Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 20 Mar 1952

Vol. 130 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Vote on Account—Motion by Minister for Finance (Resumed).

Mr. O'Higgins

As I was saying before the debate was adjourned, the country did experience this campaign launched by the Minister for Finance and carried on for the last nine months by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and other Ministers of the present Government. That campaign, presumably, was a concerted, decided, intentional one. It was not a campaign that just happened accidentally. It was a deliberate, political move by the present Government, discounting completely the interests of the country, aimed at discrediting the policy of the former Government and taking no account whatsoever of whatever harm and damage might be done to Ireland's credit and to the fortunes of our people.

Of course, the present Minister for Finance and his allies in this particular campaign had a dual purpose behind what they were doing. Not only had they to discredit the good work done by the former Government, but they had also to justify their own attitude while in opposition. The House will remember here in the last three and a half years the consistent opposition indulged in by the Fianna Fáil Party against the former Government's policy of capital investment. Every effort was made by them to teach the country and the people of the country that there was something unsound, something harmful in the idea of any Irish Government endeavouring to put the savings of our people into houses, land reclamation, drainage, hospitalisation and into all the other projects which constitute the lustre to which the former Government is entitled.

That opposition was indulged in and it was useless for members of the former Government to point to the fact that we had, in the years from 1948 to 1951, the greatest housing drive that any country of comparable size in the world had ever experienced by reason of the policy of the former Government. It was useless to say that. It was useless to point to the land project and to point to the fact that Ireland, for the first time, was winning back from the neglect of centuries thousands of idle acres. That counted for nothing. It was useless to point to the various minor drainage schemes and capital work, such as rural electrification and various schemes of that kind. None of that was good enough for Fianna Fáil. They kept on saying that it was wrong, harmful and dangerous to ask the people of this country to invest their money at home in work of that kind and that all that kind of work should be limited by the national burden of taxation raised and levied in each year.

When the Minister for Finance, as Deputy MacEntee, indulged in that kind of speech here in this House there was no one who believed in it less than Deputy MacEntee. The same could be said of the present Tánaiste as Deputy Lemass. They were just playing a political game. They were just pushing a few pawns in the political game of chess, but unfortunately their poor dumb followers throughout the country and the unfortunate Deputies who sat behind them accepted some of this propaganda, and when the change of Government, by some strange happening, took place on the 13th June——

Mr. Carter

Strange indeed!

Mr. O'Higgins

Well may the Deputy laugh because certainly it was not the will of the Irish people to change the Government last June and if the Deputies opposite doubt that let them dissolve the Dáil and try to find out. When the change of Government took place on the 13th June, one can well understand the dismay of the present Minister for Finance, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the rest of them when they had to act now as a Government as they had spoken and prated while in opposition. Inevitably, they found themselves drowning in the river of their own words. To try to appear consistent they had to speak much as they had spoken two or three months before. Accordingly, the country was told that under this big, bad inter-Party Government our external assets had been frittered away, that our people were living beyond their means, that there was a serious crisis around the corner and that all of us would have to tighten our belts, take a deep breath and prepare for the very serious fate that faced each and every one of us.

That was the propaganda that was indulged in. What was the first effect of it? The first effect—and the brainy gentlemen behind on the opposite benches should listen carefully to this —undoubtedly was that those who controlled credit in this country began to say to themselves: "Well, Deputy MacEntee is Minister for Finance and his words will have to be listened to and, thank heavens, we have now a Minister for Finance who is not going to force us to give £5,000,000 to the people of Dublin for housing. He will not prevent us from restricting the amount of credit in circulation, thus preventing the Irish people maintaining a decent standard of living and preventing the people of this country from having money in circulation, having business go ahead and enjoying the things that they have been enjoying for the last three years."

Immediately after the first shot was fired in this vile campaign by the Minister for Finance last June credit was restricted. There was not a single person in this country since last June who was entitled to or found himself able to get from Irish banks the assistance his status and stake in the country entitled him to.

It is little use for the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to come in here, as he did last night, to try to convince us that there has been no restriction in bank credit. It is little use for that kind of denial to come from the Government Front Bench. There is not a Deputy who is prepared to keep an open mind and who keeps in touch with his constituents who does not appreciate the fact that in the last nine months business has been brought almost to a standstill as a result of the fact that no man can get an advance from a bank unless his financial position is such that he does not require it.

You have only to look at this city to-day to see that building has slumped. Men who 18 months ago accepted the call of an Irish Minister for Local Government to return from England to find employment here are now drawing the dole. There is no builder in this country to-day who can obtain from his bank the credit which his trade requires. The building trade is a trade in which there is a large expenditure of money in wages, purchasing material and all the rest of it. If a builder does not get from job to job the necessary accommodation at the bank there will be no building. Many builders in this country to-day are eating the first fruits of the campaign indulged in by the present Minister for Finance and deliberately initiated by the present Government.

In speaking like this, I am merely informing the House of what is common knowledge to all Deputies and the people outside. It is time that some stop should be put to that kind of campaign. It is time that some protest should be made against the spectacle of Irish Ministers here at home parading the alleged insolvency of their country to provide ammunition for Sir Basil Brooke in the North.

It is time that a halt were called to this campaign, particularly when those who indulge in it know very well that it is a false and a fraudulent one. I do not want to cover again the ground that has been covered so ably in recent months by the Leader of the Opposition. Were it not that Irish political life has to-day a man such as Deputy J.A. Costello much more harm would have been done to the credit and financial standing of this country than has, in fact, been done by the Fianna Fáil Party. It is a tribute to the Leader of the Opposition that four or five months ago, single-handed, he fought to a standstill the campaign indulged in by the present Government. He halted them. He forced them to examine the facts and he set the country thinking. Eventually the truth began to emerge. Despite all the talk and all the propaganda to the contrary, we are a sound, credit-worthy country, and not all the efforts of Fianna Fáil can prevent that fact from becoming known.

The Fianna Fáil Government talk about the frittering away of our sterling assets. Last night we saw the very disedifying spectacle of the little man behind a pile of documents—the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs— spewing out figures in a frantic effort to justify the discreditable campaign that is being waged by his Government in this country. He wept bitter tears because our sterling credits in London were reduced in the past three and a half years. According to him that was something which should not continue if Ireland was to progress. He ignored the fact that some of those sterling assets, which he says were frittered away, were converted into dwelling-houses for his own constituents in Longford-Westmeath. He counts that as nothing. He regards as wrong, if we are to take his lecture on economics as being a serious one, any kind of repatriation of sterling assets for purposes which do not come within the definition of "a capital commodity."

If the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs will scrutinise the reports published in respect of the years 1949 and 1950, and contained in the famous document No. 2—the White Paper issued by the Minister for Finance— he will find records of many imports which could not strictly be regarded as goods of a capital nature—goods such as building materials and medical supplies. These are goods which were required to provide houses and homes, hospital services, and so forth, for our people. These are the types of imports which the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs does not want for this country. He wants to see Ireland peopled by a nation who live in the trees. He wants to see our people requiring 100,000 houses for the next ten or 15 years. Any policy which puts our sterling assets to work to buy building materials, iron and steel, and goods of that nature for the erection of houses in this country is, according to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in his smug complacency, a wrong and a disastrous policy. I am surprised that a speech of that kind should have been made by an Irish Minister in this Parliament in the year 1952. That he was able to leave the House, in which he uttered that speech, with a whole skin is a tribute to the respect which Deputies of this House have for the Rules of Order. If the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs sincerely believes in that kind of nonsense I trust that he will get his answer very quickly from the constituents who so very nearly removed him from the membership of this House nine months ago.

I remember well that in February, 1948, the present Minister for Industry and Commerce advised the former Government not to regard our sterling assets as sacrosanct. However, if they are to be regarded as something sacred and something to be held for all time, let us, at any rate, examine the figures. In 1938, before the outbreak of the second world war, our sterling assets stood at £250,000,000. During the war years we could not expend any of that money because we could not import the goods. Britain could give us only a limited amount of coal, a ration of tea and a ration of the various other essential commodities which this country required—but she could give us no iron and no steel. On the other hand, we were able to continue to send to Britain our cattle and agricultural produce.

Of course, the normal accounting between the two countries could not take place and our sterling assets, accordingly, increased. It was only proper and prudent and natural that once commerce was resumed between our two countries, in 1947, 1948 and 1949, we should take steps to obtain for our industries and for our people many of the commodities which could not be imported during the war years. No Government could fail to see the sense and the wisdom of doing that. During the past four years—under the Fianna Fáil Government as well as under the inter-Party Government—we began to import coal again from Britain. When coal began to be imported freely again, it was taken off the ration, not under the inter-Party Government but under the Fianna Fáil Government, in October of 1947. It was only right and proper that during the past four years we should import certain commodities which could not be imported prior to that.

Our sterling assets to-day are £150,000,000 greater than they were in 1938. They now stand at about £400,000,000. The Minister for Finance will, I am sure, bear out these facts when he comes to conclude this debate. Accordingly, the people of the country are entitled to know whether they have been led by a Government of madmen or a Government of knaves during the past nine months. What is the sense behind the Fianna Fáil campaign to impress on the people of this country that, during the past four years, we have been throwing our sterling credits into the Irish Sea when, in fact, we have more sterling credits now than we have ever had before? What is the sense behind it unless it be knavery or madness? I do not think there can be any other choice. I know the answer I would give to that particular question because I regard the Minister for Finance as being a sane man——

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy does not know what he is talking about—that is all.

Mr. O'Higgins

I do not believe the Minister does and I would certainly back my opinion as being at least as good as his.

Mr. MacEntee

Look up your figures.

Mr. O'Higgins

If the Minister doubts my figures he can check them and deal with them when he replies, but I challenge him to deny that our external assets to-day stand round about £400,000,000. I challenge him to deny that our external assets in 1938 stood at £250,000,000. If he is a man, I take it he will accept that challenge. Secondly, now that issue has been joined in this matter, apart from the question of frittering away our external assets, it is proper that we should examine what, if any, benefit has accrued of a domestic capital nature to this country from the settled agreed policy of repatriating our external assets in the last three years. I do not want to bore the House with figures in the manner in which the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs did last night, but I should like to give these figures. Since this policy was initiated in the beginning of 1949, this country has increased its sterling holdings domestically by £24,000,000. In addition, here at home, and standing now, there has been an increased domestic capital formation of £84,500,000. The benefits can be found in rural electrification, in houses and hospitals, in all the things that were done in the last three years, all the things that used to be the proud boast of most right-thinking Deputies in this House. Those figures mean that in the last three years we increased domestic capital by £108,000,000. Against that we incurred a dollar debt and, of course, a sterling debt which together amounted roughly to £68,000,000. Now, it only requires a little bit of subtraction to convince even the gentlemen who sit behind the Minister for Finance that we have a net credit of new domestic capital here at home of some £45,000,000.

Mr. Carter

Thanks to Fianna Fáil.

Mr. O'Higgins

I cannot call the Deputy young, because that would be disorderly.

Mr. Carter

I said thanks to Fianna Fáil, from 1932 onwards.

Mr. O'Higgins

Go back and look at your history, the only thing you can look at. In the years 1949 and 1950, the years about which we had all this rampage, Ireland found itself worth from the point of view of actual capital here at home, £45,000,000 more. There is fact No. 2. I want to know how that large sum, £45,000,000, happened to escape the attention of the Minister for Finance? Was this record expenditure on housing, hospitals, drainage, rural electrification, telephones and all the rest of it, a waste of money? Is it a loss to the country to provide decent houses for our people in each town and village in Longford-Westmeath, which Deputy Carter represents temporarily, in Dublin and Cork, and in other parts of the country?

Mr. Carter

It was Fianna Fáil provided the houses.

Mr. O'Higgins

Is it a loss for the constituents of Deputy Killilea to have their land drained, or to have arterial drainage going on? Is all that a loss to the country? If Deputy Killilea and Deputy Carter and other Fianna Fáil Deputies think that it is not a loss, then they should be over on this side of the House, because they have no right to be in the same Party as the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and the Minister for Finance? These two ogres, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, these two throw-backs to the Victorian era——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should refrain from making such references to Ministers.

Mr. O'Higgins

Perhaps I should say that they remind me very much of two gentlemen who are throw-backs to the Victorian era.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should not try to get round the Chair's ruling in that way.

Mr. O'Higgins

My impatience in relation to the Ministers might lead me to further breaches of the rules of order——

Mr. MacEntee

To Kitty O'Sheaism.

Mr. O'Higgins

I think the Minister for Finance——

General MacEoin

Is that not a grand intervention from the Minister now?

Mr. MacEntee

It is merely a throwback to the Victorian era represented by one Mr. Healy.

Mr. Sweetman

Is it not perfectly clear that one was a political reference and the other was a personal reference?

Mr. MacEntee

No.

Mr. Sweetman

Certainly. On a point of order, is it not perfectly obvious that the reference to a throwback was a reference to the political views of the Minister for Finance? Nobody can suggest that the Minister for Finance otherwise goes back to the Victorian era.

Mr. MacEntee

There are certainly atavistic tendencies in Deputy O'Higgins which are now coming out. If it will add to the decorum of the debate I shall certainly withdraw, but I do say that if Deputy O'Higgins continues in his present strain he will have to listen to something.

Mr. O'Higgins

I shall certainly continue; I have only started. I do not know anyone who has more consistently indulged in vile propaganda directed against different individuals in this country, both inside and outside the House, than the present Minister for Finance. His conduct is just symptomatic of his political creed. He is a little Johnny Bounce running from point to point.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy would come to the Vote on Account we might be able to get away from personalities.

Mr. O'Higgins

I am referring to the speeches we have had from the Minister in relation to the policy contained in these Estimates. I do not think I know of any public man who is less consistent in his political outlook, or in relation to his conduct as Minister for Finance, than the present Minister, and in the last nine months that inconsistency has been more and more marked. There is only one thing in which he is consistent and it would not be in accordance with the Rules of Order to mention that. This is the position which the Minister was so very anxious to prevent me stating. We are owed more money to-day by Britain, if that is a good thing, than we were prior to the war. We have succeeded in shifting over here almost £50,000,000 worth more of capital goods. We have those two credits and it is in face of these facts that the present group of people, who call themselves the Government, have been trying to convince the people that the country is insolvent and heading for destruction. We reject these sentiments. We reject the policy behind that kind of campaign and I think that the people of the country accept the Opposition view in that regard. The people know well that this country, in the last three or four years, has been a very good country to live in. They have not accepted the Government's policy. I am talking about the people generally, and if there is anyone over there who doubts that there is a way of finding out. But, unfortunately, there have been sections of our people who have accepted the Government's policy. Those sections, unfortunately, have been in a position, by their acceptance of the creed of despair preached by the Minister for Finance and the rest of them, to cause considerable harm to the people of the country. Certain influential business circles, on being informed, as they were, that they were spending too much, said: "Well, we had better cut down on expenditure." They looked at their pay-rolls; they looked at the list of those they had to pay each week and then took out a red pencil and somebody walked the plank.

It was not merely in the clothing trade that that took place. It was in relation to other large employment concerns in the country, and men were dismissed because the Minister for Finance said that everyone was spending too much. In the case of the employer with a long pay-roll, his workers were spending too much, according to the creed of despair preached by the Minister for Finance. Every industrialist with 200 or 300 men employed in a factory was, according to the Minister for Finance, spending too much. He must and will cut down on the most vulnerable section and will reduce the number of people he has in employment. Accordingly, one of the first and earliest results of the policy indulged in by the present Minister was the creation of unnecessary unemployment in the country. In my own constituency, there are 2,000 or 3,000 extra unemployed to-day. They are drawing the dole and are walking around without any chance of a job. They are unemployed because this country has as Minister for Finance Deputy MacEntee.

Mr. Carter

Why are those who were in Salts walking around? Why were they dismissed?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will get an opportunity of making his speech afterwards.

Mr. O'Higgins

That has been one of the first and earliest results of the campaign indulged in by the present Government. We all know, no matter what part of the House we sit in or what Party we belong to, that the workers, the less well-off sections of the people, will always be the first hostages and victims of a campaign of this kind. Of course, there will be unfortunate and uncomfortably minded Fianna Fáil back bench Deputies who, being the true soldiers that they are, will have to try and put a face on the policy which is being pursued by the present Minister. They will say: "Oh, this is because of stockpiling." That is the sort of lame excuse that they have to trot out. Nobody objects to their doing it. Of course, when Deputy Carter mentions Salts of Tullamore he dare not make a remark of that kind to the workers who are unemployed. He knows that in 1947 far more goods and yarn were imported than have ever been imported since, and these imports did not cause unemployment in 1947.

Why should imports cause unemployment in 1951? There is no reason why they should unless people feel that they cannot buy the goods produced by Salts. Who is going to buy the goods produced by Salts except the people who might purchase them, but they are told that they are spending too much. Of course, if they think they are spending too much they are not going to buy as much as they used to buy. Who tells them that they are spending too much? It is not Deputy Carter; it is Deputy Seán MacEntee, Johnny the Bounce.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister for Finance.

Mr. O'Higgins

The Minister for Finance.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will have to cease using un-parliamentary names or he will resume his seat.

Mr. O'Higgins

I am sorry, and I withdraw it. Now, that is the position in relation to unemployment. If those on the Government side of the House have any doubt as to the correctness of what I am saying they should go back to their constituencies and examine the position carefully. There is unemployment. It may be that some of it could not have been avoided, but most of it is due to the uneasiness and the panic caused by the campaign of the present Government. Once there is interference with any of these things, with the credit or with the economy of the country, the results are incalculable. Deputies can appreciate this, that if anyone says of a neighbour or friend that that man cannot pay his way, that he is insolvent, then everyone will begin to clamour for payment of their debts. No one will lend that man money. The result is that he becomes a bankrupt. That can be applied to a country also. Once you start a campaign of that kind, it is no good running around the week after saying: "What I said about John Jones is not true; I find now that he is able to pay his way." That will not do any good. From the moment that is said of John Jones, he cannot borrow money and will not be able to pay his way. Now, apply that to the country. Fianna Fáil Ministers, three of them, started that campaign deliberately. They did not believe in it, but they did it for a political purpose when they started it. The first result of it was unemployment. The second was restriction of credit, which was followed by less business activity, and less business activity meant less jobs for those who were in employment.

Deputies can look at the figures if they wish. Up to June of last year, more jobs were being made available to our people in insurable employment at the rate of 1,000 a month. That was up to June, 1951. That particular type of employment has now become less at the rate of 1,000 per month. That is a serious situation. It has meant a considerable dislocation for the country. All this meant a considerable retarding of this country's aims and policy in relation to the reunion of our country. When Sir Basil Brooke, in the North, had to face difficulties in recent months he was glad to quote the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He was glad to try and convince the dockers in Belfast with this: "Look, you do not know how well off you are; look at the rate at which they are heading for a financial crash." Sir Basil Brooke did not examine into the facts very carefully. He does not know that that is the view of only the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce and a few others who constitute the present Government. He does not examine to find the truth, or otherwise, of that particular propaganda campaign. He is simply very glad to have handed to him by Irish Ministers an argument which will help to make the division of our country more permanent still.

There are many points on which the present Government could be taken to task because of their failure to act in the interests of the country as a whole during the past nine months. It is inevitable that their financial policy should be discussed in some detail. A review of the past nine months shows that both the financial and economic policy of the Government have failed. The Government has failed to pursue a coherent policy. That is so obvious that it is unnecessary to dwell on it.

Secondly, the Government has failed to do what the former Government would undoubtedly have done—gone to the country last June to raise a loan. They failed to do that at a time when the money market was favourable and the credit of the country was high. They failed to raise a loan when the people had confidence in the credit of the country. They let the opportune moment pass. Now the market is unfavourable and the country has lost an opportunity it would not have lost had the inter-Party Government remained in power.

Thirdly, the Government has proved criminally negligent in relation to a savings campaign. The inter-Party Government recognised the importance to the country and to the capital investment programme of the people's savings. They increased the rate of interest which had been reduced by Fianna Fáil in 1947. Had the inter-Party Government remained in power they would have launched a national savings campaign in the last nine months. That should have been done by any Government which had considered the need for capital investment here. We know that Fianna Fáil does not agree with that policy. Possibly that is why they did not indulge in such a campaign.

Fourthly, the present Government and the Minister for Finance have in the last nine months, or less, completely exhausted the American Counterpart Fund. The present Minister for Finance, as Deputy MacEntee, worked himself into a dangerously excitable condition in relation to American loans and their expenditure here. Yet, when he became Minister for Finance he spent the American Counterpart Fund at six times the rate of his predecessor; he spent it not on capital investment programmes but in paying for New Zealand butter to be eaten by the Irish people. That fund has gone now. Nine months ago it stood at £25,000,000 and it was the intention of the inter-Party Government to maintain that fund intact as a shelter belt for the investment programme.

Mr. Killilea

Deputy Dillon did not say that the other night. He said we were not spending it fast enough.

Mr. O'Higgins

It should, of course, have been spent at a greater rate on drainage, rural electrification and capital investment of that kind. I do not like to see it spent on cheap butter for Deputy Killilea.

Mr. Killilea

Who started the importation of butter? Your Party was responsible for the importation of butter years ago.

Mr. Everett

Why follow a bad example?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Higgins on the Vote on Account.

Mr. O'Higgins

I find it difficult to make any sense out of the noises made by Deputy Killilea.

Mr. Killilea

You ought to know very well what I am "noising" about.

Mr. O'Higgins

I would hate to assign a reason. In the last nine months the Minister for Finance has appropriated certain moneys that were made available for capital development purposes by the former Government. He was thereby saved and there is to-day less land reclamation and so forth.

The present Minister for Finance and the Government have taken no steps whatsoever to deal with the restriction of credit. Not only have they taken no steps but they have tried to deny that it exists. Only two years ago the inter-Party Government was able to get for the Dublin Corporation, for the benefit of the Dublin people, a loan of £5,000,000 at a time when the banks had refused to make money available. That effort to restrict credit 18 months ago was fought by the inter-Party Government. What has the present Minister done about the far more serious restriction which faces the country now? He has done nothing except to act as the mouthpiece here of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is all I shall say with regard to the financial position. I am sure Deputy Killilea is relieved.

I turn now to the Book of Estimates. Over the last few years we have listened to many speeches from Fianna Fáil Deputies about road grants. They were the subject of debate on many occasions here after 1948. In fact, a motion of no confidence in the inter-Party Government was tabled by the then Deputy Walsh, now Minister for Agriculture. When road grants were reduced in 1947 the Government of the day put into operation the Local Authorities (Works) Act. A certain sum was made available for roads—a smaller sum than in 1948—and, in addition, money was made available for drainage works and other works of that kind up and down the country.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This would be more relevant on the Estimates proper.

Mr. O'Higgins

I am referring to the reduction in local authority grants contained in this Book of Estimates.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Estimates are not before us.

Mr. O'Higgins

I do not want to discuss these in detail but surely I am entitled to refer to the policy of making reductions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes, but the Deputy may not go into them in detail.

Mr. O'Higgins

I am merely leading up to the matter and I trust I am in order in doing so.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes.

Mr. O'Higgins

The fact is that the grants made under the Local Authorities (Works) Act were supplementary to the road grants. Despite that, in the last three years every country Deputy supporting the inter-Party Government had to listen to Fianna Fáil Deputies saying: "If we were in power, the road grant would be the same as in 1948." Last year they changed their tune slightly because the present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs became critical as the Local Authorities (Works) Act grant had been slightly reduced. What is the position this year? Fianna Fáil have not faced up to their implied promise to the electorate to restore the road grant given in 1948—not by any means. Not only have they not done that, but they have reduced the £1,250,000 made available under the Local Authorities (Works) Act grant last year to a mere £600,000.

Mr. Killilea

Who raided and plundered and robbed the Road Fund?

Mr. O'Higgins

I do not know anything about raiding and plundering. That is the kind of remark we had to listen to during the last three years— who raided and plundered the Road Fund? The electorate were left under the impression that if they wanted more road grants and better roads they should vote for Deputy Killilea and his merry friends. What is the position now? The cuts have not been restored and there will be less work done in the coming year in draining land, in reclaiming land, and in dealing with the minor drainage problems that were dealt with under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. I should like to know the reason. I can recall that when the Act was introduced it was vehemently opposed by the present Minister for Finance. Is it because the Minister for Finance has carried into these Estimates his opposition to that Act in 1949 that the grant has been reduced?

A similar reduction has taken place in relation to housing. As far as we can see, there is less money being made available for the provision of houses this year for our people than was made available last year by the inter-Party Government. These are serious matters. Of course, we can understand the desire of the Minister for Finance, in accordance with his policy and the policy of Fianna Fáil, to restrict spending. But why should they do so at the cost of housing? Why should Deputy Cogan support them in doing so at the cost of farmers who require drainage? Why should they pick out the worth-while capital schemes of that kind and cut them and keep on a lot of less worth-while expenditure?

I do not know whether the Government who have asked the House to vote this sum of money and support the policy contained in these Estimates will be long in office. It may be that the year 1952-53 will see a change of Government. I am not a political prophet, but I do know that the sooner a general election comes the better. The sooner the people get an opportunity of deciding the kind of Government they want the better for all of us. I have no doubt that a huge confidence trick was played on the people last June and the sooner that is remedied the better.

I challenge this Government, if they have any doubts about it, that their duty dictates that they should take steps to consult the people. They do not represent the Irish people. The policy contained in these Estimates is not the policy that the Irish people desired or sought. It is a policy born of an intrigue by a minority Government, and the sooner the present air of indecision, doubt and uncertainty is eased the better, and it can only be eased by giving the people an opportunity freely to decide the type of policy they want enforced and the type of Government they want in office.

Mr. Carter

In making a speech in my constituency recently I compared the attitude of the coalition Opposition to a badly tuned band, and they seem to be out of tune in this House this evening in discussing this Vote on Account. We were advised from the left hand side of the House that we were restricting credit, and we were chastised yesterday by Deputy Dillon for making credit available. In the circumstances, whom are we to believe? Can the Opposition offer a solution to this problem? Can they make up their minds, or have they any concrete proposals to put forward to solve the problem that faces the country at present? Deputy O'Higgins referred to unemployment in his constituency, and said that the same quantity of yarn was imported in 1947 as was imported during the time they were in office.

Mr. O'Higgins

I said more was imported.

Mr. Carter

I submit that there is a difference between the importation of yarn and the importation of finished wearing apparel from England. I challenge the Opposition to deny that they brought in £16,000,000 of finished wearing apparel from England during their term of office.

Mr. O'Higgins

The figures you got from the Minister for Finance were wrong.

Mr. Carter

That is why "fearless Frazer" had to go down to Tullamore to castigate the Fianna Fáil Party for the unemployment that arose there. I should like to see the Opposition adopt a consistent attitude in their approach to the problem with which we are faced. Deputy Dillon chastised the Fianna Fáil Party for their industrial programme from 1932 onwards. As reported in column 2161, Volume 129, of the Official Report, he said:—

"It is time this House and country faced the fact that 90 per cent. of the tariffed industries in this country are badly-run relief works charged on the agricultural industry."

He went on to tell the story of a man making a pair of shoes. I would draw Deputy Dillon's notice to the fact that we exported boots and shoes in 1951 valued at £66,000. I would also like to draw his attention to the fact that we were able to go into the English market and beat the British at their own game of providing footwear for their people. I think that is no mean achievement for a country that has only entered into industrial production in a large way from 1932 onwards. I feel it is also a tribute to the Tanáiste, who, more than any other man in this country, is responsible for the building up of our industries. The people engaged in the production of footwear in this country number over 6,000. The number of people engaged in fellmongery and hide finishing constitute nearly 2,000. If Deputy Dillon's attitude is the attitude of the entire Opposition they are badly out of tune again in this respect.

A lot has been said this evening with regard to the restriction of credit. The solutions offered by the Deputies opposite to the problem that affects us with regard to production and trade are both novel and entertaining. We had the spectacle of one section—the Labour Party—chastising the Government for restricting credit, and then we had the Fine Gael Party chastising the Government for providing credit. As I understand the banking system in this country, it is free. No Government has any authority to interfere with the running of the banks as a whole. The best answer, I feel, to the charge that there has been credit restriction is the substantial improvement that has taken place in bank advances during the period 31st December, 1950, to date. In so far as I am aware the banks' resources are the deposits of the farmers, both big and small, of the large shopkeeper, of the small shopkeeper, of the would-be shopkeeper, of the shop assistant who is saving to be a shopkeeper at some future date, of the people providing for old age, and of the worker who puts away a nest egg. When the bank makes an advance this is the money it uses. Ordinary common sense suggests that to provide for all ordinary and extraordinary drawings on deposits a certain proportion only of those savings could be advanced by way of loans to the public. It is believed that the banks have advanced much more than what has always been considered a safe proportion.

I suppose that is because of the rise in the price of the goods and services which people require. Do our so-called economists wish the banks to go on lending their depositors' savings without putting on a limit? If that were the case the day would come, as it came in America in the 1930s, when depositors would find the bank doors shut in their faces. That has never happened in this country so far as I am aware. However, it could be brought about by tactics such as those adopted by the Coalition Government who, through political cowardice and failure to face their duties and responsibilities, persisted in the attitude that we could continue to spend more than we earned and at the same time prosper. A large proportion of the goods we received were got from America through Marshall Aid and later on through E.C.A. at a time when the £ could purchase $4. This money is now about to be repaid when, in fact, the £ will purchase less than $3. I feel sure that we could probably have done very well without a goodly proportion of these goods. However, America, in order to bolster up its own economic set-up, insisted on selling us the finished article on credit.

General MacEoin

How does that go down with you?

Mr. MacEntee

I hope you are learning.

General MacEoin

I am. It is a good lesson.

Mr. Carter

Otherwise her difficulties might have been of larger dimensions than in the 1930s. The shorthand notes which are being taken at present will probably be typed later on on a typewriter bought through Marshall Aid or through E.C.A. when we could probably have done very well with a reconditioned one.

If the people on the Opposition Benches have the welfare of the country at heart and wish to take the banks to task, let them examine what better service the banks could give the community rather than criticise the Fianna Fáil Government for the so-called restrictions of credit. Let them look into the cost of the number of banks that are in the country and the cost of their administration in general. Work is not created in any country by banks vying with one another as to which will advance the most money to purchase a public-house. That is not creating wealth.

I do not believe the Opposition have a remedy for our financial problems. It does not matter what the form of society is, capitalist or communist; it does not matter what particular shade the Government may be; the law is immutable and operates infallibly. The plain fact is that we are all seeking to take more out of the national wealth pool than there is to take. The shareholder wants a higher dividend; the worker wants higher wages, and the citizen wants increased social benefits. As W.J. Brown said not long ago—and I admire him for saying it; he said it at a very unpopular time in England, during the general election —"unless we are deaf, dumb, blind and silly, we must realise that if we do not produce this wealth we cannot share a slice of it." We can have all these things but only on one condition, and that is if we increase the national wealth pool to a point where all payments can be met. If we do not we cannot have those advantages and the value of our £ will sink lower and lower until we do awake from the fool's paradise in which the Opposition would have us live. If we cannot create industry in the form of real wealth in order to exploit the labour of our people, we cannot live on borrowed dollars. If we do borrow money let us provide that it be for a sound principle and a sound project.

As I said at the outset, I very much dislike the attitude of Deputy Dillon on the Opposition Benches—a man who, to my mind, has been dodging the law of libel for years—standing up there yesterday evening and trying to blacken the manufacturers of the footwear industry in this country, the wholesalers and the retailers, and there are retailers on the Opposition Benches. I deny and I challenge some of his figures. In his reference, he said that the wholesaler was entitled to 15 per cent. He is not; it never works out that way. He never gets it, and if you go down to any wholesaler's premises in the City of Dublin, in the provinces, or down the country, you will find from audited returns that if he gets 11 or 12 per cent. on his turnover he is a very lucky man. I can assure Deputy Dillon that there will always be a place for a wholesaler as long as we have private enterprise.

I may as well enlighten him with the facts in regard to the retailers. He said in his reference here that the retailer of footwear was entitled to 30 per cent. He is entitled to no such margin.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

What about the time he was allowed 50 per cent?

Mr. Carter

If the retailer of footwear in this country succeeds in obtaining 18 to 20 per cent. on his total turnover, he is a very lucky man. I suggest, therefore, to the Opposition that they should not try to whistle with the two sides of their mouth when they come to talk on matters of industry, or agriculture for that matter.

Lastly, Deputy O'Higgins, in his speech a moment ago, referred to stockpiling. I will tell him how the stockpiling was done during the three and a half years of the inter-Party Government's term of office. It was done in the shape of £21,000,000 worth of imported wheat; £22,000,000 worth of imported maize; £16,000,000 worth of wearing apparel; and, as a personal favour to Deputy Dillon, £2,000,000 worth of tomatoes.

General MacEoin

Where did you get those figures?

Mr. Carter

The figures are from the Trade Journal. As I said at the outset, I have not heard one sensible suggestion this evening from the Opposition Benches. There has been a chorus in the manner of the Pharisee striking his breast and saying: “Look what I did during my three-year term of office.”

Deputy O'Higgins drew my attention to the housing programme in Longford. My answer to Deputy O'Higgins is this: there is not a single house in Longford that was not planned in 1948 before the Fianna Fáil Government left office and the 150 houses that we built in the town of Longford are the work of Fianna Fáil. Therefore, the Opposition should not seek to take credit from that fact.

General MacEoin

I do not intend to follow my young colleague from Longford on the lines he has adopted in that very able speech that he has delivered. I want to compliment him upon reading his brief fairly well. Still the errors are very pronounced and I leave it to himself to find them out when he sees the Official Report. This Vote on Account, as the Minister very properly pointed out, is a very important matter not only for the people of the country for this year but for the year to come. It is customary for a survey of the past year and a survey of the year to come to be made in order to enable us to answer the questions as to where we are going and what progress we are making in our economic development.

A speaker in the Opposition here to-day requires considerable courage because it is subject to attack, whether from the Government Front Bench or from the back benches or from the Party press. When a member of the Opposition makes some assertion it is classed or described as nonsense, as having no merit whatever, no thought and no ability. As a matter of fact, we are back again where we were before Fianna Fáil took office, that every person from the Opposition is anti-national and that they have no merit whatever. If that is the way the Fianna Fáil Party, as a Government, are going to approach matters of serious importance for the people of this country, then we will make no headway.

It has been said to-night and said well that it was of very great importance to the people of this country, even when we were out of office, that we had, as Leader of the Opposition, a person of the ability of Deputy Costello to meet this attack that was made by the Government upon the economy of the country. I assert, Sir, that when Fianna Fáil came into office, they set out deliberately to discredit any action or any work carried out by their predecessors.

I do not think they expected to do as much damage as they did when they undertook that task. They started off talking about a crisis of the gravest magnitude. The Tánaiste declared that this country was up against a crisis of the greatest magnitude, a crisis that it would be very hard to get over. He did, indeed, by inference give the impression that the crisis was brought about by the previous Government and that if the previous Government had taken any reasonable precautions that crisis would not have arisen.

Of course, I pity a poor Deputy like Deputy Carter when he says that people are talking with two voices. The action of Deputy Costello forced the Government to run away from the crisis and they found a problem instead. The Tánaiste dropped the Central Bank Report and he repudiated the White Paper of his colleague, the Minister for Finance. He admitted in this House that it was true that we had a problem but that the crisis was not yet there but was round the corner.

To my pleasant surprise, yesterday evening the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs said that we had a world crisis. That is reported here in the Irish Press. I do not suppose that they have misreported him. I expect they have reported him correctly. According to the Irish Press, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs said: “To the extent that there was a world crisis, a crisis existed here in some degree.” Therefore, Sir, the inter-Party Government is hardly responsible for the world crisis, but the Opposition would nearly have you believe that the inter-Party Government was responsible for the whole world crisis that now exists.

What is the world crisis that we are affected by here? A world crisis of rearmament, a mad rearmament race for domination by powerful nations, and we plan here for munitions building. I would ask Fianna Fáil Deputies to take well into mind that if the whole of the Marshall Aid money was spent on the purchase of munitions instead of on housing, on afforestation and on drainage, it would be considered money well spent. Is it not rather strange and significant that if a real crisis arose to-morrow in which a conflict took place in the world, we could have immediately all the capital that we want in order to find arms to fight that battle? There would be no restriction of credit whatever. If the Government to-morrow could purchase £20,000,000, £50,000,000 or £100,000,000 worth of tanks, armament, and planes from any country in the world, even a dollar country, we could get the money. But yet apparently we cannot get money and there must be restrictions on the building of houses and on the raising of the fertility of the soil in order to build up a real defence for this nation.

There is one point asserted by the Government with which I agree, and that is that hunger could do more to damage the independence of this country than anything else. In office and out of office, I agree with the programme that this country should produce as far as is humanly possible the full requirements of the nation. I have always contributed to that policy because it is of the greatest importance to our people that they should have sufficient food and clothing.

It may be argued that some people do not favour that in this inter-Party group or, perhaps, in the Fine Gael Party, but the Fine Gael Party at least has this quality that it always had people of an independent turn of mind to express their views freely without let or hindrance. They expressed their view whether it was personal or otherwise once they believed in it.

The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs having asserted that the crisis was only here in some degree, went on to say that as regards unemployment one could not escape from the predicament in which Great Britain found herself. Therefore, our unemployment problem is due to the fact that England wants men to make munitions, and that because they have this problem we must become unemployed also to fulfil their requirements. It is impossible to understand exactly what the Minister meant by that.

Then, of course, being the expert that he is upon agriculture, he started off to tell us how agriculture must fill the bill. He was backed and criticised by Deputy Dr. Browne. What two marvellous experts in agriculture! I know perfectly well that if either of them were given the task of growing enough food to feed themselves they would both starve.

The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs referred to a long-term plan for agriculture. Would it not be better if he left it to the Minister for Agriculture to tell us what his long-term plan might be? The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs once expressed the view in this House that the small farms were too small for economic development and that there must be larger farms. It is rather peculiar that both he and Deputy Dr. Browne were more or less on the one line yesterday evening—that if the farmer failed to fulfil his responsibility, as they looked on it, to the nation, certain steps should be taken. The exact words used by Deputy Dr. Browne were that the farmers hold their land in trust for the community and that, if they fail, the Government should step in and take it over. Who is teaching that sort of doctrine to poor Deputy Dr. Browne—because that is what Uncle Joe Stalin taught? That is the way Uncle Joe would handle the matter.

Mr. MacEntee

It is what Daddy Seán thought in 1932.

General MacEoin

A moment ago, because a name was applied to a Deputy or Minister of this House, it had to be withdrawn when the Minister drew the attention of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to it.

Mr. MacEntee

The statement that Deputy MacEoin is now making—that I drew the attention of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to any observation which was made by Deputy O'Higgins —is untrue.

General MacEoin

Is this a point of order?

Mr. MacEntee

I sat here and listened to the abuse hurled by Deputy O'Higgins but I did not call on the Chair to intervene and protect me.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think that to refer to a Deputy as a "Daddy" is any reflection on the Deputy.

General MacEoin

Except that the Minister took great exception to any name which was applied to him.

Mr. MacEntee

That is not so.

General MacEoin

To come back to what I was saying, that philosophy is not acceptable to the people of this country nor, I think, to any person in this House. I trust that there will be an end to that type of speech here from either Deputy Dr. Browne or from the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.

The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has changed his tune considerably. At one stage, the crisis was so hard upon us that he did not know how the Minister for Finance, or the Government of which he had the honour to be a member, was going to surmount it. Then he watered down the "crisis" considerably. I am glad to say that it is apparent from his speech last night that he now thinks that the Government will be able to surmount this difficulty without any great effort.

In a reply to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, I said, down the country, that he reminded me of a colleague of mine who was a blacksmith. This colleague of mine always found, when a horse had a stone bruise, that the animal was suffering from a very serious disease—which proved, when the animal recovered, that my colleague was the great doctor who cured it. Fianna Fáil have created a scare, and when the "scare" that was not a scare at all has passed they inform us that they found the remedy for the problem.

I am convinced that, with the collection of £10,000,000 more in revenue than was budgeted for by the Minister for Finance, there is no need for extra taxation and that the country is sound financially. There is no doubt that, with the reductions which the Government have made in respect of capital expenditure and in respect of the ordinary housekeeping accounts, it will be possible to get through this year, and get through it well, without the imposition of extra taxation. Food, clothing and the housing of our people are matters of the utmost importance. No attempt should be made by the Government to limit land reclamation, land rehabilitation, drainage and the housing of our people.

It is agreed that increased agricultural production will go a long way towards increasing our prosperity. It has been asserted that the farmers were never as well off as they are to-day. That is only relatively true. It only means that they are better off than they were yesterday. How well off were they yesterday? I heard it stated here that the income of the farmers has gone up by 70 per cent. That may be true but what was the income that went up by 70 per cent? If I have 5s. a week and my wages are increased by 100 per cent. I have only got 10s. a week. It is essential to take the standard first and to see what you are comparing. It is well known that in 1939, the standard year, the income of the agricultural community was the lowest in our history and that if they are better off to-day, by 70 per cent., it still means that they are the worst compensated people in the State. The proof of that is that if a vacancy occurred for even a caretaker of a golf club and that the post would be worth about £5 or £6 a week a farmer or a farmer's son would run from the farm to get a job like that. It stands to reason that if they had a decent livelihood on the farm or on the land they would stay on it. It is obvious that the farmer's son and the farmer's daughter and even the agricultural worker, are not receiving adequate compensation for their labour and that unless we increase the compensation which they receive for their labour that section of our people will continue to leave the land.

If food and clothing play such an important part in the defence of our country and in its economic development there is no reason why these people should not be the best-paid section of our community. I suggest that the farmers and the agricultural community are not yet adequately compensated for their labour and that unless the Government embark on a policy to increase the productivity of the soil and to improve the financial position of the farming community in this country—such as the inter-Party Government had—the rural population will continue to decrease. That would be a great pity and a great danger. If we have large concentrations of people in our towns and cities and if, at the same time, there is a flight from the land, then we have a problem and a crisis of the first magnitude. I suggest that the Government should consider carefully the capital investment plans of the inter-Party Government and give effect to them. I suggest, with all sincerity, that it would be good political tactics on their part to take the things that were good, which we were doing, and to continue to do them and not be afraid to say that they were initiated by the inter-Party Government and had a certain merit. We did not hesitate to say that we adopted some of the schemes which the Fianna Fáil Government were carrying out.

Mr. MacEntee

And abandoned many more.

General MacEoin

We abandoned those of which we did not approve and we mentioned what they were, but the Minister has not the courage yet to say what he is going to abandon. He is doing the thing in an oblique way, which is even more dishonourable than doing it in the direct way, because we could then challenge it directly. I am not going to cover the ground that has been covered by my colleagues; there are other speakers who will deal with other aspects of the matter which require attention but I do assert, as I asserted as early as July last when the Minister for Finance talked of deficits in the Budget, that the Government will have collected on the 31st March at least £8,000,000, if not £10,000,000, more than the sum for which Deputy McGilligan budgeted as Minister for Finance in the last Budget.

I assert that when they have that much to play with they are in a sound financial position and that they should not campaign against the economic interests of the country in order to gain political kudos—which I think they will not get in any event—by criticising the actions of the inter-Party Government, who in three short years did more for the industrial and agricultural development of this country than had been done since the State was established.

It is a sad commentary that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs should say that, notwithstanding 16 years of government by Fianna Fáil, agricultural productivity has not increased one ounce—perhaps an ounce is too narrow, but that it did not increase to any extent, although at several periods during that time there were thousands of acres of wheat and thousands of acres of other crops sown. Yet, according to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, there was no appreciable increase in production and he contended, when Deputy Dillon stated that when there had been an increase, that that statement was not correct. The fact of the matter is that production increased by 40 per cent. during our term of office. Forty per cent. may not be enough; it could, in my opinion, be added to considerably but at least it is something of which we should be all proud. Let us thank those who did that work, and in doing so perhaps we will be able to contribute something to building up the nation to the standard which we should all like to see it attain. Whether we call certain individuals Daddy this or Daddy that, this is our country and we have to support and maintain it.

Mr. MacCarthy

The jingle bells of criticism from the Opposition Benches have been knocked from so many sides that they are now cracked and have a hollow sound. One of the first criticisms from the Opposition Benches was on the question of credit. A few moments ago Deputy O'Higgins criticised Ministers of the present Government for restricting credit, although we all understand that it is the fixed idea of the Opposition that we do not control any credit in this country and that it is controlled by forces outside the country. That hardly works in with the general ideas that have been expressed all along. Again, in the past we had our Ministers criticised for not meeting Ministers of a neighbouring Government and at ministerial level; it was frequently alleged that they were sending departmental officers to discuss important matters of State.

Now when Ministers go and meet Ministers of another Government on matters of general concern that does not satisfy the Opposition either. They oppose just for opposition's sake, and not a single constructive idea of any kind comes from the whole lot of talk that goes on here all day long. We begin with prayer, but after a while we find ourselves embroiled in some kind of an inferno, with all kinds of innuendoes and names being thrown across the floor of the House. We had Deputy Dillon yesterday saying that the day had not yet come when a de Valera or a Childers could tell him how to behave in an Irish Parliament but, before Deputy Dillon had any part in an Irish Parliament, those names were associated with a Parliament established in this country while the forces of occupation were still very firmly here.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is somewhat removed from the Vote on Account.

Mr. MacCarthy

I know it is, and I am sorry, but how do you think any Irishman could listen in this House to statements of the kind to which I refer without expressing disagreement? But of course we are used to Deputy Dillon and to Deputy O'Higgins, and perhaps I should pass from them and not worry myself or worry the House with these matters.

Deputy O'Higgins told us that if the Government had any confidence in themselves they should have issued another national loan last June, so as to increase further interest charges from the £3,500,000 which they were then, and the £7,000,000 they are now, to a still higher figure. If there was so much confidence in the previous Government and in the programmes which they put before the country, how is it that a small loan for housing of only £300,000 could not fill to the extent of even one-third during the régime of the previous Government? Housing was one of the best parts of their programme; still when they asked the people to take up that loan, the people absolutely refused, and the Government had to underwrite it. Yet they talk about the people's confidence in them and in their programme, and about raising national loans to carry on the business of the country. It all sounds very hollow to me, indeed, because, as I say, housing was one of the best programmes of the previous Government, due in a great measure to the interest which the Minister in charge of the Department took in it. At the same time we see the difficulties they experienced in financing it during that period.

We hear a lot of talk about unemployment, and no doubt much of it is true. The causes for that unemployment have been stressed so often that I think there is very little need to deal with them again except to say this, that Deputy Morrissey was surely hard driven for an argument to support his case when he had to go back and make comparisons with the days before the rural community were allowed to go on the unemployment register. He had to go back that distance in order to try to establish a case for himself.

We had a reference a while ago to the textile industry. We were told by Deputy O'Higgins of what happened in 1947. The point is that whatever was bought in 1947 was bought on a level market, but at the time Deputy O'Higgins referred to wool was bought at sky high prices. The thousands and thousands of pounds which were lost on that transaction would have to pass down through the trade, the manufacturers, the retailers and the country itself. The manufacturers were not prepared to face that, nor is the country prepared to stand those losses at the present time. People are surely foolish to make comparisons with things which are entirely different.

Reference was made yesterday to the fuel situation in Cork during recent years. This is to be said, that if it is true that turf was to be made available to the St. Vincent de Paul Society nobody in Cork knew anything about it—that is if Deputy Morrissey gave such an instruction to anybody. It was said, too, that 9,000 tons of coal were put in the barracks or somewhere else. The point about that is that it was not made available to the citizens, whatever the cause and whoever had control over it. The citizens were left without it. As regards the turf which Deputy Morrissey said the St. Vincent de Paul Society refused, if that turf has been dumped somewhere the people of Cork are asking for it to be delivered to their homes and are prepared to burn it.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy now is going into details of administration.

Mr. MacCarthy

It is a detail, but as the matter got such prominence yesterday I just want to say that I back up what Deputy McGrath said regarding it. Deputy Morrissey said that Deputy McGrath was speaking untruths. Well, I think I have a fair knowledge of that particular period and I know that Deputy McGrath was speaking what was absolutely true.

There has been a lot said about the question of external assets. We have been told that the Ministers made statements which have panicked the country. Gracious me, are we ever going to grow up? Surely we must have regard to the fact that the people of the country are not children but are very intelligent citizens. They did not panic when far greater issues were before them. Would any man tell me what is the difference between the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition in Cork some months ago when he said that the country was facing grave problems and approaching a crisis, and what the Ministers said about that? The Ministers stated that, unless we tackle these financial problems, national and international, there was the danger that in four or five years' time we, perhaps, would be in the same position as that in which some other countries which had not a proper regard for their finances find themselves this year.

Were French Ministers afraid to tell the people of France the position that faced their country? France is a country with vast resources and yet, in view of events there, France had to look for a loan from a little country like Belgium. If French Ministers were not afraid to tell the people of France about the position in their country, why should Ministers here be afraid to tell our people, thereby taking them into their confidence? Is not that the way in which a Government should run a country? The members of it should take the people into their confidence, tell them what the position is and give them all the facts and figures. That is the position here. We have a Government able to deal with the position and one that will be with it.

The question of unemployment is, perhaps, a harassing one. Reference has already been made to the circumstances which have brought the present position about. We know quite well that things are not progressing as perhaps they should in the building industry. The industry is one that has had phases of that kind in the past. At times, skilled operatives go away and perhaps come back again to find certain disappointments caused by a certain turn of events. Undoubtedly these things will be got over. The question of a building programme, so that operatives could look forward to employment for some years ahead, with some sort of confidence, is a matter to be tackled by the Government of the day, by local authorities, by private builders and those who want to build houses for themselves. The point is that that position has not yet been established on a sufficiently progressive basis to give the confidence that we would all like to see for those engaged in the industry. I, for my part, am quite prepared to make whatever contribution I can to have that position solved.

As regards industrial development, we saw what happened at the last change of Government. We had skilled operatives in the aeroplane industry at Shannon. We know that the whole thing was scrapped and that 200 or 300 men had to go to Bristol or some other centre. The pilots had to go to Pakistan or to Holland. All that was burst up when the change of Government took place. Whatever Government is in power in any well-developed country should have a right sense of national development so that a scheme like that would not be upset as it was here at the time of the last change of Government.

There were other matters referred to yesterday. I will not refer to them again because they are too painfully obvious for any further criticism. To-night, Deputy O'Higgins said that the statements of Ministers here had given Sir Basil Brooke a lot of material with which to criticise this country. We know quite well that, in the past, the chief campaign of the North against the South was due to statements made by people who now sit on the Opposition Benches, statements concerning social welfare schemes, etc. Yet, those on the opposite benches were three and a half years in office, and they did nothing themselves about their social welfare schemes. Sometimes one almost despairs of any kind of constructive idea ever emanating from the Opposition Benches or that, if there are such ideas, they will pursue them.

That is particularly true in relation to agriculture. Agriculture is our staple industry and, irrespective of whatever Government is in office, there should always be a progressive policy in relation to that industry. The idea is generally held that we should produce ourselves, in so far as we can, sufficient to meet the needs of our own people. At one time it was the policy to produce wheat and beet and the other essentials our people required. Another Government comes into office and that policy of self-sufficiency is immediately knocked on the head by a Minister who openly says he would not be seen dead in a field of wheat, or in a field of beet, and who reverts to a grassland policy.

With all these upsets, how can the country progress? How can the people have any confidence? Fortunately our people are fairly sensible. They have passed through enough vicissitudes to appreciate when they are well off and they know now that they have a Government that will give them a lead which they will be prepared to follow. In that way they will play their part in national development.

We have heard a good deal about unemployment. Yet, the farmers in certain parts of the country cannot get labour. They cannot get labour because agricultural policy has suffered so many upsets the confidence of the people has been undermined and those who might be prospective agricultural labourers seek employment elsewhere. If farmers go into grass one year, into tillage the next and back into grass again their workers will not have any great confidence in agriculture.

Bord na Móna is at present building cottages for its workers. Something on the same lines should be done for agricultural workers and their cottages should not be built on the worst acre of land on an isolated part of the farm. They should be built in groups and not too far away from villages, bus routes and avenues of transport so that these people may get some of the amenities they deserve after all their hard work, work which is governed to a large extent by weather and other conditions.

I shall not deal with finance because finance is something very few people understand. Financial problems are something with which those responsible for the national purse must grapple when the necessity arises. In regard to credit for national development, I think this Government has always shown itself in the past and will continue to show itself in the future as being in no way in favour of any restriction in that respect. We have our reafforestation scheme and the Minister told us the other day that it was not sufficient merely to erect barbed wire and call that afforestation.

During the emergency forests were cut down. They have never been replanted. During the three and a half years of the inter-Party Government's régime nothing was done to ensure replanting. They made a pretence of putting a spade under a sod, sticking in some kind of plant and saying that was replanting. Nobody worried as to whether or not they were replanting the forests that had been denuded of timber. Something more than big State forests is necessary. There is good land in the glens throughout the country which would be very suitable for afforestation, but I think we should have smaller units dealing with it.

Our provinces are provinces in name only. We have Munster and Leinster and Connacht and Ulster, but there is no attempt at decentralisation in working the affairs of these provinces in the way they should be worked if smaller units were dealing with them. The Electricity Supply Board does that in some degree and so does Bord na Móna. I think small units should be established in each of the provinces for the proper development of afforestation and other national works of that character, because decentralisation of that kind would bring about more stable progress.

Our people look around them and they see the state of the world. They see the state of their own country, and they consider what they can do to make the future safe for themselves and for their families by building up a sound economy. So-called panic speeches have very little effect on them; indeed the panic is, I believe, so much wishful thinking. Our people will face their difficulties in the future as they have faced them in the past and, wisely led, they will resolve them.

Mr. Cafferky

For the past two days a tug-of-war has been waged here on the floor of the House between the main Opposition speakers and those on the Government Benches as to which of them understands the financial position, and which of them is best capable of solving it. All of them are agreed that a problem exists, and in turn, they accuse one another of not facing up to the best way of solving that problem. We have been treated to quotations about our sterling assets and our financial stability. The Government speakers have treated us to the reverse of that.

Coming from the West of Ireland and representing a constituency comprised of small farmers ranging from £3 10s. to £15 valuation and taking note that during the discussion here every Deputy from Deputy Byrne, representing the City of Dublin, to the humblest Deputy representing rural constituencies, has emphasised the importance of the farmer and the part he is expected to pay in bringing about a solution to the problem that confronts us in relation to our balance of payments, I feel compelled to enter the arena on his behalf. While these Deputies appreciate that the solution of the problem rests with the farming community, many of them convey the impression at the same time that the farming community is the best off section of our community at the present time. Some of them were even anxious to castigate the farming community and they emphasised in the course of their speeches that, if consideration is to be given to the various sections of our community, the farmers should be the last to be considered although the solution to our problem, namely, increased production, is supposed to lie with them.

If this problem we hear so much about is so great and if a solution is essential in order to ensure stability and development and the preservation of this nation, the kind of debate that has taken place in the last few days and that we have had since the change of Government and, indeed, since the establishment of this State over 30 years ago, will not tend towards the securing of that solution.

I am convinced that if we are anxious to serve the people who sent us here the time is ripe for the establishment of a national Government with all Parties playing their part in trying to solve this problem and trying to do the best for the nation. If we are frank and truthful, we must admit that the difference that exists between all Parties is very negligible and hardly noticeable. We do our best from time to time to make believe that a difference does exist by exploiting little points and trying to create propaganda with only one objective in view, namely, trying to secure office as the Government of the country. When the Government on that side of the House comes over to this side they play the same part, hoping to get back to the other side of the House again. Their main objective is office and not service to the people who sent them here. The people are beginning slowly but surely to realise that. Little notice is taken by the ordinary individual in the street or in the country of what is done or said in this House, because they believe that we are insincere, that we are merely castigating one another for the sake of doing so or with the desire, by fair or foul means, to get to the Government side of the House. That goes for all Parties in the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy might address himself now to the Vote on Account.

Mr. Cafferky

The Vote on Account covers a wide field. I understand that we cannot go into the details of the Estimates, but only deal with them generally, and I intend to do that. As I said, the solution of this financial problem depends wholly and solely on the agricultural community. I do not wish to minimise the part which industry plays in the life of the nation. I only wish that we had a more evenly balanced economy. That is essential and should be one of the main planks in the platform of any Government responsible for the administration of this country. We should have a more evenly balanced economy, with a view to securing employment for the young men and women who are unable to secure employment on the land and keeping them at home. For that reason, I would support any Government or Minister in promoting and encouraging the development of industry. For the time being we must appreciate that agriculture is the principle industry. That being so, every attention should be given to that industry with a view to aiding and helping it. That aid and that help have not been forthcoming from any Government in this country over a period of years. During their three years of office, the inter-Party Government tried to lead this House to believe that they had provided full employment and that they were interested in the farming community. I admit that they did a certain amount, but I do not agree that they did all that they should have done or could have done. I am, therefore, appealing to the Minister for Agriculture to continue the aid that was given by his predecessor in the inter-Party Government to the agricultural industry. If I have anything against the inter-Party Government, it is that they did not do more in that direction. I am disappointed with what has happened in connection with one of the principal Acts passed by the inter-Party Government, namely, the Local Authorities (Works) Act initiated by the then Minister for Local Government which brought such benefit to the small farmers. We must remember that the small farmer is the mainstay of the country—the man with a valuation of from £5 to £25. He does not need any inspector to force him to work or to cultivate his land.

The Local Authorities (Works) Act helped to bring up his little holding to a more economic standard by removing the surplus water from the land. I am more than surprised that the Minister for Local Government. Deputy Smith, permitted as conservative a Minister for Finance as was ever in the British House of Commons in the diehard Tory days to cut down the money provided under that Act yearly, thus depriving the small farmer of one of the means whereby he could increase production by removing the water from his waterlogged land. The Minister for Local Government represents County Cavan, where 90 per cent. of the farmers have valuations such as I have mentioned, and he will be appealing to these farmers for increased production. How does he expect them to increase production when the only assistance they got over a period of years from any Government is now being reduced considerably, and they will have to continue to live on their flooded land? I cannot understand why the Minister for Local Government should permit the Minister for Finance to dictate to him what sum was to be allocated for that particular service.

That scheme was a boon in my county. It provided employment and wages for the workers, and it brought the little holdings up to a better standard of production. To-day in my county we have complete stagnation. In every single labour exchange in North and South Mayo the number of men in receipt of unemployment assistance has risen to more than double, and in some cases it has trebled. Is it not a reflection on present administration and on the present Minister for Finance to produce a book of this type here? It is a very conservative book of Estimates which has hit the poorer section of the community by depriving them of more than £500,000 for the relief of flooding on their land.

Let us come to reafforestation, about which Deputy MacGrath, of Cork, seemed to be shedding some tears a few minutes ago. We find a cut of over £200,000 in that section of the Department of Lands.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are not discussing the Estimate.

Mr. Cafferky

I am not going into the matter in detail. I am reserving that for the Estimate when it comes before the House. I am pointing to the fact that you have a considerable reduction in the forestry section and, taking into account the huge increase in unemployment that there is in housing, afforestation and drainage, I cannot understand a reduction in the 1952-53 Estimates as compared with those for 1950-51.

In the field of housing throughout the whole of County Mayo during the inter-Party Government's administration there was not a town or parish but had a large number of houses being erected. In the town nearest to where I live, Swinford, we had 28 beautiful cottages in the course of erection during the inter-Party Government's term of administration. For more than 60 years, since the days when there was an old district union in the town of Swinford, many of the poor, humble people of that particular town were living in houses which were condemned, and some of them are still living there. It took the enterprise of a Labour Minister to initiate a housing drive that had not been experienced in this country since the establishment of this House. The result is that we have had more houses erected in County Mayo than ever before.

If the scheme which the present Minister for Local Government has in mind is to continue as it has continued over the past seven or eight months, we will have very few houses built. The stagnation which is taking place in Mayo as regards housing is negligible in comparison with what is happening throughout the Twenty-Six Counties. In Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Limerick and elsewhere we have similar circumstances with greater hardship accuring.

During the inter-Party Government's administration, that Government invited young men to come back to Ireland as carpenters, joiners, bricklayers, plasterers, plumbers—all kinds of artisans connected with housing construction. Many of those men broke up their homes and brought their wives and families back to this country in the belief and on the guarantee that they would have full employment, decent wages and housing conditions for a period of years. These men are on the dole to-day in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway, Sligo, Drogheda and elsewhere. They have no alternative but to face the emigrant ship again, and in facing the emigrant ship they must leave their wives and families behind because they cannot provide homes for them in England. Is not that a terrible state of affairs? What does the Department of Local Government intend to do to ease the situation? What is Government policy in regard to this matter? Have they investigated the causes which have brought about such stagnation in that particular industry?

We must accept that that stagnation, that austerity, that has taken place over the past eight or nine months has come about solely as a result of the speeches delivered by Ministers on the Government Benches. The humblest and simplest citizens in the land could not but believe and accept that there is something the matter in this country when they read those speeches by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and their other colleagues, assisted very ably by some of the back benchers. Those speeches have resulted in mass unemployment, mass poverty, mass suffering, with no hope being held out—except the hope that Fianna Fáil cherished of some political gain by trying to put across on their predecessors the responsibility for some crisis which they wanted to convince people was away in the background and coming shortly to a head.

Does the Minister for Finance appreciate the seriousness of the situation? On whom is he prepared to place the responsibility for this situation? Does he not acknowledge that there are over 74,000 registered insured workers on the unemployment list at the present moment? Does he not recognise that in a short period of six or seven months an increase of over 10,000 in the numbers of unemployed has taken place? To whom is he prepared to attribute the blame for this situation? If he is fair to this House and to himself he must accept that blame arising out of his irresponsible speeches throughout the country, as also must his colleagues, the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach.

It was most remarkable that when this Government took over control, the Taoiseach visited the City of Galway and made there startling revelations as regards conditions across the water; he then went on to enlarge on that by telling us that he could not understand why Irish boys and girls went away to seek employment where conditions, wages and so one, were inferior to those prevailing here; that they should come back as conditions were much better here. Seemingly he was chastised by his colleagues when he returned to Dublin, and then helter skelter through the country they went making speeches totally opposite to that of the Taoiseach. Instead of asking those boys and girls to come back to Ireland they proceeded to tell them and to tell the world that we were a bankrupt nation, that we were in financial difficulties, that there was no money available for any enterprising work, and to inform the banks that we must restrict credit. Further, they agreed with the conservative report of the Central Bank, the report which indicated that the numbers in employment were so satisfactory and the wages and conditions were so secure and so comfortable, that a restriction of credit would not do any injury; that a few more unemployed, a little more poverty and less houses for the poor would not do any harm. I remember interjecting a question to the Taoiseach when he was speaking in the House, and he said that these gentlement were not aware that unemployment was so grave or emigration so great. Imagine the chairman and the directors of the Central Bank compiling a report of this kind and being unaware that unemployment is so great and the incidence of emigration so large.

Deputy Jack Lynch spoke in this House this evening and I must confess that I felt a certain amount of pity for him. He was most embarrassed and most apologetic because of the manner in which his Government was carrying on. Admittedly, he appears to be a rather shy man, but on this occasion he appeared more shy and more embarrassed than usual. I can well understand that, seeing that he has to defend the policy and the conduct of his colleagues over a period of nine months. That would embarrass any Deputy.

We can see nothing in the Book of Estimates which indicates that unemployment will cease during the next 12 months, that housing will increase or that work generally will be provided for the young men and young women of this country. We are entitled to assume, therefore, that there will be a further increase in the number registered at the labour exchanges and also a further increase in the number of emigrants.

During the three years of the inter-Party Government's administration I had the privilege of sitting on the fence outside and of endeavouring to be capable of reading between the lines. It was most interesting to note the pictures that appeared in the Press during that period. One particular picture comes to my mind, which showed the then Minister for External Affairs boarding a tender in Cobh with a group of Irish emigrants. How they tried to capitalise that incident and how they tried to make out the failure of the inter-Party Government to stop emigration! That was only one of the many pictures that appeared showing boys and girls leaving this country in their thousands. Then they tried to compare the figures during the first year and during the second half of the inter-Party Government's administration with the figures for 1945 and 1946, when emigration was restricted. When I became a member of this House I remember 200 people meeting outside the Dáil seeking travel permits.

If there was no restriction on emigration during the war years, nobody would have remained in this country. Immediately the restriction was removed, there was an increase in emigration. In the first and second years of the inter-Party Government's administration people were seeking permits to emigrate, but during the third year of that administration emigration was considerably reduced. During that period also the census returns showed that there had been an increase in the population. In my constituency during that period, it was very difficult to find a man in need of employment. Every man anxious to work or capable of working was engaged on road work, on drainage work, or on afforestation. An abundance of labour was available. Let one go to any town in County Mayo at the present time which has a labour exchange, or a post office which pays out unemployment assistance, and one will find there on a certain day of the week a large number of young men drawing such assistance—men who, heretofore, were engaged in remunerative employment on the bogs, on road work, or on afforestation. On the 29th September, 1951, 303 males were in receipt of unemployment assistance in Ballina.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

From what is the Deputy quoting?

Mr. Cafferky

I am quoting from the Irish Trade Journal. On the 24th November, 1951, 679 males in Ballina were in receipt of unemployment assistance. In Ballinrobe on the 29th September, 1951, 221 males were receiving such assistance, but by November of that year the figure had risen to 426.

Mr. Lemass

Will the Deputy say on what date the Employment Period Order ceased to have effect?

Mr. Cafferky

I am sorry, but I cannot say.

Mr. Lemass

Surely it affects these figures.

Mr. MacEntee

He does not know what it means.

Mr. Cafferky

In September, 1951, the male recipients of unemployment assistance in Belmullet numbered 854 and by November, 1951, the figure had reached 1,150. Similar circumstances prevail in Swinford, Claremorris, Sligo, Westport, etc. In fact in these towns the figures have trebled arising out of the fact that the rural improvements schemes, the minor employment schemes, the turf development schemes and the Local Authorities (Works) Act are not in operation. There is no employment of any type in these towns, only complete stagnation. No matter what the Minister may say about the Employment Period Order——

Mr. Lemass

That is the obvious explanation.

Mr. Cafferky

——or whether the Minister agrees or disagrees with the figures I have given, let him go down to my county and he will see that the figures given by me are correct. The numbers of unemployed have increased by over 10,000. Is that not correct? That increase is not confined to any particular city or town but is spread out over the whole Twenty-Six Counties. I am sure Mayo is not an exception as far as unemployment is concerned because it is the least concern of any Government in this House. I fail to understand the mentality of a Government who are prepared to close their eyes to a situation such as I have outlined. This is the Government which got into power by misrepresentation, to say the least of it and by misrepresenting circumstances to the electorate. I recall that, during the election campaign, Deputy Moran, who sits on the opposite side of the House, accused the inter-Party Government of being the only Government outside the Iron Curtain who engaged in the black marketing of flour, butter, tea, sugar and other essential commodities. The inter-Party Government were accused of this on every platform in my constituency.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What was said during the election campaign in Mayo is scarcely relevant to the discussion on the Vote on Account.

Mr. Cafferky

I admit that it is scarcely relevant. My reason for mentioning it is that the Fianna Fáil Party objected to the dual price system. However, they did not do away with the system when they came into office, although, heretofore, they had deplored it. We were led to believe that the dual price system was introduced to facilitate the rich rather than the poor. Being a rich man's Government, this Government was anxious to facilitate the rich, but the poor had to do with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table. Seemingly, on the assumption of office, the Tánaiste and his colleagues had to acknowledge the wisdom of the dual price system, and they kept it in being. We do not hear a word about its abolition to-day, and neither do we hear anything to the effect that the Government is engaging in the black marketing of essential commodities. Seemingly he thought that there are no poor now; they are all rich, and it does not matter. That is what Deputy Moran and his colleagues will be telling us when they go down to Mayo during the next election campaign.

It is not essential to start looking up statistics, nor is it essential to start arguing about our external assets or our balance of payments in order to discover how this country stands. Let any Minister of State, if he feels embarrassed—and I can well imagine him feeling so—go in disguise to Westland Row, Dún Laoghaire or the North Wall and see for himself the hundreds of young men and women who are emigrating. Let him look at the large number of unemployed in receipt of all kinds of assistance. And remember, the number of unemployed does not represent the number who are workless. There are thousands and thousands of able-bodied men in rural Ireland who would not go to the labour exchange to receive the miserable pittance offered.

Their self-respect would not permit them to do so. Sons of small farmers could not get a day's work if they went on their knees and begged it. They have to go to America and elsewhere. Then we hear so much baloney in this House about this nation's future, its economic make-up, and what is in store for the country. That "future" was in store for this nation long before I was born, but it has not arrived yet. I am convinced that so long as you have this kind of debate between ex-Ministers and Ministers of State the conditions that have existed over the last 30 years will continue to exist.

I confidently believe that the Opposition are not seeking to discover a solution, because they would have nothing to talk about if a solution were discovered. They try to make a comparison between the Six Counties and the Twenty-Six Counties. Are not they the men who tell us that the Six Counties are in bondage, and not free to develop their own country? Are not the members of the Government the people who tell us that a big percentage of their revenue has got to be given to the British Government? It is time enough to make a comparison with the Six Counties when the Six Counties have complete autonomy. We should not make comparisons with any nation. We have been spared the havoc of war, and we have been left, through the mercy of Providence, to develop and prepare post-war plans.

A great deal was talked about post-war plans during the four or five years the war was on, but we see no result of these post-war plans. They are pigeon-holed like the Drainage Bill and many other Bills the Taoiseach introduced. They have produced no fruit. All the Taoiseach needed was something to carry him along in the field of propaganda.

Deputy Jack Lynch, the Parliamentary Secretary, tried to convince us in regard to all the plans that were undertaken, plans such as the Tourist Bill and the Undeveloped Areas Bill and all these other Bills about which we have heard so much for the past nine months. If the Parliamentary Secretary travels down with me on the train to Mayo on Friday he will hear what the young men and women, who crossed over to Ireland on the Princess Maud and who were stranded in Dublin over St. Patrick's Day, thought about him and his Government. On leaving the boat, these young men and women were pitched into the train like cattle.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy could raise most of these matters on the Estimate.

Mr. Cafferky

I am not anxious to go into detail now but I can assure the Chair, with all respect, that I intend to deal with all these matters in more detail when the opportunity presents itself. I must, however, refer to what Deputy Lynch, the Parliamentary Secretary, said here this afternoon, when he tried to convince us that the Government were really serious about solving the problem and meeting the situation as it exists. To support his case he mentioned the Tourist Bill and the Undeveloped Areas Act. I was surprised and amazed when he did not launch out and tell us what has happened since the passing of the Undeveloped Areas Act. I see no change in Mayo, and I prophesy that there will not be any.

If we are to narrow the gap that exists in our balance of payments and if this is supposed to be as serious as we are told it is by our financial experts and by our Minister for Finance who, I suppose, must be a financial expert, I believe there is only one way of closing that gap and that is by aiding the farming community to increase production to provide not only for our home requirements but also for export. You cannot have that increased production unless and until you come to the aid of the farming community. As I have said, I see nothing in the Book of Estimates that will come to the aid of the farming community from that point of view.

All we have got from the opposite side of the House as regards the farming community is a threat from Deputy Dr. Browne that if the farmers do not cultivate their land he will have it confiscated. I do not think that the Russian iron heel has come here yet, nor do I think that the farmers would tolerate the Russian iron heel. If Deputy Dr. Browne wishes to introduce that philosophy into Dáil Éireann, he is making an awful mistake. He does not know the peasant farmer yet. That is one of the methods which the Government—and Deputy Dr. Browne is a member of the Government side of the House—has as a solution to the problem, the confiscation of the farmer's land if they do not do as the Government like.

The second method of solving the problem came from the Tánaiste, that if the farmers did not do their duty on this occasion it would be the last chance they would get, and that other methods and means would be found to force them to do it. The Opposition endeavoured to discover what the Tánaiste meant by the other methods and means, but he sidetracked the reply and refused to give it some weeks ago.

If these are the only things the Government have to offer the farming community, the sooner they shed the responsibility of Government the better. If there was an election to morrow, I and other Deputies might not come back, but it is absolutely certain that the Government in office would not come back. That is certain. You would have a change of Government no matter what change that would be. That is as clear as a pikestaff to everybody. There is complete dissatisfaction in the cities, towns and villages throughout the country with the conduct of the Government in every single sphere of administration. There is no point in repeating what they have already said.

We, in the Clann na Talmhan Party, claim to represent, to the best of our ability, the farming community. We have a keen interest in their welfare and in the development of the agricultural industry. The people engaged in that industry comprise the principal section of the community. They have been, heretofore, and I expect that they will be for many a long day in the future, in the front line of the trenches. We have always found them reasonable and patriotic, and they have responded to every emergency. They have stood by the nation in the darkest as well as the brightest days. In recognition of their response and good citizenship, the least an Irish Government could do would be to give them first consideration. The increase given to the dairy farmers by the Minister for Agriculture has not produced the result that the Minister anticipated.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Deputy contemplating discussing farming again?

Mr. Cafferky

I am not, Sir. We are still importing butter. That butter has to be paid for with dollars and dollars are scarce. I do not believe that we will get increased production in that respect until other methods are adopted and until more favourable consideration is given to the dairy farmer.

We are here to represent all sections of the farming community—the mixed tillage farmer and the dairy farmer. Any Government that claims to have the interests of Ireland at heart and is anxious to develop this country so as to ensure that we will be able to meet our commitments at home and abroad should take full cognisance of the importance of that industry. I regret that neither I nor any member of the Party of which I am a member can say that the change of Government has meant any more favourable consideration for the farming community. The farming community are as dissatisfied to-day as they were under the inter-Party Government— although I am convinced that, in Deputy Dillon, they had one of the best Ministers for Agriculture since the establishment of this State. I may not agree with Deputy Dillon in every respect but, whatever else may be said about him, as head of the Department of Agriculture he had his heart and soul in his work. He did not work for the miserable salary which he drew as a Minister but because he was anxious to give honest and untiring service in the cause of the Irish farming community. They appreciate the service which he rendered and the aid and assistance which he gave to them. The land rehabilitation scheme will be a monument to Deputy Dillon long after he is dead.

Mr. Moran

So will the price of eggs.

Mr. MacEntee

Are we discussing monuments to Deputy Dillon?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I was hoping that the Deputy would pass from that to the Vote on Account.

Mr. Cafferky

I regret to say that the land rehabilitation scheme has been slowed down considerably, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister for Finance and all his colleagues are constantly appealing to the farmers for increased production.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has said that at least three times.

Mr. Cafferky

I am dealing now with the land rehabilitation scheme. With respect, this is the first time that I made any reference to it. I was pointing out that it was one of the best schemes ever introduced. To say that the Minister "slowed-down" that scheme is only a mild description of the methods adopted by the Minister for Agriculture in respect of that scheme. I would be fully justified in using the word "sabotage".

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on the matter we are now discussing.

Mr. Cafferky

There is a Supplementary Estimate in respect of publicity for increased agricultural production. I believe that in order to achieve that increased production which is so essential and so desirous—and about which the Minister has spoken—a continuation of the development of the land rehabilitation scheme is most desirable.

There are many other matters to which I could refer but I shall not do so to-night because we shall get a further opportunity in the course of the Estimates arising out of the Budget. However, if this Book of Estimates is an indication of what we are to expect from the Budget then the people will definitely have to straighten their shoulders. It is a long time since we were told that the farmer was bending at his knees: with the effect of the contents of this Book of Estimates on top of him, he will be on his knees—not bending. I do not believe that there is any need for extra taxation. When the day of reckoning comes in a few weeks' time and we all sit in this crowded House, with a crowded gallery, the Minister will present his Budget. He will have his carafe of water beside him——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That has nothing whatever to do with the Vote on Account.

Mr. Cafferky

——and he will inform us that what we did not believe was possible was achieved by the Fianna Fáil Government and that they have worked a miracle. He will inform us that, once again, Fianna Fáil have taken the affairs of this nation out of the fire and that only Fianna Fáil could have done that. The reason for the contents of this Book of Estimates is that the Fianna Fáil Government want to increase taxation. However, the people of this country will not be deceived. They are well aware of the situation. They are as capable of going into matters of this kind as any Deputy in this House. It is sometimes most amusing to hear some of these enlightened citizens give their views on the speeches made by various politicians, and especially on the views expressed by the present Minister for Finance in regard to taxation, deflation, the depletion of our sterling assets, the balance of payments and all the other subjects which have been referred to by him in the course of the past eight or nine months. I am convinced that there is no necessity for extra taxation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are not discussing extra taxation. It does not arise now.

Mr. Cafferky

This Book of Estimates indicates that there will be extra taxation and, at the same time, it is clear that were it not that we have a Fianna Fáil Government considerable relief would be forthcoming in that direction. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 21st March, 1952.