Any person who has to discharge the duties of Minister for Finance and who comes into any Parliamentary assembly expecting to be received enthusiastically about a Budget or a Finance Bill would be entirely divorced from reality. I never thought I would have any enthusiastic reception here or in the Dáil in connection with finance proposals, but I want to say that, looking back on the debates which have taken place over 25 years, I have very little cause to complain. The reception which I got both in the Dáil and here has been, on the whole, a warm one. There has been something almost approaching enthusiasm, except on the part of those who, for Party reasons, feel that they must be professional objectors.
Before going into details, I want to make one further statement of a personal type. I do not want anybody to think of me, and I certainly do not present myself, as an individual with any specialised knowledge in either economics or finance. I have been a student of some of these things over the years, but it has been with what leisure I could give from other work. I am speaking in a House here where there are a number of professional economists and people with qualifications in the matter of economics and finance to which I never could pretend. I ask the House to accept me as a person with over 16 years' experience of opposition—I have also been a member of Government for some time—and much more as a member of the Opposition than as a member of Government I got an opportunity of mixing freely with people, and I experienced in my own home life, my own home conditions, and my professional duties some of the hardships which to a greater degree fell upon people who are not so well circumstanced as I. I think that those 16 years, and particularly the last seven years, during which I was in opposition, made me more accessible to people who had grievances, and substantial grievances, and put me much more in a position to sift what they said to me and to accept the things they said, because I had experience of it myself, although not to the same degree of hardship. I come before the House, therefore, as a person who has had some experience as a human being, but not as any professional economist or professional financier.
In that view I say to this House that they should accept the financial proposals of the year with, at least, a certain amount of enthusiasm, certainly a certain amount of gratitude and, in any event, with an appreciation that there is a group now who are attentive to public opinion and particularly attentive to public opinion that has been roused by what they thought was unnecessary hardship imposed upon them.
I want to get this Finance Bill into its setting. In doing so I have to go back to the speech I made when introducing the Financial Resolutions for the year. I find myself faced, as I said in that speech, on the basis of the revenue that was coming in from the existing taxation and on the basis of the Estimates for supply services and the Central Fund services, with a gap of £8,750,000. That is understating the gap. I do not suppose anybody in this House would be found ready to go into a Parliamentary Lobby to vote against the £600,000 which is this year set down as the first step towards the alleviation of the old age pensioners and the widows and orphans and I do not suppose anybody in this House would be found to object to the giving of the increased half ounce of tea. These two things between them cost another £1,000,000. If I am to be given the odium of having imposed the 6d. which my predecessor forecast in the income-tax, I would point out that if I deduct the results of that 6d. from the revenue as previously estimated, that would add on another £670,000. Now, there is the gap I had to meet if I include the fruits of that 6d., but if I take on the burden of doing something for old age pensioners this year as only a token of what is going to be done for them in the full year, and the expense of the increased revenue on tea, the gap was nearly £10,500,000—a few thousand pounds short of £10,500,000—and I want that figure considered when people begin to speak of either the taxation openly imposed by this Budget or, as Senator Fitzsimons professed to believe, the hidden taxation which is somewhere to be extracted from the Budget proposals.
Before going on to show what was done by myself and my colleagues in this matter, I would ask Senators to consider what would have happened if Fianna Fáil had remained the Government. They would not have remitted the taxation on beer, stout and tobacco. In that way they would have made £6,000,000. But, even having this £6,000,000, they would have had to find £2,750,000 extra because I assume they would not have made the economies I have made. They would not have sacrificed Aerlinte. They would not have adopted the various devices I have adopted. They would not have off-loaded certain costs on to caterers. Everything I have done has been criticised by Fianna Fáil so I take it they would not have done any of these things. So, they would have had the old taxation, including the tax on beer, stout and tobacco and an additional £2,750,000. Their chief spokesman tells us there were only three sources of taxation left to any Minister for Finance. They were, spirits, or liquor of certain types, tobacco and income-tax. So, had Fianna Fáil remained in power, not merely would this country be paying that £6,000,000 which I and my colleagues remitted on certain types of liquor and tobacco, but they would have had £2,750,000 of some type of taxation extra. People who begin to criticise me for heavy taxation should boldly tell me what they would have done in the circumstances, where they would have got the £2,750,000 as well as the £6,000,000 which I remitted.
In opposition to that picture, I present with some confidence what has been done. I was faced with finding, on the new set-up I have given to this House, £10,500,000. I took the 6d. which my predecessor had forecast, which gave me £670,000. As far as the rest is concerned, it has been found possible to bridge that gap by putting on one other major tax, that is, the tax on petrol, which this year will bring in about £900,000, so that, by accepting the 6d. and the fruits of that for a year, bringing in about £670,000, and putting on one other major tax to the extent of £900,000, the two between them being little more than £1,500,000, it has, nevertheless, been found possible to get over a gap that was yawning as wide as the figure of £10,750,000 represents.
That has been done by a variety of devices. First of all, there are real economies. They amount to a very small sum. If I take what I call real economies and certain devices by way of alleviating taxation, the savings I have made this year amount to only £6,000,000. £6,000,000 on an expenditure that has to be met this year of £77,000,000 is so small that I feel almost disposed to apologise for it, but if I get a full year to work on I hope to do better next year.
In any event, it is £6,000,000 that has been saved and, as for the rest, this so-called shift of taxation, that, with all the vehemence, has been urged in this House as having increased the cost of living and everything else, what has happened is that certain costs have been off-loaded on to the hotels and caterers. Does anybody think they are not able to bear it? Catering establishments—are they amongst the poorest of the community? Then, in regard to margarine and oatmeal, margarine and oatmeal have been bid up here. You would think the whole community was depending on margarine and oatmeal. Apparently, Senators forget the fact that margarine is rationed to the point that people only get a very small ounce ration in the week. In any event, the full effect of the increased cost, supposing it has to be borne by the community, of the margarine subsidy amounts to, on the new cost-of-living index figure which my predecessors had made out, .0005 of a point, and, as far as oatmeal is concerned, on the new cost-of-living figure, .004 of a point. The two together on the new index figure—which I do not accept—are not anything like a percentage—.0045. I take the old cost-of-living figure. The new cost-of-living figure was an attempt to show people, by the production of a new index, that the cost of living had not gone up. I do not propose to go in for that nonsense. On the old cost-of-living figure, the increase in margarine amounts to .10 and the increase in oatmeal to .33—the two together amounting to .43—less than half a point in the cost of living—and that is what is being blared around this House and Dáil Éireann as being the increased cost of living the community have to meet with the withdrawal of the subsidies.
I do hope in another year to give the House more satisfaction with regard to economies. I doubt if it will ever be possible again to do what was done this year, namely, to bridge the gap, which amounts to nearly £10,500,000, by accepting the 6d. income-tax of a predecessor and by putting on one major tax and getting taxation to the extent of £1,500,000 and then a few matters like margarine and oatmeal and offloading to catering establishments all the things that were off-loaded. I doubt if that will be possible again and, at the same time, to have alleviation in other ways.
One of the things I do feel disposed to complain of in connection with this debate and the debate in Dáil Éireann, is that the two grievances that have been most specially publicised in both Houses are grievances said to arise from (a) turf, and (b) a cancellation of the transatlantic air service. I do not get one penny saving in this year from either of those. The chance is that the cancellation of the transatlantic air service will bring savings next year. They do not get me a penny piece this year because the previous Government had so definitely outrun the legal bar that was put upon the extent of the subsidy permitted that I had to find this year the money for their extravagance over and above what the law allowed. That took away everything that was to be saved by the abandonment of that service.
As far as turf is concerned, there are vast sums in the Estimates—over £2,000,000, when various things are added together. Whatever they be, there is not one penny alleviation given this year by anything in connection with turf, the situation being that the Park is piled so full of rapidly disintegrating and bad material that the extra cost that will be imposed on the State this year for the bad prices that will be got for that amounts to such a figure that there can be nothing that could be regarded as a saving in connection with turf. The savings will accrue next year and I hope they will accrue.
I think I should take turf as the frst point. It was made the subject of the loudest and most prolonged complaint in connection with all Budget matters. Senator Goulding made an appeal that we should all consider ourselves as belonging to the same nation. I should like him to think whether Senator Hawkins would regard me as a good national; whether he would give me credit for a bit of honesty and not just inquire into my method of activities as if I were under the sort of supervision Senator Hawkins in his political capacity wanted put on his opponents.
Let us be honest about turf. The ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce was quite honest about it in Dáil Éireann. I know now because I am behind the curtain and have access to all the information. A committee of the Government was established as early as 1946 to consider what was going to be done at no far distant date when this grand turf scheme would have to be collapsed. Probably deriving his information from what that Cabinet committee had gathered, the then Minister for Industry and Commerce came into Dáil Éireann and disclosed what he called a declining business in turf. He put the picture pretty clearly. He said that the turf problem had to be considered from four different angles. There was first the turf always cut by people for their own purposes—to burn in their own homesteads. He said that had gone on for a long time and he hoped that it would continue to go on. There was no reason why it should not go on. The second thing was the increased cutting of turf for what was called the national pool—the hand-won turf—and to that was added in later years a certain amount of firewood taken from some of the State forests and elsewhere and dumped in the Park and in the other 16 or 17 dumps throughout the country. Thirdly, there was the scheme that was then being thought out for the getting of machine-won turf through Bord na Móna, and, fourthly, coal. The then Minister's whole presentation of all that to the Dáil was that the winning of turf by hand, a process then being done by the county councils, was going to disappear. The only question was the date.
As regards the winning of turf by people for themselves, a thing that had gone on for years and was traditional in the country, the ex-Minister saw no reason why that should not go on. I do not see any reason why it should not go on either. But the turf that was being won by hand process for the national pool, that was going to come to an end, and what was going to bring it to an end, either late or soon, was the question of imports of coal. If coal importation reached anything like the figures that were reached in the olden days, then the hand-won turf was going to disappear. The Minister explained that. I quoted him when speaking on the General Resolution in Dáil Éireann on the 25th May. I referred to all these quotations in the concluding speech which I then made. He said:—
"that hand-won turf provides the basic fuel over large areas of the country and in some districts no other fuel can offer even a partial alternative,"
and that:—
"production by persons resident in those areas, for their own use or for local consumption, averaged about 3,500,000 tons per year."
He also said this, and suggested that it was a reasonable statement:—
"It is to be assumed that those people will continue to provide their own requirements by their own efforts in the future."
Coming to the hand-won turf, he spoke about the optimistic views of certain people as to how soon the emergency would be over, and said
"that the machine-won turf produced under the auspices of the Turf Development Board will merely replace the hand-won quantities now being produced by the county councils and by the Turf Development Board, as agents for the Government."
Later, he referred to coal and exhorted people to believe then that we must get in a particular year
"the same production of hand-won turf as we got last year because there is no likelihood that we will be able to get any more coal or even able to dispense with fuel rationing in the eastern area next year."
The balance was there. It is a balance that we must all accept. I accept it from my political opponent. Let us cut out the production of turf by people who have their own turf banks, who have always cut turf for themselves and who, we hope, will always continue to burn turf. If we do that, the only problem really is how far the turf workers employed by the county councils should be displaced, and by what are they going to be displaced—either by machine-won turf under the auspices of Bord na Móna or by the importation of coal? Let me tell the House what that Minister told us as to what had happened in the early part of this year. He told us on the 18th February that there were a number of problems which he was leaving to his successor. He said:—
"Most of them are problems resulting from the fact that efforts to accumulate stocks have been rather more successful than otherwise."
He said:—
"We have on hands a very large stock of American coal. At the present rate of disbursement there will still be large stocks on hands next winter. There is about a ten years' supply of firewood at the present rate of usage. A similar situation exists in relation to turf. It is true that turf is still rationed, but it is rationed solely because of the subsidy arrangement."
Having given various details about turf, that it was still being rationed, he said:—
"There is, however, in the dumps of Fuel Importers, Limited, enough turf at the present rate of distribution to last until the winter of 1949."
That was the picture which the ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce presented to us on the 18th February: a ten years' supply of firewood, about 500,000 tons of American coal, and enough turf to last until the winter of 1949. Referring to the hauling of turf and of firewood into Dublin, he said:—
"This business must stop if for no other reason than the physical difficulty of finding further storage space for timber. All the storage space rented by Fuel Importers, Limited, is full. If this hauling of firewood must cease, then these men have no other haulage business in which they can legitimately engage. It may be that a suggestion will be put forward to amend the Transport Act so as to give them the right to engage in public haulage of other kinds."
And, later, he said:—
"There is, therefore, no easy solution of the problem to which I have referred."
When we came into office on the 19th February we found 500,000 tons of American coal in the Park. There was a certain amount of South African coal which arrived later. We also found a ten years' supply of firewood and enough turf to last until the winter of 1949. There was the physical difficulty that all the dumps Fuel Importers, Limited, had were full. These do not include the 17 other dumps throughout the country, all of which were also full. At that time timber was pouring into the city at the rate of 10,000 tons a week, costing £40,000 a week subsidy. We stopped that, naturally. There was a growl at once that certain hauliers were being displaced. Could I pretend to be sane if I continued to bring into this city 10,000 tons of some sort of fuel per week costing a subsidy of £40,000 a week at a time when we had in the dumps all the coal that the ex-Minister referred to, the ten years' supply of firewood and enough turf to last until the winter of 1949?
Can anyone say that there was not good reason for the decision that was taken to stop that? As a matter of fact, if any criticism is to be put upon the present Government, it is that, notwithstanding all that embarrassment of wealth with regard to various types of fuel, we still gave authority to Bord na Móna to produce a couple of hundred thousand tons of turf, the disposal of which is going to be very difficult. Some of that had to be left along the roadside, and the storage of it is going to be very difficult. Probably a good deal of it will be pilfered during the year. Should I lay myself open to the criticism that we were too weak to allow that to happen? There was, of course, the background that a lot of human beings had to be brought into this business, and that it would not be right to cut them off suddenly. That human consideration did weigh so much with us that we decided to ease the situation even though it could be called a sort of financial extravagance. On the matter of employment we were told that there was going to be vast unemployment by knocking people off turf-cutting and fuel schemes in general. We considered that and decided to have schemes that would be of lasting benefit in the countryside— schemes in relation to roads, drainage and the land. As there would be a permanence about these works we thought that the local authorities should make some contribution to the cost of them. Some local authorities refused to make any contribution, but we will probably give the money for them, whether the local authorities contribute or not.
Our difficulty is to find where are these unemployed people. In certain counties where we started work we asked the people to sign the registers and to indicate that they were ex-turf workers. The position is that in certain counties we have not got people to avail of the schemes. The offer is still there. These are works on which we had hoped to engage any people who had been suddenly thrown out of employment. If my opponents want to make any point about that let them go and pack the exchanges; let them say that I am boasting that we cannot find people who are out of employment through the failure of these schemes and encourage their supporters to go and sign on. We will test them. If they want work, they will get the work. We will provide the employment for them, and if it costs money I will provide the money. I have already engaged myself to do that.
I ask Senators not to forget in all this the famous minute produced in Dáil Éireann of the conference which the ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce held on the 12th February of this year. At that conference the point was raised whether provision should be made for hand-won turf production in 1948. There is this little commentary prior to the decision being recorded:—
"If the Bord na Móna hand-won turf scheme at Kildare were not proceeded with no unemployment would result, as the workers would be absorbed in a machine-won scheme or other scheme. It was not known, however, what the effects of a cessation of hand-won turf production by the county councils would be."
Remember the date. It was six days before a decision about the change of Government had to take place. The decision was:—
"No provision should be made in the 1948-49 Estimates for the Bord na Móna hand-won turf scheme. The question of the discontinuance of hand-won turf production by the county councils should be further examined."
I have suggested that that was putting it a little bit on the long finger—not a very long finger but one that would just stretch beyond the 18th February. That was clearly evident in the decision. That coming from the Minister who previously disclosed his mind in Dáil Éireann about the shutting down of these schemes indicates quite clearly to me that he thought the time had come but he was not going to take the decision until the critical date of the 18th February had passed. In aid of my interpretation of the minute, I call attention to the next item at this Departmental conference. It dealt with the "Grant of hauliers' licences to persons engaged in the transport of turf during the emergency," and I present it in relation to the Minister's action regarding the curtailment of turf production.
"With the curtailment in turf production and haulage expected with the resumption of coal imports, it was expected that persons engaged in the transport of turf would be approaching the Department for hauliers' licences. The matter would, it was expected, be required to be fully examined in the light of policy regarding the grant of hauliers' licences. It was suggested that petrol allocations should not be made to newcomers for the present."
The decision taken was that there should be a comprehensive review of the situation—in other words, there was another postponement of a decision.
Note the terms the Department put up to their chief, that with the curtailment of turf production and haulage expected with the resumption of coal imports, hauliers would be displaced and would be looking for licences. Is it not quite clear—do I argue in a very prejudiced way from a Party angle— when I say that these minutes and that declaration made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce indicate that he knew these turf schemes would have to be discontinued this year and he was making preparation for that?
Coal is brought into this picture. Do not forget that in the early part of 1947 there was a bit of panic with regard to coal, and people were sent abroad. A deputation left this country—the present Deputy Sheehan of the Dáil and a couple of others were sent across to America. I remember when the news was flashed through the newspapers that they had been successful in their quest for coal and had got this 500,000 tons and 60 Liberty ships were chartered to bring the coal in. In addition to that, application was made to the British to give coal—we were getting rather poor quality at the time, and not much of it—and they guaranteed another 1,000,000 tons. As a result, when the first day of 1948 dawned, this country was in the position that it was going to have, in the year 1948, 1,600,000 tons of British coal. Our old importation used to be about 2,500,000 tons, and we were to get now three-fifths of that old-time coal import. That was done by the individual who in the Dáil told us that the necessary production of turf would vary with the situation in regard to coal importations. He gets all that coal, and every 50,000 tons of it must have meant in his mind the closing down and shutting off of so much turf production and the unemployment of so many turf workers.
We have taken this in its natural course. We believe the Minister acted properly in doing what he did, even in getting into the Park this vast accumulation of stuff, as he was faced with a particularly bad situation in part of 1947. However, no more than ourselves, he could not have taken any other decision than that to suspend the winning of turf by the hand process through county councils and their workers. I make no apology for having done what I did. The only apology I make is in representing myself as following what a Fianna Fáil Minister was likely to do.
Senator Hawkins is the only one who raised this question of the Widows' and Orphans' Fund. It has been said in the Dáil that I had looted the Fund. I think it was suggested that I made that Fund liquidate certain investments it had and that the Fund is now in a fair way to becoming insolvent. An actuarial calculation was made in regard to the Fund. The actuary reported in 1944 and said that the fund could be kept at a proper level by paying in £220,000 a year. The old rate of contribution was £450,000 and there was nothing sacrosanct about the £450,000, because the Minister for Finance, around 1945, lifted £200,000 of it and put in £250,000. That was after the actuary reported. The actuary said that the Fund could be kept not merely quite solvent, but that all its investments could be preserved, if, during the next decade, half the old sum of £450,000, namely £220,000, were put in. He estimated that that was sufficient. I consider it sufficient, and I do not see why I should put more into the Fund than he reported was sufficient, particularly when the investments at the moment stand at £950,000 more than the figure at which they stood when the actuary reported. I am rather lucky in that respect, that my predecessor, notwithstanding the actuary's report, had, in two years, fed into the fund £450,000 a year. That is quite enough for four years, and I hope not merely to save the £450,000, but I think I have a present of £450,000 next year through his action. Whether that was due to his liberality or to his not having understood what the actuary reported, I do not know. Can anybody tell me seriously that the fund has been depleted, that there is anything tricky about the handling of the moneys going into the fund, that it is approaching insolvency or that the investments the fund is based upon will have to be sold in order to meet demands which are likely to come upon it?
The old age pensions matter was referred to by Senator Hawkins—why, I do not know. I think it was he who said that there was no increase in old age pensions in the Budget. There is not, and if he likes to make that debating point, he may, but let there be no mistake about what has happened because I regard it, from the finance angle, as a very serious decision. I set against the revenue of the State this year the sum of £600,000. This is one quarter of what would be needed in a full year to meet the new benefits to be given to old age pensioners and those on the widows' and orphans' pensions scheme. A scheme which my colleague in the Department of Social Welfare is bringing to a head will put upon the finances of the State an annual charge of not less than £2,500,000.
If people want debating points and if they want to say that there is only a sum of £600,000 in the Budget at this point, let them wait until the autumn and see the proposals then made, and let them wait until the beginning of the year when the State will have to bear the £600,000 which is merely the forerunner of a bill over the entire year of something which cannot be less than £2,250,000 and may range a couple of hundred pounds above that figure. From a Finance Minister's angle, that was a very serious decision. My colleagues took it, and, when we began to consider in what part of this financial year any moneys would have to be paid under this scheme, it was stated to me that the examination of insurance books, the reconciliation of old and new claims, and the new calculation which will have to be made in connection with the alleviation of the means test, will take such time — as well, of course, as preparation of legislation — that there could be no hope of having legislation introduced before the Oireachtas rises in the summer and no hope of its being in the Dáil until the autumn, and no payment on foot of it until the beginning of the year.
I am budgeting this year for only one quarter of the sum which will be required. I do not know whether I am supposed to be guilty of deceiving the people in that regard, because this is only a promise. I do not think that anybody in the position I occupy would come, and certainly my colleague the Minister for Social Welfare would never let me come to the two Parliamentary Houses to put before them this sum of £600,000 unless he intended to proceed with that scheme, and I know that he is proceeding with it. Those who are doubtful may still remain doubtful, but when autumn comes their doubts will be resolved when the State will have to face that new burden.
I do not know whether it is worth while saying anything about the shortwave station. People who think it is a matter of such definite prestige will not listen to reason about it. I was affected by the remarks of Senator O'Dwyer, who talked about the poor man in the New York garret turning the knob of his radio and listening to the shortwave station here. He would be a peculiar type of poor man who would have a set which would enable him to listen to our shortwave station, even if we got a wavelength. I do not know if there ever was anything which was going to be such an effort at national frustration as this shortwave station. Consideration was given to the problem about four or five years ago and the technical department of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs wrote very well-considered and very persuasive memoranda to the point that there was no possibility of getting a wavelength, that the wavelengths were all allocated, that attempts made earlier to get a wavelength had all failed and that attempts made to get sharing a wavelength had met with no success.
The Post Office had been putting up matters which came from their technical information side, and stating that even if we did get a wavelength, there was unlikely to be good reception in America, that there was even unlikely to be good reception if the present sets were maintained in America and that so far as they knew about the making of the new sets and what they could forecast with regard to the future, sets were not going to be improved to permit of shortwave reception. In face of all that, the solemn decision was taken to go ahead with that shortwave station and the expenditure of £200,000 on specialised machinery, although the technical information was that no wavelength was likely to be got, and, even if it was, there was not likely to be any good reception and the sets now being built in America would not allow of reception if we did get a wavelength and if reception was good. I do not know that anything more ought to be said about the shortwave station. It is a bit of a standing condemnation of Fianna Fáil so long as even the masts stick up into the air. If I were an adherent of the Fianna Fail Party, I would hope that the day would speedily come when the masts would be removed, so as not to be a cause of mirth and criticism for people who realise the exact situation in connection with that station.
Senator Hawkins, in the end, turned to the cost of living and the effect upon it of the increased tax on petrol. I listened for days in Dáil Eireann to any number of Fianna Fáil Deputies who told me that the tax on petrol was a tax on production, and particularly on agricultural production. Every farmer apparently has gone in very much for mechanisation and almost all the mechanisation is dependent upon petrol. Where it is not dependent upon petrol, every farmer depends upon haul and haul is entirely dependent on petrol. I was told that in every way and from every angle — whether it is the poor man coming into the city on the bus or the farmer sending his produce into the city or large town, or working on the land — the tax on petrol was a tax on production and when it was not a tax on production, it was a tax on the poor man and would increase his cost of living. I cannot understand how the people who are so assured of that can look back on their past with any equanimity.
In 1941 the Fianna Fáil Minister for Finance raised the duty on petrol to 1/3 and he kept it that way for five years. It is now 1/2. It has not even got to that point. Apparently it was not a tax on production in the years between 1941 and 1946. I do not know what has happened in the country that what could be borne so lightheartedly for five years is now, as I say, one of the major sins that I have committed and it is particularly grievous because it is going to hit production or else, if it is not going to hit production, it is raising the cost of living for the poor man.
As far as the air services are concerned, and the transatlantic service in particular, because I have nothing to do with any other air service, again I have no apology for what has been done. My only regret is that I did not get any savings this year, but they will accrue to the community next year.
Those who are interested in the development of civil aviation should welcome the disappearance of the transatlantic air service. As long as the transatlantic air service was there all air services were going to be handicapped. By the clearing away of the inevitable loss on the transatlantic air service, our other air service, Aer Lingus, will get some chance to show itself. It will be able to put itself on a businesslike footing. I hope it will. In any event it will now be able to stand by itself and to show its own accounts, and these accounts will not be confused by any repercussion from the transatlantic air service.
The transatlantic air service was going to start at a loss. I asserted here before — I have met many people since — I want to repeat my assertion — I have found nobody, no matter how enthused about aviation, who could give me even the remotest promise that in the lifetime of anybody whom I met the transatlantic air service was going to be anything near like paying its way. It was starting at a loss. It was going to continue at a loss, and the only question was then, how great would the loss be. I had to measure the admitted losses that were going to take place in the service against the prestige in connection with this. I had to weigh other things. There were arguments put up that we might bring more Americans here. I do not believe that. For those who want air transport there is no lack of it to bring people who want to come here from America.
I was told about dollar earning. I never saw it, and I never could see anybody who could make an argument on that point. It is easy to say it will be dollar earning, but you have to consider how people would pay for their fares and in what currency they would pay, and discover then what was the likelihood of our getting any dollars out of it. Even if we did, remember, the losses would swallow up anything there might be in the way of a slight advantage through dollars. If tourists come here from America and are likely to bring dollars with them, they will bring no more and no less dollars coming in our air service or coming in another service. It all depends on what currency they change their money into and where and what accounting is made of the dollars they have paid for the sterling they get coming to Éire or England, and the problem is in no way either eased or complicated by the presence or disappearance of the transatlantic service.
Senator Ó Buachalla, I understand, referred to the glass-houses for Connemara. The comment, I understand, he made was that it was not a scheme that should be mocked at. If he has a moment to spare, I would like to let him see a file or two to let him see what members of the previous Government individually thought of the glass-house scheme. Excepting only the Minister for Finance, strangely, there was not one of them believed in it. It was a little bit of a pet subject upon which his colleagues allowed the last Minister for Finance to run riot. None of them believed in it. I think Senator Ó Buachalla would be amazed if he saw the way in which that scheme was treated behind the curtain by members of the Government when first proposed, but then, as I say, the situation appears to have developed that they said: "We had better give Aiken his head and let him fool around with glass-houses in the Gaeltacht". It never was a scheme that was worth thinking of. If anybody now, contrary to what I say, can make an argument for that scheme, we can keep it on. So far as I have seen in any argumentation or any papers or memoranda written on it, the decision would have to go definitely against the scheme.
Senator Ó Buachalla brought in the question of the people who might under the present Government drink cheaper champagne. That was used as a bit of a sneer. Senators may not know what the situation with regard to that is and, in a sense, I am giving this point against myself because it may mean that the champagne drinkers of the country will subscribe heavily to Fianna Fáil funds in the next election. For years, Fianna Fáil let the champagne drinker away with very little taxation. Take the bottle of champagne. The duty in 1930 was 2/7. They got it at that rate in 1932 and they let the champagne drinker run along paying his 2/7 on a bottle of champagne until the year 1946. But, for 14 years, they favoured the champagne drinker in that way. They then raised it to 5/2. I am making it 6/5. In 1947, it was put up to 10/4 with the result that there was no real revenue from the tax because nobody drank the wine any longer. It is now at 6/5. That is 1/3 heavier than what Fianna Fáil raised it to in 1946 but from 1932 to 1946 the pals of the champagne drinkers were to be found amongst the Fianna Fáil Party and they ought to get credit for that through the country. I am sorry Senator Ó Buachalla is not here but I hope my remarks will be conveyed to him.
