Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 May 1955

Vol. 150 No. 9

Committee on Finance. - Financial Resolution No. 5—General (Resumed).

When I moved to report progress last night I was making the point that the publicans of Dublin were disappointed and I was proceeding to quote from the Cork Examiner of May 10th a statement made by the Chairman of the Licensed Grocers' and Vintners' Association in which he said that it is most likely that the price of drink will be increased on the consumer in the near future. He was referring to the Budget statement last week and said that, having consideration for the association's claim, it had created emergency conditions in the trade. He went on then to state that they had looked forward to a lowering of costs in the trade and said that the least he had expected was that the same relief would be accorded them as was accorded in the previous Budget, even though that relief was small in itself.

I would direct the attention of the Chairman of the Licensed Grocers' and Vintners' Association to the first act of the present Government when they brought in the Finance Bill of 1954 and when Deputy Lemass on this side of the House then challenged them with the windy promises they had made around the streets of Dublin regarding the poor man's pint. At that time their speeches swept through the main streets like a low wind in Jamaica.

From whom are we quoting now?

They not alone promised that——

If the Deputy would fix his blinkers and listen——

Deputy Carter would want his blinkers, too.

They not only promised cheaper porter but cheaper spirits, tobacco and cigarettes.

And rum from Jamaica.

Deputy Lemass set out these series of amendments to the Finance Bill of 1954 which had as their purpose—or which sought, I should say —bringing the Government to heel and at least bringing them to some realisation of the responsibility they had as a Government. The front benchers had gone out and made specific promises to the publicans of Dublin and the country. One amendment Deputy Lemass moved in 1954 was in sub-section (1), lines 15 and 16, to delete 7/6 and to substitute 6/6 in the £ for income-tax. That not alone related to income-tax but it related to beer, spirits and tobacco as well.

What was the reaction of the present Government to that amendment? Their reaction was to troop to the Lobby and endorse every tax we had imposed in the 1952 Budget. Not alone did they endorse them then, but they still have the hardihood and the brassy countenances to say that they were just and necessary taxes and that the publicans of Dublin would get no relief and that the poor man could pay for his pint and that the cigarette smokers would continue to pay the increased price for cigarettes.

I mention these matters in the House in order to bring to the public a realisation of the new high low we have reached in public life, when men of alleged responsibility make specific promises and, when we remind them of them, merely sneer at us and say that we are play-acting.

We said in 1952 that the taxes were necessary. The Government who were then the Opposition complained that they were unnecessary, unjust and cruel taxes. Yesterday, Deputy Dunne, in the course of a long statement, decried the Budget of 1952 but conveniently forgot that he trooped into the Lobby in support of every tax that we levied on the people that year.

In their speeches on this occasion, members of the Government and their supporters were rather hesitant about the Budget. They were apologising for it. Some of them, when they heard the Budget statement, left the House and trooped out, or drooped out, I should say, like men out of a shower. It damped their spirits.

The Deputy must be recollecting his own attitude in 1952.

Never mind 1952. That was three years ago. We have to look to the future.

We can now.

The Deputy cannot live on the past; there is no fat in it. There was supposed to be £10,000,000 to £15,000,000 worth of fat in the 1952 Budget. Was not it the job of the present Government to remit that fat and to spread it among the population? When we remind them of that we are told we are play-acting. We would be failing in our duty to our constituents and to the public in general if we did not remind the Government of their pre-election speeches and promises.

I heard an argument to-day across the House about the rates. The Minister for Defence, General MacEoin, in Sligo, not only promised lower rates but promised to supplement the local rates from the Central Fund. He did not intervene at Question Time to-day to say that that was his policy now.

What about the National Loan?

The present Government have failed miserably to live up to their promises. They have failed miserably regarding prices.

They are not out of office yet.

What about point 15 —to maintain subsidies?

They failed miserably to curtail expenditure. They failed to fulfil any promise they made during the election. That is the way the man-in-the-street looks at it. That is the way the man-in-the-street judges a Government.

They talked about controlling the price of this, that and the other. The body that was set up at the expense of the taxpayer to adjudicate on prices has let prices run riot. We knew that would happen before the Prices Advisory Body was founded. We told that to the Government. They were told that by the Evening Herald following the speech of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the supplies and services debate. I need only quote a paragraph or two from it:—

"Permanent legislation for the control of prices was foreshadowed in Mr. Norton's speech in Dáil Eireann on Wednesday last. The subject is one which the Government should approach with extreme caution. Undoubtedly there are many commodities in respect of which the public feels aggrieved because of the prices charged to consumers. But it is by no means certain that direct Government intervention is a remedy. Very often it can result in grave injustice."

It goes on to say:—

"It cannot be asserted that it is wrong for the Government to control prices. But it can be said that such a power should be invoked only in very exceptional circumstances, as in times of national emergency or acute shortages, and even then only if the normal forces of competition and the weight of public opinion have proved ineffective. The public can scarcely have much confidence in the efficacy of State control over prices when the experiences of the war years are recalled."

It goes on:—

"At best——"

The Deputy is making very extensive quotations. He spent close on half an hour last night giving quotations.

I am nearly finished. It says—I am summarising:—

"At best any attempt at State control of prices can be only a partial success. If it were to be logical the system should not begin at the end of the chain by fixing the prices to be charged for commodities; it should start much further back by controlling..."

—all the things that went to build up the price.

The Minister was advised regarding the establishment of the Prices Advisory Body. He waved that aside as an airy fairy suggestion. He said that it emanated only from the mind of Fianna Fáil. Now that he has failed and that the Prices Advisory Body have failed, the least he could do for the public is to take the Prices Advisory Body off the taxpayer's back and relieve the taxpayer of the cost of that body.

Deputy MacBride, whom I could describe, I suppose, as the chief apologist now that his rôle is reduced to mere nuisance value in the House, belaboured Fianna Fáil, as usual, and talked about afforestation and emigration. He talked, as usual, with his tongue in his cheek, as loud and as long as junior who lost his Sunday sixpence down the grating but he did not get much comfort out of the present Budget. Neither did he criticise it, because he is tied to the tail of the Government like an old tin can and can be dragged anywhere the Government want to bring him.

This Budget, which has been described by the supporters of the Government as a good Budget, can be roughly summarised in this way, that the taxpayer gets no relief, the public get no relief, the farmer stands to lose a good deal, the housewife gets no relief. The housewife finds that the money in her purse is getting shorter and shorter. The farmer finds that the axe fell on his neck and that his income is considerably reduced in face of rising rates and of increased wage demands from agricultural workers and increased overheads. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Government need not smile.

I was just thinking of Longford-Westmeath and the farmers' incomes.

The Parliamentary Secretary need not laugh. There is a demand on the farmers for increased wages this very month. The Parliamentary Secretary purports to be an economist. He should go to the Library and study this matter and it will extend his education a little. The farmer finds himself at a distinct disadvantage, despite the anxiety of the Minister for Agriculture. He used to talk with his hand on his heart about our 12,500,000 acres of agricultural land and how the living of every man, woman and child in this State depended on it. I often heard him in Earlsfort Terrace at the Literary and Historical Debating Society telling his hearers about what could be done and should be done for agriculture. The first thing that the Minister for Agriculture did for agriculture was to hit the farmer on the head with a mallet and say: "You stay in your corner; if you come out again I will give you a further cut."

The great majority of wage-earners get nothing out of the Budget. They find themselves paying the same rate of income-tax, more for their wearing apparel, more for their footwear, the same for their cigarettes, the same for their entrance into a dance hall, despite the talk we used to hear about the dance hall proprietors and the amount of money they used to contribute to Fianna Fáil. I wonder is the boot on the other foot now and would the present Government be buttering up the dance hall proprietors in the hope that they might contribute to their coffers? If they are, I hope they will not turn Turk on them as they did with the publicans of Dublin who contributed £20,000 to their war chest and then found that they got the axe in the neck.

£20,000?

We were informed it was £20,000 and I am inclined to believe it. They used to be rich men one time.

The Deputy must be thinking of the subscriptions his Party gets.

The old age pensioners, the widow and orphan and blind pensioners get a mangy half-crown a week at the pleasure of the Minister for Finance. Deputy Dunne was very thankful for it and Deputy Kyne said that half a loaf was better than no bread. I suggest he is only getting a very burned crust. However, he is also tied to the tail of the Government like an old tin can and he cannot afford to choose otherwise. Beggars cannot be choosers. I think that is a fair summary of the Budget and that it will be the summary of the people in general. We will probably see the reaction to it in the next 12 months.

I propose to be very brief in my contribution to this debate because what I have to say to-day or what I should say has already been said in this House since 1948, whenever I spoke on the Budget introduced. Consequently, on this occasion I propose to confine myself to a few general remarks on the Government policy in so far as we can find a Government policy in the recent Budget.

We all understand that the Budget speech gives an indication of Government policy for the following 12 months and that in the Budget we find a guide to our economic advancement for that period. Let us go back to last May, June and July and what do we find? We find that the Ministers of the present Government made it quite clear that they had no hand, act or part in, or responsibility for, the 1954 Budget and that in so far as the Estimates which came before the House were concerned they themselves could not accept any responsibility for those Estimates; in other words, the Estimates and the Budget were a Fianna Fáil production. I do not think that can be denied by any members of the present Government.

However, when the present Minister for Finance introduced his Budget recently he pointed out in his opening remarks that, despite some setbacks such as a disappointing harvest, widespread flooding, etc., in the year 1954 the economic position was satisfactory. If that is the case, then it must be as a result of the 1954 Budget and the policy which this Government took over. It cannot be denied that it was the policy enunciated in the 1954 Budget which has guided the progress of this country for the last 12 months.

Admittedly, when this Government came into office they immediately and, I think, in a mistaken and hurried fashion, decided to prove to the electorate that they were prepared to carry out some of their promises, at any rate, and with a great flourish of trumpets a reduction was made in the price of butter to the extent of 5d. per lb. All of us will rejoice at any action that will bring foodstuffs, especially butter, bread, and so forth, more within the reach of the poorer groups. Any action in that regard should receive acclaim from the public, but I felt at that time that a reduction of 5d. per lb. in butter was not going to bring butter within the reach of the lower income groups. It was already far beyond their reach and if the Government examined the position carefully they would find that a reduction of at least 1/- per lb. would be necessary to ensure that those of our population who were not on a high salary basis would receive the due benefit.

The real test of the advantage conferred by this reduction of 5d. per lb. lies in the statistics available. By how much did the consumption of butter increase in the last 12 months? To what extent did the consumption of butter increase within the State? It is there we have the real proof of how little benefit was conferred by this reduction of 5d. per lb.

It should also be borne in mind that while we were conferring this alleged benefit on the poorer sections by reducing the price of butter we were conferring that benefit to a greater degree on the large hoteliers and the large users of butter and that it was the large hotels in this country and the incoming tourists as well who really benefited rather than the poorer sections of our own community. The reason I am criticising this is that I believe it was bad Government policy to take that step. I am all for a reduction in the price of foodstuffs, but I think the reduction should be passed on to the most deserving sections of the community.

Last May and June are not so far back that they cannot be referred to again. I do not think anybody here can deny that the one issue involved in the last general election was the cost of living. Deputy Dunne made reference here last night to certain people who were at one time members of this House. Four Independent Deputies here were held up to public odium and described as being responsible, and solely responsible, for the 1952 Budget. There was a continuous harping on these four men by the members of the present Government and by their supporters in the back benches. No opportunity was lost, here or outside, of convincing the public that were it not for the fact that these four Deputies helped to keep Fianna Fáil in office the 1952 Budget would never have been imposed on the country; and, consequently, the high prices which are now being paid by the public for various commodities would likewise never have been imposed. These four men were held responsible for what I described as a very harsh Budget.

Now, in the last general election as a result of the propaganda of the Parties composing the present Government, these four men are no longer in this House. The electorate believed the men who are now in Government. They believed the supporters of the present Government who pointed out to them that these four men should not be returned and the public acted as a jury in the sincere belief that the present Government would remedy the situation created by the 1952 Budget.

What happened? Other Deputies, now mainly members of the Opposition, have dealt at great length with the trail of broken promises. Let us get down to realities. In 1951, Fianna Fáil returned to office. Prior to their return they said there would be no reduction in subsidies and no penalties would be imposed on the public; everything in the garden would be lovely. But, on their return to office, after an examination of public expenditure it was decided to take the severe step of imposing the harsh Budget of 1952 upon the community. The promises they made prior to the 1951 election were not carried out. In 1954 Fianna Fáil went out of office and the inter-Party Government returned. They tell us now that they find things were so bad on their return that they cannot carry out the promises they made prior to the election. Is there not a great similarity between the two groups when it comes down to not even carrying out one's promises?

The financial situation was quite different.

That is the truest word the Deputy has ever spoken.

I am dealing with the promises made by the major groups in this House. We have arrived at the position where both groups make their specific promises and both groups, having examined the financial situation, find they are unable to carry out their promises. If there is not a great similarity there between the two groups, I know very little about public life.

In our case we have only been in office ten months.

Deputy Davin points out that this Government has only been in office for ten months: should I say this is the 11 more months and ten more days type of thing? I do not dispute that fact at all and I am not one of those who expect an incoming Government to work miracles. I will leave it at that for the moment.

After the last election, having listened to speakers on behalf of the Government Parties in my own constituency, I half believed they would do some of the things they promised to do in the course of that campaign. The serious thing is that most of the public believed that they would carry out their promises and, in view of public opinion, I felt constrained to give an opportunity in so far as it lay within my power to those Parties which promised these things. I felt it was my responsibility to help by my vote in seeing that they got that opportunity.

What do we get? After 11 months they bring in a Fianna Fáil Budget. I have never agreed with what I can only describe as the conservative view of the Fianna Fáil Party on financial matters. Neither can I agree that it is fair for the present inter-Party Government to pursue in great measure a similar policy.

To my mind this Budget is an orthodox conservative Budget, an extremely cautious Budget lacking in inspiration, as has been every Budget introduced here over the last 20 years. In a speech lasting approximately an hour and a quarter the Minister devoted less than one minute to dealing with our two major problems to-day-unemployment and emigration. Some two months ago there was a motion before this House in the names of Deputy Maguire and myself calling on the Government to take immediate steps to deal with the problem of unemployment and emigration. That motion was debated here at length. The Government refused to accept it. A very flimsy excuse for its non-acceptance was put up by one prominent Government spokesman: the Government could not remedy these problems by immediate steps.

Our suggestion was that immediate steps would be taken to initiate a desirable policy which would have the effect of remedying the present situation. Though that motion was not accepted I felt it would at any rate have some influence on the Government. What do we find after two months have elapsed? In the course of the most important speech of the year in this House less than one minute is devoted to the two major ills which beset this country.

I blame the present Government for pretending to be different from Fianna Fáil. The difference exists only in name and there is a desperate battle at the moment to preserve political identities. But it is becoming more difficult with each day that passes to convince the people that there is a fundamental difference in the approach of our major Parties to our problems. The only difference lies in the matter of a few pounds.

Social services.

The only difference we can see at the present time between the 1954 and the 1955 Budget is the miserable increase of 2/6 per week to old age pensioners and to widows and orphans. I do not intend to elaborate but I would like to be shown, and I would like it to be proved to me that there is a difference in the approach to industrial expansion, between the approach by the inter-Party Government and the Fianna Fáil Government to capital development. I have always held the view that the policy enunciated by Fianna Fáil from 1932 was the right one, to develop our natural resouces, but where I criticised Fianna Fáil all through the years and still criticise them is for the fact that the rate of progress, in my opinion, was painfully slow. Here, we have the present Government falling exactly into line, accepting the same outlook with regard to capital development and with regard to industrial expansion as their predecessors.

I think that the time is fast drawing near when every Deputy in this House must be pinned down to one side or the other, that he must show himself in his true colours as either a progressive or a conservative. If we are going to have our political Parties in this House, we must know what exactly those Parties stand for, whether they represent the progressive outlook or whether they are conservative. If we can establish that then there will be some hope for development in Irish public life.

To conclude, I believe that the 1955 Budget and the year 1955 will be remembered in a significant fashion in future years as far as Irish political development is concerned. It has marked the year in which the difference between all Parties in this House has been brought to a minimum and it is from now on that we may hope for that change which so many people desire should be brought about in Irish politics.

If there is any Deputy who would not like to see Deputies in this House pinned down to one side or the other, I think that it is Deputy McQuillan, because if ever a person acted like Mother Machree's dog and went a little bit of the road with everyone, it is Deputy McQuillan. I think he will probably continue in that career in this Dáil as he did in the last Dáil.

I want to say in relation to some of the other speeches made here to-day that there is something amusing about the air of injured innocence which we find on the benches opposite. We find Fianna Fáil Deputies coming here posing as the poor innocent victims of hostile propaganda during the election; adopting the attitude that they were people with white hands and that gangs of liars and gangsters were put up against them in the election and that they beat down the honest Fianna Fáil patriots.

I want to remind some of the Fianna Fáil Deputies of the particular type of electioneering which took place in the 1951 General Election and which was also carried on by Fianna Fáil Deputies in the 1954 General Election. I want to remind them that their deputy leader issued an appeal for funds to certain people in this city seeking funds for the purpose of bringing to bear on the election "modern electioneering methods". I would like if any of the Deputies opposite would tell me if some of the things I propose to recount now were the "modern electioneering methods" to which Deputy Lemass referred when he appealed for funds and supporters.

Remember in 1951 these poor innocents had spent three years carping against the inter-Party Government and they had spent the last six months before the general election, when due to the Korean war situation prices had begun to rise slightly, tub-thumping and condemning the inter-Party Government because the cost of living had gone up. I am not going to attempt to argue what the implications of the speeches made by Deputies opposite were, but I am going to say that not only by implication but by specific, categorical, unequivocal assurances did Fianna Fáil tell the people what they proposed doing, on the one hand, and what they would refrain from doing on the other hand.

The House may remember during that election campaign of 1951 Fianna Fáil underscored all the propaganda by posters which were placarded all around Dublin City and throughout the country with just four words on them: "you can trust Dev". Let us see what you could trust Dev to do or not to do. You could trust Dev, according to Deputy Lemass, Deputy MacEntee and according to some others, not to reimpose taxes on beer and tobacco which had been imposed in 1947 and which had been removed by the inter-Party Government. You could trust Fianna Fáil not to interfere with food subsidies. You could trust Dev. There was no doubt about it as far as Fianna Fáil was concerned; they were making specific proposals and you could trust them. Let me say this: Deputy Lemass in his constituency, apparently, did not like this adulation of one man. He took out the "you can trust Dev", and in his constituency he made it, "you can trust Fianna Fáil". Apparently, he felt that he was rather near the throne and that the thing to do was to get the people's minds off the one-man Party idea because he was heir-at-law and, therefore, for his constituency, it was: "you can trust Fianna Fáil". Probably Deputy Aiken, as heir-apparent, made it: "you can trust Fianna Fáil" in County Louth also.

What could you trust Fianna Fáil to do? Deputy Lemass assured the electorate in 1951 again that Fianna Fáil could be trusted; that you knew where you stood with Fianna Fáil. Just before that election he spoke in these terms according to the Sunday Press of the 13th May, 1951:—

"A Coalition Minister has said that Fianna Fáil, if elected, would increase the taxes on beer and tobacco. Why should such taxes be necessary? There is no reason why we should impose these taxes."

There was no implication there and there was no doubt about it. Deputy Lemass told the electorate that if he got back to Government he would not reimpose those taxes and "you could trust Dev".

Deputy MacEntee was even more specific about it. This has been quoted here before. I will quote it again very briefly. According to the Irish Times of the 15th May, 1951, speaking in Rathmines Town Hall, Deputy MacEntee

"referred to rumours being spread by a number of persons in the licensed trade who were saying that if Fianna Fáil were returned to Government taxes imposed on drink in the Supplementary Budget of 1947 would be reimposed. There was no truth whatever in that."

Quite definite, quite specific. He pinpointed the issue. He said that persons were saying that if he got back, those taxes would be reimposed. He was standing up in Rathmines Town Hall to give the lie to that. There was no truth in it. We could trust Dev. To emphasise it even more, on the same occasion, he said:—

"The people were being asked to decide whether politics in Ireland were to be a dirty game played by confidence tricksters who were prepared to promise anything to dupe the people into voting for them."

Could anyone doubt the programme that was being put before them? They had Deputy MacEntee's assurances; they had Deputy Derrig's assurances; they had Deputy Lemass's assurances that "you could trust Dev."

Quote any of my assurances.

I am suggesting to Deputy Derrig that he assured the people that they could trust Dev— is he going back on that?

He would not admit that now.

All these assurances were given that there would be no reimposition of these taxes. Lest anyone should think that this was just an irresponsible speech by Deputy MacEntee, or that Deputy Lemass's effort was just a speech which he did not think would be reported, I should like to point out that they went a lot further than that. They all got together when the election was over —I should be very surprised if Deputy Derrig were not in on it—and they issued solemnly to every newspaper in this country a 17-point programme, carefully planned out. In that 17-point programme they gave very definite and very specific assurances. I say that Deputy Derrig was probably allowed in the door when the 17-point programme was being drafted. I say to Deputy Derrig that in point 15 of that programme he assured the people that if he got back as a member of the Government he would maintain subsidies to control the price of essential foodstuffs.

Let us just deal for a moment with these specific assurances given by the injured innocents opposite, the victims of hostile propaganda. They would not, according to Deputy MacEntee, put back the tax on beer and tobacco which had been imposed in 1947 and which was taken off by the inter-Party Government. They would not, according to Deputy MacEntee, reimpose this taxation. They would not, according to Deputy Derrig and the rest of them, interfere with food subsidies.

We did not say we would not interfere with food subsidies. The Deputy is changing now.

"To maintain subsidies, to control the price of essential foodstuffs."

"To maintain" means no change.

Tell us why we put back the increased taxation.

Deputy O'Malley was not here then.

Deputy O'Malley probably feels that if anyone can claim to be an injured innocent he can, because he was not in on this. He was not called into consultation, the same as Deputy Derrig, when the Fianna Fáil Party were pledging their honour to the people to maintain food subsidies.

Tell us Deputy MacEntee's reasons for imposing the taxation again.

Before we come to that, suppose we come to Deputy MacEntee's reasons why he reimposed the taxes on beer and tobacco? Will that suit the Deputy for a start?

I challenged Deputy MacEntee on this in the Seanad. I have here a quotation from a speech he made in the Seanad in June of 1952. The reference is the Official Report of the Seanad Debates of the 19th June, 1952, column 1638. I had put before Deputy MacEntee, who was the Minister for Finance at the time, the reference to his speech in Rathmines which I have just quoted to the House.

On a point of order. Is it permissible to go over a discussion here that took place in the other House?

It is not proper to discuss speeches of Senators.

Deputy Derrig will miss a lot if I do not.

I do not want to be bored by the Deputy's speeches in the Seanad. It is bad enough as it is to have to listen to them here.

I am sorry if I have wakened Deputy Derrig up. He was resting very comfortably a few moments ago.

Deputy O'Higgins had better paraphrase it. It is not usual to read out statements made in the other House.

I think, with all respect, that Deputy MacEntee might feel offended if I attempted to paraphrase it. The excuse tendered by the Deputy was that when he spoke it was not his intention to reimpose those duties; that, quite naturally, as rational men, the Fianna Fáil Party could not have that intention until they saw what the problem was and that, because he happened to say a certain thing in May, 1951, it did not follow that, in different circumstances and if the national interest required it, he should not depart from it—it did not follow that he would be bound by that promise in perpetuity. "In any event," he added, "what does anything I said in 1951 matter in relation to the problems which now confront the State, the Government and the people?" I want to put this to the injured innocents. In effect, Deputy MacEntee's reasoning was: "I can get up on the platform and give a definite and specific promise and assurance to the people that we have no intention of reimposing certain taxes. If I reimpose the taxes at a later stage, how am I to be blamed? Was I not honest in saying it was not the intention to do it?" I do not think that kind of excuse is good enough. I am not talking about implications that can be taken from speeches by Fianna Fáil leaders or——

The Deputy is giving a wrong interpretation of Deputy MacEntee's remarks.

Apparently I am not allowed to quote in full. I should be only too delighted to do so.

What did Mr. Butler say to him when he went over to see him?

I will get that in a second, I hope.

What did Sir Stafford Cripps say?

That was the Fianna Fáil campaign in 1951. In 1954, those injured innocents—having gone back on what they had stipulated in 1951—had to think of something else with which to face the people. We hear talk about election speeches made by present Ministers and by supporters of the present Government. We are told about election pamphlets that were issued. Was any more damnable pamphlet issued in the general election campaign than this one which was produced by Deputy MacEntee and his colleague in Dublin South-East, suggesting that if there was any change of Government—if Labour, Fine Gael or any group except Fianna Fáil had anything to do with the Government of this country—every Irish industry would be closed down, men would be thrown out of employment, wages would be cut, and so forth? Is that not the suggestion behind this pamphlet which was issued by Deputy MacEntee and his colleague who was a former Deputy of this House?

What does that say?

This was one of the modern electioneering methods showing Irish industry as an aeroplane being shot down by the members forming the inter-Party Government.

Is that the transatlantic air service?

Irish Steel would go. Various factories of one sort or another would go. Irish Shipping would go. That was the type of modern electioneering method used by the injured innocents who feel they were wronged because spokesmen supporting the inter-Party Government pointed out to the people—and rightly so—what Fianna Fáil had done during their three years in office and how they had broken categoric assurances which they gave to the people. That is one of the pamphlets produced by the injured innocents. Here is another pamphlet which portrays Deputy MacBride, the present Minister for Industry and Commerce and the present Taoiseach as a group of bank robbers endeavouring to raid the tills. Here is yet another pamphlet. Is it necessary to add that this pamphlet also was produced by Deputy MacEntee and his colleague? The heading of this pamphlet is: "It is your money they are after." That was the type of modern electioneering method used by the Simon Pures opposite me. That was the suggestion made in the Taoiseach's constituency of Dublin South-East—that "It is your money they are after", that that is all they are interested in.

Would Deputy O'Malley like to inspect some of these documents and then we would see if his face would look quite so innocent? I do not suggest that, personally, he would have anything to do with that type of thing but that is what was going on. Let them search their own consciences before they start reproaching other people.

Might I ask a question?

Not unless the Deputy gives way.

I am quite willing to listen to what Deputy O'Malley has to say.

As the Deputy has glossed over the reasons for the imposition of taxation by Fianna Fáil, would he state what was the deficit in the balance of payments when we assumed office after 1951 and what the deficit is this year?

Your leader told us that in Fermoy. The surplus was £24,000,000, so do not contradict the boss.

Deputy O'Malley is what would be known in other countries as a deviationist and he might not last too long. Deputy de Valera has at least this to his credit: when he became Taoiseach, in answer to a challenge from the present Minister for Agriculture he admitted that Deputy MacEntee found on his desk a bag with about £24,000,000 in it when he went into office.

Plus commitments.

Fianna Fáil had the option of accepting or rejecting what they term commitments. Let us illustrate that for the benefit of Deputy O'Malley. There was the question of the public services arbitration award. The Fianna Fáil Party did not feel they were committed to honour that. They did not honour it. We felt we were committed and we did honour it. I want to put this on record for the benefit of the House because I think it is time that Deputies opposite stopped this play-acting that has been going on.

Did we not honour these increases? It cost us £3,500,000 when we went into office to honour a pledge.

The Deputy must restrain himself. He will get an opportunity of making his own statement and he may then answer the points that are being made.

I think it is time the Deputies opposite stopped their play-acting about what were promises and what were commitments. The present Taoiseach made his position and the position of those supporting him quite clear to the electorate and I feel there is no need for anyone to apologise for the manner in which the issue was placed before the electorate by the present Taoiseach during the last general election. I am not shirking for a moment the responsibility of saying that this Government and every Deputy behind this Government aims at reducing the cost of living, either by bringing down prices or by bringing up people's incomes to narrow the gap between prices and incomes.

The Taoiseach, during the last general election, made his attitude in the matter quite clear. Even Deputy O'Malley would probably remember that the Irish Times issued a questionnaire to Deputy de Valera and to Deputy Costello and one of the questions put to those two Deputies was: “If returned to Government do you propose in the coming year to reduce the cost of living by increasing food subsidies?” Deputy Costello's reply was:—

"An object of our policy is to reduce the cost of living and to relieve the burden of present prices by using all practical means of increasing the real value of people's money. The extent to which, and the rate at which, revisions in subsidies combined with readjustments in taxation are possible cannot be determined in advance by an Opposition. Responsible decisions on these two matters require:—(1) access to all relevant facts concerning the condition of the Exchequer, (2) the ascertainment of the effect on the Exchequer of a fundamental reform of the financial policy. I do not, therefore, propose to repeat the action of our opponents in 1951, when they made specific promises which they subsequently broke. They failed to keep their specific promises to maintain subsidies and not restore certain taxes. I am prepared to make only one promise—to provide good Government to the best of my ability."

Could the Deputy please give us the reference?

I am reading from the Official Report, for the 23rd June, 1954, column 505, Volume 146. It was a quotation from an interview published in the Irish Times but I have not got the date of the issue of the Irish Times in which it appeared. As I say, the position was made quite clear and the Deputies opposite need not think they are gaining any sympathy by the attitude they have adopted during this debate and during previous debates. A number of Deputies have compared this Budget with the Fianna Fáil Budget of 1952. Deputy MacEntee stated that it was an as-you-were Budget. The Fianna Fáil newspapers also made use of that phrase to describe the Budget. I want to say straight away that I do not believe this is an as-you-were Budget. I do not believe it is the Fianna Fáil Budget of 1952. In considering this Budget you have to consider not only the framework in which the Budget is brought in, but also the background of the last 12 months and what are the Government's hopes for the future.

The first claim I want to make, having regard to the work of the Government during the past 12 months, is that this is an Irish Budget, a Budget brought in to meet the needs of the Irish people as the Government see them and as the country can afford them. It is not a Budget brought in to meet the wishes of Mr. R.A. Butler, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is the first distinction I want to draw between this Budget and the Fianna Fáil Budget of 1952. I think Deputy MacEntee and Deputy Lemass—I am not quite certain about Deputy Lemass—met the British Chancellor of the Exchequer. They resent any suggestion that they were summoned over to meet him so I shall not make it. We all recall how they met Mr. Butler and we can all recall how the Fianna Fáil Government then and the Tory Government in England stepped along cheek by jowl. The Tory Government brought in their Budget for the first time in history about two months earlier than the traditional time. When Deputy MacEntee came back here to Dublin he did the same thing. We all remember the slashing of the food subsidies in Britain in 1952. We remember how Deputy MacEntee did the same thing here.

And the increase in the interest rates.

Was that why you did not reduce the income-tax this year?

Probably Deputy Derrig remembers this. At any rate, we remember how, when Mr. R. A. Butler went into the British House of Commons to present his Budget to the people there, he went waving a message from Deputy Seán MacEntee in his hand to say: "Ata Boy, we are behind you" and in the Irish Press of the 12th March, 1952, this appears in relation to Mr. Butler's speech:—

"Mr. Butler said he had received a message from the Irish Minister for Finance expressing his Government's understanding of the gravity of the situation and their determination to play their part in the solving of it. He understood the Irish Minister for Finance would make a statement to-day."

That was the once proud, once independent, Fianna Fáil Party.

What about the devaluation of sterling? Perhaps the Deputy will explain why his colleagues accepted Mr. Butler's advice in the British policy of devaluing the £?

It was Sir Stafford Cripps. You are out of date.

Sir Stafford Cripps.

Before we become engaged in a discussion on devaluation, let me just, for what it is worth, draw for Deputy Derrig a picture of two Fianna Fáil Ministers, one the Deputy MacEntee of 1932 who made a speech on the link with sterling. This speech made in 1932 is quoted in the Sunday Independent of the 23rd February, 1947, as follows:—

"I think it was the President (Mr. Cosgrave) said that we were anchored to the £ sterling and now the £ is a millstone around the necks of the people and is dragging them down to the bottom of the sea. The financial and economic position of the country would be much better if we had an independent currency instead of being tied to the sinking £."

That was Deputy Seán MacEntee in 1932.

The green and salad days.

In 1952, Mr. Butler said he had received a message from the Irish Minister for Finance expressing his Government's understanding of the gravity of the situation and their determination to play their part in solving it.

They got together in Downing Street in 1952. We know the result of that. I claim that the first essential difference between Mr. Sweetman's Budget of to-day and Deputy MacEntee's Budget of 1952 is that this is an Irish, Budget and it is not designed to suit the wishes of Mr. R. A. Butler, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer.

There are, of course, other differences. I do not know if the House has ever obtained from Deputy MacEntee or from Deputy Lemass any light as to what happened during their discussion with Mr. Butler. I would like to have some information on that subject even now. In any event, that is what happened in 1952. In 1955, I think I am correct in saying for the first time in history, an Irish Minister for Finance was able so to arrange matters that the Irish bank rate did not follow the British bank rate. That is another factor which must be taken into account when considering the framework and the background of the present Budget.

To arrange matters?

"So to arrange matters."

Oh, "so to arrange."

What is the difference?

It satisfied Deputy O'Malley.

I think Deputy Childers had the right idea arising out of the 1952 Budget. I mention this merely to show again one of the differences between the 1952 Budget and the 1955 Budget, between the position in 1952 and the position in 1955. After Deputy Derrig, Deputy Burke and Deputy Beegan had passed the 1952 Budget through this House, Deputy Erskine Childers went down to Rath-downey, County Laois, to speak and is reported in the Irish Times of the 21st April, 1952. He must have been a very shook man when he went to Rath-downey because he said that what the country needed was a feeling of confidence in the business of government so that those with savings would lend to an administration in which no crackpot financiers were permitted to delude the people by burning candles at both ends and pointing out what a grand light they would make.

Deputy Childers felt, after the 1952 Budget, that the people needed to have confidence in their Government. I am quite sure Deputy Derrig felt that the people had no confidence in the Government and that the Government had very little confidence in the people because they held on for another two years.

What is the position this year? Deputy MacEntee, during that period, in order to raise his loan had to offer the people an inducement of a 5 per cent. interest rate. In the first loan floated by the present Minister for Finance, the people had such confidence in the present Government that there was no difficulty in persuading them to lend their money to the present Government at a very considerably lower rate of interest than that which Deputy MacEntee required.

And it was subscribed in full.

Oversubscribed.

That is because Deputy Davin is in the Government.

Not at all.

That is another difference between the 1952 and the 1955 situations.

Let us consider also that in bringing in this Budget the Government, in implementing their aim to get down the cost of living, before they were many months in office had reduced the price of butter by 5d. per lb. and had accepted responsibility for the subsidy which that entailed, costing something in the region of £2,000,000. It is quite true that if that commitment was not honoured and if the commitment to the civil servants was not honoured, the Government would have £3,000,000 or so to spare. We felt that £2,000,000 was well spent in reducing what is perhaps the most essential food for the people.

I do not know what Fianna Fáil's view on that is to-day, but this much is certain that if Fianna Fáil had been returned to office in the last general election the price of butter would not have come down. Not one of them will deny that. It was not their policy to get down the price of butter, by subsidisation in any event. The Government honoured the arbitration award and the Government held down the cost of tea.

I know Fianna Fáil Deputies are under orders to sneer at what the Government have done in respect of tea. I once more would like to ask them to answer honestly before this debate is over what would they have done. Is not it true that if Fianna Fáil had been re-elected after the last general election they would have allowed the price of tea to go up and to continue going up without any effort to control it?

The Government during the course of the year dealt promptly with the question of the floods which occurred. I have already referred to the bank rate and to the loan. The Government have made it clear what they propose doing during the coming 12 months. They are continuing the butter subsidy. They have made provision for substantial increases to the old age pensioners and others. They have given important income-tax concessions. They have provided for additional health services and, of course, they are continuing the reliefs which were incorporated in the Budget of 1954 and of which Fianna Fáil are so proud.

Some Fianna Fáil speakers, including their last spokesman, Deputy Carter, have been gibing at the increase given to old age pensioners. Deputy Carter spoke about it as "this mangy 2/6 per week". I want to remind Deputies that when Fianna Fáil increased the old age pension by 1/6, in 1952, they did it as nearly as they could on a callous mathematical basis. They worked out that the effect of the removal of food subsidies was going to cost something in the region of 1/6 per head and therefore the very maximum to which the old age pensioner would be entitled was 1/6.

Deputy Burke looks as if he does not believe me. It is hard to believe, but that was the Fianna Fáil attitude in 1952. There was no question of easing the situation for old age pensioners and others. It was a question of giving them what the Government had decided was the bare minimum of what they were entitled to. In fact, it did not measure up to the damage that was done in the Budget at all.

Deputy MacEntee, in his 1952 Budget speech, at column 1139, Volume 130 of the Official Debates of the 7th April, 1952, had this to say:—

"On existing rations and at present prices, food subsidies reduce weekly expenditure per person on rationed foods by approximately 2/-. This 2/- per week has, of course, to be met by general taxation, that is to say, it has first to be collected from the general body of taxpayers before, by devious channels, it finds its way back to them: surely a wasteful and nonsensical procedure. The rise in retail prices consequent on the changes I have mentioned will not, however, amount to 2/-; in fact, on the average, it should work out at some 25 per cent. less, or almost 1/6 per head per week. This, then, is the outside limit of the burden that will be imposed on any individual, and, therefore, of the compensation that need be given in necessitous cases."

Then he goes on:—

"On this basis——"

—on the basis that that was the outside limit and that it was compensation for the damage the Government were doing—

——"the Government have decided to increase the old age pension by 1/6 a week..."

That was the Fianna Fáil attitude to the old age pensioners in 1952 and now they have the nerve to stand up here and talk about an increase of 2/6 given in this Budget as being a mangy increase. I suggest to Fianna Fáil Deputies that this Budget is a good Budget. It is a Budget with which the people are satisfied. Deputy Carter spent his concluding moments in reading out a list he had compiled of people who got no relief under the Budget. The real people who got no relief from this Budget are the Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party because they cannot think of any argument to make against it. They have not yet told the House whether they propose voting against the Budget or not.

The Fianna Fáil Party organ anticipated what the people of the country wanted before the Budget was introduced and the Evening Press, having made a survey of what the people wanted, of what would be considered a good Budget, interviewed a person from Deputy MacEntee's constituency, who was described as “Mr. Average Married Man”. He said he would like to see the £85 income-tax allowance for each child increased to £100. In regard to the old age pensioners he said: “These old people deserve more money.” He would consider that a good Budget. The Fianna Fáil Party organ, having made their survey, gave that last opinion as what the average married man would consider a good Budget, and that was before the terms of the Budget were announced.

The day after the Budget was announced the Evening Press made another survey. They did not go back to “Mr. Average Married Man”, needless to say. They knew his views and they were not going to go near him again. They went around Dublin and they got some other views on the Budget. They gave only three, so we can imagine that the views they were getting did not suit. They gave this view, in any event:—

"I am glad to see the old age pensioners, the blind and widows getting the money—I would 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 does not benefit me, as I am not paying income-tax."

The Evening Press did not print that, surely?

Somebody in the office wrote it.

He is surely sacked.

That was the result of a second survey carried out by the Fianna Fáil Party organ after the terms of the Budget were announced. Is it any use for Fianna Fáil Deputies to keep arguing? No one expects them to stand up and say this is an excellent Budget. If Deputy O'Malley, Deputy Burke or any other Fianna Fáil Deputy says this is an excellent Budget he will be feeling the back of his neck for a week and wondering what hit him. The fact is they know the people of the country are satisfied with this Budget and if they had any sincerity they would join with me in heartily congratulating the Minister for Finance and the Government on the Budget they have introduced.

I am afraid I cannot join with Deputy O'Higgins in congratulating the Minister for Finance on this Budget. One of the speakers on the Government side, my colleague from East Limerick, Deputy Carew, has suggested that 1955 will be a memorable year as regards the turning of the tide in regard to taxation. Be that as it may, 1955 will be remembered particularly by the electorate of the country for two things. In the first place, it is the second time they have been duped into electing a Coalition Government. In the second place, there is the point that once they are given an opportunity, they are clearly resolved that for all time this system of Government will be done away with in the country.

It was admitted by all sides that the cost of living was the main issue in the last election and no one has denied that. While quotations have been given here—mostly on this side of the House because it does not suit the Government supporters to give quotations at the present time—there is no shadow of doubt that the reason that we are sitting here in opposition and that the Government are over on that side of the House is due to the fact that there was a certain element, particularly in Dublin, who were convinced that with a change of Government and with the Coalition assuming office, immediately the cost of living would undoubtedly fall and the price of food would also be reduced. That cannot be denied.

The Tánaiste asked Deputy Lemass did he want an election. I am not in the position of either the Tánaiste or Deputy Lemass but I think it would be very interesting if an election were fought to-day. The figures were more or less equal before the last election. If an election were fought in Dublin I have no hesitation in saying that Fianna Fáil would be returned with an overwhelming majority. But we do not hear much talk nowadays about elections or by-elections. We do not see the Lord Mayor of Dublin, Deputy A. Byrne, careering around with a loaf on top of a walking stick. There is very little talk about elections.

This time 12 months Deputy A. Byrne, as reported in the Irish Press of 21st May, 1954, said:—

"I am going to support the inter-Party Government. But I say to them that they must do something for the housewife and for the unemployed. Patchwork relief schemes are not remedying unemployment."

If the housewives of this country get their hands on the Coalition in the next couple of months, when their rage is at its peak, the Coalition will not know what hit them.

Will the Deputy not be able to keep it fomented longer than that?

We are a Party with national aspirations and we always work in the interests of the country as a whole. We would not use any situation for our own political advancement.

Does the Deputy think Fianna Fáil would be glad to have a general election now?

The Parliamentary Secretary should set a headline and cease interrupting.

I would want notice of his question. There was no national issue at stake in the last general election. It all boiled down to a question of the cost of living. The people now realise they have been sold out. I notice that there was very little mention of expenditure and the cutting of the alleged wasteful expenditure of Fianna Fáil when Government Deputies intervened in this debate. Neither do I see any drastic cut in expenditure in the current financial year. One thing has been proved quite conclusively and that is that the Fianna Fáil Budget was sound national economy.

Mr. Butler thought so anyway.

I think it is better that people like me, with a limited knowledge of finance and who can express themselves in ordinary everyday language, should speak in this debate. It is much better for people to hear us speaking here because there is no doubt about it the general public do not appreciate long-winded speeches and reference to fiduciary issues and all these other things. God knows what they mean. This Budget is a very simple matter. Deputy M.J. O'Higgins has taunted us with: "You can trust Dev." You can trust Dev; there is no doubt about that. It is a pity the whole country did not trust him on the last occasion.

No speaker on the other side so far has made any reference to the 17 point programme of Fianna Fáil before they returned to office.

When the Deputy was angling for office. It was after the election when the Deputies opposite were angling for office that that 17 point programme was promulgated. They were wooing Dr. Browne, Captain Cowan and Dr. ffrench O'Carroll at the time.

I will deal with this in as effective a way as possible. There seems to be an opinion on the Government side of the House and amongst Government supporters throughout the country that this is a sore point with us.

Not at all. "You can trust Dev."

Does Deputy O'Higgins realise that we had no realisation——

——of the commitments which had been entered into by the Coalition before they went out of office. Just to refresh his memory, may I quote some of these? The Coalition left a lot of unpaid and unhonoured commitments. There was an increase in pay to the teachers.

Is the Deputy against it?

There was an increase in pay to the Guards——

Is the Deputy against it?

——to the Army and the civil servants.

Is the Deputy against them all?

Like St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, there is no reply from me on that score.

That is better than Schwartz, anyway.

I am not Jimmy Henry. The increase in pay to the teachers, the Gardaí, the Army and the civil servants came to £3,500,000. These increases arose out of the findings of an arbitration appointed by the Coalition. The arbitrator was appointed in April, 1950, and he reported in May, 1951. It was understood that the findings would apply as far as practicable to every class of public servant. To meet the award in 1951 would cost about £3,600,000. The Coalition knew these increases were coming, but they provided no money to meet them.

But Fianna Fáil said they would honour the award, whatever it was, prior to the election.

The Minister for Social Welfare misunderstands me. I am not talking about the retrospective payment. I am talking of the failure of the Coalition to make provision for these actual increases totalling £3,500,000. It was they who were mainly responsible for the deficit in the Budget of 1951. Secondly, there was an interest payment of £477,000 in respect of C.I.E. There was an operating loss of £823,000. The total there was £1,300,000. C.I.E. was bought out by the Transport Act passed in 1951 by the Coalition. They knew the undertaking was bankrupt at that time because of their hostile policy adopted in 1948 and 1949. They knew it was bound to lose money heavily in 1951 and they made no provision whatever to cover those losses, losses which, in fact, amounted to £2,250,000 in 1951-1952. Thirdly, there was a small item of £3,000,000 in relation to increases in the cost of social welfare services, including increases in old age pensions and in benefits under the new Social Welfare Act.

You opposed the giving of 2/6 to old age pensioners.

The Coalition introduced a Social Welfare Bill in 1951 and, under pressure, they agreed to grant an increase in old age pensions on the Committee Stage. Instead of fulfilling this commitment, which would have cost over £1,000,000, they provided no money whatever for it in their Budget. They decided instead to abandon the Bill altogether. They dissolved the Dáil and then Fianna Fáil had to come along and provide the full amount, which totalled £3,000,000.

Fourthly, there was an increase in grants to health authorities. All this bears on the reason why Fianna Fáil could not implement its 17 point programme. They made certain specific statements and certain specific promises before they returned to office after the first Coalition. I am showing now why they were not able to honour those specific promises because of the commitments and the unhonoured obligations left behind by the Coalition.

Including the mother and child scheme.

The increase in grants to health authorities came to £1,190,000. At the instance of the Coalition, local health authorities granted substantial increases in pay to their employees while the general election of that year was on. The whole cost of those increases had to be met out of State funds. The Coalition made no provision whatever for this and the supplementary sum of £835,000 had to be provided and the actual amount then, in 1952, was £1,160,000. Other items in that service brought the total increase to £1,190,000. Then the fifth item which the Coalition did not make provision for—the increase in interest and sinking funds for public debt, including interest on the Marshall Aid Loan, approximately £1,100,000 per year in 1952, and a half year's interest to be paid that year. That came to £2,080,000. Totalling all those five items up they come to a grand total of £11,070,000—all this huge amount of money, unprovided for by the Coalition, which Fianna Fáil had to make provision for.

The total amount borrowed from the United States under the Marshall Plan was 128,000,000 dollars, and Deputy O'Higgins made reference to that. No one on any side of the House as far as I can read back opposed that. Where we differed with the Coalition was on the method of spending. Most of it was spent on wheat and coarse grain, tobacco and petrol, paper and motor cars. Although the loan was supposed to be raised for capital development purposes, only a small fragment of it was spent on machinery. The serious part of all this is that this loan which has now to be repaid must be repaid in dollars and the interest on it must be repaid in dollars also.

What is the Deputy quoting from?

Would the Deputy give the reference?

I am not quoting at all. I am reading extracts from some figures I have here myself—is that all right?

Very illuminating.

Does the Deputy question that the Marshall Aid money has to be repaid in dollars?

Did Deputy Derrig hear the Minister say that we have a surplus in our dollar payments fund for the first time ever this year?

On the cover of my notebook I have a picture of the Minister for Agriculture looking through the wrong end of a telescope and saying: "I tell you the price of maize will not rise by one farthing in the foreseeable future" and behind that there are two men and one of them is saying to the other: "Who does he think he is codding?"

Now that the Deputy has quoted, perhaps he would give us the source of his quotation.

Give us the telescopic quotation—the Irish Press of when?

No source. I will put that away. I will not read that any more if there is objection.

When the Coalition was formed in June—to get back to more relevant matters—they had ample opportunity of taking off immediately the tax on beer, stout and cigarettes. It has been said by very many speakers on the other side of the House: "What can we expect after only about ten months in office?" As a matter of fact the Minister for Finance qualified this further when—I had better give the quotation—speaking on the 15th June as reported at Volume 146, column 95, he said:—

"We inherited a situation which it was too late to change. Two months of the financial year had gone and obviously the year would be far advanced before the Ministers had an opportunity of making a thorough study of the problems facing them in their respective spheres of administration. By then it would be too late for different financial proposals to have a real operative effect in this financial year...."

Yet, when they reassumed office in 1948, on the 18th February of that year, they found no difficulty at all in reducing the taxes on beer, whiskey and cigarettes. However, ten months have elapsed now and in this Budget there is no indication whether these taxes will be remitted even in the lifetime of the Government.

I thought there was one very pertinent remark made by the Tánaiste, Deputy Norton, when the Minister for Finance read his Budget speech. Deputy MacEntee replied briefly and then the Tánaiste intervened and said: "You had that speech prepared." I think that is most revealing, because how could Deputy MacEntee know what was contained in the Budget? Deputy MacEntee was writing on several sheets of foolscap long before Question Time was over or before the Minister rose and commenced to read his Budget statement. The remark is a most interesting one which should be looked into very carefully. Does it show that Deputy MacEntee was convinced that the Minister for Finance had at last been converted to the view that the economy and well-being of the country as a whole was far more important than the pressure and vote-catching tactics of certain other individuals, and possibly Parties, who may have tried to get at him on that occasion? However, as I say, I refer to it only as a matter for the consideration of the House and because it is most interesting, in my opinion.

What is the Deputy referring to the House?

The interjection of the Tánaiste. I come now to the Budget itself. At the outset, the Minister made the most interesting statement that receipts from abroad virtually balanced external payments. It is a pity the Coalition did not worry about the deficit in the balance of payments when they left office in 1951. It bears back again to one of the reasons why it became necessary for us to reimpose the so-called savage taxes. In 1951, when the Coalition Government left office, the balance of payments showed a deficit of £7,500,000. The deficit under what you might term a 1954 Fianna Fáil Budget was brought down to negotiable proportions—£5,500,000. As the Minister said, the receipts from abroad virtually balanced these external payments. He continued by expressing the hope that our exporters, with the assistance of Córas Tráchtála, would increase their business. Yet no concession has been given.

In my view, that is one of the most unfortunate features of this Budget. I am not dealing now with the increase for the old age pensioners, the blind and the widows and orphans. I welcome these increases, such as they are. I am dealing now with a certain matter of Government policy which affects everybody in this House. It is all right for a Minister to speak at a public dinner or to open a factory and to express the sentiment that it is only by increased productivity that we can improve the standard of living in our country. There is no incentive whatsoever to industrialists in this Budget such as some tax concession. I am not speaking specifically now about the wear and tear allowance. I have in mind some tax concession for those who might be engaged in industry in the export line. I do not see any concession given—and the facilities of Córas Tráchtála are there and the co-operation of Córas Tráchtála is there.

Where is there any remission in tax by the Government to exporters? I say that such a remission could be given. The Minister may say it would be a complicated issue to differentiate between the proportion manufactured by the concerns for home consumption and the proportion manufactured by the same concerns for export. There is the hope that this body which is examining industrial profits, and so forth——

Is the Deputy looking for an export subsidy?

All Governments are agreed that in this country it is necessary to bring down as much as possible the cost of commodities for export in order that we may become competitive in the export market. I am suggesting that, in order to encourage exports, the Minister should give such a concern a reduction in taxation, or some such thing.

Does the Deputy want us to sell dearer to our own people and cheaper to people abroad?

No. I have in mind a tax concession such as an income-tax concession for people manufacturing goods for export. I have in mind something that will encourage export. I am not suggesting a dual price.

A short time ago the Minister for Industry and Commerce made the very important statement that foreign capital would be welcome here. As far as I know, that statement could have very far-reaching results because he did not qualify it at any time and explain what exactly he meant. There are people in the country—chiefly industrialists—who looked with interest to the Minister's speech to see if, in fact, any reference was made to this matter —to see whether the Minister had in mind a change in the Control of Manufactures Act. It is all very well to stand up at public functions and in this House and preach the old gospel of increased productivity, without planning accordingly. There are too many of those clichés to the effect that "steps are being taken", "my Department is making an examination of the whole position", "we hope in the near future", and that "such and such a body are reporting to us and we expect to have their report in due course, when it will receive active consideration".

"The Minister regrets..."

Here is a typical quotation from the Minister's Budget statement:—

"We shall have to export more if we are to keep a reasonable balance in our external payments."

As reported at column 1215 of Volume 138 of the Official Dáil Report, the present Attorney-General—Deputy McGilligan, as he was then—speaking on the 1953 Fianna Fáil Budget, asked: "How are we to achieve stability if no relief is afforded?" Is the Attorney-General suggesting that some relief has been afforded to the industrialists on this occasion? Those were his words after the 1953 Budget. After Deputy MacEntee had expressed himself on the desirability of increased productivity, Deputy McGilligan asked: "How are we to achieve stability if no relief is afforded?" I now ask: how are we to achieve increased productivity if no incentives or reliefs are being given to those people?

I should like to quote a statement made after the 1953 Budget by the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, then Deputy Norton, as reported at column 1221 of the Official Report, Volume 138. Here is what he had to say:—

"Does the Minister live in the clouds?"

—he was referring to Deputy MacEntee—

"Does the Minister live in the clouds? Is the Minister a citizen of cuckoo land, or is the Minister's passion for the main road such that he does not know what is happening in the small towns, villages, and rural areas throughout the country?"

The same thing could be said to-day, but the Tánaiste has not yet seen the wisdom of making a statement. Then, further on, the Tánaiste continued, at column 1226 of the Official Report:—

"It is a weary, dreary, uninspiring Budget. It is a Budget which takes no cognisance of the existing needs of the nation, of the need for a bold, forward, courageous policy of economic development and of wise spending in all fields of national endeavour."

Hear, hear! So it was an uninspiring Budget.

The Tánaiste continued:—

"The best thing that could be done with this Budget would be for the Taoiseach to take it to the President and ask for a dissolution of the Dáil."

Later on the Tánaiste said:—

"If the Taoiseach would only take that course, I venture to say that in about three weeks' time he would be a wiser and a more realistic man, as he would then know the feelings of the country; he would clearly and unmistakably, by the vote given in the election, know that this is not the Budget that this nation wants, that they want a Budget which will hold out, as this does not, some relief for the 100,000 unemployed, some relief from the present level of high prices and some stopping of the haemorrhage on our manhood and womanhood by the exodus of our people to Britain."

You got your verdict on that Budget.

We got our verdict which was a vote on the cost of living and which was decided mostly here in Dublin. The people here were led to believe that if the Coalition got in, prices of essential commodities would fall. They are disillusioned now. If there was an election in Dublin in the morning, God forbid——

You would be belted sore.

And you would not have the Lord Mayor running up and down Cabra with a loaf on a stick.

Try Limerick yourself in the morning.

Céard é?

Try Limerick yourself and see what happens.

I beg the Deputy's pardon. I did not hear him at first. I am very glad to see him restored to health and to notice that he has not lost any of his capacity for interruption. At column 681 of Volume 150 of the Official Report, the Minister for Finance, in his Budget statement, said:—

"The fall in imports in 1954 is explained mainly by increased home production which lessened our dependence on certain foreign products. There were decreases in wheat, maize and sugar. Wheat imports fell because stocks were drawn down and because home supplies were greater. Increased domestic production of feeding stuffs accounted for our smaller purchases of maize."

That is a factual statement, but certainly it is not in accordance with——

It is the Minister for Finance who said this. I am not referring to the 1953 Budget.

It left you over there.

The statement I have just quoted is a complete vindication of the Fianna Fáil policy.

Of the policy of "Thank God the British market is gone".

While speaking in this manner about the fall in imports in 1954, and while giving the reasons why there was such a fall, the Minister refers specifically to wheat, maize and sugar, but what the position will be as a result of the present Government's policy on wheat if the present Minister, I should say the present Government, is there to bring in another Budget in 1956——

I would not worry too much about that.

Or about 1957 or 1958.

Ní mar síltear bitear. The Minister then went on to say, at column 682:—

"There was some falling off in local authority housing, but this was largely counterbalanced by a rise in private building. The indications are that physical capital formation was about the same as in 1953."

May I be permitted to quote from the Limerick Chronicle of the 15th March of this year? We shall see from it if there was any falling off in local authority building which was counterbalanced by private building. Here is the extract from the Limerick Chronicle, which is a paper not altogether in love with Fianna Fáil at times. It says:—

"Because of the falling off of various building schemes in Limerick there has been an alarming exodus of skilled tradesmen from Limerick. During the first week of this month 11 carpenters left the city bringing the total since December last to 51. Time and again we have had warning of a slump in the numbers employed in the building trades, and so serious has the situation become now that a special committee has been set up by the Mayor with representatives of the various trade union branches involved, to try and seek a solution. Many of those unemployed have left for England, where they are assured of continuous employment but they are a loss to the city and the country and, undoubtedly, would not contemplate leaving if they had any assurance of consistent employment here. Then it naturally follows that if there is no work for skilled tradesmen the unskilled labourer is equally affected."

What did you do with the interest rates under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts?

I shall come to that in a few moments. Before the Minister makes his departure in the manner of the skilled workers of Limerick I should like to make one point in connection with income-tax. I should like to give particular consideration to this point. The allowance for children has been increased from £85 to £100 for each child. Under Section 21 of the Finance Act of 1920——

Under the Finance Act of 1920, sub-section (21), paragraph 3, there was no deduction of allowances granted in respect of any child who was entitled in his own right to an income exceeding £40. The income-tax allowance for a child has been increased from £36 to £100 but no increase has been made in the income which a child can have in his own right without affecting the reliefs granted to the parents. I should like to give a specific case. Various Ministers for Finance have advocated investments in National Loans and some parents have put hundreds of pounds into these loans on behalf of their children. I know of a specific case where a child had £20 a year coming in and the father invested in the National Loan on its behalf a sum which brought the income over £40. As a result, he cannot claim the allowance for the child. Something should be done about that. He has carried out the wishes of the Minister for Finance and the various Ministers before him, but he is losing money on the transaction.

I will give another specific case. A widower has one child with an income in his own right of £49 per annum. As the income is in excess of £40 the father cannot get the child allowance against his income-tax. Assuming he is paying at the rate of 7/6, such allowance would reduce his income-tax payable for 1955-56 by £37 10s. If the child had not an income in excess of £40 the parent would be entitled to a housekeeper's allowance, which is £100, and that would reduce his income-tax liability by a further £37 10s.

I am informed that Section 19 of the 1920 Finance Act states as regards a housekeeper allowance that "child" means "a child in respect of whom a deduction is allowed under this part of the Act." The taxpayer in question is affected both ways. Because the income of the child is over £40 he loses the child allowance and, according to the Act, he will also lose the housekeeper's allowance. I would ask the Minister to consider that point.

There was a concession given in the Budget. Any concessions are welcome. The hope was expressed by the Minister that the dairying counties would welcome the decrease in the tax on tractors from £31 10s. to £8. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, Deputy O'Sullivan, can tell the Minister that, while it might be an inducement, not one out of 400 going to a creamery uses a tractor.

That is not the case in my area.

I am speaking for East Limerick. Deputy Carew can say the same. Possibly the idea of the Minister was to encourage mechanisation. On the other hand, are we exporting horses and buying imported oil and is this in fact such an attraction? I understand that the Minister specifically stated that this applied to tractors used for the carriage of milk solely. I was approached by farmers as, I am sure, all Deputies are approached by farmers from time to time, who asked me could they bring home anything from the creamery or the local store or take anything to the creamery or into the village or town other than milk or would one of these vigilant young Gardaí have them up under the appropriate section of the Road Traffic Act?

Does the Deputy mean his own goods or goods of somebody else that he is carrying for reward?

Is he entitled to carry his own goods and to sell them?

I just wanted to get it clear.

I do not know what the implications would be or what the financial cost would be, but every Party is agreed that agriculture is the backbone of the economy and it would be a great incentive and inducement to further mechanisation of agriculture if it were possible to do away with the road tax or to reduce the road tax for tractors everywhere. It would be a good thing to consider the point. The cost involved might be a fantastic figure. I have no idea. The position is not satisfactory.

Remember, it was your 1952 Budget that belted all this tax on to the farmer, that copper-fastened them.

I am dealing with the dairy farmer. If the Deputy has a longer memory than I have, he will remember and he will know exactly where the dairy farmer would be to-day if the policy of the present Minister for Agriculture had been followed.

Do you remember the half-crown for the calf?

That was long before my time.

Deputy Collins should cease interrupting.

The Minister dealt in his Budget statement with overestimation. As I have remarked, his speech was simple; it was easy to read but often when these things are very easy to read one could gloss over certain facts. At column 700 of the Financial Statement the Minister said:—

"In 1953-54 overestimation was £3.6 million and last year... £3.5 million. In the light of the close scrutiny I have mentioned, I do not think I can safely put it higher than £3,000,000 this year."

The Minister had previously stated:—

"The tendency, when framing Estimates of this kind, is to set the target of achievement as high as possible. 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. In making forecasts for the current year I have acted on this principle and, I hope, brought the Estimates into closer accord with the probable outcome."

Of course, the Minister was talking of two different sorts of Estimates. You know that? One was in relation to the capital Budget, the other was in relation to the current Budget.

In view of the fact that all these Estimates have been gone through with a fine comb, what does the Minister mean by saying: "By comparison with the actual figures"? If I am talking about two different things, I will drop the matter. He said:—

"By comparison with the actual figures for last year, the estimate of revenue shows an increase of £3.9 million, although last year's reliefs are costing £600,000 more this year."

He said at a later stage:—

"Unhappily, unlike my predecessor, who, last year, could draw on C.I.E. for ‘£1,000,000 or so', I can invoke no similar fairy godmother to solve my problem."

Have not three fairy godmothers appeared on the horizon in increased revenue or has not the buoyancy of the expected revenue increased by some £3,000,000? If that is not a fairy god-mother——

I never heard that fairy godmothers arrive as a result of hard work. That buoyancy of revenue arises as a result of the hard work of this Government.

I am no financial wizard. I have no intricate knowledge of these things. How the Minister can make that statement, I cannot see. The point I want to get from the Minister is, if all these Estimates have been gone through with a fine comb, how does he reconcile the fact that even then he has made a provision of £3,000,000 for overestimation. I cannot quite understand that.

We heard a great deal of talk about interest rates and external assets from the various platforms during the last election—all these high-sounding phrases such as "the repatriation of external assets"—but the Minister has made only very slight reference to this matter. The Taoiseach is reported in the Irish Times on 26th April, 1954, as saying at Letterkenny:—

"The repatriation of external assets could safely proceed to a very much further point than had been reached up to the present."

I do not know what the Minister has to say on that point, but I suggest that there is a complete divergence of views between the Attorney-General, Deputy McGilligan, and the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance stated in his Budget speech that it was not by an increase in wages that the cost-of-living problem would be solved. He said, at column 683 of the Official Debates of 4th May, 1954:—

"The cost of living may be affected by the rise in prices of imported materials. We can meet this effectively only by exporting more, which means, in the first place, producing more and doing so more efficiently.... No real or lasting protection is given, in these circumstances, by increases in money incomes alone."

On the other hand, Deputy McGilligan is reported in the Irish Press of 27th April last year as saying:—

"The right policy was to increase wages and salaries and let the people spend the money for themselves on whatever they wished to spend it."

There has definitely been a conflict of views there. Now, the Minister for Agriculture and, indeed, the Tánaiste, Deputy Norton, made great capital on the subject of investment when speaking to what might be classified as the less politically acute section of the community. They had this cant that we have £60,000,000 invested in England that we lent to the British Government at 2 per cent. We know it off by heart. We were reminded of our last loan of 4½ per cent. and the loan before that where Deputy MacEntee paid 5 per cent. and the question was asked: Why do we not bring back these assets from Britain? That is what the Tánaiste and the Minister for Agriculture said.

And the Minister for Defence.

I have no quotation from the Minister for Defence, but I am surprised that the Minister for Finance in his Budget statement did not put an end to these misleading statements which are causing utter confusion and, indeed, they got quite a lot of votes for the Coalition. The Minister for Agriculture said in Sligo, as quoted in the Sligo Independent of the 15th May, 1954:—

"It seemed to me quite ridiculous that they should charge their own people at home 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."

Where is the £60,000,000 gone since this time last year at 2 per cent.? It has been suggested by the Minister for Agriculture, the Tánaiste and evidently the Minister for Defence in various parts of the country that we are so tied up with Britain and the sterling bloc that we cannot turn around and do anything about it. The Minister could have made reference to that.

The Minister would not be so foolish as to refer to 2 per cent. interest in Britain at present when the bank rate is 4½ per cent.

It is, in fact, an admission of the foolish statements made by the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Defence.

Not at all. At that time the bank rate in England was very different.

The bank rate was not so low as to justify a statement that £60,000,000 of this country's money was invested at 2 per cent. There was not that much of a change.

Does the Deputy not know what the bank rate was?

The bank rate was not as low as that. As I said, I am not very conversant with those things.

Deputy McGilligan was.

The Minister made a reference to the bank rate and it was suggested by Deputy O'Higgins here earlier to-day that it was due to the influence of the Coalition Government that the bank rate was as it was. The Minister was very careful in explaining that. He used the words that the Minister "made representations" to the banks, which is a very different thing from what Deputy O'Higgins suggested and what no doubt will be suggested at a future date to the electorate of this country—that it was as a result of the action of the Government that the bank rate is as it is.

Surely it is a good thing that it is as it is.

It is, thank God. At column 684 of the Official Debates of the 4th May, 1955, the Minister said that, due to the reduction in the rate of interest, the E.S.B. have effected a reduction in the rate of borrowing, and due to excessive rain the E.S.B. has saved coal and made a profit and as a result the board was able to defer some of its financial demands on the Exchequer. At column 688 he said:—

"The provision for advances to the E.S.B. has been reduced to £4,000,000 in view of the power to borrow from sources other than the Exchequer which the board possesses under recent legislation."

If the E.S.B. has saved so much money and if the rate of interest is going to be more attractive, the Minister has not indicated whether the consumer is to obtain any relief in the E.S.B. charges. A quotation was read out wherein the Minister for Defence is alleged to have promised that in future rates would not increase.

The statement was made but no quotation was read.

Then I will read it. The Minister for Defence was reported in the Sligo Champion of 20th March, 1954, as saying:—

"Fine Gael, if returned to office, would take steps to see to it that the Central Fund would take responsibility for all future expenditure and the existing expenditure at present being met by the local authorities."

That is a different statement from the one the Deputy was whistling about a moment ago.

What is different about it?

Read it again and it might sink in.

It suggests there would be no more increases in rates throughout the country and, if such increases were necessary, the Central Fund would provide them.

But that is not what the quotation said. Read it again.

I do not want to tie the Minister for Defence to that because he has already said he never said it—I think in answer to a question here. Anyone who is a member of a local authority must be appalled at the amount of money which has to be paid by way of interest for moneys borrowed.

Go back to 1952 and the Deputy will find that the then Minister for Finance, Deputy MacEntee, had a fine skelp at the rates of interest that local authorities have to pay.

I was not in the House in 1952.

Maybe if the Deputy had been here he would have been able to influence him.

If I had been here I would have brought this injustice to the notice of the appropriate Minister. All I am doing now is taking the first opportunity that offers. It is intimated to a local authority that the Minister will allocate a certain grant. In due course they get a letter in January or February notifying them of that fact. They accordingly make provision and certain works are put in hands. They approach the bank to raise a loan. A resolution is proposed by Alderman So-and-So and seconded by Councillor Such-and-Such. That is that.

That seems to me to be administration.

It is very bad administration.

It may be. I am not suggesting it is either good or bad, but I do suggest it is administration and it is, therefore, not relevant. We are dealing with the imposition of taxation or the collection of taxation.

With respect, I suggest that the Minister in his Budget specifically referred to the alleviation of distress and to taxation which bears heavily on the shoulders of the taxpayer. I suggest that some part of the National Development Fund should be earmarked so that local authorities would immediately get the funds they require to implement various schemes. In that way there would not be this appalling imposition of rates and the banks drawing interest for doing nothing.

It still seems to me to be administration, whether it is good or bad.

It would be very interesting to know how the National Development Fund could be so administered as not to require any interest.

Surely there could be some fund. I merely put that forward for the consideration of the Minister. Deputy Kyne, speaking about the increase in the old age and widows' and orphans' pensions, said that half a loaf is better than no bread. Everyone welcomes the increase.

Except Fianna Fáil.

I said everyone welcomes the increase.

Deputy Carter said it was a mangy sum.

Deputy O'Malley should be allowed to speak without interruption.

The Minister suggested that any alleviations should be given to that section of the community which suffered most. I think he should have included in that category those in receipt of the disability allowance of £1 per week under the Health Act. I would ask the Minister to consider that.

There is another point in connection with allowances for rents. The old age pensioners, the blind and the widows, particularly those living alone, should receive some allowance for rent. There are three housing schemes in Limerick; in one case a widow living alone is paying a rent of 3/6; in another case, it is 8/6 and in the third case it is 11/-. I am sure a similar position obtains in other local authority housing schemes. The only answer I could get from the Limerick Corporation was that that was the amount decided by the local authority and nothing could be done about it. If the Minister would make some Order so that there would be a uniform rent of, say, 2/6, it would be some alleviation. Even 2/6 would be too much. These widows are getting only 24/- per week. Why not have a flat rate for rents? That could have been done under the present Budget for the entire country.

How could the Budget deal with differential rents under local authorities?

I said a flat rate. I am bringing the matter to the attention of the Minister. It is only by asking questions that one gets information.

Fair enough, but I think it would be more appropriate for the Minister for Local Government.

These are minimum rents in three different schemes in Limerick. The Minister gave a concession to the small brewers. He said:—

"Nevertheless, I feel it incumbent on me to make a contribution towards preserving the small breweries and the employment they give locally."

There is one firm here in Dublin which certainly could not be classified as a small brewery. I am sorry that places like Drogheda and Kilkenny could not benefit more because they, in fact, coincide with what the Minister had in mind, and would have benefited more, because this concession is only a drop in the ocean to very large firms. People in the public gallery nearly died of heart failure when the Minister gave no concessions in regard to whiskey.

Who nearly died?

Mr. Reddin and Mr. Hedigan. They were appalled because they would have bet any money that concessions would be given. Indeed, from the speeches of the Taoiseach in the past, they had every ground for believing that such concessions would be given to them by the Government and the Minister for Finance.

Go back to Deputy MacEntee's speech in Rathmines Town Hall.

I have that here, too. On 7th May, 1954, as quoted in the Irish Independent, the Taoiseach is reported as saying:—

"I may not be a mathematician but I am able to add up and I now challenge the Taoiseach to deny that the meaning of the fresh figures he has disclosed is that in each of the two years 1952 and 1953 the Government got an average of £50,000 a year less duty from the higher rate than we got when whiskey was 5½d. a glass cheaper in 1951 and 1952," said Mr. J.A. Costello at Wexford and Enniscorthy last night.

"In 1953 and 1954 the Government," said Mr. Costello, "only recovered £500,000 of the £600,000 they lost in 1952 and 1953. What good did that extra tax do? The Government got less revenue; the prices went up savagely to the consumer; the consumption dropped over these two years by 80,000,000 half-ones; the incomes of the publicans and distillers dropped and accordingly the income-tax they pay, fell; people in public-houses and distilleries lost their jobs and it has been calculated that the farmers got £150,000 to £200,000 less for their barley."

What is the extract from?

That is from the Irish Independent of 7th May, 1954. It was only natural that the licensed grocers and vintners should have been convinced that some concessions were forthcoming. It is not for me to say what the outcome of this is, but the Government certainly got a lot of votes —particularly for Fine Gael—on the last occasion, especially here in Dublin. I do not know what will happen the next time.

You need not worry. Is fada uainn an lá sin.

A lot of play has been made of the butter subsidy, bringing down the price of butter by 5d. per lb. That, of course, is due to the Labour Party solely and everyone knows that on the Sunday before the Government was formed, the Opposition, particularly the Minister for Agriculture, complained very bitterly in the Catholic Commercial Club about the condition on which the Labour Party would take part in the Government. Now Fine Gael speakers are suggesting that it had their full blessing.

It had our blessing.

They granted the concession under duress. As a matter of fact, a reduction of 5d. per lb. was given but, on the 8th May, 1954, before the election, the Minister for Social Welfare went so far as to suggest that the price be brought back to 2/10. According to the Wexford People of that date, he said:

"Would they prefer butter at 4/2 per lb. under Fianna Fáil to butter at 2/10 a lb. under the inter-Party Government?"

A lot of Fianna Fáil supporters are eating that cheap butter now.

Is there still a lot of Fianna Fáil supporters?

I am sorry that something more has not been done for the disabled persons and I hope that the Minister will see his way to do something for them because they got nothing. After all, the half-crown is barely bringing the old age pensioners, the blind and the widows up to their previous level—compensating them in accordance with the increase in the cost of living. The cost of living has increased two points and nothing has been given to this category. I only hope that something better can be done for them in the near future.

I cannot understand why, if a pension is given to an old person, a blind person or a widow, these people cannot come into the same category as regards the cost of living as workers who can claim, as is their due, for an increase in wages before the Labour Court if the cost of living goes up. Why should it not be so? Is there any reason? The cost of living could go up an appreciable amount and yet by the time any Government got around to dealing with them they might suffer very grievously.

There is another matter I want to deal with. Deputy Collins, of course, must be disappointed that the means test was not done away with as promised by him.

Very disappointed— but it will come. I talk for myself when I get the change and I do not think I promised it. I think I said I believed in its abolition.

There were some interesting reactions to the Budget in various sections of the Press. I am reading now from one or two extracts from papers which have not been noted for their friendly attitude to the Fianna Fáil Party.

You have a paper of your own.

I do not quote from the Irish Press; the Deputy might suggest it was a bit biassed. I quote now from the Limerick Chronicle of 2nd April, 1955, before the Budget:—

"The estimate shows that the former Minister for Finance——"

——that is, Deputy MacEntee——

"——when compiling last year's Budget, was not very far out in his assumptions both for revenue and expenditure. The new Government promised all kinds of reductions in this service and that but it is now quite apparent that it was unable to control the upward trend and that we will have the dismal position that, in one way or another, the Minister for Finance will have to devise means of getting in another £2,000,000. It would seem that, at this stage of modern progress, it is very dangerous for any Party to promise reductions in expenditure."

The Limerick Weekly Echo of the 2nd May had a leading article——

Would the Deputy relate those extracts to the motion before the House?

Deputy O'Malley has done nothing but read cuttings from papers since he started.

Surely we will not have read in this House opinions expressed in every newspaper in the country? That would be just as relevant as opinions expressed in Limerick papers, important and all as they may be.

This is all necessary for reproduction in the local Limerick paper.

The only chance I have of having my speech printed in the local Limerick paper is when the speech is short. I have not much chance to-day.

That is honest, anyway.

I have here a most interesting statement—and I respectfully submit that it is most relevant to the issue.

Surely the opinion of every paper in the country is just as relevant as the opinion expressed in the paper from which the Deputy is reading?

I propose to quote from a report of a speech made by the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Norton. The speech was made by him at the Labour Party Conference in the Municipal Technical Institute, Limerick, on the 30th April last — a few days prior to the Budget. He is reported as saying:—

"The sneers of political quacks, well versed in the art of misrepresentation, will not prevent us from going ahead with our programme aimed at reducing prices."

The report continues:

"The Minister, in a trenchant attack on the Fianna Fáil Party, claimed——"

——and this is where the interesting lines occur——

"——that only for the participation of the Irish Labour Party in the inter-Party Government there would have been considerable increases in the cost of essential foodstuffs".

Is that not a lovely thing to say about Fine Gael?

That is if Fianna Fáil had been in power. There would then have been increases.

I cannot hear the Deputy. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is now suggesting that only for the participation of the Irish Labour Party in the inter-Party Government there would have been considerable increases in the cost of essential foodstuffs. That is very interesting. I must keep that cutting. The observation of the man in the street, Mr. Average Man, has been quoted here from every side of the House.

I do not see how the opinions expressed in papers throughout the country are relevant to this debate unless they express the opinion of some member of this House or unless they are an extract from a statement by some Deputy or Minister.

What I have just read out was a report of a speech made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in Limerick about a fortnight ago.

That could be carried on indefinitely. I cannot see how that has any relevance whatsoever to the motion which is before the House.

With respect, nearly every speaker on the Government Benches referred to this Mr. Average Man.

If Deputy Derrig and Deputy O'Malley want to give quotations from the Limerick papers here then opinions contained in whatever number of papers there are in the country are equally entitled to be quoted.

That being so, I will leave these quotations aside. The only other matter I wish to refer to is a speech made here by my colleague from Limerick, Deputy Carew. I want to refer to some of the statements contained in that speech. I may say, first of all, that I hope this speech which was made by Deputy Carew will be reported in full in the Limerick papers. Certainly, I will send a copy of this Official Dáil Report to the local papers.

Are your own speeches not reported too?

I always submit my own for consideration.

Do the papers consider them?

Usually. At column 916 of the Official Report of the 5th May, 1955, Deputy Carew is reported as saying:—

"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."

"these years"—he was referring to 1952: this is 1955. Then, when he had completed his speech he withdrew it. Is that no so? Did he not withdraw it as being incorrect?

Is it in the Official Report?

At column 921, Deputy Briscoe said:—

"I hope Deputy Carew will withdraw that mean imputation against Fianna Fáil——"

——that is the imputation about the sacking of the workers the day after the poll was declared.

Deputy Briscoe is my Guardian Angel. They were sacked.

They were let go shortly afterwards. Has the Deputy not withdrawn the allegation unreservedly?

I have withdrawn that Fianna Fáil did it but I have not withdrawn that the workers were let go——

So long as the Deputy withdraws the allegation that Fianna Fáil did it, that is acceptable.

——and would not have been let go under an inter-Party Government.

That is most interesting. They would not have been allowed to go under an inter-Party Government. Is the Deputy not aware that, as recently as five months ago, the proposal for a steam locomotive repair factory for Limerick was quashed by the present Minister for Industry and Commerce? Is that not true?

It was——

You admit it?

——not by the Tánaiste, but by the Board of C.I.E.

I cannot allow matters of this kind to be dragged into this debate. I cannot allow the problem of any group of workers in any particular job or office to be discussed. Deputies may refer to unemployment in general and to the effect on employment of taxation, but they may not drag in particular jobs and particular types of employment.

With the permission of the Chair, I want to deal with the action of the present Government and of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Norton, in not allowing the steam locomotive depot to be established in Limerick City. Deputy Carew interjected to say that it was not the Government who had stopped it but the Board of C.I.E.

Surely that has more relevance in the Vote for the Department of Industry and Commerce than to this debate?

The Deputy was asked to attend at an interview with the C.I.E. Board, but he failed to turn up.

As this allegation has been made against me, I wish to be given an opportunity to reply.

I cannot allow this discussion to proceed between the Limerick Deputies; I cannot allow discussions on administration of particular jobs. The Deputy may refer in general to the effect of the taxation in the Budget on employment or of the alleged effect of taxation on employment, but he may not discuss the administration of a particular industry or of a particular firm.

May I be given an opportunity of replying to the allegation made against me by Deputy Carew?

During my speech on this Budget I did not refer to Deputy O'Malley, yet he comes in here now and makes this attack on me.

I am not making a personal attack on the Deputy.

What else are you doing? I am not a hotel porter.

I am not making any personal attack on Deputy Carew but I should like to clear up one point. It was suggested by Deputy Carew that I failed to turn up as a member of a deputation to interview the Chairman of the C.I.E. Board to which I had been invited. That is correct, but my reason for not turning up was that the Board of C.I.E. had definitely decided to establish in Limerick the maintenance repair depot for locomotives and, in answer to a question here in the House, the Minister for Industry and Commerce informed me that, due to representations which had been made to him, he in turn had made representations to the Board of C.I.E. My attitude was that it was not to the Chairman of C.I.E. the deputation should have gone in order to avoid the loss of this industry but to the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

That closes the incident.

There was just one other point to which I want to refer. Deputies referred several times during the debate to the subsidies and I should like to draw attention to a statement made by the Tánaiste on the food subsidies when it was proposed in 1947 to put extra taxation on beer and cigarettes.

The Deputy was a small boy then.

The Tánaiste said at that time—I want to bring out his attitude at that time:—

"I think these are sham reductions. I do not think they make any perceptible contribution to relieving the plight of the ordinary working people to-day and they make a less perceptible contribution in the circumstances in which they are offered. I took the trouble of trying to calculate hastily what the reductions in the prices of tea, bread and sugar mean to a family of six people. That family will, under this emergency Budget, save 1/7½ in the week. If they consume 4 lb. of bread per head per week, they will save bread per head per week, they will save 1/6, and if they consume three quarters of a pound of sugar each per week they will save 9d. At the end of the week this family of six will have saved 3/10½. That is the extent of the saving which this Budget will confer upon them. One would think from these proposals that our people live on bread, tea and sugar and it would seem that this represents the Government's ambition from the point of view of the average person's diet."

He would prefer beer.

These quotations have been taken from the Official Report, Volume 108, columns 435, 436 and 437.

What date?

About October, 1947.

Reference to the volume will give you that.

The Deputy has given a fair volume of quotations.

I could give a good many more which I respectfully consider are relevant to the debate, but I bow to the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle and conclude.

I cannot understand the attitude of Fianna Fáil here in the House saying that this Budget is a bad Budget and that it is an unpopular Budget. I have been around the country quite a lot and I have also been around this city quite a lot since the Budget was introduced. Naturally there is a big difference between Dublin and the rural areas; there is the difference in out look. At the same time the many people I have come in contact with have told me they were quite satisfied that this Budget was a good one. They appreciated, it seems, the many difficulties with which this Government was confronted on assuming office. They appreciated that the Minister for Finance is a man of ability and that, in the short time at his disposal — during the short period of his term of office—and having regard to the fact that he is a new Minister for Finance, he has done a good job in such a short time.

The people fully appreciate that the task of the Minister for Finance—any Minister for Finance—is a difficult one. It is a task that requires a good educational standard in many spheres, and the fact that the Minister has so distinguished himself on this occasion and has so gained the confidence of the people is a good omen for the present Government.

The Debate on the Budget has been varied and has ranged over a wide number of topics. One of the matters that were dealt with at length in this House both by the Government and the Opposition was the election promises. It is true that practically all Parties, during an election, engage in making certain promises, and perhaps sometimes the promises are drawn out a little bit too far and are, perhaps, a bit lavish. I do say very seriously that any promising that was done by those on this side of the House certainly would not compare with what Fianna Fáil promised for the past 20 years. They are noted as the Party that excel from the point of view of promises. Having promised, they failed bitterly.

Deputy O'Malley expressed disappointment that the Government is an inter-Party Government, composed of various groups—Fine Gael, Labour, Clann na Talmhan, Clann na Poblachta and so on. I do not see anything wrong in a group of Irishmen coming together, in the first instance having gone before the people and having made it clear to the people that, if elected, they would be prepared to form an inter-Party Government, that they would be prepared to continue where the inter-Party Government left off in 1951.

The bulk of the promises, so far as this side of the House is concerned, can be summed up in this way: I was not out in my constituency a lot during the last election campaign but I can truthfully say that the election promises in North Mayo were confined to saying that if we were elected as an inter-Party Government we would take up where we left off in 1951. It is worthy of note that we got a mandate from the people, that we got authority from the people to represent them here and I am confident that we will continue for our full term.

That being so, I think it is very wrong for a Party like Fianna Fáil, who were in office over a long period, to try to divide the groups here. Unfortunately, Irish history is a history of Irishmen divided. That was the case in the old Irish Parliament. That is the case now. If Fianna Fáil cannot set themselves to any better task than that, I suggest they should forget it and realise that there is no hope in the world that they will divide forces on this side of the House. We are happily united on this side of the House. Fine Gael have representation in the Government in the Taoiseach and other Ministers. The same applies to Labour, Clann na Talmhan and every other group within the inter-Party Government. They are all doing everything humanly possible for the betterment of the general body of people. I tell Fianna Fáil very emphatically that they are wasting their time if they think they will divide our forces.

A number of comments were made by Fianna Fáil Deputies that are worthy of note. They want to try to convince the people that what the present Government has achieved in this Budget is not what they promised, that it is in fact no achievement. From what I have heard in the past week, Fianna Fáil have certainly not succeeded in convincing the people along those lines. They cannot deny that the present Government has stabilised the cost of living by increasing the subsidies on butter and tea and keeping tea at its present level. Do Fianna Fáil Deputies appreciate that were it not for the action of the Government in coming to the rescue in the matter of tea prices the price of tea to the consumer would be 10/- or 11/- a lb.? Could the citizens of this State afford 10/- or 11/- a lb. for tea? This country is one of the biggest consumers of tea in the world. That being so, could the present Government allow a situation to arise where tea would cost the ordinary people 10/- or 11/- a lb. without any increases in wages to compensate for that increase in the price of tea, in many instances, without any hope of the Government being able to give increases in wages?

We have not in this House control over private industries or private business concerns throughout the country. We could not compel a shopkeeper or an industrialist in the City of Dublin to increase wages the moment the price of tea increased. He could argue that it would be merely a temporary matter and that he could not afford to increase wages. We could bring no compulsion to bear on that person to grant increases in wages. How would the people afford to buy tea at 10/- or 11/- a lb.? It seems that the action of the Government was justified. There are rumours to the effect that there will be reductions in the price of tea on the world market.

It is actually happening.

It is actually happening. I think that justifies the action of the present Government in stabilising tea to cover what was, I sincerely hope, a temporary increase in the price of tea on the world market.

It was very difficult indeed to drag out of the Fianna Fáil people in this House what their attitude would be with regard to that particular commodity. The Tánaiste, a few days ago, tried to drag it out of Deputy de Valera. Although he put the question repeatedly: "What would you have done?" to the ex-Taoiseach, Deputy de Valera, he could not extract an answer. He went on with the usual wriggling and just passed it off.

Like you passed off the wheat.

I want to tell Deputy Derrig that, so far as I am concerned, I am lock, stock and barrel with the present Minister for Agriculture in his attitude towards wheat. I want to tell the Deputy, further, that I am a member of a Farmer's Party in this House and I am with the present Minister for Agriculture. I hope he will put that statement of mine on all the newspapers in the country, because the people in North Mayo whom I represent have wheat growers among them. They are an intelligent people. Traditionally, they have had to go to England to earn their livelihood and to come back but they are the type of people whose forefathers, as Deputy Derrig knows, were evicted in the days of Davitt and the Land League Movement by landlords and landlordism. Their fathers and grandfathers had a trying time. They are an intelligent people. They can tell when they have a good Government. They know well that a certain group of chancers came to this country and tried to cash in on the wheat prices that were being paid by Fianna Fáil. Having regard to the fact that the ordinary taxpayer had to subsidise that price, was not it good policy on the part of the Government to reduce the price of wheat?

Deputies like Deputy Harris can say in this House that £35 and £40 an acre was being paid for conacre. Was not that proof positive to Deputy Derrig or anybody else that the price being paid for wheat in this country was fantastic and that it was time for somebody to call a halt? Whether Deputy Derrig likes it or not, had not his own Government realised and awakened to the fact that there was too much wheat being produced in this country? Had they not made a decision in regard to it, and did not the present Minister for Agriculture quote that decision in the House which is available to Deputy Derrig or any member of his Party? If Deputy Derrig wants to discuss wheat here in Dáil Éireann, down in North Mayo or in any other part of Ireland, I am quite prepared to take him on.

However, we cannot set up special circumstances where we legislate for only one section of the community. When we do try to legislate, and legislate in the best possible way, surely it is not suggested we should legislate in respect of the price for wheat? That is completely out of bounds and would knock the whole of our economy out of balance as has been proved by the figures available through the General Statistics Office and through the Department of Agriculture.

There is also the question of the 5d. a lb. on butter. This has been mentioned so often that I hate to refer to it once more, but why is it that Fianna Fáil want to tell the people that a reduction of 5d. per lb. for butter, which is costing a colossal sum in subsidy, was no benefit to the average citizen? We all know butter is a staple food in any household and being the important commodity it is, I think it was a very necessary step that the Government took in coming to the rescue of those poor people by subsidising butter to bring it within their reach. So far as I am concerned butter is still not low enough in price, but there is a limit to what any Government can do in a short time.

If Fianna Fáil were in office to-day, according to their own declared policy, butter would still be that 5d. a lb. more than it is. When Fianna Fáil were in office had we not the spectacle of thousands of people on what we could describe as hunger marches to the gates of Leinster House? These things have ceased since we became the Government. Has anybody seen a hunger march on this Dáil since we took over office? I certainly have not seen or heard of it. I know of no unrest at the present time among the ordinary workers. It is natural that workers would like to get increases. Everybody would like to get an increase in his salary or in his allowance. However, there is a feeling abroad among all sections of our people that each and every section of the community has representation in this present Government, that the ordinary labouring man has representation here through the Labour group and through the other groups.

The same applies to our own Party as well as other Parties. Each Party within the Government is pulling its weight in the right direction. We have got rid of the undesirables from this side of the House. It was no easy job to convince the people that an inter-Party Government was going to be a success because the last inter-Party Government had quite a lot of difficulty. There were a few undesirables who came into the last inter-Party Government. They caused a lot of trouble and some people felt that it might happen on this occasion as well. Thank God we have got rid of those people now and things are working smoothly.

That is exactly what is worrying those people on the far side of the House, that there is no trouble brewing, that things are working so smoothly and that the present Minister has succeeded in achieving what he has achieved, having regard to the fact that it is his first year in office. If he had been in office for ten years— and I have no doubt he will be there in ten years' time—what he has done in the present year would have been quite an achievement. He has achieved it in ten months. One of the daily papers said that the Minister came into the House in a rather nervous condition on Budget day. I was watching him rather closely and he was no more excited or nervous than he is this evening. The Party opposite would like to give the people the impression that something is terribly wrong and that there is only one group of people that can run this country and that is Fianna Fáil. With God's help we will live to give the lie to that sort of thing.

When you consider that it was possible for the present Minister for Finance to subsidise butter and tea, to pay the award to the civil servants to which the previous Government had committed themselves and all the other things that were done during that time, I think they represent important achievements. The man with an ordinary salary is able to get tax reliefs in regard to income-tax.

Then, again, you have the blind person. Fianna Fáil would like to convince the blind people and others that they have gained nothing at all as a result of the present Government's administration but they will not succeed in doing that either. The blind are one section of the community that have my sympathy at all times and, I feel sure, the sympathy of every citizen. If the Minister is prepared to give special concessions to anybody it is to that section I would like to see him give them. We all talk generously in this House about what we would like to give and no doubt the Minister is just as anxious to give concessions if it could be done, but we have to live within our budget.

We must have regard to the fact that we took over this country in a terrible condition. For years and years the Party who were the Government showed a total disregard for agriculture, which is our main industry, and did everything possible to sabotage it by giving precious little by way of assistance to our farming community, by way of arterial drainage, which is one of the greatest needs in the country and by way of the land reclamation scheme by which the present Minister for Agriculture got the land out of the deplorable condition it was in.

Who is so unreasonable as to suggest that agriculture is not our principal industry, and why was it the Fianna Fáil Party in their time did not introduce a lime scheme, a most necessary scheme so far as the farming community is concerned? We all know that if there are cattle grazing on land continuously, or crops continuously taken out of that land, the lime content of the soil goes down. What steps did the Fianna Fáil Government take to replace that lime content in the land of Ireland? They took no steps. It is true there were half a dozen lime kilns here and there. Did Fianna Fáil expect that half-dozen to supply the entire needs of the country?

I suggest that would be more relevant on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture.

I will pass from that but do they suggest that in that aspect of our economy alone they made any attempt to supply the lime deficiency in our soil?

I want now to refer to the interest rates under the loans granted through the medium of the Small Dwellings Act. We all know the shock the people got because of the desperate effort made by the Fianna Fáil Government to have the loan they floated fully subscribed, at a time when there was very little hope that they would get the money. But they got the money by increasing the interest rates beyond all bounds. What was the result? In my constituency immediately many people were affected. They had committed themselves to building projects under the Small Dwellings Act and they found themselves faced with increased interest charges.

Their plight was a terrible one. They were paying £1 5s. per week but, as a result of the increased rates of interest, they had to pay an additional 5/- or 7/6 for which they had not budgeted when they started building operations. They had gone to the limit of their resources to provide housing accommodation for themselves. I remember the phone ringing in my house as if we were in some desperate emergency. Indeed, it was an emergency. There is no doubt about that. These people will have to meet these extra charges for many years to come as a result of the misguided policy of the Fianna Fáil Government.

There are a thousand and one instances I could quote here in condemnation of what the Fianna Fáil Government did. I like to give any Government credit where credit is due. I give Fianna Fáil credit for some of the good things they did, but the good they did was outweighed by the bad— by the harm and the damage that they can never hope to repair.

The Minister has expressed his thanks to the people for subscribing to his loan. He also thanked the former Taoiseach for his co-operation in encouraging the people to subscribe. People who have money to subscribe to such a worthy undertaking should subscribe. The Minister deserves our congratulation and our support for his magnificent handling of a difficult situation. He controlled the price of tea. He reduced the price of butter. He gave increases to the old age pensioners, to the widows and the orphans. He succeeded in having his loan fully subscribed. That is a very creditable achievement for a Minister for Finance in his first year of office. Having moved around the country, I can say authoritatively that the people outside are very happy with the first ten months of inter-Party Government because they have been marked by such wonderful achievements.

The debate on this Budget has followed three different lines. First of all, there were the political points which were raised; secondly, there were the points of comparison between the 1952 Budget and this Budget; thirdly, and I regret to have to say there was very little of this particular type of debate, there was an attempt to estimate the present position of the country in relation to this Budget.

I propose to say a few words, first of all, about the political points raised. That situation was really summed up when, during the course of his speech, the Tánaiste suggested that it was inadvisable for anybody to argue with the Leader of the Opposition; he said the Leader of the Opposition would win in the end. And, at column 872 of Volume 150 of the Official Report, Deputy de Valera replied: "Because you were always wrong." We all of us engage in arguments and discussions but I think very few of us think that the other person is always wrong. That is my first political comment.

Deputy Lemass came back, as he has done on a number of occasions during the year, to the question of the promises that were made during the election campaign. For example, at column 844 of Volume 150 of the Official Report he was asked during the course of his speech:—

"Why then did the farmers vote against you last year?"

and he replied:—

"Because they were misled by the pledges and promises of the people opposite."

Now during the course of that election campaign last year I took a busman's holiday one Friday night and I went down to listen to Deputy Lemass speaking at the corner of York Street. Strange as it may seem, I thought from the manner of his speech and even the nature of it that he realised the election was lost so far as Fianna Fáil was concerned.

I have here a report of that speech appearing in the Irish Press of Saturday, May 15th. It is a jungle of various points suggesting that the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party did not understand one another, that the people did not understand them and that Deputy Costello, the present Taoiseach, was making statements which he, Deputy Lemass, could not understand at all. Now, as Deputy M. J. O'Higgins pointed out to-day, Deputy Costello, the present Taoiseach, really made only one promise to the people: he promised in so far as he could achieve it that the people would get good Government. That involved, above all, an attempt to lighten the burdens on the people. Since he came in here ten months ago Deputy Lemass has been singing a different kind of tune but that particular night at York Street, at any rate, he reminded me very much of a man trying to get out from inside a barbed wire entanglement with nothing to help him but his bare hands.

During the course of Deputy Lemass's speech the other day, when he said that there was a danger, unless certain things were done, of killing the export trade in confectionery, I made a reference to the fact that the export trade in Jacob's biscuits was lost during a period when Deputy Lemass could have saved it. He is reported as replying to me: "The Parliamentary Secretary is talking through his hat as usual". My recollection of what he said is very different from that. It was not nearly as polite as that. However, if it has been toned down by Deputy Lemass——

I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary ought to make a reference of that kind to the Official Reports.

I have a distinct recollection of what he said. Does the Chair wish me to repeat what Deputy Lemass said?

No, but Official Reports are never toned down by anybody. The Official Reports are verbatim reports of what was said in the House and it is a reflection on the reporting of the debates to suggest otherwise.

It was not intended as a reflection on the reporting, and the Ceann Comhairle will appreciate that. I think it is understood that if any Deputy makes a comment which he thinks is too strong he can tone down the wording while leaving the sense remain the same. I think that is understood. But the question, at any rate, is whether I was talking through my hat—we will take the phrase of the Official Report. This evening I examined the trade and shipping statistics, as they used to be—of course, they are now called trade statistics. I found our exports of biscuits were worth £503,000 in 1929; £231,000 in 1939 and that last year they were worth £137,500. The particular period I was thinking of was the period immediately after the war and I find that there is a complete blank for the year 1947. The word "biscuits" in relation to exports does not even occur in the index.

Now, how did that happen? It happened in quite a simple way. It was at the time when we had 100 per cent. flour here. The Department of Supplies which was controlled by Deputy Lemass would not supply this company for export with flour which would enable them to sell their biscuits abroad. In extreme circumstances that is quite understandable—perhaps in the years 1942 or 1943—but when it went on after the war, it was in my opinion quite improper, and every effort should have been made to get that export trade going again, but to make matters worse, in that particular year, 1947, we imported biscuits to the tune of £50,000 because there was white flour available for the manufacture of biscuits in England and we imported the bulk of them from Britain—I am wrong there: we got £12,000 worth from Britain and £30,000 worth from Canada.

Deputy Lemass knew quite well from a phrase that was in the Budget that there was no danger whatever of a collapse in the export trade in confectionery. The Government had no intention of allowing the export trade in confectionery to collapse. During the course of his speech, also, Deputy Lemass asked a fair-enough question. He asked what had the Government done here since it came into office to enable private enterprise to prosper? I take it we are all aware on every side of the House that the State end of enterprise and economy in this country has been very well attended to in the last ten years and what we would all be concerned with on both sides of the House is that there would be some developments which would help private enterprise.

The present Government did one thing—and I think this is what they did primarily to answer. Deputy Lemass's question—they restored confidence. There was a complete restoration of confidence once it was realised in the early autumn of last year that the Government had settled down in harmony and there were none of the difficulties which the Opposition had been sedulously suggesting would occur when members of the Labour Party and members of a strong Fine Gael Party got together. That position has continued and that is primarily what the Government did. They restored confidence amongst business people, confidence which had been previously shaken by the Budget of 1952.

Coming up to the present Budget, I read what Deputy Lemass was forecasting about it and what I noticed was that when he was some little distance away from it, one day he said it was going to be most difficult for the Minister for Finance and the next that it was going to be most easy for him but when it came to the final analysis Deputy Lemass came down to it by saying that he did not see why the Minister would not be able to do something for everybody. Of course, Deputy Lemass realised that it was not going to be easy for the Minister to foot his bill but, of course, it was right tactics, I think, from his point of view to suggest that the Minister could do something for everybody. Once the receipts and estimates of expenditure were published and once it was shown that there would be approximately £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 additional revenue without any increase in taxation, it was evident to Deputy Lemass that there was a position in which the Minister would be able to give something to everybody. These are the political points I wish to make.

The second matter to which I wish to refer is the comparison between the 1952 Budget and the present Budget. There is this real, fundamental difference between the 1952 Budget and the present Budget: the present Budget is an attempt gently to push matters on to a better plane in this country. The 1952 Budget was radical surgical operation. The difference of opinion was really on whether that operation was necessary or not. It is suggested by the Opposition that the greatest tribute that could be paid to the 1952 Budget which, as we all know, was discussed backwards and forwards throughout this country for two years subsequently at various by-elections, and on various occasions in this House during the lengthy debates—it is suggested by the Opposition Party that the best tribute that was paid to that Budget was the fact that the Minister for Finance has carried on the tradition inaugurated by it. In fact, of course, the Minister has not done any such thing. The Minister has moved, in so far as he could, within the limits which were set out for him by the position he found when he came into office.

I think that the Minister has shown considerable courage. Suppose there should be a serious falling-off in trade or anything like that, would anybody say our yields of taxation would go up by £3,000,000 or £4,000,000? I think that is unlikely for reasons I will give later, but still the Minister for Finance is the man responsible and it is on his shoulders that responsibility rests in introducing his first Budget. I also say that we have not got the 1952 Budget with us still because when those increased taxes were made in 1952 wages were much lower than they are to-day and the only concession made to people like old age pensioners, the widows and orphans, and people of that sort, was the concession that they would get exactly the mathematical equivalent in compensation of what they had lost in the food subsidies. To my mind, when you get a situation where there has been an increase in wages since that Budget—a basic increase of 12/6, and varying upwards from that—the Budget is not the same as it was when it was introduced.

The primary criticism of the 1952 Budget was that it was designed to remedy a situation which no longer existed and that it was altogether the kind of operation that should have been carried out only if conditions were really serious in this country. I take it that anybody who looks at the matter in a fair way will agree that conditions were not nearly so serious as the Minister represented them to be at that time. Personally, I was perturbed about it for one serious reason. I paid a great deal of attention to the Budget of 1952. I hope the present Minister will not mind my saying that I read Deputy MacEntee's Budget a lot oftener than I read his Budget, and that I have a great deal more time to it. What perturbed me in particular was the fact that I read in every line of that Budget a huge increase in unemployment.

The Government of the day said: "We did not deliberately create unemployment." That was what the former Taoiseach, Deputy Eamon de Valera, said. It all depends on what meaning you attach to that phrase. I would say that, if the Government of the day deliberately created unemployment, if they realised that what they were going to do would create unemployment, you might condemn them for it and say it was wrong and very harsh. If, in fact, however, the Government of the day introduced that Budget and did not know it would create large-scale unemployment then I would say they were quite unfit to be the Government. The extent of that unemployment in Dublin City was never realised because if they became unemployed they moved off to Britain after a week or a fortnight. I noticed the change and another thing I noticed was that the Dublin people did not turn against the Government of the day at that time. I think they were very fair about it. It was not until late in the autumn of 1952—when they realised that what was being said by the then Opposition was true—that the Dublin people began to turn against the Fianna Fáil Party who were the Government of the day. I think they were perfectly fair-minded about it. I notice Deputy Corry is smiling. Perhaps Deputy Corry is remote from the City of Dublin and thinks that what I am saying is not correct. That was the situation as I read it at the time.

The loss of the £1,000,000 was not troubling them?

Which £1,000,000? The loss of the £24,000,000?

The £1,000,000 for the civil servants.

Is the Deputy referring to the £24,000,000 out of the kitty? There is one other suggestion in relation to the Budget of 1952 and that is that when the Fianna Fáil Government came back into office in 1951— and this is a suggestion made by many fair-minded people outside—they were unlucky that they ran into a bad period when the cost of everything was very high and, generally speaking, no Government could have done any better than they did. I cannot help feeling that the particular views that were held by the then Government in 1951-52 were strongly reinforced by Deputy MacEntee's visit to Mr. Butler, which was referred to here earlier this evening. I am very much afraid that Britain is running into a somewhat similar balance of payments difficulty at the present time as she was in at the fag end of the year 1951 when the dollar reserves began to go down. The present Government have indicated, up to the present at any rate, one degree of independence: they did not raise the bank rate when it was raised in Britain a few months ago. That was one degree of independence from that point of view.

There is one other matter to which I should like to refer with regard to the 1952 Budget. Yesterday, Deputy Aiken suggested many times that the excess profits tax in Britain was removed by the Labour Government in Britain. I am only speaking from recollection on this matter but my recollection is quite distinct about it. These taxes vary. As far as I remember, a large part—I think the whole of it—was removed by the present Conservative Government. What Deputy Aiken was putting forward was: Why did the Labour Party here not insist on the restoration of the excess profits tax when they got into office? The fact of the matter is that it is a long time now since the excess profits tax was removed here and, in any event, in my opinion when you take corporation profits tax and add it to income-tax the taxation of companies is quite high enough here: I agree with Deputy MacEntee about that.

In the earlier part of his speech this afternoon—I did not hear the latter part of it—Deputy O'Malley said that there was an element here in Dublin which was convinced that a change of Government would mean a reduction in the cost of living. There is this much to be said about that. If it has not meant a reduction in the cost of living it certainly has prevented it from going as high at it would be to-day if the Party opposite had remained in office. They were on a good wicket there.

That is a right good one. I will be thinking of that for the next month.

I will repeat it so as to make quite certain that the Deputy understands what I am saying. They were quite right in saying that it was a better bet to back Fine Gael and Labour than to back Fianna Fáil, because to-day they would be paying a higher price for butter—and God only knows what they would be paying for tea. On the subject of tea, it might be no harm to say one or two words. The Fianna Fáil Party had a major campaign ready about tea but the whole thing turned turtle on them. What did the Government do, on the other hand? To give them credit, I think that, in the past, the Party opposite would have fought that campaign about tea but they have grown more wary with the years.

What was done, in fact? Everybody in this House knows that the Government started considering the price of tea last October and November—and the longer they considered it the worse the position seemed to get. When it was at its very worst, the Government had sufficient courage to say: "This is so bad it cannot last." The Minister for Industry and Commerce, on behalf of the Government, announced: "We are taking no decision on this until September."

Yesterday, Deputy Carter spoke in this debate. He is one of the people who originally talked about tea on tick. He mended his hand a bit yesterday, but he said the position was still in a bit of jumble and that we did not know where we were going. I think everybody will agree that the auguries are very favourable at the present time. However, if the Party opposite were in Government to-day, it is to be presumed that the price of tea would be the same as in Britain.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported: the Committee to sit again.
Top
Share