This, in my respectful submission to the Chair, is the kind of contemptible quibble which brings parliamentary institutions into disrepute. Now, if I may turn my attention to more serious topics, I think the Minister must feel that the manner in which the Finance Bill has been discussed in the Seanad has, on the whole, been in pleasant contrast to the manner in which it was discussed in the Dáil, with very few exceptions. I would like, particularly, to express the gratitude, certainly of myself, to Senator Professor George O'Brien for his interesting and very lucid speech on a very intricate subject. This Bill and, of course, the Vote on Account, constitute a field day for the professional economists, Senator O'Brien and also Senator Johnston, who gave us a very interesting speech indeed. I think that the ordinary Senator comes in here and does listen for what the professional economists have to say, even though their conclusions may not be accepted by him. He does or must or should listen with interest, so that at least he may be able to tease out or untangle his own thinking on the matter.
It is rather a pity, I think, that the main speech made immediately after the Minister's speech was not by Senator O'Brien rather than by Senator Professor Hayes. I think that it is rather a pity, rather discouraging, for the younger members of the House to find a politician so seasoned as Senator Hayes indulging in the kind of tub-thumping to which the Senator treated the House. All during the debate in the Dáil there was what I might describe as the battle of the quotations— what A said in 1932 and B said in 1933. The younger legislators and, I think, the electorate are rather tired of this kind of reminiscing. I trust I am not out of order in suggesting that a committee room should be set aside in Leinster House for persons who want to indulge in that kind of discussion of "old unhappy far-off things and battles long ago," a committee room to which they could repair and in which they could exchange their pleasant and unpleasant reminiscences.
However, Senator Hayes is a very astute politician in my view. I think that is why his speech was as irrelevant as it proved to be. Senator Hayes, being an astute politician, would, I think, be wise to ring down the curtain on the past, on the past particularly of his own Party. Much has been forgiven to them; much is being forgiven to them. It is only on the most rare occasion that they are to-day reminded of their stand in the defence of the Oath of Allegiance and of all the slavish clauses in the Constitution imposed by the British Government on this country. That is why I think it is so unfair of Senator O'Higgins to stand up and make the charge against an Irish Minister belonging to any Party in the Oireachtas that he was "summoned to London". That is a phrase which stirs a chord of memory. That is a phrase which brings us back many years. In fact, it brings us back to 30 years ago this month. Other people "were summoned to London". We are still suffering the ill effects.
I cannot understand this curious anglophobia that has broken out in the Fine Gael ranks. I am completely at a loss to understand it. Is it because they suddenly found themselves in the middle of a transformation scene when they were so ignorant and there was an announcement all unbeknownst to them that the External Relations Act was going to be repealed? Was it then that they suddenly developed this curious brand of chauvinism, this chauvinistic patriotism which they display in this House? Everyone else is suspect; everyone else would sell out to the British except the men who trooped into the Lobby in this House, some of them, to preserve the Oath of Allegiance to a British King so that civil war conditions might continue in the country. I know who are being patient with them; I know who are being tolerant, and I will leave it at that.
I will say, in conclusion, that there should be a Standing Order forbidding the reading of quotations from any speech made more than five years ago. Conditions in 1932, 1933 or 1944 are not necessarily the conditions which exist to-day, and very often these quotations are, in my submission, deliberately made for the purpose of misleading the public, deceiving the public, for the sordid aim of vote catching.
I, as an ordinary layman, came into the House with a reasonably open mind regarding the provisions of the Finance Bill. I had read in the newspapers and in the Official Debates of Dáil Eireann that the Budget had been described as a fraud, a dishonest Budget, and that the Minister had budgeted for a sum which he did not require. Of course I applied my mind to that in this way: if the Minister had given 101 reliefs in this Budget then there might be grounds for suspicion about his good faith, whether right or wrong. You could have said that he had given these concessions in order to curry favour with the electorate but Senators know that there was nothing of the kind in the Budget which was introduced. It was described, I understand, as being dishonest because it was alleged that the sum budgeted for was not a real sum, that the Minister was over-estimating. I think that was hinted at by Senator Hayes. I understood that from his speech but if I am wrong of course I will accept his correction. I would expect from a man of Senator Hayes's standing and experience that in making any charge of that kind he would make some effort to substantiate it, that he would say with regard to Estimate A, B, C or D that in each, all or any of these Estimates the Minister had looked for more money than was required. He has not said that. The two real experts in this House, Senators O'Brien and Johnston, have not said that. Senator Johnston not merely did not say it but he said that it should be accepted by every reasonable person that the sum budgeted for was the sum required, and Senator Johnston cannot be accused of speaking out of any Party bias or any Party animus. He is an expert and Senator O'Brien is an expert. Both are men of integrity. Both are men highly distinguished in their subject and from them there comes no suggestion that there was any over-estimation in the Budget. That being so I think it requires very great temerity on the part of lay backbenchers of Fine Gael to stand up and allege that there was without telling us precisely where the over-estimation occurs.
Similarly, we had Senator Douglas standing up in this House and saying that in his view the Budget was a disaster and would prove a disaster. Again, if that statement is made by a 19 or 20-year-old politician speaking outside a church gate on a Sunday morning, one takes it with a grain of salt. One accords to the young speaker the licence which is the proper concomitant of enthusiasm. But, when it is made by a sage and experienced politician like Senator Douglas, one reasonably expects him to go further; one expects him to say (a) whether the Minister did have to close the gap which he said he had to close; (b) whether the Minister adopted the right methods in closing that gap; (c) if the Minister did not adopt the right methods to close that gap, what were the methods which the Minister should have chosen. Is that too much to ask from a senior politician who has been in this House and its predecessor since the foundation of the Seanad? No suggestion at all of that kind came from any of these people.
Senator Hayes did cover up by talking about backbone and about slogans, by making assaults upon the Minister and assaults upon all the persons and institutions whom the Senator does not happen to like. That is a poor substitute for argument coming from a university professor. I would expect that university professors would set a better example to the members of this House and to the country than the example which has been set here by Senator Hayes.
I did not hear everything that was said by Senator Baxter. I think—I will not be rude, particularly as he is not present in the House—but, again, I could not gather from what I did hear of Senator Baxter's speech that he made any suggestion to substantiate the charges which are being made against the integrity of the Government.
I am not pinning myself to the fact that the Government took the right way out. If we face this clearly, if we are to preserve democratic institutions in this country at all, we must not start campaigns alleging that the Minister for Finance, various Ministers for Finance, have over-estimated. As I see, if the Minister were to take a chance of that kind, it would come out, if I may use a vulgar phrase, in the washing, next March.
Senator Professor O'Brien said that we were in a dangerous situation financially and economically. He said that there was very little we could do about it, that we were to a large extent trapped by world conditions. Before I go on, I would like to refer in particular to some of the points made by Senator Professor O'Brien. As I have already stated, in my view, he made a most lucid and most interesting, instructive and informative speech. I do think, of course, that he perhaps is not adapting himself to the transitional circumstances of present-day economic life. The Senator said, among other things, that investment had to come from our savings. That, of course, is unquestionably true. Even to my lay mind it seems to be clearly evident. He discussed the present-day attitude to savings. He told us that there were so many less people nowadays who had a large surplus over their expenditure which could be devoted to investment. In that connection, he suggested to the Minister that the Minister was unwise in increasing the income-tax. As far as I could gather from Senator Professor O'Brien's statement, he was in favour of the abolition of direct taxation altogether, perhaps of income-tax, or the substantial reduction of income-tax.
I would ask the House to consider it in this particular way: There is no possibility now, thank God, of turning back the hands of the clock and having 15, 20, 30 or 40 people with vast incomes mainly derived from land, as they were in the old days from the ownership of land and from the exploitation of the workers on the land. There is now no possibility of reverting to the days when we had this small section of people with vast sums of money to invest in industry.
Senator Professor O'Brien suggested that the increase in the income-tax would reduce whatever possibility there was of the rich or, as he put it, the not so poor, devoting whatever they could spare from their expenditure to investment. Surely, that is ignoring, again in my respectful submission to the Senator, the very important factor of public spending. If you had 200, 300 or 400 people with money to spare to invest in industry, is there any guarantee that they would invest their money in the industries which would contribute most to the common good?
First and foremost, is there any guarantee that they would invest their money in any reproductive manner? It is possible that they might invest their money as Senator O'Donnell wanted to invest his the other night when he told the Minister for Industry and Commerce that he wanted a casino established in this country so that the people who had money to spend could go down to the roulette tables and back the black and if they did not like the black, they could back the red. They could do that. They could spend their money on continental travel. They could spend their money on over-indulgence in alcohol. I do not think I need specify all the ways in which persons of that kind might spend their money unless they were public-spirited, and it does not always happen that persons who have surplus income in that way are public-spirited. I think perhaps the general experience might be the very contrary. But, even if they were to invest their money, what guarantee is there that they would invest it in those industries which contribute most to the common good? Would they have invested their money in the electricity supply undertaking? Would they have invested their money in Bórd na Móna? I do not think so. They would, of course, in the ordinary way, have looked for those industries which would yield to them personally the greatest return. I am not criticising that, but I do say that it should be a principle of national economy that the common need is of far more importance than private greed, and that, whether we like it or not, we have arrived at the position where the State, if the national economy is to continue at all, not only in this but in most other countries, must cream off surplus income and itself invest it in industries which contribute most to the common good. I must be careful in making these remarks lest they be taken up and distorted and used as an allocution to youthful audiences on inappropriate occasions, but nevertheless, I think they should be made.
There is one other point which Senator O'Brien touched on and on which I find myself in agreement with him, although at the end I was not quite sure whether he was merely stating it as a fact, or advocating it to the Minister as a device he should adopt, that is, the preservation so far as possible of the value of savings. I would make this suggestion to the Minister. It is extremely difficult to induce people to save in present-day circumstances. People who saved money in 1939, people who at great sacrifice to themselves saved £1,000 now find that, through no fault of theirs, through no fault of their country's Government, that £1,000 is in value, in purchasing power, less than £500. That must naturally breed a spirit of eat, drink and be merry, for to-morrow the £ may be worth twopence. That is the psychological climate in which the Minister or any Minister for Finance has to-day to look to the people to save.
Senator O'Brien told us all about the new French loan. I had read about it but I did not know it was quite so advantageous to the borrower as the Senator informed us it was. I do not think the Minister could, with the resources of our country, go quite that distance, but he might consider devising the scheme in relation to the small savings of the people, the savings of the little man, the little man who is not interested in the stock exchange and who has no understanding of the manipulations of the stock exchange operators, the little man who puts his money, perhaps, into the Post Office Savings Bank, or into Savings Certificates up to the amount allowed by the Minister. He does not do that for the purpose of getting a return on his money. I do not think he is interested to any extent in the interest his money earns. He is providing not so much an investment as a cushion, something which will enable him in later life to enjoy some more comfort and some of the little urbanities of life.
I would ask the Minister to consider the devising of a scheme for relating savings up to, say, £1,000, £2,000 or whatever figure he may decide on in consultation with his officials, to the cost of living, so that the real value of that saving, up to a limited amount, may be preserved. If that were done, the Government, which would have the use of the money, would not have to give any interest on it. I think that would be dispensed with and that, in itself, would be a considerable saving. This theory has been adumbrated by the ex-Taoiseach in Cork without acknowledgment of an article which appeared in, I think, The Economist. I have also read it set out in some detail in the excellent book of Mr. Aneurin Bevan, In Place of Fear. It is commonly reported that Mr. Bevan gets his economic views from the distinguished economist, Mr. G.D.H. Cole. It is a very curious thing that the analysis of society, of the existing financial structure of society, given to us last evening by Senator O'Brien, was to me almost identical with that given by Aneurin Bevan and, accordingly, by Mr. G.D.H. Cole. They differ only in the solutions they would apply. I do not know which is right— the nostalgia of Senator O'Brien for the era which seems to be closing, or the faith and courage of Mr. Bevan, who looks to a more equal world, where every man's child, regardless of social position, will have equal opportunity of developing the talents which God gave him.
Senator O'Brien said so many interesting things about savings that I am sure many Senators would like to pursue some or all of them, but it would take too much time. Again, what I have said with regard to the psychological climate for savings to-day applies equally to life insurance. Despite the company reports and returns which I read in the newspapers, there is, I think, a developing tendency to feel: "You pay your premium at such a rate, and, when the policy matures, the money will be worth less than half and perhaps a quarter, or even less, of what you paid in." That is going to develop, and I do not think it is beyond the ingenuiy of the Minister and his officials to devise some such scheme in that regard. Apply it not merely to small savings but to the benefits under the social security scheme; apply it to pensions, old age pensions, pensions under the social scheme, and to all the pensions of persons who have been in State employment, for a start. That would be a noble and Christian act.
Even if it were to cost more money, the Minister could come into the House and say: "I had to put even 3d. more on the pint; I have had to put 6d on the glass of whiskey; I have even had to put 3d more on the packet of cigarettes"—and there is not one of you would have the courage to stand up and say he was not justified in doing it. You might say that it was not really required, that at least the money was not needed, but you would not have the courage to say that the sacrifice was not worth the boon which the Minister would be conferring.
Talking about whiskey, in case I should go off the subject, I think it is time the licensed trade in this country had it made clear to them that they do not occupy a privileged position in this State.
I have no grievance against the licensed trade, good, bad or indifferent. I am not a teetotaller. I have very great respect for teetotallers, but I think you will all agree that for many years past the licensed trade has exercised in the politics of this country a completely disproportionate influence and that it is time that was ended. The days of pressure-group government in this country must finally cease, whether the pressure comes from the licensed trade or the Irish Medical Association or anybody else whatsoever. In recent years we have had an outstanding example of pressure-group government and it must result finally in a deterioration into Tammany Hall government if it is allowed to develop and continue.
There have been Ministers who have done the courageous thing in taxing whiskey as the Minister has done. The late Mr. Kevin O'Higgins did it and earned a great deal of unpopularity with the licensed trade because of the fact that he resisted either their blandishments or their threats. I was interested to see a deputation coming into Leinster House from the licensed trade on the night on which the final Budget resolution was being voted on and I was pleased to note that at least four of the people constituting that deputation were wearing Pioneer badges. I was at a loss to understand whether they were coming to thank the Minister for his services to temperance or to blame him for having, as they believed, reduced their over-all earnings. I do not think they were interested in the consumer; they were interested in their own profits. I am not blaming them for that. That is perfectly legitimate. That is true of all trades and all so-called professions. I do not know the difference between a trade or a profession; somebody will tell me some day. But it is true of every person who works for his living.
I heard again plaintive wails. We had in the newspaper reports plaintive wails from the members of the licensed trade about the way in which their business has been detrimentally affected by the Minister's taxes on alcohol. The public houses round Dublin are crowded every night, but of course with good neighbours coming in to sympathise with the publican for the bad loss he has suffered as a result of the Budget.
I have spoken for a long time and I have not touched on a quarter of the points I wanted to raise. I should like to follow, indeed I would like to cross-examine Senator O'Brien on his remarks on direct as against indirect taxation. The whole theory of that is that the really just and equitable tax is the direct tax. I would not go quite that distance. I would submit to Senator O'Brien that it would be inequitable if a man earning, say, £3,000 a year should pay the same tax or less tax than the man earning £500 or less, which would result if you did not have a system of graded income-tax. The fact that a man earning £3 15s. 0d. or up to £500 a year has to pay an extra halfpenny for his box of matches will hurt him more than it will the £10,000 a year executive. Accordingly, the only reasonable and equitable way of redistributing income is the income-tax.
The Minister, I think, made an extremely good point in his opening speech when he said that concessions when once granted in the income-tax code are never withdrawn, but that the standard rate of income-tax itself varies up and down in accordance with financial circumstances. This year very considerable concessions have been given in direct taxation and that is a useful thing. I would say to the Minister, however, that, far from taking Senator O'Brien's view, he should increase the surtax. I think that so far as he can without doing an injustice, without acting contrary to the moral law, he should do away, if the public weal demands it, with the inheritance of wealth. That is why, contrary to the proposition put forward by Senator O'Brien, I am a strong believer and a strong supporter of the death duties, as I feel sure the Minister is.
Senator O'Dwyer made a remark with which I must seriously quarrel. He advised the Minister to be careful lest we take too many within the pool, meaning the pool of the social services. I do not think we can err by over-charity. Even if you were to err on the other side, that you give to somebody who does not require it, it is better than depriving somebody who does require it of the sustenance which he needs. I do not find that proposition in any textbooks on economics. It can be found in the Sermon on the Mount, and the Sermon on the Mount has not yet, openly, at any rate, become a controversial document as between different political Parties in this country. If this Minister or any Minister for Finance goes to the people of this country and asks them to make sacrifices, asks them to pay more for luxury goods in order to help the aged, to help the sick, to help the poor, the Minister will meet with an immediate response from the majority of the people. The argument should be put forward, in my view, without any economic trimmings whatever. It should be put forward as a dictum based on elementary Christian doctrine. If the inexorable economic laws, of which Senator O'Brien talked, conflict with Christian doctrine, then they must go by the wayside, and Christian charity must prevail.
I must ask the Senators opposite whether, in fact, they are genuinely in favour of social security. As I said during the debate on the Vote on Account, I stood on a platform with Senator O'Higgins, from which he stated clearly that he was an opponent of the welfare State and of anything approximating to the welfare State. If you feel like that, come out and say so. Then let the issue be knit fairly and squarely—those who are on the right, those who are on the left; those who stand for reducing the social services or consolidating them at their present level, or those who want to extend them still further until anxiety and insecurity are removed from the mind of every person in this country. If we give them that issue, clearly stated, if the Fine Gael Party would be true to itself and stop flirting with labour and selling its own philosophy in order to capture the support of some people in Dáil Eireann or of some sections of the electorate, it would be a very good thing because we could then have a genuine examination of the social structure of this country. When listening to the professional economists —Senator O'Brien and Senator Johnston—I expected that they would express an opinion on this issue.
We are now told that it is possible to abolish all the extra taxation which the Minister has imposed in this Budget, and that, at the same time, the food subsidies can be restored in addition to the concessions which the Minister has given in his Budget to the old age pensioners—and which, I trust, he will see his way to increase— and to the recipients of children's allowances. I should have liked the professional economists to tell us ordinary laymen in this deliberative Assembly whether that can possibly be done, and, if it can be done, how it is going to be financed? Where is the money going to come from? I do not think one should play blind man's buff in this particular way with financial policy. I think it is reckless and irresponsible—irresponsible to the point of lunacy. It may meet with the kind of Nemesis which overtook Mr. Winston Churchill when he sent out Lord Woolton and his other lieutenants to promise that all controls would be removed, and that everything in the garden would be smiling in an England from which the blight of socialism would be removed. Look at him now —praying that something will happen to take him out of the mess, hoping that something will come out of the bag that will rescue him, even if it be only a war. I suggest to the gentlemen opposite that when they put forward theories and when they make pledges they should be quite sure that they will be in a position to fulfil them.
The dance tax has been mentioned in this House. I agree with what was said by a writer in the Leader of this week that it is unwise for leaders of a political Party to give a pledge before an election which involves a charge on the Budget. I, myself, once acted as director of elections, and I may say that it is done by leaders of every political Party. I do not suggest, and I think it is improper to suggest, that the Minister acted in any way dishonestly. I think it was unquestionably his view that dancing should not be taxed. As it has resulted, however, in the context of the present Budget, the removal of that tax has exposed the Minister to misrepresentation. It is nonsense to say that the concession was given before the election for the purpose of getting election funds. Everybody knows that the dance-hall proprietors could not subscribe a tithe of what could be subscribed by the publicans of Dublin alone, whom the Senators opposite have so solidly behind them. Accordingly, if the Minister were looking for election funds, he could have distributed favours among people who could have given a considerably higher return—“a better consideration”, as the lawyers put it—than the dance-hall proprietors. However, the experience will be an example to leaders of all political Parties. Even if it be your policy, better not say anything beforehand, because there will be misrepresentation.
We have all been guilty of misrepresentation in our time. There is no doubt about that. I am sure it will lay balm to the soul of Senator Seán O'Donovan to hear me admitting that I have been as guilty as anybody else of misrepresentation.
