Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 Jul 1953

Vol. 140 No. 3

Motion of Confidence (Resumed).

Mr. Lehane

When I moved to report progress I was referring to thefact that as long as I was an Independent Farmers' Deputy in this House I took every opportunity to support proposals which I thought were for the welfare of the country whether they had been introduced by the Government or otherwise. I intend to continue to follow that line of action. I voted with the Government when it wanted to do something which I thought was right, sensible and serviceable to the people, and I voted against the Government when they introduced measures which in my opinion were against the welfare of the people and against the interests of the people of my constituency.

I want to assure the Government that as long as I am in this House I feel the Government have a responsibility to maintain law and order, and every Deputy in this House, I think, should give his full support to the Government in backing law and order in this State; and as long as I am in this House the Government may depend on me for full support in any steps they may have to take to ensure that law and order is maintained in this State.

In regard to this vote of confidence I feel that the country is blistered with taxation, both national taxation, local taxation, direct taxation and indirect taxation. Everybody is paying that taxation, and the so-called free services we are getting are proving to be an expensive luxury for the people of the country. I cannot vote confidence in a Government that is involving itself in this very heavy expenditure. I cannot vote confidence in a Government that dealt so stupidly with the milk producers early this year and because of their mishandling of the situation brought about a milk stoppage that inflicted hardships on a number of people. I cannot vote confidence in a Government that went so far as to misinform the Taoiseach and to advise the Taoiseach in this House that I was telling an untruth when I was saying something that was perfectly true. I refer to the occasion on which I asked the Taoiseach if he was aware that the Department of Agriculture had sent a letter to the Cork Milk Board, theCreamery Milk Suppliers, the Dublin Milk Producers, the Federation of Milk Producers of Ireland and the Taoiseach said that I was quite wrong in stating that the Department's letter said that they would not consider the matter until "next May". I need not reply to that because the matter was featured in all the daily papers and the question I asked the Taoiseach and the Taoiseach's reply plus a photostatic copy of the letter written by the Department of Agriculture was published in the papers.

If I were to vote confidence in the present Government I would feel that, to be logical, I should support every Bill that the Government have on the stocks at the moment. I cannot do that. I cannot support the Health Bill. I cannot approve of the Bill that is proposed by the Minister for Local Government which will have the effect in County Cork of increasing taxation on a section of the ratepayers to the extent of £51,000 this year if it goes through. If the Health Bill is enacted the rate demands will increase.

I have these difficulties. I think it would be a ridiculous position for me to vote confidence in a Government to-day and to vote to-morrow or after against Bills that are passing through this House or Bills that have been promulgated.

As far as the Health Bill is concerned, I am opposed to it and I make no apology for that. I am opposed to it principally on one ground, that is, that the Minister introduced a Health Bill and that 50 per cent. of the cost of it will have to be paid by the local ratepayers and the Minister and the Government will take all the kudos attaching to that. If this House believes that that legislation is good legislation and decides to pass it, this House should find, and be responsible for, the money to put that legislation into operation.

As far as the proposed Agricultural Rates Bill is concerned, it has one very dangerous feature. At the moment the Minister for Finance is responsible for one-fifth of the rates on agricultural land of valuation over £20. Under the new proposal the Minister gets rid of that responsibility. Thereis this small deterrent at the moment to prevent Ministers from sending down Orders and instructions to local authorities to increase the rates. That deterrent is that the Minister for Finance has to find one-fifth of the rates on agricultural land of valuation over £20. Under the proposed legislation circulated to county councils by the Minister for Local Government that little deterrent is being removed. The Government will come into this House and do nice popular things as far as the people are concerned and then will send a flood of Orders to the local authorities to increase the rates and extract this money from the local ratepayers to pay for these services and they will say: "We are grand fellows. We are all for social services and social welfare."

I cannot support the Government on the Health Bill and I cannot support the Government on the Agricultural Rates Bill. I dislike the attitude of the Government in being responsible for the 19 days' milk stoppage by a stupid mishandling of the situation. I also dislike the statement and attitude of the Minister for Finance when introducing his Budget. The Minister said that taxation lies lightly on the land. Nobody but a Minister for Finance knows the degree of taxation that the land is paying in this country. It is hidden taxation. There is taxation on production. There is taxation of about 8/- on every old hen that is exported out of this country at the moment. There is taxation on hides going out of this country in order to provide cheap hides for the tanners here to manufacture into leather and to sell in competition with the people across. All of it has the effect of reducing the value of the animal produced by the farmer.

I have tried to be logical. I have tried to explain my views sincerely and honestly. I must come to the point of what is the alternative to the present Administration. The alternative to the present Administration is a Labour-Fine Gael Administration. I have not a great deal of hope that a Labour-Fine Gael Coalition will be of use to us in this country. I cannot expecta Fine Gael-Labour Coalition to give us any relief from this blistering burden of taxation that we have to suffer. Fine Gael and Labour have been as lavish in their promises as Fianna Fáil. There is a competition between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael and Labour as to who will give most for nothing but the "nothing" means a blistering burden of taxation on the people.

I listened to the ex-Taoiseach when he spoke on the Health Bill. His attitude to the Health Bill was that, even if faced with an expenditure of £8,000,000, £9,000,000, £10,000,000, they would not hesitate to support such a measure. We have the Labour Party coming in and, as I mentioned when Deputy Morrissey was speaking to-day, the Labour Party are opposed to exports.

According to the Official Report of 24th June, 1953, column 1937, a prominent Labour Deputy in this House said:—

"The more we export, the higher automatically will be the home price whether it is for bacon, eggs, butter or something else. The more we can send to Britain or elsewhere the more will the supply be curtailed automatically at home and the higher will the prices soar."

At the moment we have a situation in this agricultural country in which the agricultural producer has to buy in a protected, inflated market. He has to buy all his requirements at very much above their value and, on the other hand, he has got to sell his produce at world prices, if he is allowed to do it. The Minister for Agriculture through Eggsports Limited, will put a levy of 1/- or 1/2 per lb. or about 8/- on every old hen. The Minister for Industry and Commerce will not let him sell the hide of a beast because he wants that hide given to Plunder and Pollak—I think they are very well named—in order that they can use that hide and sell it in competition with people who are paying the right price or the world price for these hides.

What the Government are doing is bad enough, but we have the Labour Party, who will be part of the next Government with Fine Gael, who want to tax exports. They want to compelthe Irish agricultural producer, the person who is keeping this country going, to pay top prices for everything he requires, and they want him to get an artificially depressed price for his products to a greater degree than the Fianna Fáil Government is doing at the moment. That is the dilemma.

Deputy Costello, speaking in this House on the Health Bill, said, as reported in column 58 of the Official Report for the 15th April, 1953:—

"The farmer with a valuation of £50 can go in his Chrysler car to avail himself of the provisions of this Bill while the bus driver living in a corporation house in Crumlin will derive no benefit under it. The bank clerk, the commercial traveller and all those who come within the category of the middle classes earning over £600 per annum are not provided for in this Bill."

Deputy Costello thinks that farmers with £50 valuation and under are running around in Chrysler cars. I have a valuation of, roughly, £70 and it gives me all I can do to run a Perfect. I would not even run a Prefect only I have to do it to get around among my constituents.

I am in this difficult predicament between the two groups. I thoroughly agree with the statement made by Deputy Morrissey, who said that this was a "cod" motion. I agree with Deputy Morrissey that it is a "cod" motion. The only thing I am worried about is why this House has spent so long and why Deputy Morrissey spoke at such length discussing this "cod" motion. Probably I am discussing it too long myself.

Mr. Morrissey

If you are going in the same direction I am going, you will be all right.

Mr. Lehane

I agree with Deputy Morrissey that this is a "cod" motion. I would like to vote for a motion that would do something definite. This motion commits the Opposition to nothing. I would stay up night and day, week after week, with the Opposition to beat the Government on an issue that would commit the Opposition to something, but in votingon a motion of this kind we are committing the Opposition to nothing. It is, as Deputy Morrissey said, a "cod" motion.

We have heard a lot about unemployment. Yesterday's Evening Heraldhad these headings: “Unemployed March on the Dáil”; “Unemployed Sit Down on O'Connell Bridge”. It might be an unpopular thing to say, but it is quite easy for me to say it because I am regarded as a conservative reactionary, that we should decide that the figures we get with regard to the unemployed do not represent the number of unemployed. We should divide these figures into three separate groups, first the unemployable group and let us treat them as unemployed. Let us, having regard to our social commitments, treat the unemployable as unemployed. Let us treat the “won't works” as “won't works”, and let us treat the genuine unemployed as unemployed. I suggest that these figures which we get of 80,000 and so many thousands every week and which are issued by the Statistical Department should be segregated to see how many genuine workers we have looking for work. I have on occasions sat on the referee's court of the Labour Exchange in Cork and there were people coming in there who, it was quite obvious, were unemployed.

Captain Cowan

Physically unfit for work.

Mr. Lehane

Either physically unfit or they had lived on their mothers until they were 35 years of age and never did a day's work in their life.

Mr. Hickey

I do not think it is fair to say that of any young man.

Mr. Lehane

When I see coming in front of me a well-built, physically fit man of 35 years who can tell the court that he never did a day's work in his life——

Mr. Hickey

There are a great many idle.

Mr. Lehane

I suggest that we have a false idea as to the number of unemployed. There are people in this country looking for work and wanting work.I think that this unemployment problem can be dealt with easily and quickly by dividing what is at present taken as the unemployed group into the three categories I mentioned.

I was interested in listening to my friend, Deputy Peadar Cowan. Deputy Cowan wants progress. He wants increased production, but he wants us to go back to the reaping hook and the scythe. He wants increased agricultural production but he wants us to go back to the cow plough.

Captain Cowan

And smaller farms.

Mr. Lehane

I intervened last night when Deputy Cowan was speaking to point out that the only dual-purpose bovine animal I had ever heard of was the one in Germany that was under the plough on Monday and was used to drive the family to Mass on Sunday. If Deputy Cowan wants less hours for urban workers and automatic machines and conveniences and at the same time wants the country mugs to go back to the scythe and the reaping hook we are not going to get increased production.

These are the few points I want to make on this vote of confidence. When the vote is taken, I do not intend to vote for it because I believe with Deputy Morrissey that it is a cod motion. But if the Opposition oppose any issue I will do the best I can to get as much support as possible for it. But as I say, this vote of confidence, as Deputy Morrissey said, is a cod motion. It means nothing, and I for one am not going to vote for a cod motion.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

I cannot see why anybody in this House calls this a "cod" motion. I think everyone in this House should welcome a motion of this nature because it gives an opportunity of airing our views and of discussing the very serious economic situation that exists at the moment. It gives the Government a chance to review their policy in the past, and it gives the Opposition a chance to examine the steps which the Government has taken and to find out if they can put forward alternatives. It is, therefore,a great pity that a number of Deputies have overlooked the serious situation we are facing in this country. Since this Fianna Fáil Government came into power I have practically on all major issues supported them. Therefore, in the few moments which are left now I would like to look back on some of the decisions and see if the Government had an alternative to imposing some of the hardships they did impose in the past two years. When the Government took over office they had to deal with stockpiling and with the serious imports position. I do not think there is anybody who will to-day deny that imports had to be cut down at that time not only from the point of view of the balance of payments but on the whole question of finding a market for Irish supplies and for the question of employment in the textile industries.

The next issue which was extremely controversial and which caused the greater part of the hardships that have been imposed was the question of taxation in the 1952 Budget. Had the present Government an alternative? Could the present Government possibly have raised less taxation than they did in 1952? Fine Gael told us that they would take £10,000,000 in ten minutes off the amount of revenue raised—does anybody seriously believe that is so, and would Fine Gael reaffirm here again to-day that they will do it? I took the view then that the present Government had no alternative, and I still hold that view. There is no doubt that revenue had not been meeting current expenditure. It is perfectly definitely established, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the 1951 Budget and some of the other Budgets were inadequate in the amount of revenue they produced. Suppose the Government had taken a chance and introduced a Budget that did not balance, or suppose that they did not attempt to balance the Budget, and that an international economic crisis had occurred in the meantime—where would this country be, and where would the Government that had taken a chance in such circumstances be to-day? It may be that there are different views as to how that situationmight have been met, but I cannot see how the Government could avoid increasing taxation at that particular time.

It fell to the Government to implement the Social Welfare Act of their predecessors. The Government had to face the extra expenditure which the Social Welfare Act involved. It would have been an easy matter for this Government to turn round and do as their predecessors had done and put the Social Welfare Bill on the shelves and go from year to year promising it, saying it is only a matter of time. Then, you do not have to raise taxation, but you cannot have it both ways, and you cannot implement costly legislation and not raise the necessary money to pay for it.

The Government reduced subsidies. Here in this House, I opposed the reduction of the subsidies, and as an Independent Deputy I did what I possibly could, and challenged the Opposition and asked them to give a clear indication that they would restore these subsidies. Let me say if that guarantee was given I was fully prepared to defeat the Government if I could. The Labour Party did pledge themselves to return the subsidies in full at that time, but I do not think they hold the same view now. I have watched their pronouncements with interest in the recent by-elections and the restoration of the subsidy on butter was mentioned but I did not hear anything about any of the others. Deputy Costello as ex-Taoiseach never replied to my question. That has been the position of Independent Deputies in this House. So far as the Opposition was concerned they were never given an opportunity to exercise their Independent mandate. The Opposition here wanted to get government on the cheap. That may be a good short-term policy. It may work, but it is a very bad long-term one. These are problems I am being blamed for here to-day as an Independent Deputy, and if the Opposition were returned these would be the problems later. If the Opposition is returned with small Labour support the people will be asking Labour where are their subsidies and what is Labour going to say?

Mr. Everett

What answer have you given?

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

Now, Deputy, I have had my trial. It was perfectly obvious when this Government was formed that Independent Deputies were going to take a proportion of blame and responsibility and had no power to do otherwise. I am not grumbling about that. I could have turned on Fianna Fáil in the first instance and become one of those popular personalities and settled down to enjoying my position. I did not choose to do that. They have taken measures which I do not wholeheartedly agree with in some instances but on the major issues I do not see that they had any alternative and I have never seen any alternative put forward by the Opposition.

The question of capital expenditure was publicised very widely by the inter-Party Government. Its significance was emphasised again and again. Fianna Fáil have continued that and they have continued the same budgetary system. They raised a State loan in 1952. They were buying capital in a dear market. They decided to pay 5 per cent. for that. I am sure they got very good advice before deciding that. I do not think it was wise to pay that nor necessary. I think the effect of that dear money had a very bad effect on local authorities and on private building and on practically every other capital project in which the State is involved at present. I think that action combined with the restriction of credit was largely responsible for a considerable curtailment of employment. I think that, so far as industry is concerned, the steps which the Government have taken have been responsible for increased unemployment. I believe that to avoid that, it would have been necessary for the Government to have taken unto itself greater powers, so far as the commercial banks are concerned—something which any Government, if they are going to undertake the solution of the problem of the under-development of the country, will have to face sooner or later. Let us not overlook the fact that the Government by setting sucha very high price for State money have taken money from private enterprise. I think a lot of the money subscribed to the 5 per cent. loan for State purposes was money that would otherwise have been subscribed to finance private enterprise companies floated in the country. The whole question of obtaining money for private enterprise has been affected to some extent by that action of the Government.

The Opposition have put forward no alternatives for what the Government have done. Their whole case stands on the fact that there were three good years of inter-Party Government. Let me state quite clearly that the two or three years of relatively pleasant conditions under the inter-Party Government can be reproduced any time in this country. How can it be done? A Government comes into power, shelves all expensive legislation, puts their Social Welfare Bill and their Health Bill on the shelf and then begin to pour £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 of Marshall Aid into the economy of the country. It can be done anywhere. There is no difficulty, no mystery in it. I should like some information on this point. If the Opposition gets back, unless they are prepared to borrow money, they are not going to be able to restore employment or to bring about recovery in the economic position of the country any quicker than the present Government can.

Mr. O'Higgins

Do not cod yourself.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

I do not want to indulge in any personalities but the position of the Fine Gael Party is that they are endeavouring to get in on a blank cheque. They are endeavouring to capitalise on the difficulties of the present Government but yet they have not put forward one single alternative. I do not deny that the present Government have made some mistakes but in looking back over the major issues I do not think they had any alternative. However, there is a limited time at my disposal and I do not want to hold up the debate.

I must say that having regard to the serious economic difficulties of the country and the very unpleasant conditionsunder which a number of people are living, I was amazed at Deputy Costello's speech. As a novice in this House I do not want to make a personal attack upon him but I do not think that the Leader of an Opposition in any country in the world would make such a shallow speech in such serious circumstances. It was a speech which contained nothing only abuse, abuse and sneering at Fianna Fáil and at the Independent Deputies who support them. Deputy Costello's speech, so far as the future of the country is concerned, leads nowhere, absolutely nowhere. Take his hypothesis about the demand for a general election. The Government have lost a seat in Wicklow—the first seat they lost since they went back.

Mr. O'Higgins

That is not so.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

Let Deputy Costello tell me how a Party which holds one seat in a three-seat constituency can hope to win a seat under P.R. at a by-election. It is a mathematical impossibility.

Mr. MacBride

The Deputy might explain——

Captain Cowan

Keep quiet.

Mr. O'Higgins

Deputy Cowan is not in the Chair.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

Even assuming maintenance of the status quo, the Government could not win a seat in Wicklow at the by-election and to say that the fact that they did not win a seat which they could not win under P.R. deprives them of their constitutional mandate to govern this country is absolutely ridiculous.

It has been alleged that we are supporting this vote of confidence because we are afraid to face an election. So far as I am concerned that is absolutely untrue. I shall face an election at any time but I shall not face an election to give a blank cheque to the Opposition. I would have supported the Opposition on several occasions and I would have preferred to be able to exercise my right to vote independently on many occasions. I never cared very much for the status of an Independent Deputy and I would have preferred, sometimes, ifI had been given an alternative but I have never been given that alternative. I suggest to Deputy Costello that on this occasion either he has given us no alternative to the present policy of the Government.

General MacEoin

The debate on this motion is about to come to an end and the Dáil will shortly be called upon to decide the issue. May I point out to the Deputy who has just sat down and to the Independents, that they cannot contribute anything more to this decision than the country has given them and what the country has given them is a direction that this Government has no longer the confidence of the country?

Captain Cowan

Pure nonsense.

General MacEoin

It is quite clear that none of us, in face of the demand of the people, can vote for the Government here to-day—no member of Labour, Fine Gael, Clann na Talmhan, Clann na Poblachta or no Independent Deputy—because Deputies have no mandate to vote for a Government which has lost the confidence of the country, notwithstanding anything that the little lawyer Deputy from Dublin may say to the contrary. In the five minutes I have at my disposal, I want to stress the point positively that a vote for this Government means a vote for more unemployment, and more marches in the city. A vote in support of the present Government by Deputy Cogan, means that Deputy Cogan is voting for a reduction of the agricultural grant to farmers. Deputy Cogan has put down a motion here disapproving of the proposal of the Government to reduce the agricultural grant, but yet he is going to vote for them. Next week if that Government is in office, and I hope they will not, they will bring in an amendment to the existing Act providing for a reduction in the agricultural grant. Deputy Lehane and other Deputies have put down a motion in relation to the price of milk. What do they mean by that? Are they going to vote now to give the Government a blank cheque to do the things to which these Deputies now object? Deputy ffrench-O'Carroll says that he will notvote with the Opposition unless he is given an indication of their policy. What greater indication can we give than we have given both to Labour, Clann na Talmhan and Clann na Poblachta voters in the three constituencies in which by-elections were held recently? We have given it and the people have given their decision.

Captain Cowan

What will you do about the Health Bill?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Shut your mouth.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Cowan will have to restrain himself.

General MacEoin

Deputy Cowan would like to have attention drawn to himself. I am not going to assist him in that. Deputy MacEntee, the present Minister for Finance, said all the things about him that I could ever think of saying. I do not have to add to that. I want to address myself to these three constituencies—North-West Dublin, East Cork and Wicklow—for a vindication of the programme and policy of the inter-Party group. The majority of the electorate in all three constituencies voted in no uncertain fashion for that programme, yet Deputy ffrench-O'Carroll says that we are looking for a blank cheque. We are not. We do not want a blank cheque. We have stated specifically what our programme is.

We will fulfil every promise that we have made. It is not like the 15-point programme: promises are no sooner made by the Government than they are broken. Yet Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll votes for that breach of the fundamental plank of his programme which was that the subsidies would be retained. We said in Limerick and in Waterford that we would restore the subsidies. Believe it or not, the people of West Cork, in Limerick and in Waterford said to me: "The Government will not take them off." Fianna Fáil supporters in Limerick City said to me: "You are talking through your hat. If the Government win these by-elections you can take it that the subsidieswill not be removed." I regret to say that they were wrong and that time proved it. Yet Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll is prepared to support it.

Mr. A. Byrne

On a point of order. May I ask what are a member's rights in this House? I stood up 17 times in the past two days and I have been manoeuvred out of getting five minutes to speak on behalf of the constituency which I have the honour to represent.

Mr. S. Brady

That is a reflection on the Chair.

Deputies

Chair, Chair!

Captain Cowan

The leaders spoke.

Mr. A. Byrne

I have been manoeuvred out of five minutes to speak on behalf of my constituents.

Captain Cowan

You were manoeuvred out of the Lord Mayoralty by the Fine Gael Party.

Mr. A. Byrne

There are people out of jobs in this city—people without work and without decent meals. I protest.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Byrne will resume his seat.

Mr. A. Byrne

I want to know my rights. There are two of us here who represent constituencies in Dublin. We are not afraid of Deputy Peadar Cowan or of anybody else in a general election.

Mr. Briscoe

He wants to be put out.

Mr. A. Byrne

We could not get our voices heard here for five minutes. I stood up 17 times. One Minister spoke for an hour and 40 minutes yesterday to keep us out.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am not going to oblige Deputy Byrne by letting him create a scene.

Captain Cowan

He wants to be put out so that he will not have to vote.

Mr. A. Byrne

Deputy Cowan getsall the time he likes but two of us here cannot get five minutes between us.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am not going to oblige Deputy Byrne by letting him create a scene. Deputy Byrne gets all the advantages that other Deputies in this House get. There are nine Independent Deputies of whom four have spoken. That represents almost 50 per cent. I call on the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach

I have to confess that some of the taunts and some of the shafts which have been hurled here at me on the basis of democracy and of the people's rights might have caused me to wince now and again did they come from other hands. But when I thought of those who were hurling these taunts about democracy at me, they passed me by and left me untouched.

We are told that because Fianna Fáil have lost a seat in a by-election or have lost votes in some by-elections we should give up the position which we occupy here in virtue of a majority of the House and that we should have a general election. They told us we have no authority, if you please, because they can shout that we have lost some votes in by-elections.

It is good for this country that we have some basis on which democracy can work and that it is not on the basis of those who can shout loudest or on the basis of those who can take a constituency here and there and interpret the will of the people by the results of the elections in those constituencies. We won two out of three by-elections and how did the gentlemen who are attacking us now interpret them? According to the Leader of Fine Gael, the people were blind and ignorant. When fortune happens to blow in their favour a bit, they will interpret it as the will of the Irish people.

There is a Constitution, as was pointed out here by one of the speakers. The basis of our democracy is a representative democracy. We are not like some of the cantons of Switzerland where questions are decided by an immediate vote of the people. For obvious reasons, we didnot choose such a system. The system that is in our Constitution is the system of a representative democracy, this is, a House of representatives. As long as we do not exceed the time which is set out in the Constitution, which was enacted by the Irish people, and do not exceed the time which is settled by law, we are acting in accordance with the fundamental law decided by the Irish people themselves.

We are accused, because we happen to have but a slight majority in this House, of being unrepresentative. After the election in 1948, the Parties came into this House after making their bargains behind the backs of the people, thus denying the people the right which was read out to us here by one of the Deputies on the opposite benches—the right of deciding, in final appeal, all questions of national policy in accordance with the common good. That right is enshrined in Article 6 of the Constitution. They took very good care that they did not give the people an opportunity of deciding because they did not come with the policy to the people which would enable them to choose between one and the other. Time after time I have said—I even said it to-day while a Deputy was speaking—that the Labour Party have a perfect right to go and join up with Fine Gael if they want to, or with Deputy Lehane, if they want to, and produce a common policy and go with that policy before the country. Then the people will not be denied their right to decide national issues in final appeal at election times.

After the 1948 election, when we were on these benches, we challenged the people who had met behind the people's backs and formed a Government. There was not much talk about a general election then. At that time, it was rumoured that if we got back into office we would have a general election shortly afterwards and put the matter to the test. If we had, I, at any rate, would go to my grave believing that if it had been put to a test at that time the people who had been deceived from the platforms of several of the Parties would have given a good and quick answer to the people who had deceived them. Who, havinglistened to the election speeches of that period, would have thought that Clann na Talmhan were going to coalesce with Fine Gael? Who would have thought that the Independent Labour group were going to coalesce with Fine Gael? Who would have thought, at any rate any of us who watched the Labour leaders point a finger of scorn at the reactionaries in the opposition benches, that they were going to form a Coalition with them? The electorate did not know it and the electorate at these by-elections did not know what policy these various Parties stood for. You might as well add Deputy Larkin's vote to Deputy Lehane's vote. Is it democracy that these votes should be cast on the same side? Do they stand for the same thing as far as policy is concerned? They can of course, unite—they have a perfect right to do so—in turning out the Government, if they want to, but when those who are now so loud in taunting us that we are not going to the people sat here and when there was a good reason for going to the people, their answer was a smile and a statement: "We have a majority in the House and so long as we have a majority we are going to stay on." They regarded it as a national duty to do so. We were told by the Leader of the Opposition about the torments of office and of how dead-sea like are the fruits of office and I am sure he must often have asked himself: "Is it not strange why so many of us are looking for it, that we all somehow or other are striving for it?" There must be some reward and we have acknowledged what the reward was.

We are unashamedly saying that, if we are supported by a majority of the House, we should be glad to remain as Government, but if the majority, in their right, wish to turn us out, we shall just as happily and, if you like, as resignedly, go into opposition as we did before; but we want to know where we stand and the purpose of this motion is to determine the thing which has to be determined—whether we have or have not the confidence of the members of the House as a Government, given responsibility for the direction of public affairs, whether they want us or not. In the last resort, theGovernment so far as this House is concerned, is a committee of the House, responsible to the House, which can be turned out at any moment. That is the Constitution and if we are turned out of office, we shall accept the verdict of the House and accept that the House does not want us.

It has been suggested that it does not matter what the House does, that the responsibility for an election lies with one individual. That is true and that responsibility has not even to be shared with the Government. If the Taoiseach is supported by a majority of the House, he can at any time go to the President and ask for a dissolution. If, on the other hand, he is defeated, then, the decision is out of his hands and lies with the President. The natural thing for the President to do in such case is to consider the circumstances and make his decision. In moving the motion, I repeated what we said when we took office that, if we are supported by a majority in the Dáil, we shall continue to carry on with our programme so long as that condition obtains and within the period set down by the Constitution or by the law under the Constitution.

I have said that I have not been affected by the talks about democracy here. It has been pointed out by Deputy ffrench-O'Carroll that everybody knows that, under proportional representation, if you hold only one seat in a three-seat constituency, unless there is a tremendous change of public opinion, you cannot retain that seat in a by-election, and the very fact that that is true is one of the reasons why the theorists who are fond of proportional representation always object to having by-elections determined in that way. The feeling is that the purpose of proportional representation is to get a whole assembly that will appear to be representative of opinion in the country and when a Party which has one-third of the representation of a constituency loses it at a by-election, that constituency is not proportionally represented in the assembly.

It is so well known that only Fine Gael would try to make use of the situation in the way in which they havetried to make use of it in this case, but we have come here because we know there are people who would be misled by cries of that sort. What we want to make certain of, anyhow, is that here, in the representative assembly, so long as we remain the Government, we shall have the confidence of a majority of the representatives of the people. The day we have not got that confidence, they will show it to us by defeating us. They have the opportunity of doing so at present, if they want to.

I have said that it is remarkable to hear Fine Gael as champions of democracy. I have pointed out what they did after the 1948 election and really, when one thinks of the Blueshirts, one realises that there was not much democracy about them, nor was there much democracy about the statements made in this House that the Blackshirts had succeeded in Italy, the Brownshirts had succeeded in Germany and the Blueshirts would succeed here. There was not much talk of democracy or of appeals to the people then.

Captain Giles

Were they not better than your hair shirt?

The Taoiseach

I am talking about democracy. We have a democratic Constitution as the fundamental law of the people and it is being acted upon here in this House by us.

We come then to the questions of public interest. It has been said by many of the speakers on the Opposition side that we are responsible for a number of things that have happened here for which we are not responsible and could not, in the nature of things, be responsible. We are told that we are responsible for the restriction of bank credit. We are not in any way responsible for the restriction of bank credit. I know that there are people here who want to nationalise the banks. Very well—let them go to the people with that policy of nationalising the banks. We have set down our principles in the Constitution even on that matter and we have said that, in all that appertains to the control of credit, the fundamental and primary aim shall be the welfare of the people as a whole. We have put that asprimary duty also for consideration by the Central Bank. It is said that we have adopted the policy of the Central Bank. We have not adopted the policy of the Central Bank. Had we done so, we would have acted quite differently from the manner in which we have acted.

Mr. MacBride

How?

The Taoiseach

We would have looked for a surplus Budget, the type of Budget that it was suggested from the opposite benches we were out to get. We would have ceased public works and a number of other things. It is plain for anyone to see that we are not following the policy of the Central Bank. I have in my day read as much, one way or another, about financial credit theories as most people and I have come back in the end to the fundamental principle that the ordinary common sense rules which govern private families and private individuals in relation to their income and expenditure and the manner in which they utilise their reserves give, in the long run, the best results. If it appeared that there was not enough ordinary purchasing power in the country to enable the people to buy the goods they wanted and that were obtainable, I can assure the House we would take just as strong measures to remedy that situation as we have taken to deal with the situation with which we found ourselves confronted.

We came into office in a peculiar situation following on a particular world condition. That situation was not just confined to this country. Prices were not rising only in this country. Neither was the rush to stock up in the fear of war confined only to this country. These things were paralleled in almost every other country in the world and every other country has suffered practically parallel results. I pointed out in my opening speech that in practically every country there were identical results from that situation.

Starting about 1950 with the outbreak of war in Korea prices began to increase. The price of basic raw materials went up. Following on that import prices went up and that condition of affairs obtained consistentlyfrom 1950 until about September, 1951. About 40 per cent. of our personal income is attributable to imported goods. It is obvious, therefore, that if the prices of imported goods go up the prices of commodities made out of these goods or the commodities themselves will go up by that amount, plus some further amount because of various margins and so forth for which allowance has to be made here from the domestic point of view.

Imports prices went up. The increase in import prices followed the increase in world raw material prices. There was a lag between them and, in fact, import prices here reached their maximum round about September, 1951. I think they were about 33 per cent., nearly one-third, above the figure at which they stood prior to the outbreak of the Korean war. It was quite obvious from that that prices would go up here and, of course, they did go up here. They did not wait for the coming into office of the Fianna Fáil Government and restrictive financial policies, as has been suggested here. Taking a base of 100, the cost of living had already gone up to 109 as a result of some of these changes in prices before we actually came into office.

Indeed, we had to shake up the Government at the time. The Government at the time wanted to bury its head in the sand and pretend that prices were not rising. We had several debates here in an endeavour to convince the Government of the day that prices were rising and that the situation might become serious. We came into office in 1951, just after the time of the introduction of the Budget in that year. We found ourselves confronted with an extraordinary situation. On the one hand prices were rising and, on the other hand, there was an unbalanced Budget. The question was: "How would we deal with that situation?"

As I have said, import prices reached their maximum at about 33? per cent. above what they had been at the beginning of the Korean War. Agricultural prices had also gone up. When we talk about increased prices, let us not forget that if we have to pay increased prices for agricultural produce, in orderthat the producer may get a fair return, prices are bound to go up. To-day we had the spectacle of one group accusing us because the prices of milk and butter have advanced and, in consequence of that, there is a two-point increase in the cost of living. On the other hand, we are accused by Deputy Lehane because we did not give in at once and accept the milk suppliers' view of what they should get. We intended to sit down and act as judicially and impartially as we could between the two sections, between the producers on the one hand and the consumers on the other. Of course, as the Irish proverb says: Those who come in between get it from both sides. We came in between. We tried to arbitrate between the producer and the consumer. We tried to ensure that the producer would get a fair return, a return sufficient to induce him to continue the economic service he was rendering of producing milk and having it available for consumption by our people in the cities and towns. It was also essential that the creameries should get sufficient to enable them to continue in operation and produce butter.

Despite that, should we happen to have an election one set of Deputies will go down to the milk-producing areas and denounce the Government, as no doubt Deputy Lehane would, because they did not give more or because they were too slow in meeting the demand of the producers for increased prices. In a city constituency, such as Dublin North-West, prospective candidates will denounce us for having allowed the price of butter to go up. Yet we cannot increase the price of milk without increasing the price of butter.

In the general interest it would be better from the point of view of economics if these things settled themselves. It would be better if the rewards which the various sections of the community get could be determined on ordinary commonsense lines, with the Government and the State standing back but ensuring that there is no unfair competition and that the weakest is not driven to the wall.

That brings me now to the question as to what our general social attitudeis. As far as I am concerned, I am not aware of any change that has taken place since I first came into politics. I went down—how many years ago?— to East Clare and preached there the Sinn Féin policy. I believed at that time that it was the best policy for the nation as a whole. I have stood by that policy consistently. I regard it as the basic principle on which to judge all policies. That policy is to produce here everything that we can produce ourselves; to give as much employment as possible in the production of these goods to our own people; to import nothing that we can produce ourselves and, in so far as imports are concerned, to bring in only the rawest of raw materials and let all the processing as far as possible be done here.

I know that Deputy Dillon and the other free traders have never agreed with that. I know that their policy is the old free trade system of a century or so ago—the old British liberal idea. That was the policy we fought and fought successfully. I believe the policy we are pursuing is the best policy for this country to-day, as it was the best policy 20, 30 or 40 years ago. It is just as sound to-day as it was then. It is on the basis of that policy we have been working. It is on the basis of that policy that extra employment has been provided for our people. It is true people have gone off the land but I will not agree that they have gone because of anything that might have resulted from the establishment of industries here. I do not think the setting up of industries here has driven anybody off the land of Ireland.

As I tried to point out to the farmers, there should be no antagonism between them and the people living in towns. If there are six children on a small farm we know that four on an average will have to find employment off the land. Deputy Cowan's idea was that we should deal with our farms in a certain way but I am not accepting that. If you have six children in a small family on the land and they cannot get a place elsewhere on the land, four of these six children will have to find employment off the land. Looking back on life generally and tryingto philosophise on the meaning, the nature and conduct of it, I think that life in the country for the average man is fuller than he is likely to experience elsewhere. I might be asked why I did not live in the country but the point is that very often for one reason or another you are tied to certain conditions, but whatever length of life is left to me, politically or otherwise, I shall devote that portion of my life trying to improve agricultural conditions in this country so that there may be greater opportunities, if possible by increased production, for people living in the rural parts, so that they may be prevented from flocking to the cities. That will be my aim.

We have not been responsible for the increase in prices. The cost of living has now gone up to 126 points. Of those 126 points there are only seven for which we could be held directly responsible. We are not shirking the responsibility that seven of these points have gone up as a result of the withdrawal of the subsidies. The history of the subsidies is most interesting particularly so far as the Labour Party is concerned.

As I said in my opening speech, prices were rising rapidly in 1947. We were able to maintain a certain amount of stabilisation. Of course, one of the chief counts against us by the Labour Party was that we tried to keep things level during the war. We did that in the supreme conviction that by keeping prices and all that was associated with them level so far as was within our power to do so we were looking to the best interests of the community from the economic point of view and that in particular we were doing it in the interests of Labour. When prices and wages are not stable there are lags of various kinds. The result is that in the long run these variations affect the Labour sections, who suffer most.

Better work is done and there are more settled conditions generally if you can keep prices level. When prices are falling there is, as a rule, a general inhibition to activity because manufacturers do not want to manufacture as they feel that when the goods go on the market they will lose. Nobody wants to get in stocks under these conditionsbecause they feel they will lose as a result. Lower prices are bad for business generally. Therefore, in general the best thing to aim at from the economic aspect, if you want progress and results, is to try, in so far as it is in your power to do so, to keep prices level.

We brought in the food subsidies in 1947. We tried to prevent the cost of living rising and, I think, we brought it down by as much as 13 points. We brought the price of tea down from 4/10 to 2/8 a lb. and the price of sugar from 6d. to 4d. a lb. Butter and a number of other commodities were already subsidised. We thought that, as a result, the one section of the community that would have appreciated our action and supported us in that would have been the Labour Party.

Mr. O'Leary

Did they do it?

The Taoiseach

No.

Mr. O'Leary

They put you in power first.

The Taoiseach

I do not say anything about the Labour Party not having a right to do anything they chose. If the Labour Party supported us I never went begging to them. I never asked anybody to support me. We put our policy forward on its merits and we said that, if that policy suited you, to vote for it and if it did not suit you you need not vote for us. That has been our attitude. The Labour Party put us into power. When we came in in 1932 we did not have an overall majority but if the Labour Party had gone with Cumann na nGaedheal or joined up with it or some other Party they could have formed a Coalition if they wanted to.

Mr. Davin

Did you make any promises to them?

The Taoiseach

They did not form a Coalition at the time. I think the Leader of the Labour Party will remember that when the election was over and when it was clear that his Party was going to support us, I put the question to him whether they wished to remain independent or what was their attitude. He said, as I expected,that they would work independently. It had been up to that time definitely stated by the Labour Party that that was their programme. I said that I would also prefer that situation. After that I never begged the Labour Party to support us in regard to anything. It has been said that I went to the country.

Mr. Davin

In 1933.

The Taoiseach

Yes.

Mr. Davin

Why?

The Taoiseach

The main reason why I went to the country in 1933 was because we had engaged in a struggle which was going to test our people to the utmost and which was possibly going to bring a good deal of suffering on them and I wanted them to know at the start where exactly they were going. It had been suggested to us that we were engaging in false pretences. After 1933 nobody could say that our fight to get a free Constitution and to retain the annuities was not a fight which was approved of by the Irish people. In 1938 we went to the country because we were beaten on a vote here. I wanted to have a strong Government if I could. I am not going to pretend for one moment that a slight majority of one or two is a strong Government any more than the previous Government was a strong Government. If a Government has to take unpalatable decisions for itself and unpopular for the country in doing their duty to safeguard the public interest you do want to have a certain amount of strength. You cannot depend on somebody not getting a sudden attack of pneumonia or something else. The Government of course, is a weak Government. Thank God—and in this respect the country ought to be glad too—that when we came back in 1938 we came back with an over-all majority which enabled us to take the measures which we considered wise in the country's interest and we stood up against all the pressure that was brought from elsewhere. We would not have been able to do that if we had a Party which depended upon thevote of Deputy Dillon or somebody else.

Mr. O'Leary

Or Deputy Cowan.

The Taoiseach

I am not going to pretend that, under these conditions, we are a strong Government, but as long as we represent the majority of the Dáil we shall carry on in the firm belief that no stronger one can be got here. In regard then to our policy, we are not following the Central Bank or anybody else. Coming back to the decision that faced us in 1947, we had to put up subsidies and we had to provide for them. Is it going to be suggested by the Labour Party, or anybody else, that we should borrow the money that was necessary to meet year after year the subsidies on food? If we are not going to borrow then we must provide for them through taxation, and there is the question all the time, which is going to be the more profitable and the better for the community. Is it better to have subsidies with the taxation that is necessary to support them or have neither subsidies nor the taxation involved. The Labour Party in 1947 took up the position that the subsidies were not worth the taxes that were put on beer, spirits and tobacco.

I thought at least that the housewife would appreciate that she was getting bread cheaper, was getting tea cheaper and was getting sugar cheaper. When I tried to show how much the ordinary family was going to gain, and how much better socially it was that the position should be as we were suggesting at that time—all the time, of course, making it clear that there was no question of continuing them for an indefinite period—and because I happened to take the example of £2 10s. a week, or some figure like that, we had some of the gentlemen on the opposite benches putting an advertisement in the papers saying that was the wage which I thought right for agricultural workers.

That was said, because I happened to take that example in order to show how the figures would work out, to show what a family was going to get through the subsidies and what it was going to lose in the ordinary way through taxation. There was then noenthusiasm about subsidies, none whatever, on the part of the Labour Party. They denounced us from one end of the country to the other because we had to provide for them by taxation on beer, spirits and tobacco.

Again, in 1952, we had to deal with the situation in which we had the huge deficit of £15,000,000 in our current accounts. When we looked over the projected expenditure and the projected revenue, we had to ask ourselves, how are we going to fill this gap of £15,000,000? Are we going to keep the subsidies and put on £15,000,000 on taxation to meet them, or are we going to lighten the burden of taxation, as we had increased it when we put the subsidies on first, by reducing the subsidies. We felt that, as far as the community as a whole was concerned, the community interest would best be served by reducing the subsidies, and by that means reducing the amount that would otherwise have to be obtained, through taxation.

When we asked the Opposition what were they going to do about this, they did a very clever thing. They stuck their heads in the sands and did not see it, like the fellow who looked at the giraffe and said: "I do not believe it." They said: "There is no difficulty, you are looking for a surplus of £10,000,000; that is what you are after." We asked them to give us some figures and some details and to point out where the supposed excessive revenue was to be got. The figures they gave were ridiculous and they proved to be ridiculous. But that did not stop them from repeating them here in the House for a year. When the year's accounts were closed, instead of having a surplus of £10,000,000, there was a deficit of £2,000,000. Did that matter to the Opposition? Not a bit of it.

They were not concerned with balancing Budgets, and they took mighty good care not to balance their own when there was an election in sight. Their attitude towards that particular difficulty was, "Oh, we will accept an increase in the rates of remuneration for civil servants, guards and the Army, of £3,500,000 and makeno provision for it: we will wait until after the election and see what will happen." When we took over, there was a deficit of something between £6,000,000 and £7,0000,000 for current expenditure that could have been foreseen with any reasonable degree of approximation.

As a Government, we could not act in that irresponsible fashion. We had to balance our accounts, and, therefore, the choice was either to leave on the subsidies and add on the extra amount of taxation to meet them or reduce our expenditure by reducing the subsidies. We proceeded in the latter way. We have not to be thought by the Labour Party or anybody else to think of the individuals in this country.

Mr. O'Leary

You bought the race horse for £250,000.

Deputies

Order! Order!

The Taoiseach

We were talking about capital development and increasing our industrial production when some of the people opposite were talking like the Deputy. We knew perfectly well that bread is the most common of all foodstuffs for the majority of the people. When we reduced the subsidy we regretted having to do so, but one of the things that determined the actual amount taken off was the fact that flour, at the price at which it was being subsidised, was the cheapest feeding material available for animals, and that, if there was not rationing, it would be fed to animals almost in spite of you. Because of the subsidised price at which it was being made available, it would be fed to animals. We had rationing to prevent that to a large extent. If we wanted to get rid of rationing, as we did, then there was a certain limit to the extent to which we could depress the price of flour and bread. The determining line which we took finally was the line where we thought that flour would not be cheaper than other feeding materials for animals. If Deputies look at the prices of some of the commodities they will find that is pretty near the line, and that if you were to do very much more in the way of reducingit, there was the strong possibility that the flour would be misused.

We knew that the price of bread was going to be a very serious matter for the ordinary household and the ordinary worker, and we tried, as best we could within our limits, to relieve the situation, and so we brought in some compensatory allowances to try and lighten the burden on those sections of the community that were being most hard hit by our proposals. One hears nothing to-day from those on the benches who are attacking us about these compensatory allowances which we brought in and which amount to about £3,750,000 a year. These were the compensatory allowances, increased old age pensions, increased unemployment assistance, and so on. It requires £3,750,000 in taxation to meet these. Were they worth while? We believe they were. We believe that relieving the old age pensioner, giving him these extra allowances to try to compensate for what he would have to pay, and increased children's allowances, and so on, for the larger families, were all worth while. I would remind the Labour Party of that and I say to them or anybody else that I am not pleading for Labour Party support. I am stating the policy which we have always stood for. Members of the Labour Party know perfectly well that we are a Party of all sections— I would like to deal with that as a separate issue—and that we settle out these matters amongst ourselves. We did get agreement from all sections of the community that it was worth while to do what we have done. It was worth while to get £3,750,000 in taxation in order to make that burden lighter. There is still £5,500,000 a year that has to be raised by taxation in order to meet the bread and flour subsidy.

Do not let anybody then pretend in this House that this Government has completely cut out subsidies. We have not. We have cut them out to the extent that we thought was possible and as far as possible because we felt that, in general, having to put on taxation to meet these could only be justified in exceptional circumstances, that it was not good generally for the ordinaryeconomy of the country, that it was very often taking out of every pocket in the country a certain amount and putting that on the table of every household; in that way a certain sum was lost in administration, taking it out and putting it back. That is the difficulty about social services. If you are not careful, you waste a good deal of the money in administration costs.

In the Budget this year provision is made for the poorer sections of the community in order to make the cost of living press less heavily on them. There is some £9,000,000 and if that £9,000,000 were not there, there would be £9,000,000 less taxation to be raised. But you cannot have it both ways. The Labour Party did not want subsidies or taxation at one period. Now they do not want to get rid of subsidies and taxation. What they want is to get rid of taxation and to have the subsidies. You simply cannot have it that way unless you go and borrow for it. Is it the policy of the Labour Party that we should go and borrow for our daily bread? Surely it ought to be the purpose of the community to try to make ends meet and to try to secure by the product of our labour and our industry the means which will enable us to get the things which we require in order to live. They will admit that if we want to continue in our work it is essential that we balance revenue with expenditure. When there is taxation that taxation does hit the poor and the rich. Heavy taxation has this terrible advantage that it helps to depress industry and puts a certain stop to enterprise and activity. I have never believed in the full socialist creed. I want to say that quite openly. I believe in private enterprise.

Mr. O'Leary

At 5 per cent.

The Taoiseach

The 5 per cent. goes back to the Irish people, not like Marshall Aid.

Mr. O'Leary

It goes to the money-lenders.

The Taoiseach

Let the Deputy not talk about that. Although I believe in private enterprise, I do not believe in the law of the jungle and neverhave. I do not believe in unrestricted competition. I do not believe that Almighty God created every one of us with the same ability to maintain ourselves. Therefore, it is good and right for the community as a whole to come in and help the weaker sections of the community and enable them to lead as full lives as the Almighty has given them the capacity of living.

We have acted on that principle all the time. We have been trying to keep a middle course which we believe is the right course, that is, to encourage private enterprise by every means in our power. There are certain enterprises which ought to be undertaken for the good of the community. These enterprises very often may not be of the kind which will attract private individuals, the private entrepreneur.Therefore, if we want them, the State must intervene. The State has a duty to protect private enterprise in certain respects but the State must intervene in cases where private enterprise is not forthcoming. As everybody knows, we have done that to develop the resources of the country. I ask the Labour Party: are they against that? Are they against, for instance, the development that we began in Rineanna? They joined up with the man who hoped and prayed he would see rabbits running over it and that the radio communication poles would be used as knitting needles. It has always appeared to me to be a very strange alliance, but, as I have said, the Labour Party have a perfect right to do anything they choose.

We have always stood for the development to the full of the natural resources of the country. We have always stood for the development to the full of the credit and financial resources of the country in so far as they were required for the progress of the nation. We have not hesitated from the beginning in the development of the activities of the E.S.B. We never hesitated to ensure they got the capital to enable them to carry on with their work.

We have not hesitated to develop the resources of the bogs so that electric power would be available and domesticfuel if it were badly needed. We have not nesitated to use the raw materials that could be got from our farms to have been manufactured into sugar, thus providing a certain cash crop, not one that would go up and down with the world market but one that could be fostered in the domestic circumstances and give valuable employment and the means of earning a living to many people. I think there are about 3,000 workers employed at the peak period. As a result of good management we have people who are interested not merely in the narrow industry of the production of sugar but they are interested in the people who provide the raw commodity, not merely in the cash crop but in their whole welfare. That is one of the advantages we get from enterprises of that kind.

Another direction in which we have made progress is in the exploration of our mines. These things did not happen to-day or yesterday. When we came in first, one of the things I had dreamed of—it turned out to be an empty dream —was that Leitrim might be a possible industrial centre in the country. I thought in the old days we would have coal and iron there. There was an investigation and exploration to see what minerals we had in this country that could, be developed in the national interest and we were prepared, wherever they were likely to be found, to give the necessary capital in order to have them explored and developed but also to protect the commodities which were produced if that protection should seem to be necessary in the interests of their proper working. There has never been any policy or any suggestion of contraction of capital or a denial of capital for capital purposes.

The only reservation we ever made was the same reservation as I made the other evening when speaking here, that is, that our resources are limited and we have to be careful that it is not a question of a feast and a famine with us and that these resources be conserved so that, when they are used, they will provide other resources that will remain in substitution for the resources we are using.

As long as any of our assets of any kind, internal or external, are being used in a manner which will provide resources equivalent to those which we have been using up, we should be always happy to use them but we do not think that these resources ought to be used up in ordinary everyday consumption. For instance, we do not think that it is good that the £62,000,000 or so of our reserves was used up in the way it was in fact used up in the year 1951. There was an increase in the deficit from £30,000,000 in 1950 to £60,000,000 in 1951. Of that increase of £30,000,000, not one-half of it could be attributed to capital formation. The other half was used for things that we consumed at the time, and when they were used they were as much gone and departed from us as the breakfast we ate three weeks ago. If it was necessary to eat our breakfast, all right, but surely it had not come to that. A lot of the things that were brought into the country in that rush and that were paid for with valuable dollars and Marshall Aid were things that were not necessary for the welfare of this community. Some of them were in the nature of luxuries. Others were in the nature of things we should have produced here ourselves.

Mr. MacBride

Who prepared the first Marshall Aid list? Your Government.

The Taoiseach

I prepared it but I did not determine the amount nor did I determine what use would be made of it. I did not determine what use was going to be made of the dollars. If the Deputy wants to have a debate on this he can put down any motion he pleases but will he let me make my speech?

Mr. MacBride

It was your list.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy MacBride has already spoken.

The Taoiseach

A great deal of that money was spent in ways in which, in the national interest, it should no have been spent.

Mr. MacBride

On your list.

Mr. Killilea

Conduct yourself

The Taoiseach

I had not the control. To get money is one thing, to use it is another, to determine in what manner any moneys got will be used. I did not determine this. I had nothing to do with the determination of it. We had not the money then. That is a red herring that the Deputy raises. The Deputy seems to be mighty sore about the Marshall Aid.

Mr. MacBride

You raised it.

The Taoiseach

Let him defend himself on it.

Mr. MacBride

You never opposed it here.

The Taoiseach

I say and repeat that there was $146,000,000 that we got through Marshall Loan and Marshall grant. The dollars of that money were expended in bringing to this country commodities many of which should not have been purchased either because of the fact that they were unnecessary, of the character of luxuries, or because they were necessaries that we could have produced ourselves.

I am trying to run over our policy because the Labour Party have been suggesting that we suddenly turned Tory. It is very convenient for Labour, joining on with Fine Gael, to label us as Tory.

Mr. Norton

Not suddenly, progressively.

The Taoiseach

Not even progressively. What happened was that the Labour Party decided to take a different course. I am not going to ask why they did it. That is for themselves. I know there was a change in 1947 in which the main factor was that during the war we had a serious situation in this country. The Government had a terrible responsibility in the country, both for internal conditions and for our external position. There were hardships imposed. There had to be because of world conditions. We had to put hardships upon our people and the Labour Party did not come along and take with us the knocks that we had to stand in that period. They have a perfect right. They were not a part of the Government andthey did not have anything to do with the policy adopted. I am not questioning the right of Labour to do it. What I do question and say is untrue is that there is any evidence that we have changed our policy or become more Tory, progressively or otherwise, either suddenly or progressively. I am not conscious, and I do not think it is happening either without my seeing it myself or being sharply reminded of it, that I have become more of a Tory to-day than when I first came into politics.

Mr. MacBride

You have always been one.

The Taoiseach

I have always been against extreme socialism as such because I do not believe it is a good social system. I believe that it leads to slavery. I do. I believe that if you go on the extreme socialistic line that the inevitable consequence is that you have to control practically everybody and everything.

I will deal with unemployment, I hope. Remind me of it before I finish.

Mr. Dillon

There is plenty of time.

The Taoiseach

All right. Thanks be to goodness. I am dealing with this possibility of our turning Tory. I deny it. I cannot be shown a single example where anything we have been doing has not been done primarily in the interests of the working section of this community and the small farmer. I have put it as a test every time. If ever we have failed it is because either circumstances were too much for us or something of that sort. It has not been want of will. That I can say.

Mr. Davin

Who pays 5 per cent. to the money-lenders?

Mr. Corry

Who pays for Jim Dillon's chicks?

The Taoiseach

We developed the resources of the country. We put capital behind it. Is there any suggestion in our action that we had restricted capital expenditure?

Mr. MacBride

Local Loans Fund.

The Taoiseach

Look at what we havethis year in the way of State capital expenditure. There was £24,000,000 on an average for two years and the next two years it was £33,000,000 when we came in. This year it will be £39,000,000 or £40,000,000. There are not unlimited resources. Remember that, every time, if we are not going to use the printing press with all the dangers that result from it and the hardships to the poor.

Mr. Hickey

Did anybody ever suggest that?

The Taoiseach

It would be lovely to see Deputy Hickey tethered with, let us say, Deputy Lehane and the two of them put to talk their principles out, one against the other. You are tied in a Coalition like that, or a similar type of Coalition.

Mr. Morrissey

Tie Deputy MacEntee to Deputy Cowan.

The Taoiseach

Will Deputies please let me make my speech? I have said that there is no evidence anywhere of our restricting capital development— none. We have increased it but, I said, there is a limit, unless we are going to get the money by the methods that some people would advocate and find themselves, in a very short time, in the position that some of the German Governments found themselves in when it was cheaper to paper the wall with their marks than to buy wall paper. That is the type of stuff some of the people talk about.

Mr. Hickey

Who wants to confuse the issue?

The Taoiseach

When we get money we have to pay for it. The debt charges are mounting. We got the Marshall Aid money and used it as other Government funds are used. It was being used at the rate of £1,000,000 a month before we came into office and when we came into office there was a balance left. It was kept in sterling. by the way. Those people who talk about increasing sterling assets did not mind increasing them to the extent of £37,000,000 to put funds into the Central Bank. The Central Bank had to increase sterling holdings at the time up to an amount of £37,000,000.

Mr. Aiken

Extra.

The Taoiseach

Extra, yes, and another £7,000,000 was in Government and Department funds, which was extra, which was added during that time. It is very funny to hear people talking about external assets in that way, knowing as they do that unless you can have them in a liquid form immediately ready for use that they are going to be of considerable difficulty to you. I do not want to interrupt my trend, what I was going to say about this charge that we are Tories. I think I had better get back to that.

Mr. Dillon

You were getting on to a very Tory line there.

The Taoiseach

Well, I think I would look better dressed up as a Tory than the Deputy with a Republican flag around him.

I was saying that the trouble about capital expenditure is this, that you have the debt charges going up. The debt charges even on the Marshall Aid money will be £1.2 million this year. We must provide that in taxation that has to go on to some article or income-tax or something else.

By the way, lest I forget it, as I was talking about alleviation of taxation we were told about the position of income-tax payers by somebody on the other side, but those people would not add that 170,000 of the income-tax payers have had less to pay after our Budget of 1952 than they would have to pay even though the rate of taxation was increased. We have to provide £1.2 million to meet this year's charges on Marshall Aid money. In a few years' time the sum will have gone up by £250 000 more and even after a period it will have run up by another £500,000. This year as I have said £11.9 million will be the amount that will have to be provided to meet the gross debt charges which we will have to meet from taxation. Now we are never afraid of that provided that the capital enterprise is productive. We have, as I said when I was opening at the beginning of the debate, to be a little careful that wedo not overstrain ourselves and that what I may call amenity investment should not bear an undue proportion to the amount of money that is put into capital productive purposes. I do not know what the Labour view about this is. I do not know what the extreme socialist view is, but I do know our view anyhow, and we believe that we are only keeping to the middle of the road, the road that we can continue travelling along for a long distance, and that we are trying to balance our expenditure so that as much as possible of it will be productive and that afterwards as much as the community can afford will be used for social and amenity purposes. That is as far as capital policy is concerned, and I do not think that any member of the Labour Party has any fault to find with that. They may say that we are going a little too slow or something else but in principle where do they differ from us? I do not see how they can. I have often been asked by foreigners about our policy. I have often been asked by people interested in political organisations in different countries and social organisations: "What is your policy?" and so on; and in general the people who come from the Continent and other countries say: "Are you not a Labour Party?" I say: "No. We represent the broad general sections of the community, we have all sorts of people in our organisation and we have all agreed that this is the national and social policy that we stand for." I would rather a thousand times be pitched out of this seat than go back on that because I believe in it, and if I am going to be pitched out of office I do not mind in the slightest although I do not want to be pitched out through exaggeration and falsehood. When I speak of myself, that is the attitude of every member of our Government as far as I know and of our Party. It is a very good thing for the country that when principles are considered the objections to them are considered also.

Deputy Lehane talks about an increase in taxation. We have got to be very watchful about it, and as I have said heavy taxation can have disadvantages, but we cannot have it bothways any more than in the case of the subsidies. When a piece of legislation comes into this House we ought to consider not merely the benefits that are going to be given but also the disadvantages in the way of burdens of various kinds that may be put on the rest of the community. If we are helping the unemployed, as I think we have a right and duty to do from community resources, we must remember that every person who is employed is participating in that helping and that we have to be careful that some of those who are contributing to that are not burdened beyond what is fair to them. We have got to consider the distance which we can go, and in talking about old age pensions I would like to think that more old age pensions were possibly available.

Mr. Dillon

So you would not want them to break stones?

The Taoiseach

I am going to give you the truth about that statement of mine which has been twisted. What I said on that occasion was in reply to an interrupter from the crowd, who said that I was anxious about losing my job. I said: "I have never been anxious in my life about a job. I have always felt that the Almighty gave me fairly good sinews and if I were driven to it I would be willing to break stones."

Mr. Dillon

None of us would wish to see you break stones.

The Taoiseach

That is the truth and I would say the same to-day. If somebody opposite said I was talking like this because the remuneration was good I would say that I am not afraid, because if I had to depend upon the community I would regard it in my opinion as no more than was due in regard to me or anybody else. I would not say it was charity. I would say it was justice. I never could understand the Labour Party, when they were talking about people who got assistance such as unemployment assistance, suggesting that it was something like charity.

Mr. Norton

That is not true. The Labour Party never suggested that.

The Taoiseach

I am sorry.

Mr. Norton

We protested about the inadequacy of it.

The Taoiseach

I am sorry. I am genuinely sorry, but my thought was and I am sorry if it is wrong, that we heard a good many people from time to time referring to social services as a "charity".

Mr. Norton

They do not say it from these benches.

The Taoiseach

As far as I am concerned, it is my fundamental belief that man is not meant to live alone, that he is in society and that it is a function of society to aid the individual to reach the highest level that he is capable of, and that, when I am a member of a society and when I do my duty to that society, in fair play society ought to do its duty by doing its best to help me. That is my philosophy about the relations between the individual and society. My belief is that when we pay taxes into the central fund of the community, and pay them voluntarily if we wish to remain in the community, we should be regarded as, in a sense, insuring ourselves against disasters which we cannot avert but which the community can help us to overcome. These amounts have to be got by the contributions of every section of the community and they contribute by way of taxes. The only problem is to see that we do not go too far and burden those who happen to be producers, to such an extent that they are no longer able to produce and give the employment they were giving. In the long run, that would do more harm than good.

That is the only consideration we have had in mind in considering how capital investment is to be used. I do not think that our Government differs there from the fundamental policy of the Labour Party, as I have in the past understood it, or that we differ from any decent member of the community. Therefore, we can have our differences here. Some may say:"You are going a little too far", or "You are not going far enough"; but for goodness' sake let us have some agreement on the fundamental principles. I am trying to show the principles which have energised any actions we have taken as a Government in social or economic life.

I have been talking about capital investment. Let me come now to our day-to-day expenses. I say to the Labour Party—I am speaking to the Labour Party generally—they must make up their own minds on their own views. I am not bidding, nor do I wish to did, in any way for their support, but I wish to bid for understanding. I do not want to have our Government labelled as something we are not. With regard to current expenditure, we have to provide the means by taxation. If we increase benefits, we have to find the taxation. The Labour Party often think that there is a tremendous amount that can be got by income-tax. A considerable sum is being got at the moment, about £21,000,000, I think, from income-tax generally. I would like the Labour Party to remember that that will not meet our needs. Our needs have gone up to £100,000,000. Are you going to double income-tax, or even increase it? If you do, you will kill the initiative which is the driving force in industry. You cannot do it. You will not have employment in industry, if you go along in that way. I think even the Labour Party will give me credit for having supported all the time the various social measures that have been taken here. I may not have initiated them, but I have supported them and believed in them. It will be found that the expenditure in social services is fairly high. The question is how much higher can we go without creating that very unemployment which is our principal problem to-day?

The cost of living has gone up in almost every country with which our cost of living has been compared. I think there were 17 of the O.E.E.C. nations compared, and in 14 of the 17 the cost of living has gone up. We are included in the 17. In 14 cases it hadgone up; in only two cases has it gone down, and that very slightly, by I per cent.; and in another one it is unchanged. Surely the policy of Fianna Fáil did not create that, in all those countries. It is one of those universal things that happen, for which we may be blamed. Blame us if you will, that we did not take sufficient counteracting measures—I will argue that out as to what measures were open to us—but do not blame us for increasing the cost of living by 26 points. By having avoided taxation we have added seven points, or by doing away with the subsidies we have put on seven points; but we got no credit whatever for the compensatory allowances, which will cost this year £3,750,000.

I now turn to the question of unemployment. I think I have been speaking on public platforms now for 37 years, speaking on Irish issues, economic and national, and I do not believe that if you go back over all those speeches you will find many in which I have not dealt with the two questions, emigration and employment. These are two questions on which I have spoken all the time. We were longing to get into office in 1932 in order to tackle these questions. We tackled them in industry by giving employment. As a result, as far as industrial employment is concerned, I think 110,000 were in employment in 1931 and last year or the year before there were 220,000, just double the number.

We set out to try to meet this problem by private industrial employment. It was the most direct and immediate way to achieve our aim of making us as self-sufficient as possible, of saving ourselves by putting ourselves in a position of strength in a time of crisis and also giving employment. There is room for development and there is development going on. I do not know if the Tánaiste has already told you that over 152 new projects have gone into actual production during the period since we came into office. You may say that the numbers of unemployed have not sufficiently diminished. I would say that if you had not these projects we would have still greater unemployment.

It is bad enough, I am prepared to admit. I do not take Deputy Lehane's view at all. There is a problem which we have to attend to as an immediate and urgent problem, but we have always had this difficulty of employment because we are not sufficiently industrialised on the one hand and we are not getting sufficient agricultural produce from our land on the other hand. Whilst I would have an eye on the employment given in getting that production, I would believe in getting it by the most up-to-date methods in agriculture. I believe that, in the long run, if we have production we will have something to consume, but if we have not production we will not have the wherewith to consume. Therefore, I believe in getting after agriculture to see what extra production and employment it can give. We are a small island and our resources are limited and we have a really difficult problem in finding employment for our people.

What was the result of our efforts in the years before the war? I think those efforts were reasonably satisfactory. There was a tremendous increase in industrial employment. We cut down emigration to a considerable extent, nearly one-third of what it was. Deputies on the Opposition Benches, including Labour, were shouting in 1947 that people were flying from the land as they had never gone since the days of Black '47. My view was that that was not true, but we had no figures at the time to prove it. It is the same as the Deputies yonder shouting and saying the people of Ireland have turned us down. They want to interpret the by-elections in their particular way. As there are no figures to prove the contrary, everyone can shout as he likes. When the figures came to be known, when the most reliable figures we could get were published, they showed that in the year 1947, when we were being attacked by Labour for our neglect of this particular problem, the truth was, as proved afterwards, that in September of that year the lowest number since 1932 or 1933 was registered. The lowest on the register was for September 6th, under 35,000 unemployed. That has never been reached since, in any week.

Mr. MacBride

That was not for the year.

The Taoiseach

Deputy MacBride tries to suggest that I am being given wrong information by the officials.

Mr. MacBride

It is a misleading use of figures.

The Taoiseach

It is not misleading; it is true. The statement as I make it is quite true. If all the misleading statements made by the Deputy were taken, you would need volumes to hold them all.

Mr. MacBride

It is juggling with figures.

The Taoiseach

It is not juggling with figures.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

The Deputy got his answer from the Irish people.

The Taoiseach

It is the lowest figure for any one week.

Mr. MacBride

The average for that year was 55,000.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy can take his figures. I am stating that it happened. When we were being accused of driving people out of the country, exporting them like cattle, the truth was that on September 6th of that year we had the lowest number on the register on record. The next thing is that emigration in that year was 10,000. That was not the lowest figure, because if had been lower the previous year when it was 3,000. That was the time when Deputies, particularly our friends on the Fine Gael Benches, were shouting that the young people were being exported like cattle. I said that one of our aims from the beginning had been to try to find employment because we believed that unemployment was the real cause of emigration. We did not set up a commission to determine what was causing emigration.

Mr. Norton

You tried to do it. I saw the minutes of the last Cabinet meeting which Fianna Fáil held in 1948. Look at the minutes. There is a challenge.

The Taoiseach

If the Deputy is right——

Mr. Dillon

Is it not well that he knew it?

The Taoiseach

I do not know anything about it.

Mr. Norton

The file is in the Department of Social Welfare.

The Taoiseach

If the Deputies were good enough to look up the minutes, I am not surprised that they followed a number of other good suggestions.

Mr. Norton

The general election was pending and it was thought desirable not to proceed with the commission.

Mr. MacEntee

That was not reported in the minutes.

The Taoiseach

I have not looked up the minutes. I am not going to question it if anybody has done so. If Deputy Norton says so, I am not going to question it, because I do not know whether it is so.

Mr. Dillon

It was bad if we did it, but good if you did it.

The Taoiseach

If that is right, well and good. The fact is, however, that we tried from the beginning to deal with emigration by providing employment and to deal with unemployment by capital expenditure on housing and other constructive works which gave employment. Then there was the question of public works. The position in later years was not the position we had back in 1932. There was a good deal of industrial activity and activity in housing from the time we started with the big housing drive, which I think you will admit enabled the next Government to proceed with it. That was one of the things for which they can claim credit. They did not fall back on it. We left them certain plans for housing, certain sites were prepared, and the late Deputy Murphy did good work in that Department. All credit to him for doing it. We did not slacken off either. We had the biggest annual housing output back in the year 1938/39, just before the war, whenthere were 17,000 houses built or reconstructed. Last year we had the next biggest, and the year before that the next biggest again. As far as these years are concerned, it cannot be suggested that we held up or slackened off with housing, or that the Minister who succeeded the previous Minister did. That was one creditable thing which the Coalition did. We did not slacken off in that.

Apparently some diminution has taken place this year, which has given us a considerable amount of anxiety both as far as Dublin is concerned and as far as the local authorities are concerned. The point is, are we to go into every local council and corporation and do their planning for them? I think it is quite sufficient if on our part we give them the necessary help, if they tell us what they wish done, if we say we will be behind them, make the necessary funds available and let them go on with work.

I remember getting the City Manager in some years ago and urging him, in order to give employment, to develop sites and to get the foundation of houses laid down as far as he could as, with the coming in of material, that would give us a flying start. What is happening now was referred to as a very serious matter. The housing industry is one of our big industries employing large numbers of people in profitable employment. It is a serious thing to find, as far as the local authorities are concerned, that we are coming to the point when the housing needs are actually being met. There was a survey made in 1947. There was an examination carried out in connection with 45 local authorities which shows that the work they have at present on hands when completed will meet the requirements of 1947. A new survey should be made in these places to see if in fact any requirements still have to be provided, but we will have a problem there the moment that the programme is completed.

Here in Dublin I am told there is some holding up of private building. We all know what happened in connection with private building. Some years ago when there was a rush on houses, prices sky-rocketed. Thosewho bought the houses at inflacted prices were buying property which would deteriorate. There has been a slackening off in demand apparently. I do not know what is the precise cause.

Mr. Dillon

Have not the interest rates something to do with it?

The Taoiseach

I intend to go as fully into it as I can. To suggest that we are simply acting as account keepers and that the welfare of the people is far away from our minds is not true. I do not believe in that way of acting. A person who wants to get a general picture of his business has to see how it is going. If he wants to see the business properly conducted, he must see it in actual operation. If we want to get a proper picture in connection with housing we have to go to the people who are responsible for private building, get some representative group, see what their difficulties are and see if there is any way in which we can help. It is said that we are responsible for the high price of money. We are not responsible for it.

Mr. Dillon

Who is?

The Taoiseach

Does Deputy Dillon say that we should go in and manage the banking business and nationalise it?

Mr. Dillon

No, but we are borrowing money at 5 per cent. and lending money to Britain at 1¼ per cent.

The Taoiseach

Did not Deputy Dillon add the £37,000,000 and the £7,000,000 that was added to the sterling assets? The Deputy would not stand cross-examination for five minutes on that. It is very splendid and easy for him to have it both ways, to vote for increased social services and then come out and say that taxation is too high. You can do both—that is one of the privileges of the Opposition. I say, as far as we are concerned that the increase in the bank rate was caused by the increase in the bank rate in Britain.

Mr. Davin

Hear, hear!

The Taoiseach

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

Echo.

The Taoiseach

It is unfortunate that about 80 per cent. of our exports go to Britain and that we are paid in sterling for them. It is with that sterling we have to buy in the dollar area and other markets. It is rather unfortunate that 80 per cent. of our money is coming from goods which go over there for sterling.

Mr. Davin

What would Sinn Féin say about that?

The Taoiseach

Let the Deputies put down specific motions on any question of finance and we are quite prepared to meet them. But they prefer to talk in this wild way which is quite unrelated to the facts. You will hear it said that the Central Bank is lending money at ¼ or ½ per cent. or whatever short-term rate they get on money held to have it on the spot when needed. None of us like that, but a certain proportion of money has to be kept in an immediately available form and if you have Irish securities, you have a limited market for them and you know that you cannot realise them quickly. The Minister for Finance had to get some £15,000,000 realised a short time ago, since we came into office. If that money was drawn out of the Irish market we would have had quite a crisis. He had to have it where it was possible to turn it into cash rapidly. We are not attached to any ideas of any association of that sort at all.

It is the hard facts of our commerce that put us in that position, and I have always regretted that so much of our trade has been with one country, that there was not more diversity, and everything we can do as a Government we are doing, but we have to bear in mind the good of the people who are sending out goods and we must not lightly sacrifice their interest for the mere sake of diversification, which would probably be better for the nation as a whole. We are deeply concerned about this problem which has been a concern of ours at all times. We believe in the long-term solution which is to try and get more agricultural produce, to get industry going and to develop our services to the utmost, but I do admit we have an increasein unemployment. That has been exaggerated. I do not want to argue it, because even if it was much smaller it would be serious. I am not going to argue on numbers, but I do say that the facts are not quite as they have been presented. It is now as it has always been, and I have felt myself that we have not been able to deal with that problem as we should like to deal with it. I looked at the money that is available for building hospitals and schools and so on and it is a very substantial sum. But it has not yet apparently taken up the slack in those unemployed in the building industry.

I have been talking to some members of the city corporation about housing schemes which I am having examined to see if they can give useful employment, but I am not a genius like Deputy Morrissey evidently was. Deputy Morrissey said on one occasion —I think it was in April, 1947, and I think I remember the reference too; it was Volume 105, column 847. If he looks that up he will find where he said, at one point there, that every able-bodied man and woman willing to work could be put into useful work to-morrow morning. He did not do that when he was in office because he simply wanted to make the statement which was very fine in a speech, but which showed a complete lack of appreciation of the problem. That was in the debate on the Department of Industry and Commerce and he happened by fate to become Minister for Industry and Commerce himself and he did not solve it in a day. When he was down the country and was being attacked about that statement he made, he said that if the people were prepared to work half as hard here as they were prepared to work elsewhere there would be a job for everybody.

I do not think he will seriously contend that that was any more than a gag thrown across the House. It is a serious problem and I am prepared to work with the Labour Party or Fine Gael or anybody who can provide the detailed solution for it. For the moment we are trying to do it by getting an examination of the situation and seeing what necessary public utility works can be started in which those who are in the building industry can be employed, pending the time when they can be employed otherwise.

There are some on the register not capable of working and it might clear our minds if we could arrive at that number. But there are people who are willing to work and I can see myself in imagination in the home of one of those men asking themselves what they are going to do, whether they are going to emigrate, or get work here in their own land. That is an appeal which I certainly will listen to, if I can and in every way as a Government if we can help that appeal, we will do it. If anybody can help in the matter, we will co-operate with them, and the money will be found.

Mr. Davin

That shook Deputy Cowan.

The Taoiseach

Yes, I am quite prepared to do that with anybody. I will do everything in my power because I regard it as one of the fundamental human duties of every decent society and every decent individual to try to solve that problem.

Mr. Dillon

What rate of interest will you give for the money?

The Taoiseach

That is a question that can be met in due time.

Motion put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 73; Níl, 71.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Breen, Dan.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, Noel C.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Butler, Bernard.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carter, Frank.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Colley, Harry.
• Collins, James J.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Cowan, Peadar.
• Crowley, Honor Mary.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Michael J.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• de Valera, Eamon.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Duignan, Peadar.
• Fanning, John.
• ffrench-O'Carroll, Michael.
• Flanagan, Seán.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Gallagher, Colm.
• Gilbride, Eeugene.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killiles, Mark.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Lynch, Jack (Cork Borough).
• McCann, John.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• McGrath, Patrick.
• Maguire, Patrick J.
• Maher, Peadar.
• Moran, Michael.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Ormonde, John.
• O'Sullivan, Ted.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Sheldon, William A. W.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Walsh, Laurence J.
• Walsh, Thomas.

Níl

• Barry, Richard.
• Beirne, John.
• Belton, John.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Byrne, Thomas, N.J.
• Cafferky, Dominick.
• Carew, John.
• Cawley, Patrick.
• Coburn, James.
• Collins, Seán.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Declan.
• Costello, John A.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Crowe, Patrick.
• Davin, William.
• Deering, Mark.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Dunne, Seán.
• Esmonde, Anthony C.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finan, John.
• Finucane, Patrick.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Hession, James M.
• Hickey, James.
• Hughes, Joseph.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, James.
• Lynch, John (North Kerry).
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• MacBride, Seán.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• McQuillan, John.
• Madden, David J.
• Mannion, John.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Murphy, William.
• Norton, William.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Gorman, Patrick J.
• O'Hara, Thomas.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
• O'Leary, Johnny.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Denis.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Reidy, James.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Roddy, Joseph.
• Rogers, Patrick J.
• Rooney, Eamon.
• Spring, Dan.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Tully, John.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Hilliard; Níl: Deputies P. S. Doyle and Brendán Mac Fheórais.

Motion declared carried.

General Mulcahy

Two votes will not drown the voice of the constituencies.

Mr. Morrissey

I want, Sir,——

Deputies

Sit down.

Mr. Morrissey

I am on my feet and I am submitting a point of order.

Mr. Lemass

It is beyond the time for the adjournment.

Mr. Morrissey

The Tánaiste knows the point I am about to raise and he wants to forestall me.

Mr. Allen

It is past six o'clock.

Mr. Morrissey

Am I to be allowed to put the point of order?

Interruptions.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the point of order on the vote of confidence?

Mr. Morrissey

Yes.

An Ceann Comhairle

Then I shall deal with it.

Mr. Morrissey

This motion was put down by the Government asking Dáil Éireann to reaffirm its confidence in the Government and the Taoiseach said that he wanted to get a majority on that.

Mr. MacEntee

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Morrissey

I want to submit to you, Sir, that there are in this House at the moment 146 duly elected members of Dáil Éireann.

Interruptions.

Mr. Morrissey

The Taoiseach has not got a majority of the 146 members.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a point of order.

The Dáil adjourned at 6.5 p.m. until Tuesday, 7th July, at 3 p.m.