Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Jul 1956

Vol. 159 No. 11

Committee on Finance. - Vote 3—Department of the Taoiseach (resumed).

Mr. de Valera

I shall try not to take up much more of the time of the House. I would not have entered into that long talk at all were it not for the suggestions that there was no planning, no proper thought as to the problem or the lines we should take in order to try and get a solution of the problem.

I mentioned the immediate thing to concentrate upon—and when I say "concentrate" I do not mean to say we should neglect the other things— was that we should give enegetic attention to getting more from our land. The Minister for Agriculture seemed to be satisfied to-day. I do not think that anybody else is. We cannot be satisfied with the condition of our agriculture to-day. I am not saying that our farmers are idle or that they are de serving of attack or reproach in any way; but we do want to get a combined effort from the farmers to get more out of our land.

Everybody knows that the foundation of that is the right amount of tillage and the right treatment of pasture, and that both of these, under present conditions, mean that the soil has to get the nourishment which is required and the additional constituents which are necessary. We are short of lime to the extent of 12,000,000 tons and the present output is not sufficient to meet the annual need. We have arrears 12,000,000 tons to make up. There is no production at the present moment that is facing towards that. I will admit that there has been a gradual increase towards it, but we are very far from the amount that is necessary if we are to treat our land properly.

We must get lime for the land. We must have the right amount of cultivation because, unless there is, you will not get the best pasture. We want to have the pasture treated properly. Thanks be to goodness, we have not to-day to meet the fallacy that the more tillage you had the fewer cattle you would have. That is gone and we had not to meet the fallacy that you cannot grow good wheat in this country. We know now that we can, and the question is how much we can grow. If we have a balance of payments position like the present, surely it is not going to be suggested that what, under ordinary circumstances, might be regarded as a fair target would be the target for that situation? Surely everything that can be done to do without foreign imports should be done? The land is one of the places on which we can do it. I was delighted to hear we were to have so much barley as was suggested. That is splendid. I hope we will have the pigs and so on to use it and the other animals to which it might properly be fed.

Let us, then, concentrate on trying to get our farming right. That brings me to the question to ask the Taoiseach what has happened to the Institute of Agriculture. I thought we were being blamed for not going ahead with that some few years ago. I thought there were some proposals put forward. You will never get unanimity in this world on anything. There will always be people who, for one reason or another, will have objections to something. We have to work in the general national interest, in the interest of the greatest number and, so far as we can see it, in the interest of the common good. I would like to know whether the criticisms and so on have put the Government off this project altogether; or are the present circumstances such that you cannot have it? I do not think it cuts across the present position in the slightest. I think quite the contrary. To provide the economic teaching and scientific knowledge which is necessary for the improvement of our agriculture is one of the fundamental things that should be set going. Before the Dáil adjourns, I would like to hear from the Taoiseach what is happening that project. Is it dead? Is it in Limbo?

Next to that, there is the question of trying to make a sound proposition of our fisheries. Is it beyond the possibilities of our people to get over the difficulties in this matter? We are an island nation and we surely ought to be able to face the sea in modern conditions as well as other people. Our men have done it in the past when facing the sea was a much different thing from what it is to-day. Is it too much to hope that there will be a concentrated effort towards improving the fisheries and doing that in a way which will enable us to stand up against competition, because we will have to do that if we are going to expand? We will have to face up to the fact that we must meet any competition that comes. Is it impossible therefore for us to build up this industry which has such an export potentiality?

I appeal to Labour to help us in our efforts. In modern times, a trade union movement occupies in every society in which it exists a predominant position. It has responsibilities placed on it now which it did not have in the past. If there is to be a strike in the bakery trade, for instance, who will suffer most? Surely it is the other sections of the community, and other members of trade unions are within that community who are going to suffer for the want of bread. Is it not necessary, therefore, that there should be some co-ordination at the top and that the various elements of the trade union movement should be got to a realisation that they have a most important part to play in the welfare of the community as a whole and of course trade unions themselves are included in the community as a whole.

I should like to hear the representatives of the Labour Party speaking in this debate because they are of fundamental importance in the future welfare of our country. I have been put down by the Labour people over recent years as an old conservative. There is no truth in that. In the circumstances in which I was brought up, I was much nearer to Labour and the needs of Labour and the life of the labouring people and the small farmers than I was to other classes of the community. I have never lost that realisation of the needs of Labour and the small farmers and I have always worked to try to help the working classes and the small farmers in the struggle between the various classes. I think that the working community are entitled to their fair share, but I ask them not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, but to co-operate in trying to get done here the things that will enable us to have the higher standard of living which they naturally desire for their members and for the other sections of the community.

We cannot achieve that, unless we can enter into competition with outside countries and we cannot enter into that competition if we are to be priced out of it. We have to produce here on terms which will enable us to compete with outsiders. Surely the intelligent people in the Labour movement realise that and they ought to throw their weight in behind the national effort to get these things done. I do believe that the Labour sections of this community are as patriotic as any other section and that the small farmers are equally patriotic.

As the word "patriotism" has come to my mind, I do want to say that one of the things which is essential in the schools is that there should be instilled in the children a sense of patriotism. What we should get into the minds of the children is that they have a country and we should get that brought into the minds of every individual in this country. We should get it into their minds that patriotism is a noble thing. In pagan countries, it was considered a noble thing to die for one's country; surely it is a noble thing to work for and serve the country and the members of the community. That is one of the things which in our schools, I hope, will be done—that young children, besides being taught proper behaviour, will be given a love of their country. It is a christian and natural element of virtue, and, if we do not practise it, we are going to fail in the realisation of the aims of those who in the past struggled that this nation might survive as a nation. That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to get our people to realise that this is a nation worth serving and that its survival is worth while, not only for our own people in the nation but for those of them who have gone from home.

We on this side of the House will do everything in our power to see that the present crisis is surmounted successfully and quickly. We will do everything in our power to help whatever Government might be in office, and to do it ourselves if we get the responsibility, to try to see that emigration will be stemmed and unemployment lessened. There was hope of achieving that in 1953 and it continued into 1954. I do not know what happened afterwards to change that trend, but we want this trend back and we will get it back if we are prepared to work for it. We promise from this side of the House and from everybody we can influence in the country to get full support in that matter and whatever hardships are necessary to get over the present crisis, I believe the people will be prepared to undertake them to see that the efforts that we are making will be for the advantage of our country.

Hear, hear! You are a national hero.

The Estimate for the Department of the Taoiseach gives each and every member of the House an opportunity of examining the work of the Government over the past year. Now that we are reaching the stage when the curtain is about to come down on the political year and Deputies are going back to their ordinary avocations, we are doing so with a gloomy and dismal outlook. In political life, particularly in a democracy, it is natural that there should be exploitation of any political difficulties which have arisen. If we wanted to make speeches of that type in this House, this is an opportunity which presents itself for doing so. I think that even we as an Opposition have learned from the behaviour of the people now in Government that exploitation of the situation such as the present position provides could be used for political advantage. The Government finds itself in that position because of the manner in which they exploited the position when our Minister for Finance took steps to deal with a similar situation, in the past.

I can never forget the days when we sat over on that side of the House, listening to the speeches made on this side of the House; I can never forget the days when the people were being told that they were being unnecessarily penalised, that restrictive measures were being unnecessarily imposed upon them and that we were actively implementing a policy under which we wanted them to eat less and live on lower standards than were necessary. These tactics might be successful to-day if the people believed that those who were responsible for them then did not know the seriousness of what they were doing; but there was not a single member on this side of the House then who did not know as well as he does to-day, now that they are on that side of the House, that those measures were necessary in the interests of the nation in order to save us from the growing crisis which was looming up at the time. For that very reason, their tactics must now be condemned as inexcusable, and they will be so condemned by the country on every possible occasion.

I listened to the Minister for Agriculture speaking to-day. Having heard that speech to-day and remembering the speech he made here in 1952, one cannot fail to notice the contrast in expression as between the two occasions. In 1952, he accused Fianna Fáil of being responsible for inducing a credit squeeze which was putting the people out of business. There is no reference to dictation from the Central Bank or the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day when stronger and sterner measures are being taken by the present Government.

Referring to the action of Fianna Fáil in 1952, this is what he had to say at column 1730 of Volume 131 of the Official Report:—

"Let us face the fact. The policy of this Budget is clear and—to give the devil his due—has been proclaimed. It is this: our people are eating too much and living too well and the time has come to cut down their victuals, to reduce their consumption and to see that these commodities pass into the channel which the Central Bank and the Treasury think they should pass into, so that the Central Bank and the Treasury may use the proceeds for the accumulation of good respectable British consolidated stocks for the better protection of our currency and our Government funds."

Deputy Dillon was being as cynical as he possibly could on that occasion. It is obvious from the trend of events since that he was perfectly well aware that he was taking advantage of a situation to create in the minds of the people the belief that what we were doing then was unnecessary.

Let us come now to this talk about cutting down on imports in order to correct the balance of payments position. Let us see what Deputy Dillon had to say then in the same speech with regard to imports. At column 1731 Deputy Dillon said:—

"Fianna Fáil policy is to cut down the victuals, reduce their consumption and export the proceeds and, as they grow poorer, to view with satisfaction a decline in imports. What more certain index is there of a falling standard of living than declining imports?"

What more certain index is there of a falling standard of living than declining imports? That was the philosophy of Deputy Dillon in 1952, Deputy Dillon who, as Minister for Agriculture, now expects Fianna Fáil to co-operate with him to-day in calling on the people to cut down imports so that the balance of payments position may be corrected.

"Can anyone point to any nation in the world that raised the people's standard of living contemporaneously with a decline in their international trade? That is Fianna Fáil policy."

In other words, our pointing out that unnecessary imports were coming in then was deemed by a leading member of the then Opposition, now holding ministerial office, as unnecessary and something which should not be done. One thing that will never be understood here, is that, as a result of the campaign against Fianna Fáil and the exploitation of the situation then, so many people went to the polls in the following election and actually supported Fianna Fáil.

For raising the price of foodstuffs by withdrawing the subsidy.

Why did you not put them back?

That support demonstrated that, even after two years of that type of campaign, the people had very little confidence in the then Opposition. Now Deputy O'Leary, as he very often does, has reminded me of a good point. He says that we taxed foodstuffs. Deputy O'Leary's Party told the people from the platforms, in their election addresses and through the medium of their advertisements in the papers during that election campaign, that they would not take part in any Government that would not restore the food subsidies.

We reduced the price of butter by 5d. a lb.

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

Deputy O'Leary should be ashamed to speak about Fianna Fáil increasing food prices.

I have been longer in the House than the Deputy, anyway.

It is not relevant, good, bad or indifferent, to the point I am making whether I came into the House yesterday or 20 years ago. I know one fact, and that fact is that Labour has betrayed one definite and important promise made in the election and one which resulted in their getting more votes than any other promise made by them: that they stood for restoration of the subsidies, subsidies which they did not restore and subsidies which I know now they have no intention of restoring. Deputy O'Leary should be ashamed to make reference to food prices in this House to-day.

The ex-Taoiseach said that 45/- a week was enough for a working man.

Mr. de Valera

That is one of the untruths.

The Deputy said it.

Mr. de Valera

That is one of the untruths you published.

The Deputy said it on a public platform.

Deputy O'Leary is always trying to get a story for the benefit of the Press for circulation to the public. The story in the past used to be that the Fianna Fáil people were aspiring to be some day the Leader of the Party, that they were all fighting amongst themselves. He knew perfectly well at the same time that there was no more united Party in the European Continent than Fianna Fáil. To-day his story was that different leaders of the Opposition were making different speeches regarding policy. What was his reason for concocting a story like that in his speech to-day? Everybody knows that there is not a shred of fact in it. The reason for making that statement was to counteract the principal accusation which could be laid against the principle of Coalition Government, whereby each Party goes out in an election time, speaks with its own separate, distinct and different voice, and when the election is over they come together and carry on any old policy or no policy as the case may be. That is why he tries to make the allegation of that kind, to counteract what is, in fact, the greatest drawback which besets any Coalition Government.

We had in the last general election the Labour Party expounding the most progressive policy, as one would expect the Labour Party to do. They belched forth a volcano of progressive policy and promises, and no sooner were the votes counted and the Government formed than those promises of Labour, and the whole Labour policy, had trickled into and become solidified in the moulds of Fine Gael conservatism. If Deputy O'Leary wishes to do something worth while for the cause of the future of the Labour Party in this country he should take a more active part in showing to the people what effect Labour has, if any, on the course taken by the present Government. But while Deputy O'Leary comes to this House as the only representative of the Labour Party in this debate—and I give him credit for that—and comes in to give his usual interjections, one of the more solid members of his Party is out in Dublin——

——in Cork, telling the people we are living in an Alice in Wonderland atmosphere—that the Government of this country is living in an Alice in Wonderland atmosphere. It is a very true description from a leader of the Labour Party to-day, when the Labour members are conspicuous by their absence from the most important debate of the year. I hope it is a good omen. Perhaps they are beginning to see that the progressive Party in this House is now in opposition. Perhaps they realise that Fianna Fáil have been the progressive Party, that not merely have they worked for sectional interests but they have taken the interests of every section of the community in this country, of which our Party is representative, and for that reason the future hope of this country lies in the restoration to power of Fianna Fáil.

Remember, as our leader pointed out a few moments ago, we are not hankering after getting back into power for the sake of power, as was the case when the present Government saw an opportunity of exploiting the situation when we were in power before. But we are prepared to take the full responsibility of Government if the country thinks so fit, and are prepared to continue to guide the destinies of this people as we have done so ably in the past. In 1952 Fianna Fáil were depending in this House on a very slender margin majority in the most critical division, and sitting then on this side of the House were a number of bright young potential Parliamentary Secretaries and Ministers. They saw before them opportunities and they realised that all they needed to do was to exploit the serious national crisis at the time, in order to find themselves in the position which they now enjoy. The temptation was too great. It was too much to expect that the Leader of the Opposition then would get up and say: "We realise that there is a serious national crisis, and are prepared to support the Government in any measures which they take to overcome that crisis." Instead of that Deputy Costello, as he then was, the Leader of the Opposition, stood up and said that he would resign his seat if he were Taoiseach before he would give effect to a single provision of the 1952 Budget.

Those are the people who ask Fianna Fáil to co-operate with them to-day and to give them their support in putting through a policy designed to retrieve the country now from the crisis into which it is plunged. We are not going to exploit that position. We realise that one day not far distant we, too, will have the responsibility of again guiding the destinies of this country, and we hope that then this Opposition will not repeat the venture, which has now acted as a boomerang on them, of exploiting any situation in which we may find ourselves as a result of their present policy.

I remember speaking in this House from this same seat a few days after the present Government was formed, and if Deputies turn over the Official Reports they will see that I said that we on this side of the House welcomed the change of Government, because we knew that there was no more definite way of confounding the lies of the Opposition which we had than by putting them on that side of the House for a few years.

You could not keep them out.

It would be easy to get them out to-day.

Do not go down to Leix-Offaly.

If Deputy O'Leary thinks he retains the confidence of the country any longer, instead of going on holidays to-day, instead of dropping the curtain on another political year, let his Leader go to the Park, dissolve the Dáil and ask the country what they think of the actions and inaction of the present Government over the past two and a half years.

Your Leader went there often.

The Dáil has never gone into recess with a more gloomy and dismal outlook than it has to-day. If there is one bright star on the horizon, or one bright hope in this country, it is in the fact that the people must some time, in spite of how you may try to ignore their views, get the opportunity of telling you that you can fool them once but you certainly will not fool them a second time.

I am surprised to hear, during these two days, the attacks made by the Fianna Fáil Party on the members of the Labour Party. Only for the Labour Party in 1932, Fianna Fáil would never have been the Government of this country. But what happened? The present ex-Taoiseach is there now, and when we were asking him from the Labour Party to do things for the people he went to the Park in the middle of the night, dissolved the Dáil and said that he could not get on with the Labour Party. That was the position then. He is now appealing to the trade unions.

Every time Fianna Fáil felt they had not got the confidence of the country, they went to the people.

Deputy de Valera is worrying about the trade unions and asking for their co-operation. Does he want the trade unions and workers of this country to be put in the position he put them in with the standstill Order when they could not get an increase of wages?

And took it off.

I have no doubt that, if he was Taoiseach to-day, that would be his policy.

That was the emergency.

That was 1947.

That is the Government's policy at the moment.

That was the policy of Fianna Fáil, the Party that spent 20 years in office. They talk now about what ought to be done, but why did they not do it? I remember a time during the emergency when my greatest job was to go to the United Kingdom office to get a passport for an agricultural worker or a turf worker to go to Britain. Does Deputy de Valera forget that? He had the workers of this country in such a position that they could not stir. Unless they were industrial workers, they could not go to Britain, although they were unemployed. Those are the things I want to remind the House of. We know what we had to do so far as the unemployed man in the country was concerned during the emergency. Deputy de Valera said that 45/- a week was enough for the working man. He said that, although he tried to deny it to-night.

He already denied it.

Mr. de Valera

It is not true.

He never said it. Would the Deputy give the quotation?

I have not got the Irish Press.

I insist that Deputy O'Leary——

He said it on the public platform.

On a point of order. Deputy O'Leary attributed a statement to Deputy de Valera which he did not make. If that statement is to be allowed, I insist that the quotation be produced here.

Surely the point raised by Deputy Ó Briain is not a point of order?

Certainly it is.

The Chair has no function in the matter. Deputy O'Leary is not quoting, but paraphrasing.

It is not the first time that Deputy de Valera denied what he said. Did he not say he would break stones if there was a Coalition? He had a Coalition, with four Independents, and held office here at the time. We in the Labour Party do not forget the tactics Fianna Fáil used against the workers of this country. We hear all about unity from the President. How can you have unity when the appeal comes from a man who is a politician? I do not think we are in a crisis. I have heard that preached since I came here. The cry of Deputy de Valera was that the country was in the wood and that the people were not out of the wood yet. That was his whole cry. From the public platform, he exhorted the people not to change horses crossing the river. I do not think there is any need for this alarm and I do not see any harm in putting the levies on these luxury goods coming from the other side. I saw it stated in the papers to-day that at the Port of Dublin these levies did not cause any upheaval. The Opposition are talking nonsense.

A few days ago, they were crying out for the Government to take action and stop the imports. Now they are not satisfied when the Government is taking action to prevent the importation of luxury goods which are not needed. What is wrong is that the price of cattle came down from £10 10s. a cwt. to what it is to-day. Had that price remained, there would be no confusion in regard to the position of the balance of payments. We would have been able to deal with it. That is the real position. If we had not cattle for the British market, what would we have to export? A few years ago, the cry was: "Thank God, the British market is gone and gone forever." What is the cry to-day?

We know what is taking place in the rural parts. We know that farming is becoming mechanised and that the horse is being replaced by the tractor and the man on the land by machinery. No one who is living in the rural areas can deny that. The same thing applies in regard to the councils who are spending the ratepayers' money importing machinery to do away with the labouring man on the roads and in the councils.

Why do you not stop it in Wexford? Are you not in the majority?

No. There is no difference between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, so far as the working man is concerned. I never saw any difference and I have been on the local authority since 1934. There is no difference when it comes to the question of an increase in wages. They vote as a solid bloc against the Labour men in the councils. I think the whole issue is confused. If Deputy de Valera has confidence in the people, he should not tell the country we are broke and unable to meet our commitments. It is not good national policy to tell the people in the Six Counties that we are down and out and cannot meet our commitments. I think that is not good national policy and it is time that sort of thing stopped if we want to solve Partition. I do not think that the language to-day is going to save the situation in relation to the balance of payments.

Or the language to-night.

I do not think that our young boys and girls from the Gaeltacht who are glad to be working in Britain are worrying about the Irish language because they had to leave the country after all the years of self-government. We hear a lot about emigration. In 1932 I heard a Deputy speak in the town of Enniscorthy who was a Minister for a long time. He said he would put the shovel into every man's door and the man who would not work he would put in prison. Deputy Dr. Ryan made that statement in 1932. All Fianna Fáil can do is go back to quotations and look up the Official Debates to find out what this fellow and that fellow said in days gone by. What the ordinary people in the country want to-day is to lower the cost of living and provide employment, if that can be done. We are not the Government; we are only part of the Government; but we are satisfied with the progress we have made in the Government.

Good enough.

I am not ashamed to say that in a general election, if necessary. Our people in the Government have got concessions for the people we represent and in September some of those concessions will be put into force in regard to the widows, the orphans and the unemployed. Why did not Fianna Fáil increase social services?

Who gave them to you first?

They had to do it.

Do not be codding yourself.

I am not codding myself. You had to do something. That was the position and I heard Deputy de Valera saying in this House when he was Taoiseach that we had reached the limit of social services. He said that also. I am glad to see a Government in which every Party is represented—the farmers, Clann na Poblachta, Fine Gael and Labour working together in harmony in the Cabinet.

Some harmony.

They proved it, anyhow, because if there was not harmony in it, the present Minister for Social Welfare could not announce a few days ago—and the Opposition did not oppose it—increases in certain social services in September. During the history of this State, for the first time in one year, the old age pensioners have been looked to again by the present Government. We do not forget these things, nor do the people outside forget them. We know what they got from Fianna Fáil when they had a majority.

They remember who cut them.

Ní cuimhin leis an dTeachta é sin. Tá fhios agam fhéin céard a thárla.

What is the use of trying to make capital out of these things? If the country is in difficulties, it is up to every Party to rectify that position. If the case is as bad as Deputy de Valera says it is, he ought to come over, and shake hands with Deputy Costello and never mind backsliding and pretending that he is all with him, when he is not. There is no use trying to stand on two stools all the time. For the last two years since this Government was formed, things have been done that would not have been done if a one-Party man had been in power. We know that and that is why we are supporting the inter-Party Government. That is why I joined the inter-Party Government in 1948.

There were a few jobs going.

There were no jobs, but the things I wanted were done. What I wanted was peace. The jails were opened and the internment camps were closed; the men came home free. That is why I joined the inter-Party Government in 1948 and I have no regrets over that. We tried to bring unity and peace into the country and take the gun out of politics. There is no such thing now as men chasing one another as there was when Deputy de Valera was Taoiseach and the "glasshouse" was full.

There was no fear of your being in the "glasshouse".

Nor you, either. I had to leave the country, or I would be in it, if that is any information to you, when you were a small boy.

Deputy Brennan will cease interrupting and Deputy O'Leary will continue.

I am here and I came in in five general elections, on my own, and not on my father's votes or sympathy.

The Deputy is travelling wide of the Estimate.

I was elected in five general elections, and if I were not wanted, I would not be here.

That has nothing to do with the question before the House.

No, but I am just answering.

The Deputy will come back to the Estimate.

I will go back to it, but if people want to "cross-hackle" me, I will "cross-hackle" them. A lot of time has been taken up on this debate and it is ten minutes past nine now. Why are they moving to refer back this Estimate of the Taoiseach? Was it ever done in the other Government's time? Was it ever done before to make political capital and propaganda out of the position? We were too quiet, I suppose, when we were in Opposition, or we could have used the same tactics. Then we would not have given Deputy de Valera his Estimate either, as the Opposition are told now not to give it to the present Taoiseach.

There is too much talk about emigration. There has been emigration always. I would like to know if Fianna Fáil want to keep young men and young women who want to go away to Canada, America, Britain, Scotland or Wales? Do they want to deny them that right? We gave them that right when we took away the restrictions that were placed on them by Fianna Fáil. There are young men leaving the country who are in good jobs; there is no doubt about that. It is natural to expect that. That is happening all the time, away down the years. This is only a small island. Surely to goodness, we are not going to deprive our people and tell them they must remain in this island, out in the wilds of the country in places where there is no amusement and no recreation, but looking at turf bogs.

Deputy de Valera has represented Clare for a long time. I was in Clare last week and I did not see many factories down there, in the constituency he represents. I was told in Kilkee by people: "We have nothing here; our children must go away and we are living on what they are sending home from America, Canada and Britain." That is in Deputy de Valera's own constituency. We hear all that talk about emigration, but what do we find with regard to industry? The Fianna Fáil Government brought in what they called the Undeveloped Areas Act. By that Act, if you are a foreigner, you can come in and you get all the facilities and moneys you like, if you go down to the West. That was it, but down in my county and in the South of Ireland, the local people are told that they must put up so much capital before they get a factory. If you go to the Gaeltacht or to the West of Ireland, then even if you are a black man, you get all the concessions you like. That is not right. We are looking for a factory in my own town and there is £50,000 in local capital available, but we cannot get anyone to come. They say they must go to the West, as the Government will give them more help if they go to the West and start the industry there. That is why the South of Ireland and other centres are not getting the industries they should.

We hear about the markets and the farmers. I have been speaking to a lot of farmers and I get farmers' votes. They are not doing too badly and they know what I say is right. The people I represent in the majority are those who have to labour and that is why we have a trade union, to see that they get value for their work. Deputy de Valera wants them now to cower down and not look for an increase of wages. That is what he meant to-day. He told the workers they must make sacrifices. It is the workers who have made sacrifices all the time; it is the poor people of Ireland who are making the sacrifices all the time, and I suppose they will always remain to do so.

There is too much political propaganda in this House. We are all elected here to do the best we can, to tell whoever is in power, whether Fianna Fáil or the present Government, what we want for the people we represent. I would tell them pretty quickly if they were not doing things rightly, but I am satisfied, under the circumstances, that our people have not been forgotten by the present Government. I am glad to see that the unemployed man, for the first time since 1932, who has to go to the labour exchange, will get an increase. I am glad to see that the widow and orphan, who got no increase the last time, will get increases in September. I am glad to see that the man who is sick—yes, depending on national health—is being remembered by the Government, which is coming to his aid. I ask the people in opposition: Are they against that? Are they against the improvements? If they are, let them tell us and not be trying to hoodwink one another. I am glad these concessions are coming their way. Some of these things might be on my own head. Of course, there are meetings on in the House.

There is a row on again.

There is no row, but they have to do these things, the same as others.

It would be hard to expect——

I have been here for the past two days listening to an Opposition that was in Government for 20 years. If a good Government were in power for 20 years, there should not be a straw astray in Ireland. When I hear them criticising the Minister for Agriculture, I think of the time when one could not get a rasher and when, if one saw a pig on the road, one would salute it. The pig industry has been revived and the bacon factories are kept going. The bacon factory in Wexford was closed down under Fianna Fáil, because there were no pigs available. When the first Coalition came into office in 1948, the grass was still growing around the bacon factories. If the Minister for Agriculture did nothing else, he restored the bacon industry. He did a good job for the farmers when he put lime into the fields at 16/- a ton. The farmers know well from whom they got the benefits.

It is right to criticise when you are in opposition—I do not blame the Opposition for that—but the criticism should be fair. If there is a crisis, the Opposition should join with the Government in order to get over the crisis. I do not believe that there is a crisis because I have been listening to talk of crises since I came into the House. Over a great number of years the cry was: "You are in the wood", the suggestion being that there is gloom and disaster if Deputy de Valera is not in power. That is the policy of Fianna Fáil: if Deputy de Valera is in power, everything is all right and if Deputy de Valera is not in power, everything is all wrong. You would not hear one word from the Fianna Fáil Party if Deputy de Valera were in power; they would not say one word of criticism because they would not be allowed to criticise. We, on this side of the House, are free to speak our minds. That is a great thing. We are not cowed down by one man.

It is a great thing, if you have a mind.

We have a good leader, a man who is admired all over the world, never mind in Ireland. We ought to be fair in our criticism. Remember, none of us was sent here except to work for his constituency and for the people. Deputies are not sent here to be "yes-men." There was too much of that for years. There was a whole crowd of "yes-men." That is not the position now, and has not been since 1948. There has been freedom of discussion for all Parties.

It is only right that every Party in the country should be represented in the Government. No one Party should dominate or try to hold on to power for ever. I have said enough now, but I was brought to my feet when I heard Deputy de Valera worrying about the Labour Party and asking the workers to make sacrifices. The workers made sacrifices down the ages and will be prepared to do it to-morrow, if necessary, but we are not going to stand, as we had to stand when Deputy de Valera was in Government, for a standstill wages order. We are not faced with that possibility under this Government. We have our trade unions to secure conditions and wages. The Taoiseach said that, if he could not control prices of essential foodstuffs, the trade unions were free to look for increased wages to meet the increased cost.

All I have learned from Deputy O'Leary's speech that I can understand is that there should be no restrictions during an emergency— that was the first thing he told us; secondly, that machines create unemployment, whereas, of course, we know that they eventually increase employment, and thirdly, that only the Coalition Parties can criticise the Government in office.

He said more than that.

That is about all that I could glean from Deputy O'Leary's speech. The members of the Government have been running very quickly from their 1952 shadows and, at last, with this last emergency levy, the 1952 shadows are creeping up on them and have got very nearly level. Ever since 1947, we have been listening in this country to a farrago of nonsense, most of which meant quite simply that the people were entitled to a good living immediately, that the good living could be got for them immediately, if they voted for the Coalition and that that was all they needed to do.

At last, the facts are catching up with the present Government and, as I have said, the shadows of 1952 have closed in on them and the Minister for Finance's speech earlier to-day and the Taoiseach's speech on this Estimate are nothing more than a contradiction of hours and hours and weeks and weeks of nonsense talked in this House about the balance of payments, about external investments, about the method of expending external investments, about our trade, about our industry. Perhaps the only good thing that has happened in 1956 is that, for the first time, the Minister for Finance is beginning to acknowledge the truth.

It is interesting to study the economic developments that have taken place in the countries of Northern Europe, some of whom compete with us in the British market. It is interesting to read their parliamentary debates, to see the difference between the way they conduct their affairs and the way that we do.

Are you running us down?

One of the advantages which they have had, because they have had nothing like the Coalition Government, in respect of dealing honestly with statistics and with economics, is that they have always argued together on a common acceptance of the state of the nation in which they live. Even in Great Britain, although the divergencies of the Socialist and the Conservative Parties are very considerable, and although they fight each other in Parliament and disagree in policy, ever since the war they have had a measure of agreement on the general economic facts of the life of the British people. But, in this country all the facts have been confused, all the facts have been distorted by the Coalition Parties.

The Irish Press.

They have been distorted for so long that the people now are completely confused as to what lies before them. A very good example of that occurred just a minute ago. We have Deputy O'Leary assuring the workers that he has been assured by the Coalition Government that if the cost of foodstuffs rises, they can immediately get their increases of wages.

Did they not get them?

And we have the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach begging the people to show restraint in regard to wage increases, and the Taoiseach, speaking at the Cork Chamber of Commerce in January of this year, saying that, as far as he could see, increases of wages of the kind that were going on would end in futility. So, what are the people of the country who will invest their money, who, we hope, will invest their money, in exports, to say? Will they believe Deputy O'Leary or will they believe the Taoiseach? Will the two of them ever come to agree as to which is the truth?

Where has the Deputy his money invested—in German motor cars?

In any event, things are catching up. This is a very good time to have a good deal of clear thinking on these economic matters and it is very much easier, now that the Minister for Finance has had to agree as to the facts, for us to say many things than it was to say them at an earlier period.

I think the present Government owe an apology to the Central Bank directors, who made certain pronouncements in 1951. Most of the suggestions they made are now being put into operation.

Deputy Lemass ought to apologise, too. Deputy Lemass said they were wrong.

What I object to is the fact that many members of the present Government and the Labour Party not only jeered at the directors of the Central Bank but implied that they were scarcely Irishmen because they were warning the country of an inflation which has now had its effect fully. As I have said, the Central Bank, in the prophecies it made in 1951 proved to be very nearly correct and their warnings have proved to be very valuable to the present Government and to the last Government. It is a curious thing that we do not seem to have grown up in this House. Those of us who know less than others about economics are inclined to scorn the advice of those who are in a position to give advice. The more ignorant a Deputy is on the Coalition side, the more he scorns people who have most knowledge of the balance of payments and of the effect that continual adverse balances have on the life of the country.

Were it not for the fact that Fianna Fáil is supporting the present Government in imposing the present levies, as they supported the last, a prophecy made as far back as 1935 by the very conservative Banking Commission at that time would have very nearly come true. It shows that men who sit in high position can occasionally be good prophets. Here is an extract which said:—

"There may be a deficit in the balance of payments which eats into the monetary reserves, and in the end, forces the country into a position of acute disequilibrium which leaves no alternative to depreciation."

Then follow these words:—

"In the Free State (as it then was) with its large foreign assets such a possibility may seem remote but the very existence of those assets would permit for some time that maintenance of an unbalanced position, whereas, with reserves of a more limited volume corrective measures could be taken earlier."

That is a very interesting prophecy which will not come true as long as this Party supports the Government in restricting imports.

We all know what the position is. There is nothing to boast about. As far as the economic life of the country is concerned since 1947 we have not done as well as has been done by practically every country in Europe. We have not produced as much. We have not saved as much. We have not invested as much as virtually every one of the countries who belong to the O.E.E.C. group who provide the figures of production and so forth.

The major reason in my view is that the whole political issue in this country has been confused since 1947, by the fact that at every crossroads and at every single political meeting we on this side of the House have been fighting propaganda which more or less said: "Vote for us now; we promise to give you a good time now." That is the principal reason for the stringency of our position.

One can go back to 1947. In 1947 and 1948, instead of battling as to what were the methods by which production could be increased and by which a revolution in agriculture could be carried out, the methods by which our exports and production could be increased, what did we spend most of our time doing? We spent it in answering the charge that the people of the country were very badly off under Fianna Fáil during the war. We were answering exactly the same charges as were made in 1954. I could bore the House by quoting yards and yards of speeches of Coalition Ministers promising to reduce the cost of living, promising to make everything easy, of Deputy Norton promising to gain control of national credit, promising to restore the corporation profits tax, promising to punish the profiteers who never could be found afterwards and speeches of the Taoiseach promising to tax tourists to reduce the cost of living——

When did I do that?

I can give the reference. It was in the newspapers the other day.

Was it in the Irish Press?

The campaign started in 1947 has brought us to the present position. It began then and it went on continuously all through the years. As I have said, we are getting nearly to the end of it now. We heard the Minister for Finance speak to-day and talk about foreign assets. He said that action must be taken in the light of present circumstances. He made a polite speech to Deputy MacBride, who had gone in for the usual propaganda which characterised the whole of the first part of the régime of the Coalition Government that, somehow, everything could be made perfect in this country as long as the Government spent very rapidly all the people's money at no cost to anyone. We had that policy played to its maximum during the whole period from 1948 until Deputy MacBride, quite mercifully, did not join the present Government. I am glad he did not.

I think myself that, of all the Parties in the State, Clann na Poblachta has done more to poison the wells of national consciousness than any other Party. They were the people who set the example for everyone else in 1947. It was their policy that was partly copied by Fine Gael and by the Labour Party, the policy of promising everybody everything at no cost to anyone. It amazes me that, even now, I can hear Deputy MacBride get up vaguely saying that the Government should have more control of the banking system, that the Government in some way should have more control over national credit. I do not think the Minister for Finance has even yet been insistent enough on this problem of the control of national credit. He cannot even restrain the members of the Labour Party.

We had, during the Leix-Offaly by-election, Deputy Larkin going around saying the Government should nationalise the banks. That is another reason why the businessmen and farmers of the country have no confidence in the present Government. They want to know is there a move to nationalise the banks and, if there is not a move at the moment, they want to know what influence Deputy Larkin and certain members of the trade unions are likely to have on the Labour members of the present Government in the future and what, in the course of the next year might happen in that connection.

I think it is about time the Minister for Finance told Deputy Larkin that it does not matter whether the Government nationalises the banks or not, that so far as the present situation is concerned every time the Government spends a pound of their own money or of other people's money, they cause the importation of roughly ten or 12 shillings' worth of goods and that if the Government were to take over the whole banking resources of the country, if they appointed investment board on top of investment board, no matter how they did it, the only result would be that every penny so spent would result in a halfpenny worth of imports. I do not think that the present Minister for Finance has persuaded the members of the Labour Party about that at all. I go down to Westmeath and Longford and hear the same sort of underhand talk: "would it not be a good thing to nationalise the banks?" That is another reason why the Government has no longer the confidence of the business community. They can never be quite certain what the Government will or will not do.

He is afraid the banks will be taken over.

We had a long peroration from the Minister for Agriculture as to what he is said to have done for Irish agriculture. As I said on a previous occasion, the Government of this country have spent since 1946 £1,000,000,000 altogether on capital services. Of that total amount, just £100,000,000 have been spent on agriculture. I think agriculture represents 30 per cent. of our national income. We have never yet got down fundamentally to getting more capital invested in agriculture. There is that fact and, at the same time, for months in 1951-52 there were wordy arguments by the then Minister for Finance justifying the use of foreign assets for consumer goods, social purposes and purposes other than productive purposes.

During the whole of 1951-52, the then Government was castigated as anti-Irish conspirators because they suggested a very mild and cautious halt to the spending of external assets. In 1951-52, we had Deputies like the present Tánaiste, Deputy Norton, saying that the Government was mentally deficient in that they did not spend the assets as rapidly as possible and asking what was the use of not spending the assets which he now describes as so precious with the value of the £1 down from 20/- to 10/11d. and would it not be better to spend the assets rapidly on goods of any kind so long as they were spent. They held that if you believed, as Deputy de Valera suggested, that it would be a good thing to place yourself in the position that your nearest neighbour always owed you large sums of money upon which you could call immediately in the event of any crisis it was tantamount practically to sitting in the lap of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sorry that a lot of people in this country believed that kind of frightful twaddle. Now this present Government are paying for the results.

I am quite sure the Minister for Finance would dearly like to be able to use some of the savings that were frittered away because of this easy living atmosphere created by the present Government. I am quite sure the present Minister for Finance would very much like to have a little bit of what was described as "mental deficiency" actuating the life of the people between 1950 and 1954. If we had even £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 of useful external assets at this moment, how much easier it would be to get us over these financial difficulties, to raise an immediate loan for some special agricultural purpose, to reduce Government expenditure and to be able to go to-morrow and say: "We have the savings. We can go ahead with national development. We have plenty of money in hands. Of course, we reasonably restrained our imports and we do not have to worry". The Minister for Finance would very much like to have now some of the savings that were misspent during that period. We should like to know even now whether the Government is united in policy on this matter.

During the course of the North-Kerry by-election, we had the Minister for Defence saying that we had £500,000,000 invested, that £35,000,000 had been liquidated in 1955 and that it was not a very serious matter. I wonder how many times any Deputy in the Coalition Party, in his ministerial or other capacity, could be found during the whole course of the last nine years to remind people that our debts to other countries were constantly rising? We now have a balance of payments problem. The average person down the country does not understand very much about economics. He has not the time to study them. He has a long working day and he hopes, at the end of it, for a little bit of leisure. If you ask him about the economic position of this country and if he had listened to the Coalition he would simply reply that we have £500,000,000 invested abroad. That has been the excuse for attacking Fianna Fáil for years and years.

Whenever we taxed people to pay for current services, we were told we should borrow the money as we had £500,000,000 invested abroad. Whenever we decided it was better to pay for some development in the country from current revenue, we were told: "We have £500,000,000 invested abroad. Why not spend it on that particular service?" I have never yet at any crossroads or political meeting heard any Minister of the present Government tell the people that we have between two-thirds and four-fifths of that sum in liabilities. This £500,000,000 that has been dangled before the people is simply a kind of dope designed to make them believe that everything can improve quickly without any exertion or any sustained effort, that everything is all right as we have £500,000,000 invested abroad. "We do not have to worry, boys." But they are worrying now at last after all that talk.

I heard another Labour Minister down the country within the past two months speak to the people there and say that he preferred the prosperity of the people to bank balances. He made a speech directly contradicting the statement of the Minister for Finance. He made it perfectly clear that the banks were great big prosperous organisations who would worry about the balances in the bank and that what he was concerned with was getting the workers a higher wage. No wonder there is no confidence in the present Government. The people want to know what is the real opinion of the Government. Is it the opinion of the Labour Minister who says that prosperity is more important than bank balances, or is it the opinion of the Minister for Finance who gave us a long and extremely correct lecture yesterday, pointing out that the net assets of the banks had reached an all-time low level and could not be further reduced and that the amount required was the minimum to transact the ordinary commercial transactions between our country and other countries?

That is why the people lack confidence. They hear the Minister for Finance make very correct speeches. They hear the Taoiseach make very correct speeches and, the next moment, a whispering campaign goes around because the Labour Party is always hoping for something to turn up that will enable them to justify the promises they made to their electors. You have the whispering campaign going around suggesting that things might be easy and, after all, maybe they will not be quite so bad. You have the Minister for Finance getting up and saying that if the people do not save, there will not be any capital construction. Almost the next day, a Labour Minister says that whatever else happens the housing of the people will proceed at its present pace and that everything will be all right. The people are asking who is correct and who is giving the right view. They are asking who is likely to have the most influence in the Government—the view that everybody will have to save or the view that everything will be all right.

The Minister for Finance talks about a savings committee and of the efforts to stimulate savings. In the first six months of this year, the people put less than £1,000,000 into the Post Office Savings Bank: that is the net accretion, the deposits less withdrawals. It is about one-third of the amount put in during the corresponding period of 1953, just six months after the "penal Budget" of 1952, as it was called. But the Minister for Finance has not made it sufficiently clear that the savings he requires need to be increased from £17,000,000 to £54,000,000. That represents additional savings of £37,000,000 and it would require a tremendous and sustained personal sacrifice by every individual in the State, the kind that no member of the Government has indicated sufficiently clearly. A sum of £37,000,000 represents about £12 per head of the population, men, women and children.

I recognise that, statistically, that is a dangerous average to make because the savings include all kinds of savings. But if the Minister for Finance is correct, and I believe him to be correct, that not only can we not finance the present capital programme of the State but we cannot start on a real campaign of increasing production, we can develop no new fresh plan to increase our exports, the saving involved is not simply what a person puts into the savings bank in order to go for a holiday, which is the tenor of the present advertisements inviting people to go abroad. The advertisements issued by the Director of Savings are everywhere, telling people they can have a holiday abroad, if they save the money. Those advertisements are a little out of date.

The saving required now is something which almost involves a contribution in the patriotic sense to this position. The people of this country, whatever their financial difficulties, have got used to buying motor cycles and refrigerators; people of very modest incomes have been buying cars; people of very modest incomes were able suddenly to find their way to get hire-purchase articles in large measure. If this £37,000,000 is to be saved, it means they will have to reverse completely a trend of life. It means they will have to forgo all the ideas that have been preached to them by the Coalition Government ever since 1947. It means we will have to go back to doing what the Danes and the Dutch did after the war. Whatever Party they were in, whether it was Socialist or Conservative, whatever special views either side of their Parliament had, what they recommended to the people was that they must deliberately forego the standard of living they would like to have to build up the economy of the nation, not to save money for one's own holiday but to save money to lend it to the Government or to lend it to a private concern which was going to provide more jobs and expand production, not saving only for marriage but saving for the nation. As I have said, I think the Minister for Finance, who spoke very well in giving a description of the country's position, will have to go much further in regard to that. When he says there must be this personal saving, he is demanding a personal change of attitude.

As I understand the Taoiseach is to speak very shortly, I shall conclude on one note. Both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture implied in the course of their speeches that other countries are suffering the same difficulties as ourselves. Let me say this with absolute sincerity. I do not mind whether the Coalition is right or wrong, or whether we are right or wrong in our attitude to this whole matter, but I know this, that to drug the country with self-pity of that kind will get us nowhere. The position is that most of the countries in 1939 had no savings abroad, that most of the countries who had savings abroad in Europe, foreign savings in investments, lost what they had during the war, that we were neutral and saved between £150,000,000 and £200,000,000 during the war by exporting more to our neighbours than we imported.

We have not the faintest excuse for dissipating our savings to the extent we have and although I regard the Coalition as mainly responsible, we all have a joint responsibility in this House for that. All of us to some extent, greater or lesser, are to blame. We have not the smallest excuse for dissipating those savings to the point we have. If we had spent a far greater proportion on reorganising the pig industry, on live-stock products and improving our agriculture, we would be able to build all the houses we needed out of the profits we made from agricultural production. However, let us have no self-pity in regard to the position. If England were in our position now, they would have had at the end of the war £2,500,000,000 in foreign investments ready to use, that is, in proportion to their population. In fact it would have been far more. I worked it out purely on the basis of population. We would have to work it out purely on the basis of the total resources being developed, in proportion to the wealth of the country and so on. In such circumstances as ours, England would have no balance of payments problem.

We have all been to some degree at fault. The Coalition were mainly responsible by preaching easy living. Let us have no self-pity about it now but let us get on with the job. We are back where the Danes and the Dutch were after the war and we must save virtually every penny to build up our production. We have got to save hundreds of millions of pounds before we are a modern developed nation. Most of it has got to be found from the savings of our people, savings that will hurt, that will be difficult, and will not come easily. That will mean a great change in attitude. As I say, there should be no self-pity about it. Let us be frank and if we are frank about it we might have some success.

Before Deputy Morrissey speaks, I should like to say I am informed it has been agreed that the Taoiseach be called at 10.30 p.m. to conclude the debate.

I did not intend to speak and I would not have spoken if it had not been for the speech to which we have just listened. This debate yesterday and to-day is and should be a very serious one and I think it is to the credit of the House that most speakers have treated it in a serious manner. The Deputy who has just sat down, speaking to the House as he usually does in a condescending manner, referring to the ignorance of economics of most members of the House and in that condescending way also referring to the lamentable fact that our people were completely ignorant of economics, proceeded to deliver what I believe was the most mischievous speech that has been delivered in this House certainly in my memory. It was maliciously so and deliberately so. The Deputy talked about confidence in the Government, but what he really was aiming at was confidence in the State itself.

Mr. de Valera

That is a nice interpretation.

The Deputy did not say that.

But Deputy Morrissey will say something he did not say all right.

The Deputy evidently did not hear what I said altogether. I said the import levies would create——

The Deputy said, and repeated more than once, the people of this country had not confidence and the business people had not confidence——

In the Government.

The Deputy presumes to speak either for the people as a whole or even for the business people of this country. The Deputy, in order to help in this serious situation, to be constructive, implied that it was the policy of this Government to nationalise the banks.

Mr. de Valera

What about the programme being followed——

The Leader of the Opposition need not be reminded of who first spoke about controlling or nationalising the banks of this country. I am not going to be tempted——

The Deputy makes statements only when he knows that nobody from this side can get in after him.

He will talk it out until 10.30.

Am I not going to be allowed to speak? The Deputies on the other side were allowed to speak without interruption. Deputy Morrissey has as much right to speak as Deputy de Valera or anybody else, and I am not going to be deprived of that right by Deputy de Valera or his cheapest henchman.

Deputy Morrissey has described a Deputy on this side of the House as a henchman. Is that to be taken as parliamentary language or as Deputy Morrissey's language?

There is no better judge than the Deputy and nobody more often indulges in unparliamentary language and methods than the Deputy who has just put that question to the Chair.

The question has not been answered.

There is no Deputy who has less regard for the decencies of this House than the Deputy.

I do not understand the word "henchman" as being objectionable.

It is probably not without significance that the Deputy took it as applying to himself.

We will return to the Estimate.

Is the Deputy trying to talk it out until 10.30 now that there is an agreement——

Is the Deputy not helping me to do so?

The agreement may not be kept then.

The Deputy is not frightening anybody by these threats.

Neither is the Deputy.

Deputy Morrissey on the Estimate.

The Deputy's clumsy efforts to keep me from making my speech will not succeed.

We have been listening to your switches now for a good many years.

You do not seem to have benefited very much from them.

I said: "Your switches".

Deputy Morrissey on the Estimate.

I do not know why the Fianna Fáil Party, from the leader down, have no desire to let me make my statement. Let me come back to Deputy Childers. That Deputy's effort to be helpful was to try to frighten the people of this country to send more of their money out of this country. He tried to suggest it is not safe here. He says that deliberately and maliciously; yet he is not reproved by his leader, to whom I listened for two hours without interruption. Apparently Deputy Childer's views and statements are endorsed by his leader. I say here and now, without fear of contradiction, that the credit of this country is good.

The lot of you are slow in proving that.

It is as good as the credit of any country in Europe to-day.

Aye, but the Government have another name.

We were told the Minister for Finance had some moneys in recent years which were quickly dissipated. That is the one statement of Deputy Childers with which I entirely agree: there were some moneys and we would be well able to meet the situation now if we had the £24,000,000 of Marshall Aid which Fianna Fáil squandered within six months.

Mr. de Valera

No, no. What about the £20,000,000?

You will have to take it as well as everybody else. I listened to you for two solid hours without interruption. You will hear it whether you like it or not.

Mr. de Valera

You will hear it back.

And the half an hour limit will not aid you.

That Marshall Aid money was left as a safeguard, but it was squandered within six months.

Mr. de Valera

It is not true.

Am I not to be allowed to speak on this Estimate?

Mr. de Valera

You are bringing it to the last moment.

I listened to Deputy de Valera for two hours without interruption. He will not succeed now in preventing me making my speech.

Mr. de Valera

You will hear about it, though.

The Deputy must be allowed to speak without interruption.

Is the Deputy to be allowed to make statements in this House which are not true?

The Chair has no method of discovering whether or not a Deputy is speaking the truth or falsehood. The practice here is that a Deputy's statement must be accepted as being true. That is the basis on which we proceed in this House.

Even though we know it to be false.

I will speak whether Deputy Blaney or his leader like it or not, and I am going back to the £24,000,000.

What about the £15,000,000 you forgot about?

The £24,000,000. Those are the people who accused us of causing inflation. The only Government directly responsible for inflation so far is the Fianna Fáil Government. As far as was within their power——

Mr. de Valera

What about the £41,000,000. What about the rest of it?

Am I going to be allowed to speak? Is Deputy de Valera to behave himself or is he on the same level as his henchman?

I must insist that Deputy Morrissey be allowed to speak.

Mr. MacBride rose.

Deputy MacBride will permit me to say something? I must insist that Deputy Morrissey be allowed to speak without interruption.

No other Deputy may speak on this Estimate because it is obviously Deputy Morrissey's intention to talk it out until 10.30 p.m.

I have not heard anything about 10.30 p.m. I have ruled that Deputy Morrissey is in order and I intend to enforce that ruling through the authority vested in me.

Does the Deputy think that Deputy Childers has not done enough damage?

I would clean the Deputy up if I got in for five minutes after him.

If Deputy Blaney does not cease interrupting, I will have to use the powers vested in me to deal with him.

I am being asked questions.

The Deputy need not answer questions.

Very good.

Let us come back to the £24,000,000. If there is any doubt in the minds of anybody in the House that that is a sore point, it is not now necessary for me to emphasise it. It has been emphasised in a much more forcible way by the Deputies across the House than by anything I could express. Deputy de Valera told us he foresaw this situation in 1947. Mind you, that was some foresight. Deputy Childers went back further. He told the House that the present day conditions, not merely of this country but of the world, were foreseen by some banking commission and by the Central Bank in 1935. We had to listen to Deputy de Valera, Deputy MacEntee and Deputy Childers talking here as if the 1947 conditions in this country or in any part of the world were comparable with conditions to-day. It is an amazing thing that Deputy de Valera could foresee, nine years ago, what the greatest statesmen and leaders of the greatest nations in the world could not foresee nine months ago.

It was there nine months ago, but you did not admit it.

I suppose this is the penalty one has to pay for democracy. There is no comparison whatever; there was nothing in 1952 comparable with to-day and there was certainly nothing in 1952 that called for a 50 per cent. increase in the price of the loaf of bread. The people who increased the price of the loaf of bread by 50 per cent. are the people who are now ex-Ministers. When they are not in this House, they are down in Cork for the by-election filled with concern for the people in case the price of the loaf might be increased by one farthing. If they got a 50 per cent. increase in the loaf in 1952, under then conditions, and all the other increases, surely we are entitled to ask what measures would the Fianna Fáil Party, if they were now in Government, consider it necessary to take to meet the conditions obtaining to-day? I think we know.

Of course it is quite slick to talk about lack of confidence in the Government, but the average man in this country, and in any other country, is not accustomed to making a fine distinction as between the credit of a Government and the credit of a State. There is nobody more conscious of that than Deputy Childers. He was so conscious of it that he deliberately repeated that, and I have no doubt whatever, that the speech was delivered, not merely for this House, but so that it would get leaded headlines in the Irish Press to try to shake the people's confidence. You could, particularly in a situation like that which faces us to-day, shake confidence in the Government without shaking confidence in the credit of the State.

Deputy de Valera told us again last night that there is only one person fit to lead this country and that is himself.

He will never get that chance again.

It is the besetting curse of the Deputy that he believes, perhaps honestly, that he is the only person in Ireland competent to lead the country along the right road. If this country is not geared to meet the harsh winds when they blow, who is responsible? If our agriculture is not sufficiently geared to give us that extra production, who is responsible? Who was in charge of this State for 20 years with not even the excuse that they had not a complete majority over all Parties for 16 years?

The Deputy now talks about what should be done in the schools. He brought us back to the temptation of Eve. I suppose it is a polite way of describing people on this side of the House as serpents. He told us that he detests this Government, and of course a man less used to playing with words would perhaps have used, more directly and straightforwardly, the word which the Deputy probably would have liked to use, but thought it inadvisable— that he hates this Government. Sixteen years, with all the machinery, all the resources of this country completely and entirely at his disposal, with a complete and overwhelming majority in this House, to give effect to any policy or programme for the welfare of the people and the State, that he could possibly think of and desired to put into operation and what was the end of it? We now hear about emigration. At the end of that 16 years of continuous, strong, one-man Government, 500,000 of our people—one-sixth of our entire population—had cleared out of the country and more people were lining up at the labour exchanges than on the first day he took office 16 years before. We are told that we, on this side of the House, are the people to blame because agriculture and industry are not geared to meet the harsh wind when it comes.

Deputy Childers talked, in his condescending way, about all the arrant nonsense talked in this House and in this country. Deputy de Valera challenges us about dishonesty and deception of the people and suggests that we obtained office under false pretences. I could recite from the 17 promises of the Deputy. I am not going to remind the Leader of the Opposition of those 17 promises. They are well known and on record, and the Deputy cannot adopt his old excuse that he was misrepresented or misreported. I will refer only to one. He gave a very solemn promise that food subsidies would not be touched or disturbed and the Deputy, flagrantly and without any real reason, or excuse, deliberately broke that promise and every member who sits beside or behind him, was a party to it. We are lectured by the Leader of the Opposition on the virtue of truth. He has repeated it so often that it has even caught on with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It is tough enough having to listen to it coming from the Leader of the Opposition but when the Deputy Leader starts, it is worse.

Why can we not have the truth? Deputy de Valera knows quite well that this Government or the inter-Party Government that preceded it are not responsible for the conditions to-day. Deputy Childers alleged that we deliberately told the people that they should have a good time; spend all and save nothing. Is that the truth? Has it any resemblance to the truth? We are told that the people were told there was no necessity to be industrious, no necessity to be thrifty and no necessity to do other than be merry and gay, drink and have a good time. Nobody said that here.

Neither this country, nor any other country in the world, except when Fianna Fáil were in power, wanted to inflict any of the hardships, which both Deputy de Valera and Deputy Childers talked about to-day, on our people before it was necessary to do so. We are told we are going to get the co-operation of the Opposition in meeting this crisis. What is meant obviously, of course, having regard to the speeches to which we listened, is that the Opposition do not think it judicious or politically wise to oppose what we want to do here. There is a big difference between that and wholehearted co-operation.

Are we never to get the interests of this country put before the interests of Party? As a great man once said: "Is the country never to get a chance?" Must we go on, after 35 years of the futility of it, being more concerned with scoring off each other and taking mean advantages of each other than with trying to do something for the country? We heard a lot of talk about the unity of the 32 counties. When I hear people talking here about the desirability of uniting our people in the 32 counties but who are doing their damnedest to see that the people in the Twenty-Six Counties will not be united or act in unity, I begin to wonder what they mean when they talk about uniting our people of all creeds and classes inside the 32 counties.

Deputy de Valera ought not to object to plain speaking. He indulged in a lot of it yesterday. He lost his temper. I grant he does not often do that. The Deputy, yesterday and to-day, spent practically his entire speech trying to justify himself, his own Party and his own policy. That was his sole concern. I am not blaming him for that. I do not mind any man trying to justify himself, provided he does not feel it necessary first to damn the people with whom he is in opposition. You are not going to establish to the satisfaction of anybody, either the individual or the community, your own rectitude and good name, whether as an individual or a Party, by trying to drag the good name of other people into the mud.

There is nobody with any sense at all but must be concerned about the conditions which obtain to-day. There is no person in any walk of life who has any understanding of the situation or any regard for the country, or its people, or their future, but must be concerned. I do not think he meant it, but I think Deputy de Valera went a bit far when he picked out the Labour Party and the workers of this country and made a special appeal to them for help and to come together when there was a national danger facing this country.

The Deputy spoke of his intimate knowledge of the working people and the poor, and his concern for them. I do not question that in the slightest, but I want to suggest to the Deputy that his contact with them over the years, perhaps of necessity, has been rather a remote one. Again, I do not think it was meant, but it was almost a piece of impertinence to suggest that the trade unions, the Labour Party and the workers of the country generally would not respond at least as quickly as any other section of the community when the call of danger went out. Perhaps I had a much more intimate connection with the poor and the workers than even Deputy de Valera.

The Deputy did not know them to the same extent.

He knew them better than Deputy Killilea.

I was not expelled from the Labour Party.

Neither was Deputy Morrissey.

The Deputy is foolish if he thinks I will be goaded by that into making the very telling retort that could be made to it. However, that would open up a chapter that had better remain closed.

I was only answering the Minister for Health.

Deputy Morrissey on the Estimate.

A chapter which, I hope, we will never have again in this country.

I think Deputy Morrissey should pass from that.

They will always try to put me off the track, Sir. I will come back to what I was dealing with when the interruption came—Deputy de Valera's appeal to the Labour Party. He said he would like to hear somebody from the Labour Party speak. They have spoken—and, I am sure, to the Deputy's dismay—to the speech and the proposals of the Minister for Finance and to the speech of the Taoiseach. They are very important and very useful members of the Cabinet and the Government of this country. They have enough strength, enough patriotism and enough realisation of whatever dangers there may be, to do what the Deputy and his colleagues have asserted up and down the country for the past two years they would not have the strength to do: to approve and to stand over unanimous measures which are necessary but which are probably politically unpopular.

The Deputy and his colleagues told the people of this country that this was a "jellyfish Government," made up of bits and pieces, with no common ground and no common agreement, with one dragging the tail and the other the snout. The Deputy's latest was that there was one foot on the brake pedal and the other on the accelerator. The policy put forward in the Taoiseach's speech is not the policy of the Labour Party, Fine Gael, Clann na Poblachta, Clann na Talmhan or the Independents. It is the common policy of the Government and the one they believe is necessary to prevent disaster and to safeguard the interests of this country.

Is it so, a Cheann Comhairle, that an arrangement has been made and that despite the flagrant breach of faith that has taken place, nobody on this side of the House is to be allowed to reply to the statements made by Deputy Morrissey?

Deputy Blaney can not put any blame on the Chair for that. An agreement was made between the Government and the Opposition that the Taoiseach would be called on to speak at 10.30 and it is now 10.31.

We did not think that we were going to be sidetracked by the sort of "carry-on" we have just had.

Before proceeding with my reply, I wish to make an observation on the last remark of Deputy Blaney. This arrangement was made well before Deputy Morrissey got up to speak. Deputy Morrissey was the only speaker, with the exception of Deputy O'Leary, from this side of the House during the entire debate on this Estimate.

That is what we are referring to, that when the arrangement was made Deputy Morrissey got up and talked it out.

The arrangement was made. There is no doubt that on this Estimate the Opposition can criticise and examine the whole policy of the Government. We allowed a perfectly clear field to the Opposition during the entire debate on this Estimate. The suggestion of Deputy Blaney is therefore, I think, wholly unsustainable.

What has struck me during the debate on my Estimate, and during the debate on the proposals of the Minister for Finance to increase the levies, has been that from the point of view of the Opposition the debate has been carried out in a very poor manner. The reason for that is not hard to see. We in this Government have gone through a period, during the last eight months, of trials, difficulties and anxieties in connection with the financial and economic situation in this country, such as have never faced or beset any Irish Government since this State was established. We have had to consider anxiously and carefully all the problems that arose from day to day, unforeseen and unforeseeable difficulties arising from causes undoubtedly beyond our control. They have arisen perhaps to some extent from conditions created by our own people here in this country, but, to a large extent and perhaps to the largest extent, from the effects which flowed over here from the new financial policy of the British Government and the conditions existing in Great Britain. That is what caused our greatest difficulty. It was the problems which arose from those conditions that we had to meet and I want to make it clear to this House, and through this House to the country, that no Government had to meet such difficulties in circumstances of such grave anxiety, and no Government has ever found among its members such resolute unity in facing problems of this kind, and in achieving a solution of them, as I have got from my colleagues, Labour, Fine Gael and Clann na Talmhan, for the past eight months.

They helped to build them up.

I want to deny categorically the suggestions made here by the Leader of the Opposition and other members of the Opposition that there is disunity in this Government. Any such suggestion is devoid of any foundation whatever. I know that my word will be accepted in the country that, during this period of anxiety and danger for this country, I got such unified support and help from all my colleagues, and from Labour in particular, as no Taoiseach, or Prime Minister, has ever got in this country since the establishment of the State. I can say that no Fianna Fáil Government was ever as united as the inter-Party, or Coalition, Government —call it what you like—has been over the past two years.

Proof of that is forthcoming in the speeches we have had here to-day. It was because of that that we have had such bitterness from the Leader of the Opposition and his Party. It is because of their disappointment that we can, together, face the difficulties of the situation resolutely, and come forward with concrete proposals to put before this House to meet this situation, and that we can come and tell the facts to the people one week before the by-election in Cork, that there is all this bitterness. We come forward resolutely and do so because we put the nation before political Parties or political advantages.

What about a general election?

That is the reason for the hysterics which we had yesterday. They thought that this Government could not keep together and face the difficulties of the situation. Everybody knows the reason for these statements by the Opposition, but it was not the reason given here.

Let us look at what we have done to meet the situation. It is agreed and admitted that there is a serious situation in this country, economically and financially, due, as I said, to causes entirely beyond the control of this Government, and it has not been suggested in the whole course of this debate that the Government were in any way responsible for the conditions that have emerged in the last seven or eight months, and which face the country to-day.

We find in this House now that there is unanimous agreement that there is a serious situation financially and economically and that steps had to be taken to meet that situation. The steps that we have taken and have put before the House are being approved unanimously, without a division, by this House and there has not been a single additional suggestion put forward during the debate. There has not been any criticism of our proposals, and there has been no suggestion that they are not the right and proper steps to take—in fact the only steps to be taken—in the present situation.

There was no criticism of these proposals, nor has there been any suggestion, much less a statement, that other things could have been done or that other measures could have been taken, instead of those that we have taken. Notwithstanding all the hysterics we had yesterday, there has been no suggestion that we have failed to do anything that we should have done as a responsible Government, facing this Dáil and the country as a collective Government, with collective responsibility for these proposals.

It has been said more than once in the last few years that a Coalition could not govern this country, and would be afraid to take firm decisions. We heard Deputy de Valera say, and we read it in the paper, too, that one section of the Government was pulling this way and another section was pulling that way; we heard him say that one section was facing this way and another section facing that way. Yesterday, he used some sort of strange analogy about putting one's foot on the brake and one's hand on the accelerator. It is news to me that one puts one's hand on the accelerator.

Mr. de Valera

I did not say that.

At any rate it is only a detail.

The Taoiseach is as mixed up in that as he is in everything else.

The supposition was that we were pulling in different directions. That was Deputy de Valera's analysis some time ago. Deputy MacEntee yesterday, when he moved to refer this Estimate back, was rather facetious in his approach, but he did suggest that some statements made by some of my colleagues did not appear to agree with the statements I was making or with general Government policy. According to Deputy MacEntee, and some of the other Opposition Deputies, the supposition was that Fine Gael said one thing, Labour said something else, and Clann na Talmhan something different. He gave an example. He selected three Fine Gael members—Deputy John O'Donovan, Parliamentary Secretary to the Government, Deputy General MacEoin, Minister for Defence, and some other Fine Gael Minister.

And the Minister for Justice as well.

Three members of the Fine Gael Party were selected. Labour were supposed to be pulling against Fine Gael and Fine Gael against Clann na Talmhan: and the only evidence of that that could be adduced from Deputy MacEntee yesterday, and from his leader to-day, was that the Minister for Local Government, said something somewhere and the Minister for Health said something else.

And the Minister for Justice.

No reference was given which would enable us to identify the speeches. We were not told where they were made or what was said. That is the sole evidence produced during the course of this extremely hysterical debate, so far as the Opposition is concerned, during these last two days. That is the only proof offered of the so-called pulling and pushing on the part of the inter-Party Government.

Did the Taoiseach read "Alice in Wonderland" by Deputy Larkin?

Keep quiet.

(interruptions)

Did the Minister read "Alice in Wonderland"?

Keep quiet, and take your medicine.

"Alice in Wonderland"!

Take your medicine.

What has really exasperated the Opposition, and made Deputy de Valera so hysterical yesterday that he thumped the table and said he detested this Government— thereby, of course, detesting the Irish people who elected them—what has disappointed him was that we came in here as a Government, all united: Fine Gael, Labour and Clann na Talmhan all united, all agreed, pooling all our resources in the last eight months and all our knowledge and bending all our energies and our goodwill to meet the situation.

Tell us something about Deputy Larkin's speech.

Let the Deputy listen to something now.

Our steps have been approved. The steps we have taken have proved to be the right steps. The Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues pretend that they will help us. In what mood are they going to the country? Will they give us the help we require in this national emergency? Or is it, as I believe it to be, a mere pretence?

Why not go to the country?

Is it a mere pretence that they will help us in this emergency and help to convince the people that these steps have to be taken? Have we not had experience in the last six months, when we asked the people to save, and pointed out that it was their duty to save, of underground suggestions: "Do not save. You are giving it to this Government that we detest."

Mr. de Valera

Who said that?

Deputy de Valera said it.

Deputy de Valera did not say it.

The next few days will show whether the Government will get from the Opposition real, genuine, sincere help in the national emergency that confronts this country at the moment. Irrespective of whether it is a Coalition or any other form of Government that is in office, faced with this situation, we know now at the end of this two-day debate that the steps we have taken would have been the steps taken by Deputy de Valera if he had been in my place.

The situation would never have arisen.

We took this decision. Now this Government is not supposed to be able to take unpopular decisions. We took this decision, and we took it unanimously and without the slightest disagreement on the part of any person in the Government. We took it at a time when we are facing a by-election in Cork.

Mr. de Valera

The Taoiseach should not be hysterical.

We could have waited a little longer and not brought in these measures just now. But we preferred to do the courageous thing, the thing that Deputy de Valera, who detests this Government, said we could not do.

Mr. de Valera

The Taoiseach should not be hysterical, thumping the table.

We have once and for all given the lie to Deputy de Valera that this Government cannot take unpopular decisions and have not got the courage to take unpopular decisions.

Face the country.

Is there to be any limit to this blackguardism?

We will test the bona fides of Deputy de Valera, who, in spite of the fact that he detests this Government, says that he is going to help in this national emergency. What has been said in Cork? We know what has been said. We know the rumours that have been put around, some of which were reiterated here to-day by Deputy Childers. That is where the matter will be tested, and we will be see then whether or not we will get practical support from the present Opposition.

To see if we will pull you out of the hole you have got yourselves into.

We will test the support. Deputy de Valera this afternoon proceeded to give his views on this Government. He repeated what he has said before—it would be a disaster if a Coalition was formed. He said that before the first Coalition was formed.

Is it not proved now?

He said we got in by a trick at that time.

Quite true. What a disaster!

True enough.

He repeated that to-day. We were in power on the first occasion for three years, whether by trickery or anything else. We were elected by a big majority of the Irish people at the last general election in spite of the fact that all the force of the personality of Deputy de Valera was thrown into the campaign and appeals were made to him: "For God's sake, do not retire."

Lower prices.

In spite of everything that was said——

Go to the country. Alice in Wonderland.

It is a scandal to allow this blackguardism to go on.

In spite of every effort that was made, nobody can assert that this Government—Coalition or inter-Party Government or anything you like to call it—was returned to office by anything other than the votes of the Irish people and on the mandate of the Irish people, freely given in the democratic general election of 1954. If ever any Government came into office with a mandate from the people it was this Government. I went around the country, up and down the country, asking the people to vote for Fine Gael but stating clearly and specifically that, even if Fine Gael were to get a majority in that general election, I would invites my colleagues in the Labour Party, in Clann na Talmhan and in Clanna na Poblachta, to form a Coaliation, or an inter-Party Government with me, even if we in Fine Gael had an overall majority. It was, therefore, perfectly clear that there would emerge from that general election——

That is merely funny.

——an inter-Party Government, if Fianna Fáil did not succeed in securing a majority. I assert here, and it cannot be denied, that we have a mandate from the people to do the work of the nation, the work we are doing, and we will give an account of our stewardship at the end of our team, whenever it will be.

Lower prices and better times for all.

And when we do go to the country, I think we will be able to tell a better story and show a better record than Fianna Fáil had after 20 years in office. We have this in common: we represent all sections of the community and the only object we have in Government to-day is to do the best we can for all the Irish people and for all sections of the Irish people.

(Interruptions.)

On a point of order. I sat through the whole of Deputy de Valera's speech. Not once was he interrupted. Deputy de Valera is now sitting as Leader of the Opposition, responsible for the people behind him, and he has made no effort whatever——

Mr. de Valera

That is not true.

——to control the disgraceful conduct.

Mr. de Valera

That is not true.

Then, if it is not true, Deputy de Valera has no control over his supporters.

The Leader of the opposition is not responsible for order in this House. I am.

It is time you did it.

There are two Deputies who are interrupting constantly. I am warning them that I will use the powers I have to deal with them if they persist.

I will have to leave sooner than listen to that.

There is a third getting up steam now.

Another charge that the leader of the opposition levelled at us, and at me in particular, to-day was that this Government got into office at the last general election by false pretences. That is a charge which he is found of making, never giving any authority to support the proposition. He said that I said something in 1952. I did not catch what he referred to in the course of his speech. During the entire period, when I was leader of the Opposition, I dealt with the Policy of the then Government in detail. I criticised it in a manner in which I thought was constructive. Having given constructive criticism, I gave my own positive proposals every time. I did that during the course of the general election.

All my speeches are on record. They are on the records of this House. They are on the files of the newspapers, because, for practically every speech I made, when in opposition, I gave a script to the newspapers so that nobody could thereafter misrepresent what I had said. I assert that, while in Government, during the first inter-Party Government period, and in Opposition from 1951 to 1954, I followed a consistent line of principle and policy and, as head of this present inter-Party Government, that same line of policy has been complied with in principle and in every detail.

In respect of the sterling assets to which Deputy de Valera referred to-day, the principles upon which our schemes of productive capital expenditure and prudent repatriation of external assets were founded were stated again and again by me in public from 1948 to 1951, and were put on the records of this House between 1951 and 1954. Those principles guide the decisions which we now have to make.

As the Minister for Finance said to-day in reply on the Fifth Stage of the Imposition of Duties (Confirmation of Order) Bill, our policy is a flexible policy. The principles have been strictly adhered to in every single respect. Deputy de Valera made a suggestion that my colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, had, if I took Deputy de Valera down correctly, stated that our external assets were of no use. He rhetorically cried—and, again I say, hysterically—could we not get an end to this nonsense of saying that our sterling assets were of no value. Who said that? None of my colleagues either in the Government or behind me.

Deputy McGilligan said they were waste paper.

Who said they were waste paper now?

You muzzled the poor man.

Deputy McGilligan said nothing of the sort. In any event, I am dealing with a specific allegation of the Opposition to-day. You will not get away from that. I have seen the script of the speech of the Minister for Agriculture. He stated nothing of the sort. What are we doing to-day? Why are we asking the country to suffer these sacrifices? Why are we imposing these levies? Deputy Aiken endeavoured by means of an interruption to suggest we were trying to collect more taxes.

Collect more of Deputy McGilligan's waste paper.

Deputy McGilligan described it as waste paper. It is on the records of this House.

There is a lot on the records of this House.

Falsehoods from you which I think even you were ashamed of.

There were no interruptions made in regard to Deputy de Valera.

Deputy Morrissey made a statement last night which he knows was untrue.

Is it in order to say that another Deputy made a statement which he knew was untrue?

That would be tantamount to calling the Deputy a liar.

If Deputy Morrissey does not know the difference between Great Britain and Canada, I am not responsible for the fact.

He is shying away from it.

A Deputy said that another Deputy made a statement which he knows to be false. Is that statement withdrawn?

If I have no option as between withdrawing the remark and withdrawing from the House—I want to listen to the Taoiseach; he is most amusing——

There should be no qualification.

Will the Chair be good enough to let me say that if I have no option as between withdrawing the remark and withdrawing from the House and being unable to listen to the Taoiseach, I withdraw the statement but I will make it outside the House. The Chair cannot compel me to withdraw.

The Deputy made other statements which took him 15 years to withdraw.

Deputy Morrissey is not in order.

I have interrupted only once but there is a Deputy who has interrupted 40 times in the past half an hour and has not been reproved.

That is a charge against the Chair.

There ought to be equal justice in the House.

Deputy Morrissey will withdraw the remark that I am not giving equal justice in the House. He will withdraw the suggestion that I am not giving equal justice to both sides.

No person has more respect than I have for the Chair. I withdraw it.

It is a qualified withdrawal.

We are doing here to-day what we believe to be essential to conserve our sterling holdings. That has secured at least lip service from the Opposition and the unanimous approval of this House. If Deputy de Valera will read the final paragraph of the peroration of the Minister for Agriculture, he will see that the charge he made to-day against the Minister for Agricultural is entirely without foundation.

Deputy Childers spoke a short time ago about broken promises, and the Leader of the Opposition, yesterday, and on this Estimate this afternoon spoke about a demoralising campaign throughout the country. I suppose that the 1954 General Election campaign was the demoralising campaign to which he referred. I have put on the records of this House the statements I made throughout the length and breadth of this country on the question of promises. I will read one more, and I will continue to read them.

I will repeat every one of them in ten minutes.

Is it proper for Deputy MacEntee to come in here to pick up where Deputy Killilea left off?

The leader of the Opposition referred distinctly to me; Deputy Childers referred distinctly to me in the context of promises and false pretences. I want to recall to the Deputies of this House. It will go the records of this House. It will go again on the records of this House. I was asked by the Irish Times a series of questions during the general election for the purpose of putting me into a hole of corner. I invite the Irish Times to produce them again and print them again. I rejoice in the answers I gave at that time because nobody can accuse me of promising what I believe to be incapable of fulfilment— of giving irresponsible promises. The answers to the questionaire that I got from the Irish Times were printed in that newspaper on the 13th May, 1954. The first two questions I was asked were:

"If returned to the Government, do you propose, in the coming year, to reduce the cost of living by increasing food subsidies?

If returned to Government, do you propose, in the coming year, to retain taxation as it is at present on beer and spirits, motoring and cigarettes?"

I then proceeded to say a few introductory words before coming to the following sentence:—

"I do not therefore, propose to repeat the action of our opponents in 1951, when they made specific promises which they subsequently broke. They failed to keep their specific promises to maintain subsidies and not to restore certain taxes. I am prepared to make only one promise—to provide good Government to the best of my ability."

What about the rest of it?

I invite the Irish Times to re-publish that. I would have the greatest pleasure in repeating the whole lot of it, but I have a very short space of time at my disposal. I will give the Deputy, if he is curious enough and has never seen it, a copy of this if he wants it.

I want to make one further quotation from the speech that I made following the speech at Ringsend opening the campaign. I made almost the same speech at Ballyshannon. This speech was in the possession of the Irish Press and was given to the Irish Press and the Leader of the Opposition before it was made. I said, on the 24th April, 1954:—

"We do not intend to stifle our future endeavour by promises, hotly secured in the midst of an election campaign. We will enter into no such competition and it should be appreciated that anyone who holds out to you rosy prospects of the expenditure on benefits is offering to spend your money for you. We will make no such promises, which would dishonour you as much as they would dishonour us. We do not believe that the Irish people are to be brought, but we will promise earnest service, the endeavour, so far as we may, to see that only the best talent is employed in Government, and the determination to be untiring and undistracted in the search for economic amelioration and social peace."

That promise has been fulfilled by me and my colleagues in the spirit and in the letter. When it is said that I secured votes by false pretences, I invite any impartial man to read those speeches which, fortunately for me, are on record. Remember that I was tuanted by the Irish Press and by Deputy Lemass, for failing to make any promises. I am now in the happy position of being able to say to the Deputies opposite that I never made an irresponsible speech during the entire campaign in that general election.

What did Deputy de Valera do in 1951, in order to snatch office from us? He had promised, during the course of the 1951 election, to put back the food subsidies, to maintain the food subsidies.

Mr. de Valera

In that election? I should like to be confronted with any statement of mine.

Take what is coming to you.

What about the Attorney General's broadcast? Deal with that—if you dare.

Let me give the history of the food subsidies. The Fianna Fáil Government introduced them in 1947. In the election of 1951 they promised to maintain them.

Read the statement. In what way? Quote the statement.

On a point of order, is there to be any effort made to allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption?

Is the Minister for Finance making a charge against the Chair?

No, Sir, I am asking a question.

The Chair has made repeated efforts to prevent interruptions which are coming from both sides of the House.

The interruptions of Taoiseach are coming from the Opposition.

Naturally interruptions of the Taoiseach come from the Opposition, but there are interjections from the Government side of the House also.

If no interruption comes from this side of the House, will you take steps when interruptions come from the opposite side of the House, because that is what includes the interruptions from this side?

Is the Minister saying the Chair is not carrying out its duties properly? By the manner in which the Minister puts his question, it appears to be a charge against the Chair. The Chair is trying to maintain order in so far as it is possible to do so.

On a point of order, is it not useful for Deputies to be asked to withdraw charges made against the Chair?

The question of withdrawl does not arise in the opinion of the Chair. The Taoiseach.

These subsidies were introduced in 1947. They promised to "maintain" them, in the General Election of 1951, when they were seeking the votes of those five gentleman, who subsequently got their walking papers from the electorate in the last general election, in order to put them into office. They promised to maintain the food subsidies. They went back on that promise in 1952, and in Deputy MacEntee's Budget they slashed them.

The quotation, of 1952.

They slashed them. Deputy MacEntee said they were not going to increase the taxes on beer and spirits. They promised that.

(Interruptions.)

The Taoiseach must be allowed to make his statement without interruption in accordance with Standing Orders. Every Deputy is entitled to make his speech without interruption. Now, the Opposition or any other Deputy seeking to interrupt the Taoiseach will have to bear the full brunt of Standing Orders.

I ask any fair-minded person—and, mind you, there were many fair-minded persons who voted in the last general election for us —is Deputy of de Valera or any member of that Party, entitled to say that we got in by false pretences. They got into office, and they reduced the subsidies in 1952. Deputy Lemass and Deputy MacEntee promised they would not take the food subsidies off, that the taxes on beer and spirits——

On a point of order——

(Interruptions.)

On a point of order. The Taoiseach has alleged—I am sorry, Sir. I want to raise a point of order.

The Deputy wants to make a point of order?

Yes, Sir. The Taoiseach has asceribed to me a statement which I never made, in relation to food subsidies.

That is not a point of order.

Quote my words.

I said "bear and spirits." I said you promised that you would not put on the taxes on beer and spirits but that you did put them on in 1952. In Rathmines Town Hall that promise was made, in relation to beer and spirits. I am occupying the time of the House perhaps unduly on this, but I think it is in the public interest to deal with these charges, these false charges, which are repeated in the Hitler fashion—get the lie going and you never can catch up on it. Deputy de Valera is repeating what is untrue when he says I made any promises—except the promises I made to give good government. That has been given and will be given.

What really exasperated the Leader of the Opposition yesterday and to-day was the fact that he saw the position slipping away from him for ever. He spent nearly two hours to-day in justifying his past. That is his attitude all the time; he is always anxious to demonstrate to the people how wrong they were when they were disobedient to his will.

We are not here by false pretences, but by the votes of the people. He hates this Government, when it is a Government elected by the people. He hates this Government, elected by the majority of the people. He is going back to those days that, perhaps, we should not refer to here, but which perhaps it is necessary to recall to younger people who did not know the conditions which existed 20 years ago. not to talk of 30 years ago.

Now it is the "Blueshirts".

I want to deal now with Deputy MacEntee. Who was responsible for—

Who was responsible for the "Blueshirts"?

A Deputy

Fine Gael.

This is a clear contrast between the treatment the Taoiseach is getting and the treatment the Leader of the Opposition got for two hours, without a single interruption.

There is a lot of blackguardism on that side of the House. They do not want to allow the first man in the country to speak in his own Parliament. It is a common blackguardism.

The Taoiseach.

He is dead but he will not lie down.

The principal speaker of the Opposition referred to these matters yesterday afternoon, and a more deplorable utterance I certainly never listened to. It was really comical. The Deputy, I know, likes to play the role of a political playboy. He rejoices in it sometimes, and he was in his political playboy mood yesterday afternoon.

He has been described as a senile delinquent, by one of his own Party.

He complained that I had not given an exposé of the economic conditions and financial affairs of the country during the past 12 months and said that I had brought in emigration as a red herring. Then he proceeded to say that my colleagues in the Fine Gael Party were apparently not in agreement with me, or something to that effect. That was all playboyism. Does Deputy MacEntee remember the 20 years, or nearly 20 years, during which his leader, Deputy de Valera, was Taoiseach, when his method of introducing the Estimate for the Department of the Taoiseach was to get up and move the formal resolution for £20,000, or whatever it was, and sit down and say that he would answer any questions? There was never any expose by him. When I because Taoiseach I did introduce the practice of giving information to Deputies and giving them some material on which they could discuss Government policy during the 12 months. I kept up that practice all the time I was Taoiseach and every year since I came back to office I have done it.

This year I made it clear in what I said that, because we had had so many discussions of an economic character, and because the facts and figures had been given as recently as yesterday, I would not go over the ground again; but I did deal with a matter that I thought was very relevant, the matter of emigration. If I had wanted to draw red herrings across the discussion, do you think I would deliberately, have brought the subject of emigration into this debate? I threw it into the arena of this debate, deliberately threw it in, and I got a very poor response, I must say. I invited attack upon myself and my colleagues, but I have nothing to reply to in the debate.

Deputy MacEntee then proceeded to say that, because I had not given an exposé I prevented him from reviewing Government policy. In answer to Deputy MacEntee yesterday, I said that this discussion on my Estimate was free for all, that Deputies were entitled, even though I dealt with only two or three topics in my introductory speech, to deal with all or any matter of Government policy, that there was nothing to stop them doing that. I do say this, and I say it not merely about Deputy MacEntee, but about every Opposition Deputy who has spoken in this debate, that another characteristic feature of this debate on my Estimate is that, whereas there was much hysterical denunciation of the Government in all moods and tenses, there was practically no discussion at all of any aspect of Government policy or any exposé of any errors of the Government in matters of policy. There was no real criticism of Government policy at all. The Leader of the Opposition detests this Government. Not a single one of the Deputies opposite, from Deputy de Valera down, selected aspects of Government policy and said, “That is wrong; you should not have done this; you should have done that; this could be our policy.” There was nothing but destructive denunciation in the speeches that we had to-day or yesterday.

Government policy does not exist.

If Deputy MacEntee says it does not exist, why did not he say so? Why did he not show where it does not exist?

One cannot prove a negative.

He forgot to say it. He could have save it. He could at least, have said said that we have no policy. That is why he made such a jejune speech yesterday evening. Deputy MacEntee loves, as I say, to play the role of political playboy likes another role, the role of pseudo-statesman. He is comical when he is playing the role of political playboy; he is very dangerous indeed when he is acting the part of pseudo-statesman, I have in all seriousness to speak to-night to the dangerous utterances that he made within the last few days, and I have to do so in all the greater seriousness because of the remarks made by the Deputy childers a very short time ago. Deputy Childers spoke about rumours that this Government were going to nationalise the banks.

Deputy Declan Costello made that suggestion.

Deputy MacEntee spoke about the kiss of death to the Irish pound. He spoke about the kiss of death to the Irish pound on the 20th March, 1956, reported at column 810 of the Dáil Debates of that day. That would have been all right, or would perhaps have done little or no damage were it not for the fact that he repeated it on Wednesday last, and that repetition of his reference to the devaluation of the pound is reported in the Dáil Debates of the 18th July, 1956, at column 1137 and 1138. He goes on to say that, if certain things are done——

"——if we do, inevitably the day will come when the Irish pound——"

Unless certain things were done.

"——will be devalued vis-á-vis sterling.” I want to assert here that those utterances are highly dangerous and, in fact, the reason I mention it to-night is that it has been reported to me that the fact that Deputy Macentee repeated that statement the other day has caused great uneasiness in this city. It is almost treason to the nation for Deputy MacEntee——

The Taoiseach is not going to accuse me of treason.

Deputy MacEntee knows——

He stood by the nation when you were preaching treason.

Deputy MacEntee knows and ought to know perfectly well that there is not even a remote possibility of such devaluation, that there is full and complete cover of the Irish pound in sterling holdings. Because of the damage that has been done by this pseudo-statesman——

A Deputy

By the Government.

——repeating his innuendo—he was playing the role, of the statesman when he said it, but the damage was there, the poison was in his utterances—I have to make this categorical statement to-night——

It has made the Government do something to save it.

I have been told that because of Deputy MacEntee's statement last week deposits have left this country. I want that to be known here so that the seriousness of this thing may be made known. Such a thing should not be mentioned, should never be mentioned, of out Irish financial system. What Deputy Childers mentioned to-night about the nationalisation of the banks ought not to be mentioned in the context in which he mentioned it to-night, because of the danger to our financial system, particularly in the critical conditions that exist at the present time.

It was mentioned by one of your own followers.

On a point of order. May I ask if the Taoiseach will be allowed to conclude his address without interruptions?

The Deputy wants the banks nationalised. So does Deputy Declan Costello.

Order! The Taoiseach should be allowed to speak without interruption.

I am afraid, A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that I will have to shout them down but I, will do my best. I will discuss this matter in a manner leaving no doubt. Not merely will this Government not take the step contemplated by Deputy MacEntee—

Sir, I protest.

Deputies

Sit down.

That is a deliberate falsehood.

That must be withdrawn.

I will withdraw from the House rather than withdraw that charge. The Taoiseach well knows that I did not contemplate that but I have forced the Government at last to take action to prevent it.

You know that is not true.

I assure the Dáil and the country that my Government and myself would surrender office rather than do so, and that, for myself, I would never become a member of any Government which did it or proposed to do it. I hope the former Minister for Finance, Deputy MacEntee, out of regard for the national interest, will put some curb on his desire to get political advantage out of national difficulties. I address the same remarks of Deputy Childers in relation to his observations here to-night. It may be that Deputy Childers made this suggestion about nationalising the banks in some particular context. However, lest that suggestion might do damage unless I deny it, I want to say that this Government has no such intention. It is very regrettable that I should have to deal with matters of this kind.

I stated in Cork that I had no objection to my political opponents taking advantage of the difficulties we were in, but I asked the people of Cork to remember that our difficulties were the nation's difficulties. That is what I should be doing to-night—trying to get the people to understand that these are the nation's difficulties——

Instead of slandering the Opposition.

——instead of meeting a barrage of interruptions from that gang over there who alleged and contended they were going to help us and the nation in the nation's difficulties. That is why I have little belief or faith in——

On a point of order. It is a very unworthy statement from the Taoiseach——

The Deputy will resume his seat.

Deputy de Valera is not trying one bit to reprove his Party.

He is probably urging it on.

The House might allow the Taoiseach to conclude his statement without these interruptions.

May I withdraw the word "gang"? It slipped out in the heat caused by the barrage of hysterical interruptions from the Opposition Benches. I regret I was misled into the use of that word and I apologise to the Deputies opposite for it.

It has been the object of all the speakers on the opposite benches, from the Leader of the Opposition down, to try to suggest that the conditions with which we are faced to-day in this country are similar to and traceable back to the conditions in 1947. Of course, there is not parity or similarity whatever between the conditions existing how and those existing in 1947 or 1952. In 1947, the Budget was brought in not for the purpose of dealing with any balance of payments difficulties whatever——

Hear, hear.

There were no balance of payments difficulties at that time. Deputy de Valera yesterday traced the history of our present difficulties to 1947 to try to justify his past. In 1947, there were no balance of payments difficulties. Quite the contrary. There was difficulty about the rising cost of living, and subsidies were introduced. May I point out—and the reference can be had if it is wanted— that that 1947 Budget budgeted for a substantial surplus?

Certainly.

I am glad to know you agree with that statement, because that was our challenge to the 1952 Budget.

In an inflationary situation, why not?

I am glad Deputy MacEntee agrees that the 1947 Budget which imposed those penal taxes budgeted for a substantial surplus.

With a £29,000,000 deflcit in the balance of payments.

The 1952 Budget was not introduced to deal with the balance of payment.

£61,000,000.

It was not introduced until May, 1952. Deputies will remember that, after the change of Government in 1951, we ha Deputy MacEntee, the then Minister for Finacne, talking about the balance of payments—woe and despair, critical times, and so on. He started here——

On a point of order. May I repeat a submission I made to the Ceann Comhairle when he was in the Chair? I sat during the whole of Deputy de Valer's speech and he was not interrupted once. Since the Taoiseach has started, there has been a deliberate campaign of interruptions to prevent him from speaking—a deliberate campaign by several Deputies. I ask you, Sir, as the guardian of order in this House, to see that the Taoiseach is heard with the courtesy with which Deputy de Valera was heard.

Deputy de Valera had something to say.

The Chair has repeatedly asked Deputies to allow the Taoiseach to conclude without interruption.

In 1951, when Deputy MacEntee was Minister for Finacne, he came into this House—I think it was some time in July—and cried havoc, woe, misery and the balance of payments. He did not take any action whatever to correct the balance of payments until May of the following year when, on wrong assumptions, he introduced his infamous Budget of that year.

Even the Taoiseach cannot be correct in that.

They had not courage in 1951, in spite of all their talk. They had intended an autumn Budget but shirked it. It was not until May, 1952, that they brought in their infamous Budget dealing with the balance of payments. At that time, the whole trend had reversed itself, as we pointed out and demonstrated in speech after speech and article after article in periodicals. The inter-Party Government on the other hand, took action the minute we saw the trend going against us. We took action in December last when, rightly or wrongly, whichever point of view you take, we acquiesced in the raising of bank interest rates.

I spoke to the Cork Chamber of Commerce in January last. In March, we put on the special levies for the first time. In May, the Minister for Finance introduced his Budget. Now, for the fourth time, we are taking the necessarry steps.

For the last time.

Deputy MacEntee, crying woe and havoc in relation to the critical condition of the country, issued a White Paper in September, 1951, showing how the trend was going against the country, but he took no action until May, 1952, and, at that time when he introduced his Budget, the trend had gone entirely in favour of our balance of international payments. That Budget of 1952 was introduced in a year in which there was a £10,000,000 increase of the external reserves of the banking system. Is that the condition that exists to-day when, in a period of 18 months, the Irish banking system has lost something like £50,000,000 of net external reserves? Is that not an entirely different condition?

We were the Government then, I suppose.

Owing to the drying up of the inward flow of capital caused by the new financial policy of the British Government and an unprecedented spurt in consumer spending; the financing of the balance of payments deficits has fallen completely on the banking system——

£30,000,000 down.

——creating a situation in which limitations on expansion, which in other circumstances we might have enhoued, became the unenviable duty of the Government. In 1952, Deputy MacEntee, Minister for Finance as he then was, based, as appears from the infamous White Paper of 1951, his whole principles, and his utterances of woe and misery, on the opinion that here would be no expansion in the agricultural industry. We said the cause of the imbalance at that time was the stockpiling created by the war in Korea and that, inevitably, the running down of those stocks would tend to correct the imbalance, we also said that agricultural exports would rise—as they rose dramatically —and turn the tide of the balance of payments in our favour.

The Leader of the Opposition tries to suggest that the conditions in 1947 and 1952 were the same as those which exist now—again trying to justify his past. The Leader of the Opposition spent a considerable time in telling us, item after item, of the hopes he had held. When he had concluded his speech I asked some of my colleagues whether I was mistaken or whether he had just given us a list of all his failures down through the years.

In conclusion I just want to dwell on the other side of the picture. I spoke, in the course, of my remarks in opening this debate, of the necessity for not looking too much on the dark side of things, for remembering the achievements of the past. Those of us who were alive in Dublin prior to the Treaty wil remember the conditions in Ireland from 1910 onwards. I remember them here in Dublin, where I have lived all my life, and in the country, where I travelled as a young barrister. I can see the changes. If anybody lived in the City of Dublin when I was a boy they would remember that scarcely a boy or girl had a boot or stocking to their feet, I remember a phrase that was used by my mother in reference to the amount of clothing that the poor pelple wore in this city, that they had not enough on them to dust a fiddle. I would ask Deputy McQuillan to remember that, when he whinges and whines in this House about our present conditions. Remember what has been achieved, the houses that have been built—

Who did it?

It does not matter who did it.

It does matter.

You can take, if you like, the credit for anything that was done but I am saying we were all in on it for the last 35 years. Every single Party in this House was in on it. Whatever has been done, we can all take part of the blame or the credit, whichever you like, but I do say that something has been achieved. I have lived to see, and I thank God I have lived to see dramatic changes in the conditions of life and the standard of living of our people.

As the Minister for Agriculture said to-day, we have had to take these corrective measures, but they are only palliative measures, only transitory measures, and the sooner they go the better we will be pleased. Any such measures to correct the balance of payments, whether taken by us or by any other Government, are, as I said, only palliatives. We cannot get a proper balance of trade until we get a greater volume of exports, until we get more production, to use a phrase of which, as Deputy de Valera said, everybody was tired. Until we get the support of farmers and industrialists and an increase in the exports of goods, cattle and everything else, we cannot make progress and we will be only stopping holes and keeping out leaks here and there.

Those are the fundamental things that must be done, but let us survey what has been done. We have on the credit side the successful efforts of my friend, the Tánaiste, in getting the oil refinery in Cork. Look at what that will mean to this country in capital flowing in, in all the goods and services and all the subsidiary services it will bring in.

That was started by deputy Lemass.

It used to be said by Deputy MacEntee that bringing in capital into this country was a liability, but it is one of the ways in which, ultimately, you can hep to correct your balance of payments deficits and I take it that is what we all want to achieve. That is what we have been trying to do. In addition to the oil refinery we have had the mineral development in Advoca, in Allihies, West Cork, and other places. The output of our cattle last year was the highest ever recorded. The stocks of live stock, cattle, sheep and lambs were the highest we have ever had.

There has been a grealy increased output in pigs and as I think the Minister for Agriculture said to-day, practically a record crop of barley is expected. By the end of this year we hope there will be 1,000,000 acres of Irish land rehabilitated or in the course of rehabilitation under the land project. We have made dramatic strides in forestry and we have fixed our target in forestry. We have fixed our target in housing, and we have more boats than ever before in the hands of Irish fishermen, all of which are being operated at a profit.

Are those not things to be proud of? I do not care who is responsible for them, but I say we are entitled to meet our difficulties without, as Deputy Childers said to-night, beating our breasts and indulging in self-pity. We have no need of self-pity. We shall meet our difficulties, expected or unexpected, as they come, without whinging, whining or self-pity. If we get co-operation from the Opposition, from the country and from the farmers in particular, and if the Opposition will ask their supporters to co-operate in the savings campaign, then we shall be able to carry out our programme of capital expenditure and there will be some hope for this country.

Mr. de Valera

May I inquire if the Taoiseach can give me the information I sought in relation to agriculture?

I had a note to answer that.

Mr. de Valera

There is another matter on which I should like to hear something. There are rumours that the Report of the Central Bank has been some time in the hands of the Government. Will it be published soon?

May I answer the second point? It has not yet come from the printers.

It has been in your hands since last May.

That is not true.

It is true.

Does Deputy de Valera want an answer to his question or are we to listen to this stuff from Deputy Briscoe? Where does the Lord Mayor get his information? Has he got spies out?

The information is correct. It does not matter where it comes from.

Whether it is correct or not it was got in an unauthorised and illegal fashion.

In relation to the second question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, he is aware that what occurs in respect of the Report of the Central Bank is that it is delivered to the Minister for Finance, that it is then handed over to the Stationery Office, that it is between the Stationery Office and the Central Bank that the printing arrangements are made, that it is the Central Bank that checks the proofs as they come from the Stationery Office and that it does not come back to the Government through the Department or the Minister for Finance until the final proofs have been checked by the Central Bank and the printing completed. The completed prints have not yet come back to me.

Mr. de Valera

I simply asked a question.

Does the Deputy want an answer to his question?

He asked the question but he has the dirty boy to do the damage.

I shal answer no further questions.

Question—"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration"— put.
The Committe divided: Tá, 59, Níl, 67.

Aiken, Frnak.Allen, Denis.Bartley, Gerald.Began, Patrick.Blaney, Neil T.Boland, Gerald.Brennan, Joseph.Brennan, Paudge.Breslin, Cormae.Brisooe, Robert.Burke, Patrick J.Butter, Bernard.Calleary, Phelim A.Carter, Frank.Childers, Erskine H.Colbert, Michael.Colley. Harry.Collins, James J.Corry, Martin J.Crowley, Honor M.Davern, Michael J.Derrig, Thomas.de Valera, Eamon.de Valera, Vivion.Egan, Kieran P.Egan, Nicholas.Faning, John.Flynn, John.Flynn, Stephen.Geoghegan, John.

Gilbride, Eugene.Gogan, Richard.Harris, Thomas.Hillery, Patrick J.Hillard, Michael.kelly, Edward.Kenneally, William.Kennedy, Michael J.Killiles, Mark.Lahifie, Robert.Lynch, Celia.MacCarthy, Seán.McEllistrim, Thomas.MacEntee, Seán.McQuillan, John.Maguire, Ben.Maher, Peadar.Moher, John W.Mooney, Patrick.Moran, Michael.Moylan, Seán.Ó Briain, Donnehadh.O'Malley, Donough.ormonde, John.Ryan, James.Ryan, Mary B.Sheridan, Michael.Smith, Patrick.Smith, Patrick.Traynor, Oscar.

Níl

Barry, Anthony.Barry, Richard.Beirne, John.Belton, Jack.Blowick, Joseph.Burke, James J.Byrne, Patrick.Byrne, Thomas.Carew, John.Coburn, George.Collins, Seán.Coogan, Fintan.Corish, Brendan.Cosgrave, Liam.Costello, Deolan.Costello, John A.Crotty, Patrick J.Crowe, Patrick.Deering, Mark.Desmond, Daniel.Dillon, James M.Dockrell, maurice E.Donegan, Patrick S.Donnellan, Michael.Dunne, Seán.Esmonde, Anthony C.Everett, James.Fagan, Charles.Finlay, Thomas A.Flanagan, Oliver J.Giles, Patrick.Glynn, Brendan M.Hession, James M.Hughes, Joseph.

Kenny, Henry.keyes, Michael.kyne, Thomas A.Leary, Johnny.Lindsay, Patrick J.Lynch, Thaddeus.McAulifie, Paticik.MacBride, Seán.MacEoin, Seán.McGilligan, Patrick.Manley, Timothy.Morrissey, Dan.Mulcahy, Richard.Murphy, Michael P.Murphy, William.Norton, William.O'Carroll, Maureen.O'Connor, Kathleen.O'Donnell, Patrick.Donovan John.O'Hara, Thomas.O'Higgins, Michael J.O'Higgins, Thomas F.O'Reilly, Patrick.O'Sullivan, Denis J.Palmer, Patrick W.Patison, James P.Reynolds, Mary.Roddy, Joseph.Rooney, Eamionn.Sheldon, William A, W.Sweetman, Gerard.Tully, John.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Mrs. O'Carroll and O'Sullivan; Níl: Deputies O Briain and Hilliard.
Question declared lost.
Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share