that our agricultural industry is well equipped and that any attempt at improvement is not restricted or hampered by governmental action.
There is no truth in the suggestion made by Deputy MacBride that there has been a serious cut in forestry activity in relation to the provision of employment. I represent a county where forestry is perhaps more extensive than it is elsewhere in the country. There are more workers employed this year in that county than were employed last year, and there is a better prospect of work in the county than there ever was in the past. The forestry branch is acquiring more land, and from every point of view an effort is being made to provide additional employment for our people on the land, on afforestation and in every other activity where the opportunity offers. We want to see that policy continued. We want to see it expanded.
During the recess I would advise the Opposition Deputies to sit down and think over the best way of improving the position of the country, and not just the best weapon with which to hit the Government. I hope when they come back in the autumn they will come back with minds cleared of the old narrow prejudice and bitterness. I hope they will not come back still obsessed with the idea that they have been unjustly pushed out of office, and that they ought to be put back into office immediately.
We will be back.
The people have shown that they do not want them in office. Realising that, they should sit down and examine their consciences, and they should endeavour to work out a constructive policy. Only in that way can they hope to gain increased support. A policy of empty, barren criticism appeals only to those who have not got the brains to think for themselves, and who are prepared to listen to the type of appeal made by Deputy Davin this evening. That type of appeal will not get support from those who can think. Even if it did, it would not be good for the nation.
The present Government is in office because it is composed of men who have the courage to think out what is best for the nation economically and financially. Having decided what is best, they have the courage to implement their policy. The steps taken to rectify the financial and economic position of the country during the past few months were not steps calculated to win popular support from those people who act according as Government regulations affect them personally. I think it is now admitted that by being sufficiently courageous in their approach to the nation's problems and by thinking not merely of the immediate present for their political Party but of the future of the nation they have immeasurably strengthened their position in the House and throughout the country. That is an example which ought to be taken to heart by the younger members of the Opposition.
They ought to make up their minds that if they want to survive as a political Party, their only hope of survival lies in thinking of this nation's future, not in thinking immediately of how they will grab a few votes, of how they will discredit the Government or those who have supported the Government, or how to pick out and smear particular individuals on the Government side. Their only hope lies in thinking out ways and means by which they can increase this nation's productive capacity and its capacity to employ our own people here. That is the advice I want to give the Opposition now, and I tender it particularly to the younger members, because it is upon them that the future of the Opposition Party will depend. They have to remember that they are going to be an Opposition Party for quite a long time, and they have plenty of time to think out a constructive national policy.
Deputy Costello referred to the position of certain civil servants who are adversely affected by the fact that their pensions have not been increased and I want to draw attention to another small group who are similarly affected and who may or may not have been included in Deputy Costello's appeal. I refer to members of the Garda Síochána who resigned before the recent increase in salaries and who are drawing pensions which compare very unfavourably with those enjoyed by members of the force now resigning. It is not right that, in the case of men who served together, there should be a disparity in their conditions once they have gone out of the service of the State.
Debate adjourned.