Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 14 Nov 1952

Vol. 134 No. 12

Private Deputies' Business. - White Paper on Trend of External Trade—Motion.

Mr. Dillon

I move:—

That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the White Paper on the Trend of External Trade and Payments, 1951, presented to Oireachtas Éireann by the Minister for Finance, in so far as it purports to draw conclusions from the statistical material set out, is in the main tendentious nonsense; that the White Paper has been presented improvidently and that the Minister for Finance is deserving of censure for having presented this discreditable document to Oireachtas Éireann.

At first, it might seem to a casual observer that a motion of this character relating to a Paper issued in 1951, had become irrelevant in November, 1952; but I think I can satisfy the House that it is only now that the impact of the conclusions, the false conclusions, drawn from the statistical material of this table has come to impinge upon our people.

I want to direct the attention of the House to a photograph and a newspaper report which appeared in the Irish Times of Friday, November 7th, 1952. The photograph is entitled: “One of the `Timber Specials' starting out on its journey northwards.” Do Deputies of this House know what those timber specials contain? They contain the building timber that our Government induced the timber importers of this country to bring into Ireland from Canada for the building industry of this country, so that there would be a sufficient supply of timber for those who wished to borrow under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts in order to build their own houses.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

The Deputy will be relieved to know that it is being replaced by cheaper timber.

Mr. Dillon

The timber that we brought in is to-day being exported from this country——

Mr. Lemass

And cheaper timber brought in.

Mr. Dillon

——and the reason is that the timber suppliers of this country have been notified by the building contractors that with the increase in the rate of interest chargeable on loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts, the building that was proceeding—and I will describe it—is going to peter out, that that timber is at present surplus to our requirements, that it now can be disposed of and that we can hereafter depend on whatever trickle of timber comes in as required. The fact is that the people who are buying the train loads of timber are buying timber——

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

On a point of order——

Mr. Dillon

This fellow was not in when I started.

Mr. MacEntee

No, I was not, thank God. This motion relates to a White Paper published in August 1951, and I cannot see how a question of the import or disposal of timber has anything to do with the allegation.

Mr. Dillon

He does not know what is in his own White Paper.

Mr. MacEntee

I want to point out what to you, Sir, what is in the motion.

Mr. Dillon

I want to point out what is in the White Paper, which will make the Minister's face red.

Mr. MacEntee

The motion says:—

"That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the White Paper on the Trend of External Trade and Payments, 1951,... in so far as it purports to draw conclusions from the statistical material set out, is in the main tendentious nonsense; that the White Paper has been presented improvidently and that the Minister for Finance is deserving of censure for having presented this discreditable document to Oireachtas Éireann."

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. MacEntee

I do not mind Deputy Dillon rending the heavens and tearing his scanty hair if he wishes in order to prove that, but the question of the export or import of timber has nothing to do with the phrase "tendentious nonsense" or the phrase "presented improvidently" or the phrase "deserving of censure". Those are the points, the three main headings, in Deputy Dillon's motion. I think the question of disposal of timber or the profits which timber merchants may be making has nothing to do with that.

Mr. Dillon

May I direct your attention to page nine of the White Paper under review? On the first line of that page there appears: "Wood the Timber and Manufactures" and the note is:—

"The imports of sawn soft timber at £3.1 m. increased by £0.6 m. Volume was down by 9 per cent., but the c.i.f. price was up by 37 per cent. Imports of other descriptions were generally higher mainly because of increased prices."

I am dealing with that conclusion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

In the opinion of the Chair, the Deputy would be correct in dealing with the point of timber imports, but to discuss the import or export of timber subsequent to the White Paper being presented would be out of order.

Mr. Dillon

There were imports of soft timber and they are referred to on page nine. What are they? Is the Minister afraid to say where they are? They are there—on railway wagons, bound for Belfast.

Mr. MacEntee

If the Deputy wishes to criticise the panic importation of certain commodities, when they began to realise that they were quite unjustified——

Mr. Dillon

Panic?

Mr. MacEntee

——in budgeting for peace——

Mr. Dillon

A panic in the late part of 1950.

Mr. MacEntee

If he wishes to criticise that, he is quite in order, but I am submitting to you that the export of timber from this country in 1952 has nothing to do with the statement contained in this White Paper.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Donnchadh Ó Briain)

Have you given a ruling?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has ruled that that would be out of order.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister has spoken of "panic imports" of timber and he readily concedes that this is an issue on which he is prepared freely to join in the context of the motion. I want to ask what is the meaning of "panic imports" of timber in 1950? What was the panic? What was the purpose of importing the timber, what was the timber for? Was it to build houses for our people in our country? Will anyone suggest that we brought in scantlings and floorings for a purpose other than to build houses? Will anyone suggest that the word "panic" can be appropriately applied to the purchase of building materials wherewith to erect houses for our own people in our own country? If we brought the timber in with that purpose in view and then loaded it on railway trucks and— having paid for it with hard-earned dollars—in panic shipped it out to Liverpool and Belfast, to sell it for sterling——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is beginning to discuss a question that has already been ruled out of order.

Mr. Dillon

I am beginning to discuss the alleged "panic importation of timber". What is panic? Panic is to act precipitately, without due reflection. I say that the timber we brought in, referred to on page nine of the White Paper, described by the Minister for Finance to-day as a panic importation of timber had about it no vestige of panic. It was brought in deliberately. It was brought in by design. It was brought in at great expense—brought in by the public-spirited timber importers whom we asked to bring it in. If the volume astonishes and shocks the Minister for Finance I can tell him that it was brought in with full deliberation. We knew the volume. We knew the cost. We asked the timber importers in a public-spirited way to help us to accumulate in the country a quantity of timber to ensure that, come what might, the building programme we had envisaged over a period of ten years would proceed smoothly and without interruption. Was there any panic in that? Where does the Minister see evidence of panic in that? I could sympathise with the Minister if our conduct subsequent to bringing in the timber had been of a character which might lead him to believe was panic. If we had set fire to the timber that would be evidence of panic. If we had loaded it on to railway trucks and exported it from this country for sterling when we paid for it with dollars that would be panic, but we did not do that.

Mr. MacEntee

Again, Sir, since we are discussing wood and timber manufactures, may I draw your attention to the passage on page nine of the White Paper, which relates to these particular commodities?

Mr. Dillon

Is this a point of order?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is.

Mr. MacEntee

I am going to suggest that the line the Deputy is taking is not in order and in order to prove that I must draw your attention to the specific comment made on page nine, which is as follows:—

"Imports of sawn soft timber at £3.1 million increased by £0.6 million. Volume was down by 9 per cent., but the c.i.f. price was up by 40 per cent.——"

Mr. Dillon

37 per cent.

Mr. MacEntee

By 40 per cent. It continues:

"Imports of other descriptions were generally higher——"

Mr. Dillon

37 per cent. is the figure in the White Paper.

Mr. MacEntee

I am reading from page nine.

Mr. Dillon

37 per cent. is the figure, not 40 per cent.

Mr. MacEntee

I beg the Deputy's pardon——

Mr. Dillon

The Minister is reading from a badly-typed copy and they have got the wrong figure.

Mr. MacEntee

Since the Deputy alleges I am reading from a typed copy —I have the wrong copy.

Mr. Dillon

When will I get Fanny right? He is always wrong, even about his own White Paper. Let the Minister read it again and read it accurately.

Mr. MacEntee

I am reading now from the top of page nine:

"Imports of sawn soft timber at £3.1 million increased by £0.6 million. Volume was down by 9 per cent., but the c.i.f. price was up by 37 per cent.——"

Mr. Dillon

That is right.

Mr. MacEntee

The difference between 37 per cent. and 40 per cent. will not break the Deputy or me.

Mr. Dillon

Is this a point of order?

Mr. MacEntee

It says: "Imports of other descriptions were generally higher mainly because of increased prices." I would suggest to the Chair that if the Deputy describes that as "tendentious nonsense," as to whether the c.i.f. price was up by 37 per cent. or was not, the fact that the bottom has fallen out of the timber market has no justification for Deputy Dillon addressing himself to the occurrence of 1952 in order that he may avoid addressing himself to the net statement as to whether or not the c.i.f. price was up by 37 per cent. If the c.i.f. price was up by something considerably less than 37 per cent., then the statement in the White Paper would be tendentious.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister ought to be ashamed of himself. Surely——

Mr. MacEntee

I am quoting this under great difficulty.

Mr. Dillon

I submit that the Chair should send for the Ceann Comhairle.

Mr. MacEntee

Since Deputy Dillon has chosen——

General MacEoin

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Carter

Yes, it is.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Carter has spoken. Let all men stand silent.

Mr. MacEntee

I am endeavouring, if I can to come to the net point.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Carter should cease interrupting.

Mr. MacEntee

The net point is this. Since Deputy Dillon has chosen to stand on the statement at the top of page nine on the White Paper and since the statement there is that the c.i.f. price went up by 37 per cent. then he must, in order to address himself to his own motion, prove that it was tendentious to say it was up by 37 per cent. He must address himself to that net point. The Deputy is getting away from it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Dillon is in order in discussing the imports of wood and timber on page nine. He is entitled to make his case on that, but not on every point in the White Paper.

Mr. Dillon

This preposterous little man, the Minister for Finance, was not five minutes in the House when he said by way of intervention: "The Deputy is referring to panic imports of timber in 1950." I think it is beyond doubt or cavil that that intervention was made. To that interruption I am now going to address myself at length.

I want to ask again where is the evidence of panic in dealing with the timber we brought in? On the score of quantity was there evidence of panic? I say "No." I say the quantity was such as we could command and if we could have got more timber we would have brought it in.

The House will remember that last night when the Minister for Industry and Commerce was discussing wool he said that speaking for himself—I will deal with wool later in this context— he wanted stockpiling. He congratulated the Government of 1950 for having stockpiled and he gladly assumed the task of liquidating the stockpile now that, by the providence of God, it was not required, difficult as that task was, and he made suggestions as to how that could be done.

I am talking of the identical decision that we, as a Government, took in respect of building timber. We went to the importers and asked them to stockpile. We told them that if, under the providence of God, an emergency did not arise and they were involved in any loss, difficulty or credit problem they could look to this Government to sustain and support them to repair any injury that might have accrued to them as a result of their public-spirited effort to help us to accumulate stocks of timber in order to maintain a steady expansion of the housing drive. Was that evidence of a panic? I think not.

Mr. MacEntee

Go in and buy at the top of the market as you did and leave other people to liquidate the position.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister now contends that the purchase of timber was characterised by the quality of panic. I must have the right to rebut that allegation. You have panic by the conduct of men, by what they do. Did we jettison the timber? Did we tell the timber importers in October, 1950, November, 1950, December, 1950, January, 1951, February, 1951, March, 1951, April, 1951, May, 1951, or June, 1951: "Get rid of the timber"? Did we tell them to cancel their contract? Did we tell them to divert the cargoes that were afloat?

Mr. Carter

You had not the authority.

Mr. Dillon

Did we tell them to put the timber on flat cars and send it to Belfast? Did we tell them: "We will lend the Government of Great Britain our money and at 1½ per cent. to buy the timber from you because our people must build their houses with money borrowed at 5 per cent. from the British insurance companies and they will not be able to use the timber?"

Mr. MacEntee

We will soon want more timber here if the Deputy continues. Mahogany is very dear—most expensive.

Mr. Dillon

We did not. We said to the financial interests in this country: "Our people will get money to build their houses at the same rate as people in Great Britain, and if there is any attempt to deny it to them we will know the reason why." Do not forget that Dublin Corporation wanted £5,000,000 and could not get it. The banking interests in this country were interviewed in Government Buildings and Dublin Corporation got their money the following morning. We did not approach the finance market with the announcement that we were going to pay a higher rate of interest than had ever been paid on a national loan in this country since the Civil War. We did not assert that the insurance companies of Great Britain were entitled from our people—and would get it—to their pound of flesh and their pint of blood.

Mr. MacEntee

On a point of order. Shall I be in order in discussing national loans on this motion?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No. The Deputy is not in order in discussing national loans.

Mr. MacEntee

Or any other loans.

Mr. Dillon

The more he interrupts the deeper in the mire he gets.

Mr. MacEntee

I should like to call attention to the fact that the terms of the motion relate solely to the White Paper and to asking the House to believe that it was in the main "tendentious nonsense." Deputy Dillon has not said a word about that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has already pointed that out to Deputy Dillon.

Mr. Dillon

It was suggested that our import of timber was a panic import. Surely, when you have allowed the Minister for Finance to intervene for ten or 15 minutes and to make an interim speech as a point of order, then a rebuttal of the suggestion about the import of timber made on page nine of the White Paper as part of the grounds for the conclusions reached by the White Paper is not a subject which must not be touched.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have ruled——

Mr. Dillon

I know that the Chair will not make a biased ruling at the behest of the Minister for Finance because the Minister for Finance is notoriously a vain, silly little person. But to refer to anything which was done in relation to the timber referred to in the White Paper as in fact having been done with panic and to envisage the various acts that might have been done which would justify the allegation of panic cannot be irrelevant. Everything we did in relation to the timber referred to on page nine of the White Paper was done——

Mr. MacEntee

With your usual coolness.

Mr. Dillon

——of intent, of purpose and with clear prevision of what was going to transpire. I am determined to insist on that despite the interruptions of any pretty Fanny who thinks that he can disturb me or break the trend of my discourse. I knew that the Minister for Finance would not enjoy this exchange but there must be Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party deluded, affronted and degraded as they have been by their own leaders, who feel with me that, to ship out of this country, building timber that could be used to build houses for our people——

Mr. Carter

You can buy it cheaper now.

Mr. Dillon

I am going to explain to this silly little creature Carter— in any event how can Deputy Carter say——

Mr. Carter

Is it in order to call a Deputy "a silly creature"? I will not take it and the Deputy can withdraw.

Mr. Dillon

If that offends the Deputy I withdraw it unreservedly.

Mr. Carter

I will not take it. He must withdraw.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It has been withdrawn and Deputy Carter should not interrupt.

Mr. Dillon

If we could buy timber at half the price of this timber why did the people in Belfast buy the timber? If we can buy timber cheaply now why should people in Belfast pay much more for the timber we had in stock than they could buy new timber for?

Mr. MacEntee

I should like to point out that the Deputy is continuing to discuss the export of timber which evidently took place after the issue of the White Paper. That is not in order.

Mr. Dillon

In consequence of the White Paper.

Mr. MacEntee

It was not.

Mr. Dillon

I think it was Deputy Carter who intervened to say that the export of this timber arose from the fact that you could buy timber cheaply.

Mr. Carter

Yes. Any dunce would know that.

Mr. Dillon

Then why should the people in Belfast purchase timber from us if they could buy it more cheaply elsewhere?

Mr. MacEntee

On a point of order. Surely it makes it impossible to discuss any question here in a deliberative way if a Deputy is entitled on a mere interruption to bring an entirely different subject matter before the House. The matter for discussion, again I would suggest, is whether the White Paper is "tendentious nonsense" or not. The export of timber and the rates of the loan are subjects which are entirely out of order. Even if Deputy Carter or I did interrupt, for Deputy Dillon to begin a discussion on the basis of our interruptions is out of order.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister is not the first of his Party who discovered that interruptions do not pay, but if he has learned that he should stop interrupting instead of interrupting and encouraging Deputy Carter to interrupt and then making lengthy points of order when he is knocked about the head for interrupting.

I ask Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party what they see of panic in the purchases made by our direction of timber wherewith to build houses? Was it not well to have it? Would it not be good to use it? Would it not be better to put it into houses at current prices than to give it to others to put into houses at current prices? I wonder do Deputies of this House realise the trend of housing in this country which this White Paper was expressly published to stop. Remember, the purpose of that White Paper was to tell the Oireachtas and the country that the use of consumer goods by our people had reached such fantastic heights as to threaten the whole economic fabric of this State and that, unless energetic measures were taken to stop the importation of timber among other commodities, the foundation of the State would be undermined. The house will remember that our case was: "Do not stop the importation of timber. Buy confidently all that is necessary to house our people. The expansion of the agricultural industry will create an export surplus amply sufficient to pay for whatever our people require within the reasonable demands which it has been their traditional practice to make. We think a decent house in lieu of a tenement room or a decent house in rural Ireland in lieu of a condemned cottage is a reasonable demand which by our own exertions and skill we will be able to meet in our own country for our own people."

Does this House appreciate how far we were travelling on that road? Does this House realise that the loans sanctioned under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act in 1947 were £28,673; in 1948 they were £82,675; in 1949, they were £1,795,000; in 1950, they were £2,520,000; in 1951, they were £3,819,000, and in 1952 they were £2,465,000? Does this House realise the road that policy had carried us on? In 1947, if you exclude Waterford, Limerick, Dublin, Athlone and a few of the larger towns, there were practically no applications under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act at all. In 1949-50, there was not a single county which did not contribute its substantial demand on the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act so that housing was proceeding not only in every town and city but throughout the entire country. The condemned house was going. The tenement room was going and our people were beginning to have in their own country a decent house wherein to rear a decent family.

Was it panic to tell the timber importers here to bring in timber lest perhaps any crisis might create a shortage and prevent the people in the Twenty-Six Counties, wherein we were responsible, from realising the dream for which they sought to borrow money under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act? Was there panic noticeable then? I do not think so. Remember, it is the conclusions drawn from the statistical material contained in this White Paper that I say are false and show evidence of panic. What were these conclusions? Were they not that we could not afford to build all these houses? Was not one of the conclusions drawn from this White Paper by the Government that steps must be taken to prevent our people using timber in order to build houses? Is it not true that the Fianna Fáil Party met in Leinster House last week and forced the Minister to reverse the Government's decision and decide, instead of cutting off all loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act as on and from 24th October, they would admit all loans in process of negotiation as on that date? Did not the Minister for Local Government announce their open reversal of policy only two days ago? Was not the decision——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with the discussion on this White Paper.

Mr. Dillon

Was not the original decision taken on foot of the White Paper?

Mr. MacEntee

On a point of order. I am not suggesting that Deputy Dillon's statements are true, but surely the occurrences to which they relate took place towards the end of the year 1952 and the White Paper was published in August and September of 1951, over a year ago. Surely the statements which the Deputy is making are not in order.

Mr. Donnellan

A lot of things have happened since.

Mr. Dillon

I draw your attention to the fact, Sir, that the motion sets out that the White Paper:—

"in so far as it purports to draw conclusions from the statistical material set out, is in the main tendentious nonsense."

I say that one of the conclusions drawn from the statistical material in that White Paper was that our people could not afford to buy houses and that they must be stopped building houses in order to reduce imports for the purpose of bringing the balance of trade into equilibrium; and one of the devices used for that purpose, and the Minister has said so, was the raising of the rates of interest.

Mr. MacEntee

On that matter, I made a point of order on the basis that I did not believe Deputy Dillon was so silly as to draw that conclusion. Since he has been as silly as to draw that conclusion I wish to withdraw the point of order.

Mr. Dillon

I thought the Minister would get tired of his points of order.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair would again point out that the motion deals specifically with the White Paper.

Mr. Dillon

Issued, Sir, in 1951 and the conclusions drawn from it.

Mr. MacEntee

I am not responsible for any silly conclusions Deputy Dillon or Deputy MacEoin may draw.

General MacEoin

God forbid.

Mr. Dillon

We judge men not on their thoughts but by their actions. It is not what they think, not what they mean to think, and not what they mean to do; it is what they do we are concerned with. That is the only criterion by which one can judge a Government or a public man. What did he do? What were the acts he did? I can only judge the Minister for Finance and I can only declare him to be deserving of censure on foot of the things he did showing the conclusions he has drawn from this document.

Everybody knows that the statistical material contained in the published copy of a White Paper issued by the Department of Finance will be correct. Only the Minister for Finance has recourse to uncorrected proofs and makes himself look silly by producing them in the House, showing he has not given his own White Paper any serious study and is, therefore, unable to detect printers' errors in an uncorrected proof when he comes across them. Those of us who have been associated with the public life of this country know beyond doubt that the issue of statistical material over the imprint of our Department of Finance will seldom be found to err. It is one thing, however, to accumulate statistics; it is another thing to draw inferences from them, and when the unwary or the unscrupulous proceed to marshal statistics to their service, the one they perish, and the other, they destroy. I charge the Minister and the Tánaiste, when this White Paper first came before the House, with a deliberate studied purpose—to shift their own leader out of public life and to put Deputy Lemass in his place.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That certainly does not arise on the discussion of this White Paper.

Mr. Dillon

Does the consequence arise on the White Paper that on the day the British Treasury was borrowing £317,000,000 sterling at 1½ per cent. and the British Transport Company was borrowing all it wanted at 4½ per cent. the Irish Government was paying 5 per cent.?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That was certainly subsequent to the White Paper under discussion.

Mr. Dillon

I will proceed then to take the White Paper in detail and to bring the House through it. Before dropping that point, I would ask the House to dwell on the word "panic." Panic is the key-word of this debate. I want Deputies to ask themselves repeatedly whose actions, not whose thoughts, not whose intentions, but whose actions smell of panic in this country. I think the first and the most glaring evidence of the disreputable character of the use to which this paper has been put is the reference in it to the prospective deficit in the balance of payments for the year 1951, which is most specifically referred to in paragraph 17. The paragraph reads as follows:—

"Prices of our staple exports are much less flexible than world prices and there are no grounds for postulating any pronounced favourable movement in relation to import prices."

I would ask you to remember that this is one of the deductions from the statistical material employed in the White Paper.

Mr. MacEntee

It is not. It is a statement of well-recognised economic fact.

Mr. Dillon

Let me quote paragraph 17:—

"Prices of our staple exports are much less flexible than world prices and there are no grounds for postulating any pronounced favourable movement in relation to import prices. Again, the current output figures for our staple exports rule out the possibility of any large increase in the volume of exports in the near future to bridge the gap."

Mark those words: "No large increase in our exports to bridge the gap."

Mr. MacEntee

Now, now. The Deputy is a stickler for exactitude. Would he not quote that sentence again, please?

Mr. Dillon

"Again, the current output figures for our staple exports rule out the possibility of any large increase in the volume of exports in the near future to bridge the gap."

Mr. MacEntee

I should like to remind the Deputy that—I suppose, quite inadvertently—he omitted the reference to volume.

Mr. Dillon

I beg the Minister's pardon. I thought I included it. The paragraph continues:—

"The agricultural census returns for the 1st June, 1951, reveal a drop of 50,000 in the numbers of milch cows and heifers-in-calf as compared with June, 1950, and the number of cattle under one year is also down. Notwithstanding higher prices, exports of cattle and foodstuffs of animal origin declined in value in the first eight months of 1951 as compared with the corresponding period of 1950. The inescapable conclusion is that substantial relief to the balance of payments can only be achieved by importing less."

I want to add timber. That is my addition. Building materials—the materials which go into houses, the materials that have to be imported if houses are to be built.

Mr. MacEntee

I gather that the Deputy's idea is to convert this island into a huge timber yard.

Mr. Dillon

My ideal is to convert this island into a place where our people can live in decency, dignity and peace. The Minister's public life in this country has been designed to deny them peace, dignity and now decency. He has brought into their lives nothing but acrimony, hatred and war. He has denied them and seeks to deprive them of the right to a decent house to live in. His financial policy is based on the proposition that they are eating too much and living too well. He ought to be ashamed to mention decency, dignity or peace for our people. His whole public life has been a shameless betrayal of all three.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy ought to forget that purple passage.

Mr. Dillon

I do not forget it and our people will not forget it and our people did not forget it. Despite the Minister's intervention at Manor Street and his animadversions on General Eisenhower, our people gave him his answer yesterday morning. Dignity, decency and peace! The man does not know the meaning of the words so far as he is concerned with people—our people. If there is one boast we have it is that our indignation was roused against that beastly document, the White Paper, because it was the clarion cry of the Minister to put an end to three years of the work that had been designed by the inter-Party Government to improve the lot of our people. My gracious, with what rapidity and skill he has achieved his purpose in the past 18 months. That White Paper is the White Paper that brought us down from a credit-worthiness in the world comparable with that of London to a credit-worthiness inferior to that enjoyed by Southern Rhodesia. We are borrowing money to-day on the markets of the world at worse terms than the British Transport Board or Southern Rhodesia—and 18 months ago we could borrow it foot for foot with the Governments of the British Empire. That was the purpose of that White Paper.

Mr. MacEntee

Sir, would we be in order on this motion in discussing the recent financial operations of the British Transport Board and Southern Rhodesia? They would be very interesting.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It would not be in order to discuss those questions on this motion.

Mr. Dillon

The final sentence in paragraph 17 of the White Paper says: "The inescapable conclusion..."— the Minister will not deny that that is a deduction from the statistical material—"... is that substantial relief to the balance of payments can only be achieved by importing less." What are the facts? Remember that our task in September, 1951, was to forecast the probable out-turn of 12 months' exports and 12 months' imports but in September, 1951, the figures for nine months were available. Speculation as to the probable out-turn rested on a correct forecast of what would happen in the remaining three months of the year. Now, bear in mind that we were talking of balance of payments. We were not talking of the cubic capacity of ships or of the capacity of the docks at Cork or Limerick to discharge ships. We were talking of the ability of our people to pay for the goods they were bringing in. Therefore, for that limited purpose—the balance of payments—the Minister proceeded to draw conclusions as to the probable deficit on the 12 months' payments. He knew what it was in respect of nine months. It was left to him to speculate what it would be in respect of the remaining three months.

He made his estimate—and he told us that it was a conservative estimate— after having given all possible weight to the most favourable prospective events. He told us the balance of payments was going to be £70,000,000 adverse. He has since stated himself that it was £61.5 million. I believe it was below £60,000,000 but take his own figure of £61.5 million. In respect of three months' trade he was £8,000,000 out in his calculation, £8,000,000 wrong. What did that mean? If we relate it to the whole year, it is equivalent to an error of £32,000,000 in our balance of trade. It was on that conclusion, based on that material, that this House was asked to adjust its whole economic attitude to the years that lay ahead.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy has been very greatly concerned about timber. I would ask him to remember, as I said before, that mahogany is much more expensive than the white timber.

Mr. Dillon

That Delphic observation gives us the key to the mentality of this silly little man. I have been talking about timber.

Mr. MacEntee

You have been hammering.

Mr. Dillon

I have been talking about the timber used to build houses for ordinary people who do not use mahogany. What I have been thinking about, Sir, is in that photograph.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That has been ruled out of order.

Mr. Dillon

Yes, Sir, but surely it is not mahogany?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is irrelevant.

Mr. Dillon

If the Minister is in any doubt as to what is in that, I have been only thinking of it and I want to tell him it is not mahogany.

Mr. MacEntee

Can mahogany think?

Mr. Dillon

That much mahogany would build all the counters they want in Belfast and the Minister should be some judge of that. The conclusion— the inescapable conclusion—was that because the adverse trade balance was going to be £70,000,000 we must import less. I ask Deputies on the Fianna Fáil Benches just to think—only to think—of the commodities of which we were to import less. Now he was the equivalent of £32,000,000 per annum out in his estimate of the adverse balance of trade for the concluding three months.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy's mathematics are about as extraordinary as his imagination.

Mr. Dillon

Now we come to this year. Fortified by the statistical material the Minister forecast into the future and decided that the £70,000,000 of 1951 would be overshadowed by the prospect that lay before us of an adverse trade balance of £50,000,000 in 1952. From this he drew the conclusion—the inescapable conclusion— that we must import less. Again I ask Deputies on the Fianna Fáil benches silently to think of the things of which we must import less. We increased our imports of raisins from California and we reduced certain other things we were concerned to bring in. A deficit of £50,000,000 was the conclusion he drew from that White Paper when he brought in his Budget. That was the figure he told the Irish nation to think of.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy is quite wrong.

Mr. Dillon

I have dwelt on the proposals contained in the Budget.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy is merely deliberately misrepresenting what was said in the Budget statement.

Mr. Dillon

Deliberately?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

Is there a single Deputy in the House who does not recall that we were warned that, on the best estimate they had at Budget time, the probable trade deficit in our balance of payments for 1952 would be to the order of £50,000,000?

Mr. MacEntee

That is not correct. It is a complete misrepresentation. What was said in the Budget statement was—I am only paraphrasing it —that if it had not been for the measures which we had taken early in 1952, at the opening of the year, reinforced by the measures taken earlier, the deficit would have been £50,000,000. We took care to make sure that it would not be £50,000,000, and we succeeded in that, no thanks to the Deputy.

Mr. Dillon

Deputies will appreciate now that a figure of £50,000,000 was floating about. The Minister says that it was only mentioned and that nobody need listen to it. It was a figure dredged up for the purpose of being able to say: "You may think that £50,000,000 will be the adverse trade balance, but you are wrong." It was like a lucky bag out of which you might be told you could draw £50,000,000. You drew and you were asked what you had drawn and you replied: "£50,000,000. Is that right?" The answer was: "No; dip again", and so the game continued. Then you emptied the bran pie and then you were asked to think of several different numbers. Then perhaps you would be asked what was the colour of the engine driver's beard. But my simple intellect was coerced to the belief, when the Minister spoke of a possible deficit of £50,000,000, that he was referring to some concrete concept. Having passed round the bran pie, we were warned by his colleague, the Tánaiste, not to pay too much heed to the Minister for Finance, that the deficit was unlikely to exceed £25,000,000. Then the Tánaiste told us not to mind pretty Fanny, that it was not going to be over £10,000,000. Then the Tánaiste went down further and said he did not think there was going to be any deficit at all.

Remember the remedy prescribed by the Minister for Finance. In order to produce this desirable result, in order to get substantial relief in the balance of payments, he said we should have to import less. The last indication we have had from the Government is that the deficit in the balance of payments this year might be something between £10,000,000 and nothing. When that is achieved, they will all go down to College Green and bow three times to the north and then, turning round, bow three times to the south. When the residents of Cabra or North-West Dublin demur to the fact that they must continue to live in tenement houses, I am sure a deputation will straight away proceed to St. Peter's, Cabra, under heavy police protection for the purpose of bowing in the general direction of Gardiner Street. I do not want a situation which would entitle me to proceed to College Green to bow three times. I think that the Minister's forecast was all wrong, that a substantial relief in the balance of payments was coming up the mountain by reason of the increase in our exports and that the £20,000,000 increase in our exports to date was a handsome testimony to the possibility of substantial relief, without telling our people that they had better spend another while in the tenements and the condemned houses. Remember, we have November and December to reckon with yet. I venture to prophesy—I may be wrong but at least my prophecy will not depress ourselves or our neighbours—that the exports of this country will earn for our people something closely approximating to £100,000,000 sterling in this year, a record figure for all time, and one which will supply substantial relief to our balance of payments problem without condemning one single neighbour of ours to continue abandoned in a tenement room or in a condemned house, or faced with the prospect of not being able to marry at all or have anywhere to bring a wife to, to found a family.

I say that the conclusion which the Minister drew from this paper was tendentious nonsense. I think his resolve, founded on that conclusion to equip himself to bow three times and twice three times down in College Green at the expense of those who had dared to begin to hope that they might house their families in decency here was disreputable and shameless and deserving of the censure of this House.

The Minister twitted me when I was reading this paragraph that I had intentionally omitted the word "volume". I did not mean to omit that word because I want to deal with that particular aspect of the paragraph now. One of the assumptions he forecast was that the volume of exports would be substantially unchanged in the last four months of 1951. May I quote from page 13:—

"If, again, it is assumed that in the remaining four months of 1951 average export prices rise by 20 per cent., and that volume is unchanged as compared with the levels reached in the corresponding period of 1950 (in the first eight months of 1951 export prices were 15 per cent. higher and volume 3 per cent. lower than in the first eight months of 1950), the value of exports in the calendar year 1951 will amount to £83,000,000 an increase of £10.6 million over 1950. It will be noted that in arriving at this figure full account has been taken of the normal seasonal increases in both the volume and price of exports in the latter half of the year. The import surplus for the whole year would on these assumptions amount to £129,000,000."

In the last four months, however, of the year the volume did not remain stable nor did it show the decline referred to in the first nine months. The volume of imports showed an increase of 2.3 per cent. The volume of exports in the last quarter, that is the last three months as distinct from the last four months——

Mr. MacEntee

May I ask the Deputy what he is quoting from?

Mr. Dillon

From a copious note.

Mr. MacEntee

It seems to me to be a periodical.

Mr. Dillon

Change your spectacles. The volume of exports showed an increase of 9.6 per cent.

Mr. MacEntee

It appears to me to be a periodical.

Mr. Dillon

I propose to read, before this debate concludes, long extracts from The Leader.

Mr. MacEntee

Then I take it that the copious note which the Deputy was quoting from was, in fact, a periodical. Is it not the custom for a Deputy to give the source of his quotation?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is the usual practice for a Deputy to give the reference.

Mr. Dillon

I am not quoting. You are not bound, if you agree with what is recorded in any article and you speak it in this House on your own authority—you are not bound to say: "I agree with what everybody else has said", but I gladly avail of this opportunity to tell Fianna Fáil Deputies where they may get much instruction. They will get it by reading the back numbers of The Leader for August 2nd, August 13th, September 13th and September 27th. They will learn a great deal from them. What a very silly little man the present Minister for Finance has shown himself to be? I think it is a useful source to which any person might turn for statistical material relevant to the matter which we have now under discussion. Deputy Carter has said something. I recommend him to read these articles. He may succeed in getting his synthesis of it into the Irish Press because in its present mood it is prepared to publish almost anything.

The volume of exports for the last quarter, that is, for the last three months as distinct from the last four months, shows an increase of 9.6 on the corresponding quarter of the previous year. But the White Paper reached the remarkable conclusion that they did not expect there would be any increase. Am I unjust if I surmise that the thought that there would not be any was not an orphan? That thought had a parent which, I think, was the wish born in the bosom of the Minister for Finance. But, unfortunately, that parental wish begot a thought which, in the event, proved to be a stalwart. He thought that there would not be any increase at all but it is 9 per cent. greater than he foresaw. Now, 9 per cent. in terms of monetary value is a relatively trifling consideration, but 9 per cent. in the volume of agricultural exports is a very substantial consideration. I think that this comparison will direct the attention of Deputies to how significant 9 per cent. in volume can be in terms of money. It is money that counts in the balance of payments, because if you look at the volume of figures based on prices ruling in January, 1950 and September, October, November and December, 1951, and January, February, March, April, May and June, 1952, as compared with the corresponding exports in the previous year month by month you will find that, in September owing to the dock strike, there was a decline of 20.6 per cent. in our exports. In October there was an increase of 19 per cent.; November a minus of 4.1 per cent.; December an increase of 16.4 per cent.; January, 1952, an increase of 41 per cent.; February, an increase of 30.5 per cent.; March, an increase of 30.2 per cent.; April, an increase of 31.1 per cent.; May, an increase of 29.8 per cent. and June, an increase of 43.1 per cent.

I call the attention of the House again to the famous paragraph 17 and I think I know the hand that wrote it:—

"Again, the current output figures for our staple exports rule out the possibility of any large increase in the volume of exports in the near future to bridge the gap."

The House must remember that when you deal with export statistics you deal either with volume or with value, but when you deal with balance of payments figures it is value that matters, because it is money that constitutes the instrument of exchange and no one will contend that our people should refuse to accept a higher price for the merchandise which we are prepared to ship abroad. What then do we see in connection with the export of our staple industry, agriculture? The figures are detailed, but it may be as well to put them on record. In the January-June six months of 1948 we exported 14,000 fat cattle; in the same period of 1949 we exported 26,000; in the same period in 1950, 40,000; in the same period in 1951, 24,000; in the same period in 1952, 37,000.

Mr. MacEntee

On a point of order. I assume that the Deputy is not quoting from any official publication, that the figures which he is giving are not being quoted by him from an official publication?

Mr. Dillon

They are being quoted by me on my authority.

Mr. MacEntee

That is all right. If it is on Deputy Dillon's authority and no more weight is to be attached to them, I do not mind.

Mr. Dillon

If the Minister can traverse them by .01 per cent. in any matter of substance, I will withdraw the motion. Deputies will observe that the number of fat cattle does not seem to show the expansion that I would seem to require to sustain the case I have made, but if they will turn to the exports of beef, veal and tinned beef they will find that the patern of our export trade, under the guidance of the inter-Party Government, was changing, and in a desirable direction, because in addition to the fat cattle exported, in each of these half years you find that of beef, veal and tinned beef there were 42,000 cwt. exported in 1948, 56,000 cwt. in 1949, 87,000 cwt. in 1950, 116,000 cwt. in 1951, and 337,000 cwt. in 1952. Does this bear out the conclusion reached in paragraph 17 of the White Paper which I quoted:—

"Again the current output figures for our staple exports rule out the possibility of any large increase in the volume of exports in the near future to bridge the gap."

I invite the Minister to check the figures I have given and to bring them up to date, and I venture to tell the House that the nine months of 1952 will fully confirm the tendency here revealed. I have the July-December figures but the figures cannot yet be computed for the year 1952. They may not speak so eloquently but they do speak eloquently. Our exports of fat cattle from July to December of 1948 were 52,000; 1949, 108,000; 1950, 139,000; 1951, 148,000. In the same period our exports of beef, veal and tinned beef were: 12,000 cwt. in 1948, 112,000 cwt. in 1949, 212,000 cwt. in 1950, 431,000 cwt. in 1951. I invite the Minister to bespeak from the statistics office the most recent figure for the remaining six months of 1952 as from June last to see if they justify the statement:—

"Again the current output figures for our staple exports rule out the possibility of any large increase in the volume of exports in the near future to bridge the gap."

I can call as evidence more arresting statistics still. Omitting pigs and pork, which have become a very valuable export and are growing greater with the passage of every month, and basing my case on cattle only, I direct the attention of the House to the statistics as to the live-stock population available for export in the approximate future, by which I mean the next five years. I group for the purpose of immediate export, that is within the next two years, cattle from two-years-old upwards, and I add to them for the purpose of the longer view the cattle between one year and two years and the calves below one year of age for their export potential in the next five to ten years. In 1947, we had in this country 989,000 cattle other than calves, bulls, milch cows and heifers-in-calf between the ages of two years and upwards. In 1948, we had somewhat over 1,000,000 and in 1949—I can give the figure as an approximate one—1,047,000 cattle; in 1950, we had 1,079,000 and in 1951, 1,132,000 coming within that age category.

In the one-year to two-years-old category—I ask the House very specially to note the figures because they relate to the long term prospect of our industry—in 1947, we had 846,000, and in June, 1948, 742,000. I think these figures relate to June, but I cannot be perfectly certain. They may relate to the January census, but the figures are for the same date in every year, whether in June or January. In 1949, we had 804,000; in 1950, 912,000; in 1951, 974,000, and in 1952, 968,000. Let me further direct the attention of the House to the statistical situation in regard to calves. I have mentioned here before that there is a rough calculation whereby you compare the number of cattle under one year in one year with the numbers of cattle between one year and two years in the subsequent year, thereby discerning the losses the live-stock industry as a whole has experienced in calves, whether through death, slaughter or otherwise. Operating that approximate method of estimation, the loss of calves between 1947 and 1948 was 109,000.

Mr. MacEntee

Perhaps this is not really a point of order——

Mr. Dillon

Then you should not make it. I will not give way, if it is not a point of order. Let the Minister sit down.

Mr. MacEntee

I am putting it as a point of order.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister said it is not a point of order.

Mr. MacEntee

I am doubtful, but I am putting it. In view of the exhausted condition of the House, might the Deputy not content himself with circulating The Leader instead of reading it to us?

Mr. Dillon

If I had them I would, but I have not got sufficient copies, but I do not think this statistical material I am reading is primarily from The Leader.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy has driven the Labour Party from the House and most of the Fine Gael Party.

Mr. Sweetman

And even the Irish Times would publish only one-fifth of the Minister's stupid letter.

Mr. MacEntee

Deputy Dillon might at least give us some relief now by circulating The Leader.

Mr. Dillon

The statistics I am reading out were circulated to the Minister. He had them and he used them and he printed them in that White Paper. Having printed them, he proceeded to explain to the dupes who sit behind him that they meant what that White Paper said.

Mr. MacEntee

Will the Deputy not have mercy on us? Even Deputy Sweetman has fled.

Mr. Dillon

I am trying to explain to the dupes that the conclusions he drew from the statistical material which I now recapitulate were all wrong. That is the burden of my charge against him.

Mr. MacEntee

"Burden" is quite an appropriate word.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is wrong to refer to Deputies on any side of the House as dupes.

Mr. Dillon

If the word "dupe" is ruled unparliamentary, let me see if I can find a parliamentary word which will describe innocent creatures cruelly misled. If there is any shorter phrase which will describe the sheep led to the slaughter, the innocent abroad beset by the ravening wolf or the man with whose intentions hell is paved, I will gladly employ it. I thought the word "dupe" was a parliamentary way of covering all these various descriptions, but should it offend in the slightest degree the susceptibilities of the thinnest-skinned member of Fianna Fáil, pray regard the word as unreservedly withdrawn.

Using the basis of calculation which I have described to the House, we lost, in 1948, 109,000 calves. In 1949, the losses were reduced to 49,000; in 1950, they were reduced to 39,000; in 1951, they were reduced to 9,000 and in 1952, they were still only 10,000. Did these statistics, which I quite agree with the Minister are universally available, carry conviction to the Minister's mind that current figures for our staple exports ruled out the possibility of any large increase in the volume of exports in the near future to bridge the gap? Will he tell the House, if we had more cattle of exportable age, if we had more cattle between one year and two years old, if we had reduced the annual losses of calves, through death or slaughter, from a maximum of 109,000 to a minimum of 9,000, whether he interprets that evidence as meaning that it rules out of possibility any large increase in the volume of our exports?

Do Fianna Fáil Deputies still believe that that conclusion was a valid conclusion or one on which to found the fiscal and economic policy of an Irish Government? I do not think it was. I do not believe that the Minister took reasonable care in arriving at it. I do not believe the poor little man sat down deliberately to falsify the facts. I believe that the poor little man believed that fantastic deduction which he recorded, but he believed it because he allowed, as he so often does allow, his wishes to be father to his thoughts.

Mr. MacEntee

I am quite prepared to admit that I underrated——

Mr. Dillon

I do not want you to admit anything at this stage and I will not allow you to interrupt my speech. If he is not making a point of order the Minister should be told to sit down. He must not interrupt.

Mr. MacEntee

I admit that I underrated the beneficial effects on Irish agriculture which would flow by reason of the fact that you were ejected from office.

Mr. Dillon

Did the Minister make a reference to the Department of Agriculture?

Mr. MacEntee

I said that I underrated the beneficial consequences to Irish agricultural production of your ejection from office.

Mr. Dillon

We are dealing with a silly, petulant, vindictive man and a little man at that who allows his wishes to be father to his thoughts. I have just read out to the House figures which show that the reduction in calf mortality in the year 1951 represented a saving of 100,000 as compared with 1947. Does not the Minister for Finance know that at that time I was Minister for Agriculture? I am not saying that that result was due to any deed of mine. It was due in great measure to the zeal, skill and sleepless vigilance——

Mr. MacEntee

——of the new Minister for Finance.

Mr. Dillon

——of the officers of the Department of Agriculture. I believe that probably it would have come to pass whoever was Minister for Agriculture. All I am saying is that it did come to pass. But this vindictive, silly little man, instead of seeing these facts objectively and allowing those who were competent to view the facts objectively to draw conclusions, took these admitted facts, and because his wishes were father to his thoughts and he wanted to malign and to slander and to inflate his own grotesque vanity, read them, turned them upside down and then, turning his back upon them, saw them through a glass darkly upside down and set down the words: "They ruled out the possibility of any large increase in the volume of exports in the near future to bridge the gap."

Every member of the Fianna Fáil Party was forbidden to look at the facts but was constrained to turn his or her back on the facts and see them in a glass darkly. Even though they appeared to be upside down they were told, like the Chinese, to be respectful to their emperor and to ignore the fact that he walked abroad naked as he was born. At the moment I seem to act the rôle of the unsophisticated infant brought in his mother's arms to admire this scene, and who said to his mother: "But, mother, that man has not got a stitch on." That voice sent the Emperor of China posting back to gather the rags of decency around his person, for he was ashamed of being seen abroad naked as he was born. The Minister for Finance is naked and the fraud for which he has been responsible has been exposed. The people whom he sought to mislead have departed from their long allegiance to repudiate him. It was he that North-West Dublin had in mind and the policies he stood for. They resolved to tell the Fianna Fáil Party in no uncertain way that that silly, vain little man must go because, in the terms of this motion, "he is deserving of censure," because the Paper he presented to this House was in the conclusions it drew "in the main tendentious nonsense," because "the White Paper has been presented improvidently" and because the man who presented it to this House as a suitable foundation upon which to build an economic policy was deserving of censure.

Is it not time we told him so by resolution of this House and placed upon him the constitutional obligation of vacating the office for which he is not fit, so that others can put their hand to the task of terrifying difficulty of getting this country back on the economic lines on which it was travelling with such magnificent success 18 months ago? I say that this resolution is more relevant to-day than it was the day it was first put down. When I put it down it was my forecast against his. To-day it is my facts against his forecast. My facts are fortified by the governing fact that they have been submitted to the people and the people are on my side. Ultimately they are the people who will decide what ought to be the rule in Ireland, and they do not live in College Green, North or South. They live in Cabra, in Drumcondra and Phibsborough; in Merrion Square, Fitzwilliam Square and Upper Fitzwilliam Place; in Ballaghaderreen and Ballybay; in Munster, Leinster Connaught and part of Ulster. What is wrong with that silly little man is that he first entered public life believing himself to be the servant of the people but since then vanity has grown upon him. He is obsessed with the idea that he is their master now and that he must teach them how to live; that he must make them accept a new philosophy; that they have got into the habit of eating too much and living too well and that in aspiring to a house of their own they go beyond the reasonable limits to which peasants and working people should aspire.

I do not think that is the will or belief of the bulk of Dáil Éireann. That White Paper was the first stone in the foundation of that philosophy which has been built up in this country over the last 18 months. The people have knocked down the structure that stone was designed to sustain. I think it would be incongruous to describe the Minister as a stone. He would like to appear like a plaster of paris Napoleon if it were possible for him to have Napoleon for a father and Talleyrand for a mother. All he, in fact, looks like is a garden ornament in the shape of a gnome. I speak figuratively of course because there is nothing literally in the Minister for Finance which bespeaks an ornament for a garden or anywhere else. He would like to believe he represents the pensive figure of Da Vinci's Moses brooding on the fate of the human race and leading them with courage, resolution and solitary dignity into a promised land which is the reward of austerity, forbearance and patience in the desert. In fact he is just a poor little man that has lost his way. He is going to have a horrible time at the next meeting of the Fianna Fáil Party.

It is a very useless Party in the history of this country, but they can justify their existence for the first time since they were established. They can cut this little man down to his real size, strip him of his grandiose notions, tell him that it is no part of his business to depress our people in their own country to a standard of living appropriate to paupers; tell him that our people will not accept that, that if it is forced upon them by force majeure they will go to where their worth is truly appreciated and they will be well rewarded for their journey; tell him that we do not want them to go; tell him that we want them to have that kind of life in their own country which will induce them to stay freely without force majeure of any kind from anybody; tell him what the voters of North-West Dublin told him, that the time has come, if he will not change, for those who followed him to date to change their old allegiance and, in leaving the Minister, to be loyal to those whom they should really serve, the people of this country.

That paper is a great betrayal of our people. It has been pregnant of much ill. I do not deny that it successfully sold to a considerable number of our people a falsehood which I most bitterly resented, and that was that the Government of which I was a member had improvidently dissipated the resources of our people committed to our care.

Events, facts, and now, the voice of our own people—and that is what matters—have proven that we have caught up with that lie and nailed it down and it will never walk again. If we had achieved nothing else, I would be satisfied but that paper and all it stands for was buried fathoms deep in Bolton Street Technical School. I like to believe that, with it rotting in its grave, are the lies born of that paper propagated by the Minister throughout this country, and the falsehoods whereby he hoped to see his own leader supplanted and his own future made secure.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Mr. S. Collins

I wish to second this motion.

Mr. MacEntee

It is customary for the person seconding the motion to reserve his speech.

Mr. Dillon

No, it is not.

Mr. S. Collins

I have no intention of doing so.

An Ceann Comhairle

If he wishes. There is no rule compelling him to do so.

Mr. Briscoe

After an hour and 45 minutes of filibustering——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair has no authority in the matter. Deputy Collins can make his statement if he wishes

Mr. MacEntee

His name does not appear as a seconder, Sir.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is no need.

Mr. MacEntee

His name is not attached to the motion.

Mr. S. Collins

I have not got the least intention of giving way to the Minister and he will not get a word in edgeways between this and two o'clock.

Mr. MacEntee

The words I will get in will not be edgeways. I can assure you of that.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Collins is in order in making his speech.

Mr. Briscoe

I wish to draw attention to the fact that there is not a House. That will save us five minutes of the Deputy.

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

An Ceann Comhairle

There is a House.

General Mulcahy

Is the Minister making a charge against the Chair——

Mr. MacEntee

We are not bound to listen to Deputy Collins.

General Mulcahy

——that he ignored a speaker from the Government side and called on Deputy Collins?

An Ceann Comhairle

I am not accepting the statement that the Minister is making any charge against the Chair. The Minister raised a matter as to order and I ruled.

Mr. MacEntee

And I accepted your ruling. I also wish to point out that Deputy Collins broke the precedent that, when a speech has been made, a rebuttal can be made on the other side.

An Ceann Comhairle

He is in possession and is entitled to speak.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not think we should listen to him.

Mr. Carter

You must have a House with you.

Mr. S. Collins

This is not the first occasion on which the Minister was not anxious to listen to me.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Collins, on the motion.

Mr. MacEntee

If the Fine Gael Deputies want to listen to him, let them come in.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Collins, on the motion.

Mr. S. Collins

In a brief way, on the results——

A Deputy

They will not go.

Mr. MacEntee

May I have a count of the House?

Mr. Sweetman

Seán Lemass is going to be annoyed.

General Mulcahy

The Minister for Defence and some Deputies are leaving the House.

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

General Mulcahy

The Minister thinks, because he ordered men out, that they went.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Collins, on the motion.

Mr. S. Collins

It is interesting, in the light of experience, and indeed more than interesting in the light of yesterday's salutary answer to the Government, to review now in retrospect the disastrous consequences that flowed from the policy of a Government that found its initiation in this rather discreditable and disreputable effort. Every gloomy prognostication uttered by the Minister for Finance, Deputy MacEntee, the concerted gloomy wailings of his colleagues in Government—in particular, the olagoning wail of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs—have come home to roost in a way——

Mr. MacEntee

I wish the Deputy would go home to roost.

Mr. S. Collins

——that shows itself in the irascibility and unamiability that can only be associated with his uncomfortable position when he was introducing the Budget. He can be as petulant as he likes to-day and endeavour to play the little petty parliamentarian politician, but he cannot blind either his own Party or the country to the fact that we are to-day getting an opportunity of analysing in a realistic way the consequences that have flown from this bit of petty nonsense. We can now in a realistic way examine the economic structure of which this incompetent Minister was the architect. We can now test in the light of reality the prognostications that were made. We can now see whether the hairshirt policy that he had hoped to sell to the Irish people was ever necessary. We can now see, in the light of his handling of the public purse, the amount of depression, the amount of retrogression that has taken place as a consequence of that hierarchy of stupidity that started with a White Paper, subsequently a Central Bank Report and then a Budget.

A Deputy

Here we go again. The Minister is fidgeting.

Mr. MacEntee

May I call your attention to the moving effect of Deputy Collins' eloquence?

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

General Mulcahy

On a point of order, can any notice be taken of the fact that the Minister for Finance deliberately ordered members of the Fianna Fáil Party out, in order to prevent the House doing its business?

Mr. MacEntee

May I point out to you again, in rebuttal of that allegation against me, that Deputy Collins deliberately shut out Deputy Briscoe, who is entitled to speak?

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

That is a charge against the Chair.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have no function in this matter. I do not know what the Minister did or did not do. Deputy Collins is in order.

Mr. Donnellan

The Minister did it deliberately, in order to prevent Deputy Collins from speaking when he was entitled to speak.

Mr. MacEntee

I must ask you to ask Deputy Donnellan to withdraw that.

Mr. Donnellan

Deputy Collins——

Mr. MacEntee

I am on a point of order now. Deputy Donnellan has accused me of improper conduct in the House.

Mr. Donnellan

Certainly.

Mr. MacEntee

In so far as he alleges I made a charge——

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

You did, by inference.

Mr. MacEntee

——when the Chair pointed out that the responsibility for this matter lay on Deputy Collins and you had no other option.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order. Deputy Collins is entitled to speak.

Mr. MacEntee

What about Deputy Donnellan's remark, that I was guilty of improper conduct?

Mr. Donnellan

Of course—you always were.

Mr. MacEntee

I think I cannot let that pass.

Mr. S. Collins

With respect, a Cheann Comhairle, I think the Minister is endeavouring to create a precedent here. The seconder of a motion may, if he desires, reserve his right to speak.

Mr. MacEntee

And invariably does.

Mr. S. Collins

In many cases in this House I have watched the antics of Fianna Fáil in opposition, where they spoke at once. There have been dozens of occasions and one of the prime movers——

An Ceann Comhairle

We are not discussing procedure.

Mr. S. Collins

——was the little jack-in-the-box.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Collins should proceed with the discussion on the motion and not on procedure. I have ruled on the procedure.

Mr. S. Collins

The Minister has tried to sell to the Irish people, in spite and viciousness at the success of his predecessors, a story that there was squandermania, that there was danger to the economy of the country and that there was necessity for a retrenchment, as epitomised in the saying of many speakers. The Minister felt we were looking too well, we were eating too much, we were having generally too good a time. We have just had a lovely opportunity, the first time since the Minister pushed up the excise duties, reduced consumption as he was determined to do by increased prices, by raiding the larder of the ordinary working-class people, as he was determined to do. We have had the first opportunity of getting the opinion of a working-class section in a working-class constituency of this country; and, mind you, never in the history of Fianna Fáil have they got such a salutary lesson; and, on the basis of this White Paper, on the artifice of those lies, you will get your answer. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 19th November, 1952.