On Thursday night I said that the Budget does not show any sign of an attempt to solve unemployment, to stem emigration or to expand the agricultural or manufacturing industries and that the economies effected were hitting the poorer sections of the people hardest. Immediately before the adjournment of the debate, I was referring to a statement by Deputy Dunne. Deputy Dunne in the course of the debate referred to a statement by the Minister for Finance regarding standstill Orders and said that he believes the Minister did not mean standstill Orders as far as employees were concerned, that they were meant for people who were charging excessive prices. As far as the workers of rural Ireland are concerned, Deputy Dunne need have no fear that it will be necessary for the Minister for Finance to impose any standstill Orders because that has been very effectively done by the Minister for Agriculture. He is achieving the same purpose without any statutory Orders or enactments. The Minister for Agriculture is a man of modern ideas, who does not believe in having six men to do the job that one man and a machine are capable of doing. That policy will solve many of the problems that affect the people for whom Deputy Dunne speaks. As far as the agriculturists are concerned, the statement of the Minister for Agriculture is very ominous because it means that they will get no guarantee that the home market will be reserved for their produce. If within the next year or two they are not capable of producing the same volume as is produced in other countries where agriculture is mechanised, they need not expect any further protection or guarantee. As far as I can judge from the pronouncements of the Minister for Agriculture of late, the policy seems to be to go back to grass land as speedily as possible.
Committee on Finance.
What about the Budget?
His idea is that our agriculture should be based on the production of store cattle for Britain. If we revert to that policy, as I have said, it will solve many of the problems which I am sure Deputy Dunne had in mind. There has been a statement to the effect that compulsory tillage will not apply after this year. I admit that it was proposed, if Fianna Fáil were returned, to have a modfication, but, even from a grass management point of view, I do not think it is good policy, without going any further, because a number of farmers who at all times were opposed to tillage, will now procure their requirements of grass seed from the seed merchant and have it sown and have their land laid down. In my opinion such laying down is not a good method. It would be much better if they were required to till at least a quarter, instead of three-eighths, of their land. In that way they would be almost compelled—and it might be no harm—to sow a root crop or a green crop the next year, so as to have their land in a fit condition.
The Deputy is dealing with agriculture more than with taxation and expenditure.
I submit that I am dealing with the Budget as it relates to the policy of the Government, and I assure you that I do not intend to digress. As far as the Department of Industry and Commerce is concerned, I do not see any signs of this great expansion in industry we were told about. When the Minister for Industry and Commerce makes a statement, I am sure that he is inclined to put it into operation. When it was decided to discontinue the hand-won turf industry the Minister stated that those persons engaged in producing hand-won turf, provided they produced it of a good quality and at a competitive price, would be assured of a market. That has not happened. Some people did follow his advice and produced turf of good quality and secured a market for it; but when they made application to his Department—some of them had private lorries of their own—for a supplementary allowance of petrol to deliver the turf, they were refused. That was a great mistake. It is one thing to abolish the hand-won turf industry, but to have that kind of thing going on as well makes the matter much worse.
All these things show that, instead of this Budget indicating a progressive policy, it is in the main a "take it easy and do nothing" policy. In that case, I do not see why we on this side of the House should let it pass without division, and I intend to vote against it.
Against increased old age pensions.
Against robbing the widows.
I was interested in old age pensions long before the Deputy came to his majority—and my Party also. I am voting against it because I look upon it as a very retrograde Budget and a retrograde policy.
This Budget has been discussed already in all its aspects and I do not want to repeat what has been said. I think the Budget is a good one and one which the people did not think possible— having regard to the legacy of commitments that were passed on to the present Administration by their predecessors. The Budget has increased taxation and at the same time it has increased social services. Because it has done that, I regard it as a good Budget. Several suggestions have been made by the Deputies who were in the Government in the past, that you can avoid this taxation and that there is one small section of the community that you can tax to give that money. In the year 1948 there is no such section and if you apply taxation everybody in the country will have to provide it.
There has been criticism about asking the hotels to pay the economic price for tea, sugar and butter. Anyone who likes to go into a hotel and see them charging 15/- or 25/- for bed and breakfast, or 14 guineas a week or something higher in the peak of the season, will have absolutely no sympathy with such criticism. Neither can they ask the ordinary consumer that they are weeping about to subsidise those people who are charging fairly economic prices, at any rate—I put it mildly— for the services they are giving.
There has been a lot of tears about the shortwave station. Personally, I am delighted that we have not a shortwave station to broadcast our programmes throughout the world. I am probably a bit of a radio fan myself and I have listened to the programmes from Radio Éireann and I would hate that those atrocious programmes should be broadcast to the ends of the earth. I can understand the annoyance of the Deputies opposite in not having this shortwave station. They probably wanted it for a propaganda purpose— whether it was an Irish propaganda purpose or a Party propaganda purpose I do not know, but I know that, not so long ago, the literary editor of the political organ of the Party opposite was able to go to the B.B.C. Third Programme and broadcast a eulogy of one political leader and make innuendoes about other Parties and the Leaders of other Parties in the Dáil. If that is what the shortwave station was required for, I am very glad it did not materialise.
I would like to draw the Minister's attention to the tax on petrol as it applies to the Ferguson tractors. There are about 15,000 of these Ferguson tractors in the country and they are operated on petrol. There is now a tax of 1/2 on every gallon they use. The Minister for Agriculture has assured us that he is not going to do anything which would hamper agricultural production. This tax of 1/2 a gallon on petrol for these very efficient machines is a definite tax on production and will hamper production.
In regard to entertainment duties, I note that there are certain theatres in Dublin known as patent theatres which are getting relief in taxation if they have certain live shows. In Cork we have a theatre in which it is intended to produce a very real and genuine variety show. Already they have advertised. They are prepared to appoint a permanent orchestra of from ten to 12 members in addition to employing various acts from week to week. If these people should not be allowed to have the benefit of the concession which the patent theatres in Dublin will enjoy it will mean that we will not have that live show in Cork. The fact of having a permanent orchestra of about 12 musicians would be a definite advantage to the City and County of Cork. I do not understand the legalities of this matter. I do not know whether a theatre that is not at the moment a patent theatre can become one and I do not know if it is a very expensive process to become a patent theatre. I think, however, that the Minister should have a little regard to this particular theatre in Cork which is really genuine and which would give considerable employment. It would also be of assistance in various ways in advancing culture and music by having about 12 musicians permanently employed. These people would be able to give tuitions, and so forth, in their spare time.
There has been a lot of talk on the subject of farmers' butter. I do not intend to say anything in that regard except to point out to the Minister that in certain areas attempts have been made by certain individuals to buy butter at less than its value and to sell it at its actual value. I would like to ask the appropriate authorities to ensure that the producer is not exploited.
In conclusion, I wish to congratulate the Minister and to say that I believe, from my observations throughout the country, that the country is behind him in his Budget and that it is something better than they expected.
Mr. MacEntee rose.
A Chinn Chomhairle——
Deputy MacEntee.
Two to one.
You are all one only they are the one.
I do not know what the Deputy is referring to. I have the list in front of me as to the speakers since this debate began.
Deputy Beegan has spoken.
If any suggestion of unfair discrimination is made——
Deputy Beegan spoke before Deputy P.D. Lehane.
Opposition one, Government one, Opposition one.
I did not know that.
The Deputy will realise it later on.
There have been six Labour speakers so far.
The Minister for Finance has many gifts and among them that of a biting wit. I have no doubt that those who came to hear this first Budget speech thought they were going to listen to an oration of sparkling brilliancy such as sometimes characterised utterances from the Opposition Bench and which, while they may have hurt, very often amused those against whom they were directed. If these people came with that idea in their minds on that occasion they must have been bitterly disappointed, because the wit was missing: the fluency was missing, and we had a shameful Budget introduced in a most shameful way. Perhaps they had something to admire about the Minister for Finance in that he was ashamed of this Budget, which is a concrete expression of the fundamental dishonesties upon which the present popular front Government is based. I notice Deputy Davin perking up and taking notice. That expression has been deliberately chosen. This is a popular front Government of which the keystone that holds the whole edifice together is a Party which is led by a man who is an avowed Communist and who has in his Party associated with him others who have been trained as he has been trained and who have adopted as he has adopted the Marxian philosophy.
Is this a rehash of last night?
On a point of order. Is the Deputy in order in making a slanderous charge of that kind under the protection and privilege of this House? He said that a certain man, unnamed, is an avowed Communist.
That is a question of fact or otherwise, on which it is very hard for the Chair to pronounce.
I challenge the Deputy to make that statement outside.
A Deputy
He has done so dozens of times.
I have made that statement outside. The man who now leads the Labour Party, who has, by the way, superseded Deputy Davin as deputy leader of the Party under Deputy Norton, is a man who has stood in the City of Dublin as a candidate for the Communist Party of Ireland.
The Deputy himself was a member of the Irish Party at one time.
But he missed the train.
He was also a member of the Belfast Socialist Party.
I want to say that this Budget is a complete expression of the fundamental dishonesties upon which this popular front Government is based, and the Government which has produced this Budget is like all governments so constituted—highly lacking, wholly lacking one might say, in that spirit of loyalty and acceptance of principle which will hold a government composed of men who have the same ideas and opinions together despite political vicissitude. The members of the Party opposite, and I make no distinction between any one component of this popular front Administration than another, when they became aware of the fact that certain proposals in this Budget would be subject to searching criticism—particularly from those deluded voters who had voted, say, for Deputy Davin and Deputy Hickey in the expectation that if they were returned to Dáil Éireann they would make the interests of the poor their concern—when it dawned upon them that one of the things which this Budget is going to do is to increase the cost of the staple food to the poor and to impose additional taxation upon the 600,000 workers in this country, immediately began to say, "Oh, if we had our way this Budget, in many respects, would be substantially different." They are having their way now. This is as much the Budget of Deputy Davin, Deputy Larkin, Deputy Connolly, Deputy Fitzpatrick, Deputy Hickey and Deputy Dan Spring as it is of the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach, and of any one member of the Party which was formerly known as the Fine Gael Party. It is yours as much as theirs and everything in it, whether it appeals to your former supporters or not, is something for which you carry responsibility. Your groups or your sections are represented in that Government. Clann na Poblachta is represented there by the Minister for External Affairs and the Minister for Health. The International Labour Party is represented there by the Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister for Local Government. The Party that used to be in existence in this country under the title of the National Labour Party, now disowned by the men who brought it into existence, is represented in that Cabinet by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.
This Budget is an expression and a manifestation of the collective policy of the Government. It is not the Budget only of the Taoiseach, or of the Minister for Finance, or of the Minister for Justice, or of the egregious Minister for Agriculture. It is the Budget of the group which was once called Clann na Poblachta. It is the Budget of the group which was once known as the International Labour Party. It is the Budget of the group which was once known as the National Labour Party. It is the Budget of the group which was once known as Clann na Talmhan. There is not a thing in that Budget which, if your representatives in the Government had objected to it, would be in it to-day. If, for instance, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Deputy Everett) had objected to the proposal to stop the mineral exploration in East and West Wicklow, in East and West Avoca, to be precise, that would not be in it; that proposal would not be accepted in the Government and the Minister for Finance would not have been able to terminate that policy and to abolish the employment which the carrying out of that policy would have given.
If the Minister for Finance, in the course of his Budget speech, said this:—
"The substantial wage and salary increases already secured by all classes of workers, with such further advantages as shorter hours, paid holidays, children's allowances and other increases in social services, have gone as far as is possible, in present circumstances, to meet the claims of social justice..."
he must have said it with the full assent, authority and endorsement of the Minister for Social Welfare, of the Minister for Local Government, of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, of the Minister for External Affairs, and of the Minister for Health. If that were not their opinion as well as his, they would surely have dissented from that statement; they would have made it clear, when the lines of the Budget speech were being discussed, that they would not stand over that statement and would not back it, and therefore the statement would not have been made.
In the light of what is happening to-day, let me recite again that significant passage from the speech of the Minister for Finance to the House:—
"The substantial wage and salary increases already secured by all classes of workers, with such further advantages as shorter hours, paid holidays, children's allowances and other increases in social services, have gone as far as is possible, in present circumstances, to meet the claims of social justice...."
We on this side of the House can take pride in some of the reasons enumerated by the Minister for Finance for now telling the House that they can go no further, because every one of the measures of social amelioration, every one of the measures of social progress to which the Minister for Finance referred was a measure introduced and passed by a Fianna Fáil Government when it had an over-all majority in Dáil Éireann.
The Acts securing to the workers paid holidays were passed between 1933 and 1937. The measure giving them children's allowances was passed in Dáil Éireann in 1944. The Widows and Orphans Act was introduced in 1935. The Unemployment Assistance Acts were passed in 1933. There is not a social advance that has been made during the past 12 years that was not made under a Fianna Fáil Government and, let me repeat it again, a Government which had an over-all majority in this House and was independent of the International Labour Party, completely independent of them.
Contrast that with the position in which we are to-day. Here we have a group which forms part of what was called the Labour Party. Here we have a group in which there are no less than two Labour Parties, each of which used to be up against the other competing high for popular support from the workers. They are now sitting around the one Cabinet table and they are discussing the future attitude of the Government towards the workers of the country. What have they decided is going to be their attitude? It was expressed by the Minister for Finance in his Budget speech:—
"The substantial wage and salary increases already secured by all classes of workers, with such advantages as shorter hours, paid holidays, children's allowances and other increases in social services, have gone as far as is possible, in present circumstances, to meet the claims of social justice...".
Read it again.
Therefore your claims have been met. So far as the Labour Party is concerned, we have always doubted them. We knew they were never, in the full sense of the word, a Labour Party. We knew they were prejudiced and committed and compromised by the action which they took in the year 1922-23.
That is outside the Budget.
I am talking of the attitude of the men who once called themselves Labour Deputies but were not——
Their attitude in 1922 and 1923 is outside this Budget.
Very well, I will put it this way. During all the years we have been sitting in this House side by side with them, but never on the same benches, because they were careful to dissociate themselves from us and it was never a matter of very great regret because we knew their past history and we knew that all the time, despite their political exhibitionism, despite the parade of republicanism and patriotism which they used to make, their roots were rooted in the Treaty and they were as anti-republican in the year 1937, when they opposed the Constitution, as they were when they called themselves——
The Deputy is not dealing with taxation and expenditure, but what they were at a certain period, which has no relevancy.
I will not ask you Sir, to bear with me any longer. I am merely trying to explain to the public, because there is such a bond of sympathy between the men who used to call themselves Labour Deputies and representatives of the workers and those who, certainly when they called themselves Cumann na nGaedheal, were not regarded by the workers as their friends——
You have ex-Cumann na nGaedheal men on the benches behind you.
I should like now to devote my attention to some of the things that the Budget proposes to do. I have said, and I should like to repeat, that it is the concrete expression of the fundamental dishonesties upon which the popular front Government is based.
It is popular anyway.
With the publicans, but not with the public, as the Deputy will find out. I have here a number of leaflets which were circulated during the election. I have one which was circulated over the name of Deputy Cowan. I have one which was circulated over the name of the present Minister for Health (Dr. Browne), and I have a highly edifying one which was issued over the name of Deputy Con Lehane. Every one of these statements of policy and of programme emphasised that, if Clann na Poblachta were to secure a majority at the general election and were to form the Administration, great works of national development would be undertaken by them.
Surely if the Deputy refers to documents he should tell the House the details and the contents of them.
Surely, even to inflict humiliation upon his allies, the Deputy does not want me to read these election addresses.
The Deputy is quoting statements taken from their context.
Clann na Poblachta——
Read them out.
If a Deputy quotes from official documents, he should read them, but these are not official documents, and I do not want the election literature on either side read out here.
We do not know what they are.
Clann na Poblachta was the Party which, of all others, laid the greatest emphasis upon the need to develop our natural resources. They had a vast far-reaching programme including, I think, no less than the planting of 3,000,000 acres or more per annum. These schemes were to include the planting of from 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 acres of non-arable land under trees. This was to the electors of Dublin South-East, if you please. They proposed, as I have said, to utilise our natural resources to the fullest in order to provide employment here for the people whose emigration they were bemoaning and bewailing.
What does this Budget propose to do, and what does this Government propose to do? This Government, with no less than two representatives of what was once the Clann na Poblachta Party as powerful Ministers sitting in the Cabinet, the first thing that it proposes to do is to terminate the programme of mineral exploration which had been drawn up and to carry out which provision was made in the Estimates which were prepared by the last Government for submission to Dáil Éireann. I do not know whether the members of Clann na Poblachta are sufficiently interested to ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce to give them a copy of the report which was prepared and submitted to the Government in November of 1947 in relation to the mineral wealth of the district east and west of Avoca. That report was prepared by the president of the Mining Metallurgic Institution, by a man who is most eminent in his profession as a mining geologist, and, having made a thorough survey of the district, he pointed out that there was a vast mineralised delta there, constituting a vast mass of ore east to west of Avoca which he definitely stated in his belief might prove to be one of the richest mineral deposits in Western Europe, and urged that it should be systematically and scientifically explored.
Provision had been made to initiate and start that work this year. The Fianna Fáil Government—this extravagant Fianna Fáil Government—had proposed to start that programme this year. The greater part of the money which was going to be spent this year would have been spent in providing employment. Some part of it, undoubtedly, would have to be expended in procuring capital equipment. A programme of exploration which would ultimately, perhaps, cost a couple of hundred thousand pounds was to be embarked upon. No person could say, naturally, whether the results of that exploration would fulfil our expectations, but a man whose word and opinion should carry great weight, because of his eminence in his profession, had given it as his opinion that the undertaking was well worth while, and that he would be grievously surprised and disappointed if the results did not come up to his expectations and did not show that we have here in Wicklow one of the most extensive ore bodies in Western Europe. Undoubtedly, the ore would not have been of a highgrade order, but it would be an ore which could be profitably exploited and profitably utilised by modern methods of mining and extraction. If the results of this exploration were to be as favourable as this expert stated in his opinion they would be, employment would have been provided in West Wicklow not for 200 or 300 men but for 2,000 or 3,000 men.
That programme has been abandoned, and it has been abandoned with the consent and with the authority of that Deputy for Wicklow who is Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, and with the support of that other Deputy for Wicklow who professes to be an Independent but who has always voted for Fine Gael in the past and who is voting for them and supporting them to-day. That is the first failure on the part of Clann na Poblachta and of the Labour Party to give effect to their election pledges. Let the House remember this, that they could quite easily have said to the Minister for Finance: "We are not going to stand for this throttling of national development; we are not going to permit you, because you want to save £30,000 or £50,000 in this year and to brag and boast of your economies: we are not going to allow you to shut down on this great mining venture; we insist that, whatever else you may do, this scheme must go ahead", and if it is suspended to-day and is not going ahead, let there be no doubt about it it is due to the fact that two out of the three Deputies for Wicklow have accepted the suspension and, indeed, are recommending it here to the House and are prepared to support it by their votes when a vote is taken on this General Resolution.
Another area due for exploration was the Slievardagh area in Tipperary. We had been told all during the emergency that if the people had not coal it was because of the indolence or want of enterprise of the Fianna Fáil Government. We had secured a report on the Slievardagh mining field in 1937 or 1938, and if it had not been for the outbreak of the war the exploration of that mining field would have been immediately undertaken. It would have been a costly and expensive business perhaps but it would have been undertaken because plant would have been available. It was always the aim of Fianna Fáil, whenever they had to provide money for employment schemes, to try to utilise that money in the initiation and execution of reproductive works. Well, during the war, we had to do the best we could with the equipment which was available to us and with the mining skill which was at our disposal. We had to start in during the war and try to open up Slievardagh without equipment, without mining plant and indeed without mining advice or mining skill, but when the war was over we had promised ourselves that one of the first things we were going to do was to have a thorough investigation of the Slievardagh coalfield. The money for that investigation had been provided in this year's Estimates, and if it were not for the fact that the present Government have decided to close down on that exploration, the Slievardagh exploration would have gone ahead and a great deal of employment would have been given in the Slievardagh district. Many people, who now possibly will have to emigrate, would have been kept at home. They are going out; they are going out now because the Minister for Finance wants economies to the tune of £85,000 in a Budget which covers £75,000,000 or £76,000,000. For the sake of saving £85,000, the exploration scheme is to be shut down; the works at Slievardagh are to be discontinued; the mining skill which we had built up is to be dissipated. All that is to be done with the support in this House of two Tipperary Deputies who were returned on the Clann na Poblachta ticket; of course, with the support of the Minister for Industry and Commerce who sits for Tipperary as well, and with the support—I almost forgot it but let me not leave him out —the support of the Minister for Education, who is also a Tipperary Deputy.
I think that is a very poor return to the voters who supported the elements which constitute this popular front Government, the voters of Tipperary who returned no less than four members here to help to keep in office the Minister for Finance, who refuses in a Budget of £77,000,000 to provide £50,000 to continue and carry on the Slievardagh exploration work. And, mind you—let the Deputies in this House not forget it because the electors in Tipperary are not going to be allowed to forget it—he could not do that without the votes of Deputy Kinane and Deputy Timoney or without the support of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Education, both of whom hold seats in Tipperary. So much for mineral exploration.
Let me then direct the attention of the House to a transaction which has taken place recently with a great flourish of trumpets on the part of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I refer to the sabotage of the transatlantic air service. Clann na Poblachta, let me remind the House again, put in the forefront of its programme the policy of developing our national resources. The big natural resource we have, although it has not yet dawned upon Deputies who are supporting the popular front Government, happens to be, in this age of aerial development, our geographical situation. As the American air lines were advertising up and down America and throughout the cities of Europe, Rineanna and the Shannon represent the aerial crossroads of the world. We were there at that crossroads, to which air liners from practically every European country and from the United States of America were flying. We represented the first landfall that the aerial navigator would make after he had flown the broad Atlantic. Our position was unique in that regard. We set out to develop it, not concealing from ourselves nor from the public the difficulties and, if you like, the commercial risks which that attempt to establish ourselves as a country owning its own air lines and maintaining an air service across the Atlantic would involve. We knew that the initial outlay was going to be great. We knew that for the first year or two we might have to submit to heavy losses, as the American companies who are now flying the Atlantic and making a profit, in the development stages of their operations had to face losses.
What American company made a profit?
All the American companies.
Name one of the companies.
All the companies without exception made profits.
The Deputy is not now in the Circuit Court or the District Court and he cannot crossexamine me.
I should like the Deputy to answer my question.
I am addressing these remarks to people who know the facts.
Directing them to your dumb followers.
As I say, we did not attempt to conceal the difficulties or the risks involved from the people and least of all from ourselves. We knew it would be misrepresented just as our attempt to develop the turf industry had been misrepresented. We knew that it would be misrepresented just as was our desire to establish a position whereby we could greet our neighbours and fellow-countrymen on the other side of the Border, if they decided to throw their lot in with us without asking them to forgo any of their traditional attachments and without asking us to forgo our traditional policy in regard to our Constitutional position. There were a considerable number of enterprises which Fianna Fáil had undertaken in which difficulties of a similar character were involved and which we hid neither from the public nor from ourselves. Most of all that was so in the case of the transatlantic air service.
What are the facts that have emerged about that air service in the course of the past week or ten days? We were told that this was a wantonly extravagant enterprise initiated by the Fianna Fáil Government. In reply to a series of questions put down by Deputy Lehane, to whom the members of this Party and the general public owe a certain gratitude for eliciting answers which he did not expect, we were told that the total expenditure on Aer Línte, including the purchase of aircraft, the acquisition of premises, the training of staff, preliminary advertising and preliminary organisation expenses, amounted to £1,598,000 —not a very heavy expenditure when you relate it to the cost of developing the Shannon scheme in its initial stages, a scheme which did not even pay interest on the money advanced until the year 1933. The sum of £1,598,000 was less than one-third of the capital cost of the Shannon scheme in its initial stages, again, let me repeat, a scheme which did not pay from the year 1926 until the year 1933 not one penny piece in interest on the advances made.
It was not built in 1926, of course.
The moneys were advanced in 1926.
There were no moneys paid in 1926.
What emerged? Of this expenditure of £1,598,000, £504,000 was spent on the training of staff and preliminary expenses, leaving assets, including aircraft, premises, auxiliary craft and equipment, of £1,094,000. After all, all the assets were not realisable, very much to the disappointment of the Minister. This then was the condition of the undertaking: capital investment, £1,598,000, which included an expenditure of £504,000 upon the training of staff, on the training, I assume, of pilots, navigators, members of crews, members of the ground staffs and members of the various technical staffs. That sum of £504,000 was spent on giving Irishmen new skill, new technique, new ability to earn money for themselves and for their country.
The amount which was expended in tangible assets was £1,094,000. What was the estimated net loss on the first year's working of this concern, with a capital of £1,600,000, in round figures? The estimated net loss on the first year's working was £163,000—less than ten per cent. of the total capital invested, of which £504,000 represented expenditure upon the training and equipment of Irishmen to earn a living for themselves and an income for their country. These Irishmen are now told to get to hell out of this. They are not even given the option of going to Connaught. They can go to Pakistan, to South Africa, to Great Britain. They can fly the Constellations, which were to carry the Irish flag across the Atlantic, across the Pacific carrying the Union Jack, and convert a deficit for the British air lines working the Pacific routes into a profit.
Surely the British were not losing.
But this country, with a Budget of £77,000,000, could not afford to risk—because that is all it was—£163,000 in giving that undertaking a fair trial. We had to come in here and sabotage it—at least, the Minister for Finance in the popular front Government had to sabotage it. The only reason for its sabotage was that it was a standing exemplification to the people of this country of the fact that they had been governed from 1932 until February, 1948, by a Government composed of men of vision and enterprise, of energy and courage. Our successors were afraid to let that stand as a tribute to us, so they decided, as I have told the House, to sabotage it.
But what has now emerged with regard to this undertaking which they told the people was rashly initiated by the Fianna Fáil Government? The Constellations which were bought at a cost of something less than £1,094,000 have now been sold and for no less a sum than £1,575,000. A surplus has been realised on the sale of these aircraft, on a portion only of the realisable assets of this concern, which, let me repeat, has been sabotaged by this popular front Government, perhaps because some of these gentlemen do not want to have a trained corps of aviators in this country in face of possible eventualities. In respect of this airline which has been sabotaged, a surplus of £481,000 has been realised on the sale of the Constellations, so that the mere appreciation in the value of some of the assets of Aer Línte, the company which is now being wound-up, would have met the estimated net loss on the first year's working no less than three times over. And they call themselves a business Government and that decision is being supported here by Deputies who would profess to be business men.
How would you fly if you had no machines?
How will the Pakistan planes be flown? They will be flown by Irishmen. I know one young pilot, who was trained at great expense by Aer Línte to fly the Atlantic, who has now got a three months' term of employment in Pakistan and who, after that, is going to South Africa. His wife and family of three are going with him —and this Government set up a commission to investigate the causes of emigration from this country.
What is the nationality of the man who gave them notice?
Let me come now to what I think is the most shameful proposal in this Budget. The Minister for Finance has two proposals affecting the widows' and orphans' pensions scheme in his Budget. I will only glance at one of them in passing and will devote more attention to the other. The House is well aware that every year during the emergency cash supplements were provided to augment the benefits drawn by beneficiaries under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, the National Health Insurance Acts and the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts. There are about 600,000 people covered by these various social services. The Minister proposes to save, he has told the House, £900,000 in respect of these cash supplements, an economy consisting in this, in transferring from the Exchequer to the backs of the contributors to the scheme the cost of these cash supplements—and the Minister calls that an economy! Undoubtedly, it is an economy for the Exchequer, but is it an economy for the persons who are members of these various insurance schemes who will have to meet out of their own pockets the cost of these cash supplements?
The Minister has been very chary about telling the House exactly what this will mean in the way of an increased contribution, but, as he proposes in a full year to save £900,000, and as there are, in very round figures, about 600,000 people covered by these schemes in one form or another, it is easy to see that henceforward the contributors to these schemes will have to pay on an average 30/- per annum per head for the benefits they formerly received free, gratis and for nothing, out of the general fund of the Exchequer, and—let me remind the House again—Deputy Davin, Deputy Keyes, Deputy McAuliffe and a number of other Deputies who are getting a little frayed about this, as well as afraid, are going to vote for that when they vote for the General Resolution in connection with the Budget. Make no mistake about it, they are voting for an increase in the contribution of the average person covered by these social insurance schemes of not less than 30/- per year.
A person might vote for that if he were going to get something for it, but what will the people get in exchange for this 30/-? They will not get a penny piece more. The cash supplements are being provided out of the general pool of taxation and all that is being done is transferring from the community as a whole to the particular class or section compelled by law to be in these schemes—they do not contribute voluntarily; they are compelled to make these contributions, which are in the nature of a tax—this sum of £900,000—transferring it from the general taxpayer to the particular section, the workers, for whom Deputy Davin and the members of the International and National Labour Party, as it used to be called, profess to speak in this House. What will these people get in exchange? Let me ask that question again. They will get in exchange the doubtful pleasure of licking an additional stamp. That is not the way in which those who are contributing to the widows' and orphans' pension scheme will be affected by this Budget. There is an even more shameful proposal than that. Deputies, no doubt, are aware that the widows' and orphans' pensions scheme consists of two parts. There is a contributory and there is a non-contributory scheme. Those who secure non-contributory pensions secure them on the ground that they are in such necessitous circumstances that the State must make some provision for them. Those who are qualified for contributory pensions secure them as a matter of right in virtue of the contributions which their deceased husbands paid during their working lives into the pensions investment fund.
Now, what is the position in relation to non-contributory pensions? I will give the House some figures. I shall give those figures rather rapidly, because I am anxious to pass on to something else. On the 31st March, 1948, the first year in which the non-contributory pensions scheme may be said to have got properly under way, the total cost of the non-contributory pensions amounted to £387,670. If we add for the administration of that scheme a sum of £50,000 we see that the total cost of the non-contributory pensions and of administering the non-contributory pensions scheme—which is the more expensive one to administer—was £437,000. To meet that cost the Exchequer contributed the £450,000. The Fianna Fáil Government, without the support of Deputy Davin, independent of the support of the present Minister for Social Welfare, independent of the support of the present Minister for Local Government, independent of the support of the present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, and, of course, independent of the support of the present Minister for External Affairs and the Minister for Health, who were not in the House at all, contributed towards the cost of this non-contributory scheme and bound itself by law to contribute £450,000 every year for at least eight years.
You had the means test as a safeguard.
And it is still there. In any event, we contributed to the non-contributory pensions and we provided them when Deputy McAuliffe was not in the House at all.
You were compelled to in 1932 and 1933.
When Deputy Davin tried to compel us to do something in the year 1932 and when he attempted——
Now, you are admitting something.
When he and his Party tried to dictate to the then Taoiseach in the terms in which Deputy Larkin has dictated to the present Taoiseach in this Budget, they were faced with a general election and they came back with their tails between their legs.
Like you came back this time.
At any rate, in the year 1938 we paid into the widows' and orphans' pension fund £450,000 and we bound ourselves to pay that sum for eight years. That sum has barely covered the cost of the non-contributory pensions and the cost of administering the scheme. The subvention to the fund was £450,000 and the total cost was £437,000.
Did the Deputy say they bound themselves by law to do that?
Yes.
What was the year?
In the year 1937.
You did not pay it one year.
I said bound ourselves for eight years.
Did you pay it inside eight years?
We paid every penny piece.
On the strength of the actuarial report.
Now, look here, Sir John——
Is it in order for the ex-Minister to laugh at himself?
I am so accustomed to finding in Deputy Davin an occasion for laughter that I am not able to change now.
On the 31st March, 1943, the cost of the non-contributory pensions was £419,000 and the cost of the administration may be taken to be about £55,000. In that year, therefore, the total cost of the non-contributory side of the scheme was £474,000 so that there was a deficit of £24,000 in that particular year. But that deficit was going to even itself out. In the earlier years there had been a surplus and, as the number of contributory pensions mounted so to speak to a maximum and then began to decline, a deficit accrued on the non-contributory side of the scheme; but, as the non-contributory pensions began to decline, then a surplus would again begin to manifest itself upon the non-contributory side of the scheme. Both surpluses and deficits would ultimately even themselves out without any cost to the contributory side of the scheme.
For the year ending 31st March, 1946 —I can only take the actuary's estimate here—the cost of the pensions was £402,000 and the cost of administration £55,000. For the year ending 31st March, 1956, however the actuary estimated that the cost of the scheme would be £374,000 and the cost of administration was taken at £60,000. There would in that year be a surplus because the subvention to the Exchequer would exceed the total cost of the scheme in that year by £16,000. In the year 1961 the figures would be, estimated cost of pensions £337,000 and estimated cost of administration £60,000 leaving a substantial surplus of about £53,000 on the subvention which would go—mark this!—and would only go to wipe out the deficits on the non-contributory scheme accruing in the years 1943 to 1948.
Now, what is the position in relation to the contributories—the people who are compelled by law, the people who are taxed, the workers who are taxed in order to provide pensions for their widows and for their children? For the year ending 31st March, 1938, the total cost of the contributory pensions was only £76,000, but the contribution income was £582,000. A surplus was left for investment in the pensions investment fund of £505,000. For the year ending 31st March, 1943, the total cost of the contributory pensions was £297,000 and the contribution income £606,000, leaving a surplus for investment—which belonged to the contributories to the scheme—of £308,203. For the year ending 31st March, 1946, the cost of the contributory pensions had gone up to £408,000 and the contribution income was £615,000; the surplus for investment had declined to £207,000.
We have now to talk about the future. The actuary estimated that, on the 31st March, 1951, the total cost of the contributory pensions would be £550,000; the income from contributions would remain fairly constant at £610,000; and the surplus for investment would have fallen to £60,000. What was going to be the position in the year ending 31st March, 1956? The cost of the contributory pensions would have gone up to £646,000. The contribution income would have declined to £605,000 and the surplus for investment would have disappeared. Instead of a surplus there would be a net draw on the pensions investment fund of £42,000. For the year ending 31st March, 1961, the actuary estimated that the total cost of the contributory pensions would be £707,000, that the contribution income would remain at £605,000, and there would be a net draw on the fund of £102,000.
What is the position in which the contributors to the pension fund find themselves? In the earlier years they were paying a very much larger contribution than would meet the cost of the contributory pensions. That is because it is an insurance scheme in which deficiencies at the initiation of the scheme are evened out by the accumulation and investment of surplus income which will yield an investment income when the heavy obligations begin to mature on the fund. We find this position, that in the year 1946, with a contribution income of £615,000 and interest on investments of £150,000, the total cost of the contributory pensions, excluding administration, is £408,000. But, in 1961, when the cost of the pensions has mounted to £707,000—to which we must add, in fairness, the cost of administering the scheme, which will not be less than £30,000, making the total cost of the contributory scheme £737,000—we will find the contribution income is only £605,000.
The actuary, looking at the pensions investment fund, in which no less than £4,641,000 had been accumulated by the extravagant and spendthrift Fianna Fáil Government for the benefit of the widows and orphans of those who were compelled to be members of the contributory scheme, was going to purchase an investment income of £150,000, which would cover the total cost of the pensions, plus administration, and leave a small surplus of about £28,000 or £30,000 to provide for unforeseen contingencies.
What will happen? The Minister for Finance, representing this popular front Government, proposes this year not to pay the cost of the non-contributory scheme, but to make those bound by the law to contribute to the scheme pay the £450,000 which is properly the obligation of the Exchequer. He can only do it by raiding the widows' and orphans' pensions fund and realising some part of these investments totalling £4,641,000, which amount was built up by the Fianna Fáil Government in order to ensure that the present contributors to the widows' and orphans' pensions scheme will be in this position, that when they die their widows and children will get what they are entitled by law to get under legislation passed by the Fianna Fáil Government.
The Minister for Finance proposes to raid that fund. The moneys are not his; they belong to the workers of this country, and because Deputy Con Lehane would strongly object to the pint being taxed in order to bear the cost of the widows' and orphans' pensions, because the Minister will not tax the pint in order to meet the obligations of the Exchequer, he will raid the widows' and orphans' pensions fund and take £450,000 belonging to the workers to meet the obligations of the Exchequer. He will do it with the support of Deputies Hickey, O'Leary, Davin, Keane, Connolly, Cowan and Lehane. He cannot do it and he will not do it if they stop him.
The responsibility for what the Minister proposes to do under this Budget in relation to widows' and orphans' pensions does not rest with the Minister or the Taoiseach or any member of the Fine Gael Government. It rests with those who were returned to the House to make the interests of the workers their first concern. It rests upon those who went to the people proclaiming that they stood to protect the interests of the workers. The funds now belonging to the workers are being raided. The Minister for Finance calls for economy. He is in the position of trustee in relation to this fund. With the support of those members to whom I refer, and with the support of the one-time Labour Party, he will be guilty of the malversation of the trust fund.
I hope the decent Deputies, the younger Deputies who are obliged to sit behind this ex-Ministerial mud-slinger, will not follow the bad example he gave. It is only in keeping with his conduct inside and outside the House, particularly outside the House. Deputy MacEntee is an ex-member of the Belfast branch of the British Socialist Party and he is the last man who should talk about the international or other outlook of the members sitting in this group. He should put up somebody else to make these slanderous allegations. I hope the allegations he made inside the House under cover of the privilege of the House will be made outside, so far as Deputy Larkin is concerned, and we will give Deputy MacEntee an opportunity of proving his charges before some of his own fellow-countrymen in a court.
I say to members sitting on this side of the House that the younger members on the Opposition Benches are entitled to reasonable consideration. They will find that the make-up of this Government represents a revolutionary change compared with what we experienced over the past 16 years. Time will prove that. During the period when Fianna Fáil were in power this House could properly be described as a parliamentary talking shop. No matter what a Deputy in the Opposition suggested, the Fianna Fáil Government ignored him. You could stay here until you passed away from this world and no notice would be taken of your suggestions.
This Government has been described by Deputy MacEntee as a popular front Government. I accept that title. What is known to us as the inter-Party Government is quite prepared to listen to all who sit here when they submit practical suggestions that will help to make the laws conform with the wishes of the people who sent us here. That is a healthy change compared with our experiences over the past 16 years. Not one member of the Fianna Fáil Party during that time dared to criticise Deputy de Valera. If any Fianna Fáil Deputy did, he was faced with the certainty of being brought before the next Party meeting to explain his conduct. I do not mind what is said by the younger members of this House because they are entitled to consideration. The Fianna Fáil Government was swept out of office without giving any reasonable notice——
A Deputy
That is not so.
It is the strongest Party in the country.
I suggest that the Deputy should come to the Budget.
Is it not quite obvious that Deputy Burke thinks that he is in the Government Party because he refers to us as members of the Opposition?
A Deputy
Is that not what you are?
As far as the members of the Labour group are concerned, we went into the inter-Party Government with our eyes open and we have no apology to make for it. Why should we? I went before my constituents, as did my colleagues in the House, telling them that our policy was to put the Fianna Fáil Administration out of office. We came in here and carried out the mandate given to us by our constituents.
What about Deputy Norton's statement?
There was undoubtedly a question of the allocations of office. I will make one confession—and you can use it against me—I expressed the wish that the man who is responsible for this Budget should be the Minister for Finance. You can use that against me inside or outside my constituency. I know the background of this Budget. I know the man and the background of the man and I know that he is better fitted for it than any man on these benches. I know that it would be impossible in the first Budget introduced by the best Minister in the world to clean up the dirty financial mess that the Fianna Fáil Government has left to us, but I have every confidence that the present Minister for Finance will do that inside a reasonable time and will shift the burden of taxation on to the shoulders best able to bear it——
The shoulders of the unemployed.
——including those people who have been making excess profits during the emergency at the expense of the plain people of this country. There is only one thing which I do regret and that is that when the Minister for Finance was looking for money to be got fairly easily that he did not reimpose the excess profits tax. Perhaps in the next Budget if there is not enough money for all that is necessary he will take the excess profits which these people admit that they have made during the emergency and since the emergency at the expense of the plain people of Ireland. The £276,000,000 increase in the deposits in our banks does not belong to the working-class people; it does not belong to the widows or to the old age pensioners and it does not belong to the small working farmers.
Have you got any there?
But it belongs to the people who have been making the excess profits, and these are the people that the Minister for Finance should get after for any increased taxation in coming Budgets. There may be some very good reason why the Minister has not imposed the excess profits tax in this Budget and I would be very glad to hear the real reason from him.
I do not mind the speeches made by the younger members of the Fianna Fáil Party, by the back benchers, but the last speaker is an ex-Minister for Finance, an ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce, an ex-Minister for Local Government and after the next general election he will be an exDeputy.
That is what you think.
He should be accountable to the House and to the country for the statements which he makes here. He conferred upon me the doubtful honour of visiting my constituency during the last couple of weeks and addressed the Portlaoighise local Fianna Fáil Cumann—in his prepared speech, mark you—in these words. He is a man who has had the responsibility of holding office with the goodwill of the people for 16 years and he knew perfectly well that he was trying to mislead the people and to misrepresent to them the Budget position. I am quoting from the Leinster Express in a report of a meeting of a Fianna Fáil Cumann:—
"Nobody was spending, nobody was investing. The warehouses were full. The factories were on short time."
He knew that that was wrong with regard to the town he was speaking in:—
"Everyone was going slow. Everyone was cacanny. The slump had first struck the turf areas and the areas around the Shannon Airport. But the creeping paralysis was spreading and unless it was speedily arrested the country was in for a depression greater even than in 1931."
Is not that a scandalous statement from a man who occupied Ministerial office in this House for 16 years? Did he not know that it was quite untrue and that it was nothing more than political sabotage? He was trying to advertise his own Party at the expense of the State.
He would not be the first to do that.
Deputy Lemass, the acting Leader of the Party, speaking in the same area, misrepresented to the turf workers of the constituency of Leix-Offaly the position regarding the Budget and their own position. He was speaking in Birr. I am now quoting from the Midland Tribune:—
"This Fine Gael mentality was predominant through the Government's actions and was quite obvious in Mr. McGilligan's Budget statement. The other Parties are just trotting after them and are adopting policies with which they do not agree."
What is the Deputy quoting from?
I am quoting from the Midland Tribune of Saturday, May 15th, a good Fianna Fáil paper. I am not making very much complaint about the words used by Deputy Lemass because that is the kind of stuff which he has to trot out in a constituency like this if he wants to keep the Fianna Fáil Party alive. He knows that better than anybody because he is a man who has built up the Fianna Fáil Party and he has unlimited energy both in language and in physical force if he likes to use it. He knows that if he does not keep the Fianna Fáil Party alive for six months that the Fianna Fáil Party will smash to smithereens. I will leave the decent Deputies of this House who do not wish to play politics in regard to the Budget or to the international outlook to think about the statement made by Deputy MacEntee in Portlaoighise. I am sorry that my constituents, the decent people of my native county, had to listen to such a speech, because he knew that he was not speaking the truth and that he was misrepresenting the position with regard to the Budget.
I am certainly behind the Minister for Finance with regard to this Budget as everything could not be done at once. Is there any Deputy in the House, is there any man or woman, is there any lady Deputy even, who could say that everything contained in every one of the 15 Fianna Fáil Budgets was accepted unanimously by them? Not a fear of it. You would not get such a Deputy outside Grangegorman. The mess left to the Minister for Finance could not be cleaned up in one Budget.
That is a good speech on the Budget.
With regard to the savings in the Estimate for our national Army at a critical period in the history of our country, does anybody suggest that our Army is of the type that could defend the State against an atomic bomb or against an attack made by any of the three or four big countries in the world? Not one man in the national Army has been degraded and not one man has lost his job as a result of the savings in the Army Estimate. I think that I know a little bit about it and that I learned something when I was a member of the Defence Advisory Council. Does anybody suggest that the warlike stores which we bought second-hand from Great Britain could defend us? I want the cost of those second-hand warlike stores to be wiped out and I do not want to see money taken out of the pockets of the taxpayers in order to buy second-hand warlike stores from any country which would be useless to us in the case of a war.
If it were true, but I do not think it is the truth.
Did you ever hear about the 10,000 rifles?
What is that?
I will improve your education for you if you want me to.
I am not afraid of open speech anywhere, here or outside.
I believe this country should have an Army. It should have an Army within its means, competent to defend us against attack. If we are to build up a Defence Force on modern lines we should concentrate on building up a better Air Force than even the one we have. That small Air Force has a very competent body of young officers, but it is far too small to defend this country against attack by any of the big Powers. I think we can all agree on that. But why we should go on to develop on the lines along which we have been developing is beyond me. In any case, the saving effected has not cost the Army one good soldier or officer or non-commissioned officer. Every one of the Deputies on the opposite benches knows that.
Let us come to Aer Lingus and the other companies associated with it. I want to say quite definitely to anybody who wants to hear it that I am not prepared to ask the taxpayers to pay heavy taxation for the purpose of providing a subsidised international air service. Why should not we make Maximoe and all his friends pay their full fare when they want to come to and go from this country? Why should not the wealthy people pay the full economic fare for the use of this luxury service and why should we in one year, without the proper authority of this House, have to find a loss amounting to £1,150,000? If we have that money to spare or, if the taxpayers can afford to provide it, let us do something for those on the bottom rung of the ladder, for the widows, orphans, old age pensioners and those who have to live on low subsistence allowances, and give them sufficient to buy the necessaries of life for themselves and their dependents instead of subsidising this luxury service to the tune of 11d. out of every 1/- so that the international crooks can be carried by us to or from this country, whenever it pleases them.
Are the Deputies on the Opposition Benches standing for the subsidisation of the service on the same lines as they stood for it for the last year? I will defend this in any part of my constituency —I will defend it anywhere commonsense people can be got to listen—I am whole-heartedly behind the Minister for Finance in effecting these economies. There was no proper authority given by this House to subsidise Aer Lingus or any of these international air services out of tax revenue. If there was, let me know when it was given and by what vote? I see from a reply given by the Minister for Finance to a Deputy of the Opposition that the losses incurred in the training of staff, in the purchase of equipment and other essentials, previous to the inauguration of the transatlantic service, amounted to £504,000.
Another thing I want to know from the people who sit on the Opposition Benches is, who was really in charge of Aer Lingus? I ask them, through you, Sir, are they aware that out of 22 senior officers with very big salaries, employed by the international air service, 13 were non-nationals? Who put them there? Are they the people with authority to sack the ex-national Army men, the members of our Air Corps, who went in on their merits to these jobs when Aer Lingus was first established? I understand that British ex-servicemen or R.A.F. men have more than their fair share of the higher executive positions there and, in addition, they have more than their fair share of the power, apparently, that is exercised when redundancy has to be created and people have to be told to go.
Is not the Deputy discussing administration now?
It is policy, Sir. It surely is policy that if the taxpayers, through a so-called republican Government, can find £1,150,000 to run an international air service Irishmen should get first preference for employmen in the key positions. I would like to know who is responsible for the position that 13 out of 22 are nonnationals. I received a copy of a memorandum from an association catering for the Irish members employed in these air companies. When I read the five or six-page memorandum I said to myself that there was a good deal of exaggeration about it. I did not like the language.
I will have to rule that that is administration.
This memorandum was also supplied to the Taoiseach, to the Minister for Industry and Commerce——
No matter to whom it was supplied, it is administration.
It is policy.
It is administration.
It is a question of policy as to whether, when you are employing men in a public service for which the taxpayers have to pay heavily, Irishmen having the necessary qualifications will get first preference and, if there is redundancy, it is surely a question of policy as to whether Irishmen will be kicked out before the others.
Mr. Burke
Did the 500 or 600 unemployed in Aer Lingus go to the Deputy?
Save that for your Countrywomen's Association. They are your meat.
I admit that in this Budget, as in every previous Budget, a very high percentage of the tax revenue has to be allocated for the provision of food subsidies. Perhaps the question is unfair—if the Minister has the approximate figures I would like to get them from him—what percentage of the many millions raised by way of tax revenue goes back to middlemen as subsidies? I do not know how a flour miller can become a millionaire in the lifetime of the Fianna Fáil Government unless he is getting more than his fair share out of the money we provide for food subsidies. I have heard it publicly stated, and I believe it is a fact, that a well-known flour miller in this country has made himself a millionaire, presumably at the expense of the taxpayers, since Fianna Fáil came into office and power.
I am not prepared to subscribe to a policy that will give most of the money raised for food subsidies to the middlemen. If subsidies are justified at all, they are justified to those who provide the raw material. We have too much of that in the turf industry. I have the authority of a very prominent Fianna Fáil spokesman in my constituency for saying—I believe it is quite true, but I will read it if necessary; I have it here unchallenged—that not one penny of the subsidy provided for fuel went to the producer. I believe there is a good deal of truth in that. I believe the whole of it went to the turf hauliers. There were only two or three of them in that ramp and we know they are the people, in Leix-Offaly at any rate, who are providing the money for the propaganda that is being carried on, misrepresenting the Government and its whole attitude and outlook in connection with the hand-won turf industry.
Is that Councillor O'Connell who said that?
He is only small fry compared with some of the others. There is a very big noise in the turf haulage industry who has been bringing agents from Kerry and everywhere else to misrepresent the position and the attitude of the Government.
There is an Edenderry councillor who boasted that he made £30,000 on a contract.
I understand he admitted that to the Minister in court.
That was not doing too badly in a couple of years.
He is only in the halfpenny place compared with some of the others.
On a point of order, is the Minister making a suggestion in that statement——
I am stating a fact as sworn to in court.
Is the Minister aware that, whatever turf he drew, he drew it as a result of a tender supplied to him?
I am not aware.
You are not aware of that?
I am aware, for the information of Deputy Traynor, that the question of that tender was challenged, and challenged in this House, and by me amongst others.
We will not discuss it now.
Better not pursue that too far.
He said he got £30,000 profit on the contract.
Was that statement not corrected afterwards?
He swore it twice in court. I do not know how he corrected it. Maybe Deputy Harris could give us the correction. £30,000 was a fair bit of profit on one turf contract and he swore he got it.
I would like to know whether this is on last year's Budget or the present year's?
It is on last year's £30,000 profit on a contract.
A good deal of representation has been made in my constituency and outside it, and even here, in connection with the attitude and responsibility, whoever is responsible, for suspending the hand-won turf industry. I can quote from a speech delivered by Deputy Lemass in Birr on that matter a couple of nights ago. He, apparently, was feeling the breeze there. He went down to Birr and addressed a special meeting of the Fianna Fáil henchmen from the whole county. I am now reading again from the Midland Tribune of the 15th May, and I have good reason to believe that this is an accurate report, because the editor of the paper himself was listening and seconded the vote of thanks to the Deputy when he had finished his speech. The Deputy went on to say:—
"By legislation in 1946, Bord na Móna replaced the latter"
—that is, the Turf Development Board.
"After examining the economics of its use for industrial and electric generation purposes, they found that mechanical won turf was most satisfactory for this purpose."
This will be information to the Minister.
"The 1946 plan set forth a £3,870,000 plan for the production of 1,000,000 tons of turf per year. Towards the end of 1947"
—listen to this; this is information for me, at any rate—
"when Bord na Móna was making more rapid progress, Fianna Fáil decided to double the board's scope and encourage the production of 2,000,000 tons per year, and it was planned also to include the financial aid for this work. So far they did not know whether that project would be followed or not."
Then Deputy Lemass goes on and points out that, in the Estimates which were sent to the printer before the Fianna Fáil Party was pushed out of office, they had made provision for £1,900,000, presumably—that is the inference in his speech—for the provision of hand-won turf. We know and all agree—and the Minister in particular knows it—that the Estimates were prepared by the Fianna Fáil Government before they went out of office and that that figure appears in the Estimates—but I also know, and a good many of us on this side of the House know, that there was a meeting held, over which Deputy Lemass presided, on the 12th February of this year, that is, six days before his Government went out office, and this is the instruction he gave to his officials:—
"No provision should be made in the 1948-49 Estimates for the Bord na Móna hand-won turf scheme. The question of discontinuance of hand-won turf production on the county council bogs should be further examined."
That was an instruction given by Deputy Lemass when Minister for Industry and Commerce, six days before he was pushed out of office but at a time when he was almost certain he was coming back again.
On a point of order, what is the Deputy quoting from?
I am quoting—I am not quoting—I invite Deputy Lemass to come in and say to the House whether he recognises the words I have read as being the instruction given by him to his officials.
He has already denied that.
The Deputy has quoted. He must give the House the record of what he is quoting from.
On a point of order, I was listening to Deputy Davin purporting to quote from a conversation between a Minister and his officials.
What is the Deputy quoting from?
I am actually quoting from a note. I took a note of the words used to me by a man, and I am almost certain that the ex-Minister, Deputy Lemass, if he comes into the House will not deny that he gave such a Departmental instruction.
To the knowledge of the Chair, the Deputy has quoted from a document and the Deputy must give the source of what he quoted.
In preparing my notes from which I spoke here, I wrote in my own hand. I have to, when I know that there will be people here to give them a different interpretation.
On a point of order, is Deputy Davin in order in quoting from a document here that he will not——
I am not quoting from a document.
He has read out words that he suggests were used by Deputy Lemass to officers of his Department. Is that document to be put on the table of this House or not?
I am definitely suggesting and asserting that he gave instructions on the lines mentioned by me and I am using words which I have carefully put down—not quoting them —using them in the same way as I use my own notes.
Where did you get them?
I asked Deputy Davin to give the source of his quotation. Deputy Davin says he did not quote, that he read from notes he had made earlier.
He says he got the information somewhere.
On a point of order, is the Deputy entitled to read his speech?
He is not reading it. He is entitled to refer to notes.
I think this is a matter which should be cleared up, because Deputy Lemass has publicly denied that any order was made against hand-won turf.
He could not deny it. It is on the record.
Deputy Davin quoted it and Deputy Lemass has denied it already.
On a point of order, I want to ask whether if Deputy Davin quotes from an official document of the Department of Industry and Commerce or the Department of Finance, that document will be put on the table of this House.
Deputy Davin says he did not quote.
The Chair has endeavoured to find out whether he quoted or not. Deputy Davin has asserted that he was not quoting, but that he made an extract from his notes.
From what notes?
This is a terribly serious matter to me, because Deputy Lemass has denied this publicly.
Where?
There is nothing to prevent the Deputy from repeating what Deputy Davin has said, no matter what is denied.
If the Minister says it is on the record, I will leave it to the Minister to dispose of the doubt the Deputy appears to be in.
It seems to show that the Deputy has access to the files of the Department.
I am stating quite definitely that I have not.
Where did you get the information?
Deputy Allen, therefore, means that what is alleged there is coming from a Departmental file.
Yes.
That would seem to be fairly good proof of what Deputy Davin is saying.
If he put the whole text.
Would Deputy O'Rourke realise what his colleague is saying—that it comes from the files?
This is not the first time in the history of this House since I came here that a Deputy was able to get up in the House and give a summarised version of instructions given to Departmental officials by the Minister, and there was nothing wrong in that. I have not access to Departmental files and would not look for it.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce read an extract from the files.
I will leave it in the very able hands of the Minister to dispose of the doubt in Deputy O'Rourke's mind.
It is not the Minister who made the statement at all, but Deputy Davin.
The Deputy knows a fair bit about political intrigue.
I demand a withdrawal of that statement.
I did not hear anything.
Deputy Collins said that I know a lot about political intrigue. I do not, and I demand that the statement be withdrawn.
The Chair did not hear the statement.
I am sure the Deputy does not deny that he said it.
In order to dispose of the doubt that appears to be in the minds only of the Fianna Fáil members, I invite the Minister in his concluding remarks to remove that doubt. I want to raise a serious matter and Deputies on every side of the House will surely know this from the way in which they have been approached by all sections of the transport workers all over the country. I would like to get from the Minister and from this Government at the earliest possible date some policy pronouncement in regard to the future of the transport industry. I can assure the Minister for Finance that there is a good deal of demoralisation and discontent amongst the workers employed generally in the transport industry. Many commissions are being set up to find out where redundancy exists and, of course, someone must go, unless the powerful hand of the Minister for Industry and Commerce comes down and says that this kind of thing may not be done until the Government has had time to make up its own mind in regard to its future policy. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has told members of the House, in reply to Parliamentary Questions on more than one occasion, that he proposes to set up an inquiry into the future of the transport industry. I suggest with all respect to the Minister——
What has that to do with the Budget?
It is a matter of major policy.
There is no money in the Budget for it.
There is money that should be in the pockets of a lot of people in the transport industry, if properly reorganised.
There is no money in it for turf and we have been talking about it for days.
The Deputy can raise it on the Vote for the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
There is no money in the Budget in reference to turf and yet we have been talking about it for days.
The Deputy can make his points on the Vote of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
If I postpone my remarks until the Estimate comes up for consideration things will be worse than what they are to-day. I am quite certain of that. In addition I will be told then that I should not advocate legislation.
That is a very honest admission on the part of the Deputy.
The one outstanding thing every member of this House, and the Minister in particular, has to face is the question of the cost of living. The average wage-earner in this country has not received by way of increased rates of wages compensation to enable him to meet the increase in the cost of living. I think the Minister will not challenge the accuracy of that statement generally. What all sections of workers in this country want is that some effective steps will be taken at the earliest possible date to stabilise the purchasing power of the £. The average person knows, and is prepared to admit, that there is little use in his or in his trade union seeking further increases in the wages because, immediately after the grant of, say, an increase of 5/-, the cost of living is going to go up to the equivalent of 7/6. Therefore it is a question of wages chasing prices.
This is a dangerous kind of activity which will come to an end probably to the disadvantage of the whole community at some early date. I hope the Minister will tackle the question of the increased cost of living and will find out for himself where the profiteering is going on, because it must be going on in the distributive trades. Deputy Lemass came before the House shortly before the last general election and he was challenged regarding his willingness to accord to the butchers of Dublin an increase in the price of fresh meat. He held up in his hand a report from some chartered accountant and asserted that, according to that report, there was justification for the increase in the price of fresh meat which he then agreed to as a result of that report or recommendation. I say, without any disrespect to the chartered accountants of this country, that they can prove or disprove anything by figures. I am not prepared to accept that there has not been profiteering going on in the victualling business in Dublin. Most of the Deputies of this House have had the same experience as I. I know dozens of fellows who were working for butchers only 15 or 20 years ago. Some of them now own many establishments and private houses and the best motor cars in the country. I am very well sure that they did not pick that money up from the bookmakers at race meetings.
A Deputy
What about an overdraft?
You do not buy houses with an overdraft. In my opinion, it is a healthy draft. There is a good deal of profiteering going on in the distributing trades. What is really lacking in this country, if we make an open confession, is that too many people per head of the population are engaged in the distributing trade. The producer is getting too little and the distributor is getting the whole of the whack. In the case of the subsidised industries— flour, turf, etc.—the middleman is getting the taxpayers' money and not the producer who, I am sure, was always intended by the Deputies of this House. I appeal to the Minister to give consideration to the question of the cost of living. It is a terrible job which would baffle anybody. In trying to face up to that, on the basis of stabilising the purchasing power of the £, he will have the support not alone of his supporters in the inter-Party Government but also the silent support of the members of the Opposition Benches.
It is rather shattering in a sense to listen to Deputy Davin meandering from one accusation to another and then coming to his summing up. He started off by abusing members of this Party for suggesting that things were not as comfortable for certain people as they had been some months ago. He called that "starting a slump" but he wound up himself in trying to create a slump in transport. The workers, he said, are facing disemployment and some economy commissions are being set up to question the numbers of people employed and to create redundancy. I listened with great interest to a number of speakers from all sides of this House on this Budget. I want to approach it from the point of view of trying to get some understanding of what the policy is to be within this coming financial year.
The Minister for Finance, in introducing his Budget, apart from the ordinary explanation of the figures which go with the introduction of a Budget, wound up by expressing the pious hope that wages would not now tend to go any higher. As against that, not only did I listen to, but I actually read in great detail, the speeches made by Deputies Larkin and Connolly. From their speeches it is clear that their interpretation of the policy of the Budget is quite the reverse and that there has to be a continual increase in wages in order to bring the workers up to better conditions than those they enjoyed in the past. Deputy Davin, in his concluding remarks, had to think something up which could be construed as a point of view of a Labour Deputy. He talked about the cost of living and he brought in the subject of profiteering by the distributing trades. I wonder if Deputy Davin ever sits down and examines the composition of the people, the industries and the distributing trades of this country. We hear people talking about producers and consumers and the middlemen in between who gain the lion's and the giant's share. Deputy Davin is himself a middleman. He is not a producer. All the transport workers are not producers. They, too, are middlemen. The shopkeeper is also a middleman and he gives considerable employment. Deputy Davin makes an attack on the butchers. He concludes that it is this profiteering by them that has driven the price of meat up to the consumer. Can he explain then why, since the change of Government, a further 1d. per lb. was accorded by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to the butchers who sell retail?
Did you hear his reason for it?
It was not the reason Deputy Davin has given.
It was for the purpose of honouring a contract made by Deputy Lemass.
Deputy T.F. O'Higgins has interrupted a couple of times and I will answer him. Many contracts which were made by Deputy Lemass have not been honoured.
Does the Deputy deny it?
We shall hear more about the honouring of contracts later on. That is just a cheap jibe.
Does the Deputy deny that the increase of 1d. per lb., granted by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, was for the purpose of honouring a contract which had been made by Deputy Lemass?
One Deputy O'Higgins has made his speech. I do not know which, because I was not here when he made it and I did not read it, but I am sure he made all his points. I say that Deputy Davin has stated just now in this House that he believes that the high price of meat is directly attributable to profiteering on the part of the Dublin butchers. If that is the case he should have brought the matter to the notice of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and, instead of allowing the Minister for Industry and Commerce to increase the price of meat by 1d. per lb., he should have got him to reduce it. I think he will find that that is not true. I think he will find that part of the butcher's expenses which increased in the last eight or ten years has been to a certain extent due also to the increase of wages he had to give to his trade union workers. We had in the City of Dublin strikes on the part of butchers' employees. Does Deputy Davin think that they are not getting their fair share of being middle men?
I do not suppose the Minister for Finance will honour me with answering any questions I will ask, but I want to put on record that there is a great difference of opinion between the different sections of the community as to what the policy is to be. There is even a quite noticeable difference of opinion amongst the members of what is now accepted by Deputy Davin as being the Popular Front Party.
I have no objection to your using it.
Deputy Davin said he accepted it and was quite satisfied with the description.
Call it what you like.
I am not calling you anything. Deputy Dockrell, in his approach to the Budget, sums it up and says that we are living within a capitalist system, that we are developing in this country along the line of private enterprise. He uses these words as reported in the Official Report of 13th May, Columns 1578, 1579, etc. Deputy Dockrell made a suggestion to the Minister for Finance. He said it was quite unfair to the ordinary business community that co-operative organisations and institutions should be free from the payment of income-tax. As against that, Deputy Larkin says we have reached a stage when the workers must take a share in the management of everybody's private enterprise. As reported in the Official Report of 12th May, Column 1413, he said:—
"We have reached a period, both in this country and other countries, when the workers have shown by their capacity that they are as capable as any section of the community of undertaking supervising and managerial rôles in industry. If they are to be required to accept responsibility as part of the community, then they must have the same rights in regard to industry that they enjoy to-day with regard to the political control of the country— the right to participate and take an active part in the higher councils of supervision and management in so far as industry and commerce are concerned."
Here we have an expression of opinion by Deputy Larkin which tends to convey, at least to the section of the community which he represents, that we have reached the stage now when organised labour is in control politically and, having reached that stage, must be in control also of the management of industry.
What are the two points?
I am asking for an elucidation of the position. Everybody is asking which of the two is it.
That is one policy. What is the other policy?
The other is Deputy Dockrell's point. Deputy Dockrell says we are living within a capitalist system where industry and commerce are within the control of private enterprise. He points out that the Minister for Finance should take note of the unfair position which exists as between private enterprise and co-operative institutions because of the fact that these institutions are free from the payment of income-tax on their business transactions. I am comparing the two points of view that exist within the confines of this House in the groups supporting the Government.
Are the two incompatible?
I want to make my own point. If the Labour section of the conglomeration over there thinks that industry under the management of private enterprise is in fact robbing the community and living on the fat of the land, what is to stop the labour organisations, with hundreds of thousands of pounds in trade union funds which are invested in corporation and Government securities, going into businesses and running them in competition with private enterprise? What is to stop them from starting additional co-operative institutions and giving the community the benefit of their wisdom, their good organisation, and their capabilities in the management of business?
Do you agree with that?
Why do they want to do it the other way, by taking control of existing organisations which were built up by private enterprise? I am asking a question which, if you like, the capitalist side of the community, the people who believe in private property and private enterprise, are asking, namely, what is the policy to be? Is it to be the policy enunciated and argued by Deputy Larkin and Deputy Connolly? Deputy Connolly went a step further and said they were supporting this Government as long as they could continue to get advantages for the people they represent and that they will continue to support the Government so long as those advantages are continued. I say that there will be a certain amount of doubt in the minds of the supporters of the group for whom Deputies Larkin and Connolly speak when they read the point of view expressed by Deputy Dockrell, and that the people who support the view of Deputy Dockrell will have some doubt when they examine the speeches made by the Deputies on this side of the House.
Which of them would you support?
The one I support is a simple one. It is, I suppose, a combination of both announced as Fianna Fáil policy which was practised and operated for a great number of years, and Deputy Hickey ought to know that.
They are not opposed.
Deputy Collins owes me an apology for a previous interruption. Perhaps he will allow me to make my own speech now without coming out afterwards and telling me that he was sorry.
The two are not incompatible.
We stand over the point of view expressed in the Constitution which was adopted by the people. That was the point of view that Fianna Fáil stood for and it is the point of view that I stand for. If you read the Constitution, you will see whether the points of view expressed from these benches are in fact in conflict with that.
The Deputy said they were a combination of both.
If Deputy Collins will read the Constitution, he will find what I am talking about.
Did you not, in fact, say that they were a combination of both?
I am not going to answer any questions. Deputy Larkin comes to his conclusions by reading certain statistics. I should like the House to listen to one of the arguments he adduces from his interpretation of these statistics. He said, as reported in the Official Report, Volume 110, column 1414:
"The other day, having listened to Deputy Lemass, I looked through the Report of the Revenue Commissioners and discovered that, so far as the payment of death duties is concerned, it is only related to estates which exceed £100 in value. I found that the total number who come within the purview of the Revenue Commissioners in this matter is less than 100,000 out of a total population of 3,500,000."
What does Deputy Larkin glean from the statistics of the Revenue Commissioners? On the one hand, he gleans that there is a population of 3,500,000 in this country. Of course there is not. We have been accused of keeping up the flow of emigration so long that the population does not exceed the 3,000,000 figure. What does he mean by the 100,000? Does he mean that in one year 100,000 people with estates of £100 or over died, or does he mean that the 100,000 estates which he is talking about have been dealt with since the inception of this State out of a total of 3,500,000 people who have died? I should like if some people would study that and explain it.
The Deputy took a family to consist of so many persons and then took the average death rate at so many per 1,000 of the population, but that conveys nothing when considered in relation to the real situation. I do not know what it was intended to convey. Maybe it was that he wanted to convey that there are a few people with too much money while the vast bulk of the people have nothing at all.
I should like to get a clear statement from the Minister for Finance as to where he stands and what is his policy for this financial year. I will admit quite frankly that the Minister found himself in office without expectation. I believe that his accession to office was just as big a surprise to him as it was to me. I admit that he did not get very much time to examine and put into operation a policy which would be nearer to his heart than this particular Budget is. I would like, as I have said, to get a clear statement from him as to whether we are going to continue on as before or whether we are to prepare for a new era. Are we going to abandon the fundamentals to which the life of this country has been anchored in the Constitution? The Minister made some little suggestion that if he thought there was not going to be a reduction in prices, and if he felt that was due to too much profit-making on the part of industrialists he would introduce the excess profits tax. It should be said that that tax was paid by all individuals or concerns making certain profits over a particular figure during the war years. It was not applicable to manufacturers only. I know there are certain colleagues of the Minister, in particular there is the Minister for Agriculture who seems to have nightmares every day with regard to Irish industrialists. For years he has been describing them here as racketeers.
Excuse me for laughing. You do not have nightmares in the day.
He has. When he was on this side of the House he was talking every other day about the industrial racketeers.
He has said that there are racketeers amongst them, and so have you said it.
I have never said it.
Do you agree that there are such?
The Minister can refer to my speech when he is winding up and can quote anything he likes from it. For a number of years, when the Minister for Finance sat on this side of the House, he sunk himself right into the bosom of Deputy Davin, but Deputy Davin apparently does not realise that the Minister made an apology in his Budget speech for all the things he said over here.
I do not recognise it.
The Minister says, now that he is Minister for Finance, that he realises that the theories which he held when he was a Deputy over here could not be practically applied in the manner he said.
When did I say that?
On the day you introduced the Budget.
Will you give me the quotation?
I will find the quotation from the Minister's Budget speech before I conclude. The Minister admitted that he held theories over on this side which he now has to put into abeyance. Does the Minister still deny that he said it?
The Deputy committed himself with the words that he used.
I do not remember saying anything like that.
The Deputy himself wandered through the Constitution.
I quoted the Constitution as any ordinary layman would. I am quoting the sense of what the Minister said. He said that he had different theories when over here. Perhaps the Minister himself would find the quotation.
I should like the Deputy to find it.
Deputy Davin spent many years here and, having listened to the Minister for Finance, he convinced him of certain items, one being that the pound was no longer anything but a scrap of worthless paper.
I said that?
What I said was that Deputy Davin was convinced of that by the speeches of Deputy McGilligan on this side.
You said something about a worthless scrap of paper.
I was saying that Deputy Davin became a convinced supporter of the monetary theories expressed on this side by the Minister for Finance, and that the Deputy has not yet realised that the Minister is not going to apply those theories while he is Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance always regarded the purchasing power of the pound as having fallen somewhat.
I did say that.
The only difference between the Minister for Finance and some of the other speakers on that side was whether it was he said 8/- or 10/-, but that it had fallen substantially. Deputy Davin has referred to the pound as being worth 10/- That was the figure the Minister assumed the pound was now worth. These are the theories that were previously discussed. The Minister now says he has a different point of view. The Minister also said in his speech that he believes the Marshall aid would bring the pound to stability.
I said that?
The Minister will probably be surprised at some of the things he said.
I am surprised at what is being quoted from my speech.
Did you not say that you believed the Marshall aid would tend to bring about stability and the international convertibility of the pound?
There is a reference at Column 1053 of the Dáil Debates but not in the way the Deputy says.
At Column 1053 the Minister said:—
"The aid which is to come from the United States under the European Recovery Programme will help us to put our economy generally, and agriculture in particular, on a sound basis. It is also hoped that the programme will hasten the restoration of the free international convertibility of sterling into other currencies."
That is completely different. What you said was that I said Marshall aid would stabilise the value of the pound. Have I said that?
That is what it means. If it is not internationally convertible now it is because it is no longer stable.
Nonsense.
What is the explanation?
The balance of payments.
If the pound was stable and was worth its face value there would be no trouble about its international convertibility. It is because it is not that you have this situation. The Minister takes the other view and says that he hopes it will make sterling internationally convertible into other currencies.
On a point of order, has the Deputy yet found the other alleged quotation from the Minister's speech?
That is not a point of order.
What about renouncing his views?
I distinctly heard the Minister in this House——
It must have been taken out.
I shall ask the permission of the Chair to allow me to look it up and quote it by way of interjection afterwards.
Perhaps the Deputy would now move to report progress and it will give him that opportunity.
I move to report progress.