Supplementary Estimate, 1948-49. - Vote 3—Department of the Taoiseach. – Dáil Éireann (13th Dáil) – Thursday, 22 Jul 1948

The Taoiseach

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £13,160 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1949, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Taoiseach (No. 16 of 1924; No. 40 of 1937; No. 38 of 1938; and No. 24 of 1947).

The details of this Estimate are, I think, of little interest to the Deputies. The actual Estimate shows a decrease on last year of £740, mainly due to a reduction in travelling expenses. There has been one change in the staff of the Department. The office of personal secretary to the Taoiseach has been abolished and the position of assistant principal has been created instead of that particular office.

This Estimate, as Deputies are aware, provides an opportunity for the discussion on certain aspects of general Governmental policy. The practice which was adopted by my predecessors over a long number of years was for the Taoiseach just formally to move the Estimate and then to leave the field open to Deputies to raise the points of Government policy which they wished to debate. It has been usual to give notice to the Chair of a general idea of the points of policy which would be the subject matter of discussion. That practice has been departed from this year and I have at the moment no information or notice of the topics which it is intended to discuss. I propose, therefore, to adhere to the practice of my predecessor and, having formally moved this Vote, to leave it to the Deputies to discuss the matters which they wish to raise. That practice is all the more justifiable this year by reason of the fact that, owing to the change of Government, there have been very full and detailed discussions on the Estimates. Those discussions ranged over all aspects of Government policy in a way that was perhaps more full and comprehensive than in previous years. I do not think Deputies will expect me to give an elaborate account of Government policy by way of introduction to this Estimate and, accordingly, I propose to adhere to the usual practice.

There is one matter that I think I should advert to on this Estimate, and that is the change in connection with the use of a car by the Taoiseach. An allowance of £350 was made to my predecessor for the running of his private car for official purposes and, as already intimated, for reasons personal to myself, which I shall give if required, I have been obliged to depart from that practice. I think Deputy Cowan takes an unusual interest in that aspect of the matter, but it is capable of a simple explanation if he requires it. I do not think I could usefully add anything to what I have said, but I am prepared to deal with any matters of Government policy raised in the debate.

Mr. Lemass

I move :—

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.

I do so for the purpose of initiating a debate on the general trend of Government policy as it has developed during the past five months. It is desirable that the Dáil should be given the opportunity to look at Government policy as a whole, and to consider its consequences, both on the political and economic position of the country. I do not propose to refer to matters of detail, except in so far as they appear to have relation to the general policy or to the extent that they may not have been fully discussed in debates on the Estimates.

Everywhere I go I meet people who ask me how long is this set-up going to last? That question is asked by people in all walks of life, and of all political opinions. Deputies opposite cannot be unaware of the fact that there is a general desire in the country that the Government should get out of office as quickly as possible. If they are not aware of that, they should be, and the only explanation is that they are being misled by the Party associates on whom they must rely for information as to the trend of opinion in the country. I want to state that I have met in recent weeks many people who supported one or other of the Parties now constituting the Coalition, whose sole desire was to see this set-up brought to an end at the earliest possible date. That opinion is not prevalent merely amongst those who supported the candidates of Fianna Fáil at the recent election. It is widespread throughout the country. I think it is rapidly growing in volume, and is a factor that the Taoiseach should take into account if he does review the general trend of policy and the general results of administration by the Government.

Let me say that the opinion I find prevalent amongst all classes of people did not exist two months ago. Then there was amongst sections of the people the general feeling that the Government, which had emerged from the election, should be given a chance, that it was unlikely they could do much harm and, even though they could not do much good, it was just as well to demonstrate that fact by allowing them to hold office for a reasonable period. That feeling of tolerance—good-humoured tolerance—of the Coalition Government has completely disappeared. It is being replaced by something approaching anger, real irritation, that the arrangement is lasting so long, and is so disastrous to many interests, as it has already proved to be. I am talking of economic interests of various kinds throughout the country, including all classes of people, right down to the most humble.

I think it is time the Taoiseach should ask himself what has happened to have changed that attitude of the people towards the Government. It has not happened without some cause. If he is losing support, and losing the good-will or tolerance of large sections of the people, in the remarkably short period of five months, it is because during that five months the Government has been misgoverning the country, and that the fact is recognised by an increasing number of people. I would have thought it unlikely that the Government could have made itself so unpopular in such a short time.

Shortly after the change of Government took place, I was the first of the Deputies on these benches to advise our supporters that the Government was not likely to leave office for a longer period than many of them anticipated. I visualised members of the Executive Council meeting in the Government chamber with only one idea in their minds, and that was to hold together irrespective of the compromises they had to make, one to another, in order to get that result. I saw them postponing decisions, dodging awkward problems, and leaving unsettled many urgent national questions in their determination to hang together as long as possible.

Therefore, I can discuss this question of the growing unpopularity of the Government more or less in an impartial way. I did not expect it to develop as rapidly as it did, and I am anxious to point out to members of the Government the reasons for it, as I see them. I have on more than one occasion heard Ministers talk about the new spirit of freedom in the country. That word "freedom" is often misused. A ship that is normally tied up to a quay, which breaks the tie rope, starts to drift around and could be described as having gained freedom. I think that is the type of freedom this country has gained.

There is everywhere amongst our people the sense that we are drifting without guidance, that we are not getting from the Government the leadership we are entitled to expect, and that there has been very little effort made by any Minister to place before our people clearly defined objectives, either in the political or economic sphere, accompanied by practical proposals for their realisation. Whenever any one Minister attempts to define some limited objective in a public utterance, he is, in a very short time, flatly contradicted by another. It is that sense of drifting, that knowledge that there is a complete absence of leadership which is, I think, primarily responsible for the growing desire that this set-up should be ended as quickly as possible.

Deputies who attended here during the debates on the various Estimates will be fully conscious of the fact that there is a complete absence of consistent policy in any sphere. We have had evidence of that only this week, evidence that decisions taken by the Government, taken hastily, no doubt, and announced as Government policy, have been reversed equally hastily. I do not know why it is that earlier decisions taken by the Government and announced during the financial debates by the Minister for Finance have been reconsidered. I cannot hope that that reconsideration was due to the growth of wisdom in the Government councils. I cannot hope it is because they have now discovered that these decisions were wrong in the national interest and should be reversed. I suspect they found they were unpopular and the sole determining factor in all their actions is political popularity.

The evidence of a clear conflict of outlook between Ministers was again demonstrated within the past fortnight by the speeches we heard from the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It was demonstrated on many occasions in casual references by the Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister for Local Government. At one time the Government appear to have had the idea that in this Dáil, Party politics would have a smaller part than in previous Dála. I think there is no Deputy on any side of the House who has had experience of previous Dála who will not agree with me that this is by far the most political of them all; that to an extent which never before existed, purely Party tactical considerations have governed the course of debates and governed the decisions arrived at here.

Mr. S. Collins

There is more freedom in the House—is that what you mean?

Mr. Lemass

No, I mean that questions of national interest are being subordinated to purely Party tactical considerations. The absence of leadership, the evidence of drift, is also to be found in the fact that the Government is, on all major questions, obviously trying to shift the responsibility for taking decisions from itself. We used to have many sarcastic speeches here from these benches in the past by members of the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party about the appointment of Government commissions. We were often asked to take down out of the dust-covered pigeonholes in Government offices the reports of commissions which sat in the past. Nowadays, nothing is being done until some commission or committee or expert or individual has been asked to report on it, and the sole reason for that device is to shift from the Government to those commissions or individuals the responsibility for the course of action that is to be followed.

I think it is true to say that that desire to shift responsibility off the shoulders of Ministers to people who are not in this Dáil and cannot be criticised in the Dáil was again demonstrated only to-day by the announcement of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that a committee has been set up to consider the question of food subsidies, a committee consisting of a chairman, the Attorney-General, who, no doubt, is an expert upon food subsidies; a Dublin accountant and an official of the Revenue Commissioners. Will any Deputy seriously suggest that there is to be found in a body so composed a knowledge of all the problems associated with the subsidisation of foodstuffs which does not exist in Government Departments, and which should exist already in the minds of Ministers? It is quite clear the Government has taken a decision, but it is not anxious to carry the responsibility for that decision and, therefore, it is shifting it on to the shoulders of this preposterous committee which is being asked to advise the Government on one matter of major policy which, if it is to be decided anywhere outside the Cabinet Chamber, should be decided in the Dáil.

More than in any other sphere, evidence of lack of leadership, lack of concrete policy and aim, is to be found in external affairs. There is no Deputy in the House who does not feel that the present international situation is one fraught with grave dangers to this country. If there is any Deputy who has reason to think that there is not danger of a most urgent and real kind in that situation, he should tell us and give us the reason why he so thinks. Has any Minister, on any one occasion, spoken to the Dáil about the international situation? Has anyone of them attempted to bring to our people a realisation that in that situation they may be called upon, and called upon soon, to take decisions of the gravest kind? Even if we are to avoid these grave decisions until they are forced upon us by events, should we not now be making the material preparations which would to some extent minimise the dangers which that situation offers to this country?

I asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce yesterday to give us some information as to whether any action was being taken in his Department, which is the one most directly concerned in matters which would clearly arise if there is a risk of international war, and I expressed my surprise that he had not chosen to do so in his introductory speech. He did not even do so in reply to my invitation in his concluding speech.

I ask the Taoiseach is there any effort being made by any Department of the Government to take steps which would appear to be reasonable and necessary to minimise the dangers of the international situation, should they develop. Has there been any discussion by the Government of the problems which these international dangers may cause to this country? Have any decisions been taken on them and, if so, what are they? The people are entitled to answers to these questions, and so are the members of the Dáil. The policy of sticking their heads in the sand and ignoring what is taking place around them, may not infrequently be practised by individuals; but it is the height of folly for any Government to think that it serves either national purposes or Party purposes.

When this Government was first appointed by the Dáil the Taoiseach left here to visit the headquarters of Radio Éireann. There he made a broadcast on the policy of his Government. He said in that speech:—

"The provision of work, adequate food and decent housing are the immediate aims of the Government."

Let us examine how, during the period of office, the Government have proceeded towards the realisation of their immediate aims. We will not ask if they have achieved them, because we know they have not, but let us see if we can find from the history of events within the past few months if they have been trying to realise these aims.

As regards the provision of work, we know that the number of registered unemployed has been, during the whole period the Government have been in office, from 5,000 to 6,000 each week above the number of last year. Deputies can choose to ignore that fact if they like, but it is one which is known to the public because, in accordance with the practice established by the Fianna Fáil Government, the unemployment statistics collected from the employment exchanges are published weekly. These figures were not published during the Cumann na nGaedheal régime. In fact, during that period, it was impossible, even by parliamentary question, to extract from Ministers reliable information concerning our unemployment problem. The Fianna Fáil Government decided to reverse that policy. They decided that if the Government was to get the necessary public co-operation in the execution of a policy designed to minimise unemployment and increase the number of opportunities for work here, the first step was to tell the public all the facts. So we had not merely the weekly publication of unemployment statistics, but we set up a committee which prepared and published annually a comprehensive review of the whole employment and unemployment situation.

So far as I know, there is no other Government in the world that does that, no other Government that gives to its public representatives and its people the same full information concerning that aspect of the nation's business. Because these statistics are published, we know that whatever causes have been operating, the number of registered unemployed has increased over last year. It is not merely the fact that the number of registered unemployed has moved upwards that is causing us concern. It is the apparent indifference of the Government to the consequences of their policy upon employment. They have taken decisions which have put people out of employment. They have justified these decisions on the plea of the need for economy or some such other plea but they appear to be completely indifferent to their effect on the individual who, in one week, was able to earn enough to provide a livelihood for his family and who, the next week, because of their action, was queueing up at the employment exchange to draw his unemployment assistance benefit.

We had during the election a great deal of talk about full employment and many assurances that the Parties now comprised in the Coalition had the secret of full employment. What is the secret? Is it to be found in the deflationary policy which the Minister for Finance has announced he is operating? Can one imagine, under any circumstances, a policy of monetary deflation being linked up with a programme of full employment? Surely what the Minister ought to try to do——

Mr. S. Collins

Why not?

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Collins should not ask me to give him a lecture in the fundamentals of economic theory.

Mr. S. Collins

You are not competent to do that.

Mr. Lemass

We shall leave the question of my competence aside. Just now, I am dealing with the question of the competence of certain individuals sitting in front of Deputy Collins. The Minister for Finance has made it clear that he is pursuing this deflationary policy for the purpose of achieving certain stated results in relation to prices and wages. Is that not so? He spoke here in the Dáil about the undesirability of wage increases, about the heavy burden which the present wage levels constitute for Irish economy. He spoke in the Seanad and warned traders and manufacturers that, if they did not voluntarily reduce prices, it was possible for him through the manipulation of financial policy to force them to do so and he is doing so.

We have been assured that the contraction of credit which is now being operated by the commercial banks is not in consequence of any direct order from the Government. We must accept that assurance, but I think it is not unfair to say that the policy which the banks are pursuing, pursuing no doubt in their own interest, has been inspired or encouraged by the declarations made both here and in the Seanad by the Minister for Finance. The banks are people who deal in money and it is in their interest to enhance the value of money. Those who direct the policy of the Irish banks are, in the main, people who have not absorbed any new ideas since long before Lord Keynes revolutionised economic thought by his writings.

They have failed to grasp the fact that a deflationary policy, even though it may enhance the value of money and in course of time enable them to increase the interest they can charge on advances, nevertheless, because it is a policy that is detrimental to the economic interests of the country as a whole, is one that is also detrimental to their own long-term interests. These mid-Victorian economic principles which are being implemented by the banks were expressed here as Government policy by the Minister for Finance. They are producing the same results on trade and unemployment as any person with a rudimentary knowledge of modern economic thought could have forecast. There is, as everybody knows, stagnation in business. In every branch of commerce people are reporting a general decline in trade. That is not due, as some Deputies have suggested, to the inadequate height of our tariff barriers or to the undue importation of goods in recent periods from abroad. The cause is much more fundamental than that. That stagnation in trade, that reluctance to acquire stocks, that disinclination to make commitments far ahead, is to be attributed, in the main, to the general lack of confidence in the future which exists throughout the country.

It is, of course, true that the Minister for Finance has deliberately set out to create trade stagnation. We all heard him advise people to stop buying. He told the people that it was in their interest to stop spending money, except upon the minimum quantities of the barest necessities, for at least 12 months, and he promised them that at the end of that period, if they did so, there might be lower prices, lower wages and a general easing of the tax burden.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Do you not agree with that?

Mr. Lemass

I do not agree. On the contrary, I am convinced that our circumstances are not paralleled by those of Great Britain and that they are entirely dissimilar to those of the United States. They were, all during the war. There are factors at work here which are not at work in either of these countries and any deflationary policy here can only produce benefits for this country at a cost of hardships which we should not be asked to bear. The hardships will not be suffered by Ministers or Deputies or by those with cash reserves, but by those who are dependent on their weekly earnings, that large and respectable body of men, the men of no property, who are the first to suffer in a trade slump and who are the obvious victims of the policy which the Minister for Finance is trying to force on the country.

The members of the Parties which constitute the Government set before the country as their immediate aim the increasing of opportunities for work in this country. They have failed in that. They made excuses for their failure on one ground or another, but the fact that they have failed, up to now, cannot be denied.

He must have been reading the speeches of the Minister for Justice. He has also recanted a little. As regards food, we know that prices have risen. The price of meat has gone up. We are told that the price of bread is to go up by ½d. per 4 lb. loaf and we know that the prices of other foodstuffs have also risen. The necessity for that rise in prices was a direct consequence of Government decisions, as in the case of margarine and oatmeal, where the subsidies previously paid were withdrawn. That increase in the price of essential foodstuffs is, we are told, offset by the reduction in the price of drink. Deputies, apparently, think it is good policy to put our people in this position that, assuming their incomes remain unchanged, they can buy less food but can buy more drink. I do not think so. Nobody wanted to increase taxation on drink, tobacco or anything else. It was done here last year for one purpose, and one purpose only, and that was to give the Government the money by which they could subsidise food prices. We thought it good policy to allow the prices of drink and tobacco to be raised if, by doing so, we could bring down the prices of essential things like bread. Now, the price of drink is back to the 1947 level, and the Attorney-General is presiding over a committee to consider by how much the Government can allow the price of bread to go up.

In my own time, but not on this debate—possibly on the debate on the London agreement.

Mr. Lemass

Does the Taoiseach not consider that is a question which a Deputy is entitled to ask and to which he should expect a reply? Surely this is a matter of vital national interest which determines not merely the level of supplies for ordinary individual consumption but also the maintenance of business activity upon its present level. If his anxieties have been allayed, surely he should publish in some form the circumstances which allayed them, and thereby allay the anxiety which prevails amongst the business community and the population generally. This dictatorial attitude which the Taoiseach is now taking up is completely contrary to his earlier declarations about an experiment in democracy.

The third of the immedidate aims of the Government was stated to be housing. I am not going to minimise the difficulties which are inherent in any adequate housing programme. I will put on record the fact that the Dublin Corporation will build in this year under the Coalition Government houses for the workers to the number of 500, and that in the average pre-war year they built 2,000. We never regarded 2,000 as a sufficient output of houses of that type. It represented the maximum capacity of the building industry in Dublin at the time, and efforts were being made to expand the capacity of the building industry. It is impossible to convince me, or, I think, any Deputy in the Dáil, that even allowing for the present difficulties— the restriction of supplies, the inadequate numbers of skilled workers—that 500 working class houses is the maximum output possible for the building industry in Dublin at the present time. That is the estimated output as announced by the chairman of the Dublin Corporation Housing Committee.

Mr. Belton

It is an increase on last year's figures.

Mr. Lemass

It is the figure announced by the chairman of the Dublin Corporation Housing Committee. So far as the need for houses is concerned, there is no difference of opinion amongst us. Any point that I want to make on this matter is related to the declarations which the Deputies opposite made prior to and during the election: that the output of houses for workers was being restricted by the Fianna Fáil administration either through malice or through a desire to divert building materials to luxury hotels and other structures of that kind. They have now responsibility and they now control building materials. They have in their hands all the machinery of control which the Fianna Fáil Government built up, and I say to them that they have not demonstrated, by results, that it is possible for them to speed up the rate of producing workers' houses by one per month since they came into office.

I am not going to minimise the facts or suggest that we could get back this year or even next year to the pre-war output rate, but I want them to admit that they have discovered now that their allegations against the Fianna Fáil administration were completely unfounded. They just did not know what they were talking about. I want them to admit that, now that they have got all the power, all the control and all the machinery, they cannot do one whit better and that, in fact, Fianna Fáil were doing all that could be done. Has there been one single Order made by any Minister to change in any way the machinery of control from the way he found it with regard to building houses?

A Deputy

What about luxury building?

Mr. Lemass

Early on in the life of this Coalition Government we had this talk about an "experiment in democracy". I doubt if there is a single Deputy sitting opposite who did not use this phrase in some connection or other. Nobody objects to an experiment; nobody should be criticised for trying an experiment; they should only be criticised when they persist in an experiment long after it has proven to be a failure. The "experiment in democracy" which this Coalition Government represent has proven to be a failure and it should, therefore, be ended as quickly as possible. That is common-sense. I do not know that the Deputies who used this phrase, "an experiment in democracy", used it precisely to suggest that this particular type of combination would be more effective in promoting the material interests of this country than any other. They used it more frequently in relation to the manner in which business in the Dáil was to be conducted.

It was suggested that the Coalition Government would be open to criticism from all sides, that Deputies would be free to express their opinions by voice or vote according to their own consciences; the Coalition Government did not necessarily regard itself as bound to vacate office if it were defeated upon some vote regarding a question of administration which did not imply an obvious loss of confidence in it. Has there been one occasion since the 18th February upon which a single Deputy opposite—with one exception—voted against the Government? The one Deputy who did was promptly expelled from his Party. Has there ever been a majority in this Dáil as completely regimented as the majority which now sits behind the Government? Was there ever before an occasion in the political history of this country where one Party at its annual convention announced solemnly its policy on a matter of public interest, with regard to the establishment of a short-wave broadcasting station, and then within a few weeks, under the lash of the coalition Whips and the rigid discipline imposed on them in the Coalition Government, went into the Division Lobby to vote against its establishment? Did we not see where on the Local Elections Bill a Deputy proposed an amendment and then, having listened to a most plausible although completely inadequate explanation by the Coalition Minister, voted against his own amendment when it was put to a division? Such a thing never happened before and it justifies the statement that the coalition majority are far more closely regimented than ever the Fianna Fáil majority was, or than even the Cumann na nGaedheal majority was in the days prior to the Fianna Fáil Government. During the lifetime of Fianna Fáil here there were many instances of individual Deputies voting against their Party on particular divisions. They were, no doubt, spoken to severely by the Whips later on, but the one single Coalition Deputy who did it—it was like a bombshell—was passed out of his Party so quickly that nobody knew what was happening to him. Let that be a lesson to the rest of us.

A Deputy

It would be a good lesson to you.

Mr. Lemass

It should be a good lesson, and that is what it was intended to be. The one Deputy who showed a spark of independence was squashed quickly to prevent the risk of his escapade being repeated by another coalition Deputy. They realised that if they did not jump quickly on the first fellow it would not be long until there was a second. I do not know who the second will be. Deputy Flanagan was discussing political events with a constituent of his and the constituent said to him: "Mr. Flanagan, you will be the first out of the Coalition Government.""No," replied Deputy Flanagan, "I will be the second." I am not saying that he is going to be the second, but there are some signs of weakness over there among Deputies who still have a conscience. I say give the country a chance. Get out of office. You have done enough harm as it is.

A Deputy

Put them out.

Mr. Lemass

You have done far more harm than any of us anticipated. Say to yourself that the experiment is over. Recognise the fact that you have failed. You have failed, I say, in any aims you set yourselves. Recognise that you have not even been trying to move, or if you have moved at all that it was in the wrong direction. Break it up. I am sure that many of those who voted originally for the Coalition Government regret their decision now. It can be brought to an end by any group of you, certainly by any Party. The country requires that it should end and I would ask you on this motion to vote against the Taoiseach and his policy and to give the country that chance it is asking for.

Mr. S. Collins

"Full of sound and fury signifying nothing." We hear Deputy Lemass ranting and raving about the failure of the Coalition Government policy when there is only one worse thing that could happen to the country than a Fianna Fáil Government and that is another one. If there is any real thing to be said in favour of the present Coalition Government, it is the puerility of the argument which Deputy Lemass puts up against it. He has been very loud-voiced, talking about "an experiment in democracy" but Deputy Lemass, his Party leader and his Party understand nothing about democracy. He talks about the Coalition being regimented as thoroughly as Fianna Fáil were.

Mr. Lemass

Far more thoroughly.

Mr. S. Collins

I do not think that Fianna Fáil were so thoroughly regimented. I think that in the main they were too stupid to be anything else because the evidence of what they did in this country during their 16 years in office when they could only pick out of their Party the Ministers they did pick and when they could only give the country the service they did give it, is proof enough of what the intelligence was, in the main, of that organisation. I stand here to-day, a young Deputy in the "new set-up", as Deputy Lemass likes to talk of it, and I am proud to be in that "set-up" because it has taken this country out of a morass of stupidity, exuberance, extravagance and ignorance. Deputy Lemass talks about work. First of all, he apparently deprecates the Minister for Finance's effort to encourage Irish people to save money. He misquoted the Minister first. The Minister's advice to the Irish people was that they should, where possible, save money and do without certain commodities with a view to getting better value and a better type of commodity for the same money at a later stage. He comes in and he moans and he groans about restriction on credit. Why should much of the hoarding that we have not heard much about be forced on the market now to benefit the poor unfortunate person whose extra profits would go? Is it because some friends of the former Government, who were not slow about supporting it, are now going to feel the pinch when they have to run a business on a sound economic basis?

Crocodile tears do not look too good from Deputy Lemass. He has said that five months have proved this Coalition wrong. Let him disabuse his mind. I am young and Deputy Lemass is alleged to be an elder statesman. Allow me to disabuse his mind now—I will tell him what five months have proved. They have proved that there is a freedom, a hope in this country that a continuation of Fianna Fáil would have squelched for all time. The Deputy may be crying for an election now because, rapidly disintegrating behind him, are the Fianna Fáil clubs he can no longer give everything to. Look around at the facts for yourself.

Mr. Lemass

Try it.

Mr. S. Collins

The Deputy comes here and says that the decent thing to do is to get out. The decent thing for Fianna Fáil to do is to realise that they are "bet" and that they are going to stay "bet". We all here can honestly subscribe to one real principle, and I am not ashamed to announce it here in Dáil Éireann, on this, the first, opportunity I have had to discuss the Vote for the Taoiseach, that the experiment in democracy, as he calls it, represents for me a hope which I will follow and persevere in following, so long as I can keep the danger and the menace of a return of Fianna Fáil out of the lives of my country people. That is what I have been sent here to do; that is what West Cork has asked me to do; and that is what I am going to do. We never shouted "Up, Dev", down there, and we never will.

Let Deputy Lemass criticise what way he will the action of Deputies in supporting this Coalition Government, but let him take it from me, with all the earnestness and the sin of youth which apparently his Party so much deprecates, that, so long as a Government can be gathered together under the leadership of such a Taoiseach, men working together to find out what they can agree on, and not what they can disagree on, men with the wish to help their country and to co-operate with its citizens in their various avocations and walks of life to that end, then, unashamedly and unhesitatingly, my place will be behind the Taoiseach in any Division Lobby into which he asks me to go, not because I will be regimented, but because I think I would be a party to one of the basest possible betrayals of this country if any temporary stupidity of mine should allow the catastrophe of a return of Fianna Fáil.

I am not saying that merely for the sake of saying it. I say it with all the earnestness that is in me, and I will go further and say that, with the people I have met throughout my constituency and other parts of the country, from day to day, the stature of the Taoiseach grows mightier and mightier, because gathering behind this Government is a volume of thought which is now unshackled and able to express itself and which is rapidly telling Deputy Lemass and his former ministerial colleagues that their Nunc dimittis is in earnest.

Mr. Aiken

On the Estimate for the Minister for Finance to-day, I raised in a preliminary fashion the question of the Government's policy in regard to money. I put certain questions to the Minister which he laughed off. It is all very well for the Minister to laugh me off, but I want to know from Deputy Davin if he has laughed him off. Deputy Davin is seventy-five seventy-fifths responsible for the Minister for Finance. He made that claim.

Mr. Davin

That is correct, anyway.

Mr. Aiken

"Banks and all sorts of houses simply create money... We print notes when people present us here with British legal tender and demand Irish legal tender instead. We print it for them, and I suggest that we should print it at least as readily— always guarding against the dangers of overprinting—when the demand comes not from people who have English money and want it changed into ours, but when there is some good purpose for which Irish money is required."

Mr. Davin

On a point of order. Is the Deputy purporting to quote me?

Mr. Aiken

No.

Mr. Davin

I thought he said he was.

Mr. Aiken

Deputy McGilligan that was.

Mr. Aiken

The Ceann Comhairle will allow him. In this debate the Deputy can talk about any question under the sun, related to Government policy.

Will the Minister for Finance tell the people that there is a difference in printing a note for circulation here, in exchange for a foreign note handed in to purchase native currency, that there is a difference between that transaction and merely printing notes ad lib? Even here to-day the Minister for Finance, in the debate on his Estimate, said that there was no difference between printing a note and handing it out in exchange for a British note and in handing it out for no return whatever, to use it, let us say, for Government expenses. Can it be that our people are committed to government by men who are so crazy as not to see the difference? If they do see the difference, surely it is up to them to tell the people the truth? No one can be blamed for having wrong ideas in the past, provided that when he sees the truth, he is man enough to admit it, and to admit it to the people whom he deceived by telling an untruth.

The Minister for Finance and other Ministers make the babyish excuse, on occasions, that they have not done this, that or the other thing, because it would require legislation. Sometimes, when they are put in a corner, they allege that it would be necessary to pass legislation in order to carry out an administrative policy that obviously requires no further legislation. They deny that they have the legal power to do things which they have the legal power to do, and they do so for the purpose of deceiving a number of people throughout the country. Why is it that the passage of legislation should stop the Government from doing anything they think is right in the interests of the people? They have a well-machined majority, there are none of the inter-Party groups going to desert the Government in any legislation they might like to pass. They have all decided that they are going to hang together, as they know that the alternative is to hang separately; and if the Government wants to pass any piece of legislation, for the purpose of giving it legal power to do things which at the present moment it has not the power to do, they can quite confidently bring it before the House, pass it through this Dáil and pass it through the Seanad. It is time they dropped that excuse. It is time that they should admit, if there are things which they want to do and which require legislation, that it is within their political power to do them.

That brings me to the worst form of excuse given by various members of the inter-Party Government when going around the country. Deputy Davin will say to his cronies:—"I would love to print notes, but the Taoiseach would not let me." Deputy Davin has only to threaten to withdraw himself and his few cronies from the Coalition Government to get them to print the notes. Deputy Davin has the power to force the Government to do what he requires them to do. That is another excuse which should be dropped by members of the coalition groups.

Deputy Lehane went around the country talking about the bloody British Empire in which we were sunk, and how he was going to tear us out of it. Yesterday, his leader, the Minister for External Affairs, had to admit that we were not in it, but he was not man enough to say that, as we were not in the British Empire we were not in the United Kingdom, we must be an independent republic. He is keeping that sort of excuse for a future occasion. Deputy Lehane, who is the mouthpiece here for the Minister for External Affairs on many occasions, said that we could not send a representative to the Argentine without getting the signature of the British King to his credentials. There is not a tittle of truth in that. It is only an excuse for Deputy Lehane.

Mr. C. Lehane

Is it in order for the Deputy to quote without referring to the specific portion of the record, particularly when the Deputy knows that he is misquoting?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy did not state that he was quoting.

Mr. Davin

What did Deputy Aiken say in America?

Mr. Aiken

I do not care a hang what Deputy Davin or anybody else says, they are not going to put me off the point I am going to make if the Ceann Comhairle rules it in order. Deputy Lehane and the rest of the boys are trying to fool some of their supporters into the belief that the reason the new Minister to the Argentine will go there with the British King's signature to his credentials is because they are legally compelled to do it. If from this day forward a representative of this country goes to any foreign country with the British King's signature on his credentials, it is not because the Government have not the legal power and the constitutional right to send him without that signature. It is because the Minister for Agriculture or Deputy Davin would not let the Minister for External Affairs accredit him in that way.

Mr. C. Lehane

Was that how you accredited the representatives you sent abroad?

Mr. Aiken

I am not talking about what we did, but about what the Government are doing, and the excuses which those who are afraid to tell the people the truth are making to their followers for not doing this, that and the other thing which they promised to do.

Mr. Davin

You sacked one King in England and put in another. Do you remember that?

Mr. Aiken

Deputy Davin will not put me off the point I propose to make. If he thinks I am keeping him from becoming a rip roaring red republican like Deputy Lehane, I am not.

Mr. Allen

He could not be made into one.

Mr. Davin

You sacked the King by telegram.

Mr. Aiken

I want to know when Clann na Poblachta are going to drop the excuse that the reason why foreign representatives are accredited with the British King's signature is because they are compelled by law to do it. If, as the Minister for External Affairs requested the other day, they want national unity here on matters of external affairs, why do they deny the truth of our constitutional basis as a unit in the international world? Why do not Clann na Poblachta admit that this is an independent republic, that we are free here to accredit our representative to any other country in the world with the signature of the Minister for External Affairs, on the authority of the Government, if we so desire?

Now that the Deputy is finished with the Clann na Poblachta Party.

Mr. Aiken

There are a lot of people finished with the Clann na Poblachta Party. Do not forget that.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

The Deputy, as far as he is concerned, is wasting a lot of time on it.

Very well.

You spent all the dollars before you went out.

Mr. Aiken

Last year we succeeded in getting for nine months £14,000,000 worth of dollars out of the sterling pool. Months after this supposed agreement has been made we do not yet know how many dollars we are going to get out of the sterling area pool. That is a very important matter. Have we undertaken to borrow under the recent London agreement £20,000,000 worth of dollars in this financial year in order that we shall have as good a supply of dollars this year as we had last year? If we are going to borrow £20,000,000 worth of dollars why are we so forced to borrow? If the British could not give us the dollars, why did we agree to sell all but 10 per cent. of our cattle to Britain? Why did we not hold, if Britain could not give us the dollars out of the pool, our right to sell our cattle or any other commodity we have to areas in which we could get hard currency? According to to-day's paper we are going to borrow £5,000,000 worth of dollars for the next three months. Surely, we should have got a free hand to dispose of our produce in hard currency areas. Remember, £5,000,000 worth of dollars is not going to be very easy to pay back in future years unless America balances her books and unless the Americans are prepared to buy as much from the rest of the world as they sell.

I asked the Minister for Finance, before he agreed to borrow from the United States, to have a general discussion here as to the terms and conditions of such a loan and particularly as to the terms of repayment. If the United States of America does not balance its books in the future and does not buy as much as it sells, then borrowers in the present situation will not be able to repay her. I do not want to see the position created here in which we might have to repudiate a loan from the United States. I would prefer to accept more onerous terms for paying when I could provided that it was admitted in the contract that I had not to pay when I could not—when the Americans would not allow me to do it by their balance of trade. I trust that the Taoiseach will insist that before this loan is completed the Minister for Finance will come here and will discuss the matter and give the members an opportunity of criticising the terms and conditions upon which it is proposed to accept a loan.

This country borrowed £5,000,000, or thereabouts, from the United States on a former occasion. I do not refer now to the loan that was borrowed during the Black and Tan war, all of which was repaid. I refer to one of the loans issued here by the Free State in the early 'twenties. One of the worst headaches that every Minister for Finance has since suffered is watching that loan to see that we bought it as quickly as it appeared on the market, provided we could buy it at a reasonable price.

It is very foolish for any Minister for Finance now, in order to get out of a temporary difficulty, to impose such a charge upon his successor. It will be disastrous for the good relations between ourselves and the United States if we accept a loan and do not make certain that the conditions are such that we can carrry out the full letter of our contract. Is it because we have to borrow dollars from America that we are not going to get rid of bread rationing at a time when the British are doing it? The Minister for Industry and Commerce last night stated that the abolition of bread rationing would add to the £10,000,000 we are already paying for flour subsidies. Is the reason why we are not going to get rid of bread rationing because it would cost us another £500,000 or £1,000,000? After all that would be a very slight additional subsidy.

We subsidised tobacco smokers this year. We gave millions in subsidies to bring down the cost of tobacco and drink. Surely to goodness if we could afford to subsidise smokers and people who like to have a drink, so that these things cost less than half what they cost in England, we can afford about £500,000 necessary to extend the subsidy to do away with bread rationing. One of the stock in trade arguments amongst members of what is now called the Coalition or inter-Party Government, was that they were going to take the bureaucrats off the backs of the people. They were going to do away with control. "Pip-squeak" inspectors were to disappear. Farm inspectors we were told were to remain outside farmers' fields until they were invited in.

If it is want of money is forcing the Government to keep up the big machine necessary to administer bread rationing, forcing us to give every household the trouble of handling bread coupons, and every shopkeeper and baker's van to handle innumerable coupons, it would be preferable to all those who are so badly affected by this miserable bread rationing system, to take a little more off smokes and drink, and give that money as an additional subsidy, so that rationing could be abolished and bread sold at the present price. If saving a few hundred thousand pounds is compelling us to keep to that system, I think it is very bad business. It is a very bad business for householders, and bad for business people and they will not thank the Dáil or the Government for it.

I appeal to the Taoiseach to get the Minister for Agriculture to reverse some more of the decisions he took. I appeal to the Taoiseach to intervene and not to allow that Minister to smash the glass-house industry or the cheese industry which required such a long time to build up. If we are going to smash them now we may require them later, but may not have the people to produce them in days to come. I hope the Taoiseach will try to get the Minister for Finance not to deny to the various Departments sums of money that would help to promote either industrial or agricultural development. This country cannot live on a higher standard of life until we have greater output and production. Whether the Minister for Finance begs, borrows or even prints the money to keep production going, it should be done. It is disastrous that we should have even one year's delay in the production of farm improvements.

There are many other projects needed but, as this is not a detailed debate I do not wish to refer to them now. I appeal to the Taoiseach, whether the Government's tenure of office is long or short, to make it number one plank, that the Minister for Finance should not refuse money for capital development that will result in an increased output of the goods necessary for a better standard of living here.

By the way things are looking this Government may hang on until this country is on the verge of or into a crisis, and upon their actions may depend the safety of our people. I trust that, at least, they will not destroy what we have done to enable this country to have reasonable self-sufficiency in the essentials of life. We were very far from having reached the end of the road, and from having the output in industrial and agricultural products that we desired to have.

The present Government have opportunities of increasing agricultural and industrial output that the Fianna Fáil Government had not at their disposal as more farm manures, more farm machinery and more industrial machinery are available. Whether the Government's tenure is long or short, let them do their utmost to see that agriculture and industry are built up, so that we will have more of the things that will make our people safe, if, unfortunately, a crisis should come upon them.

Mr. Davin

Until I heard Deputy Aiken speaking this evening I had made up my mind that we had improved his political education as a result of his 15 years in office as a Minister. After listening to the longwinded speech he has just made, I think he is only a political school-boy, as he must have been under the impression that he was addressing a meeting of the ordinary members of a Fianna Fáil cumann.

Deputy Aiken should be the last man of those who sat on the front benches to stand up here and suggest that the inter-Party Government experiment was a failure, or that it was about time they got out of office. The Deputy knows perfectly well that his leader and himself have been absent from this House for more than half the period of office of the inter-Party Government. It should have been left to somebody else, besides the Deputy, to take such a stand, because he could not be as good a judge as colleagues of his who have beeen sitting in the House since the present Government assumed office.

What about the people's decision?

Mr. Murphy

What about the Transport Bill?

Mr. Davin

Instead of accepting the decision of the majority of Deputies in this House in 1944 as representing the will of the majority of the people, he instructed the President in Arus an Uachtaráin to dissolve the Dáil. He did that within half an hour of the time the House voted against the Bill. Deputy Aiken is a loyal supporter of his leader, but he should be the last man to talk to us about the alleged failure of this experiment in democracy.

It is no use pointing out to Deputy Aiken that many parts of the programme upon which this Government was established have already been put into operation. Perhaps in a few days he will have his eyes opened in regard to other aspects of that programme. I hope before the Dáil goes on holidays the Deputy will not oppose this Government in their endeavour to put into operation most important aspects of the programme upon which there was full agreement by Deputies on this side of the House.

Deputy Aiken knows very well that last October, when a motion was brought forward here to modify the means test in order to enable old age pensioners, with their miserable allowances, to be compensated in some way for the increase in the cost of living, the then Government could not find £550,000 for that purpose, but at the same time they were squandering twice that amount providing for a transatlantic service to carry the world's wealthiest people at subsidised fares from here to America and elsewhere. They could not find enough to compensate the old age pensioners, but they could find eleven pence in every shilling in order to subsidise the transport on a transatlantic service of some of the wealthiest people in the world.

I would enjoy a homely conversation with the Deputy, but this is scarcely the place to carry it on. The Deputy has had the pleasure of touring the world in luxury aircraft and I suggest that he lost the opportunity, during his long period away, of being a good judge of the work carried out by this Government. I advise him not to encourage his colleagues to repeat the kind of speech that he has made. Let us all get back to our constituencies, and let us carry on the work for which we were elected here.

I hope when we reassemble after the Recess the Deputy will give a good example of carrying out the advice he has tendered to us, namely, to come here and tell the truth. If Deputies on the opposite benches were only to tell the truth they would have to admit that the members of this Government are far better than the men who sat here with them for the past 15 years.

To-day we had Deputy Lemass coming here in a different frame of mind. He is extremely annoyed because he says this Government is closely regimented. He complains that the members of the various Parties supporting this Government have persistently and consistently voted in favour of Government measures. We have Deputy Aiken also complaining that this Government has a well-machined majority. I wonder would these Deputies make up their minds? Six months ago, four months ago and two months ago we were doomed because we had a Coalition Government and because we were not going to hang together. To-day, we are doomed because we have a Coalition Government that is going to hang together.

I do not know where Deputy Lemass gets his information from. I think he was really trying to be serious, although he succeeded in being amusing, when he spoke about the general desire that this Government should get out of office as quickly as possible. I am aware, as is every other Deputy, that since Deputy Lemass has gone out of office, he has occupied, not a peculiar position, but a particular position with regard to a newspaper in this city. I wonder is that his source of information that there is a general desire that this Government should get out of office as quickly as possible?

The only justification for a remark like that is that Deputy Lemass came in here this afternoon with the deliberate intention of amusing the Deputies. He knows very well that in the six months during which this Government has been in office a tremendous volume of new support has come behind it. That information is as readily available to Deputy Lemass as it is to every other Deputy. I do not intend to follow that line of argument for any great length as I admit quite frankly that I am not sure whether Deputy Lemass was merely cracking a joke or not. We saw another ex-Minister in the rôle of principal boy here this afternoon but I think Deputy Lemass has tried to play the rôle of clown on the pantomime stage.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Now!

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

He has tried to do it but he did not do it successfully. I want Deputies to bear in mind for a few minutes in relation to the speech which we heard from Deputy Lemass, that most of the big blunders which were committed during the days of the Fianna Fáil Government were perpetrated in the Department over which Deputy Lemass presided as Minister. Most of the objectionable features about which people were complaining and about which Deputies on these benches complained during the recent general election and since, were to be found in the Department over which he presided. We had the transatlantic air service. We had the Fianna Fáil mentality with regard to spending money as opposed to the mentality of this Government. The Fianna Fáil mentality was that money was to be spent on all sorts of luxuries and luxury services, luxury hotels and luxury buildings of one kind or another. There is a very big difference between that and the mentality of this Government, which is to spend money on essentials and on those whose needs call for the expenditure of money. As Deputy Davin has reminded Deputy Aiken and some of the Deputies opposite——

Mr. Killilea

Did your own Minister not bring in an Estimate here to-day for these same luxury hotels?

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

When Deputy Lemass was speaking, he complained very bitterly at one stage about the advice which the Minister for Finance gave to people not to purchase nonessentials. I put the question to Deputy Lemass, did he disagree or agree with that statement? He said very definitely he disagreed with it. The reason I put that question to Deputy Lemass was that I was well aware of the fact that Deputy Lemass was a member of the former Government in which his colleague, Deputy Aiken, was the Minister for Finance. The then Minister for Finance gave exactly the same advice to the people less than a year ago. If Deputy Lemass will consult the Parliamentary Debates, Volume 104, column 812, he will find that in reply to a supplementary question by Deputy Alderman Byrne, that advice was given by Deputy Aiken. Deputy Byrne put this supplementary question to the Minister:

"Can the Minister say what is responsible for the fact that our £1 note is able to purchase only 11/-worth of goods in this country and has he any remedy for such a situation?"

Deputy Aiken replied:

"I have stated the causes. If there were no purchases on the market to-morrow, the price of goods would fall. The people in this matter have the remedy largely in their own hands. If they would refrain from purchasing or from overbuying when goods are in short supply, the price of goods would fall. If a person who happens to have £100 or £1 in his pocket could keep it over the next 12 months, it would probably appreciate greatly in value."

That was the advice given by Deputy Aiken when he was Minister for Finance. That is the advice given by the present Minister for Finance, but now because their respective positions have changed, because Deputy Lemass is sitting over on those benches, he complains that the present Minister is wrong, that that is a bad policy and a policy with which he does not agree.

That brings me to two points I want to make in this discussion. Members of the Fianna Fáil Party, particularly ex-Ministers, could do a great service to the country, if they want to, by approaching debates and discussions in this House in a constructive manner, with a desire to be helpful, with a desire to assist this Government in its wishes to put its policy into operation, without the type of criticism that we have heard in this House and more particularly outside the House, from ex-Ministers. If the Fianna Fáil ex-Ministers would make up their minds to do that, I believe they would be doing good service to the country. It is important that should be so if Deputy de Valera and Deputy Aiken are correct in their view that there is going to be a European or a world crisis leading to war within the next 12 or 24 months. I think that if these Deputies seriously believe these statements, they are not acting in the best interests of the country in continuing to devote their energies to activities such as those in which they have been engaged for the past three or four months.

There was one other matter raised by Deputy Aiken to which I should like to call attention. He complained of the attitude taken up by the Minister for Agriculture regarding the importation of tomatoes, and he accused the Minister for Agriculture of destroying the livelihood of people in this country who had gone in for tomato growing. Of course, that is an exaggeration and I think Deputy Aiken knows it, but I want to remind him, and more particularly Deputy Lemass, of the position created in this country shortly before the general election by the unlimited or practically unlimited importation of footwear and of sweets, particularly the importation of sweets. A great number of ex-Army officers had been encouraged by the Fianna Fáil Government to invest their gratuities in setting up as sweet manufacturers. I think that was a sound enough policy. It was an effort to put these people on their feet again in civilian life, but hardly had they started when the market here was swamped out by the importation of sweets from European countries. All of us know what the result has been for these unfortunate people.

Less than a week ago I was speaking to a constituent of Deputy Aiken's in ‘Drogheda who had been employed in a boot factory at one time. He has been out of employment for the last six months because of the action of the Fianna Fáil Government in allowing such quantities of footwear to be imported. Is there any comparison between the policy pursued by Fianna Fáil when they were in office and the policy pursued by this Government in relation to the matters to which I have referred?

There are a number of other matters that I am going to refer to, but it is hardly necessary for me to do so because most of them were the subject of much discussion on the Estimates. I think the House, generally, will regret to note the fact that Deputy Aiken considers that the increase for the old age pensioners is a petty and mundane affair, and is merely a question of the Tánaiste giving a couple of bob a week to his pets. That is the way the matter was referred to by Deputy Aiken a quarter of an hour ago. During the short period of six months which this Government has been in office it has in my opinion done more for that class of person—old age pensioners and others—than Fianna Fáil did in 16 years, and more than it would do if in office for another 16 years. This Government has gone in for a policy of retrenchment but not merely for the sake of retrenchment or economy. None of us on this side believe in that. We are more concerned to see money spent where the spending of it will do most good. We are not prepared to refuse an increase to the old age pensioners or to modify the means test for the sake of a paltry sum of £560,000 as Fianna Fáil were. Fianna Fáil were prepared to see money going for luxury airliners, luxury air services, luxury buildings and that sort of thing.

Mr. B. Brady

Fianna Fáil gave £3,000,000 more to the old age pensioners than the old Cumann na Gaedheal Government did.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I am talking about the inter-Party Government. I was not a member of the House at the time, but I was in the gallery listening to a Minister in the Fianna Fáil Government—Deputy Ryan—refusing to assist the old age and other pensioners for the sake of £550,000. If the Deputy wants the reference I will give it to him.

Mr. B. Brady

I have told you that Fianna Fáil gave £3,000,000 more to the old age pensioners than the old Cumann na Gaedheal Government did.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Fianna Fáil refused to give £550,000 so as to increase old age and other pensions but was prepared to lose £100,000 a year on the Atlantic air service; it was prepared to lose £100,000 a year on Córas Iompair Éireann; it was prepared to sink £40,000 uselessly in Santry Court; it was prepared to allow £40,000 a week of the taxpayers' money to be spent in cluttering up the Phoenix Park with turf and other fuel which Deputy Lemass admitted yesterday was now uselesss, and yet they would not give £550,000 to increase old age pensions. They were willing, however, to increase their own salaries and the salaries of their Ministers.

That is the type of Government the country had up to six months ago when it was put out of office. I assert and I believe that the people of the country are very glad of the change that has taken place. I believe that this Government is going to remain in office until it has completed its programme and that it will probably remain for a much longer period. We are discussing the Taoiseach's Estimate. In him the people have a man who will lead them and in whom they have the fullest confidence. I want personally to wish him every success. I hope that he will remain in office and will continue to tackle the tasks which confront him in the same courageous, honest and forthright manner which has characterised his handling of a number of problems up to this.

Dr. Brennan

A shrewd observer might possibly observe some humour in the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Party towards the Clann na Poblachta Party in the remorseless and venomous attacks which they hurl against those with whom I have the honour to be associated. But behind the curtain of humour is a rather sombre humour, so that a more astute investigator might observe that this venom is based on hatred and a disregard for political ethics of any description. It is, of course, true that the Clann na Poblachta Party broke the neck of Fianna Fáil, and for that they make no apology in supporting this Vote for the Taoiseach's establishment.

For the first time in 26 years the head of the Government is a man who has no politics. He is a man who has gathered around him men of different ideas, men who are determined to stand by him in the task which he has undertaken, the task of uniting our people as they have not been united for 26 years. If it is a crime to support a man who personifies the personality of Tone in his idealism to promote that unity, then we in Clann na Poblachta are guilty of that crime. The Taoiseach is a man whose door is always open; he is available to every Minister, to every Deputy and to every civilian in the country. He has not closed himself up in a glasscase not to be touched, but he has put himself unreservedly at the disposal of the people whom he leads. We make no apology for standing in line behind such a man, and if that were the only reason for our action we have justified what we have done. We came into this House as Irish republicans; we shall stay there as Irish republicans. We came in here after a campaign of contumely, vilification and lies; we were "Communists", we were "anarchists", we were everything that was despicable, but not one of these statements which have been uttered against us behind our backs has been made to our faces. We are glad to know that we have contributed to the formation at last of a Government which considers the interests of the people according to the national and to the equitable view which we should expect from the Christian head of a State. We helped to form an alternative Government to Fianna Fáil while at the same time we have retained our own separate and distinct individuality. We have been loyal units of that Government, and as long as the Government policy is devoted to the 10 points on which all Parties composing it are agreed, we shall support that Government.

One thing that has been particularly noticeable since the present Taoiseach assumed the leadership of this House is that through the country a new atmosphere of personal liberty has begun again to be born. When the people woke up in the mornings, the papers were not flooded with advertisements and orders saying you must do this or you must not do that. People began to breathe freely, to act freely, to think freely and to speak freely.

I understand that there is a motion before this House to refer back for consideration the Vote which this House is being asked to pass. What is the authorship of this amendment for this reconsideration? Let us cast our minds back over the 26 years of Government in this country and over the last 16 years in particular and ask ourselves was there unity of thought or unity of action? Where was the confidence we should have in each other assisting each other, one for all and all for one? Since the Fianna Fáil Administration took over in this country their whole attitude, instead of uniting our people, has been to divide them, father against son, brother against brother and mother against daughter. The present Taoiseach, as Leader of this Government, has at least written a headline pointing the road to unity. The Fianna Fáil Government in the whole 16 years of their office consolidated their position as perfect politicians. In that they have succeeded, but possibly the perfection of that political attainment may receive a shock when the Government of the country is entrusted to honest men and their political achievements will become to us nothing but a bad memory.

Since we came into this House, we have supported the Taoiseach. As I said we make no apology for doing that, but we will not abate one whit the fundamentals on which we exist. We have one end, and one end only, the reintegration of the Irish republic for the whole of Ireland. We will not sacrifice one iota of our policy in supporting the Taoiseach because I believe that under the leadership of men like him the days when that dream which to many of us is very dear might yet become a reality, are not far away. I wish him every luck and success in his onerous undertaking and I am perfectly certain that when the pages of history come to be written, the name of John A. Costello will be written there in letters not of gold, but of something much more beautiful, spiritual achievement.

Mr. Bartley

I think that we on this side of the House can re-echo the very fine sentiment expressed by Dr. Brennan when he said that it was the ideal of Clann na Poblachta that the whole of our territory shall in the very near future be reintegrated in the republic of Ireland. I do not think that anybody can cavil with that statement, because it is the policy of Parties other than Clann na Poblachta and at least one other Party has gone a very long way along the road to its achievement. The portion to be reintegrated is only one-fifth of the national territory and I am quite sure that, when Fianna Fáil come back to office, Clann na Poblachta will give them all the support they can in achieving that objective.

Mr. Corry

They will not be there.

Mr. Byrne

It will be achieved before they come back.

Mr. Bartley

If it is achieved before they come back, Fianna Fáil will give them very hearty applause. I listened to Deputy O'Higgins misconstruing a statement made by Deputy Aiken and I feel that, in fairness to Deputy Aiken, I should give my impression of his remarks. Deputy Aiken was referring to the ability of one Party in the Coalition to influence Government decisions, and he was upbraiding the Clann na Poblachta Party for their inability to influence Government decisions on certain matters of the first importance. To illustrate the point, he instanced the case of certain recent increases in the salaries of a section of the Civil Service and referred to "the Tánaiste's pets." Deputy O'Higgins, I hope without any malice, seemed to apply that remark to the increases proposed for old age pensioners. The remark made by Deputy Aiken did not apply in any way to old age pensioners, but applied to the class of public servant to whom I have referred.

Deputy Aiken pointed out that the Tánaiste was able, by his influence in the Government, to secure preferential treatment for one section of the Civil Service and contrasted that with the failure of Clann na Poblachta to get the Government decision on the short-wave station altered. I think that Clann na Poblachta ought to take in the spirit in which it is offered the advice tendered by Deputy Aiken and that they, too, ought to get on their hind legs and use their influence to secure the things on which they brought about the defeat of Fianna Fáil. There is no doubt that, if the people of Ireland had not believed Clann na Poblachta—and Clann na Poblachta is the Party—when they said they would stop emigration, would give full employment and would establish the republic without any questionings of any sort, they would not have been put in a position to put out the Fianna Fáil Government.

I feel strongly on this because one of the things which Fianna Fáil did was to bring a fairly good standard of livelihood to those parts of the country which had always been depressed, and I refer particularly to the turf industry. I do not propose to labour it now, but, having heard so many statements here this evening about the many achievements which have improved the lot of the people, I could not avoid pointing out again to the Dáil that the standard of living of the people in my constituency has been very much depressed indeed by the abrupt and almost complete stopping of the turf industry. In that connection, I should like to point out to the Taoiseach that the schemes, inadequate and all as they are in amount, to relieve the distress caused by that stoppage, are being carried out in a very mean way indeed. Last year was a very bad year for turf, and, owing to the weather being wintry until the middle of the year, a great many people were unable to get employment on turf production. I know one case of nine men who were turf workers all during the war and who, because of the inability to provide sufficient turf schemes last year, for the reason I have given, were unable to secure employment on turf schemes and who were turned away because they were not employed last year. The Government ought to realise that they have inflicted grave hardships on constituencies such as mine and the least they ought to do is to ensure that when men who are genuine turf workers offer themselves for employment, they will not be turned away on the basis of technicalities of that sort.

Reference was made by Deputy O'Higgins to a criticism by Deputy Aiken of the advice given by the Minister for Finance to the people that, even though they got increases of wages and salaries, they ought not to spend them. I think that advice of that kind cannot be carried out. It presupposes a quality of perfection in human nature which I do not think exists, and particularly with the spate of amusement and entertainment we have in this country and have had for a number of years back, when you put money into people's hands, they will spend it.

Mr. S. Collins

Does the Deputy think it would be a bad thing if they saved?

Mr. Bartley

It would be a very good thing, and it would be a very good thing if the Government made it easy for them to save. If the Government followed the policy of the previous Government——

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Did we not give them more interest on thrift deposits? That encouraged saving.

Mr. Bartley

It certainly did, but Fianna Fáil gave the added encouragement of withdrawing from circulation a great deal of the money spent on drink, amusement and tobacco, and when one considers that over £50,000,000 yearly are spent on these items, I do not think it was too much to withdraw a few of those millions to subsidise necessaries.

But the Minister was in a difficulty because Deputy Larkin had threatened, on behalf of the Labour Party, that there would be no more standstill Orders. Fianna Fáil believed that the only effective system of retaining the value of money was the standstill Order and I think there are many examples the world over to prove that standstill Orders are the most effective way of doing it; but when the Labour Party threatened that there were to be no more Fianna Fáil standstill Orders, the Minister for Finance had to have recourse to offering the very weak substitute of advising the people: "Even though you get money do not spend it." I admit that it is very good advice but it would be very foolish to expect that the people in the main would carry it out.

If the Taoiseach will bear with me——

The Taoiseach

If the Deputy wishes to have any information on that point, I am perfectly prepared to allow him to proceed, if the Acting-Chairman so directs, and will get such information as I can from the Minister about it.

Mr. Bartley

All I want to ask the Taoiseach on the matter is if he would consider having in Irish only all advertisements which are purely of a formal character. I would specify such things as a notice by a person about to apply for a betting licence or a notice under the Dance Halls Act—things of that sort—which, as the Minister for Finance said, are read neither in Irish nor in English. If the Minister believes they are not read by the public either in Irish or in English, I suggest that he should have them all in Irish, because I do know people who do not read such notices in English but who, if they see them in Irish, particularly if they have a modern knowledge of Irish, will try out that knowledge on the notice in Irish and in that way it may do a good deal of good. I hope the Taoiseach will have the matter considered as sympathetically as possible.

I am not taking up any attitude in the matter but I would like to say this about it, that this matter of confining Irish advertisements to the Gaeltacht has not a great deal to justify it. Unfortunately, the people in the Gaeltacht do most of their reading in English. They cannot get it in any other medium. For that reason, when they leave school, they are practised more in the reading of English than they are in Irish. In any event, there may be a danger of creating a feeling amongst them that they are like an Indian reservation if you make one arrangement for them and something else for the rest of the country. They feel that they are part of the country the same as everybody else.

I would like again to remind the Clann na Poblachta people that their charges against us of having been so many "yes" men all down the years can now be turned against themselves. A very obvious case of it is that of the short-wave station. We all know that at their Ard-Fheis this question of the short-wave station was the most important matter discussed.

Mr. McQuillan

Is that why Deputy Lemass put down the motion or was it because of a genuine interest?

Mr. Bartley

The Clann na Poblachta Party, as is well known, were asked to fight this question of the short-wave station and they have not been as fortunate as the Tánaiste was in the particular line he took up. The cue has been given in the matter and they have acted under the leadership of the Government, as they used to charge us so often with acting under the leadership of our Party. They have turned down their convictions in this matter and have trooped into the Lobby against a matter which they announced was of the first importance to the nation. Tá súil agam ná leigfí síos an náisiún i dtaobh an rud sin agus chuid mhaith rudaí eile. Is féidir rudaí eile a leigint síos ach tá súil agam ná leigfí síos teanga na hÉireann ach go raghaidh an teanga ar aghaidh chomh maith is d'fhéadfaigh sí.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I am glad to have this opportunity of joining the Deputies from this side of the House who have expressed good wishes to the Taoiseach. I am glad that the people of the country, reading the newspapers to-morrow morning, and in particular reading the speech of Deputy Lemass, will realise how successful this Government has been and how successful the present Taoiseach has been. If ever there was a cry of wailing from one of the have-nots, it came from Deputy Lemass, a wail because this Government, under the leadership of the Taoiseach, is succeeding where he hoped it would fail.

The prophecy made by the Leader of the Opposition, shortly after the change of Government, that the Government would last only until the Budget, is as wrong as many of his other prophecies in the past. The Government has lasted far longer than the Budget and it will see many other Budgets introduced into this House, because as an experiment in democracy, it is succeeding.

Mr. McGrath

Deputy Cowan will tell you that.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Any fairminded Deputy who discussed with his constituents what they think of this Government, will find this reaction— that down the country the ordinary citizen feels that he has a say in the Government now, whether he is a supporter of the Labour Party, whether he is a farmer or something else. He feels that he is being represented in this Government and that no longer is there a Government, and a Party backing that Government, that dance to every tune played by one man; and no longer are the affairs of this country kept secret from the people. For that reason, the people have welcomed this Government. I must sympathise very much with Deputy McGrath and the rest, in the plight in which they find themselves now, because their return to this House after the next election will depend, not on their being Government Deputies and Government candidates but on their own merits as Deputies; and I think they are beginning to realise that now. Up and down this country, the Fianna Fáil clubs are disappearing.

Mr. McGrath

They are increasing.

Major de Valera

I have five new ones in my constituency.

Mr. S. Collins

We do not take you seriously.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Down in my constituency of Leix-Offaly—I am sorry there is no Fianna Fáil Deputy from Leix-Offaly here now—I know of three places in particular, where even at the last election Fianna Fáil could have commanded 90 per cent of the votes. I know now the change that has taken place. In those three areas, Fianna Fáil has receded recently, because the people who supported them in the past now see, under this Government, a chance of better times. The people are clearly behind the Government, not because the Government can satisfy everybody, not because the Government can work miracles or is working miracles; but because the ordinary people see, in the present team occupying Government Benches here, a team of men each one of them capable of doing his job, under a leader who derives no benefit from the position he occupies but who brings to that position the energy and the honesty of an ordinary, decent Irishman. The people appreciate that —and the sooner Deputies opposite realise that, the better for themselves.

Deputy Lemass, Deputy McGrath and the rest of them, who are endeavouring to make political capital out of difficulties of their own creation, would be far better advised in joining behind this Government and behind the Taoiseach in the task he has set himself of rebuilding this country. Fianna Fáil preferred to play the lone political game. Fianna Fáil preferred to say "No" to the Government's "Yes" on every possible occasion, but they will find very, very shortly the mistake they are making; and as their stock goes down and their support gets less and less, they will begin to realise the mistake they made in not joining in this Government.

We have had Deputy Aiken, fresh from America, popping the old question: "What is Ireland—a member of the Commonwealth or an independent republic?" It is a regrettable fact that, after 26 years here in an Irish Parliament, we should be asking ourselves what we are. An effort was made some two years ago to find what we were, from an English dictionary. I do not know whether that effort was successful, or whether it convinced either the people of this country or the people of other countries; but I do say to the Taoiseach, if a definition of what this country is, is to come from each succeeding Government, let him give to the country his definition of what this country is.

Captain Cowan

I have asked that. I have put it down in a Parliamentary Question to the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach

When I might have the pleasure of answering that question, I have not heard.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

In recent years, regrettably, we have been honest neither with the people of our own country nor with the people of other countries, and I would welcome now a clear declaration of what this country is to be. If it is to be an independent republic, by all means let it be so; if it is to be a member of the Commonwealth, let it be so. We are not going to do ourselves harm by being honest with ourselves and much harm can be done by endeavouring to conceal matters like this.

At the same time, I hope the suggestion made yesterday by Deputy Sir John Esmonde on the question of Partition will be adopted. All of us, whether we are a long time or a short time in this House, have had a surfeit of speeches about Partition, shadowboxing down here in the South or shadow-boxing in America or England; but we have had no plan, no policy, no concrete proposal, adopted by a Parliament which claimed to represent the Irish people. From all sides of the House, through all the years that this Parliament has been established, lip service has come on the aim of restoring the unity of our country, but nevertheless in recent years, every single bit of our domestic policy has been aimed at making Partition more permanent and the restoration of unity more distant. Some Deputies may think that Partition can be solved by propaganda, by appealing to the better instincts of our fellow-Irishmen in the North or the better instincts of the British people. It may be that through propaganda some solution lies. But, wherever it lies, it is the duty of this Parliament to find that solution, and not only the duty of Deputies on this side of the House, but of Deputies opposite. Partition is a national problem and must be solved in a national way. We cannot solve it, however, by merely talking about it down here. We cannot solve it ourselves; we must get help in the North and we must get help in England. As a first step I would recommend to the Taoiseach the suggestion made for an all-Party movement in connection with Partition. We cannot in a small country like this afford to dissipate our resources and our abilities and I am certain that in a Parliament like this and in the Parties represented here, if there is goodwill, sincerity and honesty, we can find such a solution. Speaking for the people I represent in my constituency and as a Deputy of my Party I do wish the Taoiseach many long years in the position he now occupies and the greatest of success in the job he has undertaken.

Mr. Corry

Listening to the statements to-night about the length of time this Government is going to last I got a kind of idea that they must be going to take the advice of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and extend the period of the Dáil to 50 years. I think it would be a good idea. If I can give a tip to the boys over there it is that they should have a good look around this week and next week and I think they will find that like the lady who went for a ride on the tiger, the tiger will come back with the lady inside. The boys over there have a way of being troublesome if they are interested in things which are put in abeyance.

The Taoiseach

I wonder what this has to do with Government policy.

The Taoiseach ought to learn not to interrupt.

Acting-Chairman

It would be better if the Deputy would continue his speech in an orderly manner.

He has, by Jove.

Mr. S. Collins

It got ye over there.

Mr. Corry

The Deputy seems to be very proud of the fact that we are over here. Let me assure the Deputy that I am getting the utmost amusement out of being over here and that it is simply——

That is not in order on this Estimate. I have spoken to the Deputy several times. For obvious reasons I do not want to adopt another course.

Mr. Corry

Since the Deputy cannot and, apparently, dare not speak on agriculture in this House on the general policy of the Government, I will leave it at that.

Mr. Cogan

There are many urgent tasks immediately ahead. It should be the Taoiseach's function to hold the balance fairly between all sections of the community. I have always held since I came into this House ten years ago that that balance has never been fairly held. Agriculture has never been fairly treated. Half the people of this country are gainfully employed in agriculture. Yet, up to the period of the war they were never able to win for themselves more than one-fourth of the national income. That was always a crying injustice. That is an injustice that must cease if we are to prevent the steady divergence of our people from the rural areas to the towns and the export of them abroad.

I have always been somewhat amazed at hearing Deputies speak about a machine majority in this House. I wonder do those Deputies know what they are talking about? As an Independent farmer Deputy I have never known of any machine that could either induce or compel me to cast my vote in a particular way in this House, direct me as to how I should speak in this House, or as to how I should act. I have always acted on my own independent judgment. I have never recognised any Party Whip. I think that is true of all Independent Deputies. We judge the issues on their merits. We stand over decisions we have taken. I think it is desirable that there should be a certain number of Independent Deputies in this House. We can view matters impartially. We can at times, perhaps, influence Parties when they seek to submerge vital national interests for purely Party gain, or Party advantage, or to score Party points. There never was in the history of our country a time when there were so many urgent national questions requiring attention. The Taoiseach is the head of a Government who have declared that their first object as a Government is to promote the expansion of agricultural and industrial development. There has been an equality of interests upon those two branches of development. Agricultural development and expansion are essential and desirable; so, too, are the development and expansion of our industrial potentialities and our mineral potentialities. All these things require to be developed in order to keep our people in productive and remunerative employment within this country and to undo the evils under which this country has laboured.

I wish the Taoiseach success in the onerous tasks he has undertaken. I want to make a special appeal to him. Since his Government have made the development and expansion of agriculture and industry their main concern, I think it is their duty to see that the necessary credit facilities for the expansion of those two important branches of our economic life should be made available. I am told by people in business that there is a tendency in the banks to restrict credit. If that policy is directed against the interests of the nation—if the Government are satisfied that it is directed against the best interests of the nation —then it is the duty of the Government to correct and offset that policy. It is also the duty of the Government to build up the country's resources and the reserves of the country as quickly as possible to meet the needs of any world emergency. That task is one that cannot be delayed. Food supplies and supplies of raw materials for our industries, together with essential fuel must be accumulated. These are urgent problems and I am sure they will have the wholehearted consideration of the Government.

Major de Valera

I think it would be no harm if I broke away from the tenor of some of the speeches and if I try to apply myself to some specific matters of Government policy of immediate interest to the community The first one which I would like to discuss with the Taoiseach is the co-ordination and direction of the activities of various Departments with a view to securing a proper line of action, having regard to the country as whole.

What I have in mind is this, that in every Government each Minister is charged with his own particular responsibility. He has his primary interests and each individual Minister is naturally and humanly tempted and, in fact, is charged with the duty of pursuing the end for which he is there and trying to secure the maximum good for the particular element in the community's life which he represents. That is as it should be, but it is elementary that if there was no co-ordinating agency, all horses would be pulling against each other and anything might happen, so that in order to make our system work there is a Government and a head of that Government, the function of the Government being the Executive Committee of this House, composed of those Ministers, a body where those Ministers can be co-ordinated and can exchange their views and their problems and arrive at a common solution under the general direction of the head of the Government. Perhaps more than anything else, the duties of the head of the Government are to co-ordinate the activities of these Departments.

One realises that the present Government is not very long in office and I wish fairly to make all allowance for that fact, but I am afraid that there are already evidences of a lack of co-ordination, evidences that the Departments in certain instances are pulling away on their own without having due regard to problems that any Minister will have, and the community is suffering from the results of that lack of co-ordination. There is, up to the moment anyway, some evidence of lack of Governmental decisions, a lack of the taking on of responsibility of the Government so as to have a homogeneous, defined and clear line of policy with which the elements which are the Ministers can be co-ordinated.

These are general words, but I think that they express my ideas accurately enough. While trying, especially as time is short, to avoid going into detail with regard to every department, I want to refer to a few specific instances of what I mean, primarily with regard to this question of co-ordination. I want to try to focus attention on the over-all picture, because that is the picture which represents the repercussions on the man in the street and that is what we are here to look after.

I will take a problem which is acutely noticeable in the City of Dublin, but which has ramifications in our industrial and agricultural life. We have heard and read a great deal about the meat difficulty in Dublin—the shortage of meat. That is only an aspect of a general problem and the general problem is this, that the agricultural community at the moment is in a position to obtain relatively high prices and it is relatively prosperous. We have been able in the past year or so to secure adequate markets for certain of our live stock. That is an excellent situation from the point of view of the farmer, who has got the price, and from the point of view of the Department of Agriculture, if it continues and if that trend can be maintained. But that situation, favourable and all as it is for one section of the community, is operating unfavourably on another section.

The fact is that in Dublin and other centres the prices of vegetables and meat have so risen as to place a serious burden on the ordinary man in the street. I have on more than one occasion pleaded for the white-collar worker. There are in certain categories people who are comfortable and well off, but there are other categories where the women of the house find it difficult to victual their families. In that case the woman finds her menu must include more meatless days than before. There you have something paradoxical, a prosperous situation for the farmer and a difficult one for the housekeeper. If our farmers get a high price for their cattle across the water, naturally the cattle tend to go that way, and some positive action is necessary if you are to have cattle of comparable quality for victualling the towns at home.

If there is no co-ordination between the producer and the consumer you have the position that times of prosperity for the farmer will mean times of severity for the townsman and, on the other hand, times of cheap food for the townsman will usually mean a time of depression for the farmer. That is the situation and it is there the co-ordinating policy or function of the Government and the Taoiseach should come in.

Here you have a problem, again getting back to the question of the meat situation in Dublin. It has gone beyond the limit of automatic adjustment. So long as you had the butchers getting a substantial profit, when they could bear the burdens of the trade without passing them on to the consumer, you had a situation which made Governmental interference unnecessary. I do not want to go into the figures mentioned last night, but it is obvious, and it has not been controverted, that the limit of endurance has come for the butchering trade. The butchers have given their figures for profits, which at no time since 1940, except on one occasion, exceeded 5 per cent. In 1944 their profits went to 6.5 per cent., but there is the significant fact that in 1947 they had a loss— a minus profit of 1.5—while in 1948 the minus profit was 2.8. Without going into the merits of their case, these figures are there and the Minister for Industry and Commerce should be able to prove if these figures are right and if they express a fact. If they are wrong, let us be told that they are.

A Deputy

The Minister has already told us they are.

Major de Valera

I am just taking the figures and if they are controverted I am open to correction, but that does not affect my argument. The butchers will tell you that they would far prefer to sell meat more cheaply because they find that the decrease in sales has so much offset the increase in prices that they are losing more than if they were selling larger quantities at a cheaper price and they are very anxious that the price of meat should be kept at a reasonable level. I have tried to study the problem impartially and I would invite Deputies to look at this question in the same spirit and to see what can be done.

The problem, then, is a question of co-ordination. The Government in many questions of that nature will be faced with the problem of striking a mean in the best interests of the community. Only a Government with accurate sources of information and complete and adequate returns, can attempt to give an accurate answer to this problem. I would not be so presumptuous as to give an answer without accurate information, but I am making the point that the co-ordinating function of the Government is to deal with such a problem and not leave the people of Dublin to suffer from a meat shortage and a vegetable shortage.

Mr. Blowick

That could not be traced back to the slaughter of calves by any chance?

Major de Valera

It could not.

Mr. Blowick

Of course it could.

Major de Valera

If the Minister would allow me to develop my argument objectively, we would get much further in this House. I am attempting to deal with the Taoiseach's problem fairly and squarely with due regard to the fact that he has a problem. If the Minister for Lands would cease playing politics and try to get down to the problems of the country, he would be rendering a more useful service to the people. We all realise the problem which the Taoiseach has and we can sympathise with him in the many problems which anybody in his position will have to tackle where the solution can only be provided by finding a mean, where the solution will have to be one of balance, a solution that may not please completely either his Minister for Agriculture, his Minister for Lands or his Minister for Industry and Commerce when they look at it from their own narrow compartments, but when together they have to strike, in common agreement, a certain line of action, which is going to be the best mean solution for the whole of them. We can all, particularly a Party which has been in office, sympathise with him in that problem.

I have taken a specific instance in which there is an obvious need for co-ordinated action. There is a possible solution that jumps to my mind. You may, for instance, subsidise meat in the towns. I know the difficulties of that. I am not getting up like other people and saying "Subsidise and all will be well", but I am suggesting that that is one avenue that might be explored. There are, I know, the difficulties, not only of finding the money for the subsidy, but the question of the administration of the subsidy, which is an extremely difficult matter. So far as the question of vegetables is concerned, the Government has my sincere sympathy in facing a problem of that nature. Nevertheless, the fact that the problem is difficult of solution is no reason why a determined effort should not be made to solve it.

To come back to the question of subsidies again, the question of finding the money would be the first objection. There I would join issue on the attitude already adopted in regard to certain matters. I am not going to cast aspersions as to motives but, to my mind, it was an improper thing to do, namely to reduce taxation on non-essentials and recreation items such as beer—not so much perhaps in the case of beer because so far as the workman's pint is concerned I make an exception —but on items such as cinemas and so forth, giving them reliefs in taxation while permitting an increase in income-tax and other items referred to in the Budget. If it were necessary to find the money for the subsidisation of meat in the City of Dublin, to enable citizens who now find themselves obliged to face more meatless days than they should, who find themselves going without meat while the finest beef in the country is being exported to feed the foreigner— a trade from which we are getting a very necessary return in cash—why should we not try to provide that money rather than give remissions of taxation on non-essentials? If money were the objection to subsidisation, I would have no hesitation in recommending to the Government to consider whether it would not be better to appropriate moneys to make a prime food available to our own people in the towns and to find that money by a form of essential taxation rather than to give reliefs in taxation on non-essentials. That is one suggestion that might be examined.

Another is how far, in so far as the prosperity which will come to the country through the cattle trade is concerned, a fair percentage of it could not be deflected in order to make a reasonable proportion available to our people in the cities. I am all the time admitting that there is a difficulty, but the fact that such a difficulty exists is no excuse for not tackling it. I move from that. It would be well, while this situation persists as it is, that it should be tackled. I have said that the question of nutrition of the people in certain quarters of the city will need attention. That is a matter of Government policy as a whole rather than a matter for the Minister for Health, because he cannot attend to it unless there is a co-ordination of the functions of other Departments. There is no use waiting. I presume the Government is not stalling on the meat problem in the hope that the price of cattle will fall. That is a negation in itself and I presume, having heard the Minister for Agriculture on cattle prices and on the prosperity attending the cattle trade, there is very little possibility of such a situation adjusting itself naturally. That is if the information given by the Minister for Agriculture is right. If it will not adjust itself naturally, it cannot be left just to force an unnatural situation on the people of the city. I have laboured that from the point of view of an example.

On a point of order, cannot the Taoiseach stop the circulation of this paper in the country?

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not know that he can without legislation.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 22 Jul 1948