There has been quite a considerable amount of talk about tea. The Minister for Industry and Commerce talked about having reduced the price of tea when, in fact, he meant having kept it at the level it was when the change of Government took place. Then he toyed with the idea of what we would have done. Is it not a fact that, when the emergency ended, one of the leading spokesmen of the Fine Gael Party raised Cain in here about the continuance of this combined purchasing of tea by a non-profit organisation on behalf of the tea merchants? Was it not said that, if that particular organisation were abolished and if the people were allowed to buy their tea freely on the free market in Mincing Lane, tea prices would come down by leaps and bounds? Is it not a good job that Deputy Lemass kept the organisation in being, as otherwise the present Government would not have been able to control it? It may be that they may be sorry that it is there and that they have the responsibility of controlling it but to put to us the question: "What would you do?" is no way out. The responsibility is over there on the Government Benches. It is no way out for the Government to ask: "What would you have done?".
Committee on Finance. - Financial Resolution No. 5—General (Resumed).
You have seen what we have done. We are asking you what your alternative would have been.
It is not a question of what you have done. We now know that the excess cost of tea over and above the selling price has built up a considerably large overdraft. If somebody can prophesy correctly that, in the years to come, tea will be sold at a much cheaper price than at present, then it may be that the overdraft can, as the Minister for Agriculture says, be worked off. Some of us think that is very unlikely. I mentioned before, when referring to this matter, that I thought it was very unlikely to happen and that it seems to me that this particular deficit will have to be wiped off. Remember that tea is a continuing matter. The problem will not solve itself by our being able to say that, after a certain date, we will cease to import tea.
The importation of tea will continue for all time. I do not believe that tea will ever come down to the pre-war level. Anybody is entitled to ask me: "How would you, personally, feel it should be considered?" My own personal opinion is that if the Government have to supply ultimately, if not immediately, a heavy subsidy—it amounts to over 100 per cent.—on the tea, then I say they should control the use of it. The Minister for Finance must know that the price of tea within the State, without being controlled, is much less than the price of tea across the water. Why should we subsidise tea if it is being smuggled out even in a small way? I would ration tea. I would say "everybody is entitled to so much tea" and bring the subsidy down to the level of consumption and to the level that it would be thought feasible and reasonable for the country to bear. I would not deal with it as it is dealt with now because there is this £4,500,000 overdraft which is bearing compound interest, which is a very heavy form of interest. That compound interest is added to all this and goodness knows where it will end.
An amusing thing emerged to-day. I hope the Tánaiste will read his speech. He says it was quite wrong for the Fianna Fáil Government to have adopted an overdraft method in connection with coal imports and the subsequent losses during the emergency situation but it is quite right to do it with tea.
He did not say anything of the sort.
Read his speech and read all the speeches about the coal after the first change of Government in 1948. He implied it and he implied a lot more. He asked: "What did you do with the coal?" in aggressive condemnation. Because we did something even if he thought it was wrong, does not make what he is doing now right. In emergency situations you have to do unorthodox things and I am not saying that the Government should not do something unorthodox, but I am saying that there should be some consideration given to what the ultimate end will be.
Remember, you did cease bringing in coal at a certain time and very recently the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Tánaiste, said it was a good job that we had some iron ration reserves of coal to meet a situation, which may happen again as happened last year. So, suddenly, it is found to be a good thing to have a reserve, but it was previously called a nonsensical, mad purchase.
We must have tea. Our people are a tea-drinking people. The ups and downs of world market prices of tea are beyond our control, but there should be some consideration given as to where the limit will be.
Deputy Carew referred at length to elections, the by-election and the election that brought him in here. But I want to refer to column 46, Volume 131 of the Official Report, where the Minister for Education, speaking on our 1952 Budget, said:—
"When speaking here on Thursday last, Deputy Costello, very clearly and categorically, stated that there are half-a-dozen headings under which over-budgeting is being done and that the extent of this over-budgeting runs to the sum of about £10,300,000."
If there was over-budgeting in the 1952 Budget there must be over-budgeting now because we are a whole lot higher now than we were in 1952. The 1952 Budget was the savage Budget; this brutal savage Budget, designed by Fianna Fáil to destroy the purchasing power of our people because they were consuming too much—that was the headline: that was the attack— deliberately designed by Fianna Fáil, not as a cold warfare but as a new kind of warfare against the masses.
It was the 1952 Budget that broke Fianna Fáil's back in the last election.
It is the 1955 Budget that will break the Coalition's back.
You said it was a good one a minute ago.
I agree it is a good one. It will break their backs. Deputy Crotty, now Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, at column 131, Volume 131, said:—
"We believe that the Minister has imposed over-taxation this year at least to the extent of £10,000,000. We think that is a very grave wrong on the country. The Minister for Industry and Commerce expressed the opinion that the recession in trade would pass over in a few months."
We had done something ferocious. Now we come to the present Minister for Finance, at column 264, Volume 131:—
"Speaking the morning after the Budget was introduced, the leader of the Opposition made it perfectly clear that, in his view, unnecessary taxation was being taken out of the pockets of the people by this Budget for the purpose of creating an artificial surplus which next year, if the Fianna Fáil Party remained on that side of the House, they could take off and go to the country, believing that the public memory is short, and hoping that the public will only remember the remissions next year and forget the impositions of this year."
That was the line of approach of the present Minister for Finance. He accepted what the Taoiseach, then Deputy Costello, said, and believed it. So did Deputy Crotty, the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. So did the Minister for Education, then Deputy Mulcahy. Of course, the greatest expert in this House on Budgets and the framing of Budgets and the criticism of Budgets is the present Attorney-General. What did he say then as Deputy McGilligan? At column 565, Volume 131, he said:—
"These taxes are not merely harsh and cruel; they are unnecessary. The present Minister for Finance has not accepted the advice given to me last year and, no doubt, given to him this year. It would not require a two-hour Budget speech to remake the finances of this country. To my mind, at least £9,000,000 could be remitted straight away. If there is any question in relation to getting the rest there is a suggestion I willingly pass on."
That was Deputy McGilligan's contribution to the 1952 Budget, which is not very much different from this Budget or the last Budget.
Deputy Donnellan, the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, brings in two other Deputies. At column 639, Volume 131, he said:—
"I notice in a Sunday paper that a certain question was asked by Deputy McQuillan. The same question was asked by Deputy Dr. ffrench O'Carroll. The question was that if there was a change of Government would the same taxes be left on or what would be done."
That was a question put by Deputy McQuillan. Deputy Donnellan, who is now Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, answered:—
"...I congratulate both Deputy McQuillan and Deputy Dr. ffrench O'Carroll on it. As Deputy John A. Costello, the ex-Taoiseach, and Deputy McGilligan, ex-Minister for Finance, explained the answer is that there is an overestimate here of roughly £10,000,000. With a change of Government and with the help of men like Deputy McGilligan, taxation to the extent of £10,000,000 could be reduced. That is the answer to the question that was asked."
Straight from the horse's mouth.
And some of the certainties we get from the horse's mouth sometimes turn out not to be such certainties after all. There is a final reference I would like to make and it is from column 1442 of the same Volume. The present Taoiseach made this statement:—
"Taking the alleged correction, that if by any stroke of misfortune or ill fortune I were translated to clear up the appalling mess the Minister has created and found myself faced with what he is asking the country to do, I would resign the next minute rather than proceed with any single provision in the present Budget. I would be no party to any provision in this Budget. I think these taxes are cruel and unjust and that they will prove so. I believe that I have proved it and that I will do so again to-day. I want to emphasise that I would not be a party to any single one of the provisions brought in here by the Minister which would have the effect of increasing the cost of living on the people, increasing the cost of bread, butter, tea and sugar."
Every word of that was true and still is true.
But the Taoiseach has not removed the taxes on the bread or on the beer or spirits that were all referred to. He has not reduced the price of sugar. I am not finding fault with the Budget, but I am hoping that one thing will emerge from this and that is that the public will never again listen to a form of agitation in a general election or any other election where promises will be made which the public are led to believe can be carried out and which cannot be carried out.
Like the cartoon from the Sunday Press.
I did not read out any cartoon from the Sunday Press. I may have it at home and I shall look at it.
Remember the promises Fianna Fáil made that they would not cut the subsidies?
I shall give the Deputy some of his own promises.
Do not worry about mine.
I should like to see in public life an approach to elections which is not designed at appealing to the lowest motives of the people. It is very easy to make people feel and to encourage them to feel that they can get things either for nothing or far more cheaply and to drive them into believing that they should support those who advocate these things when those who are making the appeals know they cannot be carried out, or when they do not know whether they can be carried out or not; in other words like the approach of Deputy Desmond to-day when he made a lot of theoretical statements because he did not know the answers or the consequences. We shall have local elections very soon. In the speeches made at the last election were commitments that because the expenses of Government and taxation were too high and that because the cost of living and local rates were too high they were to be brought down. We have a rates meeting in the Dublin Corporation to-morrow and we shall see who will put the rates up or bring them down. It was a grand thing in the general election to say to the people: "We will bring the rates down for you," when every move made now by the Government, with the consent of the House, particularly in the implementing of the new health services, imposes additional expenditure on local authorities.
That was a Fianna Fáil invention.
If one of my ancestors invented something which your ancestors did not accept, does it follow that you will accept the invention and continue to operate it and improve on it?
If your father invented something what is the use in throwing him out now for it?
The Deputy has been supporting a Government which operate measures introduced by Fianna Fáil and will the Deputy be satisfied next time if the people say that he supports everything Fianna Fáil does and therefore that he is no use? The cost of local government is increasing every year because the local authorities have to give additional services. Every 1,000 houses we build for the working classes impose an additional cost on the rates because of the local contribution. Then it imposes additional costs on the Government who subsidise the interest charges for the building of those houses. Now the Health Act, in addition to what was already there, imposes extra cost on the ratepayers. In face of all that we have people going around saying they are going to reduce the rates, that they are going to reduce taxation, the cost of living and the cost of local government. The Taoiseach is quoted in the Irish Press of the 23rd of June, 1952, as saying:—
"If there is a change of Government we will put in a Minister for Finance who will remit £1,000,000 for each minute of ten-minute Bill in the Dáil."
Where is that from?
From the Irish Press of the 23rd June, 1952. I am sorry, but the statement was made by Deputy Donnellan, now Parliamentary Secretary. The statement was made in Ballina. I am glad the Minister corrected me. That statement was never denied.
Where was that quotation?
It was from a speech made in Ballina by the Parliamentary Secretary.
Reported in what?
In the Irish Press.
God forgive you.
If the Deputy has been misquoted——
I never read that.
But you do not deny that you said it.
Any biscuits in it?
Speaking in Naas and quoted also on the Irish Press—I shall quote from the other papers later—the present Minister for Industry and Commerce said on the 15th of May, 1954:—
"Fianna Fáil Deputies, by voting for the increased prices of tea, bread, sugar, flour and for the higher taxes on cigarettes, beer and tobacco had been active conspirators in the attack on the people's standard of living."
In other words we have conspired against the people. I could not find words before for the war we are supposed to be waging against the people. The Minister and his supporters now are actively continuing this war and this conspiracy in which we were participants and if that war is to stop the Minister will have to bring out——
It is as a result of these increases that wages and social services went up and there is nothing we can do about it.
Why did you not tell the people?
The people are not fools. They know that.
The present Minister for Social Welfare, quoted in the Irish Independent of the 30th April, 1954, said:—
"The first point in the election programme of the Labour Party was the reduction of food prices and the use of subsidies on essential articles of food to achieve this object. Labour was very definitely committed to this."
The Tánaiste, dealing with the Labour Party programme, is quoted in the Irish Independent of 5th April, 1954, as saying:—
"The Party will, according to Mr. Norton's statement, seek to reduce food prices by the use of subsidies on essential foodstuffs and to reduce the prices of tobacco, cigarettes, beer and spirits and to exercise strict control of prices."
Deputy McGilligan, the present Attorney-General, is quoted from a broadcast reported in the Irish Press of 8th May, 1954, as follows:—
"A distinct change of policy was required, however, and a new outlook on the part of Ministers was demanded if the reduction ‘of £20,000,000 and upwards, desirable in everybody's interests' was to be achieved."
I think there is a bit of a slap at the present Minister for Finance there because he says: "A distinct change of policy was required, however, and a new outlook on the part of Ministers..." Apparently this present Minister has not got the new look, whatever that is—I have heard about the fashion called "The New Look". There is a summarised Irish Times report attributed to the Taoiseach from a speech delivered at Letterkenny on the 26th April, 1954, and there is one statement which I want to compare with a statement from another member of the Coalition. The Taoiseach said that fundamental changes in relation to financial and economic institutions must be made. What they are I do not know. He continues:—
"These changes must be evolved quietly in an atmosphere of mutual appreciation and co-operation... It must be well understood that these changes must be planned in the context of a strict recognition of the importance of a sound currency... ...our interest in sterling and its fate is so manifest that no one need fear that a consequence of Fine Gael's return to power will be any currency manoeuvres dictated by pseudo patriotic considerations."
In connection with that, Deputy Corish, the Minister for Social Welfare, having spoken in Enniscorthy, is reported in the Enniscorthy Echo of the 1st May, 1954, as follows:—
"The difficulty seemed to be that the money was not available. The Labour Party preferred to be realistic about that. They believed that money should be made available and should be made available by the Government in control. The Government should have the power to create and control credit."
You have got two distinct views there. I can understand a member of the Labour Party believing that and wanting to have it carried out as far as possible. I can understand members of the Labour Party, in pursuance of the policy which they represent, wanting to nationalise everything. I can understand their approach, while I do not agree with it, of getting rid, as quickly as possible, of private enterprise. I can agree that they are entitled to that particular point of view. It does not follow because I do not accept that point of view that they are wrong or that I am necessarily right. Time will prove all that.
What I do not understand is how that particular kind of liquid can mix with the water of the Fine Gael Party who stand for an entirely different point of view. Oil and water will not mix. I am not saying it is for me to state ultimately who will be found right or wrong. I subscribe to the present method under the rules of the Constitution as they exist.
In other words, the wrong partners are in the Coalition.
You have got partners in the Coalition who are in conflict with each other on practically everything; and who, for the sake of keeping office, are compromising on everything; that compromising, as Deputy Lemass pointed out to-day, has resulted in the Coalition inter-Party Government at last adopting a Fianna Fáil Budget.
That is mixed thinking surely.
The results seem to justify the means, you would say.
I say this, if I thought that by leaving office I was doing so in order that the Coalition people would get together to do the things which are of the greatest benefit for the national well-being and for the people of this country, I would be quite happy to stay over here.
I do not think many people would believe the Deputy about that.
They may not and I will not even ask the Deputy to believe me, but there are people who have a patriotic outlook. There was a time when we had greater difficulties. We are all Republicans now; not so long ago we were not all Republicans. Now we all believe in the same form of finance that Fianna Fáil believe in.
We certainly do not.
The Minister cannot get away from the fact that there is not a shade of difference, except for a few figures, between the 1955 Budget and our 1954 Budget.
£6,850,000.
Except for a few figures. How did you get these figures? The Minister got £1,000,000 from America which is included, I think, in the Vote for the Department of Agriculture. The Minister got rid of £1,000,000 subsidy to C.I.E. for losses. The Minister has got rid of an annual payment to the E.S.B. on the basis of a contract by this State, through legislation, for rural electrification and not only has he escaped the annual payment but he is also going to claim back at the rate of £250,000 per annum the money already voted and given by this Dáil. It is easy to find £6,000,000 by that method but how long will that go on? Remember, Fianna Fáil voted to subsidise rural electrification to the extent of £10,000,000 over the period of time it would be necessary to do it. I believe £4,000,000 has already been paid. Now it is being stopped, and not only is it being stopped but we are claiming back the money given in the last number of years by legislation of this House.
The Deputy from Cork who was so concerned not so long ago about the E.S.B., as I am concerned also, might consider this. Electricity will, as a consequence, cost more because of the removal of £10,000,000 subsidy from the capital investment for rural electrification. The E.S.B. will have to find it and the cost to the consumer will be much higher. Of course, Deputy Kyne is supporting that. The Deputy who wants a Government to give out of taxation certain assistance to the less well-off of our people, is going to go into the Lobby and vote for the taking back again from the rural population of the subsidy that Fianna Fáil gave for rural electrification. It is easy to find £6,000,000.
I thought Fianna Fáil did not have money. I thought it was the taxpayers.
That is a bit cheap.
You are taking back what we gave.
So if Fianna Fáil has got money, the Coalition have. We are taking back what we gave? A contract was made by way of legislasters...' tion here. This House passed legislation approving of a subsidy to be accorded to the E.S.B. for the rural electrification of Ireland. Is not that so? No legislation has been passed cancelling that arrangement or authorising the Government to take it back.
It is going to be amended.
It is rather quick to anticipate the decision of Parliament and I do not think it is legal.
Nonsense.
I think until the Minister brings in his Bill it cannot be done. The Tánaiste, when I referred to it on his Vote, admitted he would have to consider it and take advice as to whether it was necessary to have legislation; and I understand to-day it was agreed that legislation is necessary.
How does the Deputy make out it is not legal?
If this House passes an Act of Parliament and it becomes the law that the E.S.B. is entitled to claim 50 per cent. of the cost of rural electrification capital expenditure, and if we do not pay it, I am satisfied that if the E.S.B. brought us to court and there was no legislation cancelling it, the Minister would have to pay.
But if the situation is that it requires legislation, there will be legislation. That is all about it.
That is what I am saying, but the fault I am finding is that the Minister is anticipating legislation being passed in this House.
That is always done, in every year.
This is not a yearly occurrence; this is a specific instance of something that is quite unusual. It has never been known before, as far as I know, to treat a matter of this kind in that way. You have a saving of £1,000,000 by way of making up a deficit for the C.I.E.; there is a saving of this money payable to the E.S.B., plus an annual repayment to the extent of £250,000 a year, which they will have to find out of Deputy Barry and myself on our electricity bills.
Would you say that again about C.I.E.? —I did not catch it.
That would be the third time—I hope he will not.
There are diesel engines now.
At one time this Parliament had to vote moneys to make up deficits and losses of the railway, and at one time it was £2,000,000 and then gradually there were changes, alterations and improvements, and up to last year there was a reduction in the losses and now in this year there is no deficit whatever to be met.
What happened last year? There was £2,000,000 involved last year.
No.
He got £1,000,000 and did not have to give £1,000,000.
No, there was £2,000,000 involved in the first year, in 1948, under the inter-Party Government, the first time that figure was reached.
You are saying we are £1,000,000 worse off than your Minister was.
Yes, £1,000,000 is rerequired.
What about the £1,000,000 coming back? You got that last year.
What £1,000,000? Last year the Minister decided that certain items which were calculated as being part of the loss were not properly related to it and came in in some other form of expenditure and therefore were repayable as if they were a loan for capital expenditure.
That is £1,000,000 saved in one way and got in another way.
I suggest that Deputy Briscoe be allowed to make his speech without interruption.
I was not quite clear.
I will make it quite clear.
The fact is that your Minister took £1,500,000 last year.
But you are taking £1,000,000.
I am taking nothing.
You have not to pay £1,000,000.
You took £1,000,000 and saved £500,000. The same £500,000 is cut out, but I am not getting the £1,000,000.
Therefore, you are saving £500,000.
£500,000 from £1,500,000 is usually £1,000,000.
It sounds like the three-card trick to me.
I am getting quite mixed up. Perhaps the Minister will explain this to me. I noticed amongst the contributors or subscribers to the C.I.E. loan an organisation called Transport Subsidiary. I never heard of them. I made inquiries and found this is a subsidiary company of C.I.E., engaged in their advertising campaign, whatever it is, and they are subscribers to the loan to the tune of over £400,000. I want the Minister to tell us how they have those funds, where they got them from or if they have in fact no funds whatsoever; and if the Minister does not answer it now I will put down a question to him.
They also happen to be the trustees of the staff pensions fund.
That is the answer, then?
Maybe Mr. Reynolds might find this money for them.
Names of persons who are not here should not be mentioned.
It was the staff pensions fund.
It was rather misleading, because the publication in the paper was about an application for stock to be given to Transport Subsidiary, as if it were their own money. It did not say, as in other cases, for trustee investment for staff. How did that come about? They are not the sole trustees, surely; they must be joint trustees with the railway company itself?
The relevancy of this is very doubtful.
The relevancy is, because the whole understanding of the C.I.E. financial set-up is very doubtful. I am not saying it is doubtful in fact, but it is hard to understand.
There is a lot of very doubtful things about it, including locomotives that were bought in your Minister's time, in 1947, and which could not be used afterwards except at great cost.
The works at Inchicore that the Coalition broke up.
I suggest full steam ahead somewhere else.
Is it on turf, coal or diesel fuel, Sir?
It is not the fuel I am referring to, but the wrong type of diesel locomotive.
The Ceann Comhairle said: "Full steam ahead." I asked whether it should be on turf, coal or diesel oil. What I was saying was that never again will we hear these Coalition people attempting to mislead the people into believing that the cost of living can be reduced by Government action other than by subsidy. The Labour people are committed, according to their election promises, to a reduction in the cost of liying brought about by either of two methods, either by subsidy or by an increase in wages.
We agree.
What I find fault with in the Labour people is this. They do not represent all the people, they represent only a section, the organised labour. What about the people who cannot go out on strike and cannot get collective bargaining to get the increases? They are left behind. I will hear the Labour Deputy speak about the masses, and this class and so on, but they are just as guilty, they only represent a certain class themselves, those who are members of their trade union. I have been amazed on occasion at the distinction that exists between organised labour and unorganised labour. Deputies will not try for one moment to pretend that they are speaking for, and on behalf of, and are concerned with, all the people. Fianna Fáil are concerned with all the people, organised and not organised.
Why did you put the standstill Order on the workers' wages?
Recently we set up a special works committee in Dublin for the purpose of relieving unemployment. Those who objected to it from the point of view of employment, were not the people who had the biggest families.
Who created the unemployment?
On a point of order. I must appeal to the Chair against the repeated interruptions from the two Deputies from Cork.
Interruptions are disorderly, whether they come from Deputies from Cork or any other place.
Particularly from Tipperary.
I have already said that interruptions are disorderly.
Is it not a fact that Deputy Briscoe loves interruptions?
I do not object at all. I have no feeling of grievance against anybody who interrupts. I always accept them in good part. I accept them in the sense that the people making them are trying to understand what I am talking about, and I try to be helpful. I have no objection at all to interruptions.
I hope that is not an encouragement to interrupters.
The Taoiseach, then Deputy Costello, as reported in the Irish Times of the 3rd May, 1954, made an extraordinary statement; I think he will be asked about this on future occasions:
"Fine Gael planned to change the position under which the Government ‘scoops the pool' of national savings by large scale loans at a high rate of interest which raised the price of money and made it short for everyone else. That will end."
Will the Minister tell us what that means?
Tell the Deputy what that means?
I am quoting the Taoiseach, then Deputy Costello, as reported in the Irish Times on 3rd May, 1954:—
"Fine Gael planned to change the position under which the Government ‘scoops the pool' of national savings by large scale loans at a high rate of interest which raised the price of money and made it short for everyone else. That will end."
Now, the Minister in his Budget speech indicated his wish and his encouragement for increased savings. Is it not a natural sequence of events that those who have saved money should make it available to the Minister for Finance at a reasonable rate of interest from time to time, reasonable both from the point of view of the lender and the borrower? But the Taoiseach, in May, 1954, tells us that there is going to be something new. I do not know what their plan is. It has not been exposed yet—so that the Government can no longer scoop the pool and make money short. That is something which I hope the Minister for Finance will explain to us.
Deputy Corish mentioned something about money not being available. The Minister for Agriculture, then Deputy Dillon, speaking at Sligo on 15th May, 1954, said that it seemed to him quite ridiculous that they should charge their own people at home—will the Minister for Finance listen to this? — 6½ per cent. on loans to build houses for themselves, when they were lending over £60,000,000 to Britain to build houses at 2 per cent.
The Deputy will find the answer to the first question on page 22 of the Budget speech. If he had read the speech before he started, it would have been easier. It is on page 22.
Unfortunately, like the Minister, I also have public duties, and yesterday when he was reading his speech, I was down at the Dublin Corporation attending a rates meeting. Out of compliment to him, the meeting was adjourned, and I arrived here a little bit late, and I have not had time yet to read the speech.
Might I suggest to the Deputy that he would have been wiser to have postponed his speech until he had?
The Minister must answer this question: Where are we going to get money at 2 per cent.? Is it not obvious that the Minister will have to vary the rate of interest from time to time? There is no definitely known situation about it. The position in another country is that they control inflation and deflation by regulating interest rates. Deputy Corish, speaking on the 17th May, 1954, as quoted by the Irish Independent said—this is a good one——
"Rumours which had been put about that Labour had been swallowed up by Fine Gael were quite untrue. Labour was and always will be an independent Party."
Which of us is eating the other now as the result of this Budget?
They are not in the one cage yet. The two groups are in the same room, with a dividing wall, and nothing has been accomplished.
So the Deputy still has hopes that we will go back with you?
It is rather awkward for him when we are both here. If there was only one of us here it would be easier for him.
The present Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Corish, as quoted in the Wexford Free Press on the 8th May, 1954, said:
"Fianna Fáil boasted of their social welfare schemes, but could any man maintain himself on 21/6 a week, or could an old age pensioner do it on 24/- a week...."
Is not that what you are giving him, and yet you ask how could he do it?
Yes.
And yet you ask how could he do it.
Yes.
Why not 30/- a week?
We have not got the money yet.
Deputy Desmond and the Tánaiste read out quotations from a speech by Deputy de Valera at the Ard Fheis in which he said the very same thing; the reason that you cannot give it to them is because it is not there. It has got to be there before you can give it. It will not be there if you are not prepared to increase the amount of money available to the Government. You cannot increase the money available to the Government if the Government is going to say: "You are spending too much, £10,000,000, £20,000,000 too much." This present Coalition has had to increase the expenditure over the last record-breaking Budget by £4,000,000. Who swallowed who?
I do not know. The old age pensioners are getting their increase, anyhow.
They did not get 30/-a week.
Not yet.
I agree. We will see how long it will be. Deputy Everett, who is now the Minister for Justice, speaking at Enniscorthy, is reported in the Enniscorthy Guardian on the 1st May, 1954, as saying:
"They would continue to hold the position of deciding what the Government was going to be, and they would only decide in favour of the Party prepared to carry out schemes Labour would suggest, such as restoring subsidies, etc."
Now who swallowed who?
I have listened to the Deputy making his speech for the last 20 minutes, and what he is doing is reading extracts from various newspapers, and making little or no contribution to the debate itself. That is tantamount to reading his speech.
I was reading these extracts to comment afterwards on the onslaught that was made against the Budget of 1954. The election came in the meantime, during which the most extravagant and untrue——
If the Deputy wants to make a contribution to the Budget debate, he will have to do a good deal more than read extracts from newspapers.
He could guarantee to keep it going until 10.30.
The Chair will deal with this matter. It may be desirable to read extracts, but the Deputy cannot make his contribution to the debate by merely reading extracts.
I want to show that various individuals promised to reduce the cost of living, and, apart from the cost of living going up through no responsibility of the present Government, but because of the circumstances beyond their control, they have, in fact, in this Budget, by a partial removal of subsidies, contributed to another increase in the cost of living; that is, the removal of subsidy on the flour used for making confectionery. I am relating that to these promises, as a result of which certainly nobody could assume that there was going to be any reduction in subsidies, but that rather there was going to be a restoration of subsidies.
The Chair has no objection to the Deputy reading extracts from newspapers at all, but the Chair wants the Deputy himself to make a contribution to the debate, rather than to offer extracts from newspapers as his contribution. He must surely contribute to the debate himself otherwise than by reading extracts from newspapers.
I am only reading a very small portion of the extracts.
The Chair has listened attentively for the last 20 minutes or more and that, in fact, has been the major portion of the Deputy's contribution.
Would I be permitted to say that the public up to yesterday believed that there were going to be certain remissions of taxation in this Budget, as a result of promises made during the election campaign and promises made since this Government was formed and because it was whispered that the things which could not be done since the Government came into being would be done in the Budget and "Wait until you see the Budget"? Now we have seen the Budget. The tax on beer has not been reduced; the tax on tobacco has not been reduced; and the refunding or return of the subsidy on flour to bring the price of bread back to what it was before the subsidy was removed and the price increased has not come about. None of these things has happened.
It is suggested that this is a Budget fulfilling promises made, and it is suggested that it is a Budget quite different and apart from any of the Budgets introduced by their predecessors in office. I have said that I believe this is a Budget honestly framed in accordance with the facts of the situation. I am giving full credit for that to the Minister for Finance, with the exception of a little bit of juggling which might be regarded as permissible in political matters, but from the point of view of the factual financial side, there is no "cod" about it. At least, it has ended this nonsensical talk that, in the 1952 Budget, we concealed by over-estimating a certain amount of money which was going to be brought into a subsequent Budget for the purpose of reducing taxation and then using that Budget for electioneering purposes.
That has all gone by the board and the Deputies who form the Coalition Government are now up against a tough and hard proposition. They can now deliver the goods or admit that the goods they promised cannot be delivered. Are they now prepared to say, as Deputy Kyne has said—and I agree with him—that they would like to do a whole lot more, but it cannot be done within the measure of the money which is available or which can be secured and that all we can do now is wait and hope for better times? What I object to is the attempt made to stretch the elastic of the benefits given in this Budget to a point beyond the point reached in the last Budget, when in fact the sum of the benefits is much less, and in fact negligible. In this Budget, there is a sum of roughly £1,020,000 devoted to what are called social welfare benefits and to reliefs. Where is that coming from? A sum of £540,000 comes from the flour previously used for the manufacture of confectionery, so that what is being given to the old age pensioner is being taken back again on the bit of confectionery which she might be using.
Surely she gets a lot of confectionery on 21/- a week.
Maybe she will not eat very much, but it is being taken from one section to give it to another. A further £250,000 is being taken from the people of the State by way of the refund in respect of rural electrification payments previously made by Fianna Fáil Governments, so that what we raised by way of loan for capital development is now to be taken in. Is that money to be used to subsidise certain things, because it represented money given away and not recoverable, and therefore I take it that Deputies will be justly entitled to argue, in accordance with all their previous methods of approach to matters of finance, that the Government are entitled to use it for the reduction of taxation or for the subsidising of something or other? I should like to hear what is going to happen when that Bill comes in. There you have £540,000 and £250,000 plus the saving of this year's contribution to rural electrification.
Did the Deputy not say that 20 minutes or half an hour ago?
I am arguing now that there is no saving at all.
The Deputy put forward that argument 20 or 25 minutes ago and he came in conflict with Deputy Barry on the matter.
Deputy Barry has a bad memory, Sir.
The Chair has a reasonably good memory.
If the Chair rules me out, I accept the ruling unhesitatingly.
I am ruling that the Deputy gave that argument before and repetition is not permissible.
What I argued before was the principle itself; what I am trying to argue now is a set of figures. I am taking the Budget now from the point of view of what benefits have been given to the community and arguing whether these benefits come from savings, economies or taxation. I am saying that they have come in this year from a certain number of operations, one of which anyway cannot be repeated. When Deputies talk about this Budget being a beginning and a good beginning—Deputy Carew said that at the end of the next four years they would have achieved by these gradual movements something in the nature of what was originally promised —I say that when the next Budget comes we will see what additional benefits are given.
I do not know when the next cost-of-living index figure will be published. There has been talk to-night about a two points increase up to last February. I do not know what the figure is now—I asked for it some time ago and was told it was not yet ready —but the cost of living is still on the increase and nothing can be done about it, otherwise than by subsidy. It has been announced that coal will go up by 12/6 per ton. That is going to add to the cost-of-living figure, and it may go up even more because I see that there is now another dispute in connection with coal. Other items are also going up. Ultimately, whether the cost of living is calculated in relation to its net position because of the net subsidy figure or whether the Government have to take cognisance of their liabilities, unmet and unprovided for at the moment, in the shape of these overdrafts as in the case of tea, the position will have to be met some time, somehow. Who is going to pay for it? If, for argument's sake, in September, when this arrangement about tea prices is supposed to end— and September is not so very far away —will there be a suggestion that in order to pay the bank and to avoid further compound interest we will borrow the £4,500,000.
What £4,500,000?
The amount due. How much is due?
There is nothing like that due. There is no increase yet. No debt has been incurred yet.
I never heard anything like this in my life. It does not matter who bought the tea. At the time it was bought it cost a certain amount of money higher than that for which it is being sold and as week follows week the deficiency is increasing. As a result of a question in this House recently, if my memory serves me correctly, we were told that the amount due to the bank by way of overdraft for the tea is over £4,000,000.
What is the Deputy endeavouring to convey?
That the £4,500,000 includes a certain amount of the cost of the tea but what the loss is I do not know.
The Deputy does know what he is talking about?
The Deputy need not try to tell me anything.
Can I tell the Deputy something?
Not at the moment. Deputy Briscoe is in possession.
On the basis of the present figures, I estimate that tea is being sold at less than half its cost——
The tea being served out is muck.
——therefore, by September there will be a loss of some £2,000,000.
Having regard to the fact that we have gained £2,000,000 in five minutes the Deputy might keep it up and we might gain more.
I do not know whether this is the Deputy who is the expert in the Department. Neither do I know what he is expert in.
The Parliamentary Secretary.
I do not know what particular job the Parliamentary Secretary has, but he is not clever enough nor experienced enough to make a fool of me.
The Parliamentary Secretary does not have to be.
He is jack-of-all-trades and master of none.
The amount of money owed to the bank is over £4,000,000. A certain amount of that will come in as a result of the tea being sold and a certain amount is still in the warehouse but there will be a substantial loss. It must be a substantial loss otherwise there would not be any difficulty in dealing with it. Did not the Tánaiste tell us that if we were on the Government side of the House the people would pay 6/- or 8/- a lb. for tea they are buying for 2/8d.?
The Deputy missed the point.
That connotes that the price of tea is over 6/- or 8/- a lb.
Then. It is not now.
Did we get it at the cheap price or the high price?
At the low price.
It went down 5d. more to-day.
In Mincing Lane. We did not buy any tea to-day. We bought it yesterday. What nonsense! Does anybody believe that if we buy tea at 5/- a lb. a month ago and that becomes 2/6 in London a month afterwards it will mean 2/6 here? If we bought the tea at 5/- in a dear market and have it stored, how can we purchase it, as a subsequent transaction, at a lower price?
We bought it at a low price. The market went up afterwards but the Deputy wanted us to go into the dear market but we waited.
If it was bought cheap the Government is not keeping it at the present level to protect the public. We were told that if we were in office tea would be 6/- to 8/- a lb. because it would have to be purchased at the world price. Now we are told that it was bought cheap and that there is no loss. Therefore, all this window dressing is all cod. That is what Deputy Barry has proved. There is, in fact, a loss on this tea and it will have to be met. How will it be met? Will it be met by borrowing and paid for over a period of years or will it be paid for out of taxation? Something will have to be done some time. That situation cannot be continued indefinitely. I should like Deputy Barry to explain what is the position.
I will do that.
Could Deputy Barry tell us whether the tea proved to be a loss or whether it is just a good political trick to pretend it did? That is what this discussion has led to. During the election campaign—I want to be very careful in regard to what I read—the Labour Deputies in particular said that remedial measures must be taken immediately and that people were starving because of the cost of living. They must still be starving. They have starved for ten months now. The Labour Party—I will not say Fine Gael—stated that the circumstances of living were such that there would have to be an immediate reduction and that this cruelty could not be allowed to go on. That has now been changed. A certain limited number of our people got benefits. The unfortunate blind people——
The most important section.
I agree, but what I am concerned about is the number of people who are claiming the credit and hoping to share a certain amount of political support. None of us work for these unfortunate people without coming to this House and talking about it. Some 200,000 people including old people, widows and orphans will benefit to a very limited extent—2/6 a week and 2/- in the case of an orphan child.
What did Fianna Fáil give?
Nothing has been done for the widowed housewife or for the old age pensioner who has a husband. Nothing has been done for her. The cost of living has not been reduced in the home.
It has not been put up.
It is going up.
Wishful thinking!
Perhaps Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll will read what I said about the removal of the subsidy on the flour used in the making of confectionery. Its price is going up. The child will have to pay more for his bun and the woman who gets a bit of slab cake or broken biscuits will have to pay more because the subsidy on the flour used in the manufacture of confectionery has been removed.
The export of mincemeat will be hit, too.
I do not know what mincemeat is. The Deputy over there is an all-round gentleman who seems to know a lot about a lot of things. I do not know what mincemeat is. I would not know it if I saw it.
This is the second time that Deputy Lynch made such interjections. He has now made by implication a personal attack on an individual. He made the first such attack while the Ceann Comhairle was in the Chair.
I do not know what he said. If Deputy Lynch has anything personal to say, which is in any way offensive, I invite him to say it either here or outside. I have not heard anything yet. If I had I would soon deal with it. The suggestion that I had something to do with mincemeat or knew something about mincemeat is——
I neither suggested nor implied that the Deputy had; I pointed out that it would be hit.
According to what Deputy Kyne said, flour is not involved.
The business is over, anyway.
And 300 or 400 people are out of employment.
Two sets of people are involved. There is the consumer at home who eats biscuits, cake and confectionery and there is the factory which manufactures biscuits or cakes for export. Deputy A.P. Barry ought to know there is a considerable amount of slab cake exported from Cork City. There is a very fine concern there doing a marvellous export trade.
That is the third time we have heard that.
If the Deputy has already said that he should not repeat it.
It is very difficult to keep continuity when there are continual queries and suggestions, such as those made by Deputy T. Lynch. I welcome this Budget because it is the first time we have been given an opportunity to copperfasten to the Coalition Government a Budget which is as nearly factual as it can be in relation to income and expenditure, including capital expenditure. That welcome is, of course, subject to the reservations I have made in relation to certain developments.
I would be interested to hear from Labour who is now going to swallow whom. Perhaps Deputy Kyne could answer that question.
I asked the question. I am not going to answer it.
Perhaps the Deputy can give us that information because I was not present at the battles of attempted swallowing. I think the Minister must have been very courageous in approaching his colleagues in this mixed Cabinet with this Budget. It does not go anywhere near meeting the demands of Labour. It does not go anywhere near meeting the demands of Fine Gael. The millions of pounds by which it was to be reduced by the present Minister for Defence and the Attorney-General have gone by the board.
Indeed, they have not.
Will we get the £20,000,000 reduction?
Yes, if the Deputy lives long enough.
Live horse and you will get grass.
All the hopes and expectations of the Labour people have not been realised in this Budget. All the hopes and expectations and promises of the Fine Gael Party have not been realised. Apparently Clann na Talmhan has faded out of the picture altogether. What the Clann na Poblachta attitude is I do not know. They may be holding a Party meeting now to know whether they will vote for or against the Budget. All the millions that were to be saved for the benefit of the taxpayer have dissolved into thin air. All the reductions that were to be made in the cost of living both by the Labour Party and by Fine Gael have disappeared and been forgotten about. It is no use trying to magnify the 5d. off the butter because included in the £2,000,000 subsidy is the subsidy of 10d. per lb. on exported butter. I do not think a single constituent will turn out this week-end to welcome back any member of the Coalition Government because of this wonderfui Budget.
As a new Deputy in this House, I have been disappointed so far with the Opposition's contribution to this debate. I would like, first of all, to pay a special tribute to the Minister for his Budget and a special tribute to his capacity for work, and to his very factual statement in relation to the position of affairs in the country generally. Credit is due to the Government for its administration over the past ten months.
Not only is this Budget an excellent one but it has been approved by Deputy Briscoe and the other Opposition speakers. Its excellence has been confirmed by them. The Minister deserves to be complimented on his discerning review of the position generally. Without being unfair to the Opposition in any way in so far as there has been any criticism at all levelled against this Budget that criticism has been remarkable for its weakness rather than its strength. The previous Minister for Finance, Deputy MacEntee, from whom one would expect a reasoned criticism and a reasoned statement came into the House last evening with a speech he had prepared, it was generally agreed, before the Budget statement was delivered at all. His only contribution was to go back on the past and talk about conditions in the past which had affected this country, but which have no relation whatever to the present Budget. That was, I take it, in selfdefence. There could be no other excuse for such a poor contribution. To-day we had Deputy Lemass, who realised—it was quite obvious—that he was facing a difficult position and he had to make the best of it. He did, undoubtedly, make the best of a very bad job from the Fianna Fáil point of view.
For the last one and a half hours we have been listening to Deputy Briscoe and if I had to decide what his whole object and aim was in the contribution he made, the only reference that I found which was possibly relevant to the Budget was his suggestion that the portion of the subsidy which was removed from certain users of flour in connection with confectionery would increase the cost of living or would hit some people. He gave the figure to be saved by that as £540,000 and I think it is relevant to say—because it is typical of many other figures which he set out—that the figure is £450,000. I do not think that is a matter worth commenting on or going into in view of all the play-acting and talk which we had from the Opposition Benches here, but I think it is only fair that speakers on this side of the House should elucidate and repeat if necessary what has been done. When we come to consider what has been done by the present Government we must first remember that they are in office only since June and that they had only ten months of Government. They have not yet had a full 12 months.
The entire artillery of the speakers opposite has been directed to suggest that in the first period of office everything that was said for the last few years should be immediately implemented. I think the people down the country are intelligent enough to know that a Government coming into power simply cannot implement its policy in eight or ten months and, in fact, in taking over from a Government which every speaker on this side of the House declared to be incompetent in their administration of the country previously, they were taking over a harder task than if they had been taking over from people who might have conducted the affairs of the country as they should have been conducted. At least the new Government's task would take a long time. Nevertheless, despite the difficult situation in which they did take over—and I repeat that they took over in a difficult situation—within a few days, certainly within a few weeks, of coming into office they had reduced the cost of living substantially by a reduction in the price of butter.
Again, later on, there was a reduction in general costs affecting the cost of living, which was brought about by the present Minister for Finance who introduced this Budget. That was a reduction in the rate of interest on the National Loan. In speaking on the National Loan, I think I might refer to it in rather more detail than I had intended because Deputy Briscoe certainly confused me and I think he might have confused others by his various references to interest on the National Loan.
The removal of the food subsidies for which Fianna Fáil were responsible in 1952 had a tremendous adverse bearing on the cost of living of the poor, and indeed of everybody in the country, but apart from their action in removing these food subsidies, I simply cannot understand why any Government would float a loan at 5 per cent., stated to be for the development of the country which they said was under-developed, when the money obviously could have been obtained at a lower rate of interest and when this would naturally affect also the developments they proposed to undertake. These could be done at lower cost. Maybe I have a simple view on the matter, but I think at the same time it is a view that can be easily understood. I have not had expert advice on the matter. That higher rate of interest affected the price of housing, rents and instalments that people building private houses have to pay and it affected industry generally.
I repeat that I think that the National Loan was in a certain sense a major blunder on the part of the Government of the time—Fianna Fáil —and I think it affected the cost of living. I think it will affect the economy of this country for many years to come until its effects are overcome by the present Minister by a gradual reduction in the cost of money, because the Fianna Fáil Minister's predecessor, the present Attorney-General, had conditioned the country and had brought about a most favourable market for the flotation of a loan as low as 4 per cent. which I believe would have been just as heavily subscribed as this ridiculous 5 per cent. that was offered by the then Minister for Finance and which has had a direct and very considerable bearing on the cost of living in this country.
I think what has been lacking in this country for more than 18 years is good judgment. There has been a lack of judgment and a lack of foresight in major and minor matters. I think this is a major matter. I think the then Minister for Finance and the present Minister for Finance who has taken much the same line should be congratulated and thanked and should have the gratitude of the Irish people for what they tried to do and for what they might have taught the then Opposition and subsequently the Government to have done with the resources of this country by an administration more competent and with better judgment.
We might as well be blunt and strong in our remarks when we speak at all. The present Attorney-General in three and a half years raised a loan at 3 per cent. Subsequently he raised a loan at 3½ per cent. We must remember that in getting these moneys he was getting them for the thing which Fianna Fáil claim that they alone in the country had an interest in —national development. He was borrowing these moneys at 3 and 3½ per cent. for the purpose of providing loans for private people interested in building their own houses, and giving these people loans at low rates of interest that they could not otherwise get. He was providing moneys for industrial development, moneys for loans to local authorities, for the housing of the working classes and for every possible national production and development that is undertaken by any Government. Yet, as soon as the Government went out of office we had Fianna Fáil coming in to claim that they were the only persons interested in, and capable, mark you, of national development and good Government, all without rhyme or reason.
The least that one can say is that a National Loan at 5 per cent., at what in everybody's opinion was an exorbitant rate of interest, was totally unnecessary to attract the savings and investments of the people of this country. And what did we have? We had the big, moneyed institutions putting all their moneys into it—why would they not? They were rushing into it because it was a good thing. I do not say that we should not have loans which would attract money to national development but I would say that we should certainly not queer the pitch for the future and that is what happened.
I would like to pay a tribute to the present Minister for Finance. I think I am keeping my references relevant, unlike other speakers that I have had to listen to here. I would like to pay special tribute to the Minister for Finance and to say that he was a most courageous young Minister when he this year, after getting into office and, of course, obviously with the encouragement and the approval of all the members of the Government, showed sound common sense. He and they showed that they realised the responsibilities that they have undertaken. He floated a loan at a reduced rate of interest which must inure to the benefit of the entire community and in its own way bring about a reduction in the cost of living ultimately.
Deputies talk from the opposite benches about a reduction in the cost of living, and when they read in to-day's paper, the Irish Press,“no change,” they seem to forget that there has been quite a change, a very substantial change, in the affairs of the country since the inter-Party Government took office last June. Not the least of it is the fact that a successful National Loan of £20,000,000 was floated at a lower rate of interest than Fianna Fáil were able to get and which, in fact, was over-subscribed, while the loan floated by the previous Government was not fully subscribed. What does that indicate to us? I think it indicates more clearly than anything else that the people of the country have greater confidence in the present Government than they had in the previous Government. That is one of the biggest things that the present Government have done, apart from its good Budget to-day. It has created confidence in the country which did not exist prior to the advent of the Government last June.
We have heard that promises were made all over the country by Fine Gael. We have been told that these promises have not been implemented. I think the facts refute the statements made by Deputies opposite. I have mentioned two items already—the immediate reduction in the price of butter and the floating of the National Loan at a low rate of interest—which must affect the cost of living.
In another matter the Government showed judgment which Fianna Fáil would never have displayed, that is, in the question of the price of tea. I cannot say what the ultimate position will be in that regard but I do say that there was judgment exercised which Fianna Fáil did not appear to be capable of exercising as a Government. That judgment was that in this matter we should not be panicked, that the market was likely to settle itself, that there were bound to be fluctuations but that we should not raise prices to an exorbitant level which would prevent certain people from purchasing tea. At that time the Opposition decried and derided that judgment. That judgment has been more than justified in the last few weeks. According to the Press, particularly the English Press, day after day prices for tea are falling. In fact, some of the bigger importers in Britain are unable to dispose of their stocks; there are no buyers at present prices. Is that a vindication of Government policy? Is it a vindication of Government judgment and is it a condemnation of the contribution of the Opposition to that particular matter? Yet they say that the Government have done nothing in the last ten months.
We have had another example of the good effect of good Government. In recent months there was an increase in the bank rate in England. I am quite certain, from the suggestions and statements which they made, that if Fianna Fáil had been in power there would have been a smiliar increase in the bank rate in this country. I do not think it is necessary for me to enlarge upon all the effects of an increase in the bank rate on the country. Quite obviously, it would lead to deflation, less production, a general retarding of progress, temporary or otherwise, but, at any rate, it would not help national development. Yet, Fianna Fáil had been in office for 18 or 20 years and always slavishly followed the British bank rate despite the fact that conditions in this country, both in regard to agriculture and industry, have no relationship whatever to, or cannot be considered as being in any way like, the conditions with which Ministers and their financial advisers have to deal in England. That is a further point that must be considered in dealing with the criticisms—I will not say criticisms—the statements that have been made by Opposition speakers in this House to-day in regard to the Budget.
The difference between the present Government and the Fianna Fáil Government as far as I can see is that the present Government examine everything, examine the tendencies, and use their judgment effectively. Their judgment so far has been correct and I hope it will always be correct.
As far as one can learn from all the things that have happened in the past, Fianna Fáil seem to have no clear policy. They have a day to day, year in, year out policy, hoping for the best. The bank rate and the floating of the Fianna Fáil loan at 5 per cent. and all these things are examples. I do not know that it is carelessness. I certainly do not accuse them of recklessness but of thoughtlessness and lack of foresight in the policy they outlined for the country. Foresight and thoughtfulness have a direct bearing on prices, development and the general welfare of the community.
I think the position with Fianna Fáil was that they were there so long that they did not think there was any necessity for them to think any more. They felt all they had to do was to put on a tax and to collect sufficient money to pay for supply services and for all the things that they considered had to be paid for and, after that, they hoped production would find its own level, that things would improve, that they might go back one year and improve the next year but would always find a level at the end of the year.
What have Fianna Fáil done for industry? For years they claimed—and of course they can easily claim these things because they have a very powerful propaganda machine circulating throughout the country—that they were the fathers and the mothers of industrial progress in this country. They have always made that claim. At the present moment they are going a step further and they are claiming that they are the fathers of agricultural progress. I think we might deal with both of these matters.
I think the father of real industrial progress in this country is in this House to-night and he was maligned or an effort was made to malign him by a couple of Deputies on the Opposition Benches. I refer to the Attorney-General, who was a former Minister for Industry and Commerce. In spite of, and in the teeth of, violent opposition from Fianna Fáil he introduced the Shannon scheme. It was he who conceived the idea. It was he who planned it. It was he who carried it out and it took courage to carry it out against such criticism as described the project as a white elephant.
It took courage for a young man in a young State, after five or six years of self-government, to take that stand. We must remember the times that were in it and we must have a true relation of all the circumstances at the time. Here was a young Minister for Industry and Commerce being decried by an Opposition and being told that the two projects he intended to introduce were white elephants. Despite that, he relied on his own judgment and the Government of which he was a Minister supported him. That Government had sound judgment and foresight at that time—in spite of the present so-called pioneers of industry in this country. The Cumann na nGaedheal Government introduced into this country the one thing that has brought about our present industrial development—the Shannon scheme.
We hear Deputy Briscoe talk about rural electrification and of the advances which were made under Fianna Fáil. We hear the taunt that this Government are retarding rural electrification. I do not know how to describe such tactics, but are they not purely propaganda and is all this relevant to the Budget? Why had Deputy Briscoe not some serious statement to make about this Budget? Why had he to drag in this? As the Minister for Industry and Commerce said here to-day, for the future rural electrification will be stepped up. I understand that at least from 25 to 33? per cent. more progress will be made in that respect under the present Government than was made under the Fianna Fáil Government. Credit must be given where credit is due, and undoubtedly certain credit must be given to Fianna Fáil for encouraging industry in this country. They did encourage it. The question, however, which we have to ask ourselves is: "What else could they have done?" Surely they should not arrogate to themselves all the credit for encouraging industry in this country, because any Government would have had to do the same thing.
The charge is levelled from time to time that Fine Gael are not interested in industry. I do not think anything could further be removed from the truth. Through sheer weight of propaganda, the people were brought to the stage where they were not allowed to remember that, prior to Fianna Fáil's taking office in 1932, the previous Government were only ten short years in office during which they had to rebuild the country and establish the entire Government of the State. They had only ten short years in which they had to do everything and lay the foundations on which Fianna Fáil subsequently acted and, in fact, almost wrecked but, nevertheless, in ten years they had to do that and they did it. As a corollary to that, one has to ask the question: "If we had had that Government after 1932 and if there never had been a change of Government, what would our position be to-day?" To answer that question, we have to turn to agriculture.
In the general election of 1948 we had Fianna Fáil, after 16 years in office, telling the people that conditions could not be more difficult and that if this country was to survive economically Fianna Fáil must be returned to office. They warned people of the dangers confronting the country. They said that the country was almost on the verge of bankruptcy and, in general, they gave a very dismal prognosis of the country's future. That was in 1948 and if they had been reelected it is quite possible that their prognosis would have proved correct. What, in fact, happened? Almost within six months of that prognosis, an inter-Party Government, which had been formed in the meantime, proved that, again, the judgment of Fianna Fáil was wrong and that the judgment of the Ministers who now form the present Government, and their colleagues of that time, was right. For the first time in years we had buoyancy, new life and a new feeling in the country.
I do not think I am exaggerating in any way when I say that there was a feeling of hopefulness for the first time in years. I do not think I am exaggerating either when I say that people felt that, once again—and I take Deputy Briscoe up on his remark on this—there was a chance for merit in this country rather than political preferment. Deputy Briscoe talked about Fianna Fáil governing for the entire country, for all the people. We all know, and particularly those of as who come from counties where we were governed not only in a general way by a Fianna Fáil Government in Dublin but also in a particular way by our local authorities and local councils, where the freedom was for all the people.
That would not arise on the Financial Resolutions.
I will come back to the Budget. So far we have not heard one solitary word concerning this Budget from any speaker on the Opposition Benches. I think it is only right that we on this side of the House should, therefore, speak on the Budget since the Deputies on the other side of the House apparently do not wish to speak on it. I think it is only proper that we should point out that the Government are on the road to carrying out and implementing every one of the points of policy they put before the electors-and they are doing it in a way any thoughtful person in the country would understand is the way in which it should be done, that is, by progressive stages resulting from the fruition of the policy which they are putting forward.
We have heard Deputy Briscoe say here that this is a good Budget and we have heard the Tánaiste read out his delightful dissertation dealing with an interview in the Evening Press with a resident of Dublin. Deputy Briscoe, as I said, has stated that this is a good Budget, but he proceeded with the argument that the increase in the old age pensions was not enough. I think I should remind Deputy Briscoe that it is but a short time ago—1947—since Deputy Briscoe voted against any amelioration of the means test for the purposes of old age pensions. I have a record here of a motion brought before the House to ameliorate the means test and Deputy Briscoe was one of 55 Fianna Fáil Deputies who voted against it. I should remind him too that in 1952, when they brought in the Budget which very properly has been described as a savage Budget, Fianna Fáil's idea in increasing old age pensions by 1/6 was not regarded as a real increase at all but was intended as an alleviation and as a buffer against the increases in the cost of living which Fianna Fáil themselves had imposed.
Deputy Briscoe has also asked why in this Budget old age pensions could not have been increased to 30/- a week. I shall ask him now why did not his Government when in office give more than 1/6, and why did he vote with the others against any amelioration in the means test? Is there any real sincerity behind such an argument as was advanced here by Deputy Briscoe? Deputy Briscoe had to be reprimanded by the Chair for having spent most of the time reading out quotations. I myself must present some quotations and if I do it will be about the industrial progress of the country. I shall ask who was responsible for the initiation of that progress. Who but Fine Gael, who have been first and foremost always in this field? Who but Fine Gael have been in the forefront of industrial progress, and who but Fine Gael have really encouraged it?
I think Fine Gael have something more than that to be proud of and that is their encouragement, and in fact their establishment, of a correct outlook in relation to agriculture. I, too, must go back. Deputy Briscoe went back to 1932. I must go back to 1922 to the time of our first Minister for Agriculture. His policy in relation to agriculture as then stated was: "One more cow, one more sow and one more acre under the plough." As I understand it that is the policy which is being implemented to-day with the active encouragement of the present Minister for Agriculture and with the encouragement also now, after years of misery, of Fianna Fáil.
There was a time when Fianna Fáil thought the only way to real prosperity in this country was through industry and they ignored the fact that agriculture itself was an industry and in fact the most important of all our industries. In relation to our agricultural industry I shall take a quotation made by the Leader of the Opposition in a statement at Ennis on the 27th August, 1933. He said at that time that the British market would never be the same as it was in the past. To refute that was just like a child saying: "Give me the moon." And we had them here to-night arguing on that good judgment.
The very next year the country had a statement from the then Minister for Lands, Mr. Connolly, in which he said: "It is a damn good job that the British cattle market has gone." That statement was published in the Irish Press on the 19th June, 1934. Was that good judgment?
I am afraid the Deputy is going into too much detail.
On a point of order, the whole foundation of our balance of trade depends on cattle and surely then we are entitled to discuss that portion——
I am not objecting to the Deputy discussing agriculture. What I am saying is that he is going into too much detail and that he is going back 20 or 25 years, which does not seem to be relevant to the point.
The country bears the scars of 20 years of Fianna Fáil and we are trying to sew them up.
There are other scars, too, and we know them.
I shall not go any further into that though I have many more telling arguments on the subject. The only reason I took the liberty of going into these things was that Deputy Briscoe went back and quoted much more than I did.
The Chair has not been ruling out any references to agriculture, but I found that the Deputy was going into too much detail.
We have at the present time, after ten months of government, made considerable progress and I think we might review the position briefly. Apart from the benefits involved in the present Budget, we have also provided the benefit of the National Loan at a low rate of interest, a holding of the bank rate instead of an increase as we had across the Irish Sea, a substantial reduction in the price of butter at a cost of £2,000,000 in subsidy. Is that not a substantial reduction on behalf of the consumers of butter?
And who is paying for it?
We have held the price of tea and we have given this increase in old age pensions which is not small. One hundred and sixty-two thousand old age pensioners will benefit from that increase as well as 6,000 blind pensioners and 28,300 widows. That, I think, is a substantial benefit in the direction of a reduction in the cost of living and we must remember that these benefits have not imposed a solitary extra penny increase in taxation. In addition to that, there are additional health services costing £750,000. There are increased tax-free allowances for children under the income-tax code and these will benefit 27,000 families.
This is to my mind a family Budget, designed to assist the families of the country and particularly to assist the families with a certain restricted income; and, as the Minister for Finance has pointed out, under this Budget a man with three children can earn up to £800 a year and have no liability for income-tax. Had the question been put to Fianna Fáil last year would they have been able to make the same claim? I think they would not. I am asking Fianna Fáil now if they say that these concessions are not a benefit to the father of a family and to the family itself. Will they answer that? I would also suggest that the Government have been thoughtful in creating an allowance for income-tax purposes and giving the benefit of the allowance to any person who sees fit to insure against sickness. I think that is a step along the right lines. I move to report progress.