Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Mar 1954

Vol. 144 No. 11

Committee on Finance. - Motion by Minister for Finance.

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £36,000,000 be granted on account for or towards defraying the Charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, for certain public services, namely:—

£

1 President's Establishment

2,500

2 Houses of the Oireachtas

76,000

3 Department of the Taoiseach

9,200

4 Central Statistics Office

34,100

5 Comptroller and Auditor General

11,380

6 Office of the Minister for Finance

58,200

7 Office of the Revenue Commissioners

614,950

8 Office of Public Works

150,000

9 Public Works and Buildings

1,600,000

10 Employment and Emergency Schemes

232,000

11 Management of Government Stocks

36,200

12 State Laboratory

6,800

13 Civil Service Commission

18,500

14 An Chomhairle Ealaíon

6,500

15 Commissions and Special Inquiries

4,400

16 Superannuation and Retired Allowances

271,000

17 Rates on Government Property

10,000

18 Secret Service

2,500

19 Expenses under the Electoral Act and the Juries Act

20 Supplementary Agricultural Grants

1,300,000

21 Law Charges

39,000

22 Universities and Colleges

270,000

23 Miscellaneous Expenses

6,000

24 Stationery Office

230,000

25 Valuation and Boundary Survey

22,600

26 Ordnance Survey

20,800

27 Agriculture

2,216,000

28 Fisheries

35,700

29 Office of the Minister for Justice

28,400

30 Garda Síochána

1,483,400

31 Prisons

65,170

32 District Court

31,180

33 Circuit Court

41,080

34 Supreme Court and High Court of Justice

31,500

35 Land Registry and Registry of Deeds

32,100

36 Public Record Office

3,110

37 Charitable Donations and Bequests

1,680

38 Local Government

1,796,680

39 Office of the Minister for Education

122,000

40 Primary Education

3,055,000

41 Secondary Education

400,000

42 Technical Instruction

400,000

43 Science and Art

60,000

44 Reformatory and Industrial Schools

115,000

45 Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies

25,000

46 National Gallery

3,460

47 Lands

832,440

47 Forestry

391,000

49 Gaeltacht Services

160,000

50 Industry and Commerce

3,000,000

51 Transport and Marine Services

640,000

52 Aviation and Meteorological Services

137,000

53 Industrial and Commercial Property Registration Office

8,000

54 Posts and Telegraphs

2,600,000

55 Wireless Broadcasting

165,100

56 Defence

2,755,700

57 Army Pensions

491,460

58 External Affairs

135,000

59 International Co-operation

18,400

60 Office of the Minister for Social Welfare

174,350

61 Social Insurance

932,660

62 Social Assistance

5,931,800

63 Health

2,470,000

64 Dundrum Asylum

15,500

65 Oifig na Gaeltachta agus na gCeantar gCúng

2,500

66 Tourism

160,000

TOTAL

£36,000,000

The amount of the Vote on Account now asked for is £36,000,000 and the individual items covered by it are set out on the Order Paper. With some exceptions, they represent one-third of the Estimate for each service.

The total of the Estimates for this year at £108,000,000 represents a decrease of £3.36 million on the total provision for the current year, which, however, included a Supplementary Estimate for the National Development Fund of £5,000,000 which is of course a capital expenditure and will be dealt with as a voted capital service. Other supplementary provisions falling into this category were £200,000 for University College, Dublin, and £95,000 in respect of grants for housing to Bord na Móna and £50,000 to Min Fhéir, Teoranta, for capital purposes. Deducting the total of these four items, the amount of the Supplementary Estimates which are chargeable against current revenue of the present financial year comes to £5,731,000.

Of this figure of £5,731,000, £2.4 million is in respect of increases in remuneration of State and local authority employees, arising out of the McKenna Arbitration Award of November, 1952, for which specific provision was made in the Budget, for this year. Further supplementaries, chargeable against current revenue, included an additional £420,000 in relief of rates on agricultural land, a further £193,545 for Army pensions, £186,000 for G.N.R. operating losses, £125,000 more for Garda pensions and £58,500 to Mianraí Teoranta for prospecting. Though this batch, at £983,000, exceeds by £233,000 the budgetary provision of £750,000 for supplementaries, our experience in this regard would have been much more satisfactory than it has been for many years, were it not for two quite unexpected demands which emerged towards the end of last year. The first of these, the Supplementary Estimate for Social Insurance, was before the House a fortnight ago and I need not repeat the statement of the Minister for Social Welfare in regard to it.

The other large supplementary and one which it would have been quite impossible to have foreseen and provided for, is the extra £753,000 required under Vote 50 to subsidise the price of flour and wheaten meal. The gross sum which it is estimated will be required for this purpose is, in fact, £853,000. Savings of £70,000 on other items in the Vote and an increase of £30,000 from sales of turf, reduce it to the net figure which I have mentioned. The gross figure of £853,000 itself reflects not only the increase in the area under wheat but the increased yield which a more scientific agriculture, under a beneficent Providence has given to the Irish farmer. Last year we had an exceptionally bountiful harvest and we have been able to do with much less imported wheat than was anticipated. In terms of economic self-sufficiency this is all to the good but from the Exchequer point of view, it has its disadvantages.

Whether our bread and flour and wheaten meal were made from Irish wheat, or imported wheat, we should have to provide a heavy subsidy to keep the prices of these foodstuffs at their present level. But the rate of subsidy on home-grown wheat is much higher than on the imported article. Accordingly, the better our harvest, the bigger the subsidy. On the other hand, if we were to revert in these dangerous times—let me emphasise that—to the position of almost absolute dependency on imported wheat, such as obtained here in 1931, we should still have to subsidise it very heavily, in order to sell bread and flour at their present prices. Thanks to the subsidy, the cost to the consumer of our bread and flour is far below the economic level, and far below the general level of world prices for these foodstuffs. Our loaf may not be quite the cheapest in the world, but it is among the cheapest. So far as I have been able to ascertain, in all the world only Great Britain, the Six Counties and perhaps Portugal and New Zealand, have a cheaper wheaten loaf.

Before discussing in detail the position for 1954-55, may I utter a word of warning to those who are speculating about next year's Budget on the basis that the Estimates represent an increase of £7.71 million on the figure for the current year? The fact of the matter is, of course, that in May last the Supply Estimates were increased by £2.4 million to give more pay to the Civil Service, the Army, the Gardaí and the teachers; so that the true increase on the bulk Estimates, capital and non-capital, is £5.31 million. Allowing for other adjustments made in the Budget and for items regarded as capital, there is an increase of £4.38 million in non-capital services. Admittedly, this is a substantial sum, but it would be premature and it would be, in fact, futile, in the absence of essential information relating to the Central Fund service and revenue prospects, to frame imaginary budgets on the basis of it alone. Only at Budget time can the situation be fully presented and intelligently discussed.

And the election?

I am thinking of it with much greater equanimity than the Deputy is. Coming now to the Book of Estimates itself, this shows, vote by vote, where the increases and decreases lie compared with the provisions for the respective service for 1953-54. For a clearer understanding of the picture, however, it is necessary to group similar services in order to see in what broad categories of expenditure increased provision is being made. When we do this, we find that there is an increase of £2,141,000 in the provision for Civil Service, Army, Garda Síochána and teachers' pay, while the provision for pensions for these classes is up, in addition, by £534,000, making a total increase for pay and pensions of £2,675,000. Taking Supplementary Estimates into account, however, there is, in fact, an estimated decrease of £44,000 on the total provision for last year.

For social insurance and social assistance there is a net increase of £689,000 compared with the original 1953-54 provision, but a decrease of £889,000 taking the Supplementary Estimate for social insurance into account. This decrease, I am happy to say, reflects the continuous improvement in recent months in the employment situation. Grants to health authorities are up by £717,000 arising out of the Health Act and increased pay for employees of such authorities.

There are increases of £355,000 on housing and sanitary services and of £1,024,000 on education, including, of course, new school buildings. For public works and buildings excluding schools and arterial drainage, there is an increase of £957,000. The increased provision for flour and bread subsidy, arising in the manner to which I have already referred, is £2,295,000 or, if we take into consideration the Supplementary Estimate which has just been voted by the House, the net increase will be £1,442,000. For agriculture, the increased provision is £565,000; for arterial drainage £44,000, and for forestry £19,000. The agricultural grant is up by £731,000 on the original figure for 1953-54 or by £311,000 on the revised figure.

To summarise, therefore, the position is that on pay and pensions there is an increase of £2,675,000 on the original provision for 1953-54; in the category of social outlay there is an increase of £6,037,000; and for agriculture, drainage and forestry an additional £1,359,000 is being provided. These increases total over £10,000,000. It will be interesting to see which of them the Opposition propose to do away with. The major decreases which go some way towards off-setting the foregoing increases are: £1,000,000 in the Grant-in-Aid of the Hospitals Trust Fund, for which the provision is £3.5 million as against the £4.5 million provided in 1953-54; and, secondly, £820,160 in the provision for repayment of advances for rural electrification, which is the result of adopting a system of repaying these advances to the Central Fund by instalments over a period of 25 years. This practice is defensible by reference to the normal life of the capital assets and will relieve the taxpayer of having to meet immediately as a current charge the 50 per cent. of the capital expenditure on rural electrification which ranks as subsidy. At the present rate of progress with the scheme, the full and immediate discharge of the subsidy as it arises would be an unduly heavy burden.

The third item on which there has been a decrease is in the provision to cover losses of C.I.E. and the G.N.R. The amount of the decrease in this instance is £535,000. I think, perhaps, I ought to point out that the sum of the Estimates for these items at £1,355,000 represents a very substantial reduction on the amounts which the present Government was called upon to provide for transport losses in 1951-52 and 1952-53. In the first of these years, the year in which we took over from the Coalition, the sum was £2,385,000, and in the second year it was £2,745,000. It is hoped that over a period of years the need to subsidise transport services will be further reduced and finally eliminated, that is provided that a progressive Government is here to give a lead to these undertakings, and not to set back the clock as was done when it was decided not to proceed with the dieselisation of the railways in 1948-49.

We do not know what the Minister is talking about.

The Deputy will soon hear a little about it. The fourth item is the figure of £118,000 in the cost of contract work for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and £88,000 in respect of the purchase of engineering materials. Then, we have the fifth reduction of £120,000 in the provision for wireless broadcasting which last year covered exceptional expenditure on transmitters. It may be opportune at this stage to draw a comparison between the programme of expenditure on the Supply Services now put before the House and the corresponding programme put forward by our predecessors for 1951-52. In the three years which have intervened since the Opposition was the Government, there has been an increase of £25.2 million in supply expenditure of which £2.3 million is on "capital" account, and £22.9 million on current account. Using the same basis of comparison as I have used earlier in this speech, we find that on pay and pensions (for the Civil Service, Army, Garda Síochána and Teachers) there is an increase of £7,676,000 of which £6,281,000 is for pay and £1,395,000 for pensions. These increases, it would be well for us all to note, follow mainly from the two arbitration awards in the period.

For social insurance and assistance the combined increase is £8,062,000. This increase springs from the improved rates of benefit first provided for in the Budget of 1952, together with the broadening of the scope of the social welfare services under the Social Welfare Act, 1952.

For education (including school buildings) the increase is £1,444,000 apart from increases in remuneration and pensions. For health services, including hospital building, there is a net increase of £6,195,000 of which £3.5 million is a Grant-in-Aid to the Hospitals Trust Fund which, of course, is a "capital service"; and £2.7 million is for grants to health authorities.

For agriculture the increase over the period is £1,711,000 of which £600,000 is for ground limestone subsidy, £250,000 for Eggsports, Ltd., and £600,000 for grain storage loans.

The last mentioned sum represents an investment of capital necessitated, not only by the need to provide against a possible emergency but by the increased requirements for grain storage arising from our greatly increased grain production. Since 1951-52 the agricultural grant increased by £1,180,000; the combined Estimates for Lands and Forestry (excluding pay) have gone up by £336,000; and the provision for Defence (again excluding pay) is £2,089,000 greater.

At first glance it would appear that the subsidies for transport and marine services are estimated to cost £1,538,000 net more in 1954-55 than in 1951-52 due as to £1,000,000 to C.I.E., subsidy, £350,000 to G.N.R., losses and £186,000 to increased grants for harbours. There are here some noteworthy facts to which I think I should refer. In 1950-51 it was found necessary to bring in a Supplementary Estimate and vote £980,000 to C.I.E., to cover the operating losses of that concern up to 31st March, 1951. So far so good; quite clearly C.I.E. at that date was working at a loss and the transport services had to be kept going. There was no reason, however, to believe that a working loss of £1,000,000 in one year was going to be wiped out in the following year. Yet, strange to say, our predecessors made no provision whatever in the Estimates for 1951-52 for transport losses. Instead they left it to us, as their successors, to find the money to cover these losses and subsidise C.I.E., to the extent of £2,250,000.

And the Minister was able to buy Tulyar with £250,000—a quarter of a million—from the Aga Khan.

Yes; and to sell another horse at twice as much as we paid for him.

You said you found the country "broke" when you came in.

I was talking about C.I.E. We will try to keep even Deputy O'Leary on the rails.

The Minister is going off the rails.

As I was saying, so far from making any provision to cover the operating losses of this nationalised concern, which it was easy to foresee would inescapably arise in 1951-52, our predecessors made no provision whatsoever in their Budget of that year for this contingency.

It is a wonder your Party took over at all.

We, therefore, had to find the money to cover these losses and to subsidise, as I have said, C.I.E. to the extent of £2,250,000. So far, therefore, from the figure for this year representing an actual increase over the figure for 1951-52, it represents a reduction of £1,250,000 on the sum which our predecessors ought to have provided for in their Budget of 1951-52, but which we had to find.

It is clear from the general picture which I have painted that the increase in expenditure in this country has followed the same pattern as in other countries, has in many cases been conditioned by it, and that the funds collected from the public for the schemes I have mentioned have been returned to the community in the form of improved social welfare and health services, better housing, better educational facilities, subsidised public transport, agricultural improvements, higher pay for State employees to compensate for higher living costs, expansion of public works of an essential character and a better-equipped Defence Force.

All this expenditure is reflected in the conditions of life here. According to independent international observers, our people, by and large, are better fed than any in the world, with a level of nutrition higher than obtains even in New Zealand, Canada, Australia, or the United States of America. Despite the huge deficiency which had to be overcome when Fianna Fáil first took office in 1932, housing conditions in general are better here than in most of Western Europe. We have, as I have already mentioned, all but the cheapest white loaf in the world. With the exception of Denmark, we have the cheapest sugar in Europe, and with the exception of Great Britain the cheapest butter. We have, if I may mention them in the same category, the cheapest beer, the cheapest spirits, the cheapest tobacco. Yet there are some who, no doubt, will shortly argue that we can have all this and Heaven, too; who will promise to provide an earthly paradise in which everyone will be given everything for nothing—and not only be given it for nothing, but will be paid for taking it away. It just cannot be done, and the people know it cannot be done.

Things were cheaper before your Party came in, anyhow.

Before I make the few remarks I have to make on this Vote on Account, may I be permitted to welcome on behalf of myself and my colleagues the return, with almost his normal vituperative vigour, of the Minister for Finance? However much we may differ from him, we are all very glad to see that he is, apparently, fully restored to health. I, personally, would miss him in my constituency during the next few months, or weeks, as the case may be, because he is always a great asset to me when he speaks at street corners in my constituency during a general election. I am sure the Minister will accept our sincere congratulations on his recovery to health.

On this Vote on Account I intend to be brief to the point of being laconic. In normal circumstances, this Vote on Account provides an opportunity for Deputies to subject to close and critical examination details of Government administration and Government expenditure and to examine the underlying principles thereof financially and economically. On this occasion we feel that no such examination is permissible or desirable. We are living in the shadow of a dissolution. We feel that we would be discussing in an atmosphere of complete unreality the financial and economic policy of the Government or the details of its expenditure or administration and we do not propose to do so. We have at the present moment here, not merely the pending dissolution of this Dáil, but an atmosphere of political tension and unreality. Recognising that situation, we felt it was our duty to consider what ought best be done in these circumstances of a completely unprecedented character, having in mind always and first of all the public interest. We came to the conclusion that the public interest demands that there should be an immediate dissolution of this Dáil and that we should not waste the time of this Dáil or further add to the sense of uneasiness which exists in the country by entering upon any sort of detailed discussion of this Vote on Account.

I, therefore, propose to tell the House the decision that we have arrived at and to give our reasons for it. We quite appreciate that it is essential that the Government should be given sufficient funds to carry on the public services during the next few months. Our proposals therefore will be, that we would be prepared to give to the Government without discussion, or with little discussion, this Vote on Account and also all stages of the Central Fund Bill, on the condition that the Taoiseach and the Government in general should give time to-morrow after questions until the adjournment of the Dáil that night, or a little longer if desired, for the discussion of a motion we would put down in my name on behalf of the Opposition, and that motion would be:—

That, in the opinion of Dáil Éireann, the Dáil should be dissolved forthwith.

If the Taoiseach accepts that motion and gives us time for a discussion immediately of that motion, we will be prepared, as I say, to give him this Vote on Account without discussion, or with little discussion, and to give all stages of the Central Fund Bill.

If the Taoiseach and the Government do not accept that proposition, then what we intend to do is to give the Government this Vote on Account with little, if any, discussion, but on the Second Reading of the Central Fund Bill to move an amendment. The formal motion will be:—

That the Central Fund Bill be now read a Second Time.

Our motion will be:—

To delete all the words after "that" and substitute the words "Dáil Éireann refuses to give a Second Reading to the Central Fund Bill unless the Government consents to consult the electorate forthwith by an immediate dissolution of Dáil Éireann."

We recommend either of these courses to the Government. We are anxious that they should have sufficient funds to carry on. We will give them these funds by the Vote on Account. But we do feel that the public interest and the affairs of the business community and of all sections in general require that the state of uncertainty and uneasiness which has pervaded this country since the results of the by-elections in Cork and Louth were declared, followed by the declaration of the Taoiseach on the night of the 4th March following these results, should be resolved at the earliest possible time.

There is no doubt that, even in normal circumstances when a Government, having run its full course, decides to have a general election there is in the country a state of uncertainty and business dislocation for some time which is unavoidable. We feel that as much as possible of such uneasiness and dislocation should be avoided. We have had in the country for some months past, to put it no further, very serious political tension and political uncertainty as to the future of the Government. That has affected business and it has affected industry and initiative. Since the results of the by-elections everybody, following the Taoiseach's announcement of his intention to have a general election at the earliest date, thought that was the proper thing to do and that it should be done as soon as possible. The Taoiseach, when he announced this on the night of the 4th March, did so in a phrase, which apparently was very carefully manufactured and designed. We all know that the Taoiseach is an adept at verbal obscurity and is the master of the ambiguous phrase. Nevertheless, when he did announce that, in view of the results of the two by-elections, he was of opinion that it was necessary that a general election should be held as soon as the financial measures required to provide for the public services have been completed, although very many constructions can be put upon that phrase, the only sensible one was that if he received the Vote on Account and the Central Fund Bill was passed into law as early as possible, those measures would be sufficient to enable the Government to carry on until a new Government was elected and that, therefore, his intention was to have an immediate dissolution.

I challenge the Taoiseach to say whether or not that was his intention. What changed it? What was the purpose of the change that we learned about last night to postpone this general election for two months, which can result in nothing but financial loss to the business community in general? The proposal that this Government, which is under sentence of death, should bring in a Budget three days before the dissolution of the Dáil is one which, I think, is entirely and utterly reprehensible.

I am not in the least bit interested in whether or not those proposals are framed or designed to secure a measure of political popularity for the Government. It may be that that is their object; probably it is. I suppose they are entitled to grasp any political lifebuoy they may see in the stormy political seas in which they are battling at the present moment. But what I am concerned with and what my colleagues are mostly concerned with, is that it is utterly improper for the Government in the circumstances that exist to delay two months before the general election and to bring in a Budget just three or four days before the dissolution, thereby hampering or endeavouring to tie the hands of the future Administration, whatever the composition of that future Administration may be.

It is recognised that the Budget is an instrument of economic policy. It is recognised that through the Budget proposals, the framing of the Budget and the financial proposals at Budget time, the Government's financial and economic policy is put into effective operation. When the inter-Party Government were in office they devised the system of a dual Budget, a system by which the annual State housekeeping expenditure was put into one separate compartment and the proposals of the Government for capital expenditure were put into another compartment of the Budget. If the present Government carries out its present intention of waiting until the Budget is brought in then that will be impossible—it certainly will be extremely difficult—for any new Administration when they take office; and I do say that it is utterly indefensible for the present Government in the existing circumstances to bring in a Budget on their own lines which will have the effect of gravely hampering any development that may take place after the change of Government. It may be that the present Government will come back, but it is highly unlikely. I am no prophet, and I do not undertake to prophesy what is going to happen, but if any Government formed on the principles on which the inter-Party Government were formed and carrying out the economic and financial policy of that Government were returned as a result of this general election, then they would have been—and I think deliberately, as a matter of deliberate policy —placed in a position in which their desires to carry on the Government of this country and the financial and economic affairs of the country in accordance with their well-known policy would be very seriously hampered for very many months.

I have no doubt that if there is a change of Government that Government will examine afresh and reconsider anew the financial proposals of the present Government, but when it is considered that it will be somewhere in the month of June when there will be an opportunity after some weeks for that Government to determine what its policy is going to be the financial year will have been eaten into.

The Deputy's dates are wrong

The financial year will have been eaten into very seriously and the new Administration that will come into office will have been very seriously hampered in their efforts to ameliorate the conditions which have existed for the past few years and which have so harassed and ravished the affairs of all sections of the community.

I placed in the forefront of my proposals here grounding and giving reasons for those proposals to have an immediate dissolution those considerations to which I have very shortly adverted. There is no doubt that during the next two months while we are waiting, while the country is waiting, for the Government's proposals, very serious loss and possibly irreparable damage will have been done to the finances and to the business and industry of the country. We all know that people will expect that because the present Government is going to an election they will bring in what is for want of a better term called a "popular Budget". I am not in the least bit interested in that because I am convinced that no matter what Budget the present Government bring in, no matter what popular proposals they may have, no matter what they may try, the result will be the same— inevitable defeat for the present Government. Therefore I am not in the least bit interested or concerned in what the Minister or his colleagues propose to do in the way of bringing in a popular Budget. Nothing they can do will prevent the people, whose voice has already been expressed in Cork, Louth and North-West Dublin, from choosing and giving their answer to whatever may be brought out in anticipation of a favourable verdict. What I am interested in is this—that people will expect that that sort of Budget will be brought in. They will perhaps have forgotten that the Minister for Industry and Commerce—and I am sure the Minister and his colleagues would like to forget it—only a few weeks ago, speaking, I think, at the Publicity Club on 14th January as reported in the Irish Times of 15th January said—I quote: “Generally,” said Mr. Lemass, “it can be said that while the Budget position was sound enough, there was no fact in it.”

Cork and Louth had not then spoken.

Then the paper goes on to say:—

"It did not hold out the prospect of the Government finding it possible to undertake any substantial increase in expenditure, or to grant any substantial reliefs, until the expansion of economic activity which was anticipated had been achieved and had disclosed itself in a still further improvement in the revenue position."

There is the statement of policy of a few weeks ago—there is no fat in the Budget. It will be dripping by the time the Minister for Finance gets it on 21st May. Whether it is or is not, the people will expect it to be, and it does not require any very great powers of word picturing to conjure up the position of traders and merchants at the present time considering: "Will there be a reduction in income-tax? Should we hold off in making any more profits this year?"

The Deputy has never been in business or he would not say that.

"Is there going to be a reduction on whiskey? Are they going to take it out of bond? Are they going to bottle more stout?" There is going to be very serious loss in business, and the Minister and the Government are going to be responsible for that. We want to stop that if we can. For political reasons, I admit here freely, we desire a general election at the present moment. We have no doubt what the result will be. We have no doubt what the result will be in two months' time. It may be worse for the present Government than it will be now if we have what the Taoiseach calls a rushed election. We are anxious to meet the Minister on the political battleground chosen, as he said, by himself some time ago at his own time. The sooner the better as far as we are concerned, but at the same time the really serious consideration is the question of the public interest and the question that it is a wrong precedent for a dying Government to bring in a Budget which may very seriously tie the hands of whatever Administration may succeed it, and which incidentally and as a necessary and inevitable consequence prevents the amelioration of the financial and economic conditions and the conditions of unemployment which exist in this country. That is the real objection to the present Taoiseach's proposals to delay the election. Nearly a quarter of a year will have gone before any new Government can get into its stride—probably more. It will have been hampered in its efforts to carry out its policy by the budgetary proposals. The people will have acted upon those proposals and there can be no going back upon them. May I mention this—it has been known that the present Government went back on its promises? It has been known that Ministers said that not merely would they not withdraw the food subsidies but that they would maintain them, and it was only a few short months till they withdrew the food subsidies. What confidence can the people have in this Government if they bring in what is called a popular Budget, that if they succeed in getting a new lease of life, a new term of office they will not do what they did before, go back upon their promise and replace the popular Budget by something much more severe and much more austere than even the Budget of 1952?

We feel that the whole approach of the Government to this problem has been wrong. The Taoiseach said that he wanted to have all the financial proposals before the people. Strictly read, the Taoiseach's announcement of the night of March 4th is capable of being read that it would entail postponing this election until the Finance Act and the annual Appropriation Act had been passed.

If the Taoiseach insists now, as apparently he does, that that phrase did not mean, as everybody who knows anything about parliamentary procedure knows that it did mean merely the passing of the Vote on Account, and the Central Fund Bill, but that it also meant the passing of the Budget and the Finance Act, then I would put it to him, in regard to the phrase: "A general election will be held as soon as the financial measures required for the public services have been completed," that the completion of the financial measures required for the public services involves not merely the Vote on Account, not merely the Central Fund Bill and not merely the Budget speech and Budget resolutions but the Finance Bill and the Appropriation Bill. In other words, if the Taoiseach's proposition is correct, it would necessarily involve the postponement of the general election until somewhere about next August.

Perhaps he means to do that.

Mr. Costello

It is possible. As I say the approach to this matter has been entirely wrong and entirely contrary to the public interest. It has brought about and will still further bring about public uneasiness, financial insecurity, dislocation of business and very serious losses. Above all it will hamper the hands of the succeeding Administration and prevent it from carrying its full policy into effect within the coming financial year. Apparently now we are to have as the chief exhibition at the Tóstal the slow reluctant irrevocable march of the present Government on its way to the political guillotine. That is to be the chief show at the Tóstal.

Surrounded by £60,000 worth of flowers.

Mr. Costello

It may be that Ministers may think that the balmy breeze of the month of May or the early summer will be more favourable to them than the chilly winds of March which produced the reversals in Louth and Cork but, whenever they decide to go to the country, they will get, in my opinion, the same chilly reply as they got in Louth and Cork at the recent by-elections.

I think it is a burlesque of parliamentary government that we should be discussing here to-day, or that we should have put up for discussion here to-day, a Vote on Account from a Government which has no authority whatever from the people to introduce a Vote on Account.

What nonsense!

We shall see "what nonsense" in a minute. I do not hope to compete with the Taoiseach in nonsense.

Can Labour speak for every constituency in Ireland?

I am glad that the Minister for Finance is back in his place. Personally I wish him the best of health in the future but for the sake of the nation, I hope he will never be seen here again after the election. That does not detract from the fact that he has all our good wishes for his personal good health and personal prosperity elsewhere. Here the Minister is only a danger and a national menace. There are only two reasons why the Taoiseach does not want to dissolve the Dáil. One is the Taoiseach's well-known impetuosity when things go wrong with him. The lid is off and anything can happen once the Taoiseach is disappointed and thwarted in his desires. The Taoiseach has put it on record that when he wants to know what the Irish people want, he has only to look into his own heart. Apparently he has not looked into his own heart on this occasion because he has prescribed a course of conduct which he must have known is not acceptable to the Irish people. The Irish people have told him plainly: "We do not want any more of this; we are going to reject you and your candidates." Apparently now the Taoiseach believes that the people have done something they should not have done. The Taoiseach on another occasion said that the people had no right to do wrong, so we have got this peculiar mixture from the Taoiseach. Firstly he is a better judge than the people of what the people want. If the people question that and say to the Taoiseach: "We do not think you are the best judge of what our economic policy should be or what would be the best course for us to adopt," the Taoiseach will reply: "You have no right to do wrong". That means in other words: "You have no right to do anything whatever except what the Taoiseach's prescription lays down for you". Because the people have now declared emphatically that they do not agree that what the Taoiseach prescribes is best for the national life, the Taoiseach gets into a tantrum and proceeds to do something for which he has no mandate whatever.

If the Taoiseach believes that he has the people's votes still behind him now is the time to test it. The only reason that the Taoiseach does not want to dissolve the House now is that he realises that his Party has lost 9,000 votes in a by-election and although he knows he has no mandate from the people he is trying to postpone the date on which he will go out of office. Everybody who read the Taoiseach's declaration the other day came to the conclusion—indeed the members of his own Party interpreted it in the same way as others and as the Press did— that if the Government got their Vote on Account and the Central Fund Bill this week the Dáil would be dissolved forthwith and a new Government would be elected in time to introduce a Budget which would be fortified by an expression of the people's will. Of course the Party managers then set to work and brought their propaganda to bear on the Taoiseach, once his tantrums had passed, and said: "You cannot do it. We know that you were annoyed when you made that statement; it is not easy to lose votes in such abundance and keep a brave face but really you cannot go to the country at the present moment because the chances of coming back in present circumstances if there is a general election now, are even worse than they were before the by-elections."

The Taoiseach has been prevailed upon to change his mind. Of course that is no trouble to the Taoiseach. We have had several examples of that over the last 20 years in this House. Deputy Costello has quoted one instance in regard to the 17-point programme which the Government published before the last election. We had the declaration that their policy was to control the cost of living and to maintain the food subsidies. Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll issued an election address——

Perhaps Deputy Norton would tell us something about his own policy. Tell us what you are going to do about the food subsidies.

His policy is to lead Labour into Fine Gael.

Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll——

He is entitled to his last squeak.

——need not worry about changing his mind. He is in good company. If the Taoiseach can change his mind on an important public issue, surely some of the lesser fry like Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll can do the same. Somebody has said that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, so Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll——

And to stand on one's head is the prerogative of little politicians.

I want to come back to the 17-point programme issued in June, 1950, and get away from all this airy-fairy nonsense of the Taoiseach. I want to concentrate for a moment on one point in that programme, namely, the promise to control the cost of living and to maintain food subsidies. That was the promise made to the people. So far from carrying out that promise, the Government viciously slashed food subsidies. Bread went up, butter went up, tea went up, flour went up, stout went up, whiskey went up, cigarettes went up, meat went up, milk went up—the price of a whole collection of commodities went up. Actually, the price of a whole list of staple articles went up because the Government did not keep its promise to maintain food subsidies and control the cost of living. If the Taoiseach can wreak that havoc with the people's domestic larders, what is a small change in the mind of the Taoiseach in regard to the election, a small error of judgment, compared with the crimes committed in the domestic lives of the people by the present Government?

The Taoiseach, however, as Taoiseach has certain liberties, one of which is to change his mind, and clearly somebody has beamed propaganda on the Taoiseach since last Thursday night, and so the Taoiseach now finds a scholarly collection of excuses for the change of front which was manifested in the declaration he made last night. He does not now propose to go to the country when he gets the Vote on Account through; he does not now propose to go to the country when he gets the Central Fund Bill through. Instead, the Taoiseach is concerned, though he has no mandate, to make sure that the people will see another Budget from the Fianna Fáil Party. I do not mind having this wager—I think Deputy Briscoe is the official commission agent of the Fianna Fáil Party——

And you for the Labour Party?

Then you cannot make a wager with me. I only deal with principals.

It depends on how you spell the word.

Either way, he cannot do much business with you.

Let the Minister for Finance enjoy his last month here. I will make this wager— that there will be a few crusts in this Budget for the people. They will be just crusts, with the hope of deluding the electorate in the market place into returning this Government to office, and if the people can be deluded again, that, in 1955, they will get a Budget the same as they got in 1952.

Does the Deputy think that all the people worship the Golden Calf?

They worship bread.

The Deputy knows the people who worship the Golden Calf better than I know them.

That is what the Deputy thinks.

All the Taoiseach's advisers who have driven him off the path of rectitude on to which he stumbled on Thursday night have been specious advisers, so far as the Taoiseach is concerned. He was right last Thursday night. He ought to have gone to the country with the utmost expedition, and all that is necessary in order to enable that glorious event to take place is for the House to give the Taoiseach the Vote on Account this evening. Everybody is willing to do that and everybody is willing to give him the Central Fund Bill, and quite willing even to see that on this occasion the Taoiseach visits the Park in daylight.

Nobody was more relieved than Deputy Norton by the Taoiseach's announcement.

This hanging on business with all the excuses we got——

It is a reprieve for you.

——for this disreputable conduct which we had from the Taoiseach this evening is something which does violence to any decent concept of parliamentary government. The Taoiseach is always talking about the people being the masters and about the right of the people to elect a Government. Yet the Taoiseach says now. "I have no mandate to carry on," because that is the reason we are going to the country, but yet he will not give the people the earliest opportunity of deciding what Government they want to control the affairs and the destiny of this country for the next three or four years.

We come then to Fianna Fáil introducing a Budget—a Budget on behalf of whom? Is it to be a Budget on behalf of the people, or is it going to be another looking into the heart and finding out what the people want? The Government has no authority to introduce a Budget—no more authority than any other 72 people outside in the City of Dublin. That is admitted by the fact that the Government find their own mandate here faulty and now want to go to the country.

Not at all. According to the Constitution and the law——

Why then are we to have an election?

——so long as we have a majority here, we are the Government of the country and that is all there is about it. The Opposition would do the same.

There is nobody who can put a better look on a bad case than the Taoiseach, but the old box of tricks, skilfully wielded though they may be by the Taoiseach, will not fight for Fianna Fáil on this occasion. This is a clear dodge to hang on, to give the people crumbs in the Budget and torture when the Budget is over. Who has asked the Government to introduce this year's Budget? Nobody wants them to introduce it. The people still have painful memories and still endure the hardships of the 1952 Budget which were continued in 1953, and, except for a bit of decoration to deceive the people, will probably be continued in 1954. The people do not want a Budget from this Government and they do not want this Government either. They want to get rid of the memory of Fianna Fáil Budgets of the past few years, and the best way in which that can happen is by giving the people a choice at an election of saying whom they want on the Government Benches to-day.

What the by-elections have shown is that the people want a change of Government. There is no reason why they should not get it. The Taoiseach was right and was democratic last Thursday night when he said the people should have an early opportunity of electing a new Government. All those who have advised him to the contrary and who have induced him to change his mind are sheer political opportunists who want now to try to get another Budget passed through the House, or introduced, in the hope of saving their rapidly fading fortunes. It does not matter now what the Budget is like at all. It is clear to every person who can think decently that this Budget is an effort to do a bit of political tangling in the market place. This Budget will be used, and this is the only purpose of the delay, to try to ensnare unsuspecting people to vote for the Fianna Fáil Party, but it will not work. The people know the prices they are paying for foodstuffs to-day as compared with the prices they paid three years ago. They know that there is more unemployment to-day than there was three years ago and they know that there is more emigration to-day than there was three years ago.

They do not.

Everybody knows that, except the Taoiseach. When the Taoiseach is asked for figures, he says he has no figures. All he has to do is to go down to the boats and see what is happening there.

That happened in the last year of the Fine Gael Government—I might as well call it a Fine Gael Government.

It was denying those truths that got you the trouncing you got last week.

This Government has a reputation to bring before the people. It is responsible for the highest price level seen in the country in living memory. There are 14,000 more unemployed people to-day than there were three years ago and emigration, I say, has increased in the last three years to a greater extent than at any time previously. The people ought to get a chance of judging on these facts.

And they will.

In so far as they have been permitted to do so at the by-elections, they have judged unmistakably and they should get the chance to express nationally what they feel locally; but whether the election is to be in the month of March, April, or May the writing is on the wall. The Government Party, with its austerity Budgets and neglect of unemployment, is on the way out. The only reason for delaying the holding of a general election is to enable the Government to hang on for another two months, in the hope that they can box the compass in the meantime, but it is too late to do it.

I must say it was most amusing to listen to Deputy Norton and Deputy Costello avoiding the issues. The Government "wants to hang on for another couple of months" and they "want to deceive the people with the Budget." Deputy Norton says the people want a change of Government. I think the people are entitled to know what sort of Government is offered to them as an alternative to Fianna Fáil. At least, they know the sort of Government we are.

A bad Coalition Government.

They know what we have done and what we intend to do, but do they know what any alternative Government would do, faced with our proposals for expenditure for the coming year which are contained in this Book of Estimates. The Opposition say not a single word about them, because the Opposition groups, each particular group, wants to go down to the country and tell the people a different story about what they would do, if they had a chance to form a Government.

It is not as easy as the Minister thinks to cod the people.

Deputy Norton complains about the cost of living, the price of milk, bread and other commodities. What would any alternative Government do about these matters? Would Deputy Norton in another Coalition Government advocate that the Dillon policy in regard to milk should be implemented in order to bring down the cost of milk and butter? Would he support Deputy Dillon in paying 1/- a gallon for milk during the next few years in order to get cheap butter or would he increase the price of the pint or the cigarette in order to leave the farmers their present price for milk at the creameries and reduce the price of butter to the consumer? The country has a right to know if they are going to criticise the price of bread. If "the people worship bread," as Deputy Corish just interrupted to say, they have a right to know what is going to be the policy of an alternative Government towards this idol they worship? Are we going to reduce further the price of bread and, if so, by what means?

The people of Cork spoke about that, did they not?

Surely Deputy Norton does not want to run away now? I listened to him. I will put the questions and I take his absence to mean that he cannot answer.

Whatever the Minister says is no good.

The Opposition Deputies opposed our Constitution tooth and nail when it was going through the House and they tried to get the people to turn it down but they have now nailed it to their political masts. One would think they were the progenitors or the father and mother of the Constitution and that instead of opposing it they advocated its adoption. The Constitution lays it down that the Government, when elected, carries on until the Taoiseach, so long as he has the support of the Dáil, advises the President to dissolve it.

Following a defeat, there are two alternatives. One is to advise the President to dissolve the Dáil which the President may or may not accept and the other is to resign. The Constitution does not say that if a Government is defeated at a by-election it must resign or go to the country. If that had been the case, we would have had a very big number of elections over the years Fine Gael—Cumann na nGaedheal were in office. The Constitution lays down quite strictly what the Government may or may not do. The Taoiseach is entitled, as long as he is not defeated in the House, on his own wish to declare a general election. If defeated in the House, he may advise the President to have a general election and the President may or may not agree.

What the people are interested in is not the date, whether it is a week or two one way or the other, on which this general election is going to be, but what the Government will be which will follow and what its policy is going to be. I think the essence of democracy is that the people should have a right to decide as between policies offered by alternative Governments. We offer our policy to the people and we want to put it fully to the people. We believe that in the circumstances of Holy Week, the spring work and everything else, it is worth while waiting until we get the other side of the account and our proposals are put before the people as to how we propose raising the money to meet this expenditure of £108,000,000 approximately contained in the Book of Estimates and also the money to cover the Central Fund expenses.

There are two ways of meeting the situation where there is £108,000,000 being spent in the Book of Estimates and another £10,000,000 or £12,000,000 in regard to the Central Fund. One is to cut down the services and the other one is to meet the cost of these services in so far as they are current out of taxation. We will tell the people exactly what we intend to do in that regard.

They will not believe you any more, after all you told them the last time.

Wait and see. We are giving the Deputies more rope than they want to hang themselves and they are not going to rush this Dáil or anybody into an election. The people will get a fair chance of seeing both sides of the picture. People had the experience before in 1947 and in the first month of 1948 of hearing a Party going around this country saying they were going to reduce taxation by £10,000,000. We see what happened when the people who made that promise—Deputy Mulcahy was one of the most vociferous of them——

We took off £6,000,000 straightway and £2,000,000 immediately afterwards.

Let us see what happened about this £10,000,000 by which they were to reduce taxation. In 1947-48 the last year for which we were responsible —Fianna Fáil were not responsible for the last month or so—there was an expenditure of £58.9 million. That was to be reduced to £48,000,000 the following year when they got in. Ten million pounds from £58.9 million leaves £48.9 million.

It was 1947-48. They are not all dead yet who remember Deputy Mulcahy going around the country promising that they would reduce taxation by £10,000,000. The sum of money which we spent was £58.9 million, and they were going to reduce it to £48.9 million the following year. But in the following year, in fact, it went to £64.7 million, and in the year following that again it went to £73.3 million, and then £75.4 million.

Without the beer taxes or the spirit taxes.

The year they went out they left us in the Book of Estimates alone a sum of £90,000,000, so that, instead of reducing it by £10,000,000, as they said they would, they increased it, in fact, by £41,000,000.

Why was the Minister so anxious to get back?

Without reducing beer, whiskey and spirits.

They were to reduce taxation to £48,000,000 but, instead, they left us a bill for £90,000,000. Of course, they reduced beer and tobacco. If they came in to-morrow, they could wipe out completely the tax on beer and tobacco, that is, if they carried on as they did before. They reduced the tax on beer and tobacco, but they increased the interest required for the dead-weight debt by £4,000,000 a year. They were complaining about the level of dead-weight debt, but they increased the dead-weight debt by £90,000,000 in three years.

What did the Minister do?

In order to avoid taxation they increased the dead-weight debt. They borrowed money to reduce the tax on beer and tobacco; they borrowed whatever money was necessary to give the few pence they gave to the old age pensioners and they have left coming generations to pay the debt.

That is the kind of stuff they would not swallow in Louth.

Deputies will have ample opportunity to make their contributions.

He made all that speech in Louth.

Is this the kind of thing that is going to hold up the dissolution?

What would Deputy Costello and Deputy Norton do in regard to the proposition that this Dáil should pass a Vote on Account amounting to about one-third of this sum of £108,000,000? Deputy Norton indicated that he wanted more in the Book of Estimates; what was there was not enough for him. He wanted more for subsidies.

There is nothing being provided for old age pensioners as it is.

And Deputy O'Leary wants more for the old age pensioners. Is Deputy Mulcahy going to increase this £108,000,000?

Come down to the people and we will tell you.

I have a vote, only one vote. Surely I am entitled to know how I am going to vote——

We know how you are going to vote.

We will send you a special copy of our election address.

——whether it is for an increase in the old age pension, an increase in food subsidies or not.

We will even send you a few pictures.

The Deputy may refuse to answer me and he may not mind about my vote, but there are about 1,500,000 voters throughout the country and surely they are entitled to know. It is their money which is going to be spent and if their money is not collected for these services their children and their children's children will have to pay the debt. Surely they are entitled to know.

To know what?

Whether an alternative Government will carry on these services costing £108,000,000 or whether they are going to add another £10,000,000 or £20,000,000 to it which the Labour Party will promise, and if they intend to do that will they do it through an increase in taxation or an increase in the dead-weight debt? We can all have a very good time as long as we can borrow and get someone else to repay what we borrow. Fine Gael had a very good time, and the Labour Party, although they did not get very much, had a reasonably good time for a couple of years. Instead of raising the money that should be raised they borrowed——

Did you not borrow money?

——and left us to pay the debt. The people are entitled to know whether, if this level of expenditure stands, they should, instead of paying in the year in which the expenditure is incurred, go on paying for the next 40 years, along with their children, to meet the bill.

You agree we cannot borrow ourselves into prosperity, no matter who is in power?

Deputy McGilligan, who was a protégé of Deputy Hickey, tried that.

You also tried it.

He borrowed this £90,000,000 he should have raised in taxation. Did he borrow us into prosperity? Our expenses this year would be £4,000,000 less if Deputy McGilligan had not endeavoured to follow to its logical conclusion Deputy Hickey's thesis of borrowing us into prosperity.

Is the Minister taking into consideration the interest receipts on the Marshall funds he has invested?

There are no such funds invested.

If the Deputy wants the question answered I will put it before the Minister for Finance and ask him to give the figure when he is concluding this debate. In the three years in which the Coalition were in office the dead-weight debt went up by £90,000,000 for which there was no interest coming in, and the additional interest in sinking fund we had to pay for the service of debt and against which there was no income was £4,000,000 a year. Of course, if we were dishonest enough to do it we could produce that popular Budget that Deputy Norton wants and that other people who are afraid to face up to their political responsibilities want.

You are afraid to go to the country.

We could increase the dead-weight debt next year and take 1/- off the cigarettes and 6d off the pint. We could borrow whatever we wanted but I do not think that would be good for the permanent prosperity of the country. It is all right for politicians who are afraid to face their responsibilities, and who cannot keep together if they do anything that is in the slightest degree unpopular with any of the sections they represent. However, people who have some regard not only for their immediate political advantage but for the permanent welfare of the people are prepared to tax as much as required in order to keep the economy in balance.

Will we have another promise in this election that the Opposition will reduce taxation by £10,000,000 and, if so, how is it going to be done? Are they going to avoid increasing the rate of taxation at the expense of adding more to the public debt? Are we going to add £4,000,000 a year to the public debt until £100,000,000 would not pay the interest upon it? £4,000,000 is a pretty hefty sum even in relation to the present level of public expenditure.

Of course it is, at any time. It is paying for a debt that should never be there.

That is Deputy Hickey's point. Will Deputy Hickey, Deputy McGilligan and the rest get together and let us know? All we want to know is what they propose to do.

Bring back the Irish money.

Instead of waiting until the election is over, instead of postponing the bargain, they should let the people know what they propose to do.

I would like to hear the Minister dealing with it now. He has the opportunity of telling us now what he intends to do if he gets back. He should tell the people, not the Parties.

There is plenty of time. On the first occasion, in 1948, when the Coalition came in here, it sprung a surprise on the people. You had Deputy Blowick running around the country and swearing he would never join a Coalition and talking about all the farmers' Parties that had been absorbed by Fine Gael. You had Deputy Norton saying that they would never join a Coalition.

And the present Taoiseach said he would break stones before he would join a Coalition.

At the present time they are all prepared to have a Coalition. I want to know what they are going to coalesce about and what the burden is going to be. The Deputy is trying to do now what Deputy Costello wants us to do. He wants us to have no discussion on this matter and let the people vote—let the people vote blindly without seeing what issues are involved and what issues they are going to decide by their vote.

As one voter, I would like to know what you, as well as Deputy Costello, are going to say.

We are going to say that. We are not only presenting this Book of Estimates to the House, but we are going to present a Budget to the House and we hope the various groups in the Opposition will not remain mute of malice, but will tell us what they require done.

I said the same when the inter-Party Government was in power.

Deputy Hickey should cease interruptions.

Sorry, Sir.

The Minister is going off the rails.

It was amusing to hear Deputy Costello saying that a dying Government had no right to bring in a Budget a few days before declaring an election. Everyone knows that this Government is going to bring its period of office to a close on 24th April. The last time we had a general election, in 1951, the Coalition Government knew they were going to bring their term of office to an end immediately the Budget came in, but they did not tell anyone. All we got was an announcement of it on the radio. They knew for months that they were dying; they were tearing each other's guts out and they could not agree.

That is what you thought.

They brought in an Estimate for the Department of Agriculture. It normally would go over in a couple of days, but we found every Deputy speaking on it. Deputy O'Leary was even asked to speak on it for as long as he could, though the Coalition Government usually wanted him to say as little as he could. They knew the general election was going to come off. They knew they would be defeated if they allowed the Department of Agriculture Estimate to go to a vote. They dragged it out until after the Budget. They brought in a Budget which was quite definitely a dishonest Budget. As the Minister for Finance pointed out here to-day, although they knew there was a Civil Service award coming, they made no provision in the Budget for the millions that that award meant to the Exchequer. They knew that C.I.E. was in a bad way, that it was going to require another couple of millions subsidy in the financial year, but they made no provision for that.

And you begged four Independents who had no authority to put you in.

At least we are not rushing anybody. We are not being driven to a general election by fear of a vote in this House. We tell the people exactly and we have given fair warning that in a few weeks' time the Taoiseach will propose to the President that this Dáil should be dissolved. I think that between now and then we should do our utmost to clear up the issues on which the people will have to vote. Deputy Costello cannot avoid dealing with the issues by making the sort of speech that he made here to-day. After all, it is the people who are going to pay for all this business.

Mr. O'Higgins

And Fianna Fáil.

It is the people—not Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael—and the people have a right to know upon what the money is going to be spent. They have a right to know, if there are other expenditures proposed, how the "wind" is going to be raised. They have a right to know, if they are promised a reduction in the price of the pint and in the price of tobacco and in income-tax and everything else, who is going to pay for all these reductions. Are we going to pass it on—as they did, £90,000,000 in the time of the Coalition—to our children and our children's children? Have we any right to do that?

Of course we have not, and it should not be done; but we have been doing it for the last 30 years.

But Deputy Hickey and the Government he was associated with did it at £4,000,000 a year for the next 40 years. It is poor consolation to the people who have to pay this year on their pints, on their cigarettes and in their income-tax, for the £4,000,000 of Government expenditure that is due to the dead-weight debt created by the Coalition. They avoided putting something extra on the pint and on the cigarette for a year or two, at the expense of paying it each year for the next 40 years.

You have done nothing better than the former Ministers.

Deputy Hickey should cease interrupting. It is not necessary to answer every point made by the Minister.

Deputy Costello talked about the uneasiness and dislocation of business. What uneasiness and what dislocation of business? According to Deputy Costello, we are closing our eyes to all the circumstances. We could have declared an election within the next few days. Instead, it is coming within the next few weeks. What grave dislocation of business is that? Would it not cause even more grave dislocation of business if the people did not know what the alternatives were on which they would have to vote?

The ballot box will tell that. No one else can tell that.

If Deputy O'Leary interrupts, I shall ask him to leave the House. He has been interrupting constantly since the Minister began.

One of the things that are bad for business, bad for employment, bad for every section of the community, is not to know what is going to be the financial policy of the State over a period of years.

It is much better that the election should be delayed for the necessary two or three weeks if we can get some sort of declaration of policy, particularly from the major group that is offering to form a Coalition. Do they propose to reduce the services in this Book of Estimates and, if so, what services do they propose to reduce? We know that there are some of the services in this Book of Estimates that Fine Gael do not like. There is an increase, as the Minister for Finance pointed out, over 1951-52 of something like £8.6 million for social services. We know that the Fine Gael people do not like it. Deputy McGilligan called it "medicine." They strung along Deputy Norton for three years on a Social Services Bill which they never allowed him to implement. If they will reduce taxation by cutting down these things, will Fine Gael wipe out that additional £8,500,000 for social services and, if so, will the Labour people support them in it?

It was all right for the Labour people to be strung along week by week and month by month, not implementing the social services that they had promised to implement, but cutting down is a different matter and we should be told if they will insist as part of their bargain in having these continued or increased.

Your opposition to it was very manifest.

There was a Health Bill introduced which was not very palatable to Fine Gael. They opposed it tooth and nail. The health services are costing us about £6,000,000 extra this year over what they cost when the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition were in office. The people are entitled to know whether that is going to be continued or whether it is Labour or Fine Gael who will get their way in regard to that.

I do not want to go through all the various items. There will be time enough, for the next month or so, to try to get Fine Gael to say something in the Dáil and not leave all the talk to the platforms in the country where they cannot be answered. We are prepared to answer them, to debate this fully with them here. The Minister for Finance gave them the facts and I rose simply to mark the fact that the two principal speakers, the Leaders of the Opposition groups, have refused to deal with this Book of Estimates, to say whether it is too big or too small, to say in what respects they would cut it down or in what respects they want the sums increased.

Deputy Costello would not waste the time of the Dáil, he said, in going into the details of this Book of Estimates. He and the Fine Gael speakers will waste a lot of breath and a great deal of people's time denouncing the £108,000,000 for which Fianna Fáil are asking. If he is going to denounce the Book of Estimates all around the country, he should denounce it here and let us know in what respects he differs from the proposals which we make. If £108,000,000 is too much, in what respects should it be cut down?

Deputy Costello need not have assured us that they were prepared to give the Vote on Account and all stages of the Central Fund Bill within a day. Of course they were, because they want to avoid discussion here; they want to talk where they cannot be answered. Here, they are mute. Down the country, they will be voluble. Deputy Costello, however, disclosed the type of speech which they will make down the country. He gave some indication of it. He said that we had harassed and ravished all sections of the community. This harassing and ravishing of the community must have hurt particular sections and hurt them in particular ways. We are entitled to know how we harassed them, how we ravished them, and how Deputy Costello would propose to cure the situation.

It is true that we put more on the pint and on tobacco than the Fine Gael people did. Is that what he refers to when he talks about harassing and ravishing the people? Does he propose to take it off?

The unemployment question.

If he proposes to take 1d. or 4d. or 6d. off the pint or 6d. or 1/-off cigarettes, how is he going to raise the money to meet this bill? Is he going to borrow another £90,000,000 in a couple of years and add another £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 a year of dead-weight debt? Is he going to reduce the price of the pint and cigarettes for the coming year at the expense of the people who will have to pay more for their cigarettes and their pint and in income-tax for the next 40 years, because that is the proposition.

Deputy Costello said that the Government will bring in a popular Budget. The Minister for Finance will bring in a Budget, as he has always brought in a Budget, which he thinks is an honest Budget to do its work whether it is popular or unpopular with any section of the community.

Mr. O'Higgins

Who are you codding?

Deputy O'Higgins, of course, judges us by his own standards.

Mr. O'Higgins

I judge you by my knowledge of you.

Deputy O'Higgins is judging by his own standards. We know that the last Government, knowing for weeks before that they were going to have a general election and arranging for it but not pretending to the country, not telling anything about it, brought in a Budget which left us a £6.7 million deficit to meet. The Minisster for Finance went through the items and I do not propose to do so again.

Fine Gael are accusing us of wanting to do what they did themselves and what they would do in our circumstances, but the Minister for Finance and this Government will do what they have always done in relation to these things—they will bring in a Budget that will serve the permanent interests of the people, irrespective of whether it suits the temporary interests of this Party or not.

Deputy Norton accuses the Taoiseach of getting very angry when a by-election goes against him and of having the reaction of wanting to dissolve the Dáil in order to get his own back on the people. But that has not been done. Although there was an adverse vote in Louth and Cork, the Taoiseach is giving this Dáil and the people time enough to consider and discuss the issues upon which the next general election will be fought. The members of the Opposition need not expect that the people will not notice that Deputy Norton and Deputy J.A. Costello put down their heads and spoke about everything that they did but did not speak to this Vote on Account. We cannot expect that the people will not notice that.

I do not think, as Deputy Corish said, that the people of this country "worship bread". I think the people of this country have a proper respect for other values as well as just bread. It is right that the people should have a sufficiency of bread but it is wrong that anybody should worship bread and ignore human and all other values. If we simply want to worship bread alone, we can get down a lot of Government expense. We can take the risk of having this country overrun by cutting out the £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 the Army is costing us: we can cut out what is spent on education and on other things as well.

The sensible people of this country— and for most of the past 25 years they have been in the majority—want their Government to make orderly progress. They do not want a few lawyers to get together and simply throw dust in their eyes as to the difficulties of life. The people know perfectly well that if you do not go to the trouble of ploughing, harrowing and sowing you cannot expect to reap a harvest, and that if we are to have extended social services, if we are to provide money for houses and to provide money for safeguarding the community by maintaining the Army, and all these other things which have to be paid for, we must face up to our responsibilities and be willing to do our share. Those people in our community who are fairly well off are quite prepared to pay a reasonable standard of taxation in order that these services may continue.

We could increase the standard of life of our people at the present time not only by cutting out these services I have spoken about but we could also increase the standard of life for a few years by realising all the past savings of our people and giving these savings to them for a couple of years in order to enable them to have a good time. The Coalition Government did enough of that. In a couple of years they decreased the net savings of our people by well over £100,000,000—and I think that that was far enough to go with that game. These savings do not belong to the politicians of 1954 and 1955. They were created over the years by the hard work of our people and our people are entitled to see that they are properly safeguarded and invested for the permanent welfare of the community and not just to suit the convenience of a few politicians for a year or two. If, unfortunately, the politicians should not have regard for the permanent interest of this country, and simply want power for power's sake, and get a hold of those savings, they can spend them and we shall be that worse off. They would spend that money as they spent the savings of our people in the years 1948 to 1951.

I think it is the duty of the Opposition, if they are criticising the financial policy of this Government, to state exactly what the financial policy of an alternative Government they might form would be. Deputy Blowick cannot go down the country and say that he does not intend to coalesce again: he said that in 1947, but it turned out that he changed his mind in that regard. I think that in this general election he will have to admit that he would be quite prepared to form a coalition and, in those circumstances, I think he should tell the people the policy upon which he would combine to put into effect. What will be the financial policy of that Government as an alternative to the financial policy of this Government? The people have had three years' experience of the result of the Coalition Government, as it was composed. If it is proposed to form an alternative to the Fianna Fáil Government. I think the people are entitled to know ahead of time——

We will tell them.

All Deputy Corish told me, or anybody here, is that the people worshipped bread.

I will tell the Minister nothing here.

Deputy Corish does not speak for his Party. His Leader spoke here this afternoon but not a single word did he say——

He did not mean to say a word about them. He wants to tell the people of the country——

He wants to say it down the country where he will not be questioned. He should say it here, so that he can be answered.

Deputies can make their speeches later. The Minister should be allowed to speak without interruption.

They are determined that they will avoid saying anything——

The Minister is in very bad humour this afternoon.

I am not. I am in quite good humour, and I am glad to see that Deputy O'Leary is here because he may say something, even though his leaders, Deputy Norton and Deputy Corish, are mute of malice.

We will see what we are like——

On a point of order. I submit that the Minister is irrelevant and repetitious and is drawing Deputy O'Leary into intervening by way of interjection to him. The Chair has already warned Deputy O'Leary that if he interrupts again he will be asked to leave the House. In these circumstances, I submit that there is deliberate enticement of a Deputy by a Minister so that the Deputy will interrupt and then be put out of the House, thus helping to weaken the voice of the Opposition Parties in the House.

The Chair has taken all that into consideration. Deputy O'Leary has interrupted five times since I gave him my warning——

Is the Minister not looking for interruptions?

Deputy O'Leary might now cease from interrupting.

I have finished what I propose to say on this matter. In conclusion, I want the various groups who are proposing to form a Government to tell us here in the House, so that the people may be informed, what they propose to do with the services in this Book of Estimates. Do they propose to cut them down or to increase them? It is the people who have to pay the money. If the present taxpayers do not continue to pay the money, the only way it can be raised is by passing the burden to future taxpayers. If they do propose to carry out these services or to add to them, are they going to meet that cost by asking the present taxpayers to meet their liabilities or pass on those liabilities to their children and their children's children as they did when they were the Government before?

The Minister for External Affairs is very anxious that we on this side of the House would tell him—tell him, mark you—what our proposals are, and he says it is not enough to tell the people down the country. I suppose we must now take it that the people down the country are, in the opinion of the Minister for External Affairs, incapable of knowing their business. They must come to such a light of lights as the Minister for External Affairs, who will tease out our intentions into small bits and inform them as to what we say so that their very limited powers can then digest it.

The recent by-elections, particularly in Cork, have been a command to the present Government to get out. For that reason—because the people in Cork have spoken on this Vote on Account before us—we believe that there should be very little discussion here on the Vote on Account because the people both in Cork and in Louth have already given their verdict on it. We believe the people want the present Government to resign as quickly as possible and to dissolve this Dáil as quickly as possible and for that reason we are willing to facilitate the Government in dissolving as soon as possible.

The results of the by-elections, particularly in Cork, were brought about in my opinion by the feeling of insecurity and instability amongst the people of this country since the present Government came into office two years and some months ago. Before they took over they told the people that they would retain the food subsidies and that one of their chief concerns was to bring down the cost of living. The Minister for Finance, who is sitting opposite, told the people of Rathmines in his own constituency that some maliciously-minded people were scattering the rumour——

Was the Deputy there?

——that if Fianna Fáil got back to power they would reimpose the tax on beer and tobacco. I think the Minister went to the trouble to get that installed in a window on the front page of the Irish Press the following day which, if I remember rightly, was a day or two before voting day. But he was not very long in power until the tax on beer and tobacco was back. The Taoiseach promised the people that the food subsidies would be maintained but since Fianna Fáil came back, instead of trying to keep the cost of living, which was to be their principal concern, within the reach of the ordinary wage-earner and small farmer, they have been taxing their brains to see how they will next pick the people's pockets in addition to what they are doing already. That feeling of insecurity and instability has been shown particularly in Cork.

I think it was only last Sunday in Louth that the Taoiseach assured the people that there would be no general election until the Government were defeated in the Dáil. Yet four nights after when he got a punch in the ribs from Cork we are to have the dissolution and dissolve at once. Last night evidently he came to the conclusion that it would be better not to dissolve so soon. The people are not blind to all this twisting and turning and saying one thing to-day and another thing to-morrow. The position the Government now finds itself in, due to these twists and turns, is not enviable, but I think the Government was doing the right thing in dissolving at once. I do not believe that this hanging on until they can bring in a Budget will deceive anybody because—the Minister for Finance is probably unaware of it — the people in the country will not believe anything the Minister for Finance says now.

Not after the last convention in Ballina.

That was a very special convention at which the Minister did not cover himself with glory. He told us last May, when introducing the Budget, that taxation rested lightly on the land. We know now what that meant because he has since increased taxation and rates and everything on farmers. He told us later that we were the best-fed people in Europe.

You do not look so badly fed yourself.

Is that a warning that the Minister for Finance is going to follow his old trail; that he thinks the standard of living of the people is too high and can be further reduced?

No. It is going to be increased — as we have done.

The Minister came to the House last year and boasted of the fact that £20,000,000 worth of agricultural produce was exported that year or the year before, knowing quite well, and admitting at the same time, that only £2.8 millions worth of the £20,000,000 worth of increased exports was due to increased production, leaving approximately £17,000,000 worth of food denied to our own people by taxation which the present Government put on.

The Minister for External Affairs is a great patriot but evidently his patriotism and that of the present Government works out in this way that our own people ought to be denied the means of purchasing food that our farmers are producing. Instead they must tighten their belts and live on less. Apparently they are eating too much, drinking too much and smoking too much and they have too much money to spend. The only remedy for that state of affairs, of course, is to increase the price of everything so that people cannot buy the food and then send it over to the country that the present Minister for Finance was at one time taking up arms against and at another time was going to take up arms on behalf of. £17,000,000 worth of food denied to our own people — that is a novel way to run the country. The twistings and the turnings are the result of what the Government knows now to be the biggest disaster any political Party met with since the defeat of the Party before Sinn Féin. Nothing like it ever happened before in this country, and no candidate ever suffered such a humiliating defeat as the Government candidate did in Cork. In fact, the word "defeat" is too mild a term to describe it. All that was due to the twistings and turnings of the Minister for Finance and the Government. The fact is that the people cannot be fooled any longer.

Before the present Government took office in 1951 they brought forward a 17-point programme. Not one point in that programme was ever fulfilled. I should be glad to hear the Minister for Finance telling me, when he is winding up the debate, if even one point in that programme was fulfilled. The Minister said at that time that they had a solution for unemployment. When we left office there was a hard core of unemployment numbering about 28,000. In the following winter, the figure went up to 90,000, and at the present time it is about 79,000. The flight from the land was never as great as it is to-day. There is one branch railway line in the West of Ireland which is mainly supported by emigrants flying from the Fianna Fáil lash. That is true.

Not at all. It is the eloquence of the Deputy that is driving them out.

They are flying from Fianna Fáil. In my time, I had forestry centres started all over the West of Ireland. These have been cut by more than half. Men have been sacked in most of these centres. Some of the centres have been closed down. Factories, too, are closing down. Last week-end, in Castlebar, a factory, not a very big one but one which was trying to do its best, was compelled to dispense with 14 employees. They have been thrown out on the roadside. The Minister for Finance and the Minister for External Affairs are not worrying about them, although perhaps they are the only breadwinners in their homes. The Minister for Finance calmly told us this evening, and clapped himself on the back in doing so, that this is the best-fed country in Europe. How does he think a breadwinner, in some town in the West of Ireland, who has no other means except the wage he earns, can make provision for a family of eight or ten children out of a wage of £4 10s. or £5 a week? There may be 12 people in that home to be fed three times a day. Out of his weekly wage, he has to pay rent and rates, meet the cost of food and clothing for perhaps 12 people, and do all that out of £5 a week. Is the Minister not rubbing the salt into the wound a little bit when he talks about this being the best-fed country in Europe? The Minister's statement shows that he has lost touch with the ordinary people when he says a thing like that. He says that we are the best-fed people in Europe after exporting £17,000,000 worth of food produced by the Irish farmer — which I say it was not possible for the Irish housewife to buy — over and above what we were sending out in our time.

So that the policy of Clann na Talmhan is to destroy the export trade.

The Minister does not understand. If he wants to test the people with regard to the policy of Clann na Talmhan, then I suggest he should try and influence the Taoiseach to dissolve the Dáil to-night. Of course, he will not do that, but will wait to bring in some kind of a trickof-the-loop Budget.

The dissolution is coming.

Let us have it so that, at least, we may save something out of the wreck.

The dissolution is coming. Deputy Blowick, like Deputy Norton, is a bit sorry about the dissolution.

Very good. If I am sorry for the dissolution, the Minister can take advantage of my unpreparedness and dissolve the Dáil. I suggest it will not be to his advantage.

The dissolution is coming.

Deputy Blowick should be allowed to speak without interruption.

I would hate to rub the salt into Deputy Blowick's wounds.

We got on well while the Minister was away.

The present Government came back to power in 1951. At that time, the inter-Party Government handed them back a country which was running smoothly like a new machine. They found things were so good that they had to try and create a scare. What was the scare? That we had left debts behind us. That squib exploded in the Taoiseach's hands, so that the Minister for Finance had to stand up some weeks later and make a statement in which he admitted that, instead of leaving debts, we had left £30,000,000 of unspent Marshall Aid money. They said that we had destroyed the country by leaving debts after us. But when they came back what did they do? They proceeded to float a loan of £25,000,000 at 5 per cent. interest, and another one inside of 12 months, £21,000,000 of which was subscribed at 4½ per cent. interest. Apparently, even if we had left the country in debt, the cure which the present Government offered was to clap on a dead-weight debt of £46,000,000.

The reason for what has happened, particularly in Cork, in Dublin North-West and in Limerick is that the people can no longer be fooled by the propaganda of the people opposite. The Minister for External Affairs is very anxious that we should have a contest across the floor of the Dáil. He seems to assume that the ordinary men and women of the country are incapable of seeing things for themselves. Surely, he must be very dull or must have become very much estranged from the people when he forgets last Thursday evening's results. The ordinary men and women can no longer be fooled. They are keeping closely in touch with things through the radio and the newspapers, and have not lost their memories. They remember the promises that were made. They remember the promise that was made by the Minister for Finance that, if the Government did come back to power, he would not reimpose the taxes on tobacco and drink, and would not cut the food subsidies. If a stranger were listening he would imagine that the Minister was conferring some favour on the Irish people when he proposed to take off the food subsidies, and reimpose the other taxes. He was followed by the Minister for Local Government who put another blister on the owners of motor cars and lorries and on farmers who owned tractors. Further burdens were imposed by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. We had one Minister after another coming in and imposing burden after burden.

In the meantime, the Government were preparing plans for the building of a new Parliament House that was to cost £13,000,000. Deputy Beegan told us that Dublin Castle was to be rebuilt, and that it would provide work for 100 men from around Dublin. I do not think the people will be likely to forget the generous gift of £140,000 which the Minister for Finance gave to the dance-hall proprietors. All these things are having their effect. We want to facilitate the Government in every way we can with regard to the Vote on Account, and in the passing of the Central Fund Bill, provided they dissolve the Dáil as soon as possible.

On last Thursday night, within half an hour of hearing the results from Cork, the Taoiseach apparently decided that he had no mandate to run the country, and was willing to dissolve the Dáil. To-day, he told Deputy Norton that he has a mandate. I cannot understand where he got the mandate since last Thursday night. Clearly, the people want an election. I am not going to prophesy what the outcome of it will be, although I have a shrewd suspicion. The fact is that the people are clamouring for an election. Look at what has happened in one single constituency. There, 9,000 people out of 40,000, who voted for the Government Party two and a half years ago, have felt compelled to change their views. Surely there must be something radically wrong when a Government has been treated in that way by the people. I think there is no good in the Government just waiting and hanging on, and hoping, like Wilkins Micawber, that something will turn up. That will not achieve anything. The present Government will achieve nothing by waiting to bring in a Budget in which nobody will place any credence. We all know that the Minister will not bring in a Budget cut to the same patterns as his previous ones. We can all make forecasts. We can all make a guess. There may be a penny off the pint, or something like that; but so sure as the penny comes off, if the Minister is restored to office on such a promise the people can bet their last copper there will be 3d. on the pint after that. Probably the flour subsidy will be further slashed. That is what the people expect. The promised Budget will be one well worth seeing.

Wait and see then.

We will wait and see, but in the meantime I suggest the decent thing to do is to go to the country immediately. If the Dáil dissolves to-night, the Minister will be back, if he is elected, on 25th April in plenty of time to introduce a Budget. We will give him £36,000,000 to-night and that will be sufficient to run the country until the 31st of next August. The Taoiseach or the Minister for Finance cannot say that the Opposition are denying him the necessary moneys on which to run the country.

Not one word of the Minister's Budget will be believed in the present situation and for that reason it is a waste of time bringing it in. It is not fair to keep the people in suspense; that suspense will come hard on many sections of our people. It will upset and disturb the farming community and the shopkeepers. It will hit the tourist trade. That has happened before. It will happen again now. It is very inconsiderate of the Government to keep things hanging fire until 18th May. The Government has got its beating; take it like a man! The Government will get this £36,000,000 and the Central Fund Bill to-night. Dissolve to-night and let the people have their say.

I have listened with great interest to the speeches here this evening. I have made some notes. I thought that the Book of Estimates would be in the hands of every speaker. There is one interesting item in relation to the Book of Estimates. In 1947 the cost of this publication to the public was 3/6 or 4/6; the cost of the present Book of Estimates is 10/6. The cry is: "Reduce prices." How can we reduce the price of this publication. Government publications are not sold for profit. The Government is not a profit-making institution. Obviously the wages of those engaged in producing this publication and the cost of paper and printing have gone up considerably. The Book of Estimates itself is slightly bigger than the 1947 Book of Estimates and it is at least twice the price. I suppose when the Coalition of the future is brewing they will promise, amongst other things, that they will reduce the cost to the public of the Book of Estimates. They will bring it back to the 1947 price. How they will do that is nobody's business. They will not suggest reducing the wages of the workers; they will not be able to get cheaper paper. They will probably tell the people they will do it in the wizardly way they reduced everything during the three and a half years they were in office; whatever deficiency results from their reducing the price of the Book of Estimates will be met by some loan which will have to be paid off then over a period of years. For every year they are in office the deficiency in everything will be met by means of loans.

Deputy Costello seemed to be very disturbed and uneasy because the date fixed for the general election is later than it was thought it would be. All of us mix with people outside. Most of those people are common-sense people. When it was announced that there would be an election shortly—I am speaking now of the ordinary man in the street and the people one meets in one's social comings and goings — the public, generally, were horrified at the idea that there might be an immediate dissolution of the Dáil.

Oh dear! Deputy Morrissey knows quite well that the public are not going to vote in the dark. They will know this time who they will vote for; they will be selective.

And they know it now.

They may know it now, but they may change between this and the date of the election.

That is what the Government is hoping for.

That is what is worrying Opposition Deputies. I do not know whether the Opposition is or is not a Coalition. Why should there be uneasiness or dislocation? Can any common-sense person say that anyone will be disturbed? Does the man in the street become uneasy and disturbed because he fears there may be a return to a Coalition Government? If that is what they mean by being uneasy and disturbed I agree with the Opposition Deputies that a number of people look with horror on the idea of the return of a Coalition Government, such as we had in the past.

They were not horrified in Cork or Louth or NorthWest Dublin.

If that is not the reason for their uneasiness, what is the reason? The Deputies who have spoken have given no indication of the changes they would make in present conditions. Will those who follow them given any indication of the changes? Do they intend to abolish protection? What will they do? Why are the people uneasy? They were not uneasy up to the returns of the last by-elections. Perhaps they were uneasy because Fine Gael interpreted the Taoiseach's statement as meaning we would go to the country this week or next week. The Taoiseach said: "No; we are going to conclude the financial business, including the Budget." Opposition Deputies say the people have become uneasy, unsettled and disturbed; businesses have closed down.

Nobody said that.

The Deputy was not here apparently when Deputy Costello indicated that there was almost a closing down of certain businesses.

I listened to Deputy Costello and he did not say that.

What did he say?

He did not say that. That is a complete twist.

Did he not say there was uneasiness?

Of course he did.

Did he not say there was dislocation?

He did not say business would close down.

Did he not say the publicans would not know whether or not they could bring their whiskey out of bond?

Of course he did.

Did he not say that businessmen would stop making profits in order to avoid income-tax?

So they will.

Deputy Briscoe is in possession.

What is the cause of all this uneasiness? Is there some policy that has not yet been announced? Is the uneasiness due to the fact that there might be an election before the policy is announced? Of course there is uneasiness in the ranks of the Opposition Parties. Deputy Norton suggested that he knew Fianna Fáil back benchers who were anxious that the election day should be postponed. I know back benchers in other Parties who are very anxious that it should be postponed as long as possible. Anybody who was around the House since last Thursday will know of the anxiety of members of all Parties with regard to that. I say that the Opposition fear the result of this postponement.

It is suggested that the reason for the postponement is that the Minister for Finance is going to introduce a fake Budget; that it will not be a realistic Budget, real in relation to the whole set-up of the State as this Party sees it; that it will be something to try and cod the people. Deputies know that this Party have a record of facing up to facts and introducing unpleasant Budgets; of facing up to them and going down because of them because, as the Minister for External Affairs said, the existence of a political Party and the existence of the State are two different things. We put the country first and the fate and fortunes of the Party second. We have knowledge that the 1951 Budget was not a real Budget. An ex-Minister of the Coalition Government described it in this House as a cooked Budget, that figures were cooked to mislead and that it was a misleading Budget. Fortunately, it did not mislead successfully.

We have had a number of years of hardship, if you like, for the country. The people expected the Government to keep the management of the affairs of the State on an even keel and, in order to do that, the Minister for Finance in his last Budget pointed out that it was a severe Budget, a Budget to correct certain things that had happened. He looked forward to the time when, as a result of good management of the affairs of the State, he would be able to bring in some relief. I believe that the Budget will be a good Budget. I believe, just as much as the Opposition believe, that it will be a good Budget. That is why I am glad that the Government are going to introduce it and that is why the Opposition fear its being introduced. If we left a situation here where the Opposition, if they came into office, could introduce our Budget, they would have no hesitation in trying to take credit for all the benefits that would flow to the community from it as a result of the good management of the Fianna Fáil Government. We know each other in this House. We know the tricks of politics.

You do, every one of them.

Both sides of the House know them, but the public are beginning to understand these tricks. That is why the public will have an opportunity of examining, not only the speeches that will be made, but also the facts that will be in the Budget. They will know then where they stand and where they are heading. Deputy Costello referred to a statement by the Minister for Finance to the effect that there was no fat in the Budget.

You mean the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Yes, I am sorry. Then the Deputy said there would be dripping in this one. Does anyone know what dripping is? Dripping is a form of refined fat and there will be a certain refinement in this Budget, so that he is quite right. Deputy Morrissey can laugh. We sometimes laugh when we are in an awkward situation; we sometimes cry and we sometimes remain silent. Deputy Costello also stated that we had made promises and did not keep them; that we said that we were not going to reduce the subsidies. Did ever a group of Parties go before the country and make so many diverse promises and not keep any one of them as the Parties who subsequently formed the Coalition Government?

Reference was made to the fact that Deputy ffrench-O'Carroll had joined this Party after having gone up as an Independent. Clann na Poblachta, Clann na Talmhan, the Labour Party and Fine Gael all went up as independent groups with conflicting policies. Did they get a mandate from the people who sent them here to form a Coalition Government? Was there ever greater deceit and deception than was shown by that performance? Then a Deputy of outstanding character is singled out here, and it is suggested that he committed a breach of his undertaking to his electorate because, having had experience of the Coalition and of Clann na Poblachta and having seen Fianna Fáil operating on its own, he is prepared to share his future political life with the Party which he believes will do best for the people of the country. People have the audacity to make these statements thinking that the public are deserving of the contempt in which they are held by Deputy MacBride and others. But the people have sense; the people understand what has happened.

Will the Deputy tell us about his salami business?

I am not a bit ashamed of it. I made as good salami as the Deputy made strawberry jam. The salami is still being made, but the strawberry jam is not. The Deputy should get into a manufacturing business and show us what he can do.

That would be a sweet mixture.

The Deputy should keep to the Vote on Account.

If we are to be interrupted by these personal observations about a person's activities outside the House, the people who make these observations deserve an answer.

I think that the Vote on Account is not being properly discussed and I think the interruptions from all sides of the House are disorderly. I am asking Deputy Briscoe to keep to the Vote on Account and those who are interrupting him to restrain from interrupting.

The suggestion has been deliberately made that the Budget when put before this House and the country will be a promise which will not be kept.

Hear, hear

People who did introduce a Budget which was a promise which could not be kept probably have a right to assume that others will do the same. I believe that every Deputy on this side of the House and a great number of members of the Opposition know very well that the Budget which the Minister for Finance will introduce will be an honest Budget.

A good election Budget, honest or not.

If the management of the State has been so good in the last couple of years as to enable the Minister to bring in a good Budget surely the Party of which he is a Minister is deserving of the confidence of the people so that they will be returned again to office.

Deputy Norton said that everything went up. He gave a list of everything that went up, but he did not tell the House, and I do not suppose that he will tell the country, that when the price of milk went up, when the price of bread and butter went up, with the penny on the pint or whatever it is, and with the price of whiskey going up, the social services also went up, that children's allowances went up, and that the great bone of contention in the ebbing life of the Coalition Government and in this Government's career during the last year, the Health Bill, has become law — another advance in social legislation. Why not tell the public that these things have gone up? In the Book of Estimates one can make a comparison——

The health service Estimate has gone down.

He has not looked at it yet.

I do not know what the Deputy means by health.

The Estimate for the Department of Health has gone down.

That is like when the Coalition Government came into being the Minister for Agriculture took from Industry and Commerce the payment from his Department of certain items of the subsidy, and then he said: "Look at how much we are spending in the Department of Agriculture — £30,000,000."

Are we discussing this Vote on Account?

I have been challenged and I have stated emphatically that our expenditure on social services has shown in this Book of Estimates a substantial increase and that it will be reflected in the Budget. I have illustrated that on the return of Fianna Fáil to office when they removed the subsidies, or the parts of them that they did remove, that was done with a certain amount of consideration. Certain people thought to make politics out of it, but we have to have regard to this situation: there are a number of people in the community who are in the upper income levels; is it fair that the general community should pay by taxation, direct or indirect, for the subsidies to give these people items essential to them at a reduced price, or is it not better to kill that situation and make sure that the benefit that you want to have accruing to the vast masses, or, if you like to call it, those not of the high income levels, by removing these subsidies and doing as we did, increasing the family allowances, and the children's allowances? Maybe in this Budget that is coming the Minister for Finance — of course I know nothing about it — will be able to further increase those children's allowances and to give further benefits of a social nature to the people who most need them.

Deputy Norton spoke in a manner that amazes me, coming from a leader of a Labour Party, summing it up that we will throw a crust, another crust, to the public, as though our people were concerned with crusts. Surely to goodness he should by now know that this Party values on a far higher level the masses of our people than that we could be accused of thinking of them in terms of throwing them a crust.

That has always been the Fianna Fáil policy.

I hope that Deputy Sweetman and Deputy Norton will use that language in their election campaigns.

The crust costs 3d. more as a matter of fact since the loaf went up 50 per cent.

The loaf went up and so did the children's allowances. I am talking of the suggestion that the vast bulk of our people will so neglect their appreciation and understanding of the general walfare of the nation as a whole as to be prepared to sink the future of this country for the sake of getting a reduction in the crust. I believe more of our people. I believe that they are of a better calibre and better standard and that they have stood a great deal more privation. They are now a free people. I suggest that some of the Deputies in the Opposition should look into their Bible again and see the picture of the children of Israel who were liberated from slavery, brought out into the land of freedom, and the moment their leader's back was turned they immediately turned themselves to worship the calf of gold. It is suggested here at this hour of the day that the Taoiseach who led this country out of slavery— that now the people are going to turn their backs on him and worship the golden calf, solely and exclusively thinking of the price of bread.

I have heard the Taoiseach called many things but I never heard him called Moses before.

I did not call him that, but still, according to the Bible, Moses was a person of some standing also.

A new name for the Taoiseach.

I did not say that. That is the same horrible critical attitude——

The whole thing seems to be very far away from the Vote on Account.

The Constitution has been invoked here to-day a couple of times as to whether what the Taoiseach is doing in his declaration of date is constitutional. I am sure you will be surprised if I tell you that I listened to a Fine Gael speaker in the Louth election telling the audience that Mr. de Valera claimed to be the author of our Constitution.

What has all that got to do with the Vote on Account?

Nothing, only he is put up to kill time.

I am not put up to kill time.

The Deputy will have to kill it some other way. Anything said in the by-election is not relevant to this Vote.

Or anything done over the by-election.

The by-election in Cork has been discussed here a number of times, and the 9,000 votes we were supposed to have lost.

You did lose 9,000 votes in Cork.

It was discussed here down to the nine thousandth vote.

Nine thousand, two hundred and eighty-eight.

Whatever it is, let it be 10,000, I am not quarrelling about that. What I am quarrelling about is that Deputies discuss that, and if I make references to other by-elections it is not in order.

We will not worry you in the slightest. We will have references to them.

I believe that this Vote on Account which has been introduced to-day must have been looked at by the various opponents of this Government, but not one Deputy who has spoken has yet produced the volume and has gone through any single item on which he found fault with an increased expenditure or a reduced expenditure or some suggestion of an amendment that the Minister might have done this or done that, or a question as to why certain things were done.

All that is out of date now.

I say that it is the Vote on Account which this House is going to carry this week.

It is the vote in the country that we are concerned about.

Deputy Briscoe should be allowed to speak without any interruption.

It is a good thing that the country should know it — Deputy Morrissey has expressed it in the words that he has found, that it is not the Vote on Account we are interested in; it is the vote in the country. Those of us who are here from the country are interested in this Vote on Account on behalf of the country and for the country.

Trying to keep yourself going.

I do not know whether I am hard of hearing, getting a cold in my ears, but Deputy Sweetman's usual loud objections seem a little bit far away from me now. Perhaps he will shout them in his usual trombone voice.

The voice is a bit hoarse after Louth. It was put to much better use there.

The suggestion was made to the public that the postponing of this election to the 24th April was for the specific purpose of enabling those of our Parliamentary Secretaries and Ministers who had not had the full three years' service to qualify for the pensions. Of course that is not true. The election will be held before they qualify for their pensions. That comes very well from a Party which held its election and went to the country immediately after the qualifying date, and not two months before it.

Is it fair that these untrue allegations should be bandied about hoping to get headlines in the papers and, as a result, to get votes from innocent uninformed people, who might believe that these allegations are true? The Taoiseach, the members of the Cabinet and the Parliamentary Secretaries— and there are quite a few of them— are not concerned as to whether they are to get pensions after three years' service. Is it not far better to recognise that or to ignore it, if you are not prepared to admire it, rather than to state that the reverse is the situation? I think it is a great credit and a great tribute to these men that their personal interests are of no concern to them. When we look at the manner in which the predecessors of this Government behaved, they should keep at least quiet about it.

That is a nice implication, from the innocent quiet man who does not wish to say hurtful things about anybody—the slimy way.

Was Deputy Morrissey not here when a member of his Party said to-day that the election was being postponed in order that these men might qualify for pensions?

It was not said on the Vote on Account.

Unfortunately it was first said by Deputies on the opposite side of the House.

The Deputy must keep to the Vote on Account and the interruptions must cease.

I asked before in relation to election promises, will the members of the Coalition, if there is going to be one—Clann na Talmhan, Labour or Fine Gael—state before the election this time, that they stand for an inter-Party Government or a Coalition Government, and what their policy is going to be?

We are not going to do what the members of the present Government did before the last election —say that they would not put any additional duty on cigarettes, spirits or beer and put it on immediately they came into power.

These interruptions are out of order.

If he kept to the Vote on Account, he would not be interrupted at all.

I was present during the whole of the speeches made by Deputy Costello, Deputy Norton and Deputy Blowick, and I heard not a single reference from either of them to any item in the Book of Estimates. I heard only the kind of talk which I am trying to answer now.

I hope the Deputy will do better.

I do not know what the Ceann Comhairle means by that. Does he mean that I am not performing very well?

Keep to the Vote on Account.

I see. Included in the Vote on Account is a subsidy for flour. I think that is admitted. The suggestion was made that if we get back again, the subsidy on flour will be removed. I think I am in order in talking about that item which is related to the price of bread. I think that it should be understood and recognised that the security of the State in having its bread produced from its own native wheat is of far more importance to the nation than the fact that you can import foreign wheat at a much cheaper price.

Why did Deputy Lemass buy so much of it then?

If we went back to the position which existed for some years before we came into office in 1932, we could easily have a situation where on account of some world disturbance, we would have to dance to the tune of some outside authority in order to secure a supply of wheat and flour for our domestic requirements. Surely, we should argue with the public—as I intend to do in the elections and as I want to point out here now—that it is far preferable to pay a higher price for bread produced from native wheat than to be dependent for our bread on imported flour? There is involved first of all the question of the security of the nation, and secondly the return which such a policy brings to the farmer and the worker on the land engaged in the production of wheat. These factors are all bound up in the question of the price of bread. I say that consideration has been given by the State to what the cost of bread entails for the poorer sections of the community. There was an increase in children's allowances, calculated as near as possible to meet not only the increased cost of bread but also the slight increase in the price of other commodities.

I have great sympathy with the type of man who is not concerned about income-tax, who does not earn enough to be worried about it, who has a certain maximum income which, because he does not pay income-tax, cannot be very high. I feel that to that man bread and butter are of vital importance. We must think about him, and believing, as I do, that this Budget will be a good one and that it will be possible for some reliefs to be made, I suggest now that certain additional benefits be given to that type of person—the type of person with the large family about whom Deputy Blowick spoke, the man with the ten children and the 12 mouths to feed three times a day. I am interested in him because he lives in Dublin as well as in Mayo and I want to see reliefs given to him. An increase of 1/- or 1/6 per child would be a big relief to that individual.

The Minister for External Affairs spoke about the method of the Coalition Government in financing State expenditure. There is a big difference between the mentality of the former Coalition Government and that of ourselves. There is what has been called above the line and below the line expenditure. We will not borrow for items which should be met out of taxation, for consumer goods——

We will borrow money for capital purposes, where we are creating an asset by that capital expenditure. We are not going to borrow, either, to make up a deficit in the usual social services expenditure, something that has to be met year by year. The difference, therefore, between ourselves and Fine Gael is very marked in that respect. They borrowed for that type of expenditure and they borrowed heavily.

Will you name a single item of that sort for which we borrowed?

It was named several times here.

Name one now.

The Deputy must be allowed to make his statement in his own way.

Deputy Sweetman can make his speech later on and can reply, if he wishes.

We know that you are telling an untruth now.

I am not going to be cross-examined by Deputy Sweetman. I am making a statement, and I want to challenge him to get to his feet and repudiate it. A colleague of mine will give him the answers to the questions he puts. I challenge him now to take that line. I am not going to answer questions by way of interjections at all.

I challenge you to name any item, and you cannot do so.

Deputy Briscoe should be allowed to make his statement in his own way.

There were items of expenditure which should have been above the line and which were put below it.

Name them.

They will be named. If the Deputy makes a speech and categorically denies what I am saying, he will get his answer.

I am asking you to name one.

The Minister will be concluding this debate and he will answer the Deputy.

I am asking you to name them now and I will have the same transaction with you as I had with you about Louth.

All through the by-elections and the campaign in this House which is now a general election campaign, the suggestion is made that two things can be done at one and the same time—that the cost of living can be reduced and that taxation can be reduced. These gentlemen opposite are going to do both and they know very well that both these things cannot be done, because they are in conflict. The cost of living can only be reduced, if wages are not increased, by restoring the subsidies and, if the subsidies are to be restored, the money has to be found somewhere and it can be found only by increased taxation.

We will let the public know now where they stand in relation to these slogans. I quite believe that the Labour people would be vitally interested in a reduction in the cost of living and that they honestly and sincerely hope that it will be possible to restore the subsidies to lighten the load of the cost of living, but they will agree that, in order to do that, some other taxation will have to be put on the backs of some people. Fine Gael say they are going to reduce taxation and the cost of living—two things which are entirely in conflict and which cannot be done. The most humble individual during the course of this election will begin to analyse the situation and to find out that it cannot be done. Let us hope it will not take him any longer than the period up to 18th May to make up his mind on it.

Deputy Blowick also amused me. He said that in a particular year our exports of agricultural commodities had gone up by some £20,000,000, but that that sum did not necessarily mean increased production, that roughly one-tenth of it was due to increased production. He then said that the very fact of these goods leaving this country was proof positive that our people were not able to feed themselves, that, if they had enough money to buy this food, it would never have been exported. Surely there must be some conflict between the Clann na Talmhan Party and Deputy Dillon of Fine Gael? We all know that there is a surplus of agricultural produce in a variety of lines which we have for export and that the better the price we get for these commodities and the more we can export, the better it is for the welfare of the agricultural community, certainly. Is it suggested that we should put a prohibition on the export of surplus agricultural commodities and give them at as cheap a price as possible to our people, whether they are able to consume them or not?

Two things which have been abolished in this country are destitution and starvation. There are some of us here who remember when there were destitution and starvation, but I challenge any member of the House to deny that the standard of living of our people in every branch of life has improved. Surely if we want to maintain that progress, we have to continue on the lines on which we have been going. I invite Labour, before they make their statement, if they propose to make a statement, to make sure that on this occasion when they coalesce with Fine Gael, if they intend to do so, the terms and conditions of their association will be clarified, and that there will not be retrograde steps taken or excuses given in connection with social welfare matters and the standard of living of our people. They had three years of it.

One of the leaders of the Labour Party, speaking in Louth, announced that there were 17 items of social legislation which Fianna Fáil had introduced from 1932 until 1948 and he added—I am satisfied that he believed it at the time—that these improvements in social welfare matters were due to the fact that they were in association with us and supporting us as a Government. Whether that is true or not is immaterial, but it happens not to be correct. We were a majority Government at the time we introduced these pieces of social legislation. I admit that the only grouse the Labour Party had with regard to them was that we did not go far enough. They would have liked to have seen us going further. In the three years they were in coalition with Fine Gael, not a single item of social legislation was passed. Yet here we are, less than three years in office, and we have improved children's allowances and introduced the Health Act, with which Labour is in complete agreement—agreement with regard to the extent to which we have gone, but hoping we might have gone further. I do not think I am misrepresenting the Labour point of view. Deputy Corish can say whether I am or not.

You would say that I was interrupting then.

I would not mind the Deputy's interruptions for correction purposes, if I needed it. We have travelled that road, and we are still travelling it and we intend to continue to travel it. I say to the public: Beware of all this mixed grill that is going to be offered, unless there is a commitment.

We were accused of breaking promises. Did Fine Gael not go to the country on one occasion as a Commonwealth Party and did they not break their promise by the introduction of the Republic of Ireland Act and did they not let down all their loyalist supporters? Is it fair for me to point out that that was a promise broken? There were so many broken promises that, if we could have breach of promise actions in respect of them, there would be plenty.

Deputy Blowick cried about the manner in which we were postponing the election date. Every member of his Party wants the election immediately and they are horrified that the Dáil is not to be dissolved to-night. Deputy Cafferky may well laugh, but that is what is being said. The Deputy talked about the high cost of certain articles, but Deputy Blowick is the first man to cry loudly when eggs fall, as they have fallen in recent months. They are coming back somewhat now, but they did fall very low. The Deputy, however, also cries if they go up because the cost of living goes up when the price of eggs goes up. What way do we want it? Are we going to have a dictatorship? Are we going to lay down every day rules to govern the operations of every individual during that day? What are we going to do? We are a democracy. This Vote on Account is put before the Dáil in, I believe, a democratic manner. I am sure it will be passed. I cannot see any vote against it. I have not heard much genuine talk against it. As time goes on and as we get through the final requirements in connection with financial matters, we will introduce our Budget.

Our Budget will disclose to the House and to the country exactly where we are heading during the coming year. Deputy Blowick said that during the years of the Coalition Government the country was running smoothly on greased wheels. Might I ask some spokesman for the Coalition Government to tell us, if the country and the Coalition Government were running smoothly on greased wheels, why they made such a hurried exit immediately after introducing a Budget? Surely it cannot be correct that the country was running smoothly, that the Coalition Government was running smoothly and that the finances were perfect since they made a hurried exit.

I will give you one reason.

I should be glad to hear it.

One of the reasons was that Deputy Cogan objected to a scheme of social welfare for which he voted when he joined Fianna Fáil.

I thought it was because the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture was likely to be defeated.

That was purely personal.

I do not know how that could be called personal. A Vote was being discussed in the House. It was postponed and the Budget introduced and then you went to the country.

The motion before the House is to vote £36,000,000.

Deputy Blowick in a ridiculing manner said that there was going to be something like £2,000,000 spent on rebuilding Dublin Castle.

£2,000,000? You mean £9,000,000.

There is no sum of £9,000,000 going to be spent. This business of Fine Gael thinking of a number, expressing it and expecting everybody to believe that it is the correct number would lead one to think that they must have always played these funny little games when they were young children. Deputy Blowick told us that there was to be a sum of £2,000,000 spent on rebuilding parts of Dublin Castle and that 100 people would be employed.

The Parliamentary Secretary said it was only going to be £400,000.

£2,750,000 over a period of 20 years.

Is it fair when a person makes a statement and says £2,750,000——

I thought he said £4,750,000.

All interruptions are disorderly. I have said that on several occasions. I am asking Deputies to restrain themselves. If they wish to make a contribution to the debate they can do so later. It is quite simple.

Deputy Blowick stated that there would be a sum of £2,500,000 spent on the reconstruction and rebuilding of Dublin Castle and that only 100 men would be employed. That is what will be said down the country but what will not be said is that this money will give work to 100 men for 20 years. If you add up the amount of wages per week accruing to 100 men you will find that almost 50 per cent. of the money spent will go in wages to the workmen about whom everybody on the opposite benches weeps such crocodile tears saying that if they cannot get work at home they have to emigrate.

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot have a reduction in the cost of living and a reduction in taxation at the same time. You cannot have a prohibition against the expenditure of money on capital schemes to give employment to people and object to the schemes because they are extravagant.

Nobody objects to expenditure on sensible schemes but to expenditure on wild cat schemes.

While we are going to debate between no scheme and a wild cat scheme 100 can go idle.

A Deputy

One hundred of the men you put out of work.

Am I supposed to have put these 100 out of work? It works out at nearly £1,000,000 in wages at present rates. I am glad to see that Deputies are getting out their pencils at least.

To see whether you are codding us.

I am not codding. In the Book of Estimates there is for the first time a figure of £5,000,000, National Development Fund.

There is not.

If Deputies look at practically the last item in the last column they will see the figure £5,000,000. I have not the book in my hands but I know the figure is there. Deputy MacEoin asks where, but during the recent elections he was one of those who said that this was a myth, that this National Development Fund was just so much cod. I am delighted to be able to say that I have some experience in the Dublin Corporation of spending quite a lot of that money and putting to work quite a lot of the money out of the National Development Fund and the Road Works Fund.

That was out of the Special Employment Schemes Fund.

The National Development Fund gives a substantial grant in Dublin of 80 per cent. of the costs of capital schemes, not maintenance schemes. The Relief Fund used to give us 70 per cent. of the maintenance works for the benefit of the unemployed. We also get 80 per cent. from that and 100 per cent. from the Exchequer on any moneys spent up to £1,600,000 in five years on road work. We have bulked these three together and we expect to get from the State for a period of five years, mainly from the National Development Fund, approximately £800,000 a year. We will have employed constantly by the time we reach the month of November 1,400 men. We have nearly 500 men employed at the moment. As our schemes take shape and as they are submitted to the Board of Works and the Department of Local Government and receive approval, we will gradually get into a different kind of scheme. We are doing this because the figure is included in the Book of Estimates. Has Deputy MacEoin found it yet?

I do not think it is in it.

There is no such figure for the National Development Fund for the coming year. Note G at the bottom of the summary page is what you want.

We are spending the money anyway and if Deputy Sweetman is active in his local area he will prepare a few schemes to employ the seasonally unemployed people——

Look at Note G and see what it says. "It is going to be introduced" but it is not in it and we are the people who have not read the book. The Deputy is showing himself up as one of the people who have not read the Book of Estimates. No part of the £108,000,000 or of the £36,000,000 is for the National Development Fund.

There is a provision of £5,000,000 here.

For last year, nothing for this year.

Surely last year's £5,000,000 has not been spent yet.

You were caught out. You did not know and you might as well be honest about it.

Not at all. Is Deputy Sweetman prepared to say now that the Government did not set up a new fund called the National Development Fund to spend £5,000,000 a year for a certain number of years in assisting local authorities to meet unemployment situations——

Which the Government had created.

I want to be sure we are not going to be surcharged for this money we are spending in the Dublin Corporation. After all, I am chairman of the committee; by the end of this month we will have spent some £250,000. We on this side of the House are taking an absolutely clear view of the situation as it confronts us and we want people to know what is our policy. We want the people to know what is the policy of our opponents. They will have an opportunity of examining in relation to our Budget what our financial provisions mean to the country and to the individual. I believe it will be a good Budget. I am convinced it will be a good Budget because——

Mr. O'Higgins

Of an election.

——of the terrible howl that is going to arise in the Opposition Benches because we have the neck to introduce our own Budget ourselves. I can quite see what Fine Gael would like. If we went out and they could come in by any chance, they would like to be able to say that this was their Budget but the public will know whose Budget it is. They will be able to judge and they will not be voting in the dark.

There is opposition to the procedure here, to the introduction of this Vote on Account, which is a continuance of the financial business winding up in the introduction of the Budget. It seems there is unanimous opposition by the three Parties opposite, Clann na Talmhan, Fine Gael and Labour. They have all spoken in the same voice, why I do not know. They can begin to prepare their election literature now. They know there is to be an election on the 18th May. That is zero hour. They know the last date for nominations and they can make their announcements now. Do not let it be said this time that they are going on different policies and that only if they combine between them they can get a sufficient majority in this House to form a Government and that they are then going to bargain, as they did the last time, on policy and on place. I want the public to be well and clearly educated on this occasion: vote for the Party with whose policy you agree, but vote for the Party that will stick to its policy and not mislead.

I only refer to that because my colleague in my own constituency, Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll, was attacked in this House to-day for having joined this Party. It was suggested that this was a breach of faith with those who elected him—that coming from a member of a Party which consistently feeds itself and exists solely on the number of people it can suck in, notwithstanding the election speeches or promises those people made or the independence they claimed before they came into this House.

For the information of Deputy Briscoe, I have looked up the Estimates for 1953-54. He will find that the £5,000,000 is not included in the £108,000,000 for this year.

I said there was £5,000,000 provided for that work.

You asked me if I could get it in this year's Estimates. You cannot get it in this year's.

It was voted in this financial year, not so very long ago.

You asked me to find it in this year's Estimates and it is not in it.

Try to make out it is a myth.

I merely wanted to give you the answer you are entitled to get.

I would like to compliment both the Minister for External Affairs and Deputy Briscoe for their capability in filibustering. Obviously, their sole purpose in rising to speak to-night was to waste time. Whatever the reason may be, the tactics of the Government Party are designed to delay and waste as much time as they can. If I am not mistaken, I see some rather long-winded speakers ready to take up their position in the queue. The two speakers to whom I referred were certainly able to waste a good deal of time but while they may be able at filibustering, I am afraid it gives us rather an indication of the type of speech we are going to have to endure in the course of the next couple of months here. Apparently, this House will be used, no doubt by all Parties, as a kind of crossroads election platform and I do not think there is much to commend the adopting of a course of that kind.

I agree entirely with the proposal put forward by Deputy Costello in regard to the immediate dissolution of the Dáil. I am sorry we have had no indication yet from the Government Benches as to whether they propose to make time available to-morrow for the discussion of the motion which has been set down by Deputy Costello calling for the immediate dissolution of the Dáil. If all the Opposition Parties combine in the request that time should be made available for a motion of that kind, it should be made available without any further ado.

The Taoiseach to-day referred to the public interest. He has a habit of referring to the public interest whenever he thinks the argument he uses can be squeezed into the claim that he is acting in the public interest. It seems obvious to me, and I think it will seem obvious to the country, that it is contrary to the public interest to delay the holding of an election any further. Obviously, the delay is bound to create more instability and more uncertainty. It is extremely difficult to expect that this House—or, indeed, the Government—will be able to carry on its work properly in this election atmosphere. I do not think I would be unfair to the Ministers and to the Parliamentary Secretaries if I suggest that the next two months will be spent by them not doing their work as public servants but preparing for an election campaign and that in effect the people will have to pay the Government— consisting of a dozen Ministers and I do not know how many Parliamentary Secretaries—for the next couple of months not to do the work of the Government but to run an election campaign for the Fianna Fáil Party.

I think that the Taoiseach should reconsider the attitude he has adopted and should realise that he will only help in creating more contempt for this House if he persists in delaying the election for two months and in allowing this House to be used as a crossroads election platform. Nor will it enhance the prestige of the Government—of any Government—and of Government institutions if in the next two months they are to be used practically as the election headquarters of a political Party. It will be a most undignified and indecent political tangling in the market-place which is not going to benefit the country and which probably will lead to a considerable amount of inefficiency in the administration of government within the next two months.

I am not going to delay the House any longer. I support entirely the proposals that have been made by Deputy Costello, supported by the Labour Party and Clann na Talmhan. I am not going to follow any of the arguments that have been put forward by the Minister for Finance—indeed, I should like to say I was glad to see him back here in the House and looking in good health—nor am I going to follow the arguments advanced by the Minister for External Affairs. Let me say this, however. In the years 1950 and 1951 we had fewer people unemployed than in any other year in the history of the country. In 1950 the average number of people unemployed was 53,000; in 1951 it was 51,000; in 1952 it had mounted to 60,000; in 1953 it was 70,000; and on the last Saturday in February of this year we had 14,000 more unemployed than on the last Saturday of February, 1951. In my view, the test as to the prosperity of a country, the test as to the efficiency of a Government, the test as to the soundness of an economic policy, is the unemployment figures. This Government has now succeeded in creating mass unemployment, a higher rate of unemployment than we have had for the last 12 years; and they should get out as the people of Louth, Cork and other constituencies have told them.

Deputy MacBride professes to be extremely anxious for an immediate general election. Judging by his success in the last general election, I think he would be well advised to adopt a more cautious attitude.

Why not give him the opportunity this time, by having an election now?

From being the leader of a powerful Party of 8, 9 or 10, after a number of expulsions and a number of resignations, he came out of the election with nothing left but the head and tail of a Party which had been completely engulfed by Fine Gael, which he was supporting. Now he is endorsing the attitude taken by Deputy Costello. Deputy Costello has been described recently by one of the intelligentsia as an illiterate. would not be so harsh; I would say he is usually in this House absolutely incoherent. Never was he so incoherent as in his blustering here to-day. He professes to want to put the issues to the people and yet he knows the Government has taken a decision by which the issues will be put in the clearest and most definite way possible. The people will be given a chance to sum up the entire economic position, to weigh up the difference between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael and to make a decision carefully and in due course.

It is not intended to rush the election before the main financial business of the year is completed. It is intended that, the Book of Estimates having been presented to this House and the people having been given a chance to see the bill for expenditure for the coming year, they will also through the Budget be given an opportunity to see the financial provisions to meet this expenditure. That is wholly a sound and reasonable policy. It would hardly be right or proper to present to the people the bill for the costs of running the State for the coming year without giving a clear indication as to how these costs are to be met and the Government's estimate of revenue and their decision as to the means by which that revenue can be raised.

Deputy Costello made one statement which was coherent. He said it was wrong for a dying Government, as he put it, to bring in a Budget that would tie its successors. He probably thought that the memories of this House and of the people are short and that they do not remember that three years ago a dying Government, a Government on its deathbed with the death rattle gurgling in its throat, brought in a Budget which was designed to tie the hands of its successors. The last Budget of the Coalition Government was introduced on the very last day that that particular Dáil was in session. It has been acknowledged and proved beyond all question that it was a fake Budget. That statement was made not only here but outside the House. No one has been in a position to controvert it.

As we all know, a number of commitments were definitely entered into, in regard to the increase of salaries for public servants and in regard to pensions, for which no provision was made in that particular Budget. It was introduced on the last day of the life of that Government.

Since 1951, the State finances and the trading position of the country have been put on a sound basis. It is ridiculous to suggest, as Fine Gael speakers have done, that you can increase expenditure year after year without increasing taxation. A remarkable feature of our accounts over the last ten years is the substantial yearly addition to Government expenditure. Fine Gael claimed that they could deal with that increased expenditure and reduce taxation. They did, I suppose, attempt to deal with it in that way. When they took office their first effort was to slash expenditure ruthlessly. The Fine Gael element in the Coalition Government, on that issue, came into conflict with Labour and some Independents. When they slashed road construction grants I found myself bound to vote against them. Some Labour Deputies also protested.

That was the original policy of Fine Gael but, on reconsideration, having regard to the fact that the Government of the United States of America, in their generosity, were offering us £40,000,000 they decided to abandon for the time being the Fine Gael policy of ruthlessly slashing grants in aid of employment. They decided to avail of Uncle Sam's generosity and to leave it to their successors to pay. As a result of that decision, their successors in 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983 will be paying at the rate of 9,000,000 dollars per annum to the United States of America. The money is repayable in dollars. If dollars are not available, it will be necessary to send goods produced or manufactured in this country across the Atlantic to pay for the policy of Fine Gael of continuing to increase expenditure while cutting off sources of revenue. It was a good thing that that policy was brought to an end.

No Government has been able to put an end to the annual increase in expenditure but at least this Government has ensured that our accounts will be kept on a proper and solvent basis, that current expenditure will be met out of current revenue, that current revenue will be equal to current expenditure, that there will be no going cap in hand to some generous nation across the Atlantic or the Irish Sea or elsewhere for alms or loans which the people of the future will have to repay.

There has been an attempt made to evade discussion of this Vote on Account. There has been an attempt made to bluff and bluster. These are the usual tactics of Deputy Costello. Facts must be faced. If Fine Gael are sincere in their declaration that it is their policy to reduce taxation, they must tell us where and how they propose to reduce expenditure.

The chief increases in expenditure this year fall under a few main headings. There is increased provision for public works and buildings, for the building of schools, hospitals and other essential institutions. Is it the policy of Fine Gael to reduce that expenditure? There is a substantial increase in the agricultural grant for the relief of rates. Is it the policy of Fine Gael to cut that grant and to add the burden to the rates? There is a substantial increase in the provision for various schemes which the Department of Agriculture operate in order to get increased production. Will Fine Gael tell the farmers that they will cut the grants that are being provided for the reclamation and improvement of land, the distribution of limestone, the building of granaries and the provision of drying facilities?

There is a substantial increase in the Estimate for Public Health. Is it suggested by the Fine Gael Party that that should be cut? They cut the old age pensions on the last occasion that they had a clear majority in this House. Will they repeat that process? There is an increased provision of, I think, £2,000,000 as compared with the last year when the Coalition were in office, for old age pensions. Is that to be ruthlessly cut down?

These are questions which the Fine Gael Party are not prepared to answer. They have no answer to them. They are building a policy on a basis of dishonesty. They are seeking to convince the people that they will reduce taxation while giving the same benefits to our people. Nobody will accept that. Nobody will be deceived.

One of the rhetorical questions asked by Deputy J.A. Costello was what guarantee have the people that, if the Fianna Fáil Party are returned to power after the Budget for the present year has been passed, they may not increase taxation again. I should like to know of what value are the guarantees from Fine Gael. Fine Gael is a Party which for years gave their loyalty to the British Commonwealth of Nations but which woke up one morning and found themselves transformed into rabid Republicans. That would indicate that they are hardly the type of people who can be trusted to keep any guarantee that they are likely to give and, at the moment, they are prepared to give any guarantee or any promise whatever in order to secure power. They are prepared to secure power at the expense of those who aided and abetted and helped them to attain the position which they occupied for three and a half years. They evince no gratitude either to Deputy Norton or to Deputy MacBride. They used them simply as a ladder to enable them to climb into power. However, they have been out of office for almost the past three years.

I think it is no harm to reply now to one of Fine Gael's official muck-spreaders who said in this House to-day that it is the intention of the present Government to postpone the general election until three years have elapsed from the date they took office so that certain members of the Government will qualify for a pension. The Dáil will be dissolved and a new Government will be formed before the three years in question will have expired so there is no truth whatever in the despicable suggestion which was made by a Fine Gael Deputy in this House to-day. The present Government will act honourably and they will not allow themselves to be influenced by mere personal considerations of that kind. If the present Government are to go out of office, they will go out of office just very little short of completing three years in office. Therefore, those members of the Government who have not already qualified will not qualify for a pension now.

After nearly three years of office, it is of interest to note the results of sound and prudent government. Agricultural production has expanded. Our industrial output has expanded. It is no harm to contrast the sphere of social services as they exist to-day and as they existed in 1951. Some time ago, I happened to ask for certain statistics from the Central Statistics Office. I believe it would be well to give them to the House now with a view to showing that the condition of our main industries and of our people generally has improved as a result of wise and prudent government. According to this document, so far as essential items are concerned, the cost of living shows an increase of 14.7 per cent. in August, 1953, as compared with May, 1951. That means that there has been an increase of 14.7 per cent. in the cost of living since 1951. Against that I might point out that the percentage increase in the weekly earnings of workers in transportable goods industries was 13 between June, 1951, and June, 1953. When I got this reply, the September figures were not available. The weekly earnings of agricultural labourers increased by 18 per cent. as between July, 1951 and July, 1953. That shows that while the agricultural labourer suffered an increase of 14.7 per cent. in the cost of living he secured an increase of 18.6 per cent. in his wages. The average hourly rates in 23 industrial occupations were 22.4 per cent. higher at the beginning of 1953 than they were at the beginning of 1951. The average earnings per week in transport were 17.4 per cent. higher at the beginning of 1953 than at the beginning of 1951. Therefore, you will find that, on an average, wages generally have increased at least 17 per cent. over the 1951 figures while the cost of living has increased by 14.7 per cent.

If you leave aside those who are engaged in work which commands a weekly remuneration and turn to the farming community which forms much the largest section of our community, you will find that the agricultural price index, which corresponds with the income in respect of agriculture, increased by 14.1 per cent. over that two-year period. Therefore, even for the farming community, the cost-of-living increase was offset by the increase in agricultural prices. In the light of these facts, all the outcry we have heard about the terrible effects of the increased cost of living on the community sounds very hollow.

I might point out that the increase in the cost of living did not begin when the present Government took office. There was an increase of at least nine points in the cost of living in the last three years of the Coalition Government and that Government did nothing about it: I suppose they found that there was very little they could do about it. In fact, that may have been one of the many reasons that drove them to the country in 1951. If we survey the position even more broadly, we find that over the past three years—I have, of course, the figures for only two years here— the national income has increased. In 1950, the national income was estimated at £350,000,000. It went up to £373,000,000 in 1951, and, in 1952, it reached £404,000,000. We may assume that, as last year was one of the best years in agriculture and in industry, the increase in the national income for that year was greater still. Despite all the groaning and moaning that we hear from the Opposition Benches this nation is making progress. They talk about unemployment and emigration. We know that in one of the last years that the Coalition Government was in office 45,000 people left the country by way of the emigrant ship and there was nothing that the Labour Party could do about it, nothing that they could say about it at that time except to appoint a commission to inquire into the incidence of emigration. But nobody has ever been able to tell us what became of that commission of inquiry and it would seem that they too emigrated and left the country along with the 45,000 others who went at that time.

The points I have mentioned only touch on one aspect of this Government. If the cost of living increased substantially under the present Government it has been offset to a considerable extent by the increase in earning power of the farmer and the worker, but as far as the poorer section of the community are concerned it has been offset to an even greater extent over the last few years. We have an increase in children's allowances which are very important for a working man with a family or a small farmer with a family. The allowance has been increased by 1/6 a week and the second child is now included in the benefit of children's allowances. That, I think, means a very substantial additional sum coming into the homes of our poor people.

Old age pensions have been increased by 4/- a week over the last two or three years. I dwell upon that with some satisfaction because there were gentlemen of the Coalition Government, Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, who went through my constituency like a mighty wind in 1951— and not a clean wind by any means——

They also went there in 1953.

Yes, and I think they repeated in 1953——

And again in 1954.

——the same falsehood that I had voted against an increase in the old age pensions. I am glad that Deputy Everett is here because I have challenged him to prove when, where and how I voted against an increase for the old age pensioners on many occasions and he has evaded it. I even offered to pay a substantial sum by way of contribution to the funds of the Labour Party if he would prove that I ever voted against an increase in the old age pensions.

I will be here when you are forgotten.

Deputy Everett knows that a falsehood at the crossroads is very effective and when you are challenged to prove it a good run away is better than a bad fight.

You are on the run now.

That is Deputy Everett's motto. I want to say that, so far from voting against the old age pensions, I was associated with the demand which was made on the Coalition Government in 1951 that they should immediately introduce legislative proposals which could be passed through the House in three hours, making provision for that increase and bringing old age pensions up to £1 a week. That request was turned down and the old age pensions were left at 17/6 a week until the present Government, with my support and the support of some other Deputies of this House, took office. That increase was then granted and was further supplemented by an increase of 1/6, which gives the old age pensioner 4/- a week more than he had under the Coalition.

The 1/6 would not buy a quarter-pound of butter for them.

I suppose there are people who will try to disparage and despise those concessions, but I live among the working people in a rural area and I know these benefits are appreciated—benefits by way of increased children's allowances and old age pensions and benefits that have been conferred by the present Government upon those who are sick and infirm. Those things are very much appreciated by the ordinary working people.

There is no reason why Deputies who were members of the inter-Party Government should get annoyed when I refer to those things, because they are facts that cannot be denied.

I have asked what is the attitude of the Opposition towards the proposals for expenditure under the broad heading of agriculture. Are they going to cut down the ground limestone subsidy to what it was when the inter-Party Government went out of office? At that time about £60,000 was provided by way of subsidy for ground limestone. To-day, it is ten times that amount. We have an Estimate for £600,000 in the present Book of Estimates. There is a member of the Fine Gael Party who has declared again and again that only an egg-cupful of ground limestone was being produced when the Coalition Government took office and that it was increased to 60,000 or 70,000 tons then, but it has been proved by a question in this House that there were two limestone plants actively engaged turning out limestone in 1947 and that there were a number of other plants being erected at that time. I suppose Deputy Dillon's hens lay bigger eggs than anybody else's and that therefore his eggcup would be of a substantial size, but it would have to be very substantial to hold the thousands of tons of ground limestone that were being ground out at that time. The amount being produced then has been increased tenfold and it is still on the increase.

Land reclamation about which so much has been heard, said and talked is to-day being carried out on a scale six times greater than it was in 1951. For every £1 that was spent on land reclamation at that time, nearly £6 is being spent to-day and that policy will continue. So, too, will the policy of wheat and beet and peat. Production of peat has been very greatly expanded over the last three years. Peat has now taken its place as a national product which can compete on level terms with any imported fuel. That industry was first developed by Fianna Fáil in the face of the fiercest opposition and ridicule by the Fine Gael Party. It is now on a sound basis and can compete on equal terms with imported fuel, particularly for industrial purposes. Peat is now an established product, and its production will go on expanding, giving increased employment. If the Fine Gael Party get into power they will, no doubt, seek to close that down as they did before. They will seek to make the generation of electricity dependent on imported fuel. They did that to a certain extent, as far as lay in their power, while they were in office, and they will probably do it again. The guaranteed price for the growing of wheat will be withdrawn if Fine Gael gets into power, and the men who are employed on the land, ploughing it, will be dismissed. I do not know whether the Labour Party will support that or not. I suppose, as they did in the past, they will be as quiet as mice.

We will see if the people will support you.

They will be as quiet as they were to-day when there was applause from the Fine Gael Benches. If the guaranteed price for wheat is withdrawn, that will mean the dismissal of men. If it is withdrawn, as Deputy Dillon has forecast, then a number of agricultural workers will lose their employment and the smaller mills throughout the country will be closed down. The men now employed in them will then have to seek the dole or the emigrant ship. If Fine Gael get into power with the support of some of the smaller groups, they will immediately carry out the policy that was also forecast by their leading spokesman—that is the policy of closing down on the manufacture of sugar in this country. Their leading spokesman, and their potential leader, I must say, has stated again and again in this House that the Irish people would save money and be better off if we blew up the four sugar factories with dynamite. I suppose, if Fine Gael get back into power, there will be four loud bangs which will be enjoyed by Deputy Dillon, but will they be enjoyed by the Labour Party?

Mind your own business.

I am minding my own business, and in minding my own business, I am also minding the country's business.

You represent no one.

We will see where some of you will be.

Deputy Cogan should be allowed to make his speech without interruption.

I am making my speech in my own way, and I do not want to be eliminated in the same way as Deputy Everett eliminated Senator McCrea.

You will be eliminated time enough.

I have heard a good many people on the Fine Gael Benches protest, prior to elections, that I would never again be seen in this House. Well, I have been seen and heard in the House and as long as I am elected by the people of Wicklow I will speak in the House and do my best for them. I know that will not please Deputy Everett. That is his own business and I am not worried about his feelings. It is important that the people should know what is the attitude of Fine Gael towards the growing of wheat and the growing of beet. I have told the House that the growing of wheat and beet has been attacked in the past from the Fine Gael Benches in the last 20 years. That being so, I am asking will they continue, if power is put in their hands, to pursue that policy so as to vindicate their past anti-wheat and anti-beet record over the last 20 years? Fine Gael has attacked industrial development in every shape and form in my own constituency of Wicklow where a number of industries have been established in the teeth of the most vicious and rigorous opposition from Fine Gael. We have had the people engaged in these industrial processes described as racketeers and profiteers, and the workers in these industries described as parasites.

Deputy Norton has said that most of them should be in jail.

I invite Deputy Norton down to support his old friend, Deputy Everett, in Arklow, to demand that the people who are engaged in the pottery factory in Arklow be imprisoned. I doubt if he will be sufficiently logical or sufficiently honest to take that particular course. (Interruptions). It is significant that many of my old friends in Fine Gael and some of my friends on the Labour Benches feel a little bit disturbed at the argument I am making. They feel perhaps that it is not going to be a very attractive policy to put before the people—to follow the line that Fine Gael has followed during the past 20 years, and followed, even while they were in power in coalition with Labour, and in spite, I am sure, of some opposition from Labour. That is the policy of preventing tillage, preventing intensive production on the land, promoting permanent pasture and promoting the closing down of Irish industries. That is the policy which they have consistently advocated, and it is the policy which they have consistently operated in so far as it was in their power to operate that policy.

I hope that some speaker from that side of the House will have the courage to repudiate that policy and to stand up and say that, in the main, on broad fundamentals the policy of the present Government is the best one: that is a policy of intensive development of agriculture, a policy of intensive development of our industrial and mineral resources. The leader of the Fine Gael Party in County Wicklow wrote to the then Minister for Industry and Commerce and asked him to close down the mining works in Wicklow because the workers were earning too much money and suggesting that they were not working hard enough. That is the attitude of Fine Gael.

How many have been dismissed lately?

I suppose there are not enough being dismissed for Deputy Everett. That is the policy of Deputy Everett. He would like to see them all dismissed as was suggested at that time.

(Interruptions.)

There is no use in that kind of language.

I agree that the people desire to hear the facts as I am putting them before them and not the interruptions that we hear from the Opposition. As I have pointed out, in our programme which is embodied in the Book of Estimates that has been laid before the House, there is provision for further development. There is provision for the maintenance of those social services so essential for our people. The Fine Gael Party says it will cut expenditure or, at least, reduce taxation. Logically, taxation cannot be reduced without cutting expenditure and we may take it, therefore, that that Party will repeat the policy they put into operation before when they reduced the old age pensions by 1/- in order to cut expenditure.

Even my friend, Deputy Everett, must agree with me that there has been considerable development in County Wicklow. I think the development there is typical of other counties, particularly in relation to afforestation. There are more men employed in forestry now than at any time in the past. Road works have been extended. Road construction is being carried out on a scale that has never been surpassed hitherto. Land reclamation is going ahead all over the country. In all these works of national development there is progress. There is even greater progress in the fundamental industry, agriculture. Our friends on the Opposition Benches need only to go to the country to-day to see the thousands of acres of extra land put under the plough. In the last year the Coalition Government was in office tillage went down by over 80,000 acres. In the three years of Coalition Government tillage went down by 500,000 acres. They say their policy is: "One more cow; one more sow; one more acre under the plough", but the number of cows during their régime went down by 80,000; the number of sows went down. In every field of agriculture there was a reduction.

That is not true.

Deputy O'Leary must cease interrupting.

Under Fianna Fáil pigs had gone out of existence almost.

The fact cannot be disputed the number of pigs generally was reduced in the last year Fine Gael was in office. There was a downward trend in agriculture. To-day there is an upward trend in agriculture. Over the whole field of agricultural and industrial endeavour there is increased production. I hope that those who have ploughed their lands and sown their wheat, barley, oats and sugar beet will not be discouraged by the Opposition speeches. I hope they will not be intimidated by the loudvoiced brawling of Deputy Dillon, who once said that he would not be got dead in a field of wheat and would not insult his land by growing wheat.

I would like to tell the farmers to go ahead and grow these crops and not to fear the worst that Fine Gael can do. It is true that the only real menace to increased agricultural production, to the growing of wheat and the growing of beet is the Fine Gael Party. If that Party was to get its way these two branches of our agricultural industry would be brought to a standstill. In the industrial field it is noticeable that there has been a very substantial and significant advance. One small instance comes to mind. I happened to be passing through the town of Baltinglass last week and I called to a newly-opened factory there.

Did the Deputy go to see Major Dennis?

This factory has been opened by enterprising local people for the production of meat products. Five or six are employed at the moment but the aim is to extend and give increased employment later on. The significant thing is that that factory has been established in the very premises in which the Coalition Government tried to establish a subpost office.

We cannot have a discussion on that.

Surely he has not reached the limits yet.

Fianna Fáil, in seeking to provide employment for our people, seeks to provide new employment of a productive nature. The Coalition Government sought to take employment from one and give it to another.

Why then did the Deputy stay in the Coalition if it was all wrong?

I succeeded in getting them out. I think that was a very useful service.

The Deputy will not be very long until he gets the present Government out also. The Deputy will not be any help in keeping them in.

Instead of a policy of taking employment from one person and giving it to another, we have now in Baltinglass a new industry giving employment to six or seven young people. That is the kind of thing we want. If that was repeated in every little village there would be no unemployment problem and there would be no emigration problem. The country is in a sounder position economically and socially to-day than it was three years ago.

On a point of order. I am waiting, Sir, for the Deputy to sit down and obey the rules of the House. I will put the point of order as soon as the Deputy resumes his seat. It is the custom for a Deputy to resume his seat but perhaps I am expecting too much from Deputy Cogan in the way of manners and courtesy. I want to ask the Chair if there is any limit to repetition in debate. Is there any limit to the number of times a Deputy may repeat the same thing?

Take your medicine.

If the Minister wants it that way he can have it that way. We are not in nearly as much of a hurry as the Minister is. I want to know is there any limit to repetition. I want the ruling of the Chair on that.

Is there any limit to the stupidity of certain ex-Ministers in this House?

Order! The Deputy is aware that repetition in this House is disorderly.

I know it should be but, listening here for the last three-quarters of an hour, I wondered if it could be.

I am going to do something else: I am going to repeat a statement made by the Minister for Finance on the Vote on Account in 1951.

Are you going to talk it out?

I hope Deputy Morrissey will listen to this statement.

Is that the time the Deputy was looking for a Parliamentary Secretaryship?

I have said the country is in a sounder position. One of the proofs of that is that we have not to-day ever-increasing imports, such as we had in the past, threatening to destroy our productive effort and engulf the nation in bankruptcy. I will quote now from the Official Report, column 789 of 28th February, 1951. The Minister for Finance at that time was Deputy McGilligan. He did not then paint the picture that he and his colleagues try to paint now of the position that existed at that time. Dealing with the serious situation prevailing at that time, in February, 1951, he said:——

"The disturbing feature, of course, is the deficit in the balance of payments, particularly when that is marked by the great increase in consumption here, especially when that great increase in consumption is attached to the non-essential goods. The continuance of such a situation for any period would be highly dangerous. It would jeopardise the policy, popularly, I think, approved of, to repatriate sterling assets. But repatriation of sterling assets is only of use if they are used solely or mainly for investment and development. If the development policy must be continued, that policy can only be continued without danger if the savings of the community are increased. They can be increased if people refrain from expenditure on non-essential goods. There is a tremendous margin over what was spent in 1938. There is plenty of slack to be gathered in. That is the chief lesson to be learned from the economic trend of 1950."

So that we had not the paradise of prosperity which some people tried to suggest we had at that time. We had a very dangerous and menacing situation, and we had Deputy McGilligan claiming that the people were consuming too much. It was stated that people were consuming too much. I say that the person who made that statement was Deputy McGilligan. Then Deputy Blowick comes in here to-day and claims that he is being starved and that we are all being starved. But it was Deputy McGilligan who first announced in the clearest possible terms in this House that the people of Ireland were consuming too much and that steps would have to be taken to prevent them so doing.

One of the reasons why the Leader of the Opposition bluffed in this House to-day was because he had no answer to the case that has been made for the Book of Estimates which has been presented to the House. He had no case to make against the policy outlined in this Book of Estimates. He had no case to make against the policy of continued progress in the field of agriculture, in the field of employment and in the field of full production. He had no case to make against the increased and better social services provided for the poorer section of the community. Therefore, Deputy Morrissey could only threaten and seek to bully in an arrogant way because there was no case to offer to the House.

I must at the outset apologise to the Deputy who has just sat down for interrupting him. There are two occasions during a Deputy's occupancy of his seat in this House that he is not interrupted, during his first speech and during his last one. I apologise to the Deputy for interrupting him during his last speech. I am glad the Deputy spoke. I am sorry that I was not able to refrain from interrupting him because he might have gone on to speak for a much longer time than he did. I do not think, however, that any better case could be made for the dissolution of this Dáil than Deputy Cogan's. The Deputy has the habit occasionally, like the Taoiseach, of talking about decency in public life, about truth in debate, about refraining from bitterness. The Deputy could not exist except on these qualities. The Deputy is, I know, not overburdened with intelligence, but he is not so stupid as, through stupidity, to twist and distort figures and statistics in the way he did here. It was done through sheer dishonesty, through a desire to vent his personal bitterness and hatred of Deputy Dillon, which is the only reason he is sitting on the Fianna Fáil side of the House.

The Deputy had the effrontery to take statistics and so misuse them as to tell us that in fact the position of the workers in this country was better to-day than it was three years ago; that not only had they been recompensed for the full increase in the cost of living, but over-recompensed; that they were actually getting more real money to-day than they were three years ago. Then the Deputy talks about other people moaning and groaning. He neither moans nor groans, but whines in that whining way of his. I do not know whether he is now going over to Deputy Allen to get a few things he should say to me but does not know himself or whether Deputy Allen is giving him a bit of good advice. (Interruption). Deputy Allen should keep out of this.

Deputy Morrissey is determined to make him keep out.

The Minister did not reprove the last Deputy who spoke. I am not going to remind the Minister either of his oft-expressed opinion of Deputy Cogan or of Deputy Cogan's oft-expressed opinion of the Minister. I have neither the desire nor the vocabulary to describe Deputy Cogan as fittingly and precisely as the Minister has described him on occasions.

I suggest that the Deputy should come to the Vote on Account.

With respect, I was here for one hour and 15 minutes listening to the Deputy blackguarding my Party and blackguarding my colleagues. I appealed over and over again to the Chair to bring the Deputy to the Vote on Account, but he did not come to it, nor was he brought to it. I was told by the Chair that Deputy Cogan was replying to certain things said in this House and he had a right to do so. I consider that if Deputy Cogan has a right to make such statements, I should be allowed to counter them. The Deputy, as I was proceeding to say, told us whiningly that he lived amongst the workers, that he understood the poor and their circumstances. His knowledge of them was so intimate, he was able to tell us that, far from being in any way hurt by the Minister's Budget of 1952 and the Minister's Budget of 1953, in fact they had made a profit out of it. He went further, and out of his boasted knowledge of the poor and of the conditions of the poor he said that the farmers had been recompensed to meet the increase in the cost of living, the workers had been recompensed to meet the increase in the cost of living, and that nobody has benefited to the same extent as the very poor, the old age pensioners and the blind. Is that a stupid statement or a downright dishonest statement? The Deputy suggested that there has only been a 14.7 increase in the cost of living. Does the Deputy suggest that there has been only a 14.7 increase in the cost of the essentials which the old-age pensioners, the blind pensioners, the widow and the working man have to pay?

I quoted statistics prepared by the——

The Deputy did not quote statistics. He misused, misrepresented and distorted them, but I will quote figures which will be more easily understood.

I quoted official figures——

That is the sort of thing that makes one wonder whether we should not reconsider paying for the production of statistics in this country when they can be misused and distorted. The Deputy's 14.7 per cent. increase! Would the Deputy tell us what is the percentage increase in the price of a loaf of bread from 6½d. to 9½d.? Would the Deputy tell me what is the percentage increase raising 1 lb. of sugar from 4d. to 7d.? Would the Deputy tell me what is the increase following the Budget of 1952 in the price of a stone of flour? Is it 14.7 or 50 per cent.? Will the Deputy tell me what is the increase in the lb. of butter from 2/10 to 4/2? Perhaps the Deputy would work out for us the percentage increase in the price of tea between 2/8 and 5/6. That sort of clap-trap that the Deputy tries out here would not even go down at the crossroads for him, much less waste the time of the House insulting the intelligence of the people.

It would if there was nobody at the crossroads.

The people there would understand statistics better than Deputy Cogan. Deputy Cogan's swan song was worthy of him, worthy of the contribution he has made to this Assembly during his time here. The Deputy talks about agriculture and tries to contrast what was done by the present Government and by the inter-Party Government. He knows that the inter-Party Government, in so far as he is a farmer, put more money into his pocket than Fianna Fáil ever put into it, but he has not the manliness to admit that. The Deputy talked about there being a decrease in sows. As against when? A decrease in cows— as against when? The Deputy boasts about the increase in agricultural exports. Why? Who laid the basis for it? Who laid down the policy for it? I suppose the cattle which the Deputy sold last year and which he sold this year and the cattle which he sold in 1952 were all born under Fianna Fáil. Mark you, if the Deputy has any calves either to rear or to sell they were not exchangeable on the market for a 10/-note, or if they were good ones, not exchangeable even for a £10 note.

Mr. Crowley

The inter-Party Government wanted to give 1/- a gallon for milk.

A Deputy from West Limerick should be the last to open his mouth about calves, but I do not want to say anything about the Deputy because he is a decent man.

Mr. Crowley

A 1/- a gallon over a period of five years.

The Deputy is a decent man and I have not a word in the world to say about him. He has his political convictions and has always had them and has stood by them, and for that, even though I cannot agree with the Deputy, I can respect him. The Deputy told us about health services. He told us—we heard it earlier, of course, from the Government, from what I call the real Fianna Fáil people—that we were the best-fed nation, according to some statistics.

According to the International Labour Office—and the Deputy used to be a Labour man.

I have a fair knowledge of the conditions of the working man even yet, and perhaps I am a lot closer to him than some people who claim from every public platform that they are the worker's real friend. We are told we are the best-fed people, and it is boasted of here and boasted about outside. We are told we are spending millions more on improved public health services. But in the same breath the Minister for the best-fed people on the earth, the Minister for Health, tells us that claims for sickness benefit are up by 50 per cent. Let him reconcile that—that claims for sickness benefit are up by 50 per cent.; 2,000,000 sickness certificates.

I will give the Minister one little bit of what I hope will be joy to his heart —the Deputy who has just sat down will not be much longer an embarrassment either to himself or to his colleagues. Mark you, I have a feeling that if the Minister and his colleagues who sit behind him had to advert to other considerations they might not be so much against the motion to dissolve the Dáil forthwith as they are at the moment. The Deputy wants to say something. Does he want to say it himself or through the mouth of Deputy Cogan? The Deputy is another decent man.

Leave the decency out of it.

They were not always as great as they are now.

The Deputy, with that relevance to which he adhered so strongly all through his speech, referred here to a private person outside who cannot defend himself in this House, named him in such a way that he could be identified, and then told a lie about him, a lie I had already successfully nailed where it was uttered in Avoca about the letter which the Minister who used it, or misused it, said was a personal letter addressed to me. The Minister was not above talking of what he himself described as a personal letter.

The Deputy has said that Deputy Cogan told a lie. That expression cannot be used——

Very well, Sir, I withdraw the word "lie."

There are other words I could substitute for it but I will not bother to.

Use Churchill's phrase.

The man whom under the cover of this House the Deputy has tried to blackguard was publicly vindicated in Co. Wicklow and in Avoca, and very well Deputy Cogan knows that. Deputy Cogan talked about some of us going down to Wicklow in 1951. Might I remind him that we also went down in 1953 and some of us were so really interested that we were even present at the count; and one of the most vivid pictures in my mind of that count was that when the papers of a certain candidate whose position was of vital interest to Deputy Cogan had been dealt with Deputy Cogan did not walk out but slunk out of where the votes were being counted. I would not advise the Deputy, unless his heart is in a remarkably strong condition, certainly much better than mine, to go to the count at the next election.

On a point of order, may I call attention to the fact that Deputy Morrissey seems to be able to raise a laugh in the galleries. Is it in order that the people in the gallery should laugh at what Deputy Morrissey says?

If there is any disorder in the gallery, Deputies should know that they are responsible for the conduct of their visitors. I am not cognisant of any disorder at the moment.

"A little nonsense now and then."

The Deputy is not very big but I would not exactly describe him as a little nonsense.

"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." I do not see why people should not laugh.

They have been laughing for the last two or three hours.

It is very hard on Deputy Morrissey that people should laugh at him.

It is time to pass away from all the nonsense we have heard here all this evening.

We should hear the words of wisdom of Deputy Hickey in a short time.

Deputy Morrissey is in possession on the Vote on Account.

Honest to goodness, I can never understand these Fianna Fáil people no matter how long I am listening to them or looking at them. They are the grandest people to give out or to laugh at any channel from which the "giving-out" is done so long as they are not the victims. They will not utter any comment other than one of approval but immediately somebody hits them back, instead of turning the other cheek, they begin to squeal.

It was Deputy Hickey who uttered the protest just now.

The Deputy, I hope, will not get many interruptions, in the short time that is left to him.

He cannot speak in his own constituency.

I shall meet you in Baltinglass some day.

You will be run out of it.

I do not want this debate to degenerate into a series of interruptions. Deputy Morrissey is in possession and should be allowed to speak.

I started off by saying that I owed an apology to Deputy Cogan. Perhaps I owe a greater apology to the House for having taken up so much of its time with a Deputy who is almost an ex-Deputy. We had a rather interesting speech to-day from Deputy Briscoe. If I were to accept that Deputy Briscoe believed what he was saying, then I would have far less respect for the Deputy's capacity as a businessman than I have. I am perfectly satisfied, too, that he has the contacts, which he said he had, with various types of business people in the city but I do not believe that he got from them the reaction which he said he got from them here to-day. I think Deputy Costello did not in the slightest exaggerate when he said that the position such as was announced by the Taoiseach in his second statement could not be helpful to business. It is bound to create uneasiness, dislocation and an upset in business, not merely in the City of Dublin, but throughout the country.

Deputy Briscoe expects that we shall have a very good Budget in two months' time. I suppose from his point of view that is a reasonable expectation. Let us assume that he is right. Are we going to have a reduction in the price of tea, in the price of sugar, in the price of flour, or in the price of bread? Are we going to have a reduction in the price of tobacco and cigarettes?

Mr. Crowley

Milk?

If the Deputy will allow me I will deal with that point later.

Mr. Crowley

Will there be a reduction in the price of milk?

The Deputy should allow Deputy Morrissey to proceed without interruption.

I realise the Deputy does not want liberty to interrupt me. If we are going to have that, and people in business are inclined to hope that we shall get a good Budget, is there any businessman who is going to stock up at present prices? Is he going to stock up with flour shortly before the Budget, at its present price? Is there any shopkeeper who is going to take out of bond and pay duty on spirits at the present rates, if we are going to have a good Budget? Are we going to have a reduction in the rates of interest? Is there going to be a reduction in the rates of interest on loans? Is there going to be a reduction in the price of beer? Surely these are questions that any businessman may legitimately ask himself.

Mr. Brennan

And the 25 per cent. duty on property sales.

What is the point of that interruption?

Mr. Brennan

I am merely pointing out that there was a 25 per cent. duty on certain property sales.

I do not know whether the Deputy is trying to be personal or not. What is the explanation of the Deputy's interruption?

Mr. Brennan

One of the things which we might reasonably expect to see introduced is a reduction in the duty on property sales.

The Deputy is an auctioneer as well as I am.

Mr. Brennan

I was surprised at your leaving out that one.

I have a much more important one to talk about and I am glad the Deputy has reminded me of it. The Minister knows, if the Deputy does not know, that the 25 per cent. duty on certain property sales does not matter very much to the revenue, but what did matter very much, and the 25 per cent. duty was brought in to camouflage it, was that the stamp duty was increased from 1 per cent. to 5 per cent. in the case of sales to our own nationals.

And collected by you.

We reduced it by half. Do not forget that.

Who brought in a clause nearly as big as the Book of Estimates to ensure that the 5 per cent. would be collected and would not be evaded except Deputy McGilligan?

When we went into office we found that the Minister and his colleagues had increased the stamp duty on our own people from 1 per cent. to 5 per cent. It was on that the fat was obtained from the treasury. When we left office it was not 5 per cent.; it was 2½ per cent., and if we had remained for another 12 months it would be back to 1 per cent. The Deputy can talk to his colleague about that.

Mr. Brennan

I have been talking about it.

Apparently without effect.

Mr. Brennan

You never know.

He would have to throw the net very wide in this Budget if he is to succeed in that. Of course, the Minister should be the last person in this House to be drawn into that particular argument because we do not forget, either, that in order to restrain people from becoming owners of their own homes, he was the Minister who brought in the provision that tax was to be paid on five-fourths of the valuation. It was not enough that you had to pay tax on the full valuation; you had to pay on your full valuation plus 25 per cent. as well.

Mr. Brennan

The auctioneer again.

I knew that before ever I became an auctioneer. I am not a bit ashamed of my occupation, and I hope the Deputy is not ashamed of his.

Mr. Brennan

I did not say that I was.

I should like to get from the Deputy at some time a rather fuller explanation of that particular crack. I may say, in passing, that, in my opinion, it was not worthy of the Deputy. One would refrain from even attempting to follow the line which was pursued by the Minister for External Affairs in this debate. I notice that no member who spoke from the other side made any reference whatever to what Deputy Costello said, and we have not got so far any opinion from the Government regarding his suggestion that, knowing as we do that the money must be provided to keep the public services going, no matter which Government is in office, we are prepared, without delay, to give to the Government the Central Fund Bill and the Vote on Account, provided we can get down to grips with this question of the dissolution of the Dáil.

It is quite obvious you do not want to discuss the Estimates? All this is a smoke-screen because you are afraid to face up to your responsibilities.

Would the Minister come back for a moment?

He will be back all right.

It is easy to say these things when running away out of the House. Either the skin of the Minister for Finance is getting a little more tender or my tongue a little more sharp. He did not formerly run away like that. All the ballyhoo we have listened to to-day, all the ballyhoo we had from the Minister for External Affairs, all the long and laboured speech we had from Deputy Briscoe and all the whining we had from Deputy Cogan was all devoted to one purpose to try to get the minds of the House and the country off this fact, that, on last Thursday, the Taoiseach got the biggest shock he ever got in his political life, and that, side by side with the announcement of the final result of the Cork election, came the announcement from the Taoiseach that, following on the two by-elections, a general election, in his opinion should be held and would he held as soon as the financial measures necessary for the carrying on of the public services had been completed.

Now we are told that we misunderstood the Taoiseach. It is not to-day or yesterday that we heard him for the first time or read him for the first time. It is not to-day or yesterday that we knew that he was apparently incapable of saying in a straightforward manner anything about anything. We made full allowance for that fact, but it was quite clear, and is still, beyond any shadow of a doubt, to any person who has any knowledge whatever of parliamentary procedure that that statement on Thursday night could mean one thing and one thing only—that, when the Vote on Account was passed by the House, the Taoiseach would ask the President to dissolve the Parliament. There is no question about that. As surely as I am standing here, that is what the Taoiseach meant. He had no reservation whatever about it and he practically admitted it here to-day at Question Time.

We were told that he consulted with his Cabinet colleagues, that he consulted the Tánaiste in London and that he had given full and careful consideration to it, but he was able to do all that in an amazingly short time, because, within five minutes of the final result being telephoned or telegraphed from Cork, the Taoiseach's statement was on the air and if we had any doubt in our minds as to what he meant, he let it out to-day himself here and it will be on the records of this House.

What happened in the meantime? Did the new leader when he came back from London change the record? Did the new leader of the Party tell the Taoiseach that he was losing some of that political astuteness of his, that he had taken a hasty decision? Did the new leader lead a revolt of the Party against the Taoiseach's decision? Did the Party feel that the Taoiseach was making the same mistake as that which they accused him of making early in 1948 about a general election? What pressure was brought on the Taoiseach to get him to issue last night over the radio a statement completely and absolutely opposed to the statement he made last Thursday night? Those are the questions to which the House and the country are entitled to get an answer.

If the Taoiseach was satisfied, as he said himself he was, that he had lost the confidence of the people of the country to such an extent that he believed a general election should take place, if the present Government is a discredited Government, as it is, in the eyes of the people, what right have they to prolong their own lives for a period of ten weeks? Did any Government in this or any other country ever get in such clear and unambiguous language a notice to quit as the present Government got last Thursday? To use an expression which is more familiar to Deputy Vivion de Valera than to me, the Taoiseach wants a stay of execution for ten weeks; I hope the House will not give it to him. Certainly he has to make a much better case for it—he would have to make that in the District Court much less here—than he has made.

The Goverment did get a notice to quit and are now looking for a stay of execution for ten weeks. What they are really looking for is an opportunity to bring in here, to concoct or to devise by some or any means, a Budget which they believe, or hope, will fool the people. It is beyond the wit even of Fianna Fáil to devise a Budget that will deceive the people in their present mood. It cannot be done. The people are not going to be deceived any longer, and all the tripe we get from Deputies like Deputy Cogan is not going to alter the position. This Government is a discredited Government—completely discredited.

Deputy Cogan talks about the programme of this Government and about the honesty of this Government, and he had the audacity to assert here within the past hour and a half that the Fianna Fáil Government had kept every promise they made. Deputy Cogan himself, Deputy ffrench-O'Carroll, Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy Cowan were induced to give, in the first instance, their support to Fianna Fáil on the Minister's and the Taoiseach's emphatic promise, not merely verbal but set down in writing in their famous 17 points, that the food subsidies would not be reduced or interfered with. That was a clear and most emphatic promise. That was the promise made which got certain Deputies, so-called Independent Deputies, to give their support before they were finally admitted to membership—that admission to membership being, in my opinion, another piece of evidence of the straits to which the Fianna Fáil Party were reduced.

Those Deputies, this House and the country were given the unqualified promise that the subsidies would not be touched. The Minister for Finance, when it was asserted that if they got back into office they would reimpose the duty on beer, tobacco and spirits, said he would not and his colleagues reiterated that statement inside and outside the House. When he got back into office, not merely did he reimpose the duties on beer, spirits and tobacco but he said, in the course of that speech, that the additional duties which were imposed by his colleague, Deputy Aiken, as Minister for Finance, in 1947 should never have been removed by us. That was said—it is on the record—by the Minister who said it was not his intention to reimpose those duties. That was said by his colleagues.

What is the use in talking when we had to listen to Deputy Cogan speaking about a 14 per cent. increase in the cost of living? What are the essential foodstuffs for the majority of our people? What are the essential things for the poorest sections of the people of this country? What figures most in their daily lives but bread, tea, sugar and butter? Does the 14.7 per cent. cover these? What increases have taken place in a wide range of articles that do not figure in the cost of living index figure at all?

The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs consoles himself and tries to console the people down the country by telling us he discovered in his world tour that there are three unnamed countries in the world where the cost of living has risen more than it has risen in this country. The Minister, his colleagues and his Party have been beaten fairly and squarely. They were not beaten by a doughty opponent. They were not beaten by a Party with what they would admit was an intelligent policy but they were beaten by a Party which, according to Fianna Fáil, was a dead Party or a dying Party. They were beaten fairly and squarely on first preference votes.

I venture to say that after Louth and Cork we will not hear as many whispers or even as many audible remarks about the desirability of changing from the proportional representation system back to the old system of the single vote. It might not suit Fianna Fáil so well now as they thought it would suit them on one occasion. They may make all the excuses they like. They may twist and distort everything. They may talk at the crossroads about the debts left to them by the inter-Party Government. They may talk in the Dáil or write in the leading article of the Irish Press about commitments—they were driven away from the word debts—but it does not alter the fact that they have lost the confidence of the people of this country in a most remarkable and spectacular way.

The results of Cork and Louth, not to speak of the other places, are the angry reactions of the people against the infliction on them of a harshness and of hardships to a degree they are satisfied it was not necessary to inflict on them and to a degree they should not have to suffer. I know there are certain members of the Government who will try to be rather supercilious about the people—perhaps, they do not express the feeling although the Taoiseach once said that the people were never right unless they were in step with Fianna Fáil—and who pay a lot of lip service to the rights of democracy and the people who choose the Government and this House but who want to deny the people the right to change the House at the time the people themselves want to change it.

There is only one reason why the Taoiseach was forced. I am perfectly satisfied he was forced whether entirely or partly by the representations of his own colleagues and his own Party. Deputies will remember the leading article in the Irish Times on Saturday last, where the editor patted the Taoiseach on the back of the head and, at the same time, gave him the boot. He had served his purpose and he should now get out. That was worthy of the Irish Times. I will leave it at that. I may have my own view about the Taoiseach's politics, but even that got a bit under my skin. That is the position, and all the speeches Deputies opposite made here and outside will not improve the position one bit.

Notwithstanding the results in Cork, Louth, North-West Dublin, East Cork, Limerick and so forth, I do not believe the Fianna Fáil Party fully realise yet how angry the people are with them. I do not think they have any idea of the present mood of the people. I do not think they realise for one moment the landslide or, perhaps, they do. Perhaps, that is the reason why the Taoiseach for the first time in his life was forced off his own course. Perhaps, he was not perfectly conscious of it. I am satisfied that if he dissolved the Dáil now and went to the country he would not stand a dog's chance. You would have the greatest landslide in a general election since this State was founded.

Perhaps, it is the gambler's throw in the hope that something may turn up, either internally or internationally, that might help the Taoiseach to stall the election off for another ten weeks. Perhaps, it is also possible that, if the Minister is not able to bring in a Budget with a bit of gilt on it, the Taoiseach may have another interpretation of what he said, as was adverted to to-day, in regard to the financial arrangements having to be completed. He has not yet, of course, advised the President, but when the time comes he may tell the House and the country that he did not mean at the end of the Budget, that, when he fixed the 18th May, he overlooked the fact that in order to complete the financial arrangements he would have to pass all five stages of the Finance Bill and the Appropriation Bill and that that could not be done until the middle of August and that we might have a long and detailed discussion on the Estimates. Am I not entitled to say that in view of what happened since Thursday night? Would there be anything more far-fetched in the Taoiseach taking that line if he thought it desirable in the interests of his Party still further to postpone the holding of a general election? As Deputy Costello pointed out to-day, strictly speaking the financial arrangements, interpreted as the Taoiseach interpreted them in his statement of last night and not last Thursday, are not completed until the Finance Bill and the Appropriation Bill are passed. Why do you not admit you have had it? Why do you not admit that you did not quite succeed in fooling all the people all the time? You did it for 20 years and that was not a bad try. I do not think there is any other Party in Europe that succeeded for so long. But you are found out.

Like myself, the astute Leader of the Party is not getting younger although I would still back him against some of the boys who have been advising him between Thursday and last night. He has forgotten more about politics and political manoeuvring than some of them will ever learn. They may be a little more slick or appear to be, but it is not merely a difference in technique. No, there is more than technique at stake there. But may I presume to offer you this little bit of advice? Do not think that the people in their present mood—they have reason to be bitter and you are not going to improve the mood by the way in which you have been carrying on for the last couple of days—are going to suffer lightly any tricking about with their fundamental rights, particularly their fundamental right to elect the personnel of this House and the Government of the country.

The Taoiseach has always been free to talk about all power being derived from the people. He has been very free to talk about the people being allpowerful—some of his colleagues following that line have been even more eloquent—but he has not always been as ready to accept that will when it has been demonstrated and when there has been a clear indication there. Never was a clearer indication given than has been given over the last two years.

If there are two men responsible above all others for a lot of the misery and hardship, emigration and unemployment which has occurred, for the increase in interest rates, for restriction in credit, those are the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. We do not forget the autumn of 1952 when in an effort to discredit their predecessors they bansheed from one end of this country to the other about the insecure credit standing of the country, saying it was on the verge of bankruptcy, about their concern as to whether we would be able to meet the demands made on us and to meet our debts. Those are the two principal spokesmen in that particular line of country who are more responsible than any others for the state of emigration. The Minister can afford to smirk; he has not had to emigrate and leave his family behind. I want to assert—it does not give me any pleasure to do it and I am closer to it than the Minister—that for the last year and a half emigration from this country has reached almost to the highest level it reached during the war years. There may not be statistics in the Statistics Department for that but the knowledge is in every city, town and village of the country. It is known to the authorities in every village, town and city and to the committees and officers of every sporting club whether it is rugby, soccer, G.A.A., or lawn tennis.

I am giving the real picture of this country. We are told that 1953 was the best year in our history. What evidence is there to support that? We are told that there has been a complete recovery in the business of the country. That is untrue. There is not a businessman, whether he be attached to Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour, or any other Party, no matter what Party (if any) he subscribes to or supports, who can honestly say that business is anything like as good as it was three or four years ago. There is not a Deputy in this House—and I know I am speaking in the presence of some people who know what I am talking about—who will dare to assert that, with the possible exception of land, any piece of property is nearly as valuable as it was two or three years ago, and that there has not been a drop in values of from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent.

Mr. Brennan

Of course, land is not important.

I did not say that. The Deputy ought to be above making cheap debating points.

Mr. Brennan

That is a fundamental point.

If the Deputy was listening he would have understood me to say that, with the exception of land, all property had fallen in value.

Mr. Brennan

I said land was most important.

The Deputy ought not deliberately to give a wrong impression of his own intelligence. That is the picture, not the sort of picture we get from Deputy Cogan or the sort of picture we get every week-end at some cross-roads in the country from the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.

Mr. Brennan

What we are actually getting now.

I am giving the picture as I see it.

Mr. Brennan

You are doing the best you can.

And I am not doing badly at all.

One hundred thousand people emigrated during your period of office.

It is a great pity it was not 100,000 and one.

Major de Valera

That is a very peculiar statement. What do you mean?

Deputy Morrissey is entitled to make his speech and he does not have to annotate his statement for any other Deputy. Deputy Morrissey on the Vote on Account.

Deputy Morrissey is in favour of increased emigration.

If the Minister would add that one, I think the country would survive it, although, believe it or not, I would be nearly sorry to see him go. I suppose we ought to keep our suffering to ourselves as well as our blessings. The Deputies have been beaten—they are absolutely afraid, and they have reason to be afraid, to face the country. They are facing political extinction—there is no question whatever about it.

Major de Valera

The Deputy said that in 1948.

He has been saying it for the last 30 years.

If the Minister and myself started to remind each other of what we have been saying for the last 30 years, I do not know when the election would be held. The fact of the matter is that those opposite are on their political death-bed.

The Deputy will be saying that for the next 20 years, in addition to the 30 he has been saying it.

The Minister is slipping a bit. Does he remember when he used to be talking about the dead Fine Gael Party?

You never said that?

This is a Vote for £36,000,000.

Yes, £36,000,000. I am glad you reminded me of it. I have been here since 3 o'clock and have not heard a reference to it since then, so you cannot blame me for forgetting it. The £36,000,000 is only one-third of the bill, if it is a third. Deputy Aiken has reminded me of the time it used to be £21,000,000 and Deputy Dr. Ryan used to say we were £7,000,000 over-taxed and the country could be run for £14,000,000. Even this £36,000,000 Vote on Account is not sufficient to keep the country going while we are changing the Government—which could be done within three weeks. The Taoiseach could dissolve the House to-night and we could have the new House meeting about the 2nd or 3rd April. We could have a Budget and a policy and a programme and a bit of hope for the people.

The Deputy talked about our promises. I would like to hear the Deputy telling us about the promises we made and did not keep. One of the promises we made before the election was that we would remove additional taxation to the tune of £6,000,000. We did so and we did not wait for the Budget to do it. In the same year, the people for whom the Deputy is weeping—the old age pensioners, the blind pensioners and the widows and orphans—got an increase. The Deputy might remember that increases in those times were real increases. For two and a half years, while wages and salaries went up to a greater extent than in any similar period in the history of the State, there was not an increase of even one point in the cost-of-living index in those two and a half years. The Statistics Office were able to produce figures and a graph to show that, for the first time since records were kept, the earnings had passed out the cost of living.

Deputy Cogan tells us that the poor and the workers are no better off. He says that the increase in the loaf from 6½ to 9½., the increase in sugar from 4d. to 7d., in butter from 2/10 to 4/2, in tea from 2/8 to 5/6, means you are only increasing the essentials by 14.7 per cent. Listen to me, do not mind about that sort of thing going down here—it will not go down even in Wicklow.

I have tried to put the position as I see it. Some Deputies may think that I have been rather severe. To tell you the truth, I have been trying to think if there were any words or phrases which I could use, within the Orders of the House, that would provoke the Government into dissolving. Apparently, they are conscious of their danger. Apparently the reports and the cries of panic that must have poured in from all the cumainn and from some of the Deputies and maybe even from some of the Ministers, following on the Taoiseach's announcement on Thursday night, have turned the scale. I know some Deputies and some Ministers who must be feeling rather uncomfortable. They had very little left in the kitty the last time when they just got into the seat here in the House. They might do better this time—you would never know. If you believe, as you do believe, that the people are against you, why do not you get out, why do you not dissolve to-night or at the furthest to-morrow; and we will give you the £36,000,000 to get rid of you, and it will be cheap at that price.

Major de Valera

After Deputy Morrissey's entertaining contribution, I am strongly tempted to follow on the entertainment line but I thought we were going to discuss the Vote on Account, which is a serious national business.

I hope the Deputy will do it now.

Major de Valera

I will. Anyone who has been in this House for any length of time can see how an Opposition must oppose. Apparently, it does not matter what opposition it is. When Deputy Morrissey was speaking, I could not help supposing what the tune would be if we had announced the dissolution for to-day. That would be wrong, too. An Opposition will always have to say whatever the other side of the House does is wrong.

I hope that will not be the view of everyone.

Could Deputy Hickey not keep his mouth shut, as he did when Deputy Morrissey was speaking?

I was as vocal then as I am now.

Deputy de Valera is in possession.

Major de Valera

When the announcement was made last Thursday, the big question with everyone was whether the dissolution would be to-night or after the Budget. It was perfectly clear that there would be a further announcement and, in fact, the newspapers started to ask that question immediately. In face of that, much of what has been said on the far side collapses. There is a more serious aspect to all this. This Book of Estimates is an extraordinarily important thing for us, no matter to what side of the House we belong. It contains the Departmental Estimates and the provisions for the financial year, as already estimated by the Government and by the Departments. These Estimates will have to be considered and dealt with by some Government on these benches, to run the country for this year. One wonders why the Opposition completely ignores them. There are some very important questions to be answered on these Estimates, as to whether certain expenditure herein set out should be provided for, or whether reductions should be made under some heads or increases under others.

A function of this Vote on Account in every year has been to give Deputies an opportunity of examining the proposed expenditure and of expressing their views on that expenditure and on the items involved in it. It also provides an opportunity for the various Parties to express their support or opposition, or to make suggestions for amendment in regard to the provisions in those Estimates. This we have not got from the Opposition or any Party in the Opposition.

I am afraid the cat was let out of the bag to-day by a remark by either Deputy Morrissey or Deputy Sweetman that it is not the Vote on Account which counts, it is the vote of the country. That may be all very well but the Vote on Account is a very substantial part of the national business and if the Opposition are regarding this as a game and that the serious business we should be doing in this House does not matter, it is an extremely serious thing for the country. That is the Opposition's attitude. There is a direct quotation, which I took down myself, from their front bench and, if it means anything, it means that they are interested in the competition for political power and, apparently, are not interested in the serious business of running the country. That is an appalling thing. It is an appalling thing when one looks at it from the background of the principal Opposition Party.

First of all, there is their propaganda at the present moment—taxation and the cost of living. The question of a general election was not mooted until the Press which supports them came all out on it. What was the line?— exorbitant State expenditure. They made immediate attack on the Estimates—the State was spending too much. On all their platforms they stressed taxation and called for reductions in taxation and at the same time they talked about the cost of living and, in particular, they talked about food subsidies. That is all very reminiscent of things that happened in the past.

It would be well if the people of whom Deputy Morrissey was talking a few minutes ago would have regard to the facts of the situation. In 1948 that very same Party was the Empire Party. Thanks be to God, they threw that over. They were willing to sacrifice supporters who voted for them on that basis in order to get the support of another group who made the Coalition but, before they threw it over, while they were the Empire Conservative Party, their big platform was "squandermania; cut the Estimates". They are leading off their Press talks in the same tones to-day.

If that is their genuine policy, why should they not come in here about these Estimates now? Now is the time to talk about them rationally. There is a complete list published in this document. It is very fair for me to say: "Now is the time for you to say what should be cut and where you will reduce State expenditure".

We had it all in 1947. You promised the country you would reduce the cost of running the State. You got a large part of the conservative vote for that. What did you do? I have the actual Book of Estimates here. There was a Book of Estimates which was in the region of £70,000,000. There was a great show at reduction. The Fine Gael element in the Coalition was dominant and they made a show at reducing expenditure. There are people in this country to-day who remember turf workers being thrown out of employment. There are people in this country to-day who remember what happened the road grants and the road workers. There are a number of people in Inchicore and there were a number of skilled workmen who remember that there was machinery for an Irish factory that was sold because of the show of economy. There were many other things. There was the bus station. There were the Constellations, and all the rest and, more significant, and worse still— Deputy Morrissey ignored this fact when he was talking—the statistics are there—we rubbed it into you when we were on the other side—emigration and unemployment soared in the first two years in which the Coalition were in office. Emigration and unemployment went up severely and the favourable trends that were there in 1948 were reversed.

Perhaps a good deal of that could be excused but the terribly sorry and sad fact is that, after all that, the Coalition failed in its object of reducing expenditure. One might be prepared to excuse or to understand that, because one cannot work miracles and if you are to get results you must take positive action. One might have let that go if the results had been there. What happened? In the last year, 1947-48, before that Coalition took over, the expenditure was £59,000,000, approximately. In 1950-51, the expenditure was up to £75,500,000. Since 1951, for which the Coalition was responsible— they prepared the Estimates for that year and introduced the Budget for that year and set the whole financial machinery for that year—it was up to £90,000,000. After all that was said and all that was done at the expense of the Labour Party and at the expense of workers, there was a complete failure to control expenditure and, on top of that, there were the other things that happened.

They talk about the cost of living to-day. Let us take the cost of living. Deputy Morrissey claims that the cost of living was stable for two years. Yes, it was. It had been stabilised by their predecessors and remained stable in satisfactory circumstances, but we all remember the fiasco in this House when a Parliamentary Secretary came in and told us that the cost of living had not been increased. Incidentally, it is very interesting to see that the Opposition have taken a leaf out of my own book by having the actual list. That was the obvious thing to do. What happened? The cost of living just went out of control. Actually it was this Government that stabilised prices afterwards again. It just ran out of control and you had the panic from the then Tánaiste, who called for price freeze. That did not work and Fine Gael called it off. There was a complete fiasco and the cost of living went up notwithstanding the fact that there were concealed devices. Whatever can be said about the present Government, what they did was done in a straightforward way.

A straightforward way in defiance of their election pledge.

Major de Valera

It was done honestly.

Say that at any chapel gate in the country.

Major de Valera

It was done honestly in the interests of the people. There was a Government here that had the moral courage to do what they thought was right by the people and did not juggle around for political expediency either to get power or to stay in power. At least, it cannot be thrown at this Party and the people on these benches that they went around the country hawking the Empire, as the Conservative Party, and then, to buy the support of other Parties, threw the whole thing over and reversed everything they had promised the electorate.

Throw it all there. I certainly would be very much ashamed if I found myself associated with that. However, I want to get back to this Estimate. Here we have all the signs of the same thing again—the same things again; the Press talking about squandermania, taxation, lower the cost of living. I am going to say a surprising thing. If a rational, practical, sound approach could be found to doing these things, many people would be with you. But I have in mind and I can send for the quotation here—it was on the 21st or 22nd March, 1951, in the Seanad—when Deputy McGilligan, the then Minister for Finance, warned that old age pensions could not be increased without an increase in taxation.

I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach has a statement to make.

I want to inform the Dáil that an agreement has been reached between the Whips of the various Parties that the Vote on Account and all stages of the Central Fund Bill will be passed to-night unopposed. A motion from the Opposition will be taken to-morrow after questions, which reads as follows:—

That, in the opinion of An Dáil, Dáil Éireann should be dissolved forthwith.

The debate on that motion is to conclude at 10.30 p.m. to-morrow night.

Major de Valera

Perhaps I was a little bit over vehement in saying what I had to say in these matters. But I must say that in the face of things that have been said I think it is rather pardonable to put things as brutally as I have put them, if you like to put it that way, because the fact is that what I have stated are facts and cannot be contradicted and what I do say, which is a point of very great importance for the country and for its Government and for its institutions, is that if democracy in this country and our Parties do not approach the business of Government with a serious mind and if the ideal of service to the people and doing the right thing is not put before mere competition for power or for office then there is a danger light there that anybody who thinks does not like to see there.

By all means let the Parties come out with their policy. By all means let Fine Gael come out and say: "We will reduce expenditure. We will cut taxation." If they mean to do it and if they show us how to do it, I think the electorate are entitled to have that shown to them. If Deputy MacEoin and his colleagues can come forward and say: "That Bill is too high"— incidentally, now is the time to say it and why are you not saying it here? This is the place to say it, if that is what you want to say. I can understand that, and it is a very legitimate approach if you are sincere in it, if you really mean to do it. If you mean to cut taxation and expenditure, by all means pursue that policy, advocate it and get votes on it. But let it be a sincere and honest policy and, if you have the power to implement it, implement it. We had a sorry experience the last time when you had the power —when you made a show of implementing and when, in the end, it was "a sorry fiasco", to quote one of your own newspapers.

Which of them? The Press?

Major de Valera

To quote one of your newspapers I said—one of the newspapers that support you pretty consistently. It was a sorry fiasco after all the damage that was done— and damage was done; long-term damage as well as short-term damage. I have already given you the immediate damage. The long-term damage was that in the years 1948, 1949 and up to the outbreak of the Korean war in 1950 we had three years of lost opportunity while you were fiddling and being more concerned with propaganda. We hand it to you for propaganda. Being more concerned with propaganda, your record of doing anything was very meagre. Those years of opportunity were lost and the hardship that the country has had to suffer since was your doing, and that is a fact. That is the hard fact of the situation. I talked about this show of reducing taxation—reducing expenditure. I have shown you, on the figures, that there was no reduction in expenditure: it was a failure. On the reduction in taxation: no matter how you will haggle about words—and I am not going to haggle about words—the fact is that in the 1951 Budget no provision was made for commitments that were there and for expenditure that could have been and must have been foreseen or else the only conclusion one could draw, if your statements are right, is that you did not intend to honour your word to the civil servants and others and, of the two, I prefer to believe that you simply did not provide.

As I have said, I can understand, and if Fine Gael honestly puts forward that policy I can understand—and they are entitled to and, on many aspects, many people will think it is reasonable. If you say your main plank is going to be as your Press is drumming in at the moment: "Reduce expenditure. Cut taxation." Understandable, yes, but let us see how it can be done and if you are sincere in it you have an arguable case if you go to do that. But what you cannot do is to have it both ways. You cannot have it both ways. There is a bill brought in here, and, as I said, I would have expected it to be discussed here to-night for the sum of £108,000,000 odd. Deputy Morrissey commented on how these bills had gone up. Very good. If your programme is to reduce State expenditure, where are you going to reduce in this? There is a list there.

We have here all these speeches from the Opposition and we have not heard what services would be reduced. What services will be cut? Instead, the line is taken: "We are not going to discuss this." That I have already characterised as a completely irresponsible attitude, betraying a mentality that is more interested in the competitive aspects of Government than in the serious responsible aspects. But let us take this. There are some sums here which are sizable. Supplementary agricultural grants for instance are certainly higher than they were—almost £1,000,000 higher. The Estimates for the coming year would be more than £1,000,000 higher than they were during the period of the Coalition Government. There is a sizable one. There is where a certain reduction could be made. Will you let that figure stand? Will you cut it if your policy is to reduce expenditure? There is one sizable figure which on a cursory glance will take examination. There is a fair question. I see the Garda Síochána are another item that is substantially up since the Coalition were in office. Presumably it is one of the heads where you complain that expenditure is going up. Certainly it is one of the heads that accounts for an increase in expenditure. A fair question to you is:"Will you reduce it to your previous figure or will you let it stand?" I find that the figure for local government and public health has not varied very much but it is a substantial figure. Do you want to alter that figure? The Office of the Minister for Education, I notice, is substantially up.

The Office of the Minister for Education is up well in the region of £1,000,000 too. You will get the exact figure on the sheet if you care to look for it. It is substantial. A very fair question to the gentlemen in the Opposition—through the Chair—is: Will you let that figure stand; do you propose to reduce it? I am getting no answers. Industry and commerce is another heading and it would be interesting to know whether the increase there is to stand? I am picking out items where the increases are substantial for the purposes of argument, and I take it that the sums you were expending when you were in Government under various heads— that we can take those as a basis to start from. I assume you will not go so far as to say that you are going to cut below what you had before.

Take the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. What are you going to do there? In the case of the Army, I suppose some show might be made to reduce the Army again. There was a drive on the unfortunate Army before, and I imagine they would suffer the next time.

There is one very significant item that I have left to the last where there is £5,000,000 to account for. What are you going to do about health and social welfare? These are very substantial items. We are here as a Parliament, the elected representatives of the people meeting to discuss the financial accounts for the year and the proposed expenditure of the people's money and all we can get out of the Opposition is their elation over the results of two by-elections and a lot of what I might describe as crossroad propaganda—to borrow your own phrase—and not one of you will get down to the business of the country.

Let me try to bring you down to the business of the country. What are you going to do about the last question I asked? It is of some importance for the Labour Party and other people who support Fine Gael. It is very important for them because they have done a lot of talking about health and social services. I have reminded you of the occasion when Mr. McGilligan as Minister for Finance, pointed out that you could not have increases in old age pensions without increasing taxation. I could dig up a whole lot of other references and I will do so if I am asked. You have this attitude, this approach of Fine Gael; you have had all this talk, but is it not before an election that the people should know, and that other Parties should know, where Fine Gael stands in all these things? I would imagine that the Labour Party who support you would like to know specifically where you stand in regard to social welfare and health. I would imagine these Parties would this time like to know— and know pretty definitely—whether a Coalition of which you would be the dominant Party—because certainly you have flourished on the blood of the others and the election results show it —and I would imagine that these other Parties would want to know whether the future, should Fine Gael have the making of it, hold in store for them matters like the chassis factory at Inchicore or reductions of that nature.

There are some things that are worth thinking of in that connection. I remember when I was on that side of the House during three years a social welfare scheme, and I remember a Health Bill. I remember being sorry to see Labour Ministers and people who claimed to be representative of the workers, being made a laughing stock of by the delaying tactics that held them off for three years until the dissolution came, and then they were gone with the wind.

I think these things are questions which not only the electorate are entitled to have answered, but that even we here in this House should be given some idea about so that we would know where we stand.

Are we to take it that these Estimates are accepted? There will be no vote on this, by agreement. But there has been such silence—are we to take it that the coming year is to be faced on the basis of these Estimates? Any reasonable man would assume that, in view of the situation here—and the question has been fairly raised—all Parties in the House are agreed that these Estimates should stand. If they are to stand, why is there this type of attack on them that is being made outside? If they are not to stand, are we not at least entitled to know where they are to be reduced or adjusted I think these are very fair question indeed, and I ask them.

We have heard a lot and we will he a lot more about the cost of living. First of all, let me start with subsidies without going into all the things that have been thrashed out before. Some £8,000,000 or so is provided in these Estimates for subsidies. We are already providing a very large sum of money for food subsidies. Is it proposed to increase that sum? If it is, that is arguable, and it is fair enough. If, again, Fine Gael says or any other Party comes in and says:— We will do this, and this is how we will do it," and keep their word, nobody can complain. But £8,000,000 is provided for food subsidies in these Estimates and that is very near to the total value of food subsidies some years ago, before there was any reduction, because of the way prices have gone. Is the policy of simply increasing subsidies to maintain prices stable at a low level to be pursued indefinitely—is that Fine Gael policy? If it is, we had better know about it.

I have a definite recollection of a discussion in the Seanad when the question of food subsidies came up and the Coalition Minister for Finance gave very definite reasons—we were accused of being unreasonable when we in opposition questioned some of the reasons, and when we gave the same reasons here as a Government we were accused of being unreasonable. That, I suppose, is human nature, and to get back, let us take Mr. McGilligan when he was Minister for Finance. He gave very cogent and definite reasons in the Seanad why he could not increase food subsidies, and the position to-day is that the £8,000,000 being spent now is not very far short of the total—it is within striking distance, anyway, of it—which was paid in respect of food subsidies some three years ago. If that is the situation it is obviously a major fiscal problem. If you are going to restore the food prices to what they were three years ago you will have to find a considerable amount of money over and above what was required for subsidies at that time. How is that to be done? Where will that money come from? I still hark back to the statements of the Coalition Minister that these things could only be got by taxation. I still hark back to that, and I must say I could never see it otherwise myself. If that is so, and if those moneys can only be found by taxation, what are you going to tax and how can you—unless you are some kind of wizards—in all honesty, talk on the one hand about reducing taxation and on the other hand about restoring food subsidies and reducing the cost of living in that way. Do you mean to tell us that if we could find a way out, some way in which this could be done, that we would not do it in the morning?

There is one thing that rather amuses me in all this. It is that, in one voice, the Deputies opposite talk about our political astuteness, our political cuteness and our political manoeuvring. They give us credit for being political wizards, but on the other hand, by implication, they seem to suggest that we are such political fools that we do such a thing as to bring in the 1952 Budget for the fun of it or for political reasons. That just does not stand analysis. The 1952 Budget was brought in because there was no other way out, and, because the interests of the people and of the country demanded it, the Government was faced with a most unpleasant and, in many respects, unpopular task.

Because we are trying to operate a system that cannot work.

Major de Valera

I would ask the Deputy not to get me on to that. We heard all about it before. Deputy Hickey will remember that he and I had that out from the other angle when he was on this side and I was on the other side and, like Omar Khayyam, "out the same door as in we went".

We have never heard anything about it in the House.

Major de Valera

There was a motion down and it was all very entertaining. I am dealing with Fine Gael at the moment. Perhaps they are the dominant factor, but I have a kind of idea that there were other people who used to talk about monetary reform and cutting the link with sterling. I think that the correct word for all that is "in abeyance".

Like the bringing about of economies.

Major de Valera

If the Deputy does not mind, I think we will leave it in abeyance. To get back to the Vote on Account, I am glad to see that Deputy Dillon has come in. There are a few questions that I should like to ask him.

I thought there was an understanding that the Minister was to conclude on this to-night.

I think he should get in now.

I do not think it is necessary until about 10-20.

Major de Valera

I was saying that I was glad that Deputy Dillon had come in. He has always been very courteous to me, personally and I intend to be as courteous to him in the questions which I want to ask him.

It is never courteous to ask a man questions which he has no opportunity of answering.

Major de Valera

I will be very frank with Deputy Dillon. If I am not to ask them here, I will be asking them somewhere else. We were talking about the question of food subsidies. There is one thing that can be considered, and it is that, in certain circumstances, it might be possible to import foreign wheat more cheaply than to grow it at home. I mean that is a factor. The fact is that it was the other way for a while, to a large extent, when Deputy Dillon was Minister, but these are things of which a Government has not got complete control. When Deputy Dillon was Minister for Agriculture he had to face the problem that, I think, the price of foreign wheat was rather more expensive than the home-produced. Now, there is the possibility of exploiting that from the consumer's point of view.

Is this a preview of the Budget?

Major de Valera

No. The Deputy, of course, knows that I am merely a private Deputy and that Budget secrets are kept very closely.

With your name we expect you to know a lot.

Major de Valera

It may surprise the Deputy to know that I do not. I am merely a private Deputy on these benches and Government secrets are Government secrets and quite rightly so for any Government as regards these matters. As I was saying, that is a problem, and I think I was putting it reasonably. There is the problem as to whether, in fact, the interests of consumers and the interests of home producers might come in conflict. What is the answer to that? These are things that I think we should be discussing and discussing soberly. One of the things which I do not like in present trends here—I think it happens in a number of countries where urban populations are growing—is a certain tendency to conflict there.

I must say that I deplore very much whenever I hear people in the cities complaining of high prices—that the farmers are getting too much. The interest of the townsman and of the farmer is one fundamental interest in the long run. I am raising the matter in connection with this question of the reduced cost of living because it might possibly be an approach, but if it is there will be repercussions in other quarters, and the question is how these are to be dealt with. However, I am afraid that my time has run out. There are quite a lot of things that I should like to have said to Deputy Morrissey in reply to what he said. After all, let us realise this, because it is most understandable. Fine Gael have had a couple of good wins at everybody's expense, and, if you like, their friends have contributed to them very much.

Very generously.

Major de Valera

I cannot blame them for exulting. After all, it is a natural and human tendency.

Fianna Fáil contributed to them as well.

We did not do it willingly.

Absolutely.

Major de Valera

"Greater love hath no man"—we had a couple of political suicides on that basis already for the love and glory of Fine Gael.

What about Deputy Dr. Browne?

Yes, if you are referring to the "busted flush." They are not even a "flush" now.

Major de Valera

I think, I understand, the exuberance of the Opposition. It is understandable, but, as we have serious business to do, I propose to let the Minister in.

The Minister to conclude.

What time has it been decided to give to the Minister?

I am not going to take any time. I propose to move the motions formally.

The arrangement that the Minister should conclude has been agreed to by all parties.

I should like to say just a few words.

The Minister must be allowed some time to conclude. That has been the general practice of the House.

But if he does not want to?

If we were certain of getting the business disposed of by 10.30 p.m., I would waive my right to reply.

What time does the Minister require?

I do not propose to make any speech at all, but we should get the business finished by 10.30 p.m.

Three minutes is all I require. I have listened to Deputy Major de Valera's fantastic contribution to this debate. He concentrated so much on other things and drew attention to so many other things that he made very little mention of defence. Last year Deputy de Valera tried to dope us on that particular issue. Does the Minister and the Deputy realise what the increase amounted to in relation to that particular Estimate last year and what is now allowed? Out of all that, will we be told again that we must be satisfied with 6d. a day increase for a soldier and 2/6 for a major. I tell the Minister that there is more "squandermania" in the Department of Defence than there is in any other Department of State. Not only should the amount this year be the same as that voted last year, but there could be a reduction I believe. Deputy de Valera must realise that it is not simply a question of reducing all the time as far as we are concerned. We want proper government.

What has the Minister to say about the wonderful National Development Fund introduced here? No mention is made of it in the Book of Estimates, nor has there been any mention of it on the Vote of Account to-day. Deputy de Valera put up a miserable argument. Deputy de Valera should understand that the present Minister gave an increase of 1/6 to the old age pensioners while at the same time, through his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, permitting the farmer to take 5/9 per day out of the agricultural labourer's wages to cover that labourer's keep.

We are on the eve of an election and the less bombastic political talk we have here the better it will be. It is not simply a question of reducing costs or reducing prices; it is a question of giving the people the services to which they are entitled.

Deputy Desmond asked what we proposed to do about the National Development Fund and stated that there was not a word about it in the Book of Estimates. If the Deputy will turn to the statement at the beginning of the Book of Estimates and look at the heading, National Development Fund, he will see there a footnote, q., which states that this Estimate will be introduced in the course of 1954-55.

£1,000 out of £108,000,000.

There has already been a provision of £5,000,000 for that fund and we do not hold that it will be possible to spend that in this year.

Vote put and agreed to.
Vote reported and agreed to.
Top
Share