Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Jun 1954

Vol. 146 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Finance Bill, 1954—Committee.

SECTION 1.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 1:—

In sub-section (1), lines 15 and 16, to delete "seven shillings and sixpence" and to substitute "six shillings and sixpence".

This amendment, which relates to income-tax, and all the other amendments on the sheet appearing in my name, have for their purpose the reduction of certain taxes to the level at which they were before the Budget of 1952; not merely to reduce the income-tax to the pre-1952 level but also to reduce the taxes on beer, spirits and tobacco. These are the taxes which members of the present Government stated at the time and on many occasions since were unnecessary, the taxes which they undertook during the course of the recent election campaign to repeal, the taxes which they stated could be repealed immediately. However, the legal members of the Government may parse and interpret the phraseology that was used during these election speeches, there is no doubt that they caused the people to believe that the Fianna Fáil Government had imposed unnecessary taxation, and that it would be the function of the new Coalition Government to rectify that situation by revoking these unnecessary taxes.

The purpose of submitting these amendments to the Dáil is to give Deputies opposite an opportunity, if they want it, of redeeming their election pledges, an opportunity, if they do not want to redeem those pledges, of withdrawing them, and an opportunity to the Government of explaining why it is not possible to do now what a few months ago they were saying they could and would do. These amendments, of course, pose to Deputies opposite a question which affects the reputation of the Government and of each individual supporting them. What is that question? Perhaps it would be better if I were to put it in words other than my own. I think it will help the Dáil to realise the character of the question they have to answer on these amendments if I put it in the words of a member of the present Administration, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. When these taxes had been put into operation and were subsequently under discussion by the Dáil, the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donnellan, spoke as follows in Dáil Éireann. I am quoting from Volume 131, column 639, of the Official Debates, and this is the quotation:—

"I notice in a Sunday paper that a certain question was asked by Deputy McQuillan. The same question was asked by Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll. The question was that if there was a change of Government would the same taxes be left on or what would be done? That was an intelligent question and I congratulate both Deputy McQuillan and Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll on it. As Deputy John A. Costello, the ex-Taoiseach, and Deputy McGilligan, ex-Minister for Finance, explained, the answer is that there is an overestimate here of, roughly, £10,000,000. With a change of Government and with the help of men like Deputy McGilligan again, taxation to the extent of that £10,000,000 could be reduced. That is the answer to the question that was asked."

That was the answer of Deputy Donnellan before the election. Are we going to get the same answer from the same Deputy or from his colleagues in the present Administration to-day? Do they still contend that the taxes to which these amendments relate were unnecessary and can now be revoked? Are they going to adhere to their undertaking to the people who elected them to revoke these taxes immediately ?

I note that when we discussed this matter last week there was some doubt raised as to whether the undertaking of the present Government was or was not to revoke these taxes immediately. The present Minister for Finance stated earlier that the present Government had not promised to reduce taxation at all, but Deputy McGilligan last week qualified it by asserting that the Government had not promised to reduce taxation immediately. He said last week—I am quoting from Volume 146, No. 4, column 506:—

"We made no promises about immediate reductions in taxes. Nobody who now holds ministerial rank"—

I want Deputies to note the subtle qualifications inserted there—

"and that is what is referred to in the motion—made any such promises and we will ask the ex-Tánaiste to go through any quotations in every newspaper and nowhere will he find a promise of that kind."

I do not know what is the exact significance of a promise to effect a reduction of taxation immediately. I asked how quick was "immediate" and I got no answer to that question. But we find on examining the records that a specific time had been mentioned by the present Taoiseach and by some of his colleagues in the present Government within which they would effect these reductions in taxation.

On the same occasion as that upon which Deputy Donnellan, the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, gave that specific reply to a question which some Deputies had asked, Deputy MacEntee, the then Minister for Finance, made a rather remarkable prophecy.

He foretold that if it should happen that Deputy Costello was transferred from the Opposition to the Government Benches there was not a single measure, a single tax, imposed in Deputy MacEntee's Finance Bill that he would repeal. Whether that was an accurate prophecy or not will be demonstrated, no doubt, in the next couple of hours. It was made, and perhaps it is worth quoting now because immediately Deputy MacEntee had made that prophecy—the prophecy that there was not a single one of those taxes that Deputy Costello would repeal if, in fact, he was transferred from this side of the House to the other side—Deputy Costello intervened in the debate and he said, as reported in Volume 131, column 1439:—

"I would repeal every one of them if I were over there."

Immediately afterwards, Deputy Mulcahy, the present Minister for Education and Chairman of the Fine Gael Party, intervened and said:—

"He would remove £10,000,000 in ten minutes."

Later on in the same debate, Deputy Costello again intervened and said:—

"I would resign the next minute, rather than proceed with any single provision in the present Budget. I would be no party to any provision in this Budget."

I urge Deputies opposite to consider carefully before they decide this afternoon to put the Taoiseach in the embarrassing position of either having to eat his words or resign.

Nor were the present Taoiseach and the present Minister for Education alone in that declaration. Deputy McGilligan spoke at a public meeting which was reported in the Irish Independent and said the following:—

"If we could get the present Government out by July 1st, a new Minister for Finance could in a ten-minute speech save £1,000,000 a minute and thus wipe out the £10,000,000 that was being asked for. I do not even despair of being able to save another £5,000,000 as well."

Deputy McGilligan said that members of the present Administration made no promises about immediate reductions in taxation. He said that nobody who holds ministerial office at the present time made any such promises. He went further than that last week—and Deputies sitting behind the Government will note how definitely their election speeches are now being repudiated. He said:—

"We do not believe that...there was anybody on this side foolish enough to say that big reductions in taxation, immediate reductions in taxation, were practicable."

Is it true that no member of the present Administration stated that neither big reductions nor immediate reductions in taxation were possible? I have shown that the present Taoiseach has said that he would resign the next minute if he became Taoiseach and found himself unable to repeal these taxes. I have shown that the present Minister for Education and Chairman of the Fine Gael Party said that these taxes would be repealed in ten minutes after the change of Government. I have shown that Deputy McGilligan, the former Minister for Finance, even put a figure on the amount of the reductions that would be achieved in ten minutes—£10,000,000.

Deputy McGilligan last week challenged me to show that any member of the present Administration promised immediate reductions in taxation. Well, I have covered two of them already. I do not have to remind the House of the very formal declaration made by the Chairman of Fine Gael in his election address:—

"The first task of the new Administration will be to lighten the burden of taxation which is now crushing the people."

Let us get down to other members of the Administration.

The present Tánaiste and Minister for Industry and Commerce, speaking at a public meeting in Naas, reported in the Irish Independent of the 5th May, said the following:—

"Fianna Fáil Deputies by voting for the increased prices of tea, bread, butter, sugar and flour and for the higher taxes on cigarettes, beer and tobacco, have been active conspirators in the attack on the people's standard of living. In this reactionary policy Fianna Fáil was implementing the policy which the Central Bank had sought to induce the inter-Party Government to adopt but which that Government had spurned."

Are the Deputies in this House who support the present Government now becoming active conspirators in the attack on the people's standard of living? Is this "reactionary policy" attributed to the Central Bank now being accepted as the policy of the present Administration?

During the course of the election campaign, the present Tánaiste and Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Norton, issued a circular to all the licensed traders in his constituency, on the 3rd May, from his election headquarters at the Railway Hotel, Kildare. This is the circular:—

"A Chara,

As you are an elector in the County Kildare constituency, I take the liberty of enclosing herewith a copy of my election address and would kindly invite your attention in particular to the portion of the programme set out in page 3 under the heading ‘Reduction in Prices.' In view of the serious effect of increased taxation on cigarettes, beer and spirits, which no doubt has had an injurious effect on your trade, I trust you will find it possible to give me your No. 1 vote in the forthcoming election and kindly ask your relatives and friends to do likewise, so that with the aid of the Labour Party I may advocate in the new Dáil a reduction of the taxes which so adversely affect your business and consumers generally."

Now, this is the day of testing. Is the Leader of the Labour Party, and are his colleagues here in this House, going to avail of this opportunity to advocate a reduction of these taxes upon cigarettes, beer and spirits? Either this afternoon or to-morrow, they will have to advocate them and vote for them, or they will have to vote against them. No doubt those who, in response to the circular, gave Deputy Norton their votes—and their relatives and friends—will be very glad to see precisely how these election pledges are going to be redeemed.

Mr. Coogan

Why did you not issue the same circular?

Mr. Lemass

We prefer to be honest with the people. No member who now holds any ministerial rank, said Deputy McGilligan here last week, made any such promises. The present Minister for Defence, Deputy MacEoin, made an abundance of promises. If any Deputy wants a pleasant evening's entertainment, he should go down to the Library and read up the election speeches made by Deputy MacEoin. I think he said anything that came into his head.

Mr. Sweetman

By Deputy General MacEoin.

Mr. Lemass

By the Minister for Defence.

Mr. Sweetman

Deputy General MacEoin, as he then was.

Mr. Lemass

With or without the authority of his portfolio and whatever his military rank, he is now in this House as an important member of the present Administration, sharing collective responsibility with all the other members.

"Our policy is to relieve once again the penal taxes which have been imposed by Fianna Fáil in their 1952 Budget"—that is to say, to carry into effect the amendments which I am now proposing to the House. That was the policy of Fine Gael as declared in the election—to make in this Finance Bill the changes which these amendments represent. The Minister for Defence and his colleagues will have an opportunity in the very near future either of fulfilling that policy or, finally, abandoning it.

The Parliamentary Secretaries— those who are now Parliamentary Secretaries—were far more flamboyant in their promises and far more definite in their statements in regard to a new Government than even those who hold ministerial rank. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance just took Deputy McGilligan's declaration at a public meeting and repeated it with slightly more emphasis. Addressing a Clann na Talmhan Convention in Ballina, Deputy Donnellan, as he then was, said: "If there is a change of Government we will put in a Minister for Finance who will remit £1,000,000 for each minute of a ten-minute talk in the Dáil." The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance is not here now, I know, but perhaps he will come in here in time to deliver that ten-minute speech and remit £1,000,000 in taxation in each minute of it.

I do not know if we have to take the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Oliver Flanagan, any more seriously now that he has been raised to the dignity of a Parliamentary Secretary. However, he was equally emphatic in his view of the justice of carrying through the amendments which I am now proposing.

Here is a quotation in point. "It is, indeed, a crime to rob the poor man of his beer, and it is, indeed, a laughing-stock to remove the tax of a farthing per pint, which will have no bearing on the price paid by the consumer." The report of Deputy O. Flanagan's speech appeared in the Leinster Express of the 24th April, 1954. It continued:—

"Declaring that there was no hope for the brewing and distilling industries, only greater unemployment and lack of business in the trade, Mr. Flanagan said the income-tax concessions given in the Budget only referred to the people from whom the Minister for Finance, Mr. MacEntee, could not collect tax at present, owing to the high cost of living, and many other commitments, which the middle class have to face. ‘In my opinion,' said Mr. Flanagan, ‘the Government cannot boast of taking a halfpenny off the loaf, after having put 3½d. on it without any justification whatever.'"

I find that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government, Deputy Davin, repeated on more than one occasion the pledge which I have already quoted for the benefit of the members of this House. I think that pledge is worth repeating in the context of the discussion on these amendments. He said: "So far as the Labour Party is concerned, the principal item in our programme in this election is the reduction of taxation on all essential commodities to the same level, or as nearly as possible to the same level, as that at which they stood before the Budget of 1952. I pledge my word of honour to the people of this area that if I am re-elected, as I hope to be, I will undertake with my colleagues to use that power given to us by the votes of the people to force whatever new Government is elected on the 2nd June to bring down these prices to the lowest possible figure." That quotation is taken from a report in the Midland Tribune of 15th May, 1954. The value to be placed on Deputy Davin's word of honour will be demonstrated during the votes on these amendments.

Deputy Crotty, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, also in the course of his election campaign, spoke at a meeting at Castlecomer, as reported in the Kilkenny People of 15th May. “They had, he said, unjust and unnecessary taxation and, in the Budget of 1952, £6,000,000 tax was put on beer, tobacco and cigarettes. Their food subsidies were slashed to the extent of £8,000,000. Fianna Fáil said the people were living too well.” I do not know if the Government are serious in trying to convince the House or the country that they did not promise to reduce taxation.

Every voter in the country considered that that promise had been made and every voter was left under the impression that it was not a problem for another inter-Party Government and that taxation could be reduced and reduced immediately. The impression was given to the voters that there was an abundance of money. When Deputy McGilligan was making his bid for the votes of the civil servants—his cash offer—he was at pains to emphasise that this was not a budgetary problem at all. He said that there was plenty of money available. In a letter to the Irish Independent on 17th May, 1954, the eve of the election, he said: “There is abundant money to pay the arrears and Fine Gael is pledged to that payment.” He also said that it would be immediately available to make that adjustment in Civil Service salaries.

Deputies, I think, know that these promises were made. They know that the people expected some effort to fulfil these promises at least in part. It is no answer to these expectations to say that the Government need time. They do not need time, if what they said is true. In his wireless broadcast, Deputy McGilligan said that the economies were there to hand: "They are immediately available for any Minister who cares to see them. There is little doubt that savings in the cost of Government amounting to several millions a year can be secured without much effort." Is it not reasonable, therefore, to ask the Government to make the effort and to fulfil the promises which were made?

The Government claim they have not had time to prepare amendments to this Finance Bill. Well, I have done it for them. There was nothing difficult about it. I drafted the amendments in a bus on the back of an envelope. They can be carried through without any change and will achieve what every Deputy opposite promised the electorate he would vote for, that is, a reduction in taxes on beer, spirits and tobacco and a reduction in income-tax to the pre-1952 level.

If it is not possible to reduce these taxes now, the onus is on the Government to explain the reason. Again, I do not want the House to be under any misunderstanding about our view on the matter. As I have already said, if the Estimates prepared for the various Departments of this State are accurate, if the expectations of revenue, upon which the Budget was framed, are sound, there is no surplus and these taxes cannot be remitted if enough money is to be available to the Government to meet the ordinary cost of administration.

We did not say these taxes were unnecessary or unjust. We did not contend that they were imposed for any reason except to bring into the Exchequer the minimum amount required to pay for Government services. Those Deputies who are now on the Government Benches argued that these taxes were unnecessarily imposed—that they were imposed not because the Exchequer needed the money but because the Central Bank wanted a restrictive policy applied.

If these taxes are unnecessary, they can now be remitted. The Irish Independent has stated that if these amendments are carried it will, of course, be necessary to effect immediate reductions in social welfare services. Government Deputies will not fall for that. They know that if what they said in the election is correct, the Independent cannot be right.

At Sligo, on 1st May, as reported in the Sligo Independent, the Taoiseach in the course of an election address was emphatic in asserting that there was no reason why taxes should not be got down while the same or even improved services, would be provided. That was the case made to the public —that, without any reduction in services, and even with an improvement in these services, it was still possible, because of the action of Fianna Fáil in imposing unnecessary taxation, to remit some taxes immediately. If what was said is true, there is no reason now why the Deputies on the Government Benches should not vote for these amendments.

If the Minister says that he cannot give the whole of the reductions I am asking for in these amendments this year, because three months of the financial year have already elapsed, then I shall be prepared to consider any compromise he may have to suggest. However, we do think that the pledges which Deputies opposite gave during the election campaign require them, in this Finance Bill, to make some contribution towards the reduction of the taxation on beer, spirits and tobacco——

Mr. O'Leary

You did not do it when you were in office.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. Lemass

We increased them.

Mr. O'Leary

You would not be over there——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy has put his finger on the point. I think the Deputy is correct in his view that the result of the recent election was due to the fact that the public were led to believe that the Fianna Fáil Government had imposed taxation unnecessarily. It was not. I do not believe—this is my own personal opinion—that it was the level of prices which put us out of office. It was the belief, carefully inculcated by Fine Gael and Labour Party propaganda, that the level of prices was unnecessary that was responsible for the result. It is the soundness of that belief I am testing now. Do you think that the present prices of beer, spirits and tobacco are unnecessary? If they are, then obviously you will vote for a reduction.

Mr. O'Leary

Why did the Deputy put them on?

Mr. Lemass

Is the Deputy going to take them off?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Leary will cease interrupting. The Deputy will get every opportunity of speaking later.

Mr. Lemass

The case made, as I understand it and as the public understood it, is that unnecessary taxation was imposed and that the Fianna Fáil Government had imposed that unnecessary taxation for some reason other than the needs of the Exchequer, that we had obeyed the behest of the Central Bank or that we were following an austerity policy or had an idea that it was desirable to reduce public spending upon these classes of goods.

That was the case you made to the public and you even argued that a reduction in these prices would not result in a loss of revenue, that the increased consumption, following the reduction, would mean that the Exchequer would not suffer any contraction of income on that account. If that is so you can have no hesitation about voting for these amendments. If it is not so, you have got, as I said, either to formally repudiate these election promises or explain why they cannot be fulfilled. It is that explanation I am waiting to hear.

Mr. Morrissey

Listening to Deputy Lemass for the last half an hour, I was struck afresh with his ability to make bricks without straw and to talk for 32 minutes about pure "cod". The Deputy spent 32 minutes trying to prove that every member of the Government and every Deputy sitting behind the Government made promises during the election. With his leader, he spent the whole of the election campaign trying to extract promises from the members of the present Government. He and the then Taoiseach complained bitterly, day after day, as the campaign went on, that they could not extract a promise, that they were making no promises.

Deputy Lemass came in here with newspaper cuttings. We could bring newspaper cuttings to show that if one took up the newspapers every day and read the speech of Deputy de Valera, there was not a word of policy in it or a word about Fianna Fáil. The whole speech was devoted to an effort to extract from the Leader of the members of the Government promises so that he could then play his own tune on them. At some of his own meetings, Deputy Lemass was rempant from the platform and at one meeting in particular, where the present Taoiseach was due to speak, he became almost hysterical on the Fianna Fáil platform. He said: "He is there now. Make him answer me. Make him promise you." The Irish Press came out the following morning with a streamer headline: “Fine Gael refuses to promise.”

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy did not.

Mr. Morrissey

"They would not tell the people what they were going to do." Was not that the whole tenor of the Opposition campaign during the election? Does not every one of your supporters in the country know it?

Mr. S. Flanagan

No.

Mr. Morrissey

I do not know whether the Deputy is blind or whether he cannot read, but he must also be deaf.

Mr. S. Flanagan

He could read the Fine Gael literature with the 1951 prices on it. Deputy Lemass tried to pin the Deputy on that, and well the Deputy knows it.

Mr. Morrissey

Deputy Lemass tried to pin a lot of humbug and cod.

Mr. S. Flanagan

"Vote Fine Gael for lower taxes and better times." What does that mean?

Mr. Morrissey

The lower taxes and better times will come. I notice Deputy de Valera has a good laugh at that.

Mr. de Valera

I have, indeed.

Mr. Morrissey

I could not help thinking when listening to Deputy Lemass pouring out this nonsense, how solemnly Deputy de Valera recently asked to keep faith with the people and to trust the people and how often he has appealed for truth in public life.

Mr. Killilea

Truth is right.

Mr. Morrissey

His desire to help in the working of that policy and in being constructive was the speech made by Deputy Lemass. Was that speech by Deputy Lemass an attempt at being constructive? Is this series of amendments put down here for a constructive or a destructive purpose?

Mr. de Valera

It is to educate the people in certain political tactics.

Mr. Morrissey

The point is that people never understand the Deputy unless they are with him.

Mr. de Valera

They will understand the Deputy now very soon.

Mr. Morrissey

Deputy Lemass read a great many extracts.

Mr. Lemass

I should like to read the Deputy's promise.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy will have plenty of opportunities.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy made only one promise. Here is an extract which is headed: "They are making you pay through the nose."

Mr. Sweetman

That is true.

Mr. Morrissey

There is no doubt in the world about that. By the way, when the Deputy was reading I noticed that he read a circular which was circularised by Deputy Norton. Perhaps the Deputy would also read the circular that he himself circularised to the manufacturers and tell us the result?

Mr. Lemass

It was published in the paper.

Mr. Morrissey

Over the name of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and not over the name of the Honorary Secretary or Treasurer of the Fianna Fáil Party.

Mr. Lemass

Have another look at it.

Mr. Morrissey

I read it very carefully. I have it here. I commented on it four times publicly and the Deputy did not come back on it during the election campaign. That was sailing pretty close to the wind, very close to the wind. Truth in public life! With regard to all the extracts Deputy Lemass read a while ago there was one thing missing, one thing which did not appear in any of the extracts and that was that those reductions would be made immediately.

Mr. Lemass

In ten minutes. That was what was said.

Mr. Killilea

A million pounds a minute.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy is at his old tricks. He is talking about the rate at which he put them on.

Mr. Killilea

A million pounds a minute.

Mr. Morrissey

I can give you £10,000,000 we are not going to spend.

Mr. Killilea

Let us have it here.

Mr. Morrissey

We are not going to spend £4,000,000 on Dublin Castle and there are a few more if you want them. The fact of the matter is that this is just an attempt to try and put it across the people outside, in a most dishonest way. It is not going to work. It will not deceive anybody in this country and it will not enhance the prestige or credit of the Fianna Fáil Party or the Deputy's own prestige. The Deputy is lending himself to a manoeuvre this evening that should be far beneath him.

Mr. Lemass

Okay, accept the amendments and get on with the business.

Mr. Morrissey

Is not that the cheap sort of gibe we expect from the Deputy? The Deputy will not shake one person in the country and will not shake one vote in this House by his tactics.

Mr. Lemass

I suspect that.

Mr. Morrissey

We are much more concerned about reducing the oppressive load upon the people than the Deputy is, and we will do it. The people have seen to it that we got the time to do it. They will not tolerate any opposition that is sponsored either by Deputy de Valera or by Deputy Lemass to try and prevent the Government getting on with the work and working towards that end.

Mr. Killilea

A million a minute.

Mr. Lemass

We are trying to help you to carry out the policy you enunciated during the election.

Mr. Morrissey

We will carry out the policy we set out to fulfil, and all the arrogant claims of being watchdogs are not going to influence us one way or the other. The Fianna Fáil Party and their leaders still talk as if nobody in this House had the right to speak for the Irish people but them. I do not want to quote one of the arrogant speeches given by Deputy de Valera since the election.

Mr. de Valera

Go ahead.

Mr. Morrissey

I am not going to waste the time of the House on them.

Mr. Killilea

That is the same as the election promises.

Mr. Morrissey

The same as the election promises. I am going to say what I set out to say and I am not going to be deterred from saying it. I am telling Deputy Lemass that he is wasting his time and is doing no harm to the Government or to those who support the Government. He is not only doing no good to his own Party but doing it positive harm. There is no use in Deputy Lemass getting up, as he did last week, and telling us that they would be helpful in their criticism, that they would be constructive and would only criticise the Government where the Government was doing something wrong.

You are not going to shift from your own shoulders by a series of amendments like these the responsibility for the position we are in. Why did you not let Deputy de Valera do the right thing when he wanted to do the right thing for once at least? The only time you interfered with him, and successfully, was when you prevented him from holding the general election immediately after the by-elections.

Mr. de Valera

That is not true at all.

Mr. Morrissey

It is true.

Mr. de Valera

It is a thing which I know very much better than you.

Mr. Morrissey

I am not going to be shouted down by you or anybody else.

Mr. de Valera

You are talking about something that you cannot know.

Mr. Morrissey

If you did not intend to hold it up for two months why did you not say so?

Mr. de Valera

I said exactly what I wanted to say.

Mr. Morrissey

Of course you did. You always do that.

Mr. de Valera

I try to.

Mr. Morrissey

And you always take very good care that there will be more than one meaning that can be taken from what you say.

Mr. Lemass

Like your election pledges.

Mr. Morrissey

You are not going to get away with that.

Mr. Lemass

I am getting away with it.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy ought not to be so cocksure. The Deputy himself as a Deputy was taught a little lesson in the election. There was a motion moved in this House to hold the election, to go to the people in sufficient time to allow an alternative Government to bring in a Budget of their own and a Finance Bill of their own, and you refused.

Mr. de Valera

To allow a lot of misrepresentation also—that is what you wanted.

Mr. Morrissey

Of course, nobody tells the truth in public life except Deputy de Valera.

Mr. Killilea

He did not twist, anyway.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy cannot get away from it—if we are in the position to-day that we have to bring in a Fianna Fáil Finance Bill, the Fianna Fáil Party and nobody else is responsible for it. They voted in this House against a motion framed for the purpose of giving the people an opportunity of expressing their views and returning a new Government, and giving that Government sufficient time to bring in its own Budget and its own Finance Bill, and all the blather you are going on with there, with a series of amendments——

Mr. Mooney

You can change it. You have plenty of time.

Mr. Morrissey

You cannot blame that Deputy. He has not much experience of some of the gentlemen on the Front Benches opposite. He probably honestly believes some of what Deputy Lemass has stated this evening, but he will get to know Deputy Lemass as time goes on, and to know his leader also.

Mr. de Valera

And Deputy Morrissey also.

Mr. Morrissey

Maybe he will even get to know me. He certainly would not have as much difficulty in getting to know Deputy Morrissey as in getting to know Deputy de Valera. I am afraid I am a lot more transparent, and I am certainly very, very far— miles—from being as subtle as the Leader of the Opposition.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let us come to the amendment.

Mr. Morrissey

I think I am getting as close to it, with respect, as Deputy Lemass did. He certainly made an excellent Second Reading speech. He was even prepared to compromise, apparently because he was not sure of his ground. The Deputy is not very ready to give away anything.

Mr. Lemass

Will you take a penny off the pint instead of threepence?

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government (Mr. Davin)

Why did not you do it?

Mr. Morrissey

I am very glad that you reminded me of that. This is being very helpful. The Deputy is one of the two members of the Front Bench opposite who in 1951 gave a solemn assurance, a solemn promise, that those duties would not be put back by Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Lemass

Quote that.

Mr. Morrissey

It has been quoted here.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. O'Sullivan)

Patrick Street, Cork.

Mr. Lemass

You will find some difficulty.

Mr. Morrissey

If you cannot remember that I will remind you.

Mr. Lemass

I am asking that the source be named.

Mr. Morrissey

The Minister said not only that they would not be reimposed but that there was no reason why they should be reimposed; but in the 1952 Budget not only were those duties on beer and spirits and cigarettes reimposed but in the Budget speech itself—and I am emphasising this, and the speech can be produced —the Minister for Finance said that they should never have been taken off. That is in the Budget speech.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy cannot quote it because it was not in it.

Mr. Morrissey

All right, we will get a copy of the Budget speech for 1952 and I will quote it for you. Of course these interruptions by Deputy Lemass are to go into the Irish Press to-morrow morning but what I said will not go into the Irish Press. This whole debate, this whole series of amendments, is staged for the Irish Press.

Mr. O'Leary

All a cod.

Mr. Morrissey

And of course it will, unfortunately, fool a number of the readers of that paper—a diminishing number, I grant you. I do not say a diminishing number of readers, but a diminishing number of people who are ready to swallow everything they see in the Irish Press. The Deputy talks about promises. Did or did not Deputy de Valera solemnly promise verbally, and sign it in writing, that he would not touch the food subsidies?

Mr. de Valera

When?

Mr. Morrissey

Do I understand that Deputy de Valera is saying that he did not say that?

Mr. de Valera

I said it not before, but after, the general election. Before there was an election I said that this House and the people in this House were there to deal with it afterwards.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy said it here in this House. He is quite right.

Mr. de Valera

And that after the general election——

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy said it when it was only a matter of two votes and he wanted to get the four Independents rejected by the people to vote for him.

Mr. de Valera

Those people who were here are well able to pass judgment on anything I said.

Mr. Sweetman

And the people passed judgment on them.

Mr. Morrissey

And because they did pass judgment on them you are talking from where you are. You are no longer here; but whether the Deputy said it before or after the election the fact of the matter is that you did say it—not merely say it but wrote it down that you would not touch the food subsidies. But you flagrantly and deliberately broke that promise.

Mr. de Valera

Before the electorate could pass judgment.

Mr. Morrissey

I want to make my statement. You did not go to the electorate until you were forced to. We spent two years trying to get you to go to the country and you would not go. Only that you had to make your broadcast that night immediately the result of the election came in Deputy Lemass would have been able to get at you.

Mr. Lemass

You are completely wrong. On the contrary the argument was the other way around.

Mr. Morrissey

Not at all. We know you a bit better than that. Tell us about the definite promise, the written statement in the 15-point or the 17-point programme. Tell us about that. It does not matter where it was broken, but it was broken.

Mr. de Valera

Given to this House.

Mr. Morrissey

It does not matter to whom it was given.

Mr. de Valera

Indeed it does.

Mr. Morrissey

It was given to this House, and, through this House, to the people of the country.

Mr. de Valera

To this House.

Mr. Morrissey

You cannot give it to the House without giving it to the people, because, when you give it to the House, you give it to the people and the representatives of the people.

Mr. de Valera

It is a very different thing.

Mr. Morrissey

You are not going to get away with any of that fine shading.

Mr. de Valera

You are not going to get away with it.

Mr. Morrissey

I am not trying to get away with anything. That was a very definite and flat-footed statement that was made.

Mr. de Valera

And false.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy cannot get out of it. He cannot say that he is being misquoted because not merely was it given verbally, but it was written into the Budget. If it had been given only verbally, no doubt he would get out of it—he would have been misreported, misrepresented or something else—it is always one or the other. That was written into the 17-point programme and Deputy Lemass cannot get away from the fact that both he and Deputy MacEntee did give to the people of this country an assurance that these duties would not be reimposed, and so false was that statement that it was written into the Budget speech that not only were they being reimposed but they should never have been removed.

Does the Leader of the Opposition still think, even after the results of the recent general election, that he can fool all the people all the time? Does he think for a moment that anybody, either inside or outside the House, is going to be fooled by this childish— to describe it as childish is to dignify it—attempt to fool? What the Leader of the Opposition and Deputy Lemass are trying to do is to see if they can create any division between the Parties supporting the Government, if they can create any split. That is the whole aim of this, but it will not succeed. This Government will carry out its promises.

Mr. Lemass

When?

Mr. Morrissey

We will answer for that to this House and to the people of the country. The people took good care, when they made a change, to give to this Government a majority that will enable it to carry out the programme and to remain here long enough to carry it out.

Mr. Killilea

On those promises?

Mr. Donnellan

Without the quota.

Mr. Morrissey

Five years this Government is going to have and all the efforts being made will not do any good from the Fianna Fáil point of view. The harm will not be done to the Government and it will not have any effect on those who are supporting the Government, but it can have— I hope it will not—a bad effect outside on the country, on its industry, its trade, its commerce and its economic position. I do not say that that is the intention, but one is tempted to say it.

Mr. Lemass

I am glad you are resisting the temptation.

Mr. Morrissey

It is a pity the Deputy does not resist temptation. It is a great pity for everybody on that side that he did not resist the temptation to put down these amendments. I doubt if he himself was the person who thought of this scheme and I am sorry he allowed himself to be talked into being the spearhead in this House of other people. I grant you that, when something like this has to be done, the Leader of the Opposition has not got a very wide choice as to who will do it, but it is going to fail.

It has one object and one object only. These amendments are not framed in the interests of the people; they are not framed with any belief in them or in the honesty of their sponsors; they are not framed with any idea of doing any good. They are framed deliberately and put forward here for the purpose of trying to do harm. There is no question about that.

Deputies opposite ought to realise that the people in this country cannot be as easily fooled now as they were in the past years, that we are dealing with a different outlook in the country, that we are dealing with a younger generation, with a generation that wants to get away from the type of politics we have had in this country for many years. We are dealing to-day with people who are concerned with getting an opportunity to live in their own country and to get a living in it. We are dealing with people outside who do not believe that we can afford the millionaire mentality which has been disclosed by Fianna Fáil down through the years. We are dealing with those outside and inside who are concerned that first things should come first.

This Government was elected on a 12-point programme. That programme was framed and circulated and that programme will be carried into effect. There is nobody in the House, or outside it, on this side or on that side, who believes for a moment or expects for one second that that programme can be fulfilled within a month or 12 months of the Government taking office. But the programme will be fulfilled; the savings will be made; the extravagance will be cut out; the waste will be eliminated; and the crazy, unproductive schemes will be liquidated. We showed from 1948 to 1951 that we had a constructive programme. We showed that we were not afraid to spend money in this nation.

Mr. de Valera

No extravagance then.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy knows much better than I that the spending of money in itself is not the important point, but the way in which it is spent and on what it is spent. I said we spent it on constructive programmes, on constructive projects, on something which was going to pay it back to us and the nation and we demonstrated that. Deputies on the opposite side should get this into their heads, that the Irish people have a lot more sense and intelligence than politicians are sometimes inclined to give them credit for.

Mr. de Valera

Hear, hear!

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy can also say "Hear, hear!" when I give him the piece of evidence upon which I base that point. I showed how the Deputy got his majority in 1951 with his 17 points and how the desire of the people for the continuation of the inter-Party Government was flouted on that occasion. The people, when they got the chance—and it took a long time to get the Deputy to give them the chance—showed beyond yea or nay that they wanted inter-Party government and they showed—and this is where I mark their intelligence and wisdom—not only that they wanted inter-Party government from now onwards, but, in no unmistakable way, their detestation of those primarily responsible for depriving them of inter-Party government in 1951, because the four Deputies who were primarily responsible for that deprivation were rejected by them. The issue in the election——

Mr. Lemass

You are getting away from taxation. Stick to taxation. That is what we are talking about.

Mr. Morrissey

I know when I am getting in under Deputy Lemass's guard.

Mr. Lemass

You are running away.

Mr. Morrissey

He cannot resist it. As long as he is campaigning, as long as he is sitting in this House, no matter how well he tries, he always reacts when somebody gets under the guard. I know he can have the poker face at times and sit there with a face like a marble statue.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let us get back to the Finance Bill.

Mr. Morrissey

If they would only let me get on to it.

Mr. Gilbride

You are doing very well.

Mr. Morrissey

I am not doing badly at all and well you know it. I was explaining, Sir, that there were two issues in the election. I grant you that taxation and the cost of living were a very important issue in the election but there was another issue. That was the issue, if you like, that we made but the Leader of the Opposition, the then Taoiseach, made this issue for his Party. The people were asked to vote—and this was fundamental—for a single-Party Government or an inter-Party Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely, Deputy, that cannot be argued on the Finance Bill.

Mr. Morrissey

I am replying to a speech made by Deputy Lemass——

Mr. Lemass

I did not discuss that.

Mr. Morrissey

——in which he quoted speeches made by every leader and member of the Parties that go to make the inter-Party Government.

Mr. Lemass

On the subject of taxation.

Mr. Morrissey

His case was against the inter-Party Government. I want again to repeat this, that the word "immediate" was the one word that was missing from any of the quotations which he gave. But when the Deputy is again talking about promises and when his colleagues are talking about promises, there are two promises I want them to address themselves to, the promise not to touch the subsidies and the promise not to reimpose the duties on beer, spirits and tobacco.

Mr. Aiken

I must say the Fine Gael Party are good pickers when they want to throw out a smokescreen. Deputy Morrissey is the Labour man who was swallowed by Fine Gael and he was a good selection to put forward to cover up the Fine Gael Minister for Finance to-night in the Dáil. When you boil down Deputy Morrissey's speech the only excuse he had for voting against the amendment put down by Deputy Lemass was that it was not really fair to ask Fine Gael to change the Budget in the middle of the financial year or when three months of the financial year were gone. By inference, Deputy Morrissey wanted to convey to the people who are still left in the Labour Party, after he departed from it, that if this had been the first month of the financial year in which we were discussing this thing we would reduce beer, spirits, income-tax, and so on, down to the 1952 level.

But that was not the attitude of Fine Gael in 1948. They did not complain when they came in in February. 1948, that the year was so far advanced, as Deputy Morrissey said, that they really could not change the financial structure, that they could not, because there were ten months of the year gone, reduce the tax on beer or cigarettes. They did it even though there were ten months of the financial year 1948-49 gone. This time there are still nine months to run if the Fine Gael Party wanted to reduce the taxation on beer, cigarettes, income-tax and all the rest. If they wanted to do it it could be done now as it was in February, 1948.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

The taxes then were only put on as a result of the Supplementary Budget.

Mr. Aiken

Deputy O'Higgins was not in then. Will he keep quiet for a moment? The reason was given by Deputy Morrissey. It was also given by the Minister for Finance here on the last occasion we were discussing this matter, that we were not reducing beer, cigarettes, tobacco and income-tax to the 1951-52 level as was promised because two months of the financial year had gone and it could not become operative in this financial year, but it could become operative in 1948, even though there were ten months of the financial year gone.

Another point of Deputy Morrissey's was that during the election the people voted not to throw high taxation and high prices overboard as they were promised on every hoarding and on every platform in the country by Fine Gael but to have a Coalition Government. There was more than a Coalition Government promised. It was not a single-purpose cow that was for sale; it was an all-purpose cow. It was not only a Coalition Government that was promised but a Coalition that would reduce taxation back to the 1952 level, and do it in ten months—reduce prices back to the 1951 level.

That was the tri-purpose cow that was for sale and that the people bought and now they find it is only a single-purpose cow, an old screw that will give no milk and put no beef on her back; all she has is a few bones. You have the bones of a Government but the meat that was promised and the milk that was promised of lower taxation and lower prices are gone by the board and they have the old screw left.

Mr. Kyne

We got the butter.

Mr. Aiken

If the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party were really in earnest when they promised the tri-purpose cow during the election they would produce it, but the fact is that they were trying to fool the people into the belief that we could have a certain level of Government expenditure here, we could have a high standard of life, that nobody need work and that nobody need pay for it. All the people would have to do was to elect any of these groups in sufficient numbers to form a Government and then the sky was the limit. Everything would fall into their lap—lower taxation, lower prices. The people can see now that that was just so much hoodlum and that all the Coalition groups wanted was their votes, not an opportunity to lower prices and lower taxation.

The reason that we put on these taxes was because we had to put them on. At least the voting on these amendments will show the people that the Coalition groups now realise that the present level of taxation is necessary and they are prepared to take responsibility for it. If they do not think that level of taxation necessary, then let them vote with us. If, however, they vote for it we will know, and the people will recognise, that what they said all around the country was untrue and that they knew it to be untrue when they were saying it.

Mr. Desmond

Deputy Aiken used the one word I believe most suitable for this whole masquerade of political hypocrisy introduced by Deputy Lemass in connection with these amendments. The word used by Deputy Aiken was "hoodlum". Nothing could describe so perfectly the contribution of Deputy Lemass, the interjections of his leader and the follow-up of Deputy Aiken.

Deputy Lemass spent some time in drawing attention to the fact that, in their belief, it is not possible to give this remission of taxation. Encouraged by their leader, Fianna Fáil are going so far as to say that if they were in Government to-night there would be no question whatsoever of a reduction in taxation.

Already an hour and ten minutes has gone in quoting speeches made by candidates during the election campaign, including those of members of the Labour Party as well as all the other Parties, in an effort to draw attention to allegedly false statements made by Deputies who are now members of this Assembly. Does it not strike Deputy Lemass that he is equally proving the case against himself for every word that he is trying to prove against us? Does Deputy Lemass not realise that he is now trying to say the reverse of what he said during the election campaign?

Mr. Lemass

What is the Deputy doing?

Mr. Desmond

He will have on the amendment that he has just moved here the support of Deputy Aiken and of his leader. Deputy Lemass is the one member of Fianna Fáil who is now proving himself politically incompetent in relation to the statements he made during the election campaign. Indirectly, perhaps, they are saying to the members of the Labour Party that Fianna Fáil has 60 odd seats; we have only 18 or 19. It is obvious that the line of attack is directed towards one group on this side of the House; Fianna Fáil is endeavouring to cuddle the Labour Party in order to get that Party's support. For three years I believed Deputy Lemass to be politically honest and sincere. Truly, experience teaches. May I ask the Leader of the Opposition if the members of the Labour Party to-night voted with smug members of the Opposition Front Bench—and we know that under the Constitution a Government must, as it were, hand in its chips if it is defeated on a Financial Resolution—would they then tell the people that we were political hypocrites?

I do not think it necessary to waste time on this except to pin the attention of the Leader of the Opposition. I do not worry about Press advertisements. I believe all that is just so much cheap talk, unworthy of this national Assembly in which we should interest ourselves in trying to get on with the work of the country rather than waste money paying 2d. or 3d. for daily papers out of which to cut and file certain things.

On the 2nd June last, the first day this new Dáil met, at column 47 of Volume 146 of the Official Report, Deputy de Valera referring to the miserable 13 per cent. that kept himself in power for so long, said:—

"As far as we, as an Opposition, are concerned, if we at any time are appealed to in connection with matters of that sort——"

That is, to oppose the will of the 13 per cent. that he thought were going to overrun the country,

"——we will support what we think right and give support to any people who stand out against being driven in that particular way."

On 2nd June, Deputy de Valera was telling the members of the Fine Gael Party—not of the Labour Party—that if there was a danger of the miserable 13 per cent. making too many demands, Fine Gael could be assured of the support of the Deputy and his Party. The tables are turned now. He is now speaking as if we would be prepared to go with him. Let Deputy Lemass put that on his file and let the Leader of the Opposition realise that the less time wasted on political humbug and fraud in this Assembly and the sooner we get on with the work of Government and Opposition the better it will be for the country and for the Fianna Fáil Party themselves.

Mr. Lemass

There are a few more quotations the Dáil might like to hear. In the Midland Tribune of the 5th May there appeared the following advertisement: “They are making you pay through the nose. The Fianna Fáil Government increased the price of cigarettes by 8d., of the pint by 9d., of the loaf by 3d., and so forth. The two Fianna Fáil candidates who are seeking your votes in this election stand for these increases. You can get rid of them by voting for Dan Morrissey.” In another advertisement it stated. “The Labour Party seeks the support of the people in the forthcoming election so that they can bring about a reduction in the price of tobacco, cigarettes, beer and spirits— Vote No. 1 Dan Desmond.”

Mr. Sweetman

On a point of order. I do not object to Deputy Lemass reading these things in the slightest, but might I point out that this amendment deals solely with income-tax? If the Deputy wishes we will discuss all the amendments together. I shall be perfectly happy to do that. If, however, the Deputy only wishes to discuss income-tax on this amendment, is it not better to keep to Standing Orders?

Mr. Lemass

The main discussion will be on this amendment. I promise I will not refer to the inter-Party Government.

Mr. Sweetman

The Deputy can make any references he likes. Are we discussing all the amendments together or merely the one that is before the House? I will be quite satisfied to accept it either way.

Mr. Lemass

We are discussing specific policy on this amendment.

Mr. Sweetman

The Deputy should know that we cannot discuss general policy on the amendment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 1 deals exclusively with income-tax.

Mr. Lemass

I will confine myself to that. May I, for the enlightenment of Deputy Desmond, give this further quotation? It is from a speech made by Deputy Dunne and is reported in the Meath Chronicle of the 15th May:—

"Before Labour would participate in a Government with any Party or group of Parties they would insist on the price of bread, butter, tea——"

Mr. Sweetman

On a point of order. May I have a ruling on the question I put as to whether we are dealing with income-tax alone or with all the amendments together? I am quite willing to have it whichever way the Opposition wish, but they cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister's point of order is a bit belated. Was the Minister listening to Deputy Morrissey?

Mr. Sweetman

I was listening to you. Which would you prefer?

Mr. Lemass

I pointed out on the first amendment that I was raising the issue of the redemption of election pledges by Deputies on the other side of the House. It is true that the first amendment deals only with income-tax. If you like, the Chair can put amendment No. 1 now, and I can deal with the specific matters of tobacco, beer and spirits on the subsequent amendments. Perhaps the quotations which I have yet to read will be more relevant on these amendments.

Mr. Sweetman

Then the Deputy would wish to have these amendments taken separately?

Mr. O'Leary

He is only play-acting.

Mr. Sweetman

We have now got from Deputy Lemass a very clear explanation of the purpose of these amendments. The Deputy did not utter a single word in the whole of his first speech or of his second speech about income-tax. Neither had we a single word about it from Deputy Aiken. That shows what little purpose they had in considering constructively the material that had been put down. I do not know whether it would be parliamentary for me to use the only word that I think I could use as regards the performance that we have had from the Opposition. I will content myself by using two words which describe, I think, the attitude that has been adopted here by the Opposition. The words are very popular amongst children, and they are "sour grapes". This whole performance has been nothing but an exhibition of sour grapes by the Deputies beyond. Deputy de Valera, when speaking here on 15th June last, at column 146, said:—

"The Government Parties having made, as we believe, false promises to the electorate, we are not going to force them to a still bigger crime against the country, that is, the keeping of the false promises."

Are we to take it that there is another split in Fianna Fáil, and that Deputy de Valera has been thrown overboard?

Mr. Lemass

Is this one of the false promises?

Mr. Sweetman

I am taking the Deputy at his own valuation. When the Deputy comes to the amendments with which he was dealing earlier, I may have a little to say on them also. We see now quite clearly what the position is. Deputy Lemass puts down an amendment and never utters one word about it. When he is challenged which way he would wish to have the debate, he runs away from the particular amendment that is in question.

Mr. Lemass

Surely the Minister is under some obligation to the House to explain why income-tax cannot be reduced? Is he going to ask the House to vote against the amendment without giving a single reason against it?

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister made the position clear beyond question when speaking here last week.

Mr. Lemass

No, he did not.

Mr. Sweetman

The country knows what the position is, and none of this play-acting by Deputy Lemass is going to change the views of the country in that respect. I know that Deputy Lemass is in a difficult position because I know that he is fighting a case in which he himself does not believe. I know that he is fighting a case— that he is in a position in which he himself would rather not be. I know why he was made fight this case by the Party and made do it. The Deputy knows as well as I know what are the facts in that regard.

Mr. Lemass

Tell the House and do not be keeping that secret between us.

Mr. Sweetman

The Deputy knows perfectly well that there is a very distinct cleavage of opinion, not merely in the Fianna Fáil Party in this House but in the Fianna Fáil Party throughout the country. Some would wish to take the line of cheap attempted manae joinuvres, such as these amendments are, while others would wish to take a constructive line. The Deputy's Party has chosen the cheap line, and the only words in which I can adequately describe that are, "sour grapes".

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 1, in the name of Deputy Lemass. I am putting the question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 77; Níl, 61.

Tá

• Barry, Anthony.
• Barry, Richard.
• Beirne, John.
• Belton, Jack.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Burke, James J.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Byrne, Thomas.
• Carew, John.
• Casey, Seán.
• Coburn, George.
• Collins, Seán.
• Connor, Johnny.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Declan.
• Costello, John A.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Crowe, Patrick.
• Davin, William.
• Deering, Mark.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Dunne, Seán.
• Esmonde, Anthony C.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finlay, Thomas A.
• Finucane, Patrick.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Glynn, Brendan M.
• Hession, James M.
• Hughes, Joseph.
• Kenny, Henry.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, Denis.
• Larkin, James.
• Leary, Johnny.
• Lindsay, Patrick J.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• MacBride, Seán.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Madden, David J.
• Manley, Timothy.
• Morrissey, Dan.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Murphy, William.
• Norton, William.
• O'Carroll, Maureen.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Donovan John.
• O'Hara, Thomas.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Denis J.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Pattison, James P.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Roddy, Joseph.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Sheldon, William A.W.
• Spring, Dan.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Tully, John.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Cotter, Edward.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Michael J.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• de Valera, Eamon.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Fanning, John.
• Flanagan, Seán.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gogan, Richard.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Kelly, Edward.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Burke, Patrick J.
• Butler, Bernard.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carter, Frank.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Colley, Harry.
• Collins, James J.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Lahiffe, Robert.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Lynch, Celia.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• McGrath, Patrick.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Maher, Peadar.
• Moher, John W.
• Mooney, Patrick.
• Moran, Michael.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Malley, Donough.
• Ormonde, John.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Walsh, Thomas.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Spring; Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Hilliard.

Sections 1 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.

Question declared carried; amendment negatived.

SECTION 13.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 4:—

In sub-section (3), lines 53 and 54, to delete "nine pounds five shillings" and substitute "five pounds, twelve shillings and sixpence".

All these amendments up to amendment No. 7 stand or fall together and have one purpose which I am sure will appeal to Deputies opposite, namely to reduce the tax on beer by 3d. per pint, that is, to the level at which it stood before 1952. If Deputies opposite will help me by repeating in this debate the relevant extracts from their election speeches, the case for this amendment will be overwhelming. Every Deputy opposite during the election campaign promised a reduction in the tax on beer and will, no doubt, be anxious to redeem that promise now if the Party Whips will let him. I urge even a brief revolt from the tyranny of the Party Whip, if Deputies want to fulfil their election promises. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government, Deputy Davin, was one of those who gave a most specific pledge in that regard.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government (Mr. Davin)

Will Deputy de Valera vote for it?

Mr. Lemass

He will. Is that a bargain?

Mr. Davin

We shall pair.

Mr. Lemass

May I advise Deputies opposite that if any Deputy is liable to get suddenly ill, we shall examine his medical certificate with great care? I hope they will all be present when the division is taken. They all waxed eloquent about the poor man's pint during the three weeks of the election campaign. There is an amendment down to-day to do what you said you would do—to bring the tax back to the pre-1952 level. Are you going to vote for it? Your pledges are on record. Are you going to repudiate them or vote for the amendment? Before I sit down, there is one important point I should like to mention. I do not think it is good enough for the Minister for Finance to brush off these amendments as mere Party manaejoinuvres.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Government (Mr. O'Donovan)

The Deputy would like us to take them seriously.

Mr. Lemass

I want you to take them as seriously as you pretended to take them a few years ago.

Mr. O'Donovan

That is as fair a statement as you made up to the present.

Mr. Lemass

I did not promise to reduce taxation.

Mr. O'Donovan

You said nothing.

Mr. Lemass

That is not so. We went out to the electorate and we said the taxes were necessary to balance the Budget and to provide the Government with money to finance necessary expenditure. You said these taxes were unnecessary, did you not?

An Ceann Comhairle

I suggest the use of the third person would be better.

Mr. Lemass

I agree. They said they were unnecessary. Are they unnecessary or are they not? Is there not an obligation on some Minister or some Deputy opposite to stand up and explain to the House, and through the House to the country, why it is necessary to keep these taxes at their present level? What has happened since the 2nd June except a change of Government——

Mr. O'Donovan

No obligation whatever.

Mr. Lemass

Why is there not?

Mr. O'Donovan

The Deputy is conducting the election campaign all over again in this House.

An Ceann Comhairle

I suggest that the Deputy should be allowed to make his speech without interuption.

Mr. Lemass

There may be some sense in the Deputy's interjection but I cannot see it. There are sitting in this House a number of Deputies who promised the electors in the most definite terms that, if they were returned, they would vote for a reduction in the tax on beer. They are now apparently going to vote against the reduction and they say there is no obligation on them to explain why. Why is there not? Is this taxation necessary? Will the Minister say, in as many words, that he cannot accept this amendment to reduce the tax on beer because he wants money to balance the Budget?

A Deputy

C.I.E. will balance it.

Mr. Lemass

Is this money wanted or is it not? Deputy Morrissey a moment ago said that this was a Fianna Fáil Finance Bill. It is nothing of the kind. It is a Bill produced by the present Coalition Government and brought to the House by the Coalition Government. It is being passed on their recommendation and by the votes of Coalition Deputies. Is that not so? So far as I am personally concerned, as a member of the previous Government, I never saw this Bill produced to the House until I was in opposition. It is true that the main purpose of the Bill is to implement the Budget which Deputy MacEntee introduced last May, but is that what you said to the electorate—that you were going to implement the Fianna Fáil Budget? Is there one of you who said it? Did not every Deputy opposite give the electorate to understand in his election speeches, in his election address, through canvassers and through advertisements in the newspapers, that he was seeking election for the purpose of reducing the level of taxation which that Budget involved?

Mr. Davin

At once?

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Davin said at once.

Mr. Davin

No, I did not.

Mr. Lemass

Well, I shall have to go back again on my quotations.

Mr. Davin

I know that you read them out.

Mr. Lemass

If you want, I shall read them again.

Mr. Davin

I have no objection to you reading them again for your own sake.

Mr. Lemass

This is what Deputy Davin said:—

"So far as the Labour Party is concerned, the principal item in our programme in this election is the reduction of taxation on all essential commodities to the same level, or as nearly as possible to the same level, as it stood before the Budget——"

Mr. Davin

Yes. Go on.

Mr. Lemass

Is this as near as the Deputy is prepared to go?

Mr. Davin

Did I say "at once"?

Mr. Lemass

This is what the Deputy said:—

"I pledge my word of honour to the people of this area that if I am elected, as I hope to be, I undertake with my colleagues to use that power given to us by the votes of the people to force whatever new Government is elected on June 2nd to bring down these prices to the lowest possible figure."

Mr. Davin

"At once"—is that in it?

Mr. Lemass

When will the Deputy do it? Will the Deputy put a date on it?

Mr. Davin

You have an elastic imagination. You can do it.

Mr. Lemass

This is what Deputy Dunne said—the quotation that I was about to read when the point of order was raised on the previous amendment:—

"Before Labour would participate in a Government with any Party or groups of Parties they would insist that the prices of bread, butter, tea, sugar, cigarettes, tobacco and the worker's pint must be reduced and reduced immediately."

Is that specific enough? How quick is "immediately"? Deputy Dunne said they were going to get that assurance before they joined the Government. Will Deputy Davin now say whether they got that assurance and was there a date put on it?

Mr. McAuliffe

What did you say to the people?

Mr. Lemass

The question at issue here is the redemption of pledges given by Deputies opposite. That is the only question at issue. Every Deputy knows that all he has to do in a couple of minutes' time is to turn to the right at the head of that stairs and he will have fulfilled his election pledge to reduce the price of the worker's pint and, if he turns to the left, he is voting against it. I warn that the name of every Deputy who turns left will be taken down and, at the next election, outside every pub there will be handed out a leaflet and on that leaflet will be the name of every Deputy who this evening votes against the reduction in the tax on beer.

Mr. Davin

Five years from now.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister to conclude.

Mr. Aiken

Before the Minister concludes, surely all the Deputies who were so voluble around the country have something to say about the price of the pint? How many hours were spent and how many millions of words were spoken in these last three years on the price of the pint? How many tears were wrung from the thirsty citizens around the country about the iniquity of Fianna Fáil in raising the pint? I wish the people who voted and who heard the Deputies opposite since 1952 complaining about the iniquity of Fianna Fáil in raising the price of the poor man's pint could be here this evening to see their sneers and their jeers and their sniggers when they are reminded about what they said to the people whose votes they hoped to get, and did get in some cases, on those speeches and on their promises to reduce the price of the poor man's pint. The speech was: the working man was entitled to it; Fianna Fáil were criminals, they were unjust, when they increased the price of the poor man's pint and they were going around in their high-powered motor-cars.

A Deputy

Stick to the pint.

Mr. Aiken

I am sticking to the pint. I would like that the voters who heard these people ranting about the Fianna Fáil injustice in raising the price of the poor man's pint could be here to see the sniggers at the wonderful fellows they are at having so deceived the people that they would reduce the price of the pint. It was not in the distant future that the price of the pint was to be reduced. That was to be done immediately. It was not in the dim and distant future that taxation of all kinds was to be reduced; it was to be done as quickly in 1954 as it was done in 1948. All round the country they said: "Fianna Fáil will tell you that taxation cannot be reduced. Of course it can be reduced. They put on unjust and unnecessary taxation. We will reduce it and we will reduce it as quickly in 1954 as we did in 1948." What was done in 1948? There was no excuse made then that the financial year was too far through to reduce the price of beer, cigarettes and tobacco. Even though the financial year was ten months through, it was not too late to reduce taxation. This financial year is only a couple of months through. The people are getting a lesson from the sniggers of the gentlemen who went around the country saying that this taxation was unnecessary and unjust. They are getting a lesson from seeing the gentlemen who so proclaimed it voting for it.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

I do not think I have ever heard more shamelessly political speeches on a financial matter than we have heard here to-night. Deputy Lemass and Deputy Aiken accuse us of going back on our words. We have not gone back on our words but they have gone back on the Budget that they brought in themselves. They accuse the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party and the other Parties who are associated with the Government. Did they accuse them during the election of being extravagant in their promises? Yes, they did. They said that. They said in connection with the Budget that they brought in that not one halfpenny could be taken off and yet now they are walking into the Lobby in defiance of their own words for a purely political reason. There is no financial probity or financial sense associated with that.

We have to administer the revenues as we find them. We have been in only two or three weeks. We will reduce costs but what we first have to do is to reduce the extravagant set-up which has been built up here over years of Fianna Fáil administration. That cannot be done on this Budget but will be done by this side of the House as quickly as it can be done. That is what the country will listen to. We on this side of the House have laughed at the effrontery of a Party who brought in a Budget, said it could not be reduced and now walk into the Lobby and calmly vote against their own propositions which they assured the electorate could not be reduced in any way.

Mr. Briscoe

I wonder could I induce the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government, Deputy O'Donovan, to rise to his feet and to explain to the House in the precise, calculated way in which he explained to another house——

Parliamentary Secretary to the Government (Mr. O'Donovan)

The Deputy will want better bait than he can produce.

Mr. Lemass

We cannot get you to talk.

Mr. Briscoe

I am asking Deputy O'Donovan would he rise to his feet and explain, in the same precise, calculated manner as he explained in another house the proposition that taxation and cost of living could be reduced by a reduction in the tax on beer and spirits. On that occasion he said that if liquor and beer could be reduced in price the consumption increase would be so great that there would be moneys available for subsidies and so forth.

Mr. O'Donovan

The Parliamentary Secretary said nothing of the kind.

Mr. Briscoe

The Parliamentary Secretary says that he said nothing of the kind. Last week I said something similar. What the Parliamentary Secretary said was published in the Press. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary now to say whether he did or did not say that, whether or not that was his answer to my question as to how you can reduce taxation and the cost of living.

There was a great number of witnesses. It was a gathering of intelligent people, and I remember the noise and the cheers and the applause——

Mr. O'Donovan

I remember the noise when you put that interpretation on it and the jeers you got and the raspberry you got.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should be allowed to speak without interruption.

Mr. Briscoe

——the cheers and the applause that were accorded the Deputy when he said that beer was going to be cheaper. I should like the Deputy to tell us whether since he became a Deputy he considers that possibly that proposition was wrong. Deputy Dockrell is very hurt and upset that we should have the effrontery to get up here and propose to amend the Finance Bill for which we were responsible.

Captain Giles

You have the neck of the devil.

Mr. Briscoe

I did not say he had the neck of the devil.

Captain Giles

I am saying that.

Mr. Briscoe

One of the things outstanding in the election and which was to copperfasten the promises made was the continual reference to the fact that if there were a change of Government there was going to be an end to starvation by these reductions. If starvation is rampant, how long can they people exist; how long can they remain alive in circumstances of starvation? If it were true then and true now, then something must be done to bring down the cost of living in order to end starvation.

Deputy Dockrell ought to realise that Fianna Fáil were abused throughout the whole campaign for what was called their iniquitous Budget. It was described as an austerity Budget. It was stated that there was no need for austerity and that in various ways reliefs could be brought in to make it easier for the public.

When we were contesting the election, we tried to advise the people not to fall for these false promises. In the summing-up by the electorate of the position they were faced with, if the inter-Party Government could find ways and means of doing all the things they said they were going to do, then I say the public, in making their choice, were quite right. If the inter-Party Government were to reduce taxation and bring down the cost of living, reduce the beer and spirit taxes and balance their Budget without imposing hardships in future on the people by so doing, the people would have been perfectly right in making the choice they did. But what we are doing here is to show the public, by this effort of ours to get the inter-Party Government to do what they led the people to believe they were going to do, that they either did it or did not do it. If we can get that shown, then the public will know whether they chose wisely or well, or whether in fact groups of Parties were bought purely for the sake of office, having sold the public down the river.

Mr. Fagan

I have been 21 years in this House and I always said Fianna Fáil were dishonest. I cannot stand listening to such hypocrisy. In 1949, they said they could not get along without putting an extra 6d. on cigarettes and so much on the pint. We took these off in 1948. They came back in 1951 and said that the country could not exist except they put back these penal taxes. Where are you now? I never saw such dishonesty. I went into politics because I was driven into it by the farmers to fight the dishonesty of Deputy de Valera. It is coming out now.(Interruptions.) Where are some of these farmers now? Some of them have the grass growing over them as a result of what happened in 1934, 1935 and 1936.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should come to the amendment.

Mr. Fagan

Stop this and get down to honesty. I always said you were dishonest. Many farmers were sent to an early grave by this.

Mr. Corry

I represent the intelligent voters who were not bluffed by the manoeuvres and the leaflets with the 1/2 pint on one side and the 1/- pint on the other side. These were shoved into every door in my constituency. On top of that, we had Deputy Morrissey down there. What was Deputy Morrissey's reply when he was asked whether this could be done or not. He said: "Did we not do it in 1948? In 1948 we removed the penal taxes on beer, cigarettes and tobacco." Was that a guarantee that they were going to do it again? Certainly, it was a guarantee. Much play has been made about the numbers in the Government Party now. Deputy O'Malley hit the nail on the head the other day when he said it was a "Tale of two Cities". It could not be described in any other way than as a "Tale of two Cities".

In the 1951 election there was a purchase price of £2,000,000, or 1/8 in the £ on the back of every ratepayer, to buy the votes of the local government officials. In 1954, it was £1,000,000 to buy the votes of the civil servants.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are discussing the amendment moved by Deputy Lemass, I would remind the Deputy.

Mr. Corry

How many times, a Cheann Comhairle, have you and I listened to the wailing of these boys about the poor man's pint? How many times have we seen them weeping and moaning about the poor man's pint? How many times have they talked about the iniquitous Budget? How many times did they walk out of the House in anger because of the burden which they said was being put on the ordinary working man by the increase in the price of the pint which they claimed was a necessity for him? The Government were elected on certain pledges. They gave a number of them and the only pledge which apparently they are prepared to keep is the pledge about the bribe to the civil servants. They have forgotten the ordinary worker and the price of his pint. He has been put to one side and is not to be talked of. He is out of the way now.

This amendment proposes to restore the price of the pint to 1/—in fact, to 11d., which is better still, as they will have 1d. out of the bob now. Now we are providing a fair opportunity for the gentleman over there who has been telling us here, doubtless on the inspired advice that he got from the Licensed Vintners' Association, about the reduction of the value of the pubs in Dublin, how the value has fallen by thousands of pounds on account of the poor man's pint. Now we are giving those gentlemen, whose election funds were well fattened at the recent general election and at the election before it by the Licensed Vintners' Association, an opportunity to keep their word to that association and do their part now by reducing the price of the poor man's pint.

It will not cost that enormous sum that Deputies think. I had this matter out here a few months ago when we were over there on that side of the House. The farmers have already contributed to the reduction of the poor man's pint some £2,000,000. The breweries had authority to increase the price of the pint and when barley went up to 84/- a barrel the price of the pint was increased by 1d., with the authority of the Government.

An Ceann Comhairle

We cannot discuss the price of barley on this amendment.

Mr. Corry

I am showing how this will not be the burden on the community that people think. Due to the reduction of the price of barley from 84/- to 63/6, there is a big gap that will practically take 1d. off.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not discuss the price of barley on this amendment.

Mr. Corry

Very well, Sir. I am pointing out that there is 1d. there. Surely to goodness, for the sake of one copper would they not come along and do their part? It is only another 1d. I made that plea before to the last Minister.

Mr. McAuliffe

For these last three years, did you ever speak about the penny?

Mr. Corry

Some five months ago I made that plea from the very bench in which Deputy McAuliffe is sitting now.

Mr. McAuliffe

How did Deputy Corry vote on that occasion? He can make that statement, but how did he vote afterwards?

Mr. Corry

There was no vote on that occasion. As a matter of fact, I raised it on the adjournment.

Mr. Sweetman

So that there could not be a vote.

Mr. Corry

The fact remains that I have seen those Deputies go into the pubs in my constituency and complain and moan and I have seen those Fine Gael publicans—acting again on the advice of the Licensed Vintners' Association—go round and take the 1s. 2d. We have seen that condition of affairs. Deputies over there are getting an opportunity now to keep their pledges. If it was such an outrageous thing for a Government to increase the price of the pint in the last three years, or during the last six years, surely it is time for that outrage to end? This is the manner in which they can end it. We are doing this because we consider that there should be honesty in political life. We do not believe that a Minister of this State should write a letter in February 1951 refusing to sanction increases in the price of barley and on the 4th May increase the price.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is bringing in matters which are totally irrelevant. He will please keep to the amendments—there are several of them.

Mr. Davin

Beer or butter—which?

Mr. Corry

Beer, for a start. You have already guaranteed to reduce the price of butter—that is, if you are not disarmed before you have to keep that pledge—and, mind you, I would not be at all surprised. In 1948, those gentlemen came into the House and their first job was to remove the taxes —and to borrow to remove them £5,000,000 and put that on the backs of the people for the next 20 years.

Mr. Sweetman

That is not true.

Mr. Corry

That is true.

Mr. Sweetman

The Deputy should know that it is not true.

Mr. Corry

There was £17,000,000 that you borrowed and squandered. That is part of the reason why the present Minister for Finance is endeavouring to keep this tax there to-day. When they came in, the principal and interest on public debt was £4,000,000 a year and when they went out there was a load of £10,000,000 a year. That was the reason why those taxes had to be imposed at that time. That is the reason why every Deputy over there now has to swallow every word he said in the last six years here and crawl around to the Lobby and vote against the reduction of the price of the pint. The burden and the load those opposite left after them has now fallen on their own shoulders and they have to carry it. I heard demands made here from those benches on the spirits amendment—are we on the spirits amendment now?

An Ceann Comhairle

We are on the amendments to Section 13—Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. There is sufficient opportunity there for the Deputy.

Mr. Coogan

Stick to the pint.

Mr. Corry

I can guarantee to the Deputy over there that that pint will be sticking to him. Those Deputies over there know now that they have the burden on their shoulders, whether they like it or not, and they are paying for the squandering they did. I do not know where they are going to get it this time. I do not know whether they can borrow as freely as they borrowed on the last occasion.

Mr. Coogan

Off the Bray road.

Mr. Corry

I can guarantee one thing, that they will be made keep every single pledge that they gave to the electors or they will have to swallow those pledges—one of the two— in this House.

Mr. McAuliffe

Deputy Corry has addressed himself to this House from the point of view of our forgetting the promises we made to the people. I want to refer to some statements made by Deputy Corry not so very long ago. In 1947, when Fianna Fáil introduced the Supplementary Budget and imposed taxation on beer and tobacco, a by-election was fought in County Waterford. I well remember Deputy Corry speaking during that election at Ballymacoda and Killaugh and promising the people that if Fianna Fáil won the by-election the pint would be reduced as a result of that general election. Deputy Corry is not in a position to contradict that statement.

Mr. Corry

Was it a general election or a by-election?

Mr. McAuliffe

It was a by-election and the Deputy with the late Mr. Ahearne went around to Ballymacoda, Inches and Killaugh. I was there in the presence of the late Minister for Local Government, Deputy Murphy. Deputy Corry made this statement and promised the people that, if they won that by-election, immediately after the by-election the price of the pint would be reduced from 1/2d. He did not say he would reduce it to 10d. but he said he could give a guarantee that it would be reduced to 1/-. That is quite clear.

What exactly was the campaign of the Fianna Fáil agents in the recent general election? I cannot be contradicted on this. The agents of Fianna Fáil in my constituency told the old age pensioners, the infirm and the blind people not to believe the statements we were making but, rather, to believe them. They told the old age pensioners that if they voted for those people they would lose their old age pensions or they would be drastically reduced. Is it not far more honourable at this moment to support the present Government and to vote for them tonight—this Government which has already announced a reduction of 5d. per lb. in the price of butter on the poor man's table? I should much prefer to consider the point of view of the housewives of this country at this particular time than sit on the seat on which Deputy Lemass is sitting——

Mr. Lemass

You promised both.

Mr. McAuliffe

You were dishonest during the election campaign. Not alone were you dishonest during the general election campaign but you are dishonest in the policy which you are pursuing in this House to-night. What you are doing now is nothing but dishonesty from the point of view of deceiving the electorate and the country at large—if you could succeed in doing it.

Mr. Sweetman

In case anybody might, for one moment, believe the figures that were given by Deputy Corry, I had better put the correct figures on the record of the House. Deputy Corry suggested that the figure for service of debt in 1948 was £4,000,000. As a matter of fact it was £4.8 million, but that is pretty good for a person who is as inaccurate as Deputy Corry. Then he went on to suggest that the figure for the service of debt in 1951 was £10,000,000; in fact, the figure was £7.2 million. Furthermore, the figure for the three years in question rose by £2.4 million.

For the benefit of anybody who might be foolish enough to believe Deputy Corry, let us take that and put it in juxtaposition to what occurred during the period from 1951—when Deputy de Valera took over the reins of office—to 1954, three years in which——

Mr. Corry

On a point of order.

An Ceann Comhairle

What is the point of order?

Mr. Corry

The figures that I have quoted here were given in this House in 1952 by the then Minister and were not contradicted.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a point of order. These are matters of fact.

Mr. Sweetman

I do not know what figures were given to the Deputy or how he phrased the question. If you phrase a question in a particular way you can get certain figures sometimes, but these are the true figures—and I know the Deputy does not like the truth.

Mr. Corry

I know how much truth I can get from you—truth from a lawyer.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. Sweetman

Is that observation by Deputy Corry in order?

An Ceann Comhairle

I understood Deputy Corry to say "from a lawyer."

Mr. Sweetman

Of course, anything that is said by Deputy Corry that is offensive will be taken by any decent man as a compliment. In the three years from 1948 to 1951, the figure for the service of debt rose by £2.4 million. In the three years from 1951 to 1954, the annual amount for the service of debt rose not by £2,400,000 but by £5,473,000.

Mr. Briscoe

Could I ask the Minister a question on that?

Mr. Sweetman

Now, the Deputy——

Mr. Briscoe

I shall ask it afterwards.

Mr. Sweetman

Deputy Corry should not put his Leader——

Mr. Corry

What about the interest on the American loan which you raised?

Mr. Sweetman

——in the embarrassing position of having the policy adopted by Fianna Fáil during those three years contrasted with that of the three years of inter-Party Government. The liabilities of the State in each of the three-year periods increased by exactly the same amount—£71.9 million in one case and £72,000,000 in the other case. These are gross figures. In our three years of inter-Party Government, the assets side of the balance sheet showed an increase of £68,000,000 but in the three years of Fianna Fáil Government the assets side showed an increase of only £57.3 million—in other words, £11,000,000 less.

Mr. Lemass

When did the Marshall Aid Loan interest become payable for the first time?

Mr. Sweetman

That does not affect the question of gross assets or gross liabilities.

Mr. Briscoe

Service of debt.

Mr. Sweetman

The way Deputy Briscoe gets a figure when you are making a comparision obviously is to subtract one from the other. If you take the increase of gross assets in one case and take it in the other case you will find that the comparison results in £11,000,000 against the Fianna Fáil Government.

Mr. Briscoe

Will the Minister break down the service of debt in the second three-year period? How much of it was Marshall Aid?

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister also remembers, as I mentioned the other day, that the day my predecessor walked into his office in Government Buildings he had £22,500,000 of the Marshall Aid Loan available for him to carry on with. The present Minister, myself, knows very well that he has no such money.

Mr. Blaney

What happened to the rest of Marshall Aid moneys?

Mr. Lemass

The Minister will not be too badly off. He will not even need a national loan this year.

Mr. Sweetman

If the Deputy would like me to deal with the short-term borrowing position, I have the figures available here. I do not think the Deputy would like that either.

Mr. Briscoe

What is the service of debt for the Marshall Aid Loan, please, for the three years since it began?

Mr. Sweetman

The service of debt has risen in the way I have indicated.

Mr. Briscoe

Would the Minister be specific in regard to Marshall Aid?

Mr. Sweetman

Sit down and take your medicine. I was very careful not to interrupt Deputy Lemass even once. The Deputy can put a question and he will get all the information. I was very careful not to interrupt Deputy Lemass, except in accordance with the rules of the House, because I remember hearing Deputy Lemass say on another occasion that he never interrupted anybody. I wanted to see if the Deputy would keep to his expression of hope if he was not prompted, so far as I was concerned.

As I said on the debate on the earlier amendment, this, in fact, is sour grapes. Deputy Lemass did say one thing that was true when he spoke on the earlier amendment, though it was not relevant to that amendment— perhaps I can deal with it now—and that is that it was not the level of prices which affected the people in the last general election. What affected the people in the last general election —and it was not merely a question that arose in Dublin: it arose in my constituency and everywhere else—was that they knew they had been promised by Fianna Fáil in 1951 that if only Fianna Fáil were elected at that time they would get reduced prices. The people knew that not merely had Fianna Fáil failed to keep their promise in that regard but, of their own deliberate action, increased the prices after that. It was anger against the Fianna Fáil administration for the manner in which the people had been duped in 1951 that is responsible for those Deputies being on the other side of the House. It was anger against the Fianna Fáil Deputies for issuing in 1951 the type of leaflet that was issued by my colleague, Deputy Harris, in Kildare in that election and for the way in which that Deputy, as other Deputies who did the same thing came along and threw their promises overboard in 1951 which had the effect of putting the Fianna Fáil Party on the other side of the House.

During the whole course of the general election they were at pains on every possible occasion to indicate, show, shout and publish in the Irish Press and wherever else they could get it printed that the Fine Gael Party and leaders were promising nothing. Now they have changed their tune and the people see quite clearly, judging by the comments which come to me, through the shallowness, the hollowness and duplicity of the type of thing we are hearing now.

Mr. Corry

£1,000,000 for the votes of 50,000 civil servants.

Mr. Harris

Would the Minister read out that pamphlet?

Mr. Sweetman

I read it on another occasion. It is on the records of the House.

Mr. Briscoe

I had hoped that the Minister would have answered my question. I do not think it is fair that the Minister for Finance should, by his method of accepting the case made for the amendment, attempt to put on record further misleading figures which, if they are not questioned now, can afterwards be quoted as facts. When the Minister was comparing the three years of Fianna Fáil Government succeeding the three years of inter-Party Government, he referred to a substantial increase in the service of debt charges. If the Minister will not give those figures now, I will give notice that I will put down a question for a parliamentary answer which must be in accordance with the facts, asking him to state the amount of money borrowed from the Americans under Marshall Aid, the amount of money or goods they got gratuitously in their three-years' period in office, the repayment that must be made, when that began to be made and if it had, in fact, to be included in the Fianna Fáil Budget as being free in their period of office for repayment. We can ask that. If the Minister wants to be fair, I think he should be factual.

Mr. Sweetman

These facts are already on the record.

Mr. Briscoe

No. The Minister in his statement just now indicated that as a result of borrowing by Fianna Fáil in their three years of office, succeeding that of the three years of the inter-Party Government, the service of debt charges increased far greater than those the inter-Party Government had brought about by their own borrowing in their time. I say that is not correct. That is definitely misleading, because in the service of debt charges in the succeeding three years there had to be interest payments made to the Americans in dollars as a result of the borrowings made by the inter-Party Government through the Marshall Aid Loan.

Mr. Sweetman

And the money which you spent.

Mr. Briscoe

I am not going to be drawn into what I call a lawyer's quibble. I just wanted to get the facts clear. This evening we are talking about whether the public were misled or whether we were foolish to take the view that the public were misled by our opponents in the election.

Mr. O'Leary

You were foolish to go to the country.

Mr. Briscoe

I want to get this correct. Will the Minister now say what was the increase in the service of debt charges at the end of their three years' period of office and at the end of our three years' period of office? Would he say the extent of the amount that concerned the American Marshall Aid Loan when he talked about the previous Minister's predecessors having left him £22,000,000 or £26,000,000?

Mr. Sweetman

Twenty-two-and-a-half million.

Mr. Briscoe

It was not left there for Fianna Fáil to dispose of as they chose or wished. It was left there to meet commitments already entered into by our predecessors. That has been made perfectly clear.

Mr. Sweetman

I have got the commitments without the money.

Mr. Briscoe

That is an admission anyway that £22,500,000 which we had in the Exchequer were earmarked for commitments entered into by our predecessors. Now the Minister says he has commitments without the money. I should like to know what commitments he has. Deputy Lemass interjected that in his opinion it will not be necessary for the Minister to borrow in this financial year. Let the Minister say whether that is so or not. If he has to borrow, he will again add to the service of debt charges. I should like to know what are these commitments. If the Minister will not give me those figures now, I will spend an hour this evening drafting the questions to get as comprehensive and as detailed a reply as I can on all these items.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

The Committee divided: Tá: 77; Níl: 60.

Tá

• Barry, Anthony.
• Barry, Richard.
• Beirne, John.
• Belton, Jack.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Burke, James J.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Byrne, Thomas.
• Carew, John.
• Casey, Seán.
• Coburn, George.
• Collins, Seán.
• Connor, Johnny.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Declan.
• Costello, John A.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Crowe, Patrick.
• Davin, William.
• Deering, Mark.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Dillon, James M.
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• MacBride, Seán.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Madden, David J.
• Manley, Timothy.
• Morrissey, Dan.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Murphy, William.
• Norton, William.
• O'Carroll, Maureen.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Donovan, John.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Dunne, Seán.
• Esmonde, Anthony C.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finlay, Thomas A.
• Finucane, Patrick.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Glynn, Brendan, M.
• Hession, James M.
• Hughes, Joseph.
• Kenny, Henry.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, Denis.
• Larkin, James.
• Leary, Johnny.
• Lindsay, Patrick J.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• O'Hara, Thomas.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Denis J.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Pattison, James P.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Roddy, Joseph.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Sheldon, William A.W.
• Spring, Dan.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Tully, John.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Brady Seán.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Burke, Patrick J.
• Butler, Bernard.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carter, Frank.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Colley, Harry.
• Collins, James J.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Cotter, Edward.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Michael J.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• de Valera, Eamon.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Fanning, John.
• Flanagan, Seán.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gogan, Richard.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Kelly, Edward.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Lahiffe, Robert.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Lynch, Celia.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• McGrath, Patrick.
• Maher, Peadar.
• Moher, John W.
• Mooney, Patrick.
• Moran, Michael.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Malley, Donough.
• Ormonde, John.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Walsh, Thomas.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Spring; Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Hilliard.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

That decision covers amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

Mr. Lemass

Yes, all those amendments fall with that amendment.

Mr. Sweetman

Up to and including No. 7.

Section 13 agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.

Section 14 agreed to.

SECTION 15.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 8:—

Before Section 15 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) The Finance Act, 1920, as amended by Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1952 (No. 14 of 1952), shall, as and from the 1st day of October, 1954, be amended by the substitution in Part I of the First Schedule to the said Finance Act, 1920, of the matter set out in the Fourth Schedule to this Act for the matter inserted therein by the said Section 8, and sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Finance Act, 1920, shall have effect accordingly.

(2) The duty of excise imposed by sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Finance Act, 1920, shall, as and from the 1st day of October, 1954, be charged, levied and paid at the rate of £6 17s. the gallon (computed at proof) in lieu of the rate chargeable by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1952.

(3) Nothing in this section shall operate to relieve from or to prejudice or affect the additional customs duties or the additional excise duty in respect of immature spirits imposed by Section 9 of the Finance Act, 1926 (No. 35 of 1926).

This amendment stands in a somewhat different position from that of the others I have moved. Is the Minister accepting it?

Mr. Sweetman

No.

Mr. Lemass

I thought he might, because it is true that the increased tax on whiskey imposed in 1952 did not produce, in that financial year, the revenue anticipated. In fact, Deputy MacEntee, as Minister for Finance, had to concede in his Budget statement of 1953 that the whiskey duty had yielded £1,500,000 less than the estimated amount. During the course of the recent election campaign, many references to this duty were made by leading members of the present Government and particularly the Taoiseach. He certainly gave the indication that, in the interests of the revenue, the tax on whiskey would be reduced, and, in fact, I think the only speech I need make in favour of the amendment is a quotation from a speech delivered by the Taoiseach during the election, on 7th May, at Wexford and Enniscorthy. On that occasion he said:—

"I may not be a mathematician, but I am able to add up, and I now challenge the Taoiseach to deny that the meaning of the fresh figures he has disclosed is that, in each of the two years 1952 and 1953, the Government got an average of £50,000 a year less from the higher rate than we got when whiskey was 5d. a glass cheaper in 1951-52.

In 1953-54 the Government only recovered £500,000 of the £600,000 they lost in 1952-53. What good did that extra tax do? The Government got less revenue; the price went up savagely to the consumer; the consumption dropped over the two years by 80,000,000 ‘half-ones'; the incomes of the publicans and distillers dropped and accordingly the income-tax they paid fell; people in public houses and distilleries lost their jobs; and it had been calculated that the farmers got from £150,000 to £200,000 less for their barley."

That is such an overwhelming case for this amendment, if it is true, that I need scarcely add anything to it. If the Taoiseach and his colleagues believe there was sense in that argument, surely they must accept the amendment.

Mr. Sweetman

The Deputy's remarks, of course, must be taken as part of a picture. I have already made it perfectly clear why the picture cannot be disturbed.

Mr. Lemass

If this argument is right, I am now trying to improve the picture.

Mr. Sweetman

Anybody who tries to deal with a matter like the Budget and general financial policy in that piecemeal way will find himself very quickly in difficulties. A matter like financial policy for a whole year should be dealt with as an entity and I regret that I cannot accept the Deputy's contention that we should take one sector and deal with it alone.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister has now carved a niche for himself in history as the first Minister for Finance to refuse additional revenue on the proposition of the Opposition, if that argument of the Taoiseach is correct.

Mr. Sweetman

If the Deputy's amendment means additional revenue, would it not be out of order?

Mr. Lemass

That is asking the Chair to decide upon the validity of Deputy Costello's argument. I will admit that if we cut income-tax, the Government would lose revenue. They said there was a surplus in the Budget and that is why I moved my amendment in that regard. I admit that if the tax on beer were cut, the Government would lose revenue, although there are Deputies opposite who, during the campaign, said that the tax on beer could be reduced without loss to the revenue; but it is undoubtedly the case for this amendment that, if the Taoiseach's arguments are sound, the tax on whiskey can be reduced and the Exchequer will get more money. That cannot possibly upset the Budget— getting more money into the Exchequer. The rejection of this amendment by the Government means that they agree that the present Taoiseach, when speaking at Enniscorthy and Wexford, was talking nonsense.

Mr. Sweetman

Does the Deputy understand his own amendment? Did he ever hear of an amendment dealing with spirits which provided that the change should come into force some months in advance? That would be nonsense.

Mr. Lemass

I will accept any reasonable amendment to my amendment which the Minister may propose.

Mr. Sweetman

It is just part of the Deputy's play-acting and he knows it.

Mr. Aiken

Might I point out to the Minister that during the election they promised that they were going to deal with the financial picture piece-meal. They promised that they were going to do in the 1954-55 Budget what they had done in the 1948-49 Budget.

Mr. Sweetman

I have asked for quotations already and have not got them yet.

Mr. Aiken

Is it not a fact that——

Mr. Sweetman

And they will have to contain what Deputy Aiken has said.

Mr. Lemass

"What we have done before we can do again".

Mr. Sweetman

I agree, but not what Deputy Aiken has said.

Mr. Aiken

I want it to be noted that the purpose of this debate is to get the people to realise that the smart Alecs who went around the country promising them the sun, the moon and the stars—a reduction in beer, whiskey, cigaretes and income-tax on the nail—did so with their tongue in their cheeks. When they said that the Fianna Fáil budgetary policy was unjust they did not believe it because if they did they would be forced now to curb the injustice; and when they said that the Fianna Fáil budgetary proposals were unnecessary they did not believe it because if they were unnecessary it would be up to them to abolish the unnecessary taxation. They did not believe it when they told the people that our proposals were unjust, unnecessary or immoral and they made these statements simply from the point of view of fooling the people. It will be a good deal harder for them to fool the people the next time.

Mr. O'Leary

We have been listening to two ex-Ministers wasting the time of this House with amendments, men who were in office for almost 20 years and who were the cause of the high cost of living. Deputy Aiken did not tell Dáil Éireann that he was going to introduce a Supplementary Budget in 1947, and when the election came we went to the country and told the people we would support an inter-Party Government, and his Party were put out of office.

The last election was a bread-and-butter election. We want to see food put before whiskey because the poor people are not interested in whiskey. We welcome the announcement of the new Government in regard to the reduction in the price of butter and were it not for the request made to the Government by R.G.D.A.T.A. to give timely notice before any reduction took place, I believe the date of the reduction would have been earlier than that announced.

Is it any wonder that the ex-Taoiseach is sitting there with his hand on his head listening to his ex-Ministers holding up the business of this House while people outside are waiting for some work to be started? It is regrettable that the people who were in Government so long and had increased the price of all essential commodities, should be play-acting, putting down amendments and asking a new Government who must work on their Budget to do everything overnight?

Deputy Lemass and Deputy Aiken will not humbug the working-class people of Ireland by their tactics here. I have every confidence that if the inter-Party Government is given a chance the programme which they put before the people will be carried out. In all fairness, I think the Government should be given a little time.

Mr. Lemass

How long?

Mr. O'Leary

It will not be 20 years, anyhow. After 20 years of Fianna Fáil rule, our country is in a worse condition than ever and it will take the new Government some time to get to the straight road, towards which the ex-Taoiseach was pointing his finger, for better times and lower taxation. I heard Deputy Lemass speaking in my own town of Enniscorthy on many occasions as far back as 1932. Fianna Fáil have forgotten all the promises they made. The people are disgusted with the present Opposition, the Opposition who said they were going to be helpful but who, after three or four weeks, introduce amendments to reduce the price of whiskey.

For whom? For Americans? The poor man is not interested in the bottle of whiskey. We were glad to see the price of butter reduced and we will be twice as glad when the price of the loaf comes down because these are the necessaries of life and Deputy Lemass will not change one member of the Labour Party by his tactics.

Mr. Killilea

He knows that.

Mr. O'Leary

Only for the Labour Party Deputy de Valera would not have become Taoiseach in 1932 and it was on promises to the Labour Party that he was Taoiseach in those years.

Mr. de Valera

I made no promises except the promises that were kept.

Mr. O'Leary

In every town in the country Deputy de Valera——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on the amendment.

Mr. O'Leary

I ask the Deputies in the Opposition to be honest with the people who sent them in. They did not send them in here to obstruct but that is what they are doing. If they want to see the country advancing, to see employment started or any progress made, let them join with us here and see that it is done. Of course we know they still want to be what they always were, warmongers.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I want to say a few words about this particular amendment. A very good friend of mine who happens to be a representative of a whiskey and wine merchants company came to me during the election campaign and told me that the retailers in County Mayo refused to take any orders from him because they had been specifically promised by the canvassers of the Fine Gael Party that whiskey would be reduced in price. They not only promised that but they were given the exact date on which whiskey would be reduced from 1/9 to 1/6 a half glass. The date given to the people of South Mayo, to the people who refused to give orders to my friend, was the 10th June, 1954. I wish to issue a challenge to the Minister for Finance on this particular point. If he wishes me to prove the assertion I have made now I can obtain 40 letters from 40 different retailers in County Mayo who were given that specific promise, and I can refer to them during the debate on the Estimate for the Department of the Taoiseach.

Mr. Dunne

There used to be abroad in this country, a very foolish illusion that in the person of Deputy Lemass we had a clever and able politician. It was one to which many people subscribed, many people who voted against his Party. But I am happy to see that he has dispelled that illusion in the last few days for all time. I do not think this Dáil has seen for a long number of years, so brazen an attempt to make political capital in a weak and futile fashion.

Deputy Lemass has moved amendments which, if put into effect would mean that the policy of the Fianna Fáil Party would be completely negatived and a complete reversal of Fianna Fáil policy would take place. Everybody knows—I hope Deputy Lemass is under no illusion about this, and certainly I think the more practical members of his Party are under no illusion about it—what Deputy Lemass is trying to do; he is trying to embarrass the present Administration. There is no sincerity whatsoever in the amendment he has put before the House.

Mr. Lemass

I am testing your sincerity.

Mr. Dunne

He is endeavouring to use this Parliament in order to buttress up the failing fortunes of the Fianna Fáil Party. In the past he might have succeeded in his object but, with God's good help, he will not succeed in the next five years. I have referred already to the chagrin evidenced by the members of the Fianna Fáil Party. To-night there has been a bit of a rally. It is obvious that this effort on the part of the deputy-Leader is to try to put some life back into the corpse that once was Fianna Fáil; there has been some slight evidence of resuscitation, but that is only of a very passing nature. The people are not, although many slick politicians may consider them to be, political neophytes

They are not fools. The people when they went to the polls on the last occasion voted for a change of Government. I have taken an opportunity of consulting as many of those who voted for me with whom it was possible to get into touch since the election. I find they are very satisfied with the progress that has been made in a few weeks. Mark you, in a few weeks! They are very satisfied with the progress towards a reduction in the cost of living. The proposal to reduce butter by 5d. per lb. is a satisfactory one. It is a far more important proposal than the one we are discussing now.

Mr. Killilea

When is the reduction coming in?

Mr. Dunne

The Deputy knows when it is coming in. The Deputy has heard all about it. What is breaking the Deputy's heart is the fact that it is coming in. I understand I was the subject of some comment on the part of the deputy-Leader of the Opposition earlier this evening. Though the question of the reduction in the pint may not be entirely irrelevant on this amendment, it has a certain relationship to it. Deputy Lemass may not be acquainted with the gravity of that particular beverage, but I assure him it is not possible to reduce the pint with one Act. As a Labour Party representative and as one who told the people that I stood for a reduction in the cost of living, I am satisfied this Government will reduce the cost of living; that it will reduce not alone butter, but bread, tea, sugar, tobacco, cigarettes and the workers' pint.

Mr. Lemass

When?

Mr. Dunne

Long before the Deputy will have an opportunity of making any further misrepresentations to the Irish people at a general election. It is very obvious that these amendments are introduced here in a fit of pique. It amazes me that we should have elected in our Parliament a group of politicians which have shown themselves to be such obviously bad losers. The people are sitting back and laughing at Deputy Lemass and the Fianna Fáil Party. They are laughing at the idea that those now in Opposition should think that the electorate are so foolish as to believe there is one ounce of sincerity in what the Opposition is trying to do here.

They know this is a political stunt and is not intended for the good of the nation in any direction. The people are the final masters and they will eventually give their decision upon the actions of this Government and the actions of the Labour Party. I have no doubt what their decision will be. I do not think the Opposition Deputies have any doubt either. This is merely a time-wasting effort on the part of a broken and beaten Party.

Mr. Lemass

What Deputy Dunne says now is in marked contrast to what he said a month ago. According to the Meath Chronicle on Saturday, May 14th, Deputy Dunne spoke to what is described as a large audience in the Market Square in Navan.

Mr. Dunne

This is what the Deputy says I said then.

Mr. Lemass

This is the report of the Meath Chronicle. Is the Deputy repudiating the accuracy of the report?

Mr. Dunne

I would want to examine it.

Mr. Lemass

This is what the Meath Chronicle reports Deputy Dunne as saying on Saturday, May 14th last:—

"Before Labour would participate in a Government with any Party, or group of Parties, they would insist that the price of bread, butter, tea, sugar, cigarettes, tobacco and the workers' pint must be reduced, and reduced immediately. Unless they got agreement on that point they would not take part in the formation of a Government."

That is what Deputy Dunne said in the Market Square in Navan a month ago. We are not getting these reductions immediately. Yet, the Deputy is quite pleased about the whole situation. I wonder is the large audience which listened to him at Navan as pleased as he is.

Mr. Dunne

They are very happy about it.

Mr. Lemass

That is what the Deputy tells us. He made suckers out of the people at Navan. That is a term the Deputy understands. He is very happy that they fell for the trick he played on them. They put their votes in the ballot boxes because of the undertaking Deputy Dunne gave, an undertaking he is now happy to repudiate. On the strength of the promise made by Deputy Dunne and by the Government now concerned——

Mr. Spring

That was all drafted by Noel Hartnett.

Mr. Lemass

This is the report of a speech made by Deputy Dunne. Deputy Dunne is the good-looking fellow sitting there behind Deputy O'Leary. The Deputy can be very happy about the result. Possibly that explains all the good humour of the Deputies on the Government Benches. The trick they tried worked once. Will it work a second time? The Deputy is gambling on the fact that he will not have to explain for five years.

Mr. Dunne

I will explain it anywhere the Deputy likes.

Mr. Davern

The supporters of the Government are very bitter in this debate. It is not at all surprising that they are so bitter because they have been found out. They are now being exposed as the political hypocrites they are. I listened to them at the crossroads making promises knowing that they were telling lies. They were making promises that they had not a notion of fulfilling. They were telling the people that they were to reduce the price of the pint, the fag, the bit of tobacco and of course they always ended up by assuring the people that they would have to pay only half what they were paying then for tea, sugar and butter. The fact that they are not fulfilling the promises they made and that they are being exposed as people who made false promises is naturally causing resentment amongst them.

I suppose they thought that we were going to sit on this side of the House and forget what they said in the same way as they are now trying to forget that they fooled the electorate one short month ago. There can be no doubt but that if they had not promised to reduce taxation and the price of stout, whiskey and cigarettes they would not have been able to form a Government. It was these promises that swayed a small percentage of the people in their favour so that now they sit on that side of the House. The fact that they are sitting there is because they did make false promises. Is it any wonder that they should feel ashamed of themselves here to-night.

Mr. Coogan

What about the by-elections? That shook you.

Mr. Davern

When this taxation was imposed we heard many of them, like Deputy O'Leary, who were wearing the Pin advocating a reduction in the price of intoxicating liquor. Surely that is contrary to what they profess. Apparently, they are prepared to profess anything and to state anything that will get votes for them. It is no wonder that they are feeling ashamed of themselves. They are being exposed now; they have been found out. I can assure them that we will keep on reminding the people of the fact that they did make false promises. As the former Tánaiste has stated, you tricked the people once, but we assure you that when the people get the opportunity again as soon they will——

Mr. Coogan

In five years.

Mr. Davern

—you will then be made realise fully and for all time that a crime like that does not pay.

Mr. Bartley

The one difference that I see between the supporters of the Government and the Opposition is that while both sides spoke in an equally positive way on the question of subsidies and prices during the election campaign, it is quite obvious now that that has been dropped by supporters of the Government. The eloquence with which the Government Parties advocated their programme of reductions is now being replaced merely by sound, vehemence and resentment that their promises are not being forgotten.

The Minister has been asked by Deputy Lemass to accept this amendment for a very good reason, namely, that he wants more money to subsidise a reduction in the price of butter and that he wants it, as his Party and other Parties indicated during the election, to maintain schemes of national development and of public works so that employment may be continued. It was the reference to employment that induced me to rise to my feet. I want to tell the Minister for Finance that by the direct action of one of his Ministers people have been thrown out of their employment in my constituency within the past week. It is all very well for Deputy O'Leary, Deputy Dunne and others to tell us that the price of butter is to be reduced by 5d. per lb., but what about the people who have lost their weekly wage packets and are now on the dole? Was it not better for them to have butter at 4/2 a lb. and to have their weekly wage packets than to have a reduction of a few pence in the price of butter? These were the considerations which induced Fianna Fáil to speak as positively as they did during the election campaign.

Mr. Sweetman

Would the Deputy mind particularising?

Mr. Bartley

The Department of Defence is the Department that I have in mind.

Mr. O'Leary

You were cutting them off the dole.

Mr. Bartley

The direct action taken by the Minister I have mentioned was responsible for throwing men on the dole. If Deputy O'Leary does not like to hear that, he ought to have the decency to remain silent about it.

Mr. O'Leary

You had cut them off the dole.

Mr. Bartley

That, surely, is no advantage to the people who have lost the entire of their weekly pay packets. I suggest that this particular amendment which has been moved by Deputy Lemass ought to be accepted by the Minister if only for the fact that it will enable him to get the extra money to keep these people in employment. What better authority can we have for making that request than the speech which was made by the Taoiseach and which was read to the House by Deputy Lemass.

Mr. Sweetman

Is the Deputy referring to Renmore?

Mr. Bartley

Yes.

Mr. Sweetman

Do you know what has happened there?

Mr. Coogan

The men were out for only two days, due to the fact that the engineers were resiting the foundations, and they are now all back. I still have an interest in Galway City where you got your answer.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 75.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Burke, Patrick J.
• Butler, Bernard.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carter, Frank.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Colley, Harry.
• Collins, James J.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Cotter, Edward.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Michael J.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• de Valera, Eamon.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Fanning, John.
• Flanagan, Seán.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gogan, Richard.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Kelly, Edward.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Lahiffe, Robert.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Lynch, Celia.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• McGrath, Patrick.
• Maher, Peadar.
• Moher, John W
• Mooney, Patrick.
• Moran, Michael.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Malley, Donough.
• Ormonde, John.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Walsh, Thomas.

Níl

• Barry, Anthony.
• Barry, Richard.
• Beirne, John.
• Belton, Jack.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Burke, James J.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Carew, John.
• Casey, Seán.
• Coburn, George.
• Collins, Seán.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Declan.
• Costello, John A.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Crowe, Patrick.
• Davin, William.
• Deering, Mark.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Dunne, Seán.
• Esmonde, Anthony C.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finlay, Thomas A.
• Finucane, Patrick.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Glynn, Brendan, M.
• Hession, James M.
• Hughes, Joseph.
• Kenny, Henry.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, Denis.
• Larkin, James.
• Leary, Johnny.
• Lindsay, Patrick J.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• MacBride, Seán.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Madden, David J.
• Manley, Timothy.
• Morrissey, Dan.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Murphy, William.
• Norton, William.
• O'Carroll, Maureen.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Donovan, John.
• O'Hara, Thomas.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Denis J.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Pattison, James P.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Roddy, Joseph.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Sheldon, William A.W.
• Spring, Dan.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Tully, John.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Hilliard; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Spring.

Amendment declared lost.

An Ceann Comhairle

That decision governs amendment No. 10.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.40 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 1st July, 1954.