Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 10—General (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (15th Dáil) – Wednesday, 23 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).

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

When speaking here last week I drew the attention of the House to the fact that the Opposition, in their approach to criticisms of this Budget, have indicated their belief that some considerable extravagance or waste exists in the administration of the Government of this country this year. I also adverted to the fact that we have disposed of a number of the Estimates and that, in contributions to the discussions on these, we had no clear indication from anybody on the opposite side of any items included in these Estimates which, in the opinion of the Opposition, were wasteful or extravagant.

When I reported progress last week, I was referring to the measures which the Minister for Finance took this year to cover the additional expenses involved in meeting charges falling due as a result of our health legislation, and of our efforts to bring incomes of various State servants up to the point where they would be better able to meet the impact of certain increases in the cost of living and so compensate them to a certain extent for these increases. We felt that they very much required that assistance from the State. In imposing these additional duties, the Minister for Finance reimposed a tax which had been accepted from year to year up to 1952 as a permanent feature of our tax legislation. That was the tax on dancing. In that year it was removed in circumstances which provided a shock to many members of the House, as well as to the people, at a time when people were asked to bear certain additional burdens and when there was a substantial cut in the relief which had been afforded up to then to assist people to meet the cost of living.

At that time the dance tax was removed. By its removal, certain protection which had formerly been afforded to the very small centres of population disappeared. By doing away with the dance tax, certain protection that was given to amateur theatrical societies throughout the country was also removed. In their efforts to meet the expenses involved in furthering their cultural activities, these societies found that they had been taken out of the position, which they had hitherto enjoyed, of having just a little advantage against the competition of the dance halls where the expenses would be very little and where the effort would be negligible compared with that involved in putting an amateur theatrical presentation on the stage.

I think the reintroduction of that tax will assist many of those societies in towns throughout the country. Those small rural centres with relatively minute populations will have the advantage of having this protection restored and it will assist them in providing in their own localities a measure of entertainment that might otherwise go to the bigger centres where individuals or societies might look to the opportunity of greater profit. I think the graduated scale which the Minister has introduced will be effective, and the Minister is continuing the precedent established by his predecessor, Deputy McGilligan, in giving that protection to the rural areas, and I think it will be appreciated.

Some members of the House are critical in relation to the costs that may be involved in the collection of the dance tax, but, if my memory serves me right, at the time it was removed, there was no indication that a great saving was made in any way in the expenses incurred in administering the tax.

Some comment has been made by some Deputies on the opposite side in relation to unemployment. There is no doubt we would all wish to see a considerable reduction in the unemployment figures as they stand to-day, but the critics must admit that there was a considerable increase in unemployment following on the 1952 Budget, and that this continued right up to the advent of this Government and that there was then a substantial decrease. That decrease continued up to some months ago.

If there has been a slight increase, it is not in any way comparable with previous increases, and it must be recognised that we recently reached a figure of industrial employment which is a record for this country. The falling off in the numbers engaged in agriculture has been reduced considerably. Even though a complete reversal of the trend has not been achieved, at least there is a substantial reduction.

In conclusion, I would refer again for a moment to the Deputies who made certain strictures on the agricultural community for not producing more. They seemed to try to convey that in some way Government policy could be better directed to procuring that increased production which would supply the answer to all our needs, but it must be appreciated that, particularly over the past seven or eight years, a record sum has been invested by the agricultural community, ably assisted by the State, in the mechanisation of farming, in rural electrification, the improvement of land and in the erection of out-buildings. At a time like that, there is a particularly heavy demand on the farmer and on his family that takes up a considerable amount of his time administratively. That time, possibly, could be given towards immediately-increased production, if he was not diverted from his normal work in order to procure on his holdings that improvement in efficiency and that improvement in standards which has been achieved in recent years.

It has called also for a very considerable amount of investment in machinery, investment in the draining and fertilising of land and very great investment in the erection of out-offices, and I feel that in view of the fact that we have a record number of cattle in the country, and in view of the fact that these operations have continued and are still continuing, we can look to good results and increased production in the future. When we have succeeded in making up the leeway, I feel that the people will then be in a position, and the agricultural community will be in a position, to make a greater contribution to the volume of agricultural output and to increasing our exports in the way that all Parties and all members of the House look forward to.

Mr. McQuillan

Like a number of other Deputies on all sides of the House, I should like to begin by saying that I appreciate very much the manner in which the Minister outlined the state of our national economy. His opening statement was honest, straightforward and blunt. It was a very different approach from that made by the former Minister for Finance in the other inter-Party Government, and for his honesty and frankness in giving us a true picture of the situation, we must feel grateful to the Minister on this occasion.

His opening statement, to my mind, at any rate, disclosed an alarming state of affairs, especially in connection with two key matters. As far as the capital side of the Budget is concerned, two matters were disclosed by the Minister that should give food for serious thought to all Deputies. The first point that was brought home clearly by the Minister was our failure to increase agricultural production. A second point was the lack of money to finance the capital development programme. I intend at a later stage of my short contribution to this debate to deal with those two major problems, but I will turn from them now to deal with another aspect of the Budget which relates to the day to day administration of Government Departments and the cost of the State service which has to be met in the normal way through tax revenue. Here, again, the outlook as disclosed by the Minister is gloomy. We find that the revenue from present sources and from taxation already in operation will be insufficient to meet the proposed expenditure in the current year and the Minister has found it necessary to impose further taxation in order to make ends meet.

The Opposition is fully entitled to lambast the present Government and its supporters for their failure to implement promises made in the 1954 election campaign. Unquestionably, the present Government have failed miserably to carry out specific promises to reduce the cost of administration and the cost of living. The Opposition are entitled to make any denunciation they like in regard to the 1954 promises, but that is a privilege of an Opposition in a democratic State, and it is a privilege that will lie with the present Government should they become an Opposition. That is purely a question of tactics and taking advantage of an opportunity to play Party politics for the benefit of whatever Parties are out of office. All I will say in connection with these promises is that this trail of broken promises that has been referred to did not begin just prior to the 1954 Budget. Since I came into this House in 1948 I have been listening to promises made by all Parties and have yet to see those promises fulfilled.

The people in general, the supporters of Parties on both sides of this House, are becoming more cynical and more disillusioned with regard to promises made by political Parties on the eve of elections.

On the question of the cost of Government administration, I have a distinct recollection of hearing this matter discussed annually in this House. Everybody seems to be of the opinion that the cost of administration is too high and each year whatever Government is in power agrees with that criticism and says they are about to take the necessary steps to reduce the cost of administration. So far, there has been no concrete proof that any Government have fulfilled their promise in that regard. If there is criticism levelled now by the Opposition, and if they belabour the present Government for their failure to reduce the cost of administration, it is merely a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Let us take the Civil Service. This giant octopus is growing all the time, stretching out new tentacles every year. We have yet to meet a Minister for Finance who has the courage to take his axe and lop off some of these tentacles. The simplest and easiest way of reducing the size of the Civil Service, without doing harm or without causing unemployment in the ranks of the Civil Service, is to reduce the intake to the service. I am not competent to judge what the percentage should be. There are experts available to the Minister for Finance to decide what the maximum percentage cut should be in the numbers taken into the Civil Service, without prejudicing the efficiency of the service at a later stage.

There should be a reorganisation carried out within the service. Where an officer resigns, through ill-health or for other reasons, close examination should be made as to whether his duties should be spread over other officers rather than that the appointment should be filled. When some such steps are taken in the initial stages— in other words, when there is a reduction in the intake to the Civil Service— we will begin to believe that some Government is serious about its statement that the cost of Government will be reduced.

The position we find ourselves in at the moment is that the revenue is insufficient to meet the outgoings. It is a matter that we all have to face up to, despite the criticism that can be levelled at the Government for failure to carry out promises. If money is needed, whatever Minister is in power must explore the various avenues available to him and search out the commodities that can safely take a further imposition by way of tax duty. The present Minister for Finance has selected two commodities, tobacco and petrol, which, in my opinion, can and should bear further impositions. Both of these commodities are paid for in valuable dollars. They are both imported consumer goods. If a tax must be imposed on anything, let us start with imported goods, especially imported goods of a consumer nature.

It is not a popular thing for any Deputy to walk into the Division Lobbies to support a Government who impose fresh taxation. In my position as an Independent, with no ties to any Party in this House, it would have been much simpler and easier for me to walk into the Division Lobby and to vote against the Government, but, when the money had to be got, I feel that the Minister did the honest, straightforward thing in selecting imported goods in order to get that necessary money.

I listened to Deputy MacEntee's speech on the Budget. He agreed that the Minister had given a correct picture of the situation, but he then went on to say, at column 176, Volume 157 of the Dáil Debates:—

"I am merely going to point out that in this Budget the Minister is continuing to subsidise consumption and increase expenditure,... The Minister has diagnosed the disease, but has lamentably failed to apply the remedy."

What can anybody, in all fairness, deduce from that statement? "The Minister," he said, "is continuing to subsidise consumption." To my mind, that statement means that Deputy MacEntee, if he were Minister for Finance and if it were necessary for him to impose fresh taxation, or to get more money to meet the outgoings, would, instead of taxing tobacco and petrol, have removed the food subsidies. That is the only interpretation I can put on his remark that the Minister was continuing to subsidise consumption—in other words, the people are eating bread at too cheap a price.

If Deputy MacEntee or any other Deputy had said that the millers were getting too much out of this, and if he were prepared to remove the subsidy from the millers, without having the price of bread increased, then there would be many Deputies to support Deputy MacEntee or any other Deputy who would stand firm on such a policy. However, I am afraid that day is a long way off yet. The present Minister for Industry and Commerce does not fill my heart with great hopes by his pronouncements on various matters that he will be the one to examine thoroughly this question of the profits of the millers. My stand on this is that if taxation is to be imposed, if it is essential for the Minister to get the money, let it fall on imported consumer goods first.

I might digress at this stage to ask the Minister if it would be possible for him to consider some way of safeguarding the older section of the community —the old age pension group—as far as the increased price of tobacco is concerned. I would make a strong plea to him to shelter them from the increase that has been imposed.

The imposition on petrol is a natural follow-up of the restrictions that had been placed through a form of purchase tax on imported commodities such as commodities for the assembling of cars, and so forth. The Minister is anxious to bring about some balance, as far as our external spending is concerned. It was essential that cars, spare parts and petrol should bear a fair penalty. The first reaction to the Government's decision in connection with this imposition on petrol came very swiftly last week from one of our petted and pampered so-called industries, that is, the motor car assemblers. This sheltered and pampered bunch of profiteers, having had a free run for years, are now dismissing their unfortunate workers, so that pressure can be brought to bear on the Government to restore the fat profits to the directors and other parasites attached to this doubtful industry. Did these gentlemen at any time consider ploughing back some of the profits they made in the assembly trade into the financing of a plant that would manufacture cars here in Ireland? Not at all. All they wanted was the biggest rake-off possible. The most shortsighted policy possible was shown by these people. In order to allow them to keep their big cars, to rake in the big profits, the Irish motorist had to pay through the nose for his motoring.

We spend almost £110,000,000 per annum on the importation of materials for industry and most of these so-called industries are of the assembly type. I have the utmost sympathy with the men who are going to lose their employment. I hope the Government will be in a position to cushion these men but I hope the Government will not allow pressure of any kind from these gentlemen to sway them from the decisions they have already made. We can take it that the increase in the price of petrol played only a very minor part in the decision arrived at by some of these assemblers to close down the plant. I want to quote from a recent article by the special correspondent of the Irish Press. He said:—

"The heavy unemployment now facing motor car assemblers should not have come as a surprise to anyone in the trade or even to the ordinary motorist. It has been evident for a long time that cars were being assembled at a much greater rate than actual sales."

That was the position. As far as the motor assembly industry is concerned, this crisis was coming for months past, but these gentlemen utilised the recent increase in petrol to spotlight the situation and to try to embarrass whatever Government happened to be in power in order to restore the fat profits to the directors and other gentlemen attached to the industry.

I want to repeat that, if money had to be found, the Minister made the obvious and correct choice. Another point that emerges as a result of the Minister's imposition of the tax on tobacco and petrol is that every possible means of raising money for budgetary purposes has now been exhausted. All the avenues have been explored for many years past. I think that situation will have to bring an air of reality into future Budgets. Personally, I can see only a very limited number of items that can be taxed in the future that will bring in anything like a reasonable amount of money. Therefore, so far as day-to-day spending is concerned, if there is to be any increase in future, the very great difficulty the Government will be up against is where they will get the money.

At the beginning of my speech, I referred to the two main features of the Minister's statement, as far as the capital Budget is concerned. The Budget itself disclosed a most remarkable state of affairs. I might describe this as "the eve of the crisis Budget". It disclosed two significant facts which will have a vital bearing on our future as a nation. The first is our failure to increase agricultural production. Our net output last year, instead of increasing, actually declined. I understand the present Minister for Agriculture is not inclined to accept the statement of his colleague, the Minister for Finance, in that regard. I am prepared to accept the view of the Minister for Finance and I am also prepared to accept the viewpoint outlined by the editor of the Statist in a leading article of the 9th March, 1956, on “Ireland, the Economic and Financial Scene.”

In that article he said:—

"Ireland, one of the great agricultural nations of the world, is now in the anomalous position of having failed to increase farm production over pre-war while all the other nations of West Europe have succeeded in increasing it significantly."

He goes on to say:—

"This is a dangerous situation for a country whose economic survival and progress depend almost entirely on her ability to make her farms produce more."

The man who wrote that is neutral in his political outlook as far as this State is concerned. He is in favour of neither Fianna Fáil nor Fine Gael. His feeling is that the situation is serious as far as our agricultural production is concerned.

There are many of us in this House and outside it who saw that position for years past. All Parties in this House must share responsibility for that position. To my mind there has been far too much Party politics attached to this, our primary industry. We have the position of every Party Leader taking unto himself the mantle of Moses to lead the people into the Promised Land. Every step that was taken so far as agriculture is concerned in this leadership has led the country into stagnation and despair.

In so far as this Budget reveals Government policy towards agriculture, it differs not one whit from other former Budgets because it holds out no ray of hope for the future. I believe that we must at this stage immediately declare a truce to the political warfare, as far as agriculture is concerned. We must put an agreed policy into operation. We must have an intensive tillage programme and a vast inspiring land distribution programme as well. A feeling of security must be given to the farming community that they can produce the maximum from the land without having to face the ever-present, ominous threat of foreign foodstuffs pouring through our ports. That is all I have to say on this Budget in regard to that particular industry but I hope those words of mine will sink into the ears and minds of those people who have it in their power to bring about the necessary change.

The second alarming fact disclosed in the Minister's statement was the likelihood that we would be short of money to finance our capital development programme. I believe that situation is coming closer every week and the seriousness of that situation was dramatically spotlighted by the failure last February of the £20,000,000 Government loan. That loan, as we know, was issued at most attractive terms and yet it closed when only £9,000,000 was subscribed.

Certain people will suggest that the rise in the British bank rate is responsible. If they take that view, they must admit that our control of our finance is nil if the British decision to raise their bank rate had such an adverse affect upon our loan. They cannot have it both ways. I believe it was essential for the Government to close the loan at that stage. I am of opinion that many subscribers to that loan would have hastened to withdraw had they the opportunity of doing so even at that stage.

The failure of that loan is the most significant signpost in the downward trail leading to political and economic serfdom. In my opinion, at no time, except, perhaps, on paper, was our capital development programme of an inspiring or breathtaking nature. I can only describe it as cautious and conservative but, cautious and conservative though it may have been, we cannot afford to slacken down on it in the slightest degree. If we allow a halt in this limited capital development programme to take place our future as a nation will be jeopardised. A slackening in the programme will result in a further intensification of the depression and the feeling of helplessness and hopelessness which prevails among our people with a consequent impetus to a further increase in emigration and unemployment.

If we are even to continue with this capital development programme at the present rate, how is the money to be found? If we are to expand it—and I think that is essential—and if we are to solve unemployment and emigration within our lifetime, how will the money be got? An annual national loan is no longer feasible. I do not think any Deputy in this House believes that the savings campaign that has been got under way will produce enough money to finance our capital development programme because as far as our savings programme is concerned the public will rightly say: "Why does the Government itself not set the example?" The motto as far as Government savings is concerned—I refer to administration and not the question of capital expenditure—seems to be: "Do not do as we do but do as we tell you."

In my opinion, we have reached the end of the road as far as the working of the present financial system is concerned. Every dodge invented, every financial manipulation possible and every financial three card trick has been used and exploited to the full to keep the whole financial machine going. We have been under the thumb of an out-moded machine since this State achieved the freedom we have to-day. We have been controlled by this out-moded financial system while every other country in the world has remodelled and modernised the financial structure and moulded that financial machine in such a manner as to meet the requirements of the particular country concerned. When will we wake up to the fact that a change of mentality is necessary as far as our financial system is concerned? Now I do not want to repeat what other Deputies have said but, while I have it in mind, I would at this stage like to pay tribute to Deputy Declan Costello for the progressive outlook he has shown in relation to our financial problems in the course of his contribution to this debate. It is a great pity that there are not many more Deputies on both sides of this House prepared to make a similar statement.

I would like to give one or two short quotations on this question of our financial problem. One is a quotation from Arthur Griffith's newspaper, dated 16th June, 1906. It is an article written by Griffith on Ireland and its banks and it concludes by saying:—

"Even if we won some form of local self-government we should be little better off, in a material sense, so long as the money of Ireland is drained off by the banks, and used for foreign purposes."

That statement was written 50 years ago. He went on to say:—

"...the Irish banks are mere collecting agencies for financial corporations in London. By their instrumentality the wealth of Ireland is... drained off into England, thereby starving Irish industries, engendering pauperism and fostering emigration. We might as well expect a man, whose life-blood is rushing from a main artery, to exhibit health and energy as to expect Ireland, whose capital is being systematically drained off into English channels, to develop its industrial resources. Emigration is bleeding the country to death. Irishmen emigrate because they cannot find work at home."

That was written 50 years ago by a man who played a tremendous part in helping to secure the freedom which allows Deputies like myself to speak here.

I want now to ask some questions of the older men on both sides of this House. Was Arthur Griffith wrong in that statement 50 years ago? Has the situation changed in that 50 years as far as the financial and banking system is concerned? Has that change been brought about that the older men on both sides of this House fought to secure so far as our national freedom is concerned? What did Padraig Pearse mean when he said that he wanted "to see Ireland not free merely but Gaelic as well, not Gaelic merely but free as well?" Did he and Connolly and all the others visualise an Ireland with a flag of its own, with a Parliament of its own, with its letter boxes painted green and its buses painted green, where all spoke the Irish language but where the financial control, the life-blood of the nation, was exercised outside the State?

I know perfectly well that was not the vision that Pearse or the other men who died in 1916 saw. That was not the type of Ireland they wanted to see when they made the supreme sacrifice. I believe they envisaged an Ireland wherein the nation's purse strings would be controlled and guarded on behalf of the Irish people by an institution responsible to the Oireachtas. These men never envisaged the situation that exists to-day where we have people without money endeavouring to start industries while those who have money insist on investing that money abroad. These men who died in 1916 never envisaged the day wherein the bad example of spending abroad would be set by the Government Departments themselves. I do not think they envisaged the day when they would see Irish Ministers flying to the ends of the earth, tipping their caps to foreign speculators, whispering in their ears of the rich spoils available in Ireland in the line of fat profits and telling them of the large pool of cheap labour which is available, while at the same time the Department of Industry and Commerce and other Departments were pouring the nation's money into British securities.

I shall not deal here with the commercial banks or criticise them to any extent. As far as they are concerned, their first responsibility at the moment is to their depositors and they feel it is their duty to invest the money of their depositors in the safest possible securities. The mentality of the directors of the commercial banks seems to be that the safest and best place to invest money is outside the country. We will have to see if there is any way in which we can make them change their mind in that respect.

It is time that the responsible members of this House readjusted their views on financial matters. I hope that it will not be said that I am too critical of the situation or of the efforts that have been made by the different Parties in the past. I know perfectly well that the older men in the different Parties here have done the best they could under the circumstances. They met with very grave difficulties on occasion and they were under a very grave handicap, mainly as a result of the Civil War. That day, however, is gone and the young people now are not worried about the past. That may sound hurtful to certain people here, but time marches on, and the younger men to-day who are coming into politics are more concerned with economic and financial matters, with the improvement of the country in so far as employment and so forth is concerned, rather than debating the past. It may be necessary at some stage—I do not know when—for the younger men on both sides to break the bonds of Party discipline. I believe that loyalty to the country should come before loyalty to the Party and, in relation to the situation as outlined by the Minister in his eve-of-the-crisis Budget, the time is coming nearer when Deputies on both sides of this House, with a similar viewpoint on economic and financial matters, should come together, outline their policy, stick together and forget the Party tie.

In conclusion, I do not think it would be inappropriate for me to point out how Partition has reacted unfavourably on the economic situation here in this State. It has reacted unfavourably in the financial sphere, as far as successive Governments are concerned, on budgetary proposals. I wonder is it possible at this stage that the Government would consider seriously making an approach to the Government of the Six Counties, purely on matters dealing with industrial and agricultural production? We have the situation here in which the Minister for Industry and Commerce and his advisers have toured America and Europe, asking industrialists and other people to come here to Ireland and set up factories and we have the position in the North that Lord Chandos and his advisers are now off on the rounds that the Minister has already done. They are asking American industrialists to come to the Six Counties and set up industries there.

I think it is sheer lunacy to have two parts of the one island competing for industrial concerns and going into competition with each other on a limited market. I do not think it is too much to suggest that the Government should invite the hard-headed northern businessman to co-operate in the industrial and agricultural spheres. I will put it this way: if we send our representatives to Strasbourg, or to meetings of the O.E.E.C., they are the first to argue that, as far as Europe is concerned, there should be co-operation among the nations, co-operation on industrial matters, the use of raw materials such as coal and steel, between Germany, France and the Netherlands; and co-operation—in the "Green Belt," I think they describe it—on agricultural matters. If we are able to preach that programme abroad to Europe—and I believe it is a good programme to have that co-operation and interchange—why can we not start at home? Why wait for the people in the North?

We should issue the invitation to the people of the Six Counties to set up a joint committee on industrial and agricultural matters, so that a working arrangement can be made that goods, whether they are agricultural or industrial, that are produced either in the Six Counties or down here will have free passage across this alleged border. All goods produced within the four shores of Ireland would have free passage and there would be no taxation imposed. We already have co-operation in regard to hydro-electrification, and if we have it in that, I do not see why we could not have it in other spheres——

Mr. A. Barry

A lot of our manufacturers down here would not like it. That is the main trouble.

Mr. McQuillan

I know, but it is the only way of galvanising these people into action and showing them that the Government here is serious about expanding industry and agriculture. The very fact that the Government has put this imposition on petrol and the importation of chassis has brought it home to these people that the Government is serious as far as certain protected industries are concerned and that they will have to stand on their own feet now. If there is to be that change which we all look for, that expansion and drive, a lot of people will be hurt in the process. Regrettable though that may be, it is absolutely impossible to avoid certain vested interests in this country going by the board when the Government, if it is serious, takes those dynamic steps to increase production in the spheres of agriculture and industry.

I have devoted quite an amount of time to this question of the expansion of agriculture and industry. I have already said that I see no inspiration in the Budget statement, but I have supported, within the Budget, the imposition of further taxation on tobacco and petrol; and I am prepared to face the public and my constituency at any time and explain to them the reason why I did that. In the past ten years we have spent £220,000,000 on the importation of fuel for energy purposes in this State. Let us compare that figure with the achievement to date of Bord na Móna. If we could afford to spend that much abroad in ten years, why can we not afford to spend half of it at home on industrial development and the expansion of existing industries? That is what I am puzzled at all the time. We have the argument put forward here in the House that our capital development programme is likely to be slowed down for want of money, that the money is not available in the coming year or for years to come, and that we cannot get it in a national loan. Where are we getting the money to import coal, oil, wheat, maize, chassis and all the other items that come from abroad? That is the question.

I do not know whether this Government are doing anything about it. I want to say quite clearly to them that they will have no greater enemy in this House or outside of it, if I find the slightest slowing down in the capital development programme. I have been informed—I have not yet had an opportunity to check it—that both Bord na Móna and the E.S.B. are at the present moment in the process of reducing or pruning their plans of development for the coming year. The E.S.B. are working on the basis that the supply of energy available under the present programme of electricity is sufficient and more than sufficient to meet the requirements. Consequently, there will be a slowing down in the development of the E.S.B.; and side by side, a slowing down in the development of our bogs by Bord na Móna. We will know within the next fortnight whether that is true or not. If it is, if this Government are going to start saving at the expense of the few native worth-while industries we have, I say that this Government will have to get out and get out fast. I hope that I have cleared the position as far as some Deputies are concerned, who were wondering why I should support the Government in regard to this Budget. I want to make it quite clear that I am supporting the Government in the methods used to obtain the necessary money for the day to day administration and servicing of the Departments, social services and so forth. I have been with them on that. I have been against any Government that would deliberately use other means of taxation, such as reduction in the food subsidies, thereby raising the price of bread and so forth. But I am not satisfied in any way with the Government's outlook on or approach to the capital end of the Budget. I am not satisfied on that, but I can separate the two things, as far as a vote is concerned. Possibly, I will be described in future years as having supported this Government as far as the capital end of the Budget was concerned but for the records of the House I want to make it clear that I am supporting the Government in the means it used to raise the necessary money to keep the wheels of the nation running.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I should like first of all to congratulate Deputy McQuillan on a very forthright and interesting speech. Inasmuch as he has made quite a number of points with which I agree, it is rather odd that he should be supporting the Budget and that I should be opposing it. I must also agree with him in congratulating the Minister for Finance on outlining for the benefit of the Irish people the problems that are facing the country at the present time. Deputy MacEntee has said that he has lamentably failed to apply the remedy and Deputy McQuillan and others may take from that any deduction they like. What I and we in Fianna Fáil are interested in, is the future of this country, economically and politically. As a young person I have the capacity to think independently even though I am not an Independent and cannot have the best of both worlds like my friend from Roscommon.

I do fully agree that the basis of any future prosperity this country may have lies in increased agricultural production. I also agree that we are facing serious economic problems, inasmuch as the nest egg we once had outside the country is gradually disappearing and will not be available in a few years' time. It might, possibly, be a good thing if we were eventually thrown back entirely on our own resources, if we had to pull ourselves up by our bootlaces, if we had to go back again to the blood, tears, toil and sweat the Irish people put up with in previous times and that the British people put up with in recent times. I do not think that as a people we are any worse than the British or any worse than our predecessors. I believe we are quite capable and we in Fianna Fáil want to tackle the problems that have emerged in the past few years.

Needless to say I repudiate the kind of political claptrap indulged in by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance last week. I am not interested in that type of speech and, if the Parliamentary Secretary finds it amusing or interesting to say I am against the farmer, all I can say is let him go along on a fair day to Ballina at the next election and I will take himself and the frogman from Belcarra on at the one time. The basis of the future prosperity of this country lies in greater agricultural production and so far we have made no reasonable effort to provide credit for the Irish farmer.

I am not a quotation-making speaker. I am not interested in quotations or in what other people say but in what I think myself. But I suppose, being innocent, I was half inclined to believe the idealistic utterances of Deputy Mulcahy, the Minister for Education to be, when he proposed the nomination of Deputy Costello as Taoiseach in 1948 and when he referred to the achievements and high principles of the late Deputy James Hughes. At that time Deputy Mulcahy, speaking about the late Deputy Hughes, said at column 20, Volume 110, of the Official Debates of the 18th February, 1948:—

"The message that he went out to preach was the message he had preached so often here—the harmony that lay between the animal and the plant and the soil and the climate; the harmony that made it possible for the farmer to take from the soil of this country what gives us our sustenance and the things that go to build up our cities and our towns. He saw that, and he preached of the harmony in the animal and the plant and in the material soil of our country which required to be studied and examined and found out so that great production might be brought from that land for our country."

We are voting millions for employment schemes, millions that have to be found in taxation from the Irish people; we are spending millions on land reclamation, millions that have to be got in taxation from the Irish people; we are losing thousands of acres of land which we ought not be losing.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is a matter for the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I beg to disagree with you, Sir, but I bow to your ruling. We are going to be told in a few years' time that we must depend entirely on our own resources. The Minister for Finance has made no effort whatever even to hide the fact that his Budget is not designed to cure the deficit in our balance of payments. Even the import levies, which he brought in three or four months ago, are designed only to stop the importation of £7,000,000 worth of goods. That is only a very small contribution towards solving the problem which is represented in the £35,000,000 deficit in our balance of payments for 1955-56. We are going to be faced, in a few years' time, with the position that we cannot repatriate our external assets for capital development purposes because there will be no way in which we can bring back money which is outside the country and we will have to depend entirely on our own resources. That might be a very good thing for us because then we would have to face the fact, and here I agree with Deputy McQuillan, that neither Government has succeeded in increasing agricultural production in any way comparable with what has been done in other countries in Europe.

The Danes have 8,000,000 acres of arable land and 4,000,000 people to support. We have 12,000,000 acres of arable land and only 3,000,000 people to support. I suppose that the next thing I will be told is that I belong to a Party that wants to compel the Irish farmer and that I want to go back to the stage of exercising compulsion. I am not in favour of compulsion, but I want to say that, in Denmark, which is being used as a guide and an ideal by other nations, the farmer who does get credit facilities is quite prepared to accept direction from the local agricultural officer and to accept, what is better than direction, suggestions as to what he should grow, what his land is best suited to grow and as to how his land can best make money.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot argue that matter on the financial motion. That is a matter for the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture. The Deputy is dealing solely with agriculture and is going into detail.

Mr. S. Flanagan

If I am going into detail, I apologise, but if we could produce £30,000,000, £40,000,000 £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 worth of additional goods within our country, we would be going a long way to solving the problems which the Minister for Finance set before us in his Budget statement. I am interested only in making suggestions which will increase agricultural production and thus decrease the seriousness of the problems that we have to face at the present time.

I notice, over the week-end, that somebody from Turlough, Castlebar, was responsible for rearing a frog that came third in the international competitions in America. It jumped 14 ft. 10 in. but I doubt if it jumped half as much as the Minister for Lands, coming back now from his tour of the barren wastes of Sweden, has jumped from the time he was speaking in Castlebar about the cost of living, reduction of subsidies, land division and other matters which he stated that he and his colleagues in a Coalition Government would be able to put right. It is not the fact that the cost of living has not been reduced that is vexing the Irish people at the present time. It is not the fact that their standard of living is being threatened that is vexing the Irish people, but rather the fact that these people went out and represented to the Irish people that they could reduce taxation, increase subsidies and bring down the cost of living.

I wonder how many people like the Minister for Social Welfare, whom I know to be an honest man, and who must have said, in his broadcast address, only what his leader told him to say would be the Labour Party promises, felt when they heard the proposals put before them by the Minister for Finance in his Budget statement. They were told by their leader, Deputy Norton, that the Labour Party was pledged to a reduction in the price of food, and I do not believe that the Minister for Social Welfare would have made that broadcast statement knowing it to be untrue. He made that statement because his leader told him that their policy of reducing prices would be put into operation through the Fine Gael Government.

I wonder how he feels about it now and how he supports the measures brought in by the Government by which the cost of everything has gone up. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach asked what suggestions we had to make as to a reduction in the cost of living. The answer to that is that we never said anything about reductions. It is the Parliamentary Secretary and his people who said that. What are we going to do? Are we going to keep on driving up the cost of these services? Who will foot the bill? We are spending too much at the present time and the cost of administration is far in excess of what this country can reasonably be expected to bear.

I am not in a position to say where the big reduction could take place, but I do know that the standard of expenditure in some Departments is too high at present. As I have said, we must come back to the position which we will have to face in a few years when we cannot depend on help from outside to keep a base under the financial structure of the country. If the burden had to fall on something, if the Government were not satisfied the cost of services was too great, I want to know why they had to pick on petrol. I am quite satisfied that, if they had to impose fresh taxation, they should have put it on things like dancing with which I have no sympathy myself.

Mr. Donnellan

Dancing?

Mr. S. Flanagan

Yes.

Mr. Donnellan

Hear, Hear!

Mr. S. Flanagan

That is my personal view and I do not want Deputy Donnellan to go out again and misrepresent it.

Mr. Donnellan

Playing it both ways.

Mr. A. Barry

I do not see why it should ever have been undone.

Mr. S. Flanagan

That is another argument which I am not prepared to go into at the moment. Why was this extra tax imposed on petrol? I can think of thousands of other consumer goods which we could have stopped importing without doing damage to any individual firm. I can think of other consumer goods rather than petrol which the Government could have taxed in an age, as was pointed out in a letter to-day in one of the morning papers, when petrol must be regarded as an essential part of our economy. No matter what Bord na Móna do, they will certainly not produce a car that runs on turf.

This new tax on transport will also affect trucks which use diesel oil. That is bound to reflect itself in a further increase in the freight charges being imposed on the Irish farmers for the export of live stock. Figures produced at a recent meeting of the Fresh Meat Exporters' Association—and that surely is a non-political organisation—dealt particularly with the subject of freight charges and showed that the exports of chilled and carcase meat from this country have declined by two-thirds, from £7,700,000, to £2,400,500. That is a serious position which the secretary of this association blamed principally on the freight charges between here and London, these charges being greater to the Irish farmers than the cost to the Argentine farmers of exporting the same type of meat from the Argentine to London, several thousand miles across the ocean.

Apart from that, the cattle exported from here which eventually get to the other side are being badly treated by British Railways, consequently giving us a poor position on the British markets as against that of our competitors. If that position deteriorates further, the most important single item of our exports from this country will be further jeopardised and the position of the Irish farmers will be worsened to the economic disadvantage of the country as a whole. If that situation is allowed to develop, I can see a very serious financial position obtaining in the course of the next two or three years.

Mark you—and I have waited for the opportunity to say this—that is the result of the idealistic statements of the Minister for Education in 1948 on the formation of the first Coalition Government. These are the actual results after a further two years or a total of five years of Coalition Government. We are now in a far worse economic and financial mess than we ever were in the history of the State. We appear to be much worse now than we were in 1951 when the first Coalition Government were kicked out of office by the Irish people. I am afraid some reassessment must be made by the Government. I began by saying that we can exclude the Minister for Finance, because I believe he must have had great difficulty in persuading his colleagues to let him bring in the type of financial statement he introduced, in the first instance.

As a country, we are determined to survive. The Irish people are quite determined that, whatever sacrifices have to be made, financial or otherwise, in order to survive, these sacrifices will be made. Instead of talking a lot of claptrap about Partition and using it as a political catch-cry, the leaders of the political Parties would be much better off if they told the people specifically what sacrifices they have to make in order to arrive at what they call in Puerto Rico "Operation Bootstrap". I would call for "Operation Bootstrap" in this country, because I believe that is what we need.

Any help we young people can give towards it, we will very willingly give. The Irish people were never a crowd of whingers. In spite of the efforts being made, particularly by Fine Gael, to make a crowd of whingers of us, I do not think they will succeed. I hope they will not succeed. I hope we will live to see the day when we will bring in a Budget here that will reflect the quadrupling of our agricultural production and the raising, by three times, of the present standard of living of our people. Above all, I hope we will see the day when those who want to live on the land will be assured of a decent livelihood on it. I hope to see the time when the people in the West will have enough land to enable them not merely to contribute to the finances of the country, but also to keep our farmers at home.

Mr. A. Barry

I think the last two speeches we heard were good. They were very satisfactory from the point of view that both speakers were young men—both uneasy young men. The last speaker, I think, is finding that the ties of Party are sometimes very hindering; I think he is a man who is not satisfied that even his Party could produce results now, in view of their past record.

I agree with Deputy McQuillan about the Minister having selected the two correct items to take the extra taxation, and I say this with all the embarrassment of a back-bencher behind the Government, having to support the Government in the imposition of extra taxation. I certainly think the Minister's selections were correct and, inasmuch as any Budget that increases taxation is a bad Budget, this Budget is only a good Budget in that it did not put taxation on food. I think the Fianna Fáil Deputies opposite were rather envious of us here on Budget day when they recollected that, when they had to deal with a crisis of a similar type, they were given a much harder job to do. They had to go up the stairs to vote for increases in the prices of major items of the people's food and I think they really felt that we were getting away with it rather easily.

When I met one of my colleagues, Deputy McGrath, I congratulated him on his escape from the incidence of taxation. He does not smoke, drink or drive a car, and when I congratulated him, he said: "What about my bottle of lemonade?" That, I understand, is his only vice. Everywhere there was congratulation on this Budget, because we were all afraid of dreadful new imposts, and with the kind of exaggeration that has been used here, I think I could describe this as a lemonade Budget.

I think it was one of the Donegal Deputies who described this as a deadly dull Budget. I think deadly dull Budgets are probably the best kind of Budgets. The Budget in 1952 was not a very dull Budget; it was an exciting one. I was in Leinster House at the time, as a spectator in the Gallery, and I remember the feeling of consternation that was everywhere at the time, although I was not then representing any political Party. When I heard the Minister's proposals then, I thought he was using the wrong weapons to bring about the results that would have to be produced.

I was particularly gratified in this debate by the number of Deputies who spoke about our financial situation and who confessed they were worried about the financial organisation of our country and about the financial machinery we have here for dealing with our money. It was quite gratifying to note that at least half a dozen, most of them, I think, were on this side of the House, and not quite all on the opposite side, although I suspect the last speaker could be made similarly uneasy about the institutions we have at present. There were some true references to the financial situation by the opposite side. I thought they were very reactionary references. I did not mind Deputy Killilea talking about approaching bank managers with hammers and hitting them on the head; I did not mind Deputy Moran, but I was very disturbed by what was said by Deputy Childers and Deputy MacEntee.

I do not know why we cannot discuss this thing in an adult way and we shall certainly have to start doing that from this on. If I say, or if somebody much more important than I am, should say that if we have not got results out of our present financial system, something has gone wrong somewhere, I do not want anybody to say to me: "This fellow is a reactionary"—or rather the opposite—"an extremist". I have heard about those posters Deputy MacEntee produced in which he said they are trying to get hold of your money. Now, if that kind of answer were made to those of us who are disturbed, or if there is to be an attempt made to score politically—simply to get votes away from those who are trying to discuss these things on the grounds that they have some sinister or ulterior motives in so doing, to get votes by playing on the ignorance of those who do not understand—I think it is very saddening, because it means that a timid man will hesitate to state his views. I am not a timid man and not afraid to say what I think, and I think we have gone positively wrong about the financing of this country, and that, in fact, we have not put a foot right since 1922.

I was very glad there were many people on my side of the House who were disturbed about this. I meet the young men in my Party, men who are much younger than I am, and I am pleased to find that they are not happy at all about the situation. Taking things as they were in this country some 20 or 25 years ago, at that time Fine Gael could be rightly described as a Conservative Party, but now I think that title fits more closely the benches opposite. I am unhappy about that, because I think it is going to lead to nothing but arid discussion and no results, if Parties identify themselves completely with a rigid point of view, particularly on something that is so important. I think I could really say now that the trouble with Fianna Fáil is that they are suffering from hardening of the arteries and the young men are not being allowed to influence policy sufficiently. However, I am glad to see some young men coming along.

Deputy McQuillan's contribution was excellent, and some of those who spoke on this side of the House were quite unhappy about all this matter. There is no answer readily available to any of us and I confess I am quite worried about the whole thing and I am equally afraid of those who have snap solutions to offer as to how the whole matter should be dealt with. In that category, I classify Deputy Childers, who is cocksure about the whole thing and how it can be solved. So is Deputy MacEntee, but people cannot be cocksure about things of this kind; but I do know this, that the control of credit must be within this House and if steps to ensure that control of credit is not properly vested here and in the servants employed by this House, everything done in this country since 1916 has been wasted, in my opinion, because we have neglected the important thing for all the window-dressing.

Deputy Bartley spoke about £10,000,000 that the Government got through the underwriting of the loan and asked where did the money come from—he thought it was invented. As far as I understand, half of it was obtained by the realisation of State funds and the banks put up the balance by the realisation of some of their assets. He wanted to know did that create more money. I have no doubt commercial banks create quite a lot of credit, not only through the slowness of their operations, but also through their form of bookkeeping, and I think it is altogether wrong that that enormous power and authority and wealth should be allowed into commercial hands. However, that is a battlefield for the future, and if we examine it properly and face up to it properly, we shall have to do something about our financial set-up.

I can assure Deputy McQuillan and the last Deputy who spoke that there is a majority of people in my Party, and, I think, in this House, who will not stand for any cessation of our capital programme, because of any of the demands of orthodox finance. Deputy de Valera said during the debate that this influx of money—that sum of £10,000,000 that had been put up—was inflationary. Of course it was inflationary. Every kind of expenditure is inflationary. If I spend £1 instead of saving it, it is inflationary, and I do not know what we are going to do about it. The very growth of public expenditure in this country, with the Government now costing four times as much as it did 25 years ago—all that is a measure of the inflationary tendency.

One thing we can say of course is that, in this country now, more people have more and, if inflation has brought that about, then that has been some good result. Inflation has been haphazard and uncontrolled, undoubtedly. In the 1952 Budget, Deputy MacEntee deliberately set about to create a deflationary condition but Deputy Lemass, with his capital expenditure, cancelled out that effort. You had that kind of public inflation plus private misery. It was not well thought out. Some of the inflation that we suffer from in this country has spilled into the country. What we can do about that, I do not know. We certainly have to keep things going and have to face up to the fact that government that cost £30,000,000 in 1930 is now costing £110,000,000 and all that is part of the inflationary system.

If you go to the Continent from this country you find that even now, after this Budget, we still have the cheapest petrol and the cheapest cigarettes in Europe. You cannot get a meal in a small restaurant in France or Italy without paying 14/- or 15/- for it. Obviously, we are not in the forefront of the inflationary list.

Whatever we do, we will have to be very careful of the economists. I feel sometimes that they are dangerous because they are so cocksure as to what the treatment should be. Our treatment will have to be empirical; we have to make mistakes but, above all, we cannot afford to be reactionary and conservative.

Of the two major speeches made from the Opposition side of the House, those of Deputy Lemass and Deputy MacEntee, I thought Deputy MacEntee's speech was excellent and restrained until that split personality that he has came into action.

He certainly went off the rails for a while. That an ex-Minister of this House should stand up and quote that rumour had it that the Government were going to bulldoze the banks into bankruptcy, that there was apprehension about the funds in the Post Office and that the condition that would obtain eventually would pave the way for certain elements in the State to take it over is disgraceful. Deputy Bartley referred to my interjection in that speech as my correction of Deputy MacEntee. My interjection was to use the word "disgraceful". I thought it was disgraceful. It was the bitter speech of a disappointed place-hunter. In that speech he submerged what should be a greater loyalty to a lesser one.

Deputy Lemass's speech was, I thought, just plain vulgar abuse. He sounded to me like someone who had been ejected from a licensed premises and was clamouring to get in again. It was no contribution to the debate and was not on a par with the last contribution from the Fianna Fáil Benches or with the contribution made by Deputy McQuillan.

Deputy MacEntee's speech was, in the first portion, excellent. Of course, it was very cleverly put together and was obviously a wedge-driving speech. He was attempting to drive a wedge between the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party and it was very skilfully done. I think Deputy MacEntee is probably his leader's aptest pupil in that regard.

The one thing that has emerged from this Budget is that there has been no outcry about it. There is disappointment, I am sure, in the opposite benches about that. I have not heard any comment about it. There has been a bit of grumbling by the people who smoke cigarettes and drive cars, but there is not much sympathy with people who smoke cigarettes or drive cars because most people have to cut down that kind of expenditure and are always jealous of those who overdo them and a lot of people seem to overdo them in this country. So, psychologically and politically, the Budget has not done us any harm. I am not sure of that but, certainly, it would not do us half the harm politically that their Budget did to Fianna Fáil. The tax on dance halls has been restored. I do not think it is a very cumbersome tax to collect. Probably, psychologically, conveying to the people that it is not injuring anybody except the other follow, it is a clever Budget. I do not know whom the tax on betting will harm. I used to bet a lot at one time and still enjoy fellows talking about betting, but the extraction of an extra 1/- or 1/6 from the fellow who wins 30/- or £2 on a horse will not upset him a great deal.

With regard to the addition to the petrol tax, I am going to say something that is not popular. Deputies could make use of C.I.E. when travelling to this House. It is entirely wrong, when we are talking about the position of C.I.E., that Deputies should not be compelled to use C.I.E.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That may not be discussed on the Financial Resolution.

Mr. A. Barry

I was only thinking that that might be one of the good effects of the Budget. The critics are confounded about the Budget. Everybody feared that we would get a severe impost. The best summing up is the description of the Budget by the Lord Mayor of Cork who described it as the "Lemonade Budget." If we describe it as the "Lemonade Budget" it will illustrate its harmlessness in its effects on the people.

Mr. Desmond

It is most interesting that the last three speakers from different parts of the House have drawn particular attention to the problem confronting us in relation to the financial set-up of this country. For many years, speakers from the Labour Party seemed to be the only Deputies who were trying to face this problem. It is, at least, a healthy sign that members from all parts of the House, irrespective of Party affiliations, realise that something must be done.

Our own agricultural community have fundamentally less knowledge of the principles of agricultural economics than the members of the agricultural community in any other country that competes with us in the British market. I believe that but let me remind the Opposition propagandists that it may be dangerous for them to use that, even out of its context, against me as a member of the Labour Party, as they did in another form recently, because these words, in which I believe, are the words used by Deputy Childers during this debate. I usually try to keep within the lines of the discussion and I have no intention whatsoever of bringing any question of agriculture into this debate except in a very general form.

If we have a problem in relation to an adverse trade balance, it is a problem in relation to agriculture. The sooner we realise that, no matter how we may hope to improve in the industrial sphere or how anxious all Parties may be to have prosperous cities and towns as a result of increased industries, unless agriculture can play its major part in the national economy we will be struggling to balance our annual Budget.

It is unfair that members of Parties should try to make political catchcries out of the problem in relation to agriculture. There should be a determined effort to bring agriculture outside the realm of politics.

While I was not in a position to hear many of the speeches made in this debate, I read the speeches of all the Opposition Deputies and I am sorry to say that, until to-day, except for parts of the speech made by Deputy Childers, the contributions were not in any way helpful to a constructive analysis of the position in relation to the Budget or of the overall position in the country.

I have heard four Deputies who spoke very early in this debate— Deputies Lemass, MacEntee, Briscoe and McGrath—referred to outside, perhaps in a good-humoured manner, as the Marx Brothers of the Fianna Fáil Party, because of their concerted effort to try to bring humour into the position that faced their Party as regards this Budget. Deputy Briscoe regrets the tragic position of the young lover who has to pay an increased tax when going into the dance hall with his young lady. However, the other side of the picture must also be examined. Deputy Lemass spoke very clearly about the necessity to reduce the number of civil servants. If Deputy Briscoe's friend is a civil servant, and if Deputy Lemass sees him going into a dance hall, God help him. If he is an ordinary worker, do not forget that Deputy MacEntee said the whole problem has been imposed upon us by the high wage structure. Therefore, between Deputy Lemass and Deputy MacEntee bemoaning the number of civil servants and the high wage structure, and between the dance hall and the bottle of lemonade, it is tragic that these Fianna Fáil Deputies, two of whom were Cabinet Ministers, can give us no constructive criticism of this Budget or of the financial measures contained therein.

Deputy MacEntee mentioned another matter in connection with the Department of Industry and Commerce, and I shall reserve what I have to say in that regard until the debate on the Estimate for that Department arises. Perhaps I might be allowed to say now that it would do no harm at all if Deputy MacEntee got the facts in relation to the unemployment, or the part-time unemployment, in the Carrigaline pottery industry rather than give full credence to Fianna Fáil propaganda that is emanating from that village.

Deputy A. Barry referred to Deputy MacEntee's speech. It is true that he covered the position in an extraordinarily cute manner. I am being charitable when I say that it was deplorable to hear words from any member of this House such as those used by Deputy MacEntee in relation to raiding of the banks and the Post Office Savings Account. It should be borne in mind that Deputy MacEntee's contribution to this debate could, in itself, have a very disastrous effect on this country. Rural Deputies know the mentality of their constituents. If the people in rural areas at any time got any suspicion that their money in the bank or their few pounds in the Post Office were in danger, they would withdraw it. I wonder if I am right in thinking that Deputy MacEntee's ambition was to see such withdrawals at all times, when he himself was not Minister for Finance and when his Party was not in control.

He asserted that the Minister for Finance and the present Government were not doing things the right way— that their methods of cutting down expenditure and their system of trying to reduce the personnel of Government Departments were, in his opinion, wrong. Let me say, for the benefit of those who are near enough to Deputy MacEntee to believe in his system, that while the Ministers in the Custom House—the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Health—may be trying to reduce expenditure, thanks be to God, neither of these Ministers has reintroduced the practice that was in operation in the Custom House when Deputy MacEntee was Minister there—the practice of having bells rung in certain corridors when his lordship, the Minister, arrived.

Many of us are trying to divorce ourselves from all the bitterness that prevailed between Parties in this House in the past. Deputy Cunningham may laugh. It is up to him to decide whether or not he will follow the course mentioned by Deputy S. Flanagan a short while ago. Deputy S. Flanagan is a young man. He made it quite clear that, at times, we cannot be satisfied by saying that everything is grand just because our Party is in power. Very often, we have to admit that some of the problems which confront us are so difficult that we wonder if any Party can cope with them.

It is about time we stopped living in the past and came to our senses. It is about time we faced up to present-day conditions. Even to-day, Deputy McQuillan asked Deputies who have been members of this House for the past 30 years and who played a noble part in fighting for the freedom of this country the simple question of whether or not they were satisfied that the words of Griffith of 50 years ago were correct. Questions such as that are still unanswered. I am afraid they will remain unanswered, unless we are prepared to admit that mistakes have been made in the past and that Deputy Childers was correct when he said one time that many speeches of the past need correction. That applies to us all —to the members on the left and the right. I can agree with very little of what Deputy Childers says, but, in his own way, within his own confines, he too struck the note that the past should be forgotten, because to dwell on the misfortunes of the past will do us no good.

During the course of Deputy de Valera's speech, I wondered if he would give us any indication of Fianna Fáil policy in regard to these matters in the future. In itself, Deputy de Valera's speech was the most confusing of all the speeches in this debate. At one stage, he said the most disturbing feature of the present situation was the capital expenditure. He pointed to £37,000,000 as against £40,000,000. Later, in the same speech, he said he could talk at length about the loss of employment that was bound to follow from reduced capital expenditure. The Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party told us, on the one hand, that his main worry was the problem of capital expenditure and, on the other hand, he ends his speech by talking about all the unemployment that will be caused through a reduction in capital expenditure.

The Central Bank have a more serious part to play in the financial structure of this country and unless it does that job, we shall continue in the very same rut in which we have found ourselves for many years. It is true, as Deputy McQuillan pointed out, that the time is coming when we may find it very hard to find items from which we can collect revenue. An examination of the Book of Estimates any year will indicate the enormous amount of interest that is paid on capital for works of a productive nature. Fifty years ago, Griffith pointed out a particular system which was detrimental to the economic as well as the political advancement of this country. It is a tragedy to find that at the present time we are happy to continue that policy.

There was a lot of talk in relation to the adverse balance of trade. I remember only a month ago drawing attention to this matter. I pointed out that, while the figures were pretty high from January, 1955, to January, 1956, at least for the year ending February, 1956, there was certainly an improvement. All this scare about the terrible danger of an adverse trade balance does not impress me. It is no crime to say that at this stage we have an adverse trade balance owing to imports. If we cannot procure at home the machinery necessary for agriculture, we must import it.

It is true that there may be certain types of machinery coming into this country which come under the recent import levy. That may be no harm. Within the past week, I heard of a firm who are engaged in producing bread. They purchased one machine for £40,000, another for £70,000, making a total of £110,000. These machines replaced a large number of men. The price of bread will be as high as when it was baked by the men. There may be a danger in relation to the balance of payments in connection with certain types of machinery, but that is another day's work.

The simple solution in relation to the balance of payments lies in increasing exports. We do not advocate an enormous amount of imports, but it must be remembered that in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford, a certain number of dockers earn their living from imports as well as from exports. Transportation is used in the carriage of imports and exports. Therefore, it is most essential that we should deal in a most determined fashion with exports than with any other problem at the present time. Should that be done, perhaps some of the problems in relation to unemployment, and even to employment, may again right themselves.

It is gratifying to know that the figures in relation to unemployment are to-day lower than they were two years ago. But, while the reduction is gratifying, nevertheless it does not mean an awful lot to me. I said at the outset that I do not believe that, because the Government which I support is doing a certain thing, that thing is necessarily right. While the unemployment figures may show a reduction, the tragedy is that there are still thousands of our people unemployed. Every three weeks, or so, members of this House receive a leaflet; the simple translation of that leaflet is that 50,000 human beings are drawing unemployment stamps, unemployment benefit—some without means, more with means. Every human being that appears on that leaflet represents a human being in need of employment at home and, if we are prepared to allow that situation to continue, then that is a tragedy facing not us, but, in the last analysis, facing the country as a whole.

Let it be clearly understood by the Minister and by the Government that we in the Labour Party are determined, although there may be no need since we believe policy will be implemented, that capital expenditure for work of a productive nature will be continued, and not within the limited confines of the past but in a broader and more extended manner. Even if we are, as Deputy Barry said, to make mistakes, let us make mistakes; it is far better to make mistakes than to be afraid to do anything at all. Mistakes were made in the past, but nevertheless something was done. The freedom of this country was won by the few hundred men who went out in 1916, despite the fact that people here in the City of Dublin said they were making a mistake then in going out to fight for their country.

Will we continue to let 50,000 odd people remain unemployed? Have we no remedy to offer for that situation except emigration? There are certain members of the Opposition trying to maintain that emigration now is at its highest. I suppose Opposition members will always make these statements. We know that year after year emigration is continuing, the emigration of people who never wished to emigrate. It all goes back to the question: will we just simply continue to balance our Budget by placing import restrictions on certain articles, import levies on certain items and imposing taxation on certain things? That will not do. We of the Labour Party, want to make it quite clear that in our view at any rate it is vitally important at the present time that we should realise that this Government is now two years in office. Three years looks a long way ahead, but looking back three years seems to many of us but a few days. Not alone have we a policy to put into operation but we have a policy to fulfil.

I do not mind if members of the Opposition say that we made pledges in the past. We did make pledges and, as far as we can humanly do so, we will fulfil those pledges. That is what we are here for. We are not here merely to air our views on any and every subject. We are here on behalf of our constituents in the various constituencies, whether they be in Dublin, Galway, Cork or anywhere else. I think there may be danger that we shall out-step ourselves in imposing hardships on the people by a policy of credit restriction. A policy of credit restriction may suit in certain circumstances. It may suit the economic theorists. It may suit those who never knew what it was to be short of a shilling or a pound. But credit restrictions in themselves automatically mean less employment. If credit is restricted industry and business cannot expand and that means less potential employment for men and women. It comes back again to the human element: are we prepared to have restrictions in credit at the expense of human beings?

While we in the Labour Party appreciate the situation confronting the Minister and while we agree that in his own way he has certainly done the best he could to meet that situation, nevertheless we go further and we say that we are not satisfied with a year-to-year policy, with a Budget-to-Budget policy. Credit is due to the Government that, within the financial limits available to them, they have found it possible to give a 25 per cent. increase in relation to unemployment benefit, sickness benefit and contributory widows' pensions. That is, in itself, some help to those people who had believed themselves forgotten over the past few years. They were at the end of the queue, so to speak.

One has to remember, however, that in a queue there is always a forward movement; there is always the chance that, the longer one waits, the better the service will be at the end. That 25 per cent. increase is definitely of some help to those who waited and it is a pleasure to us in the Labour Party to know that in the framing of this Budget provision was made for these people. That is in complete contradiction to the view expressed by Deputy Childers that, so far as he was concerned, much pruning should be done, even in social services. It is in complete contradiction to the view expressed by Deputy de Valera. When he came to social services, he did not deal with them. He jumped the hurdle of social services. We believe social services are essential. So, too, do the majority of the members of Fianna Fáil. In no way can such services be secured in a proper manner in our opinion other than by ensuring full employment as far as possible. Full employment will be an incentive because the old age pensioner will, in turn, benefit.

The chief architect of Opposition policy is, and has been, Deputy Lemass. Deputy Lemass hedged when he came to the question of finance. He mentioned his own blueprint in relation to the millions that would be provided for capital expenditure. Deputy Lemass spoke some months ago and I am sorry that he did not give us an opportunity of hearing him along the same lines here in this House. Surely an Opposition should be in a position to offer an alternative policy to that propounded by Government. Deputy Lemass has not done that, unfortunately. We cannot comment in any way, since no policy has been put before us, but might I say to Deputy Lemass that some of us are concerned at any rate? Deputy Carter, during his speech on this Budget, quoted Lord Melbourne. I will come much nearer home and will quote one of our own lovely Irish poets, giving a warning thought to Deputy Lemass, when he said:

"Elevate me to the highest step on the ladder,

Establish me on the apex of the mountain,

Yet, after all, what is my preeminence?

Low is the highest."

Mr. J. Lynch

I admire the sentiments expressed by the last two speakers when they suggested that we should rather look forward than back, and rather forget the bitternesses of the past than revive them; but it is a different matter when, having said that, each of them in turn attacked in a rather subtle way individual members of the previous Administration. Deputy Lemass appeared to come in for the major portion of the attack, then Deputy MacEntee and Deputy de Valera, Leader of the Opposition. They have been described as people who seek power for the sake of being in power, and as place hunters. I have my own opinion about the Leaders of the different Parties in the House, particularly the men who led the Government and the Opposition Parties 20 and 25 years ago, and irrespective of what policies they supported in the past, I have the utmost respect for them, because I believe that individually most of them would have made their mark in a much more remunerative fashion, if they ignored the problems of this country and applied themselves to whatever avocation they felt they were best suited for.

I think it is unfair to suggest that any Minister or ex-Minister, who might otherwise be in a far better financial position if he had never entered politics than he would be as Minister, was seeking only to better himself in being in power, and so to glorify his position for the sake of personal gratification. It is useless for Deputies to get up here and to urge themselves and those who are in or about the same age group to try to be more constructive in their approach to politics, to try to forget bitterness, while at the same time they are only creating new bitternesses and trying to engender some further causes of dissension as between different sides of the House in matters that really do not matter.

Each of them has suggested that not one Opposition speaker has put forward any constructive criticism of this Budget, and, rather than themselves offer constructive suggestions, they began to appraise speeches that were made by members of the Opposition, attacking one piece from the start of a speech and trying to put it in contradistinction to another part of the speech at the end. That kind of criticism of Opposition speeches is certainly not a constructive way to approach a Budget debate by those who themselves complain of the Opposition's lack of a constructive approach.

This Budget has been described by Government speakers as one that has gone down well in the country. Deputy Anthony Barry stated that he did not feel it would embarrass the Government Parties from the political point of view, and then went back to the old catch-cry of the 1952 Budget as the one which really embarrassed Fianna Fáil and resulted in the present Government being put back into power. He rightly described that Budget as one with a deflationary tendency, but then, on the other hand, he said that, as a result of Deputy Lemass's meanderings in the financial set-up of the country, it was transformed into an inflationary one, in so far as capital projects suggested by Deputy Lemass and put into execution by him defeated the deflationary purpose of Deputy MacEntee, then Minister for Finance.

I should like to ask Deputy Anthony Barry or any other Government Deputy, in what respect was any one of those capital projects, initiated or in existence during the last Government, inflationary? It is and always has been the policy of Fianna Fáil that money raised for capital purposes is to be expended only in productive spheres. It is common knowledge, and not denied by the first inter-Party Administration, that many capital moneys were devoted to the purchase of consumer goods. That tendency is still there, and in regard to the suggestion that capital projects initiated and executed by Fianna Fáil were inflationary, the cap would fit those who make the accusation much better than those at whom it is directed.

In so far as there has been criticism of this Budget by the members of Fianna Fáil, it is that it is a follow on of the 1952 Budget, which was an attempt to set the finances of the country right, and which was described by all the then Opposition speakers as being one that would put a crushing burden on the people, that was putting into execution a hair-shirt policy. Even a few minutes ago, Deputy Anthony Barry said that it produced not only the deflationary tendency which Deputy MacEntee desired, but produced misery. Those same Budget proposals are still in effect, only more so, and I should like to ask him whether he can see around him the same misery as he saw then and in the subsequent years. It is no use trying to suggest that, because Fianna Fáil introduced a Budget producing taxes which have been affirmed and reaffirmed by the Coalition Minister for Finance, there was misery when Fianna Fáil introduced it, but that, since the inter-Party Government came back, there is no longer misery. If there was misery then, there is no reason to suspect that the same misery does not persist.

We have been accused, too, of not offering an alternative policy to the people. When the 1952 Budget and the two that followed were being discussed in this House, the Opposition then certainly had an alternative to offer. The alternative was better times, reduced Government expenditure, reduced taxation; and it was easy to understand why people who had felt the impact of the 1952 Budget would go for such an alternative policy. But they have been two years in government, and there has not been one serious attempt, apart from the subsidy on butter, to implement that policy of better times and reduced Government expenditure to decrease taxation. If that was the alternative policy they offered, then I can only say it is a policy that was designed solely for the purpose of placing a Government in power that did not have any idea how they were to put that policy into effect.

My criticism of the Budget is that it does not show any target to the people. A Budget is presumed to be an analysis of the financial situation as it was. It is presumed to be an indication to the people of how economic and financial ills might be overcome, and to a large extent it was; but beyond that, I do not think there was anything in the Budget that would give the people hope of some new policy that would overcome our present difficulties of under-production and under-employment and of increasing imports and decreasing external assets.

I think it is quite clear that the time has come in this country when people should not be patted too much on the back and, no matter what they have done wrong, have it said they are still great fellows. The people would be glad to be told the truth before any Government assumes power as to whether or not it would be possible to reduce taxation. But it is only disillusioning the people and making them dispirited to suggest in order to get into power that their lives are going to be better, that the Government will seek less from their pay packets, if, when the time comes, they find they still have to pay more and more out of their weekly pay packets in order to live and pay their way.

The Labour Party have excused themselves in the House and outside it of their non-fulfilment of their pledges about reducing the cost of living by saying that, at least, if they did not reduce it, they had increased wages; and Deputy Desmond took Deputy MacEntee to task when Deputy MacEntee referred to the high wage structure as one of our particular difficulties. I am in agreement with Deputy MacEntee to a large extent on this. It avails a housewife very little if, when her husband earned £10 or £12 per week, she found she was unable to make ends meet and if she found, in order to pay her rent and insurances, buy clothes and food, that her own family budget was 10/- or 15/- on the wrong side at the end of the week; and if, after trade union agitation or by some other means, her husband's wages are increased by £1, she finds, at the end of the next week, with the increased wages, she is still 10/- or 15/- on the wrong side when trying to balance her budget. The level of wages is not important in this country. What is important is that what people have to buy, by way of essentials and by way of moderate entertainment, should be covered by whatever income they have and without the constant "running into the red" by almost every one of our citizens.

I should like to remind the Labour Party that there are many unprotected groups, unprotected by trade unions or otherwise, who have no access to a means of securing a high wage when prices increase. There are many people who are not organised, who are in isolated jobs and people who, to a large extent, are self-employed. Many of these people have to depend on the goodness of their employers, or their own ability to produce a little more, in order to get increased wages. I suggest that, if the community as a whole took example from these types of people and tried to produce a little more, it would go a long way towards curing the hardships of which we complain.

It is very easy for me, and for others in this House who do not have to blister their hands in order to earn a living, to suggest to farmers and factory workers to produce more; but, on the other hand, it is readily accepted by most people that our production per head of the population is not as high as it might be. Perhaps the return to the individual is not as high as it should be. In that respect I have a lot of sympathy with those who agitate that in industry, in particular, there should be some return out of profits to workers who try hard to produce a little more than they otherwise might, if they thought they might have access to some of the profits that would be earned by working a little harder. Profit incentive would be one way whereby we could increase output from our factories. I think it is difficult to sell that idea to the agricultural community, but I am sure that, once they realise that the same would apply to agriculture as applies to industry, that incentive to do more in order to get a share of increased profits would be applicable to agriculture as well as to industry. I am not competent to deal with that subject to any extent and, not being a person engaged in agriculture, I certainly would be very suspect as one standing up here and simply expounding on something of which I know only a little.

I mentioned that there was little directive or little policy-making in the Budget, and I think it is common not only to the Budget, but to the entire Government since it assumed office. No single Ministry has indicated to the country at large how better administration of that Department was going to be pursued. Take, for instance, the Department of Industry and Commerce. Before this Government arrived, our industrial progress had reached the stage when we were able to produce most of what this country could absorb, as far as goods we were in a position to produce ourselves were concerned. The question is: where to from there? It is useless for us to try to build up industry in a very limited market, and our own population is so limited that it is difficult to form any expanding industry on it, unless we can enter the competitive foreign markets.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce had a long tour of the United States in order to induce capital and techniques from that country to this country. So far, we have not seen any fruits of his visit; but I will readily admit it is rather early to expect them. On the other hand, have we no directive or initiative of our own? Must we sit back to see where we are going in industry until such time as whatever United States industrialists and financiers come to our aid, help us to expand our home market and enter the foreign market with new capital and new techniques?

The Minister for Lands has just been in Sweden. Perhaps he has brought back some ideas whereby we can utilise land that is otherwise incapable of being used economically for the growing of timber. Let us hope that, as a result of these trips abroad, something new will be added to our economy, some new fields will be opened up to us in the matter of creating employment and increasing the wealth of this country.

Whatever the reason, there is a certain amount of public apathy at present. We have been told there was no public outcry against this Budget, and I believe it was largely because the public have become so disillusioned by the promises made by the Parties they supported and put into Government that they do not know now where to turn. The public have lost a certain amount of confidence in this Government, but they are still giving them a chance, to see if they will improve, and make any real effort to implement their promises. When one sees the still soaring cost of living that had been reasonably stable before the Government assumed office, the soaring unemployment figures and, despite what anybody says, the ever-increasing number of emigrants, it is hard for them to have that confidence in their Government and in their country to induce them to make that extra effort which is necessary.

Lest it might be suggested to me that it is easy to say that the public have lost confidence in our administration, I think I need only point to the fact that the two major loans floated in the past year, that of the Government and of the Dublin Corporation, have been major flops. The Government excused itself by reason of the fact that the bank rate had altered at a crucial time in England; nevertheless the Government loan was open sufficiently long to ensure that if people were confident about putting their money into the capital schemes and projects of this Government there was plenty of time for them to do so before whatever took place in Threadneedle Street altered the situation here to the extent that the Minister for Finance had to close down quickly and seal off whatever moneys he had got in.

Then we had the unfortunate position of the Dublin Corporation and the Cork Corporation going hat in hand fruitlessly to the banks for overdrafts to enable them to continue their capital programmes. The Minister for Finance has taken action in respect of the Dublin Corporation and action is about to be taken in respect of the Cork Corporation's problem, but it reinforces my argument that there is a lack of confidence amongst the public in the present administration, and even though it might be suggested that the commercial banks are not public in any case, they are financed by much of the public's money. It is an unfortunate position that, whatever the reason, we now find ourselves unable to pursue our local capital programmes by reason of this lack of confidence.

I, like other speakers that I have heard to-day, do take a serious view of that situation and I am in entire agreement with the suggestion that our credit system must be examined very closely and if necessary overhauled.

If we continue at the present rate, unless something materially alters the situation, we will find ourselves in the next couple of years unable to procure moneys either by way of public loan or by way of overdraft from the commercial banks in order to house our people, to build our hospitals and to make our land more productive. It is far too serious a position for this country to be in to be taken lightly.

If there was in the past a conservative approach to the position of the commercial banks and if perhaps in the past it was justified, the situation seems to me to have now arisen when something more concrete must be done than to have negotiations between the Minister's Department and the banks in order to induce them to advance moneys and so to enable our capital programme to continue. If a situation arises again similar to that which has arisen in the past with regard to procuring credit for public purposes, I am all in favour, at this stage at any rate, of this House taking effective action so that the economic progress of this country will not be stayed by a group of people who are in control of most of our liquid assets within the country.

I do not intend to repeat what has been said by other Deputies in relation to the details of increases in the Budget, but there is no doubt that these increases, mild though they may be, affect some sections of the community more than others. The criticism can be made of taxation generally in this country that too few people bear the major burden and that it is not spread widely enough to ensure that people who can afford to bear taxation do bear it. Even in this Budget there is an attack directly again on a small portion of the community. This criticism does not apply to the tobacco tax in that it is not necessary for any person to smoke cigarettes; nevertheless the majority of the people like them so the majority of the people are affected to some extent.

The major imposition in this Budget is the tax on petrol and while the Minister readily absolves himself from the charge of affecting the livelihood of the people by saying that most petrol is used for pleasure purposes, there are many sections of our community who use petrol in order to earn a livelihood. Let us take the case of the commercial traveller trying to earn commission on his sales and who has to pay all his own expenses. At the present time, with the lack of buoyancy in the country's economic position, he is unable to sell his wares with the result that he can go from town to town consuming his expensive petrol and finding at the end of the week that he probably spent more in expenses than he will have earned in commission.

Generally speaking, therefore, there is no reason for complacency amongst the Government. There is no reason for patting themselves on the back about this Budget and unless they can produce something worth while for the people, some indication that they will do something concrete and effective about the economic ills that beset the country, they will not last very long in office and when the next opportunity comes, no matter what the alternative is and no matter what the Government thinks of the alternative, the alternative will be readily adopted by the people.

Mr. Manley

The Budget is really the annual stocktaking of the nation's finances and in stocktaking there are often surprises revealed. These surprises may be of a pleasant nature or they may be surprises that beget fears and misgivings. At Budget time, there is a feeling of anxiety before the Budget is introduced and there is often a slump in business which arises from a fear that the Budget might impose difficulties on the business community. Any Budget that introduces new extra taxation is severe, and there is no minimising the fact that the present Budget is severe, although it was not altogether unexpected.

Anyone observing trends in Great Britain in the past 12 months must have foreseen that we would ultimately be faced with similar difficulties here. We had the position here of dwindling savings, of our bank deposits decreasing and a sharper increase in bank borrowing. These unpleasant features should have steeled us to the fact that some drastic and unpleasant remedy would have to be found. No greater vindication of the Budget could have been made than that made by Deputy MacEntee in this House. He realised and sympathised with the Minister for Finance in the difficulties that confronted him. He emphasised that the Budget was a balanced one, realistic and courageous.

It was a pity that he did allow the rumours that were going about regarding bulldozing of the banks, pressure on the insurance companies and references to funds in the Post Office to get into his speech. The fact that these things were mentioned by an ex-Minister for Finance might tend to give them credence. The financial year just closed was a difficult one for the Government and particularly for the Minister for Finance. The people have come to realise that the Bill introduced here was unavoidable.

The taxation imposed under this Budget falls mainly under two chief heads—smoking and petrol. Smoking is not essential but it has now been accepted as part of the everyday life of the individual. Now that proven statistics have shown that excessive smoking is detrimental to health, we have only to hope that the extra taxation imposed on tobacco will be a benefit to the health of our people.

The petrol tax affects the private user of motor cars, the taximan, the haulier and other interests and is severe. It is bound to have a detrimental effect in some way on the commercial life of our community but no one has suggested, in this debate, any alternative Budget or what items could be more easily taxed other than petrol and smoking. Personally, I think that 3d. should have been the limit on the gallon of petrol and that the remaining 3d. could have been derived from a small tax on cosmetics. Any balance could be obtained from an increased tax on the pictures. When one sees the thousands that queue up here for the pictures, one is forced to the conclusion that the picture-goer creates a great strain on the income of the family or the individual.

Deputies during this debate have referred to Government expenditure. I agree that Government expenditure is growing out of hand, year by year, and the bill introduced here does not show all that expenditure. We have to provide £20,000,000 in local taxation through the rates. The problem affecting the minds of the people most is the rates problem. The Budget is only a secondary consideration. There was a time in this country when the people were afraid to improve their holdings or farms knowing that the landlord would demand an increase of rent. The very same thing obtains to-day. All the time officials from the Valuation Office are going around investigating and increasing valuations. The people have come to realise that if they improve their holdings or farms they will fall under the axe in the way of increased valuation.

The Minister himself is convinced that economies are necessary if increased taxation is to be avoided and he has indicated that conviction by his statement that he is calling together the heads of Departments in conference to devise more expeditious and efficient methods of administration. Let us hope that, as well as devising these methods, he will look for the elimination of waste in time and personnel.

Reference to savings has been made constantly in the course of this debate. We all realise that savings are necessary if we want capital development in this country but I do not see how we are going to get the people to save unless the Government gives the lead. We all admit that there is great overspending on many non-essential things.

Increased production is necessary and vital for maintaining the standard of life that we have in this country and production from the land is the more easily and readily obtainable. I do not think that sufficient appeal has been made to achieve that end. I also admit that the inducement has been insufficient to get from the land the production that we all hope for.

If the Government are in earnest about economies and about keeping down expenditure, why not start with this House itself? It may be high treason to state that the House could do with a reduction of 47 in its numerical strength, thus bringing the total membership down to 100. That would effect a saving of £50,000 or £60,000 a year. I do not, for one moment, suggest that a Deputy has an idle time in this House. We must all admit that a great part of a Deputy's time is spent in acting as courier between the people and the different Departments. That may be a pleasant occupation but in a democratic, well-run, efficient State, why should that be necessary? Why have not the people got the ear and the eye of the Departments direct without having to go through a Deputy or through a public representative? There is a belief growing abroad that a Deputy has great power. Such a conception is far from the truth and is, indeed, very wrong. The people should be in a position to have direct contact with a Department, by letter, at any time. The Minister, in this conference that he is calling, should try to get greater flexibility in the Departments so that the people would have this desired contact.

I am not suggesting that the Civil Service is at fault. I have never got anything but the greatest courtesy, valued advice and utmost co-operation from the civil servants in each Department. We have got to remember that these people are in a secure position and that they cannot deviate right or left from the rule of conduct laid down for them. They have secured their positions through public examination, while we here are depending on the whim of the people.

Local bodies carry on for a long part of the year on overdrafts from the bank. I think that is bad, either for individual or for business, and I think it should be discouraged in the interests of solvency, security and economy. These overdrafts impact on the ratepayers who are already overburdened beyond any reasonable degree. It is the fundamental duty of the Government to keep the rates at a reasonable level if we are to maintain respect for our local authorities and if we are not to have these local authorities going out of existence.

The Minister is in charge of the Transition Development Fund. I do not know what the functions of that development fund are in the mind of the Government. Spending money to a vast extent on some of the public roads throughout the country, while the by-roads are left neglected and crying out for resurfacing, is nothing short of a scandal. The motorist is not particular, once he has a decent surface. While we admit that the widening of certain roads and the taking away of dangerous corners may be necessary, I think the Transition Development Fund should not be spent in that way.

There is no doubt that the Minister is unfortunate that he is in office at this time. It is a difficult time, but he is a young man of vigour, of ability, of force and of drive. We look to him, with his colleagues, to bring about the improvements and the reforms necessary, if we are to survive here as a separate economic entity. We are living in a fool's paradise if we think the Irish people can continue to meet these annually recurring, increasing bills. We have reached the limit long ago and we must come down to earth and face the realities of the difficult times that confront us.

Mr. Traynor

To me, as a former Minister who had to take his share of the responsibility for Budgets of the past, it is rather amusing and somewhat entertaining to hear Deputies from the Government Benches now making their excuses and offering their apologies for the Budget which is now being inflicted upon the people. I used the word "inflicted" deliberately, because the Irish people were led to believe that they were in for much better times, if they elected a Government formed by Coalition groups. They are no doubt much wiser now than when they elected the various Parties that go to form the Coalition.

It is rather galling to hear all these excuses being put forward for this Budget and then to cast one's mind back to the criticisms that were directed at the Budgets of the Fianna Fáil Government, particularly the Budget of 1952, which was, as every person who takes any interest in the affairs of Government knows, brought about by reason of the three years of mismanagement of the previous Coalition Government. When I hear these excuses being put forward in regard to the situation that exists at present, I can only come to the conclusion that they are on a par with the promises which were made so freely during the election of 1954.

However, there is one subject on which there appears to be what I might call common agreement, and that is the fact that a critical situation exists in this country at the present time. When I say "common agreement", of course, I must exclude Deputy Dillon, who usually has his own point of view on all matters and who described Deputy MacEntee, who discussed this critical situation, as a gloomy prophet. We all know that the Taoiseach expressed views on a par with those expressed by Deputy MacEntee and we further know that the Minister for Finance initiated discussion on that critical situation.

The only thing about which there is not common agreement is the causes which brought about that critical situation. The Taoiseach, of course, holds the point of view—and appears to hold it rather strongly—that the critical situation has been brought about by affairs outside the control of this nation. That may be true to some degree, but it is not quite fully correct. I feel if the Taoiseach were in earnest, he would say that the affairs of this nation could have been much better handled and that the situation which exists to-day could have been reduced a great deal. From that point of view, I think the Government must take their full share of the responsibility for the present situation.

During the course of the discussion on this Budget, I have heard Deputies on the other side ask members on this side what particular service they would like the Government to reduce in order to lessen the national expenditure. It is not the responsibility of any Deputy on this side of the House to tell the Government how to conduct their business. The Government should be quite capable of conducting their own business, and anyhow I am pretty certain that, like most of the other suggestions that come from this side, they would not be heeded. However, when Deputies ask questions of that kind, naturally we presume they require an answer. My answer is that none of these national social services needs to be interfered with, if the management of the State is properly undertaken and properly conducted. For instance, there is no reason why the national income of the State should not be raised to a degree that would make it quite easy for every one of these expenses to be met.

The only way in which the national income can be raised, as was pointed out by various Deputies from this side, is in the form of greater production. I know that, as Deputy Jack Lynch stated here a few moments ago, it is very easy for those of us who do not participate in the hard work of agriculture, or in the very hard work of some of the great national industries of this country, to talk about greater production. However, the fact remains that it is the duty of a Government to see that Government income is increased by any means they can devise. From that point of view, I want to come down to the question of agriculture. The Minister for Finance himself informed us that the decrease in the agricultural output of this country had been in the region of 2 per cent. I happened to mention that the other day when the Minister for Agriculture was participating in the debate and he castigated me for my interrupting with such a suggestion. Then he went on to try to prove, so far as he could possibly do so, that it would be impossible to estimate a decrease of 2 per cent., and he went out of his way to disprove the statement of the Minister for Finance on that subject.

The Irish Farmers' Journal—as far as I know, this journal is not a political organ and I do not think anyone would like to describe it as such— contained an article in the issue of the 12-5-56, which had the ribbon heading: “£21-m. Down the Drain”. It went on to say:—

"For a country finding difficulty in meeting price competition and trade restrictions abroad, and dis sipating, to little purpose, the hard-earned external assets, the imports list for 1955 makes curious reading."

They give a very long list of articles which were imported and which, apparently, in their opinion, need not necessarily have been imported. Among these, they give wheat, to the extent of £4,991,632, practically £5,000,000, of the Irish taxpayers' money, the people from whose pockets the present Government is now proposing to take some £10,000,000. The journal goes on to mention other matters, such as maize, £5,472,620. They do not suggest we could produce maize, but they do say in the course of the article that we could produce a good barley feeding stuff that might counter the importation of maize. Barley itself has been imported to the extent of £608,338. So have corn offals, fishmeal and meat-and-bone meal, apples (fresh), pears (fresh), plums (fresh), tomatoes, peas, onions and they go on with this long list to show how the £21,000,000 of the Irish people's money has been sent abroad. If that £21,000,000, or as much of it as possible—because I do not believe that the whole £21,000,000 could be saved—could be saved, it would go into the Irish farmers' pockets, in the first instance, into the shopkeepers' pockets then and would eventually find its way into the various industries of this nation. That is one of the ways in which, in my opinion, the Government could set out to increase the national income and thus bring about the relief for the taxpayers to which the last speaker referred.

The Taoiseach, in the course of his speech here, went to very great pains to prove that, so far as he was concerned, he made no promises, good, bad or indifferent, to the Irish people in the course of the last election, but he must take some responsibility for the fact that one of the posters that were distributed around the country—it probably got a greater circulation than any other poster of its kind—was the poster which simply said: "Vote for Fine Gael and Better Times". Surely the Taoiseach is not going to disown a poster issued by the officials of his own organisation, which informed all and sundry that all they had to do was to vote for Fine Gael and, if they did, that they would ensure better times.

I want to go a little further to show that the Taoiseach's memory was letting him down, and to ask if he did not regard this statement as a promise. In Volume 131, at column 1439, speaking in May, 1952, Deputy MacEntee, in the course of the debate on that much-discussed Budget, said:—

"I am perfectly certain that if Deputy Costello were sitting over here, if by any misfortune, by any punishing stroke of Providence, Deputy Costello were put here, there is not a single measure, a single tax, imposed in this Finance Bill, he would repeal."

Deputy Costello, as he then was, replied:—

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

And General Mulcahy, in order to reinforce Deputy Costello, said:—

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

When Deputy Costello was speaking later in the debate at column 1442, he seemed to be making a misquotation of something, because Deputy MacEntee had to come in and correct him and give him the correct quotation. Deputy Costello then replied:—

"Taking the alleged correction, that if by any stroke of misfortune or ill-fortune I were translated to clear up the appalling mess the Minister has created and found myself faced with what he is asking the country to do, I would resign the next minute rather than proceed with any single provision in the present Budget. I would be no party to any provision in this Budget. I think these taxes are cruel and unjust and that they will prove so."

Later, on the same date, he went a little further and said:—

"I would not stay one second in office"

—he has reduced the period from a minute to a second—

"nor would I be associated with anybody in office who would be responsible for a Budget or a Finance Bill of this kind."

I am giving these quotations because not one single item of the Budget to which the then Deputy Costello referred has been altered in the slightest degree. Every item contained in the 1952 Budget that was so strongly denounced at that time by the then Opposition as the most disastrous, mose cruel and most unjust Budget ever inflicted on the Irish people, is still operating and operating with added imposts. That is the position which obtains at the moment.

In the course of the debate to-day, I heard Deputy McQuillan castigate what he described, I think, as the motor assemblers' industry of this country. I think he referred to them as the most pampered industrialists in the country. He was referring to the fact that they had to disemploy a very large number of workers recently. I think Deputy McQuillan was assuming that that was a result of the petrol tax which was recently imposed. If that was the suggestion, I do not think he was correct. I think the very severe slump which has been experienced by motor traders has not been brought about so much by the tax on petrol, although undoubtedly the petrol tax hits to a certain degree, as by the recent levy which imposed taxes ranging from 25 to 37½ per cent. on imported motor parts. As the people who assembled motor cars in this country have to import these parts separately, I have to assume that each of these parts bears the tax imposed by the recent levy. If that is so, it is bound to have a serious effect on the motor trade. Speaking on the levy at that time, I referred to that point, that the levy was bound to cause some unemployment by reason of the fact that motor assemblers would be hit in that, perhaps, indirect way.

I have heard Deputies from the Government Benches defending the Budget by saying that no one need be taxed as a result of the Budget, that there is no reason why anyone should suffer, that people can give up smoking cigarettes and that they need not drive motor cars. That is a ridiculous type of argument. Smoking has become almost part of the daily lives of people in this country. We all have experience of individuals who would almost prefer to forgo a meal than to be without cigarettes. Motor cars have become part of the daily lives of most of our people and to very large numbers of them, part of their business. From that point of view, the tax inflicts hardship on them.

I know that it can be argued that a vast amount of what has been described by one Deputy in the Government Benches as joy-riding takes place, but the number of people who could be accused of joy-riding is so small as to have no effect whatever on the Budget provisions. The people who really suffer are people who have been referred to already by other speakers, commercial travellers and people in the city who, by reason of the fact that the suburbs have extended to places like Howth, Sutton, Dalkey, Killiney and even Bray and Greystones, find that a motor-car is almost indispensable for them in going about their business.

Unless we are to enforce the conditions which existed in the last emergency, unless we are to enforce what has been described here in this debate as a hair-shirt policy, petrol, which is the unfortunate victim of every Government when it wants to raise revenue, should be given a rest.

I was talking to an Englishman a few days before the Budget was introduced. He knew that I am a parliamentary representative and he thought I would have some influence in the framing of the Budget. I know this man to be a good friend of Ireland from the point of view of his relations with people in this country and the business he does with them. He spends his annual holidays here with his family year after year. He asked me if I would be good enough to use my influence to see that the petrol tax was not raised. I replied that the petrol tax here was not nearly as high as it is in England. He said that he knew all about that, but that that was not the point, that the point he wanted to impress on me was that, if we want to get English visitors to this country, we must offer them a cheap means of touring the country in their own cars—for instance, cheap petrol. He said that if we could reduce the price of our petrol below the price of petrol in England, we would be bound to have an influx of motorists. He pointed out that he had to pay £29 every time he brought his car into this country and that that, in addition to the petrol tax, was a heavy duty on him. I assured him that I had no influence in framing the Budget.

I was disagreeably surprised that the Government went to the same old source. Governments in this country, unfortunately, look to spirits, beer, cigarettes, tobacco, petrol or some commodity of that type for extra revenue. It seems impossible to conceive new ideas for securing revenue.

I do not want to go over all the things that were said in the last election. Promises were made that should not have been made. Statements were made about things which could be done which should not have been made. If nothing else evolves from the election of the Government to office but the fact that they gained the experience which they have gained in the past few years, something big will have been gained for this nation. I am sure that if they could have redeemed their promises, they would have done so. I know, by reason of my own experience as a Minister, that it is easier to promise or to think of the things you would like to do, than to do them. Whatever efforts the Government or the members of the Government may have made to bring about in some respect or other the power to do this, that or the other thing, according to their promise, the stark naked fact was that money was required. The things which they promised could not be done without money and the money had to be secured first before the promises could be redeemed. If nothing has been gained as a result of the last election but the experience which the Government have obtained, something good will have been brought about.

A statement was made by Deputy Costello which was also made in 1952 and was reported in the Irish Press of June 16th. He said they in Fine Gael had within their ranks young economists, people who were trained in finance, and they were taking advantage of this advice in bringing new ideas to solve the present difficulties and problems. That rather intrigued me because I was very anxious to know what the young financiers had produced from the hat to solve the Government's difficulties. The only solution that is visible and that we can presume they produced, was to push their hands deeper than they were ever pushed before into the taxpayer's pocket to get the money the Government required to meet the national expenditure of this year, national expenditure that has arisen, I think—if I am wrong the Minister can correct me—from something like £101,000,000 in 1952 to £118,000,000 in the present year. That is a peculiar way of reducing national expenditure. It is in keeping with most of the other promises which were being made around about the time.

The Minister for Finance said recently in this House, as reported at column 325 of Volume 155, that:—

"The balance of payments deficit for 1955 was of the order of £35,000,000, not for the import of capital goods but for goods for consumption."

To-day, Deputy McQuillan speaking on that particular subject—the subject of the goods—accused all Parties in the House of failure to stop the import of goods for consumption. I want to point out that in this year of 1956 we are faced with a £35,000,000 deficit. I wonder if history is repeating itself because in 1951 we were faced with a similar type of deficit of £60,000,000 odd. When we talk about a critical situation, these must be the things we have in mind. It is fairly critical when we find that there is a growing trade deficit. We have to be very serious about how these things are to be dealt with. It is the duty of an Opposition, as far as lies within their power, to point out these facts and endeavour, as far as lies within their power, as members of an Opposition, to see that they are righted.

In this House on the 13th March, 1956, the Minister for Finance said:—

"All of us on every side of the House will agree that the primary aim and purpose of every Government, no matter of what Parties it may be composed, must be to create conditions in which there will be a real and lasting increase in agricultural and industrial production."

The Minister was not here when I was dealing with the question of agricultural production.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Sweetman)

I must apologise to the Deputy. No discourtesy was intended.

Mr. Traynor

I know. It is all right. The Minister cannot always be here. I was pointing out that the Irish Farmers' Journal referred to the fact that £21,000,000 had gone down the drain. They gave a long list of items— I have already recited it—such as wheat, barley, corn offals, and so forth, that were imported. I was urging that none of the national services which are in operation at the present time need be curtailed in the slightest if we can increase our national income and that the policy of importing wheat and goods of a quality which we can produce ourselves is wrong because that money should go into the pockets of our own farmers. From that point of view, the increase of the national income ought to be the first responsibility which the Government would set out to correct in the coming year.

Mr. Palmer

Deputy Traynor, and in fact every Deputy from the Opposition benches, in their speeches not only on this Budget but also on various other occasions referred to promises made by members supporting the Government. I would remind Deputy Traynor and other Deputies that during the general election campaign of 1952 Deputy Lemass made the very serious promise —he was then ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce—that if Fianna Fáil were returned to office the tea, sugar, bread and butter subsidies would not be removed. At the same time, Deputy MacEntee gave a definite promise that, if Fianna Fáil were returned to office, the penal taxes imposed in the 1947 Fianna Fáil Supplementary Budget would not be reimposed. Yet, in the introduction in 1952 of the first Budget after the general election, Fianna Fáil slashed the subsidies on these essential commodities and reimposed the taxes on beer, spirits, cigarettes and so forth. Why, therefore, is it that they forget the promises they made? They were not the only promises Fianna Fáil made that were broken. To be realistic about it, I suppose various Deputies made promises during election times, but I never made any promise except to do my best, if elected.

The Taoiseach stated at various times and brought in several quotations—at that time he was pratically the head of the Government—to prove that he never promised anything except that he would do his best to give good government, if he were elected Taoiseach. After all, he is the man who speaks as head of the Government and who carries all the responsibility. I think it is time the Opposition stopped talking about broken promises.

A good housewife or housekeeper will always arrange to make her purchases for the household within the means at her disposal. There is a great similarity between the running of a household and the running of a State. Any good housekeeper will, first of all, buy only the essential commodities and then, if she has a surplus, she can either dispose of it by buying some luxuries or some really non-essential goods, or she can put it into a bank, a post office or invest it in some other way.

A Minister for Finance has to act in much the same way. Just as the housewife must keep within her income, if she is wise, so too must a Government, especially a Minister for Finance. I think the present Budget deals very much in the same way with the nation as the housewife deals with her resources.

Nothing in the way of taxation was imposed on consumption goods. That is the important factor. Just as the housewife tries to restrict as far as possible expenditure on non-essential or luxury goods, so, too, has the Minister tried to divert people from the excessive use of non-essential goods. I am sure it was not his intention to raise money by imposing taxes on cigarettes, tobacco and petrol. Perhaps, it was more his view that, by increasing the prices of those commodities, he would prevent the excessive importation of them, which would help, to some extent, to reduce the adverse trade balance. It would also be, as a previous speaker said on this side of the House, useful in helping to reduce the consumption of cigarettes and tobacco for the benefit of the health of the people.

Having regard to the fact that there is so much joy-riding and so much purchasing of cars on the hire-purchase system by people who really do not require them for their business, it would be well if the increased tax on petrol reduced the import of petrol and the purchase of cars or any other non-essential goods on the hire-purchase system. I suppose our most expensive imports are really petrol and tobacco and the increased tax on petrol may interfere to a greater extent with people who have to use more cars and lorries than with others. It would be desirable if some provision could be made for the owners of hackney cars, taxis, lorries and for those who make their living entirely by such means. Perhaps, also, as some Deputy stated, something might be done to relieve commercial travellers. I do not know if it would be possible to do that, unless it could be done in the same way as it was done in respect of petrol used for agricultural purposes.

Most speakers referred to the cost of administration and the increase in the number of civil servants. After all, there were so many increased services during the past 20 or 30 years that there was bound to be an increase in the Civil Service and, of course, in the cost of administration. The Minister has stated he is setting up a committee to go into the whole matter of cost. I think a direct way of reducing the cost of administration is that, when members of the Civil Service retire, having reached the retiring age, or when lady members get married and leave the service, no new appointments will be made until the number of civil servants is reduced to a reasonable figure.

I do not think that would interfere in any way with the efficiency of the service. In fact, I think it would be good for the civil servants themselves because there would be greater hopes of promotion. They could really work more efficiently and, therefore, it would do a good service to themselves. You cannot blame the civil servants for any increase in administration, because we know, as Deputies, that the Civil Service in all Departments carry out their duties courteously and efficiently.

Ministers and Deputies from all sides of the House referred to the question of savings. There must be an incentive to save and people should feel sure that, when they save, the income-tax collector will not come along to extort a large percentage of those savings. In fact, in addition to the committee to which the Minister referred in his Budget speech, there should also be some kind of committee of financial experts, not drawn now from the Civil Service, to go into this whole question of income-tax. Income-tax is something which has devolved upon us from the British Government days. The time has come when some inquiry and investigation must be made in order to evolve a system whereby all liable to tax will pay tax. At the moment, a small percentage is mulcted and many escape scot-free. Those on fixed salaries have no way of escape. There can be no evasion on their part. But there is evasion, complete evasion, by a great number of people in relation to their liability to income-tax. That it not fair. If all those liable paid their due and proper share of the tax, the incidence of the tax all over might be very small indeed. Some arrangement should be made by which there would be a more equitable distribution of the incidence of the tax. Possibly some other method of taxation might be evolved whereby to raise the necessary revenue for the Minister for Finance.

Deputies on the opposite benches referred to unemployment and emigration. We have been hearing about these for the past 30 years. Unemployment is lower now than at any time for years past. But it is still too high. So is emigration. It should be remembered that these two problems are not easy of solution. I can assure the House that many of those who emigrate would find plenty of work on the land at home, if they only wanted to work on it. In fact, if the people of this country were willing to work on the land and prepared to work on it, there would be no unemployment at all. There are too many people looking to factories and to offices for easy jobs. If the young people who now emigrate worked on the land faithfully and well, I am sure the farmers would be quite willing to give them a decent wage. They might not have the very high wages they command in foreign countries. They might not have the glamour of the cities, but they would be able to lead much healthier lives and much happier lives than they lead elsewhere. While industrial progress has helped to reduce unemployment, nevertheless, it is to agriculture we must look to solve the unemployment problem as a whole and the problem of emigration.

Listening to the Deputies opposite, anybody would think that the people are up in arms against this Budget. I suppose we cannot blame the Deputies opposite for playing the Party game. They are quite right in doing that. We would do the same thing. But remember, it was the Deputies opposite who imposed the very severe taxes on essential goods in 1952 and even as early as 1947. We have not done that. The people were wondering about this Budget and there was, of course, a lot of whispering on the Opposition side of the House as to what this Budget would bring. The Opposition can rest assured that, when the people learned the terms of this Budget, they drew a sigh of relief. They are satisfied because none of the essentials has been taxed. There is no use in groaning and moaning over this Budget. The people are perfectly satisfied and I can assure the Opposition Deputies that, if we went to the country now on this Budget, we would be back again on the Government side of the House.

Mr. Colley

Deputy Palmer, in concluding, must surely have forgotten all the things that he and his colleagues in the Coalition told the people in 1954; the Utopia they could make for them, the £10,000,000 and £20,000,000 they could take off taxation, the fact that Fianna Fáil only wanted to penalise them because they were living too well. They said we wanted to reduce the standard of living of the people. I could go on for the next half-hour cataloguing all the things the people were told. To-day, they find the position is just the opposite and we have Deputies like Deputy Palmer getting up and talking about the cost of administration this year and the necessity for increased taxation. The people cannot but remember that expenditure has gone up by £13,000,000 in two years and that none of the £10,000,000 or £20,000,000 that was to be taken off has materialised.

Deputies on the Government Benches must remember that, if the people are very quiet, it is because they are actually shocked—shocked that public men could go out and emphatically guarantee what they would do, if they got into power and, then, having got into power, do the exact opposite. The reaction is there. Deputies on the opposite benches need not worry about it: whether the people are quiet or not, the reaction is there. The rigours of this Budget are the natural consequence of what the Deputies opposite told the people in 1954. They led them to believe that Fianna Fáil were just trying to penalise them, that they had got something into their minds because they had put them out in 1947, and that they wanted to penalise the people for doing so. Well, anybody who has been in politics for any time or knows anything about politics would never be surprised at a Government being put out after 16 years. None of us was, and there was no question of the people not having a right to elect another Government if they wanted to. No such question ever crossed anybody's mind.

Remember that the problem that faced us in 1952, on which the Deputies concentrated, was twice as bad as the problem facing the Minister to-day, even if we forget all the other promises. There was £15,000,000 to be found instead of the £9,000,000 or £10,000,000 that has to be found now, and there was a £62,000,000 deficit in the balance of payments instead of £35,000,000.

When I hear some of the Deputies opposite talking about not putting on taxes on beer or not taking off any of the subsidies, I wonder what would have happened if a Budget of twice its dimensions had to be faced. Could a shilling have been put on to cigarettes to get in twice as much revenue, or would beer have had to be taxed, or would the bread subsidy have had to be slashed? The Government are facing only half the problem we faced in 1952, and as far as I see they are not even doing it as well as we did in the circumstances. Remember that the problem we faced in 1952 was of the Coalition's making. It was not of our making.

Mr. O'Leary

The Civil Service award.

Mr. Colley

Just as things have gone wrong again since 1954 when the Coalition Government again took over, they went wrong in 1948. I quoted here the figures for the deficit in the balance of payments, speaking on the Vote on Account. Speaking from memory they were £10,000,000 in 1948, about which I will not say anything, £20,000,000 in 1949, £30,000,000 in 1950 and £62,000,000 in 1951. They went down to £9,000,000 in 1952, £7,000,000 in 1953 and £5,500,000 in 1954. Now in 1955 they are up to £35,500,000. There must be some mismanagement about it. Why would there not be, when men like the Tánaiste get up in this House and talk about bringing back our external assets for consumption purposes —stating that they were deteriorating in value over there and that it would be better to consume them; when you had the wizard of finance of the first Coalition Government getting up and asking why men would not spend their savings, why they would not go and have a spree, even, if necessary to do it? How can you expect to have savings if you have men with the responsibility of those men talking like that? How can you expect not to have over-consumption when you have men like the Tánaiste talking in that way.

The results of these things do not all arise within a few months. They take time to accumulate. They are accumulating now, and the Government are just reaping the fruits of what they sowed. On that very point of the external assets and using them, let me quote Deputy Kyne from Volume 157, column 369, on the 15th of this month, in this debate:—

"I believe that this country in the past two years has been going through a time which was made for the use of external assets and that we did well to draw on them. We did well to finance our economy and keep our standard of living as high as we did keep it."

There is Deputy Kyne, Leader of the Labour Party even at the moment, and he cannot see the consequences that have had to be faced in this Budget, even though there seems to be a doubt there, from what we have heard from the principal and most responsible men opposite, that the measures taken are insufficient, that they may have to be worse. Yet he talks about keeping up our standard of living. Has he kept up the standard of living of the 400 men sacked in the motor works in Dublin last week? Is their standard of living improved from what has happened and from this piling on of the last straw on the motor industry? It is happening all over Dublin, not in big numbers like that but in various forms, coming along after what has been happening in the building trade for months back. They are going away, emigrating, from Dublin at the moment faster than they ever emigrated from the western seaboard.

In my own constituency in North East Dublin, on a ship that left Cobh four weeks ago, there were seven young families from one end of that district. If that is not emigration with a vengeance I do not know what it means. The Tánaiste, when he was out of office, away back in 1947 in particular, used to talk about them fleeing as they never fled since the days of the famine. They did not fly much faster than that in the days of the famine— seven families from a couple of parishes in the City of Dublin.

That is what is happening to-day, and the sooner we wake up to the fact that there is a desperately serious situation, the better for all of us. I think the best thing that could be done —and I am putting this in all seriousness if we want to get people to face the things that will have to be faced and remedy them—would be if somebody responsible on the other side would get up and announce that they were all wrong in 1952, that the statements made should not have been made, that the only way to deal with the situation was the way the Minister is now trying to deal with it. I want to give him every credit for trying to deal with it in the proper way. If they will do that, there would be a chance of restoring confidence amongst the people in this House in general. The people have reached a stage when I am beginning to fear very much that we will not be able to keep a democracy in this country. That is mainly due to the fact that they have lost their trust in politicians all over.

We have the Minister admitting the fact that we had no increase in production last year, and that there has been no real increase in the national income—that the reduction of £12,000,000 in it is due to increased wages and so forth. That is a different state of affairs to what the Taoiseach predicted last year when he spoke. I quote from column 1411, Volume 150, of the Official Report. He said:—

"We will eliminate extravagance. So far as possible we will cut public expenditure and by a suitable production policy, and not just mere talk about production, we will bring about a situation whereby the national income will be increased and the real wealth of the country will be increased."

To-day the Minister for Finance has to admit quite the opposite; he has to admit there is a standstill in both production and national income. All the rosy hopes the Taoiseach had this time last year have vanished. Must there not be something wrong and must there not be some mismanagement, if the Taoiseach said he believed he was going to achieve these things and 12 months later there is not the slightest sign of advance?

The fact of the matter is that this £9,500,000 extra in this Budget has to come out of exactly the same pool of money as the taxation of last year. It is that much extra on the people, and they have nothing extra from which to take it. On top of that they have additional heavy rates. I can tell you from my experience going round the business people that it is going to be a job to get it, and, if it is got, there are going to be a few of them, particularly those of the small shopkeeper class, in the bankruptcy court——

Mr. O'Leary

Gloom, gloom, gloom!

Mr. Colley

There are a number of these people I know of at the moment who are not by any means supporters of Fianna Fáil, but they are gravely disappointed men to-day.

Mr. O'Leary

That is what the Deputy says.

Mr. Colley

I have referred to Deputy McGilligan asking why should we save and why should the people not spend the savings they have. In 1954, we had the Deputies opposite going around the country telling the people how bad the state of things was at that time and the terrible state to which Fianna Fáil had brought the country. Yet the Minister himself has announced in his statement that there were £21,000,000 of savings in 1954 and £30,000,000 of savings in 1953. How glad he would be to-day if he could say there was the same in 1955. But he says there are none. In every way one looks at it, the position is as serious as it can be. We have had evidence of it in the last few months in the attempts to raise money for capital purposes. Surely this is a time in which it behoves all Deputies, no matter on what side they sit, to look at the situation seriously and try to find a way out.

Deputy Kyne was talking about subsidies, and it rather amuses me when I hear the Labour Party in particular talking about subsidies, because I recall that subsidies were introduced in 1947 and were used to effect a 13-point reduction in the cost of living. At that time, the Labour Party went all out against them in every way they could, because they had to be paid for. We heard so much about the workman's pint and the old age pensioner's ounce of tobacco and ounce of tea that the people were just swung over and did not realise what it meant in keeping down the cost of living. But when 1952 came and the then Minister, in order to meet a situation twice as bad as that facing the present Minister, had to slash some of the subsidies, because the subsidies to-day are no better than what were left in 1952——

Mr. O'Leary

The butter is better, anyway.

Mr. Colley

In total, they are no better than they were in 1952.

Mr. O'Leary

£2,000,000 for butter.

Mr. Colley

I will make you a present of the butter; see how long it will last. Anybody with an eye can see what is coming. In any event, the situation facing us then was twice as difficult as that facing the Minister to-day; and when it comes about, Deputies in the Labour Party in particular become tremendous advocates of subsidies— the very things they had gone all over the country working against a few years ago, and they have never given an explanation of their attitude. To-day, they are trying to make out that, because those subsidies were held in the Budget, they are in favour of it. But we know that they campaigned just as much about cigarettes and tobacco on the previous occasion, and now they are getting up all in favour of them. We heard about, as I have already mentioned, the old age pensioner's ounce of tobacco, and we heard from the Tánaiste about the man who smoked 20 cigarettes a day and what 4d. on the packet at that time meant to him as against what he was getting in a reduction in the cost of living. But to-day we are all in favour of it and there is no reduction in the cost of living under this Budget; in fact there is an increase coming in the cost of living, because none of these things can be borne without some prices going up.

Take the petrol, for instance. There is nothing delivered to any shop in any part of the country to-day that is not delivered by a petrol-driven vehicle. The increase has to be paid, the percentage has to be added to the cost, and the people have to pay. We will know all about it in another few months when it gets around. That is just the case of petrol. The idea of thinking that petrol to-day is a luxury is antiquated; it is one of the most important parts of our transport to-day, and yet we are taxing it nearly out of existence, just as we have apparently done with the motor trade.

Some of the import levies imposed by the Minister have practically ruined other trades. I know the idea behind them was not to do that; it was to stop the people importing these things, or make them pay for them. But it has practically ruined some trades in Dublin. I know of one case of a young man, a very good man in his line, who took a job in a big hire-purchase house in Dublin—a better job than he had—only about a week or ten days before the hire-purchase Order was made. When it came on, the takings fell so much that the man lasted a fortnight in the job and he is now walking the streets. He is only one of several in that job who have gone. The trouble with him is that he gave up a fairly decent job to get it. The hire-purchase Order just ruined the business in that firm and there are very few left in it.

We do not hear anything at all now from the opposite side of the House about prices or the cost of living. As a matter of fact, the Government have thrown in the sponge in regard to trying to do anything about them. The Tánaiste admitted it here bluntly, and said that a time of rising prices was not the time for him to interfere; that when they have settled down is his time. It is not much consolation to the housewife, finding the prices of things rising on her, to hear the Minister say that this is not the appropriate time. We were always being told by the people opposite that they had schemes for dealing with the cost of living that we could not think of. As Deputy Traynor, who spoke before me said, in spite of the brilliant young financial advisers the Coalition Government had in their Party, the results achieved by the geniuses who knew how to deal with the cost of living are apparently just the same; they are going in the wrong direction like "Wrong-Way" Corrigan.

During this debate, we were told by Deputy Rooney that Fianna Fáil kept down the standard of living. I wonder what this Budget is doing? It is definitely lowering the standard of living all round and one does not need to be a financier to see that. He also told us that it would not cause unemployment as the 1952 Budget did. The very next day after he had spoken, we had the report that 400 motor factory employees had been given notice. The Government is creating wholesale unemployment in the city, so that from the point of view of emigration it is almost as bad as the western seaboard. To give an example, in my own constituency, the register in the by-election a month or so ago was 4,000 less than it was in the previous year, although there is the large St. Anne's estate building there and some hundreds of houses have been occupied during the last year. There have been no big clearances to other areas in the constituency. Yet there is a reduction of 4,000 in the number on the register. Explain that, if you can, in any other way than by emigration.

As I said at the outset, the situation is the natural sequence of what the people were told in 1954 about the 1952 Budget. They were led to believe that they did not have to work for prosperity, that they could vote themselves into prosperity. I think that was the expression the Minister himself used in his statement on the Vote on Account, that we could not vote ourselves into prosperity, but that is quite the opposite of what the people were told at the 1954 election. They were told they could vote themselves into prosperity and they were led to believe that they could find money for anything.

Why would we not be facing our present difficulties when we recall the Minister for Agriculture boasting that he spent £5,000,000 in one afternoon on wheat? When we got the full figures, we found that 77,000,000 dollars of 120,000,000 dollars that were borrowed altogether under the American loan were spent on wheat and maize, things we could have produced or found substitutes for ourselves and given our people the benefit of the money. It would be a good thing for the country if the members opposite would learn their lesson from the line they took in 1948, and it would be better still if they adopted the remedy. Furthermore, if those responsible would frankly admit their failure we could get down to a normal process of conducting business in this House and not have the attempt made to fool the people as the attempt was made successfully in 1954 and for which they are now paying.

Mr. Hughes

We have listened to the criticisms of this Budget by the Opposition for quite a time, but what seems very strange to me is that although we were supplied with a Book of Estimates by the Minister giving full details of the expenditure for the coming year, no Opposition Deputy has thought it worth his while to criticise any of this expenditure. If they were honest and sincere in their remarks, they would at least point to some expenditure that they believed should not be there. Therefore, it seems to me that they must approve of this taxation. Furthermore, the additional taxation has been obtained principally by an increase in the duty on tobacco and cigarettes and on petrol; but there again, there has been no alternative suggestion for raising the necessary revenue. If the Opposition were sincere in this debate, they would point to some other method of taxation.

What is accepted by all sides of the House is that if we are to get out of our difficulties, we must have increased agricultural production. We have in recent years had an increase in agricultural production, but our biggest problem is that our increased agricultural production will not keep pace with the reduction in the prices we will get. That is an outside factor, the effect of prices in the world markets where we must compete. During the war years and after the war there was a scarcity of agricultural commodities in the world market and we benefited very considerably from that, and we got, if you like, artificial prices for agricultural produce. As a result of that, we got an increased standard of living for our people.

Our position to-day is that our agricultural prices have dropped, but the standard of living which we enjoyed down the years because of those higher prices has remained and the people are trying to hang on to that standard. Until every Deputy realises the seriousness of that situation and gives up trying to play politics with agricultural policy, no progress will be made. No matter how the Minister for Agriculture faces the problem, he is up against that all the time.

We had an example in this House the other evening when Deputy Corry came in here and stated that, as a result of the increase in wages of the agricultural workers, the Beet Growers' Association had made application to the Sugar Company for an increase in the price of beet. He clearly stated that the general-manager of the company had told him that there was a demand to the Government for an increase in the price of sugar.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Corry was informed that that was a matter for the Estimate.

Mr. Hughes

That was clearly denied by the general-manager of the company the next day. If a Deputy is prepared to come in here and play around with politics to that extent, you can realise the difficulties of the Minister for Agriculture. I suggest to the Minister for Finance and to the Minister for Agriculture that they should try, by some system, to take agricultural policy altogether away from this House. One method would be for the Minister to have some kind of advisory body.

There are different organisations in this country, such as the Young Farmers' Clubs and the National Farmers' Association, which are composed of men who are absolutely sincere about the development of agriculture. If agricultural policy could be made the responsibility of those people, it would then be removed from this House. Until that happens, I am afraid we will not get the increase in agricultural production that we want. At least 75 per cent. of the agricultural land in this country is under-producing. Without any great effort, production from that land could be increased greatly but, if we are to continue to have agriculture the plaything of this House, it will be difficult to get the increase necessary to keep pace with world developments.

Mr. Moher

I have spent some considerable time in this House listening to the speeches from the opposite side and I am almost convinced that taxation now is a very pleasant affair, particularly after all the speeches made from the opposite side that the impositions of the Minister do not hurt. When I was looking for a comparison, I thought of the Minister as being very much like the quack dentist at the fair 50 years ago and his assistants in the crowd shouting that it would not hurt. Then, when the first patient got into the chair, there was always a drummer, a fellow who beat a drum loudly and furiously so as to drown the screams of the patient. I think that has been very much the position of the Deputies behind the Minister in the speeches they made.

Of course we all agree, and I agree with Deputy Hughes, and any other Deputy, who said it in this House, that the problem of the Minister for Finance is a problem of agricultural production. It is only now, I think, that it has been brought forcibly home to the non-agricultural sections of the community that agriculture is such an important factor in maintaining their standards of living. I believe that members of the non-agricultural community have been living in a fool's paradise. Many of them have failed to realise that all the nice things they have enjoyed have, in the main, been paid for by the work of the farmer and by the exportable produce from the land. When the demand for those goods exceeded the capacity of our farmers to produce that exportable surplus with which to pay for our imports, then the Minister for Finance had a serious balance of payments problem.

One of the questions I pose in this House is whether we are really serious and if the Minister for Finance now thinks that he will get, next year, that agricultural output which, with increased taxation, will solve his problems. I do not say this for the reasons suggested by some Deputies opposite, that I would like to see a problem created for the Government, but I believe honestly that he is not going to get it. Deputy Hughes is right when he states that any increase in production will be offset by falling prices. Any increase which we might expect from agriculture is bound to be offset by a drop in prices, and, in the ultimate, the monetary return for our exportable surplus, even assuming that the physical volume is the same, could be substantially less.

Let us get down to making an examination of how we treat the farmer and of how we treat the non-agricultural sections of the community. One of the things we know quite well is that practically every organisation in this country is a wages organisation. At one time, I had little sympathy with prices organisations, but we are now in the position that it is no use for us to keep on saying to the agricultural community that they must produce more. There must be a price inducement. If we give a price inducement, we will get a corresponding increase in production. The farmers are cynical. We always look to them as the people with the key to our problem, but yet we treat them differently from other sections of the community.

One of the first actions taken by the Government when it went into office was to implement the Civil Service Arbitration findings. We know that civil servants are not producers. If we multiply our civil servants by ten, they would not solve our balance of payments problem, or produce anything for us that would be a help in doing so. There has been a mad scramble by every section of the community, other than the agricultural section, to get the ceiling in wages. That scramble has gone on and on. One of things I often ask myself is—must it not all end, must we not call a halt some day? If we do not, it will lead to disaster for us all.

That is why the farmers are so cynical. They have got no price incentive. They are not different from any other section of the community. As a matter of fact, one of the first actions of the Minister for Agriculture, one of his first contributions, was substantially to reduce the price of wheat and thereby to diminish the income of one particular section—the wheat growers. The stage was set. The Minister went out to strike at that section and reduce their income substantially. No wonder the farmers are cynical. I say in this House, as a Deputy representing a constituency composed mostly of small farmers, that there is no use in anyone telling me that you have not one code where the agricultural section is concerned and a different code for the non-agricultural section.

You cannot have two different codes. One of the things I would advise the Government to do is to get down seriously to treating the agricultural sections and the non-agricultural sections on the same basis. Many increases have been given to the non-agricultural sections despite the fact that nobody can argue that the Minister's main hope for a solution of the present serious economic problem does not lie with the agricultural section. Neither will anybody argue that many of the increases given to the non-agricultural sections have not seriously impacted themselves on the farmers' cost of production.

That is something that cannot be denied. Looking at the thing objectively and seeing all the sections as I see them, I would say the Minister is foolish if he thinks that he can, in present circumstances, expect a substantial increase in our agricultural output if, as Deputy Hughes says, such increase will be offset by a drop in prices. Let us not run away from it. When introducing his Estimate, the Minister for Agriculture made a guess that the physical volume of our output had increased by 24 per cent. He got that figure, of course, by selecting a base year. You can always get an increase by selecting the proper base year——

Mr. Donegan

The last year of Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Moher

The last year of Fianna Fáil. I knew it would come, but if it was the last year of Fianna Fáil, it was also the worst weather year we got in a century. Will anyone opposite deny that?

Mr. O'Leary

It is getting more like the Northern Ireland Budget now.

Mr. Moher

One thing this Budget has done is that it has finished all the talk about taxation and prices from the opposite side of the House. For years, since 1948, no national issue was discussed, but everything was taxes and prices. Now I can quote all that they said. They said we were the Tory Party because we said: "Stop, you can have all these things if you provide the wherewithal to pay for them." And even such a liberal, or socialist, as Deputy Anthony Barry threw the taunt to-day that we were the Tory Party. Again they said we were a Party of old men in a penitential mood. That was another one. They said we were the Party that doled out the hair-shirts and the calico shifts. I remember another Deputy going so far as to say we were political sadists.

Was there any limit to the superlatives used to describe us when we imposed those taxes in the 1952 Budget? Now, the whole thing has been completely neutralised because every tax we imposed is still there and confirmed by all these people who castigated us so severely at one time. In addition, we have piled on other taxes and the thing has nearly reached the stage where we have gone tax mad, because I was amazed at hearing Deputies on my own side of the House saying that we had not gone far enough as too few bear the major burden and too many escape. I have always maintained that you started all this over there. You were the people, and the problem which you now have to solve is one of your own making. Remember the slogan of "Fine Gael for better times," and of course the "better times" as far as Seán Citizen was concerned could only mean bigger and brighter television sets and all the accessories and attributes of easy living.

What has happened now? After you had started this mad spending spree, after you had tossed in the booze barrel, you are now off trying, to stop——

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Do not mind him.

Mr. Moher

I will conclude by saying that the Minister's Budget is very much like Pandora's box. It is filled with all good things and all bad, and what happened when Epimetheus probed into the thing, has happened to the back-benchers of the Coalition; everything escaped but hope, the good things back to heaven and the evil things to infest and plague the earth.

Captain Giles

The debate on the Budget, which has proceeded over the past few days, is coming to a close. I have listened to most of the speeches that have been made and there seemed to me to be a ray of hope in the fact that there were some honest straightforward speeches from all Parties in the House. That is something new, something that did not obtain for many years, because of political angles. In this debate there were speakers from all Parties who showed themselves independent in their sound, honest approach to the position.

The Minister had two roads open to him in framing the Budget. He could have approached the Budget from the human aspect or he could have approached it from the business aspect. He faced the problem from the human aspect and in doing so helped the vast majority of the people. The Budget displays the vast difference between the 1952 approach and the present approach. The Budget of 1952 fleeced the poor and those who were least able to withstand the harsh treatment they got at that time. In the present Budget the smaller men were cushioned against the onslaught and where taxes were imposed they were imposed on commodities which could not be regarded as necessaries of life. A man who does not want to smoke, use petrol, drink minerals, go to dance-halls or bet need not do so and escapes taxation. A man who wants to do these things must pay the taxes.

The financial situation requires attention and is receiving attention. The attention which the Minister is giving it will right matters. We are going in the right direction. The country is not in pawn. I do not want to hear doleful Jimmies from any side whining about the position of the country. The country has been in a bad position before this but always righted itself because there were sound men in the country who faced any situation that arose and I am satisfied that there are such men now. There is plenty of money in this country but it must be channelled into national development. If the money that is squandered on cinemas and dance-halls were channelled to production the face of this country could be changed in a very short time.

There are major problems that must be tackled in a big way. They have been with us for the last 30 years and we have been only pin-pricking them. The first problem is emigration. For 30 years that has been the cause of almost all our troubles. Another problem is the question of land resettlement. Land resettlement, if tackled in a big national way, would enable farmers to pull their weight, but the way in which that problem has been dealt with has produced as much harm as good. As fast as the problem is being dealt with at one end it is being undone at the other end. There should be a definite plan of land resettlement and, if there is, many of our problems will be solved.

We have experience of how the banking system has operated in this country for the last 30 years. We know that something is wrong. The State must take control of the issue of credit or must make some effort to control the private financiers who have in the hollow of their hand the making or breaking of the State. It is the duty of the State to see that the wealth of this country is spent in this country and that it is not allowed to be used to build up big estates and financial resources in other countries. This House must get some means of controlling the money system of the country in the interests of our people.

I have seen many changes of Government. If we continue as we are going for the next 30 years we will find that the country will be in the same position as it was 30 years ago, because we are too cowardly to face up to the responsibility thrust upon us of creating a banking system suited to the needs of the people. That is why I should like to see a national Government because it will take the resources of all our people combined to bring that about. The only black mark I see on the institutions of this State over the last 30 years is that we did not face up to that responsibility and we are paying for it to-day. Over the years, millions of pounds have been spent abroad that could have been spent here. If that money had been spent here, we could have a happy, contented, peace-loving people, solving their own problems in their own way with their own finance.

There is a big problem as far as insurance is concerned. There is £12,000,000 to £20,000,000 being channelled out of this country through big combines. There is no reason why we should not control the insurance business and this House should see that that control is exercised. There is no reason why the insurance of this country could not be done by this country. I would ask that the State and this House should do their duty in that regard because £12,000,000 to £20,000,000 is being siphoned away every year that could be used for national development. We never faced up to it. I believe we will have to face up to it.

The whole point about this Budget boils down to the fact that, unless agriculture is able to play its full part, we shall not be able to solve the problem that confronts us. I am quite satisfied that we have much to do to put agriculture on its feet. A vast amount of work must be done, but we have a Minister for Agriculture who has laid the ground work, but nothing more. A vast number of things require to be done. The Minister for Agriculture has done a good deal about land reclamation, about the cattle trade agreement, about barley prices, and so forth. Much, however, remains to be done. To my mind, it is necessary to organise agriculture on a vocational basis or on a business basis. At the present time, it is topsy-turvy. We have no channel from the farmer to his markets and we have not a proper co-operative effort. If, for the next five years, the Minister would concentrate on the co-operative effort in relation to agricultural production, so that there would be a channel from the farmer's field to the markets in the towns and cities and to the ports —so that there would be fewer middlemen and tangling and rings, and so forth—it would be a great step forward. In every parish, we should have a live co-operative organisation of farmers and workers working in the interests of all concerned. I am quite satisfied that, if that were done, a vast amount of good would be done in a short time.

Taxation in this country is too high and I do not care whether it is this Government or the other Government that is in office when I make that statement. Taxation is going too high and we must do something about it. So long as we carry on as we are, trying to aim at a welfare State, we certainly will not stop increased taxation year by year. Something will have to be done about this whole matter. If we cannot produce the means to have a welfare State, we must stop all this. The agricultural community has far too big a load to carry. They are carrying a vast number of people on their backs and they should not be asked to continue to do so indefinitely. They get very little thanks for it. It is always "the so-and-so ould farmer"; hit him every time.

There have been higher wages over the past number of years. I am glad we have higher wages because they were very low. They have done one thing: they have displaced a vast amount of agricultural workers. In the Midlands, there was not a man of 50 acres who was not able to keep a man or two 12 or 15 years ago. At the present time, not one farmer of that acreage has even one man. I cannot blame them because a man of that acreage cannot pay the wages. Therefore, he takes the cheapest way he can of making a living, that is, he buys grass seed and puts in grass. That is mostly what has happened. We are all being forced into grass and cattle ranching, whether we be big or small. That is being forced on us whether we like it or not.

We should have made an effort years ago about the dole. We have been paying it for the past 20 or 25 years. We have been paying men to stand in idleness, while at the same time, farmers across the field were in crying need of labour. Could we not have some institution or organisation that would connect the man on the dole to the farmer next door, in such a way that the farmer would pay perhaps 50/- a week to that man and the State the rest? In that way, the man could start work again the day after being knocked-off in his previous job and he would be of productive value to the nation. No man, good or bad, should be paid to stand idle. This State cannot afford that.

For many years, State labour has ousted private enterprise in this country. If we continue along those lines, we shall have nothing in this country except a fair amount of large comfortable farmers and the State employing, maybe, 90 per cent. of our agricultural workers and men. That is bad. I want to see such an organisation of our people as will give us balanced farming. I want to see the worker and the farmer working side by side and drawing a living from the same holding. If we do not aim at that, we can throw our hats at the problem, because we shall make this State a servile State and nothing else. As things have been for the past 25 years, we are facing in no other direction. Some of the steps we would take would be unpopular, but the unpopular thing is not always the worst and, in the end, it wins, and you get the thanks of the whole community afterwards.

The agricultural community must get more attention. There is no use in talking about agriculture here. Agriculture is everything. Do something bigger about agriculture. Leave us in the position that we can employ men on the land. I am quite satisfied that you will not increase agricultural prosperity by increasing prices, but by giving the farmer an incentive to go ahead and work hard, so that, at the end of the year, he will have something for it. He is sensible. He knows the ups and downs of markets, and, whether he likes it or not, he knows that the whole agricultural industry in this country is based on the nearest market, that is, the British market. He knows that whether cattle, sheep or pig prices are up or down, it all depends on the prices obtaining across the water. The farmer knows that as well as we do.

We are failing in the smaller things. The farmers will solve their cattle, sheep and pig position, if they are allowed to do so. They are getting a lead from the present Minister. Around the big towns in this country, almost all our small farmers could be market gardeners. They could supply big centres such as Naas, Navan, Mullingar, and so forth. I hope the Minister will ban tin openers and the sealed tin, because, all over the country, they are draining away the lifeblood of the farmers. If the farmers were properly organised in a co-operative effort to supply the big towns with the necessaries of life, it would be better for all concerned. They can produce almost everything the householder required—potatoes, cabbage, cauliflowers, meat, and so forth. The trouble is that there is no such thing as co-operative effort where the farmers are concerned. There is no system—no anything. If we do not get down to bedrock and cut out a lot of the nonsense, we will get nowhere.

There must be less of all this talking about what was said in 1952 and what was said in 1932 and what was said last year. There must be less of all this reading out of cuttings. What was said in 1952 was read out about 50 times. Who the hell cares what anybody said years ago? Can nobody change his mind in this country? What I said 25 years ago might, in my opinion, now be bunkum and I might say a different thing to-day and be honest about it. I should like to cut out half the cuttings and the quotations about what was said so many years ago. Many a man speaks here and five minutes afterwards he shakes his head and asks: "Did I say that?" It is not fair to take excerpts from speeches out of their context. It is all right for three or four front-benchers on either side of the House to take these cuttings and quote from them, but it is going a bit too far when the "mohawks" from the back benches produce cuttings and quote from them. They want to be as big as the front-benchers. I suppose they have the ambition to be there some day. I should prefer them to speak their minds as countrymen should.

I am satisfied from what I have heard from all sides of the House in the course of this debate that there is a ray of hope. I belong to a different Party from the Fianna Fáil Party. Our leaders leave us alone. I am not ashamed to say what I want to say and nobody will come to me afterwards and give me a crack on the knuckles. Dare any man of the Fianna Fáil Party do that?

An Ceann Comhairle

The information conveyed to me is that the Minister is to conclude at 9 o'clock.

Mr. Sweetman

I do not mind allowing the Deputy a few minutes more to conclude, if he wishes.

An Ceann Comhairle

Suppose somebody asks to intervene later? Where am I then?

Mr. Sweetman

I am in your hands.

An Ceann Comhairle

I want to carry out the agreement, if the House is agreeable to do so.

Captain Giles

Having made these remarks, I shall sit down and let the Minister in.

Mr. Sweetman

This debate on the Budget proposals which I introduced on the 8th May has been, perhaps, particularly noticeable for one thing. There has been from the Opposition Benches singularly little criticism of the Budget proposals as a whole. There has been even less criticism of the individual provisions of the Budget. Frankly, I think that situation has arisen because the Opposition realise that the Budget has been accepted by the people in the country as a realistic approach to our problems at the present time—a realistic approach by the Government, giving, in the circumstances of fixing the financial pattern for the current year, the leadership which it is the duty of a Government to give and that has been given in our economic sphere by the Government in these provisions.

Before I deal with the general outline of the Budget and general matters in relation to it arising from this debate, I should like, first, to deal with one or two individual items that were raised. The theme in which I set the pattern of my financial proposals was that in the circumstances in which the gap between revenue and expenditure had to be bridged, there were two things that I was going particularly to remember. First of all, as I said in my opening speech, in our circumstances and in our situation this year, we certainly could not afford under any circumstances to incur borrowing for current services, and, secondly, in regard to the taxation which it was necessary to impose, I would take that taxation particularly on imports and on forms of less essential spending. The whole theme running through the financial proposals is along those lines. It was because that was the basis underlying my proposals that the individual provisions were put before the House.

As regards those individual provisions, there was, as I have said already, very little criticism. Deputy Lemass raised certain criticism in respect of a couple of items, but I must confess that he rather showed, to my mind, at any rate, and to the mind of any thinking person, the shallowness of his criticism, when, in relation to petrol and motor taxation, he proceeded to give to the House an impression that he said had been created throughout the country by members of a deputation which he alleged came to see me from the Motor Traders' Association. The shallowness of the case made by Deputy Lemass in that connection can easily be seen from the fact that I saw no such deputation at all and that the impressions which Deputy Lemass purported to give to the House of what I had indicated to those people existed purely in his own mind and nowhere else.

I think it would have been better had the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition, first of all, made certain of his facts before he came here to give public expression to them, and, even if his facts had been mistaken, I would have accepted his argument as being more sincere, if, when I corrected the erroneous statement he had made in an effort to put me into a situation which never existed, he had been more forthcoming in his withdrawal.

In relation to the position arising in respect of the motor trade, perhaps it might be as well if I made a short reference to some of the matters noticed in the papers and otherwise about the assembly industry at the present time. It is, of course, a fact that, in so far as imports of the parts of motor-cars for assembly are concerned, there has been a spectacular rise over the past years—a rise from £5.6 million worth in 1949 to £10.8 million worth in 1954 and £12.4 million-worth in 1955.

That means, in effect, that the value of imports of these parts for assembly purposes in 1955 was more than double that of 1949 and almost double that of 1950. The real difficulty that arises in respect of the motor assembly trade does not arise by reason of any tax on petrol nor by reason of any special import levy—it is freely stated by certain assemblers that they have pre-levy cars available for sale. The real problem has arisen because of the virtual collapse of the second-hand car export market.

The figures in relation to that trade are significant. It was, as I think everybody in the motor trade knows, a passing phase—a phase that was bound to go at some time or another—but it has meant that, in the first four months of this year, the number of second-hand cars exported was 916 compared with 3,271 in the similar period in 1955. The drop of approximately 2,400 second-hand cars exported undoubtedly has had its effect on the number of new cars that would be required.

It was precisely because we realised in March, when we introduced the special imports levy, that there was this drop in second-hand exports that we did not fix in respect of motor-cars the same rate of special import levy as was introduced in respect of other articles. It was apparent that there was that special consideration given to this industry when I say that the special import levy for motor-cars was at a flat 15 per cent., whereas, in respect of the overwhelming majority of the remaining items that were taken, the levy was 37½ per cent., with a reduction of 12½ per cent. under the preferential arrangements. In other words, there was a margin taken in favour of the motor trade of, if you take the higher rate, 22½ per cent. and, if you take the lower rate, of 10 per cent. That margin is indeed substantial.

I should also point out that the special import levy does not in any way affect commercial vehicles. It was solely intended to reduce consumption in the private sphere. I should add, at the same time, that it must necessarily eventuate that the larger number of second-hand cars that will be on the roads, that will be in use as a result of the diminution in the export market, will mean that there will be greater employment in the repair and overhaul of these second-hand cars.

I have seen, too, in relation to the petrol taxation in the Budget some comment by certain people that I had made an exception in favour of the farmers, both in respect of T.V.O. and in respect of petrol. I did that, not because those concerned were farmers, but because they were people engaged in production, and because it is essential that we should do what we can to assist production, particularly agricultural production. On that, I shall have something more to say later on.

Deputy Lemass referred to the dance tax. I saw it referred to in one newspaper as the "Rock'n Roll" Budget. I am not an expert in that form of amusement, or, shall we say, in that form of exercise; but I think perhaps one of the difficulties that Deputy Lemass had was that the circumstances of the remission of this tax in 1952 rocked Fianna Fáil then and the fact that we thought fit in this Budget to rectify what they did in 1952 completely rolled them off their feet.

Mr. MacEntee

Is that the Minister's excuse for not reducing taxation?

Mr. Sweetman

I am not going to be drawn at this stage; at a later stage, by all means, if the Deputy likes. There is no doubt whatever that the different circumstances as regards the administration or the collection of that tax, which will operate now, will make it a tax quite economical of collection. The circumstances in which rural dances are now exempt from this duty mean that a great deal of the travelling that had to be done in former years will be eliminated. The circumstances under which dances held more than three miles from a town of more than 1,000 population are now exempt—or, in certain circumstances, between 1,000 and 2,000 will be liable at a reduced rate—will mean that there will be much less travelling necessary by the revenue authorities and that, will, in consequence, render this tax quite easy of collection. I should also like to make it quite clear again here, as I did earlier during the course of the debate, that the exemption that exists for charities under the entertainments duty applies also in respect of this dance tax.

Deputies will also remember that, when I was introducing these proposals, I referred to the moneys that I deemed it necessary to collect from betting. Some reference was made during the course of the debate to the moneys I was proposing to collect in this way from bets made on the racecourse. I indicated in my original proposals that I intended to collect a stamp duty of 5 per cent. of the aggregate amount of sums staked on the tote and a stamp duty of 2½ per cent. of the aggregate of bets made with bookmakers on the racecourses. I stated that such impositions would be effective as from 1st July next.

In making these proposals, I was fully alive to the excellent work that is being done by the Racing Board. Indeed, it would be rather hard for a Deputy from Kildare not to be alive to the excellence of that work. Racing is without question, as has been said frequently, the shop window of the bloodstock industry, and it is essential that racing should be in a thriving condition in order that our bloodstock would have adequate opportunities of being publicised, so rendering easy their sale at a later stage, particularly their sale for export.

The export of bloodstock is very valuable to the country and I would not—indeed, I do not think anybody in this House would—contemplate any measures that might deter or prevent that industry being developed to the full. Without the help, and I freely acknowledge this, that is being given through the Racing Board by way of contributions to stake money, it would not have been possible for owners to carry the heavy expenses of maintaining horses in training with the valuable employment that is given thereby, both directly and through the bloodstock industry as a whole. Without the facilities that the Racing Board made available for the carriage of horses to race meetings, there would not have been an adequate number of runners at these meetings and, without runners, public support would not be there.

The Racing Board, too, has done some valuable work as regards the propaganda abroad in relation to Irish bloodstock through the publications which they assist. I regard the assistance that has been given under these three headings as being of particular importance towards the development, particularly in relation to the export side, of the industry.

I did not feel, when introducing my Budget proposals, and I do not feel now, that those proposals, whether operating through the levy on bets made with the bookmakers on the racecourse or through the tote, would prevent the board carrying out this useful work. I announced then that these impositions were to be in addition to the levies required by the board for such essential purposes. In fact the actual words I used were:—

"If the Racing Board so desire they will be free to meet their liability to stamp duty by increasing their current levy in the case of course bets and will be authorised to retain a larger share of sums staked by means of totes."

After I had introduced my Budget proposals, a deputation came to see me from the Racing Board, a board which is, of course, Government appointed. I indicated to them that the amount which I had proposed to collect in this way from the racing public—and I want to make it perfectly clear that it was from the racing public in so far as bets were laid at racecourses and not from the bloodstock industry—was £140,000. The deputation from the board which came to see me, giving the views of the board, indicated to me that they would prefer a flat imposition of this sum. They have assured me that they are satisfied that such sum can be collected this year without preventing them carrying on any of their essential services, some of which I have already indicated.

I might also, perhaps, remind the House that, in their report for 1954-1955, the board stated that most of the essential schemes for reconditioning and improving racecourse tracks and buildings have now been undertaken. As these capital works have, therefore, been concluded, there is not the same strain on their resources as there would have been in earlier years. I am in discussion with the board about the administrative details for the coltions of this amount, and I should, therefore, inform the House that there may be some slight variation in such administrative detail in the Finance Bill. I must, however, stress that there is no alteration whatsoever in the amount that I was proposing to collect from this source of revenue, and that any administrative variations, therefore, that may be made will not in any way affect the balance of my Budget.

I would also, as I say, wish to stress that these provisions will not in any way affect the continuance of the assistance in such essential ways that has been given for the bloodstock industry as a whole.

When Deputy MacEntee opened the debate on this General Resolution, on the morning following the introduction of the Budget, he made two particular comments in his speech. He was not very critical of the proposals except in those comments—indeed he could not be for the reasons I have already indicated. But he did make reference to the proposals that I have indicated in relation to the Civil Service. I believe that it is essential that we should try and modernise the administrative machine. I believe that, unless there is such modernisation in any country or in any business, as years go by the machine itself is bound to become rather stagnant. Now, certain modernisation has been already carried out, but it must be accelerated now, and in that acceleration I feel that it is desirable that we would co-ordinate first the work of those people, the heads of the Departments, who have to administer the machine themselves; and secondly, that we would utilise, in so far as required, the ordinary business consultant who might be used in outside business.

Deputy Lemass suggested that in the proposals that are before the House there was an increase of some 300 in the number of Civil Servants. There have been some increases. Extra engineers have been recruited to get on with drainage work. The outside forestry staff has been strengthened. There has been a reorganisation of the veterinary services to meet the evergrowing developments in that sphere. The extension of the parish plan has necessitated the recruitment of extra officers. Staff increases for those purposes require no apology, and I certainly will make none. But while I have been increasing outside staff, particularly for that sort of work that can assist production, I am gratified to be able to say that side by side with that I have been cutting down on what I might term pure administrative staff, and that if I was to take Deputy Lemass's figure of 300 as the increase in the respect to which I have referred on the type of administration that would assist production, and I was to set it off against the heads of staff that have been decreased elsewhere in the Civil Service, the net result would be a reduction of 170 in the current year. Four hundred and seventy non-productive staff taken out, 300 productive staff put in—I do not think that is a bad approach.

I might also add this, perhaps—and let me say that in respect of the current year the figures I have are entirely provisional, but I think they will prove to be pretty accurate—on the 1st January, 1956, there were fewer Civil Servants than either on the 1st January, 1953, or the 1st January, 1954, when my predecessor was in the chair that I now occupy.

I realise very fully, as my predecessor stated, the difficulties there are in relation to bringing down the numbers of the Civil Service, the number of staff that are employed, but I think the method I have suggested is a practical one that will ensure co-operation throughout the Service and will mean in addition that we will be able to make a unified drive on this problem.

Deputy MacEntee also said when he was speaking in introducing his Budget of 1953, I think he said with the full approval of the then Taoiseach, at column 1212, Volume 138 on 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..."

Deputy MacEntee quoted that phrase the other day. He then went on to say that that was his policy, not merely in relation to the Budget of 1953, but also in relation to the Budget of 1954. I find that rather difficult to understand because, if Deputies will compare the very figure of £101,000,000 he suggested for the financial year 1953-54 with the figure that he himself brought to this House in the beginning of the financial year 1954-55 when he, as the representative of the then Government produced financial proposals, they will find a very, very different picture.

I could understand Deputy MacEntee's difficulty in being able to hold to the line that he had taken in 1953, and I could understand the difficulties of his Government in being able to keep to the figure that they had set out. But I certainly cannot understand how they can come into the House now and say categorically, one after the other, that they set themselves that limit in 1953 and were determined not to go beyond it, and that, if they were now here, they would not have gone beyond it. Why do I say I cannot understand that? Because the evidence is clear here in the financial proposals that were introduced by Deputy MacEntee in 1954. The Budget of 1954, brought in by Deputy MacEntee, showed on its face not an expenditure of £101,000,000, to which he pinned his faith in 1953 and again the other day, but an expenditure of £105,600,000. In other words, in that year, after all his protestations and all the protestations of his Government in the preceding year, they had belied themselves to the tune of £4,500,000.

Is it any wonder, then, that I do not accept as being sincere the criticism of the Opposition when they suggest that, if they had the opportunity, they would have brought expenditure within that magical figure of £101,000,000? And even when I take that figure of £105.6 million, to which Deputy MacEntee pinned his faith in 1954, notwithstanding what he had said the previous year, when I take that figure and analyse it what do I find? I find that he only arrived at that figure, first, by deducting £900,000 for borrowing for defensive purposes, and I am not going to bring down my figures by borrowing of that sort this year; and I find, secondly, that he did it by a system of transferring £400,000 out of the current part of the Book of Estimates into the Road Fund and then making up the Road Fund through the National Development Fund, again a method of borrowing £400,000 which I am not going to take up this year. I beg Deputy MacEntee's pardon. I mentioned a figure of £900,000 for borrowing for defensive purposes; it was £600,000. On top of that, there was £400,000 for borrowing through the National Development Fund, making £1,000,000 from those two sources and then another £1,000,000 from C.I.E., all of which should, of course, not have been deducted from expenditure and should have been more properly set out on the other side. It seems, therefore, that the fact is, after the Fianna Fáil Party were prepared to die in the last ditch for £101,000,000, they came back after 12 months and produced £5,000,000 to £6,000,000 more. Is it any wonder then that I find it quite impossible to accept their sincerity in that respect in their criticism of the proposals that I have brought into the House?

There have been suggestions by and large from time to time that it is desirable forthwith to slash and to cut existing expenditure. As the Taoiseach said, before I brought in the Volume of Estimates some two and a half months ago, those Estimates were pruned as far as they could be pruned, cutting out, wherever we could see it, waste or extravagance but at the same time making sure that essential services would be carried on. Deputy Childers—an ex-Minister, mark you— when speaking on behalf of the Opposition, said at the bottom of column 510 on the 16th May:—

"However, I think myself the present Minister had reached a point where he could have announced a Budget in which he cut everything except old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions and children's allowances, cut everything of a non-productive character little by little..."

I am going to give some of the breakdown of the services and the funds that are provided for those services, and I would have liked the Opposition to indicate, in relation to that speech by Deputy Childers, if many of the things which are included in this year's provisions should have been drastically reduced as the Deputy suggested.

The total expenditure this year is £113,000,000. There is a sum of £20,000,000 for the service of debt. That is not mentioned by Deputy Childers. Therefore, I presume that Deputy Childers would wish that cut; but I am equally sure that my predecessor, Deputy MacEntee, would take an entirely different line, and a proper line, that we must honour our obligations in that respect. Of course, Deputies over there do not always speak with the one voice——

Mr. Dillon

There is £7,000,000 provided for agriculture, fisheries and land division. Do the Deputies on the other side of the House consider that that amount should be reduced? Do they consider that the £3,000,000 that is being provided for education, other than teachers' remuneration, should be reduced? I have already dealt with the Civil Service. Certain Deputies made reference also to other similar and analogous services, one outside the House, but the fact is that the remuneration of the teachers requires £10,000,000, the remuneration of the Gardaí requires £3,500,000, that of the Army £5,000,000 and of the Civil Service £16,000,000.

I hope to be able, as I have said, by means of taking advantage of those who retire and those who die while serving in the Civil Service, and not filling vacancies to the same extent as heretofore, gradually to reduce the number in the service to some degree without sacking anybody or making anybody lose his job in that way. But as long as they are there they must be paid a fair wage. I certainly do not think anybody on this side of the House would suggest that it was right or proper that we would not pay those classes of public servants a fair wage for their services.

Superannuation requires £5,000,000. Does anybody suggest that it would be right or just to reduce the pensions that are paid to people when they retire after years of service for the State? I do not think it could be rightly suggested. On the contrary, as the House is aware I am making a small contribution in the Budget this year to enable these people to meet to some extent the increase that there has been in the cost of living since pensions were revised in 1950.

There are various miscellaneous services amounting to £8,500,000, which include things like employment schemes, grants to An Foras Tionscal, the Stationery Office, Córas Trachtála, and so on. Those are services that have already been pruned, but it would be desirable, when people talk of mere global cutting of our expenditure, that they would also at the same time indicate where that cut was to come from.

Mr. MacEntee

Where is Deputy McGilligan? He has not been seen.

General Mulcahy

Where are the rest of the Fianna Fáil Party? One, two, three, four, five.

Mr. Sweetman

Five little boys of the Fianna Fáil Party, including one who, we remember, made a journey in 1951, when he was elected by the people to sit on that side of the House, and decided to move over.

Mr. MacEntee

They have something better to do than listen to this apologia for not fulfilling your promises.

Mr. Sweetman

Deputy MacEntee would be a little bit wiser not to draw attention to the fact that he came in the other day and told us that his limit was £101,000,000, not suspecting, of course, that the proof that he was talking nonsense was there in the records in his own subsequent year's Budget.

Mr. Morrissey

That statement appeared in the Irish Press but the correction will not appear in it.

[Interruptions.]

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister should be allowed to make his statement without interruption.

Mr. Sweetman

These interruptions may be disorderly but they are quite helpful. Deputy de Valera, when he was speaking here at columns 351 and 352, Volume 157, of the Official Debates of the 15th May, 1956, said he appreciated the difficulties of the Minister for Finance at Budget time but that, of course, a wise Minister over the year before did not allow a problem to arise. I was rather tempted, after what he said, to look back on the situation as it affected the Fianna Fáil Government before 1952. Everything that Deputy de Valera said in relation to the problem which I had to face was completely apposite in respect of his handling of his Government's problem in that year. In so far as the extent of the gap was concerned he said that they were faced with a problem of twice the magnitude. Why? Because they had created it for themselves.

Mr. MacEntee

That is untrue.

Mr. Sweetman

If Deputy MacEntee would wish to say it is untrue when I have finished giving the figures I intend to give I will listen to him. Let him wait for the figures. In 1951-52 expenditure was £87.9 million. That is not estimated expenditure but actual expenditure, as Deputy MacEntee can find if he looks at column 1130 of his Budget speech of 1952. The estimated expenditure that Deputy MacEntee brought into this House in 1952, before he made certain cuts in the foodstuffs subsidies, was £101,500,000. Deputy MacEntee himself had permitted the cost of Government to rise in that year by approximately £13,000,000, not over the Estimates of the previous year but over the actual expenditure of that year.

The significant thing about the speeches, particularly from the back benches of the Party opposite, was that it was not on this Budget they were anxious to speak but rather they were speaking in defence of the 1952 Budget because they knew the people had realised the difference between their approach and our approach to our problems.

Deputy MacEntee, a minute ago, said that the Finance Bill was coming. It certainly is. I will welcome the debate on it then and I think it would be better if, in relation to certain things, I left over some comments I might make, to that Bill. One of my reasons is that I hope by that time that I will have the prints of the Industrial Taxation Committee's Report available for Deputies in the House. In relation to comments that were made from the Front Bench of the Opposition, and particularly to certain matters that appertain to it, it would be better if I left the matter over until the report is available for Deputies as a whole.

There was criticism that I had not provided for a special taxation remission on exports. In fact, it was suggested by Deputy Childers that the fact that I had not done so was proof that this was a weak Government. When Deputy Childers has an opportunity of reading the Taxation Committee's Report he will see that they did not think that reduced taxation is the most sensible channel for concessions of that nature and for the development of national exports. There were a couple of other matters, particularly in relation to initial allowances and matters of that kind, but it might be fairer if I left them until the report is printed and available for Deputies as a whole.

As I said in the beginning, the theme of my financial proposals as a whole was to take money that had to be found for the necessary service of the State's expenditure from imports and less essential things.

That is on the one side. On the other side and may I remind Deputies of what I said in the concluding part of the Budget speech, we do not consider 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. It is on the decision of individuals that the results will depend and those results must be on a twofold front. So far as imports are concerned, the special import levies are designed to assist in checking unnecessary imports. This Budget also is designed to deal with such imports.

But it is the other side of the picture that is really essential, and in regard to which the results, in the long run, will depend, on the people themselves. We must get more production. We must get more production both from agriculture and from industry. We must ensure that there will be more savings, so that those savings may be directed to modernise our efforts and build up our undeveloped resources. So far as there was a sum available to me, and I admit it was a small sum, within the limits of my Budget proposals I went as far as I could to encourage our people to save more. I hope that the concession in respect of the first £25 of interest arising from deposits will help to encourage in our people a spirit of thrift. I hope that the concession to industrialists will be one that will assist them, that it will act as an incentive to them to get more modern machinery so that they will be enabled to produce more efficiently and make a greater competitive effort, particularly in the export trade.

We must build up our agricultural production. Deputy Traynor, when speaking to-night, and I must excuse him as a City Deputy, made some references to the imports, last year, of wheat and maize. Let us be quite clear about it. Why were imports of wheat last year higher than the imports of the previous year? The excess was required for one reason and one reason alone— because we were visited in 1954 by the worst harvest that can be remembered.

Mr. Lemass

The acreage of wheat went down. You had 81,000 fewer acres.

Mr. Sweetman

Deputy Lemass should not draw me on that or I will produce here the memorandum from him, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, to the Government as to the amount of wheat that would be required.

Mr. Lemass

Two-thirds of our requirements.

Mr. Sweetman

The Government's decision was two-thirds—300,000 tons of dried wheat. But Deputy Lemass's suggestion to the Government was not 300,000 tons but 225,000 tons. The Government's decision was 300,000 tons. Deputy Lemass and I will agree on that. Three hundred thousand is approximately two-thirds of our requirements. The effect of the wet harvest of 1954 was that to get flour that was capable of being baked into bread we had to carry forward into this cereal year wheat that would in a normal year have been used in the 1954-55 cereal year. In 1954-55, we had disastrous harvesting weather. That was the only reason more wheat was imported.

I am afraid the floor has fallen through.

Mr. Sweetman

We have ensured production here that can usefully be utilised. Our plans are twofold. On one side we must deal with imports excessive in our present circumstances. On the other side we must increase production. We can increase production only by all of us putting in a greater effort, by making use of more modern machinery, by having the savings to get that more modern machinery. As I said at the close of my Budget speech, I do not regard this or put it to the House as a popular Budget.

For months and months, Deputies on the other side of the House both in the House and throughout the country went shrieking for certain action to be taken. They said this Government was weak, that it would never take tough action. Now they are complaining the action I have taken is too tough. One day Pravda comes out and says Fine Gael has swallowed Labour and then you have those people who are behind that organ going down the country to a constituency and saying to the farmers that the Labour Party are bossing the Government. It depends entirely on whom they are addressing. The fact of the matter is quite simple. All the Parties on this side of the House, all my colleagues no matter to what Party they belong, when it came to framing these financial proposals sat down in harmony to produce what I term a realistic Budget attuned to the needs of the nation.

The Committee divided:—Tá, 75; Níl, 63.

Tá.

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

Níl.

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

Tellers: Tá, Deputies P.S. Doyle and Mrs. O'Carroll; Níl, Deputies Ó Briain and Hilliard.

Resolution declared carried.

This Resolution and the Resolutions come to by the Committee on 8th May reported and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 23 May 1956