I move: That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
Committee on Finance. - Appropriation Bill, 1960—Second and Subsequent Stages.
I should like to ask three questions on this Bill. First, as we have not the time to read the Bill in detail, can we have the Minister's assurance that the Bill is in ordinary standard form and includes nothing unusual? Secondly, will the Minister explain to the House how it is that under this Bill be is expending and therefore taking from the people £136,633,000 compared with only £118,791,000 in 1956, notwithstanding that in the interval he has also saved £9 million in subsidies and is therefore taking £27 million more out of the pockets of the taxpayers? Thirdly, last night I tried to get the Minister to endeavour to teach his colleague the Minister for Agriculture a little mathematics. Now will he try to teach his Leader, the Taoiseach, a little mathematics?
The Taoiseach said a few minutes ago that production fell in 1957 from 1956. The Minister for Finance circulated to us at Budget time—and I have already complimented him for his courtesy in so circulating—tables of economic statistics. Those economic statistics show that gross national product at constant prices in 1956 was £525,700,000; in 1957, £537,900,000. To the ordinary person that is an increase of £12 million. To the Taoiseach, when he wants to chances his arm, it is a decrease. The plain fact of the matter is that he was just chancing his arm, and did not give a damn about what he was saying, whether it was right or wrong; just anything would do to suit his argument. That sort of thing is unbecoming in a Taoiseach and it should not be necessary to point out on an Appropriation Bill that the Taoiseach, in closing the debate on his Estimate—I was going to say deliberately but you, Sir, would not allow me to say that under the rules of the House—recklessly and without belief in the truth of what he was saying, misquotes statistics of gross national product at constant prices which the Minister for Finance himself circulated.
The Bill is a standard Bill. There is no departure in any way from other years. As regards the extra expenditure this year compared with 1956. I can only say that taking taxation on the whole there will be no increase in taxation.
£27 million. Somebody else needs instruction in mathematics.
So that, if we are spending £18 million more than in 1956, it shows the economy has improved to the extent that we can afford to do it.
What about the subsidies?
Including the subsidies. I have not the gross national product but I have the national income which would be the basis on which that was built. All I can say about national income is that 1955 was a good figure —£453.9 but, in 1956, it went down to £449, so that the trend was downwards.
That was at current prices. I am asking the Minister at constant prices.
Do not interrupt. Please be orderly.
The Taoiseach said that we were to go away in good humour.
The only thing I have is national expenditure.
I shall make the Minister a present of his own table and he can read it.
I should like to have a look at it.
Certainly.
The Deputy knows that statistics can be—not twisted; I shall not use the word "twisted"—made to appear to support any argument put up.
Not this one. This is your own one.
What I want to point out is that the trend was downwards in 1956 but since that is going up.
The Taoiseach did not say that.
I am sure his figures were correct.
They were not as a matter of fact.
The point is that in 1954, 1955 and 1956 the trend was downwards.
No.
It is to be assumed that if the change of Government had not come it would still be going down. It is going up and now it is above what it was in 1954, 1955 or 1956.
Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill considered in Committee.
On the Committee Stage, could the Minister get the Economic Statistics that he published and study them while we look at the Sections?
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
What is the purpose of Section 3?
That is standard. I have never known myself why we should put in the whole amount to be borrowed because that is not necessary, obviously.
I do and I thought the Minister might have learned after three years.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5, Schedules and Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
On the Fifth Stage, may I say to the Minister that if on next year's Appropriation Bill he has an additional sum for paying an instructor in mathematics for the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture, I will not object?
If the Deputy wants some instruction for his own Party, I can facilitate him.
Question put and agreed to.
This is a Money Bill within the meaning of Article 22 of the Constitution.