I did not appreciate that the Taoiseach's Estimate was to be taken to-day, and I had asked whether it would be possible to take in conjunction with the Taoiseach's Estimate a motion which is tabled in Deputy Tully's name and my name concerning the arrest and imprisonment of the member for Mid-Tyrone. I wonder would the Taoiseach agree to take the motion with his Estimate?
Committee on Finance. - Vote 3 — Department of the Taoiseach.
I do not see exactly what that motion has to do with my Estimate. What are the terms of the motion?
The motion concerns the arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Liam Kelly, who is the elected representative for Mid-Tyrone.
What are the terms of it?
That Dáil Éireann protests against the arrest and imprisonment of the elected representative of the people of Mid-Tyrone, Mr. Liam Kelly, and hereby expresses its sympathy with the people of Mid-Tyrone in being thus deprived of their chosen leader.
I do not think that is a proper motion to take with my Estimate.
I wonder then would the Taoiseach be able to make some time available for the discussion of this motion?
That is a matter for further consideration.
It had occurred tome that it might be more convenient to take it with the Taoiseach's Estimate.
No, I do not think so. I move:-
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Taoiseach (No. 16 of 1924; No. 40 of 1937; No. 18 of 1938, and No. 24 of 1947).
This motion is to enable the Opposition to use their customary right of criticising the general policy of the Government on this Estimate. I do not think, so far as the terms of the main Estimate are concerned, it is necessary for me to go into any detail. The total of the original Estimate was for £26,590, showing a net increase of £340 on the previous year. There is an increase of £440 under sub-head A, mainly due to the usual incremental increases in salaries, and there is a reduction of £100 under sub-head C. That leaves a net increase of £340. I do not think it is necessary for me to give any detailed explanation of the Estimate.
As I said, this is a motion which is intended to enable the Opposition to criticise or deal with Government policy in general. It is customary to allow the Opposition to choose their ground. At certain times in the past we attempted to get some agreement as to the points that were to be raised, but my experience was that these points were never adhered to and that the discussion, in fact, ranged over practically everything that occurred to any particular individual Deputy, whether in the main they were items covered by the agreement or not. I propose, then, to leave it to the speakers of the Opposition to choose their ground and to indicate clearly the points which they have in mind.
It is not necessary, as it might be at other times, to give a general survey, since the statistical survey and the other statistical information required has been made available. It is coming very near the end of the year now,and the position is not as it used to be on former occasions when the Estimate would be taken about the middle of the year. For that reason, I think it is better that those who put down the motion to refer the Estimate back should themselves choose the ground for the debate.
On a point of order. If this Estimate were the normal Estimate instead of a token Estimate it would be quite natural to expect the Taoiseach to give us a review of the Government's general policy. This year we have been denied that facility because of the fact that we facilitated the Government in putting through the Taoiseach's Estimate without discussion in order to avoid another Vote on Account. But, if we did facilitate the Taoiseach in that way in respect of the main Estimate, surely we ought now to get on this token Estimate a review of his Department's work and of Government policy in the same way as we might legitimately expect such a review on the main Estimate had it not been put through in a special way in order to facilitate the Government.
I am not making any differentiation as regards the type of Estimate in relation to a general review. In fact, that review would be little more than taking up the work of the different Departments and correlating it, but the work of the different Departments has been discussed in detail and at great length, and for that reason I think it is quite unnecessary now to give a general review. Besides, as I have already said, in the past it was the custom to allow the Opposition to indicate clearly the topics they wished to have discussed. That was for the purpose of giving those who would have to answer the points raised an opportunity of getting the statistical or other information necessary for a reply. That has never worked and, indeed, I am not departing from my custom—in the main, at any rate—in allowing the debate to run in the particular way I have suggested.
I move:—
That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.
I must express what I believe to be the general dissatisfaction of the House with the attitude adopted by the Taoiseach in relation to this Estimate. He has stated that he sees no difference between the procedure adopted this year, when we are discussing a token Estimate, and the procedure adopted in previous normal years when the Taoiseach's main Estimate was under discussion as the last of a series of Estimates for the year. I think the Taoiseach is correct in that.
This token Estimate was put down to afford us the same opportunity of reviewing Government policy as we have always had in this House; but we are equally entitled to expect, particularly in the very special circumstances that exist at the present time, that the Taoiseach would give us an indication of Government policy, the policy by means of which the Government proposes to deal with the very serious financial and economic problems confronting the country in the difficult conditions existing at the moment. I think there is no justification for the Taoiseach saying that it is not necessary for him to give a general survey of Government policy. There was never greater urgency for some indication of Government policy than there is at the present time.
In the country at the moment there is a condition of serious unrest and anxiety. To put it very mildly, business people are scared, fearful and timorous of the future. They do not know what the Government will do. We, on this side of the House, can only guess what the Government proposes to do. We were entitled to expect to-night—and the House and the country is now being denied that opportunity—an indication from the Taoiseach of the manner in which the Government proposes for the future to deal with the very difficult conditions they have deliberately brought about as a result of deliberate Government policy in the past.
We have just ended some two and a half years of the operations of the present Government's policy. That policy when it was put into operation was a radical departure from thepolicy which had been devised, conceived, designed and put into operation by the inter-Party Government during a period of a little over three years. For that policy the present Government had no mandate whatsoever. Neither during the general election, before it or after it, was there the slightest indication to the people, or to this House after the election and before the present Government was formed, that the policy that Government intended to put into effect was a policy of high taxation, austerity and restriction under which this country has been suffering for the last two and a half years. In addition to that we had recently a speech of a very major and important character delivered by the Minister for Lands, deputising for the Minister for Finance, a week or so ago at the annual dinner of the Institute of Bankers.
In any circumstances the country is entitled to expect and we here in this House are entitled to expect, and to demand, from the Taoiseach some indication as to what his policy is for the future. Will it be different from what it has been over the last two and a half years? Is it the fact, as most people in the country at the moment believe it to be the fact, that the only policy the Government has at the present moment is the policy of saving their political lives from inevitable extinction?
The Minister for Lands, deputising for the Minister for Finance, made a speech to the bankers and in that speech he threw out certain hints. He spoke about Government loans and the Government scheme for borrowing. He made a significant reference to the neglected resources of this country and he hinted that the Government intended to borrow from the banks. He hinted that the policy of the restriction of credit, which every business person in this community knows has been in the most active operation over the last two and a half years, should be eased up.
The reference to the neglected resources of the country come well from a Government that has been in completecharge of this country for a period of 17 or 18 years. If the resources of this country were neglected, then it is the Fianna Fáil Party and the Governments formed from that Party that are responsible for that neglect in the year 1953. Members of the present Government have in the last two or two and a half years repudiated the suggestions made by this side of the House that they were responsible for the restriction of credit, a restriction which was widespread throughout the country. That such restriction existed is beyond all doubt.
That is not true.
What? The figures prove it.
If, as the Taoiseach says, it is not true, why, then, the hint to the bankers to cease their restriction of credit? If there is no such restriction, why the hint to the bankers from the Minister for Lands, deputising for the Minister for Finance, to ease up on their restriction of credit and to give a reasonable extension of credit facilities? If there was not such a restriction of credit why should that hint, if not that direction, be given by the person who is acting as the authorised spokesman of the Government, in a most solemn and formal way; and why, if that hint was given in the last few weeks, was it not given in the last few years when it was perfectly apparent that private investors were starved of capital? The medium through which they normally secure the necessary capital, not merely to carry on their business but to maintain employment and to expand and increase employment, was cut off from them at its source, namely, the banks.
Progress reported: Committee to sit again.