Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 10—General (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (15th Dáil) – Wednesday, 9 May 1956

Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 10—General (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following Resolution:—

That it is expedient to amend the law relating to customs and inland revenue (including excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance.—(Minister for Finance).

Mr. MacEntee

In the course of his speech yesterday, the Minister expressed his appreciation of the services which the members of the Committee on Industrial Taxation had rendered to the country. I should like to join with him in that tribute to those who have given so earnestly and so continuously, and, I think, at great cost to their own private concerns, signal service to the State in this matter.

I should also like to begin by saying that I should personally like to congratulate the Minister on the pains which he has taken to make the country aware of the very grave position in which it finds itself. As spokesman of the Government, we listened to his speech yesterday and we will readily agree that he had not an easy task. If we on this side do not agree with him in regard to the fundamental policy on which the Budget is based, that in no way detracts from our appreciation of the factual account which he gave yesterday of the grave state of our national economy. It was really an alarming picture which he presented and I think nothing will be lost by recalling to the House what the Minister, in fact, did say about the position in which we in this little part of Ireland find ourselves.

He said that the increase in consumption and the decline in savings had combined to cause a grave balance of payments problem, the financing of which resulted in a scarcity of capital for development purposes. I am not going to hark back to what the Minister said in 1948 or in 1954, during the general election. I will not recall the fanfare of trumpets with which the new policy was enunciated in 1948. I am merely going to point out that in this Budget the Minister is continuing to subsidise consumption and increase expenditure, as well, of course, as substantially increasing taxation. The Minister has diagnosed the disease, but has lamentably failed to apply the remedy.

In his review the Minister went on to tell us then about the failure of the Dublin Corporation issue and the most signally unfortunate thing this State has experienced since it was established, the failure of the National Savings Bond issue—an issue at 5 per cent. made at the discount price of 98.

It is not to be wondered that, with this general overall picture before us, the Minister had to refer to the static —one might say, the stagnant—position of our economy nor that he had to warn our people of the threats to our political and economic freedom which have begun to emerge. He went on then to point out another most disquieting feature, the realisation on a substantial scale of external assets by the commercial banks, a realisation carried to the extent that, in the single year of 1955, in the course of last year, the first full year of the second Coalition Government in this country, the decline in these assets roughly equalled that for the whole of the preceding eight years.

The Minister proceeded then to refer to the unfavourable trading position in which we find ourselves. Touching on that, he pointed out—very emphatically, I think, having regard to the fact that he was making a case for a number of his colleagues behind him, who, I am sure, are not in agreement with this Budget—that there is no cause for optimism in relation to our trading position and that, so far from matters being likely to improve in the course of this year, terms of trading are likely to deteriorate and turn against us still further. He stressed then that there was a positive fall last year in the volume of agricultural output, provisionally estimated by him at 2 per cent. The figure at which a person looking at the position with a cold, objective eye might fix this decline in the volume of agricultural output is one that the House may be left to guess; but certainly the Minister, no doubt with every desire to put the best face he could on it without doing grave violence to the truth, had to confess that the estimated that there was a positive fall in the volume of agricultural output of about 2 per cent. last year. Again, he reminded the House that he could not look forward optimistically to any rapid improvement in the position and he stressed the reason why.

The Minister has told us that there was an increase of about 1,700 people in industrial employment, but that this increase in industrial employment was more than counterbalanced by a decrease of 3,000 employees in agriculture. Taking it, by and large, therefore, there was, so far as the whole of our economy is concerned, in fact a decrease in employment in this country. He also told us that consumer prices were still rising steadily. Now, nobody wants to flog a dead horse but let the Deputies opposite, who are supporting the Government in the policy which this Budget expresses, think of that in the light of their election promises.

Now I appreciate that this Budget is the lesser of two evils. This Budget is like the curate's egg; it is good in parts and it is bad in parts. It is a Budget which represents the lesser evil. The worst thing that could befall the country would be that we should have a repetition of the policy which was forced upon Deputy McGilligan, when he was Minister for Finance, by the Leader of Clann na Poblachta in the late 1949 and in 1950—that policy of deliberately unbalancing the Budget. The Minister, I think, has endeavoured to balance this Budget by increasing taxation. That is why I describe it as a Budget of the lesser evil. It is not so bad as an unbalanced Budget, but it is a long way from being as effective for the Minister's purpose and for the needs of the people as would be a Budget based on a reduction in expenditure and a reduction in taxation. Therefore, I say that, while we are not going to criticise the Minister for the fact that he has produced a balanced Budget, we are going to criticise him for the procedure he has adopted to bring that balance about.

I was saying that consumer prices are rising steadily. I have also said I was not going to flog a dead horse. But do not let any Deputy sitting in this House, who is going to vote in support of the Minister when the division is taken on this General Resoution, fool himself into the belief that the people have forgotten that the present Coalition was returned on a pledge to reduce prices—not merely; mark you, to keep the prices stable, as the Fianna Fáil Government had succeeded in doing in 1952 and in 1954, but to give to the people the benefit of a positive reduction, a positive fall in the general price level. The Minister has admitted that it has not been possible for him to fulfil that undertaking and, indeed, he has indicated that so far as he and his colleagues in the Government can foresee it will not be possible for them to do that even in the near future.

One might ask, why? The answer would be because they are steadily inflating the economy and it is the Government's policy which is the source, the most powerful source, of the general inflation in this country which is tending to send prices higher and higher. The Minister has indicated in his Budget that, so far as he is concerned, he is not powerful enough and he is not strong enough in the counsels of the Government to take the positive steps necessary to stabilise prices, first of all, and ultimately to reduce them—to stabilise prices and ultimately to reduce them, as it was quite clear we were ultimately going to be able to do as a result of our 1954 Budget.

When I was speaking last year in the debate on the Budget here, I pointed out that, if it had not been for the increase in expenditure deliberately incurred by the Coalition Government, the Budget of 1954 would have balanced after a remission of about £1,800,000 had been given in that Budget to the people. Whatever Minister was in office, provided he followed out the policy of that Budget, would have found himself in a position to reduce taxation and thereby enable the people to employ, in the way which they thought most prudent and most profitable, whatever savings would have accrued to them as a result of the policy of the 1954 Budget. I will not say that the Minister would not have had a grave problem in regard to our capital expenditure if that Budget had been allowed to operate, but, at any rate, that problem would have been made appreciably easier of solution, and I am perfectly certain that the money would have been more wisely spent.

Let us pass now from this question of prices to the position of the banks— the position of our commercial banking system, the life blood of our whole economic corpus. That banking system is suffering under this Government from pernicious anæmia. Banking deposits, the Minister has admitted, within the State fell substantially, notwithstanding the fact that banking advances and investments within the State rose by a substantially greater amount. Now that is a phenomenon that we have not seen in this country within living memory anyhow and, I think, within even three generations. We have had this continual hæmorrhage. We have had, as I said before, this pernicious anæmia vitiating our whole system of commercial exchange and credit.

The Minister went on to point out that, despite the lavish expenditure of the Government on one project or another, there had not been any increase in the volume of national production during 1955. Though there was a rise in the money value of the national income this was altogether a reflection of a higher wage and other income levels. The Minister here might have gone on to stress that the increase in incomes was wholly illusory in terms of social betterment. There was no increase in production, as he himself admitted. In short we have been pumping out paper money, purchasing power, if you like, and getting nothing in return. We have been loading this generation and future generations with debt by our unreproductive spending and getting nothing in return for it.

The Minister then went on to point out even more significantly that the impact on the economy of increases in remuneration will not be fully felt this year. We all know, any of us who happen to be interested in business, the difficulties with which we are faced. We are being urged by the Government, those of us engaged in or in any way associated with industrial concerns, to try to break into the export market, a very highly competitive export market. We have to carry the burden of high taxation; we have, if you like, to carry the burden of staffs who, in many instances, are "green" in industry. They are willing, intelligent and apt to learn; they are anxious to learn and they take a pride in their work and are anxious to do a very good job; but nevertheless, they have not the tradition—as the phrase is the "know how"—behind them such as have their competitors in a world market.

The Minister tells us and all other people engaged in industry that we must break into the export market. How are we going to be able to do that if in many instances the impact of these inflationary rises in costs has to be carried without productive return? Many of these are infant, struggling industries. We should either make up our minds that we are going to carry on in an autarchic system here by which we will be content merely to be self-sufficient, working only to meet our own needs, with no ambition beyond the three seas of this country and the northern boundary or else we should be given a chance to sell abroad under a Government which has found a positive remedy for our disadvantageous position. Exhortations have been made that we should try to go into the export market, but we must be put in the position to compete with experienced producers elsewhere. If our farmers and industrialists are to be put in that position, then there must be such an increase in the volume of production as will enable us to carry the high wage structure which is now bearing us all down.

The Minister then went on to say that, despite this increase in the money value, there had been no increase in home production, fixed capital or imported capital goods ready for use. He gave us some figures which paint a very graphic picture. He said the estimated increase in national capital in 1955 was only £27,000,000 or 5 per cent. of the national gross profits. He then went on to say very significantly that this was less than in 1954 by £21,000,000 or £30,000,000 less than in 1953. Personal savings, he admitted, were only half of the 1954 amount last year. That is the picture as the Minister presented it when discharging what I am sure it was a very unpleasant duty. I am sure it was no pleasure to him to come to this House and give us these facts about the state of our economy. I said at the beginning that this was a factual statement and I congratulated the Minister on that fact. I am perfectly certain that he did not relish making it. However, let us remember that this was not a statement made by a disappointed office holder. It was not a statement made by a prejudiced critic from the Opposition Benches. It was a statement made by the Minister for Finance, speaking on behalf of the Government and in discharge of his own special duty as Minister for Finance, to the people.

As I have stated, the Minister's speech must be described as a sober, balanced statement. I am certainly not prepared to underrate the difficulties which the Minister must have experienced before the major features of that statement were passed by his Government colleagues. I feel that he must have had a long struggle before he was permitted to tell the truth to the people. I have every sympathy with him in the position in which he finds himself, and I am prepared to pay him a just tribute for the information which he has given us.

Let us see what that statement means. The statement is, I am certain, correct in every detail and I am certain that the Minister has not exaggerated our difficulties. It would be a natural tendency to try to minimise them, but that, I think, he has not done. The picture which the Minister painted yesterday is not the picture as it existed at the beginning of 1948. It did not describe the condition which existed here when the first Coalition Government took over. I am referring to the first Coalition Government because we can be assured that we are now reaping the harvest of what that Government sowed. When the first Coalition Government took over in 1948, this country had emerged successfully from all the perils, difficulties and dangers of a second world war and it had emerged from those perils and dangers as one of the most creditworthy countries in Europe. This was a State at which even our opponents, if you like so to describe our separated countrymen in the Six Counties, were looking with keen appreciation as businessmen. This was a State which was able, out of its own resources and out of its sense of human obligation, to help the depressed and devastated countries of continental Europe. This was a State which was able to help prostrate Germany. Contrast the position of Germany to-day with the position of the Republic of Ireland and there is a mighty change—a mighty change for the worse on our side, a mighty change for the better on theirs. That change in the two countries has been brought about very largely by the different financial and fiscal policies which have been pursued.

Let me go back a little further. We went into the phase of the second world war strong economically. We went into it in that position because the policy which the first Fianna Fáil Government had pursued from 1932 to 1939 was one which encouraged production, savings and investment in this country. Savings were naturally intensified by the circumstances of the world war, but we came out of that world war, even stronger than we went into it and we came out of it free and at peace. We had every opportunity here of building up the sort of State for which the men of the past generation had gone out and fought and struggled and died to bring into being.

I do not want to minimise the difficulties which have beset Governments in this country since the end of the war. It was natural, due to the fact that so many things had to be denied to people during the period of the war, that there should be some temporary compromise of the policy which had been pursued prior to 1939. Naturally, when people have been denied many little luxuries—tobacco in free measure, clothes in free measure, coal and boots and so forth in free measure—there is an inclination to increase consumption even beyond the natural standards. Therefore, it would have been almost impossible for any Government to continue without some change the policy of building up the productive capacity of this country which had been pursued, as I have said, up to 1939.

There would have had to be some less emphasis on the need for saving to increase investment and production, and perhaps a little more consideration for the desires of people to consume rather than to save. As I am saying, that would be natural but it was not natural and it was not justifiable and it was not prudent or provident to go out and urge the people, incite the people, to eat, drink and be merry, without any regard for the day upon which the bills would come in and the obligations which had been imposed upon the people would have to be faced and met.

To-day, we are reaping the full harvest of the policy which was initiated on the day on which the then Minister for External Affairs played the political cuckoo on his colleague, the then Minister for Finance. I am speaking from facts as I know them. There is not any doubt whatever that, towards the end of 1949, a policy was being pursued by the Minister for Finance and by his Department, at his instance, which was radically different from that which was adopted and followed in the later months of the Coalition. That change was due, as I have said, to the fact that Deputy MacBride, as he is now, Minister for External Affairs, as he was then, ousted the then Minister for Finance and went in and took charge of that Department, virtually, or imposed his policy on that Department. It is from that day that the free spending of the United States loan began.

To-day, we are paying, I think, £1,147,000 in interest and £245,000 or £247,000 in repayment of principal in respect of that loan. That was the period of dollars for mouth-organs, dollars for hair-curlers, dollars for popcorn-making machines. That was the period when, as the present Minister for Agriculture boasted in this House, he was spending 6,000,000 dollars per half-hour in importing foreign-grown grain into this country. To-day, we are paying for that policy as continued by the Coalition, until it was displaced from office in 1951 and as it was resumed by the Coalition when it again took office in 1954.

I do not want to be in any way unfair to the Minister. I am perfectly certain the Minister has been doing his best to put some sort of brake on expenditure, to keep some sort of curb on the spending. But what is this Minister amongst so many diverse elements in the Coalition? How can this Minister deal with colleagues who go out on other platforms—when the Minister is telling people to stint their expenditure, to save so that they may lend him their money—and preach that they will not be satisfied unless expenditure is substantially increased? What can one man do against so many? I am perfectly certain, from anything I know of him, that my successor is doing the best he can. His best, however, is a poor best and it is not good enough for this country in its present circumstances.

I do not want to go into the particular measures which the Minister is taking to raise revenue. The merit, as I see it, in the Budget is that, since these taxes are going to be unpleasant, and so forth, the Minister has managed to screw the Coalition to the point that at least we will have a balanced Budget. A Budget balanced by increasing taxation is a very poor substitute for a Budget balanced in a way which would give relief not merely to the taxpayers but to the whole economy of this country, a Budget balanced by a reduction in taxation.

The Minister, of course, promised that at some not far distant date, we will have substantial economies in the Civil Service. Again, on this matter, an ounce of example is worth a ton of precept. Who is going to believe that this Government is serious or in earnest about tackling our economic problems when we see Ministers flying around helter-skelter all over the Continent and, indeed, all over the world? It is a sorry thing to have to say, but here we are after the Coalition has wasted our substance and brought us to the condition in which we are to-day asking the foreigners to come in and take us over and save us from ourselves.

The Minister promised economies at some not too far distant date. He offered a little incense on the altar of economy. How is he going to do it? He is going to bring in some of these efficiency experts from over the water at very great cost to the people of this State. I do not decry these efficiency experts, but I hate to bring in other people to do a job I ought to do myself. I hate to pay other people to do a job which I am paid for doing myself. In any event, these efficiency experts will be brought in. They may be brought in and paid their tens of thousands by the time the process is finished. Hundreds of thousands of pounds indeed will be spent upon these most expensive experts. What will be the result in the end when all the thousands have been spent? There will be ten or 12 poor little shivering writing assistants brought up on the carpet one day and told their services are no longer required.

That is not the way to deal with the situation. The Minister is going to meet the heads of Departments. When I first came in as Minister for Finance in 1932, we had the same sort of parlous budgetary and financial problem to deal with and I told the heads of the Departments fairly frankly that either they or we were for it, and that if it came to a showdown, it was not going to be we. We were going to have the Budget balanced. We had the unpleasant task of imposing taxes in 1953, but we were also going to secure economies. The proper way to do the job is to go to the heads of Departments and say that if they are not able to cut administrative costs substantially with the next 12 or 18 months, then they are not the men for the job.

That is one way of tackling the problem. That is how it would be tackled in most private business concerns. There would not have to be all this huge apparatus of investigation and discussion. Let us get down seriously to this question. If the Minister is really going to tackle the problem of the increasing burden of administrative costs in this country, we will have to go to the men who have control of the staffs. We will have to ensure that the same sort of return is given by everyone, right down to the very lowest strata in Government Departments, as has to be given in any sort of private enterprise or industrial undertaking. That is the way other people have to do it. I suggest that the people would have much more hope if the Minister announced that that was how he was going to tackle the job.

There is another aspect of the Minister's speech with which I should like to deal before I sit down. First of all, the Minister mentioned the decline in our bank deposits. He told us what, of course, is public property, that the last National Loan was a dismal failure. I do not say that at all in any spirit of complacency. I think it is a disastrous thing. I do not blame the Minister for it, except to the extent that he is a member of a Coalition which has succeeded in undermining any confidence which the people had the stability of their Government or the stability of the State. That is the real evil in this whole position.

The Minister admitted that deposits in our banks had fallen, that the people are not saving so that the volume of personal savings declined by almost 50 per cent. in one year under his administration. People are not investing anything like they did in insurance policies. All these things are occurring now. Why? Because the rumour has it in Dublin—I give it for what it is worth—that certain members of the Government have threatened to bulldoze the banks into bankruptcy if they do not meet the Government's demands for increased accommodation at every turn. Other Ministers are bringing pressure to bear on insurance companies. There is widespread apprehension about the position of the funds of the Post Office. These are the things which more than anything else are responsible for the fact that people are not going to put their money into loans, which, first of all, the people see——

Captain Giles

Put on your red tie.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy who made that sage remark had better realise that I never had a red tie though he is wearing one.

Mr. O'Donovan

But you tried to plaster it on other people.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Barry and other Deputies will have an opportunity of commenting on what Deputy MacEntee says later on. In the meantime, Deputy MacEntee should be allowed to make this statement.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not want to end on that note. Let me say that my only hope is that anything I have said will cause Deputy Barry and the responsible members who are supporting this Coalition to consider the position objectively. Naturally, we all have Party loyalties, formed and welded over a great number of years. They are very hard to relax even in the slightest degree. But that is not the point. I am not asking any Deputy in this House to abandon any leader. I am only asking those Deputies who have the ear of the Minister for Finance and those associated with him to say that they do not think things are going as they expected they would when they took office in 1954, that they do not think the economy of this country is as sound as it ought to be. We want them to impress upon him that we are anxious to help in this situation. We are not anxious to rock the boat, or do anything which would further enhance the Minister's difficulties.

I would like to be permitted to recite to Deputy Barry what I happened to say in the Budget of 1953 with the full assent and concurrence of Deputy de Valera, who was then Taoiseach, and every other member of our Government. I said at column 1212, Volume 138, of the Official Debates of the 6th May, 1953:—

"Current expenditure, therefore, for 1953-54 comes into line with current revenue at approximately £101,000,000. This sum marks the limit of expenditure beyond which the Government is determined not to go until the present pressure on resources is eased by an expansion of national output and taxation has been reduced to a more tolerable level. Only the gravest and most urgent grounds of national interest will be accepted as justifying any modification of that attitude."

That was our policy in 1953; it was the policy on which the Budget in 1954 was based; and it is our policy to-day. But the limit which we fixed, £101,000,000, has been far exceeded. This Budget proposes to find and charge against current revenue an expenditure of £118,000,000. I suggest, when the Deputy weighs those two figures in his mind, he will say, as I am saying now, that it is time a halt was called to this headlong race to destruction.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Corish)

It is becoming quite a usual thing in debates such as this to get two different lines from the leaders of the Opposition, and that has been followed again in this debate, if we are to have regard to the speech that was made by Deputy Lemass yesterday and the speech that has been made by Deputy MacEntee this morning. I think it would be a fair comment to say that Deputy MacEntee did not make an unreasonable speech this morning. However, the indications from his speech are that his mind still travels in much the same direction as it did when he was Minister for Finance from 1951 to 1954. Although Deputy MacEntee is much too clever a man and also much too clever a politician to disclose his hand fully, it does seem abundantly clear to me that if Deputy MacEntee were Minister for Finance over the past two years, if the food subsidies were not gone, they would be slashed very severely.

Deputy MacEntee seems to blame all our ills on the fact that subsidies are at such a high level as they are to-day, that the cost of the Civil Service is too high, that wage increases all over the country have been exorbitant and that there is too much travel abroad. If my memory serves me correctly, I think it was in 1953 that Deputy MacEntee, who now has twitted the Minister for Finance on the methods he proposes in order to economise in administration, himself suggested in the Budget of that year that he could save £3,000,000 on the Civil Service. He did not even go as far as the present Minister for Finance. He merely said that a saving of £3,000,000 should be effected. We got no details as to how this economy was to be made. We did not see any evidence during the year that efforts were being made to save £3,000,000 and, when the year was over, I do not think the £3,000,000 was, in actual fact, saved.

This Government was twitted by Deputy MacEntee also on the number of trips that are made abroad. He and everyone else knows the trips that have been made abroad by various Ministers and he will agree on reflection that these trips abroad have been necessary as we were entitled to think that the Opposition, when they were in Government, thought it was right and proper that Deputy Childers as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs should travel throughout Belgium and Holland, that Deputy Walsh should study agriculture in Holland, Belgium and Germany and that Deputy Lemass should travel to Canada and the United States. I did not expect that type of criticism from Deputy MacEntee, because I am sure he must appreciate the value of these trips abroad, not alone from the point of view of prestige but from the point of view of the work that the various Ministers have done, whether they were Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour or Clann na Poblachta Ministers.

The main criticism of the first speaker in the Opposition yesterday, Deputy Lemass, was not so much—and here it is pretty difficult to get into grips with the Opposition—of the type of taxes that have been imposed, but that the cost of Government is too high. Deputy Lemass asked in his speech yesterday why there was an £8,000,000 increase on last year in supply services, forgetting of course that the Minister for Finance in his speech explained where these increases occurred. There were large increases to State employees, that is, civil servants, Post Office officials, Gardaí, teachers, forestry workers, the Army and other State employees, to the tune of £2.5 million. The health services are costing £1,250,000 this year and, as Deputy MacEntee has mentioned, the service of debt an extra £2,000,000, the relief of rates on agricultural land an extra £340,000, and additional sums of £135,000 for universities and colleges and £256,000 for forestry.

I should like to know from the Opposition whether or not they are in agreement with these increases and the sums which I have just read out. We have behaved differently, and I think rightly so, in respect of the Civil Service. We have honoured the awards made by arbitration, unlike our predecessors who did not implement the awards in full, because we are firmly behind the idea of the free negotiation of wages, not alone for civil servants but for every other worker in the State.

Deputy MacEntee made a very clever speech when he talked about the burdens on industry. I was wondering how long it would take him to come down on one side or the other. I suppose he is perfectly entitled to make this comment, but it seems to me that Deputy MacEntee thinks that the reason for the position in industry and agriculture at the present time is high wages. I do not want to attribute that in that crude way to Deputy MacEntee, but that is the impression I got from the remarks he made with regard to the expansion of industry and the possibility of the expansion of an export market.

We have seen in the past, and we have had evidence of it recently, the attitude of Fianna Fáil towards the level of wages and wage increases, not alone for civil servants but for employees in general. Whether or not Deputy Lemass ever intended that Dáil Eireann should pass that piece of legislation which he had prepared in 1947 to curtail wage increases, I suppose we shall never know, but it does give an indication of the way in which the mind of Deputy Lemass and the Fianna Fáil Government and Party was working at that time.

Mr. de Valera

I think the Minister might ask some of his colleagues something about that.

Mr. Corish

Perhaps when the Deputy is speaking he will be a little more specific. I am sure my colleague, if he refers to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, will be able to give him whatever information he seeks.

This year—something to which Deputy Lemass, by inference, objected —there is the increased expenditure on the health services—£1.25 million. Does Deputy Lemass or do the Fianna Fáil Party suggest that we should cut down on that? It has been suggested over the past two years that we had no intention of implementing the Health Act. The Health Act is now being implemented in full and the State, of necessity, must pay its share, which includes this year an increase of £1.25 million. The Health Act, as the House knows, was introduced by Fianna Fáil and, incidentally, was supported by the Labour Party. I personally, and my Party, are very, very pleased that this extra money is being provided for better health services for the community. Does Deputy Lemass suggest that we should cut down on that figure?

Included in the extra £8,000,000 which is needed for this year is £2,250,000 for forestry. I think it was in 1952 that the Fianna Fáil Government reduced the amount for forestry by £250,000. Subsequently, through pressure, they were forced to restore the cut, which they had effected in the Budget of 1952, but the fact is that, this year, as a further encouragement to forestry and in an effort to plant a bigger acreage than ever before, an extra £250,000 has been provided for that purpose.

Inasmuch as Deputy MacEntee went back to 1939 and to 1947, I do not think it would be out of place to refer briefly to the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Government in their 1952 Budget. At that time, the Minister for Finance said that there was a gap to be bridged to the extent of £15.1 million— a formidable sum, no doubt—but it is interesting to see how he went about it. The first proposal in this Budget of that year was a reduction in the food subsidies by £6.67 million, something which we violently opposed because we did not believe that the living standards of the people should be attacked in such a harsh way.

Mr. Hilliard

Why does the Government not restore it then?

Let me say in respect of the items which I have announced: the Civil Service, the health scheme, the increased amounts for forestry and the universities, the increased expenditure is justified and the steps taken to raise that money have also been justified. The sources from which we are taking the money are the best possible sources in the circumstances. As I said before, it is not a Budget which attacks the household or the ordinary standard of living of the people and for that reason I think it will be appreciated and welcomed by the people of the country in general.

Mr. J. Brennan

The impact of the shock occasioned by this Budget has been more or less cushioned by introductory pronouncements from the Government side of the House over the past few months, particularly at the time when they introduced the Supplementary Budget in respect of a number of articles. The Minister for Finance then warned the people that the position was serious and no effort was spared to prepare the minds of the people for the great shock which they definitely have got in this Budget.

The people were sometimes inclined to hope it might not be so bad— especially after the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government went up to Loughrea to give the organisation a shot in the arm by announcing that the position was not at all so serious as was being represented. Now I think the people take no notice of what the economic adviser to the Government has been saying and are rather inclined to depend entirely on the statements of the Ministers in the Government. They were prepared for a shock and a shock they have got. There is no gainsaying that; let us not fool ourselves for one moment about it.

Mr. O'Leary

Fianna Fáil have got a shock.

Mr. J. Brennan

The Minister for Social Welfare, who has just spoken, has made a reference to Fianna Fáil being unable to work up any enthusiasm for this Budget. I ask the House what is there in this Budget for anybody to be enthusiastic about? Perhaps he is thinking of the attitude of the then Opposition in 1952. I well remember the smiles and cheers which greeted every announcement of any change or increase in taxation imposed by the Fianna Fáil Government at that time. I wonder if that is the right attitude for an Opposition to take up at a time when the country is in a serious financial position? There is nothing in this Budget to be enthusiastic about.

I would quote the Minister's statement at the conclusion of his Budget speech yesterday when he said:—

"I do not, of course, suggest that budgetary measures are all-powerful. On the contrary, the decisions of individuals are more important in their economic effect than any financial measures of the Government."

Mr. O'Donovan

Yes, that is what we believe.

Mr. J. Brennan

If you believed that in 1952 and told the people in 1952 that that was so, you would not be in the place you are in to-day. That is the point I am making, and the Parliamentary Secretary has anticipated me. If the Opposition in 1952 had admitted to the public that a serious financial situation existed in which important remedial measures would have to be adopted, they would not be sitting on that side of the House to-day. Decisions of the people are much more important than any action which may be taken as a result of budgetary measures. Therein lies the theme of what I am going to say. If the Opposition had gone to the country after the dissolution of the last Dáil and told the people, as they are telling them now, that certain measures were necessary to remedy the financial situation then, what would the result of that election have been? But no, the people who are deriding the Opposition now for even mentioning the serious impact of this Budget were the very people who scorned and sneered at the measures taken by Fianna Fáil in 1952 when Deputy MacEntee introduced a Budget to correct the serious situation which existed then.

They went to the people and told them we were unnecessarily imposing on them a hairshirt policy. As the Minister admitted yesterday, the decision of the individual is more important than any budgetary measure. The very minds of the people were prepared to accept the policy which would be the absolute reverse of that which we, particularly Deputy MacEntee, pointed out was necessary at that time.

Mr. O'Leary

What about the 1947 Budget?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order! Deputy O'Leary will get an opportunity to make his speech.

Mr. J. Brennan

Let us recall a few of the more important statements made leading up to this situation. When the various groups met after the election they announced to the people and to this House that the one inference to be drawn from the result of the election was that the people had voted for reducing the cost of living, for lower prices, and, as the Opposition put it in the election, lower prices and better times. That was their interpretation of the results of the election, and they proceeded to form a Government. The first thing they did was to bring in a subsidy on butter, and they told us that this was only a small instalment of what the Government was going to do towards implementing their avowed policy of bringing down the cost of living. They were still interpreting the result of the election to be what it definitely was—the result of the unlimited promises made to the people in regard to the cost of living, prices and lower taxes.

The Minister for Finance was applauded in the House on one occasion for having done what we were told was an unprecedented thing in the history of this country when he prevented the banks from increasing their rate of interest. All that was portrayed to the country as the positive measures being adopted by the present Government to implement the promises and the policy which they put before the people in the election. Now, we have completely turned our backs on that and we are told that there were no such promises whatever and no such commitments. Surely the people of this country have never before been treated to a débâcle of that kind in the history of the native Parliament.

In passing, I would ask, if the Minister for Finance was so influential in keeping down the bank rate on that occasion, to what extent has he concurred with the banks at the present time when they are wringing the small businessmen of the country for the last halfpenny in pressing them to bring down their overdrafts and are crippling business throughout the country? Do the members of the Government not realise that in the small towns, and, I am sure, in the large ones, too, the small business people are practically unable to carry on to-day as a result of the credit squeeze that has been inflicted on them? To what extent has the Minister, who was so influential as to be able to keep down the bank rate and who was applauded in this House for his action in doing so, concurred in the present credit squeeze that is crippling business throughout the country to-day? He gave us no indication yesterday as to what he might do to relieve the situation and there is certainly nothing in the Budget that would show any easing off in the situation. Rather is there more and more of the hairshirt policy which we were accused of introducing at that time.

The Budget statement is eagerly anticipated by the people of the country generally because it is an important point in the financial reckoning of the Government. There are two things to which the people look when the Budget is due. The country people are concerned with what the new taxes, if any, will be, and what reliefs the Budget may bring. But, above all they look forward to what hope the Budget statement may hold out for the future. I think never have we got such a gloomy and dismal outlook and such dark foreboding as that which was written into the statement which the Minister made yesterday. In the days of the Fianna Fáil Government, we used to hear talk from the Opposition side of the House about our failure to estimate the great resourcefulness of the Irish people, that the people were capable of facing up to any situation provided they got a proper lead from the Government, that the Irish people's resilience was being underestimated by Fianna Fáil, that they were taking unnecessary action to make them tighten their belts and were creating a situation which was not necessary. That is the kind of talk that has developed the situation in which the Government find themselves to-day.

We do not hear much talk in this Budget statement with regard to what the future is to hold for the Irish people who are fleeing from the land on the western seaboard. We do not hear much talk of the fluctuating figure of from 70,000 to 80,000 unem ployed who are compelled to live in this country. The Minister admits the past year was a difficult one. There was much unemployment and emigration. Yet, according to his Budget statement yesterday, payments out of the National Development Fund were fewer than anticipated and that in a year when they were very badly needed. Goodness knows, that was not for want of schemes being submitted from every local authority and public body throughout the country.

When the Minister for Social Welfare was speaking here a few moments ago, he referred to the shortage of hospital beds, a shortage which prevented the implementation of the Health Act in full. According to the Minister's statement yesterday, hospital building was slowed down during the year despite the fact that there were increased receipts from the Irish Hospitals' Sweeps. Nevertheless there was a slowing down in our hospitalisation programme at a time when hospital facilities were urgently needed and at a time when their provision should have been greatly accelerated. But there is no explanation whatsoever for that. We know, of course, that it was slowed down for the purpose of leaving the Minister in a better position to bring in this Budget.

Now, payments out of the National Development Fund were fewer than anticipated despite the fact that quite literally thousands of schemes were crying out for attention in order to absorb some fraction of the unemployed. Thousands of schemes were submitted to the Government. Yet, there was a reduction in the payments out of that fund.

Let us see now what the Minister proposes doing in this Budget, which is applauded by his own back benchers and held out as one which will be received with enthusiasm by the people. All the taxation imposed in 1952, impositions which were so loudly condemned by the then Opposition, are continued now that that Opposition is in Government. When one considers that against the background of the present Government the situation appears to be serious enough. But we are now going to have further impositions, bigger and heavier impositions than any anticipated by even the most pessimistic in our community. And we have not yet been told what some of them will be.

The Minister for Social Welfare was brought in this morning to intervene early in this debate in order to make some references to what his Department proposes to do by way of reliefs, reliefs for the purpose of artificial respiration of those people who are still suffering from the shock of yesterday's Budget. He referred this morning to increased contributions and to a few increased benefits in social welfare. Everything this Government does must carry with it some sop for the Labour section of the Government. That is quite obvious. The Labour Party now realises—and, more important still, they know the country realises it—that they are not pulling their weight and they must demand something. When tea prices were allowed to soar they demanded increases in wages. The Minister has pointed out in his Budget statement that, while incomes increased, there was no corresponding increase in output.

In relation to this Budget, the Labour people could not go before the country without demonstrating that they had secured some little concession, some little sop. Even though matches will be dearer and the poor man's pipe will be more expensive, there must be some sop to show that Labour is pulling its weight to some extent in the Government; and the best way that could be done was by increasing contributions in the various social services and giving corresponding increases in some of the benefits derived therefrom.

Mr. O'Leary

It is better than when the Labour Party were with Fianna Fáil.

Mr. J. Brennan

What were the promises made by Labour to the people in the elections? Do they think that this small insignificant sop now will justify the attitude they adopted to the electorate in the elections? Do they remember the statement they made that they would not take part in any Government which would not be prepared to restore the food subsidies and bring back the cost of living to the pre-1952 level? Are they aware that the people of Laois-Offaly have, as would the people of the country if they got the opportunity, to use an Americanism, "tipped them off"? If they intend to do anything for the people, they ought to do it now. All the people cannot be fooled all the time.

Mr. O'Leary

What did they get in 1932? They did not get much advantage in 1932.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If Deputy O'Leary cannot conduct himself I shall have to ask him to leave the House.

Mr. O'Leary

It was the Labour Party that put in the ex-Taoiseach in 1932.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Leary will have his opportunity later.

Mr. J. Brennan

We were discussing the impositions in this Budget. We were told that some good would come from the social services and we were glad that there was even some little reason for the enthusiasm on the Government Benches. We differ from the present Government when they were in opposition. We do not grow enthusiastic when we hear of impositions on the community. We enthuse when we hear of benefits. We are not like the erstwhile Opposition which sat on this side of the House and which is now in Government. Just because they exploited the situation in 1952 to the fullest extent, many of them are now Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, many of them who would ordinarily never have been Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries at all. They exploited the position to its fullest and they exploited the people unscrupulously in their election pledges.

We were told this morning what benefits would accrue in social welfare. The Minister was rushed in here to-day to make these announcements early in the debate, but the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has not been rushed in to tell us what he intends to do in his Budget in a few weeks' time. It was announced yesterday that he has something in store for the people.

Mr. MacEntee

Was it received with enthusiasm?

Mr. J. Brennan

It will be interesting to see the enthusiasm with which his Budget will be received. We have been told that the letter postage will not be increased. Does that mean everything else will be increased? It is a good job the 3d. letter postage is not going up.

Mr. O'Donovan

It is indeed.

Mr. J. Brennan

Deputies' postage bills are pretty heavy these days. I expect there is a surprise in store for those of us, particularly business people, who do the bulk of their business by means of the telephone. Surely the cost of the telegraphic service will not be increased, unless it is deliberately increased for the purpose of eliminating the telegram altogether? The minimum rate for a telegram to England to-day is 3/6. If a friend dies and one wants to send a telegram with just "Sincere sympathy" it costs one 2/6.

We are told now that there will be further increases in the postal and telegraphic services. Remember that the people who use the services of the Post Office most are the business community and these imposts, whatever they may be, will have to be borne by the business community. Last year when the cost of telegrams was increased I, in common with other Deputies, received hundreds of complaints from business firms as to the cost of these extra charges in the year. But we must wait for this Supplementary Budget and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs will not come into the House quite so quickly as did the Minister for Social Welfare this morning. Remember, the Minister for Social Welfare came in to talk about some reliefs. The Minister for Post and Telegraphs will be held in the background until the echoes of the present Budget have faded away somewhat. Then he will come along with his Supplementary Budget and tell us what these increases will be.

The increase in the price of petrol is not something that can be received with enthusiasm by anybody. Of course, the new petrol tax could not be received with enthusiasm by anybody in the House. I was surprised to hear Deputy McQuillan trying to justify that tax by pointing out that he was prepared to support up to the hilt the taxing of anything imported. He did not tell us that the taxes on petrol and other imported goods were not for the purpose of preventing imports of those commodities but merely for the purpose of raising revenue, and were imposing a burden on the people using those commodities which they were unable to bear. Let there be no mistake about the fact that these duties imposed by this Budget on imported and home-produced goods are all for the purpose of raising revenue and are an impost on the people.

There is hardly a section of the community which is not affected by the increase in petrol to-day. There is no section of the distribution trade and services that will not be faced with a much more serious situation than that which they have already had to face, and God knows the business section of the community is in a serious plight at the moment. This tax will affect the distribution of every type of goods in the country. The amount of the tax, one must admit, is far in excess of anything that was anticipated, for an increase was anticipated from the pronouncements and the actions of the Government prior to the introduction of the Budget.

Cigarettes are stated to be a luxury to-day but in 1952 they were regarded as an essential. Deputies in this House cried about the poor man's pipe and the old age pensioner's tobacco, but to-day they are accepting the taxes on this commodity with enthusiasm and they now regard tobacco as a luxury. The Labour Party is loud in its applause in supporting this increase. I would ask them to cast their minds back to the time when Fianna Fáil taxed tobacco and cigarettes.

If at the election those people had stated on the platforms that they would increase the tax on tobacco and cigarettes, they would have difficulty in getting the support necessary to pilot this Budget through the House to-day. If they had told the people that they did not propose reducing the tax on tobacco and cigarettes they would not be sitting on the opposite benches to-day.

What did they say on the occasion of the general election? I know what happened in my own constituency. Throughout the campaign on every platform they said that Fianna Fáil had raised the cost of living, and they were asked how they proposed to reduce prices. I put the question to them myself from every platform on every possible occasion, and their reply was very shrewd indeed. They said that when they were elected in 1948 their first action was to reduce the tax on tobacco and cigarettes, and what they did then they could do again. That was a shrewd and definite reply as to how they proposed to reduce taxation and bring down the cost of living. How is that pledge being honoured to-day? I would like to hear how Deputy O'Leary will explain this increase to his constituents.

Mr. O'Leary

You backed up Deputy MacEntee when he put it on.

Mr. J. Brennan

I would back him to-day too because what we did, we did honestly and honesty shall prevail. Cigarettes, which to-day are a luxury according to the Government Deputies, were an absolute essential in 1952, and it was a crime to tax them. Mind you, cigarettes have unfortunately become more and more essential to the community. They may not be included in reckoning the cost-of-living index figure, but they are regarded as an essential to-day even in country districts. When the local housewife goes to the grocer to purchase her weekly requirements she sells a few dozen eggs and gets her tea, sugar, salt, bread and other things but invariably there go into her basket two ounces of tobacco and 20 cigarettes at least. It has become an indispensable part of the household requirements, because the women take home the things the men require. Every penny imposed on these commodities is going to be just as difficult on the housekeeper in meeting her budget as if the taxes had been imposed on tea or sugar. The tax on matches, of course, had to be drawn in, and it, too, was received with enthusiasm by the Government Deputies.

Mr. Cunningham

That is not a Budget leak.

Mr. O'Donovan

My colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare, suggested that it is difficult to find what is the real opinion of the Fianna Fáil Party in regard to these matters. He suggested that Deputy Lemass and Deputy MacEntee were in conflict. I do not think the word "conflict" altogether describes the position since a conflict connotes people pushing against each other. I always think of the two Deputies in question as pulling in opposite directions.

Deputy Brennan and the Fianna Fáil Party continuously speak about taxes. We have not changed them. Does Deputy Brennan suggest that with the gradual fall in the value of money which has occurred all over Western Europe in recent years the burden of these taxes has not been less?

Mr. J. Brennan

You promised to reduce them.

Mr. O'Donovan

There has been a reduction in the burden of taxation.

Mr. MacEntee

A reduction in taxation?

Mr. O'Donovan

There has been a reduction in the burden of taxation, very definitely. I would like to see a further reduction.

Mr. MacEntee

I hope Deputy O'Leary will tell the people that there is only a ¼d. on cigarettes.

Mr. O'Leary

The Deputy is getting worried now.

How did this happen? That happened because, unlike the present Minister for Finance, who expressed the view yesterday that decisions of people are more important and should be given more weight, Deputy MacEntee introduced the Budget early in 1952 "to restore order in the public finances and in our general economy." That is the language of the economic dictator, and an interesting thing is that that expression "dictator" in the economic textbooks does not mean the same thing as it does in politics. It means the fellow who plans at the centre. And here is the man planning at the centre.

What has intrigued me about this position is that, roughly speaking, in real terms, our net national debt is no greater to-day than it was in 1938. At that time, it was about £40,000,000, speaking from recollection. To-day it is £125,000,000. Look at what we have got for it. You can see what we got for it all over the country.

Mr. Moher

True for you.

Mr. O'Donovan

The immense power stations; rural electrification; the national schools, for a comparatively small sum—say, about £4,000,000. All Deputies know that the benefits of it are everywhere and I am glad that, whatever the difficulties of the present situation may be, the Minister for Finance will get provided the same amount of money in the coming year as was spent last year.

There are two points I should like to make about the Budget. It is to be regretted that the circumstances are such that part of the petrol tax is a tax on production. We are all aware of that. It is to be regretted that the penny tax per gallon on fuel oils had to be imposed. But I do not think that there was any other way in which the amount of money—about £1,000,000, if you take the parts of the petrol tax related to production—could have been got this year.

One matter which shows the difference in approach in regard to production also is this—and it was Deputy Dillon who first drew my attention to it in the autumn of 1952: the increase in the price of food in the Budget of 1952 was a tax on production because the price of food is part of the small farmer's costs of production. I notice Deputy Corry's mouth opening wide in astonishment.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,

Mr. O'Donovan

I promised Deputy MacEntee I would say a few words about this matter of the ebb and flow of the banks' assets. It will be appreciated, for example, that the fact that stocks in the country last year increased by £5,000,000 as compared with the decline of a similar amount the year before would place a certain drain on the banks' assets in London. It seems to me to be likely that gradually, during the present year, that position will change over and there will be no decline in the sterling assets of the banks in the current year. That is an opinion that may prove to be incorrect, but there seems to be an ebb and flow in these matters.

The former Government were fond of saying that they had restored order to the public finances, but they were particularly thinking of the preservation of the sterling assets. In actual fact, it was not the actions of Deputy MacEntee in 1952 which enabled that to come about, but rather the fact that there was a continuous decline in the prices of imported raw materials for industry which are a very large part of our imports. At the maximum point in March-April, 1951, these imports were 193 and there was a decline of 25 per cent. between then and the autumn of 1954, when they reached their lowest point, 136. Since then, they have tended to rise again. During all that period, our exports tended to maintain their price level and in fact in certain cases they went up a little.

That is the explanation in real terms. I do not think there was much change in the volume of our imports. We have been importing much the same quantity of goods in the past couple of years as previously, but there has been a change over from the period of falling prices to a period of rising prices. That may well be coming to an end. Deputy Lemass, in the one serious sentence he spoke in his criticism of this Budget, said he had been expecting to hear from the Minister for Finance about "that increase in production which this country needed to survive." He should have left out the words "to survive." I am satisfied of two things: first of all, we are getting an increase in production this year and secondly, when very shortly now—it is not many years away—we have completed the present capital development programme, we must turn over to large-scale production for export in order to keep our people employed. When the resources at present being put into capital production are put into production for export, it will be a very short period until that problem is solved. I should like to compliment the Minister. I think the reaction of the Opposition is a proof that they are not dissatisfied with this Budget.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I should like to start off on this Budget by referring to the inglorious retreat of the inter-Party Government from their 1954 election promises. They were then to reduce the cost of everything and they were to get money out of the most impossible places. They were to increase production and everybody was to have full employment. We find that they have turned turtle on the people to whom they made these promises and they have done it in a most inglorious manner. In 1948, the economic trend of this country was on the upgrade. Every man and woman in the country was delighted to see that improvement. Fianna Fáil told the inter-Party Government, through their spokesman, Deputy Lemass: "We are giving you the country in a sound financial position. Give it back to us in the same condition." They did not do that; they have done great harm to this country as a result of their two periods of Government, due to mismanagement. The cold facts are there and are beyond contradiction. It cannot be denied that the downward trend set in when the Coalition took office, and no bolstering up of facts and no excuses will get away from that. If this Dáil does not condemn them, at least future historians will. No matter what our Party or personal affiliations may be, our national affiliations are of the very greatest importance, so that we must look ahead and see what can be done to make the country better for the people coming after us. The economic chaos of the present time due to the ineptitude and inefficiency of the inter-Party Government has been detrimental to the interests of the people of this nation.

Mr. S. Collins

Platitudinous nonsense.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Yesterday we heard the Minister speak about the need for increased production, but we found that the Ministers of the inter-Party Government in 1948 were more concerned about importing foreign goods than in trying to produce them here. On many occasions, I had to ask the Minister for Agriculture or the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or other Ministers concerned with the import of goods, to give protection to our industries and to our farmers. The gibe was often made that I was concerned with vested interests. Times have changed and I suppose responsible members of the inter-Party Government are beginning to see the light, because they have found that the promises they made and the manner in which they abused the confidence of the people who were contributing something worth while to the country by such statements as that "they should be put behind closed doors" and all this from 1948 onwards, has tended to bring us to the position in which we are to-day. I hold every member of the inter-Party Government responsible for that position. It is all right to make cheap gibes and to say that Fianna Fáil did this, that or the other, but, in 1951, when we took office, the present Deputy MacEntee had a very dirty job trying to balance the Budget and rectify our financial position, having inherited a legacy from his predecessor who had failed to balance his Budget to the extent of £15,000,000.

Mr. S. Collins

And £22,000,000 of Marshall Aid money.

Mr. MacEntee

And every penny of that was spent, and spent on foreign wheat and tobacco and all the things the Minister is now trying to keep out.

Mr. P.J. Burke

In 1952, Fianna Fáil was faced with making the very difficult decision of putting the national interest before the Party interest in trying to rectify the downward trend brought about by the inter-Party Government from 1948 to 1951. It was a hard pill for any Government to have to swallow and it was hard for the Minister for Finance to do it, but he did put the national view before the interests of his own Party. We would not have been put into that position, if it had not been for the mismanagement of the inter-Party Government during their three previous years in office. The position was so bad as a result of that mismanagement that the people are still suffering from it and will continue to suffer.

I just take one item, small dwellings loans. When we left office, small dwellings loans ran somewhere in the region of 3¼ per cent., but, as a result of the inter-Party Government, we were forced very reluctantly to increase that interest, because the Minister for Finance wanted to get money at that period and could get it no other way. Now, as a result of the mismanagement of the inter-Party Government, the people who got those loans are paying through the nose for them.

In 1951, we tried to go back to the old and sound policy that has stood the test of time throughout the world in all nations that have done anything worth while, that is to develop national resources and increase production. We were trying to do that gradually, and we found in 1954 that the country was gradually regaining lost ground. The people were regaining confidence because manufacturers knew they had our support and would get every encouragement. They also knew anything that could be done to increase production and give more employment would be done and that the national Government was behind them and would not let them down. The same applied to the farmers. I believe this was the right approach—that we should not import anything that we could produce here. We gave farmers an increased price for wheat and tried to help them in every way possible because we are able to produce quite a lot of wheat ourselves. The farmers were getting down to more production, and not only did we look after that, but we considered every other phase of agriculture also.

But, of course, it is very difficult to get up on any platform and make an honest-to-God statement on the politics of any Party when you are dealing with unscrupulous members of the inter-Party Group who do not give two hoots what they will promise, so long as they will get hold of the reins of Government. I think that is morally wrong and one day the historians will be very sarcastic about those promises, so much so that I am sure any of the present members of the inter-Party Government who still remain will blush with shame.

We are now gradually reaching another kind of chaotic position so far as national finances are concerned and I intend to deal with it just in a general way.

To-day we have factories which are letting their workers go, and I want to deal with a factory for which I got protection a long number of years ago when I first went into public life. At that time, it was doing reasonably well; now, because of the amount of hosiery imports coming into the country, there is a slackness in the hosiery industry in Balbriggan. If that is the way the inter-Party Government want to increase production at home, I cannot understand it at all. We gave these people reasonable protection. They are good business people and they do not want unreasonable protection. We gave them reasonable protection and we were responsible for giving employment to hundreds of people there. No later than this morning, I checked up again and I was told that there are imports of hosiery and half hosiery—half made socks— coming in and getting over the import licence. It shows you how contradictory are the statements made by the Minister for Finance and the actual position.

He is not a very big one either. It runs from 500 to 700 gallons per day. That, at 1d. a gallon for six days of the week—and sometimes the same factory starts up on a Sunday night—means that this taxation alone is going to cost this factory up to £600 or £700 a year.

We have then the increased cost of petrol. Members of the present Government might say that they are taxing a luxury, so far as petrol is concerned, but petrol is a very essential commodity in the commercial and business life of this nation. There are very few people, indeed, who use cars merely for pleasure. No matter what our station in life may be, there are very few of us who can use a car for mere pleasure alone. Those who are fortunate enough to have cars use them for business purposes, in the main. Therefore, this increased cost will hit all sections of our people, be they engaged in commerce, business, agriculture or anything else. The small lorry owner will be particularly hard hit. Lorries are, as we all know, very hard on petrol. It is no use for the Government to say: "We have not increased taxation on essentials. We have only taxed luxuries." Petrol is an essential in the life blood of our nation to-day; it is not a luxury.

We have the increased cost of tobacco and cigarettes. I do not know what the members and supporters of this Government will say when they go before the people at the next general election. At the last general election, the people were told that cigarettes would go back to the pre-1952 price level. So also would the poor man's pipe. I do not know what kind of pamphlet they will issue at the next general election. The pamphlet issued in the last general election was quite clear; they indicated in it what their intentions were. Nevertheless, cigarettes and tobacco have increased in price as a result of this Budget.

In my constituency, at the last general election, we heard a good deal about the poor man's pipe, the old age pensioner who could not afford to buy tobacco because the price was so high. Evidently the present Government did not think the price was high enough because they have increased it still further in this Budget. These items are not luxuries. This taxation does not represent a further impost on luxuries. It is a tax on essential commodities.

Now, there was a good deal of misrepresentation in the past about the dance halls. There are a number of struggling clubs throughout the country. There are a number of charitable organisations which run dances to help schools, churches and local charities. Having paid for the band and the hire of the hall, there is very little left. Under this Budget, we shall revert once more to the old invidious position. The inspector will be brought in once more. Sometimes there will be too many tax tickets. Sometimes they will put money down in order to get a permit and some relief when they are running a dance for charity.

Mr. S. Collins

If there are too many tax tickets, they can get a refund.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Deputy Collins will have an opportunity of making his own points later. These people will have to make a statement to the inspector and, if the dance is a failure, they will get nothing. They will get no refund, although they have bought tickets. Under the old system, so much was taken in, so much went on expenses, and, if there was not a reasonably high percentage of takings, the charity got no relief, good, bad or indifferent. Now seemingly we are to revert to the old position again, with the miserable pittance and all the trouble and annoyance. I am speaking of clubs in the rural areas. The commercial dance halls are well able to look after themselves. I am concerned with the position of the small rural club. This is a vicious blow against such organisations. I should be interested to know from the Minister what it costs to send inspectors around the country inspecting these dance halls. I should like to know the amount of money spent in administration and expenses. I should like to know what the profit is to the Exchequer at the end of the year.

When we were dealing with the abolition of this tax, we considered the position solely from the point of view of the ordinary rural club, the dramatic class, the football organisation or any other charitable organisation. Remember, these helped to brighten rural life considerably. Now we have the same old tactics all over again. Anything a Fianna Fáil Minister did, even though it was good, must be put aside merely because it was a Fianna Fáil Minister who introduced it. That is the mentality of this Government. That is the kind of thing we are up against here. That is the kind of thing which is making this country suffer from an economic point of view.

I want to take this opportunity of voicing my opinion once more in relation to certain aspects of rural electrification. The Parliamentary Secretary spoke of the good being done by rural electrification. I agree that good work is being done, but there is one matter which I have already raised with the Minister for Industry and Commerce and I want to take this opportunity of raising it again with the Government, as distinct from the Minister: why should certain sections of our people who were unfortunate enough not to come in under the electrification scheme originally——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am afraid I cannot allow the Deputy to deal with that on this occasion because it is certainly not relevant to the Resolution before the House.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I will reserve the right to deal with it on another occasion then. I should like to hear from the Minister what policy the Government have for increasing production, and how they propose setting about ensuring that increased production. They should tell the people definitely what they propose to do and how they propose to achieve that aim. We hear a lot to-day about agriculture and industry, but I should like to say that the inter-Party Government has in the course of its short existence succeeded in destroying the great economic potentialities of this nation and the upward trend which we had established here, and which had been continuing to develop in the industrial sphere. The Government does not seem to have any definite policy so far in these matters, and for that reason we should like to hear from the Minister about any proposals they have in mind. If he can produce to us something worth while in the interest of the national advancement, he will find plenty of support in the House and in the country.

Mr. S. Collins

Poverty of thought and poverty of ideas seem to be the keynote of the oration just delivered by Deputy Burke. It has been significant since this Budget debate opened that the Opposition has been characterised by rather childish and agonised ranting or destructive recrimination.

I think the Minister epitomised this Budget when he described it as a realistic Budget. We have been aware for some period now that certain trends had entered into our economy that needed arresting and it is common practice in democratic countries that the Budget is the instrument used to give the lead that the Government wishes to give in relation to certain trends.

It is true that there is a substantial increase this year over last year in the amount of money to be expended. We will have gibes and sneers from the Opposition about this, but we have no analysis of the component parts of these increased charges, and no suggestion from the Opposition that we should reduce health services, social services, or certain benefits that have been made available during the past 12 months. It became inevitable with the increased and the wider scope of the implementation of the Health Act and the acceptance by the Government of its responsibilities to its public servants by the granting by the Minister of the awards which have been made that there should be increases.

While Fianna Fáil are in opposition, perhaps they might tell us if they are opposed to these costs, because, if they are not, then the rise would be inevitable and would they tell us in what better way the money to meet these costs could have been obtained than in the way the Minister is adopting? I do not like the 5d. increase in cigarettes and I do not like the increase of 6d. a gallon in petrol, but I know as surely as I am standing here that, if the position were reversed and if Deputy MacEntee was Minister for Finance looking for this money, then the larders would have been raided again and the subsidies on flour and bread would have suffered and the prices of these commodities would have been allowed to go up willy-nilly. Whatever difficulties the Budget might impose, I can say that there was a certain amount of relief throughout the country that the Minister at least kept away from the essentials and did not repeat Deputy MacEntee's raid on the larder of 1952. I think that is the criterion.

The Minister for Finance, far from not giving a lead as has been suggested in the garrulous meandering of Deputy Burke, has given a sound and effective impetus to our economy in this Budget. He has analysed the difficulties. We know that there was an increasing disequilibrium in the balance of payments. We know that it was not a pleasant duty for him to have to impose the recent levies for the purpose of arresting the tendency in that direction by dissuading the people from luxury buying.

We also know that the future of this country depends in the main on our capacity to increase production and on our capacity to husband savings and in that way have our people reinvest their savings in the future development and prosperity of this nation. To get that, it is necessary to arrest some substantial inflationary trends in existence over the past 12 months in our economy. As well as that, the Minister was faced with the difficulty in present circumstances that arises in getting people to save. This Budget is significant in so far as the Minister has made infinitely more attractive the small savings return to which the bulk of the people may be attracted. I think we will all welcome the improvement in the conditions and circumstances governing post office deposits. I think we should all, in a unanimous way, encourage the small savings into that type of channel.

For too long we have been inclined to have competition as between Parties as distinct from realism in our approach to our economic difficulties. We can only maintain the standard of life of our people by an ever-increasing production and by harvesting from the earnings of that increase in production greater national savings. Only in that two-pronged development can we arrest difficulties appearing in our economy and push forward to an even greater development of capital investment on a large scale in this country. To get the maximum return by way of earning capacity in this nation, there are millions and millions of money yet required for land reclamation, land fertilisation, drainage, afforestation and all the other various primary industries appertaining to the land.

Over the past two decades, we have made substantial advances in the relief of the problem on a nation-wide scale of housing. But, to deal with the problem of increasing production in our agricultural industry, which is the basic industry on which our economy is built, we have to realise that it is going to require continued technical help, advice services and improved credit facilities for the farming community. We cannot have any real increase in our production on the land unless there is improvement in the land itself—improvement of a very substantial nature in our grassland and a continuation of the improvement in the strain and quality of our cattle.

If we are to continue as we are bent to continue on the improvement of land, increased drainage, the eradication of bovine T.B., the extension of all the various veterinary services at the disposal of our agricultural community and the extension of technical advice either by way of soil testing or other technical advice, we must face the fact that this is by way of a gradual long term investment in the increasing of production and the quality of our land that will ultimately inure and redound to an ever-increasing return in our national income.

You cannot, in this year of our Lord, deal with this problem, unless you are realistic. We have faced the difficulties of depreciated value of money: some of that was completely outside our control. We have faced the difficulties of increasing costs of commodities over which we have no control. However, this Government faced it in this way—and this is another rather sore point with the Opposition—that we believed that where there were impacts on the cost of living outside their control, where they could do nothing to arrest the upward trend, we would allow the people suffering from this impact to seek compensation by way of wage increases to enable them to withstand the impact of these rising costs. That is completely opposite to the policy conceived and designed by Deputy Lemass that you should peg down wages and do nothing about increasing costs. That is one of the kernels of difference between our approach to the economy and that of the Opposition.

We go further than that. In the realisation of the necessary stimulus which is required in industry, the Minister in this Budget gives a series of reliefs that must inevitably react as an encouragement to the industrialist to invest in new plant and to develop or improve existing plant. This financial statement by the Minister indicates a clear-cut policy, on the one hand, of an investigation into the capacity for further pruning of administrative costs and, at the same time, a positive directive that tells the industrialist: "As you develop and as you purchase new plant, we are going to adopt the policy that to encourage you and to create an air of stability certain reliefs"—which Deputy MacEntee described as by way of "write down"—"will be available to you."

This Budget also clearly indicates the intention of the Government to come to grips with the problem of a growing Civil Service. We all welcome the fact that the Minister in a clear, succinct way indicates that he has no intention of disestablishing or jeopardising the permanent employment of anybody now engaged. He does, however, envisage a reasonable pruning of the numbers in the years to come.

All of us, when we change to different sides of the House, make attacks on increases in administrative costs. This Budget commends itself to me because it seems to be the first time that some positive realistic step by way of setting up the necessary machinery is being taken to investigate the possibility and the practicability of arresting this ever-extending and ever-growing strength of the Civil Service.

Let us take the case made on its merits. It is common case among all members of the House that the expenditure now envisaged is necessary because neither in the course of yesterday's nor to-day's discussion have the Opposition told us what we could cut out. It is common case that for this year the money sought is necessary to be expended. We, the Government, and the Minister have to face the most equitable way of bridging the gap.

It is true that the smoker and car driver will have to carry the main load, but in the main the impact of the increase in the price of petrol is only going to be severe where the petrol is used purely on the basis of pleasure driving. No naïve reference by Deputy Burke to the harassed lorry-owner or the chagrined taximan will alter the fact that, in the ultimate analysis, the customer will carry his share of the burden.

Is it more realistic for the Minister to look for his increased revenue from these sources or to follow the pattern laid down in the 1952 Budget? The general reaction of the country to-day is that, once the money had to be found, at least the Minister took the most equitable way of finding it. I know there will be arguments adduced about the poor man's tobacco, but, in the ultimate analysis, I think the poor man will be better off paying 4d. extra for his plug, when the price of bread and butter is stabilised, than he would have been had the Minister done as Fianna Fáil would have him do and abolished subsidies altogether.

I think the country generally will accept the spirit and the framework of the case made by the Minister himself. He has in a succinct, realistic way analysed the difficulties and discussed the difficult trend that has arisen. The one real earnest that the public want and the one real stimulus that we all want in this country now is that the Minister, exhorting the Irish public to save and to invest their savings at home, will show as rapidly as possible an earnest of his sincerity by giving us the reduction in Government expenditure.

I am warning the Minister and the Government that, unless that necessary leadership comes from the State itself, they will not get the response they want in the drive for national savings. I am urging upon the Minister in a most emphatic way that he get to grips as quickly as possible, by the method he has designed, with the pruning of administrative costs. There is no doubt that year after year, with the same monotonous regularity, the cost of central Government has gone up and so have the number of employees in the Civil Service and right down the line in the various local authorities.

We find year after year an ever-increasing number of people making their living from either the central Exchequer or the local authority exchequer. That must inevitably lead to the expansion that has occurred in central Government spending. During all the years I have been in this House, every Deputy, no matter what his Party affiliations, made speeches about the growing dead weight of administrative costs. The earnest the people want, particularly the farming community, is a reduction in those central costs. I hear the gibes about the farmers escaping this and that, which are made in this House. The sooner we realise that it is the farmer who pays for all, the better.

I am urging on the Government in their present realistic and effective approach to our economy as rapidly as possible to show a contraction in their own spending, because there is no good in asking the people throughout the country to contract their spending if there is an ever-increasing expansion in Government spending.

If people require to be encouraged to save, it can only be done by maintaining the value of their money. That cannot come about in this State unless there is an effective earnest shown of contracting central expenditure. Let us be realistic. If the man with a few pounds to-day feels that that few pounds will not be worth as much next year as it is now, he always has the tendency to buy goods for it; but if an earnest is given by this Government of a contraction of central expenditure, if an earnest is given of a final cessation of tax rises, then throughout the length and breadth of this country will go that wave that will give the people the impetus to save.

We have in the past criticised rising taxation rates and it was inevitable that it would take time to recover from the economic fiasco of 1952. I am urging upon the Government now, in this mood of realism in this budgetary effort they are making to arrest dangerous trends and to restore stability, to get one thing finally and irrevocably accepted—that there is an ultimate limit to taxation. That is the only way you can convince the people that there will be real value to their money next year compared with their money this year, by showing that tendency of reduced central expenditure which will impress upon everybody the real probability and practicability of arresting the upward trend of taxation and the possibility of remission.

When I started speaking, I did not intend to obtrude on the House for as long as I have done, but may I say that in the circumstances of to-day I feel the Minister has faced a difficult task with a practical outlook, and the many small remissions that have been scoffed at, particularly those affecting certain grades of State pensioners, are giving maybe a belated but certainly a very welcome relief to those sections?

I mentioned in the course of my observations on one of the Resolutions the position that would be created for fishermen using diesel oil because of a certain new tax. I want on behalf of those fishermen to express my appreciation now of the ready willingness of the Minister to re-examine the position as far as they are concerned, so that he would not put a tax on primary production. That is the keynote of this Budget; that is where the real test of the Minister's practical approach can be judged. None of the increased taxation in this Budget is directed to primary production. All the bleating about what 6d. a gallon will mean to the farmer or 1d. a gallon on diesel oil might mean, where he is not entitled to certain exemptions, does not alter the fact that this plan of raising the money is not a direct tax on production. Deputy Burke came in here this morning and pleaded in round, sonorous tones for the harassed dance-hall proprietor. It is rather interesting to reflect that, in the monumental savagery of the 1952 Budget that increased tea, bread, butter and sugar——

Mr. Briscoe

We did not increase tea.

Mr. S. Collins

——the only remission then given was to dance-hall proprietors. Surely any of us looking realistically at the case of the dance hall will know that, in the main, any effect that may be felt will be passed on to the dancer and will not be carried by the hall proprietor? It is regrettable that there had to be increased taxation under this Budget, but, in the circumstances of the money having to be expended and the money having to be found, I think we can feel satisfaction that the Minister and the Government sought the raising of that money from sources that were not going to cause a general hardship on the public. Even though there might be many arguments adduced for the abolition of various types of subsidies, I feel gratified that, in the circumstances of our time and in the difficulties of the harder-pressed sections of our community, the Minister has maintained and stabilised the price of essential foodstuffs and that he has not been forced into that bludgeoning policy of raiding the housewives' larder for money to enable him to bridge the gap.

It is not pleasant, or, as the Minister stated, popular, to impose those taxes, but it has this merit, that it shows to the country at large a practical, down-to-earth approach to the difficulties of to-day. If the Minister gets, as he can get, from the Irish people the cooperation he seeks, then we will have turned the tide; the era of rising taxes will be finished and the future holds the distinct prospect of realistic curtailment and pruning down of central expenditure, an increased impetus to savings by our people, an ever-expanding belief, by generous investment therein, by our people in the development of our State. We can thus look forward to a new trend in the economy, the practical and sound investment of Irish people's money in the further development of Irish land, in the further drainage of Irish land, in the further improvement and development of Irish houses, ultimately redounding and inuring to the national wealth and compensating us in an immense way, far in excess of present expenditure, for our belief and our faith in the development of our own resources and the capacity of the Irish people to develop them.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,

Mr. Briscoe

I have read through the Minister's Budget statement, having listened as carefully as I could yesterday, and I have come to the conclusion that it requires a title. I would suggest that the proper title for this Budget would be: "The Killjoy Budget." I do not know whether it was from a moral approach that the Minister imposed the new taxes, but, certainly, from the point of view of the man-in-the-street, it will to a great extent interfere with his pleasures and so forth. The Minister referred to his desire and that of the Government that the standard of living of the people should be maintained and improved. I asked myself the question: what does standard of living mean? Does it mean only food, clothing and shelter, or should it include a little bit of the joy of life? The Minister, unwittingly, through this Budget, has interfered with the standard of living of the people, if one accepts that there is more to life than just eating and sleeping.

The logical answer is that the Deputy feels deposit rates here should go up to 5 per cent.

Mr. Briscoe

No, I do not. I feel that money is a commodity and its cost to people is regulated by supply and demand. The greater the demand for money in relation to its availability the greater the rate of interest. The rate of interest fluctuates up and down and I hope the Minister has learned that rather summarily since he came to occuply the position of Minister for Finance. In a democracy such as this you cannot determine over the heads of the people how they are to deal with their own personal savings or possessions unless you bring in a law to that effect. As it happens, we are linked with sterling across the water and there is freedom of movement of money to and from Britain and other parts of the sterling area. Wherever the investment seems to be better the money will be invested.

The Minister relates the scarcity of money available for State and local authority borrowings to the fact that there was a diminution of savings. He says the money was not saved by the people and was not available. That has been happening in other places as well as here. Since the Minister told the House that he had put a brake on the upward trend of loan interest rates, we find he has had to change his mind. I do not know whether he sent a release order to the banks, but the fact is that the rate of interest for borrowing has gone up to a rate higher than it ever was since the establishment of this State. It looks as if it will be even higher. The experience of those who are seeking money from the public is that, as month follows month, the rate has steadily progressed until last week local authorities found that they had to pay 6 per cent.

I am informed, and I believe it, that one part of the Minister's Budget— this release he is giving from income-tax payments on income of the first £25 of money on deposit—was introduced because there will very shortly be increased deposit rates with a consequent increase on interest rates for loans. I would not be a bit surprised to see the banks changing their rate from 6½ per cent. to 7 per cent. The Minister gave us a list of the borrowings and he then gave us the facts, the incontrovertible facts, of our position with regard to our balance of payments. He admitted, in connection with the balance of payments position, that the increase of £13,000,000 in the deficit as compared with 1954 was the result of a substantial rise in imports, accompanied by a decline in exports with scarcely any change in net invisible receipts.

I have been quoting from the Minister's statement. In March last the Minister came into the House with what we might call an interim Budget and introduced a new system designed to meet two problems. One was to get capital moneys and the other was to try to slow down increasing imports. With regard to the effort of getting capital money may I say, and perhaps the Minister will accept it with a good grace, that I think whoever was responsible for designing this idea of getting capital moneys deserves the highest of praise and thanks? For the first time we have found a way of getting capital moneys without any interest charges or sinking fund charges. I think the Minister is deserving of the highest praise. It is about time somebody had thought of a method of getting money in this fashion instead of borrowing at a time when the rate of interest is adverse. I do not know what the Minister's attitude will be to that statement of mine and to the manner in which I have made it. I think it is quite a novel and good idea. On the other hand, I want to say that when he was introducing these levies, if my memory serves me correctly, the Minister anticipated we might get some £7,000,000 in the full year from these levies.

Mr. Sweetman

What?

Mr. Briscoe

I say £7,000,000 in the full year but I am relying on my recollection of what he said.

Mr. Sweetman

£3,000,000.

Mr. Briscoe

I did not say that as a categorical statement. The Minister hopes to get £3,000,000 in this manner. He may get more; he may get considerably more. I hope the Minister's undertaking to the House that this money would be used exclusively for capital purposes and would not be raided for anything in the nature of meeting deficits stands. The fall in imports as a result of these levies may be even greater than is anticipated and if that is so, particularly where it affects normal tariff goods, then I think the Minister's anticipation of revenue from tariffs would be knocked somewhat and will be considerably shorter than expected. Consequently, I am wondering whether the Minister has taken steps to have a careful review made of the situation since the introduction of these levies. We all know the Minister cannot get a true picture in the months prior to the Budget of what the situation is likely to be. A lot of imports are normally timed to arrive before the Budget.

At the time they were caught by these levies, there may have been a considerable amount of what I would describe as goods brought in in anticipation of and in speculation of the possibility of a new or an increased tariff. At the same time quite a considerable amount of these goods were re-exported, were not cleared at all; a considerable amount had been put into bonded warehouses as a result of the facility given by the Minister to enable people to clear their goods gradually where they found difficulty in finding the extra money to meet the new extra levies. All that is quite understandable and quite reasonable, but the net question I am trying to frame is: is the Minister's anticipation of a sum of £3,000,000 the correct figure? Will it be greater; will it be less? If it is smaller, then there will be a deficit in the income on the side of the estimated amount of moneys coming into the State from tariffed goods. To what extent it will slow down certain businesses, I do not know, but we will have knowledge of that as time goes on, and we can discover the details as these are released by the State, as has been the practice, every fortnight.

The Minister is confronted with two problems: he has the normal problem of balancing the Budget and then he has the problem of protecting the State from the point of view of the national economy. If he has his Budget perfectly balanced, but has the national economy out of gear so that we are gradually using up our credit balances, then, of course, we will be faced at some time with a very serious situation. Therefore, the Minister has the responsibility, while he sits there, of making sure that, when signs are apparent that the tendency is in a direction which is against the interests of the country, he will take remedial measures almost immediately.

To what extent this curb on imports will affect this very serious deficit nobody, as I say, can venture to prophesy, but, on the other hand, our adverse trade balance is also affected by the prices we get for the goods we export. Again, just as Deputy S. Collins said—he has apparently discovered it in the last two years—there are certain commodities which we have to import, the price of which is beyond our control. These commodities are offered at a certain price on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, and, no matter how essential they are, the prices are determined outside. So also are the prices that we will get for our goods abroad. We must remember that the vast bulk of our exports are not ordinary, manufactured goods; they are basically agricultural commodities, and if our customers can get similar or equivalent merchandise from other countries at cheaper prices then obviously they will either cease buying from us or we must reduce our prices.

To meet that situation, there has been a tendency—and the Minister admits it in his statement—towards a fall in the prices of our exportable goods, which has helped to widen the gap between imports and exports.

The Minister, on page 10 of his statement, refers to production and I think his references are in two parts, agricultural production and industrial production. If industrial production is increased, and if we can produce here goods which have previously been manufactured either wholly or in part abroad, then we will be cutting down the adverse balance of trade and we will have to examine to what extent this Budget will be helpful in bringing about increased agricultural production; to what extent it will attract new industry; to what extent it will help to relieve some of the burdens and grievances that existing industries have had and have been complaining about for many years. We will have to consider why it is that the Minister does not see fit to make these industries benefit the country by improving production as a result of new assistance to them, as distinct from giving assistance, such as is proposed, to new industries, or in respect of new machinery and so forth put into use as from April, 1956.

I should like to suggest to the Minister—I have not seen this report to which he referred; it has not been published—that he should give this matter some further consideration and see if he cannot say: "Well, people did, in good faith, over a long number of years invest capital in new industrial undertakings; this aspect of their problem had been under consideration for a long number of years and it was expected that, when the report came out, there would be a favourable recommendation for a larger write-down on their machinery." Yet, all these people who have been doing a job, giving employment and who, by their production of goods, have helped to narrow the gap in the adverse trade balance are completely left out, but we are now going to apply these benefits to new people whom we are inviting to come in here, bringing us new industries, and the existing manufacturers are going to benefit by this allowance only to the extent to which they can acquire new machinery.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 9 May 1956