Committee on Finance. - Financial Resolution No. 5—General (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (15th Dáil) – Thursday, 5 May 1955

Mr. Lemass

It may not be generally appreciated by members of the Dáil and the public who are to-day discussing the Budget that when the Government came to prepare it they had before them an Estimate—prepared, I presume, by the Revenue Commissioners—that the revenue from existing taxes in this year would exceed the revenue last year by £3,000,000. That was a very happy position for any Government to be in. They could face the problems of preparing the Budget knowing that, without action on their part—without any alteration or adjustment of any tax rate—they could count upon getting £3,000,000 more tax revenue than in the previous year. I think that is the most significant and perhaps the most important fact in relation to the Budget.

The Budget of 1954, which was introduced by Deputy MacEntee as Minister for Finance in the Fianna Fáil Government, would have balanced upon the basis on which he presented it. The tax revenue in 1954 would have been sufficient to cover, with a small surplus, all the Government expenditure arising in that year chargeable against taxation. If the present Government had succeeded in keeping down Government expenditure to the level at which it was last year, they would have £3,000,000 available to distribute in tax reductions. It required no greater effort from them than the restriction of Government expenditure to last year's level to put themselves in the position in which they could give substantial tax reliefs and make a show of redeeming their election promises.

The pledges given on behalf of the Government as to its intentions after it was formed—certainly the pledges given by the representatives of the various Parties comprising the Government during the general election were not limited to keeping expenditure down to the 1954 level. If they had gone to the electorate in the general election and said it would be the aim of a new Coalition Government to prevent expenditure from rising beyond the level to which Fianna Fáil had brought it, do they think they would have received an enthusiastic reception from the public? What kind of support do they think they would have got in respect of a programme limited to that promise? They knew that and so they went before the public with a different type of programme. They said they would reduce expenditure below the 1954 level.

Various spokesmen of the different Coalition Parties gave various estimates as to what reductions were possible. The Taoiseach is on record as saying, as far back as 1952, that in his view a reduction of £10,000,000 on the expenditure of that year was feasible. They sent Deputy McGilligan down to Radio Éireann to broadcast on behalf of the Fine Gael Party—I believe that is what happened even though Deputy McGilligan has denied it since and has said he went on his own responsibility with a speech of which his colleagues knew nothing—to say that a reduction amounting to several million pounds could be achieved without much effort, that the Fine Gael leaders were convinced that a Minister for Finance who was serious in a search for economies could reduce the level of Government expenditure by no less than £20,000,000. One would have thought that a Party that went to the electorate with these pledges on their lips and which got support from the electorate on the basis of these pledges, and found themselves a Government, would have made some effort to redeem them or at least some effort to prevent expenditure from rising beyond the limit that they said was excessive. They did not succeed. If they had succeeded, if they had done no more during their ten months in office than hold the level of Government spending to what it was when they took office, the taxpayers of this country could be enjoying reduced income tax and reduced taxes on beer, spirits and tobacco—reduced tax levies to the extent of £3,000,000.

I do not remember any occasion when I was a member of the Government on which the Minister for Finance was able to come to a Cabinet meeting and say: "I have here an estimate from the Revenue Commissioners that shows that, without alteration in tax rates, we will have £3,000,000 with which to give relief in the coming year." The present Minister for Finance and his colleagues were in that happy position. The main issue that has to be debated here to-day is what happened that £3,000,000.

We know that when the members of the Government were private Deputies, speaking in this House and throughout the country, they considered that the taxes in force upon beer, spirits, tobacco, petrol and the level of income-tax established by the Budget of 1952 were excessive. The present Taoiseach, or Deputy J.A. Costello as he was at the time, who was the spokesman of the Opposition Parties, said in this House, as reported in Volume 131 of the Official Report: "I would resign the next minute rather than proceed with any single provision of the present Budget." That reference was to the taxes on beer, spirits, tobacco, petrol and the rate of income-tax established by the 1952 Budget. The Taoiseach had the opportunity of resigning when his Minister for Finance brought to the Cabinet meeting the proposal to leave those taxes unchanged this year. He has the opportunity of resigning now. Alternatively, he has to explain why he is not doing so, how it is that the first Budget that he and his Minister for Finance are bringing to the Dáil is leaving unchanged these taxes upon beer, spirits, tobacco and petrol and the level of income-tax to which he took such exception in 1952.

The Labour Party fought the election on the same issue. They issued a handbill for universal distribution to voters. They said in that handbill anent these charges established by the Budget of 1952 that "Fianna Fáil deliberately increased these taxes at the behest of the Central Bank". At whose behest are they keeping them unchanged now? Was it the Central Bank that told them that they would have to go into the Division Lobby within a day or two to vote to leave these taxes unchanged, or is it the Fine Gael Whips who will make them do so?

What influence is at work to make Deputies opposite so completely reverse the views they held only a few months ago? A few months ago these taxes were unnecessary, these taxes were a brutal imposition on the public, according to Deputy McGilligan. These taxes were so unjustified that Deputy Costello would resign the next minute rather than propose them to the Dáil. These taxes, according to the Labour Party, were imposed, not because the Government wanted them, not because the situation of the Irish people required them but at the behest of the Central Bank. Why are they being left now unchanged? Somebody has to answer that question before this debate is over or else these Cabinet Ministers in the present Government and the Deputies sitting behind them have to stand up here and say that the words they used last year were worthless, that the pledges they gave were not worth the paper on which they were printed.

The impression which they will leave upon the public, if they do not give a thorough and full explanation of their change of attitude is that these pledges and promises were made solely to get into office by any means and now that they are in office they do not intend to honour any of them.

For myself, I would far rather be sitting over here with my personal honour unsullied than to sit now in the Government Bench with all those unredeemed promises hanging over my head.

Mr. Kyne

The people made you sit over there and they will keep you there too.

Mr. Lemass

As the Deputy said, that is justification enough for his promises and pledges in his view.

Mr. A. Barry

The people were good judges.

Mr. Lemass

Let us start the debate on this Budget by putting upon the record that the level of Government expenditure this year as estimated by the Minister for Finance will once again be an all-time record, that an increase of £4,000,000 in the bill presented to the taxpayers in a period of ten months is no mean achievement for a Government that was going to reduce expenditure by £10,000,000 in ten minutes, according to Deputy Costello, and by £20,000,000 without any effort, according to Deputy McGilligan.

The Taoiseach

Try to be accurate. I never said anything of the sort.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

He said Deputy McGilligan. It is all the same.

Mr. Lemass

It was not Deputy McGilligan. The present Taoiseach, according to a Press report, at a public meeting in Ballina used those words.

Deputy McGilligan spoke at a meeting in Drogheda on 22nd February and said: "We say, as we said in 1947, that prices are too high and we say we can cut them down." There is a multitude of these quotations which I can deliver at length to the House if necessary. I am merely endeavouring at the moment to establish the universality of these pledges. They were not confined to the Labour Party or the Fine Gael Party or the Clann na Talmhan Party. Each of these Parties gave a specific pledge to cut down the cost of living.

The Labour Party published an advertisement which appeared in all the national newspapers and presumably was read by everybody who buys a newspaper. "The Labour Party is pledged to reduce the cost of living." Deputy Norton as he was then—the Tánaiste at the moment and leader of the Labour Party—said that if the Labour Party participated in an inter-Party Government it would be a guarantee to the people that the policy of that Government would be always directed towards a reduction in prices. Deputy Davin, another prominent member of the Labour Party and now Parliamentary Secretary, said at a meeting in Mountmellick: "I am prepared to pledge myself to the people of this constituency, if re-elected as I hope to be, to use my voice and my vote"—mark that, "my vote"—"in the Dáil and whatever influence I have in order to force the new Government to give first consideration to the reduction of food taxes and to bring prices of essential commodities back to the figure, or as near as possible to the figure, at which they stood prior to the passage of the brutal Budget of 1952."

May I remind members of the Labour Party of Deputy Dunne's pledge. He has been in the past, and may be in the future, an embarrassment to them. "Before Labour would participate in a Government," said Deputy Dunne one evening at Navan, "with any Party or group 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". Deputy Dunne also said that unless they got agreement on that point they would not take part in the formation of any Government. These are the things they all said. Every Deputy opposite owes his seat over there to his going round his constituency saying things like that to the public. This is the testing time. It is in this Budget if at all any effort is to be made to give effect to these pledges. These are the pledges and I can give you more of them if you like but I think it is hardly necessary to do so.

I feel sure there are very few Deputies opposite who would have the hardihood of the Minister for Defence to stand up and say that if these things appeared in the newspapers over their names they nevertheless were not said. It is only the Minister for Defence who would say that; most other Deputies would admit that the reports in the newspapers were correct and that very often they were reports supplied by themselves and published with reasonable accuracy. Since things were said the cost of living, according to the Consumer Price Index, has gone up by two points.

The Minister for Finance in his Budget statement issued a warning that the cost of living is going up further. The clear indications of his statement was that a further rise in prices is to be expected and he seemed to be urging upon the representatives of organised labour that they should exercise restraint, that they should not lend themselves to support claims for higher wages because they might endanger the national economy and place some workers entirely out of employment. That is the prospect now offered by people who a year ago pledged themselves to bring back the price level of essential commodities as near as possible to that obtaining in 1952 and who said that there was no difficulty in doing that—that it was only the opposition of Fianna Fáil that was preventing their being brought down. And what is there in this Budget relating to prices?

Mr. Sweetman

£2,000,000.

Mr. McGilligan

£4,500,000.

Mr. Lemass

I intend to make a special reference here to a statement made by Deputy Kyne. He spoke here as chairman of the Labour Party. He is a member of this House for whom I have a great respect. I believe he is an honest man, but a man who knows that he is caught in the maze of Coalition intrigue and who is trying to escape out of the maze if he can find the way.

Mr. McGilligan

He is not here or he would blush.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy put his eye on other people before and where are they now? Where is Dr. Browne and where is Mr. Cogan now? Beware of that evil eye.

Mr. Lemass

I assume that when Deputy Kyne was speaking he was doing so on behalf of the present Tánaiste. If not, that fact should have been made clear.

Mr. Norton

Do not bury him in the same cemetery as you buried the other people.

Mr. Lemass

I am not going to bury anybody. I have come to praise Deputy Kyne. On the Estimate for Industry and Commerce prior to the change of Government, Deputy Kyne on November 3rd, 1953, as reported in Volume 142, columns 1172 and 1173 of the Official Report said this:—

"I was one who on behalf of my Party, a year ago gave a promise that we would not associate with any Party to form a Government unless we got an assurance that the food subsidies as they then were would be restored in full. Because of certain statements that have been made and because of the passage of time, I think it is desirable to repeat in the name of my Party that our promise still holds good. We will not associate with or be a party to a Government that does not restore the subsidies or the value of the subsidies to the standard that was there in the time of the inter-Party Government."

The significance of that statement and of that pledge given in the House on behalf of the Labour Party by its chairman is that it has not been repudiated until now. Only a few weeks ago in this House on the debate on the Supplies and Services Bill as reported at column 714 of Volume 148, No. 5 of the Official Report, Mr. Kyne reminded us of that promise and he said:—

"I know exactly the promises that were made. I was the instrument of the Party here in relation to certain essential promises. I remember quite well what was said; we would not take part in any Government and neither would we support a Government which would not undertake to bring down the prices of essential commodities to the level of the 1952 Budget. We will not fall down on that promise. That promise was firmly made. We have indicated that should subsidies be required they would be made available."

That was taken, no doubt, by many members of the Labour Party and by many supporters of the Party as a statment of the intention of that Party to ensure that there would be a further reduction, even if only a token reduction, in the cost of living by means of the application of additional subsidies after the Budget. I do not know if Deputies are aware that this Budget provides for a substantial reduction in subsidies. In fact, the total amount provided in this year for food price subsidies of all kinds—bread, flour and butter—only exceeds by comparatively a trivial amount the sum provided last year for food price subsidies. Last year we estimated the cost of flour and bread subsidies to be, roughly, £7,750,000. It proved in effect to be £8,000,000; it took £8,000,000 last year to keep flour and bread prices at their present levels by subsidy. Over and above that there was provided last year approximately £250,000 sterling to stabilise the price of butter. That was not a price subsidy in the full sense of the term but a sum provided to meet the cost of storing butter in the summer so that there would be no increase in the price in the winter time. It was a price subsidy to that extent.

This year the Government has estimated that the cost of flour and bread subsidy will be £1,000,000 less than it was last year, £7,000,000, to be precise. They are proposing to cut it by a further £450,000 by the device to which the Minister for Finance referred yesterday and adding to that the full cost in this year of the butter subsidy we find that the total provision for subsidies of all kinds is much the same, a trifle more but not very much more, than it was last year.

Will the Deputy stop interrupting?

Mr. de Valera

What did Deputy de Valera say?

Mr. Blaney

Make it £2 a week like you promised.

There are confectionery firms which embarked with Government approval and encouragement upon an effort to establish export markets for confectionery and while there was some falling off in export business in recent times, the value of our exports of these goods in the last year amounted nevertheless to £700,000. That is a substantial item in our shipping statistics. That trade will be killed unless the Government intends that there is going to be a further division between those who use flour for confectionery purposes, distinguishing those who are doing export trade from those who are not—in which case they will be open to the allegation that while they are subsidising confectionery for the foreigner they are not subsidising it for the home consumer. You cannot make distinctions of that kind.

I am aware of three firms, two in Dublin and one in Cork, which entered into substantial capital investment in the expectation that they could open up markets for Irish confectionery throughout the world and I have seen the products of these firms on sale in Canada and New York. It is certain that if they have to buy their flour at what is the Irish economic price, they are out of that business permanently; because the Irish economic price is higher than the world price and they cannot have their raw materials at the world prices. As it is, they are at a disadvantage in the British market with their competitors, who have the advantage of what is equivalent to a subsidised price for sugar. If they have now to pay a higher price for flour as well as a higher price for sugar than their competitors in the world market, that trade is gone. I appeal to the Government not to allow the Minister for Finance to follow along this line if it is going to mean the disappearance of that trade, which has built up possibilities of permanent growth. The workers employed in it can no doubt find alternative work in England, but if the trade is lost now it will never be recovered.

The Minister for Finance said:—

"For several years prior to the abolition of rationing in 1952 the principle operated was that subsidy should, broadly speaking, be reserved for flour used in the baking of bread. Subsidised flour was not made available for industrial uses such as the making of cakes, confectionery and biscuits. On the dismantling of controls, however, a subsidised flour became available without restriction for luxury and less essential commodities. It is now intended to revert in some respects to the earlier situation and to arrange that the subsidy will be reserved as far as practicable, for bread, for flour, for home baking and for essential foods like sausages. A suitable scheme is being prepared by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who will announce the details at an early date. It will effect a saving this year in flour subsidy payments of the order of £450,000."

Subsidised flour is not going to be available for the manufacture of confectionery, for tarts, or slab cake, or biscuits, or any of these things. If that is so, that trade which was built up, and maintained against a number of disadvantages, by reason of the fact that flour of that price was available for it, must end.

Mr. Norton

Of course it will not end.

Mr. Aiken

Let us turn now to the main aspect of this Budget. The Budget is or should be something more than an exercise in accountancy. It is one of the principal instruments available to the Government to direct economic developments in the direction they want them to go. I do not know if there is agreement amongst all the Parties in this House as to what our economic and social aims should be, but there is no doubt in my mind as to what we should strive to achieve. It is to build here an economy that will be capable of providing full employment for all our citizens who are dependent on work for their livelihoods and to keep that economy expanding at a rate which will enable that situation to be maintained, with a rising population and a rising standard of living. We have not achieved that aim yet, though we have made some progress towards it—insufficient progress, in my view—and the test of every measure proposed here by every Government, the test of every Budget statement, is whether it offers a contribution to the realisation of that aim or not.

The main reason why we have not yet been successful in bringing about that expanding economy capable of giving full employment to all our people and checking emigration is that we have not yet brought the annual level of new investment high enough to ensure it. The British Economic Survey published some weeks ago attributes the present strength of the British economy, its full employment and its Budget surpluses, to the maintenance of a high level of new investment in manufacturing industry. That is what we have to achieve if we are to bring about similar circumstances here.

The Minister for Finance in his Budget statement said that full economic development cannot be achieved by investment in the public sector only. Productive investment in the private sector, he added, is indeed a prime necessity, if our resouces in men and material are to be fully and effectively employed. That is a sentiment and a view from which I do not dissent, but try to relate it to the provisions of the Budget and try to establish any possible connection between that view of the Minister for Finance and the actual proposals which he submitted to the House. In what way can it be alleged that these proposals will operate to induce a high level of investment on private account? There is nothing in the Budget and no suggestion of an idea in the mind of the Government or any member of the Government calculated to make for the realisation of that situation. The failure to recognise it, the failure to make any provision in the Budget which could be regarded as a contribution to the realisation of that aim, will itself have a depressing and discouraging effect.

The rural electrification scheme was a Fianna Fáil scheme which I know all about.

Mr. McGilligan

It was about ten years late.

Mr. Lemass

The scheme was based upon a recognition of the fact that if the E.S.B. was to recover in its charges the cost of erecting a rural electrification network, as well as the cost of supplying current, the charges which the individual consumers would have to pay would be so high that few of them would take connection. Consequently, it appeared that there was no prospect of a rural electrification scheme in this country because no matter how economical the E.S.B. worked, no matter how it cut down the cost of erecting the network, it, nevertheless, was obvious that if the E.S.B. was to get back the 12 per cent. upon the capital cost which the financial experts said was necessary they would have to charge for current more than the rural consumers were likely to pay and, consequently, we could not get the 70 per cent. connection on which the economy of the scheme was based.

It was in that situation the Government said: "We will make a rural electrification scheme possible by contributing half of the capital cost of erecting the net work as a free grant from the Exchequer" to take the money out of taxation and to pay it to the E.S.B. to enable them to sell current under the rural electrification scheme at the board's old rule tariff rate, a rate which rural consumers were willing to pay and on the basis of which the rural electrification scheme went ahead. You are withdrawing that subsidy. Is not that so? The subsidy is withdrawn and the initial objection to the whole scheme now becomes alive again. It was the cost of erecting the net work without subsidy which involved a charge on rural consumers that they could not bear.

Mr. McGilligan

Does the Deputy say there will be any increase in prices?

It would take a long talk.

Mr. Lemass

Poor and all as the Budget statement was it was made a great deal poorer by the Minister's reference to possible benefits to come. I would have thought that he would have sense enough to realise how false that note would ring. I do not know how long the members of the Fine Gael organisation will follow that carrot or how long it will be until the members of the Labour Party turn up their noses at it. I would ask them to give up this business of dangling a carrot in front of their supporters' noses. They are only saying that in order to continue to hold on for a little longer to the support they got by false pretences in the recent election. It would have been far more decent of the Minister for Finance if he had come and said that that was the best he could do and leave it at that. Let them not hold this dusty and mouldy carrot in front of the noses of their supporters who are already beginning to resent it.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Norton)

We have listened to a very brief and brazen effort by the Fianna Fáil Party to conceal their discomfort at the character of this Budget. Deputy Lemass, the chief apologist for the Fianna Fáil Party, who can usually put a face on the most mouldy of cases, was especially concerned by thunder and fury this evening to try and cheer up the drooping spirits of the back bench members.

Mr. Killilea

Look at the Labour faces.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. Lemass

They are entitled to talk without interruption, of course.

Mr. Norton

I would like to congratulate Deputy Lemass on one thing —no doubt, privately, Deputy Killilea will also congratulate him—and that is on the decision that the Opposition do not want a general election at present.

Mr. Lemass

Try talking us into it.

Mr. Killilea

If that is the case, give us the opportunity.

Mr. Norton

As far as I am concerned, this will be a peaceful discussion.

This budget will be the subject of discussion for the next couple of weeks. I have no doubt that, no matter what kind of Budget we introduced, Deputy Lemass would have made the same kind of case. In fact, without knowing what was in the Budget at all, Deputy MacEntee, who must of course reassert his right to be the chief filibusterer of the Fianna Fáil Party, blustered in here yesterday evening with a speech which he had written before he heard the Budget at all; he got up here and delivered himself of views which purported to be his views on the Budget, although he had written he speech the day before. That is all right for Deputy Killilea. That is all right for anybody who is well-seasoned in irresponsibility. But one expects something better from a former Minister for Finance; one does not expect that he would write out his speech the day before, bring it in the next day and insist on making it, even though it bore no relation to the realities of the Budget.

Somebody ought to tell Deputy MacEntee to grow up politically. I know it is a pretty tough assignment to give to anybody but, if it is not done, Deputy MacEntee will leave public life, having been the Peter Pan of the Fianna Fáil Party all his life; and my personal regard, as distinct from my political distaste, for Deputy MacEntee compels me to make that appeal now to some of his colleagues on the Fianna Fáil benches.

In any case we can bring someone who is not on this side or that side of the House into this discussion, and see what he thinks of the Budget. Nobody will accuse me if I quote the Evening Press on this Budget. Last evening's issue of the Evening Press carried an article which is headed: “This is what they hope for in the Budget.” The Evening Press sent out some representatives to gather up a few folk and find out how they thought this Budget should be drawn. One reporter descended upon No. 71 Wellington Road in Deputy MacEntee's constituency and he there interviewed a person who is described by the Evening Press as “Mr. Average Married”. Mr. Average Married was asked:—

"What do you think this Budget should do?"

Here is what Deputy MacEntee's constituent says, representing his views of what this Budget should be; remember, this was before the Budget was introduced. Mr. Average Married said:—

"I would like the £85 allowance free for each child to be increased to £100. The round figure will be much better... and would save some married men like myself from paying income tax at all. And another important aspect is old age pensions. These old people deserve more money. Finally, I think revenue should come from more indirect taxation such as purchase tax on luxury goods."

Who will pay it?

Mr. Norton

Mr. Norton

We never promised to do it in 11 months. We put down a 12-point programme and as long as this Government lasts it will strive day in and day out to achieve that programme and before I conclude, I think I shall be able to prove it—not to prejudiced minds like that of Deputy Lemass nor do I propose to penetrate the iron wall of Deputy Killilea's mind. I hope to be able to convince the people that in the past 11 months we have kept on the road of reality and are endeavouring to do the things which we promised the people we would do for them.

Deputy Lemass talked as if he had discovered some nigger of wage restraint in the speech of the Minister for Finance. Deputy Lemass is good on wage restraints. So is his leader. Let us have a quotation from both of them. In the Dáil Debates of the 16th October, 1947, after six years of wage freezing, during which the workers' wages were nailed almost to the ground while prices were allowed to rise and when they were struggling to get back a portion of their 1939 standard of living, Deputy Lemass delivered himself in these terms in this House, reported at column 558 of the 16th October, 1947. He said:—

"I want, however, to make it clear that the Government regard it as an essential safeguard to the interests of the general community at the present time that some check upon the upward movement of wages should operate."

Mr. Corish

Fianna Fáil gave it to the cigarette manufacturers.

Mr. Norton

Having declared that bread is an important item of diet, Deputy Lemass endeavoured to shed tears here to-day for those who have to pay the present price for bread. They are paying the present price for bread because the Deputy discovered what he said to-day three years too late. If he had expressed these views to the Government in 1952 he might have prevented the savage slashing of the subsidy on flour. Deputy Lemass was a consenting party to pushing the 2-lb. loaf up from 6d. to 9d.—and then, three years afterwards, he tells us that bread is an important article in the diet of the ordinary people and that we should give it to them at as cheap a rate as possible.

To vote against the Fianna Fáil Party is not established either ethically or morally to be wrong. That is not a reserved sin yet—much as Deputy de Valera might like to make it one. Last year shows that the real improvement came after the Fianna Fáil Government left office. The most notable achievement in that respect was in the last quarter of 1954. In the first nine months our balance of trade was £5,000,000 worse than 1953, but in the last quarter there was an improvement of £8.7 million—and the year ended almost £4,000,000 better than the year 1953. Our balance of payments deficit last year was better than in any year since 1946 and it would have been better than 1946 were it not for the fact that there was an artificial balance that year due to the scarcity of supplies. Therefore, taking last year with any year from 1946, our balance of payments position was better. Is that not an indication that we can look forward in 1955 at least to a continuance of last year's situation if not, indeed, to an improvement?

Look at the employment situation. We are running now with an unemployment figure which is 7,000 lower than it was this time last year. I think that would probably be better were it not for the dislocation caused by the recent building strike. However, we are running 7,000 lower than this time last year. Our employment figure— that is, the number of people employed in the manufacturing industries—has exceeded 150,000 for the first time since 1922. So that we have not only a new high record in employment, but we have a new low record in unemployment and these are two features which have came about since June of last year.

Mr. Lemass

What did you do about that? What precise thing did you do?

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Not a thing in the world.

Mr. Donnellan

We kept you out.

Mr. Lemass

Because there was a £3,000,000 surplus.

Mr. Norton

Mr. Corish

We are not crippled now and we have given the old age pensioners a half-crown.

Mr. de Valera

Do not take things out of their context. We have done more for social services than some of you people ever thought of.

It will be in September lower than it would be if you were in office.

Mr. Carter

We have got it now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. Corry

Leave him alone. He is only playing for the 30th June.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

These interruptions must cease. The Tánaiste is in possession and should be allowed to make his speech without interruption.

Mr. Carter

He has a number of red herrings.

Mr. Corry

Let the bombast carry on.

Mr. Norton

Let us move off tea, if it is such an unpalatable beverage for the Fianna Fáil Party. Is it appreciated that if Fianna Fáil were in office the people would be paying 3/- a lb. more for tea than they are to-day? Will you deny that fact ?

Mr. de Valera

You do not know; neither do I.

Mr. Norton

I will move on to butter. Maybe that is a better wicket for you. We reduced the price by 5d. a lb. as an earnest of our intention to reduce the cost of living. We brought butter down to 3/9 after Fianna Fáil had forced it up to 4/2. I ask Deputy de Valera this: if the Fianna Fáil Party had been returned last year, would they have reduced the price of butter? It could only be done by subsidising it. Fianna Fáil, having abolished the subsidy on butter in 1952, is anyone so soft-headed as to believe that they they would have restored any portion of it in 1954? Of course they would not. I assert here again that if Fianna Fáil were in office to-day the people would be paying 5d. per lb. more for butter.

Take these two items alone. Thanks to the Fianna Fáil Party sitting over there ornamenting those benches, the people now are getting tea at 3/- a lb. less and they are buying butter at 5d. a lb. less. Apart from those two isolated instances, there is a general feeling of buoyancy, a general feeling of progress and of hope, a feeling of solid achievements on every side—all clear evidence of the consequences of the Fianna Fáil Party having taken their departure from office.

Mr. Mooney

What was the price of milk in the creamery in 1951? A 1/- a gallon.

Mr. Norton

Let me cost this Budget in another way. These improvements which have been given in the Budget cost money. The money has got to be found. We have found the money to do it and found it without imposing any additional taxes that would in any way impact on the national economy. For example, the butter subsidy this year is costing £2,000,000 and everyone who misguidedly voted for Fianna Fáil in the last election can sit down now feeling satisfied that, thanks to the inter-Party Government, the Fianna Fáil supporters can put butter on their bread, now that Fianna Fáil are not in office.

Mr. Norton

We have increased the services and provided improved benefits for upwards of 200,000 people. We are providing nearly £1,000,000 more for social services this year than was provided by the Fianna Fáil Government. We are providing tax free allowances under the income-tax allowances for children, which will bring relief this year to 27,000 families at a cost of £100,000 this year—more next year. The additional cost, borne in our Budget this year, to provide for the reliefs granted last year amounts to an additional £600,000. In this Budget the reliefs and improvements will cost us £4,350,000 this year. When you remember, too, that we are not getting this year £1,000,000 from C.I.E., as Fianna Fáil had at its service last year, that we had to provide also for a deficit of £500,000 in Deputy MacEntee's incorrect over-estimation in last year and that we had to provide for a net increase of £1,000,000 in the Central Fund, I think we can reasonably claim that, especially in the short time we are in office, we have done a very good job with the resources at our disposal.

This Government, because of its stability, because the people know its policy, because the people know it can be trusted, is able to borrow money at a lower rate of interest than that at which the Fianna Fáil Government was able to borrow it in 1952 and 1953. We have increased industrial development. In the last nine months, 82 new industrial enterprises or extensions to existing enterprises have been commenced. There are, before the Department of Industry and Commerce, about 240 approaches for the establishment of industrial enterprises, many of which will fructify into new industries, or extensions to existing industries in the years to come. We have, before the Dáil, an Industrial Relations Bill which, for the first time, will give road workers and associated workers entrance to the Labour Court for the adjudication of their difficulties, something which has always been denied them by the Fianna Fáil Government. On top of that, we have this, the first instalment of improved social services.

That is a creditable record for a new Government 11 months in office. By sound and courageous government, responsive to the people's will, and anxious to serve their needs, I hope that the Minister for Finance and myself will be able to do better next year, and still better in the long number of years on which we will occupy these benches. Somebody once said that we could do the impossible in a short time, but miracles take a little longer. That is what we have done in the last 11 months.

Mr. J. Lynch

I did not envy An Tánaiste his job, as the parliamentary leader of the Labour Party, and as titular head of those who voted Labour throughout the country, trying to defend what has been pretty adequately described by Deputy Lemass as "a Sweet Fanny Adam Budget". Deputy Norton and members of his Party may be able to specify certain little reliefs in this Budget, some measure of social service benefit increases, but the public will not forget how he and his Party so fluently and lavishly promised substantial decreases in the cost of living. Deputy Norton said in his own constituency, using his own words, that even if he had to resort again to subsidisation he would do so. That has been done, to the extent of the 5d. a pound for butter. That was very early in the life of the present Government, but beyond that and beyond the token of holding tea prices not one effort has been made by this Government to hold, much less reduce, the cost of living.

It is little wonder that Deputy Norton should have resorted to the degree of levity he did and to a certain amount of personal jibing at the Leader of the Opposition in order to get over his case, jibing which, of course, got the applause of those sitting behind him, half-hearted laughter, just as the Minister for Finance yesterday got watery applause and cheers from the cheer boys behind him for the puny reliefs he gave in the present Budget. The only relief, I think, felt in this House yesterday was definitely amongst the Labour Party members when the Minister for Finance sat down at about 20 minutes past five, to relieve them of their embarrassment at not hearing fulfilled what they had promised to their supporters. The same goes for many of the Fine Gael Party members. It is little wonder, having regard to the promises that were made in this House, on the authority of no less a person than the Taoiseach, and even the present Attorney General, that taxation could be so substantially reduced as was promised.

In case there is still some doubt as to the figures given—and I heard even the Taoiseach and the Attorney-General challenging some of Deputy Lemass's figures and some of the statements purported to be made by the Taoiseach—I would again remind them that during the course of the debate on the brutal Budget—so described by Deputy McGilligan—of 1952, the first thing he said was that he would repeal every one of the items of taxation as imposed in that Budget if he was sitting on the side of the House on which he now is. He said that in column 1439, Volume 131 of the Official Debates. Lower down he said, in column 1442:—

"I would resign the next minute, rather than proceed with any single provision in the present Budget."

He proceeded with every provision of it, as it was implemented in 1954; he possibly had little choice in the matter, as the Budget was already in operation when he took office. But he has had practically a full year to examine whether his promise to resign was well founded and if he realised that the brutal Budget was unnecessary, then every item of the taxations imposed was unnecessary and he has had ample opportunity to implement the promise that he would resign rather than proceed with any of the provisions of that Budget. I am sure he has no intention whatever of resigning.

It is a pity that Deputy Dunne has left the House, because he was not here when Deputy Lemass was reminding him of some of the statements he made as to what the Labour Party said on the cost of living.

I come now to another important personage in the Government, who was not mentioned by Deputy Lemass, that is, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. I take it that by virtue of his title and of the position he holds in his own Party, he is a man of some degree of importance, who has some influence with the Government. He said in the same volume, column 639:—

"The question was that if there was a change of Government would the same taxes be left on or what would be done."

He congratulated Deputy McQuillan, who was the Deputy who raised that question. In the next column he said:—

"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 is a question which the people of the country will be asking members of the Government Parties during the next few weeks: What has become of that £10,000,000 and, in fact, what has become of Deputy McGilligan's £20,000,000? The Minister in column 264, endorsing Deputy Costello's appraisal of that Budget, said:—

An Ceann Comhairle

There has been continual interruption of Deputy Lynch. Deputy Lynch must be allowed to make his speech without interruption. He is entitled to that and so is every other Deputy.

Mr. Moran

The Attorney-General cannot take it.

Mr. McGilligan

I thought the Deputy wanted an argument.

Mr. J. Lynch

I was making a statement. Since Deputy McGilligan came into the House at 3.30 p.m. he has been trying to engage every speaker— there were only two—from this side of the House in argument in order to put them off their line in regard to a watery Budget.

Mr. McGilligan

I thought it was to bring the Deputy down to facts.

Mr. J. Lynch

The Tánaiste saw fit to bring in last evening's Evening Press and quote from it naturally to suit his own case. I do not blame him for that if there is something in it to suit his own case. It was a statement supposed to have been made by Mr. Average Married. When asked what he would like to see in the Budget he said—and I think it showed a reasonable degree of intelligent anticipation —he would like to see the £85 allowance free for each child increased to £100. Deputy Norton, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, contented himself with what Mr. Average Married said, but he did not go down the column and mention what Mrs. Average Married said. It was to Mrs. Average that Deputy McGilligan and the Minister for Industry and Commerce appealed most in the last general election. It was from Mrs. Average they got the most support to enable them to form this new Government.

Tea has not been reduced. There is no reduction.

Mr. J. Lynch

These are statements that Mrs. Average Housewife might well have pinned her faith in. She might well expect some measure of relief and some degree of reduction in this present Budget. The Tánaiste himself, of course, wrote a very polite letter to the traders of his district. This letter, dated the 3rd May, 1954, emanated from Election Headquarters, Railway Hotel, Kildare. It reads as follows:—

"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 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 that 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 the consumers generally. Mise le meas, W. Norton, T.D."

I am sure the Tánaiste will probably send them a copy of the speech he made to-day in which he gave no hope whatever to the traders of Kildare or the publicans and the tobacconists that he was going to reduce the price of tobacco and beer in order to bring back the prosperity in business we were supposed to have before the Budget of 1952. That will be poor recompense not only to the traders of Kildare but to the housewives throughout the country who were quite justified to expect that the drastic reductions that Deputy Dunne so glibly promised would be backed up. Deputy Dunne said that unless there was an immediate reduction, he and the Labour Party would not take part in the Government.

With regard to tea, contrary to what the Tánaiste thinks, we do not find a debate on tea or the commodity itself as unpalatable as he suggests. The Government made a decision to require Tea Importers, Limited, to carry an overdraft until next August or September, which will amount to about £1,250,000, because Sir John Kotewala, and possibly some other personages from tea producing countries, believed the cost of tea would come down in the intervening months. The Minister stated that the Government's decision seemed to be well justified, having regard to newspaper comments and reports from tea plantations and the world demand for tea. The Minister seemed to take all the credit to himself and his Government for that decision.

On the other hand, the Labour Party, either in Party conclave or here in the House, tell us that it was as a result of pressure from the Labour members in the Government that the Government was forced to take that decision in relation to tea. We do not know whom to believe. The Minister gave the impression that it was a unanimous Government decision whereas the Labour Party hold that it was as a result of pressure brought to bear by them on the Government. Beyond referring to Press statements and some other reports the Minister was not prepared to comment any further; he was not prepared to give any indication as to whether the Government is of the opinion that, in fact, the price of tea will have fallen by the time the authorised overdraft of Tea Importers, Limited, falls due. We can only wait in the meantime to see whether or not the Government decision, as forced upon them by the Labour Party, will have been a correct one.

The relief of £15 for each child is of some help in connection with the family man's net yearly income. There are many people who have no families who expected some increase in the personal allowance. Having regard to the fact that more people are being caught up in the income-tax code every year as the result of increased wages surely the Minister could have given some extra relief this year. He referred to the relief, and this was applauded by his supporters, in the tax on tractors bringing milk to creameries. I once made a reference here to the waste of time in taking milk to and from creameries. I was supplied with some figures, though I cannot vouch for their accuracy.

I think, however, they are reasonably accurate and support what the Minister said in that respect. On the 22nd July, 1948, Volume 112 of the Official Report, I said at column 1230:

"In the country we have about 250 main creameries, and about 750 branch creameries, making approximately 1,000 milk receiving depots in all. I do not know whether I am exaggerating, but I think I am being rather conservative in that estimate. I think I would be conservative also in saying that about 50 producers supply milk to each depot every day. That would be approximately 50,000 milk suppliers. Each of these suppliers approximately takes two hours per day to deliver his consignment of milk, totalling about 100,000 man hours per day."

You people would like to forget it.

Mr. Desmond

"This is a bad Budget"—that seems to be the general conclusion of my Cork colleague, Deputy Lynch, in company with his leaders, Deputy Lemass and Deputy MacEntee. If it is a bad Budget, I suppose the only way we can try to form some decision is to make some comparison, not with all the statements of members made either inside or outside this House but with what is actually being done and what has been done.

I noticed that the present Minister for Finance in introducing this Budget said it was a good year. He did not go out of his way to say what Deputy MacEntee, as Minister for Finance, said in introducing his Budget in April, 1954, that the year which had just passed was one of the best years in the history of this country. In this case, in the Budget before us in what has been termed a good year, I notice according to the Minister's statement that unemployment has been relieved to the extent of between 5,000 and 6,000. We can come to that further on, but in Deputy MacEntee's case, in one of the best years in the history of this country the fact remains that in April, 1954, unemployment was higher by no less than 19,000 than the figure of April, 1951.

Furthermore, in this Budget we are now discussing, we are aware of the provision being made in the case of the old age pensioners, the widows and orphans and the blind—an increase of 2/6. Members of Fianna Fáil stated that even this 2/6 is somewhat niggardly but last year in their very good year, they apparently forgot that these old, unfortunate people were in need of an increase. They gave them nothing in the great year they had, and left them, in the case of the old age pensioners, with a maximum of 21/6.

As has been mentioned, there was the question of a reduction in the price of butter but it is also well to draw attention to the fact that the present Government did at least honour its pledge which was something Fianna Fáil forgot to do, which Deputy Walsh as Minister forgot, the pledge to honour the arbitration award. There was many an auxiliary postman down the country, in South Cork and elsewhere, who had reason to be happy a few months back when he got a few pounds, and that, of course, did not come out of the air. It came from the provisions that were made not simply by the implementation of Deputy MacEntee's Budget, but during the operation of the old system here by the present Government during the last nine months.

I cannot understand portion of the speeches in regard to butter. They say it is a subsidy, but Deputy MacEntee came along in his own innocent way last night and pointed out that subsidies mean nothing, that if it is a case of a reduction in price through subsidy the people must pay for it anyway and might as well pay a higher price. If that is so, why then are they abusing us for not giving more subsidies? If they would hold to either line of argument—well and good—but they cannot have it both ways.

I am not going to dwell on other matters affecting the past, but mention was made last year of the wonderful concession given by Fianna Fáil, a farthing in the one-pound loaf of bread or a halfpenny in the two-pound loaf. It is true this was a reduction but we know that the old age pensioners, the unfortunate widows and the blind persons will have much more reason to be happy now when they hear of an increase of 2/6 than they had when they heard from the lips of Deputy MacEntee that they were about to get the two-pound loaf a halfpenny cheaper.

One of the outstanding achievements in the Budget of last year was a reduction of duty on special marriage licences. I do not know whether there were many special marriages but apparently Deputy Walshe's Party considered it was a wonderful achievement in one of the best years in the history of our country. There is no need to remind anyone in this House, nor indeed people outside this House, about the background of the policy not just of last year, but of the introduction of that policy. I believe when we are considering or discussing an important measure such as this Budget we would simply be wasting our own time and the time of the people who are paying us if we continue speaking about the past.

As we heard yesterday evening, Deputy MacEntee seemed to realise that it is a great thing to live in the glories of the past, but I believe it is far more important to face the problems of the present and the future. It is with that view in mind that we would like to relate ourselves to this Budget. After all, a Budget policy is something that will, perhaps in a general way, affect the lives of people from an economic point of view for 12 months. But there is something far more important, something that has been completely avoided by the Fianna Fáil speakers so far. I fail to understand why they were not prepared to talk of the weaknesses or the strong points of this particular matter that is being discussed as a so-called responsible Party. I presume that in the next issue of An Gléas, their famous underground paper, they will have more false articles than they have at the present time. Surely that will not deceive the people. Surely the new organisation that is, apparently, not yet streamlined by Deputy Lemass will have to crack up unless, alone, they are going to come forth now and say they have a policy worth putting forward for examination.

I believe that, in any discussion on budgetary policy, there is one item we cannot lose sight of. There is one item in respect of which this Government as a whole are entitled to take credit. There is one item in respect of which Fianna Fáil, as a Government Party-as a Republican Party, as they always claimed to be—seemed to be most timid about and afraid of handling. I refer to the problem of bank interest. Why did they gloss over it in any discussion here? Deputy Lemass tried to go out of his way to say that he will give credit if he thinks it is due. Why is it that they failed to comment on the fact that, a few months ago—for the first time in the history of this State—an Irish Government were able to say to the banks: "You are not going to do as you have been doing all along and that is to follow in line with the British banks and increase your interest"? Apparently that does not affect Fianna Fáil. Apparently they have reached the stage of imbecility when they are even afraid to say "Boo" when it affects the interests of those people.

When speaking of taxation I presume Deputies on all sides of the House are interested in keeping it down. If we examine all the estimates in relation to a Budget we will find that it is one of the weakest points owing to the enormous amount of money that has to be provided under the system in operation here. If we relate our remarks not alone to central Government, but to local government as well, it is really a case of the few gaining so much at the expense of the many. Fianna Fáil are afraid to tackle that problem. Even in the new streamlined organisation that they are trying to bring into existence, they will not tackle it.

Mr. Briscoe

Is this a criticism of the Fianna Fáil Party or is it a speech on the Budget?

Mr. Desmond

Irrespective of how much it may hurt Deputy Briscoe, we expect the policy of this Government will not be just to try to do something for one year. We want reliefs as we go along, but we want a policy that will give our people the benefits to which we believe they are entitled. We have heard a lot of talk about capital expenditure and we have heard a lot from Deputy MacEntee about the National Development Fund. I am relating my remarks directly to budgetary policy when I say that when we speak of national development we have to admit that the whole thing is a huge joke so far as this underdeveloped country is concerned. We supported Fianna Fáil when they introduced the National Development Fund Act, but we said at the time that it was a mere miserable sop and we say now that the amount provided will not be of any use if it will be devoted in the way Fianna Fáil intended it, that is, as a stop-gap measure to meet a crisis in the terrible unemployment position which existed at that particular period.

Mr. Briscoe

What about the present unemployment position?

Mr. Desmond

We believe that capital expenditure is of such importance that it will affect the history of our country. We believe it will affect the livelihood of many generations to come if we are prepared to play our part in a genuine way.

We have heard a lot of talk from some Deputies about private enterprise and public enterprise. The two can exist one with the other: we realise that. In relating my remarks to some of the points mentioned by the Minister, it might be interesting for some Deputies, who love to interrupt, to examine their political conscience at times and to study the political conscience of many of those connected with them. Then, perhaps, we might know where we stand and, what is more important, we might know where they stand.

In his Budget statement, the Minister used words which are of vital importance to those of us in the Labour Party. Speaking on the subject of capital expenditure and dealing with the amount of money being provided in the Budget, the Minister said:—

"Such optimism is, perhaps, natural but it needs to be moderated by realism if estimates are not to promise achievements beyond what experience shows to be practicable."

I hope that when the financial provisions of this Budget are put into practice we shall not have a repetition of what we have had in each of the last three years, that is, sums of money being provided for certain purposes but not spent. Surely that is not good housekeeping from a national point of view any more than it would not be good housekeeping from the point of view of a family? Surely it is not good that, where the money is provided and all the arrangements are made to do a job, a person should say: "I cannot do the job because I have not various things ready." There should be no excuse for that type of behaviour. We believe that one of the difficulties has always been the provision of the necessary finance. Surely we have enough experts attached to every Department and surely we have enough co-operation between the various State Departments to enable us to ensure that, where moneys are provided for particular purposes—and, in particular, for capital expenditure— there will be no undue delay in putting the various schemes, which are so necessary, into operation.

We realise, in connection with capital expenditure, the importance of ensuring that the money is well spent. We realise the importance of ensuring that the projects for which moneys are provided will, in themselves, give a proper return. It is important to ensure that they are not introduced for political purposes or by a Government at a particular time when it may suit them owing to pending elections.

In relation to the statement of the Minister and to the general outlook for the coming year—and also in relation to what has happened in the past—we can see that no budgetary policy for one 12 months will be of any advantage to us if we proceed with the niggardly policy of day-to-day administration from March to the end of the following April. The Minister stated yesterday in his Budget speech that the Government had under consideration the overall question of capital development. That is one of the fundamental points in relation to our co-operation in a Government and we naturally stand for full speed ahead in that respect.

Deputy MacEntee also mentioned national development. He said it was one of the outstanding achievements in all the years. If we are to review the amount of money provided during the 1930 and 1940 periods we realise that if a little more progress had been made by the people who were then in their prime in political life, instead of crowing now about what other Governments cannot do, we would not be saddled to-day with many of the problems which can be directly related to the accursed evils of unemployment and emigration.

Industry is vital to us but Fianna Fáil must remember and must take responsibility for the fact that many of the industries established in this country, while they have done their utmost to make them succeed and were supported by Labour in their policy, are still continuing to adopt a system which warrants the closest examination by the Minister in relation to the overall picture. Whoever that may affect or whoever may not like it, that is a matter for themselves.

In connection with this Budget, as in the case of all other budgets, the question of exports and imports has been emphasised. When some of us took a particular line last year in connection with exports, our words were suitably twisted and used against us by our political opponents. We realise that, whether we like it or not, in particular where the British markets are concerned for meat and other exports, when we are dealing in an international market we are not in a position to call the tune, even though Deputy Lemass went out of his way to-day to try to say that Deputy Walsh in particular and he himself, when in England last year, did wonderful work.

Prices are suiting us on the British market at the present time but we cannot afford to close our eyes to the home market simply because we are getting advantages on the foreign market at any particular time. The only way to build up the home market is to build up a true policy of industrialisation in both the cities and rural areas. That will automatically mean more employment, more money available and higher consumption of foodstuffs. It is far more important for us to keep a close eye on the possibility of building up the home market while at the same time maintaining our position on tlie foreign market, but not to have all our eggs in one basket, than to continue in the way we are at the present time.

This is the first occasion since 1945 that any Minister in a Budget speech could point to the fact that there was not a decline in the number of people working on the land. Different views may be expressed on that subject. My opinion is that we had reached rock-bottom, that we had reached the stage when the farming community could not continue without the number at present employed in agriculture. If we could say that there will not be a further reduction in the number of persons employed on the land, that would be of advantage to rural Ireland and, directly or indirectly, to the cities and towns.

Our approach to this subject is not or will not be the Fianna Fáil approach —"anything you can do I can do better". We are more interested in trying to put into operation a policy which will benefit the people as a whole irrespective of what Party is in power or of what political affiliations they may have. From the viewpoint of agriculture, if we can build up our home markets and continue the present policy of exporting it will undoubtedly give our people in rural Ireland, the farming community, the farm workers and business people greater hopes for the future than they have had in the past.

In connection with capital expenditure. I noticed the Minister drew attention to the fact that there was a certain saving which was the result of over-estimation of building progress. That should not have to be the case. We are not blaming this Government. It is impossible to blame a Government that has been only nine months in office for the non-building of houses for which plans should have been prepared a couple of years ago.

We know from our experience in local authorities throughout the country that the building programme has been eased from 1951 to 1954 and into 1955. We do not want the policy of the last three years continued as regards house building. It is essential that those people who are in need of houses should get houses at the earliest possible date. While we express our understanding of the explanation of over-estimation in connection with building we do hope that that will not be the case next time and we do hope that with greater co-operation between the various authorities all the money provided under this subhead will be expended for the benefit of the people, even if it meant that we could not balance the Budget without holding back money.

Mr. Briscoe

There may have been a certain love of country among people 30 years ago, but that time is gone and they are not prepared to invest in this country unless the returns are suitable to themselves. That is why we say that the prosperity of this State cannot be tied up with the policy which relates to people or groups who are only prepared to put in for what they can get out of it. This State is too precious for that; the people in it are far more precious than that. I am sorry if what we say does not suit Deputy Briscoe but I am not worried over that. I give Deputy Briscoe credit for the fact that he was a prominent man one time when some of us were only children. At that time the view expressed was that there was no room for certain ascendancy classes. In relation to the present conditions, financial and other, it is quite obvious that a new ascendancy has arisen, a new get-rich-quick section in the community.

The Minister was right in appealing for improvement as regards industry and as regards production as a whole, but there is very little going to be given by some of those people who attend hunt balls or champagne balls with Fianna Fáil. We have no time for them and our co-operation with this Government is on condition that the plain people, the people who are affected by the ordinary budgetary conditions which may be created, will get a fair deal. We are longing for a true policy of capital expenditure to be introduced for those people in whom we are interested, and we will have nothing to do, as we never had, with those whom Deputy Briscoe and his Party may consider to be their friends.

Mr. Carew

In considering this Budget of 1955, a Deputy has to consider his responsibility to the people who sent him into this House, whether he is here as a representative of a constituency only or is in addition an elected representative of a local authority, a person who is a director or has an interest in industry and also an interest, as we must all have, in our home. I think this Budget of 1955 will stand out as a turning point in the history of this country.

Let me go back just a few years. Many quotations have been given here to-day dealing with the past 20 or 30 years since the foundation of the State. From the time this State was established, we will give credit to every Government for any advancement in the life and industry of the nation. However, I feel that we who are elected to come here and serve the interests of the people will have some day, if not in our lifetime at least in history, to answer to our children who may inquire when they read those glorious passages in Irish history from 1916 to 1921.

We are all well aware of the sacrifices made by men who struck a blow for Ireland and as a result gave us native government in 1921. We will be asked then: "How did you use that freedom for which so many fought and died, for which so many suffered, and for which so many as a result of that struggle, are still suffering in this life?" We will have to answer that question, if not, as I say, in our own lifetime, then in the history of this country. As that great and glorious leader of the fight for freedom, General Michael Collins, said: "We will use our freedom for a greater freedom," and that greater freedom is the industrial and agricultural advancement of our people.

I will go back to 1948 when the Party to which I have the honour to belong and which I am so proud to represent in this Parliament, came into office. In 1948 when an inter-Party Government came into power, many queer stories were circulated about Labour and about other Parties joining with Fine Gael and Fine Gael with them. I am proud that I am here in this Parliament as a member of an inter-Party Government associated with the farmers, the workers, with Clann na Poblachta and the others that are supporting this Government.

Let us bring our minds back to what was done in a very short time. In 1948 when an inter-Party Government took over the reins of Government, scarcely had four months passed when the then Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon, and the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Morrissey, went acrass and met their opposite numbers in the British Government. They went over there to get better terms for the Irish farmer, to get better prices for his cattle, prices which would be related to those paid on the English market. At that time there were fluctuations in cattle prices and complaints were made by farmers and by those associated with the cattle trade, about the unfair methods adopted against the cattle industry here by certain interests associated with that trade on the other side.

Deputy Dillon, Minister for Agriculture, as a result of that meeting with his opposite number in the British Government, brought back a signed agreement under which our farmers could obtain for cattle on the English market prices almost equal to and closely related to the English price. That, in itself, was a big achievement that brought contentment and that brought some ray of hope to farmers who were purchasing cattle in the early part of the season and who, because of the previous arrangements, did not know what price they could sell them for at the end of the season in October or November. Under this new agreement the farmer knew that the price he would obtain would be that on the English market. The English market was the only market and never has this Party denied that, although Fianna Fáil told us at one time that the British market was "gone and gone for ever", that the cattle trade of this country built up over 100 years would "thank God" be ended in 100 days or 100 weeks. They made a quotation of that kind at that time and that was their view.

Relate that to the position here to-day. Where would this country be to-day were it not for the cattle trade and the prices the Irish farmer is obtaining for cattle and beef on the English market? Deputy James Dillon, to his credit, brought back that agreement and on it is being built the cattle trade ever since and on that agreement the Irish farmer is, thank God, in the prosperous position he is in to-day.

We had also Deputy Morrissey as Minister for Industry and Commerce who, in that agreement with his opposite number in the British Parliament, obtained from them the right—and the right, mark you—for Irish manufacturers to sell their goods in the British market. That right was being withheld from them since the establishment of this State. As a result of that agreement, many Irish factories to-day have prospered and are still prospering. Without that market their trade and their employment would be in a very sorry position.

When we were in power from 1948 to 1951—the records are there to prove it—for every montrh the inter-Party Government were in power 1,000 additional people went into insurable employment. That is there for anyone who wishes to trace the records of the employed people and it is there to the record of the inter-Party Government. Now, at the end of three years of that Government we had brought this country into a very happy position. As a result of the capital investment policy of the inter-Party Government, the land in this country that was neglected and that Fianna Fáil never seemed to think very much about, was reclaimed. Much money was spent on reclamation, on drainage, on fertilising, so that the farmers would get a greater return from their land. That capital money was put into the land in the interest of the farmers, so that they would get greater production.

That brings me to a point I am well aware of as one interested in industry. If you want to keep your products at a reasonable price, you must have reasonable production. It is on the greater production that you can give the better price. But for the policy of the inter-Party Government and of Deputy Dan Morrissey as Minister for Industry and Commerce, many of the boot factories in this country in 1948-49 would have had to close their doors, as they would not be able to manufacture boots and shoes in competition with the English market. The same applies to agriculture. It is the aim of this Party to put more money into the land, to give the farmers better chances of getting greater production and, as a result of that greater production, greater prosperity.

On all sides of the House we are agreed that we have to stand or fall by the prosperity of our farmers. It is indeed a grand position to be in in this State to-day, coming up to Dublin and going out to our agricultural show here year after year, to see farmers coming in greater numbers, taking a greater interest in the industry to which they belong and on which we also are dependent. That position has been helped by the inter-Party Government and especially. I think all will agree, by Deputy James Dillon, whose father and grandfather fought such a gallant fight for the farmers in years gone by. It is indeed a source of pride to us that we had him there, to win for the farmers a greater freedom than the freedom they enjoyed and that was the freedom to bring their produce into the British market and obtain for it prices closely related to the prices obtained by the English farmers, whose farmers' union in England has a large influence on British Government policy. I think Deputy James Dillon deserves the credit of the nation for what he has done in their interests.

We go from that period to 1952. It is a period that I well remember, as it was in the 1952 by-election in Limerick that I became a member of this House. Reference has been made to election posters that were sent out for that particular election in Limerick, Waterford and Mayo. I remember the election leaflets and I stand by every one of them. The election leaflet put out, asking the people of Limerick to support the inter-Party Government and to support me, by the members of my Party contained facts. It showed on the one hand the prices in 1951 when the inter-Party Government went out of power and also the prices after the Budget of 1952. That is a statement of fact. I am retaining that poster for future elections, as it is to me something on record of something that is true. There you have, side by side, the prices which obtained when we left office and the prices then after 14 or 15 months of Fianna Fáil coming back into office again.

That is being challenged here by people on the opposite benches, who are asking us what we are going to do about prices. I am glad to say this of the 1955 Budget, that I am glad indeed to be a member of this House and that I am going to take it back, please God, to-morrow evening to the people of Limerick. I am not going back to the ballroom proprietors of Limerick who subscribed so generously to Fianna Fáil in their 1952 and 1951 elections, but I am going back to Limerick to the people who are benefiting under this Budget. I am going back to the old age pensioners, the blind pensioners, and the widows and orphans, because in the 1952 elections they had no money to subscribe to Party funds, but on the other hand, they had votes which they readily gave to me to do something in this Parliament, in their interests.

I am glad and proud to be a member of the Fine Gael Party under the leadership of General Mulcahy, under the leadership of Deputy Costello and Deputy Norton. I am glad to be a member of that Party, and as a result of that election, I am going back to Limerick to put it on record that we are bringing back to the pensioners, on the 29th July, increased old age pensions, and increased widows' and orphans' pensions. I am really glad that the Government took that action, because there is no doubt that the aged people are the weakest section of our community. It is only right and fair that, when a Government is considering giving some benefit to sections of the people, they should, in the first instance, consider the people most in need of it. I am very proud to be able to go back now and say that something has been done for that section.

I will refer to another leaflet which went around during my election campaign in 1952. I issued a leaflet showing, truthfully, the prices obtaining when Fianna Fáil left office, when the inter-Party Government left office, and when the Fianna Fáil Party were 18 months in office. What followed on the morning after the declaration of the poll in Limerick? About 60 workers in the C.I.E. depot, whose notices were withheld a week previous to the election, received those notices. That was what Fianna Fáil did for the workers in that depot at Limerick. They withheld the notices, and obtained their votes. I say that was dishonest. The electors of Limerick sent me here to serve their interests. That I have done, to the best of my ability, all these years.

The taxes imposed at that time were imposed on many commodities, many of which were luxuries, but surely one cannot say that the old age pensioners living on £1 a week, could be living in luxury. It could not be said, as it was by the Fianna Fáil Government at that time, that the people were living beyond their means.

That is a question which had to be answered, and it has been answered by this Government, who realise that, as a result of the increased taxes put on those commodities, consideration had to be given to that section of the community, in the first instance. Fianna Fáil gave the old age pensioners an increase of 1/6 in 1952, to meet the increased price of bread, butter, tea and sugar, and those other small commodities which the old age pensioner was able to obtain. We felt that it was our duty to help this section of the community. I know that the people who sent me here are grateful to the Government.

There have been quotations given here to-day about what this one said, and that one said, where they said it, and all the rest of it. I am not going to indulge in this type of argument, but I can tell what was said to some of the canvassers representing me outside the polling booths in Limerick: "If you vote for Fine Gael, the old age pensions will be taken off you." Outside some of the post offices, there were Fianna Fáil agents threatening the people: "If you vote for Fine Gael, you will have your old age pensions reduced." That happened outside the polling booths in Limerick. I could quote other instances.

I am not going to indulge in crossfire with members of the Party opposite; they could as well hit back at me. Certainly, as Deputy Briscoe said here recently, I agree we could have some good-humoured comments across the floor of the House, and not indulge in personalities, and getting a bit hot under the collar. I hope that anything I have said will not be taken by any member of the Opposition as anything personal. It is far from that. I said that I am here as a representative of the people of the city and part of the county of Limerick, to serve their interests. I am trying to do that in more ways than perhaps talking in this House.

At that election in Limerick, farmers were being threatened that there was great danger if there was a change of Government, that there would be an upset in cattle prices, and that they would only obtain 1/- a gallon for milk. There were agents outside the creameries, as well as outside the post offices. Creamery men, with their asses and carts, bringing the milk to the creamery, were told: "You had better give your votes to Fianna Fáil, because James Dillon will only give you 1/- a gallon for your milk". Now James Dillon and his father and grandfather have in their time fought for the farmers of this country, and we must not forget the part played by the Dillons in the years gone by.

Somebody was quoted yesterday in the Evening Press as describing what was in the Budget, and what was not.

Mr. Briscoe

Mr. Average Married Man.

Mr. Carew

There is another comment in to-day's Evening Press by a man named Seán O'Donoghue (30), married, with four children, of 20, St. Pappin's Green, Ballymun, who says:—

"I'm glad to see the old age pensioners, the blind and widows are getting the money—I'd like to see them getting a good deal more.

"I think the Government did very well considering how little money they had at their disposal. The increase of £85 to £100 in the income-tax allowance for each child is also good for people with large families-but it doesn't benefit me, as I am not paying income-tax."

I do not think Deputy Carew would want to remain on record as having made a statement and not having withdrawn it when given the opportunity. I am satisfied with what the Deputy says.

I am very amused in approaching the consideration of this Budget. I do not start off by saying that this is a bad Budget. I do not think that Fianna Fáil could afford to say that it is a bad Budget, because it is almost consistent with the Fianna Fáil Budget of 1954, so that if I were to say it was a bad Budget, I should have to say also that the Fianna Fáil Budget of 1954 was a bad Budget. But the members of the inter-Party Coalition—whatever the make-up is—should say it is a bad Budget because they abused Fianna Fáil in no uncertain terms on the 1954 Budget and I propose to refer to what some of the leading spokesmen of these groups said about it.

What is the difference in the main? In the 1954 Budget, the total of benefits or reliefs granted amounted to £1,793,000. We have heard great shouts about the wonderful reliefs and benefits which the Coalition have made available in this Budget, but nobody has thought fit to add up the figures for the various reliefs. The total of their benefits and reliefs comes to £1,020,000, £770,000 less than granted in the 1954 Fianna Fáil Budget. I am putting that on record.

Where have they got some of that sum of £1,020,000? They are going to get £450,000 by the removal of the subsidy for confectionery. When I referred to the biscuit earlier in the debate by way of interjection, Deputy Norton, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, threw back the gibe that I dealt only in luxury articles. Might I tell the House that in the City of Dublin—and Deputy Larkin knows this well—there is not a child who does not occasionally have a currant bun? That is the confectionery from which the subsidy is being removed and that is the luxury to which I am referring.

Deputy Desmond had one of the most difficult jobs to do here this evening. Deputy Desmond, who was recently elected to the chairmanship of the Labour Party, in his discussion on the Budget made certain wide swipes at what he wanted and what was expected in the future. But he did not deal with this Budget on the level it should be brought to or on the level the Labour members brought their Budget speech to on the last occasion the Budget was introduced. With regard to the 5d. off the butter. I spoke about that when the Bill was brought in to bring about the reduction of 5d. I said then what Deputy Lemass said to-day and I have no reason to change my opinion nor have I heard anything that would make me change my attitude.

Butter is not one of the essentially large items of consumption of the working classes. It is certainly not used by them to the same extent as they use bread. On a former occasion here I said that if the Government were really anxious to introduce reliefs for the benefit of the masses they should take off bread the equivalent of what they have taken off butter. I was gibed at on that occasion with the fact that Fianna Fáil had taken ½d. off. That was the answer. Every member of the working classes would prefer to have an additional 2d. taken off the loaf than to have 5d. taken off the pound of butter. On that occasion, too, I gave the average number of loaves used per household and the amount of butter consumed as distinct from margarine.

Perhaps there is another little secret behind all this. I hesitate to assert this as a fact and so I put it as a question: In the £2,000,000 which the Government claims is the subsidy for butter, is there any part of that used to subsidise butter which is exported? Is it not a fact that while there is a subsidy of 5d. on butter consumed at home there is a subsidy of 10d. per lb. on butter which is exported? Is it the idea to hide that and pretend that the £2,000,000 is a subsidy for the benefit of our own people at home? There were 3,000 tons of butter exported in the year under review; at 10d. per lb. subsidy the total sum amounts to £280,000 and that £280,000 comes out of the £2,000,000 and is used to subsidise butter for export.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Was the Deputy listening to Deputy Walsh speaking on the Estimate for Agriculture? He said that the subsidy should be put on chocolate.

Mr. Briscoe

I will not be sidetracked. I am pointing out what I believe to be the actual situation. On the one hand you have the Government saying they are subsidising butter to the extent of £2,000,000 per annum and implying that that subsidy is exclusively for the benefit of consumers of butter at home. Is it not a fact that 3,000 tons of butter were exported last year and that every lb. of that butter carried a subsidy of 10d. per lb? Would it not have been better to increase the subsidy on the butter consumed at home, thereby making it a little bit cheaper still so that our own people could eat more of it rather than pay 10d. per lb. by way of subsidy on the butter we export?

Perhaps Deputy Desmond would make a note of that. Deputy Desmond wants a substantial sum of money spent on what he calls national development, but he does not want it spent in the miserable manner in which Fianna Fáil spent it. It was Fianna Fáil which introduced the National Development Fund in an effort to make some contribution towards providing employment for persons seasonally unemployed or chronically unemployed and, in particular, in an effort to have not only money but schemes available should a crisis develop and large-scale unemployment ensue because of international conditions. Deputy Desmond does not like that. He does not, however, point out that, while he wants large-scale activity in connection with national development, in fact, the amount of money provided in the Estimate this year is less than what was provided in the 1954 Budget. He also says that where money is provided for a specific purpose he does not want any part of that sum to remain unexpended.

I interjected at that point and I asked him: What does one do in circumstances such as we had recently in the Dublin Corporation? We estimated certain expenditure to cover our housing programme and we found ourselves faced with a trade dispute; building came to an end. In such circumstances how can one continue to spend the money estimated or continue giving employment? The target aimed at could not be reached. In such a situation there will naturally be a certain amount of money unexpended.

Deputy Desmond indulges in theories. We have to deal with practicalities. Unpredictable obstacles arise and one has to find ways and means of dealing with those obstacles.

Deputy Desmond talked about the rate of interest and he became rather personal as far as I was concerned—as if I personally had something to do with the banks or as if I were personally lending money and demanding this tribute by way of high interest rates. I make a present of that to Deputy Desmond because his case in support of this Budget was so bad he had no alternative but to try to be personal at someone else's expense. Deputy Desmond has a lot to learn. We are living fortunately in a State which has a Constitution and so long as that Constitution is there the right to hold private property is there. If Deputy Desmond wants to do what he implied he would like to do he will have to wait until there is a majority of Deputy Desmonds here and the Constitution is amended.

In the meantime the supply of money can only be directed into Government or local authority operations on the basis of what is offered in exchange for it. The Minister quite rightly hopes there will be thrift and greater savings will be made; he hopes that these savings will become available for capital expenditure. I agree with the Minister in that but the Minister would be the first to admit that, unless you give the man who saves an inducement to make him lend his savings to the State, you will not get his money. Deputy Desmond is either living too much in the future or he does not understand the situation.

When he talks about the Dublin Corporation paying a high rate of interest and implies that is my fault personally, I want to throw that back in his teeth. Next month, or the month after, he will see what happens. It is the policy of the Dublin Corporation to house its people as rapidly as possible. There is no dispute about the rate of speed in relation to housing. Every year £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 is required for our housing programme in Dublin. We apply to the Minister for Finance and we tell him our money is running out and that we will not be able to continue unless we get more money. The Minister replies telling us that we must apply to the bank for an overdraft and he will sanction our borrowing until he has had an opportunity of ironing out the problems attaching to a loan. We go to the bank. We are told what the rate of interest is and we apply for sanction.

Now, if the Government thinks that Deputy Briscoe as chairman of the finance committee, together with the city manager, is paying too much by way of interest the Minister can refuse to sanction. He knows that unless we agree to the normal regular rate of interest for such loans the bank will not give us the money. We are then told by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Local Government to consult our stockbrokers and the banks as to when we should issue our bonds for public subscription, the price at which we should issue them, and the rate of interest we should offer. Because there is a danger that we will not get the issue fully subscribed, since pressure has been put on the Dublin Corporation to build not less than a certain number of houses, we go to the Minister, tell him the terms and conditions of the loan and he underwrites it, and the Minister subsequently makes up any shortage that may appear in the loan, pays the money out to us and takes up the rest of the scrip.

It is up to the Minister and not up to me to agree the issue price and the rate of interest and if he thinks we should not pay more than 2 per cent. we do not care a hang. We will issue at 2 per cent. because he underwrites it. If he does not want to take up the whole lot—the whole £5,000,000—when it is issued he says: "You had better pay a little bit more. The current market rate will be such that you will get no subscriptions unless you issue at 4¾ or 5 per cent." It is not our responsibility; it is the responsibility of the Minister. If on his advice we issue a loan, and if because of his advice, it is not subscribed to any extent, or not at all, he has to find the money. He knows that our requirements between our housing and small Dwellings Acquisition Act loans are in the neighbourhood of £6,000,000 or £6,500,000 per year.

We are spending all that money in housing our people and getting houses built, but Deputy Desmond comes along and says that Deputy Briscoe is paying too much money for his housing requirements because he does not understand the situation. He is a member of a local authority and if he means what he says, all I can say is that he does not know the first lesson in municipal or local authority finance. The Minister can either give us the money, if he has it in the Exchequer, on loan and can fix the rate of interest which he thinks from time to time is the correct rate. He takes the responsibility of paying into the kitty whatever is short.

Mr. Kyne

Deputy Desmond seems to have got under your skin.

Mr. Briscoe

I move to report progress.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 5 May 1955