The debate that has just taken place is illustrative of the sacrifice to which the Minister referred. It is part of the sacrifice——
Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 5—General (Resumed).
It is not part of the sacrifice.
——that the people are asked to make. Furthermore, the Minister appealed to them to make that sacrifice.
The Deputy's Government did not provide for them and the Deputy is responsible for that.
Order!
The Minister is very slick. At page 24 of his Budget statement he said: "This is a sacrifice which is necessary." He went on further to say: "If this sacrifice is not...accepted." This is all very reminiscent of 1933 and 1934. This £100,000, which will be taken off Defence, is the sacrifice that the workers in the Curragh must make.
No "big shots" fired.
They talk of the sacrifice necessary, but I notice that no sacrifice will be asked of the purchaser of the big motor car or of the television set. Neither will £140,000 be taken off racing this year. The Minister for Finance in last year's Budget imposed a stamp duty upon racing and that duty brought in £140,000. It was imposed for one year. This Government has decided not to reimpose that stamp duty, thereby making a present of £140,000 to the people who are engaged in racing. That may be necessary, but it is done in a very slick way. We are not told about it. Neither is any defence made in the Budget statement as to why the racing confraternity here and the book-makers are to get a gift of £140,000.
I submit that, if we are to have honesty in public life, honesty of which Fianna Fáil claim they have the sole monopoly, we should have a little more evidence of it.
Trust Dev.
Of course, all the virtues are vested in Fianna Fáil— every one of them—and every one of them can be acquired for half a dollar by joining the Fianna Fáil Cumann. Great value.
And a "bob" a week in the universities.
The Saxon shilling.
On an important matter like that the least the Minister for Finance should have done was to say: "The previous Minister for Finance imposed the stamp duty upon the totalisator and the Racing Board. I do not intend to renew it. I am remitting that for the following reasons." We would then hear the reasons, but it is done in this slick way, by not mentioning it. I wonder how many members of the Fianna Fáil Party knew that at their Party meeting after the Budget was introduced? I wonder how many of them will go whistling past the graveyard to defend that?
It is only now they have heard it.
I want to know what is the defence for that? We should like to hear what the Minister has to say.
Your former leader, Mr. William Cosgrave, could tell you all about it.
I do not mind anybody outside this House. The responsibility is on the people inside this House. The Minister for Finance is charged here with the responsibility of telling us why he imposed these hardships and why he remits other hardships or other charges. Does the Minister wish to tell us?
I have been waiting for the past five days to tell the Deputy.
Why did the Minister not tell us in his statement about the butter cold storage subsidy?
It was stated correctly.
It was not. It was avoided.
Do no start your accusations.
One always sees Fianna Fáil getting vexed when one hits the truth. It is surprising how an ordinary man can get very hot under the collar once the little knife is put in and he gets the twist. He should have made it clear in his Budget statement.
Did the Deputy read it?
I have read it, God forgive me, from the first page to the last.
The Deputy did not understand it.
It is the most subtle document that was ever produced.
I was writing for intelligent people.
I know again that that is one of the things that Fianna Fáil has, intelligence.
It is a well known fact.
And all the voters are intelligent.
We have an example of that. When certain people who are now Independents were outside the House they had no brains. The minute they joined Fianna Fáil they were very brainy. Then they threw them out and I suppose they have no brains now.
They knocked the brains out of them.
This is the most subtle document ever produced. The Minister for Finance did say that the subsidies were withdrawn on the butter but he did not emphasise that all the subsidies in connection with butter were being withdrawn.
Read the document.
I challenge Deputy Allen to deny that when he heard the Minister's speech—I presume he did not know anything about it until he heard it read like myself— that he was satisfied that the reduction of the subsidy on butter was 5d. per lb. and that it was a bit of a shock to him to hear it was 7d.
Read out the statement.
The Deputy can stand up and do that himself.
The Deputy has another fortnight to speak.
The whole defence of this Budget by Fianna Fáil spokesmen is that it was necessary. It is completely unnecessary. As has been clearly demonstrated by the former Taoiseach several other measures and remedies were available. I commend that speech of the former Taoiseach to the Fianna Fáil Government for their reconsideration of the submissions he has made for the balancing of the Budget.
It is a wonder he did not put them in operation.
If we got the chance we would. I know Deputy Allen and some other Deputies would like me to make a different type of speech.
No, we love to hear the Deputy.
You are taking good care that as far as you can nobody will hear it.
It is getting sorer.
And the twist is in. I do not intend to detain the House elaborating on the Budget. I am satisfied it is unecessary and that it imposes grave hardship. We have a problem in regard to securing a market for exports and I commend the principle I have enunciated all my life and that I put into practice at every opportunity, that is, that everybody should give of his best in what-ever field he is working, that the more that is produced and the greater the exports, the better for everybody. I do commend the previous Government for its assistance in remitting taxation on profits on exports and this Government for carrying it on. I would suggest that they would go further and give even more extensive benefits to those who are developing exports of goods that were not previously exported from this country or not manufactured here.
We have given 100 per cent. We cannot give more.
There are other things the Government can do, for instance, in relation to tourism. They can assist hotels to give better accommodation, and so on, by giving them the same rates as commercial firms have, banks, etc., for the depreciation of their premises. That would be well spent money because it would develop tourism and make accommodation available. There are 101 things that could be done, but mention of the obligation is not enough to provide the solutions. The former Taoiseach, as I say, has given a headline and has shown conclusively how the Budget could have been balanced. Everybody knows that were it not for the Suez situation and all the other things that happened last year, we would have balanced the Budget. Those events were completely outside our control but Fianna Fáil when in opposition did not make it any easier for us. Anything they could do to make it more difficult they took pride in doing. It was a disservice to the country, and I hope that we, on this side of the House, shall not follow that line. I suggest to the Government that they should be careful and not demand sacrifices where sacrifices are not necessary.
It seems to me that, in talking about this Budget, many of us are inclined to pay too little attention to its effects on the people at large and, through its effect on the people, its effect on the national economy. Fianna Fáil Deputies have repeatedly advanced the argument that the effect of the Budget will be to help to create employment among the thousands of idle workers. It is somewhat peculiar that, by increasing the cost of the basic foods of ordinary workers' families, by reducing their power to buy other necessary or desirable goods, the result will be a greater demand from Irish industry and agriculture for their products. This is the type of argument that Fianna Fáil Deputies repeatedly put forward: Workers must spend more of their earnings if they are to provide their families with the same quantities of bread and butter as previously; and if they spend more on bread and butter, obviously they will have less for other products, and if they spend less on other products, there will be still more demand for these other products within our own domestic economy.
Of course, Fianna Fáil Deputies already appear to be flirting with their sole remedy for what is likely to prove the natural reaction of those affected by these imposts on basic commodities, the suggestion being, first of all, that workers should not seek to maintain the standard of living, such as it is, of themselves and their families, by seeking adjustments in their wage rates. The Minister for Defence, in making a contribution to the debate, said, as reported in Volume 161, No. 10, at column 1289:
"The whole tenor of the speeches here has been to exaggerate the effect of the Budget on the cost of living. The actual fact is that, as regards the two items affected by the withdrawal of the subsidies, the increased cost per head of the population will be no more than 2d. per day."
In the same column, he goes on to say:
"I think it is a pity at this juncture that Coalition speakers should adopt such an irresponsible attitude by their speeches here and attempt to incite people to take action which they know would be detrimental to the nation's interests."
I am sorry the Minister for Defence is not here, but I hope he reads his own contribution, because I know he represents a constituency, and is fairly familiar with it, on which these burdens will fall very severely.
The Taoiseach as reported in Volume 161, No. 11, at column 1441 said:
"The main purpose behind our Budget, apart from laying an assured foundation for future progress, is to try to induce conditions which will lead to increased employment and production, which will give greater opportunities to our people for earning a livelihood and through increased production, provide at least the same standard of living coupled with the opportunity to save."
Does this Budget serve that main purpose? The Taoiseach says it does. Therefore, an increase of almost 50 per cent. in the cost to a working class family in the price of bread, an increase in the price of butter— although there are many thousands of working-class families who are not familiar with the taste of butter—will be a factor contributing to increased production. Increased production of what? Certainly not of bread and butter, because if one cannot buy bread and butter, there will be less demand for it.
The Budget will certainly increase the cost of living for the average family. If one takes, for example, an average family in the City of Dublin with two or three children, one finds that each day, two or three loaves are required to feed them. The family can either reduce its intake of bread or its intake of butter; or it can endeavour to buy the same quantities at the expense of other commodities.
Deputy Gallagher referred to a deputation which was received by Deputies yesterday evening and he said that the main complaint of the women, who live in a north-eastern constituency in a working-class area, in what one might term a depressed area, was that there was no employment available for their husbands or their families. He indicated that the members of the deputation assured him that if their husbands or sons secured employment, they would be able to provide for their families. Deputy Gallagher also dealt with one specific aspect of the matter. He is adopting the tactics of a competent lawyer, of asking a leading question. Obviously, if a family has been suffering chronic unemployment and if the family have been required to depend not just on the unemployment benefits but on unemployment assistance, and they are asked, if the members get employment, will the members be in a better economic position, the answer must be "Yes".
Deputy Gallagher did not dwell too much, however, on the fact that the members of that deputation stated categorically that the effect of the withdrawal of the food subsidies would be to injure their miserable standard of existence and compel them to reduce their purchases of bread for their families. Of course, with a family in the middle or upper income group, the variation in the price of a loaf might not be so very serious, because their basic food is not confined to the simple basic necessaries, bread, margarine and tea. To the general families who are covered by social assistance, this variation and increase in the cost of bread will, without any doubt, cause very severe hardship.
Deputy Booth suggested that Fianna Fáil, having returned here with 78 seats and no doubt having received a lot of votes from working class voters, represents the interests of the working class. If a trade union official went to an employer and represented his members in the same way as Deputy Booth and his colleague are representing the working class, as evidenced by this Budget, he would not have his job very long. The greatest single example of gross betrayal—if they did represent the working class—is their action on this occasion. I have no doubt that a lot of working men and working women and a lot of trade unionists voted for Fianna Fáil at the last general election
They are good judges after 30 years.
No doubt a very considerable number cast their votes in the firm belief that Fianna Fáil would provide full employment almost over-night. Certainly they had not the slightest suspicion that Fianna Fáil's first activity would be to attack basic living standards.
I am no apologist for what has happened in the past three or four years. I expressed the view here in relation to the building industry that the situation was becoming very serious, on account of increasing unemployment in that industry. Deputies who were here then know that I never hesitated to be critical on the question of the provision of employment for our citizens and particularly for those with whom I have most contact, those living in our capital city. Members of Fianna Fáil have repeated very often in the course of this debate that they are interested mainly in two things, in endeavouring to provide a solution for the unemployment problem and to develop industries here so as to afford opportunities to workers to maintain a good standard of living. Surely if Fianna Fáil were in earnest about all that, their first action should have been to make sure by all means which lay in their power, that the present economic situation would not be complicated. There is no Deputy who does not realise that if workers' standards are reduced, if the cost of living is increased, and particularly by direct Government action, workers who are members of trade unions will consider that they are right to protect their interests and to maintain the standard of living of themselves and their families.
Has this Government or any Government the right to say to the citizens of this country, to the workers in urban and rural areas, to the small shopkeepers, to those employed in offices and elsewhere, that we can advance solely on the basis of the sacrifices of those people and their children? Yet, Deputy after Deputy from Fianna Fáil, in this House and outside the House, adopts the attitude that an increase in the cost of living does not justify workers in taking action to protect their own living standards.
The following report appears in the Irish Times of May 23rd of yesterday's proceedings in the Dáil at Question Time:—
"Dr. Browne asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether, in view of the reduction in purchasing power consequent on the Budget proposals, and the possibilities of demands by wage and salary earners to secure increases, he would state whether the Government intended to facilitate such increases or, on the other hand, to introduce an Order similar to the Emergency Powers Order of 1941 restricting increases on remuneration.
Mr. Lemass referred the Deputy to the statement he had made on the Budget Resolutions.
I have read the Minister's statement on the Budget Resolution and I fail to find any indication in it that he or his Government will not introduce wage standstill orders. The Minister, in reply to a supplementary question, again by Deputy Dr. Browne, said:—
"The Deputy has not the slightest grounds for suggesting that any such idea is in mind."
I do not think that any of the Ministers, when candidates in the recent election, indicated to anyone that they had any idea in their minds of removing the food subsidies, and when Deputy Norton put that question—I think, on the election of Taoiseach—in connection with food subsidies, the Minister for Industry and Commerce did not have any idea in his mind then. Why are Fianna Fáil Deputies harping on this question of wage restraint? In 1950, they were able to raise their voices very strongly for wage increases. They certainly have some influence with members of many trade unions. I had experience on many occasions in that year of hearing the demands of trade unions for increased wage rates.
You are getting your own back now.
The Minister interrupted me. I heard many demands for increased wage rates from members of trade unions, many of whom I knew to be active Fianna Fáil members. The peculiarity about the matter was that I never heard them claiming or seeking at that time anything less than an increase of 30/– a week. In 1952, when Fianna Fáil indicated their contempt for the ordinary people of this country by their first attack on the basic foods, there were other demands. The significant feature in that year was that the active Fianna Fáil members in the various trade unions and trade union branches were very quiet.
But they were voted down.
They did not even appear at the meetings.
Were they not voted down?
They must be well tutored and they must have a very good organisation.
Were they not voted down?
They were not going down because at the time there had been a 20 per cent. increase in the cost of living, due to the action of a Fianna Fáil Government.
They were voted down, I said. The Fianna Fáil men were voted down in 1952.
Voted down?
By the unions, yes.
That is news to everybody in a trade union.
What I have said is an indication of how political activity from the benches over there can affect the industrial position.
Are you attacking the trade unions now?
I am not; I am referring to individual members. I am not suggesting that on either occasion the workers were not entitled to an increase, I am merely pointing out the variation in the procedure.
By the unions?
By those whom Fianna Fáil tutored.
Who kept them quiet all last year?
When it suits the political programme of Fianna Fáil, they can manage to get very vocal demands. On other occasions, their members manage to forget that they have any responsibility. It appears to me, speaking in a general way on this matter, that the Government have three lines of approach to the present problem. One approach appears to be the approach of what might be called a caretaker Government, that is, a caretaker Government within their own period. They have 78 members and should be reasonably secure, for a short period, at any rate. The approach to this Budget problem may be based on the outlook: "Well, we have no idea at the moment; we took a certain line of action in 1952; we shall try that and see what happens in a few months' time." Of course that might be confused with the other possible explanation that they have no real idea of how to deal with the present situation. Thirdly, and only time will tell if this approach is being used, the approach may be one of cold-blooded cynicism, with the outlook: "We are imposing this Budget in the hope that within a year or so we may be able to provide some form of relief under various headings of taxation and then hope to get another mandate."
Reference has been made to the necessity for maintaining and improving the standard of living. I wonder would the Minister or some of his colleagues clearly indicate what section of the community they are talking about when they refer to maintaining and improving the standard of living. The standard of living for the general level of the community will not be maintained. The effect of course, will be to reduce it. I am talking not only about the agricultural labourer or the semi-skilled workers in the urban community; I am also talking about the professional classes, the semi-professional classes and the thousands who have been encouraged to enter into commitments to purchase their own homes. I am talking for those on a salary limit of £8, £10 or £12 a week who have been finding it very difficult trying to maintain their families under existing conditions—trying to repay capital and interest under the Small Dwellings Act loans, to repay insurance companies and to pay ground rent and rates. Now they have this additional cost on their families' basic needs.
We are told to-day that there has been £140,000 remitted on racing. In answer to a question yesterday we we were also told that expenditure on Embassies in London and Paris was in the neighbourhood of £300,000 and £400,000. Of course £180,000 was spent on the little cottage in the Phoenix Park. Do these appear to be justifiable items of expenditure? The Minister for Industry and Commerce remarked that they are accepting the responsibility. It is nobody else's responsibility. They are accepting the responsibility for cold-bloodedly imposing this burden on the people by the removal of the food subsidies, thus increasing the price of bread and butter. They will accept the responsibility if at this juncture, by throwing a spanner into the national economy, they spark off claims for increases in wages and salaries and further adjustments in prices. They will accept that responsibility too. Of course they say that people should not look for wage or salary increases. They say that the people should be content and try to exist. If they do try to exist the possible market for the purchase of goods produced in this country is contracted. Mind you, they may be right. They may be on the right road to prosperity but surely it would have been more in the interests of the community if they had maintained some sense of responsibility by endeavouring to avoid upsetting the economy and doing something for the unemployed in our cities and towns.
I do not think that a solution for unemployment will be easily found. If there is an easy solution it should have been found some time during the last 30 odd years during which this country had control of its own affairs. Every Deputy knows that a figure of around 60,0000 unemployed has not been an unusual figure. It is a figure we should not be prepared to accept. Reference was made during the course of this debate to the question of abnormal unemployment. It was suggested then, even at the beginning of the effort to provide jobs for 100,000, that Fianna Fáil are thinking in terms already of a normal unemployed pool of thousands. Of course that would not be out of character. The Minister for Health on more than one occasion indicated quite clearly that it would be a fairly healthy thing for the economy of the country if there was a constant pool of unemployed. In other words, the intimation was that it would be a happy thing if employers could always rely on having a few thousand men or girls signing on at the labour exchanges, so that they could always hold over their heads the fear of unemployment. On more than one occasion, the Minister for Health said that.
I wonder if that is the idea permeating the minds of Fianna Fáil so soon after the election. Before the election, they quite clearly gave to understand they were satisfied they had definite plans for providing 100,000 new jobs. It is known that, to maintain the present level of employment in this country and to provide new jobs for those leaving schools and universities, it is necessary to find 20,000 new jobs each year. Past Governments have managed to provide something like a thousand jobs each year. Fianna Fáil have intimated that they propose to deal with unemployment and emigration by providing 100,000 new jobs. I hope they do it, and, if there is anything anyone on these benches can do to help them, they can rest assured of our full co-operation.
That is a change of heart.
I do not believe that the way to tackle a problem like that is, first of all, to impose a burden on the workers. No country in the world has increased production and employment by deflationary methods. We hear a lot about the U.S.A.; we expect to entertain a lot of tourists from there, particularly at this time of the year. In the early 1930s, what was the position in the U.S.A., following an acute crisis? Someone developed a little common sense and arrived at the conclusion that the crisis could not be surmounted by reducing employment, that the way to do it was to inject finance into the provision of work.
Find the capital.
Where is the £100,000,000, the Minister's crock of gold?
All one could read about the U.S.A. at that time was the suicide of financiers and the collapse of banks; but their approach was not deflationary. What would have happened if, in 1945 and 1946, Britain had adopted the measures adopted in the hungry 1930s? Fianna Fáil were given a majority in the last election. Deputy J. Brennan used the words "strong Government". I do not like those words, because strength and power can so easily corrupt. It is very easy for people who feel themselves strong to lose their regard for the weak. Strong Governments tend to produce solutions for problems by methods arising from their strength and not from their understanding of the difficulties of the people they are supposed to represent.
According to the Constitution, Fianna Fáil will remain in office, if they so desire, for five years. Before the election, they did not tell the people they would solve the difficulty in five years' time; they indicated they would solve the difficulties overnight. People who are hungry cannot afford to wait very long. I am speaking now of those who are not in a position to do anything for themselves—the people for whom the Minister, a former Minister for Health, should have particular regard. I can only gauge the Minister's regard for those people by the provisions made in this Budget for increased social assistance benefits to offset increases in prices.
He could not afford 2/6 in 1947.
If the Minister had to go along with his colleagues in the Government in the decision to with-draw the food subsidies, he should have insisted on proper compensation for social assistance recipients.
We brought in social welfare legislation, which the Deputy's Government refused to do.
He brought in the Bill he voted against.
What is this we are talking about—against what? The Deputy is getting sillier every day.
They appear to forget. I do not know whether or not they can calculate the respective periods they were in office since they were first elected up to this day. Deputy Haughey must be quite well aware that if they could not produce some progressive legislation in 16 or 19 years of office, we would be worse off than we are now. Every piece of progressive legislation brought in by Fianna Fáil was brought in, either with the support of the Labour Party in this House or as a result of the constant advocacy of such legislation by the Labour Party.
That is right. They were more successful behind Fianna Fáil than they were behind Fine Gael.
I am not a member——
The Deputy supported them.
And we voted for Fianna Fáil. Members of the Labour Party voted on occasions for Fianna Fáil down the years. We make no apologies.
Very seldom.
They put you in office the first time.
Deputy Larkin must get back to the Budget.
They were real Labour men that time.
The only way they can be real Labour men is to support you. They would be right Labour men, if they supported you now.
And the master bakers' men at the same time and the bookies' men.
The proposals in the Budget pose problems that will have to be faced by the citizens throughout the country. I do not believe this Budget will be conducive to results which will be of any lasting benefit to the nation or its people. I do not think it tends to solve in any material way the very serious problems of unemployment or emigration, but it will tend to upset the internal economy of the country.
In conclusion, may I say that Deputy Gallagher, in making a contribution here to-day indicated he was not opposed to workers seeking an increase in wages? He went on to talk in terms of increases to compensate them for increased production. Of course, production has increased, so far as the workers are concerned. I think he neglected to indicate what his views were regarding the possibility of workers seeking compensation to maintain or restore their standard of living. If his views were similar to those expressed by his colleagues, which were clearly based on a suggestion that any hardships imposed by this Budget should, in the view of Fianna Fáil Deputies, be suffered by the ordinary people and that the people at large would not, in their view, be entitled to secure compensation for the very serious reduction in their living standards, I can only say I believe the Budget is an unwise one, ill-conceived and beneficial to no one. It is certainly not beneficial to any of the main sections of the community who give some service to the community.
We have had a very long discussion of the details of this Budget.
It is only warming up.
Anyhow, there has been a good lot of talk. The talk was all in the one direction, that the burdens imposed by the Budget would destroy all and sundry within the country. Deputy Larkin has been speaking about the class he knows best, the working class. He spoke about imposing burdens on the working class. I take it they are in employment. He was also concerned that the workers in employment in this country should have the right, arising out of this Budget, to make further demands on the community, in order, as he said, to maintain their present standard. Personally, I often wonder whether Deputy Larkin and the Labour Party are satisfied that all the burdens put on the workers in employment in the past three years under the Government of which he and his Party were part were fully compensated for or not.
A good number of people in this country happen to know that, within the past year, the trade union leaders of this country were not slow to inform their members down the country who were inclined to make demands that they should hold off as it would embarrass the Government and the country.
I disagree.
It is very well known. It would be an embarrassment to the Government; but does Deputy Larkin say the workers were fully compensated for all the increases the previous Government were responsible for putting on them?
When?
The Budget introduced some nine days ago contains proposals to raise certain sums of money to maintain the services that were in operation. None of the Opposition Deputies has attempted to prove that suggestion that increased taxation was not necessary. Deputy Costello and other Deputies came in here as they did in 1952 to say that the Government were raising £10,000,000 or £12,000,000 too much in this Budget.
Where is the £100,000,000 coming from?
We had none of the Deputies in Opposition saying we were raising £10,000,000 or £12,000,000 more than was necessary to raise, just as they did at the time of the 1954 Budget.
And you were beaten then.
We had the great financial wizard, Deputy McGilligan, the designate Minister for Finance, on the eve of the general election——
Do not talk about designate Ministers now.
He told the country that if there was a Government in power that had the know-how it would save £20,000,000 in the cost of Government. That is only three short years ago.
What about the £100,000,000?
You had £35,000,000 last year.
The day-old chick is speaking behind Deputy Allen.
Deputies must allow Deputy Allen to speak without interruption.
They will hear the truth now. They hate the truth.
We heard a lot of it in the last five days. That is a nice statement for the Minister for Finance to make.
We are in the Bog of Allen.
Deputy Allen knows what he is saying.
What happened in the last three years? Why was it necessary to have increased taxation in this Budget instead of reducing the cost of Government by £20,000,000 as Deputy McGilligan broadcast in 1954? The Coalition Government was responsible for putting up the cost of Government by almost £25,000,000. Is that not a fact? Let us face facts.
Capital development increased with it.
Is it not a fact that the Coalition Government put up the cost of Government by £25,000,000? Are these facts or are they not?
What items does the Deputy object to? He was opposed to the last Budget.
There are further facts. For the last 18 months we had much talk about the balance of payments problem and about the great measures which Deputy Costello took 12 months ago to deal with that problem. Who was responsible for creating the situation that caused inflation in this country and brought about the change in the balance of payments?
Ask Deputy Briscoe.
The Coalition Government took over in 1954 without any balance of payments problem. On the eve of the general election Deputy McGilligan promised to pay out £2,000,000 to the civil servants and the Minister for Health, then Deputy MacEntee, said that the finances of this country were unable to pay it. They were not in office 24 hours before they took off the sugar and butter subsidies. They then had to take measures to impose taxation on the people of the country. What created unemployment last year? Was it not those taxes imposed to fight inflation? They used up the sustenance of this country and as a result of that policy created inflation. The Government of this country deliberately created inflation. There is no doubt about that. They created the problem in this country to-day, that we have no source of income and no new source of taxation. They have put up the cost of Government so high that the taxpayers of this country are unable to pay further taxation to maintain the expensive machine that has been created.
All the foreign assets were used up at the same time. We have had, to use a popular expression, a damned good time in this country. We have spent all that is to be spent. All the resources of the country have been spent and we are driven now in this Budget to take off the food subsidies on bread and butter. There was no other source available. Nobody got up on the Opposition Benches to say you could raise £10,000,000 without economies of some sort.
What about the levies?
No responsible Deputy got up and said we could raise £10,000,000 as they said in the past. The situation that was created is well known to the community as a whole. Fianna Fáil are in office to-day because the community, the people of Ireland, realised that fact. Why had we the General Election in March of this year? The previous Government were telling us that they had two or three years to go. They could have remained here as a Government. They went to the country because it was a well known fact that they could not carry on any longer because the credit of the country was lost.
The credit of the country was being run down by your friends.
I met hundreds of supporters of the party in opposition and they put the question to me: "When are you going to take steps to run the country?"
Ask them now.
They will not say that now.
They were looking for the opportunity for a General Election. They were the 100,000 unemployed and the 50,000 who emigrated.
Are you going to call back these emigrants?
Order!
There were never so many on the side of the Government since this House was first established because of the mismanagement of the affairs of the nation which took place by two successive Coalition Governments. These are the absolute facts. We have democratic institutions in this country and the people have a right in a General Election to select any Government they want. But unfortunately for the country——
They exercise it from time to time.
They put you out.
Unfortunately for the country two Parties joined together and tried to run the country without any common policy except their desire to put Fianna Fáil out. They so mismanaged affairs that the nation will reel under the burden placed on it for the next 50 years.
By this Government.
Rock an' roll.
Every person in employment in this country, whatever his walk of life—business man, skilled worker, artisan, and so on——
Bakers.
Every person in employment has a duty to the unemployed and to the emigrants, because they, too, are entitled to claim a slice of the cake, to be given employment and a living in the country. It is well known and admitted that the country has been living beyond its means. Unless we can increase production very quickly, there is no hope of maintaining even our present standards. We must increase production from agriculture and industry and in every other way.
I would describe this Budget as a stop-gap Budget. If it is not effective this year, and if we do not get the improvement which is so essential, things will get worse as we go along. Some Minister for Finance will come here at some future date and, instead of imposing a rather mild but, admittedly, disagreeable tax he will be forced to put much more serious proposals before the House. It is unfortunate, but, nevertheless, we must face it; both sides of the House must take responsibility and face facts.
The community at large look to this House to provide a solution of the national problems. The kind of talk which we have heard here in the course of the past week or ten days to the effect that this is an unduly harsh Budget which is placing unnecessary burdens on the community will have to stop because any thinking person must admit that the action taken by the Government was absolutely essential in the national interest.
What would the Coalition have done? What taxes would they have raised to pay the cost of maintaining the institutions of State this year? None of them has answered that question.
Motor cars, radios, radiograms and television sets.
Rock an' roll records.
Do not be dishonest. Deputy Dillon should find some good arguments. He knows he is being dishonest. I do not mind the ordinary rank and file, but Deputy Dillon knows the position.
Deputy Dillon is fully aware of the situation. He was a member of the Government that decided to go to the country at a time when they need not have done so. They made that decision because of the economic situation and because of their inability to solve it. They were in a cleft stick and the country was in a cleft stick. They were incapable of getting agreement in that Government to raise sufficient taxation to pay for the cost of government. They created inflation and that, in turn, brought about unemployment. It put up the cost of living. The total production of the country was unable to maintain——
This Budget puts it up more than ever.
That is the picture of the country to-day. Nobody on the opposite side suggested that the old age pension, social welfare benefits or health services should be reduced. Nobody has suggested that there is any possible means by which the £13,000,000 or £15,000,000 spent on education might be reduced.
Would the Deputy agree with that?
No, we want to maintain them if we can. However, they must be paid for by somebody. The taxpayers can pay those taxes only out of production. If we impose a heavier burden on the taxpayers, then production will be unable to pay and the situation becomes serious for the country. Our credit goes down. I might say that it could not have sunk much lower than it was in the period before the Coalition Government left office. It is unfortunate for the country and for everybody in it that things are as they are. The members of this House were elected by the people to look after their interests and, whether in Government or in opposition, each member of the House must realise his responsibility and act accordingly.
I am surprised at the line taken by the Opposition in this debate. That is particularly so when one remembers that the Coalition Government left office because of the prevailing economic situation. I would not mind so much if times were normal, but times are abnormal, and abnormal steps have had to be taken to put things right. Deputy Sweetman's last Budget did not balance. He may have paid the debts that arose out of the Budget in so far as he paid salaries, wages and allowances, but he paid them out of quite a considerable amount of borrowed money. He will not deny that. It is obvious that we could not continue to borrow each year in order to pay for our ordinary current expenditure. That is the reason for the present taxation and for the removal of the bread and butter subsidies. There was no other resort——
It was the easiest way.
The Deputy, if not his colleagues sitting beside him, knows that well. He is aware of the economic crisis that has been created for this country. How best we will get out of it, we do not know.
That is a very fair statement.
Hear, hear!
Deputies must cease this barrage of interruptions.
On a point of order, when Deputy Allen proclaims the truth in ringing accents, may we not applaud him?
That is a point of disorderly interruption.
It is a disorderly interruption.
On a point of order.
I will not give way to the Deputy.
Deputy Dillon, on a point of order.
Is legitimate applause of a sentiment expressed disorderly?
The Chair regards these interruptions not as applause but as disorderly interruptions.
If those Opposition Deputies who are interrupting had any sense of decency, they would not do so.
Deputy Dillon was very weak in his speech against the Budget.
He certainly was; he was in a weak position.
He was as weak in attacking the Budget as he was in organising agriculture. The farmers are complaining they are not getting enough for their produce. They are afraid the price of milk or wheat or something else will be adversely affected.
They can whistle now.
The workers——
The bakers——
——are afraid they will not be able to maintain even their present living standards. The unemployed are afraid of nothing because they have nothing. The fundamental purpose of this Budget is to pay for the cost of the services which this House orders, to avoid the necessity of borrowing money to pay for those services and to enable the Government to pay the grants which they committed themselves to give to local authorities.
Any Deputy who is also a member of a local authority, knows quite well the situation that faced the Government and the country since June of last year. It was quite apparent. Circulars were coming down every day from some Minister or other stalling on this, that or the other grant. You got authority from the Minister for Local Government to go to your treasurer and borrow more money. I am a member of one county council. Last year we built a certain number of houses. At the end of February this year, we found we had not got a shilling from the Local Loans Fund although sanction had been given ten months before that. No money was left in the Local Loans Fund to be advanced. We went to our treasurer for £140,000 of road grants. We spent all those grants and, at the end of the last calendar year, we had not got a shilling. The money was not in the funds——
Will the Deputy warrant that all his assertions are as true as that one?
That is quite correct.
Will he be prepared to be judged on that one?
I am prepared to be judged on the fact that the finances of local authorities were strained to breaking point because of the failure of the Government to pay out the grants, so much so, that their treasurers warned the county managers in the different counties, that, if this continued, they would have to dishonour their cheques. That was a well-known fact. It is no wonder the credit of the country was low. At least one local authority had their paying orders dishonoured by their treasurer——
Name them.
It is well known.
Name one.
It is quite well known.
Just one.
Am I to be allowed to continue to speak, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle?
Your bluff is called.
That is the end of that.
Deputy Allen is not under cross-examination. He is entitled to make his statement.
The credit of the country was dragged into the mire by the last Coalition Government. That is why Fianna Fáil is in power to-day. For the last nine months the people were dying for an opportunity——
They are dying for another opportunity now.
We got a mandate to try and put the affairs of the nation straight and give it an opportunity of making progress again. Thank God, we are doing that. The Minister for Finance has taken the first steps in that direction by providing the necessary finances to pay for the ordinary running expenses of the country. I suggest to the Minister that he will have to take, perhaps, even further far-reaching measures before this day 12 months to reduce the cost of State services in whatever way it is possible to do so. The sooner the country faces that the better. If we do not give a little help to the people from whom we expect to get production, be they agriculturists or industrialists, we cannot expect to get the response that is absolutely necessary. Whether we like it or not, we will be forced to give that lead.
We hope it will be possible to give more employment and to put into employment again those who were employed two or three years ago. We also hope to have less emigration. I admit straight away that a great number of people are leaving this country who had decent employment in it——
You did not say that last year.
——but not all those who left had employment. Probably half of them had employment in this country. Unfortunately, however, we have up to 100,000 unemployed. It is agreed that at least a third of them are unemployable. Nevertheless, we have huge numbers, especially in the towns and cities, unemployed. There are great difficulties in a place like Dublin. I often think that the total production of whatever industries are in Dublin is not capable of maintaining a third of the population. From estimates made of the total production in the City of Dublin, it is stated that that production is not capable of maintaining more than one-third of the population.
There is also a serious problem in rural towns. We must start building again. We must build where the building is necessary and not just for the sake of building. There are still thousands of houses needed in towns and rural areas. Because of the damper put on building last year, it will be very difficult to get any output this year. No arrangements were made to get sites ready or anything else since this time 12 months. It will take some time to get the country into its stride. A period of great difficulty faces the country in that respect alone.
It was only last week that county councils got notice of grants. Ordinarily they would have got them in February. I am speaking of Road Fund grants. They would have got that notification early in February and would have been making their plans for road construction since then. Now they are getting notice only in the middle of May. That will further delay——
They did not get any notification in February?
No; or rather, yes.
Well, well.
They were told the usual thing in February. Wexford County Council were told: "You may spend on anticipated work grants out of the Road Fund to the sum of £X"—I think it was £18,000—"but you must go to your treasurer for it". On the date the local authority received that, little or none of the previous year's grant had been paid to them. Our treasurer had notified us at the time——
You said "not a penny" a few minutes ago.
——that he was at the end of his tether so far as the provision of overdrafts was concerned. That was the position created by the last Government——
The Deputy is in a position to get a copy of the circular and read it out here.
The Opposition must still take responsibility for the economic situation of the country. It is their responsibility, as elected representatives of the people, to stand with the Government and try to pull the country out of the position it is in as a result of their mismanagement of its affairs.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 28th May, 1957.